BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/thanks-anti-vaxxers-you-just-brought-back-measles-in-nyc.html

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:24 PM

Over and over and over and over and over again and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and a thousand times more times more and 111 x 10 to the sixth power again and again ...............................................................

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

>>>From: saulgoldie - PM
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 <<<

I wonder at the thought process that tacks a new thread with a different starting topic onto the above?

I guess 300 is not too big. I wonder what is? A thousand maybe? Like that bloody "Darwin's witness thread?"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM

I don't think it's Jacks fault, Musket. He started (yet) another thread and I think it has just been merged with this one. So you will always have the last word on the original :-) Mind you, I am not sure it is Monsieur Matelot at all. Didn't he say goodbye on another thread? No one would be daft enough to storm off in a huff and come back before the door had slammed would they? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:40 AM

Bruce. Stick to the sonnets eh?

Jack. I'm disgusted! I had the final word on that thread, and he who speaks last speaks the truth....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:01 AM

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:14 AM

dynasaur?

I am familiar with

dinosaur

and

dynasoar

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

more to the point how old is the Earth in dynasaur years?
and is carbon dating just a website for Coal Miners?
The answer to the OP is NO - you can't have a sensible debate about it. Unless you preclude the religious dimension.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

day (dā)
n.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.




year (yɪər)

n.
1. a period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into 12 calendar months, now reckoned as beginning Jan. 1 and ending Dec. 31 (calendar year). Compare common year, leap year.
2. a period of the same length in other calendars.
3.
a. a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point: We expect to finish in a year.
b. fiscal year.
4. Astron.
a. Also called lunar year. a division of time equal to 12 lunar months.
b. Also called solar year. a division of time equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, representing the interval between one vernal equinox and the next.
c. Also called sidereal year. a division of time equal to the solar year plus 20 minutes, the time it takes the earth to complete one revolution around the sun.
5. the time in which any planet completes a revolution around the sun.
6. a full round of the seasons.
7. a period out of every 12 months devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like: the academic year.
8. years,
a. age: a person of her years.
b. old age: a man of years.
c. time; period: the years of hardship.
d. an unusually or markedly long time: We haven't spoken in years.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:07 AM

Why?
You already know who thinks it is and why.
We all know that it is put at 14 and a bit billion by Science.

I know we are running out of BS threads, but this one is a complete waste of whatever it is a thread uses up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:02 AM

If the year indicated is the standard solar year, the answer is


NO.



If the days counted to add up the age include the "days" in the old testament that actually translates as closer to "a period of time", and those "days" are of variable length, up to billions of solar years, then the answer is


One might make an argument that it is.

Subject: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:46 AM

Simple question, on point, easily debated. Please end the bickering on the other thread I started about the cartoon and discuss this like the gentlemen I know you all can be.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 03:53 AM

This just in..

The bible is truth because it was written 2,000 years ago. The latest Daily M*il is bollocks because it was written 2,000 seconds ago.

I was chatting over the weekend with a close friend who happens to be a "smile too much" born again Christian. Their church is into rock & roll modern hymns, bible class on a Wednesday night, child indoctrination on a Thursday etc. (I went to a christening there once. I thought the rumbling sound was the bass turned up too high. Turns out it was Charles Wesley spinning in his grave.)

I broached the subject of creationism. He said it was tosh, stupid and mocks faith.

You see, the diagnosis is clear. The severity is relative. The delusion is sneaky enough to be rational either side of your own superstition.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:13 PM

It would probably be kinder to let this thread quietly die but...

Shimrod
When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?)

Steve Shaw
I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath.

It's quite simple really. In order to be considered valid science, a theory must be testable. It must be possible to be able to think of a test that could prove the theory wrong i.e. it must be falsifiable. The classic example is "All swans are white.", a perfectly reasonable assumption by someone in the Northern Hemisphere up to a few hundred years ago. This is a perfectly respectable scientific statement because it is easy to think of a way of disproving it; find a swan that isn't white. The fact that travel broadens the mind and Europeans did discover that not all swans are white is not really the point, it is simply that the test was conceivable.

I have had this sort of thing drummed into me throughout my scientific education and I'm rather surprised that the two of you seem to find it such a mystery. As far as I am concerned, it is not, as Steve would have it, "in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies" but central to the scientific method.

For further reading, this Falsifiability looks quite good. The Wikipedia page it refers to is flawed but has its heart in the right place.

Shimrod
Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one.

Fair enough, but I'm a little unclear as to what you are going to challenge creationism with if you consider the philosophy of science to be a bit of a side issue. Steve Shaw seems to think that personal abuse, sarcasm and scorn are sufficient. This particular strand of thought began when TIA said "what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.", a statement that Steve Shaw describes as "woolly". What, may I ask, sets science apart from religion as far as you are concerned? (Either of you.)

" ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution."

As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)!

Previously from Shimrod
Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

Well, I suppose we're all allowed to change our minds. Unfortunately, if you leave aside the "Popperian objections", (not mine) then youi invalidate the scientific evidence in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education trial of 1982 (ref. here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html in case you missed it.) allowing the creationists to win. Is that what you want?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:16 PM

Well said, Paul. You are well sussed, pete. You're not the pleasant, reasonable, slightly off-beam duffer you like to pretend you are, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:07 PM

criticism of my grammer was dropped long before you joined in

Not by me it wasn't sunshine. Being challenged in literacy is one thing. Crowing about it is another. You are ignorant, deliberately ignorant, and aggressively ignorant; about grammar, punctuation, and manners; about science; and about religion. You are not proud of not trying to be better. Some say this is the sin against the Holy Ghost- deliberate and proud benightendness.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:18 PM

" ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution."

As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)!

The implication being, of course, that spouting a load of nonsense about "creation", because it appears to be described in an old book of dubious provenance and is assumed to be the literal truth rather than some sort of muddled metaphor, is a 'good' thing to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:43 PM

I am. And I have.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:28 PM

brendan-criticism of my grammer was dropped long before you joined in and i wont worry if you dont like it.easy remedy;-dont read wot i sez!
presumably you dont even accept the gospels, as Jesus referenced genesis.

not much to add seeing all the posters are either arguing with each other or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution.
if there are any impartial readers they can draw their own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:39 PM

I would be what Bart Erhman would call a "mythicist" meaning that I think that from what little concrete evidence there is for the existence of a corporal Jesus, I have to conclude
that he didn't exist as a person.

Ehrman claims that "mythicists" base their position on a reactionary distaste for religion.

I'm not clear that this is true in my case.

I think religion is irrelevant and in some instances harmful.

I have many religious friends and though the topic never comes up, mainly because they intuitively know where I stand, I will not challenge them unless they inflict their beliefs on me. Here's where Creationism goes wrong. By attempting to replace honest science with this dogma, they are doing harm regardless of their status as being a "nice person". Attacking science with this dubious nonsense, using a bible as a basis for their conclusions, placing themselves as Creationists as "holier than thou" apostles, and insisting on the "rightness" of their position, going beyond the bounds of personal "faith", they are warriors for insanity and since this thread seems to be predicated on the defense of this idiocy, I have to conclude that this is not a discussion but a posted diatribe on the part of a "believer".

Operative empiricism has no place in this discussion. Fortunately, science rejects
the absolute constructs that inform religious dogma and is elusively changing day by day rather than being a dead set of ideologies that will crystalize into rigid thinking and in the process, destroy rational thought even by possibly changing the brain cells.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 12 - 07:55 PM

Just as a matter of passing interest, Shimrod, what's your position on falsifiability?

This may help -

Falsifiability

Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.

If I thought for one minute that Snail understood a word of this, I'd take him up on it. As ever, he chooses to quote long passages representing someone else's thinking, yet offers very little of his own, not even in support of his quotes. The first paragraph is utterly risible, representing everything that science is not about: failure to communicate ideas clearly (a load of pretentious old bollocks would be putting it less kindly yet more accurately). If ever I saw obfuscation personified, Brendan old chap, that paragraph is it. Uncritical quoting of such drivel brings debate into disrepute, but I doubt whether Snail cares. Of course, as with any crock of shite, there are words of wisdom buried therein, mostly in the second paragraph, but don't, whatever you do, even begin to think of putting it forward for the Nobel Prize for Clear Talk. I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 12 - 04:10 PM

Steve, with his puerile abuse and obfuscatory tactics similar to Pete's does his cause no good at all.

And what "cause" might that be? Obfuscatory I am certainly not. You get what I think from the hip, no muckin' about. As for abuse, I am clearly the most heavily-abused person on this thread, but I'm still smiling. Look - face - am I bothered?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 12 - 04:06 PM

For me, the first four books of the New Testament present challenges to how I live my life and provide a framework for a morality which I find logical and consistent.

Then off your knees and away with the crutches. Then ask yourself how you reconcile this uncritical hogwash with your judgemental attitude to what you allege is my "lack of understanding of the scientific process." Better still, tell all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 May 12 - 03:51 PM

Yes, Snail, I'm aware of Prof. Karl Heinz Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science - but I certainly couldn't have quoted that passage by heart (if I'm honest I probably haven't fully understood it, nor thought through all of its implications; I wonder how many practising scientists have?). Mind you I can live with:

" ... scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings."

When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?)


Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one.

It seems to me that obsessing about the philosophy of science (are there alternatives to Popper's conclusions by the way?), in this particular context serves only to give succour to the enemy!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 31 May 12 - 01:15 PM

Shimrod, I am not referring to the position he claims to defend but the way in which he does it. Others have demonstrated time and again that Pete's position is intellectually and rationally untenable by deploying their knowledge and debating skills. Pete's only response is to deliberately misinterpret or ignore what he cannot answer and I cannot believe that his 'arguments' would convince anyone.
Steve, with his puerile abuse and obfuscatory tactics similar to Pete's does his cause no good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 31 May 12 - 11:38 AM

Just as a matter of passing interest, Shimrod, what's your position on falsifiability?

This may help -

Falsifiability

Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.

Take your time. I'm off making merry music and avoiding the Jubilee for a few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 May 12 - 10:47 AM

"From where I am standing Steve, there is little to choose between you and Pete, ... "

What uncritical, unthinking, arrogant nonsense! What the **** are you standing on, 'BrendanB'!

For months now Steve, and a few others, have been trying to defend the scientific Theory of Evolution against fundamentalist, religiously inspired claptrap. Meanwhile a few nitpickers have been buzzing around like mosquitoes (of course, I know that in one particular case I'm mixing my metaphors!).

Religious fundamentalism is a potential threat to all of us. The views of people like pete, and the woman formerly known as Iona, must be challenged whenever possible!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 31 May 12 - 10:39 AM

OK Saul, I read the Douai Version of the Bible and I recognise that it may be impossible to identify a definitive text. I focus on the New Testament because that gives me plenty of food for thought about how I should live my life, how others live theirs is none of my business. As far as 'go then and teach all nations' is concerned that can only be done by living according to one's moral precepts and leaving others to judge whether that way of living is worth emulating. Anyone who believes they have a right to kill those of other faiths or deny them their religious practices is, I believe, beyond evil.
I do not point to the Bible as the explanation for everything, nor do I subscribe to the fundamentalist view that everything in the Bible is literally true, it demonstrably is not.
The Bible is not the correct explanation of everything we know. For me, the first four books of the New Testament present challenges to how I live my life and provide a framework for a morality which I find logical and consistent. Others choose to look elsewhere and that is no one's business but theirs. Please note, I said 'I find....' I am not asking anyone else to buy into it.
I think that perceptions of marriage have changed over time. As far as I am concerned marriage is a means whereby two people declare their love and fidelity publicly and thereby achieve a legal recognition of their relationship. If a couple wish to add a religious element to that, as my wife and I chose to do, that is entirely their affair.
Where does the term 'christianists' come from? Does anyone talk about muslimists, or sihkists, hinduists, or jewists?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 May 12 - 10:34 AM

The correct name of Darwin's work, which survived only the first edition, would suggest strongly that it was indeed aimed at a very specific audience.

"ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY NATURAL SELECTION" is a title which is specific to a learned treatise, aimed toward the attention of one's scientific peers.

The path of later publication as "The Origin of Species" may be much more general than that, but the writer's intention is very obviously specific.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 May 12 - 10:14 AM

""Unless you are talking past him to others reading this who may be interested in the discussion and open. Yeah, that could be it.""

Indeed it is Saul!

I am, to the best of my meagre ability, attempting to ensure that no chance visitor will happen upon any of these nonsensical ideas unchallenged, and thereby believe that there is anything of science in Young Earth Creationism.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 31 May 12 - 10:10 AM

From where I am standing Steve, there is little to choose between you and Pete, you are just defending different sand castles. You are quite right, it should have been 'principle', unlike you I recognise that I am capable of error.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 31 May 12 - 08:46 AM

OK, for all the "religionists," who in this particular thread would be referred to as "Christianists" please address the following questions:


You routinely point to "the Bible" as *the* explanation for everything. Which version of "the Bible" is the "correct" one? How do we know?

"The Bible"--whichever one--was only written down something like 200 years after the alleged birth of someone called "Jesus Christ." Knowing what we do about "the folk process"--um, you DO go above the line from time to time, don't you?--how do we *know* that everything in it was faithfully (faithfully!) relayed to each successive generation without any changes?

If "the Bible" is the correct explanation for everything we "know," then why are there so many people who "believe" that some other book, or set of explanations, or philosophy is the "right" one? Are they all "wrong?" If so, are "we" committed to perpetually trying to "convert" them? Must we kill them? Make laws that deny them their religious practices?

If we are accepting a "Biblical" definition of something called "marriage," then which of the 8 or more "definitions" that are in "the Bible" should we accept? Why should we accept that one?

For starters. I don't really expect anything remotely resembling a rational answer to any of these questions, given what has preceded this post. But at least perhaps the "non-christianists" can pose some of these questions to see the "Christianinsts" run around in rhetorical circles and at least provide some amusement.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 12 - 05:56 AM

My italicisation skills failed me again. Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 12 - 05:55 AM

Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins.

So if Prince Galitzin commissioned Beethoven to write him some string quartets, he wrote them for the "specific audience" of Prince Galitzin, huh? Gosh, you do write some waffle.



If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience...

Then he failed abysmally.

With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena.,/i>

This is just more empty gibberish. Snail is a petty irritant, and referring me back to our "exchanges" in such an unspecific manner is just lazy. Either dig up some hard evidence from said exchanges or give up the potty for the next baby.

I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot.

Feel free. What's a "science witness", by the way?

And it's "principle."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 31 May 12 - 05:08 AM

'Do you suppose that Shakespeare wrote for a specific audience, Bach, Beethoven? Did Michaelangelo sculpt for a specific audience?'

Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins.

If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience, namely those people who had a grounding in and knowledge of natural science (as it was known). That is evident in the assumptions that he makes in his writing of specialist understanding on the part of his readership.

With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena.
I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 12 - 07:34 PM

Damn, I forgot it would all come out in italics. So scrutinise the original!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 12 - 07:32 PM

Stringsinger

"I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science.""

But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist.

Indeed, but Richard Leakey doen't spout bad science as far as I have heard.

Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating.

True.

If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism.

It hasn't been ignored. It is now pretty much mainstream having fought it out for a few years with the multiregional hypothesis. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve is a good place to start.

Where is the bad science here?

If Steve Shaw and I agree (in our own different ways. I said "It is not a peer reviewed science journal.", he said "The article is crap") that the article is not really up to snuff, I think it is worth considering that it should be read with caution. A couple of quotes -
obliterating any literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a new evidence-based creed. The Garden of Eden is not science. Neither evolution nor genetics is a creed.
Spencer Wells (pictured below). With his blond hair, blue eyes and Nebraska roots, he is the ideal high priest to explain to white Americans that they are blacks gone curdy. I will not speculate on what the man thinks he is saying here.

Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated.

Certainly not, which is why I get rather annoyed with people who ought to know better talking as if it is.

It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species.

Not just mankind, but all life on Earth. All science is transitional; that's why "Evolution is true" just won't do.

There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science,
but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument.

Couldn't agree more.

I quote the whole of this post in order to illustrate that, here, we have a man who posts for the sake of posting and who actually has nothing to say. If you don't believe me, do scrutinise it all again. There is not a single point of any substance herein, yet he employs the post as a vehicle to have another pot at the point I made many moons ago that evolution is true (which it is). He compounds the error by making the trite and nonsensical statement that "all science is transitional." Meaningless or what! It actually sounds a bit like, er, a creed to me! So is evolution true? Let's break this down (for the umpteenth time, for the sake of the impenetrables hereabouts). Does evolution happen? Yes or no? Are you sure it happens? (I am!) If you're sure it happens, is it not OK to say that it's true that evolution happens? If so, then why can't I economise on words and say that evoution is true? Did I ever say, anywhere, that the science of evolution was thoroughly resolved? Why no, I didn't! Didn't I say that the evidence for evolution, in its general thrust, is incontrovertible? Do you disagree with that? Do you think that evolutionary theory will, in its entirety, ever have to be abandoned? If yes, what will it take? Jehovah arriving in a chariot of fire might just about do it for me! Does this mean my mind is fixed? Why no, not at all! Because, Snail and your new camp-follower, I only said "in its general thrust!" I did not say that the science of evolution is settled. In fact, I've said more explicitly and more often than you have that the opposite is the case. Now no arsing about here, less still another unfocused tirade about "abuse" or creeds or playing into the hands of self-evident creationist idiots or lack of scientific process or that I'm self-proclaimed. I either want answers to the questions I've just asked, or else I want you to go and waste someone else's time.

And as for "If Steve Shaw and I agree..." Heheh, don't flatter yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 12 - 07:05 PM

I have been impressed by the erudition of some posters but Steve Shaw, you appear to believe that opinion is the same as knowledge. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the scientific method and many of your rants have undermined the considered and informed input of other posters. Abuse does not constitute argument. I was also interested in your statement that Darwin wrote in elegant, easy English. He wrote in the mid-Victorian period for a specific audience i.e. members of the Royal Society, and 'Origin' is frequently challenging. Have you actually read it? I have to admit that I find it difficult and have preferred to read commentaries rather than the original. But there again, I recognise that I have much to learn, how about you?

OK, rant over, please feel free to give me the verbal kicking you no doubt feel that I richly deserve.

I have read Origin cover to cover, again and again. If you really think he wrote it "for a specific audience," then I suggest that 'tis you who haven't read it. At least, not with much insight. Do you also suppose that Shakespeare wrote for a specific audience? Bach? Beethoven? Did Michaelangelo sculpt for a specific audience? What tommy-rot. As for abuse, whatever I say to irritating, obsessive twits like Snail (there I go again!) is as nothing compared to the abuse visited on the whole of science by pete. Incidentally, I should like you either to confirm with quoted examples my "lack of knowledge of scientific method" or just shut up. Hows about "self-proclaimed scientist" from Snail as an example of abuse? All that time spent getting my biological science degree from Imperial College and I'm "self-proclaimed?" Are you Snail's dad or something? Hows about that lot for the verbal kicking you so richly deserve? And might I suggest that you cease to "follow" the thread from some lofty, self-appointed perch and actually contribute something to the substance of the debate (insofar as this thread might be styled a debate at all)?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 May 12 - 05:27 PM

Stringsinger

"I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science.""

But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist.

Indeed, but Richard Leakey doen't spout bad science as far as I have heard.

Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating.

True.

If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism.

It hasn't been ignored. It is now pretty much mainstream having fought it out for a few years with the multiregional hypothesis. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve is a good place to start.

Where is the bad science here?

If Steve Shaw and I agree (in our own different ways. I said "It is not a peer reviewed science journal.", he said "The article is crap") that the article is not really up to snuff, I think it is worth considering that it should be read with caution. A couple of quotes -
obliterating any literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a new evidence-based creed. The Garden of Eden is not science. Neither evolution nor genetics is a creed.
Spencer Wells (pictured below). With his blond hair, blue eyes and Nebraska roots, he is the ideal high priest to explain to white Americans that they are blacks gone curdy. I will not speculate on what the man thinks he is saying here.

Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated.

Certainly not, which is why I get rather annoyed with people who ought to know better talking as if it is.

It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species.

Not just mankind, but all life on Earth. All science is transitional; that's why "Evolution is true" just won't do.

There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science,
but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument.

Couldn't agree more.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 May 12 - 04:49 PM

snail;i read all 3 articles.the last one offering evidences for evolution from coyne,some of which i've not encountered before.not much detail though to comment on.
i was wondering what you thought of the 2nd article up to the mention of the bible.do you think origins science is observable and testable as don t seems to assert.would you deny that assumptions about the past guide the interpretation of the past?
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 30 May 12 - 03:34 PM

I have been following the thread even though I feel it outlived any meaningful interchange quite a while ago and I have decided (no doubt I am being pompous and self righteous) to get some stuff off my chest.
Pete from Seven Stars Link, I refuse to accept your appalling refusal to show minimum courtesy to other posters by not even attempting to post at a basic level of literacy, it is simply bad manners.
Having re-read as many of your posts as I could bear I have been unable to identify any cogent argument; obfuscation, intentional misinterpretation and an apparent inability to understand what other posters are saying are the clear hallmarks of your approach. I am a practising Christian and may know something of your motivation and I suspect that if you were to undergo real self examination you would find that your underlying motive is fear. There can be no rational explanation for your beliefs but if you were to accept that you would no doubt lose friends and your place in your religious community. I believe that you are an example of a fundamentalist version of Pascal's wager. Christianity does not require that you have to eschew rigorous enquiry, honesty and intellectual humility.

I have been impressed by the erudition of some posters but Steve Shaw, you appear to believe that opinion is the same as knowledge. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the scientific method and many of your rants have undermined the considered and informed input of other posters. Abuse does not constitute argument. I was also interested in your statement that Darwin wrote in elegant, easy English. He wrote in the mid-Victorian period for a specific audience i.e. members of the Royal Society, and 'Origin' is frequently challenging. Have you actually read it? I have to admit that I find it difficult and have preferred to read commentaries rather than the original. But there again, I recognise that I have much to learn, how about you?

OK, rant over, please feel free to give me the verbal kicking you no doubt feel that I richly deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 30 May 12 - 03:01 PM

Don,
You are not going to get any kind of grounded, rational comments from him. Not only is he not open to change and growth, which is the sign of a confident intellectual. But he does not even recognize that he has a problem. And that is the first step to growth. Sadly, he will not grow.

Unless you are talking past him to others reading this who may be interested in the discussion and open. Yeah, that could be it.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 May 12 - 02:23 PM

"".i suppose it can be reproduced next time a rocket goes by!""

No, it doesn't work like that.

Reproducible evidence is not just a case of the same pseudo scientist spouting the same bollocks again and again.

To be acceptable, it must be repeatable by any competent specialist in the particular field and produce the same result, within reasonable experimental parameters.

Your man is one lone self styled "Creation Scientist" who demands belief because he states that "such and such" is the case. Come back and talk about him again when his conclusions have been tested, confirmed and verified by half a dozen non Creationist (i.e. REAL) scientists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 May 12 - 11:54 AM

steve-not in the least bothered if you use the word "religionist"
re-article;i doubt its science credibility would have been questioned had i not raised it,and snail then took it up,especially as don f endorsed it.

don t ;apologies if i misquoted you but i did cite a creationist scientist making an accurate prediction based on creationist time span.that is as far as i can see scientific evidence.i suppose it can be reproduced next time a rocket goes by!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 May 12 - 10:40 AM

"I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science.""

But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist.
Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating.

If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism.

Where is the bad science here?

Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated.

It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species.

There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science,
but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 May 12 - 09:38 AM

""don t; in claiming that creationists never make scientific conclusions""

There you go again, misquoting and putting words into peoples' mouths.

I didn't say they never reached scientific conclusions. They do (according to their fanbase), but those conclusions are NEVER supported by anything remotely resembling reproducible scientific evidence.

""Because God said so"" may convince those who have already decided on their conclusions, but scientific, or evidence, it ain't!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 May 12 - 06:33 AM

Steve Shaw
I wasn't aware that there was a "popular idea that evolution is a pseudo-religion."

So if you aren't aware of it it isn't true? We've just seen an example haven't we?

Try this http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full
The creationists love it http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion
This chap seems to mean well but manages to set up a direct equvalence between evolution and creationism http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/05/the-whys-of-religion-vs-evolution/

Your "Evolution is true" gives the creationists exactly what they want.

Sounds like another of your straw men coming up to me.

Another?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 12 - 07:44 PM

I wasn't aware that there was a "popular idea that evolution is a pseudo-religion." Sounds like another of your straw men coming up to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 12 - 07:40 PM

I don't think you'll find too many evolutionary biologists fretting over disproving the Adam and Eve story, pete. Actually, I don't think you'll find too many religionists (may I use that word with you?) who would put their head on the block in order to hang on to the yarn either. The article is crap, pete. Not science. Just whimsy. Learn to discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 May 12 - 07:19 PM

pete
interesting that the article stringsinger posted on tracing man and woman back was described or called a "creed" project whose "high priest" set out to disprove the garden of eden story-or words to that effect

I don't normally take much notice of anything pete says, but here he has hit on an important point. It illustrates the popular idea of evolution as a sort of pseudo religion and how bad science plays into the hands of the creationists. When I described the article as being "a fairly sloppy piece of popular science jounalism", I think I was being generous. It was published in Intelligent Life magazine which says of itself -

Intelligent Life is a bi-monthly lifestyle and culture magazine from The Economist. It covers the arts, style, food, wine, cars, travel and anything else under the sun, as long as it's interesting. It shares The Economist's fondness for crisp prose, dry wit and free thinking. But rather than covering politics and economics, it is about life in general and making the most of your time off, from tailoring to museums, hotels to philanthropy, choosing wine to going green. http://moreintelligentlife.com/

It is not a peer reviewed science journal.

According to Wikipedia, its author J.M.Ledgard "has also been a correspondent for The Economist since 1995, specialising in foreign political and war reporting." I'm sure he is a very clever chap and a very good journalist but he is not a scientist.

Promoting this distorted view of science is what makes me get so exercised about self-proclaimed scientists who come out with lines like "Evolution is true."

I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."