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

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 May 12 - 06:54 AM

My reading is proving interesting. I had not realised how very young YEC is. I thought it arose in answer to Darwin's work in the 19th century, but apparently, from then until the 1950's, the opponents were Old Earth Creationists, and at the turn of the 20th century there were only about 100,000 YEC's, within the Seventh Day Adventists.

On the other hand, and to be fair with regard to Augustine, here he is on the actual subject.

"In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily."

He has looked at evidence of long-standing Egyptian understanding of astronomy, and found it wanting, which, for a historian looking for documents, it is. As is the understanding of history in other places he had access to. He was not in a position to argue about the convincing evidence of geology, cosmology and so on, which modern YECs do, so where he would stand now is a moot point. His arguments had failed to keep the majority of creationists in the YE camp once physical evidence to contrary was available. He believed, based on the Bible, in a younger Earth than some at the time, but I'm not convinced that makes him what we would now call a YEC, or a good foundation for those beliefs now.

What he was chiefly concerned about is in the last sentence: "whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily."

I have seen no evidence that believing secular science leads to any more wrong and unhappy living than believing in scripture has over the last 2000 years. Nor that it cannot lead to right and happy living.

To blame Darwin's work for the awfulness of the last century one would have to strip out the parallel effects of rapid communications, both private and public, developments in weaponry, and other industrial processes with the changes in where and how people lived and all the other changes following the Industrial Revolution.

All of these would have been contributory to that century having politics worse than those of Genghis Khan, the Aztecs, Torquemada, Vlad the Impaler, Elizabeth Bathory, Ancient Rome, the Christian Saxons in Essex who covered a church door with the skin of a Viking, various Chinese Emperors, all those leaders who thought it a good idea to have their households killed and buried with them; who are, thankfully, spread out fairly thinly over history. Unless there are far more others we can't know about.

You don't have to be taught to despise others as sub-human if that's what you want to believe. It wasn't Darwin, but the Bible that was cited as a reason for my Granny to be taught see those folk in carriages as her superiors. It almost caertainly wasn't Darwin that caused the Duff-Gordons to have themselves rowed away from the Titanic in a lifeboat with spaces in it because it did not enter their heads to save those they heard wailing, while regretting the loss of the their secretary's nightie. (That's the fairest assumption - Lady D-G was in the lingerie business. But she may have ordered the crew not to return according to some sources.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 May 12 - 06:21 AM

After Steve's magnificent "Odd that you should think there's polarity there. response to my juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive statements followed by the customary insult to my intelligence - "You confirm that you are, indeed, out of your depth.", I had more or less given up hope. Clearly it was as futile arguing with Steve as with the creationists.

But now "I can present evidence for the origin of species by natural selection that overwhelmingly points to the truth of evolution. Points to." and "Evidence that can be questioned, criticised, tested, ridiculed, contested, repeated and peer-reviewed.". Still a long way to go but it looks as if "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" is cooling to the cold light of reason.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 12 - 10:18 PM

"Has it ever been used to characterize evolution by anyone except creationists? "

No, it is a direct quote ABOUT a quote at Creation.com... referring to a book from 1930. It is used by creationists to sort of defend the idea that evolution is not even really possible. It is also demonstrably false, as some organisms DO actually gain/add characteristics which aid in survival. Look up the marine iguanas of Galapagos.

Pete, you really must give proper attribution to quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 09 May 12 - 09:38 PM

"the more an animal type has lost through this process of progressive subtraction,the less there remains for the production of mutants which will be capable of existence"

???? I have never heard the wording "process of progressive subtraction" before. Has it ever been used to characterize evolution by anyone except creationists? Why would any think of evolution in those terms?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 12 - 06:56 PM

I do not have evidence for "Darwinism." On the other hand, I can present evidence for the origin of species by natural selection that overwhelmingly points to the truth of evolution. Points to. Note, pete, evidence. Not hearsay, witness, revelation, proclamation, dubious ancient texts, tradition, ceremony, edicts or miracle stories. Evidence. Evidence that can be questioned, criticised, tested, ridiculed, contested, repeated and peer-reviewed. Even, in some cases, overturned. Nothing delights science more than evidence overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:22 PM

Why does pete insist that you have to be a believer in some cult called Darwinism? Darwin observed and offered explanations to those observations.

Invisible friends, fairy stories and whacking square theories into round holes till they fit, (after a fashion) is my idea of a belief system. Interpreting the bible being an excellent example.

"Darwin believers have done more damage than.... " ?????   

What in the name of all that is wholly (bullshit) are you talking about?

You know, you are making my dismissal of you and your comments all the more sound.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:13 PM

Pete... yesterday I spent a couple of hours with a friend who recently went to the Galapagos, where Darwin collected much of the data which began his inquiry and writings.

You only have to listen and seriously take in the information that scientists have gathered there for the last 150 years or so to realize that 'evolution' is clearly happening. The Galapagos is simply a relatively small, isolated natural 'laboratory' where it is easy to follow the various changes to a specific but limited number of species.
The islands are 'only' about 6 million years old, and there are ways to prove that age and to show how the life forms on the islands have adapted and changed as the islands changed due to volcanic activity.

You may, as you wish, believe that a 'god' started, planned, or controlled the processes there, but if you make the effort to understand ANY geology, physics, botany, thermodynamics or several other sciences, you MUST add in that 'God' spent 6 million years doing it there! There is NO reason to question the age of the islands, or of the Earth in general...except by ignoring science and relying on some theologians' 'interpretation' of parts of a 'Bible' which has been edited and translated by other theologians.

It is much easier for 'most' Christians to say, "Well, it sure is interesting to discover HOW God's creation has developed." than to deny obvious facts in favor of counting the supposed life spans of characters in the Bible...when we can't even properly translate some of the sources...or even decide WHICH sources to rely on.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 May 12 - 12:38 PM

so don you say there are no scientists who are creationists who are qualified to debate dawkins!?
you are a likeable bloke but look out for low flying buttermoths!.
as to ayotollah taunts;-seems i need to remind you again that darwin believers have done much more damage in recent history than centuries of creationist christians.

steve is asking for evidence that evolution [GTE]knowing that if i venture anything it can be dismissed by ref to my lack of learning.
so i will let evolutionists assess.

"evolution a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven......but because the only alternative,special creation is clearly incredible"    dms watson.

"the more an animal type has lost through this process of progressive subtraction,the less there remains for the production of mutants which will be capable of existence"

"given the fact of evolution,one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants.but this is not what the paleontologist finds.instead,he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series"    ernst mayr   2001

tbc....

so steve what is your best evidence FOR darwinism?
regards   pete.

.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:05 PM

TIA
what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional

Steve Shaw
I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth.

Well, there you are. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.

Odd that you should think there's polarity there. You confirm that you are, indeed, out of your depth.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:01 PM

Gove has been holding this position since before his appointment. Academies and free schools thus must not teach the subject as science.

It strikes me that no-one should be teaching creationism at all. I wouldn't ever object to schools teaching children that there is such an idea as creationism, that it should be considered alongside religion, that its method contrasts utterly with the process of science in the way it reaches its conclusions and that it denies evidence and reason. Education should be about teaching children the skills to seek information in a discriminating manner and to critically and fearlessly demand and assess evidence for the alleged facts they are presented with. "Teaching creationism" implies that they are being told that there is truth in it. That is a lie. Education is never about peddling lies to children. We have a different name for that.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:40 PM

TBliar seemed a little less ready to stamp on that particular matter if I recall - I think I may have emailed about Vardy's academy and it's "science" teacher's opinions, and had an unsatisfactory response.

I saw the conditions that teachers have to satisfy in order to qualify when an Aussie teacher was updating to UK standards, and it was quite clear what was expected of an understanding of science, even then, and it was not an understanding which included any leeway to teach creationism.

Scrolling through the TV channels while resetting my TV decoder, we came across Horrible Histories Karaoke (on one of the odd numbers at the end 309, or something) - this is absolutely drop dead brilliant and up there with the Pythons' philosophers, and why it is lurking where the adults who would fully appreciate it can't, I don't know. Anyway, along with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Diogenes parodying the Monkees, it had Darwin wandering about Downe House and other places discussing his studies and their effects in quite interesting detail.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:40 AM

Thank you for that clarification Penny.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:28 AM

From my understanding of UK education, creationism may be taught, but if it is taught in science classes, the school so doing will receive no government funding. Gove has been holding this position since before his appointment. Academies and free schools thus must not teach the subject as science.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:18 AM

TIA
what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional

Steve Shaw
I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth.

Well, there you are. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 12 - 09:25 AM

You did misrepresent TIA's comments, in an apparent effort to re-align them to your own agenda, but at least you've addressed that now. As for science always being provisional, well it's one of those statements that doesn't actually state very much. I suppose s/he means the findings of science, but I wouldn't be knowing. There is science and science. I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth. In terms of elucidating the process of evolution, I think science has got there - in the general thrust. Not in the detail, of course. If anyone thinks that evolution does not occur, let them produce the evidence that overthrows all the evidence we have which says it does occur. That's my line and I'm sticking to it.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 May 12 - 09:05 AM

OK, lets take this a bit at a time. Here is what TIA actually said -

There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis).

In the part of that up to the opening parenthesis, TIA makes a clear distinction between the "fact" of evolution and the theory which attempts to explain that fact. I have asked Steve if he agrees with that but he hasn't replied. Immediately after that, TIA says theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis. Here he* is clearly talking about theories in general but it seems pretty clear from the context that he is including the Theory of Evolution amongst them.

I condensed this into Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. I do not see that I have misrepresented TIA in any way. Steve will probably repeat that that is because I am out of my depth. If anyone else (including TIA) feels that I have, please say.

TIA did take exception to something I had said in that post but not that. I had said What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"' to which he replied -

Actually no... I have pointed out many times (on many threads - particularly the predecessor to this one) that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.

I apologised that I had only meant that he had not specifically said it in that post.

So, Steve, do you still think that I misrepresented TIA and do you agree or not with TIA that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.?


* sorry, can't be bothered with gender neutral pronouns.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 08 May 12 - 08:29 AM

I continue to wonder how to talk to "them." "They" are the people who fiercely refuse to live in a fact and reason based reality. This fact and reason based planet has led to virtually all of our real life existence as we know it. That is agriculture, medicine, technology.

"They" choose to repeat ideas which are *not* based in fact or methodical processes. "They" have many different names for their systems of thought, and most of them do not agree in some part with the others. The comparison for these thought systems and their discrepencies can metaphorically be described in "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Since an angel cannot be defined and measured, the question cannot be intelligently investigated. We can never get closer to the truth, much less answer in terms that most people can agree on, or that will demonstrate reproducible results. So it is possible to continue to "discuss" it through the night and 4, 7, 11 beers and start over the next night, and so on without resolving anything or adding to the sum of human knowledge.

Perhaps I am missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps the goal IS perpetual discussion. However, when the discussion leaves the pub, when people want to make public policy or force their views on me, it does become a problem. And I remain clueless as to how to persuade these people to leave fantasy and join the real world.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 08 May 12 - 07:41 AM

100.

yeah!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 May 12 - 07:20 AM

It is interesting to look back at the two strands that make up this thread. The secondary one has focused on the philosophy/semantics of science and has been conducted between people arguing from a basis of reason. The primary thread has looked at the validity or otherwise of YEC and the dangers, as perceived by many people, of teaching it in school. This strand has demonstrated to me the enormous difficulty of having a rational discussion with someone whose starting point is an unmovable faith which seems to ignore or distort evidence which challenges his/her beliefs.
In view of Penny's latest post it appears that education in the UK is a little more enlightened than in the US to the extent that, while creationism can be taught it must be taught alongside evolution, that at least is my understanding. Not to do so must surely constitute a denial of freedom of thought. The comparison with ayatollahs made by Don T does not seem unreasonable. There are many moderate Christians who find YEC and other forms of fundamentalism unacceptable but do not see it as a threat. Perhaps I have got that wrong but in the real world it does not seem to figure on the radar.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:23 AM

Hello sailor!

I haven't got a "side" so that buggers that theory....

If I had, would it be double? Perhaps not. Rather flattered that a bloke on the end of a keyboard gives me the odd namecheck, but would be happier if you bought an album.

I reckon many on this thread seem to think there are two sides to this debate. I'm not too sure. Nobody other than pete and (where is) Iona are peddling fantasy as fact, and there are those who try to reason with him / them. Thirdly are those who through various posts are bemused that medieval superstition is alive and kicking.

Perhaps my nautical friend will remember he started the debate by querying whether future generations of western world children will end up in sweat shops if we don't sharpen up education?   Oh and giving the teaching of creationism as the example of what is wrong.

Rather interesting that Jack the Sailor started the questioning and then gets all upset when people dismiss nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 12 - 05:26 PM

""Both books, on the dispute we've been having here (the main one, that is) were quite disturbing in revealing the lengths to which state authorities in the US will go to make sure that young people have no exposure to the teaching of evolution.""

It would appear that while the US Military Industrial Complex is busy bombing large parts of the Third World back to the Stone Age, a sizeable section of its population is intent upon achieving the same result at home by use of religious fervour.

Judging by history, if they succeed they will be far worse than the Taliban or the Ayatollahs. After all, they've had two thousand years to practice and the Roman role model for dealing with dissent.

Yet there are still people on this forum, and others, who regard them as harmless fruit loops, not worth challenging.

Go figure!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 May 12 - 05:03 PM

Bit of an aside - found myself by chance at Downe House today - didn't go round, but bought a possibly useful book in the shop, and took note of a more expensive one to order from the library.

Both books, on the dispute we've been having here (the main one, that is) were quite disturbing in revealing the lengths to which state authorities in the US will go to make sure that young people have no exposure to the teaching of evolution.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 12 - 04:56 PM

It didn't. I was pointing out the inconsistency in defending Jack whilst criticising others for showing irritation, defensiveness and emotion, traits absolutely typical of him. I have better things to do than get annoyed with a screen and keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 May 12 - 04:49 PM

Steve, I am not attempting nor do I desire to be superior or lofty. I just wanted to express my views succinctly and as objectively as possible. I see little gain in antagonising others and I apologise if my post set your teeth on edge.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 12 - 03:58 PM

Well, Brendan, it seems like Jack the Sailor, presumably half of pete the Sailor, is demonstrating exactly those traits you see fit to condemn in others from your assumed lofty perch. As for pete having a mature discussion, well now there's a laugh. What pete is actually doing, with his eyes tight shut, is perennially insulting the whole body of science. He doesn't need to make it personal. If you think that is part of mature debate, Jack, I think you may have lost it somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 May 12 - 02:48 PM

I find myself in agreement with Pete the Sailor. It seems that some points of view can enrage others to the point that they are unable to focus on the argument and direct their ire at the individual. I have an interest in the topic and there is a discussion to be had but the smoke generated by axe grinding has served to almost obscure it.
I have yet to be even tempted to believe in YEC by any posts in this thread. In fact, there were some posts in the original thread from a (I assume) fundamentalist Christian which I found repugnant but I do not see how an attack on that person might have encouraged her to question her beliefs; I suspect such an approach would simply harden them.
The posts from pfss are all based upon an unmovable belief in a creator God and a belief in the essential truth of Genesis. While others, including me, might find such unquestioning belief hard to comprehend he has avoided personal opprobrium to the point where someone unsure might find his approach more to their liking than some of the more rationally based posters who allow their frustration to colour their responses. I believe in reason and rationality - it would good to see them being exercised to the exclusion of irritation, defensiveness and emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 May 12 - 01:24 PM

>>>Jack, do tell us all what you think of the attack on evolutionary science by the likes of pete et al.<<<

pete is having a mature discussion. You are childishly using insults. I think that if there is anyone here neutral on the topic, you are doing much more damage than good to your supposed side. That goes double for Mather.

If you want my side of it you can read my original post on the YEC thread.

As for why I have come on to this thread, I wish that the two of you would either grow up or find something else to do.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 12 - 01:21 PM

""dawkins who likes to debate creationists;-as long as they are not scientists!""

None of the YEC Creationists with whom he debates can truly claim to be more than pseudo scientists, since they tailor the "evidence" to fit their preconclusion.

Undoubtedly there are YEC Creationists who are also genuine scientists, but none in the fields of paleontology and related subjects.

So why would he be debating evolution with dieticians, psychologists, astrophysicists, or any other but those with whom he has an debating issue.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 May 12 - 11:50 AM

jack the sailor-you are quite right in surmising that the terms i use are not derogatory but descriptive .i did once use "evos" for shorthand until penny suggested that was disrepectful, so i ceased that even though it was only shorthand.meanwhile certain atheists-or should that be antitheists- continue to bemoan debating ignoramouses such as i but still exhibit argument from ridicule-or should that be verbal gutrot!.
a couple other comments made me smile
"pete et al "hardly a large opposition to the darwinist side.
"someone else prompting him" wrong,unless you include my reading.
all this reminds me of dawkins who likes to debate creationists;-as long as they are not scientists!.supposedly he does'nt want to give credance to creationism.
thats not to say that some of you would not debate a scientist,but merely that all you got at present is me.i have never pretended to be more than i am and to those who dispise my honesty all i can say is-
get over it.
best wishes   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 May 12 - 10:31 AM

pete was wrong when he claimed that the main opposition to Galileo came from other scientists. Astronomers of the time could have ignored him, or attempted to refute his findings, or ridiculed him. But only the Churches had the power to burn him, as the Catholic Church did Giordiano Bruno (among many others). The Protestant churches were little better: read the horrifying story of the execution for heresy of Edward Wightman in 1612.

But Galileo is such an appropriate exemplar: the creationists are in exactly the position of the established astronomers who refused to look through the telescope and see the evidence for themselves. Surrounded by the wonders of nature, they open their book and close their minds.

And hasn't our pete been getting voluble lately? This chap who a few hundred posts ago couldn't string a couple of sentences together now posts whole creeds (stet). It couldn't possibly be that someone else is prompting him, could it?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 07 May 12 - 04:39 AM

Hello sailor

Yep, that's me. Using terms such as God botherer. It refers to those who insist on ramming home their hobby on others.

I also used terms such as imaginary friend, fairies at the bottom of the garden, mentioned my impression I do of Jesus on a rubber cross and have pointed out that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Come to think of it, I reckon the word cult has been used too.

Why? Maybe perhaps that reasoning with brainwashed delusion merchants (add that to the list) gets you nowhere. Pointing and laughing is the eventual destination of such debate and I just happen to have got there first.

Debating is rather circular in this context, and only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 08:00 PM

Of course I discuss. If you reel back over this thread and its predecessor you'll find plenty of posts in which I argue the fat in a pretty extensive fashion. What's happened here is that you have suddenly waded in with two very brief posts, both of which contain no discussion of the substantive issue but plenty of offensive allusion. Jack, do tell us all what you think of the attack on evolutionary science by the likes of pete et al. I really can't be arsed with agendas these days and I strongly suggest you leave yours at home. After all, I suspect we are probably on the same side. Fer chrissake don't give pete and his brain-dead mates any more succour.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 07:17 PM

SNIDE

"I've wasted many a typed word trying to explain to Snail that he could do far better things than hassle me constantly over the nuances of words. "

SNIDE

it's like pissing into a strong wind.

You don't discuss. You insult. The only "history" we have is me pointing that out. For that you call me "silly." Have at it.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 03:01 PM

Jack and I have history. That's what this is about. I've been at pains for months to ignore his posts but now he's cracked. Constant stream of snide remarks my hefty bottom. I've wasted many a typed word trying to explain to Snail that he could do far better things than hassle me constantly over the nuances of words. I've been quite patient, but it's like pissing into a strong wind. There's nothing snide about pointing out that he misrepresented what someone else said in order to have another bash at me. Perhaps Jacky Tar would like to address that instead of deciding to be rather silly.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 01:03 PM

Dinosaur fleas, proof of evolution or that God makes mistakes?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 12:54 PM

Sorry Sugarfoot,

It looked as though you were playing along with Shaw and piling on.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 12 - 12:22 PM

It's incumbent on me to do nowt. I wasn't attacking Pete for using those terms, just questioning his rationale for that usage. I have consistently challenged our resident YEC's (who have said some rather unpleasant things on the other thread) to debate on the subject in specific areas but they refuse. Heck, they could make the scientific discovery of all time, but they're not interested in that either. It's boring to hear repeated pleas of ignorance.

I wouldn't and haven't use the term 'god-botherer' to describe Pete, nor have I issued a stream of snide remarks - plenty enough aggressiveness around here as it is. Alpha males waving their dicks at each other, people popping in to try to stir the shit, but have nothing of value to say themselves; I suppose that's the way MC has been of recent years.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 11:52 AM

On the other hand "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" could just be convenient short hand to describe people who argue for those theories.

Certainly if you are going to attack pete for such words. Is it not incumbent on you do equally condemn Mather for his use of "God-botherers" and Shaw for his near constant stream of snide remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 12 - 07:48 AM

I wonder if Pete uses terms such as "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" because he needs to believe that this is some sort of cabal of scientists hell-bent on covering up the truth about the age of the earth? It's easier to believe you're being deliberately targeted than it is to believe that a disparate and open group of intelligent people all understand the evidence points to something that threatens his belief system. Pure poppycock of course; they aren't targeting his (or anyone else's) beliefs, it just happens the evidence doesn't point to Pete et al being correct. That's not to deny the existence of God, just there's that YEC is a fallacy born of ignorance and there is no overt signature of a creator. Heck, even some scientists might disagree with that as there are plenty of religious people practicing science at all levels of achievement.

Whilst Pete might describe me as a Darwinist or evolutionist because the evidence I have seen points to Darwin being correct and evolution as fact, I would suggest I was neither but a palaeontologist (avocational) and budding ichnologist, and studying these subjects is part of what I do.

We can't have a productive debate with Pete because he's not interested. It's all too easy to cry foul when people take issue with you head-on. In science this is called due process, in religion it's heresy.

Pete - I'll say this for the hundredth time: Find me a bony fish in the Burgess Shale. Find me a horse in the Solhofen Limestone. Find me a dinosaur in the Devonian. Body fossils. And none of that Paluxy rubbish - even most YEC's saw the folly in that years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 06:18 AM

"Darwinists" and "evolutionists" are terms, intended by pete and ilk to have a slightly pejorative ring to them, to characterise those of us who prefer to rely on evidence and reason when it comes to trying to explain the natural world. In riposte, one could refer to pete and ilk as the God Squad and to pete as a God-botherer. That seems about equivalent. Of course, this wouldn't contribute much to a constructive debate, but, then, what would?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 06:11 AM

When I said that Snail had misrepresented TIA, this is what I meant. This is what Snail said TIA said:

Of the Theory of Evolution he [TIA] says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'

But this is what TIA actually said:

There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis).

In my book, that is misrepresentation. The more charitable explanation for his doing that is, as I suggested, that he is out of his depth.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 04:32 AM

Snail ~~ Not taking sides, because I honestly can't remember how this particular spat began. But would point out that claiming when challenged that one's opponent is not answering rationally but merely resorting to 'insults' can often merely constitute a cop-out. From the tones of the two entries, Steve's & yours, I suspect this could be the case here.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 May 12 - 03:57 AM

Steve Shaw

I said TIA had it right because s/he did. What you did is to completely misrepresent what s/he said. You are out of your depth here. Have you actually got any original views of your own?

No debate. No answers to questions. Just more insults. TIA was "As clear as mud" and "had it right".

Off to make music for a couple of days.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 12 - 12:42 AM

I'm curious. Who are these "Darwinists" that pete keeps talking about? Do they have their own church? Or is it a lodge, like the Masons? Where do I get an application to join? Or do I have to be asked?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 12 - 05:49 PM

pete - you have been misled. Entirely misled.

In 1632, after publishing "Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems", the Holy Office of the Inquisition ordered Galileo to Rome. Though gravely ill,Galileo made the journey, and in April 1633 he was charged (by the church) with heresy. The specific charge was that he was teaching and defending the Copernican Theory that the Sun is at the center of the universe with the Earth moving around it (which was counter to the doctrine of the church). This theory had been declared heretical (by the church) in 1616, and Copernicus' books had beeb placed (by the church) on its "Index of Prohibited Books".

Sorry, you are dead wromg. The *church* condemned Galileo for supporting the findings of other scientists.

Why else would Pope John Paul II have apologized 400 years later for the behaviour of *the church*?

Sorry just as much as I cannot let you misdefine science, I cannot let you revise history.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 May 12 - 05:44 PM

It was the science which Galileo was forced to recant, even if it was the mistake of representing the Pope's views as foolish that triggered the trial.

As for claiming the Church Fathers as YECs, that is projecting a modern concept back where it does not belong. Not to say that they did not believe in a biblical timescale (though at one time, as he worked through Genesis several times, Augustine believed himself to be in the sixth millenium), but that they did not believe in it in the face of evidence to the contrary. The alternatives to the biblical account were the theogonies of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians or even the Hindus, and others which were manifestly lacking in rationality. Augustine was concerned with the dualist ideas of the Manichaeans, not the evidence of science. The age of the world was not as important as the author. We can't know what any of them would say about the modern arguments, or the modern uses their works might be put to (and I am not alone in using that particular passage).

We might hazard a guess that they would want to direct us to more important issues. And that was in that passage, quite clearly.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 12 - 04:24 PM

"...his opposition at least initially was from other scientists.the church at first was ,i understand quite favourable to him"

Pete... you must remember that in Galileo's time, there was barely a difference between the beliefs of scientists & the church. If most 'scientists' are committed to church doctrine as a given, they cannot DO science very well.... (at least science as we understand it today).

Galileo was a fairly early example of allowing observation, experiment and mathematics...that is, **science**, lead where it needed to go. If Galileo had done his analysis and then said, "Oh...that can't be right...the church fathers tell us very clearly that the Earth is at the center!", well, he would be barely a footnote in history today.

Do not be fooled by simple words. "Scientist" has to mean something specific; and those who try to wear both hats must be VERY careful which one they are wearing when they make statements.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 12 - 03:50 PM

I said TIA had it right because s/he did. What you did is to completely misrepresent what s/he said. You are out of your depth here. Have you actually got any original views of your own?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 May 12 - 01:58 PM

penny-unless i have been mislead the idea so embraced by darwinists that galileo was a case of science vs the church is simplistic.his opposition at least initially was from other scientists.the church at first was ,i understand quite favourable to him.it was when the pope recognized the character of "simplicico" in galileos writings as mocking of himself that the trouble began.
i'm not sure what the quote from augustine proves ,but it was interesting.of course just about all the church fathers held to a YEC position and i doubt that augustine would have appreciated your use of his words.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 May 12 - 11:46 AM

My last post was in response to TIA.

Sounds pretty good to me, Brendan. There's a few points that could lead to interesting discussion (as opposed to "I'm right and your wrong" desk thumping).