BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 03:57 PM

The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 04:06 PM

Let me elaborate what 'training' means in this context. It is providing an environment rich in, for example, licence numbers together with a mechanism to determine whether a licence has been correctly identified

Nothing else is needed

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 04:30 PM

You see, pete, my scientific qualifications have left me with an inquiring mind and a nose for bullshit. In addition, I don't do 'faith', faith is an alien concept to me. To my mind, only feeble-minded idiots fervently and unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there's no evidence. The scientific evidence for evolution strikes me as being very, very, very credible and it has all of the vast foundations and butresses of modern science to support it. That the myths in an old book bear any relation to the reality is just LUDICROUS - however much you try to dress it up in parroted pseudo-science!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:20 PM

""Because the bible is about man's relationship to God in human history; it isn't about geology or dinosaurs or aerodynamics.""

1. That dinosaurs existed is irrefutable (we have the bones to prove it).

2. The evidence for dinosaurs existing at the time of the events described in either version of genesis is entirely absent in those accounts.

3. That evidence is also absent throughout the father to son record, of which the Old Testament consists.

4. No mention of any form of creature, from dinosaur to ice age megabeast appears anywhere in any biblical text.

Strange indeed, if the bible is an inerrant divine explanation of the period from Creation of the Universe to the time of Christ (some 4000 years), and not, as the idiot comment above states, ""about man's relationship to God in human history;"".

Where is the mention of strange huge reptiles and woolly "elephants", flying lizards and sabre toothed cats marching aboard the ark. They would certainly be sufficiently outstanding to warrant comment in such a historical document.

They don't feature, not because they have no relevance to said document, but because they predated its existence by millions of years.

Belief in Young Earth Creationism is a perfect example of the triumph of successful brainwashing over sanity and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:29 PM

""The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.""

Of course he hasn't read, and will never read, Origins. He doesn't need to.

His "knowledge" comes pre-digested from Creationist "Scientists" whose word he implicitly believes, because it reinforces what HE believes.

If he did read it, it would make absolutely no difference. He would simply dismiss it as the "Dogma" of the Evolutionist "Faithful".

You cannot re-educate a fanatical religious zealot!

That is the root cause of many of this world's problems!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:30 PM

""?..only feeble-minded idiots fervently and unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there's no evidence""

Outside the discussion with Pete, if that statement were true, how would one explain the beliefs of many academically-intelligent people in the world, includiing scientists, who believe in a deity and ascribe to one religious belief or another?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:34 PM

""Praise the disgraceful Lord for the ability to suppress those who laugh at weird God botherers.""

What an odd thought-a "Mudcat Lord". I like it.
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM

Outside the discussion with Pete, if that statement were true, how would one explain the beliefs of many academically-intelligent people in the world, includiing scientists, who believe in a deity and ascribe to one religious belief or another?

That's an easy one. They compartmentalise. We all do it to some extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 08:12 PM

Gosh, I hit send there afore I'd finished. I was going to say that one of the most rational people on this board is also a severe compartmentaliser: Musket. He supports Sheffield Wednesday in spite of everything. Man City 7 Sheff Wed 0. Cardiff 2 Sheff Wed 1. Bet they're bloody dreading Ipswich on Tuesday! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 09:00 PM

""That's an easy one. They compartmentalise. We all do it to some extent.""

Well yes, of course, they/we all do that. But, that alone hardly puts you, Musket, scientists who believe in a deity, nor the rest of the world, in the "feeble-minded-idiot" category-for merely compartmentalizing:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 09:08 PM

Newton was a wonderful scientist who believed in alchemy. I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 09:18 PM

I find only cloudy matter in your pudding-like analogy:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 01:47 AM

""The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.""

Of course he hasn't read, and will never read, Origins. He doesn't need to.

I admit to a rhetorical flourish when I wrote that, Troubadour. I know Pete hasn't read Origins. Let me explain why I am interested in this example. As I insist, it is Darwinian outside the biologal context. As a result it totally overcomes pete's main objections to The mechanics of Darwinism by showing it working effectively within what he delights in calling observable science. Now rationally you can say yes that proves the Darwinist approach works sometimes, but it does not prove it worked for the biological sphere. However, in pete's case his antagonism to Darwinist ideas is so intense he seems unable to accept it ever works, even in a different context in this odd observable scientific world.

Now, I can see only one rational basis for claiming my illustration is not Darwinian, and that is that his theory is so focussed on biological systems that it applying it to non-biological itself stops it being Darwinian. So I headed that off by saying nothing in Origins restricts it to only biological systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 02:03 AM

" ... how would one explain the beliefs of many academically-intelligent people in the world, includiing scientists, who believe in a deity and ascribe to one religious belief or another?"

I haven't got the faintest clue! You would have to ask them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM

I have identified errors of knowledge in your posts Musket.
Found any in mine yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 04:31 AM

Or would be if history were Keith's strongest subject.

I am not an historian, so I learn from historians.
You memorably declared that you know more about history than historians do.
"All those historians should know better" you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 05:19 AM

""I haven't got the faintest clue!""

Ok, thats fine-thanks for the honesty. A much more reasonable response than those who have difficulty admiting to such.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 05:21 AM

"Rather, I view the supposed geological column as roughly equating to order of burial in the noahic deluge disaster."

If there was evidence for such an event, then I would accept that fully. However, there is no evidence the sedimentary strata we see making up large parts of the surface of the earth was laid down in a single event. Not a jot.

We can recognise flood events in the geological record; they form distinctive lithofacies.

Questions:

How to you account for the zoning of fossils (i.e. why are they not mixed up)?
How do you account for the increasing complexity of multicellular life we see in the fossil record?

As I've said gawd knows how many times before Pete; go and find a horse in the Burgess Shale, a lion in the Triassic rocks of Utah, a pig in the Late Cretaceous rocks of the Hell Creek in Montana. If you're correct then these fossils should all be mixed up, but there are thousands of collectors out there looking in many, many fossiliferous beds and they have not found any of these yet. Why is that (clue: not a conspiracy, not confirmation bias, not a vested interest in keeping their job as most are volunteers, not dishonest scientists)?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 05:53 AM

Musket, you said, "The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends in order to control others.

The Greeks had quite a lot of "imaginary friends" Musket.

You also said, "The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology."

It does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM

The ones rewriting a World War 1 to hide the callous indifference and incompetence should know better, yes.

So you know more about WW1 History than all the historians.
You could not produce a single living historian who agreed with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 07:58 AM

Keep on saying it and one day even you will believe your own nonsense.

Funnily enough, I even quoted the ones you quote before the likes of Hastings decided there was more money in being outrageous, hence defending killing our own soldiers with mental health issues.

Then I mentioned Alan Clarke. Right wing enough even for you and your toy soldier fixation.

Just about everybody up to living memory had an
imaginary friend. It takes time for sophisticated society to grow out of shallow tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 08:50 AM

I believed the historians.
There was not one living historian who shared your view of the period.
Why bring up a discussion from months ago anyway?

If you post howlers such as geology in Genesis, or Greeks "shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends" expect someone to point out your misapprehensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 08:56 AM

"Everyone is someone's devil." ― Matthew Dicks, Memoirs of an Imaginary Friend

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 09:39 AM

Greeks discovering the world around them based on evidence of observation. Another howler presumably.

No. I recognise the advances made by Greeks and by Islam long before Science in the West.
The howler was to say "The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends"
Why are you making such an issue of it?

Historians " only started revising history so we could be less embarrassed by our past."
Of course they did.
Historians can not be relied on in matters of History.
Musket knows better.
Silly me.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 11:31 AM

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

What in the world is evolution that isn't darwinian? His name is attached to the idea, not to a subset or type.

Maybe we need to define our terms, again?

(Almost typoed as Terns, which would have been an interesting Linnaean digression.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM

Just had a read of this article. Rather worrying really, everything considered, that our children could be subjected to lies and bullshit that should make superstitious people hang their heads in shame. It explains a lot about pete and his christian mates..



Pseudoscience the stain


My last post got deleted. No reason for it happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 02:55 PM

seems to me , dmcg, that you misrepresent what I say, but maybe I am unclear. I think we agree that Darwin was big on natural/artificial collection. and he meticulously recorded his findings. I have no argument with that, nor do I think most all creationists do. however, he falsely extrapolated pond scum to people evolution from that. I only got about 1/4 way through origins before getting bogged down and bored. I do remember though, that he was a whole lot less definite than this mudcat crowd about it, admitting that his theory could be otherwise interpreted.
what he recorded from observation, is not the same as what he claimed, or more so modern darwinists, claims, and the two ie, the observed, and the extrapolated, as though the same thing. neither was Darwin the first to write about it.so Darwinist mechanism is somewhat of an exageration.
I obviously can not say too much about Darwin applied to computers, except to suggest that what very clever things being accomplished, appears to equate [ if such equasion is even plausible] to natural selection, rather than microchip to the self conscious computer some scientists may dream of. so, it seems to me that the point you claim to have made , is not as you suppose.
stu, not ignoring you, but off out now, and have been busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:20 AM

I am afraid I found that a bit obscure, Pete. It seems you agree that my example demonstrates natural selection. I am not clear if you also agree it demonstrates evolution. That's important. all natural selection says is that, for example, slower animals are more likely to be caught. Evolution says that natural selection leads to change.

Now, in an earlier post you said my example demonstrated tec evolution. So we seem tou have reached the point where you agree using Darwin's rules gives evolution by natural selection, if only in this example. If you still don't agree you have to withdraw or clarify one of your earlier posts, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:27 AM

I should also mention something else in passing. When scientist's refer to Darwin's theory or Newton, or Copernicus it is no more than an acknowledgement of their contribution. It matters not one jot whether others thought of it before him.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 02:58 AM

"seems to me , dmcg, that you misrepresent what I say, but maybe I am unclear."

Maybe??!! Surely you must have won prizes for 'fuzziness', pete? Whatever the deficiencies in my education, at least I can string a (reasonably) coherent sentence together!

"I do remember though, that he [Darwin] was a whole lot less definite than this mudcat crowd about it, admitting that his theory could be otherwise interpreted."

Do I really need to point out to you, pete, that 'Origin' was first published in 1859? Evolutionary biology has inevitably moved on since then. 'Origin' is a scientific text - not some unchangeable monolith like the Bible - you silly twonk!

And what do you mean by: "however, he falsely extrapolated pond scum to people evolution"? Do you mean that you disagree with him? Your disagreement is not sufficient grounds for accusing Darwin of false extrapolation ... you silly twonk!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:39 AM

we have the same evidence , stu. it is the presupossitions and worldviews of the researcher that tends to influence how that evidence is interpreted. from the creationist pov ,what we would expect to see in a major catastrophic event like that described in genesis, is millions of dead things buried in thick layers of waterborne sediment, and that is what we find.
what is your evidence that it was not laid down within a year ?
or what distinquishes a flood event from slow and gradual in the evolutionary timeline interpretation ?, if that can be explained to a non geologist .
"..account for the zoning of fossils..." I have already said that order of burial accounts for it. however unexpected finds have also been unearthed that did not fit the slow and gradual
timeline........so what do they do.....they change the timeline ! problem solved !. multicellular ? well, did not someone do a link to such in the pre cam ? perfect example. was that not thought far too early before ?
and as I said before....if they find a pre cam bunny or whatever else we are challenged with, the evolutionary faith will find a way to account for it, I predict.
return question.
if the strata were laid down over immense ages, how do you account for polystrate fossils. ie how did a tree not rot , if it had to wait for aeon long geologic ages to be buried ?.
I expect there is an evolutionary out, but I am curious as to what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:14 AM

must admit dmcg, that I thought natural selection was much more than slower animals getting caught easier. does it not also involve the refining and even loss of genetic information, adaptability, and even speciation. I expect I missed some other ideas as well. if such limited changes equals evolution, I guess that makes me an evolutionist !.....except that these days it is conjectured that random mutations [even though most are downhill] lead to new information to develop microbes to man macro change, and that is also called evolution. but the evidence offered is only of limited change that pertains to evidence only of change within the kind....not beyond it.
point taken re subsequent post, but bearing in mind darwins almost godlike position in some of his devotees minds, I thought it worth saying, especially as he seems to have - borrowed- ideas from creationists and other evolutionists prior to his book.
and it even brings into question whether "darwins rules" is an accurate and worthwhile ascription.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:23 AM

"it is the presupossitions and worldviews of the researcher that tends to influence how that evidence is interpreted."

No it's not! That's a slur on modern scientists (from someone who knows nothing about how science works). It's creationists who make "presupossitions" and have (perverse) worldviews! You do talk utter garbage, pete!

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

Pete - you still haven't answered my point on how God could have created the universe in 4004 BCE when we didn't invent him until around 1000. There's a huge gaping hole in the Mythic Record for your Omnipotent Deity!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 07:58 AM

Talking of unanswered questions, pete: On the 24th Sept at 01:32 PM you used the phrase, "whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable". I interpreted this to mean scientists making assumptions about the unobservable past.

At 02:35 PM, on the same day, I asked you: "Do you mean unobservable like the entire contents of the Bible, pete?

At 02:52 PM you replied: "I have never denied the faith factor shimrod."

At 04:40 PM I asked you: "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?"

I received no reply.

Since then, I have re-asked this question several more times ... still no reply.

Have you got an answer to my question, pete? Or did I catch you out in a spot of hypocrisy and you'd prefer not to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 09:49 AM

"is millions of dead things buried in thick layers of waterborne sediment, and that is what we find"

But they're not mixed up. How did they sort themselves into clearly defined zones? What is the mechanism for this? What does "order of burial" actually mean?

"what is your evidence that it was not laid down within a year ?"

Sedimentary rocks come in a wide variety of types and these are laid down in a number of different ways. We do find flood events as well as lahars and other deposits laid down quickly, and we also find deposits laid down in tiny amounts that take aeons to accrue.

These layers can appear and disappear in a stratigraphic column as seas rise and fall, rivers meander and volcanic events occur. We find wonderfully delicate fossils that were laid down in very quiet environments with very fine sedimentation (Solhofen, Jehol) and we can find the poorly sorted deposits of alluvial fans and glacial moraines. The principles to look up are uniformitarianism (modern rather than Lyell's, revised to take neocatastrophic events into account) and superposition.

Flood events are violent, high-energy occurrences that deposit sediments in very distinct ways. Deposits tend to be poorly sorted and poorly stratified; smaller flooding events like levee breaks can deposit localised loads of suspended sediment (such as sand in a river) that settles as the energy decreases leaving sheet-like deposits. Rivers show very specific cycles of erosion and deposition, as do prograding deltas.

So we know some deposits take eons (abyssal plains, chalk etc), some take tens of thousands of years, some take days, some hours or minutes. All of this tells us there has never been (as far as we know from the evidence) a single worldwide flood event. Ever.

One more thing. The root of studying sedimentation is facies analysis, looking at the rocks to define the bed type and develop a hypothesis on how the scenario for the creation of a stratigraphic sequence. Apart from assuming the laws of physics and chemistry haven't changed there are no a priori assumptions allowed! Existing analysis must be tested robustly to ensure subjective interpretation is kept to a minimum. Question everything.

"Polystrate" is a creationist term and not one used by palaeontologists or geologists. As usual with creationist concepts this term seeks to apply one term to a wide variety of events, in this case the idea some fossils such as tree trunks span different beds. I could spend all day typing a reply, suffice to say the wikipedia page does a pretty good job of explaining these fossils and the numerous mechanisms that means this mode of preservation can occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:14 AM

No, Pete, natural selection takes moments and occurs every time a preditor catches its prey. It is evolution by natural selections that takes a long time (or more precisely a
Large number of generations). It is important to keep the distinction clearly in mind.

So back to the main point. You have agreed that in this very limited example Dawinian mechanisms are the driving force, even you you would prefer to quibble about the name. You have also agreed natural selection is taking place. And also, despite the offer of a chance to withdraw or rephrase it, you have agreed evolution is taking place. So by any sort of logic I am aware of, you have agreed Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taking place, unless you have an alternative explanation.

Such an agreement would go down in Mudcat history, so it is as well to note what is not covered by this. No mention of goo--to-you; nothing about gaining or losing genetic material; nothing about consciousness and certainly nothing about self consciousness. Nothing about biological systems at all.

But still an agreement the in some circumstances, Darwin's ideas work.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:28 AM

I'm home, but tired....

Even before I read Stu's post just above, Pete, I had copied this part of your comments:
"what is your evidence that it was not laid down within a year?"

That is both answerable, as Stu has done, and is in another sense the wrong question. Without giving the technical answers Stu provided, it is simply the case that ALL scientific evidence points toward a very long timescale and layered deposition. Asking those of us who follow where scientific evidence leads to show YOU all that evidence is redundant. Every post about the relevant evidence for several years here is "our evidence".

   The point is- YOU and those you follow have made the assertion that the vast majority of science is careless, misled, badly interpreted or just plain lazy and predisposed to ignore the 'inspired' teachings of the bible. YOU have claimed that all that 'stuff' was " was laid down within a year" or some other short period. That is the claim that disputes the standard theories, but when asked for YOUR proof, all we get is rationalized criticisms of OUR evidence. You continuously refer to 'gaps' and 'possible errors in measurement' of radioactive decay as if lack of precise, to the second, calculations therefore casts doubt on the entire system and suggests that YOUR choice, based of much less less precise data, is 'just as good a choice', That ain't how it works. Science is **NOT** faith based. That is your awkward defense in order to preserve your admitted basis of faith in your position. Saying "well, you evolutionists do the same thing" is simply unfair and inaccurate.
Faith in a religious position is what it is... and it leads where it leads... but just because that is how YOU think, it is not reasonable to assume that is how WE think.

Think about it .... no, wait... what am I asking?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:50 AM

but just because that is how YOU think,

Ah, but you see, Bill, he DOESN'T think - he parrots & regurgitates & therein lies the basis of the difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:48 AM

Bill's nailed it. It's all about TIME.

Creationists don't have enough time in their sequence of events since creation to squeeze everything in: the development of so many diverse and disparate life forms, the laying down of sediment, the action of plate tectonics, the cooling of the earth, chemistry, the formation of the oceans, the time it takes for light to reach us from other stars, the formation of the moon, the existence of any number of observable cosmic events and objects.

Deep time is a very difficult concept to grasp, and that's just the geological timescale. By the time you're talking about the cosmic timescale even a relative demonstration becomes meaningless as the time distances are so huge. I'm not sure any of us are capable of grasping these ages - we live for a paltry three score years and ten and have a very constricted concept of time.

Much easier (and lazier) to chalk it all up to god and then not have to think too hard about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:50 AM

Read that link to The Guardian article about dangerous Christians I posted earlier, a few posts up. It gives what could be a bit of an explanation as to why reason doesn't work with pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:25 PM

Musket - I read the article at the weekend. Depressing stuff really. Pink sky? Crikey.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:42 PM

I certainly wish I were qualified to address each challenge point by point, but apart from these being claims that there is only the one way of interpreting the geological data, it would be difficult to discuss general claims, but there is not much likelihood that I would know the answer if you did present specifics. ideally such challenges should be to a geologist rather than this lesser learned creationist.
I can make a few observations on stu/bills posting though.
you mention lyells uniformitarianism and the current adoption of neo-catastrophism. this of course must have come about when the weight of evidence for only slow and gradual became impossible to maintain, and the formerly thought best science was modified.
a diverse number of explanations are employed for different layers and geologic data, but this is true of flood geology also, which again brings me back to the role of worldview in interpreting data.
this also reminds me that I have been exaggerated to the point of misrepresentation. I have not said that scientists are careless and lazy. that is "simply unfair and inaccurate" ! I said that the research is coloured by worldview.
do I have to find those quotes by evolutionists again, that admit the same ?
I seem to remember a tv road trip programme where a creationist asked a evolutionist geologist if he would discuss with a creationist geologist, and the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time. I would say that betrayed a fixed position, that did not want challenging. I would hope there were others who might be less arrogant.
I note that you are not able to give me an explanation for polystrates [or whatever term you prefer !] beyond assurances that wiki explains it.
by the same token, probably most of your points would be answered by a flood geologist far more than I possibly could.
I prefer to stick to the more basic and simpler ideas....like soft stuff not being able to survive the claimed myo ! .

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:53 PM

"I seem to remember a tv road trip programme where a creationist asked a evolutionist geologist if he would discuss with a creationist geologist, and the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time."

I think that the "evolutionist" (whatever that is) geologist (did you mean 'real' geologist, pete?) was being very polite. I would have told the "creationist geologist" (whatever one of those is) to f***k off!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM

reationist geologist

Yet another oxymoron, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:47 PM

"I said that the research is coloured by worldview."

Ok Pete... I wasn't quoting you exactly. I was spelling out what many of your posts imply. If all the evidence by the majority of traditional scientists were wrong, "colored by worldview" wouldn't begin to explain their conclusions.

""the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time. I would say that betrayed a fixed position, that did not want challenging."

Unless you read minds Pete, that is not likely to be the case at all. How could anyone possibly 'debate' a position that even you admit is faith based? In many ways, *I* ...and Stu.. and others... are wasting time, but we are not geologists whose careers goes way beyond such debates. Other geologist and various scientists have made all the relevant points in various places. He made a personal decision not to get involved.... who knows exactly why.
   His "fixed position" is NOT reading Darwin and simply nodding in agreement. His fixed position is the scientific method which leads in complex ways with ever changing **details**, all of which.. so far... point to billions of years of data. As I said above, most creationist claims amount to just weak attempts to dispute the main body of evidence.

------------------------------

And Greg... Pete certainly DOES think! I disagree with him on most points because of where he starts, but his efforts certain involve much thinking.
He is certain more interesting to chat with than to roll my eyes at YOUR simplistic insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 07:14 PM

Natural selection is nothing to do with what happens every time a predator takes its prey. I once watched an amazingly-fit wood pigeon brought down by a pair of peregrines. The pigeon's only problem was that it was unsuspecting. Even James Bond might have been killed for that reason alone. A common misconception that leads us up shit creek sans paddle. Natural selection is the non-random survival of genes in a gene pool, survival being the operative term, and genes being the appropriate hierarchical level to discuss. Darwin might have called them heritable factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:21 PM

Pete certainly DOES think!

Oh, I believe ya, Bill- thousands wouldn't.

I disagree with him on most points because of where he starts Starts? Its where he concludes that's the problem.

And you know that he isn't simply repeating ridiculous bullshit he's absorbed from other idiots.....how exactly? His stated conclusions show no thought worthy of the name whatsoever.

As I've said before, if you like to entertain yourself by "chatting" with idiots, knock yourself out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:33 PM

""He is certain more interesting to chat with than to roll my eyes at YOUR simplistic insults.""

LOL, that's a good one, Bill D..but, many folks are guilty of that charge. What is likely intended as clever, among a majority tribe view point! is more often like you call it.