 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:18 AM From Musket (26 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM):
However, whilst ever religion lite sides with their fundamentalists by attacking others for being rational, and deriding us for pointing out how dangerous and deluded fundamentalism is, I'm afraid I don't see much respect. Makes it kind of difficult to show respect back. Even when you put words in my mouth, it still doesn't quite hack it for me. I'm a pacifist, Musket, and I really don't see much value in doing battle. A while back, you said that as a Christian, I have some sort of responsibility for controlling anti-gay Rev Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. Let me remind you that I am a Christian of the Roman Catholic variety. Wikipedia tells us Westboro Baptist refers to Catholic priests as "vampires" and "Draculas" and talks of Catholic priests sucking semen out of male children's genitals like vampires suck blood from their victims. In addition, WBC called Pope Benedict XVI such epithets as "The Godfather of Pedophiles" and "Pervert Pope". In April 2008 the WBC protested Pope Benedict XVI during a papal visit in New York City. Other fundamentalists still refer to my church as the Whore of Babylon, although some have formed a strange alliance with ultra-conservative Catholics. In other words, Westboro Baptist and I are not really on very good terms, and I don't think I'm have much luck talking sense into them. In fact, I don't think I'd have much luck talking sense into the heads of any fundamentalists, because their brains aren't wired to be able to understand any kind of thinking other than their own. That being the case, I try to be polite but to keep my distance. The born-again churches in my area have been generally reluctant to join in any of the "faith-based" social justice activities. I think that's partly because some fundamentalists have a disdain for the poor because poverty may be an indication that the poor are not favored by God. But I think also that the fundamentalists question the morality of the "mainline" churches. Musket refers to progressive Christianity as "religion lite," which seems to indicate that fundamentalism is the only real religion. I think Musket has it wrong, and I think that's because he perceives religion as ideology. Since the early days of Christianity, the faith was called the Way, because it was a way of life, not an ideology. In my view of Christianity (and of life, for that matter), service and good will and compassion are far more important than correct ideology. So, no, I'm not going to go tell the fundamentalists to shut the fuck up. It wouldn't do any good. I will, however, continue to invite the fundamentalists to join in our social justice activities - and some are beginning to join. And while I'm not going to attack fundamentalism, I will continue to promote tolerance and respect for the homeless, for gays, and for immigrants - those are my main areas of activity. Did I mention that two of the people I work with are the pastors of the local Unitarian church? They're a lesbian couple, by the way. I suppose their presence might make it difficult for the fundamentalists to join us. That's too bad - the pastors are wonderful people. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Amos Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:26 AM Creationism of the monotheistic and paternalistic school is a waste of brainpower. But the underlying proposition that material universes are the result of spiritual Causation of some kind, at some level, strikes me as one worth holding onto. Without it, we are left with the coldest "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism, which has too great flaws. One is that as a model it fails to account for known phenomena,. The other is that it is a demoralizing worldview, IMNSHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:39 AM I hope people pay attention to what Amos says in the previous message. There's a lot there that's worth consideration. For many of us, we tend to value our environs more if we see a spiritual Center. And even if that Center does not exist on objective terms, isn't there value if it helps us appreciate and respect our environment and our fellow humans? [And if we don't see that spiritual Center, there's nothing wrong with that, either.] The Snail says (26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM):
Exactly. I was asked to provide evidence of those who take a doctrinaire view of science. Mr. Shaw seems to be a good example. And Mr. Blandiver and Mr. Musket approach it. Science and scientists generally take a far more honest and far less doctrinaire approach, and I almost always accept the findings of science. Real Science and real scientists have no business proving or disproving the existence of God. That's a spiritual matter, not a matter of science. The fundamentalists try to provide scientific and historical and logical proofs of the existence of God. We who practice "religion lite" (Musket's term) have no reason to do that. We simply believe, and aren't particularly concerned if others don't believe. It's really difficult for me to discuss religious belief and practices with the likes of Shaw, Blandiver, and Musket, because they are only able to understand faith in fundamentalist terms. I don't speak that language, because it is incapable of expressing my way of thinking. Wizzy says (26 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM):
I think that's true for most of us progressive Christians - and for thinking atheists, for that matter. We don't see things as absolutes, and therefore we cannot speak the language of the fundamentalists. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 27 Mar 14 - 02:20 AM In which case Joe, we need another word to use. I don't actually recognise some of your conclusions of my comments, but even if I did, you are still failing to read the thread title and are getting prickly by association. You describe how the metaphor of god can he used as the glue to hold together a set of principles with which community groups can support people, give a shared purpose and come to an understanding. Religion lite isn't an insult, it is a description of making good use of the legacy we have from our more superstitious ancestors. If we are playing top trumps, I fight like a dog with a leg in it's mouth to retain adequate hospital chaplaincy funding and ensure they get input to many other work streams as their perspective is invaluable. I see no ultimate threat to society by them and the peace of mind they can offer makes curative or palliative care better for those patients wishing their social care. Don't lecture me on the good work done in the name of faith. Sponsorship is sponsorship, but just because a football team has Coca Cola written on their shirts, they still know how to kick a ball. And yet.... Your comments concerning what we don't know sum it up for me. The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe means the God scenario is being ever squeezed out of relevance. Do you consider that enlightenment or threat? Interesting point by pete by the way. He can't understand why people can claim to be religious but not believe scripture either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Mar 14 - 03:37 AM Musket/Seaham, The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe means the God scenario is being ever squeezed out of relevance. You have not listened or not understood what Joe has tried to tell you. If someone came up with an unchallengeable explanation for everything in the cosmos, mainstream Christians would be as excited as everyone else, and give thanks for it. God would be as relevant as always. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM " ... the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics." So, pete, let's get back to the specifics of those beetles! I'm not sure that I could penetrate the 'hand-waving' (not to mention the bad grammar) of your previous answers - so can you please clarify? Were there just two beetles (of some 'ur-species') on the Ark? Did those two beetles subsequently speciate, post-flood, into all of the (non-interbreeding) species of beetles that we see today? And if that was true of beetles, was it also true of flies and bees and ants and grasshoppers and shield bugs and ... etc., etc., etc.? Was it also true of other invertebrates, such as worms, leeches and molluscs? And don't forget about plants (why does everyone forget about the most important organisms on Earth?). Where did all of the plant species come from? Did Noah carry a couple of 'ur-plants' in pots on a windowsill of the Ark? And did those two plants then, somehow, disseminate themselves and clothe all of the continents and islands in vegetation. And, in passing, where did the timber, that the Ark was made of, come from? Specifics, pete, specifics! What do your red-neck, fundamentalist, creationist websites have to say about those specific specifics? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan Both he and his wife meditated.He was a tad obsessed with the space brothers angle for me.Didn't they record and send the vibrations of their minds and bodies into space via the voyager golden record thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:32 AM Guest quotes (27 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM): "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan Sounds pretty good to me. What Musket nastily calls "religion lite" (and then pretends it's not an insult) is just that - finding spirituality in the facts given us by science. Seems to me that what we should seek is whatever brings us to a positive, constructive view of life and the environment that surrounds us. To seek to refute and destroy attempts at constructive thinking, seems to be small-minded and mean-spirited, at the very least. Sometimes I wonder whether some of our Mudcat Brethren understand the concept of constructive discussion. Messrs. Blandiver, Shaw, and Musket may well need a shrink to get them out of their funk. -Joe Offer- You'll find some terrific quotes from Sagan on this subject here (click). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Musket Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM Wow, did two of us say the same thing Keith? Must be true then eh? Especially as the other person is a real person unlike you, on the basis I have met him.... (I'd rather keep it that way round too.) You need to read yourself before jumping down my throat as your default position. Joe had a pop at Steve and said that; "I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things. -Joe-" If wallowing in ignorance is the greatest thing we can know, such a statement can only support not questioning scripture, as it allows the god delusion to maintain a foothold in perceived reality. The only thing I can learn from religion from a scientific angle is the need for scientific approach to be clear, unequivocal and factual. Any deviation from that opens the door for superstition to question reality, and that is a backward step. Having a go at people purely on the basis they have weighed you up doesn't help your creaky credibility. By the way, I only glanced at the list of contributors but I can't see where Seaham Cemetery posted that line? I know you like things to be correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:02 AM Let's get that in context shall we? In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind. "Spirit" comes from the Latin word "to breathe." What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word "spiritual" that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both. Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996) * For what it's worth, I don't think Science & Spirituality are exclusive either, just that Science and religion are. Spirituality is the unique reserve of each & every one of us, as with our Sexuality. Religion seeks to exploit our Spirituality in the same way pornography exploits our Sexuality. We can be Spiritual without religion, just as we can be Sexual without pornography. In fact we are happier, sexually, spiritually, without either because we all prefer the real thing. But, as Voltaire said: The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool. If there is a Supreme Universal Consciousness (and who am I as one mere mortal caught between two infinities and facing a glad eternity of a joyful infinity to preclude such a possibility?) then it will be nothing like that the all-too human demiurge that has been conceived of by religion. The God I disbelieve in as an Atheist, is the God of religion that people only believe in because of their natural, however so conceited, and subsequently exploited, fear of death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM Seaham Cemetery? Huh??? Musket Says (27 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM):
Musket's warning against "any deviation" sounds amazingly like the rigidity of the born-again fundamentalists. Too bad he's so afraid about being a bit more open-minded and tolerant....and respectful of the thinking of others. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:12 AM Blandiver, Shaw, and Musket may well need a shrink to get them out of their funk. This is as profoundly & personally insulting as anything else I've seen posted on Mudcat, Joe. You turn an impersonal debate into a personal questioning of the mental health of named individuals because their take on life doesn't square with your own. Whatever goes on in that demon-haunted mind of yours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:15 AM So thats that then everyone basically agrees.Plus the Sun is out happy days! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Stu Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM "Disappointing, Stu, coming from an ally, but I still love ya baby" Aww…*blushes* .… ta Steve. As I see fellow scientists who do have faith yet produce some incredible work, I'm willing accept they have reconciled their faith with their science. I don't personally know these people, but some of them are world authorities and are massively capable people. So whilst I personally do not have a faith, I do have hope that there could be some common ground between science and religion, even if the methodologies and philosophies are seemingly too different to reconcile. "Without it, we are left with the coldest "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism" It might seem that way, but it's not. The indifference of the universe to our fates is scary, but there is wonder there too, and a deep profundity that gives meaning to life and is the basis for a solid moral code; all discovered by science. As the Sagan quote illustrate (thanks Jack - a truly inspirational passage), spirituality is a part of being a scientist (for myself at least) and is based in objective truth and not superstition and in that sense is not the same spirituality as that experienced by a religious person. When Sagan talks about spirituality he means that we are the universe itself made conscious, contemplating itself and its own nature. This is why the scientific method is so wonderful and powerful, a constantly refined methodology for inquiry that is an unbroken process going back to the earliest scientists. As a scientist I don't need to invoke a supernatural being to comfort me in the cold, hard universe because we are inseparable from it. The universe creating art, music, cheese butties, beer, Aston Villa, microscopes, Lego, iPads, irish bouzoukis, Cheetos, ballet, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. I mean, think about it. No cold, hard materialism there, but warm, living, creative and vibrant materialism with a profoundly spiritual and scientific basis. "has it ever occurred to you that the cry of extremist is a subjective judgment. the further a pov is from your own stand ,the more extremist it becomes in your estimation. therefore it is meaningless talk as far as meaningful communication is concerned. same is true of claiming the other side of the argument engages in lies and misrepresentation of the facts." You can try to wiggle out of this all you want, but the truth is yours is an extremist point of view, retrogressive, unthinking and rather vulgar in approach. There's an interesting discussion going on in this thread with people of faith who are able to see beyond the literal and are obviously capable of giving some considerable thought to their position. With the greatest respect, you're not one of them (I might not be either, so there you go). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:14 AM The universe creating art, music, cheese butties, beer, Aston Villa, microscopes, Lego, iPads, irish bouzoukis, Cheetos, ballet, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. I mean, think about it. No cold, hard materialism there, but warm, living, creative and vibrant materialism with a profoundly spiritual and scientific basis. Perfect! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Musket Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM Nasty eh Joe? You think "religion lite" is an insult then Joe? So how do we distinguish between the social worker persona you portray and those who tell us their god wants them to slay infidels? How can I call a sweet old lady religious and at the same time call those who want women to be second class citizens religious too? You both reckon it is your faith that drives you. Yes, deviation is unhelpful. Doesn't mean you take the word out of context knowingly in order to call people fundamentalists for refusing to speculate whether the beautiful garden has fairies at the bottom of it. You cannot be a fundamentalist unless you defend a position. I am delighted when my position alters through finding something new. I even sat as an assessor on a PhD viva panel for someone who shot one of my own findings down in flames, and was the first to shake his hand when we accepted his thesis. Doesn't sound like a fundamentalist to me? Or to anyone else unless they are in a weird position of defending the basis upon which fundamentalists in religion get their views. You love saying god this, god that and god the other, but when impressionable people of less intelligence than you actually believe it in a way a child does, you wash your hands of them. Funny that. Why do religious people get so touchy when reminded of the absurdity of what they like to profess? They love handing it out, but scream persecution when put against rational argument. Why is that? Why is pete wrong, me wrong and Joe right? Classic. Someone saying I insult their superstition thinks I am the one needing a shrink.... Here in The UK, we don't pay snake oil merchants to analyse our more irrational traits. 1. Psychiatrists analyse you when you are referred, not when you want comfort and 2. My wife analyses me in a far more forensic manner than any "shrink" could. She thinks religion is for the weak and feeble too by the way. Despite having a vicar for a brother. (Possibly because of for that matter....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Musket Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM I find it strange but increasingly so that if you really want to dismiss religion. If you have any doubt and you feel the need to justify said doubt.... Listen to the likes of Joe. Not pete, but Joe. When the true colours come out, all that love and understanding crap is lost in the vitriolic insulting bilge water. Twisting what you said as if he lived in Hertford rather than California. If saying that spirituality, never mind religion, has no place in scientific approach and discovery makes you a fundamentalist, well give me an arts grant to explore my fund. It is said that religion has respect by those who don't suffer from it due to the other nicer traits of the people involved. Personally, I reckon judging as you find works a treat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not. My perception is that there is an essence within the evolutionary process and the Laws of Nature that I see as divine, and that is the focus of my religious practice and meditation. If others see it otherwise, that's their perspective; and Joe saw that it was good. -Joe- Joe... the topic is about creationists... a zealous splinter of Christianity that does not "leave it at that". Not only do they want to inject their concept of god into the process... but also dictate how we are supposed to understand it. All so that it will conform to their interpretation of a book. If you want to believe in the cosmic clockmaker, knock yourself out... but don't expect everyone to buy into it or contrive a way to convince yourself that it is any way "scientific". It is a belief.. unsubstantiated and untestable. Scientific method can not be applied to it. You might as well go back to using Aristotle as your sole guide to understanding the universe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Greg F. Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM Not only do they want to inject their concept of god into the process...but also dictate how we are supposed to understand it. AND they want to require their garbage to be fed to public school children under the guise of "education" - which is a particularly insidious form of child abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Greg F. Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:59 AM You might as well go back to using Aristotle as your sole guide to understanding the universe. Actually, that would be a more advanced position than that espoused by most creationists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM If believers see the hand of a God in evolution, they are absolutely in conflict with the science, one hundred percent. The whole concept of evolution is predicated on the fact that it isn't "driven" by any goal-oriented or intelligent mechanism. Impose that on it and you've ditched the whole bloody theory. Many well-meaning people of faith have tried to reconcile their belief in a God who made us all with the science of evolution, but I'm afraid the science of evolution is simply not interested. "I believe in evolution but I also believe that God kicked it all off and runs it" is simply a massive and abject intellectual copout, religion trying to be nice to uninterested scientists. Interesting that a man who believes in evidence-innocent mythology, and lives his life by it, can think that another bloke, who simply asks for evidence and who has stated many times that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not, needs a shrink. You may not need a shrink yourself, Joe, but you do need a surgeon to get that bullet out of your foot. Now for some Wacko-style misrepresentation from a surprising source. Mr. Shaw seems to be a good example. And Mr. Blandiver and Mr. Musket approach it. Science and scientists generally take a far more honest and far less doctrinaire approach, and I almost always accept the findings of science. Real Science and real scientists have no business proving or disproving the existence of God. I wish to point out that I have said on many occasions that I am not interested in trying to prove or disprove anything. Science does not set out to prove things, and I certainly can't disprove God and I don't even want to try. It's really difficult for me to discuss religious belief and practices with the likes of Shaw, Blandiver, and Musket, because they are only able to understand faith in fundamentalist terms. I have said in the last few days that I care not a jot what private beliefs people entertain and that it is perfectly possible to be both a believer and a scientist. I could spend all day telling you what I think YOU don't understand but I won't and I'll thank you for reciprocating. As a not entirely irrelevant aside, I'll have you know that we militant atheists spend a lot of time thinking about what belief means to people. I wouldn't assume that people of faith have any sort of monopoly on understanding what faith means. Sometimes the view is clearer from outside. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Bill D Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM Amos said back up there: "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism, which has two great flaws. One is that as a model it fails to account for known phenomena,. The other is that it is a demoralizing worldview" Well... as a skeptic about various NON-materialistic worldviews, I don't feel particularly "demoralized" that what is known can't account for ALL phenomena. I am kinda curious about which ones are most troubling ...but it's not a big deal.... besides, that ancient *mud* several billion years ago got quite a workout by various KNOWN physio-chemical processes. I think it's rather fascinating to be considered a product of all that..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:44 PM Liking what Greg F is saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,michaelr Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:08 PM There is no astrological evidence that science is anything but a medieval superstition. (Caroline Casey) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM Well that's a lot of accusations, rob. Too much and too late at this hour, so how about you say what the untruth and misinformation was in mungo man. And perhaps you can remind me what I got wrong about soft tissue in dino bones and carbon 14 in diamonds.........in your own words please, link if you must but I reckon that if you as a scientist can not explain it, how do you think I will understand tech stuff in the link. Shimrod, I think you got the gist of my previous posts about beetles, I am not about to go over it again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Rob Naylor Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:18 PM Pete, I *did* explain the gist of both those items, in reasonably plain English, but I *also* linked to papers to back up my explanations. I'm not about to re-do the work for you....it's all there in previous posts. You're being your usual slippery self and sloping your shoulders to (a) try to get others to do the work for you and (b) to avoid having to think for yourself rather than just re-quoting technically flawed stuff from creationist websites. As you said to Shimrod, I'm not about to go over it again. As for Mungo Man...please post the lyrics here and I'll go through them point by point! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM Musket sez (27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM):
Listen to the likes of Joe. Not pete, but Joe. When the true colours come out, all that love and understanding crap is lost in the vitriolic insulting bilge water. Twisting what you said as if he lived in Hertford rather than California. If saying that spirituality, never mind religion, has no place in scientific approach and discovery makes you a fundamentalist, well give me an arts grant to explore my fund. It is said that religion has respect by those who don't suffer from it due to the other nicer traits of the people involved. Personally, I reckon judging as you find works a treat. I have to admit I don't understand a word of what he's talking about now. Can somebody please explain? ...and then there's Steve Shaw (27 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM):
Notice his use of the word "absolute," and then explain to me the difference between his "absolute" beliefs, and the "absolute" beliefs of the born-again believers. There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:18 AM Surely you don't cut and paste your own big words Joe? Giving me an opportunity to reiterate for that matter. You call me a fundamentalist and get all upset when I say there should be no deviation. I repeat. There should be no deviation. Where the scientific process is concerned , there should be no deviation from being clear, unequivocal and factual. You went on to say you had a problem with that and I was being fundamentalist. You said every view is valid. It isn't. Never was. Never can be. That's why I said that Christian lite or boutique Christians can be more bloody dangerous than deranged fundamental Christians of limited intelligence. You try to get god in through the back door to a party he isn't invited to. There is no room in science for superstition. Full stop. Plenty of room in just about every other subject if that's what floats your boat. But leave rational subjects to rational debate eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:39 AM " Shimrod, I think you got the gist of my previous posts about beetles, I am not about to go over it again." Right, well, as far as I could tell from the your previous 'explanation' (of the beetles thingy), you believe that Noah's two 'ur-beetles' speciated after the Flood - even though you had previously stated that you didn't believe that speciation happened at all (correct me if I'm wrong there, pete?). The only other possibility is that the Ark contained twice as many beetles as there are species of beetles alive today - that's an awful lot of beetles! And it gets worse because, of course, beetles are not the only species of invertebrates - not by a long way - the ARK must have been just a seething, crawling mass of 'creepy-crawlies'!! But I think there's a better explanation. I think that your red-neck, creationist buddies, whose websites you parrot, don't know anything about the real world around them and hadn't even thought about invertebrates (because, of course, they're too 'trivial' for a 'puffed-up', born-again fundamentalist to even think about). As a result, when put on the spot, and having no 'web-guru' to refer to, you just made stuff up (correct me if I'm wrong there, pete?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Musket the plagiarism philosopher Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:50 AM Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire. You can say that again. Musket. Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire. Thank you. Musket. You're welcome. Voltaire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:15 AM There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty. And we're all mad and need treatment for our - er - funk right, Joe? Funny, where I come from, funk was always a good thing... Okay. We can be certain about a lot of things. That all religions are made up by humans within the very finite limits of their times & contradict both themselves & each other at every turn. We can be certain that they can't all be be right, but they can all be wrong. We can be certain that viewing them as Truth does them a disservice as to their true value of what they can tell us about the mytho-poetic process and how even this might be used to justify the massacre, exploitation, abuse and suffering of countess thousands by the Roman Catholic Church alone. We can be certainly certain that such atrocity is the consequence of Absolute Certainty. Otherwise I'm not absolutely certain about anything. Every morning I wake up and open my eyes I give quiet thanks that I'm still alive to experience my particular take on life on a ill-starred planet I share with billions of other human beings most of whom I'll never meet, but each of whom I know enjoys the same uniqueness of perception that I do. I'm pretty certain that if there was a greater emphasis on individualism in human culture as a whole we might get rid of speciesism, racism, sexism, homophobia, territorialism, religion, folk music and all the other insular parochial shit that have humanity forever at logger-heads, only now with the potential to take out the planet at the push of a button. I am certain of uniqueness and diversity within the infinite commonality of the universe that Science has revealed to us through centuries of hard work and understanding - a process that continues to this day and will continue as long as there are human beings on this earth. Like I say, from Göbekli Tepe to the Large Hadron Collider and beyond - I hope - a thousand years into a potentially glorious tomorrow. But if only if we look to that tomorrow, turn our eyes away from the past, at least use it to build on as part of the process, not obsess over as the source of the truth. Truth is not of the past - Truth is the light that guides us into the future. It is always easier to say what things AIN'T than what they ARE. I think that's the basis of human inquiry, a long process of joyful elimination that opens up before us a universe of fathomless possibility. As Carl Sagan says in Episode 13 of Cosmos: And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars - organized collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos. That's arrogant certainty for you! Pure glorious funk in the best sense of the word. Life is splendid. And all the things the religious people think of as God - even in his more 'subtle' forms - are INTEGRAL to everything and every single one of us, bar none, only we might have different names for it. I know a lot of very lovely religious people, some of them Roman Catholics, and quite a few of them Roman Catholic Priests. They are wonderful for their humanity, not their religion. Even if they stopped believing tomorrow (belief is only Optional after all, it is the choice that defines our humanity, not the nature of what we choose, no matter how baffling at times that choice might be) they'd still be wonderful people. You can be certain of that much - abso-fucking-lutely certain... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: sciencegeek Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:47 AM nice post, Jack spent last night at the local United Methodist Church for their spaghetti supper and music jam. Nice folks, many elderly, who come together to share a nice time. Needless to say, the bawdy sea shanties remain unsung... but I like to sing songs like "What Wondrous Love is This" that is new to them. They seem to have a simple faith, at based on the songs they sing. Believe, praise God and you will be rewarded in the end. While I can't share their beliefs, I can share a pleasant evening of food and song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:04 AM Not a bad post indeed, Sean. But your roguishness in including "folk music" amongst the "insular parochial shit" could be a bit counterproductive as to your points being taken seriously, IMO! LoL ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM I first read that as spaghetti western supper... that's my brain filling things in! I knew an RC priest once who was a total Spaghetti Western freak - all we ever talked about was the mythological themes of love & brotherhood in Leone's films. He had an especial fondness for Duck You Sucker (as he persisted in calling it!) which to him carried the same message of selfless-sacrifice that was integral to his faith. I watched it with him once & we were both in tears. But that was nothing compared to the end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. He told me 'Human love is the bullet that cuts Tuco's noose'. Couldn't really argue with that! What worries me about Christians is that they think it's all unique to them and that non-belief is a negative. In their hearts they carry around hope of life ever-lasting - which is fine - but that it's predicated on damnation for the rest of us is kinda sad. Ironic really as the Star Stuff of which we're made is damn near everlasting relative to our own 'life' spans, which means we all share that anyway. We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM But your roguishness in including "folk music" amongst the "insular parochial shit" could be a bit counterproductive as to your points being taken seriously, IMO! Well, Folk is religious too - it's all a matter of faith that leads to quite a groundswell by way of a sub-genre of popular music based on what remains an essentially pseudo-scientific theoretical perspective that, for the most part, remains unquestioned, or shouted down by the faithful when you do question it. Folk too is based on what is already there - albeit selectively calibrated to fit the ideology, with the facts tweaked & falsified along the way until its ultimate absorption into culture as a whole. Idiomatically I dare say that's always been the case, with the ballads of Longfellow and Kipling et al, but they weren't self-consciously Folk in the way that somehow links the outpourings of a select group of highly idiosyncratic Traditional Singers to the Theorists who went out and collected them, and to the faithful today who sing their songs in the belief they are somehow keeping that tradition somehow alive. The main thing here is that ALL music is traditionally derived and perpetuated in exactly the same way as the various idioms that are accepted as being Folk. That is, demonstrably, what music is. To see the various tenets of (say) the 1954 Definition as being unique to Folk is rather akin to a Christian seeing such qualities as love, compassion, self-sacrifice, spirituality, nonviolence as being a) unique to Christianity and b) anathema to non-believers. Far from it. Religion is a consequence, not an inevitability. Like Folk it remains Optional, not Absolute, much less Real. Like Folk it is a matter of Faith and Theory of appeal to what is still a tiny minority of enthusiasts and specialists. Science, OTOH, is like Pop Music, which is a transcendental artform simply because it transcends art & is as totally feral as the beings that make it. TheSnail is always banging about evidence for evolution (and ignoring it when it's presented to him) but it's right there in the evolution of popular musical idioms (including all the various idioms cited as being Folk and the oral processes thereof) in an unbroken tradition some 50,000 years young and renewing itself as each new generation comes of age (supposing a musical generation to be around 7 years or so). There is unity, but, as in all Life on Earth, there is a myriad of diversity as a consequence. Each voice is unique, yet each voice is singing a song common to us all. That's science right there. Like music, it belongs to each and every one of us to create and delight in, whatever peer-reviewed community tradition we belong to, be it gamelan, hip-hop, opera, Post-Delian Radiophonica, or whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Stu Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:24 AM "And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars - organised collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos." Here be wisdom. Fantastic. Grounded in solid science yet more appreciative of the incalculable value of life than any religion could ever be, as it recognises that we are special for no more reason than we exist, and can reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:32 AM "However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not." The conflict, as far as I can see, is in taking a wholly evidence based system and introducing into it, an intrinsically untestable item, for which there is no evidence and for which there can never BE any evidence. Add to that the fact that your own statement ("The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not."), leads to the corollary that the process is the same, whether there IS a God, or not! Since the inclusion of a God adds no evidence, adding God to the system improves its validity not one jot. Removing God diminishes its validity not one jot. There is simply no rational need for the inclusion of a deity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:26 AM There is simply no rational need for the inclusion of a deity. I agree with this statement, but feel compelled to add a qualifier. Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a diety... anymore than is a mathematical equation or arithmatic exercise. That said, people of faith have a need to view things through their faith... those of no faith lack that need and so "exclude" faith from the deal. As long as it "makes no nevermind", inclusion fails Occam's Razor but does no harm either. And it does meet an emotional need in humans. BUT... when the emotional needs of people interfere with the scientific exploration of the world around us, then I am forces to say "stick to your own playground & leave us alone to play in ours". A parting thought... I suspect that in a "reality" where a book with all the answers were to suddenly appear... those of faith would cherish it and repeat sections of it to enhance the experience... and then there would be those like me who would take it and examine it and then test each answer to see if it holds true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:10 AM Notice his use of the word "absolute," and then explain to me the difference between his "absolute" beliefs, and the "absolute" beliefs of the born-again believers. There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty. Going from Joe's recent track record I can hardly say I was surprised to see this egregious misrepresentation. Sailor Boy has clearly been giving him lessons. However, enough has been said by several thoughtful contributors since I hit the sack last night for me to let it go. I do like this, however: Pure glorious funk in the best sense of the word. Life is splendid. And all the things the religious people think of as God - even in his more 'subtle' forms - are INTEGRAL to everything and every single one of us, bar none, only we might have different names for it. The world and the universe out there are so lovely and so normal. So ordinary. So lovely, joyous, normal and ordinary that the concept of adding God simply diminishes everything. We've got to get ourselves back into the garden because the garden is lovely, and doesn't need fairies at the bottom of it to make it lovelier. Thanks, Douglas! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity. Maybe not. But you simply can't include a deity within the theory of evolution. A deity is a driving force, a guiding hand, an instigator, a formulator of goals. Evolution theory can't embrace any of these concepts (if it did, the theory is trashed). To say that God has a hand in evolution is to completely misunderstand evolutionary theory, which is entirely predicated on the explanation of a process without goals and replete with dead ends, extinctions and useless mutations (none of which represent "attempts"). Now we have lots of compelling evidence for evolution but we have none for God. So I know which camp I'm staying in. Absolutely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:46 AM Oh, yay, Sean. I should have remembered that any mention of the F [for folk] word brings out the latent ɷ-hole in you. Do you really think I'm going to read all that ole banjo again! Still, keeps you harmlessly & happily occupied, I spoge. As my late wife used to say, PYG!* ~M~ * = play your games |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM Not a game MtheGM - just a perspective gained from 40 years of involvement with so-called Traditional Music. Folk is a religious construct based on a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the music & culture one social class by another. Not that an old bourgeois Tory like yourself gives a toss, huh? As my wife says, SYBUYAHFB*! Sean * = Stuff Your Banjo Up Your ɷ-hole, Folk Boy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM Oh dear. Any explanation of "folk" that does not distinguish it from art or composed music is absurd, for then the boundary is merely a matter of taste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:01 PM "Not that an old bourgeois Tory like yourself gives a toss, huh?" Ah, you've got that bit right at least. ,.., "my wife says, SYBUYAHFB*!" Bet she doesn't really! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM As long as she doesn't take it upon herself to execute the deed in question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:26 PM ... and if she did, how would she pronounce it? Sibyuyahɘfɘb? I think not! Whereas "PYG" made a perfectly pronounceable acronym. Oink! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:07 PM Any explanation of "folk" that does not distinguish it from art or composed music is absurd, for then the boundary is merely a matter of taste Getting back to the nature of the thread, all aspects of human culture share a common root from which they've evolved into a multiplicity of idioms. We might say language is different to music, although many notable scholars & linguists will point out the similarities not just the connections between one language and other, but between language on the whole and music on the whole, the structures of which - from basic syntax to sonata form to the morphology of the Indo-European folktale - are, somehow, biologically determined by the brain that made them. Morphologically there's a lot of similarities between humans and other mammals - be they giraffes or bats - that are well known and demonstrable and are part / parcel of our understanding of evolutionary process. We learn in school that we have the same number of neck bones as a giraffe and that a bat's wing is essentially the same as our hand because we share a common evolutionary ancestor. Music arises at some point 50,000 years ago. As with language and other cultural attributes it evolves - it accumulates and diversifies into a multiplicity of different possibilities, but, as with life, always with more similarities than differences. The idioms we think of as Folk Music - and it is idiomatic, nothing to do with the truly absurdist and patronising precepts of the 1954 Definition - are no different to any other music - Popular, Art, or whatever. Human beings create idiomatic music within idiomatic idioms driven by cultural commonality and the needs of the individual who is always part of a community. It is that which defines all human culture, and all music, bar none, be it Border Balladry, Hip Hop, Baroque concertos or the furthest reaches of experimentalism - all is changing, evolving and born from what went before it. All is fluid, flux and ever changing tradition because that is the law of the cosmos. Amen to that! * and if she did, how would she pronounce it? Sib You Yarf! of course. That final B is silent... * I do hope all this horse play doesn't result in deletions; the worst ire I ever invoked from Pope Joe was when, back in November 2009. I defended MtheGM's right to call me a cunt. I wasn't excommunicated as such but I received a PM to tell me how much I disgusted him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Musket Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM You're lucky. He sent me an email, which I believe is illegal unless he was addressing my account. In both his country and mine. Something to pad out tonight's confession if nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:34 PM Maybe there's something in the Mudcat small print underwriting Pope Joe's infallibility in such matters? And that he alone can insult without getting deleted... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM full marks , rob, for a clever back at yer ! however, I am not about to trawl over hundreds of posts just to see if there were any unanswered.......i'll accept that there probably are. bearing in mind that I am the only biblical creationist here tackling a lot of skeptics , I am bound to miss something, and was admittedly unequal to some challenges. but I don't see that as prohibiting a pov based on what is not tech science but basic reasoning. as to mungo man,- it is a long song as far as words are concerned. I wrote it from an article called the dating game by tas walker. it detailed the various conflicting dates from different methods and the disagreement between the lake mungo discoverers. my conclusion based on that history being that the "dating game" is "so uncertain, not as sure as some suggest" it does not say that, therefore the bible timeline is reliable....though of course, I believe it is. shimrod,- quick clarification- beetles probably on the ark but not included in the nostril breathing life as qualified in the text. speciation, yes all the details....I don't know. evidence for microbe to man evolution....no. |