 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 01 May 12 - 10:50 AM Cause the old thread is BIG and takes a while to load. OK, have it at, again, still. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 01 May 12 - 11:34 AM "There are no other truths, apart from those we can observe." I have no intention of "going snail" over a statement, but I did pause at that line. Should I just say to self, "this discussion is about the discipline of science, and in that context the statement makes sense to me"? My mind doesn't want to stay compartmentalized. One thought is, there is "observed", and there is "observed" - there is scientific observation, and there is eye-witness observation which can easily be misleading. Another thought (I may wish I hadn't gone here in this context) is, is it true that some of us love some of the rest of us? I could say that that's "observable", but can anyone make that "observable" in a scientific sense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 May 12 - 11:56 AM Scientific knowledge is a consensus of opinion by scientists, not theologians or anyone who doesn't have the scientific discipline and information. Any other "truth" is silly and hypothetical because there is no physical evidence to support it. Without this evidence, there is no approximation of truth. Truth is a relative idea, there can be no absolute truth despite the propaganda offered by religious advocates. That absolute "truth" is unsupportable by scientific physical reality. What scientists know about evolution is evolving itself. The study of the human brain helps to clarify the role of evolution in influencing how we think about such matters as religion, politics, or evolution. Behavioral studies show how the conditioning we have in our lives influences how we think about topics such as evolution. Because of the brain-changing doubling down of certain behavioral patterns which are based on a rigid authoritarian view of life, there can be no rational discussion about these issues until mankind evolves beyond this limitation. The discussion becomes not a vehicle for sharing information but a "King of the Mountain" approach that dismisses any idea not held by the arguing party. Until new ideas are discussed from the vantage point of seeing a different perspective, one based on openness and unclouded by prejudice, the same rancor continues. Evolution as a discipline is an attempt to perceive and clarify a scientific idea which in an non-authoritarian society can be allowed to flourish and enlighten. Will there come a time when ideas can be evaluated on the basis of their usefulness to society, a nurturing of genuine intellectual curiosity rather than a pounding of the table by pundits who atrophy in their self-righteous opinions? With this new enlightenment, can we eliminate war and violence to each other and evolve to a better understanding of our species? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 01 May 12 - 12:14 PM I could only answer Stringsinger's last two questions by saying "Maybe, and I really hope so". The staunch fundamentalist has a definite answer: "No, because since Adam and Eve sinned, all of us inherit an evil nature that can never be entirely eliminated, only forgiven by God if we accept the cleansing blood." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 12:45 PM Er, right. Anyone will tell you what a simple man I am. When I say that evolution is true, here's what I mean. Someone comes up to me and tells me that evolution is not true, that is, it doesn't happen. It's all an illusion, or a dream, or something, or (worse) they give me all that creationist crap. So what do I say? What does any scientist say? I say, you're wrong. Evolution is true (that is, it takes place). I'm not telling you that in a brow-beating sort of way, or because I'm the king of the mountain and won't hear otherwise. I do listen to people who don't think evolution occurs (I wouldn't be a scientist otherwise), but what I'm listening out for is their evidence, then I want to hear their reasoning predicated on their evidence. I have to make one condition: that the meaning of the word "evidence" has to be the scientific meaning. Not tradition, myth, hearsay, or witness. Science is about looking for the truth, and we can't get there if the only evidence we have can't get over that bar. Also, we can't get there if the evidence we do have is improperly subjected to reasoning that goes beyond it (as with the phlogiston chaps. They had to make an assumption that a substance could exist that had negative mass. They were guilty of inventing a parameter for which they had no evidence, so their reasoning went beyond the evidence, in the proper scientific sense, that they did have). Now I am not aware that anyone has ever presented evidence, in the scientific sense, that evolution does not occur. I've heard plenty of notions expressed to that effect, but none has been supported by scientifically-gleaned evidence. I've heard people say that some species have not changed in millions of years, so have not evolved, but any evolutionary biologist finds it very easy to defeat that very narrow view. Not only that, but I also know that we have a mass of proper evidence in favour of evolution taking place. Each individual piece of evidence is up for scrutiny (that's science for ya), but the totality of the evidence has, by now, gone way beyond the stage at which we can dismiss it as a body. It is no longer possible for anyone to come along and overturn the whole body of evidence. There is far too much of it for that, and the different elements within that body of evidence all support each other as well supporting the overriding idea that evolution takes place. Now you may say that that's just my judgement. That's true, but I am saying that my judgement (that, according to all the evidence we have, evolution definitely occurs) must be the same as that of any other person with sufficient understanding of evolution and the scientific evidence. It is only a consensus in a non-optional sense. It isn't possible for a scientist employing evidence and reason to refute it. It isn't a consensus by majority vote. You can't vote against or even abstain. And it isn't me who's the king of the mountain. It's the evidence. And please note that, throughout all this, I am talking about evolution in its overall thrust, not every nut and bolt, nothing like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 01:00 PM ""I could only answer Stringsinger's last two questions by saying "Maybe, and I really hope so"."" I'll second that!......and subscribe. Where do we sign up? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 01:08 PM Because I feel very strongly about it and it was unanswered in the original thread. ""Pete's truth is "the bible is true and everything was created in seven days 6000 years ago!" Why use a word which puts your argument on the same level, when you have myriad other words to describe scientific progress? Don T."" So, somebody, anybody.........WHY insist upon that particular word above all genuinely scientific (and please don't tell me that "truth" is a scientific word) alternatives??? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 May 12 - 01:13 PM Ideas can become addictive, an intellectual drug, the addict being wedded to a certain "truth" or viewpoint that when taken away creates a negative reaction., Creationism is such a drug. Evolution is an antidote because it tears down the wall of addiction and forces inquiry and rational thinking to replace dogma. Evolution is not a religion, a cause celebre, a political football, it is scientific fact embraced by those who really know science. Knowledge for it is evolving itself. It is not an absolute but a method for understanding scientific biological principles. It has been falsely accused of stringent religious principles by those who can't conceive of any other way of looking at ideas. Evolution evolves by physical observation whereas religious tenets about it evolve through speculation which often turns to addictive dependency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,josepp Date: 01 May 12 - 01:15 PM In the words of Descartes, I can doubt EVERYTHING--except the fact that I doubt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 01:20 PM Steve, nobody is disagreeing with your conclusion, but it seems to me a very contrary act on your part to insist upon using the only word guaranteed to give YECs the smug self satisfied illusion that you are simply describing an opposing belief system. Why not simply say Evolution as an overall process is "proven to the limits of current scientific knowledge", both succinct and unambiguous. Slack usage of terminology in the search for one word descriptions has destroyed many an otherwise perfect thesis. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 01 May 12 - 02:48 PM I'm sorry, but: the obvious limitation of current scientific knowledge is precisely that it ignores the truth of the WORD of GOD. Which is to say, there is really no use worrying about what fine point of phrasing you use when debating with a stone wall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 03:02 PM Well Don. "Proven" is another of those words, innit! Yeah, I'm perfectly happy to see evolution, in its general thrust, described as (shall we say) "established to the limits of current scientific knowledge." With that I couldn't possibly disagree. But the sentence contains a hidden proviso, that, once those limits are conquered, there may have to be some revision. I'm up for accepting, nay, wanting there to be revisions, but there can only be revisions within. The fact of evolution, that is to say, that it definitely takes place, is rock-like. It can't be overturned. There is far too much interlocking evidence (of the scientific kind) for any process of reasoning, honestly applied, to be able to contradict it. As for using the word truth, well I've sort of been using it one way or another all my life. I googled the word and read the wiki article on the word and I couldn't bloody understand half of it! I use the word to mean something unassailable, arrived at by having good evidence (in the scientific sense, though you don't have to keep harking back to science every time you talk about truth) which was interpreted using, honestly, reason. A creationist misuses the word. There is no evidence, of the scientific kind, for creationism. Reason cannot be applied to no evidence or faux-evidence (hearsay, witness, tradition, teachings, myth, ritual, dodgy ancient manuscripts) in order to arrive at truth. You cannot arrive at truth via blind faith. All the machinations of an elaborate belief system, with all its theology or whatever orthodoxy, can't get one iota nearer the truth. Creationists who talk about their truths are misusing the word. They have not hijacked the word, like the computer age has hijacked "spam." So that shouldn't stop me from using it. It should merely make me tell them that they are misusing it. My using the word does not put me in their territory. What puts me in their territory is saying things like "I don't believe in God." Or even "I am an atheist." That defines me by their standards. You can't say that if I use a word that they blatantly misuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 May 12 - 04:24 PM pete asks: "if diamonds are millenia old, why can carbon be found?" To which I can only respond: "Is it hotter in the summer or in the city?" and: "What is the difference between a duck?" pete, it is totally impossible to discuss science with you. No offense, but we are talking totally past each other. You have no clue what the scientists are talking about, and we clearly don't understand you... =unproductive discourse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 05:01 PM Shall I try? Pete, ordinary carbon has an indefinite lifespan. There's ordinary carbon around that was formed not long after the Big Bang (and don't start...) Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It's an unstable variety of carbon that breaks down over tens of thousands of years until it isn't carbon 14 any more. Most carbon, though, is not carbon 14, so we're safe. Carbon 14 is constantly being formed, taken in by living things (because plants use carbon dioxide from the air, and some of that carbon dioxide will have carbon 14 in it instead of ordinary carbon - then we eat the plants, etc...) and breaking down. When you die, you stop taking in carbon 14, so the level of carbon 14 in your body slowly falls as it breaks down. The amount left in your body is an accurate measure of how long ago you died, because it breaks down at a very steady rate. This is useful up to about 60,000 years after the creature died. After that, there isn't enough carbon 14 left to give a reliable measure any more. But none of this has anything to do with diamonds, etc. They are made of nearly all ordinary carbon, as they are very old and any carbon 14 they had to start with has virtually all broken down. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 05:13 PM ""But the sentence contains a hidden proviso, that, once those limits are conquered, there may have to be some revision."" Not may Steve, WILL. If one single scientific fact has been known since the dawn of empiricism to the technology of today, it is that there are always revisions. An oak tree trunk may stand for eight hundred years, but there are always new branches, twigs and leaves. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 01 May 12 - 05:41 PM "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.evolution is promulgated as an ideology,a secular religion-a full fledged alternative to christianity,with meaning and morality.i am an ardent evolutionist and an ex christian,but...the literalists are absolutely right.evolution is a religion" michael ruse prof of philosophy and zoology national post 13 may 2ooo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 05:48 PM Don, I did go on to celebrate the fact that revision would always be necessary. But the central tenet of evolution will not be revised, which is that it takes place. I think I was suggesting that your sentence was not quite brave enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 05:59 PM Your man has it all wrong, pete, and it's a well-worn and somewhat tired ploy to attempt to tarnish evolution science with a veneer of religion. The thing is this. Evolution science is predicated on the gathering of evidence (of which there are vast amounts thought still with plenty of entertaining gaps) which is then subjected to the process of reason. The evidence we require has a high bar to jump, the same as with any other scientific evidence. Religious belief is predicated on faith relying on the abandonment of reason. This is because the "evidence" put forward by religion (tradition, hearsay, witness, incomplete and contentious texts full of inconsistencies, teachings of elders, ritual...) fails to meet any of the stringent criteria that science demands. You can try to apply reason to your "evidence", but your conclusion can only be as strong as your weakest link - and that is your evidence. Reason applied to false evidence is reason misapplied. What happens is that religion then has to see certainty in the highly-improbable. The house is built on sand. Not wise, but if it works for you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 06:01 PM though |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Mrrzy Date: 01 May 12 - 10:24 PM Ooh, I like the question is it hotter in the summer or in the city. i will use that in my methodology class, if I may (with footnote, of course!)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 02 May 12 - 04:18 AM pete, the cheap shot remark was because I know you, and I thought you were personally not living up to your usual standards. I might well not make it to anyone on the other side where I don't know them and have any knowledge of their own standards, or where I have already seen that they use that sort of remark habitually. I thought that you were letting yourself down there. As to contaminating diamond - yes, it is hard, but diamond in the raw state is not as smooth as cut diamond. And even cut diamond, at the molecular level, is going to have unevennesses in the surface of the crystal matrix which could pick up modern carbon. Then, as soon as it is processed, by pulverising the diamond and burning it, it is impossible to keep it clear of modern carbon. It's in the air, it's in the water, it's in any solvents used in cleaning (all carbon based), it's in the apparatus. In normal lab processes, these sources of error are calibrated by testing with control materials. It was discussed in the article (or one of those I read). The full process had not been reported in the YEC tests of diamond. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 12 - 08:12 AM Been a bit busy these last few days but it's been interesting to watch. Thanks, Don, for keeping up the questioning of Steve's use of Truth but I am a bit alarmed by "I deplore Snail's campaign of dislike and disdain toward Steve". Considering I have been subjected to lines like "Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One." and "Do you know what, Snail? You're boring. Bloody boring. You're not a bloody snail after all, are you? You're a limpet.", I think I have been remarkably polite and restrained. I take issue with a lot of what Steve says (apart from the quotes above). I am a bit hamstrung if I can't try and debate those points without being accused of making personal attacks on Steve. Back later to discuss the actual issues if I'm allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 02 May 12 - 08:32 AM Bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 09:11 AM Well, you put a protective arm round pete whilst continuing your hectoring and nit-picking campaign against my use of words. I wouldn't mind half so much if you came up with some original debating of your own. It's bloody hard work typing those long messages, you know, just to be shot down by someone who is just nit-picking. Do you know me from somewhere or something?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 02 May 12 - 09:36 AM We might as well be asking, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and pretending to have a rational debate about it. Once again, for the umpteenth time: *Honest process of investigation for which the result has not been previously decided upon and data then cherry-picked to support the "conclusion." *Reproducible results. None of that here from the evolution nay-sayers. So a question to them: How do you run your lives, make decisions on what to do, and when, how, and with whom? What *process* of reasoning and problem-solving do you use? Ah, fuggit. I am sure I will not get anything vaguely representing an intelligent response. So then, how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 12 - 10:26 AM Mr Shaw, I have developed a respect for your knowledge and intelligence through reading your posts but I cannot agree that objecting to your use of the word 'truth' is nit picking. I can understand your resentment of Snail's sometimes heavy handed condemnation but I am convinced that you are able to see that the use of that word implies incontrovertibility which runs counter to scientific method. In consequence use of the word 'truth' in a scientific context would require so much qualification as to make it pretty meaningless. I have no doubt that you are able to rephrase your evaluation of evolution in such a way that pedants (such as myself) could accept it without question and you could bring your intellect to bear on questions more worthy of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 11:47 AM But (whoever you are), my "evaluation" is no such thing. I have no alternative. I can't deny the truth of evolution, because it's undeniable. The only objection can come from people who think that evolution does not take place. That, as I have been at great pains to explain, is all I'm saying is true. That evolution takes place! I don't care whether you're a pedant, a creationist or Snail in disguise. If you think I'm wrong, let's see your evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 11:49 AM And I don't resent him. I'm irritated by him, true enough (am I allowed to say that?) but even so I've typed a lot of words in response to him. One day, perhaps, we'll get to hear some of his ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 02 May 12 - 01:34 PM Sorry, I forgot to put my name in my previous post. I had no intention to criticise anyone, it just seems to me that if there was a way past this semantic difficulty two formidable minds could work together to challenge YECers very effectively. I should probably keep quiet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 01:59 PM A good way past it would be to ignore it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 02 May 12 - 04:28 PM steve-the quote was an admission from an evolutionist;though of course i agree with it .you claim continuously that the weight of evidence supports darwinism,though admitting many gaps,yet the very foundation of the GTE is scientifically improbable to say the least. i am sure abiogenesis is a massive problem for evolutionism notwithstanding hawkins efforts. but thankyou to you and penny for explaining your position on diamond contamination.i am not personally equal to pursueing the argument but it is helpful to know what the argument is. best wishes pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 06:02 PM No, The weight of evidence supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course I admit gaps. Scientists celebrate gaps. It's what gives them the will to live. Creationists hate gaps, which is why they insert God into any gap they find. It gives them the will to hang in and wait for a better time in the next life, Waste o' time if you ask me. Carpe diem! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 12 - 06:30 PM "His mind was so set on going to Heaven that he was of no earthly use whatever." --overheard quote. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 02 May 12 - 06:33 PM If the Theory of Evolution is just a religion...a matter of faith, then why has it changed so much over the last 150+ years? Has the "Theory of YEC" changed pete? Or has it been dictated by the truth of the Bible? If you agree (as you must) that one theory has changed and the other is immutable, please explain how they can be the same sort of "belief". I would love to hear Professor Ruse answer this as well. (And isn't his name ironic and suggestive?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 03 May 12 - 06:11 AM We are, of course, still evolving. New paper here: Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 03 May 12 - 07:24 AM It isn't just a "semantic difficulty". Steve is trying to redefine the scientific method. But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory. So what does it become? I presume he means it becomes The Truth. This is not science. The null hypothesis rules! Assuming that something must be false unless there is evidence. This principled approach (and I know I'm being a bit of idealist) has the virtue of allowing science to claim genuine truth when it finds it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis is compared with an alternative hypothesis to see which is more probable. It does not allow anyone to claim genuine truth. Some useful stuff about the scientific method here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The creationists come with a health warning; they have FRUITLOOP tattooed across their foreheads. Steve speaks as a scientist so his misrepresentation of science is potentially for more damaguing. Sorry that you find my style heavy handed, Brendan. Would you prefer me tu use Steve's style. By the way, Steve, neither your fig tree nor your statement that there is a fig tree in your garden (and far be it from me to doubt you) are a scientific theory. Your fig tree is an aspect of the physical world and your statement is an empirical observation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 03 May 12 - 08:59 AM Thank you for that information Snail. I do understand your position regarding the use of the word truth, as I tried to make clear in an earlier post. Please forgive my apparently judgemental description of you as heavy handed, I was not referring to your general style, simply to your forceful responses to Steve Shaw. Neither of you need any lessons from me in expressing yourselves with clarity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 03 May 12 - 09:23 AM Sorry, the Null Hypothesis link went wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 03 May 12 - 11:25 AM I am not attempting to be contentious here-I simply want to understand. It is my understanding that there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the reality of evolution. If that is the case why would I be wrong to describe evolution as an aspect of the physical world established by empirical observation? (Or would I be wrong? As you will have gathered I am not a scientist!). Is the answer that I am not observing a thing but a process and evolution is a hypothesis developed to explain this process? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 May 12 - 02:29 PM Brendan; You've got it. There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis). Similarly, there is an observable fact of gravity, and a Theory of Gravity. Oh, wait. No there isn't. It is the crappiest theory in modern science. But the fact of gravity is still observable. Thus, when confronted by the YEC types and their "Evolution is only a theory" or the "Theory of Evolution is full of gaps and inconsistencies", it is fun to point out that the Theory of Gravity doesn't even exist...but you're not floating off the Earth are you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 03 May 12 - 04:24 PM dawkins said something about; evolution has been observed its just that there was no one there to see it. im still maintaining that the past is not observable ;it can only be interpreted from the data.maybe thats what he meant but it aint the same thing-but its quite funny though! agreed evolutionism is constantly changing but that hardly means that it is not a religio/philosophical position.the central doctrine of purely naturalistic causes is sacresanct.the hostility towards ID demonstates this IMO.AND THEY DONT EVEN INSIST on YEC . in common with past and many present scientists YEC make no apology for seeing scripture as authoritive over scientific theories and under such beliefs science has flourished. just as evolutionists have a non negotiable bottom line;so do creationists.but within the parameters of Gods revelation to us there is room for developing,changing or even discarding models relating to creation'flood etc.pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 03 May 12 - 05:48 PM For instances of science "flourishing" under circumstances of religious belief ruling things, there is the obvious case of Galileo, but also that of da Vinci - who lived much of his life where he could not publish. What would have been achieved for humanity if he had been able to publish his medical and geological observations, instead of their disappearing into royal archives, unable to influence others, is impossible to calculate. Lives would undoubtedly have been saved, though. I don't often find St Augustine helpful - some of his opinions about women were atrocious, but there was another thing he wrote which was important about this issue. "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." Goodness knows what they were doing back then, that he needed to say this. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 03 May 12 - 05:53 PM PFSS is fact-averse. The is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with her/him/it. It will not happen. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 May 12 - 07:07 PM Steve is trying to redefine the scientific method. Oh, fer chrissake. Somebody throw this man a fish. Tia has it right. But anyone who says that the theory of evolution is full of gaps and inconsistencies simply doesn't get it. The evidence, true enough, has gaps, in line with most other areas of scientific endeavour I can think of. That is what keeps scientists going. The trouble with the naysayers is that when a gap is filled they don't see a filled gap. They see two gaps where once there was one. It's also worth pointing out that new evidence when it turns up never turns the theory on its head. My point is that we long ago passed the point when that became no longer possible - because of the sheer weight of evidence. Inconsistencies (or should we call them surprises?) do turn up but they are never weighty enough to challenge the general thrust of the theory. In general, they should not be seen as inconsistencies but as elucidations. I'm making progress. Someone mentioned the fact of evolution and Snail didn't challenge it. Mebbe it's just me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 May 12 - 07:22 PM ""just as evolutionists have a non negotiable bottom line;so do creationists.but within the parameters of Gods revelation to us there is room for developing,changing or even discarding models relating to creation'flood etc.pete."" No Pete!! There isn't, there never has been and there never will be! Your argument is set in concrete! And there is simply NO NON NEGOTIABLE LINE when it comes to evolution. Produce the evidence and the theory will be amended to accommodate it. But you have NO evidence, only faith. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 May 12 - 07:32 PM ""I'm making progress. Someone mentioned the fact of evolution and Snail didn't challenge it. Mebbe it's just me."" Or maybe it's just that he didn't choose to use that word which gives PFSS the comfort of claiming that evolution is a belief system. You know the one I mean; "truth"; the YEC get out clause you are so keen on promoting. Do you get it NOW? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 May 12 - 08:40 PM No. I told you that there's no way I'm letting that bunch of clods usurp a perfectly good word. Saying that evolution is a fact is just as good as saying it's true. If you can't say the one you can't say the other either, if Snail's argument is to be followed (please yerself...) To me, the, er, fact that evolution takes place is incontrovertible. So I'm saying that when I say evolution takes place, it's true. I'm telling the truth. I'm being truthful. I care not a jot that some demented God-botherer or other equates my use of the word with his. His truth is not my truth because his is based on blind faith and mine is based on evidence and reason. I don't recognise truth based on blind faith personally, though I can well believe it's true he thinks it. That's a very easy point to make and it should be made every single time that he claims equivalence. And I do not agree with you that there is no non-negotiable line when it comes to evolution. Oh yes there is. The fact that evolution takes place is utterly non-negotiable. Almost everyone here has been saying exactly that to pete, only in different words. That is the gist of what we are all telling him. Now if anyone has evidence that suggests evolution does not take place, even evidence that so much as faintly undermines that fact, well let's have it. In truth, there isn't any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 May 12 - 10:19 PM Yes pete, you really just refuse to get it. I say refuse because Penny S. has attested to the fact that you are a good decent person, so I do believe you are *capable* of getting it. But you are the one clinging to a non-negotiable bottom line! What is the non-negotiable bottom line that science clings to? Please tell me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 04 May 12 - 07:10 AM "Science is wrong, scientists are wrong and God is right and I'm right" "have they gone?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 May 12 - 08:26 AM God is right-wing. To them that hath it shall be given and to them that hath not it shall be taken away. *Shrug.* Yep, that's two-nation Toryism for you! I bet they have a 5% top tax rate in heaven. Yes, I know... ;-) |
