BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:27 AM

" ... many believe that everything came about by itself ,without any observable evidence ..."

And pete and his fundamentalist mates believe that God did it ... without any observable evidence ... ?

Oh yes, pete, through some sort of oversight, you don't seem to have provided any answers to those questions I posed recently. Just to refresh your memory, here they are again:

1. If 'it' was all made by a Maker, who made the Maker?
2. Who made the Maker's Maker - and so on in an infinite regress?
3. Where did the Maker get his materials from?
4. Did the Maker create his materials from 'nothing', by any chance?
5. What materials is the Maker made from?

Do you need more time or are you working feverishly on them as we speak?

Finally, have you read Prof. Dawkins' book yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:15 AM

"tell me, too, how they explain the methodology of finding radiocarbon in supposedly 65+ myo bone ? does that make sense?"

This is one of Pete's nonsensical sentences, but radio carbon dating is only one method of dating using isotopes, and these have been cross-calibrated to maximise accuracy.

As for finding iron in blood vessels, that's not exactly unexpected as without iron in your blood you would die. With regard to ancient organic materials, the use of metals as biomarkers is becoming increasingly common when analysing fossils using a synchrotron ( a big sod-off x-ray basically), where they are used to infer soft tissue preservation and can be indicators of integument shading.

Funnily enough, the very technologies Pete rallies against because they help us understand ancient life are used to decipher the sort of ancient scrolls he and his fellow extremists draw their world view from. Some scrolls were charred during a fire at an institution and it was presumed that the information on them was lost as although large pieces of scroll survived intact they were charred black and the writing could not be read. However, the ink used by the scrolls writers was organic in origin and contained trace metals that could be read in a synchrotron, meaning the information was saved.

Isn't science wonderful?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:07 AM

I think that's too simple, GUEST. You can't split the world neatly into 'religious' and 'scientific' people; plenty of people are both, and probably rather more are neither. Leaving aside the fanatical, most people of a religious bent believe the text to be true (in some sense, not necessarily literally) and they also agree with the science. One of the places I disagree with Dawkins is that he tends to assert people who try accommodate both are stupid or hypocritical, or lack the courage of their convictions. Whereas in my experience the more serious minded religious tend to think that the problem is not that one or the other is wrong, but the source of any conflict is in their understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:00 AM

"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.
mostly what I am getting at present is, that it must be true because most scientists subscribe to it...but seems that technically that is not an argument from authority!
be that as it may, it is still a poor argument IMO.

interesting quote, guest, but I presume out of date, as I understood that the presense of hemeglobin was established ,as was other fragile components in the bones. I believe that it has now moved on to try to find some mechanism whereby what she "knows by the laws of chemistry" to quote her initial comments, is somehow feasible.
maybe, if her ostrich blood vessels are still "recognizable" in their specially prepared pickling in 5, 50 ,500 years she might have the beginnings of explanation to shaw up the edifice of evolutionism !.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 09:31 AM

"you cannot help bringing your understanding of the world to [religious texts]"

Maybe you do. But lots of people *get* their understanding of the world from religious texts. And that is the difference between science and religion. There is no text (or individual) in science to be trusted or to have faith in.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 07:46 AM

I really did resolve to keep out of this nonsense but...

Shimrod
And since that time thousands of the best brains in the world have spent millions of hours between them gathering, analysing and evaluating the evidence for evolution.

Game, set and match to pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 05:32 AM

OK, I see that Shimrod. Old habits drummed into me at school die hard and since I had used the word 'question' at the start of my sentence I said 'statement' at the end simply to avoid reusing the same word multiple times in the same paragraph. There was no more to it than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 05:10 AM

DMcG, you should note that I asked logical questions and did not make any statements. I don't know if answers exist to those questions - and neither, probably, does pete. Hence, neither I nor pete can make any assertions about proof or disproof of the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:55 AM

Shimrod: those questions are a paraphrase of some of the 'Proofs of God' proposed by Aquinas, and his view was that the logical inconsistency of, for example, an infinite regression was itself a proof of God. There are probably hundreds of cubic metres of documents on both sides supporting Aquinas and demolishing him, so it will save a huge amount of time on both sides if we skip to the current viewpoint and agree that the statements are neither proof nor disproof of God's existence.

I think GUEST underestimates religion when he says 'science advances' and thereby implies religion does not. That is simply not the case (although there are always some who try to stop advances) Religious texts don't simply exist, they need to be read, and when you read them you cannot help bringing your understanding of the world to it. So if our understanding of the world has changed, it inevitably means our understanding of the texts must also change.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 02:58 AM

"I,m sorry bill, but if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense, ..."

So, pete, here's some "logical" questions for you:

1. If 'it' was all made by a Maker, who made the Maker?
2. Who made the Maker's Maker - and so on in an infinite regress?
3. Where did the Maker get his materials from?
4. Did the Maker create his materials from 'nothing', by any chance?
5. What materials is the Maker made from?

I have, of course, asked you these questions before - but you've never been able to give me any sort of 'logical' answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:55 PM

The fundamentalist prosperity Christian\Jew for Jesus freak across the street bragged to me with a proud smile "I'm not one of those who believe the Earth is only 2000 years old".

Wonderful I said. I'm not a total moron either.

His smile disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:54 PM

Where did this idea of 65+ mya radiocarbon come from?!?!?

Probably some silly creationist distortion of Schweitzer's actual discovery. Let's let her speak for herself (from PBS' NOVA):

Schweitzer: "I can't make any claims for those structures that appear to be like their modern counterparts until the chemistry reveals whether they are molecular remnants of the original structures, even if altered greatly, or if they are some kind of microbial pseudomorph or even some kind of as yet unknown biogeological process unrelated to structures or molecules produced by the dinosaur itself. If, for example, I were able to isolate those round red structures in the vessel and analyze them separately, and if I were to see any signals that are consistent with heme or hemoglobin, I would be much more likely to believe they are related to the dinosaur cells and proteins. For right now, I am assuming they are not. They are pretty intriguing tho, aren't they?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:50 PM

"most of the famous scientists in history were creationist"

and many believed that the universe revolved around the Earth,
and many believed in spontaneous generation,
and many believed that disease was caused by bad air, and could be cured by bleeding,
and many believed that humans were composed of the four humors,
and many believed in the element phlogiston...

But science advances.

Citing long past, now debunked beliefs simply highlights the difference between science and religion.

Your belief is religious, and not at all scientific.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:00 PM

"The forum "member" you speak of, post under the GUEST tag. "

Are you saying that is not a reason to treat them with respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 08:10 PM

"You tell ME how you'd go about 'educating' hundreds of millions, most of whom have little or no access to the data & reasoning that 'we educated ones' use to move beyond the stories & superstitions!"

Not the way that Christian missionaries "educated" primitive tribes, for sure Bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 08:06 PM

"I would like for everyone on this forum who doesn't, including many times in the past, myself, to show more respect for fellow forum members."

Take another peek Jack.

The forum "member" you speak of, post under the GUEST tag.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 07:48 PM

"no, shimrod, I did not think you would read sarfati,s book, even if it were on the shelves of high st shops."

Pete you amaze me!. You go after Shim for not reading a book which is not readily available to him, while finding nothing wrong in refusing to read a book you can get from your local library.

Your fear of finding truth in Dawkins' book is obvious to all!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 07:46 PM

"..your 99+% argument...is that not an argument from authority, another logical fallacy?.. "

NO! Argument from authority is simply claiming that someone is right in one area because they are famous in another area.
Example.. Dr. Linus Pauling, a reknowned expert in some areas of chemistry, asserting things about vitamin C. There is no doubt that vitamin C is important and useful, but Pauling had only personal anecdotes and an opinion about health issues.

It is a fact that we need 'authorities' in each area to guide our knowledge. Sometimes they disagree, and more data is needed... but when 90+% of experts in a specific area do agree, and their analysis is corroborated by other experts in other areas, we need to pay attention. This is especially important when the 5 or less % disagree because of shoddy reasoning and dubious interpretation of data. When a guy with a degree in geology chooses to deny the data most of his colleagues accept, we have reason to be skeptical. He is free to suggest why certain geological theories need to be examined, but NOT because of his religious premises!

"...the consensus has often been wrong." But not usually... there are good reasons for having a consensus. The supposed 'scientists' who contribute to Creation.com are only scientists in so far as they follow the scientific method. When they warp the data to support religious beliefs, they are not acting AS scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 06:36 PM

firstly, I should have said...ostrich blood vessels.
bill- I don't know why you think creationists don't study how creation works...cant think what I have said that makes you think so. most of the famous scientists in history were creationist.
neither did I claim dino tracks in texas as a proof. I talked about bone! was that a misread or a straw man?
then there is your 99+% argument...is that not an argument from authority, another logical fallacy?. tell me, too, how they explain the methodology of finding radiocarbon in supposedly 65+ myo bone ? does that make sense?.
unless you can demonstrate that these experts you look to, can provide evidence that can only be interpreted evolutionaly, it seems that you are only following the crowd. there is no such thing as consensus science. the consensus has often been wrong.

methinks shimrod needs to take his own advise...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 05:39 PM

"..but how am I supposed to engage on all those disiplines you listed. I doubt if you can either."
   Neither of us are scientists who do the research. We MUST depend on experts to look at data and give us their best analysis of it. I tend to lean toward an opinion where not only 99+% agree on the basics, but also explain their methodology. You...ummm.. seem to find that small % that agree with your theological premises.

"...because you have studied logic that your evaluations of diverse data is correct. "

My study of logic in not ABOUT 'diverse data', it is about the form OF the argument. I can at least see the difference between flawed & correct treatment of the relevance of data. This is an important distinction. I do not analyze DNA or measure radioactive decay. I look at whether those who do have made sense.

"...the tactic of assuring us all that all the evidence confirms Darwinist doctrine as indisputable." see above...the only way to dispute evolution is to have better **evidence**... which does NOT include stuff like 'dino tracks' in Texas which have been show to be misinterpreted.

"...the contents of the bible were pretty much settled in church use a long time before king james."

Not exactly, Pete. They had what they had. The old testament was compiled from Jewish documents...largely in the 11th &12 centuries. They were not saved & read in an organized way until much later...and the King James scholars were tasked to DO the organization. (There are weeks of reading involved in sorting out the details of who wrote what and how it was decided what to include.)

see here. There were several categories of source material, and it is hard to document exactly who & when the contents were first written down & passed on.

other materials about Biblical times that was either not known to the compilers or was left out intentionally.

sources other than Jewish tradition

a careful analysis of missing scripture and why

There are dozens of sites devoted to this issue. It is an extremely difficult thing to follow the historical path of scriptural elements and determine their order & authenticity, no matter what one considers the 'original source'. If you just 'believe' that God 'inspired' the final version that YOU use, you are ignoring a huge amount of history.


I repeat for the 3rd or 4th time: *IF* a god created everything, including the brains to study His creations, we cannot ignore the details of how it all proceeded after Creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 04:58 PM

" ...In my opinion your position that railing against an Englishman on a forum full of middle aged liberals is part of the fight against fundamentalist whack jobs sponsored by Ayn Randian corporatists in the USA being elected to school boards is as much a stretch as anything pete has had to say."

Except that pete obviously derives many of his 'arguments' from the websites of US "fundamentalist whack jobs".

As for my other critics above, I suspect that I am really being criticised for breaking a taboo i.e. by refusing to adequately 'respect' someone's religious faith and robustly questioning it. In my opinion if a group or individual wants to fervently believe in nonsense, then it is none of my business. But if they choose to evangelise or spread their loopy notions then there is no earthly reason why they shouldn't have a fight on their hands!

" ... if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense ..."

pete, you really must learn the difference between 'belief' and 'logic'. Just because you choose not to believe in something, doesn't make it illogical!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 04:11 PM

I,m sorry bill, but if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense, but some of us object to it being pushed on our kids!!
thanks for the character ref bill. likewise you are one of the few here that espouse evolutionism without resorting to badmouthing.
what you do have in common with shimrod , at least in your last post is the tactic of assuring us all that all the evidence confirms Darwinist doctrine as indisputable. I would have thought that was a logical fallacy...I think the popular term is elephant hurling?
this is why I say, I try to engage on specifics. but how am I supposed to engage on all those disiplines you listed. I doubt if you can either.
it is not enough to say , or infer that because you have studied logic that your evaluations of diverse data is correct. firstly logic is not the sole domain of skeptics,- infact there is a long article on it on CMI.
Secondly, I should have thought that any argument that may appear logical to you, falls down if it leans on a priori assesments of data, rather than examining other conclusions at least.[many creationists were once evolutionists]
thirdly the data should be accurate. for example, I think your idea that KJV scholars were responsible for the in/exclusion of scripture is mistaken. the contents of the bible were pretty much settled in church use a long time before king james.
speaking of specifics,- I read today that iron is now claimed to preserve soft tissue. they soaked an ostrich bone and its been 2 years now.....I suppose if you are committed to a paradigm you gotta come up with something...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 03:21 PM

Most of the famous cartoons are owned by syndicates ...or family... who wish to control the distribution of reproductions. (Pogo is a major one... I have found some lovely sites and copied some images before they were taken down.)

I have many original clipped cartoon from newspapers that I saved from way before the WWW. I often quote some that I have not scanned & posted.... especially from Pogo, Mutt & Jeff, Peanuts..etc. I hope to scan and post surreptitiously some of those..including from "Bloom County".

Charles Schultz said a lot about us hoomin beans in some of those strips.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 02:22 PM

MtheGM,

I tried to find the cartoon, no luck. The Internet needs a searchable index of newspaper cartoon quotes. But interestingly to me at least I found a sermon with a quote of Lucy.

In Charles Schultz's "Peanuts," Lucy says if she was in charge she'd change everything. Charlie says, "That wouldn't be easy. Where would you start?" Lucy looks directly at him, and without hesitation, points her finger at him and says, "I'd start with you!"

"I'd start with you!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 01:15 PM

Schulz usually has the answer! But surely in frame #2, Linus looks the opposite of 'intimidated'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:59 PM

". What's the difference between someone who believes in nonsense and someone who has a "sincere" belief in nonsense?"

Your question is phrased so that no answer is possible. The relevant question is "How do different people process and act according to their beliefs in what WE are sure is nonsense?"

You add "...we must never forget that religious extremism and fundamentalism are very dangerous forces in our world...

Yes indeed... **some** do horrible things in the name of religious fundamental extremism. Many do not.
The difference, it seems, between you & I... and several others here... is that I take into account the thousands of years of human history as humans tried to cope with the mysteries of "life, the universe and everything" and quite naturally created stories & myths trying to explain it all. I factor in my awareness that much of the evidence and reasoning debunking those stories & myths is only a couple of hundred years old, and the stories are rich, complex and part of the very fabric of most of humanity! You tell ME how you'd go about 'educating' hundreds of millions, most of whom have little or no access to the data & reasoning that 'we educated ones' use to move beyond the stories & superstitions!

I HOPE that someday, reason will be be taught formally in schools all over the world and that gradually, superstition will be superseded by reason... but in the meantime, all I can really do is argue and talk... and VOTE for legislators who will curtail the influence of fundamentalist religion in the laws and culture of my country!

Right now... if I had a magic button that would suddenly 'convince' all those holding deep religious beliefs that they had been wrong all their lives... I would not push the button. The chaos would be much worse than just gritting my teeth and taking one-more-little-step!

short form of my rambling: Yelling at the ignorant and insulting them never does diddly-squat!


Remember Lucy in the "Peanuts" comic strip?

Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:48 PM

Sorry Shimrod, In my opinion your position that railing against an Englishman on a forum full of middle aged liberals is part of the fight against fundamentalist whack jobs sponsored by Ayn Randian corporatists in the USA being elected to school boards is as much a stretch as anything pete has had to say.

It is not "fundamentalist religion" I would ask you to respect. I would like for everyone on this forum who doesn't, including many times in the past, myself, to show more respect for fellow forum members.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:46 PM

Before anybody starts looking down over their glasses at others.

pete may be a harmless person with a delusion he genuinely feels help him get through life, but let's not forget he'd have children believing that shit too. Earlier threads on YEC have him call for it to be taught as an alternative science.

That might be ok for The USA if that's what freedom of speech means but pete lives in the same country as me, and here,children and vulnerable adults need protecting from wicked superstition. It fucks you up.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:28 PM

I'm sorry, Bill but - I can't help it - I despise willful ignorance. I also see no reason to treat fundamentalist religion with any sort of reverence or respect - nonsense is nonsense is nonsense. What's the difference between someone who believes in nonsense and someone who has a "sincere" belief in nonsense?

And we must never forget that religious extremism and fundamentalism are very dangerous forces in our world and cause untold suffering. Also the fundamentalists would indocrinate children with their nonsense - and they must be resisted! If the likes of pete want to believe that "God did it all", then - OK - he can believe what he likes. Nevertheless, his creationist chums don't want to stop there - they want to re-write the text books and teach children that "God did it all" - and remove any mention of evolution from those same text books.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 11:26 AM

You guys forget that, in Pete's logic, 'God' can do anything.. including form mountains. If your 1st premise is that "Go did it all", everything else follows.

Pete is not stupid.... he is mistaken about things, but not 'arrogant'. He is emotionally committed to a position... one we all realize is misguided, but he defends it as well as possible. I debate with him and show the flaws in his premises and reasoning, but respect his efforts to explain his deeply held beliefs.

There are millions...probably hundreds of millions (maybe a couple billion)...of people who hold deep religious convictions about the nature of reality and religious beginnings. Many of those people are not nearly as restrained, polite and decent as Pete.

Myself, I wonder about the urge to belittle & insult someone who takes the trouble to defend and explain his belief system under these circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 10:26 AM

"Kind of blows pete and his rather insulting assertions out of the water."

Rather insulting, Musket??!! Unbelievably ignorant, arrogant and stupid, I'd say! pete keeps demanding that we supply him with EVIDENCE! But he needs to be reminded that Darwin's 'Origin' was published in 1859 - over 150 years ago. And since that time thousands of the best brains in the world have spent millions of hours between them gathering, analysing and evaluating the evidence for evolution. And most of that evidence has been published in countless books and scientific papers - all available for pete and his creationist chums to read if they really wanted to. As I keep reminding pete, Richard Dawkins recent book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth', is an admirable, and readily available, summary of the evidence to date. I note, though, that pete would rather read the creationist "refutation" instead.
No doubt he would plough through Dawkins' book indignantly asserting, "I don't believe this and I don't believe that!" And I suspect that that disbelief is because the scientific evidence doesn't accord with the creation myths of a bunch of Bronze Age desert tribesman. Those myths might represent an interesting historical curiousity - if they hadn't, rather unhealthily, dominated Western thinking for the last millenium or so. pete and co., it's time you moved out of the Middle Ages and into the 21st century ... or, at the very least, into the mid-19th!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 07:04 AM

I like the point that in Mudcat, people say what comes into their head.

I don't know where to start really, but in deference to those who worship at the altar of Max's rules and those who think the bible is true, I'll just get on with my holiday.

(The Alps, and I type from a ski cafe 3,000m high which provides wifi bless 'em, are by evidence rather old, although young for mountains. Kind of blows pete and his rather insulting assertions out of the water.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 10:48 PM

I recon so.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 10:42 PM

I think we've gotten about as much as we're going to get out of this one, Jack:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 10:00 PM

"You might as well say that musicians only care about notes and chords because the make the final piece of music."

I might say that but I didn't. Storytellers use characters to make stories. Songwriters use notes and chords to make songs. Carpenters use nails and boards to make their projects. Musicians care about making music, notes and chords are just the materials.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 07:22 PM

My father was a carpenter, and I know first hand that the idea that they view nails and boards only as a means to build something is silly.

Carpenters love their nails and boards--they delight in the rattle of nails in the keg, and revel in the smell of fresh cut planks. The the pitch of a well struck nail rises as it is driven, and that sound, in turn, drives a carpenter.


You might as well say that musicians only care about notes and chords because the make the final piece of music.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 04:01 PM

"Characters in a story are to good author as boards and nails to a carpenter. What pleases the carpenter is that the construction is solid and he gets paid. The conflict between the boards and the nails only matter when applied to that goal."

Somebody write that one down.

And, such could be said about many post from many in this thread. Amazing discussion. One of the best in years!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 03:48 PM

>>I think not, Jack. Authors love their characters, and the evil ones even more, because they allow them to do what they please, and, more important, what pleases the author. The author creates them to do evil.

In the world of fiction, at least, there is a creator, who molds and shapes the reality, and who controls the lives and destinies of the characters. Or is there an argument against that, too? <<

I can't think of a better argument than this.

" but they always say what is agreeable to their author. "

Obviously you and I don't agree on the meaning of agreeable. And we don't agree on what some authors, who write like Shakespeare and Twain think about when creating characters. If you are saying that authors create characters dialog to serve the purpose of the story, I agree.

If you are saying that the characters are saying things that the author would agree with, certainly in many cases they do not.

Characters in a story are to good author as boards and nails to a carpenter. What pleases the carpenter is that the construction is solid and he gets paid. The conflict between the boards and the nails only matter when applied to that goal.

Its not that it pleased Carroll to have the queen say "Off with her head!" The threat to Alice created conflict and made the story more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 02:42 PM

I think not, Jack. Authors love their characters, and the evil ones even more, because they allow them to do what they please, and, more important, what pleases the author. The author creates them to do evil.

In the world of fiction, at least, there is a creator, who molds and shapes the reality, and who controls the lives and destinies of the characters. Or is there an argument against that, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 11:54 AM

"I agree, that dismantling the Darwin edifice does not prove the bible, but IMO the evidence is consistent with a designer and creator."

The combination of personal incredulity and confirmation bias is a powerful one, and (no offence) your posts demonstrate just how far from reason they can take one when both are influencing a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Gurney
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 11:50 PM

I just re-read an old Sci-Fi book called 'The Ship Who Searched' by Anne McCaffrey and Mercedes Lackey. There is a cult in there called Practical Darwinists' who make the J.W.'s look like a bunch of pussycats. NO medical interventions.

Puts a different slant on the cartoon, for me. Good job it is fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 11:00 PM

IMHO They often say things that are quite disagreeable to the author. Sometimes authors are trying to show the ugliness in the world. Sometimes they are making a point. Sometimes they make up a character, put that character in a situation and try to imagine the words which would be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 09:41 PM

Characters may disagree with each other, but they always say what is agreeable to their author. That is the whole point of authorship. It's not like Mudcat, where anyone can say anything that pops into their head.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 08:45 PM

Well Pete, Jack beat me to part of what needed to be said:

but I will add this to my reply to: "our presuppositions will colour our assessments of available evidence, and that includes you, bill."

I do agree, Pete... and my assumptions include my opinion that reason, however we got it... thru God or thru evolution, does require evaluating evidence & fact. You 'cherry-pick' evidence to exclude geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, and several other sciences in favor of 1)one set of interpretations of 2)one translation of 3)one collection of 'interesting stories'. You even ignore other collections of stories in old manuscripts which many, many scholars insist should have been included. But, King James' biblical scholars somehow decided.. or were told.. which ones to leave out.

If you choose to believe that this universe must have been created by some Supreme Being, I can't really argue with you... but the facts & evidence indicate that even IF a 'god' did it, the process He used followed certain rules...even IF He also designed the rules, and that He gave us the ability to study the process and analyze much of its content, age and products.

   It is clear & unmistakable that the Earth is a bit more than a few thousand years old...like 4 billion years more. Our ancestors go back WAY further than those lists in Genesis... back to people/beings who had no idea of writing & language. If you choose to believe that God kick-started all that... *shrug*...perhaps so. I don't need to know one way or another. I just refuse to ignore the data science gives us... and if God planned the rules of the scientific method, well good on Him!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 07:27 PM

An Oldie But a Goodie

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:53 PM

" if we are the product of intelligent design we certainly can expect that we can trust our assessments of what is reasoned, and make informed judgments on such."

If this were so and everyone is designed by God then everyone's assessments of what is reasoned, would be trustworthy. Yet you don't even trust Bill's assessment. And Bill uses logic, a process created by minds which were designed by God ,and therefore obviously, by your logic, trustworthy, for making such assessments.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:37 PM

Actually, pete, I haven't quite finished reading Dawkins' book yet - so I'm not quite ready for the "refutation". But from what I've read,so far, Prof. Dawkins' book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth', is a masterful summary of the evidence for evolution and contains all of the "reasoned argument" that you could ever need. Perhaps you should read it? Or would you rather stick with the "refutation" which (probably) cosily confirms all of your prejudices and preconceptions? Anyway, you creationists don't need evidence or reasoned argument, do you? Because you all 'know' uncritically and without question that "God Did It", don't you?

" ... if we are the product of intelligent design we certainly can expect that we can trust our assessments of what is reasoned, and make informed judgments on such. if we are only the result of accidental biological, chemical processes ,there is no reason to be sure ,even given, learning to evaluate study, that we are correct."

What??!! You may ... or may not ... be the product of "intelligent design", pete, but you might like to ask your 'maker' to give you a few tips on how to string a reasoned and coherent argument together!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 05:36 PM

no, shimrod, I did not think you would read sarfati,s book, even if it were on the shelves of high st shops. I also am not surprised that you did not present any reasoned argument either....cant remember the last time you did, on the subject....just the usual dismissive mocking. you did not even say what dawkins arguments are , because as you more or less admit ,you expect there to be answers to his supposed evidences.

bill...if we are the product of intelligent design we certainly can expect that we can trust our assessments of what is reasoned, and make informed judgments on such. if we are only the result of accidental biological, chemical processes ,there is no reason to be sure ,even given, learning to evaluate study, that we are correct. that is not to say that I think you are unable to evaluate arguments, as I don't believe we are accidents.
I do however believe our presuppositions will colour our assessments of available evidence, and that includes you, bill.
so ,although I am accused of cherry picking the evidence, it is specifics I go for, since if I can demonstrate the big and small holes in the evolutionary assertions , it is evident that it is not the fully evidenced theory it is fobbed off to be.
the usual response to such reasoning ,is to say the bible account cannot be proved either, usually with the tactic of mockery.
I agree, that dismantling the Darwin edifice does not prove the bible, but IMO the evidence is consistent with a designer and creator.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 04:59 PM

The Anticrow!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 04:02 PM

MILITANT DARWINISTS STRIKE AT VATICAN:

Angry birds: Peace doves attacked after release at Vatican

Rumors are that one bird said "I'm gonna get me somethin' to eat.

John