BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:49 PM

pete will be back i think. he posts in spurts.

Just like you. In spurts, just like the best orgasms. Trouble is, every orgasm ends with a good snooze. zzzzzzzzzz.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:43 PM

Hello Snailor! (Hope you don't mind the conflation, chaps...or chapesses, whatever you are! Time is short, and one would rather deal with serious people, you know...)

Wot a lot of wriggling I drew from those who, sort of, agree, but would rather not, as it were, 'cos it's Stevieboy! Now come on, lads. Education means "leading out." It does not mean drowning children with dogma or received "wisdom" or masses of "facts". It means showing children how to grab knowledge, by providing them with the skills so to do. Any thinking person (watch it, chaps...) who sees what "religious education" does, would condemn it out of hand, and quite right too. Children should be taught about the history of religion and its impact on the modern world. They should know that some people "believe in God" but that such people do so without evidence, and that, though they are free to follow that belief if they so wish, they should ask for evidence in the most sceptical manner possible, just as they should with any "scientific facts" they are presented with. Otherwise, it's indoctrination, not education. Pete, babe, and all the other twats of your ilk, children and grown-ups can ask for and seek and find abundant evidence for the fact of evolution. The trouble with you, pete, is that you haven't the faintest inkling of the meaning of the words "evidence", "facts" or "evolution". Actually, you haven't the faintest inkling of "God", "creationism" or "honesty". You are the most incredibly dishonest person I've ever come across. St Peter must be cringing. Maybe I should get out more. But not in the direction of your benighted folk club. Got any nice anti-abortion songs?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 07:04 PM

>>>Yet you still say that the scientist is as bad as the man who would blow up innocent people for his religion?<<<

Of course the scientist who designs the bombs that man uses is every bit as bad. Terrorism and war are both team efforts.

A question for you. Why say "for his religion?" Surely the crime lies in the blowing up rather than the religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 06:00 PM

No, I'm going to have to elaborate on the concept of 'a good teacher'. Sorry about that!

My daughter went to one of the universities where a very high proportion of the students came from private schools, most charging very high fees indeed. (She didn't, by the way.) None of her fellow students studying English Literature, or Philosophy, for example, had read actually read any of the set texts for the 'A' level in their subject: they had read a few carefully selected pages and study notes. Now, these teachers were very successful in getting most of their students to sought after places in highly respected institutions. But in my opinion they were not good teachers. And by the sound of it, since they inculcated the skills to pass exams rather than actually learn or develop any kind of interest in the subject, I suspect you might not call them good either. On the other hand there are many teachers who do that and are what I would call 'good' who for various reasons stand only the slightest of chances getting pupils to universities like those.

Tricky word, 'good'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:57 PM

Why don't you tell us there are no scientific charlatans?


Of course there are, Jack. They are called creationists.

Stim.

How many "religious people" do you know? How many of them have killed someone, for any reason, let alone for not believing the same thing as they do?

Non personally. Dozens in the news and growing by the minute.

but there certainly are scientists who don't like it when people disagree with them

Absolutely. I don't like it much but I don't go round declaring war on and killing those who do. Neither have, as far as I know, any scientists.

While scientists tend not to declare war, they certainly have used their expertise to make killing easier

Nonsense. There is an old adage that it is a bad workman who blames his tools. But only a complete idiot would blame the man who invented the tool.

Yet you still say that the scientist is as bad as the man who would blow up innocent people for his religion? If so then I think we have nothing further to discuss.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:46 PM

Religious instruction, ..., breaks all those rules. It is damaging and abusive, it is teaching children not to question, and is highly immoral, and leads the planet into all sorts of needless difficulties

Maybe that's how you were taught religion. It's not how my mine went.

I can honestly say that I have never met a good teacher who would deny that the best way of showing children how to acquire knowledge is to give them the skills to learn

... in fact it was very much like that, especially in senior school   For primary school, I agree it was presented in a much more black and white way. As was history, and maths, and science, and geography and all the rest. But when we got a bit older, all the subjects became more sophisticated, including religious instruction.

I would however like to point out that potential weasel word 'good'. I hope it was accidental, but I am sure you are not requiring thinking in that way being a necessary condition of being a 'good' teacher, otherwise it makes things a bit circular.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:10 PM

so steve, what is the evidence that you gave the kids, that Darwinism is true....other than you, and most scientists subscribing to that assertion. what sources did you give them, so they could check for themselves?....other than origins,-of which Darwin himself conceded that the data presented could be otherwise interpreted.

shimrod- big deal! so dawkins demolishes some creationist woman on a chat show. that is dawkins style. he wont debate creation scientists lest he give some credence to creationism as a worthwhile POV, and then tackles easy meat creationists lacking the science background to rebuff him.
meanwhile ,you his desciple want me to read his book but you wont give me one good argument contained therein. in fact the only argument you give is the who made God challenge. I have answered this previously, but not to your satisfaction...as if anything would be.......
so again, not for your benefit but anyone else that may want to know the Christian reasoning on the matter...
as someone above pointed out, the infinite regression idea is part of the argument for God. your error is the insistence that he has to be made, and consist of some kind of material.
leaving aside whether his existence can be proved or not, I venture that a deity who is spirit and greater in power, creating all else that is , is at least a logical concept ,if not opposed by fanatical unbelief.
compare that to your belief that all came from nothing via no one, in defiance of experimental science that demonstrates the impossibility of that....amounting to a miracle without a miracle maker!

stu..if you think that employing multiple dating methods establishes dating accuracy, I could give some examples where evolutionists themselves argue over them. I even wrote a song about one example. its called "mungo man".
if radio carbon aint supposed to be detectable and it is, does it really matter how many other tests you run?. the paradigm is driving the science that hopes to account for what "the laws of chemistry tell us" already . the logical assessment would be to say these bones cant possibly be 60-80myo, until such time as demonstrated otherwise.
and just to be clear, I do not rail against scientific methods, and am glad to hear how such were employed on the charred MS. useful for dating more recent historical items , but I suspect, giving more suspect results as you reach further back ,where there are more uncertainties, and assumptions have to be employed.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:51 PM

pete will be back i think. he posts in spurts.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:36 PM

"I don't think that the true battle is science vs religion. It is education vs ignorance."

Amen to that!




By the way, what happened to pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:30 PM

Steve Shaw
Giving children the skills to learn involves getting them to question the legitimacy of everything that is fed to them by adults. They must question everything, put it through the same sceptical wringer as all scientific assertions must be put through by the scientific community. Don't accept anything at face value. Ask for evidence: how do you know that what you're telling me is true?

Previously -
Evolution is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:08 PM

>>>Religious instruction, including the herding children to church services and making them bow their heads in parroted prayers full of false certainties or making them sing silly hymns, breaks all those rules. It is damaging and abusive, it is teaching children not to question, and is highly immoral, and leads the planet into all sorts of needless difficulties. It has nothing to do with education, that's a fact. If you educate children in the true sense in nine lessons out of ten, then send them to their tenth lesson in which they are told to believe in God lest vile consequences follow, you are confusing them and abusing them. And saying that your input to them is benign, makes social sense for your particular neighbourhood or contains "greater truths" merely says an awful lot about your inability to escape the baleful grip of your own poor education.<<<<

how do you know that what you're telling me (in the quoted passage)is true?


Who told you that?


Can you give me your sources and show me how I can check them for myself?

You seem to be making scientific and sociological assertions. But are you? Come on buddy, show your work.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:01 PM

>>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:12 PM


(Thinks...what a twat...)<<

Violation of Mudcat terms of membership.

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:40 PM

As for "damaging children": in this context that is a value judgement. I don't deny the possibility of mental cruelty but encouraging mental laziness is more common, and I've experienced that more in other subjects, personally.

Well here's the point (are you listening, believers?). Education is about showing children (and everyone else, as it happens, but as we're talking about children...) how to acquire knowledge. As a teacher myself, I can honestly say that I have never met a good teacher who would deny that the best way of showing children how to acquire knowledge is to give them the skills to learn, not to try to pour "knowledge" all over them. I had knowledge about Shakespeare, Beethoven and poetry poured all over me at school, and I can't remember a single thing about any of it. But I did acquire the skills to learn, and everything I now know about Shakespeare, poetry and Beethoven I've learned for myself. I've gone out and grabbed knowledge for myself. Because there were a few good teachers who knew how to give me those skills. Giving children the skills to learn involves getting them to question the legitimacy of everything that is fed to them by adults. They must question everything, put it through the same sceptical wringer as all scientific assertions must be put through by the scientific community. Don't accept anything at face value. Ask for evidence: how do you know that what you're telling me is true? Who told you that? Can you give me your sources and show me how I can check them for myself? Religious instruction, including the herding children to church services and making them bow their heads in parroted prayers full of false certainties or making them sing silly hymns, breaks all those rules. It is damaging and abusive, it is teaching children not to question, and is highly immoral, and leads the planet into all sorts of needless difficulties. It has nothing to do with education, that's a fact. If you educate children in the true sense in nine lessons out of ten, then send them to their tenth lesson in which they are told to believe in God lest vile consequences follow, you are confusing them and abusing them. And saying that your input to them is benign, makes social sense for your particular neighbourhood or contains "greater truths" merely says an awful lot about your inability to escape the baleful grip of your own poor education. One day I'll tell you what I really think. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:12 PM

Mr. Shaw surely by now you know that it is against the rules of this forum to call people names and to be argumentative.

Don't call me Shirley.

(Thinks...what a twat...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:25 PM

You are welcome Michael. Sorry about the typo.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:22 PM

From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:55 PM

MtheGM,
I have no idea what Max meant when he wrote that. But I do observe that is is quite possibly to have a lively discussion with out being "argumentative." You and Bill D do it all of the time.
.,,.,
Thank you, Jack. I much appreciate that comment.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 01:27 PM

Dave, How many "religious people" do you know? How many of them have killed someone, for any reason, let alone for not believing the same thing as they do?

As to what scientists say when I disagree with them, it varies, as that sort of thing does, but there certainly are scientists who don't like it when people disagree with them, even on matters that extend beyond their area of expertise.

As to science and war, do I even need to go over that with you? While scientists tend not to declare war, they certainly have used their expertise to make killing easier, and even more brutal than ever.

The atomic bomb would not have been possible without the tireless work of scientists, and the list goes on from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 01:06 PM

don't think that the true battle is science vs religion. It is education vs ignorance.

Totally with you on that one, Sailor. Snag is, many think religion is a prime example of ignorance, and there are some of a religious mindset who seem determined to prove them right. But it would be a serious error to overlook how widespread ignorance is elsewhere and as you say, snake oil abounds wrapped in pseudoscience. Not just in advertising and the like: the history of the Body Mass Index, for example, is worth pondering.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:43 PM

Dave,

Why don't you tell us there are no scientific charlatans?



There are lots of people taking advantage of the blind faith in science that many people have, plastic surgeons, drug companies, diet publishers, "supplement" makers, gadget hawkers. There is more of that stuff on my TV than religious programing and I live in the Bible Belt.


I don't think that the true battle is science vs religion. It is education vs ignorance. Perhaps the lesson for society should be don't blindly trust a man because he wears a lab coat on TV or a robe in a church, think for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:08 PM

Stim, tell me...

How many religious people have killed someone for not believing the same thing?

How many scientists have told you that you will be damned to hell if you do not accept what they are saying?

How many scientists have started wars because the scientists in the next country think differently?

Then tell me that science is as bad as religion. If anyone needs to revel in the aroma of fresh ground it certainly is not me. And it may surprise you to find out that science has already delivered far more than religion ever did. Don't believe me? Try praying that I will get your next message instead of using technology.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 11:51 AM

>>>>You are a very peculiar man, Wacko (unless you're a woman: people do misrepresent themselves here...). Seems that whenever you realise that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag you assume instead the role of forum constable. As for "expressing myself politely", perhaps I should take my cue from you in future, ahem: Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

   :-)

Do as I say, not as I do, eh, Wackers me old salt? <<<


Mr Shaw.   I am sorry if you found that comment rude even though you said that you did not care. You bring up the principle of treating others as you are treated. Yet you "vilify" me for treating you as you treat others.

I am sorry that you believe I have been rude or unkind to you. Would you think it kinder if I called you whacko or called your words "tripe?"

Mr. Shaw surely by now you know that it is against the rules of this forum to call people names and to be argumentative. appointing yourself to "vilify" people is also not allowed unless you can find a way to do it without being unkind, impolite or argumentative. I am sure that you are mature enough to find a way to get your point across without showing disrespect for Max and this forum by flagrantly breaking the posted rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 10:43 AM

Wake up and smell the coffee, DavetheGnome, we live in a world that believes that science will deliver what religion could not.

It's not a joke--the smart hucksters and charlatans, along with a healthy contingent of psychopaths and homicidal maniacs, moved from pushing religious miracles to pushing scientific miracles a long, long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 10:28 AM

I don't think I misrepresent Dawkins: it is why I said "tantamount to fanatical" rather than "fanatical". But I'm happy for everyone to make up their own mind based on what he says and writes (which does involve reading it and thinking about it!)

As for "damaging children": in this context that is a value judgement. I don't deny the possibility of mental cruelty but encouraging mental laziness is more common, and I've experienced that more in other subjects, personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:46 AM

However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism.

I think you are misrepresenting him. Dawkins knows full well that the overwhelming majority of believers follow their faith (if they do any sort of active "following" at all) in a most desultory manner. Fanaticism implies single-minded ardour and passion in propagating your beliefs. That is not the way most believers behave.

They will say, for example, that they have no objection to a person having any belief as long as they keep it to themselves, and in particular do not inflict it on their children.

I'm not at all clear as to how this is meant to support your first statement. I do agree with it in spite of that. In fact, I'd go further: your beliefs are none of my business, unless you choose to make them my business. Damaging children should be seen as everyone's business.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:18 AM

Issuing from the loud-speaker was the voice of a woman singing a syrupy song about Jesus.

The best religious song I ever heard emanated from Billy Connolly, a good few years ago now. Sung to the tune of "What A Friend We Have In Jesus", it began:

"Ah Jesus Christ, I'm nearly forty
Ma pubic hair is turning grey
I can't cut the mustard like I used to
I think it's downhill all the way..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:07 AM

"vilified for his professed stupidity,"

People should not come here for that reason. Vilifying people and calling them stupid would be breaking the rules.

Click here to read the rules.

Perhaps you would like to spend some time considering how to express yourself politely before you post again?

You are a very peculiar man, Wacko (unless you're a woman: people do misrepresent themselves here...). Seems that whenever you realise that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag you assume instead the role of forum constable. As for "expressing myself politely", perhaps I should take my cue from you in future, ahem: Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

   :-)

Do as I say, not as I do, eh, Wackers me old salt?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:31 AM

I thought I had left that behind when I moved from Manchester, Shimrod, but there is a bloke in Skipton stands on a street corner doing the same :-( Fortunately there are no loudspeakers involved :-)

I wonder if some local authorities treat the preachers in the same way as they move on buskers? Anyone know? Mind you, if they did I guess the preachers would claim victimisation at the hands of militant atheists and become martyrs!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:41 AM

You're absolutely right, of course, Dave. Thanks for reminding us of the point of this thread!

Yesterday, I was wandering down Market Street, in Manchester, and observed a bloke wheeling a massive loud-speaker around on a trolley. Issuing from the loud-speaker was the voice of a woman singing a syrupy song about Jesus. At the same time the trolley wheeler was bellowing into a microphone something about Jesus loving everyone (there was a lot of distortion so that his exact message was lost). As I neared Piccadilly bus station I noted another bloke waving a book (almost certainly a Bible) and shouting something about ... yes, you've guessed it ... Jesus! I noted that neither of these fervent fruitcakes wore a lab-coat and, as far as I could tell, neither of their harangues included any mention of Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:51 AM

It is worth noting that science has become the object of as much idolatry as religion before it.

Bollocks.

The whole point of this thread was a joke about people 'preaching' evolution on the door step. Let me repeat, in big letters, IT IS A JOKE BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENS. Various religions try to foist their idolatry on everyone. Some will even kill you if you don't believe in their imaginary friend. How often does this happen with science? How can, therefore, anyone remotely believe the above quote.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:15 AM


>>However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism.<<

Isn't that fanaticism on their part?

Not in the sense I defined, no. Fanaticism is a strong word, and it is a good idea not to use it too lightly. I do not agree with Dawkins when he says things like that, but I would not call it fanatical.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:56 AM

>>However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism.<<

Isn't that fanaticism on their part?

Its not as if they have done double blind trials on the effects of religious beliefs vs none.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:30 AM

"Leaving aside the fanatical..."

But, that is exactly who this discussion is about.

Is it? I admit I didn't define the term, so for clarity by fanatical I mean those who regard a given text - exactly which isn't important - as the only valid source of knowledge, and simultaneously believe that there are historical interpretations of that text that have a invariable validity. As such new findings that conflict with this historical teaching must be rejected.

However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism. They will say, for example, that they have no objection to a person having any belief as long as they keep it to themselves, and in particular do not inflict it on their children. Anyone who has that view is not restricting the topic to 'fanatics' in the sense I meant it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 11:47 PM

Too much idiotic stupid shit starting at 10:02 to even bother to discuss. Guess I will just go prepare to teach science in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 11:37 PM

"vilified for his professed stupidity,"

People should not come here for that reason. Vilifying people and calling them stupid would be breaking the rules.

Click here to read the rules.

Perhaps you would like to spend some time considering how to express yourself politely before you post again?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Songwronger
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:19 PM

Lab coats have replaced cassocks as priestly garb. Americans are being trained to virulently reject any religious idea that might be injected into our thinking, yet we line up to receive actual physical injections of rotten virus fragments from strangers in white coats. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:02 PM

It is worth noting that science has become the object of as much idolatry as religion before it. There are many who believe that "science" offers humankind same promise of an infinitely better tomorrow that christian millenialists once promised , and they accept
"scientific miracles" with the same unquestioning fervor that is attributed to the Crusaders.

Think about "The Cult of Reason" and "Scientific Socialism", and Eugenics, and how they raised reason and scientific inquiry on a high pedestal, promising to better humanity, and how they led to The Terror, Stalin's purges, and the Holocaust. Which equalled, and likely surpass the enormity of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the purges and the many trials of heretics and witches that we associate with the Church of the Middle Ages.

Do not misunderstand me--I don't believe for a single moment that these terrible things are a consequence of Newton's Laws of Motion, or Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, any more than I believe that the Inquisition was a consequence of the Golden Rule.

It seems more likely that there are flaws in the human character that taint even our most noble endeavors. and so it goes...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 09:10 PM

I do have that excellent book, Shimrod. And you're right: pete doesn't understand his own stuff, let alone anything remotely to do with science. Still, he comes on here to either be patronised politely by Bill or to be vilified for his professed stupidity, which, in my book, is by far the better way to deal with these confounded eejits. Better that they think that their nonsense falleth here on stony ground, eh? Odd, in a way, that we atheists have to do all the work. Wouldn't you think that any self-respecting Christian here would be mortally embarrassed by pete's multifarious idiocies?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:56 PM

You don't like being talked to like that?

Don't give a flying fart, to be honest, wacko!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:52 PM

I am glad you have seen the rules. You may want to look up "tripe"

Hint, It doesn't mean common sense and accuracy.

>>>Why, thanks for the heads-up, wacko!<<<<

Click here to read the rules.



"Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!"

You don't like being talked to like that? So why do you talk to pete that way? Note that cursing is not forbidden.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:47 PM

"The Great Messiah saw fit to wipe out my telephone line and fry my router on Jan 3"

I did wonder.... maybe he/she/it heard you trash talking to one of its poor, defenseless little creations? ☺

Unlikely. When I lived near Epping Forest many years ago a bolt of lightning wrecked the house of an evangelical fellow, neighbour of mine (we babysat each other's nippers to save money), nice chap actually, who was at pains at all times to promote to all and sundry, whether they were remotely interested or not, his work for "Youth For Christ". No lights under bushels there, if you know what I mean. A few more metres and the Good Lord could have redirected his thunderbolt Shaw-wards, but he didn't. What else was I to conclude but that God is a militant atheist?


and.... I dunno about you, but not being face-to-face in the same room with someone doesn't detract from my feeling that there is a real person behind all posts.

Certainly, Bill, but beware of the myriad who would deliberately misrepresent themselves online. They hide behind spurious anonymities such as Sailors and Guests and Seven Stars and it's a good bet that their friends and rellies would be supremely amused at their online shenanigans, if only they knew. I'm Steve Shaw, you could track me down in thirty seconds if you wanted to know where to send my Christmas card to, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And the "real" personages behind the posts you refer to have a choice, just like me. They don't have to come here and spout their rubbish if they don't want to. This is not real life, Bill. Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:26 PM

And what is this silly illogical tirade against witnesses? Witnesses aren't lazy. Witnesses are observers. Witness are observers who recount what they have observed.

Witnesses in the context of religion are either liars or deluded. There is no other option. Witnesses in the religious context claim to have seen or experienced things that cannot be corroborated. They should, at best, be ignored, or, at worst, be vilified.

Science doesn't gather a damned thing science is a process not a person. Scientists gather evidence and submit it for approval. Scientists are people and people make mistakes and believe things. They believe things such as scientific principles and Newtons laws.

Utter tripe from start to finish. You clearly have no idea what science is about. And you omitted an apostrophe.

BTW are you aware of the changes to the the rules on this forum?

Nope, dope. Did you not see that I have been offline for almost the whole of benighted Janvier?

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak."

Why, thanks for the heads-up, wacko! I wonder whether this quote of yours fits the "new rules":

>>>There are no Darwin's witnesses, here or anywhere else.<<<< Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 06:04 PM

"Science has nothing to do with belief. Everything to do with evidence. No point boring the forum yet again with what is and what isn't evidence. You don't listen anyway. And a small list of things you don't understand (I do seem to have mentioned this before but you seem determined to continue to enjoy life in the remedial class): abiogenesis; phyla; "set by its genetic make up" [sic]; "information""

You do realise, of course, Steve, that pete is merely parroting stuff that he reads on the websites of US "fundamentalist whack jobs", don't you? He doesn't actually understand any of it.

I've realised that the other thing that he parrots is the creationist's "show us the evidence" line/tactic. In 'The Greatest Show on Earth" Richard Dawkins relates the story of his encounter with a creationist woman on a TV chat show. She demands that he "show her the evidence" for something or other. Dawkins gives her chapter and verse, itemising the relevant fossils and where she can view them. She then abruptly changes the subject. A bit later she demands that he "show her the evidence" for something else - and when he does she changes the subject again - and so on. These grossly dishonest and ignorant people would be laughable - if they weren't so dangerous!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:55 PM

MtheGM,

I have no idea what Max meant when he wrote that. But I do observe that is is quite possibly to have a lively discussion with out being "argumentative." You and Bill D do it all of the time.

I think the difference is arguing to come to an accord or to exchange information about a subject rather than arguing to pick a fight.

There are a few people on this forum who fit my definition of argumentative. They know who they are. You probably know who they are. Its like the judge said about porn, I can't exactly define it but I know it when I see it. I won't point out who those people are, because they may not take it well and that might be argumentative.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:35 PM

Jack: As you are constantly referring people to these rules, I don't think it too much of a drift to query one of the forbiddens. What is the use of a discussion forum, pray, on which one may not be 'argumentative'. Argument is surely the lifeblood, the ichor, the sine qua non of such a forum as this?

& if I have ever known what "that of-what*-we-do-not-speak" was, I have forgotten. Would it be a banned action for some kind, and authorised, person to remind me — perhaps by PM if not openly on the forum?

~M~

*And with my hat on of Official Legendary Pedant, as someone once called me in a post, might I merely observe in passing that "that-of-which-&c" would be seemlier idiomatically and grammatically than "that-of-what-..."?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:33 PM

"Leaving aside the fanatical..."

But, that is exactly who this discussion is about. Yes, plenty of Religious do not deny the fact of evolution. But for the fanatics, their "understanding of the world" is immutable... totally, blindly adherent to a (bizarre interpretation of) a religious text, and deliberately ignorant of observable, objective reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 03:27 PM

"The Great Messiah saw fit to wipe out my telephone line and fry my router on Jan 3"

I did wonder.... maybe he/she/it heard you trash talking to one of its poor, defenseless little creations? ☺


", my back's aching but my temper, as ever, is sweet.* This is not real life."

As ever, hmm? Do warn me if it ever turns sour... it can't be a pretty sight.

and.... I dunno about you, but not being face-to-face in the same room with someone doesn't detract from my feeling that there is a real person behind all posts. Turing may have wondered, but I never even wonder if I am talking to a program. (It helps that I have met in 'real life', a hundred or more people from Mudcat.... including 30+ from the UK and several that I have 'issues' with. I still interact with them politely, if formally)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 03:14 PM

Mr. Shaw you are every bit as illogical and flawed in your arguments as pete. Pete wasn't talking about witness, certainly that was not the thrust of his argument. Yet you blame him anyway.

And what is this silly illogical tirade against witnesses? Witnesses aren't lazy. Witnesses are observers. Witness are observers who recount what they have observed.

Science doesn't gather a damned thing science is a process not a person. Scientists gather evidence and submit it for approval. Scientists are people and people make mistakes and believe things. They believe things such as scientific principles and Newtons laws.

Missdefining and ranting about a couple of words is not a rational or reasoned argument.

It is lazy thinking and sloppy arguments such as yours that give people like pete hope that the can overcome science with their own sloppy arguments.

BTW are you aware of the changes to the the rules on this forum?

Click on "membership" on the first page and you will find this....

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 02:53 PM

>>>There are no Darwin's witnesses, here or anywhere else.<<<< Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 02:08 PM

Grr. Approved by and binned by, of course.

"many believed..." yes, guest, that is precisely my point! many believe that everything came about by itself ,without any observable evidence ,and many believe that an evolutionary pathway was facilitated by mutations, and natural selection and such natural causes, beyond the limits of each kind [phyla?]set by its genetic make up.. most scientists believe in evolution, because most scientists believe in evolution. of course , if you can demonstrate that abiogenesis happened, or that generally loss of information mutations somehow added enough , if any, information to produce microbes to men .....then I have no argument.

Well, you see, pete, "many believe" is two things. First, weasel words of the highest order. Second, all lies. Science has nothing to do with belief. Everything to do with evidence. No point boring the forum yet again with what is and what isn't evidence. You don't listen anyway. And a small list of things you don't understand (I do seem to have mentioned this before but you seem determined to continue to enjoy life in the remedial class): abiogenesis; phyla; "set by its genetic make up" [sic]; "information". One could go on but the match is coming up and I must pour meself a glass of Vina Sol...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 01:55 PM

There are no Darwin's witnesses, here or anywhere else. "Witness", as understood in the biblical or in any similarly whimsical sense, plays no part in the scientific process. The gathering of evidence, whether in quantum mechanics or evolutionary biology, is how it goes. Witnesses tend to lazily claim things (all those Virgin Marys!), whereas science painstakingly gathers evidence which must be presented and reluctantly approved, or gleefully binned, to intensely sceptical peers. Now I know how much trouble pete has with English, so here I hesitate, but, pete, another great book you should read is The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Sagan was a much gentler fellow than I am but he, therein, fearlessly demolishes the likes of credulous little you into pulp. "Witness" is deliberately and dishonestly confused with evidence by people of religion. In the context of this thread, the term has been dishonestly used by pete in order to have yet another pathetic go at making that false equivalence between science and religion. Let us not indulge these nasty people. OK, Bill? By the way, Bill, my back's aching but my temper, as ever, is sweet.* This is not real life.

The Great Messiah saw fit to wipe out my telephone line and fry my router on Jan 3 with a thunderbolt that half-demolished a near-neighbour's house, but the goodly, yet slow and uncommunicative, gods of BT have now fitted me up with, appropriately enough for a Messiah, Infinity broadband. For some strange reason, though, I don't appear to be able to type any faster.

*Not least because I can get BT Sport now, and the very first thing I saw on it was Liverpool demolishing Everton. And tonight we have Spurs vs Man City. I mean, what's not to like? :-)