BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:40 PM

Pete- "my information is that Hebrew scholars whether conservative or liberal, are agreed that the author[s] intended the narrative to be read as 6 normal length days of creation."

??how many Hebrew scholars of today have you consulted about this? And what difference does it make what anyone 'intended' a short passage to mean? The goal is to determine what DID happen. Reading it as 6 days of 24 hours each is a blatantly circular path assuming what you want to discover. In order to sustain such ideas, you must .. as you have done...try refute 27 areas of science, including, but not limited to, the amazing regularity of radioactive isotope decay and carbon¹⁴ decay.
As to 'gap theory', I have just been reading details of how that fits.. or doesn't.. and it doesn't lend itself to short explanations.

....................

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:55 PM

in the same way, evolutionists extrapolate beyond the data...

Even an old duffer like me can see the morphological evidences for Evolution throughout the animal kingdom and fossil record. All you have to do is do a skeletal comparison between whale flippers, bat wings and human hands to see how the same basic patterns morph through BILLIONS of years of incremental environmental adaptation into very different, though entirely related, things.

Life on Earth is a lot more wondrous and diverse than can ever be accounted for by the facile storytelling of Genesis, which is based on far earlier myths and imaginings which reflect the bounty of imaginary & metaphorical responses to nature, but don't tell us anything about how it all came about, much less our place in it.

The Bible is one thing we can examine the evolution of in great detail; we can point to a time when there was NO BIBLE: the Pre-Bible Earth of a mere 3000 years ago. No God. No Genesis. Just a bunch of proto-myth types getting kicked around by way of mystic riffing on the part of would be priests and storytellers that served the general purpose of answering & inspiring wonder in nature whilst in the UK so-called Primitive communities were building their myths in STONE at Avebury and Stonehenge just so they could make something bigger than both themselves and nature. They had NO GOD either; they were part of the process that links Göbekli Tepe of 10,000 BCE with the Large Hadron Collider of today. All of it utterly GODLESS but all of it wonderfully HUMAN.

The Bible was pieced together over time; God is Created in a good deal more than 6 days, but he remains a work of palpable fiction nevertheless because WHERE THE FUCK WAS HE BEFORE? And, more the point, WHERE THE FUCK IS HE NOW?   

As I might have said several post ago, we really do both the myths and ourselves a grave and serious disservice by taking this shit literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM

Yeah but every time I say pete gives religion a bad name, my posts disappear. The Lord certainly provides in his case...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:15 PM

> there hasn't been a single bombing or beheading attributed to those of us who support evolutionary theory... we don't even stage riots outside the doors of creationist offices

Perhaps they're routinely covered up by the secularist media. Can you prove otherwise? Why should anyone believe your claim when somebody else can assert the contrary as often as he wants?

Darwinist book publishers have the mass media in their pocket. Prove they don't.

Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:26 PM

So, pete, let me get this straight. Modern science isn't a vast anti-christian conspiracy. Phew! That's a relief!

But a few evolutionary biologists are closet creationists - and they tend to fudge their results in order to hang on to their well paid jobs (?) Have I got that right? If it's true, it doesn't say a lot for the moral integrity of creationists, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:28 PM

Think about it.   ?!? coherent thought has nothing to do with paranoia and conspiracy nuts... reason and rational thought is ignored on a regular basis.

nest we'll have Elvis sightings as proof of who knows what... or Area 51 has the Ark under lcok & key...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:17 PM

Secularist.. Now there's a word. Does that mean ex superstituous, anti superstituous or the vast majority who see superstition as someone else's delusion?

Got fuck all to do with science, either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:28 PM

Why can't the faithful agree with science and just have faith that deity made it look that way?

Beats the phuk outa me!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:52 PM

bill. it is true that I have not personally consulted Hebrew scholars, as I am sure you suspect. it is admittedly 2nd hand reading, but including one james barr [I think] who stated what I indicated in my previous post.
and it is relevant because it was specifically related to your challenging what the text said, seemingly implying the uncertainty of what it said.
as to the dating methods supposed "amazing regularities", have - you -consulted the lab experts on that ?
and did you ask them if they know the starting conditions of samples, conditions throughout, and if they are sure there was no gain or loss during unobserved time. did you also ask them how rocks of known age have been read as myo?.
and, of course, I cannot refute the 27 areas of evolutionary interpretations of data,........anymore than you can confirm them !.
I suspect you just have faith in the ruling paradigm.

shimrod "...moral integrity of creationists" not necessarily creationist...IDers, Darwin doubters, who might be Christians or might not . certainly a biblical creationist might not volunteer information that might endanger his job, as Darwinism has precisely nothing to offer, or to do, with practical science.

jack has a stab at making an argument, but as he is a foulmouthed antagonist , I will not reply any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:23 PM

I wonder how a "Darwin doubter" - or a creationist(!) - would go about getting him/her self a post in a modern evolutionary biology department?

" ... Darwinism has precisely nothing to offer, or to do, with practical science."

Hhhmmm! Now who should I listen to? Some of the great modern evolutionary biologists, such as Richard Dawkins or Steven Jay Gould, or someone called pete who parrots stuff off www.redneckcreationist.com. Hhhhmmm? A tricky one ...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:58 PM

" did you ask them if they know the starting conditions of samples, conditions throughout, and if they are sure there was no gain or loss during unobserved time.

Why, no... but in science they ask each other! Anyone who falsifies data or makes silly conclusions is eventually (usually sooner) called to task. And I can read the results and compare their conclusions. That is quite different from debating 'intent' of ancient scribes and wondering where they got their information. I ask about recent scholars, because some of them might have done more reading of ancient Hebrew than I have. *grin*

And I just looked up Jmaes Barr.. very interesting. He had personal opinions about linguistics, as you suggest, but his theology went in several directions..

"He was also an outspoken critic of conservative evangelicalism, which he attacked in his 1977 book Fundamentalism. In particular he criticized evangelical scholars such as J. I. Packer for affirming the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, the teaching that the Bible is without error. "

hmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:31 AM

Perhaps he will put Mr Barr on the same naughty step as he has just put Jack. If someone doesn't give him loopholes to wriggle through he tends to ignore them.

pete. If your God is anything more than a rather limited imagination, let him win points over rational people instead of ignoring them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:21 AM

jack has a stab at making an argument, but as he is a foulmouthed antagonist , I will not reply any further.

Oh get over yourself, pete! The word FUCK in any context is a lot less foul than GOD - the former is a jubilant celebration & continuity of the very stuff of life, the latter amounts to its very denial & oppression which is the essence of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 06:21 AM

denial & oppression which is the essence of religion.

It is not.
Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King had religion but hated denial and oppression.
Likewise all those 19th Century reformers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:14 AM

But they didn't see the bible as fact, especially the bits about keeping slaves.

Tsk.
Pointing out they were Christians is as relevant as pointing out they had curly hair. You were brainwashed into being a Christian in their day. It isn't the same as the choice we have in sophisticated enlightened western society now. It takes shallowness to defend the ethos now, as the majority of "social" Christians would tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:37 AM

Both MLKjr & NM co-opted essentially secular concerns over and above their religious ones. The essence of their struggle was secular / political, otherwise neither of them would have had a leg to stand on.

Ethical & moral concerns have evolved as an essential aspect of our humanity; Religion would seek to exploit that much as it exploits our natural born spirituality too. Religion has the same relationship to spirituality as Pornography does to our sexuality. Morality is part of what we are; religion is optional & exploitative hobbyism & utterly irrelevant to the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:36 AM

Musket believes them stupid enough to be "brainwashed" and Jack seems to think they fought "denial and oppression" in spite of their religion and not because of it.

If you read their own words you will see that they were inspired by their faith to make their stand against oppression, as were those 19th Century reformers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:37 AM

And.... MLK probably did believe the bible to be factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM

But not literally true or beyond informed interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:15 AM

Why do you think that?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM

"that pond scum can turn into people"

Yawn. Seriously pete, you need to move your argument on. So much info has been offered on these threads it's worrying you're not interested in engaging with any of it.

Cyanobacteria are wonderful organisms, and come from a very ancient lineage. Show some respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:51 AM

I see that you are probably right about that, but the statement Musket made about believing the bible to be fact has no bearing on my original point anyway.
It was just about religion not fundamentalist religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 10:26 AM

"Cyanobacteria are wonderful organisms, and come from a very ancient lineage"

Indeed... I've been researching my ancestry, starting with the Scottish branch, and after much effort and DNA sampling, together with analysis of continental drift, I've determined that Pete & I are 12,483,991,927,446,127,003,128,372th cousins, 732,993,428 times removed. I hope we can sit sometime and compare notes on which primordial swamp we might have shared.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 10:44 AM

So which parts of the bible are bollocks and lies Keith, and which are true? Who the flying fuck are you to differentiate? What makes a bloke coming back from the dead true and an ark fantasy? Let's face it, plenty of medical papers describing how crucifixion does a one way job, and Romans weren't known for being half arsed about their work.

MLK believed the bible as fact? Citations needed please. Evidence or retraction. Own opinions are valid in debate, presupposing others opinions and presenting them as argument are not valid.

Probably can't tell the difference between debate and masturbate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:03 AM

> just about religion not fundamentalist religion.

The remark wasn't aimed at Keith but at fundamentalist literalism.

And of course MLK "believed in" the bible in one degree or another, but probably not to a fundamentalist's liking.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:21 AM

I was not talking about the bible Musket, and why the ill-tempered abuse?
This was what I posted,

denial & oppression which is the essence of religion.

It is not.
Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King had religion but hated denial and oppression.
Likewise all those 19th Century reformers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:25 AM

MLK believed the bible as fact? Citations needed please. Evidence or retraction.

I only said he "probably" did, and then I did retract because I took the trouble to research it.
As I said, it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:32 PM

bill says that they ask each other......ask each other what, bill ?
whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable......or whether they have different assumptions ,maybe ?
no question that they read the data accurately, the question is interpretation.
james barr.....attacks fundamentalists , shock horror! actually, it makes his testimony all the more valuable. if he had not been a hostile witness, you would have labelled him a blinkered fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:35 PM

" ... whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable..."

Do you mean unobservable like the entire contents of the Bible, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:43 PM

"whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable"

Do you have the foggiest clue what you're talking about Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:52 PM

I have never denied the faith factor , shimrod. that's you, that's in denial.
but I did trust your scientific assessment that your wide experience and training had no bearing on evolution
"hmmmmm, now who should I listen to....dawkins....gould, or someone called pete....."
tell you what shimrod, as I just said, your own extensive science interests having no bearing on science.
but if you can name one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM

Neural networks in computing are based on Darwinian principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:40 PM

You see Keith.. I always reply in the way others put forward. You read my comments and thought them abusive.

I merely, as ever, wrote them with how you normally write, except with clearer grammar of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:44 PM

""If Pete 7*s did not exist on Mudcat, it would be necessary (for some here) to invent him" Anon quote (lol)

How else would these frequent "frustrated with pete (aka pissed off)" posters fill the waking hours, and find such a pedestrian internet route to express their frustration with pete - who clearly and consistently sees things differently than they do (and, that is unlikely to change).

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:03 PM

No Musket.
Unlike you, I am always polite and respectful, and make a case without using profanity.
Also, your challenges were not relevant to my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,MTB
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:34 PM

"...if you can name one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say."

A great deal of genetic and genomic research is done using model organisms. This research has given rise to the invention of treatments for cancer and infertility amongst others and current day research is closing in on degenerative diseases such as Alzheimers.

A model organism is a non-human species (yeast, fly, mouse, primate) that is used to understand particular biological phenomena, with the expectation that discoveries made in the organism model will provide insight into the workings of other organisms.

Model organisms are widely used to research human disease when human experimentation would be unfeasible or unethical.

This successful strategy is made possible by the common descent of all living organisms, and the conservation of metabolic and developmental pathways and genetic material over the course of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:40 PM

"I have never denied the faith factor , shimrod. that's you, that's in denial.
but I did trust your scientific assessment that your wide experience and training had no bearing on evolution"

So let's just clarify things so far, pete: If scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right?

And no, I have no background in evolutionary biology but I can follow a scientific argument and have done a fair amount of background reading. You, on the other hand, appear to have had no scientific training and have done no background reading - except the stuff that you parrot from 'www.redneckcreationist.com'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:46 PM

There you go, Cousin Pete... an answer from MTB, who obviously doesn't need to look up a relevant answer, as I would.

"Ask them what?" I can ask relevant scientists all the probing questions you might... but I wouldn't be prepared to dismiss all their conclusions before I heard the replies.

(I am leaving town Friday for a music weekend... don't know if I'll post again before I do)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:55 PM

one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say

Vaccines
Shoes
Coats
Socks
OK, Clothing
musical instruments
intervention between people and their imaginary gods (the priesthood as a class)
Sex
Agriculture

Oh, you mean besides clean water, etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 04:25 AM

"but if you can name one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say."

You assume that each scientific discipline works in complete isolation, and that is most certainly not the case. Any research these days is multi-disciplinary to a certain degree, and all rely on the same principles. The chemistry behind the creation of new materials such as graphene is based on the same fundamental principles that allow us to understand the water cycle, how bones fossilise, how to make the glass on your iPhone, the changes in composition of magma due to pressure and temperature etc.

All science is interconnected; you can deny evolution until you're blue in the face but by denying evolution you're also essentially denying science itself; we know about evolution because of chemistry, biology, physics, maths, statistics and the myriad of other disciplines that make up science.

And therein lies the point. Fundamentalists like Pete are science deniers. Despite the fact they are surrounded by things that science has made possible (God did not invent your computer, iPad or paracetamol) they refuse to entertain it's validity or even integrity. They can't understand it's interconnectedness or even the very nature of scientific enquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 04:33 AM

Well said, Stu! I've tried to make this point to pete before (though not nearly so eloquently) but, like a lot of truths about science, he just doesn't want to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:07 AM

just had a read about neural pathways on brittanica. it did not even mention evolution, as far as I could see. in fact , it fits entirely into here and now science, and it looks to me that , it is simply assumed to have evolutionary basis. the other way which you claim Darwinist imput is by studying natural selection/mutations, but without acknowledging that this does not equate to microbes to man evolution, and is part of the creation model too. ie because you believe in it, it is assumed to be relevant. to hear stu talk, it would make you wonder how anything got invented before Darwin !

"...would,nt be prepared to dismiss....." said bill. unless of course they are creation believing scientists !. it just goes to show that it is your a priori dismissal of God that informs your choice of which scientists you will trust before even asking the questions....oops hearing the replies.

don't be so sensitive, shimrod. I am quite happy with your admission that your own extensive training had no bearing on evolution, especially when stu insists all of science is interconnected !.
maybe you need to use some of that extra reading to demonstrate the evolutionism you so passionately believe in.

ed,- how very true. at present, I shall let my critics keep trying to persuade without presenting any proof of their position, and only offer evidence that generally can also be interpreted in the creation model just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:30 AM

"to hear stu talk, it would make you wonder how anything got invented before Darwin !"

Pete, can't you see the point I'm making? You can't isolate Darwin any more than you can Curie, Crick, Watson and Franklin, Fleming or Feynman. Darwin wasn't a person who worked in utter isolation, he was part of the scientific community that gave birth to modern science. Neither did he arrive at his conclusion alone; Wallace had independently discovered natural selection too and they were in touch before the publication of The Origin of Species.

All of this took place in a wider biological, palaentologoical and geological framework, which in turn relied on chemistry, physics etc and still does. The interconnected nature of our universe is one of it's wonders, we're part of it. Today a paper has been published in nature that demonstrates this perfectly: the asymmetry of biochemical molecules (not something I profess to understand) was caused "by electrons from nuclear decay in the early days of evolution". That's chemistry, biology, physics, palaeontology and even astrophysics right there and it affects us all.

There's the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:46 AM

granted, Darwin done some scientific work in artificial and natural selection. but the extrapolating beyond this was his idea, not his unassailable truth. he, himself, acknowledged that his idea was open to other interpretation. I assume the same is true of Wallace, though I seem to remember he came up with evolutionism after a feverish delirium.
I cant comment on the article in nature mag, other than a suspicion that the evolutionary element is assumed, by them and yourself...if the former posts here are anything to go by.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 08:06 AM

> God did not invent your computer, iPad or paracetamol

Well, in a sense he could have, if everything that happens is a furtherance of his Plan.

But in that case, there's no reason to deny Evolution. It's how God advances living things toward his goal.

Besides, Evolution is irrefutable because its simply describes (though some precise details are still elusive) what happens to organisms stressed by their habitat and by other organisms. Dinosaurs can't adapt, they're gone. Crocodiles can, and they're still with us.

Dinosaur mutations, and environmental opportunities, lead step by step to birds.

Every internal and external change leads to consequences, and over a billion years pressures and mutations take you from amebas to humans.

I'm no biologist, but even I can comprehend these things.

Of course, you can believe in Noah's Ark instead by substituting blind faith for all the evidence of observation and reason. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy into it. Further discussion is obviously futile, as Pete seems to see himself as an instrument of conversion - not, of course, to mainstream Christianity, which accepts Evolution, but to his own literalist and sectarian take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 08:12 AM

Probably thinks that before Newton we had to nail our shoes to the floor...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:21 AM

Hey, gang - fasnatics is fanatics of whatever persuasion, "Christian"[sic], Muslim, whatever.

Y'all want a terrorist organization? Consider one run by the likes of pete. Now THAT'S scary!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:52 AM

FIRST OF ALL, there is no argument here. Yep. That's right, we are ALL really in agreement here. Even for Greg who says he can't understand why people have made such a fuss. Let me show you why, how, what and when.

( Yes I hear you think "why should I listen to this guy, what makes him uniquely qualified to solve or settle such a long lasting debate ?". Its because I am certifiably simple. My certified IQ is 42, the lowest measured IQ for a person who can seemingly write.
More accurately my IQ defies measurement due to what some might call dyslexia or willfully supplying answers outside the test's expectation or by not answering other questions at all, even at age 7.)


         Its really quite simple.

Evolution is change. Every thing there is changes. you've SEEN IT.
Everything evolves, for example take your average universe at the moment when its slightly wobbly nothingness starts to expand to balance out the energy of its somethingness and grows exponentially.

Figuratively speaking "at first" the all there is amorphous incredible ball of energy has not differentiated into atoms or elements or molecules. Hell it has not even made an electron yet.

Now look at it, here comes the leap for some of you...Your mind can see this universe by looking up at it or from another Point of view by looking down on it. Some of you will see a changing ball of energy become more and more a system of increasingly different pieces of energy taking form in an ever growing complexity while others will look up and see all there is and will ever be as a all radiant God.

Some will see entropy and others will see unity.

No matter where you look there is some of that initial nothingness among concentrations of somethingness just as there is somethingness in concentrations of nothingness.

The universe in its hottest furnace forges small bits of somthingness until bosons appear, 8 in all but are sure of 1 today, and mass and ergo for the first time, true time begins.



For some of you God is expressing itself in all "his glory" or for others the forging of elements in this new universe is about to begin leading to hydrogen and helium and the first stars that go on to make even more elements. WIth enough cooling and growth molecules are built amino acids fly and planets will soon be changed by life.

The evolution of life in my mind is a tiny side show compared to all the evolution that has already gone on.


How much you know or wish to know, feel or only wish to feel, do or only wish to do, is all up to you. It free for you to choose. In my opinion you should not force the expression of free will upon others, it is their own journey. If you build a beautiful park or orchard near their path they may decide to join you. But its up to them.

best regards, Donuel

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 10:38 AM

Semantically in this way of thinking about the changes we see as evolution, you could see social evolution in a far for expansive way. Islam evolved as the fertile crescent failed and the loss of arable land hardened survival the people turned turned from cooperation to predatory practices. Today Syria has lost 50% of its farms and farmers to climate change leading to concentrated populations in cities with less food and work.

Of course the west's historical colonial systems, enriching only a few for the oil, and slave trades have caused on going strife.

Like matter and anti matter, opposite cultures will fight it out for survival until they are both a little bit more like the other but unfortunately for some only after a phenomenal explosion. Islam may evolve quite naturally into a greener more peaceful culture. The West may become more tolerant. One can only hope.

I bet if the middle east was today a great rainy place to grow watermelons and the profits from oil were evenly distributed, there would be peace and Islam would evoke a welcoming feeling of being a shepherd to the Earth instead of warrior of the Earth.
We may not be able to change the rainfall but we can change the economics. Will the greedy abide? They might have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 11:15 AM

"maybe you need to use some of that extra reading to demonstrate the evolutionism you so passionately believe in."

More like 'acceptance' rather than 'passionate belief' (it's you that does passionate belief, pete). And you are as capable of reading the relevant texts as I am. It's high time that you educated yourself properly - rather than parroting all of that creationist nonsense. You go away and read about the philosophy of science and then Dawkins, Gould et.al. - and then we might have something to talk about. But you won't do any such thing, will you?

Finally, let's get back to that fundamental question that you chose to ignore:

If scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right? Remind me what 'faith' is, pete.