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

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 May 12 - 04:33 PM

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.nothing religious or philosophically founded in evolutionism;is there???!
one item mentioned on yesterdays CMI article was that russel humphreys accurately predicted the strength of magnetic fields around jupiter and uranus[if i correctly recall]based on prediction of thousands years only existence.don t; in claiming that creationists never make scientific conclusions is tantamount to claiming complete knowledge of scientific articles-but hopefully you did not mean to convey such lofty self confidence.
don f;i read your link.i do not doubt that many people leave the faith because they find it too hard.as you have read the bible-though not believing it-you will know it is expected and predicted.
best wishes   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 28 May 12 - 08:52 PM

I GOT IT! I GOT IT! At least the answer to quite a bit of the delimna:

God was hanging around out there, all alone, for all of eternity past. Eternity past included what, had there been such a thing as time, would have been a bunch of millions of years of time. It got pretty boring. So he spent at least some of eternity past in a little hobby of creating

            FOSSILS!

Finally he came up with the notion of creating all this other stuff we know of, out of nothing.

But he discovered that he was just a little short of enough nothing from which to create everything he had in mind.

So he cleaned out his eternal closet, and stirred in enough of the fossil stuff to make up the difference.

So the fossil stuff is in fact millions of years old, but that simply has nothing to do with the age of the rest of what we know as the creation!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 12 - 07:21 PM

When did ANY Creationist, or Creationist Website, reach conclusions which were supported by scientific evidence?

NEVER!............That's when!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 May 12 - 06:52 PM

Mitochondrial DNA has shown that a single woman existed on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago. The first male existed 90,000 years ago in the Rift Valley of Kenya.

I could get quite depressed.

I am relieved to find that, despite being a fairly sloppy piece of popular science jounalism, what the article actually said was -

Our mtDNA appears to coalesce in a single woman, who lived on the African savannah 150,000 years ago. Our Y-chromosome survives from a single man, who lived in the Rift Valley of Kenya or Tanzania 59,000 years ago.

This has been around for about 25 years and has been somewhat modified since. It is probably one of the most misunderstood ideas in popular science.

This Wikipedia article seems a bit out of date but gives the general idea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Bizarrely, this article from a creationist website seems to do its literature research very well before reaching some strange conclusions not supported by the evidence.http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 May 12 - 03:48 PM

Did you see that odd link to the 4 things destroying men? which became three on the comments pages? Looks as though it's selling some junk career boosting snake oil.

Interesting article, and very interesting comments.

And one of the things it led me to was a reassessment of William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes trial. He had reasoned that social Darwinianism, which included eugenics, and was not what Darwin had taught, was dangerous to American society, because it would lead people away from a politics which supported the poor against the rich - he was, in fact, and successfully so in politics, a socialist. And he was not, in fact, a YEC, but a day age creationist who was prepared to accept evolution, except for the origin of man. An interesting and intelligent man. Look him up on wikipedia.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 12 - 03:06 PM

Excellent article, which should be read especially by people such as seven stars pete.

Christian fundamentalists and YEC are shooting themselves in the foot. THEY are driving intelligent, thinking, spiritually oriented people out of the churches.

CLICKY!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 May 12 - 01:57 PM

New information has come out linking mankind to Africa, the first two known antecedents from Richard Leakey form Olorgesailie near Nairobi. Mitochondrial DNA has shown that
a single woman existed on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago. The first male
existed 90,000 years ago in the Rift Valley of Kenya. "Adam and Eve did exist, 90,000 years apart" according to the author of this piece. This information knocks Creationism into
a cocked hat.

We are all Africans and racial distinctions make very little difference in our makeup.

We are all Africans

Unfortunately, fundamentalist African based religions are still in the ignorant stages about this.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 May 12 - 03:04 PM

Surprisingly, they have official websites now!

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 May 12 - 02:55 PM

Ian, they're an offshoot of Plymouth Brethren, and were at one time under the rule of a man (of course) with weird ideas. My Dad had clients who were Plymouth, and the son became Exclusive, and had to eat in a separate room.

There was a scandal involving the leader and women (what a surprise) which split the Exclusives, but he is now dead, and the rules seem to be relaxing a bit. The women still have the headscarves, but the rest of the dress is wmuch freer. And the meeting houses have had windows put in them.

I used to worry about the girls in school. "We don't believe in educating our women," a colleague was told. They did try to run their own school for a while, having worried about the exposure to computers (apparently the organisation now uses them to keep tabs on membership, but they are not allowed to let us unbelievers know this as we would not understand that they are OK used for holy purposes) and increasingly girls doing PE and swimming. But they had some special needs children they could not cope with, who came back to us. They were nice people, who believed what they had been taught, and were prepared to swallow any change unquestioning.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 12 - 02:00 PM

Lazarus.

Jesus may have administered CPR and nobody there knew what he was doing.

Or more likely--part of the myth.

I believe (not sure, though) that Jesus did exist. Josephus, a contemporary historian, mentions an itinerant preacher who was getting up the noses of some to the Establishment (both religious and governmental) and they crucified him for it.

As an old friend of mine, Lutheran pastor Bruce Pond, said, "All major religious prophets are said to have worked miracles of one sort or another. It's part of the mythology, a way to telling a good story. Often the person does something that we would consider ordinary, but the onlookers at the time didn't understand. And the fish gets bigger every time the story gets retold."

And this from an ordained pastor. Rather than pounding the Bible and insisting that something had to be true because the Bible said so, his speculative take on the improbable was one of the reasons I liked him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 12 - 01:13 PM

Penny,

I can add fax machines to the list too. They have their women wear handkerchiefs on their heads and someone once told me they were Plymouth Brethren, but having Wiki'd the brethren, I don't think they may be.

No matter, it was a throwaway observation that I used to have a customer where the bloke in the sales office had to go home each lunchtime and collect the faxes that came in, as his boss wouldn't have them on the premises, and when I noted mobile phones added to the list of things not permitted on the premises, (how the hell their customers put up with the silly notices all over is beyond me...) I mentally made the connection with where my brother when he was an aid worker in Tanzania told me how Masai communities had been inadvertently transformed by the mobile phone masts he and others had originally objected to.

My point was that debunking science may be fun if it gets in the way of your club rules, but when you force your rules on others (the teaching of bollocks in schools?) cause and effect come into play.

Jesus didn't raise anybody (Lazar.. something? Help me someone clever?) . We had to wait for science to give us advances in intensive care before such things could be contemplated!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 May 12 - 09:42 AM

Paul, I know that the dualist idea is widespread, but its application to mobile phones is unusual, and fitted what I had learned of the Ex B.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 12 - 08:58 PM

Yep, and, while I'd never actually call pete "sinister" (he's far too insubstantial for that), there is something very incongruous indeed about his (deliberate?) lack of decent grammar and punctuation aligned with his bitingly-expressed prejudices. Read his posts very carefully and you will see a man who is more than happy to misrepresent himself as a rather harmless duffer when, in fact, he is propagating pro-creationist and anti-science notions that have the capacity to maintain millions of people in fearful ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 May 12 - 08:46 PM

read your post again,and perish the thought ,could it be slightly slapdash!.

Total user. Condemned from his own mouth. Just look at that and think whose thought or presentation is slapdash.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 12 - 07:52 PM

You just beat me to it there, Shimrod. How any sane person can call "Darwinism" a "cherished holy cow" utterly defeats me. Now I'm not out to assassinate the character of this folkie troubadour, but I would just remind everyone left reading this that I have repeatedly told pete to read On The Origin Of Species. He has failed to do so (even though it's written in beautiful, elegant and easy English - all you have to do is turn off Coronation Street while you're reading it), yet he still comes on here dissing "darwinists," "Darwinism," evolutionism," and whatever else he chooses to pejoratively call it. Ugly stuff it is, not the rather sweet naivety that he hopes we'll all be hoodwinked into accepting. Once you have studied Origin, and understood at least its main thrust, you are entitled to come on here and lambast us all with your objections. But come on here and attempt to lambast us with your ignorant preconceptions and you are asking us to be rude to you and tell you to stop wasting our bloody time. pete may be a nice man down the boozer with his singing mates but he is an absolute horror here. The smiley little man who can't do capital letters is full of the same bogus arguments that maintain almost half the population of the US, for example, in scientific pig ignorance. One hopes he limits his views to this forum where at least he can't do much harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 May 12 - 05:13 PM

Just for the record, I'm with Steve Shaw!

The following statement, for example, took my breath away:

"darwinisn in some form or the other is IMO the cherished holy cow that will not countenance creationism and excludes papers that support it-"

pete will be demanding that Astronomy journals publish papers based on a geocentric universe next! In the interests of "balance" of course!

Just between you and me, the leading Physics journals refuse to publish my work on perpetual motion machines - narrow-minded bastards!!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 May 12 - 04:53 PM

Penny, almost all Christians except the good old C of E (who only believe in respectability) and the Quakers, and some of the simpler Catholics, are dualists. There is God; and there is the Devil: and they are of equal power. All these Baptists and Muslims see their god as a puny little thing that needs their intervention in politics to make its way in the world. And the somple Cat'lics take the Bible to its own conclusion, and see the Divil as only another of God's poor creatures.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 May 12 - 04:42 PM

don t -certainly most jews do not believe Jesus is the messiah.i understood your comments to be claiming none of them did.certainly if you had said "most"i would agree.however you said "none ".
i dont really get your point as to the OT chronaclers not believing that Jesus was messiah since they wrote prior to his appearing.[whether they would recognise him given the opportunity in their lifetime can only be affirmed by ref to our beliefs.i would answer in the probable and i guess you in the negative].
i read your post again,and perish the thought ,could it be slightly slapdash!.

sugarfoot-i agree that scientists do challenge each others or existing theories, and equilibria and gradualism is one of those instances-though closing ranks since.
darwinisn in some form or the other is IMO the cherished holy cow that will not countenance creationism and excludes papers that support it-though sometimes scientists have suceeded in publishing if not directly creationist.
i understand that catastrophism is now accepted as a mechanism in the evolutionism story,where once it was totally dismissed following lyell ,if i remember correctly ,stating that the past was only to be interpreted by ref to present prosseses.uniformitarianism ruled!
catastrophic geological action is now ok-as long as its not biblical!
i stand to be corrected on the details if i'm mistaken.
best wishes to everyone! pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 May 12 - 01:54 PM

Ian, were the anti-mobile-phone guys Exclusive Brethren? They have some sort of belief about Satan being the Prince of the Air (presumably Biblical), and therefore that which travels through the air is subject to him. They attribute quite a lot of power to the fallen angel, and could probably be described as dualists. The reverse of Dawkin's (?) remark about having gone one more step in the number of gods not believed in, having gone one step backwards. They are very afraid of him. I did challenge a couple of parents on this over the extension of this belief to computer use, pointing out that Jesus was supposed to have defeated Satan, but they feel he can still work his wicked way on those who have not accepted adult baptism within the sect. such as their children.

Oddly for a very exclusive group, a number of their beliefs I had met in other places such as that odd group from the hippy period - Children of God, was it, with an abusive leader? They weren't directly from the Bible. (Bar codes being 666 was one, I think.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 May 12 - 01:17 PM

"Creationism" should be reframed as "delusionalism". There is nothing creative about it.
I am appalled that this thread continues as if there were some rational defense for this delusion.

I will not attack the character of any individual but I won't stand still for delusional ideas or belief systems for which I have no respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 26 May 12 - 03:19 AM

He doesn't have to argue. Everybody else argues instead.

Bill, I fully accept your point that it is ideas rather than people we should be considering although on a posting site such as this, ideas do tend to be personified.

Steve's exasperation is both justified and rational. We can never move forward as civilisation whilst facts are weighed against myth. I used to work with a couple of guys who belonged to a devout Christian cult that had decided that mobile phones were banned somewhere in the bible. (don't ask, and I never did either...). Now, if their interpretation became widespread, the upturn in fortunes of the Masai in rearing cattle and getting to market more efficiently could not have come about. The upturn being less starving African children because phone masts were put up for tourists on safari. Small example and nothing compared to religious disdain of blood transfusions or insisting on mutilating childrens' genitals. Let alone the noble art of book burning!

I am coming off the fence here. It is one thing to disagree with a scientific hypothesis but another to dismiss through ignorance and preconception. It is rather insulting too, hence I have no problem with being insulting back. Other than a misgiving over mocking the afflicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 09:32 PM

"consider being a little less chummy with these guys and a little more critical instead."
I am not the least bit chummy with those who are trying to do that. I get along fine with those who mostly keep their beliefs to their church. (I don't hear Pete suggesting that YEC be taught in schools as fact.)

Don T... it's hopeless to make the point about 'manners' sometimes...hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 08:32 PM

After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character.

I don't give a stuff about pete's "real-life character." I'm perfectly prepared to accept that he's a personable sort of chap when it comes to his troubadour exploits. But he talks shit here. That's what I concentrate on, Don. What are you actually on about?

He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist.

Ignorance of what subject? And what's this "portrays himself" shite, Don? Would you like me to send you my certificates?

I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air.

Well you've lost me there. Are you still talking about me or what??? Who said that about you, Don? Would you like me to punch them on the nose for you?

Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners.

Well, Don, if you think that dropping shite on the whole of science and on every scientist, refusing to listen to a single scientific idea, and feigning ignorance is good manners, I can't help thinking that you've been deluded. Charm is no substitute for integrity and honesty, qualities that pete has yet to demonstrate on this forum, if not in, er, real life.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 08:18 PM

We in the USA have a serious issue with folks who want to insert religious ideas as far out as Pete's into politics.

Hmmm. You haven't done very well, then, have you? Perhaps you should consider being a little less chummy with these guys and a little more critical instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 25 May 12 - 06:58 PM

Did you notice the thread about the 42,000 year old flute? Obviously it was played by angels or some such, seeing as humans weren't invented until 6000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 12 - 06:18 PM

""don-i think you overstate your case.the 1st christians were jewish following a jewish messiah.there are still messianic jews now and i very much doubt they are all evolutionists-probably the opposite IMO.""

Slack and slapdash thinking Pete. The first Christians were followers of Jesus who so far departed from Jewish custom and thought that his fellows chose to save a murderer rather than this (to them) false Messiah.

There are indeed many Messianic Jews, but a very tiny proportion of their number believe that the Messiah is Jesus, and orthodox Jews to this day believe that the Messiah is yet to appear.

""I cannot let the basic errors in understanding of science go unchallenged, but neither can I condemn a person simply on the basis of what I consider 'wrong' ideas. I almost always react to **ideas** in a forum like this, not to a person.""

Bill D, I couldn't agree more with that statement.

After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character.

He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist.

I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air.

Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 04:52 PM

"We have to take posters at face value.."

Indeed... and I do my best to read not only the words, but to read 'between the lines' and make a reasonable guess at motivation and character. This DOES lead to conflicts as to how to respond.

I cannot let the basic errors in understanding of science go unchallenged, but neither can I condemn a person simply on the basis of what I consider 'wrong' ideas. I almost always react to **ideas** in a forum like this, not to a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 12 - 02:24 PM

Whilst knowingly putting kindling on the fire, I have to say Steve makes a very fundamental (that word again) point. We have to take posters at face value, not based on either knowing them or second hand opinions of them.

It is what we say on these posts that we judge each other by. I would be horrified to think my whole persona was accurately reflected in what I rant on about all the same, and with our little YEC pete, I can only say that I am posting replies and observations in terms of how he portrays himself.

And it ain't pretty.

in fact, if too many people take he and his fellow patients seriously, downright bloody frightening!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 02:18 PM

"You're being suckered, Bill"

☺

Ah well... I am not suddenly consumed with the desire to read Revelations or join a church. If I met Pete and found him smirking at me for being led into all this to further his amusement, I'd be upset...but I kinda doubt that's how it would go. More likely we'd sit and thrash out more of the details in a conversation. That's an easier way to debate anyway.

..."the kind of nonsense he propagates here has done massive intellectual damage to a lot of people by helping to switch off part of their brains. "

keywords... "has done".... I don't feel in danger....do you?

I have an interest in saying whatever I can to find a switch to turn ON parts of brains that have a wiring problem. We in the USA have a serious issue with folks who want to insert religious ideas as far out as Pete's into politics. I rehearse my reasoning by friendly debates with Pete... and earlier, with Iona..... and WAY earlier with several others. I have not converted anyone, and they have not converted me. I just do it to be sure MY views are represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 01:30 PM

The blood pressure's fine, thanks. How many more times do we really have to hear that pete is honest, decent, etc. etc.? That one gets thrown in so many times! pete represents himself here in the way he wishes to represent himself. I take that at face value. And what I see is a man who studiously disses science and scientists and who refuses to embrace honestly any scientific concept whatsoever. It's a fundamentally dishonest stance. If he's a nice bloke down the pub singing his songs it's because that's the way he wishes to represent himself down the pub.      He doesn't pepper his singing with religious rants, I'll be bound. But the kind of nonsense he propagates here has done massive intellectual damage to a lot of people by helping to switch off part of their brains. Bet you won't hear pete telling his fellow travellers to shut up with their nonsense in front of kids, for example. You're being suckered, Bill. Soft faces, hard cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 12:47 PM

"If you "know how to be right", Bill, show pete, and hurry up about it. "

The point is, a debate is not useless because one side fails to convince the other.

You see, I don't expect to convince Pete. All I really do in this case is try to leave ".... a long, patient, gentle explanation of the way things really are.". I 'hope' Pete might have a crack in his armor someday, but I have spent many years dealing with personal friends & acquaintances who hold awkward views on this & similar topics. With few exceptions, they are sane, nice, friendly, enjoyable people. We just don't discuss certain topics a lot. Pete gets our/my attentions because he chooses to directly enter the discussion.....and he doesn't call US names or question our honesty or intelligence.

   Remember, YEC is only an extreme subset of a belief system that posits metaphysical entities... and there are many similar belief systems. I find that it is useful to ME to hone my own understandings by discussing/debating them when they appear in this forum. Yes, it is frustrating when the same categories of logical & factual errors seem to crop up over & over, but I am quite sure I'm not going to win converts to MY point of view by insults, ridicule and general assumptions about what is 'in the mind' of those I debate.
"He is enjoying this business of toying with us....He feigns dignity ...etc."

I am assured by two people who know him personally that Pete is honest and decent.... but I don't NEED even that. *I* have the choice to give up and end the discussion if someone seems belligerent and attacks me personally....and I have done so a few times here. I suggest that course if your blood pressure seems too high.....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 12 - 08:47 AM

I wouldn't worry about it mate. In another thread, simply for refusing to accept religion, I was called a fundamentalist.

Now that WAS interesting. It seems you can be slightly religious but not slightly atheist. (Don't start a thread on agnostic versus atheist, I'll start swearing and spoil it.)

I'm probably slightly human too. Good job I don't give a f

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 12 - 06:44 AM

Hi Steve. Have you had a chance to read up about falsifiability yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 05:05 AM

Now Bill. I explode with justifiable impatience at this man's silly notions, we've been at him for months like a bunch of lunatics and now you tell me I "have no idea how to be right." Well I'm telling you that no-one here has succeeded, no matter how "right", in penetrating this man's armour. In fact I suspect that he's all armour with nothing inside. I groan every time I see you or anyone else giving pete a long, patient, gentle explanation of the way things really are. It's a lamentable waste of time. He is enjoying this business of toying with us, serially employing the one ploy he knows (pretending to be stupid and ignorant about science then shitting all over it). pete has persuaded us all what a nice man he is. Well I demur. Nice men don't close their eyes tight shut and shit all over science - and scientists. He feigns dignity (and has hoodwinked a number of people here into believing it) from a position which utterly lacks any semblance of dignity, that of glorying in pig ignorance. If you "know how to be right", Bill, show pete, and hurry up about it. You've failed miserably (just like the rest of us) so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 25 May 12 - 04:34 AM

"it remains to be seen how much would be accomodated when cherished philosophical ideas are challenged."

Then challenge it with observable, testable evidence.

You're dead wrong in thinking cherished beliefs are the sacred cows of science - far from it. Scientists challenge each other constantly, and any review of current discussions would demonstrate that. Science encourages challenge as it's how we test our methods, data and conclusions.

"that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other"

Huh? How the heck did they arrive at that conclusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 May 12 - 03:37 AM

"i did indicate that there had been a merging of equilibrium and gradualism.that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other ..."

Really?? I very much doubt that Creationists have that much influence on evolutionary theory!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 12 - 09:59 PM

Let me say it this way Steve... you are like an old friend of mine who was very smart, and who was usually right about things, but sadly, had no idea how to BE right. It is NOT the case that those who WE are sure are both wrong and not 'getting it' are by definition "dishonest".

Allegedly? You called Pete names "cheap, facile unthinking...buffoon".

He is none of those. He thinks...and you & I know where his thinking has problems. Facile? "..affable, agreeable, or complaisant; easily influenced:". Not exactly... we educated, intelligent folk sure aren't budging him! He IS trying to cope with both your arguments and MY arguments. He is far from 'cheap', if I glean your meaning. He is far from a buffoon...look it up!
You, Steve, toss those words around loosely, rather than trying to find really fitting language that 'might' get you some attention, if not agreement. *I* might say he is 'stubborn', but from his theological viewpoint, he NEEDS to be stubborn.

I read an opinion once that... no matter what your religion, club, family, team, or political party, there is always someone on your side who you wish was on the OTHER side.
I disagree with Pete on almost every major point, but I can talk to him.... I'm not really sure I'd have YOU on my side in a debate.

"Oh wad the gift the giftie gie us..."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 12 - 07:53 PM

Our pete serially insults the whole of scientific endeavour with his disingenuous, quasi-religious, anti-intellectual nonsense. He is impenetrable and he does not engage in any genuine way with anyone here who questions his viewpoint. It's a completely dishonest and nefarious position, yet 'tis me wot gets picked up for allegedly calling him names. Nice one, Jacky Tar. Do continue to give the man succour. We'll be here all year.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:10 PM

On my visit to Norfolk I may even have pointed at the rooks!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:08 PM

I visited Norfolk the other day - and I saw some rooks!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:08 PM

999-i hope i dont topple off this pedestal you put me on.it's probably higher than it should be!-but thanks for the kind words.

don-i think you overstate your case.the 1st christians were jewish following a jewish messiah.there are still messianic jews now and i very much doubt they are all evolutionists-probably the opposite IMO.

sugarfoot-it remains to be seen how much would be accomodated when cherished philosophical ideas are challenged.
i did indicate that there had been a merging of equilibrium and gradualism.that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other ,as was the case initially.
regards   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 12 - 12:19 PM

Hello Sailor!

Sailor Jack wants to know how name calling can help your argument.

Well when I have taken the piss out of you and your stance, the cathartic effect has been rather pleasant.

However, for pete, I can't feel that way. I respect 999 but on this, I beg to differ. If the likes of pete gather influence, we might as well go back to banging the rooks together. Here in The UK, we still have parts of Norfolk where people point at aircraft. If YECs win the argument, we might even start worshipping them...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 24 May 12 - 07:18 AM

We've all got a "moral stature". Contrary to popular belief Christians (or other religious types) don't have a monopoly on that. I'm not arguing against pete's character (although I think his self-deprecation is tiresome and means he can be evasive in a lazy way), I'm arguing against his YEC. I'm not even arguing against the existence of God.

Pete, if you did find a horse in the Burgess Shale it would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Evolution would need to accommodate it's presence there, and as far as I understand evolution, it doesn't. It would make you famous. It would go a heck of a long way to disprove the theory thou so despise.

"there is no way the GTE can be proved false as it is so flexible"

No it's not. If the evidence was there, it could be disproved. Also, you'd have to move the upper and lower limits of the Burgess Shale formation to accommodate a horse being present, and most scientists would not allow that.

As for gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium, the debate is nowhere near as absolutist as that. For what it's worth, I think both are valid, but variables in local conditions where isolated populations exist mean either can come into play.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:41 AM

What has pete's "moral stature" (let's assume he's a good person) got to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 May 12 - 02:14 AM

OOPS.

Steve, my apology for that. It was uncalled for and I'm sorry. However, fact is, there is little difference in one regard between you and Pete. He believes what he does as you believe what you do. Where I see you both being 'the same' is in the belief arena. For Pete it is his thought about the origin of this place we live in and on. For you it is the thought about the origin of this place we live in and on. Your differences are few in reality.

Science, which you respect and in someways adore has given us much. The methods of scientific research are sound, as far as we know. BUT, scientists are no more moral than YECs. Some scientists have proven themselves to be moral prostitutes, little better than two-bit whores.

You will no doubt require proof for that statement, so I put forth those who worked to develop nuclear weaponry, chemical weaponry and biological weaponry. Indeed you may say that political people 'swung the ship off course', but we'd both know that that argument is at once wrong and disingenuous. I submit to you that science is no less perverted than religion. Both 'disciplines' follow their versions of God, with complete beliefs in the rightness and righteousness of their respective causes, but in the end, neither holds a superior high ground.

Newton, best known for his thinking about the first, second and third laws should rightfully be equally recognized for creating the gold standard. That is selectively ignored when scientists speak about Sir Isaac. Today, scientists work not for science but rather for governments. That in itself should shame y'all.

Your detestation of Pete brings you no honour. It does diminish you somewhat, however, because while he holds to an unprovable belief, you, even with your science can not prove him either right or wrong. In short, I prefer what I've seen of his 'morality' to what I've seen of yours. Take that as you will, and in the words of the prophet, so mote it be, a statement I think is bullshit wrapped in crap inside a veneer of wtf.

Have a good day. And next time you decide to take offense, please remember that this old sonuvabitch is an old sonuvabitch who does not care who he offends.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 May 12 - 01:05 AM

Mr Shaw, opinions are like assholes, everybody got one.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 May 12 - 11:38 PM

How does it help your argument to call people names?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 12 - 07:13 PM

He [pete] has a moral stature which I feel should be envied.

Well I don't envy it. A stature that dismisses science selectively, serially pruning out all the bits that don't fit in with his extremist, rigid view of the world, shitting all the while on hard-working, honest-to-goodness scientists with cheap, facile unthinking remarks, is not a moral stance at all, let alone one that deserves to be envied. Frankly, the man is a buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 12 - 06:02 PM

And, I might add, only a minority of Christians at that. Most main-stream Christians take the Old Testament and some of the New as myth and metaphor, and have no trouble with the idea that the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years. And that, as for humans are concerned, and all life on earth for that matter, evolution is the way God did it.

They tend to sigh a lot and roll their eyes when they hear the assertions of Young Earth Creationists.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 12 - 05:40 PM

""whereas punctuated equilibrium acknowledged the extreme rarity of transistional forms and that became the evidence for that theory.""

You seem to have almost as much of a problem with joined up thinking as you do with punctuated text.

Every form found is a transitional link between its past and its future,.....INCLUDING US!

And I can't help thinking that Young Earth Creationists may be a dead end branch.

The possibility of abiogenesis is less unlikely than the possibility of Intelligent Design, unless of course the Designer used abiogenesis as a means to an end.

One thing however is abundantly clear and backed by irrefutable scientific evidence. Whatever happened certainly didn't take place six thousand (or ten thousand for some YECs) years ago.

And the cherry picking of various ancient writings, to exclude inconvenient contradictions, throws the whole of the bible account of genesis into doubt and confusion, while still leaving irreconcilable contradictions throughout the Old Testament.

And just bear in mind that not one of the OT chroniclers was a Christian, all of them worshipped Jehovah, and none of them believed that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, in fact none of their descendents believe it today.

It is illogical to cite the OT at all, since the New Testament is the first Chronicle of Christianity, and YECs are without exception Christians, not Jews.

Don T.