BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:53 AM

A funny idea. Don't care who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:55 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 10:43 AM

There's a JW Kingdom Hall about 6 blocks from me. I suppose I should resist the urge to print that and tape it to their door.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 11:00 AM

I would resist that urge. The JW's I know might take it as an invitation to give you their good news.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 11:09 AM

I don't mind them. On the odd occasion they come to the door I excuse myself and say I'm just on my way out to donate blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 11:27 AM

Do you want to read about Jesus?
No thanks, I like "Batman"


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 11:49 AM

I say, "No thanks. Black Irish Cat'lic here. Have a good day." I doubt if many of them have heard the term so it doesn't scare them as much as telling them telling them I'm a Hard Shell Baptist.

GUEST & Spaw... hehehehee!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 11:51 AM

I'm a Hard Shell Baptist.

You know that the soft shell ones are only soft just after the moult.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 04:46 PM

I just tell my anti-evolution associates about my devotion to the word of "St. Chuck"!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:13 PM

I few months back I heard a radio interview with a writer named A. J. Jacobs, who wrote a book intitled A Year of Living Biblically, describing his year of attempting to live by each and every precept outlined in the Bible. Not easy!!

But during that year, one day he was called upon by a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses. Instead of blowing them off, he invited them in. They wanted to talk about the Bible? Sure, let's talk about the Bible!

About a half hour passed before they had hit the point where they were looking around furtively and edging toward the door. He kept talking until they were whimpering and clawing at the walls!

"You want to talk about the Bible? Yes! Let's talk about the Bible!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:13 PM

I few months back I heard a radio interview with a writer named A. J. Jacobs, who wrote a book intitled A Year of Living Biblically, describing his year of attempting to live by each and every precept outlined in the Bible. Not easy!!

But during that year, one day he was called upon by a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses. Instead of blowing them off, he invited them in. They wanted to talk about the Bible? Sure, let's talk about the Bible!

About a half hour passed before they had hit the point where they were looking around furtively and edging toward the door. He kept talking until they were whimpering and clawing at the walls!

"You want to talk about the Bible? Yes! Let's talk about the Bible!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:44 PM

(Sorry! Got the hiccups!)

DF

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 06:59 PM

Church mice

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 08:09 PM

WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN CHEESES

What a friend we have in cheeses,
Mozzarella, Cheddar, Swiss!
Bleu and Limberger's sweet breezes
Lingering like a lover's kiss.
Humble milk's apotheosis,
Muenster, Provolone, Brie
Damn cholesterol's thrombosis
Cheese is Gouda stuff by me!

Heed the U. S. Dairy Council,
Keep the Gruyere on the shelf.
Even just a tiny ounce'll
Give you vitamin B-12.
Gather, pilgrims at the deli
Buying Edam and Havarti,
Wedges moist and cold and smelly,
Bring home lots and have a party!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 08:39 PM

Ah well, JWs wear their baseball caps the right way and they don't commit crime. I'm okay.

I dunno if they are allowed to wear baseball caps but I figure they would do it right. Overall, not a bad bunch in my books. I wonder who they favour in the Superbowl.

As for the Darwin Witnesses, I expect few watch Yankee football. Throwbacks!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 05:09 AM

I reckon The Two Ronnies got it right.

"A plague of locusts collided today with a colony of frogs going in the other direction on the A38 near Bristol.

Police are appealing for Jehova's Witnesses."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 06:23 AM

Hahahahahaaa!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 02:18 PM

Very good Musket.

Somenone invited a young JW in asked him to sit down and explain things. He said Oh, dunno really, I have never got this far before

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 04:24 AM

Conversation between me and a pair of JW's at the door.

JW: Has god ever spoken to you?

Me: Yes.

JW: And what did he say?

Me: He told me to form a religion. I have done. Will you be my first converts?

JW: Errrr?

Me: It's a really good one.

JW: But is it the real one?

Me: Yes.

JW: How do you know?

Me: God told me. Please, come in. The initiation really is quite simple.

JW (Backing away from the door): Well good luck. Sorry to have troubled you.

Me (Chasing them down the road): Awww, come back. I am sure we can have fun.

My wife: Come back in before the neighbours see you...

BTW - The cartoon in the OP is funny because it never happens. Does that mean anything to anyone? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 04:35 AM

Depends on the logic of others Dave.

Just because I Dad danced at a recent wedding to Culture Club singing "Church of the Poisoned Mind" doesn't mean anything other than embarrassing my wife by my dancing. Ditto listening to Lennon's Imagine on the wireless.

Yet say you don't share someone's stance or delusion, and you get psycho analysed.... JWs are an excellent example of something being so wonderful, they can't see why others don't share it.

Dragging it back to the folk circuit, Les Barker' wonderful "Jehova's Witness at the Door" springs to mind when I see this thread.

Jehova's Witness on the step
Jesus wants you for a rep.

Classic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 01:32 PM

there be plenty Darwin witnesses on mudcat, even if they don't doorknock!.......and pray. what good news does Darwin have?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 03:01 PM

pete... the next generation of humans will be stronger and smarter IF this generation doesn't kill them.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 03:12 PM

No reason, at that, to imagine that homo sapiens is the ultimate in evolution. Who knows what will succeed as the dominant species. The good news is that there is no foreseeable end to something or other.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 03:27 PM

Human beings haven't evolved much at all since civilization. Technology and cooperation and yes liberal charity, take away the need for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 04:06 PM

"there be plenty Darwin witnesses on mudcat, even if they don't doorknock!.......and pray."

Is this "taking the piss?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 05:27 PM

"Since civilisation" is scarcely the sort of time-scheme within one thinks of any major evolution. Civilisation is reckoned in a lowish # of thousands (maybe 12,000). Evolution is reckoned in millions.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 01:18 AM

"Is this taking the piss?"




Evolution in action

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 01:23 AM

Ian, was your "Evolution in action" meant to be a clicky? If so, could we have a link, please?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 03:40 AM

Evolution will amplify characteristics that result in having many children.
Those that lead to having few children late in life will be suppressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:15 AM

"what good news does Darwin have?"

He tells it like it is, pete - and not what a bunch of ignorant, fanatical, red-neck fundamentalists would like it to be!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:17 AM

Oh yes, pete - have you read that book by Prof. Dawkins, that I recommended in another thread, yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:27 AM

We should provide margin notes for Michael.....

My comment was that at long last, our esteemed colleague whom I quoted is beginning to recognise evolution in the modern sense, which also was a rib at pete as a by product.

Not so good when you have to explain it, which on reflection may have been Michael's subtle plan.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:43 AM

Sorry Ian. Just not keeping up with all the cut'n'thrust of the q&a.
Blame old age...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:50 AM

."what good news does Darwin have?

You are part of a wonderful, complex and precious thread of life that is transient, interconnected and ancient. Your are made of star stuff, literally borne of mighty suns and you, like every other life form on our planet is unique and beyond material value.

You are the universe made conscious, able to contemplate it's own existence and curious about it's own nature. There is no reason to value all life more profound and beautiful than that.


"Human beings haven't evolved much at all since civilization. Technology and cooperation and yes liberal charity, take away the need for it."

Humans continue to evolve regardless of technology, and co-operation is an evolved behavioural trait present in many animals and plants (and between animals and plants). There are some interesting ongoing studies about how natural selection is working within certain populations even within modern society, one study looked at a certain village in Scandinavia that showed a degree of adaption, but I can't recall which characters they were basing this study on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:53 AM

Yeah, but the problem is a few posts get in the way when you think yours is going to follow the one you are commenting on.

I find I try not to get old.

I'm a sucker for rejuvenation.

Mrs Musket is a keen skier and tonight we go down to The Alps for two weeks for me to prove I can ski and snowboard with all the other teenagers. Packed plenty of ibuprofen so should be able to pull it off again and convince people..... Ten sodding years now since I said "Ski? Oh! I love skiing!" Trying to impress this new girlfriend.......... I suffer every late January and sometimes later in the season on the other side of the pond. Me? Beach bar every time but hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 09:04 AM

MtheGM

My point about civilization is that natural selection is not such a factor when afflictions that might make one less fit, poor eyesight, genetically weak teeth etc etc, are corrected or made up for by society. I guess that that resistance to certain plague germs was once a civilizational survival trait but technology has virtually removed those germs from the biosphere.

We may not be the pinnacle of evolution, but as long as we breed as we do now, we may have reached our pinnacle of our evolution.

Of course, biologists would say that there is no pinnacle of evolution. There is only adaptation to a specific environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 09:50 AM

I ain't never gonna adapt to -32C windchill... even if I mutate meself a block heater.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:20 AM

I think I've mutated a desire to eat more whelks than I can carry.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:25 AM

hmmmm

Do you need a whelkbarrow?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:35 AM

Having children is hereditary, if your parents had no children - niether will you

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:40 AM

I think that talking to children of parents who had no children must be a learned behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:55 AM

"what good news does Darwin have?"

Good? I dunno.... but he sure had interesting news.

The problem is, evolution has not proceeded far enough to ensure all members of our strange species has an inborn gene for automatic recognition of their own evolutionary status..... or maybe the pinnacle OF evolution is to be able to use reason to evade reason.

Ah, conundrums! ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 11:44 AM

Ah, but, Les, even if they do, you might not.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 12:08 PM

The pinnacle of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 01:56 PM

I use to ask cherubs, when I 'taught', anybody here with a brother or a sister who is an only child? Quite a few did

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 02:15 PM

Say it ain't so, Jack...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 02:50 PM

If you are looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, who breeds more on average, The Rhodes scholar, Olympic athletes, or people of Wal*Mart?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 05:13 AM

bill- conundrums.....if we are accidents of chemical processes, that would include your brain. why should we trust anything anyone says?
stu- spoken like a true evangelist!
shimrod-   no I haven't. have you read safati's refutation of dawkins book?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 06:10 AM

I presume this will be the next thread to be shut down without explanation, but as a guest I cant complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 07:45 AM

Thread drift, I suppose, but I've just been listening to Jez Lowe's "We'll hunt him down". Worth hearing, and it's on YouTube. I'm in the car (as a passenger!) So making a link is tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 07:50 AM

" ... if we are accidents of chemical processes, that would include your brain. why should we trust anything anyone says?"

What does that mean, pete?

However, I certainly don't trust anything a creationist says!

And who the hell is Safati? Is he as well respected within the scientific community as Richard Dawkins (remember that the term "creationist scientist" is an oxy-moron!)?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 08:18 AM

pete, I googled SaRfati and find he's another of your creationist loons. On the website that I consulted, one commentator pointed out that Sarfati's "refutation of Dawkins" doesn't seem to be available in 'normal' bookshops (unlike Richard Dawkins' book) but, presumably, has to be ordered from some dubious 'creationist foundation' - correct me if I'm wrong (?)

This is the best comment I found on the matter:

"If I dismiss this book without reading it then I am as closed minded as religious people who refuse to read Mr Dawkins' book.

However, I do not have much free time these days. So what I have decided to do is to wait until the author is awarded the Nobel Prize for disproving evolution, and THEN read the book.

That's fair isn't it?"

Perhaps, if YOU have read Sarfati's book, pete, you could go on and read Dawkins' book - and give us a comparison of the two?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 08:33 AM

Dawkins' witnesses would be a whole other matter. For one thing the joke would not be so funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 03:22 PM

When I was in college/university, the chairman of the philosophy dept. was Anthony C. 'Tony' Genova. He was a brilliant man, and helpful & personable. He could discuss almost any facet of philosophical thought and ended his career as an emeritus professor at the Univ. of Kansas. It was always a problem when a 2 hour graduate seminar class ended, as Genova would be so wound up in trains of thought that he found it hard to just stop.... everything led to something else!

We graduate students sometimes referred to ourselves as "Genova's Witnesses" (though never within his hearing)...kinda cute, hmm?
   But the point was NOT that he had some 'truth' that we subscribed to, but rather that he had an attitude and an understanding of issues that made his scholarship well worth emulating.

My basic approach to knowledge is that, IF one learns 'how' to think, evaluate and to process data & ideas, one will navigate the churning, complex seas of science, religion, opinion, theory and propaganda in a fairly sensible way.

Learning 'how to think' won't necessarily give a person all the answers and it certainly won't 'prove' any one theory over another, but it WILL help avoid the most awkward pitfalls and silliness one encounters. Contrary to what 'some' seem to accept, there are basic rules for evaluating rhetoric, logic, scientific claims and metaphysical concepts.... much like mathematics does in other areas.
The problem? There are no simple answers that would fit on a poster on the wall... and much of the human race seems to be willing to settle for "poster philosophy".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 04:48 PM

and, Pete: "....if we are accidents of chemical processes, that would include your brain. why should we trust anything anyone says?"

Because, Pete, those chemical processes have similar, if not identical, foundations; and we can, with a little effort, learn what passes for rational human discourse. That is, we have ways to 'trust' a person's language and its meaning, whether we agree with them or not.

Is that what you were asking about, or did I miss the import? (It was a bit of a oblique question.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 07:46 PM

I would think the least trustworthy among us are the ones who demand trust because they "read it in the Bible" of even worse "because God told them."

Obviously education and experience in personal interaction are the keys in knowing who and what to trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 02:22 AM

Turned on the computer, and Found this on yahoo homepage..sorry to piss on your campfire

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 02:39 AM

Don't you mean rain on our parade for 40 days and nights?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 02:41 AM

You don't have to be read the Bible to be untrustworthy, Jack. The educated can be quite untrustworthy, as well (present company excluded, of course) I believe Mr. Wilde said "in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 03:44 AM

Always dangerous, tho, to attribute to a writer an opinion expressed by one of his characters: esp, as here Stim, when its spoken by a habitually cynical Englishwoman created by an Irishman. Typical other observation:
"To lose one parent, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:02 AM

"Always dangerous, tho, to attribute to a writer an opinion expressed by one of his characters: esp, as here Stim, when its spoken by a habitually cynical Englishwoman created by an Irishman."

Yes, but this is very much an opinion which he expressed in his political writings. Don't forget that Wilde was a self-confessed socialist-anarchist who, after meeting Kropotkin, considered his life to be one of the two most perfect lives he had ever come across. He railed against the establishment and most forms of state control and these opinions are reflected even in his lighter-hearted work.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:27 AM

But, leveller, as always with Wilde, so difficult to distinguish sincerity from flamboyant affectation. Why would he self-confess to socialist-anarchism & 'rail against the establishment', except, I cannot help suspecting, to personify one of those epigrammatic paradoxes in which he took such delight, what with his exquisiteness in dress and public persona and his treasured aristocratic connections? Wilde's view of Kropotkin was one widely held: he was much admired, among others, by William Morris & Bernard Shaw. But wouldn't one just like to know what might have been Kropotkin's opinion of Wilde!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:45 AM

I think you're letting your own opinions of Wilde cloud your judgement. I prefer to go to primary sources - specifically Wilde's own words, such as his extremely serious-minded pamphlet, 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism' which explains his political beliefs in considerable detail. Wilde was not just anti-establishment but very much anti-state. In his biography of Wilde, Ellman quotes him as saying: "I think I am rather more than a Socialist, I am something of an Anarchist, I believe...". You'll also find references in 'De Profundis'. In his history of Anarchism, 'Demanding the Impossible', Peter Marshall devotes a whole section to Wilde in his chapter on British Libertarians, talking of how Wilde was fond of quoting Chuang Tzu, especially, "...there has never been such a thing as governing mankind". Plenty of evidence of Wilde's anarchistic beliefs if you look for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 07:09 AM

Who would read Wilde, or others for that matter, after finding the site re Noah's "Ark"? I mean, what about it's suggested reading, "Parents warned of teen trend of snorting Smarties"? Sounds like crackerjack stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 09:36 AM

It occurs to me, MthGM, that it would be dangerous not to to attribute to a writer an opinion expressed by one of his characters.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 12:20 PM

It occurs to me that a good storyteller uses archetypes to say something about the human condition.

I don't think Fagin expressed the world view of Dickens or MacBeth the views of Shakespeare or Dr. No of Flemming.

I think that even Huck Finn's perspective was not entirely that of Twain.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 01:01 PM

Indeed, Jack.

Why, Stim, sometimes characters even disagree with one another. So what then?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 01:24 PM

Agreed, JtS. Where would Poe or King fit in; are such even relavent herein or is that too far a variant?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 04:02 PM

MILITANT DARWINISTS STRIKE AT VATICAN:

Angry birds: Peace doves attacked after release at Vatican

Rumors are that one bird said "I'm gonna get me somethin' to eat.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 04:59 PM

The Anticrow!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 05:36 PM

no, shimrod, I did not think you would read sarfati,s book, even if it were on the shelves of high st shops. I also am not surprised that you did not present any reasoned argument either....cant remember the last time you did, on the subject....just the usual dismissive mocking. you did not even say what dawkins arguments are , because as you more or less admit ,you expect there to be answers to his supposed evidences.

bill...if we are the product of intelligent design we certainly can expect that we can trust our assessments of what is reasoned, and make informed judgments on such. if we are only the result of accidental biological, chemical processes ,there is no reason to be sure ,even given, learning to evaluate study, that we are correct. that is not to say that I think you are unable to evaluate arguments, as I don't believe we are accidents.
I do however believe our presuppositions will colour our assessments of available evidence, and that includes you, bill.
so ,although I am accused of cherry picking the evidence, it is specifics I go for, since if I can demonstrate the big and small holes in the evolutionary assertions , it is evident that it is not the fully evidenced theory it is fobbed off to be.
the usual response to such reasoning ,is to say the bible account cannot be proved either, usually with the tactic of mockery.
I agree, that dismantling the Darwin edifice does not prove the bible, but IMO the evidence is consistent with a designer and creator.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:37 PM

Actually, pete, I haven't quite finished reading Dawkins' book yet - so I'm not quite ready for the "refutation". But from what I've read,so far, Prof. Dawkins' book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth', is a masterful summary of the evidence for evolution and contains all of the "reasoned argument" that you could ever need. Perhaps you should read it? Or would you rather stick with the "refutation" which (probably) cosily confirms all of your prejudices and preconceptions? Anyway, you creationists don't need evidence or reasoned argument, do you? Because you all 'know' uncritically and without question that "God Did It", don't you?

" ... if we are the product of intelligent design we certainly can expect that we can trust our assessments of what is reasoned, and make informed judgments on such. if we are only the result of accidental biological, chemical processes ,there is no reason to be sure ,even given, learning to evaluate study, that we are correct."

What??!! You may ... or may not ... be the product of "intelligent design", pete, but you might like to ask your 'maker' to give you a few tips on how to string a reasoned and coherent argument together!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:53 PM

" if we are the product of intelligent design we certainly can expect that we can trust our assessments of what is reasoned, and make informed judgments on such."

If this were so and everyone is designed by God then everyone's assessments of what is reasoned, would be trustworthy. Yet you don't even trust Bill's assessment. And Bill uses logic, a process created by minds which were designed by God ,and therefore obviously, by your logic, trustworthy, for making such assessments.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 07:27 PM

An Oldie But a Goodie

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 08:45 PM

Well Pete, Jack beat me to part of what needed to be said:

but I will add this to my reply to: "our presuppositions will colour our assessments of available evidence, and that includes you, bill."

I do agree, Pete... and my assumptions include my opinion that reason, however we got it... thru God or thru evolution, does require evaluating evidence & fact. You 'cherry-pick' evidence to exclude geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, and several other sciences in favor of 1)one set of interpretations of 2)one translation of 3)one collection of 'interesting stories'. You even ignore other collections of stories in old manuscripts which many, many scholars insist should have been included. But, King James' biblical scholars somehow decided.. or were told.. which ones to leave out.

If you choose to believe that this universe must have been created by some Supreme Being, I can't really argue with you... but the facts & evidence indicate that even IF a 'god' did it, the process He used followed certain rules...even IF He also designed the rules, and that He gave us the ability to study the process and analyze much of its content, age and products.

   It is clear & unmistakable that the Earth is a bit more than a few thousand years old...like 4 billion years more. Our ancestors go back WAY further than those lists in Genesis... back to people/beings who had no idea of writing & language. If you choose to believe that God kick-started all that... *shrug*...perhaps so. I don't need to know one way or another. I just refuse to ignore the data science gives us... and if God planned the rules of the scientific method, well good on Him!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 09:41 PM

Characters may disagree with each other, but they always say what is agreeable to their author. That is the whole point of authorship. It's not like Mudcat, where anyone can say anything that pops into their head.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 11:00 PM

IMHO They often say things that are quite disagreeable to the author. Sometimes authors are trying to show the ugliness in the world. Sometimes they are making a point. Sometimes they make up a character, put that character in a situation and try to imagine the words which would be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Gurney
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 11:50 PM

I just re-read an old Sci-Fi book called 'The Ship Who Searched' by Anne McCaffrey and Mercedes Lackey. There is a cult in there called Practical Darwinists' who make the J.W.'s look like a bunch of pussycats. NO medical interventions.

Puts a different slant on the cartoon, for me. Good job it is fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 11:54 AM

"I agree, that dismantling the Darwin edifice does not prove the bible, but IMO the evidence is consistent with a designer and creator."

The combination of personal incredulity and confirmation bias is a powerful one, and (no offence) your posts demonstrate just how far from reason they can take one when both are influencing a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 02:42 PM

I think not, Jack. Authors love their characters, and the evil ones even more, because they allow them to do what they please, and, more important, what pleases the author. The author creates them to do evil.

In the world of fiction, at least, there is a creator, who molds and shapes the reality, and who controls the lives and destinies of the characters. Or is there an argument against that, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 03:48 PM

>>I think not, Jack. Authors love their characters, and the evil ones even more, because they allow them to do what they please, and, more important, what pleases the author. The author creates them to do evil.

In the world of fiction, at least, there is a creator, who molds and shapes the reality, and who controls the lives and destinies of the characters. Or is there an argument against that, too? <<

I can't think of a better argument than this.

" but they always say what is agreeable to their author. "

Obviously you and I don't agree on the meaning of agreeable. And we don't agree on what some authors, who write like Shakespeare and Twain think about when creating characters. If you are saying that authors create characters dialog to serve the purpose of the story, I agree.

If you are saying that the characters are saying things that the author would agree with, certainly in many cases they do not.

Characters in a story are to good author as boards and nails to a carpenter. What pleases the carpenter is that the construction is solid and he gets paid. The conflict between the boards and the nails only matter when applied to that goal.

Its not that it pleased Carroll to have the queen say "Off with her head!" The threat to Alice created conflict and made the story more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 04:01 PM

"Characters in a story are to good author as boards and nails to a carpenter. What pleases the carpenter is that the construction is solid and he gets paid. The conflict between the boards and the nails only matter when applied to that goal."

Somebody write that one down.

And, such could be said about many post from many in this thread. Amazing discussion. One of the best in years!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 07:22 PM

My father was a carpenter, and I know first hand that the idea that they view nails and boards only as a means to build something is silly.

Carpenters love their nails and boards--they delight in the rattle of nails in the keg, and revel in the smell of fresh cut planks. The the pitch of a well struck nail rises as it is driven, and that sound, in turn, drives a carpenter.


You might as well say that musicians only care about notes and chords because the make the final piece of music.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 10:00 PM

"You might as well say that musicians only care about notes and chords because the make the final piece of music."

I might say that but I didn't. Storytellers use characters to make stories. Songwriters use notes and chords to make songs. Carpenters use nails and boards to make their projects. Musicians care about making music, notes and chords are just the materials.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 10:42 PM

I think we've gotten about as much as we're going to get out of this one, Jack:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jan 14 - 10:48 PM

I recon so.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 07:04 AM

I like the point that in Mudcat, people say what comes into their head.

I don't know where to start really, but in deference to those who worship at the altar of Max's rules and those who think the bible is true, I'll just get on with my holiday.

(The Alps, and I type from a ski cafe 3,000m high which provides wifi bless 'em, are by evidence rather old, although young for mountains. Kind of blows pete and his rather insulting assertions out of the water.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 10:26 AM

"Kind of blows pete and his rather insulting assertions out of the water."

Rather insulting, Musket??!! Unbelievably ignorant, arrogant and stupid, I'd say! pete keeps demanding that we supply him with EVIDENCE! But he needs to be reminded that Darwin's 'Origin' was published in 1859 - over 150 years ago. And since that time thousands of the best brains in the world have spent millions of hours between them gathering, analysing and evaluating the evidence for evolution. And most of that evidence has been published in countless books and scientific papers - all available for pete and his creationist chums to read if they really wanted to. As I keep reminding pete, Richard Dawkins recent book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth', is an admirable, and readily available, summary of the evidence to date. I note, though, that pete would rather read the creationist "refutation" instead.
No doubt he would plough through Dawkins' book indignantly asserting, "I don't believe this and I don't believe that!" And I suspect that that disbelief is because the scientific evidence doesn't accord with the creation myths of a bunch of Bronze Age desert tribesman. Those myths might represent an interesting historical curiousity - if they hadn't, rather unhealthily, dominated Western thinking for the last millenium or so. pete and co., it's time you moved out of the Middle Ages and into the 21st century ... or, at the very least, into the mid-19th!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 11:26 AM

You guys forget that, in Pete's logic, 'God' can do anything.. including form mountains. If your 1st premise is that "Go did it all", everything else follows.

Pete is not stupid.... he is mistaken about things, but not 'arrogant'. He is emotionally committed to a position... one we all realize is misguided, but he defends it as well as possible. I debate with him and show the flaws in his premises and reasoning, but respect his efforts to explain his deeply held beliefs.

There are millions...probably hundreds of millions (maybe a couple billion)...of people who hold deep religious convictions about the nature of reality and religious beginnings. Many of those people are not nearly as restrained, polite and decent as Pete.

Myself, I wonder about the urge to belittle & insult someone who takes the trouble to defend and explain his belief system under these circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:28 PM

I'm sorry, Bill but - I can't help it - I despise willful ignorance. I also see no reason to treat fundamentalist religion with any sort of reverence or respect - nonsense is nonsense is nonsense. What's the difference between someone who believes in nonsense and someone who has a "sincere" belief in nonsense?

And we must never forget that religious extremism and fundamentalism are very dangerous forces in our world and cause untold suffering. Also the fundamentalists would indocrinate children with their nonsense - and they must be resisted! If the likes of pete want to believe that "God did it all", then - OK - he can believe what he likes. Nevertheless, his creationist chums don't want to stop there - they want to re-write the text books and teach children that "God did it all" - and remove any mention of evolution from those same text books.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:46 PM

Before anybody starts looking down over their glasses at others.

pete may be a harmless person with a delusion he genuinely feels help him get through life, but let's not forget he'd have children believing that shit too. Earlier threads on YEC have him call for it to be taught as an alternative science.

That might be ok for The USA if that's what freedom of speech means but pete lives in the same country as me, and here,children and vulnerable adults need protecting from wicked superstition. It fucks you up.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:48 PM

Sorry Shimrod, In my opinion your position that railing against an Englishman on a forum full of middle aged liberals is part of the fight against fundamentalist whack jobs sponsored by Ayn Randian corporatists in the USA being elected to school boards is as much a stretch as anything pete has had to say.

It is not "fundamentalist religion" I would ask you to respect. I would like for everyone on this forum who doesn't, including many times in the past, myself, to show more respect for fellow forum members.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 12:59 PM

". What's the difference between someone who believes in nonsense and someone who has a "sincere" belief in nonsense?"

Your question is phrased so that no answer is possible. The relevant question is "How do different people process and act according to their beliefs in what WE are sure is nonsense?"

You add "...we must never forget that religious extremism and fundamentalism are very dangerous forces in our world...

Yes indeed... **some** do horrible things in the name of religious fundamental extremism. Many do not.
The difference, it seems, between you & I... and several others here... is that I take into account the thousands of years of human history as humans tried to cope with the mysteries of "life, the universe and everything" and quite naturally created stories & myths trying to explain it all. I factor in my awareness that much of the evidence and reasoning debunking those stories & myths is only a couple of hundred years old, and the stories are rich, complex and part of the very fabric of most of humanity! You tell ME how you'd go about 'educating' hundreds of millions, most of whom have little or no access to the data & reasoning that 'we educated ones' use to move beyond the stories & superstitions!

I HOPE that someday, reason will be be taught formally in schools all over the world and that gradually, superstition will be superseded by reason... but in the meantime, all I can really do is argue and talk... and VOTE for legislators who will curtail the influence of fundamentalist religion in the laws and culture of my country!

Right now... if I had a magic button that would suddenly 'convince' all those holding deep religious beliefs that they had been wrong all their lives... I would not push the button. The chaos would be much worse than just gritting my teeth and taking one-more-little-step!

short form of my rambling: Yelling at the ignorant and insulting them never does diddly-squat!


Remember Lucy in the "Peanuts" comic strip?

Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 01:15 PM

Schulz usually has the answer! But surely in frame #2, Linus looks the opposite of 'intimidated'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 02:22 PM

MtheGM,

I tried to find the cartoon, no luck. The Internet needs a searchable index of newspaper cartoon quotes. But interestingly to me at least I found a sermon with a quote of Lucy.

In Charles Schultz's "Peanuts," Lucy says if she was in charge she'd change everything. Charlie says, "That wouldn't be easy. Where would you start?" Lucy looks directly at him, and without hesitation, points her finger at him and says, "I'd start with you!"

"I'd start with you!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 03:21 PM

Most of the famous cartoons are owned by syndicates ...or family... who wish to control the distribution of reproductions. (Pogo is a major one... I have found some lovely sites and copied some images before they were taken down.)

I have many original clipped cartoon from newspapers that I saved from way before the WWW. I often quote some that I have not scanned & posted.... especially from Pogo, Mutt & Jeff, Peanuts..etc. I hope to scan and post surreptitiously some of those..including from "Bloom County".

Charles Schultz said a lot about us hoomin beans in some of those strips.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 04:11 PM

I,m sorry bill, but if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense, but some of us object to it being pushed on our kids!!
thanks for the character ref bill. likewise you are one of the few here that espouse evolutionism without resorting to badmouthing.
what you do have in common with shimrod , at least in your last post is the tactic of assuring us all that all the evidence confirms Darwinist doctrine as indisputable. I would have thought that was a logical fallacy...I think the popular term is elephant hurling?
this is why I say, I try to engage on specifics. but how am I supposed to engage on all those disiplines you listed. I doubt if you can either.
it is not enough to say , or infer that because you have studied logic that your evaluations of diverse data is correct. firstly logic is not the sole domain of skeptics,- infact there is a long article on it on CMI.
Secondly, I should have thought that any argument that may appear logical to you, falls down if it leans on a priori assesments of data, rather than examining other conclusions at least.[many creationists were once evolutionists]
thirdly the data should be accurate. for example, I think your idea that KJV scholars were responsible for the in/exclusion of scripture is mistaken. the contents of the bible were pretty much settled in church use a long time before king james.
speaking of specifics,- I read today that iron is now claimed to preserve soft tissue. they soaked an ostrich bone and its been 2 years now.....I suppose if you are committed to a paradigm you gotta come up with something...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 04:58 PM

" ...In my opinion your position that railing against an Englishman on a forum full of middle aged liberals is part of the fight against fundamentalist whack jobs sponsored by Ayn Randian corporatists in the USA being elected to school boards is as much a stretch as anything pete has had to say."

Except that pete obviously derives many of his 'arguments' from the websites of US "fundamentalist whack jobs".

As for my other critics above, I suspect that I am really being criticised for breaking a taboo i.e. by refusing to adequately 'respect' someone's religious faith and robustly questioning it. In my opinion if a group or individual wants to fervently believe in nonsense, then it is none of my business. But if they choose to evangelise or spread their loopy notions then there is no earthly reason why they shouldn't have a fight on their hands!

" ... if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense ..."

pete, you really must learn the difference between 'belief' and 'logic'. Just because you choose not to believe in something, doesn't make it illogical!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 05:39 PM

"..but how am I supposed to engage on all those disiplines you listed. I doubt if you can either."
   Neither of us are scientists who do the research. We MUST depend on experts to look at data and give us their best analysis of it. I tend to lean toward an opinion where not only 99+% agree on the basics, but also explain their methodology. You...ummm.. seem to find that small % that agree with your theological premises.

"...because you have studied logic that your evaluations of diverse data is correct. "

My study of logic in not ABOUT 'diverse data', it is about the form OF the argument. I can at least see the difference between flawed & correct treatment of the relevance of data. This is an important distinction. I do not analyze DNA or measure radioactive decay. I look at whether those who do have made sense.

"...the tactic of assuring us all that all the evidence confirms Darwinist doctrine as indisputable." see above...the only way to dispute evolution is to have better **evidence**... which does NOT include stuff like 'dino tracks' in Texas which have been show to be misinterpreted.

"...the contents of the bible were pretty much settled in church use a long time before king james."

Not exactly, Pete. They had what they had. The old testament was compiled from Jewish documents...largely in the 11th &12 centuries. They were not saved & read in an organized way until much later...and the King James scholars were tasked to DO the organization. (There are weeks of reading involved in sorting out the details of who wrote what and how it was decided what to include.)

see here. There were several categories of source material, and it is hard to document exactly who & when the contents were first written down & passed on.

other materials about Biblical times that was either not known to the compilers or was left out intentionally.

sources other than Jewish tradition

a careful analysis of missing scripture and why

There are dozens of sites devoted to this issue. It is an extremely difficult thing to follow the historical path of scriptural elements and determine their order & authenticity, no matter what one considers the 'original source'. If you just 'believe' that God 'inspired' the final version that YOU use, you are ignoring a huge amount of history.


I repeat for the 3rd or 4th time: *IF* a god created everything, including the brains to study His creations, we cannot ignore the details of how it all proceeded after Creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 06:36 PM

firstly, I should have said...ostrich blood vessels.
bill- I don't know why you think creationists don't study how creation works...cant think what I have said that makes you think so. most of the famous scientists in history were creationist.
neither did I claim dino tracks in texas as a proof. I talked about bone! was that a misread or a straw man?
then there is your 99+% argument...is that not an argument from authority, another logical fallacy?. tell me, too, how they explain the methodology of finding radiocarbon in supposedly 65+ myo bone ? does that make sense?.
unless you can demonstrate that these experts you look to, can provide evidence that can only be interpreted evolutionaly, it seems that you are only following the crowd. there is no such thing as consensus science. the consensus has often been wrong.

methinks shimrod needs to take his own advise...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 07:46 PM

"..your 99+% argument...is that not an argument from authority, another logical fallacy?.. "

NO! Argument from authority is simply claiming that someone is right in one area because they are famous in another area.
Example.. Dr. Linus Pauling, a reknowned expert in some areas of chemistry, asserting things about vitamin C. There is no doubt that vitamin C is important and useful, but Pauling had only personal anecdotes and an opinion about health issues.

It is a fact that we need 'authorities' in each area to guide our knowledge. Sometimes they disagree, and more data is needed... but when 90+% of experts in a specific area do agree, and their analysis is corroborated by other experts in other areas, we need to pay attention. This is especially important when the 5 or less % disagree because of shoddy reasoning and dubious interpretation of data. When a guy with a degree in geology chooses to deny the data most of his colleagues accept, we have reason to be skeptical. He is free to suggest why certain geological theories need to be examined, but NOT because of his religious premises!

"...the consensus has often been wrong." But not usually... there are good reasons for having a consensus. The supposed 'scientists' who contribute to Creation.com are only scientists in so far as they follow the scientific method. When they warp the data to support religious beliefs, they are not acting AS scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 07:48 PM

"no, shimrod, I did not think you would read sarfati,s book, even if it were on the shelves of high st shops."

Pete you amaze me!. You go after Shim for not reading a book which is not readily available to him, while finding nothing wrong in refusing to read a book you can get from your local library.

Your fear of finding truth in Dawkins' book is obvious to all!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 08:06 PM

"I would like for everyone on this forum who doesn't, including many times in the past, myself, to show more respect for fellow forum members."

Take another peek Jack.

The forum "member" you speak of, post under the GUEST tag.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 08:10 PM

"You tell ME how you'd go about 'educating' hundreds of millions, most of whom have little or no access to the data & reasoning that 'we educated ones' use to move beyond the stories & superstitions!"

Not the way that Christian missionaries "educated" primitive tribes, for sure Bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:00 PM

"The forum "member" you speak of, post under the GUEST tag. "

Are you saying that is not a reason to treat them with respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:50 PM

"most of the famous scientists in history were creationist"

and many believed that the universe revolved around the Earth,
and many believed in spontaneous generation,
and many believed that disease was caused by bad air, and could be cured by bleeding,
and many believed that humans were composed of the four humors,
and many believed in the element phlogiston...

But science advances.

Citing long past, now debunked beliefs simply highlights the difference between science and religion.

Your belief is religious, and not at all scientific.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:54 PM

Where did this idea of 65+ mya radiocarbon come from?!?!?

Probably some silly creationist distortion of Schweitzer's actual discovery. Let's let her speak for herself (from PBS' NOVA):

Schweitzer: "I can't make any claims for those structures that appear to be like their modern counterparts until the chemistry reveals whether they are molecular remnants of the original structures, even if altered greatly, or if they are some kind of microbial pseudomorph or even some kind of as yet unknown biogeological process unrelated to structures or molecules produced by the dinosaur itself. If, for example, I were able to isolate those round red structures in the vessel and analyze them separately, and if I were to see any signals that are consistent with heme or hemoglobin, I would be much more likely to believe they are related to the dinosaur cells and proteins. For right now, I am assuming they are not. They are pretty intriguing tho, aren't they?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 14 - 09:55 PM

The fundamentalist prosperity Christian\Jew for Jesus freak across the street bragged to me with a proud smile "I'm not one of those who believe the Earth is only 2000 years old".

Wonderful I said. I'm not a total moron either.

His smile disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 02:58 AM

"I,m sorry bill, but if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense, ..."

So, pete, here's some "logical" questions for you:

1. If 'it' was all made by a Maker, who made the Maker?
2. Who made the Maker's Maker - and so on in an infinite regress?
3. Where did the Maker get his materials from?
4. Did the Maker create his materials from 'nothing', by any chance?
5. What materials is the Maker made from?

I have, of course, asked you these questions before - but you've never been able to give me any sort of 'logical' answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:55 AM

Shimrod: those questions are a paraphrase of some of the 'Proofs of God' proposed by Aquinas, and his view was that the logical inconsistency of, for example, an infinite regression was itself a proof of God. There are probably hundreds of cubic metres of documents on both sides supporting Aquinas and demolishing him, so it will save a huge amount of time on both sides if we skip to the current viewpoint and agree that the statements are neither proof nor disproof of God's existence.

I think GUEST underestimates religion when he says 'science advances' and thereby implies religion does not. That is simply not the case (although there are always some who try to stop advances) Religious texts don't simply exist, they need to be read, and when you read them you cannot help bringing your understanding of the world to it. So if our understanding of the world has changed, it inevitably means our understanding of the texts must also change.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 05:10 AM

DMcG, you should note that I asked logical questions and did not make any statements. I don't know if answers exist to those questions - and neither, probably, does pete. Hence, neither I nor pete can make any assertions about proof or disproof of the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 05:32 AM

OK, I see that Shimrod. Old habits drummed into me at school die hard and since I had used the word 'question' at the start of my sentence I said 'statement' at the end simply to avoid reusing the same word multiple times in the same paragraph. There was no more to it than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 07:46 AM

I really did resolve to keep out of this nonsense but...

Shimrod
And since that time thousands of the best brains in the world have spent millions of hours between them gathering, analysing and evaluating the evidence for evolution.

Game, set and match to pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 09:31 AM

"you cannot help bringing your understanding of the world to [religious texts]"

Maybe you do. But lots of people *get* their understanding of the world from religious texts. And that is the difference between science and religion. There is no text (or individual) in science to be trusted or to have faith in.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:00 AM

"many believed..." yes, guest, that is precisely my point! many believe that everything came about by itself ,without any observable evidence ,and many believe that an evolutionary pathway was facilitated by mutations, and natural selection and such natural causes, beyond the limits of each kind [phyla?]set by its genetic make up.. most scientists believe in evolution, because most scientists believe in evolution. of course , if you can demonstrate that abiogenesis happened, or that generally loss of information mutations somehow added enough , if any, information to produce microbes to men .....then I have no argument.
mostly what I am getting at present is, that it must be true because most scientists subscribe to it...but seems that technically that is not an argument from authority!
be that as it may, it is still a poor argument IMO.

interesting quote, guest, but I presume out of date, as I understood that the presense of hemeglobin was established ,as was other fragile components in the bones. I believe that it has now moved on to try to find some mechanism whereby what she "knows by the laws of chemistry" to quote her initial comments, is somehow feasible.
maybe, if her ostrich blood vessels are still "recognizable" in their specially prepared pickling in 5, 50 ,500 years she might have the beginnings of explanation to shaw up the edifice of evolutionism !.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:07 AM

I think that's too simple, GUEST. You can't split the world neatly into 'religious' and 'scientific' people; plenty of people are both, and probably rather more are neither. Leaving aside the fanatical, most people of a religious bent believe the text to be true (in some sense, not necessarily literally) and they also agree with the science. One of the places I disagree with Dawkins is that he tends to assert people who try accommodate both are stupid or hypocritical, or lack the courage of their convictions. Whereas in my experience the more serious minded religious tend to think that the problem is not that one or the other is wrong, but the source of any conflict is in their understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:15 AM

"tell me, too, how they explain the methodology of finding radiocarbon in supposedly 65+ myo bone ? does that make sense?"

This is one of Pete's nonsensical sentences, but radio carbon dating is only one method of dating using isotopes, and these have been cross-calibrated to maximise accuracy.

As for finding iron in blood vessels, that's not exactly unexpected as without iron in your blood you would die. With regard to ancient organic materials, the use of metals as biomarkers is becoming increasingly common when analysing fossils using a synchrotron ( a big sod-off x-ray basically), where they are used to infer soft tissue preservation and can be indicators of integument shading.

Funnily enough, the very technologies Pete rallies against because they help us understand ancient life are used to decipher the sort of ancient scrolls he and his fellow extremists draw their world view from. Some scrolls were charred during a fire at an institution and it was presumed that the information on them was lost as although large pieces of scroll survived intact they were charred black and the writing could not be read. However, the ink used by the scrolls writers was organic in origin and contained trace metals that could be read in a synchrotron, meaning the information was saved.

Isn't science wonderful?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:27 AM

" ... many believe that everything came about by itself ,without any observable evidence ..."

And pete and his fundamentalist mates believe that God did it ... without any observable evidence ... ?

Oh yes, pete, through some sort of oversight, you don't seem to have provided any answers to those questions I posed recently. Just to refresh your memory, here they are again:

1. If 'it' was all made by a Maker, who made the Maker?
2. Who made the Maker's Maker - and so on in an infinite regress?
3. Where did the Maker get his materials from?
4. Did the Maker create his materials from 'nothing', by any chance?
5. What materials is the Maker made from?

Do you need more time or are you working feverishly on them as we speak?

Finally, have you read Prof. Dawkins' book yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 01:55 PM

There are no Darwin's witnesses, here or anywhere else. "Witness", as understood in the biblical or in any similarly whimsical sense, plays no part in the scientific process. The gathering of evidence, whether in quantum mechanics or evolutionary biology, is how it goes. Witnesses tend to lazily claim things (all those Virgin Marys!), whereas science painstakingly gathers evidence which must be presented and reluctantly approved, or gleefully binned, to intensely sceptical peers. Now I know how much trouble pete has with English, so here I hesitate, but, pete, another great book you should read is The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Sagan was a much gentler fellow than I am but he, therein, fearlessly demolishes the likes of credulous little you into pulp. "Witness" is deliberately and dishonestly confused with evidence by people of religion. In the context of this thread, the term has been dishonestly used by pete in order to have yet another pathetic go at making that false equivalence between science and religion. Let us not indulge these nasty people. OK, Bill? By the way, Bill, my back's aching but my temper, as ever, is sweet.* This is not real life.

The Great Messiah saw fit to wipe out my telephone line and fry my router on Jan 3 with a thunderbolt that half-demolished a near-neighbour's house, but the goodly, yet slow and uncommunicative, gods of BT have now fitted me up with, appropriately enough for a Messiah, Infinity broadband. For some strange reason, though, I don't appear to be able to type any faster.

*Not least because I can get BT Sport now, and the very first thing I saw on it was Liverpool demolishing Everton. And tonight we have Spurs vs Man City. I mean, what's not to like? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 02:08 PM

Grr. Approved by and binned by, of course.

"many believed..." yes, guest, that is precisely my point! many believe that everything came about by itself ,without any observable evidence ,and many believe that an evolutionary pathway was facilitated by mutations, and natural selection and such natural causes, beyond the limits of each kind [phyla?]set by its genetic make up.. most scientists believe in evolution, because most scientists believe in evolution. of course , if you can demonstrate that abiogenesis happened, or that generally loss of information mutations somehow added enough , if any, information to produce microbes to men .....then I have no argument.

Well, you see, pete, "many believe" is two things. First, weasel words of the highest order. Second, all lies. Science has nothing to do with belief. Everything to do with evidence. No point boring the forum yet again with what is and what isn't evidence. You don't listen anyway. And a small list of things you don't understand (I do seem to have mentioned this before but you seem determined to continue to enjoy life in the remedial class): abiogenesis; phyla; "set by its genetic make up" [sic]; "information". One could go on but the match is coming up and I must pour meself a glass of Vina Sol...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 02:53 PM

>>>There are no Darwin's witnesses, here or anywhere else.<<<< Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 03:14 PM

Mr. Shaw you are every bit as illogical and flawed in your arguments as pete. Pete wasn't talking about witness, certainly that was not the thrust of his argument. Yet you blame him anyway.

And what is this silly illogical tirade against witnesses? Witnesses aren't lazy. Witnesses are observers. Witness are observers who recount what they have observed.

Science doesn't gather a damned thing science is a process not a person. Scientists gather evidence and submit it for approval. Scientists are people and people make mistakes and believe things. They believe things such as scientific principles and Newtons laws.

Missdefining and ranting about a couple of words is not a rational or reasoned argument.

It is lazy thinking and sloppy arguments such as yours that give people like pete hope that the can overcome science with their own sloppy arguments.

BTW are you aware of the changes to the the rules on this forum?

Click on "membership" on the first page and you will find this....

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 03:27 PM

"The Great Messiah saw fit to wipe out my telephone line and fry my router on Jan 3"

I did wonder.... maybe he/she/it heard you trash talking to one of its poor, defenseless little creations? ☺


", my back's aching but my temper, as ever, is sweet.* This is not real life."

As ever, hmm? Do warn me if it ever turns sour... it can't be a pretty sight.

and.... I dunno about you, but not being face-to-face in the same room with someone doesn't detract from my feeling that there is a real person behind all posts. Turing may have wondered, but I never even wonder if I am talking to a program. (It helps that I have met in 'real life', a hundred or more people from Mudcat.... including 30+ from the UK and several that I have 'issues' with. I still interact with them politely, if formally)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:33 PM

"Leaving aside the fanatical..."

But, that is exactly who this discussion is about. Yes, plenty of Religious do not deny the fact of evolution. But for the fanatics, their "understanding of the world" is immutable... totally, blindly adherent to a (bizarre interpretation of) a religious text, and deliberately ignorant of observable, objective reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:35 PM

Jack: As you are constantly referring people to these rules, I don't think it too much of a drift to query one of the forbiddens. What is the use of a discussion forum, pray, on which one may not be 'argumentative'. Argument is surely the lifeblood, the ichor, the sine qua non of such a forum as this?

& if I have ever known what "that of-what*-we-do-not-speak" was, I have forgotten. Would it be a banned action for some kind, and authorised, person to remind me — perhaps by PM if not openly on the forum?

~M~

*And with my hat on of Official Legendary Pedant, as someone once called me in a post, might I merely observe in passing that "that-of-which-&c" would be seemlier idiomatically and grammatically than "that-of-what-..."?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:55 PM

MtheGM,

I have no idea what Max meant when he wrote that. But I do observe that is is quite possibly to have a lively discussion with out being "argumentative." You and Bill D do it all of the time.

I think the difference is arguing to come to an accord or to exchange information about a subject rather than arguing to pick a fight.

There are a few people on this forum who fit my definition of argumentative. They know who they are. You probably know who they are. Its like the judge said about porn, I can't exactly define it but I know it when I see it. I won't point out who those people are, because they may not take it well and that might be argumentative.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 06:04 PM

"Science has nothing to do with belief. Everything to do with evidence. No point boring the forum yet again with what is and what isn't evidence. You don't listen anyway. And a small list of things you don't understand (I do seem to have mentioned this before but you seem determined to continue to enjoy life in the remedial class): abiogenesis; phyla; "set by its genetic make up" [sic]; "information""

You do realise, of course, Steve, that pete is merely parroting stuff that he reads on the websites of US "fundamentalist whack jobs", don't you? He doesn't actually understand any of it.

I've realised that the other thing that he parrots is the creationist's "show us the evidence" line/tactic. In 'The Greatest Show on Earth" Richard Dawkins relates the story of his encounter with a creationist woman on a TV chat show. She demands that he "show her the evidence" for something or other. Dawkins gives her chapter and verse, itemising the relevant fossils and where she can view them. She then abruptly changes the subject. A bit later she demands that he "show her the evidence" for something else - and when he does she changes the subject again - and so on. These grossly dishonest and ignorant people would be laughable - if they weren't so dangerous!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:26 PM

And what is this silly illogical tirade against witnesses? Witnesses aren't lazy. Witnesses are observers. Witness are observers who recount what they have observed.

Witnesses in the context of religion are either liars or deluded. There is no other option. Witnesses in the religious context claim to have seen or experienced things that cannot be corroborated. They should, at best, be ignored, or, at worst, be vilified.

Science doesn't gather a damned thing science is a process not a person. Scientists gather evidence and submit it for approval. Scientists are people and people make mistakes and believe things. They believe things such as scientific principles and Newtons laws.

Utter tripe from start to finish. You clearly have no idea what science is about. And you omitted an apostrophe.

BTW are you aware of the changes to the the rules on this forum?

Nope, dope. Did you not see that I have been offline for almost the whole of benighted Janvier?

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak."

Why, thanks for the heads-up, wacko! I wonder whether this quote of yours fits the "new rules":

>>>There are no Darwin's witnesses, here or anywhere else.<<<< Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:47 PM

"The Great Messiah saw fit to wipe out my telephone line and fry my router on Jan 3"

I did wonder.... maybe he/she/it heard you trash talking to one of its poor, defenseless little creations? ☺

Unlikely. When I lived near Epping Forest many years ago a bolt of lightning wrecked the house of an evangelical fellow, neighbour of mine (we babysat each other's nippers to save money), nice chap actually, who was at pains at all times to promote to all and sundry, whether they were remotely interested or not, his work for "Youth For Christ". No lights under bushels there, if you know what I mean. A few more metres and the Good Lord could have redirected his thunderbolt Shaw-wards, but he didn't. What else was I to conclude but that God is a militant atheist?


and.... I dunno about you, but not being face-to-face in the same room with someone doesn't detract from my feeling that there is a real person behind all posts.

Certainly, Bill, but beware of the myriad who would deliberately misrepresent themselves online. They hide behind spurious anonymities such as Sailors and Guests and Seven Stars and it's a good bet that their friends and rellies would be supremely amused at their online shenanigans, if only they knew. I'm Steve Shaw, you could track me down in thirty seconds if you wanted to know where to send my Christmas card to, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And the "real" personages behind the posts you refer to have a choice, just like me. They don't have to come here and spout their rubbish if they don't want to. This is not real life, Bill. Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:52 PM

I am glad you have seen the rules. You may want to look up "tripe"

Hint, It doesn't mean common sense and accuracy.

>>>Why, thanks for the heads-up, wacko!<<<<

Click here to read the rules.



"Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!"

You don't like being talked to like that? So why do you talk to pete that way? Note that cursing is not forbidden.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 08:56 PM

You don't like being talked to like that?

Don't give a flying fart, to be honest, wacko!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 09:10 PM

I do have that excellent book, Shimrod. And you're right: pete doesn't understand his own stuff, let alone anything remotely to do with science. Still, he comes on here to either be patronised politely by Bill or to be vilified for his professed stupidity, which, in my book, is by far the better way to deal with these confounded eejits. Better that they think that their nonsense falleth here on stony ground, eh? Odd, in a way, that we atheists have to do all the work. Wouldn't you think that any self-respecting Christian here would be mortally embarrassed by pete's multifarious idiocies?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:02 PM

It is worth noting that science has become the object of as much idolatry as religion before it. There are many who believe that "science" offers humankind same promise of an infinitely better tomorrow that christian millenialists once promised , and they accept
"scientific miracles" with the same unquestioning fervor that is attributed to the Crusaders.

Think about "The Cult of Reason" and "Scientific Socialism", and Eugenics, and how they raised reason and scientific inquiry on a high pedestal, promising to better humanity, and how they led to The Terror, Stalin's purges, and the Holocaust. Which equalled, and likely surpass the enormity of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the purges and the many trials of heretics and witches that we associate with the Church of the Middle Ages.

Do not misunderstand me--I don't believe for a single moment that these terrible things are a consequence of Newton's Laws of Motion, or Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, any more than I believe that the Inquisition was a consequence of the Golden Rule.

It seems more likely that there are flaws in the human character that taint even our most noble endeavors. and so it goes...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Songwronger
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 10:19 PM

Lab coats have replaced cassocks as priestly garb. Americans are being trained to virulently reject any religious idea that might be injected into our thinking, yet we line up to receive actual physical injections of rotten virus fragments from strangers in white coats. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 11:37 PM

"vilified for his professed stupidity,"

People should not come here for that reason. Vilifying people and calling them stupid would be breaking the rules.

Click here to read the rules.

Perhaps you would like to spend some time considering how to express yourself politely before you post again?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 11:47 PM

Too much idiotic stupid shit starting at 10:02 to even bother to discuss. Guess I will just go prepare to teach science in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:30 AM

"Leaving aside the fanatical..."

But, that is exactly who this discussion is about.

Is it? I admit I didn't define the term, so for clarity by fanatical I mean those who regard a given text - exactly which isn't important - as the only valid source of knowledge, and simultaneously believe that there are historical interpretations of that text that have a invariable validity. As such new findings that conflict with this historical teaching must be rejected.

However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism. They will say, for example, that they have no objection to a person having any belief as long as they keep it to themselves, and in particular do not inflict it on their children. Anyone who has that view is not restricting the topic to 'fanatics' in the sense I meant it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:56 AM

>>However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism.<<

Isn't that fanaticism on their part?

Its not as if they have done double blind trials on the effects of religious beliefs vs none.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:15 AM


>>However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism.<<

Isn't that fanaticism on their part?

Not in the sense I defined, no. Fanaticism is a strong word, and it is a good idea not to use it too lightly. I do not agree with Dawkins when he says things like that, but I would not call it fanatical.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:51 AM

It is worth noting that science has become the object of as much idolatry as religion before it.

Bollocks.

The whole point of this thread was a joke about people 'preaching' evolution on the door step. Let me repeat, in big letters, IT IS A JOKE BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENS. Various religions try to foist their idolatry on everyone. Some will even kill you if you don't believe in their imaginary friend. How often does this happen with science? How can, therefore, anyone remotely believe the above quote.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:41 AM

You're absolutely right, of course, Dave. Thanks for reminding us of the point of this thread!

Yesterday, I was wandering down Market Street, in Manchester, and observed a bloke wheeling a massive loud-speaker around on a trolley. Issuing from the loud-speaker was the voice of a woman singing a syrupy song about Jesus. At the same time the trolley wheeler was bellowing into a microphone something about Jesus loving everyone (there was a lot of distortion so that his exact message was lost). As I neared Piccadilly bus station I noted another bloke waving a book (almost certainly a Bible) and shouting something about ... yes, you've guessed it ... Jesus! I noted that neither of these fervent fruitcakes wore a lab-coat and, as far as I could tell, neither of their harangues included any mention of Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:31 AM

I thought I had left that behind when I moved from Manchester, Shimrod, but there is a bloke in Skipton stands on a street corner doing the same :-( Fortunately there are no loudspeakers involved :-)

I wonder if some local authorities treat the preachers in the same way as they move on buskers? Anyone know? Mind you, if they did I guess the preachers would claim victimisation at the hands of militant atheists and become martyrs!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:07 AM

"vilified for his professed stupidity,"

People should not come here for that reason. Vilifying people and calling them stupid would be breaking the rules.

Click here to read the rules.

Perhaps you would like to spend some time considering how to express yourself politely before you post again?

You are a very peculiar man, Wacko (unless you're a woman: people do misrepresent themselves here...). Seems that whenever you realise that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag you assume instead the role of forum constable. As for "expressing myself politely", perhaps I should take my cue from you in future, ahem: Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

   :-)

Do as I say, not as I do, eh, Wackers me old salt?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:18 AM

Issuing from the loud-speaker was the voice of a woman singing a syrupy song about Jesus.

The best religious song I ever heard emanated from Billy Connolly, a good few years ago now. Sung to the tune of "What A Friend We Have In Jesus", it began:

"Ah Jesus Christ, I'm nearly forty
Ma pubic hair is turning grey
I can't cut the mustard like I used to
I think it's downhill all the way..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:46 AM

However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism.

I think you are misrepresenting him. Dawkins knows full well that the overwhelming majority of believers follow their faith (if they do any sort of active "following" at all) in a most desultory manner. Fanaticism implies single-minded ardour and passion in propagating your beliefs. That is not the way most believers behave.

They will say, for example, that they have no objection to a person having any belief as long as they keep it to themselves, and in particular do not inflict it on their children.

I'm not at all clear as to how this is meant to support your first statement. I do agree with it in spite of that. In fact, I'd go further: your beliefs are none of my business, unless you choose to make them my business. Damaging children should be seen as everyone's business.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 10:28 AM

I don't think I misrepresent Dawkins: it is why I said "tantamount to fanatical" rather than "fanatical". But I'm happy for everyone to make up their own mind based on what he says and writes (which does involve reading it and thinking about it!)

As for "damaging children": in this context that is a value judgement. I don't deny the possibility of mental cruelty but encouraging mental laziness is more common, and I've experienced that more in other subjects, personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 10:43 AM

Wake up and smell the coffee, DavetheGnome, we live in a world that believes that science will deliver what religion could not.

It's not a joke--the smart hucksters and charlatans, along with a healthy contingent of psychopaths and homicidal maniacs, moved from pushing religious miracles to pushing scientific miracles a long, long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 11:51 AM

>>>>You are a very peculiar man, Wacko (unless you're a woman: people do misrepresent themselves here...). Seems that whenever you realise that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag you assume instead the role of forum constable. As for "expressing myself politely", perhaps I should take my cue from you in future, ahem: Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

   :-)

Do as I say, not as I do, eh, Wackers me old salt? <<<


Mr Shaw.   I am sorry if you found that comment rude even though you said that you did not care. You bring up the principle of treating others as you are treated. Yet you "vilify" me for treating you as you treat others.

I am sorry that you believe I have been rude or unkind to you. Would you think it kinder if I called you whacko or called your words "tripe?"

Mr. Shaw surely by now you know that it is against the rules of this forum to call people names and to be argumentative. appointing yourself to "vilify" people is also not allowed unless you can find a way to do it without being unkind, impolite or argumentative. I am sure that you are mature enough to find a way to get your point across without showing disrespect for Max and this forum by flagrantly breaking the posted rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:08 PM

Stim, tell me...

How many religious people have killed someone for not believing the same thing?

How many scientists have told you that you will be damned to hell if you do not accept what they are saying?

How many scientists have started wars because the scientists in the next country think differently?

Then tell me that science is as bad as religion. If anyone needs to revel in the aroma of fresh ground it certainly is not me. And it may surprise you to find out that science has already delivered far more than religion ever did. Don't believe me? Try praying that I will get your next message instead of using technology.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 12:43 PM

Dave,

Why don't you tell us there are no scientific charlatans?



There are lots of people taking advantage of the blind faith in science that many people have, plastic surgeons, drug companies, diet publishers, "supplement" makers, gadget hawkers. There is more of that stuff on my TV than religious programing and I live in the Bible Belt.


I don't think that the true battle is science vs religion. It is education vs ignorance. Perhaps the lesson for society should be don't blindly trust a man because he wears a lab coat on TV or a robe in a church, think for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 01:06 PM

don't think that the true battle is science vs religion. It is education vs ignorance.

Totally with you on that one, Sailor. Snag is, many think religion is a prime example of ignorance, and there are some of a religious mindset who seem determined to prove them right. But it would be a serious error to overlook how widespread ignorance is elsewhere and as you say, snake oil abounds wrapped in pseudoscience. Not just in advertising and the like: the history of the Body Mass Index, for example, is worth pondering.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 01:27 PM

Dave, How many "religious people" do you know? How many of them have killed someone, for any reason, let alone for not believing the same thing as they do?

As to what scientists say when I disagree with them, it varies, as that sort of thing does, but there certainly are scientists who don't like it when people disagree with them, even on matters that extend beyond their area of expertise.

As to science and war, do I even need to go over that with you? While scientists tend not to declare war, they certainly have used their expertise to make killing easier, and even more brutal than ever.

The atomic bomb would not have been possible without the tireless work of scientists, and the list goes on from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:22 PM

From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 04:55 PM

MtheGM,
I have no idea what Max meant when he wrote that. But I do observe that is is quite possibly to have a lively discussion with out being "argumentative." You and Bill D do it all of the time.
.,,.,
Thank you, Jack. I much appreciate that comment.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 02:25 PM

You are welcome Michael. Sorry about the typo.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:12 PM

Mr. Shaw surely by now you know that it is against the rules of this forum to call people names and to be argumentative.

Don't call me Shirley.

(Thinks...what a twat...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:40 PM

As for "damaging children": in this context that is a value judgement. I don't deny the possibility of mental cruelty but encouraging mental laziness is more common, and I've experienced that more in other subjects, personally.

Well here's the point (are you listening, believers?). Education is about showing children (and everyone else, as it happens, but as we're talking about children...) how to acquire knowledge. As a teacher myself, I can honestly say that I have never met a good teacher who would deny that the best way of showing children how to acquire knowledge is to give them the skills to learn, not to try to pour "knowledge" all over them. I had knowledge about Shakespeare, Beethoven and poetry poured all over me at school, and I can't remember a single thing about any of it. But I did acquire the skills to learn, and everything I now know about Shakespeare, poetry and Beethoven I've learned for myself. I've gone out and grabbed knowledge for myself. Because there were a few good teachers who knew how to give me those skills. Giving children the skills to learn involves getting them to question the legitimacy of everything that is fed to them by adults. They must question everything, put it through the same sceptical wringer as all scientific assertions must be put through by the scientific community. Don't accept anything at face value. Ask for evidence: how do you know that what you're telling me is true? Who told you that? Can you give me your sources and show me how I can check them for myself? Religious instruction, including the herding children to church services and making them bow their heads in parroted prayers full of false certainties or making them sing silly hymns, breaks all those rules. It is damaging and abusive, it is teaching children not to question, and is highly immoral, and leads the planet into all sorts of needless difficulties. It has nothing to do with education, that's a fact. If you educate children in the true sense in nine lessons out of ten, then send them to their tenth lesson in which they are told to believe in God lest vile consequences follow, you are confusing them and abusing them. And saying that your input to them is benign, makes social sense for your particular neighbourhood or contains "greater truths" merely says an awful lot about your inability to escape the baleful grip of your own poor education. One day I'll tell you what I really think. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:01 PM

>>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 03:12 PM


(Thinks...what a twat...)<<

Violation of Mudcat terms of membership.

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:08 PM

>>>Religious instruction, including the herding children to church services and making them bow their heads in parroted prayers full of false certainties or making them sing silly hymns, breaks all those rules. It is damaging and abusive, it is teaching children not to question, and is highly immoral, and leads the planet into all sorts of needless difficulties. It has nothing to do with education, that's a fact. If you educate children in the true sense in nine lessons out of ten, then send them to their tenth lesson in which they are told to believe in God lest vile consequences follow, you are confusing them and abusing them. And saying that your input to them is benign, makes social sense for your particular neighbourhood or contains "greater truths" merely says an awful lot about your inability to escape the baleful grip of your own poor education.<<<<

how do you know that what you're telling me (in the quoted passage)is true?


Who told you that?


Can you give me your sources and show me how I can check them for myself?

You seem to be making scientific and sociological assertions. But are you? Come on buddy, show your work.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:30 PM

Steve Shaw
Giving children the skills to learn involves getting them to question the legitimacy of everything that is fed to them by adults. They must question everything, put it through the same sceptical wringer as all scientific assertions must be put through by the scientific community. Don't accept anything at face value. Ask for evidence: how do you know that what you're telling me is true?

Previously -
Evolution is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:36 PM

"I don't think that the true battle is science vs religion. It is education vs ignorance."

Amen to that!




By the way, what happened to pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 04:51 PM

pete will be back i think. he posts in spurts.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:10 PM

so steve, what is the evidence that you gave the kids, that Darwinism is true....other than you, and most scientists subscribing to that assertion. what sources did you give them, so they could check for themselves?....other than origins,-of which Darwin himself conceded that the data presented could be otherwise interpreted.

shimrod- big deal! so dawkins demolishes some creationist woman on a chat show. that is dawkins style. he wont debate creation scientists lest he give some credence to creationism as a worthwhile POV, and then tackles easy meat creationists lacking the science background to rebuff him.
meanwhile ,you his desciple want me to read his book but you wont give me one good argument contained therein. in fact the only argument you give is the who made God challenge. I have answered this previously, but not to your satisfaction...as if anything would be.......
so again, not for your benefit but anyone else that may want to know the Christian reasoning on the matter...
as someone above pointed out, the infinite regression idea is part of the argument for God. your error is the insistence that he has to be made, and consist of some kind of material.
leaving aside whether his existence can be proved or not, I venture that a deity who is spirit and greater in power, creating all else that is , is at least a logical concept ,if not opposed by fanatical unbelief.
compare that to your belief that all came from nothing via no one, in defiance of experimental science that demonstrates the impossibility of that....amounting to a miracle without a miracle maker!

stu..if you think that employing multiple dating methods establishes dating accuracy, I could give some examples where evolutionists themselves argue over them. I even wrote a song about one example. its called "mungo man".
if radio carbon aint supposed to be detectable and it is, does it really matter how many other tests you run?. the paradigm is driving the science that hopes to account for what "the laws of chemistry tell us" already . the logical assessment would be to say these bones cant possibly be 60-80myo, until such time as demonstrated otherwise.
and just to be clear, I do not rail against scientific methods, and am glad to hear how such were employed on the charred MS. useful for dating more recent historical items , but I suspect, giving more suspect results as you reach further back ,where there are more uncertainties, and assumptions have to be employed.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:46 PM

Religious instruction, ..., breaks all those rules. It is damaging and abusive, it is teaching children not to question, and is highly immoral, and leads the planet into all sorts of needless difficulties

Maybe that's how you were taught religion. It's not how my mine went.

I can honestly say that I have never met a good teacher who would deny that the best way of showing children how to acquire knowledge is to give them the skills to learn

... in fact it was very much like that, especially in senior school   For primary school, I agree it was presented in a much more black and white way. As was history, and maths, and science, and geography and all the rest. But when we got a bit older, all the subjects became more sophisticated, including religious instruction.

I would however like to point out that potential weasel word 'good'. I hope it was accidental, but I am sure you are not requiring thinking in that way being a necessary condition of being a 'good' teacher, otherwise it makes things a bit circular.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 05:57 PM

Why don't you tell us there are no scientific charlatans?


Of course there are, Jack. They are called creationists.

Stim.

How many "religious people" do you know? How many of them have killed someone, for any reason, let alone for not believing the same thing as they do?

Non personally. Dozens in the news and growing by the minute.

but there certainly are scientists who don't like it when people disagree with them

Absolutely. I don't like it much but I don't go round declaring war on and killing those who do. Neither have, as far as I know, any scientists.

While scientists tend not to declare war, they certainly have used their expertise to make killing easier

Nonsense. There is an old adage that it is a bad workman who blames his tools. But only a complete idiot would blame the man who invented the tool.

Yet you still say that the scientist is as bad as the man who would blow up innocent people for his religion? If so then I think we have nothing further to discuss.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 06:00 PM

No, I'm going to have to elaborate on the concept of 'a good teacher'. Sorry about that!

My daughter went to one of the universities where a very high proportion of the students came from private schools, most charging very high fees indeed. (She didn't, by the way.) None of her fellow students studying English Literature, or Philosophy, for example, had read actually read any of the set texts for the 'A' level in their subject: they had read a few carefully selected pages and study notes. Now, these teachers were very successful in getting most of their students to sought after places in highly respected institutions. But in my opinion they were not good teachers. And by the sound of it, since they inculcated the skills to pass exams rather than actually learn or develop any kind of interest in the subject, I suspect you might not call them good either. On the other hand there are many teachers who do that and are what I would call 'good' who for various reasons stand only the slightest of chances getting pupils to universities like those.

Tricky word, 'good'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 07:04 PM

>>>Yet you still say that the scientist is as bad as the man who would blow up innocent people for his religion?<<<

Of course the scientist who designs the bombs that man uses is every bit as bad. Terrorism and war are both team efforts.

A question for you. Why say "for his religion?" Surely the crime lies in the blowing up rather than the religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:43 PM

Hello Snailor! (Hope you don't mind the conflation, chaps...or chapesses, whatever you are! Time is short, and one would rather deal with serious people, you know...)

Wot a lot of wriggling I drew from those who, sort of, agree, but would rather not, as it were, 'cos it's Stevieboy! Now come on, lads. Education means "leading out." It does not mean drowning children with dogma or received "wisdom" or masses of "facts". It means showing children how to grab knowledge, by providing them with the skills so to do. Any thinking person (watch it, chaps...) who sees what "religious education" does, would condemn it out of hand, and quite right too. Children should be taught about the history of religion and its impact on the modern world. They should know that some people "believe in God" but that such people do so without evidence, and that, though they are free to follow that belief if they so wish, they should ask for evidence in the most sceptical manner possible, just as they should with any "scientific facts" they are presented with. Otherwise, it's indoctrination, not education. Pete, babe, and all the other twats of your ilk, children and grown-ups can ask for and seek and find abundant evidence for the fact of evolution. The trouble with you, pete, is that you haven't the faintest inkling of the meaning of the words "evidence", "facts" or "evolution". Actually, you haven't the faintest inkling of "God", "creationism" or "honesty". You are the most incredibly dishonest person I've ever come across. St Peter must be cringing. Maybe I should get out more. But not in the direction of your benighted folk club. Got any nice anti-abortion songs?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 08:49 PM

pete will be back i think. he posts in spurts.

Just like you. In spurts, just like the best orgasms. Trouble is, every orgasm ends with a good snooze. zzzzzzzzzz.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jan 14 - 09:06 PM

>>>is that you haven't the faintest inkling of the meaning of the words "evidence", "facts" or "evolution". Actually, you haven't the faintest inkling of "God", "creationism" or "honesty".<<<

Violation of the terms of use of this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 12:13 AM

Dave the Gnome: Though Jack has expressed the idea already, I'll offer it on my own that I believe that the man who makes the bomb is at least as responsible for the explosion and its consequences as the man who sets it off. Likely even more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:58 AM

Evidence for evolution???
Pete - if you really are at all interested in evidence, you must read "The Beak of the Finch" by Peter and Rosemary Grant. Get through that, and maybe you can participate in an informed discussion. And BTW, you really must stop talking about "radiocarbon" and 65my in the same sentence... It puts your ignorance on flaming display (hint: Google half-life).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:33 AM

A question for you. Why say "for his religion?" Surely the crime lies in the blowing up rather than the religion.

Do you not read the news, Jack? Or at least listen to it on TV?

Almost every day of the week there are examples of people who say that they committed no crime when they killed and maimed others. The excuse is that they were fighting a war for their religion. I could link to dozens but as an example how about Michael Adebolajo who not only says he is a 'soldier of Allah' but also 'denied murder and described the killing as a "military operation".' He says it was "for his religion" along with dozens if not hundreds of others.

And there is still not one single example of anyone killing on behalf of Richard Dawkins. Or any other scientist for that matter. It was you who posted the opening cartoon. It was you who commented that it was funny. That being the case maybe YOU can explain how science is as bad as religion?

And do please stop this nonsense about rules. If Max or anyone else that mattered were bothered, they would do something about it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 04:04 AM

But, pete, Dawkins didn't "demolish" the creationist woman on the chat show - that's the point! It was she who used the same dishonest tactics that you do. She demanded 'evidence' and then when Dawkins (calmly and rationally) provided her with the evidence she ignored it and changed the subject. All of the evidence that you could need is readily available in countless books - including the book by Dawkins that I recommended above ('GUEST' has recently provided you with the 'Beak of the Finch' title - go out and read that too). Now I could make the effort of summarising these books for you but (a) why should I do the work for you? And (b) you would only bleat about not believing the evidence anyway ... or change the subject, as the woman in the chat show did.

"your error is the insistence that he [God] has to be made, and consist of some kind of material."

I am not making any sort of "error" by asking a LOGICAL question!

"leaving aside whether his existence can be proved or not, I venture that a deity who is spirit and greater in power, creating all else that is , is at least a logical concept ,if not opposed by fanatical unbelief."

pete, it is NOT a "logical concept" - it is your PREFERRED EXPLANATION! There is a major difference!

"Fanatical unbelief" (!) - now there's a phrase to conjure with!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:00 AM

I don't know if I am one of those you think are wrigglers, Steve, but I'm certainly not intending to do that. I know a little Latin - maybe my religious education! - so yes, I am well aware of the educe/induce/deduce nexus. I'd love to get into a discussion about whether we have an education system or an induction system, but that's for another time, since we are concerned more here with whether teaching religion is uniquely harmful. Any subject can be taught badly, I agree, but I think we will simply have to disagree: you find it inherently damaging, I do not. I would agree though that it unusually vulnerable to induction rather than education.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 05:05 AM

"if radio carbon aint supposed to be detectable and it is, does it really matter how many other tests you run?"

Pardon? What isn't supposed to be detectable? Also, cross calibration is between several isotopes, not just one.


"and just to be clear, I do not rail against scientific methods,"

Yes, you do. Constantly.


"and am glad to hear how such were employed on the charred MS. useful for dating more recent historical items , but I suspect, giving more suspect results as you reach further back ,where there are more uncertainties, and assumptions have to be employed."

Huh? You can't have your cake and eat it, and your personal incredulity in no way alters the results of research of using metals as biomarkers (one of my own dinosaur bones was used for this purpose a few years ago). Suspect and assume away, it is simply your own viewpoint and not objective in the slightest.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 06:48 AM

Eyup Jerk!

Violation of common sense!

Found a wifi zone here in the land of the cheese eating surrender monkeys. Bit odd that most of them are at the tops of ski lifts rather than in the resort but hey ho.

Looks like the co messiah and associate co messiah emeritus with Gnomish attributes are dealing with nonsense without my godly assistance.

Just to bring Co Messiah S up to speed. I was asked in an email to stop being nasty to disgusting pathetic bigots in case I upset them. Presumably Max wrote the rules in a way that we apologise for something no decent human being will ever apologise to period. Two people reckon I was posting under other names too which was confusing. (I did post as Nessie when someone reckoned she doesn't exist but then admitted it a couple of posts down.)

But whilst Darwin's witnesses may be a cartoon that Jerk nicely shared with us, there are still delusional fools who think everybody thinks at their simpleton level. If you refuse to buy into religious nonsense you must be something called a Darwinist.

No pete. Intelligent people are called rationalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:02 AM

The guest at 05:05AM was me, obviously my cookie did a flit for a minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:40 AM

" Jerk nicely shared with us,"

Violation of the terms of use of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:48 AM

Dave the Gnome.

Please kindly point out where someone on this thread has said science is bad.

People have been saying that people are bad. People have been saying that bad people do bad things with science as a cover and with religion as a cover.

But no one has said that science is "as bad" as religion.

The over riding point that is being made is that people who do bad things will use any excuse available.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 09:22 AM

>>>"and just to be clear, I do not rail against scientific methods,"

Yes, you do. Constantly.<<<

Stu, I don't think he does rail against "scientific methods" It is doubtful that he understands the meaning or significance of "the scientific method" since he is using the wrong term. But clearly he is trying to use methods of science against the findings of science in some form of verbal Jiu Jitsu.

He is basically and repeatedly saying that he has found a few data points that negate all of the data points about biology that we have grown up with and experienced all of our lives. He is hoping that like Paul on the Road to Damascus, that after he undermines our "faith" in the underpinnings of "Darwinism" we will replace it with belief in "The Creator."

Oddly the same technique does not work on him. It is pretty easy to show that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. That would alone disprove the "theory of Creation" as described by pete. But it seems that with faith in creationists and diligent reading of theri literature he has thrown up a mental roadblock against each every piece of evidence that the world is more than the combined ages of the Patriarchs of the Bible plus the time of death of Jesus to the present day.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 09:58 AM

Yes, Jack, it's becoming more and more obvious that pete, and his creationist mates, are not really interested in the scientific evidence for evolution. Or rather, they are extremely irritated and annoyed that such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence exists because it undermines their faith (i.e. their pious, unquestioned beliefs). Some, mainly US, creationists have more sinister, political motives. They want to see the science suppressed, or even banned, because it threatens to loosen their grip on the minds of the credulous and, hence, their influence over such minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 10:42 AM

Please kindly point out where someone on this thread has said science is bad.

My mistake. Correction to my question.

That being the case maybe YOU can explain how scientists are as bad as religious fanatics?

Still playing at Mudcat policeman I see.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:08 AM

People who abuse science for their ends are as bad as people who abuse religion for their ends.

Whether it is the looting of West Asia during the Crusades "in the name of God" or Hitler killing off millions in the name of "Eugenics" The "bad" things are the crimes committed. The excuses for the crimes are incidental.

I'm not trying to police the Mudcat. I am simply asking a few people to follow the same rules that I am following. I am asking them to follow rules clearly posted in the terms of membership by Max. I am not asking this of people who only fight with others and leave me out of their battles.

I am certainly not trying to police you. You are debating in a respectful manner. I am not willing do defend positions which I never took. I pointed out that no one took that position, you responded calmly and graciously. No policing was done. Only calm rational discussion. No name calling, no anger. Just the way it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 11:41 AM

>>Yes, Jack, it's becoming more and more obvious that pete, and his creationist mates, are not really interested in the scientific evidence for evolution. <<<

I think that is true. But other than reading creationist literature for arguments, I think pete is working on his own here.

>>>Or rather, they are extremely irritated and annoyed that such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence exists because it undermines their faith (i.e. their pious, unquestioned beliefs). <<<

I don't think they are annoyed at all. There is a tradition in Christianity of martyrdom and fighting against all odds for their beliefs. It has worked in the past. Look at what happened in Rome.

I don't have a problem with pete arguing for what he believes. I do have the desire to convince him to see reason, but his conviction to his cause is obviously stronger than mine. I know that people smarter than me have addressed and dispensed with all of the arguments he puts forth, but I, don't have the time or the inclination to go and find them. Yet he does have the patience and the will to plow through reams and reams of Creationist nonsense to find a response to any cogent argument that any of us puts forth.

I have to admire that kind of doggedness.

The only problem I have with what he does is when someone he is trying to convert responds with insults and anger. A third person, looking at that exchange sees a frothing bully and a calm person. A lot of people, sometimes not consciously, decide the believability of things based upon the demeanor of the person presenting the case. I think pete know this and is using it as a tactic. Insulting pete, demeaning pete, saying angry things to him make him think he is winning. The more people demean him the more likely he is to post things that will set them off.

I'm not saying that is the reason pete posts everything he posts. I now agree with Bill D's contention that he believes what he posts. But I believe that it is part of the dynamic of the interactions with pete.

Pete, Sorry about speaking about you in the third person.

You seem to be a bit of an evangelical missionary with the Mudcat as your mission. You know that the very idea of that angers people, yet you press on. You are not unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty when you do so. I accept (personally, speaking only for myself) your contributions to the forum. I don't share your opinions in general, but I'll defend your right to express them.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 12:58 PM

Recent: I'm not trying to police the Mudcat. I am simply asking a few people to follow the same rules that I am following.

Earlier: Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!

So what rules might those be, po-faced officer Wacko? "The rules concerning how to be a hypocrite in one easy step"?   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:01 PM

A lot of people, sometimes not consciously, decide the believability of things based upon the demeanor of the person presenting the case.

More fool them. Maybe they should spend less time investigating "demeanours" and more time investigating evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:09 PM

I've already apologized for that Steve. I've not done it since you pointed out that your feelings were hurt. How many times have you called me names since then? I don't consider it rude to treat people the way they treat other people unless and until they take offense.

I'll banter with people if the banter is two way. I've bantered with you. But you don't appear to want to banter do you? As you have stated in reference to pete, your aim is to vilify. Isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:11 PM

ok jack,- "easy to show that the earth is more than 10,000 years old"
go ahead !
and yes , I may not know all the right words and some claim they don't know what I am referring to. such claim is stu's at 5.05 above [ and 01.58].
c14 should not be detectable ,due to continuing deminishing half lives beyond a certain age,- which age is far beyond the claimed evolutionary dating of dinos. c14 has been reported in dino bone , though currently disputed I think.
but the various delicate soft tissue finds were also vigorously contested for some time, till resistance was futile. I referred to the latest attempt to explain how they hope this might be possible, ie an experiment on preserving blood vessel by pickling in solution containing iron. as I previously noted, dino dating assumed, despite the evidence ,so the believers are trying to find something to explain why it is contrary to formerly accepted experimentally verified science.
so what do you would be science teachers do to try to prove [sorry..provide evidence] for the evolutionism story ?
read books which they themselves fail to provide any argument from !.
as I formerly suggested, probably because they know those arguments are far from being watertight.
the latest recommendation being about finch beaks. I think I have heard of this one....a couple that observed changes in size and shapes over a few decades?
that is not evolution...in the normally understood way of microbes to man stuff. it is natural selection, though it suits the darwinists to confuse the two , as they cannot demonstrate the former experimentally,,,ie by observable, testable repeatable science
I am certain that any fair minded person reading these posts will note that whatever lack of science education I may have, the arguments I present are more reasonable than some of those who are presumably qualified, yet whose regular response is mockery, patronising or vulgar jibes in place of reasoned discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:13 PM

>>>
More fool them. Maybe they should spend less time investigating "demeanours" and more time investigating evidence. <<<

Mr Shaw. If you think you are "presenting evidence" to pete when you vilify him and anthropomorphize the word "science" You probably need to do both.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:22 PM

The holocaust was down to science??? I think that may come as a surprise to a lot of people Jack. Hitler, a scientist? I doubt even the most ardent imaginary friend botherer will believe that one.

Tell you what. Stop arguing semantics and putting up various straw men. Give me the name of a physicist who has tried to exterminate biologists or a chemist who has tortured and maimed astronomers because they were different and we will then see how many religious leaders have declared that the other cult, whatever it is, needs to be eliminated. Then let us see how many people followed the scientist and how many followed the religious leader. Up to the challenge?

As to debating in a respectful manner. Seeing as you mentioned him first, I suspect old Adolph did as well. I would much rather shake hands with Messiahs S&M.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:33 PM

"...in the normally understood way of microbes to man stuff."

Not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, pete, but has it occurred to you that you went from a single cell to a newborn baby, in nine months, without any divine intervention? You then went from a baby to an adult - in how ever long it is since you've been alive - again without any obvious help from a big, immaterial beardy bloke in the sky.

Living tissue is self-organising and malleable - if it wasn't, you and I wouldn't be here.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:37 PM

Pete, when you get up in the morning look up and marvel at the sun. Assuming that you accept that it is a big ball of plasma which produces energy by fusion. Scientists have measured the rate of conversion of hydrogen to helium and the relative amount of each element and have calculated that this fusion process has been ongoing for about 4.5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million.

Four billion is more than ten thousand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:51 PM

I've not done it since you pointed out that your feelings were hurt.

They weren't. You can't hurt my feelings.

As you have stated in reference to pete, your aim is to vilify.

Your aim appears to be to misrepresent.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:52 PM

I'll happily shake your hand Dave. Especially if you are holding a pint for me in the other.

I'd happily shake hands with anyone on this thread to he honest. Even pete. Although I'd ask him as an aside to stop trying to tell people science has a sinister purpose whilst religious nonsense hasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 01:54 PM

"As to debating in a respectful manner. Seeing as you mentioned him first, I suspect old Adolph did as well."

I suspect you are wrong about Adolph. He called people names and demonized them. That was the first step leading to the holocaust.

I am sorry if I did not make my point clear enough. I'm not saying that Hitler was a scientist. Though he certainly did employ scientists to build bombs to kill innocent people. You live in England right? You may well have seen one of those scientifically created bombs first hand. They weren't prayed into existence. They weren't thunderbolts from Thor's Hammer.

I am saying that Hitler used the pseudo-scientific hoax of eugenics as an excuse to kill, just as the kings of Europe used the pseudo-religious hoax of "Winning back the Holy Land" as an excuse to loot the treasure at the end of "the spice road." You can see the same thing happening today. The West went in to Iraq and Libya under the political hoax of spreading democracy. Iraq and Libya have plenty of oil. Syria has little oil. Where is the intervention?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:00 PM

"Although I'd ask him as an aside to stop trying to tell people science has a sinister purpose whilst religious nonsense hasn't. "

I believe you are mistaken in this. I have not seen him say that, nor do I believe that he even intends to imply that. What he has been saying is that he believes that science is mistaken about the theory of evolution. I believe that what he is saying is poppycock. But I do not believe that he is intentionally vilifying science.


I would shake your hand too Ian. I would even offer you a Dale's Pale Ale.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:02 PM

I am certain that any fair minded person reading these posts will note that whatever lack of science education I may have, the arguments I present are more reasonable than some of those who are presumably qualified, yet whose regular response is mockery, patronising or vulgar jibes in place of reasoned discussion.

I fear that "reasoned discussion" is a stranger to you, old chap! I often see you presenting semi-digested and ill-understood tripe from wacky websites and firing off insult after insult in the direction of honest and hard-working scientists, but I've never seen you employ reason (in the accepted sense, at any rate) in your arguments. Never!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:07 PM

Mr Shaw. If you think you are "presenting evidence" to pete when you vilify him and anthropomorphize the word "science" You probably need to do both.

A pint awaits anyone who can untangle the grammar, sentence construction and meaning of this gibberish.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:11 PM

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 29 Jan 14 - 09:10 PM

>>>Still, he comes on here to either be patronised politely by Bill or to be vilified for his professed stupidity, which, in my book, is by far the better way to deal with these confounded eejits.<<<



I said, "As you have stated in reference to pete, your aim is to vilify."

You said. "Your aim appears to be to misrepresent. "

Though I did not quote you exactly, because of the way you tend to weasel your way to a point that tends be very complicated, I am sure I paraphrased what you did say accurately. I certainly did NOT aim to "misrepresent" what you said.

If you wish to tell us that you do not vilify pete and that you do not intend to do so in future I would be very happy to withdraw my comment about what your "aim" is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:13 PM

Where is the "reason" in this Mr. Shaw?

"I fear that "reasoned discussion" is a stranger to you, old chap! I often see you presenting semi-digested and ill-understood tripe from wacky websites and firing off insult after insult in the direction of honest and hard-working scientists, but I've never seen you employ reason (in the accepted sense, at any rate) in your arguments. Never! "

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:30 PM

Quote the whole thing Mr. Shaw. Did you think to make me look foolish by quoting out of context.

>>>>>
More fool them. Maybe they should spend less time investigating "demeanours" and more time investigating evidence. <<<

Mr Shaw. If you think you are "presenting evidence" to pete when you vilify him and anthropomorphize the word "science" You probably need to do both. <<

By "do both" I meant You should spend more time investigating "demeanours" and more time investigating evidence. Both of the things that you brought up. I was implying that you never present any evidence and that your demeanor is noxious and actually harms your case.

Every time you bring down another rain of nasty invective, pete has reason to smile because he knows he has beaten you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 02:33 PM

In this particular case, Jack, I think that Mr Shaw is absolutely right on the money!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:10 PM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

This is pretty clear. Please note that there are no exceptions allowing for people to break these rules if they decide a person is a bigot or if the decide that a person is not showing enough respect for "hard working scientists."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 03:19 PM

Mr. Shaw seems to be trying to express an admiration for science.

I share that admiration.

He seems to be expressing a contempt for creationism.

I share that contempt.

He is also ignoring Max's instruction.

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak."

I have agreed to abide by that instruction.

It irritates me to see such disrespect for Max and the other members of this forum.

It also irritates me to see Mr. Shaw expresses his opinions on science in such an unscientific and illogical way.

I hope that pete forgives me if I can get Mr Shaw to curtail his rants. I believe that would rob pete of many small victories.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 14 - 08:19 PM

You appear to be a very troubled man, Wacko. A little obsessive, some might say. Always remind yourself that this is not real life. Your blood pressure is too precious a thing to risk. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:29 AM

The kings of old did indeed use religion as an excuse. But I was talking about religious leaders. Popes, priests, ayatollahs, mullahs. Those who's only purpose is to peddle their own doctrines. Kings and political leaders do have other agendas. Now, once again. List the scientists who have indicted others to kill, main and torture in the name of their own discipline. You can't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

List the scientists who have indicted others to kill, main and torture in the name of their own discipline. You can't.

To some extent, that depends on who you call scientists. There are certainly examples from 'social sciences', most obviously eugenics. Medicine is also not without its examples, though usually on a very small scale and - as far as I know - very much rarer as more and stricter rules on experimentation were introduced from perhaps the 50s onwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:07 AM

One question raised a few times here is about scientific neutrality - the idea that the scientist carrying out the work is neutral and that all the responsibility lies with the person who chooses to utilise that research to make a bomb, for instance. Some have argued for that, others that the scientist is even more responsible than the bomb-maker. This is relevant because it also feeds into the question Dave raised about which scientists incite others to kill, maim and torture. 'Incite' normally describes a particular activity and in that conventional sense it is hard to think of an academic paper 'inciting' anyone. But there are other words that might fit better, like 'encouraging' or 'persuading', and a paper could do that. So I'd be unwilling to let science off the metaphorical hook because of a single word.

In the early 60s I was a member of the British Association of Young Scientists. Mainly this group organised professional scientists and university science lecturers to visit schools around 6 times a year to give lectures after the school day. As part of that, in 1966 I attended a week's conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science to listen to a series of lectures. Here's a clipping from their web site:

       The British Association for the Advancement of Science first met in 1831. It aimed to confront and rectify what many saw as the 'decline of science in England.'
      This decline was attributed to numerous factors,  including the enduring hegemony of the Royal Society, the marginalisation of regional Societies, 
      and the unprofessional status of scientific practitioners in Britain. 
  
      The British Association aimed to nurture a national, and even international, network of scientists, and it accordingly held each annual meeting
      in a different regional centre in the British Isles.
  

There was a pressure group, who I think were called Society for the Social Responsibility of Scientists [it was a long time ago!], and this group demonstrated throughout the week to point out to the scientists the consequences of their research. Some certainly went into areas that were really impossible to assess morally - I particularly remember their objections to infra red cameras because of the military uses, but they discounted their use in say, search-and-rescue.

So even the tender age of 13 I felt they were pretty naïve and simplistic, but despite that I did think their fundamental point was right: no-one, including a scientist, can wholly absolve themselves of [foreseeable] consequences of their actions, and the way out is not to avoid trying to foresee anything. And it did perhaps get rid of any lingering divisions I had in my mind between a wholly pure world of science and a wholly evil 'them', whether that refers to religion, or business, or the military or ....

[Yes, Steve: at 13 I was attending pretty advanced science lectures aimed at people perhaps 25+, and also undergoing 'religious indoctrination'. I wonder how you would classify me? Hopelessly confused, perhaps? *smile*)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:35 AM

4.5 billion years is indeed much older than 10,000 yrs, jack, and assuming all possible factors are factored in ,we must take it as a reliable sum.
however, I am unsure of whether you are saying the sun began then and grew, or was then already near its present size and diminishing since.
I believe it is accepted that its core is diminishing as the burning process progresses over time.
what I would wonder is ,whether the calculations prove anything , when the creation model is of a fully formed and functioning sun operating from day 4 appr 6,000 or so yr ago.
there are also more technical answers which I am not feeling adequate to convey accurately. you might like to look up , the faint sun paradox, which discussion points rather to the sun being a problem for evolutionists more than creation believers

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 09:02 AM

neither am I sure of what point you are making, shimrod!
when I began as the seed of my parents, all the information was already there for me to develop to a baby, child, adult. I am sure that I wont develop into anything else, and there is no evidence that my descendants will, however many millennia you might envisage.

jack, if I have "beaten" steve [which is not the term i would use anyway as i have goals other than winning arguments] it is not merely that he abuses, but as you and ,i think, others have noted, does not give a reasons argument either. the badmouthing does however accentuate the lack of reasoned discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 09:35 AM

>>You appear to be a very troubled man, Wacko.<<

Violation of the terms of use. If this was real life a trouble maker like you wouldn't get past the door man.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 09:53 AM

>>what I would wonder is ,whether the calculations prove anything , when the creation model is of a fully formed and functioning sun operating from day 4 appr 6,000 or so yr ago.<<

Does the Bible not say that the sun was created on the third day?

By your account the sun must be about 6,000 years old. If you are going to seriously take Genesis literally then the sun begins at that time.

What I said to you is clear and simple. Calculating the rate of consumption of the suns fuel and the amount of the product of that consumption the sun has been calculated at 4.5 billion years. This fact is accepted by all people who are not clinging to a self contradictory ancient myth of creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 10:30 AM

Pete, the sun is not thought to be "diminishing ever since."
It is believed to be getting steadily hotter.
I think the "faint sun paradox" you refer to relates to that, and why the earth was not permanently frozen earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 10:59 AM

"I am sure that I wont develop into anything else, and there is no evidence that my descendants will, however many millennia you might envisage."

No evidence that creationists are prepared to consider, you mean? Read something else other than creationist websites, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 11:17 AM

" ... there are also more technical answers which I am not feeling adequate to convey accurately ...!

I think that if I was (ludicrously) presumptious enough to take on all of the world's physicists, chemists, biologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc., etc., etc., and to tell them that they were all wrong (!) then I think that I would at least need a very, very, very secure grasp of the "technical answers"!!! I also think that I would need a better understanding of words such as "logic" and "model" and phrases such as "reasoned discussion".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

"there are also more technical answers which I am not feeling adequate to convey accurately"

If you can't articulate these answers then you obviously are incapable of understanding the subject or perhaps have not researched the subject in any depth, as you haven't with geology, palaeontology or biology.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 11:41 AM

"when I began as the seed of my parents, all the information was already there for me to develop to a baby, child, adult. I am sure that I wont develop into anything else, and there is no evidence that my descendants will, however many millennia you might envisage."

If your mother had used thalidomide you might have been born legless, armless, or even a totally different creature, viable or not.

It's about mutation Pete and it has taken place unpredictably and randomly since the first appearance of life, and will continue to happen until the sun destoys the solar system.

It can produce new variations which are indeed very different and over time ( we are talking Eons here) become new species.

Many of these are non viable and die out, but a very small number survive and propagate.

There is your microbe to man progression and it is an advanced form, if you like, of natural selection on the genetic scale.

There is plenty of evidence for the effect in people affected by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and the offspring they produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 12:03 PM

It is not just mutation, it is adaptation calling upon information that already existed in the genome. When the horse like creatures returned to the water to become whales and dolphins, the genomic plans for fins were already there. Some people are born with webbing between their fingers and toes, a survival trait that would be handy should Noah's flood return and not abate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Careful Jack...
There is no "calling upon" as if in response to a need. Evolution is entirely dependent upon random, yes random, mutation. Natural selection is the powerful, but unconscious, filter that lets some mutants live to reproduce and dooms others to die. Cetaceans got their flippers from ancestral paws because some terrestrial ancestor was a mutant who had a bit of extra skin between the toes. Not a big advantage, but over millions of years, the tiny things add up. The phrase "genomic plan" makes me nervous I suppose. There is no plan. Some accidents work. Most do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Careful Jack...
There is no "calling upon" as if in response to a need. Evolution is entirely dependent upon random, yes random, mutation. Natural selection is the powerful, but unconscious, filter that lets some mutants live to reproduce and dooms others to die. Cetaceans got their flippers from ancestral paws because some terrestrial ancestor was a mutant who had a bit of extra skin between the toes. Not a big advantage, but over millions of years, the tiny things add up. The phrase "genomic plan" makes me nervous I suppose. There is no plan. Some accidents work. Most do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM

It depends on what you mean by random. Would you call having you grandfather's blue eyes "random?" My point is that the mutation does not have to be to a new thing. It can be an emergence of an older pattern within the genome.

You are right. It is not LITERALLY not "calling upon" because the effect is over generations and comes about through waves of individuals with one trait outbreeding another but the net effect is that a change in environment brings about changes in the population over time.

I was speaking figuratively for those who may not have the model and mathematics of natural selection firmly planted in their heads.

The fact that some people have webbed toes is not a random mutation. It is an occasional manifestation of a trait that is contained in the human genome.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 03:53 PM

Yes, Steve: at 13 I was attending pretty advanced science lectures aimed at people perhaps 25+, and also undergoing 'religious indoctrination'. I wonder how you would classify me? Hopelessly confused, perhaps? *smile*

Not at all. You are a respectable, respectful and measured poster who can be taken on over differences in perspective without rancour.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

"It can be an emergence of an older pattern within the genome."

"It is not just mutation, it is adaptation calling upon information that already existed in the genome. When the horse like creatures returned to the water to become whales and dolphins, the genomic plans for fins were already there. Some people are born with webbing between their fingers and toes, a survival trait that would be handy should Noah's flood return and not abate."

Well now. here we have two statements that betray the poster as someone who understands genetics and evolution approximately as much as pete does. Wacko, I know you won't take that as an insult because I can see from your posts how much you admire and respect pete.

But, actually, both statements constitute incomprehensible gibberish. "Adaptation calling upon information..." my arse. "When the horse like creatures returned to the water to become whales and dolphins" my arse. Jeez, my arse is getting worn out here. As the duchess said to the vicar...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:04 PM

For two, read several. I went awry with my copy 'n' pasting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:12 PM

>>>
You are a respectable, respectful and measured poster who can be taken on over differences in perspective without rancour. <<<

The poster of these statements is None of the above.

>>>Wacko, I know you won't take that as an insult <<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:25 PM

Your arse seems not to be as unacquainted with the concept of metaphor as it is with reasoned debate.


Hint, arrogantly calling something "gibberish" is not an argument and it is not polite. It is also argumentative. There is no doubt in my mind that you are trying to start a fight.

Are you ignorant of the rules of this forum or are you arrogantly defying the rules of this forum.

the rules are here.

http://mudcat.org/member/EntryForm.cfm

By the way, I'd much rather be compared to pete than you. He is respectful of the forum and of other people. He makes an effort to present knowledge and a reasoned argument.

You fling out words like "gibberish" the way a monkey flings what comes out of *his* butt.

If you don't like this forum enough to be respectful of it and the members of it, why do you bother to come here? Other than to fling "gibberish?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:36 PM

"Hello Polly! Hello Polly Parrot!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:07 PM

I see that you have opted for the full half hour argument.

Please keep in mind that an argument is not just contradiction. Or flinging "gibberish" as the case may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

To some extent, that depends on who you call scientists.

That is easy. Those people who lead the way in scientific discovery. Primarily those who do not instruct their followers to kill, maim and torture those who do not believe what they are saying.

Jack. The point was addressed to you. Give me the name of any scientists who instructed their followers to kill, maim and torture those who do not believe what they are saying. If you do, which I doubt, I will return with at least ten times that number of religious leaders who did the same.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

Just stick to talking about your webbed feet, Wacko. Ot would that be Quacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:46 PM

Dave,

I have never said that scientists do those things. I could ask you to name a cleric that put a weapon in a boy's hand and ordered him to kill.

>>> In 1944, at a time when the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the struggle against Nazi Germany, it was important to convince Stalin that the Western democracies accepted him as an equal. "'In the world of the future, for which our soldiers have shed their blood on countless fronts", the British Prime Minister said in his bombastic style, "our three great democracies will demonstrate to all mankind that they, both in wartime and in peacetime, will remain true to the high principles of freedom, dignity, and happiness of the people. That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighbourly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican…"

"How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?" Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill's line of reasoning.

Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to earth from the nebulous heavens. <<<

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:47 PM

"Just stick to talking about your webbed feet, Wacko. Ot would that be Quacko. "

Disrespectful violation of the terms of use of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM

Disrespectful violation of the terms of use of this forum.


Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!


:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:22 PM

But the webbing does not have to be in the genome already. If it did there could never be any truly "new" features, and therefore no evolution.
Completely random, and completely new, mutations (simple copying errors) are absolutely required.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:13 PM

Don't worry, guest, Wacko gets it even less than pete gets it. The rest of us can stick to the serious science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:35 PM

Since Stalin has been brought into this thread, it's not amiss to note that Stalin chose as his lead biologist an anti-Darwinian named Lysenko, and biologists who advocated Darwinism could and did find themselves sent to the Gulags. Biology in the Soviet Union was set back a generation.

So in this respect Soviet Communism and anti-Darwinian fundamentalists are in the same boat.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 02:40 AM

To some extent, that depends on who you call scientists.

That is easy. Those people who lead the way in scientific discovery.
A bit too self-referential I fear. As in my example, do you include social science and medicine?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:07 AM

There's one thing that we can be sure of - there's no such thing as a 'creationist scientist' - the term is an oxymoron. No real scientist would consider her/himself to be in possession of 'absolute truth' and then attempt to work backwards from there. Nor would she/he expend vast amounts of effort trying to discredit all other scientists!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:55 AM

Just in case anyone is in doubt: I agree that the term 'creationist scientist' is either meaningless or deceptive. An individual can be a scientist in other fields, but they cannot use science in the context of creationism: they are different categories. I may be a musician, and a bricklayer, but I cannot build a brick wall by playing a guitar. So I can accept 'creationist scientist' only in the same sense I can accept 'musician bricklayer'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 04:23 AM

I have never said that scientists do those things. I could ask you to name a cleric that put a weapon in a boy's hand and ordered him to kill.

You may not have, Jack. But it is being implied that science is the new religion and is becoming as bad. I am saying that it is not. Now, not one cleric. How about 25 of them. Or do moslem clerics not count as religious? And 25 is recent and just a start. There are so called Christian clerics who are just as bad. You are just playing with words, Jack. I suspect you know very well what the argument is and are just trying to avoid the issue. I, for one, would rather see an honest string of profanities than a dishonest prevarication.

Anyone care to start the ball rolling with any number of scientists who preach hatred? I think not somehow.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:18 AM

I'm sorry Dave, but I fear you are the one who is playing with words.

"I could ask you to name a cleric that put a weapon in a boy's hand and ordered him to kill. "

You give me a story about 25 men allegedly preaching hate, none of whom are accused of putting any weapon in any hands. None of whom are accused of ordering a any specific person to kill any person or group.


"Anyone care to start the ball rolling with any number of scientists who preach hatred? I think not somehow."

Scientists don't preach. Would you care to start the ball rolling with any number of clerics who design and construct weapons?

"But it is being implied that science is the new religion and is becoming as bad. "

I didn't imply this. Never have I implied this. Shaw and Musket said I was saying this. But in fact I never have. I have said outright that Steve Shaw and many like him are as bad as many evangelical missionaries. I think comparing his behavior to pete's on this thread alone makes that case on the face of it. But on the whole I think that both science and religion are wonderful and have brought many benefits to mankind. Certainly both have seen abuses and caused death and suffering. But I am for both and against neither. But we must be vigilant of false prophets and snake oil salesmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:21 AM

"So in this respect Soviet Communism and anti-Darwinian fundamentalists are in the same boat. "

Maybe not exactly the same boat. Anti-Darwinian fundamentalists haven't used pseudo-utopian idealism as an excuse to kill tens of millions of people. But neither has a grounding in real science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:29 AM

>>>From: DMcG - PM
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:55 AM

Just in case anyone is in doubt: I agree that the term 'creationist scientist' is either meaningless or deceptive. An individual can be a scientist in other fields, but they cannot use science in the context of creationism: they are different categories. I may be a musician, and a bricklayer, but I cannot build a brick wall by playing a guitar. So I can accept 'creationist scientist' only in the same sense I can accept 'musician bricklayer'. <<<<

Good point. creationist biologist or creationist palentologist or creationist geologist would be going too far. But I then the term in vogue here is Creation Scientist, as in one who "studies" creation scientifically. I'll admit that the creation story in the Bible could be compared to the scientific evidence for it. But Occams Razor would cut any honest career in that field very short.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:00 AM

"But the webbing does not have to be in the genome already. "

I agree completely. Of course it does not have to be to already in the gene pool as a useful mutation. Though pete's sources might argue otherwise. I think that random, useful mutations do not occur is the crux of his "microbe to man" argument.

I believe that " useful" mutations do occur. (Before I get taunted again by "scientist" Mr. Shaw by "useful" I mean a mutation that could give a competitive advantage in mating that can be passed on genetically.)

But I also know that varying degrees of web feet are common enough in humans that I have met several people born with that trait. It seems obvious to me that the trait is in the human gene pool already. Should it become somehow a useful trait, it would be a lot more likely that the trait would arise in the population from the existing gene pool rather than through random mutation. Who knows? maybe these people are finding each other as we speak and breeding a whole new generation of Olympic swimmers.

Rather than simply barking "gibberish." Maybe science expert Mr. Shaw would like to weigh in on this theory of mine with some analysis of his own this time. I've actually tried to keep the vocab at a high school level in case he was having trouble with words like "anthropomorphize" in my other posts he couldn't understand."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:05 AM

You give me a story about 25 men allegedly preaching hate, none of whom are accused of putting any weapon in any hands. None of whom are accused of ordering a any specific person to kill any person or group.
.,,.

"Putting weapons in hands" how literally? & surely depends how you define "ordering". If you preach murder to your congregation? How about Abu Hamza, then, Jack? Some extracts from his wikipedia entry (& NB el-Faisal* also):

Abu Hamza was formerly the imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, and a leader of "Supporters of Sharia", an extremist group that believed in a strict interpretation of Islamic law. In 2003, he addressed a rally in central London. In one sermon relating to the necessity of Jihad, he said: "Allah likes those who believe in Him who kill those who do not believe in Him. Allah likes that. So if you Muslims don't like that because you hate the blood, there is something wrong with you."

It is alleged that he associated with *Abdullah el-Faisal, a Jamaican Muslim convert cleric who preached in the UK until he was imprisoned for urging his followers to murder Jews, Hindus, Christians and Americans.
On 7 February 2006, he was found Guilty of six charges of soliciting murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Will he do? If not, why not?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:10 AM

Sorry about typos and grammar glitches in the previous few posts. Woke up and hour or two ago and am killing time to get sleepy again.

night all.   Go Broncos!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:29 AM

Spot on, Michael. Glad to see at least someone gets the gist of what I am saying.

Would you care to start the ball rolling with any number of clerics who design and construct weapons

As I said earlier. Don't blame the tools. Blame those using them. Weapons are useless unless someone has the desire to use them. Are you blaming scientists for the first caveman who hit another over the head with a rock?

Oh, BTW, Max designed and constructed this site. I guess you think it is his fault that people abuse it? Oh, hang on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:10 PM

I think it was shimrod who , above, seems to think I should have a grasp of every scientific argument, while he himself is pretty short of any good argument , let alone a scientific one.
he also thinks I am taking on the leading thinkers of the day,- there are evidently some superior intelligencies on this thread, but I've yet to see any post from shimrod that would include him in that category.

ok, more on the sun.
the evolutionist starting assumption is that the suns core has 4.5 billion yrs of helium - not directly observed.
only a certain amount is observed.
any age calculation must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium
    from   age of the sun    johnathan safati
he goes on to talk about the   faint young sun paradox...and how that is a problem for evolutionists.
and so jack, it is not as simple as you think.

you can call my sources, lies or nonsense if you like, but a number of the above posts are confused or make claims unsubstantiated.
beneficial mutations are not the same as novel information arising from a mutation. let me remind you that when dawkins was challenged to give an example, there was a long silence, before giving an evasive speech. if neo evo were true there ought to be plenty of example. info loss in a mutation that confers an advantage to an organism, is not new info, it cannot provide goo to you via the zoo evolution. "guest" I think asserted otherwise but failed to evidence that claim. guest did infact say, above, that "new" was needed if evolution happened at all.
so , there is the challenge, maybe just 2 or 3 examples of a mutation shown to have provided new info to validate the neo Darwin story

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:44 PM

First, pete, you do yourself a disservice in that opening section. Normally you avoid such sniping and it is a shame you fell into it this time.

Onto more interesting stuff: you talk about adding and removing 'information'. That's rather informal: do you mean information in the precisely defined mathematical sense? If so, I could do it, but it would look like a couple of pages of algebra, and probably still wouldn't capture the essence of what you are really getting at. Is it possible for you to define what you mean by 'information' sufficiently precisely that several readers, including yourself, cannot disagree whether in any particular case it has been added or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:02 PM

Have you found Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:04 PM

Hi all. Sad enough to have cached this thread and read it in a bar earlier.

I'll take you up on that beer Jack, my French hosts understand every bit of alcohol except beer.

Sorry though, our friend pete has indeed spoke of brainwashing children in the YEC thread and that can never be brushed under the carpet. I have no issue with him believing it anymore than my mate who reckons the moon landings were faked or that Sean Bean bloke who thinks Sheffield United are a football team.

But we can see from the radicalisation of religions in all sectors, society is now suffering rather than being enriched by religion. When I was a lad, churches had Wesley hymns, King James thee & thou and no fuss. I went to a christening last year where they sang silly chants to drums. & guitar and something called the peace where strangers invade your space and hug you.

Alright for Johnny ruddy Foreigner, but not very British what?

Ignorant peasants in Pakistan speak of death for cartoons and jokes and criminals support the notion. American far right Christians murder surgeons and nurses. Wars carry on bastardising their interpretation of love. Priests and their mates bugger children with impunity. Church leaders talk of loving gay people but accept God hates them.

No. If it's all the same to you, being nice to them only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:11 PM

"I think it was shimrod who , above, seems to think I should have a grasp of every scientific argument, while he himself is pretty short of any good argument , let alone a scientific one.
he also thinks I am taking on the leading thinkers of the day, ..."

Hmmmm! Touchy, pete! I must have hit a nerve!

The point that I was making, in my last post, was that modern evolutionary thinking is closely integrated with many other modern scientific fields - you challenge evolution, you challenge all of the others - and, let's be honest, you don't appear to be equipped to do that, pete! And of course it's you that needs the "good arguments" because it is you who is doing the challenging!

And if you read back over many of my previous posts you will see that all that I have done, really, is to ask you some searching, logical questions and recommended a book to you. I deliberately haven't advanced many "arguments" because evolutionary biology is not my field - I'm just an interested observer with a scientific background (and, it has to be said, a deep distrust of religious fundamentalists).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 02:23 PM

Pete quoted Jonathan Sarfati... here he is.

Jonathan Sarfati

Here is what he is involved in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

He has a PhD in chemistry, and is a chess master. This illustrates the point about wearing multiple hats. His belief in Young Creationism is a **religious** belief, not a scientific one. All the relevant, interrelated scientific disciplines, such as physics, cosmology, geology, palentology...etc., point to the age of the Earth in the billions of years and the history of mankind in the hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on what your basic definition is. **NO ONE** acting purely as a scientist accepts a 5-8 thousand year old concept of creation.
In so far as Sarfati tries to defend Young Earth Creationism, he is warping & twisting scientific data, and re-interpreting the basic finding in order to force them into compliance with his religious beliefs. I have not researched HOW he came to his religious beliefs... perhaps it was some psychological/emotional decision... but all his seemingly well developed mental abilities have been used in two very different ways. By taking YEC views AS a primary premise, he has created a 'logical' web of conclusions that ignores any consideration of the factual basis of that primary premise.
   You just can't DO that!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:54 PM

dmcg...I regard myself as chastened. and I take shimrods word that he has a science background, even though it seems that background has little to say on origins.
what I mean by information, and I accept that I may not have expressed it well, is that there is like a blueprint in every organism that provides the make up, features, growth and anything else that contributes to how that organism develops. I think the "engine room" as it were, for this is the intricate workings of the DNA/RNA, and nano machines and sequencies in the cell. the information in the DNA letters feed this development and constitution of the organism . there are, as has been noted, copying errors/mutations, and neo Darwinism claims that these can accidentally generate novel information to facilitate goo to you evolution. as I said earlier, no new information has, far as I know, demonstrated that this has happened. maybe, it could conceivably happen, but there ought to be plenty to cite if neo Darwin were true
hence, the challenge. if it is not demonstrable. it is a faith position! now I may have used wrong words/terminology, but I stand to be corrected, but it is the main concept, not the words that primarily matter.

shimrod, challenging evolutionism in no way challenges scientific disciplines. I think I could even find a [non creationist] quote that that expresses the opinion that all of science progresses very well, without reference to evolution, including biology...that is not to say that it is not mentioned in papers...as an expected gloss.
I think that it is probably the equating of neo Darwinism with natural selection that may make it seem that evolutionism is genuinely pervading science.

bill...presumably your opening shot implies that because his phd is only in chemistry that he is not entitled to write on other disciplines. I presume you did not read the article I suggested, because you would not then make that inference, since near the beginning he credits two other phd,s whose area of expertise does cover the subject, and who checked his work.
I would say that your belief in evolutionism is just as much a religious position as his. you cite all those disciplines as validating and interrelated to evolution yet your area is in none of those either. you cant possibly make such a blanket claim, however good your skills of logic otherwise are. its just more elephant hurling. I suggest, it might be a logical fallacy to attack the man, rather than dealing with the argument.
I am sure that he also would say that NO ONE acting only as a scientist would believe in the general theory of evolution. there are no scientists that don't have presuppositions and a priori assumptions
you claim his arguments are twisted and flawed.....but your only rationale for that is because evolutionary scientists don't agree with him!.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 04:58 PM

I think the "engine room" as it were, for this is the intricate workings of the DNA/RNA, and nano machines and sequencies in the cell. the information in the DNA letters feed this development and constitution of the organism . there are, as has been noted, copying errors/mutations, and neo Darwinism claims that these can accidentally generate novel information to facilitate goo to you evolution. as I said earlier, no new information has, far as I know, demonstrated that this has happened

That is where I think we need more clarity, pete. Let us assume everyone here agrees with the first part: that DNA/RNA sequences define the mechanism to develop the organism. Now, what is your rule, looking at the DNA or RNA, for saying whether or not novel information has been added? We need a good definition of the 'amount' of information before we can say whether it has increased or decreased or stayed the same. Clearly, since each child is genetically different from their parents you can't simply look at whether the DNA is different.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

pete you have disappointed me twice, you insulted shimrod, inaccurately for no reason I could determine, slightly weakening my case that you have been behaving better than Mr. Shaw.

You also pulled out that saw of God creating the Universe in a way that makes it look as if it appears to be older than 6,000 years.

The accepted wisdom on the formation of ours and most solar systems is that interstellar gas builds up in a swirling vortex in certain areas until gravity collapses this gas into suns and planets, the suns have enough gravity and mass to ignite nuclear fusion. The solar wind (outstreaming radiation from the fusion process) strips the hydrogen and helium from the inner bodies, but is too weak further out to do that to outer planets formed at this time and after a few billion years you have a solar system like ours.


We generally know the relative amounts of elements such as hydrogen and helium. Astrophysicists have done the math on thousands of stars and the math works.   

Think of the sun as an hourglass. Hydrogen converts to helium at a certain rate just as the sand flows through the neck of the hourglass at a certain rate. Does it make sense that an "intelligent designer" would create the hourglass with a third of the sand in the bottom of the glass already? I don't think so.

It is also a little disappointing that you talk about "reasoned" arguments and think you can counter what I have said with "any age calculation must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium
    from   age of the sun    johnathan safati"
The process of science is not to look for the answer that best fits our preformed assumptions. It is the one that best fits the evidence we observe. The most logical assumption is that the ratio of Hydrogen to helium in the sun started out about the same as the ratio of those elements in this part of the universe. The assumption that you and johnathan safati are trying to sell to us is less than elegant. There is 4.5 billion years extra helium in the sun. How do you suppose, if it wasn't from the passage of time, that helium got there? was the specific part of the galaxy unnaturally rich in helium? If it was, then the same think happened with the stars in our neighborhood. Did some sort of "helium specific magnet sweep through out part of the galaxy and remove the excess interstellar helium after the sun was formed? That's less plausible. Did the "intelligent designer" put the extra helium in the sun to "antique" it the way some furniture dealers do? I don't like that idea. It implies that God committed fraud.

I donno pete. I admire your dedication and persistence, and until today, I've admired your grace under criticism. I guess you still are supernaturally patient with Mr. Shaw. But you have lost all credibility in arguing science. Of course I'll try to keep an open mind, If a four day theory of stellar formation comes to the fore and the math works, I promise to revisit this topic with you. If that happens though, we'll talk about how your theory conflicts with Einsteins'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

DMcG

another thing I see, is that since a mutation can be something as trivial of swapping two letters in a 4 letter sequence and since there are many factors that can trigger such swaps, in a 2.5 billion year time span, it seems more likely to me that every possible combination has existed and competed. If you look at it mathematically. In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time.

Its like buying every possible ticket in a Powerball draw, with natural selection to sort out the losing tickets and doing that billions of times. If you look at the math once life gets started it is hard to imagine life not evolving.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

>>>
shimrod, challenging evolutionism in no way challenges scientific disciplines. I think I could even find a [non creationist] quote that that expresses the opinion that all of science progresses very well, without reference to evolution, including biology...that is not to say that it is not mentioned in papers...as an expected gloss.
I think that it is probably the equating of neo Darwinism with natural selection that may make it seem that evolutionism is genuinely pervading science.<<<

I have no idea what you mean here I can guess I guess but it does nt matter. I have point out that your theory of creation includes a universe that is less than 7,000 years old and that challenges EVERY field of science I can think of in untold ways. shimrod is right on this one no matter what you are saying vis a vis "evolutionism."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:47 PM

The accepted wisdom on the formation of ours and most solar systems is that interstellar gas builds up in a swirling vortex in certain areas

"Swirling vortex", huh? And who's "accepted wisdom" might that be then? :-)

Think of the sun as an hourglass. Hydrogen converts to helium at a certain rate just as the sand flows through the neck of the hourglass at a certain rate. Does it make sense that an "intelligent designer" would create the hourglass with a third of the sand in the bottom of the glass already? I don't think so.

Utter tripe. "Think of the sun as an hourglass" my arse. And the rest. Mind you, you do have a wonderful imagination.

But I also know that varying degrees of web feet are common enough in humans that I have met several people born with that trait. It seems obvious to me that the trait is in the human gene pool already. Should it become somehow a useful trait, it would be a lot more likely that the trait would arise in the population from the existing gene pool rather than through random mutation. Who knows? maybe these people are finding each other as we speak and breeding a whole new generation of Olympic swimmers.

Rather than simply barking "gibberish." Maybe science expert Mr. Shaw would like to weigh in on this theory of mine...

Well I certainly wouldn't accord it the dignity of a "theory". Fantasy or whimsy, perhaps. Wacko, dear fellow, you really do need to stop digging yourself into a massive hole with this silly webbed-feet nonsense. You betray an elemental lack of understanding of genetics every time you bring it up. I'd love to ask you to cease and desist, but, dammit, it's so bloody entertaining...

And well said, Michael, before I forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:50 PM

another thing I see, is that since a mutation can be something as trivial of swapping two letters in a 4 letter sequence and since there are many factors that can trigger such swaps, in a 2.5 billion year time span, it seems more likely to me that every possible combination has existed and competed. If you look at it mathematically. In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time.

Heheh. I made my case in my last post about this fellow's lack of grasp of genetics, and now I can rest it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:52 PM

>>Would you care to start the ball rolling with any number of clerics who design and construct weapons

As I said earlier. Don't blame the tools. Blame those using them. Weapons are useless unless someone has the desire to use them.<<

That's the point I am making. The clerics aren't using the weapons any more than the scientists are. The young men are using the weapons that the scientists make on the orders of the politicians.

In my opinion, the clerics usually don't do anything but give justification for things the killers already want to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:45 PM

Utterly simplistic, Wacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 09:15 PM

"...because his phd is only in chemistry that he is not entitled to write on other disciplines..."

He is entitled to write on anything, as long as he uses the data & standards OF that discipline to guide his thoughts.

As to other PhDs... I don't see any specific article you suggested, Pete.... at least not in the last 50 posts. The articles I read were found by ME.

"...I would say that your belief in evolutionism is just as much a religious position as his. you cite all those disciplines as validating and interrelated to evolution yet your area is in none of those either. "

We have gone over this 20 times, Pete. I cannot BE an expert in all those areas any more than YOU can... but I am qualified to analyze and comment on logic, reason and forms of argument. You have agreed for several years that you have NOT had the relevant years of study, yet you consistently attempt to use your **belief** to validate your acceptance of the writers at Creation.com as 'authority', when all they are doing is using THEIR beliefs to create arguments for YOUR beliefs to grab onto.

   My respect for the work done by a thousand scientists & analysts regarding evolution is not a **BELIEF**! The very word belief exists to describe positions held in spite of other evidence or when there is no evidence one way or another. I accept the conclusions of scientists who DO have qualifications in various other disciplines because they do not act on mere 'belief'.... they measure, study, compare, analyze and integrate all sorts of data and put forth opinions to the best of their knowledge. When Sarfati and others in YEC groups argue against mainstream science, they are starting with belief and assuming that any scientific opinion which does not agree is somehow flawed and must involve a mistake somewhere.

I have offered you many times the 'out' for belief in a Supreme Being as one who kick-started the universe... but to decide when this happened or how it has proceeded or what the data & evidence show MUST be left to those who use other sources than old manuscripts & superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:05 PM

Bill,

I think it may be worth pointing out that the man is not a working scientist. He is currently employed by a creationist propaganda group.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:08 PM

>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:45 PM
>> Wacko. <<

Do you know the current rules of this forum? I could post the link again for you if you need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:14 PM

"Heheh. I made my case in my last post about this fellow's lack of grasp of genetics, and now I can rest it."

Congratulations! Another reasoned position backed with evidence. Pete has again defeated you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:46 AM

The clerics aren't using the weapons any more than the scientists are.

Of course not, Jack. When preaching hate they have no idea that their followers may take up arms against the 'enemy'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:51 AM

...even when, like Hamza they preach that "Allah likes those who believe in Him who kill those who do not believe in Him. Allah likes that. So if you Muslims don't like that because you hate the blood, there is something wrong with you";

or like el-Faisal are imprisoned for "urging followers to murder Jews, Hindus, Christians and Americans".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:28 AM

Without evidence, Wacko? And where is your evidence to support your claim that it's likely that "every possible combination has existed and competed"? That is such a nonsensical notion that it's almost beneath arguing with. Furthermore, you say "In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time." Not much to make sense of there either, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:31 AM

Dave, You are saying that "Urging" is the same thing as actually killing. You are insisting on this stance in the face of being told otherwise.

I fear this is a gap in logic that you and I cannot bridge.   

And I imagine if we do happen bridge it I fear that an attempt will then be made to say that because some people "preach hate" then all religious people are complicit in preaching hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:33 AM

And do regard "Wacko" as no more than an affectionate nickname. Come to think of it, you are just about the only person in the world to call me "Mr Shaw" (at least after the first time), but I'm not complaining. Or "Shaw" even. <>shrug

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:50 AM

>>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:28 AM

Without evidence, Wacko? And where is your evidence to support your claim that it's likely that "every possible combination has existed and competed"? That is such a nonsensical notion that it's almost beneath arguing with. Furthermore, you say "In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time." Not much to make sense of there either, is there? <<<

I am afraid that I made a logical argument argument which you have missed. It is a very very simple one. Are you arguing that it was not chance that created life? Are you arguing that some unknown force of intelligent design was limiting the number of mutations? Surely you are not arguing that in the billion or so years that there was only single celled life which implies billions of trillions of reproductive events that all possible combinations of the four letters that comprise DNA were not possible or even likely.

Are you implying that there has been only seven thousand years? If so you have made a valid point. If there was only 5 or 6 days from the inception of the universe to the emergence of terrestrial life In my humble opinion there would not have been time.

Please tell me what your theory of the evolution of life on this planet is. And please do not include the mind numbingly high number of replication events between the emergence of life and the beginning of recorded history in your calculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

You are insisting on this stance in the face of being told otherwise.


Only by you, Jack, only by you. Is it to with being religious, this voice in the wilderness thing? One thing we can agree on. We are speaking a different language but I will give it one more try. Clerics are the leaders of their religious community. Scientists are leaders in their field. I don't know how else to say that some clerics preach hate. No scientists do. The conclusion is quite plain for all to see except you apparently.



DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM

dmcg - sorry, but I,m not sure that I grasped the question in your post ,so the following may miss the mark.
I am referring to the limits of genetic information. certainly the child will not be identical to the father , but the genetic information obviously is not cloning, but within the gene pool [if that's the right term] there will be variation ,even to the extent of a complete colour change very occasionally . but there are limits, ie beyond the organism concerned. to insist that new information can arise , beyond the limits of the organism is purely philosophically driven if there are not proven instances to cite. presumably the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!? either way unproven, so a faith position.

I am not qualified, jack, to gainsay the technical details of the sun's workings but I see nothing amiss in God forming a fully functioning sun, the composition of which being exactly right for it's stability and usefulness to the earth. this is not deception, because he has told us when he made it...ie day 4 of creation week.
btw - what age was adam when God formed him ?. and what age did he appear to be, by looking at him ?.
answer- one day on the first,   and we can only guess at the second.

steve - I would not know if jack is talking tripe, only that you did not validate that opinion by saying why.

re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!

20 times, bill. who's counting.
I am upfront on my presuppositions. you don't admit or recognize yours. even gould said that the idea of a completely impartial scientist is self serving myth.
I am offering specific evidence, like soft tissue etc in dino bone, and you continue to claim authority because most scientists subscribe to the same belief. that proves nothing except a lot of people believe the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:34 AM

" ...the clerics usually don't do anything but give justification for things the killers already want to do."

The question of how far "usually" extends makes it difficult to determine just how right or wrong that opinion is. But I submit that in a very significant number of instances, the things that killers want to do are largely determined by the fact that they have been indoctrinated from birth to accept what they hear from the clerics of their particular faith with little or no critical thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:03 PM

pete says, admittedly tongue in cheek that Darwin isn't a working scientist. Correct, he is dead. Just like your God. He requires faith in order to exist. Ergo he doesn't.

Some of the weird claims around this thread, not just pete, put benign intent on religion. That is perhaps more sinister than pete's cut and paste cum bullshit. Organised religion is about conformity and control. Everything from loose reasoning for pogroms to abusing children through control.

Fully supported by gullible sanctimonious people who may well be nice people in themselves, but blinkered by their group delusion.

That's why religion is more radical in countries where radical politics are the norm, such as Middle East, USA etc. With the dishonourable exception of China, have you noticed that countries where religion is important are the same ones that execute their citizens?

Still in France so reading Le Monde each day. A coalition of nazi sympathisers, non aligned fascists and the Catholic Church are organising marches saying gays and liberals are to blame for everything you can't pin on Jews.

Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM

I willingly concede that some clerics say hateful things and encourage terrorism. I believe in "hate speech laws" and and pleased to see violators in jail.

I willingly concede that most scientists don't preach at all, much less preach violence and most scientists who do preach, do so at the risk of their scientific credibility. Preaching is not the purpose of science.

I don't see clerics committing violent crimes.

I believe that a very small minority of clerics urge people to violence and I do not believe that all of religion can be blamed for that.

Likewise I believe that scientists are sometimes partly culpable for death and terror when their inventions and discoveries are misused. I did not come to this conclusion on my own. Alfred Nobel's guilt over his culpability is the reason for the Nobel prizes.

My position is that Science and religion are both useful, both generally a public good, that are sometimes misused.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:19 PM

"...the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!?"

Yes! You've got it!

"...either way unproven, so a faith position."

Not true. There are many, many directly observed, documented, peer-reviewed, and most importantly *predictive* examples involving multiple completely idependent lines of evidence.

Now you will demand them (but there are too many to even begin), and why bother because you will deny them all (by definition - because you hold a faith position).

But it is encouraging that you at least understand the theory that you refuse to even consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:59 PM

Dave the Gnome says "I don't know how else to say that some clerics preach hate. No scientists do." Haven't you ever heard of "Scientific Racism"? Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis.

It's been advanced by such luminaries as Nobel Prize winning Physicist William Shockley, andmost very recently advocated in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a 1994 book by American psychologist Richard J. Hernstein and American political scientist Charles Murray. Columnist Bob Herbert, writing for The New York Times, described the book as "a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship." "Mr. Murray can protest all he wants," wrote Herbert; "his book is just a genteel way of calling somebody a nigger."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

A friendly tip to Musket.. One of the reasons that I quote the things I am responding to is so that a misread on my part doesn't lead me to an error that makes me look like a donkey.

>>"re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!"<<

>>"pete says, admittedly tongue in cheek that Darwin isn't a working scientist. Correct, he is dead. Just like your God. He requires faith in order to exist. Ergo he doesn't. "<<

pete, It might not surprise you that I partly agree with you on Dawkins He is not a working scientist. But I would not say "an evolutionist propaganda group" I would say an anti-religion propaganda group. And since he is the founder and makes a good deal of money on his speaking and books I would say, only partly tongue in cheek he is an anti-religion entrepreneur.

I think that I can say with confidence that when Dawkins says in effect that religious schooling is child abuse, Bill does not give that extra credence because it comes from a former biologist. Just as Bill is warning us not to take word of your guy because he used to be a chemist.

A true "creation scientist" would be examining the data that we have and comparing it to the "Scientific theory" that the world was created in six days. Considering that according to the story "days" as we scientifically know them did not exist until the fourth day, the "Scientific theory" of Biblical Creation cannot exist.

Its nonsense pete, all nonsense. Like Adam being created "fully formed out of clay. Genetically we are not separate and above the animals. If God formed man in his own image then 98% of God's DNA is the same as that of a chimp. People used to think that other races of men were inferior to others. Scientists has found that there is far more variation among members of one race than between races.

The DNA plan that made you shares a vast amount of information with that of a mouse. That's why we can do medical experiments on mice. You share more with a pig that's why a pig's heart can work in a human body. You share even more with a chimp. That is why David Cameron can be your Prime Minister. .... Just kidding... but some Chimps can do sign language. You can try to believe that Adam was formed from clay and Eve from his rib. But there is zero scientific evidence to support that. The scientific evidence indicates that all life on this planet is interrelated. The pattern for male female interaction for reproduction existed long before people did. You can go and read what your former chemist has to say about our very genes pointing to increasing complexity over a very long time but if you honestly look at all the evidence, your only logical play is, like you did with the sun and Adam is to say that God Created everything to appear as if the Universe's history is much much older than the Bible says it is. So to say that every thing is as it says in the Bible and not as scientist say it is you are calling God a liar. Who, like a hypocritical parent is telling us, his children, "Don't believe what you see with your eyes, believe what I say in this book."

You may believe in a God like that. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

>>"...the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!?"<<<

not a completely different creature, but over say, a million years certainly as different from us as we are from apes.

Have you read Mr. Well's marvelous story "the Time Machine?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:04 PM

Honestly, I'm not really joining in this nonsense but I thought I'd just throw this in -

The Crusades were military campaigns conducted under the sanction of the Latin Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages through to the end of the Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the first crusade, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 05:58 PM

I believe that a very small minority of clerics urge people to violence and I do not believe that all of religion can be blamed for that.

I do not believe that all religion can be blamed either, Jack. Which is why I am not blaming all religion. I am simply pointing out that some clerics do while the 'high priests' of science do no such thing.

I believe that scientists are sometimes partly culpable for death and terror when their inventions and discoveries are misused.

So, once again, is Max partly culpable for the misuse of Mudcat that rail against?

Stim. No I have not heard of scientific racism. I suspect it very much like militant atheism. A construct to make religious nutters feel better. I will quite happily accept that the book you quote is real. Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

"No I have not heard of scientific racism. I suspect it very much like militant atheism. A construct to make religious nutters feel better."

Really, Dave? Why would you think something like that? And do they let you go outside by yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:02 PM

>>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:28 AM

Without evidence, Wacko? And where is your evidence to support your claim that it's likely that "every possible combination has existed and competed"? That is such a nonsensical notion that it's almost beneath arguing with. Furthermore, you say "In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time." Not much to make sense of there either, is there? <<<

I am afraid that I made a logical argument argument which you have missed. It is a very very simple one. Are you arguing that it was not chance that created life? Are you arguing that some unknown force of intelligent design was limiting the number of mutations? Surely you are not arguing that in the billion or so years that there was only single celled life which implies billions of trillions of reproductive events that all possible combinations of the four letters that comprise DNA were not possible or even likely.

Are you implying that there has been only seven thousand years? If so you have made a valid point. If there was only 5 or 6 days from the inception of the universe to the emergence of terrestrial life In my humble opinion there would not have been time.

Please tell me what your theory of the evolution of life on this planet is. And please do not include the mind numbingly high number of replication events between the emergence of life and the beginning of recorded history in your calculation.
Wacko, babe, it's sad to see you struggle so. This post of yours has nothing to do with your previous one or my response to it. You appear to want to get sillier by the day. Entertaining enough in its way, but I'm beginning to get concerned for you. It's the way I am, old boy...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:08 PM

re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!

This stupid remark reveals to all, once and for all, that you are a charlatan, an ignoramus and a complete idiot. I recommend that you do just a little research into Prof. Dawkins' career, then come back here and apologise. Or. preferably, disappear into a hole that you hoped would swallow you up. Preferably permanently, you twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:13 PM

I willingly concede that some clerics say hateful things and encourage terrorism. I believe in "hate speech laws" and and pleased to see violators in jail.

I willingly concede that most scientists don't preach at all, much less preach violence and most scientists who do preach, do so at the risk of their scientific credibility. Preaching is not the purpose of science.

I don't see clerics committing violent crimes.

I believe that a very small minority of clerics urge people to violence and I do not believe that all of religion can be blamed for that.

Likewise I believe that scientists are sometimes partly culpable for death and terror when their inventions and discoveries are misused. I did not come to this conclusion on my own. Alfred Nobel's guilt over his culpability is the reason for the Nobel prizes.

My position is that Science and religion are both useful, both generally a public good, that are sometimes misused.

OK?

Yeah. OK. But how shallow.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:15 PM

>>Wacko, babe, <<<


>>>it's sad to see you struggle so. This post of yours has nothing to do with your previous one or my response to it.<<<

Stupid unsubstantiated remark. Doing nothing but asserting that I am wrong loses you the argument every time. Every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

honestly, I'm not really joining in this nonsense

Know summat, Snail? You're absolutely right. I don't know why I'm joining in with it either, except that, in a very odd way, it's fun. Hard to explain. Perhaps it's summat to do with the fact that I can't resist the presence of Wacko Jacko as I know that he'll always me li'l ol' me feel superior. Long may he continue to post, say I! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:23 PM

Bugger. Always make....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

Stupid unsubstantiated remark.

But Wacko darling - how could one possibly substantiate the unsubstantiatable?!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:02 PM

>>> I recommend that you do just a little research into Prof. Dawkins' career, then come back here and apologise.<<<

Mr. Shaw, I looked.

He is going to be in Austin for a dinner in April. Apparently he is the "the center of world thought," I couldn't find anything about the science he is working on. Would you care to please fill us in?

Or you could apologise to pete.

"For this fundraiser, space is limited and the purpose is to raise money, so tickets cost $1,000, with $900 being tax-deductible. Your donation helps the Richard Dawkins Foundation promote science and reason."

"We are glad to announce a new city. It is still possible to join an intimate dinner with Richard Dawkins! Spend a night at the center of world thought, dining with the man Prospect Magazine called the world's greatest thinker. "

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

Really, Dave? Why would you think something like that? And do they let you go outside by yourself?

Yes they do, Stim. That is the best argument you can come up with?

Sad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:27 AM

Steve Shaw
Perhaps it's summat to do with the fact that I can't resist the presence of Wacko Jacko as I know that he'll always make li'l ol' me feel superior.

But Steve, you feel superior to everybody. When I tried to bring you up to date on scientific thought you didn't just dismiss the works of Professor Karl Popper but when I quoted people as diverse as Einstein and Dawkins in support of my case, you airily brushed them aside.

pete gets all his information from creationist websites and, on his own admission, doesn't really understand what he is talking about. He is totally clear about his belief in biblical truth. Everyone can see his position. There is nothing to be gained in debating with him.

I'm not sure where Jack gets his science from. The Discovery Channel? Quite what his position is or what point he is trying to make I don't know.

You, on the other hand, give the impression of not having read anything published after 1859. No need; Darwin said it all. You recently said 'I do have that excellent book' ('The Greatest Show on Earth'). Yes, but have you read it?

The problem is that Jack's version of science is partially right but somehow misses the target. To the uninformed reader he seems quite credible. You could, with your superior knowledge, put him right. Unfortunately the only response you seem to have available is playground abuse which you presumably learned in a long career as a schoolmaster. It's the technique you use with everyone who disagrees with you.

The result is that Jack, and sometimes even pete, are winning. You are letting science down.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:11 AM

pete wrote Dawkins and I read Darwin. What am I like?

Dawkins has the advantage of being alive, being a professor, a scientist and standard text on evolutionary biology and especially genetics.

Darwin has the advantage of being dead hence he knows whether he or his wife got it right.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Just to take issue with the snail. You can't let science down but you can let religions down. After all,science just is, whilst religions require people to give credibility to man made constructs.

I note that when my thesis was subjected to a viva, I got it with dissent from one assessor. All of us in the room were "scientists" of various claim, but none of us let science down by disagreement. In fact, a key equation of mine has been refined since, and I sat on his viva. I was delighted to accept my oversights.

You can only "let science down" by dishonest research or fraudulent use of the word, "creationist science" being an oxymoron that springs to mind in the latter category.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:10 AM

TheSnail.

"To the uninformed reader he seems quite credible. You could, with your superior knowledge, put him right. "

On this thread, my intended audience is pete. I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that, that if he has not accepted conventionally phrased scientific argument by now, he probably won't. Your mention of the Discovery Channel reflects my aim and not my sources. I'm trying to make up examples and analogies that are easy to understand without a scientific background. I am an interested layman, educated enough to read a scientific journal, with the help of a glossary. But on topics I have not formally studied, and kept up to date on, which at this stage of my life, practically all of them LOL it is a bit of a slog. For reasons already mentioned, I think it would be pointless to quote scientific writing to pete.

I do not have any confidence that Mr. Shaw can put me right. But since we are on the same side of the "Creation Science" argument, he can help me. Any cogent argument, the simpler the better, that the universe is more than 6000 years old presented without name calling and arrogance would be appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:24 AM

>>Just to take issue with the snail. You can't let science down but you can let religions down.<<<

One can certainly let down other people who believe in the integrity of the scientific community. One can damage the credibility of the scientific community. One can certainly abuse the credibility of scientific credentials by arguing in non evidential, unreasoning, unscientific ways.

Steve Shaw, for reasons already mentioned, is time after time, losing the argument to pete. To pete! (way to go pete for beating Steve with almost no facts on your side.) He can't continually claim to represent science and come up with no better argument than playground taunts and invective. Vilification is not argument. Simply claiming the other person is wrong is no real argument. It is just contradiction. I thought that Monty Python had settled this question many years ago. Think about it please. You will find that the Montys were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:44 AM

If I may, there seems to be a problem on this forum, and no doubt elsewhere, of missing the point and quibbling over definitions of specific words and phrases.

"You can only "let science down" by dishonest research or fraudulent use of the word,"

Musket, do you not understand the point that TheSnail was trying to make? The one about Mr. Shaw's arguing style losing arguments that he should be winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM

Bum! I replied to Musket but must have messed up sending it. Can't be bothered to do it again.

Jack, have I understood you right? You are trying to convince pete with science that you've made up?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 12:56 PM

No, I am trying to explain the science to pete by simplifying the examples. For example, I do not believe that the sun is an hourglass. But for the purpose of explaining that it is evidently more than 6,000 years old, I compared it to one.

I have no way of knowing obviously that for simple organisms and genes that all combinations of the 4 DNA letters have been tried. But I feel that pete's argument that no new "information" can be gained by random mutation is bogus because the DNA sequences mutable, and not super complex on the level of the individual gene and there are trillions of reproductive events so it is probable that all combinations have occurred and most have been dead ends weeded out by natural selection. Therefor, since different DNA sequences create different features in the organism and since many if not all possible sequences have existed due to mutation then it is not impossible, It is likely that mutation has "created" what pete would call "useful information."

On the other hand certain traits exist in the gene pool which are not common to all individuals. I have observed this first hand. A basic understanding of the principles of Natural Selection is all it takes to imagine a branching of the species as Mr. Wells did in his excellent book, The Time Machine.   


I felt that I had to explain such things in simple enough terms so that pete could not close discussion with a simple "I don't understand." That much worked. I got him to the point of basically saying that God could make the sun any way he wanted. Which is not, of course, and argument that fits the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

Oh dear. I'm almost beginning to sympathise with Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM

I am not arguing with you, Dave, just pointing things out so that anyone who is interested can follow up on them--if you'd Googled Shockley, or "The Bell Curve" or "Scientific Racism" you might have gotten my original point, and maybe even had something to say yourself, but you didn't.

Sorry for being sarcastic, but your statement about "religious nutters" had nothing to do with anything, and sometimes I yield to the impulse...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:46 PM

"Oh dear. I'm almost beginning to sympathise with Steve. "

You're beginning to talk like him.

Simply saying that I am wrong is not an argument.

Not that I want an argument. But just saying that I am wrong is just pointless and rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:00 PM

you are not too far out , snail, in your assessment of me, except that as far as I can, I try to keep to the simpler arguments,- like all those likely to decay in lot less than millions of years, materials in dino bone. of course i'm far from an expert on genetics but what reading I have done reveals amazing complexity in the workings of a cell. just by accident! you got greater faith than me!

jack,-mutations can result in "useful" info. no disagreement there.
whether novel info can arise from mutations is unproven, last I heard, despite guests assertions to the contrary. maybe bill Nye will produce some in his debate today......I wont hold my breath!

your claim that all of life being interrelated ,in the sense of evolutionism is just an interpretation of the data. a common designer is the alternative interpretation.
and what was that about Gods DNA !? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR THEOLOGY?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM

From: GUEST,Stim - PM
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

"No I have not heard of scientific racism. I suspect it very much like militant atheism. A construct to make religious nutters feel better."

Really, Dave? Why would you think something like that? And do they let you go outside by yourself?

Followed by

From: GUEST,Stim - PM
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM

I am not arguing with you, Dave, just pointing things out so that anyone who is interested can follow up on them--if you'd Googled Shockley, or "The Bell Curve" or "Scientific Racism" you might have gotten my original point, and maybe even had something to say yourself, but you didn't.

Sorry for being sarcastic, but your statement about "religious nutters" had nothing to do with anything, and sometimes I yield to the impulse...

Adding contradiction to the already poor flow I'm, afraid Stim. Lets look at the record so far.

I asked you to "Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma." in the works you quote. You just ignored the question.

You say "Anyone that is interested can look up etc. etc." Yes, anyone that is interested can. You are throwing them in the arena. You tell us where they preach hatred. Sidesteping the issue.

I answered a question, quite genuinely, with "No, I have not heard of them". No shame in not knowing. You imply I am not fit to be let out on my own because I don't know. Abuse instead of reason.

You say "religious nutters has nothing to do with anything". It has everything to do with what I have been saying. What would you call people who kill, maim and torture for their religion? I call them nutters. If any scientist urged others to do the same I would call them nutters too. Can you find us any?

You apologise for being sarcastic. I detect no sarcasm in your post. Trying to stop Jack quoting the rules at you by any chance?

One thing we can agree on. You are not arguing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:29 PM

"I asked you to "Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma." in the works you quote. You just ignored the question."

You are asked Stim to defend an argument that he did not make. As you did with me. Why shouldn't he ignore it? I thought that point was addressed for all when I addressed it. Can you quote Stim saying that scientists urge people to kill?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:40 PM

>>>jack,-mutations can result in "useful" info. no disagreement there.
whether novel info can arise from mutations is unproven, last I heard, despite guests assertions to the contrary.<<

I think that by definition, mutations are "novel." Whether they lead to "novel information" depends on the following, whether the mutation changes the genome of the offspring, whether the offspring survives the mutation, and whether the offspring gains a competitive advantage.

To say that is unproven is to deny the basic principles of genetics, biology, and statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:47 PM

>>>a common designer is the alternative interpretation.
and what was that about Gods DNA !? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR THEOLOGY? <<<

A common designer who designed genes that appear to point to a long history of evolution, who says that man is in his image, but created a pig's heart and endocrine system and most every other system on the same basic design as man's?

You do know that Type 1 diabetics use insulin from pigs, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:15 PM

Insulin can be from pigs but certainly here in The UK , it is synthetic, he says ... Trying not to start an Argument on the word synthetic. Many patients with type I diabetes are Muslim due to ethic predominance from certain cultures, many of which are 1st , 2nd, 3rd etc generation British.

Ok. A diversion.

Back on track and thinking of the Monty Python sketch, the word you are looking for is contradiction.

That word becomes relevant if you wish to enter the reality versus fantasy world of pious pete.

You know, working these days on healthcare, I am so glad to see people park their religion at the door in this field. Muslim men examining women and vice versa. Sikhs helping people with dietary needs alien to their faith.

In fact, the only radicals I come across is weird Christians imposing their values on others such as asking patients to pray with them or thinking a crucifix doesn't have the same infection risk as ties. (Rich Christians may have a point. 25c gold is rather antiseptic but the cheaper ones harbour spores.)

Yes, there are isolated examples in the press of refusing to dispense contraception or termination of pregnancy but there are enough clinicians to get around this and the papers tend to not report the striking off by professional bodies.

Do you know? The more I toss about with these BS threads the less respectable God delusion seems?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM

"whether novel info can arise from mutations is unproven, last I heard, despite guests assertions to the contrary"

Fer Crissakes pete.

I know this is wasted on you, but here is just one example. There are thousands of others, and you will demand them all, and dismiss them all. And probably not understand much of what you read, but you will honestly admit that, yet still claim to be unconvinced. Ah well. I must try:

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract

snip----------------
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
snip-----------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM

"what reading I have done reveals amazing complexity in the workings of a cell. just by accident! you got greater faith than me!"

This your personal incredulity in the face of overwhelming evidence. Just because you can't understand it is irrelevant.


"like all those likely to decay in lot less than millions of years, materials in dino bone"

This has been discussed at length on other threads, and I'm guessing you still haven't read a thing about it from the scientist (a Christian as it happens, not that it's relevant), that has done the research. This is actually quiet amusing, but I'm not telling you why.

Found a bony fish in the Burgess Shale yet Pete? A horse in the Solnhofen? An indricothere in the Jehol? Bet you haven't even got off your backside to go and look.

Put or shut up!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:56 PM

I wasn't aware I'd lost any arguments. Or won any, for that matter. I don't post here with any of that in mind. Also, I don't hover over my keyboard all day like a hawk, as Wacko appears to, ready to pounce on the next reply as soon as it arrives. I've been doing a bit of shopping, cooking, reading up on stuff, playing a tune or six, listening to some Schumann, Mozart and Grainger, snoozing (it's my age) and going to see the lovely big waves that are currently ransacking our Cornish coastline. It's called "getting out more", Wacko. I suppose coming to the computer for the first time today so late on does have the disadvantage of my having to read all at once a load of guff from several sour-grapes merchants, but hey ho.   

I have no way of knowing obviously that for simple organisms and genes that all combinations of the 4 DNA letters have been tried.

So why did you say it then? And what's with this "tried" nonsense? Actually, what does this whole nonsensical sentence mean?

Snailieboy, I neither want nor care about your near-sympathy. You rarely make any sort of substantial point because you're obsessed with having a go at me (don't stop, I do enjoy it), simply because I stated, accurately, that evolution is true. I haven't counted, but I reckon at a guess that about 80% to 90% of your recent posts mention me, often in that rather portentous and silly way you have of typing my name in bold at the head of the post. Now my having said it again about evolution, there's little doubt that you'll go off on it all over again. I've just made myself a giant stack of popcorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

"It is just contradiction. I thought that Monty Python had settled this question many years ago. "


Musket, I believe the word I USED is "contradiction." See you in the funny papers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:00 PM

Can you quote Stim saying that scientists urge people to kill?

Maybe not, Jack, but I can quote Stim calling some scientists racists and likening them to Nazis.

Haven't you ever heard of "Scientific Racism"? Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis.

You seem to be having problems with actual wording versus meaning again Jack. Or maybe it is me. Either way I believe the implication is that these scientists are akin to hate preachers, who you have already accepted urge people to kill. The implication is that they do the same thing. The reality is that they do not.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:00 PM

Found a bony fish in the Burgess Shale yet Pete? A horse in the Solnhofen? An indricothere in the Jehol? Bet you haven't even got off your backside to go and look.

He hasn't. He hasn't even read the man whose work he constantly disses, Charles Darwin. He is the most dishonest (to himself, mostly) and lazy person who posts in these threads by a country mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:18 PM

Steve, congratulations on getting out of your house. TheSnail and I are nominating you for the Nobel prize in busywork as I type this.

It is my pleasure to report that it is you who is stooping to the use of name calling. It is also my pleasure to report to you that your obnoxious behavior is against the rules of this forum and very disrespectful to Max and every polite member of this forum.

Furthermore, please continue to act like an ass because I enjoy it when you are so clearly in the wrong but continue to break the rules and I get to point that out.

I am also eagerly awaiting the moment when you say something more reasoned than calling people names and implying that they are wrong.

and finally, you have with your last post, lost another contest in the battle of wits. I would gloat, but it doesn't seem sporting when you are not trying. You're like a duck sticking his little pointy head up to the shotgun and daring me to shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:27 PM

No Dave, I think that Stim was saying that the NAZI "Scientists" were publishing materials and coaching Hitler to use race as an excuse to kill people. It was Hitler who actually urged people to kill. It was not due to their disagreeing with his dogma. Though I am sure that some were killed for that. It was because his "scientists" were saying that their race was "inferior."

I can understand why Stim was not inclined to respond to your demand to...

"Point me to the section where it says kill everyone who disagrees with this dogma."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM

Demand, Jack? Who is demanding anything? See, I can play silly word games as well. Albeit not as well as you. Still, while we are at it, no one mentioned Nazi scientists coaching Hitler either. Where on earth did you dream that one up? The wording was "Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis." Surely that means it is still in style and not exclusive to the Nazis, doesn't it?

If this is what is passing as argument nowadays give me simple contradiction anytime.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:39 PM

did anyone understand the snipped piece from "guest"? only bit I got from it was that some mutations have been found to be beneficial,- as opposed to a gain of information. if that was in there it is hidden from a layman like me. perhaps you should contact Nye before the debate, with this proof. and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future
jack..there is nothing in the bible that points to the physical makeup of men and animals having to be radically different. in fact in gen 2 both are spoken of as being formed of the ground, so there is nothing surprising in animals being useful in medicine.

yes, guest, I have read a bit of her stuff. I did not read of her offering any explanation as to why experimentally verified science must give way to evolutionary stories. she just spoke of a sense of wonder..... oh, and also of the resistance to her findings for some time.
jack
unless the tech snip above does demonstrate novel info from mutations , a mutation does not "by definition" produce new info, but in virtually every case deletes it, though that may be beneficial to an organism. a change certainly, but rarely, if ever by new info arising.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:53 PM

I think your problem in thinking about genetics is referring to it as "information"

Mutation is not new "information" it is and alteration of the genetic "code" with may or may not lead to genetic differences in the offspring. A mutation is change, which makes it by definition "novel" whether it is "information" or not depends on whether or not it produces and trait and the trait is passed on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:13 PM

in gen 2 both are spoken of as being formed of the ground, so there is nothing surprising in animals being useful in medicine.

Aside from the fact that this statement is a classic non sequitur, I thought you didn't believe in "abiogenesis"? Make yer bloody mind up!

a mutation does not "by definition" produce new info, but in virtually every case deletes it

Yes, well you see, pete, different "info" is new "info" if it has not occurred before. Christ knows what else it could be. And, dearie me, a mutation will occur in isolated individuals, not the whole population. Nothing is thereby "deleted" from the gene pool, which is the whole point. The new "info" sits in there alongside the existing "info" and the gene pool is enriched. Natural selection may delete "info" from the gene pool (including useless mutations), but mutations won't. Now as I suspect that you wouldn't be able to follow the plot of Chapter One of The "Adventures Of Spot The Dog", all this will be lost on you, and you'll be back any time soon with more "info" nonsense. It's a good job I'm so patient with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM

and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future

You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:38 PM

"The wording was "Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis." "

Yeah, I'm sure he was referring to the Scientific Racists of today who did not participate in the murder of millions.

My bad. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:03 PM

William Shockley was both a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a racist. He claimed that people of color were genetically degenerated from the superior white race and he advocated sterilization. I'd heard him say so myself. He also seems to have advocated that the Germans be spared the atomic bomb, and that it be used on the Japanese based on their race. You can read about the racism hereWilliam Shockley's NYT Obit, and the A-bomb business is mentioned on his wikipedia page.

Here is a bit of background on Eugenics and Physical Anthropology here in the States. The website that it is part of a very good website on the race and racism over the years.

My original point, which has been lost, had to do with the idea that people tend to expect science to provide the same things that once were promised by religion--prosperity, deliverance from evil, elimination of disease, and the ability to fly thru the heavens--well, we got the last one, but as P.F. Sloan once pointed out, "You can leave here for four days in space, but when you come back, it's the same old place."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:37 AM

Yup. Dismissed it without understanding it. I called that one didn't I!
Want another of the thousands that you won't understand (but will debate anyhow)?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 04:22 AM

Our mate pete - or rather the fundamentalists he follows on their websites - are continually pointing out, or obsessively searching for, 'flaws' in the scientific account of evolution. They are desperate to believe biblical accounts of "creation" instead. But now it appears that the Bible doesn't always (?) contain "true" accounts of "history" either.

For example, researchers at Tel Aviv University have recently discovered that: "Camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE, centuries after they were depicted in the Bible as Patriarch-era pack animals."

You can read about it here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/

Don't know how to do "blue clickys" - just cut-n-paste it into your browser.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:27 AM

Oy pete! How dare you tell people not to take Christ's name in vain? He is your delusion, not the delusion of respectable people. More disgusting things done in the name of that fictitious character than any real person. Mind you, onlookers such as yours truly can appreciate the "love" bit. A pity most so called Christians can't.

As Jack The Sailor gave me a word to the wise, let me return the favour. You put a sentence in quotes then attributed it to me. Err.. That isn't my quote oh wise one.

Hope the storms aren't too weird Steve. Don't forget it's divine retribution for questioning the word of The Lord and all that. There was me thinking it was all the money Tje Vatican makes out of chopping down the Amazonian rain forest..., (and the other million plus factors. Although politicians and clerics claiming it is retribution for approving gay marriage isn't one of them. )

Looks impressive in the papers all the same. It has a knock on if more snow here in Tge French Alps. Yippee !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:38 AM

Jack the Sailor
But just saying that I am wrong is just pointless and rude.

Jack, you have already admitted that you are making up your own simplified version of science just to try and convince pete of the error of his ways so I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously. To describe your assertion that "there are trillions of reproductive events so it is probable that all combinations have occurred" as "wrong" doesn't really do it justice. "Bizarre" would be better. Do the maths. Guess a few numbers. Ir doesn't have to be accuate, a few orders of magnitude each way is close enough. Life on Earth probably started about three billion years ago. Here are some genome sizes to get you started ftp://www.fourmilab.ch/pub/goldberg/sizes.html .

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:40 AM

I was going to comment on Steve Shaw's post of 04 Feb 14 - 03:56 PM - a few random insults, a reaffirmation of his faith in the Truth of Evolution and absolutely no science whatsoever but he has managed to surpass himself -

Steve Shaw

and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future

You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk.

Steve Shaw

You couldn't make it up.

Darwin = Jesus
The Origin of Species = The Bible
Evolutuion = God
Dawkins is his Prophet.

Why do you insist on living up to pete's idea of an Evolutionist?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:48 AM

Thanks, Stim. Seriously. It was all I was asking and you have now answered civilly. Shockley does seem to be a nutter as well. I think I made the comment before and it is worth repeating. For every nutter scientist you can name there will be dozens of religious nutters. The point about science being the new religion will never be true until scientific leaders are as bad as religious leaders. Which they are are not by a long chalk.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 08:24 AM

It isn't every day I get confused by a snail, although I had escargot as a starter the other night.

Are you saying Steve Shaw is setting up a religion with Darwin as the bloke with a large grey beard?

Taking the name of a real person in vain isn't nice. Taking the name of a fantasy figure in vain isn't nice either but only insomuch as upsetting the feelings of someone with a delusion. pete makes up for his embarrassment regarding his beliefs by putting reality on a similar pedestal. That seems to me to be perfectly clear in terms of Steve's comment. Nothing wrong whatsoever on what he said, and your extrapolation can only be the slime you guys leave in your path

If we have to go through life figuring out how not to upset people who by their very nature are being irrational, we won't have time to drink beer.

And that, if nobody noticed, is the real holy grail.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:16 AM

Yeah, I'm sure he was referring to the Scientific Racists of today who did not participate in the murder of millions.

My bad. :-)

Jack, if that is an attempt at ridicule I am afraid it has backfired. I suggest you look at Stim's link which confirms he was referring particularly to William Shockley who was born in England, to American parents and brought up in California. Nothing to do with Germans, either Nazi or otherwise.

It was indeed your bad. (Is there something to show an absence of smileys?)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:28 AM

Mr Snail.

Thank you for the indication of what the hell you were talking about. My estimation of your intelligence has increased by orders of magnitude.   

Does it take the whole genome being change for a "useful change" Or as Mr Ken Ham would say a change in function to be manifest?

I was talking about combinations of the four letters within individual genes, which are not all that complex, as opposed to whole genomes which are of course complex systems of genes.

I was thinking about the combinations of the four letters genes required to trigger any particular trait.

Maybe that is orders of magnitudes off. But the genes for the membrane around a single cell have been around for a couple of billion years. In many creatures they reproduce many times a day. There are billions of them in your gut for example as per Mr. Nye. Those are a lot on reproductive events. Of course the more complex and recent the gene sequence, the fewer times it has had a chance to show "useful mutation". But the numbers in my mind are high enough to make the emergence of what pete might refer to as "new information" or Ham might call "new function" more likely than not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:33 AM

Indeed Dave I was wrong, My apologies to you and Stim.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:49 AM

>>>Are you saying Steve Shaw is setting up a religion with Darwin as the bloke with a large grey beard?<<<

Darwin was a bloke with a long gray beard. :-)

Mr. Shaw is equating pete's taking offense to taking Jesus' title in vain to his own offense at pete "taking Darwin's name in vain."

Doesn't that indicate to all that Mr. Shaw is demonstrating a religious attachment to Darwin?

Unbelievers don't care. Mr. Shaw obviously cares to an extraordinary degree.

All of that said, this, for me is a welcome development. This forum would be a much calmer place if pete would just stop talking to his best candidate for conversion.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:04 AM

"For every nutter scientist you can name there will be dozens of religious nutters. The point about science being the new religion will never be true until scientific leaders are as bad as religious leaders."

Yes of course there will always be more religious nutters than scientists who are nutters. The barrier to entry is much higher for science. There are courses and degrees and peer reviews etc. It takes a lot of hard work and money to become a scientist.

Whereas to be a preacher, all you have to do is stand on a soap box and preach. In fact, I've seen it done without the soap box.

On the high end, in western countries at least, there are worries about pseudoscience taking the place of religion in the area of separating the gullible from their cash. Diet programs, to baldness cures, to Gatorade, to sneakers promise that through technology you can be a better person for a couple of dollars and no effort. How is that different from paying the Church a few bucks so that you can buy someone's way into heaven?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:58 AM

Thank you Jack. For both posts related to what I was saying. And I will indeed agree that pseudoscience could well be on the way to everything you say. Just as Creationism is pseudoscience! It is certainly no different in the way you suggest but I would add that, up to now anyway, it doesn't seem to urge anyone to harm others. I do await the time when we have the Atkins vs Weight watchers wars though :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

BTW, I would have no hesitation in classifying Creationism as pseudo-religion. Mr Ham presents a view of the Bible whereby he and his organization are the only arbiters of what is to be taken "literally" Genesis = science text, Psalms = poetry, Leviticus ancient writings that don't apply today.

As little as you seem to care about it. I'd bet you care more about the contents of the Bible than Ken Ham does. He only seems to care about the the words of the Bible selected by and filtered through him.

Ken Ham is the religion. "Creationism" is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 11:55 AM

Musket
Are you saying Steve Shaw is setting up a religion with Darwin as the bloke with a large grey beard?

Well, Steve associated Darwin with Christ. I think it is Evolution itself that more closely corresponds to the God figure but, broadly speaking, yes. I forgot to mention the priesthood of "hard working scientists." that he is quick to defend against disrespect.

Taking the name of a real person in vain isn't nice.

That is rather the fundamental difference between religion and science. In religion, you are not allowed to question your central God/entity/principle or whatever. In science you are positively obliged to do so. Steve does not allow a word to be said against Darwin or Dawkins or the truth of evolution.

your extrapolation can only be the slime you guys leave in your path

I think you've been spending too much time with Mr Shaw. You're picking up his style.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:07 PM

Jack, if you are still working with your science-lite that you are inventing so as not to confuse poor pete's befuddled brain with the real thing, then you can say whatever you like. If you want to work with real science, then I suggest you do your own research and avoid any definitve pronouncements until you have a better idea of what you are talking about.

I really have things I need to get on with.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

in the words of Tim Minchin (from the poem "Storm")

Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts its beliefs based on what is observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

Well, leopards don't change their spots, as they say, chickens come home to roost, etcetera (I love cliches). So it's heartening to see the lesser intellects on this board reverting to type. There is no wanker on earth like the wanker who sees equivalence between religion and science. The twain cannot meet. Two such personages have posted here today. Wacko and Snail shall, of course, remain nameless. Incidentally, Gastropodus insensibilis, I have stated on several occasions that I come here for fun. To suggest that I would take offence at any of pete's multifarious inanities is risible. To indicate that a comment that someone has made has the effect of making that someone look like a complete oaf (their doing, not mine) is not to take offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM

" Wacko and Snail shall"

Disregard for the Mudcat.

Mr. Shaw, you are the one equating "Christ" with Darwin. That is your dogma and yours alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:18 PM

>>Jack, if you are still working with your science-lite that you are inventing so as not to confuse poor pete's befuddled brain with the real thing, then you can say whatever you like. If you want to work with real science, then I suggest you do your own research and avoid any definitve pronouncements until you have a better idea of what you are talking about.<<

Did I say I wanted to "Work with real science?" I am just having an argument on an internet forum. Are you doing real science by pompously lecturing me? Incidentally, under what authority are you speaking for "real science." Are you a member of Steve's priesthood? Because simply being dogmatic as you are now, is in my mind, not a very scientific, or polite way to behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

Pseudo-science and pseudo-religion are the same, insofar as both involve the cynical taking advantage of the gullible.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:41 PM

Steve Shaw
There is no wanker on earth like the wanker who sees equivalence between religion and science.

Precisely my point, Steve. I wish you would stop doing it. (although I would never call you a wanker. Your private life is your business and I leave the name calling to you. You are so much better at it.)

You're here for fun? If letting the likes of pete and Jack make you look an eejit is your idea of fun so be it. Each to their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:46 PM

Sorry Jack but you're last post makes no sense at all. Don't think I'll bother with you anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:03 PM

Fine with me.

I'd rather be ignored than pompously lectured.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:25 PM

"Mr. Shaw is equating pete's taking offense to taking Jesus' title in vain to his own offense at pete "taking Darwin's name in vain."

Doesn't that indicate to all that Mr. Shaw is demonstrating a religious attachment to Darwin?"

Wrong again mate.

Mr Shaw, as you prefer to call him (presumably to indicate that he is beyond your personal "pale") is merely pointing out that my misusing the name of Pete's sacred character, in whom I do not believe, is just the same as Pets's dismissive references to Darwinism, whose work he constantly derides.

It is a matter of mutual disbelief, not of equating beliefs.

Steve is of course correct. I don't share Pete's religion, so why would I respect its mythical characters, in fact, why SHOULD I?

If Pete ever shows the minutest respect for any of the honest, hardworking scientists who have gathered evidence in support of evolution, I might change my attitude, but since he never has I surmise he never will, so he can take his comments on my language, roll them up into a tight cylinder and ............well, mustn't be argumentative, eh Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

Mr. Shaw, you are the one equating "Christ" with Darwin.

Evidence, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:05 PM

"well, mustn't be argumentative"

Indeed! It begs the question, "Why talk to him at all?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 03:19 AM

What is pseudo religion?

As religion can be described as pseudo reality, it is easy to get into a logic circle if you aren't careful.

Jack. The word is grey, not gray. I do wish the colonies would treat our legacy with respect...... Whatever the colour, Darwin had one eh? You don't say?

Well well.


Bugger me.


Just cover me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:55 AM

Evidence, please!

====================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM

and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future

You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk.
====================================================================

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:10 AM

Why yes Ian, I would be happy to bicker with you on the basic meanings of words, That is so constructive! I especially enjoy it when you bicker over the differences between antiquated English and modern spelling. Others may think that you are just rudely and kindly trying to be irritating. But it is all in good fun isn't it?

Sadly, I have other things to do at the moment, I'll get back to you on that as soon as an appropriate block of time opens up.

If you would be so kind as to look the words up yourself in the mean time and try to look at the context, that would be lovely.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:14 AM

Perhaps TheSnail, if you were to take the trouble to explain your criticism, starting with who it is addressed to, you may have a better chance of getting the information you are requesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:02 AM

Antiquated? Modern?

I was differentiating between English and some local dialect you seem to have. If you hadn't noticed, you started it as usual.

I'd leave out the "modern " bit if I were you. An article I was reading the other day was questioning how far Carolina had progressed socially and politically since they executed a child for being black back in the 1940's.

But I digress. Darwin did exist and he had a huge beard, grey or, as you say, gray. Existing. That's the key!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:18 AM

I started it. I said "gray" :-D

Carry on!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM

If you insist on not biting I can't enjoy myself.

Miserable bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM

ah, snail, you stole my thunder, when you spotted steves religious devotion to Darwin.
and did you spot the irony...or is it hypocrisy?   ...of jacks post.........."pompously lecturing me....!?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 02:53 PM

pete, I've seen behind the curtains of the source of your arguments. The man is lying. He knows that what he is doing is not science. One can easily tell that from the way he avoided the data and the questions posed to him. I know he claims to be doing that to bring people to Jesus.

Tell us please, as a thought experiment, is it a good idea to lie in ministry?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM

Ah, pete, there you are!

Did you read my post of the 5th Feb? Or did it get lost among all the wearisome, petty, childish squabbling? Anyway, it was about the unreliability of 'historical' accounts in the Bible. If you missed it, here it is again:

"Our mate pete - or rather the fundamentalists he follows on their websites - are continually pointing out, or obsessively searching for, 'flaws' in the scientific account of evolution. They are desperate to believe biblical accounts of "creation" instead. But now it appears that the Bible doesn't always (?) contain "true" accounts of "history" either.

For example, researchers at Tel Aviv University have recently discovered that: "Camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE, centuries after they were depicted in the Bible as Patriarch-era pack animals."

You can read about it here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/

Don't know how to do "blue clickys" - just cut-n-paste it into your browser."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:43 PM

Shimrod, You can't get him with that!! If the kangas could get from where the ark landed to Australia without leaving a trace (pete & Ken Ham's explanation of how they got there) surely a few camels could hang out in Israel on the QT for a thousand years or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 05:09 PM

They lurked in the underbrush--which is quite a trick in the desert.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 06:25 PM

I think that you miss the point, Jack. Pete, and his fellow fundamentalists, believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' - which is contained within the pages of the Bible. They make the (wilful?) mistake of choosing to believe that science expresses a competing form of absolute truth - which, of course, it doesn't because all scientific findings are, in a sense, provisional (new discoveries have often led to new perspectives on earlier findings). But if the Bible got the 'truth' about camels wrong then it can't represent absolute truth, can it? Doesn't matter if the camels were hiding somewhere! By emphasising the anachronistic camels, I'm only playing by pete's rules. Get out of that, pete!

"Anachronistic camels"! Now there's a phrase I don't get to write every day!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 06:45 PM

Perhaps, in my mirth, I miscommunicated. I totally got your point because I have tried it several times in the past week or so and I saw Bill Nye make the same point several times on Tuesday Night. If he can blow off the kangaroos he can blow off the camels.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:35 PM

" If he can blow off the kangaroos he can blow off the camels"

EEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

ah, snail, you stole my thunder, when you spotted steves religious devotion to Darwin.

You see, twat features, this is the thing: there is no parallel, no equivalence whatsoever, between your adherence to evidence-free, creationist, believer bullshit and good, honest science. None. Actually, I think I might just have mentioned that before. Now, pete babe, you rattle on elsewhere about irony. Well let me tell you a bit about irony, you silly, useless, thoughtless, brainless twerp. You diss science at every opportunity. Yet you are desperate to make equivalence between science, which you abhor so, and religion, which you mindlessly love so. Can't you see it? You are making a fool out of your own beliefs. Hardly surprising, since you are such a fool yourself. Have you a hole you can crawl into?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM

The Snail

The Snail

The Snail

The Snail


You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk.

As you clearly understand very little of Darwin's work, I shall let that particular piece of stupidity pass for now. Note: for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

Hey, Wacko, bet you're not having snails for tea tonight... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:05 PM

>>Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

ah, snail, you stole my thunder, when you spotted steves religious devotion to Darwin.

You see, twat features, this is the thing: there is no parallel, no equivalence whatsoever, between your adherence to evidence-free, creationist, believer bullshit and good, honest science. None. Actually, I think I might just have mentioned that before. Now, pete babe, you rattle on elsewhere about irony. Well let me tell you a bit about irony, you silly, useless, thoughtless, brainless twerp. You diss science at every opportunity. Yet you are desperate to make equivalence between science, which you abhor so, and religion, which you mindlessly love so. Can't you see it? You are making a fool out of your own beliefs. Hardly surprising, since you are such a fool yourself. Have you a hole you can crawl into?<<<


In all the times I have done this this is the first one I think should have been deleted.


For the record, however baseless the reason, disagreeing with a theory, even ignoring mounds of data, is not the same thing as "dissing" science. And it was Mister Shaw who made the implication that "using Darwin's name in vain was something to be upset about.


Please look at the "membership" link Mr. Shaw. Show some respect for this forum please.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:11 PM

Hello, Polly Parrot!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:46 AM

Jack is right.
We are asked to be at least polite by Max and his volunteer crew.
Why insist on being gratuitously offensive, ignoring the requests of the nice people who give us our forum?
You give them the finger every time you do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:12 AM

Bloody Hell ! Who woke Keith A Hole of Hertford up?

He enjoys shouting LIAR! whenever you burst his pious bubble. A fine one to lecture us on so called rules. His "liar" stance is normally backed up by misquoting a few snippets he googles, so although his intent is nasty, his output is rather amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:43 AM

I am very careful about calling anyone a liar.
I did not call you a liar until I made sure I had unequivocal proof of it, which I put up in justification.

For example, you made up a story about a shocking atrocity that was reported by no single news agency, not even the one you claimed as your source.

For example you made up a quote from a site that does not exist.
Google found the quote, but only from your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

Good session last night then Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 07:25 AM

Good session last night then Steve?

Nah. That's Fridays, old chap. Thursday night is Question Time night on the Beeb. I was on it once, you know, asking Bumblebee's lot a question! I just throw ping-pong balls at Tories these days.

(One of The Bachelors brushed past me in Blackpool once as well...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:12 AM

Just wondered why you were delivering what, even by your standards, was a pretty vitriolic tirade to all and sundry at one o'clock in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:29 AM

Did you ask them if they ever found that unicorn? My cousin was named Diane after one of their songs.

Hi Keith! Did you ever get round to trying out that idea I gave you? You know , the line about reading fucking threads. (Keith is waffling on about a link I supplied that he couldn't open. My bad. I gave an intranet link by mistake as I have access. Despite that he uses it to call me a liar.)

Mind you, he said he was a member of UKIP, didn't deny it when I challenged him at the time and only months later tried wriggling. Presumably one of Nigel Farage's "Walter Mitty" members.

Here's something I read the other day. Any idea how much of the internet can be searched by Google? Go on, have a guess?

0.2%.

Makes you think.

Or at least makes intelligent people think. Some of us, I shan't name you Keith, it's alright, will google for confirmation. Googling seems to have replaced debate here for some and that is where I stop respecting and start having a pop. If they can't have the decency to debate I can't have the decency to respect them either.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:58 AM

I have never claimed membership of UKIP and am not even a supporter.
That is another lie.
The unopenable link was not related to the lies above (but relates to another of your lies).
You obviously gave no link to the non-existent site you claimed your made up quote came from, and you certainly gave no link to the atrocity fantasy.
You just claimed to have heard it on the BBC.

You compound your lies with more lies Musket.
Do you imagine anyone believes you?
Why do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

This thread no longer serves its intended purpose and seems to have descending into bickering by the usual suspects, caused by vitriolic name calling by the usual impolite, unkind, argumentative snooty name callers. I would ask them to lighten up and refocus on the cartoon, but I fear that would cause them to unleash the usual stream of impolite, unkind, argumentative snooty name calling on me.

What Max asks is very simple and not at all difficult. These displays of petulant defiance are shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

Just wondered why you were delivering what, even by your standards, was a pretty vitriolic tirade to all and sundry at one o'clock in the morning.

A man of mystery is what I am. I once said hello to Eamonn Andrews, you know. And that's the truth. Even more fantastical, I once shook the hand of Cardinal Hume.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:49 AM

That explains a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

But is it true?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM

Makes no difference. If it's true or if it's your fantasy it would still explain a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

Its about as much explaining as you will ever get from out Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM

I gave an intranet link To HPA and now Keith says it was BBC.

I'd say the plot thickens but maybe it's just Keith thickening.

A word to the presumably wise Jack. Don't keep saying threads have served their purpose. You started it ! Admittedly with a humorous cartoon.

Cartoons and religions always end in coroner's courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

As word to the person presuming to be wise enough to give a word to the wise.

I stand corrected. I had arrogantly presumed that since I started the thread that I would know its purpose. I believed that it has served that purpose and is currently descending into bickery. Bickerage? A state of bickeration? I believe that if the bickery reaches a certain point, a much earlier point than some previous threads, then it will be closed. My statement was a word to the bickerers (I am not going to say that they are unwise), but certainly not a word to those who are above bickering, like you and me, that the more bickering occurs, the more likely it is to be shut down.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:50 PM

Its about as much explaining as you will ever get from Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Disingenuous, Wacko. You went through a phase of obsessively starting atheism threads a few months ago. You know full well what happens. You also know that Darwin is a focus for ardent disagreement here, yet you start a thread that not only contains his name but which also contains a word that refers to one of the categories of bogus evidence that God-squadders routinely resort to. You just can't help yourself, can you. Still, it's all good fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:11 PM

"
Disingenuous, Wacko."

What part of this do you not understand?

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

Jts... "I stand corrected. I had arrogantly presumed that since I started the thread that I would know its purpose."

I gave that up a while back. Far too many people without the intellect to start their own threads simply waltz into your thread and decide what it should be about and why you don't have a clue what you are talking about or the fact that... fill in the blank. Then, all their no mind friends arrive and have a circle jerk.

I remember when the idiots were controlled to an extent. Spaw, Big Mick and others would police the assholes with ridicule and logic and... hmmm... they all seem to have left, for the most part.

So, I'll simply say in this thread

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:21 PM

"That of what we do not speak". That bit, Wacko. What is that of which we do not speak? Golf? Hildegard von Bingen? Lenny The Lion?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

Mr. Shaw,

I started this thread about a cartoon, a funny cartoon, a cartoon that, judging from what you have posted, I doubt you have even read. Also despite your religious objections I am free to start threads with "Darwin" in the title as much as I want.

It is not I who is being disingenuous. It is you who are acting insanely. It is not sane for you to obviously act upset when a word is used, like Darwin or Witness, when you don't even appear to know the context in which it was used.   

In fact it is your tendency to off the handle fly upon certain words the use thereof which forces this tortured grammar my use to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:31 PM

"From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:21 PM

"That of what we do not speak". That bit, Wacko. What is that of which we do not speak? Golf? Hildegard von Bingen? Lenny The Lion?"

Honestly I don't know, but if I did, I wouldn't say because I'm not supposed to. I just assume that if I was talking about whatever it was someone would tell me. If you need to know you could ask Max in a PM or maybe someone will tell you in a PM.

But you DO get the part about not being unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty right?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:21 PM

Musket, In those 2 lies I detailed, you gave no links.
How could you?
It was all false.

You claimed to have heard about the atrocity on BBC news, but neither BBC nor any other agency have ever reported such an event.
You made it up.

You claimed to have obtained a quote from the website of "The Council of Mosques."
In fact there are only regional councils.
Had the quote really appeared anywhere, Google would find it.
Google only found it in your post.
You made it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:01 PM

Isn't this bad enough? Do you have to drag Hildegarde Von Bingen into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM

shimrod.....perhaps you could indicate which bible verse it is you are referring to about camels in Israel or nearby.
btw... I understand that there are records of lions in Israel in old time, but no fossils have been found validating that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:05 PM

" but no fossils have been found validating that. "

Fossils?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

Hahahahahaaaaa... the spiral would be intoxicating if I was not sane. Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Monique
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:36 PM

Gen. 12-16: "He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels."

Gen. 24-10 "Then the servant took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master. He set out for Aram Naharaim and made his way to the town of Nahor."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

"That of what we do not speak". That bit, Wacko. What is that of which we do not speak? Golf? Hildegard von Bingen? Lenny The Lion?"

Honestly I don't know...

Really? You don't know?? DON'T BLOODY KNOW??? Yet you've quoted the bloody thing at us, what, twenty or thirty times? And you "don't know" what you are quoting means? Are you mad or what? Bloody find out what it means before you quote it again, that's my advice, ol' fruit! Bwahahahaha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:01 PM

So it appears that you don't understand the part about not being unkind and impolite.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:01 PM

Do you have to drag Hildegarde Von Bingen into it?

Aye, bad move there on my part, Stim. There indeed was a fine woman, well ahead of her time. Perhaps I should have said John The Baptist instead. Or Hagar The Horrible. Damn. I apologise for including such a noble person in my sarky post. You won't get me to drop Lenny The Lion though!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:04 PM

So it appears that you don't understand the part about not being unkind and impolite.

You really are getting very boring now. Er, am I unkind and impolite there? Actually, you're a ton of fun when you're being boring. Popcorn anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:06 PM

We have a River Camel here in Kernow. We think the word means twisted, or bent, something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:50 AM

Thank you Monique. You've saved me from having to read the Bible!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Monique
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 04:02 AM

You're welcome, Shimrod. I have more

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 05:26 AM

At the risk of encouraging pete unduly, its important to remember the dictum "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course, that's not the whole story. We need to add on "but it does affect the probability of absence". And in this case, the probability is far and away that the bible is in error when it comes to camels.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 06:07 AM

Agreed DMcG! But that's thinking like a scientist - as opposed to a religious absolutist.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 10:29 AM

If you believe that every kind of animal was scooped up in a boat and deposited on a mountain 4000 years ago then returned to their homes without leaving a trace. Imagining that a few camel bones were hidden, is not beyond the pale.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 01:50 PM

shimrod,- 1st as dmcg reminded you, because something is not found is not proof that it was not there. I should add that darwinists lean heavily on that, and talk about a Cambrian explosion, for example.
2nd...if lions were in Israel but left no remains, why insist that camels must.
3rd..carbon dating has not always been accurate, eg dating recently formed rocks as millennia old.
4th...and perhaps most pertinent, camels were not prominently resident in Israel in earlier times, I think. the biblical list kindly provided by Monique for your benefit just about in every case referred to action outside israels borders. Israel was on major trade routes in the ancient east but probably not native to Israel, and perhaps rarely kept therein.
I hope this may help your impartial scientific research.........

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

POINTS TO CONSIDER

1.) Does this research definitively represent the total area of Israel, from its most sparsely to most highly populated areas? If not, then this research may simply suggest that domesticated camels were not in use at these sites until 900BCE.

To be fair, according to Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef's paper, the study encompassed quite a bit of Israel. In fact, they were confident that it did represent a good portion of Israel's history. However, perhaps later discoveries will show that camels were not in use in some areas while they were in others at various points in Israel's history.

2.) The word for camel gamal (גָּמָל) may be a substitute for the oral tradition's use of a load-bearing animal. Perhaps, according to oral tradition, the load bearing animal was a donkey or mule. When it came time to consolidate and 'canonize' the Torah, the scribes (being people of their time) assigned the word camel to the word load-bearing animal. (This is not unlike when we hear a story of a cowboy riding into town on an animal, we automatically assume the animal was a horse.)

Old Testament scholars have long suggested that the Torah was not finished in the form we have it today until well after the events they describe. Even if we accepted Moses as the author of the Torah, we must also remember that he was not present for a major portion of it (Genesis). Oral tradition must play some type of role in its formation, which is something Christians have believed for a long time.

3.) Could Abraham have acquired camels from Egypt and brought them to Israel without them becoming widely used until much later? Most of the articles claim that Abraham (among the other patriarchs) did not have camels in Israel until Egypt introduced them abruptly, perhaps due to trade. Archeological evidence suggests that Egypt did have domesticated camels

This assumes, then, that when Abraham went to Egypt, he did not acquire a single camel. On the contrary, is it possible that Abraham, during his visit to Egypt, acquired Egyptian domesticated camels? I think so, especially since Genesis 12:16 explicitly mentions Abraham's camels while in Egypt.

Of course, this depends on whether or not Egypt had domesticated camels during the time Abraham was in Egypt. Since Egypt was the trade center of the world at that time, it is entirely possible to see how domesticated camels were present in the first millennium BCE Egypt.[1]

AT THE END OF THE DAY…

This is such a great example of how hungry some people are to decry the veracity of the Bible. After all, a good amount of news organizations have heralded this research as a fatal blow to scripture. (Remember, we're talking about the domestication of camels in Israel. We're not talking about a Jesus ossuary.)

It is interesting to see how many media outlets rushed to declare the Bible false, seemingly without considering that there might be a logical explanation. I'm not sure they would have done the same for other types of archeological finds.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:44 PM

You are getting the handle of this google / cut / paste lark Keith.

Now find a website called The Council of Mosques. I haven't tried but I doubt it exists even though you just stated I did. I presume the umbrella body for mosque councils may use the term and I did give a quote from them. You just aren't subtle enough to be a convincing liar.

Twisting twat.

Then you try telling us you aren't signed up to a pseudo political party ? They could do with you and your ability to peddle porkies to denigrate others. Oh, lesson 101. Google doesn't give links to intranet sites. For once your inability to find something isn't down to your incompetence.

I notice your mate Sheffield was back-pedalling in the paper this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

The problem with point 2, Keith, is that you are saying the words in the Bible may not mean what we think they do. Now, I agree with that, but it is not something that I can see any literalist being able to accept. So they are stuck with camels in the Bible meaning what we mean by camels. Because if they don't, how can they be sure anything means quite what they think?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 01:43 AM

Read the whole piece here.
http://blogs.christianpost.com/dear-ephesus/breaking-camels-disprove-gods-existence-bible-is-false-19994/

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 01:49 AM

Musket, there are regional councils of mosques, but no "The Council Of Mosques" which you claimed as a source for your made up quote.

You claimed to have found it on that non-existent site, but Google does not find it anywhere except in your Mudcat post.

Even then, before calling it a lie, I asked for an explanation.
I am careful and fastidious about calling someone a liar, but that was a blatant lie, as was the story of Muslim schoolchildren chopped up and fed to pigs by Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:08 AM

Alright, I've read the whole article now. I see Musket's point that what you posted was indeed a cut-and-paste, so it is difficult to know whether it is something you would want to defend to the death or just something you thought we'd like to read.

I assume the article is just trying to say 'not necessarily' to the people who claim it disproves Genesis. But that has no relevance at all to people who don't take Genesis literally in the first place, and I can't see dating of camels persuading any literalist, giving the much bigger oddities they have to defend.

I found the article patronising: it seemed to contain nothing that a few moments wouldn't also have revealed to anyone bothered enough to think about it.

So in short I'd be much happier hearing your views than those of a cut'n'paste.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:12 AM

Then you try telling us you aren't signed up to a pseudo political party ?

You mean UKIP.
I am not a member or even a supporter.
If I were, I would probably promote them in my posts.

I did once post a quote from their site.
We were discussing what their view about something was so I Googled it.
That is your entire case that I am a member.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:16 AM

DMcG, the words are not mine but they express my view on the findings.

I found the article patronising: it seemed to contain nothing that a few moments wouldn't also have revealed to anyone bothered enough to think about it.

I agree.
There should be not need to write it, but there clearly are many people who do not bother to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:36 AM

Yawn....

Keep wearing us down Keith. It's your usual way of defending the indefensible.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:42 AM

I do find things a bit odd about it though, Keith. The references to UKIP suggest you are in the UK. There is certainly a Hertford in the UK as well. I know of a Hartford, but not a Hertford in Alabama. We agree that all it would take is a few moments thinking about it to come up with similar arguments. So why go via "Kyle [Beshears who] is a pastor at the People of Mars Hill in Mobile, AL" rather than simply state your own view?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:42 AM

"This is such a great example of how hungry some people are to decry the veracity of the Bible. After all, a good amount of news organizations have heralded this research as a fatal blow to scripture."

I have no desire to "decry the veracity of the Bible". That would imply that I give any sort of shit about the Bible - apart from the fact that some people insist on taking it literally.

My reasons for drawing people's attention to the 'anachronistic camels' piece were partly provocative and partly mischievous. The Creationists, who are desperate to believe that everything in the Bible is true, and represents absolute truth, insist on also believing that science is a competing form of absolute truth. They continually 'nit-pick' scientific findings in the belief that if they find enough 'flaws' the edifice of science (particularly evolutionary biology) will crumble and the Bible will 'win'.

The 'camels' piece demonstrates that you can (if you give a shit) employ the same tactics with respect to the Bible. My guess, though, is that the Bible is a mix of (translated, re-translated and mis-translated) historical accounts, myths and legends. To take it literally is as absurd as attempting to destroy the edifice of modern science by obsessively searching for 'flaws'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:44 AM

this wont be the first and it wont be the last attack on the bible .
some people seem hellbent on trying to disprove it. not that all of them will admit to their crusading spirit.
meanwhile the same people get very upset, or so it appears, when challenged to defend the glaring flaws in the general theory of evolution.
to hear some posters definition of science , it must be beyond belief that newton among many others past and present could be such great scientists, as they supposedly held unscientific views.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

t must be beyond belief that newton among many others past and present could be such great scientists, as they supposedly held unscientific views.

Funny you should say that: it is the mirror image of one of Dawkin's "arguments" where he tries to discomfort believers by saying had they lived at another place and time they would be defending belief on Loki and Odin.

Both arguments are equally rhetorical tricks, not logic. Both of those arguing understand that people of the given time work within the understanding of that time and it is basically deceitful to judge them by today.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:08 AM

As short time ago pete claimed that no lion remains have been found in Israel. That seemed unlikely to me but who cares right? But yesterday, there was a program on tv about lines where it said that at one point that lions were the most widespread mammal on the Earth their range spread far beyond Africa.

Seeing the argument repeated I found this in a Google search.

No lions in Israel?

Here is an interesting quote.

"More recent archaeological excavation confirms this:

"The largest faunal collections and most intensive archaeo-zoological research for [the Chalcolithic] period have been carried out in the northern Negev. This biological data provides us with a detailed picture of human/animal relations during this formative period. … If Shiqmim is taken as a representative sample for the valley, sheep … and goat … make up over 90 percent of the faunal assemblage with the remaining 10 percent consisting of cattle, … dog, equid and ca. 3.8 percent of wild animals (gazelle, hartebeest, hippopotamus, lion, small cat, fox, hare, ostrich, bird and fish). (The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas Levy, New York, Continuum, 1998, pp. 231-32)""

I wonder where the idea of no lion remains in Israel came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:43 AM

"this wont be the first and it wont be the last attack on the bible .
some people seem hellbent on trying to disprove it. "

This is such a silly statement, I don't know where to begin. You Creationists and the putative 'Bible disprovers' deserve each other!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:56 PM

Shimrod beat me to it.

There is nothing to disprove in the bible.

It is an ancient book that tells us plenty about how people thought in the past. I can't say I have read it, but I have been told it also shows the literature prowess in the days of King James I.

Sadly, some people do it discredit and damage the beauty by trying to give it status it clearly doesn't have. This can only result in intelligent rational people scoffing, not at the bible but the simpleminded people who spoil a story. The bible gets caught in the cross fire.

The person who attacks the bible most here is pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM

I wouldn't think that defending the Bible's veracity as a science text is attacking it per se. It many not be the best place to invest your time if your goal is to spread the gospel. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:36 PM

You can attack inadvertently. By inviting people to point out the fairy tale aspect and note how dangerous dogged belief in superstition can be, you do the book of tales, which have done so much to shape society, no favours whatsoever.

Whilst war and persecution is usually for the purpose of controlling others, the perpetrators rely on telling ignorant people that God tells them to massacre on his behalf.

If we didn't have religion, we'd only have to invent it. Opiate of the masses and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM

Musket,

I've been saying for a while that Religion, for the most part is the excuse for the bad behavior. So I agree with where your post is going.

I would also agree that someone like Ham who might credibly saying that "all the answers are in the Bible" when the questions are about, peace of mind, forgiveness and human interaction. But if the question is "Why do Kangaroos have pouches?" Saying "Because God made them that way." is not the most satisfying or credible answer.

It is a lot harder to point to the wisdom in the Bible when one's focus is presenting societal myth as literal scientific truth. I wouldn't call that an "attack" per se. But it is a very poor strategy. I don't know if it undermines the Bible so much as it undermines the people making the case for Kangaroos walking from Palestine to Sydney.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 04:41 PM

Both of those arguing understand that people of the given time work within the understanding of that time

Hmm. The "of his time" excuse is a popular fallback. It was OK to be a bit of a racist in the 50s and 60s and make Paki jokes because we were "of our time". Well it don't wash with me. The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box. Now the speaking was the hard bit, but the thinking - well, there's no excuse for racism, for example, or, shall we mention homophobia, or mysogyny, either now or way back then. In either case you are losing love for your fellow humans. Plus ca change and all that, as people such as Richard Dawkins and Hitchens, the ones bold enough to speak outside the box, against the tide, who challenge received wisdom, are the ones most vilified today, just as they always have been throughout history. "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:08 PM

Mr. Shaw, you seem to be trying to tell us that you are one of the best people of our time. Congratulations! Do you have any validation of this that is external to your own ego? A certificate perhaps?


You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I am a bit of a skeptic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:30 PM

Steve Shaw, it might be an idea if you did a bit of research about Isaac Newton.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

I take your point, Steve, but I am not seeking to excuse or justify anyone. [And certainly not the racism, homophobia and the rest of the past and present, but talking about that will take this thread even further from the original topic.]

Pete raised the point that Newton had some very unscientific ideas alongside the very scientific ones. To which my answer is: yes, he did. That's not surprising given when and where he lived. We can recognise and (should we so choose) praise the scientific work despite this. Similarly, we can praise an artist for his paintings or sculptures even if he was a reprobate in his personal life. These things are separable, and praise of one does not imply praise of the other.

And, though I'm sure you won't like it, it is a common idea in religion that earlier forms are less complete revelations, and anyone who genuinely tried to follow that earlier understanding can be praised for it. It is absurd to think 'if you had lived then you would believe that' is a sensible criticism because the believer's answer should be exactly the same as for Newton: Yes I would. That's how it was then.


There are certainly people throughout history we were prepared to speak 'outside the box', were in a tiny minority, and were prepared to suffer for making their views known. Many of them were most admirable; some were decidedly not. I greatly admire Thomas Paine, for example, who was one hardly feted in the UK, and who took immense risks throughout his life to express his views. I do not see Dawkins and Hitchens as anything remotely similar, somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:58 PM

Very well put DcMG.

Below is a link to an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, famous astronomer who will be the host of the current remake of the series "The Cosmos" around the 18-19 minute mark he discusses religion and science and talks about Newton being a person "of his time" from a slightly different and IMHO very interesting perspective. I'm thinking of starting a thread about the interview. But I haven't seen it all yet.

http://vimeo.com/83816085


This is part 2.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-religion-and-the-universe/

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:01 PM

CORRECTION

about the 18-19 minute mark of PART 2

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:03 PM

There are certainly people throughout history we were prepared to speak 'outside the box', were in a tiny minority, and were prepared to suffer for making their views known.

Quite so, but I think you may have hit the nail on the head when you say they were prepared to suffer. Too right. House arrest, imprisonment, torture, martyrdom, ostracism, etc. We hardly see that in western culture (though we see vilification by stupid gits such as pete and Wacko on pointless internet forums, etc., of course). You say that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens don't compare. Well, who would you compare them with from past ages in any case? If you want to make comparisons, do make them fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:15 PM

Mr. Shaw, you seem to be trying to tell us that you are one of the best people of our time. Congratulations! Do you have any validation of this that is external to your own ego? A certificate perhaps?

So, Wacko, when have I ever implied that, never mind stated it in any post? As you well know, humility is my middle name and I don't mind shouting that from every rooftop. Tell you what, Wacko Jacko, babe. If you wish to accuse someone of something, do make sure that they have actually done it first. Otherwise I fear I might have to start parroting the "Forum Rules" at you. (Don't worry: joke. I wouldn't dream of stooping so low). Now, Wackers, ol' fruit, are you going to apologise for misrepresenting me?

Steve Shaw, it might be an idea if you did a bit of research about Isaac Newton.

So when have I ever brought Isaac up? Do apprise me, Helix aspersa, of that to which you refer. You puzzle me but you do not trouble me, as you know, so no need to rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:56 PM

"So, Wacko, when have I ever implied that, never mind stated it in any post?"

"it was OK to be a bit of a racist in the 50s and 60s and make Paki jokes because we were "of our time". Well it don't wash with me. The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box."

You are saying that you were independent and thought out side the box aren't you? Or do you not understand your own prose?


"(though we see vilification by stupid gits such as pete and Wacko on pointless internet forums, etc., of course)."

I am not vilifying you my friend. I am educating you. I am asking for you to learn and follow simple rules and I am kindly suggesting that you stop making a fool of yourself.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

"pointless internet forums" Did you really mean to say that? I guess your attitude towards this forum explains your stubborn disrespect for the rules of this forum and its members. You say you insult people because you enjoy it. If I had not seen you playing harmonica in a video, I'd think that I was talking to a 12 year old girl.

There are plenty of places on the Internet when you can go to be snotty and insult people. Perhaps it would be better for all if you spewed your vitriol there and used this "pointless" forum only to share your music.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:00 AM

"The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box." Steve Shaw

That brings up something I have considered from time to time.

I came to the conclusion that we really cannot fault a human being for being a product of their time. It is when a person is either behind or ahead of his or her time that it is remarkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:51 AM

When I was a child, I played as a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things...".

We are raised in cultures, and we take them aboard consciously or osmotically. When we become our own persons, we have a responsibility to be aware of the cuutral agreements wehave inherited and be prepared to jettison them if in the light of new reflection they appear distortive, or harmful, or short of the best we can imagine.

Some folks do this industriously, some do it kicking and squalling like the small children they presumably no longer are.

But we all gotta do it. With due regard to the maxim about babies and bathwaters, we have to let go harmful agreements or short-sighted beliefs and seek something better. Just like cells, memes need to evolve to meet changing conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 05:06 AM

Steve Shaw
So when have I ever brought Isaac up?

You didn't, you joined in an existing discussion about him.

pete said -
it must be beyond belief that newton among many others past and present could be such great scientists, as they supposedly held unscientific views.

DMcG replied -
Both of those arguing understand that people of the given time work within the understanding of that time

You took exception to this and launched into a song of praise to those who think out of the box. I'm afraid Newton wasn't like that. To his credit, he recognised his debt to other thinkers - "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.". On the other hand, he was an alchemist and a religious fanatic holding views that were more 'before his time' than 'of his time'. As Master of the Royal Mint, he pursued the highest penalty against counterfeiters (hanging, drawing and quartering.). Not quite the happy picture you paint.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:46 AM

I did not take exception. I raised a point about which I had some reservations. Surely you're old enough to not see everything in black and white and to stop the wilful misrepresentations. As for Newton, I know all about his idiocies as well as his great science and I have mentioned them before. So what precisely are you disagreeing with me about this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

"So, Wacko, when have I ever implied that, never mind stated it in any post?"

"it was OK to be a bit of a racist in the 50s and 60s and make Paki jokes because we were "of our time". Well it don't wash with me. The best people of this or any other time were independent of mind and were well able to think outside the box, and, if they were bold enough, to speak outside the box."

You are saying that you were independent and thought out side the box aren't you? Or do you not understand your own prose?

And you think this somehow equates with your claim that I think I'm "one of the best people in the world"? Never mind my prose: you have far more serious issues than that confronting you, the first of which for you to address is your apparent total lack of comprehension of plain English.

As for your educating me, I shall nick and twist a phrase of Musket's: I can't be educated by pork.

As for pointless forums, it's people like you and Snail who love to twist what other people say who make them pointless. I seem to spend about half my time here telling you that I didn't say what you said I said. And that's pointless. And that's in spite of the fact that I type in clear, plain English. You're like a big kid, Wackers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:12 AM

Mmmm. My post about Newton seems to have got lost in the ether.

Never mind.

At least my resident troll won't pop up to say he'd checked on google and I was wrong.

Pity really. My own research into mechanical vibration many moons ago didn't need to take quantum mechanics into account, as Newtonian physics is fit for purpose in such matters.

My point being you don't judge one aspect by another. Newton may have learnt Hebrew in order to go looking for the ark of the covenant but beforehand he wrote on forces , optics and calculus.

I think I may have had a pop at Steve's football delusions in my original answer too.

Bugger. Where is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:49 AM

"which for you to address is your apparent total lack of comprehension of plain English."

When and if you start writing your little rants in plain English, I guess we will find that out.

"As for your educating me, I shall nick and twist a phrase of Musket's: I can't be educated by pork."

A reasonable man would be alarmed at his need to be educated by "pork" but I don't think that anyone on this forum thinks that you are behaving as a reasonable man.

"As for pointless forums, it's people like you and Snail who love to twist what other people say who make them pointless."

You said this forum is pointless. Now you say it is about snail and me. You said that pete deserves to be vilified when he comes here. You also say that you insult people because you enjoy it. If you think that the Mudcat is pointless why don't you find yourself another forum? You could also try to consider it less pointless. But I'll tell you, picking fights with people, calling people names, blustering and bragging rather than conversing are not ways to do that. Why don't you take a couple of deep breaths before you post and try to think how your words affect other people?

Have you considered that people are not twisting what you say, but they are missing your intention because your tone is usually angry and you do not communicate very well when you are angry?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:18 PM

"
I did not take exception. I raised a point about which I had some reservations."

consider that if you had said "I have reservations about this point" at the time you would not be bickering with thesnail now over what you meant to say then.

Calm down, take a breath before you post. Consider how you attitude gets in the way of clear communication.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

You say that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens don't compare. Well, who would you compare them with from past ages in any case? If you want to make comparisons, do make them fair.

If you don't mind, I won't do that because I don't think it will add to the debate. In fact, I think it would detract from it. But I'm sure if you think back over the last 50 or 100 years you won't go short of people in the UK who were imprisoned for actions they took because of political views - I exclude religious beliefs to avoid muddying the waters. Yes, we can hair-split whether they were jailed for the actions or the beliefs that led to those actions, but I think that would be unproductive. And in the US, thanks to McCarthyism, there is an even more direct link to people being punished for views, rather than actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 02:44 PM

Steve Shaw
I did not take exception.
Previously -
Well it don't wash with me.

That sounds to me like taking exception.

In a discussion about the reasons for and consequences of some of Newton's more off the wall scientific ideas, you leapt in with you claim that thinkers "out of the box" of any age should and would espouse the modern liberal values which, I presume, you hold yourself. Apart from being irrelevant to the immediate discussion, I think the suggestion is wildly optimistic.

Newton had a go at calculating the date of creation from the chronology of the Bible. He came up with a different result from Ussher but not enormously so. He also said -
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Both perfectly reasonable things to do by the standards of the time but enough to discredit him as a scientist in this day and age. What do you think.

Apart from that, I don't think I can better DMcG's post of 09 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM .

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:18 PM

dmcg - I could well be mistaken but I think you missed the point I was trying to make. some posters [ and Nye at the debate] insinuate that believing in creation takes away the development of science and its practioners, and consequently creation believing scientists must be silenced, and only evolutionism taught. this idea is false, as the accomplishments of creationist scientists, past and present, evidence.

on the point of historical figures of their time, and dawkins referencing believers in odin and suchlike. somehow I doubt if such devotees of ancient gods were evolutionists, but probably instinctively knew there was a creator[s], though not knowing of the biblical God. so what exactly was dawkins point?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:00 PM

Pete. I think you're complicating the idea a lot; the point is simply that virtually everybody, in whatever time and culture, believes that what they are taught from childhood is the truth; at least they start out that way as children, and in many cases they remain that way throughout life.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM

"this idea is false, as the accomplishments of creationist scientists, past and present, evidence."

1. There is no such thing as Creation Science, since scientific analysis and method cannot be applied to the existence or non existence of a creator.

2. Some of the scientists who believe in a creator, may still apply scientific analysis in their field and may even espouse the process of evolution.

3. None of those who believe in Young Earth Creation are Paleontologists, geologists or any other discipline relating to Earth's age or origin. Some may be proficient in branches of science which bear no relation to same.

Delve into your Creationist websites and produce one Creationist paleontologist of any stature.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:42 PM

"Pete. I think you're complicating the idea a lot; the point is simply that virtually everybody, in whatever time and culture, believes that what they are taught from childhood is the truth; at least they start out that way as children, and in many cases they remain that way throughout life."

The problem with that FP, is that Pete was indoctrinated later in life and is a "born again" YEC

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:13 PM

If you don't mind, I won't do that because I don't think it will add to the debate. In fact, I think it would detract from it. But I'm sure if you think back over the last 50 or 100 years you won't go short of people in the UK who were imprisoned for actions they took because of political views - I exclude religious beliefs to avoid muddying the waters. Yes, we can hair-split whether they were jailed for the actions or the beliefs that led to those actions, but I think that would be unproductive. And in the US, thanks to McCarthyism, there is an even more direct link to people being punished for views, rather than actions.

Well, it was religion that I was specifically thinking about. Of course I agree on the non-religious stuff, but that is hardly what my point was about.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:17 PM

What I think, snailieboy, is that you're wriggling around searching for disagreement for the sake of it in a very sour-grapes fashion. I find that to be incredibly tedious. Your point about Newton has no relevance to the point of mine you're attempting to connect it with. Just read more carefully. Life's too short, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

When and if you start writing your little rants in plain English, I guess we will find that out.

"As for your educating me, I shall nick and twist a phrase of Musket's: I can't be educated by pork."

A reasonable man would be alarmed at his need to be educated by "pork" but I don't think that anyone on this forum thinks that you are behaving as a reasonable man.

"As for pointless forums, it's people like you and Snail who love to twist what other people say who make them pointless."

You said this forum is pointless. Now you say it is about snail and me. You said that pete deserves to be vilified when he comes here. You also say that you insult people because you enjoy it. If you think that the Mudcat is pointless why don't you find yourself another forum? You could also try to consider it less pointless. But I'll tell you, picking fights with people, calling people names, blustering and bragging rather than conversing are not ways to do that. Why don't you take a couple of deep breaths before you post and try to think how your words affect other people?

Have you considered that people are not twisting what you say, but they are missing your intention because your tone is usually angry and you do not communicate very well when you are angry?

Well, fellas, whatever other shortcomings you think I betray, is a lack of ability to type plain English one of them? Seriously now, Wackers darling. You are hardly the one to be criticising anyone else for their inability to express themselves clearly now, are you? If I wanted to I could have a field day going over your posts pointing out the grammatical, spelling and constructional inanities therein. In that regard at least you are a very black pot calling a really nice shiny copper kettle black. And another thing. Your posts in general are sounding more and more inane as time goes on. Certainly obsessive (probably a cover-up for something lacking, one supposes). Nay, almost hysterical, one might say. In the words of Call-Me-Dave, calm down dear (and I think I can say that without sexist overtones as I think you may well be male).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:44 AM

" ... some posters ... insinuate that believing in creation takes away the development of science and its practioners, and consequently creation believing scientists must be silenced, and only evolutionism taught. this idea is false, as the accomplishments of creationist scientists, past and present, evidence.

pete:

1. Believing in "creation" (rather than evolution) DOES "take away" from the development of science - or, at least, has the dangerous potential to do so.

2. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist" - the term is an oxymoron - as has been explained to you many, many, many, many times!!

3. I don't think that anyone is trying to "silence" "creation believing scientists" (whatever they may be) - if anything, the boot is on the other foot - it's creationists who would like to ban the teaching of evolution in schools!

4. "creation scientists" (whatever they may be) have accomplished NOTHING - except to belittle the findings of thousands of 'real' scientists and to illustrate the dangers of fundamentalist religion to our culture.

Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:10 AM

Well, it was religion that I was specifically thinking about. Of course I agree on the non-religious stuff, but that is hardly what my point was about.

I thought it was about people being prepared to stick to their views in the full knowledge of potential risks. I see no reason to separate one belief system from another in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:33 AM

Shimrod, I doubt The Greatest Show on Earth is available in Christian Science bookshops.

I reckon it is popular at book burnings though.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:39 AM

You're probably right there, Musket! I suppose that it's too much to ask pete to step out into the 'real world' and to buy the book in Waterstone's or on Amazon ??

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 07:43 AM

on the point of historical figures of their time, and dawkins referencing believers in odin and suchlike. somehow I doubt if such devotees of ancient gods were evolutionists, but probably instinctively knew there was a creator[s], though not knowing of the biblical God. so what exactly was dawkins point?

Quite so, pete. I don't think Dawkin's really has a point when he says that. Its sole purpose as far as I can see is to confuse the opponent about how to respond. Dawkins is capable of a very high standard of reasoned argument, so when he plays verbal games like that I shake my head with disappointment.

But as a brief aside, I wouldn't assume the Vikings and co were not 'evolutionists'. Certainly they were not Darwinists - how could they be? - but the idea of evolution is much much older than Darwin, you know. "All" Darwin did was describe a mechanism whereby the already-belived-in evolution could work and lead to speciation. My memory of the Eddas needs refreshing but I don't recall the creation stories they contain saying anything at all about how the various different animals were created. Man, yes; animal, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 07:48 AM

Oops! Guest just above at 07:43 AM was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:40 AM

Dawkin's what?

What is a Darwinist?

All rather odd?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:50 AM

Musket: Ok, I abbreviated, so I'll try and expand things out a bit. Evolution as a concept has been around for a very long time - in the simplest form of creatures changing over time according to how they breed it is probably as old as farming. But what was needed on top of that was an explanation of how, why and what the consequences could be. There were numerous explainations over time until Darwin gave his version, so people who don't stop and think about it often conflate evolution and Darwin's-explanation-of-evolution. So when pete says people in the distant past weren't evolutionists it is important to distiguish between evolution-as-understood-before-Darwin and evolution-as-understood-post-Darwin (and indeed evolution-post-our-understanding-of-genetics).

And I squeezed all that into the word 'Darwinist'. Humpty-Dumpty would be proud [but I may have to pay the word extra! :) ]

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM

Ah you see... Trying to be helpful as there are some who would pick up on such matters to twist them to prove their tenuous point, or in the case of one fool, use it to prove the other person is a liar. (No names but he lives in Hertford, gives thanks every Sunday and can name every historian there has ever been.)*

The stakes in this thread are high! (Although the OP was merely a funny cartoon. Religious cartoons can be dangerous, as readers of Jesus & Mo will testify.)




* or at least every one that he can pick and choose snippets to support his establishment view.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 09:54 AM

Steve Shaw
Your point about Newton has no relevance to the point of mine you're attempting to connect it with.

I really don't know why you are having trouble with this Steve, it's really very straightforward.

pete suggested that Newton could not be considered a great scientist because of some of his unscientific views.

DMcG responded to pete by saying that "people of the given time work within the understanding of that time and it is basically deceitful to judge them by today.".

You disagreed with DMcG saying that "The "of his time" excuse is a popular fallback. but then diverted the issue into discussions of racism, homophobia, and mysogyny rather than scientific understanding which is what was being discussed.

The question is really quite simple. Do you agree with DMcG that Newton can be excused his stranger ideas, some of which appear to have been governed by a belief in the absolute truth in the Bible, because they were the understanding of that time or do you agree with pete that he should not be regarded as a great scientist because of his, by modern standards, unscientific ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 10:03 AM

Nothing to do with the thread, but as I am being referenced I thought it's about time I said DMcG is a shortened form of Dave McGlade. The very first time I used the internet it was in the ARPANet days and the computer only allowed four-letter user names so I've stuck with it ever since. It is not any attempt to hide my identity or stand apart from those who choose to use their actual names.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 10:09 AM

Hello Dave. I only chose The Snail because having a nickname seemed the thing to do when I signed up and I was always fond of the character in The Magic Roundabout.

Bryan Creer

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 10:10 AM

Musket.
"fool"
"liar"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 10:27 AM

>>Well, fellas, whatever other shortcomings you think I betray, is a lack of ability to type plain English one of them? Seriously now, Wackers darling. You are hardly the one to be criticising anyone else for their inability to express themselves clearly now, are you? If I wanted to I could have a field day going over your posts pointing out the grammatical, spelling and constructional inanities therein. In that regard at least you are a very black pot calling a really nice shiny copper kettle black. And another thing. Your posts in general are sounding more and more inane as time goes on. Certainly obsessive (probably a cover-up for something lacking, one supposes). Nay, almost hysterical, one might say. In the words of Call-Me-Dave, calm down dear (and I think I can say that without sexist overtones as I think you may well be male). <<

Grammar mistakes? Mr. Copper kettle?

>>>In that regard at least you are a very black pot calling a really nice shiny copper kettle black. And another thing.<<

"And another thing." punctuated as a sentence? LOL!!!

Someone more self aware than you might have cause for alarm to have so much effort spent on explaining a simple point about Newton. You should calm down before you are reading and before you write. I'll concede that you use simple plain English word. But your anger and your arrogance are most certainly barriers to communication.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM

"And another thing." punctuated as a sentence? LOL!!!

The construction is perfectly admissible and you would be well advised to refrain from trying to pick me up for flawed use of English. Fool. An irony apparently lost on you is that the remark of yours I've quoted here breaches the self-same "rule" (which isn't a rule at all) that you excoriate me for breaching. Lots Of Love indeed!!!

I would also point out that "kettle" in your post, for the sake of consistency with "Copper", should have a capital K. "Self aware" should be hyphenated; "might have cause for alarm to... doesn't make sense; "before you are reading and before you write" contains another horrid inconsistency, between forms of the verbs this time; "plain English word" should be plural; and you started a sentence with "But" (which is actually fine, though considered bad form in some quarters).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

I really don't know why you are having trouble with this Steve, it's really very straightforward.

Well, as you have severe difficulty understanding that evolution is true, who are you...?

Newton did superb work in physics. As far as I'm aware, he did not allow his ludicrous religious beliefs and wacky stance on alchemy to interfere with that in any significant way. I have never, ever said that there's no such thing as a good scientist who goes to Mass, if that's the sort of thing you're driving at. There are many paradoxes in life, Snailie. Vaughan Williams wrote one of the best masses I've ever heard yet he was a committed atheist. Franco received Holy Communion almost every day. Caravaggio was one of the greatest painters who ever lived yet was a murderer. You can be a young-earth creationist and be a good scientist, but you can't be a creationist scientist because science is predicated on evidence. You can be a wonderful, loving parent but still subject your children to anti-educational abuse by sending them to faith schools. The world is full of split personalities, split 'twixt the rational and irrational in many cases. I advised you earlier to avoid, at your age, seeing things in black and white only, but I don't think you were listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:35 PM

Oh Steve, I am quite aware that my grammar and punctuation on this forum is not flawless. But I am not presenting myself as the shiny copper kettle.

I am, however, self aware enough, and not idiot enough to, if I were make a case for having superior grammar, superior grammar that is, to the person I am lecturing, in a paragraph about proper grammar, not use a sentence fragment.

And further more. Thank you for amusing me with that and for the phrase "The construction is perfectly admissible." Is it waiting outside behind a velvet rope? Do you believe you are in court? Please tell us and confirm your shiny copper kettleness.

LOL LOL LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:58 PM

it seems I need to explain to those who don't understand, or it suits them not to, that when I use the term creation scientist, I am juxtaposing that with your use of the word scientist, unqualified, but really which seeks to equate science with evolutionism. whether scientist is qualified by "creationist" or "evolutionist" it denotes their belief system...ie, whether they believe the evidence supports one or the other.
as gould said " the idea of a fully impartial scientist is self serving myth..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

We know.

Science is not a belief system. "Creation Scientist" is propaganda term. Nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM

"I am, however, self aware enough, and not idiot enough to, if I were make a case for having superior grammar, superior grammar that is, to the person I am lecturing, in a paragraph about proper grammar, not use a sentence fragment."

Whaaaaat?

Case proven Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:20 PM

Oh Steve, I am quite aware that my grammar and punctuation on this forum is not flawless.

No need for an orgasmic "oh", Wacko. As I say, I advise you to avoid criticising my use of English. Not only is your grammar and punctuation not flawless, it's rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:22 PM

Hilarious, innit, Troubadour? The man has no shame! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

it seems I need to explain to those who don't understand, or it suits them not to, that when I use the term creation scientist, I am juxtaposing that with your use of the word scientist, unqualified, but really which seeks to equate science with evolutionism. whether scientist is qualified by "creationist" or "evolutionist" it denotes their belief system...ie, whether they believe the evidence supports one or the other.
as gould said " the idea of a fully impartial scientist is self serving myth..."

We understand all right, pete. We understand that you understand nothing. So you've read some Gould, huh? And what else do you know he's said? And not off a soundbite website, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:35 PM

I'll remember this, Mr. Shaw, the next time three or four people are lecturing you because of a communication error on your part.

How is that for plain English? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:47 PM

Bring it on, sunshine!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 02:45 AM

"as gould said " the idea of a fully impartial scientist is self serving myth...""

But, the point is that a 'real' scientist (as opposed to a 'creationist scientist' - whatever that may be) AIMS for impartiality - and, being human, may occasionally fail to achieve it ... possibly ...?

Nevertheless, a 'creationist scientist' (whatever that may be) is most definitely NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, impartial! A 'creationist scientist' (whatever that may be) starts off by knowing all of the answers ('it wuz God wot did it') and merely expends effort in order to demolish any competing descriptions of reality. That is NOT a scientific endeavour!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:30 AM

It occurs to me that for a creationist to suggest that 'real' scientists are not always impartial is a bit like a convicted bank robber accusing honest, upright citizens of occasionally entertaining dishonest thoughts!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 06:22 AM

Steve Shaw
Well, as you have severe difficulty understanding that evolution is true, who are you...?

Science doesn't do TRUE. That's religion. Your belief in the truth of evolution is exactly the same as pete's belief in the truth of the Bible.

Meanwhile, back to the subject. A typical Steve response, an ad hominem attack followed by a complete failure to answer, or even understand, the question. Also, a remarkable turnaround from your post of 09 Feb 14 - 04:41 PM where thinkers "outside the box" were depicted as almost saintly.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Now, we can distinguish between what we regard as Newton's great work and his more dubious efforts. I doubt if he did. He wouldn't have thought "This is the work that will have me remembered as a genius for hundreds of years to come and this is the bonkers stuff that future generations will try to brush under the carpet.". It was all good as far as he was concerned. More to the point, the stuff that we regard as bonkers was perfectly conventional at the time. He believed in the truth of the Bible. He believed that the earth was about 6000 years old. Even the hanging drawing and quartering was just the current law of the land. Do we, as pete suggests, say that that disqualifies him as a great scientist or, as DMcG advises, regard him as being "of his time"?

A straight answer with no personal abuse would be appreciated (but not expected).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 07:12 AM

I gave you a perfectly straight answer. Newton did great science and he also had some culpably bonkers notions. He was not able, in some regards, to think outside the box, but Galileo managed it all right, so the "of his time" argument/excuse crumbles just a little there. But that does not take away from Newton's achievements in physics. As far as I'm aware, he didn't allow his bonkers notions to impinge on what we now regard as his great science. Don't matter what I say, Snail-o, does it? You'll gnaw away at it anyway...or rasp, should I say...

As for pete, the best thing with him is to take any of his pronouncements on either science or religion to be completely cock-eyed. There is no other safe approach. One mustn't spend long on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 07:26 AM

Quite a few instances on this thread of people saying something is because they say it is. The one that springs to mind most also occasionally wears his Christianity on his sleeve, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Don't let me get in the way of criticising typos. This bloody iPad occasionally puts it's own words in despite you thinking you typed correctly. It may have the UK spell checker on board but sometimes, when putting NHS it autocorrects it to NRA........

That suits me. We have comprehensive healthcare, the place where the iPad was developed has the fourth amendment and guns.

We both tend to have Jesus and Mo, all the same. If over 50% of us were actual not boutique Christians, as in actually believing impossible claims etc, would that make the rational ones amongst us weird by consensus?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 11:33 AM

Musket, I'm with you on the typos. I don't see as good as I used to and it takes longer for me to edit than type. I hereby apologize for the typos I make. But have no excuse other than that my time for y'all is finite and I would prefer to concentrate on content over cosmetics.

I'm not complaining but one entertaining thing about this forum is the delay after hitting "Submit Message" where you notice a typo and can edit what you see but the correction does not show up in the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 11:48 AM

I think Newton did see his work as "all good" and the "bonkers" stuff did impinge on the other sometimes.

Having said that, the only example I can think of is the colours of the spectrum.

He expected to see seven because it is a magic number.
There are seven non-fixed heavenly bodies.
No-one can really see indigo in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 12:04 PM

" Newton's religious and alchemical interests were not tidily separated from his scientific ones. He believed that God mediated the gravitational force [511](353), and opposed any attempt to give a mechanistic explanation of chemistry or gravity, since that would diminish the role of God [646]. He consequently conceived such a hatred of Descartes, on whose foundations so many of his achievements were built, that at times he refused even to write his name [399,401]. "

Numbers in brackets [..] are references to pages in Richard's Westfall's "Never at Rest" , Cambridge University Press, 1980.


http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/newton.html

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 12:53 PM

just to clarify....I did not say newton was not a great scientist..,i said that by the reasoning of some posters. it has now been conceded by some that being creationist does not hinder operational science
I,m not sure the same thing can always be said about evolution believing scientists when they predicted leftover useless organs and junk dna, or taking 40 yr to spot a poor forgery.

troubadours challenge-
creation palaeontologists
dr Marcus ross
Nicholas steno
john woodward
of course you will dismiss the first because he is creationist and therefore of no standing in the evolutionary community...circular reasoning.
and you will discount the next as products of their time!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM

taking 40 yr to spot a poor forgery.

Hmm. You've yet to spot a 2000-year-old one.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

Steve you and pete seem you be opposite sides of the same coin.

You misuse the word "forgery" as he misuses "Paleontology.

pete,

Given that paleontology is the study of prehistory and that according to you and Mr. Ham there is no prehistory because what the rest of us call prehistory is the "History" contained in the Bible. How can paleontology be studied by someone who by their own definition does not believe in prehistory?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 05:23 PM

He was not able, in some regards, to think outside the box, but Galileo managed it all right, so the "of his time" argument/excuse crumbles just a little there.

I don't see that Galileo obviously "managed it all right" any more than Newton did. But this is off-topic, so we can agree to differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 05:40 PM

And I should say that I think we have the same problem: I am certain that there are things we do as individuals today - and I mean me, and Steve and pete and all the result of us - that in fifty years time will seem as disgusting to the people of that time as racism does to us; and they will ask themselves "how could they have done that?". And the reason we can is that we are of our time, and just don't see it. Of course, we try to think 'outside the box' and sometimes we will see things, but most of the time we simply aren't smart enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 05:54 PM

"we try to think 'outside the box' and sometimes we will see things, but most of the time we simply aren't smart enough."

I agree.

We may even be smart enough but we don't have enough information.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 02:32 AM

" ... it has now been conceded by some that being creationist does not hinder operational science"

It may not have done in the 17th century but it certainly does in the 21st century!

Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet, pete? You were demanding evidence for evolution a few posts back and Dawkins' book is packed full of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:37 AM

And I should say that I think we have the same problem: I am certain that there are things we do as individuals today - and I mean me, and Steve and pete and all the result of us - that in fifty years time will seem as disgusting to the people of that time as racism does to us; and they will ask themselves "how could they have done that?". And the reason we can is that we are of our time, and just don't see it. Of course, we try to think 'outside the box' and sometimes we will see things, but most of the time we simply aren't smart enough.

When those things that we do have the potential to hurt other human beings there is no excuse for them now and there was no excuse for them in the past. There is no excuse for racism, homophobia and misogyny either now or in the past and it ill-behoves us to be too free with the "of their time" getout.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:48 AM

Steve you and pete seem you be opposite sides of the same coin.

You misuse the word "forgery" as he misuses "Paleontology.

Are "Steve you and pete" [sic] three people? "Seem you be"? We could hardly be on opposite sides of different coins, could we? (well I suppose we could try...) Watch those speech marks too, Wacko! Maybe you and pete are two cheeks of the same arse...

I did not misuse the word "forgery". Had I used a construction that might have suited you better the sharpness of the riposte would have been lost altogether. You keep saying "you have better things to do". You certainly have better-advised things to do than question my English, you oceanic berk.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 09:16 AM

Opposite sides of the same coin; one the enemy of grammar, the other the self appointed grammar police.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 10:19 AM

One more thing, pete. May I remind you of the following quote from your last post?

" ... of course you will dismiss the first because he is creationist and therefore of no standing in the evolutionary community...circular reasoning."

Circular reasoning!! You accuse those of us with an interest in evolutionary science of circular reasoning?!

First, examine the mote in your own eye (isn't that in the Bible?).

Why do you favour the the biblical account of creation over the theory of evolution and the evidence in support of it gathered by many thousands of 'real' scientists (as opposed to the creationist pretend ones)? Because it's in the Bible, of course, and it is the 'word of God'. How do you know it's the word of God? ... Because it says so in the Bible!

Now what was that you were saying about circular reasoning, pete?

By the way, have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 02:25 PM

When those things that we do have the potential to hurt other human beings there is no excuse for them now and there was no excuse for them in the past. There is no excuse for racism, homophobia and misogyny either now or in the past and it ill-behoves us to be too free with the "of their time" getout.

At the risk of upsetting by repetition, I have already said I agree with that. But that neither goes far enough, nor addresses quite what I was talking about.

Suppose, for example, we are aware of things that have the potential to hurt, etc, even if they aren't racism, homophobia or misogyny. Should we also be criticised if we know about them and do nothing? Before you leap in with an answer, there were two reports I heard on the radio this week concerning things about which I can easily imagine someone in the future saying "How did the people of 2011/2012 let that happen?" (one definitely, one probably). And I use those dates rather than last week because I have known about them for years, and I strongly suspect you have as well.

So it is not the racism, homophobia or misogyny I am referring to: it is all the other things that happen that we are aware of, and tut-tut about when we are reminded about them, but actually do nothing about. Of course, I have no way of knowing how you behave in real life, so you may well be an active campaigner on these two issues, but as far as the Mudcat persona is concerned, if you have posted on those topics I have missed them.

I have deliberately not said what the two items were, because that is the point: it is the things that aren't in the headlines that we know are happening but we let go by that I am concerned about.

And just to reiterate once again: yes, I agree there is no excuse for racism, homophobia and misogyny either now or in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 03:19 PM

DMcG

I agree with everything you have said. But even on those issues, I would tend to cut Mr. Newton, and perhaps most figures from our past some slack, certainly I would not judge them by our standards any more than I would be judged by theirs.

" I agree there is no excuse for racism, homophobia and misogyny either now or in the past."

The definition of those things have changed over time. Perhaps Sir Isaac would find India's legal acceptance of cetaceans as persons and the USA Supreme Court defining corporations as having superior free speech rights to people as strange as I do.

Perhaps in as few as 50 years time I will be called a violent racist because I ate a pilot whale steak when I was a child. Maybe PETA will have succeeded in its quest for personhood for meat animals and all of my many accomplishments will be cheapened by a digital upload of Steve Shaw, which by then would have earned personhood, condemning me for being mean to the AI (Artificially Intelligent "person" ) living on a microchip in my toaster.

It really comes down to one of the few "answers in Genesis" that has stood the test of time.

"The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Before they ate the fruit Adam and Eve could do no wrong, because they did not know it was wrong. Likewise Newton's dalliance with alchemy was not wrong because he did not know it wasn't science. Whether or not he engaged in racism, homophobia or misogyny does not depend on our understanding of the terms, but on his understanding. That is why the people who are activists against those things focus so strongly on eduction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 03:38 PM

Steve Shaw
I gave you a perfectly straight answer.

Up to now, you have answered pete's question about whether Newton could not be considered a great scientist because of his (by modern understanding) unscientific ideas but you still haven't answered DMcG's point as to whether he could be excused because he was following the understanding "of his time".

Newton did great science and he also had some culpably bonkers notions.
But you may have answered it there. The answer seems to be "No". What do you feel Newton was culpable of? Not being completely up to date with 21st century science or of not inventing it all for himself on the spot?

Don't matter what I say, Snail-o, does it? You'll gnaw away at it anyway...or rasp, should I say...

Not really, I just enjoy seeing how much I can prod you into inflating you ego. You've really raised the bar. Only a few days ago you were happy enough to feel superior to Jack, now you're putting Newton in his place.

As for pete, the best thing with him is to take any of his pronouncements on either science or religion to be completely cock-eyed. There is no other safe approach. One mustn't spend long on it.

I do. Indeed. I don't. (In that order.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 03:50 PM

Musket
Quite a few instances on this thread of people saying something is because they say it is.

There is certainly one that I can think of. ("It's true. It's true. It's true I tell you.")

If over 50% of us were actual not boutique Christians, as in actually believing impossible claims etc, would that make the rational ones amongst us weird by consensus?

No, but we would be REGARDED as weird and, quite possibly, dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:01 PM

"Only a few days ago you were happy enough to feel superior to Jack, now you're putting Newton in his place." Brilliant line!!

For the record, I am happy to be considered intellectually inferior to Newton. If you are implying that I am inferior to Steve I would take that as a challenge to appear to be more clever. :-)

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:03 PM

Heck, If Steve is treating Newton the way he treats me, perhaps I should reconsider his judgement of me?

LOL LOL :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:10 PM

Steve Shaw
There is no excuse for racism, homophobia and misogyny either now or in the past and it ill-behoves us to be too free with the "of their time" getout.

I don't think anybody is saying that are they? The question, in this context, is whether or not those of Newton's ideas that seem weird 300 years later were excusable when you make allowances for the prevailing understanding of the nature of the universe in the late 17th/early18th centuries.

He was not able, in some regards, to think outside the box, but Galileo managed it all right

I hadn't realised that Galileo had expressed strong opinions on racism, homophobia and misogyny. Could you give me a reference?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:35 PM

Well, there has been so much stupid nonsense posted here in the last few hours (not by you, DMcG, I hasten to add) that I shall confine myself to this one remark, which is, sort of, at the core of the issue to hand:

Likewise Newton's dalliance with alchemy was not wrong because he did not know it wasn't science.

Well I don't agree with this. I do agree that Newton was a great scientist, but, in areas beyond the bounds of science, he was no different to everyone else in that he often succumbed to the pitfalls of life's quirkier side. I won't be persuaded that a man whose thinking about the laws of physics was so incredibly advanced for his time, had, somehow, not built a Berlin wall in his head to separate off his good science from his more, er, speculative and whimsical side. Why do I think this could be? Well, we all know of people who achieve greatness in all manner of fields of human endeavour - who still go to Mass on Sunday. I almost rest my case (but I do love to go on). There is nothing new, or old, about the ability of human beings to partition off their brains into the super-rational and the super-irrational. Musket, great, incisive thinker though he is, supports Sheffield Wednesday fer chrissake! As for the point about Newton not realising that alchemy "wasn't science", that is just beyond belief. Here we had a man who applied with all his might all the rigour of science to his work in physics - yet wouldn't (I won't say "couldn't") apply anything like the same rigour either to alchemy of his religious predilections. Just like your modern-day nuclear physicist who espouses creationism, he had constructed that partition in his head. Perhaps, as humans, we all need a touch of irrationality in our lives so as not to become Spocks. But Newton's alchemy is so outrageous that I refuse to make excuses for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 04:41 PM

("It's true. It's true. It's true I tell you.")

I have never couched it in those terms, so you misrepresent as we have come to expect, but, in fact, it is true, and no amount of your demurring will render it otherwise. You are a sad case. If you don't agree that evolution is true, the only alternative available to you is "evolution is not true". You have a case to make there all right, old chap. Does evolution happen? If it does, evolution is true. If it doesn't, it isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM

no, shimrod, I have not read it. no more than you have read the greatest hoax on earth !.
as I previously implied, since you have read the former, you ought to be well versed in evolutionism proofs/evidences.
unlike most of you, claiming to be impartial , I am upfront on my presuppositions. your non factual assertion that being a creationist hinders current science only displays your blinkered partiality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 05:18 PM

Wow! That was a very imaginative picture of Mr. Newton's psyche you just drew for us Steve.   Would you care to cite your sources?

"Berlin wall" eh?
"Whimsical"
"Construction in his head?" Are you, Steve Shaw, former science instructor, accusing the Great Isaac Newton of purposely deluding himself? I can't wait to see what theSnail has to say about this development.


I would rather be compared to Newton's "Whimsical" side than your "scientific" side. Because he was exploring the frontiers of knowledge of his time and you apparently are too lazy to consult Wikipedia, rather than making things up and projecting you own quirks on a great man.

By the way, I was talking to DMcG in the passage you quoted, I wasn't asking for your, to say the least, questionable input, I don't owe you any clarification or explanation, so I won't be accepting your invitation to bicker. Since TheSnail is doing such a lovely job of defining the logical corner you have painted for yourself, I shall leave that to him. Do you find it ironic that you are being out flanked by a beast with such a reputation for diminished speed?

Cheers sunshine! I am so admiring your communications skills right now. :-D

Newton and the occult

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 05:56 PM

Steve Shaw
to separate off his good science from his more, er, speculative and whimsical side.

You just aren't getting it are you. In 1700, alchemy wasn't "speculative and whimsical", it was mainstream and conventional. Chemistry as we understand it didn't get started until the second half of the the 18th century with Lavoisier and his contemporaries. Newton was working within the conventions "of his time". Stop trying to expect him to know everything that has happened in the following three hundred years. What do you think he was culpable of?

If you don't agree that evolution is true, the only alternative available to you is "evolution is not true".

Try -
If you don't agree that evolution is purple, the only alternative available to you is "evolution is not purple".

Neither "true" nor "purple" are terms that can be meaningfully applied to evolution.

Does evolution happen? If it does, evolution is true.

Weather happens. Is weather true?

Actually, does evolution happen? Show me where I can see it happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 05:56 PM

"being a creationist hinders current science only displays your blinkered partiality."

It certainly hinders a geologist or an astronomer or a biologist. It would hurt their credibility and their job opportunities would be limited to places like Mr. Ham's biblical dogma are allowed to supplant evidence based science.

I would assume that a "creationist geologist" could find oil if constructed a "Berlin" wall between his educational "historical side" and his "observational" side. But he would not be able to publish any findings based on the assumption that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There is no physical evidence of that.

I find it very amusing that Mr. Shaw's theory of Newton can be applied with equal veracity to any creation scientist. Sorry Steve, but this stuff is funny. Thank you for the laughs.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 06:03 PM

Evolution is neither true or untrue.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

Steve and pete, please read this. If you don't understand any part of it. Please ask a question.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 06:06 PM

" ... as I previously implied, since you have read the former ['The Greatest Show on Earth'], you ought to be well versed in evolutionism proofs/evidences."

Yep! And now I'm waiting for you to read it so that we can compare notes. I hope you're not expecting me to re-gurgitate an entire book? It was you who wanted the evidence - well, it's in Dawkins' book - go and read it! Why should I do the work for you?

" ... your non factual assertion that being a creationist hinders current science only displays your blinkered partiality."

Creationism would be a harmless, eccentric and bonkers minority interest if some of its adherents didn't have far more political influence - particularly in the US - than they deserve. Under those unfortunate circumstances they DO have the potential to "hinder current science". Bearing that in mind, you're damn right I'm partial! Partial, but hopefully not "non factual" (whatever, exactly, that means).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 07:57 PM

Wow! That was a very imaginative picture of Mr. Newton's psyche you just drew for us Steve.   Would you care to cite your sources?

"Berlin wall" eh?
"Whimsical"
"Construction in his head?" Are you, Steve Shaw, former science instructor, accusing the Great Isaac Newton of purposely deluding himself? I can't wait to see what theSnail has to say about this development.


I would rather be compared to Newton's "Whimsical" side than your "scientific" side. Because he was exploring the frontiers of knowledge of his time and you apparently are too lazy to consult Wikipedia, rather than making things up and projecting you own quirks on a great man.

By the way, I was talking to DMcG in the passage you quoted, I wasn't asking for your, to say the least, questionable input, I don't owe you any clarification or explanation, so I won't be accepting your invitation to bicker. Since TheSnail is doing such a lovely job of defining the logical corner you have painted for yourself, I shall leave that to him. Do you find it ironic that you are being out flanked by a beast with such a reputation for diminished speed?

Cheers sunshine! I am so admiring your communications skills right now. :-D

What, in the name of Christ, is this imbecile talking about? Can anyone tell me?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:06 PM

Pete: I've been pretty busy with my shop and with the weather, so I'm just popping in to answer this:

"...whether scientist is qualified by "creationist" or "evolutionist" it denotes their belief system..."

No.. it does NOT. I have made the point half a dozen times. There is a huge difference in the basic concepts involved.

The very word **believe** means something not easily testable.

A couple of dictionary definitions:
"A vague idea in which some confidence is placed."

"A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

The whole point of science is that it **IS** testable. The fact that testing is ongoing does NOT mean that the basic lines of discovery are 'just beliefs' in the same way that 'faith in the authenticity of a religious text' is a belief. ALL genuine evidence points toward certain general facts about reality and the basic age of the Universe & the Earth .. and US. The details are constantly being revised and updated, but NOTHING suggests that science is off in the basic parameters.

Religion is a **belief** because there is essentially NO new evidence for its claims... and because of what is 'believed', there can BE no new evidence for the fundamental beliefs of religion. One just believes because one believes... and finally, because someone TOLD you what to believe. Scientists are always going out and double-checking each others data and conclusions.

In my lifetime, evidence (not 'beliefs') of the age of the earth has been updated several times as new data came in. All religion can offer is repetition by many believers, based on the desire to adjust the answers to a 'literal' interpretation of religious texts.

People wrote those texts, and barring a Face in the Sky parting the clouds and convincing everyone that 'IT' inspired the texts, there will be no updating of the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:06 PM

You just aren't getting it are you. In 1700, alchemy wasn't "speculative and whimsical", it was mainstream and conventional.

Oh, I get it all right, pillock. I don't give a damn whether it was "mainstream and conventional" (what the hell has that silly notion got to do with anything!). The point is that is he was, in promoting alchemy and God, being singularly unscientific, and those unfortunate notions were being espoused by a man who, in his better endeavours, was rigorously scientific. Basically, he was going off on one. You are excusing the inexcusable. But he was still a great scientist. But only when he was doing science. Einstein was a great scientist too. But not when he was playing the fiddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:21 PM

"What, in the name of Christ, is this imbecile talking about? Can anyone tell me? "

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

You are claiming to be able to read the mind of man who has been dead for 300 years, contradicting his biographers and his own writings and you have the temerity to call me an imbecile? Whatever you say... :-D

Your saying something does not make it so. It would be good for you to learn that you can't pull facts out of your arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:23 PM

Evolution is neither true or untrue.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

Steve and pete, please read this. If you don't understand any part of it. Please ask a question.

Christ on a bike, Wacko, PLEASE don't join in with this. It is way above your sorry little head. I'll be nice enough to give you thirty seconds, then will you bugger off please. Right: "Evolution is neither true or untrue". Vacuous bollocks. It is one or the other. If evolution happens, it is true. If it doesn't, it isn't. Moving on:

"The theory of evolution is a scientific theory." Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana! Knock me over with a feather! No shit, Sherlock! How bloody profound of you! You see, Wacko, what you don't understand here, and why you are so abysmally out of your depth, is that evolution is a phenomenon that absolutely, definitely, nem con, takes place. It is true. The THEORY of evolution (your words, not mine, but hey ho) is the explanation for the phenomenon of evolution. The explanation is predicated on evidence. In the case of evolution, the evidence is massive, comprehensive and ultra-convincing. But what is the truth here is that evolution occurs. The explanation is very good so far but, as with all scientific theories, it has a long way to go and will almost certainly never get all the way there. But that does not alter by one jot or tittle the fact that evolution occurs. It is true. It just needs explaining, by science, that's all. Do try, in your tiny little limited sour mind, to elicit the difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the "theory of evolution" (again, your words). It isn't little.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:27 PM

It would be good for you to learn that you can't pull facts out of your arse.

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

Heheheheheheh!!! Whited sepulchres unite!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:36 PM

It would certainly be a kindness to you if I could convince you to stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.


Would you please cite your sources for your weird speculation about you "Berlin Wall" in Isaac Newton's head? I am assuming that it is your ass. But if I see it anywhere else ANYWHERE else, I will very humbly apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:54 PM

If I proffer an opinion, you wassock, I don't need to give "sources". The source of my opinions is me. You are a very troubled man, Wacko. You mentioned your wife. Excellent. At least I now know you're male. But I should leave her out of it if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 09:51 PM

So it is your opinion that Newton built a "Berlin Wall" in his head to separate the "good science" from the whimsy?

You lecture pete on the scientific method. You call be names and call what I say "nonsense."

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty. What is you opinion on that?

Do you think Max wrote it?
Do you think you are above the rules.

Tell you what, why don't you knock it off?

If you do, I promise to try to ignore you.

How about it? You can continue to make up your own facts about Newton or whatever. Just stop insisting that other people are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:20 AM

Musket
Quite a few instances on this thread of people saying something is because they say it is.

Steve Shaw
If I proffer an opinion, you wassock, I don't need to give "sources". The source of my opinions is me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:56 AM

I don't have my Collins English Snail Snail English Phrase Book to hand so please excuse me for only saying this in English.

Saying something "is" is far cry from expressing an opinion. If you don't understand, keep your beak / feeding tube whatever shut or ask someone to explain.



Hey Steve! I didn't know you had an ass. I left my carrots in the ground too long this year and some of them have gone a bit woody, so if you want some pony carrots for your ass, just say the word and I'll send them on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 07:13 AM

All very well Musket, but Steve seems to want us to accept his opinion as incontrovertible fact. Could this be why he left the Roman Catholic church? He realised they weren't going to let him be pope. Still thinks he's infallible though.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:56 AM

Come on Musket, admit it. The idea of Newton separating "science" from alchemy with a self constructed Berlin wall in his brain is a little bonkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 11:16 AM

"creation palaeontologists
dr Marcus ross
Nicholas steno
john woodward"

I did say "of any stature", which means generally accepted as such by the scientific community.

I hardly think that their opinions on paleontology will carry much weight among Paleontologists, geologists, astrophysicists etc. etc.

They are the antithesis of scientists, confusing science and mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 12:06 PM

Tell you what Pete.

Google paleontologist Dr Kurt Wise and read his confirmation of much of the scientific evidence for evolution, especially regarding your pet plaint about transitional forms in the fossil record,

Having shot down most of your arguments, he goes on to say that he is a creationist and that the evidence is unimportant because anything which disagrees with the bible is unreal, and scientists are just playing games with amusing but useless theories.

The only reality he recognises is that God made it all that way.

This is the level of inanity which you swallow hook, line and sinker, and will happily pass on to children as truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

well, troubadour, your response to my answer to your challenge, is just what I said it would be....circular reasoning.
and just because this wise bloke is apparently intellectually dishonest, does not mean other creation scientists are.
and if this man does have evidence proving [or even significant evidence] that evolutionism is true lets have it. I,ve got more pressing things to do than read lots of books by[ un]believers claiming they provide such strong evidence for their [changeable] story.....and yet somehow cant seem to express these overwhelming evidences themselves.
what keeps happening, is Darwinist posters saying its true , because [evolutionary] scientists say it is. and its true because those scientists say there is strong evidence for it. and so evolutionists say its true because evolutionists say its true.
this is basically your approach bill, together with inferring that creationists only have the biblical text to support their position, when you know that there are a lot of scientific arguments as well.
we also disagree on whether evolutionism is a doctrine of atheistic faith.
despite it being below snails dignity to speak to me, I cant do better than quote him-
"actually, does evolution happen, show me where I can see it happening?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:48 PM

pete,

I think that science may be Mr' Shaw's faith. That is not so for the rest of this.

"creationists only have the biblical text to support their position, when you know that there are a lot of scientific arguments as well."

I all my years of studying science and reading about it as an amateur, I have never seen the phrase scientific arguments until today. Would you please tell me what they are amd maybe provide and example of one.

Arguments they may have, such as "There are problems with your theory", and "we have a 1/100 model in our museum." But there is nothing "scientific" about those arguments. Please, one "scientific argument."

What they do not have is one shred of evidence that any of the major claims about Genesis happened, or how they happen, or of why claim they happened.

How about it. Can you point to one piece of evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

"pete,

I think that science may be Mr' Shaw's faith. That is not so for the rest of this.

Mr. Shaw made a flawed clam about evolution. Th snail was pointing that out. We can't see stars form, burn their fuel and die either, as your Ham would say "We weren't there." but we know a lot about the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM

Science is, by definition, not a faith. It makes some people feel more secure if they call it that, because they don't think their beliefs can't co-exist with logic science.

While I have no wish to continue another idiotic argument with the usual combatants, I think "Darwin's Witnesses" would make a hell of a band name!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

Steve says a lot of illogical things about science which tend to give pete hope for winning these debates.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:32 PM

"I,ve got more pressing things to do than read lots of books by[ un]believers claiming they provide such strong evidence for their [changeable] story.....and yet somehow cant seem to express these overwhelming evidences themselves."

Oh come on, pete! You've got loads of time! What a pathetic excuse!

And scientific evidence is often "changeable" as you so crudely put it. It's a slowly building picture. That's the nature of scientific discovery. What it is NOT about is absolute, all-or-nothing belief or faith. You've been told that lots of times but you still choose wilful ignorance.

"what keeps happening, is Darwinist posters saying its true , because [evolutionary] scientists say it is. and its true because those scientists say there is strong evidence for it."

But, pete, most of us are not scientists studying evolutionary biology - so we have to rely on the words of practising evolutionary biologists. The evidence that they present is 100 million times more convincing than a load of tosh from a bunch of religious fanatics who have arbitrarily decided to believe every word of a translated, re-translated and mis-translated old book containing the myths and legends of some Bronze Age desert tribesmen! Which, as I pointed out above, is supposed to be the word of God - because it's described as such within its pages ... circular reasoning anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 07:48 PM

"of tosh from a bunch of religious fanatics who have arbitrarily decided to believe every word of a translated, re-translated and mis-translated old book containing the myths and legends of some Bronze Age desert tribesmen! "

That is actually not the case. the creationists and probably pete do not claim to believe every word. The only claim to literally believe the parts of the Bible that suit there circular arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 08:19 PM

Well, I come here after 24 hours away, expecting to see some light (kidding of course, though, Musket, your comment about your carrots and my ass look like Einstein's PhD thesis alongside any of Wacko's or Gastropodus insensibilissimus's crass and sour-faced inanities).

Now here's the thing, you pair of tossers. Evolution happens (only dimwits such as pete with his third-hand received unwisdom would demur). It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it. Therefore evolution is true. But, you see, a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is not science. My left hand self-evidently possesses five digits. It is not science to say that my left hand has five digits. It is not science to say that the bleedin' obvious occurs. The science comes in, not when you observe phenomena that are true, but in the explanation of those phenomena. Evolution is true. The explanation of evolution is one of the grandest theories ever achieved by mankind, but no scientist would say that the explanation of evolution is true. The explanation of evolution, and of any phenomena you care to name, is a quest for truth. Scientists revel in the fact that the quest is never-ending. It's delicious, actually. Now I think I've given our resident pair of half-wits far too much time on this already (I'm that kind of guy: all-giving, innit). So further correspondence on this matter will receive short shrift. I'm fed up of being so bloody polite, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 08:42 PM

"It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it.'

Like snow?

Only an imbecile would say "Snow is true."

Sigh....


What is wrong with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:32 PM

This is really like a bad accident. It is horrible to watch, and impossible to look away.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:05 AM

Just been looking back a few days -

Steve Shaw
But Newton's alchemy is so outrageous that I refuse to make excuses for him.

The whole post that that sentence finishes off is an amazing piece of work. Steve actually believes he is intellectually superior to Newton.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:17 AM

His ego is greater.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:20 AM

As it happens, my left hand also possesses five digits. (Right hand is slightly defficient but that's another story.) It is self-evident. Show me some evolution, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 10:21 AM

Pete: "...this is basically your approach bill, together with inferring that creationists only have the biblical text to support their position, when you know that there are a lot of scientific arguments as well.
we also disagree on whether evolutionism is a doctrine of atheistic faith."

I repeat, Pete... and I may repeat 27 MORE times. Arguments for the Biblical version of events, in so far as they simply seek to justify a **belief** are NOT actual science...(or rather, someone's **interpretation** of one translation of Biblical stories which cannot be verified AS actual events).

How can I put it? If a thousand scientists perform all sort of tests and compare results and agree that the universe is about 14 billion years old and that the earth is about 4 billion years old.... what does it mean for a few guys with science training & backgrounds to look at the same tests, data & evidence and pronounce that:
"these conclusions do not agree with what my preacher and the Creation.com website says is the REAL age of things, so all those measurements must be in error, and we will RE-interpret the results until we get answers that agree with Bishop Ussher and various others who read the Bible and counted the generations since Adam & Eve!"


Pete: I repeat... when they demand that science MUST agree with the Bible, they are simply using the name science. They are not following the rock-bottom, necessary, rules OF the scientific method.

Pete: I repeat again: If you wish to assert that God started it all, I can only shrug. I can't prove otherwise. But if these little brains we have are part of what 'God' gave us, then proper use of them shows us HOW it all proceeded after God gave it all a push! We are still learning the details, but counting generations listed in Genesis is NOT a scientific way of establishing a basic age of the Earth!

(Ummm... I can't even be sure who my great-great-great grandfather was. No one has ever explained who wrote down & kept track of those hundreds of names in Genesis...very few people could even write back then! )

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 10:31 AM

pete, one piece of physical evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old please.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:02 PM

Luckily, my PhD thesis didn't include carrots or asses. In any case I might have called them mules if I had. It did reference The Principia though. For the benefit of your detractors, I will state that in addressing forces, (my research was in mechanical vibration) I never once had to mention that Newton taught himself Hebrew in order to find the ark of the covenant. Neither was it relevant to point out his general pious approach to life nor indeed his work at The Royal Mint nor his political ambitions.

You see, you can be delusional at a fundamental level and still work out how the universe ticks. Even Einstein had issues with probability.....   Importantly he didn't deny Heisenberg, he merely hoped there would be a more acceptable inference.

Then apologised when he saw how no other explanation of quantum mechanics could suffice.



Jack. Instead of questioning Pete's timeline, which he can wriggle out of.. Try asking how, if God is good, parasitical creatures that inject their young into other creatures etc to feed on them works into the equation. If that is intelligent design, it takes a very sick mind to design it. Not to mention the worms that get into the eyes of children and blinds them......

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Penny S.
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:39 PM

Musket, I am sorry to say there is an out on that question - I usually go for the schistosomiasis in which the male worm is absorbed into the female worm which is then parastic on firstly snails and then us - but it is the nasty little business of the Fall. All the nasties are our fault, not God's.

And it's no use arguing that if they could go that way after the bitten fruit, the potential must have been built in before by the creator, because I've never had an answer to that.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

The fact that Pete is looking to "creation science" to verifiy what the Bible says shows that, though it may not be obvious, he, too, places science above scripture.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

The fall doesn't work, at least as well, for explaining why we have creatures who eat other creatures. The inerrant Ken Ham assures us that lions and tigers were herbivores until sometime after Noah's flood.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:21 PM

I recall a distant Aunty who visited once, and left a book on the table for us. (My Dad binned it.). The book was from the Jehova's Witness cult, of which she was a member.

I remember the cover. It had a child sat on the grass cuddling a lion.

Regardless of whether logic falls or the creature called human fell, it is still the case that some creatures, in order to survive, make the life's of other creatures short and painful.

So much for intelligent design...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:22 PM

Ham uses lies about science and scripture to justify his own interpretations and to get donations. Whether it each individual donating a dollar or one donation of the whole thing. $23,000,000 for a "creation museum" represents a lot of stupidity and a lot of waste.

Thanks for the suggestion Musket. Having had a debate or two about religion, I knew it would not be useful. Thanks to Penny for explaining why. Then there is the whole thing about lions (Mr Hams interpretation) in the Garden of Eden. With carnivore teeth and claws sitting around eating shoots and leaves patiently waiting for Adam and Eve to screw up. Its as if God was SETTING THEM UP TO FALL. The story works OK as a parable. But if it is evidence of design, it is evidence that the design work was not very intelligent. Wouldn't intelligent design develop predator and prey in sync with one another?

Prey could nourish the predator in exchange for keeping prey from over breeding and passing on genetic weakness. The prey and predator adapting to one another each species getting stronger, or smarter or faster, until the genome of one have shaped the other. That is a much more elegant system than, "Hang on there Mr lion. Try to much these grape fruit until the flaw that I purposely built into man manifests its self allowing you to "fall from grace" with him and you can eat the ungulates I designed you to eat.

The Zoo where my wife used to work feed the lions a processed food called carnivore loaf. It is not asking a lot for an omnipotent being writing an infallible book meant to be taken as "historical science" today would have at least mentioned feeding the lions something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:24 PM

pete, one piece of physical evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old please.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,God's Witness
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:49 PM

Ah, that precious Phd, Musket. It opened the doors to your life of position and privilege. What need have you for anything spiritual when you've got the money to buy escargot and Alpine Ski trips?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 05:57 PM

I'm pretty sure Jesus had an answer to that one, God's Witness. And he didn't sneer while explaining it.

In fact, there are very few groups that he criticised: those who seek
knowledge was not one of them.
You will of course remember that he DID criticise those who were convinced they had all the answers on God's will.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:12 PM

I rather agree with DMcG about the tone of that post. It does feel like a sneer, and is quite out of place. Having been well educated and made a decent living has nothing to do with being right, being moral or one's perceived need for or against spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:48 PM

Try asking how, if God is good, parasitical creatures that inject their young into other creatures etc to feed on them works into the equation. If that is intelligent design, it takes a very sick mind to design it.

Not only that, Musket, but God placed the female anus 1.25" from the fanny. AND he organised the nuts to be viable only if carried in an exceptionally vulnerable location without the general body. Either he was totally inept or he was a bloody comedian. Take yer pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 08:25 PM

Difficult to say what sort of comments are out of place in a discussion about a cartoon. Let's get a ruling on this from Jack;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 08:32 PM

Penny S
I usually go for the schistosomiasis in which the male worm is absorbed into the female worm which is then parastic on firstly snails and then us

OH MY GOD! Say it isn't so.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 01:19 AM

If this were a serious discussion of anything, one would be inclined to carefully examine the points that DMcG brought out:

-In fact, there are very few groups that he (Jesus) criticised: those who seek
knowledge was not one of them.

-You will of course remember that he DID criticise those who were convinced they had all the answers on God's will.


The point might be made that Scripture not only encourages us to seek out knowledge, it advocates peer review:

Proverbs 18: 15 The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

And another point might be made that there are actually commandments against claiming to have all the answers on God's will.


Of course, this is not a serious discussion, so we will leave those points alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 03:30 AM

In 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (which pete refuses to read because he might learn something) Dawkins devotes a chapter to intelligent design vs evolution. He shows that many anatomical structures in mammals, and other phyla, are often based on earlier structures and often involve compromises that a truly 'intelligent designer' wouldn't even contemplate - a truly 'intelligent designer' would have started again!

His examples include (among others) the nerves in a giraffe's neck and the structure (as it happens!) of the human male genitalia.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:55 AM

Yep. I'm intelligent. Yep. I'm fucking minted. Yep. I've got a big willy. Yep. I can still ski despite rods holding my back in one piece. Yep. I have the privilege to give a retirement to a greyhound who had a hard life in the murky racing world. Yep. I appear to have musical ability. Yep. I drive round flicking Vs at the peasants.

As God is my witness.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:09 PM

All Messiahs have got big willies. Tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:48 PM

I go away for the weekend and come back to lots of challenges.
bill- I am sure that you are not deliberately misrepresenting what I say [not sure about everyone..] so I will try again...
I am not saying that the bible alone proves a young creation, but that the evidence is consistent with it. it is enough for me, but I am happy that creation believing scientists can point to other lines of reasoning. neither do I claim that there are no unsolved problems, though I reckon evolutionism has far greater problems, especially atheists. this is why I say ,it is a faith position....you have to believe impossible things, things contrary to observable, repeatable ,testable science.
you's all deny it is a faith stand, because you have to keep adjusting your story, but your non negotiable position is deep time and naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence.
again you appeal to numbers, and claim that their research supports the general theory of evolution.....but providing no other evidence.
I have said this before, but I can say it 27 more times if need be!....if the great scientists of the past bowed to peer pressure we would still be thinking that life generated spontaneously from rotting garbage.....now where have I heard something like that before....?!

jack- I have been presenting evidence for a young earth for a long time. various soft tissue in supposedly MYO bone being one such.
there have been claims of possible couple million in very favourable conditions, but 60 and more MYO...WELL I SUPPOSE IF THATS YOUR FAITH...
As to teeth designed for tearing flesh, you may recall that ham gave examples of other creatures that had such teeth but were herbivore, mainly.
as to a complete waste of money....there are an awful lot of jobs riding on the unproven GTE !. TAXPAYERS MONEY!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:57 PM

"I have been presenting evidence for a young earth for a long time. various soft tissue in supposedly MYO bone being one such."

Yes, ONLY one such - you've been banging on about that for ages! One APPARENT anomaly doesn't 'prove' anything - happens all the time in science - live with it!

Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM

What is MYO bone?

How does it prove that the universe is 6,000 years old?

"there have been claims of possible couple million in very favourable conditions"

I'm not sure what you are saying. But if you accept the possibility that life is anywhere near a million years old then your "young earth" theory of a universe age as calculated by Bishop Ussher is disproved. If you are willing to accept that possibility then we are done, you can apologize for wasting everyone's time and we can start another topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

>>
Difficult to say what sort of comments are out of place in a discussion about a cartoon. Let's get a ruling on this from Jack;-)
<<

I saw the wink. But I did enjoy your post. I think I agree with your implication that the comments became out of place when the topic switched to other things. Maybe Q and Grishka, have a point. Could we have a semipermanent thread for example to argue the scientific viability of creationism with pete? Would that keep the discussion of that from spreading to other threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:22 PM

Pete.. I see no sense in continuing this when you keep insisting that accepting scientific evidence for evolution is a 'faith position'.

That is a logical error and a misuse of common terminology.

"Faith" and "belief" in their technical sense are not the same as when used simply to mean, as you are doing, 'confidence in one's basic evidence and procedures'.

Faith **MEANS** acceptance of something not testable. Science IS testable, even though the many details are always open to revision. The basic theory is also open to revision, but for 150 years now, all the basic data has led to more & more evidence for evolution.

All we are really doing here is going in circles, and my fingers are tired. So I repeat for the 28th time (but... who's counting?) IF a God made everything, we can at least examine how he did it and come close to the age of it all. The pages of an old manuscript do not explain anything BECAUSE the very authenticity of the manuscript is in doubt.
If I have to choose between radiocarbon dating and a supposed list of 'begats' in Genesis, you can guess my choice.

And by the way... how do YOU explain all that supposed record keeping of names from Adam to Moses, etc.? You cannot just keep demanding that 'evolutionists' defend THEIR data.... where is your defense of biblical stories?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 08:44 PM

Could we have a semipermanent thread for example to argue the scientific viability of creationism with pete?

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:08 AM

Why have a single, semi-permanent thread when the current debacle permeates every thread? Those who believe in an afterlife have every reason to fear that the debacle will be carried over...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:21 AM

pete, as Bill D points out, modern evolutionary biology does not involve "faith" but, rather, 150 years worth of evidence, gathered by thousands of talented scientists, over millions of man-hours. And these days a scientific field, like evolutionary biology, is informed by many other scientific fields as well - for example dating methods are based on physics (i.e. the radioactive decay of various elements) and genetics is based on chemistry. So, if you attack evolutionary biology, you are attacking the entire edifice of modern science. For a start, such a stance strikes me as stupendously, mind-boggingly arrogant and foolish!

I would also be interested to know why you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)? I think that we would all be VERY interested in your answer to this question.

Finally, if you were really interested in the evidence for evolution, you would read something other than creationist websites. Something like 'The Greatest Show on Earth', for example. But then, I forgot, you haven't got time to read books, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:51 AM

It's a good job we co Messiahs have big willies. It prepares us for dealing with some of the pricks we have to put up with here....

I can't see what the problem is to be honest. If God botherers are right, God makes me point and laugh, so rather than have a pop back, perhaps they should avert their gaze and worship me? Just a thought....

I see The Archbishop of Canterbury lost his plea to the synod not to be nasty bigots. Back to the grind eh? No credibility whatsoever with decent people. Fingers crossed he gets the right for women to get the top jobs. When I was in business, perhaps I should have registered it as a religion so I don't promote people who make irrational decisions one week per month and bugger off to have babies when you need them most eh? No difference between that pathetic stance and the awful stance of religions.

Perhaps we need Darwin's witnesses after all. The rise in superstition amongst the masses is rather worrying. Is it just me, or should we entertain organisations that brain wash vulnerable people into their bollocks, abuse children and promote misogyny and bigotry? Even the best of them have the sort of smug satisfaction that gets on your tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 02:18 PM

funny you should mention radio carbon, bill. I think shimrod followed too with dating. correct me if I,m wrong but isn't radio carbon only supposed to go back so far....and that so far is a long ways short on some of the supposed dates of evolutionism.
and as shimrod thinks it ok to dismiss the evidence in dino bones...diamonds have radiocarbon in them too.
unless you can cite anything other than circular reasoning, I think observable ,repeatable, testable science demonstrates a lot shorter shelf life.
what is not impossible, is oral and written records from adam to moses.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 02:32 PM

"..what is not impossible, is oral and written records from adam to moses"

It doesn't have to just be 'possible'... it is a CLAIM. And a claim requires something that shows concrete evidence! ANYONE can make up a list of names! And even if 'some' names were genuine nearer to Moses, it isa real stretch to believe that anyone DID preserve such a long list. If I told you that 500 people in your area had signed a petition to ban your church, wouldn't you want some proof that such a list was real?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:03 PM

"correct me if I,m wrong but isn't radio carbon only supposed to go back so far....and that so far is a long ways short on some of the supposed dates of evolutionism. "

There you go pete. You have done it once more. You have disproved Bishop Usser's dating of the age of the universe once again.

It appears that radiocarbon dating "goes back" to about 68,000 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Since 68,000 is more than ten times the age of the universe that you and Mr. Ham say it is please tell us how you can stick to Mr. Ham's interpretation of Genesis while you, yourself while trying vainly to refute other arguments, keep contradicting Mr. Ham's theory.

Would you please show us any small sliver of data where carbon dating proves that the universe is less than 10,000 years old (please note that I have allowed you a generous margin of error) or apologize for wasting our time with half the baked theories of charlatans and liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:07 PM

pete, to repeat my question from earlier today, which you have studiously avoided answering:

Why do you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)? I think that we would all be VERY interested in your answer to this question.

" ... shimrod thinks it ok to dismiss the evidence in dino bones."

I think no such thing! Don't put words into my mouth!

You wanted evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution - you can find lots and lots of evidence in Richard Dawkins' book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth' - go and read it. If, after reading the book, you have any questions, please address them to Prof. Dawkins (I dare you!).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:51 PM

Personally, I believe Pete needs to be taken more seriously than most of you are.

As annoying,tedious, and specious as Dawkins can be, he understands something critical, and that is that Pete and his sort have the intent of destroying all of the scientific discoveries and intellectual advances that we have made in order to impose their own religious ideas of the rest of us.

Pete is no scientist, and yet he purports to offer "scientific" refutations--of course such likes as Musket, Steve Shaw, The Snail, and even lovable JtS recognize that he juggles half-truths, misrepresentations, over-generalizations, and such things to advance his case, and that he has no credibility.

The thing is that a lot of people didn't really "get" science, and Pete, who really makes no logical sense, resonates with them, and the fact that he pounds on the Bible gives him credibility.

By carrying on with this discussion, you're giving Pete a forum to attack science, reason, the pursuit of knowledge, and, by extension, yourselves.

It doesn't pay to fool around with these people--when they get control of things, "Love thy neighbor" goes right out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

correct me if I,m wrong

No problem-o, pete babe. So here's the correcting. You are wrong about everything. About religion, about science, about where you get your information. Even your grammar and punctuation are insultingly wrong. Everything we know about you is wrong. Of course, we don't see you face-to-face, so there is a possibility that you have one or two redeeming attributes. But there is always the possibility that we'll find out that you have one or two redeeming attributes - only to then discover that, to compound all your other faults, you also drive a Volvo estate.

Joke: what's the difference between a hedgehog and a Volvo estate?

The hedgehog has pricks on the outside...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:40 PM

Stim, I think that we all say silly things. pete is just more consistently silly. I don't think there is any danger of him converting any member of this forum.

pete is relatively polite and as Douglas Adams might say, mostly harmless.

I'm not what Dawkins knows about religion or religious people, but there are plenty of sources of information about evolution you can suggest whose author hasn't called all religious people delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM

but there are plenty of sources of information about evolution you can suggest whose author hasn't called all religious people delusional.

So are you saying that a person who says that believers are delusional (which, as all rational people know, they are) couldn't be a reliable source of information about evolution? Good heavens, Wacko, darling, you are not only delusional, you are also irrational. Do entertain us by trying to defend the above statement. No rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:28 PM

Mr. Shaw, you are not rational, you buy lottery tickets.

You are also not rational because you can't seem to get it into your head that people don't want to read the books of people who insult them. In fact, insulting people destroys your credibility. and Mr Dawkins' credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:38 PM

Pete's not silly, he's what Eric Hoffer called a "True Believer"-he believes that he has a special unerring truth that you do not. You can't reach him because he believes that he and his cohorts are absolutely right, and you and I, and Steve and everyone that doesn't agree with him 100% is wrong.

He isn't different from the old hardline Communists or the BNP, or the old American John Birchers or the new Tea Baggers, or a hundred other groups of political and religious extremists--he is far from the most eloquent spokesman for his cause, but he is unbending, unyielding, unreasoned, and unreasonable.

People like him seem silly and naive in present circumstances, but when circumstances change, they can be a lot less harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 02:49 AM

I think that Dawkins has said things which needed to be said. Nothing should be exempt from criticism - not even religion!

I too believe that the people behind pete's preposterous websites are far from harmless!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

There was a young vicar from Tring
Who thought about girlies and things
But his secret desire
Was a boy in the choir
With a bottom like jelly on springs

Sorry, wrong thread.

There again.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

Stim
of course such likes as Musket, Steve Shaw, The Snail, and even lovable JtS

Um.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:02 AM

I agree. Put in a labelled box with French gastronomy delight?

Where's the bloody garlic....?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:41 AM

pete is not a true believer, pete, like Ham, is arguing against science and not for any coherent theory of creation.

He argues that carbon dating is not sufficient to prove a 14 billion year old universe while strongly implying that he is aware that it disproves a 6,000 year old "creation."

pete is arguing for his own sport and hoping to to convert someone through his efforts. He thinks it is rational to sink a small part of his resources on what is probably a 1 in 14,000,000 chance of success, but thinks that if he were to overcome those odds, it would be a glorious success. Some people think such quests are rational.

I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:00 PM

You are also not rational because you can't seem to get it into your head that people don't want to read the books of people who insult them. In fact, insulting people destroys your credibility. and Mr Dawkins' credibility.

That's just irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

He argues that carbon dating is not sufficient to prove a 14 billion year old universe

Aside from the fact that this is a rather silly sentence, if pete were indeed arguing this he would be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:23 PM

Perhaps Steve, If you had noted the punctuation and read the whole sentence you might have some small clue about the thought communicated therein.

The word "while" joins two phrases into a compound sentence.

Perhaps there is a website where you can brush up on your punctuation and conjunctions?

OTOH! Steve! Did you know that this thread is about a cartoon? On the first post, there is a cartoon! Why don't you read it and tell us what you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

That's just irrational.

BINGO! Pete in a nutshell. Hence the difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:54 PM

I have recent evidence that Steve is probably not the best judge of what is rational. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:03 PM

That's as may be, but in this instance, at least, he's spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:22 PM

I know I have said this before, but I am not in the least bothered what you'll think of me. you can upset each other by trading insults, but to me its the proverbial water.....
and beside, should anyone impartial be looking in, they can see what lengths you go to, rather than present evidence.

now jack, about that radio carbon. your argument is pretty weak imo.
here's why
1,theres a lot more time between your deep time and earliest possible radiocarbon dating, than between creation and earliest possible carbon14 detection.
2,we don't know the amount of c14 at the beginning
3,we do not know if the exchange rate has been constant through time. in fact ,I think variation has been noted
4, and related to the foregoing, creationists can posit major change at the destruction of the global flood, to that exchange rate.
5,you have offered nothing to explain your problem.
6,unless you can overcome this, it is in fact you who is arguing against science!

well yes bill. because something is possible, does not make it ,in and of itself factual. the difference is, is that there is no reason to doubt it other than a desire to repudiate the biblical witness.......which of course atheists/evolutionists aim to do.
in addition, there are other lists in scripture also going back to adam. also that other information on some of those names is presented.
the perfection of adam would also make it highly likely that he would be able to record history, and also his descendants following.
all this is internal consistency...not proof but reasonable to anyone not already predisposed to slight the bible.
the other difference is that the passing of oral and written history down generations is testable and observable in living memory.
evolutionism on the other hand does not, and in fact posits what is impossible, from what is known from the scientific method.
and do you still think radiocarbon is evidence for deep time ?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:16 PM

Good gracious. I have admitted talking bollocks on more than one occasion but I can see I have been bested by a master. I am not even going to attempt to point out what is wrong with those arguments. It is altogether too difficult to disprove complete nonsense. It is like trying to reason with a 3 year old!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

Lovely story here. Wish I had thought of it. Maybe we can give it a go? I claim my first line purely on the strength of Pete's last post :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:49 PM

So, pete, to repeat my earlier question, which you STILL refuse to answer:

Why do you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)? I think that we would all be VERY interested in your answer to this question.

I don't suppose that you've read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet, have you? There's lots and lots of evidence for evolution in it! That's what you asked for - evidence for evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:51 PM

I do not believe that you understand my argument.

You are claiming that Carbon 14 is an accurate dating system for things thousands of year old, but not to date things millions of years old?

The scientists who use carbon dating say that it is accurate to about 68,000 years. 68,000 is more than 6,000. Its not that complex.

You argue in the same dishonest manner that Ken Ham does. You do not put forward a coherent theory consistent with the evidence. You put forward the assertion that it must be because the one small part of the Old Testament, you choose to take literally, in the way you choose to interpret it is the one true way things were until new evidence comes up and you have to reinterpret again. Mr. Ham takes it on faith that "the flood happened" (presumably as described in his "museum") But stated also that he is open to new data.

Here is a rebuttal point by point

1,theres a lot more time between your deep time and earliest possible radiocarbon dating, than between creation and earliest possible carbon14 detection.

There is about 60,000 years between the earliest possible radiocarbon dating and your latest possible age of the universe based on your estimate of the universe's age.

2,we don't know the amount of c14 at the beginning

We do know with some degree of accuracy the ratio of C14 to C12. and the rate at which it changes. That is all that we need to know.

3,we do not know if the exchange rate has been constant through time. in fact ,I think variation has been noted

You mean change in the rate of radioactive decay? That is not observed to have ever happened.

4, and related to the foregoing, creationists can posit major change at the destruction of the global flood, to that exchange rate.

Creationist can posit whatever they wish, radioactive decay does not slow down because things get rained on for forty days.

Are you asserting that at the time of the flood when, by your theory, the world was 2000 years old, that the flood waters some how artificially added age to all of the bone fragments and wood we now think are 6,000 to 68,000 years old, on some sort of sliding, proportional scale, to line them up with other archeological evidence in such a way that the basic timeline is consistent?

Amusing theory if you have thought it through that far. You are talking about magic, not science.

5,you have offered nothing to explain your problem.

I don't have a problem. " creationists can posit" is not an argument. It is not even conjecture. It is a conjecture about the possibility of a conjecture. Evidence please!

6,unless you can overcome this, it is in fact you who is arguing against science!

No. Sorry, It is still you.

Please apologize for wasting our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Perhaps Steve, If you had noted the punctuation and read the whole sentence you might have some small clue about the thought communicated therein.

The word "while" joins two phrases into a compound sentence.

But Wackers, 'tis not I who needs to check the grammar books. What the word "while" joins in your puzzling sentence are not two "phrases" at all. Not only that, there's more than a hint of the non sequitur about the thing as well. And I certainly did note the punctuation: it's awful. Here it is again, presented purely for the sake of amusement. You'd surely give any proof-reader a headache, old bean. Go to the back of the class. Smackie botty!

He argues that carbon dating is not sufficient to prove a 14 billion year old universe while strongly implying that he is aware that it disproves a 6,000 year old "creation."

Have you lost the hyphen key on your computer?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:52 PM

You are claiming that Carbon 14 is an accurate dating system for things thousands of year old, but not to date things millions of years old?

You're at it again. There isn't a lot wrong with this claim, if that is indeed what he's claiming. No "while" joining things this time either, just a flippin' great big gap before your next sentence. Puzzling.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:56 PM

OK Steve. You an pete are right? Are you happy now?

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 07:10 PM

I don't know. I try to not read his garbage any more. I just pick up the odd buzz-word here and there. Stuff such as "Darwinist", "creationist scientist", "presupposes", "posits", "I haven't had time to check this but.." and "correct me if I'm wrong". If he's saying that radiocarbon dating is good for thousands of years, but not for millions of years, he's dead right. But you were calling that a "claim" for some reason. God I'm bored, Wacko. You know what you mean, I know you know what you mean and you know I know you know what you mean, but you have this quaint way of not checking what you've just typed and thinking to yourself "only a twat would type that and not edit it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:40 PM

Twat and whacko are rude terms. I would not use them even to describe myself.


You claim to have the ability to read complex sentences, yet you have never demonstrated that you can. This explains your inability to understand and follow the forum rules.

Why don't you get someone to translate the rules for you into terms you can understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:53 AM

Reading some of the contributors here waffling on about carbon dating, evolution, astrophysics....

I am no judge on any of these concepts, but can just about bullshit together a sentence or two in order to get my tuppence worth in a pub discussion.

Same with tennis. I know two things about tennis. Nowt and bugger all. Except during Wimbledon. Then I discuss the backhand technique of a player and how it affects his game on grass rather than any other substance, (as I only watch Wimbledon, I doubt I have seen professional tennis on anything but grass) and give confident predictions on who will win. I can even distinguish between a British player (winning) and a Scottish player (losing.)

I see parallels in this discussion with bar room barristers and our resident monk. No wonder they are easy pickings for Co messiah S.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:53 AM

Unless you got your undergraduate degree from Benny Hill's school for wayward comedians, or worse, Liberty University, you must have learned that the rate of radioactive decay of an element doesn't change unless God tells it to.

Which gives me an idea. To prove pete's theory about The Flood. changing the carbon dating results by a factor of ten, couldn't Ham's "scientists" just go out onto the museum grounds, pick up a stick from under a tree, cut it in half and stick one half in a bucket of water for 40 days and a year, leave the other next to it on a shelf for the same amount of time then compare the carbon 14 tests for the two sticks.

Obviously, if pete is right, the age of the stick in the water will appear to be somewhere between 6,000 and 68,000 years old, the other a few weeks old and Ken Ham will win a Nobel prize which he can use to build a full sized replica of the ark which he can fill with 7,000 pairs of sheep, and float to Arabia to sell as halal meat and firewood thus winning a second Nobel science prize and a peace prize to boot.

Think of all the school board skeptics he could win over by getting just one of his pseudo-scientific claims correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

Pete does have a point about the historic proportion of radio carbon.
It is created by radiation acting on nitrogen in the atmosphere, and the radiation flux may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

Pete.. Jack has answered you point by point. I can't add much to that part.

but this!:
"... the difference is, is that there is no reason to doubt it other than a desire to repudiate the biblical witness.......which of course atheists/evolutionists aim to do."

That is both nonsense and unfair! *I* doubt it, and you have seen fit to debate with me as if *I* was being fair & reasonable.
\
"the perfection of adam would also make it highly likely that he would be able to record history, and also his descendants following."

"the other difference is that the passing of oral and written history down generations is testable and observable in living memory"

And that is a paradigm example of a fallacy.... you USE the idea of "Adam's perfection", which is itself in doubt, to draw a conclusion about what such 'assumed' perfection might entail, then you base a 'belief' on TWO assumptions.
Pete.. I have done some genealogical research into my own family where things were written down in church records and in official marriage & death records kept by the bureaucracy, and there are still discrepancies where there were confusing names, multiple marriages, or just poor handwriting on documents. I 'think' I have some idea of who most of my ancestors were in the last 200 years, but some records are just not clear. You simply WANT to believe that Adam... or anyone back then... had the time, resources... and pure luck... to keep an accurate record for that many generations!

And about radiocarbon... your explanation of its flaws is that of someone who just does not understand the science involved... and clearly, you are, as you suggest about others, "predisposed to slight it".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

You could always try asking the people who know.

Radiocarbon Dating

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

" but your non negotiable position is deep time and naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence."

This is a total lie, and one creationists repeat ad nauseum. Find something that contradicts the current theory, write it up and present it using the same methods as scientists and if it's true, the theory would alter accordingly. Scientists are ordinary people working to establish objective truths and you can stuff your political and religious agendas.

Find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale and prove everyone wrong. It is that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

" ... you USE the idea of "Adam's perfection", which is itself in doubt,"

Is that an example of ironic understatement, Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:23 PM

Yeah shimrod...kinda..

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:32 PM

Understatement? Nah!

Don't you think it perfectly understandable to believe that a guy who couldn't follow the simple command "don't eat that fruit." could flawlessly pass down a perfect natural history, suitable as complete "scientific theory" of creation for hundreds of generations.

LOL LOL


"Perfection of Adam?" pete, Are we reading the same book?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:42 PM

By the way, Pete... that site posted by The Snail is Oxford University. If you ever have occasion to be near them, pop in and ask about radiocarbon dating. Otherwise, just follow the links in the page as they discuss the minor adjustments necessary to achieve the best accuracy possible. What it shows is NOT that it is a flawed method, but that it needs to be calibrated according to various factors. Once done, it is pretty good back to 'about' 50,000-70,000 years. And that is a bit more than 5-6000.

Dinosaurs can't BE dated by radiocarbon... they can only be dated by other form of radiometric dating using the rocks where the fossils are found( and the rocks above & below the fossils)

how they do it

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

"the perfection of adam would also make it highly likely that he would be able to record history, and also his descendants following."

I've been trying to decipher this one, just for fun. If you mean that Adam was created perfect, wasn't that perfection messed up by the fall? Supposedly the effect of his fall messed up his descendants ever since then, which might seem to interfere with their ability to record things infallibly. Or does "..able to record history, and also his descendants following." mean that, before the fall, while Adam's perfection wasn't messed up, he wrote the list of his descendants down to the time of Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:52 PM

It can only be calibrated back a few thousand years by tree rings.
For extreme dating, assumptions have to be made about the rate of radiocarbon production.

In any case, it can only date fossils, not rocks or planets.
There are other methods that are used.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:14 PM

Jack - Pete thinks because soft tissue was found in T. rex bones (although there are those who don't agree with this finding). As usual, Pete uses the fact soft tissue can survive for tens of millions of years as being evidence for creationism because HE doesn't think it could happen.

So apparently his personal incredulity trumps modern palaeontology. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM

.. the difference is, is that there is no reason to doubt it other than a desire to repudiate the biblical witness.......which of course atheists/evolutionists aim to do."

That is both nonsense and unfair!

Quite. There are dozens of creation stories world wide, not just the biblical one. So one perfectly good reason to question the biblical version would be to see which, if any, best fits with observations. That is reasonable. On the other to say that the story I like is true because I say it is lacks any sort of credibility and cannot be considered a reasonable way of deciding between them. And I would make exactly the same argument if by some discovery all science agreed the earth was 6000ish years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

Some of you have been asking for actual evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old:

The oldest known standing trees in the world are bristlecone pines in the western U.S. They go back as far as approximately 5,000 years.

It is alleged that one Norway Spruce in Sweden has been growing up repeatedly from the same root system for 9,000 years. That allegation, however, depends on the Satanic delusion that carbon dating of the root system is reliable.

So, you blind followers of evolutionist Darwinism: Where are all the over-6000-year-old trees ?????

GOTCHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

"In any case, it can only date fossils, not rocks or planets.
There are other methods that are used."

Sorry Keith you have it backwards. Carbon dating can only date plant and animal materials or remains from the death of the plant or the animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:25 PM

"the passing of oral and written history down generations is testable and observable in living memory."

Have you ever heard of a game called "Chinese Whispers"?

Nuff said!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:51 PM

pete and Ham are not likely to pull that one frogprince, as they already have used the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in their explanation of the great kangaroo migration from Ararat to Adelaide.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:59 PM

"... the great kangaroo migration from Ararat to Adelaide."

It wasn't too hard- they did it in several hops....



Ok...got my hat, dodging carbon-laden missiles as I leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:05 PM

you must have learned that the rate of radioactive decay of an element doesn't change unless God tells it to.

Yes, Wacko, you know that, I know that, but it is a point consistently raised by creationists in order to undermine the validity of dating by radio-isotope. In my view it is a perfectly good challenge (innocent from children, disingenuous from creationists, but still a troubling question) and it needs a better response than "it doesn't change unless God tells it to". So tell pete where he's wrong. Throw evidence at the bugger!

(Oh God, what have I asked...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM

carbon dating only works with biological samples, not rocks or planets.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:16 PM

http://mudcat.org/member/EntryForm.cfm

Your feedback has been noted Mr. Shaw.


Your attempt at humor has also been noted.

Better luck next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:22 PM

I hate to tell you this, Keith, but Wacko has you by the balls here. Even your "biological materials" is open to question, as some may consider chalk and limestone to be "biological materials", and there are examples not far from you near Hertford that are over 65 million years old. That's over a thousand times beyond the useful scale of radiocarbon dating.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

"biological samples" is what I meant. The substantive is unaffected.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:34 PM

You claim to have the ability to read complex sentences

You're lying, Wackers. Such a claim has never passed my lips. I told you before, wazzock: I have trouble understanding the plot of The Adventures Of Spot The Dog. The only "complexity" in your sentences lies in the difficulty you give us in having to mentally process your quaint grammar and sentence construction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:46 PM

Sorry Keith, I misread. You don't have it backwards. But it can't really be used to date fossils.

I imagine that you meant dead plant and animal materials from the point of death from the point the plant or animal has died.

Its all covered in theSnail's Oxford U link.

Sorry about the mixup. My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

"You're lying, Wackers. Such a claim has never passed my lips. I told you before, wazzock: I have trouble understanding the plot of The Adventures Of Spot The Dog. The only "complexity" in your sentences lies in the difficulty you give us in having to mentally process your quaint grammar and sentence construction. "

Do you drink when you post?

http://mudcat.org/member/EntryForm.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:13 AM

I'll beat Steve to it.

Do you post when you drink?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:09 AM

I think that's a fair question. Drinking gives posters an unfair advantage, and we need to monitor it, sort of like the Olympics or bicycle racing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:11 AM

Well, whited sepulchre Wacko, we've had this sort of thing before, haven't we? If your lying, misrepresentations and sarcasm don't work for you, you can always, as the last resort of the desperado you truly are, accuse someone you disagree with of drinking, taking drugs or being mentally ill or in need of therapy. I suggest that what you have just done is a far worse breach of those "rules" you keep preaching at us than anything the rest of us have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:14 AM

You claim to have the ability to read complex sentences

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us when I said this.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:32 AM

Sorry Steve, My mistake, obviously you have no such ability and you are honest about your handicap.


Sorry if I offended you when I asked if you were drinking. It was an honest question.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:41 AM

Do Christians have problems understanding complex reality? Looking at yer Jerk?

Just wondered, what with replacing it with something so limiting, so basic and so unimaginative that it can fit in a book. If the book is so good, how many stars does it get on Amazon?

Four. Four and a bit for one printing to be fair.

You'd think it could get five if it were anything like its fans claim. Curiously, the Q'ran gets about the same rating.

The latest Ian Rankin novel however gets five stars. I wonder which ends up on my Kindle?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:56 AM

I forget which poet said this, and whether these lines are quite right, but they resonate with me anyway:

"He was too big to be nailed to a cross
But still they tried to crush him between the pages of a black book."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:01 AM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:41 AM

...several hops... get it? Several hops! Hahahaha........

oh, never mind... carry on with your jousting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:16 PM

I reckon that if Max meant the words Jack uses, he got it wrong.

You can't debate in the abstract without getting argumentative. At least it would be bloody boring if you could.

You can't educate the colonies without being just a wee bit snooty, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM

thankyou ,keith..very fair of you, and snail for link that mentioned complications. the argument just hinges on whether the effects of the year long upheaval of the flood would be sufficient to account for the extra "read"" years". obviously most of you will say it is not, but are quite happy to conjecture that totally impossible things happened.
bill ,and jack were apparently looking to radio carbon for their millions of years, but even steve corrected that idea.
and there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored, but I expect eventually it will be acknowledged, just as soft tissue in supposedly millennia old bone once was denied.. seems jack and stu agree to the circular reasoning of .......because we "know" they are 60 and more millions of yr old therefore soft tissue can last that long!.
bill- just to clarify...yes I believe the genealogies are accurate, but I think it a perfectly reasonable belief.      even ,for sake of argument there were errors, as in your family research, there were a margin of error in genesis, it still pans out as man created only thousands of years ago. I presume you think your ancestral records essentially trustworthy.
what evidences are they, shimrod?
have you read greatest hoax on earth yet?
as to your other question...I have enough to counter without extra challenges.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:46 PM

You certainly do have enough to counter pete. Reality can be a bugger of a challenge eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM

" ... there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored,"

Who is censoring scientific data, pete? Are they the same people who, between them, have devoted millions of man-hours to the development of modern science - just so they can discredit the Bible?

You know, I used to be paranoid - but now I know they're out to get me!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM

there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored

Well pete, I have highlighted for you the weasel words (google it) in that sentence. Apprise us immediately of these "reports" and tell us how you know they've "been censored". You're just a snivelling liar, aren't you, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:44 PM

You are being very unfair, Messiah S. He doesn't know he is lying. I have just had a lovely 4 days with my 3 and 4 year old grandsons. Their reasoning is identical. You just need to treat him with love and, when the occasion warrants, make him sit on the naughty step.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 06:36 PM

For once, I have to agree with Steve, pete is lying about what I said.

Bill said carbon14 was good for dating up to 70,000 years, I said it was good up to 68,000, we both said that those figures are more than 6,000

Pete, you can cut a stick in half, put one in water and one in a dry place and compare the results after a year, have them tested for carbon 14 dating If the one in salt water appears to be thousands of years older, you can win the Nobel Prize in Creation science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

Accusing someone of outright lying is serious. I offer Pete **corrections** of what seem to be incorrect remarks regularly, but I doubt he engages in outright lying. He is a victim of his mindset where, perhaps unconsciously, he rationalizes, distorts & misunderstands the remarks of others. Pete believes in a narrow religious view which requires him to doubt even widely accepted science.

(sorry Pete, but that's as close as I can come to giving you the benefit of the doubt about some points. Example: you said "...bill ,and jack were apparently looking to radio carbon for their millions of years"... but I very specifically did NOT say that. I said they change to another type of "**radiometric dating** using the rocks where the fossils are found". I even gave a link to the details. "Radiometric" is a wider term, and in this case uses minerals 'near' the fossils. It is NOT radiocarbon. You missed my point, and in the process, missed the scientific point.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:56 AM

" ... as to your other question[s]...I have enough to counter without extra challenges."

But they're just teensy-weensy questions, pete. Just to refresh your memory, here they are again:

Why do you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)?

Just 'yes' or 'no' answers would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:32 AM

Interesting letter in The Independent this morning about climate change.

The contributor pointed out the recent UK floods etc and asked what deniers of climate change had to say? The interesting part was a throwaway line that said that society learned to stop taking creationists seriously a long time ago, so why do we still entertain climate change deniers? Both can be dangerous in their own way if we take them seriously.

Not wanting to thread drift to climate change, but interesting to read a view that nobody takes creationists seriously, and puts them in the same cave as the bogey man, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. On a subject nothing to do with superstition, but using them as an extreme example of talking bollocks and craving respectability.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:46 AM

"Nobody takes them seriously". That's tricky: even if 99.99% of people dismiss them, it is obviously the case that if they get into the right positions, such as Education Boards in the case of creationism, or BBC-standard-spokesmen, like Nigel Lawson on climate change, then they can have effects far out of proportion to the number of people who agree with them. To that extent, they need to be taken very seriously indeed.

On the other hand, there was a post earlier where someone was implying they were a threat to science in toto: that seems to be wildly over-stating the risks, even if, as the poster suggested, the level of scientific understanding in the general population is very low. I am sure we have all heard breathtaking statements from people who you would expect better of (my favourite, from someone with a humanities degree, was that the wind was caused by trees waving their branches...), but there are reasons why society and business need a good number of scientists that are, I feel, more powerful long term than a few people on an education board.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 09:52 AM

Pete's confused again. Radiometric dating has been correlated across a range of isotopes and carbon is one of these with, as has been mentioned, a relatively short half-life.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 10:10 AM

There are isotopes of carbon.
Carbon is not an isotope.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:16 AM

>>From: Bill D - PM
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

Accusing someone of outright lying is serious. I offer Pete **corrections** of what seem to be incorrect remarks regularly, but I doubt he engages in outright lying. He is a victim of his mindset where, perhaps unconsciously, he rationalizes, distorts & misunderstands the remarks of others. Pete believes in a narrow religious view which requires him to doubt even widely accepted science. <<


Here is my case the pete is lying.

Bill, pete said that you and I were saying that carbon dating can be used to date things in "deep time." So where did the idea come from that we were saying that? Steve was agreeing with me that you can't use carbon dating to date fossils. pete must have made it up. Or he pretended to know something that he didn't know and presented that pretended knowledge as fact. Either way, he bore false witness. Pretending to be innocent only lasts so long. pete has eaten the fruit which is the knowledge of good and evil. He is attempting to make us believe things he knows not to be true. He is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:20 AM

"Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. On a subject nothing to do with superstition, but using them as an extreme example of talking bollocks and craving respectability."

How can Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy crave anything? Or "talk bollocks"?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:30 AM

I think they start by reading the whole post. Then they consider the context. Then they see if there is anything they can contribute themselves that might improve on the position of not replying.

Clever buggers these tooth fairies, not to mention Santa.

I bet they're not creationists, even though their pretend existence requires it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:42 AM

There is certainly a strong connection between CHRISTmas and Santa. Did you know that "santa" is Spanish for "Saint?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:29 PM

aww, Jack... I see Pete's use of "deep time" terminology as just his shorthand for a concept he doesn't believe in anyway. To him, anything over 7000 years is a fantasy.

He misunderstood the idea that not all radiometric dating is radiocarbon...(probably didn't even read the link I offered). He believes (MUST believe in order to maintain his thesis) that all presumed dates of millions of years are based on errors, therefore ANY idea that you & I present about such dating is defined according to that "deep time" phrase.
If you want to suggest that Pete is in effect 'lying to himself' first by ignoring basic data & research... *shrug*... I see that, just as I see various far-right-wing politicians in the US 'lying to themselves' about Obama, abortion, guns, 'rights', race... etc. They, like Pete, have a basic attitude they feel they MUST project, and it's hard to know absolutely whether they **truly believe** that nonsense, or are just using it in a calculated way.

Pete has, for several years, remained basically consistent and calm although careless in his reading and phrasing, and I only continue to debate him because he seems to me to be honest.

(I DO wish Pete had a membership so I could say certain things privately...how about it, Pete?)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

Pete has, for several years, remained basically consistent

Absolutely!. Consistently wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:52 PM

In the US, Creationists and Fundamentalists have significant political influence, and they have powerful lobbying organizations that work to influence not only science education, but scientific and medical research, and even medical treatment.

The idea of "Intelligent Design" has been advanced by an organization called The Discover Institute, which was founded by Bruce Chapman, who served in the Reagan White House. It was created as part of "The Wedge Strategy", which is a well funded public relations effort which the Wikipedia articles says is "to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values."

Things may be different across the pond, but here in the US, the threat to science is not only very real, it is well armed and well funded.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:55 PM

Fine Greg... we knew that.

Jack.. I've been doing a search and find articles such as this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/

In it they note that 'deeptime' is the commonly used term to refer to geologic time when it is accepted as being millions & billions of years.

Pete, I think, is just referring to that concept (a mistaken one in his view) when he characterizes our view.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM

Thanks for the 'heads-up', Stim. These are, indeed, dangerous people. So far, they don't appear to have too much influence here in the UK. Nevertheless, they do appear to have succeeded in brainwashing at least one hapless wretch - who, by the way, is not really interested in the evidence for evolution (otherwise he would have read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by now).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:43 PM

Bill, pete accused you of saying that you tried to say that carbon dating can be used to prove that dinosaurs existed 65,000,000 years ago and snottily dismissed you as being dumber that "even Steve."

If he knew better. He was lying. If he didn't know better he lied by pretending to know what he was talking about. Either way, he is not honest. He is playing a game, Ken Ham's game, where rule one is spew Bullshit, rule two, when you are cornered, feign innocence.

He is polite. He is not honest.

pete, 70,000 is more than 6,000, there is no known process whereby a year underwater can make 6,000 year old biological material look like it has spent 70,000 years in a dry place. If you want to, you can scientifically test that for a few hundred dollars. So could Ham.

You need a stick, a bucket, some water and some money for lab fees.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 04:45 PM

bill,- without re-reading all the posts, it would seem that I did confuse what you were saying about dating methods other than radiocarbon. it was certainly not deliberate, and I confess to probable carelessness there. also, I did not read that particular link, though I very often do look at them.
concerning other methods, ie those used to date rocks , these also rely on unproven assumptions about the past of any particular sample.   usually only one method may be used ,but if more than one is used the result is likely to be widely divergent dates. and even when rock formed in living memory is dated the result, amusingly ,can be millennia old!.
the details of the radio carbon in dino bones can be found on CMI but I don't know how to do a link. I seem to remember it was on you tube, on which a presenter talked about and cited the findings of the researcher concerned. it was presented at a secular conference and the talk was initially on the programmes schedule, but afterwards it mysteriously disappeared.
already observational science is being denied in the case of soft tissue finds and when radio carbon limits exceeded, become more common knowledge, I suppose evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control on that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

"I suppose evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control on that too. "

Because everyone is evil and deluded besides those trying to fit that data to the book?

Why haven't you answered my point about being able to prove one way or the other the effect of flood waters on carbon dating?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:44 PM

" ... usually only one [dating] method may be used ,but if more than one is used the result is likely to be widely divergent dates."

Examples from the scientific literature, please pete (not creationist websites).

By the way, are all scientists deluded or are they engaged in a gigantic conspiracy? You keep dodging these questions, don't you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:30 PM

"..concerning other methods, ie those used to date rocks , these also rely on unproven assumptions about the past of any particular sample."

Pete... that is a double error in one sentence. They are not really 'assumptions', they are DATA, based on proven science, which are used in order to describe the 'past' of the sample!
Your continued insistence on contradictory data being associated with *some*specific samples is just a misunderstanding about how the analysis is done, plus an insinuation that this is common... it isn't! Most geologic samples do NOT have mixed results, and those which do can be examined by scanning electron microscope and in other ways to determine HOW various media became co-mingled. (I once found a piece of nut shell in a candy bar and almost broke a tooth. It made me 'careful' about eating candy with nuts, but I didn't suspect the basic procedures of the company. Sometimes, odd things get mixed due to accidents, but we can still analyze them. )

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 08:28 PM

Oh..Pete... don't read my last post! It is #666!

um...never mind

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:03 AM

Ya know, I've seen this movie before; Pete is just channelling Matthew Brady.


Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!

Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the capacity to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth? The power of his brain to reason. What other merit have we? The elephant is larger; the horse is swifter and stronger; the butterfly is far more beautiful; the mosquito is more prolific. Even the simple sponge is more durable. But does a sponge think?

Matthew Harrison Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!

Henry Drummond: But do you think a sponge thinks?

Matthew Harrison Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!

Henry Drummond: Do you think a man should have the same privilege as a sponge?

Matthew Harrison Brady: Of course!

Henry Drummond: [Gesturing towards the defendant, Bertram Cates] Then this man wishes to have the same privilege of a sponge, he wishes to think!

Matthew Harrison Brady: Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the book of Proverbs. "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

Matthew Harrison Brady: But your client is wrong. He is deluded. He has lost his way.

Henry Drummond: It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, Mr. Brady.

Matthew Harrison Brady: I do not think about things I do not think about.

Henry Drummond: Do you ever think about things that you DO think about?

Matthew Harrison Brady: I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice the futures of their children to the gods of science. And what are their rewards? Confusion and self-destruction. New ways to kill each other in wars. I tell you gentlemen the way of science is the way of darkness.

Matthew Harrison Brady: I am more interested in the 'Rock of Ages' than I am in the age of rocks.

Henry Drummond: The Gospel according to Brady! God speaks to Brady, and Brady tells the world! Brady, Brady, Brady, Almighty!

Matthew Harrison Brady: All of you know what I stand for - what I believe! I believe in the truth of the Book of Genesis! Exodus! Leviticus! Numbers! Deuteronomy! Joshua! Judges! Ruth! First Samuel! Second Samuel! First Kings! Second Kings! Isaiah! Jeremiah! Lamentations! Ezekiel!... & Etc.................

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:16 AM

Why am I thinking "Spencer Tracy?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:21 AM

He left out... as far as he went.. (from memory)Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon....

but in a play, they have to avoid boring the audience TOO much. (Proverbs 13:3)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 12:53 PM

"I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice the futures of their children to the gods of ... money."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM

"I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars (of money)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM

Pete has, for several years, remained basically consistent

Absolutely!. Consistently wrong.

Consistently wrong. Consistently blind. Consistently stupid. Consistently insulting. Consistently dishonest. "Evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control..." Yeah, right. Consistently indulged by pious types who really ought to know better and who serve only to perpetuate his baleful presence on this board.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 05:55 PM

I'd like to be alone for five minutes with the stupid arse that perpetuates your own whinging baleful presence on this board.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:02 PM

bill,- seems we are not understanding each other here. I read and reread what I said, and I still cant see what is amiss, other than your disagreement with it. so I will try again to be clearer.
no argument about the data as such.    as I understand it no one as far as I know ,argues with the accuracy of the labs , say, in giving radio carbon results. these results however are given in an interpretive framework that assumes there are no other conditions that may affect the result. as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result.
I very much doubt that the cases of contradictory dating is as rare as you believe it, but even a significant amount ought, I would have thought, be cause for rethinking , for a truly impartial [if such can truly be] scientist.
one example of geological anomaly was given by ham, of wood with radio carbon buried in lava lain rock dated far too old by deep time geology. I seem to remember that Nye suggested it had slid beneath, but ham made clear that it was encased in it. how does that scanner fix that?
I understand that coal consistently gives the same result, and diamonds, which have extremely little chance of contamination.
shimrod wants me to cite scientific literature, outside of creation organizations, and probably I could, but am not inclined to take time indulging his fallacy of dismissing information because it comes from a source he rejects. it should also be added that the creationists get their info from secular science sources, often, or their own scientists have sometimes investigated where evolutionists have not done so as they would assume it would be pointless looking, as they already "know" their story is true.
I recall, that it was only accidentally that mary swittzer made the dino discovery of soft tissue, and had a lot of resistance for some time. she asked one detractor what would convince him, and he answered "nothing". well, I suppose he was at least being honest!
I will answer one of shimrods questions. are all scientists deluded?
no, there are many that don't buy into the man made myth of abiogenesis, and microbes to man evolution!.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:36 PM

"There are isotopes of carbon.
Carbon is not an isotope."

Go away K A! He knows that, and nit picking is supposed to be beneath the infallible among us.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:40 PM

"How can Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy crave anything? Or "talk bollocks"?"

You can only get away with a certain amount of nit picking Jack, before everyone realises that the nit is you.

Don't join KA of H in this.

You are better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:37 PM

I'd like to be alone for five minutes with the stupid arse that perpetuates your own whinging baleful presence on this board.

?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,I was talking to Musket,
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:47 PM

the "rational one" who doesn't believe in anything. I was also mostly joking.

The nit that is worth picking depends on whose nit is being picked.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:33 PM

Well Pete, your 'explanation': "these results however are given in an interpretive framework that assumes there are no other conditions that may affect the result. as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result." is just simply labored obfuscation ....which you have gotten from people like Ham, who begins, as you do, with the notion that any lab results that contradict scripture MUST be flawed.
Very highly paid defense attorneys try to convince juries that their clients (whom everyone is sure are guilty) 'might' be innocent because some lab sample 'might' have been touched inappropriately by someone and 'might' have been contaminated. In legal matters, they don't have to be right about such speculations.... all they have to do is convince one or two jurors to vote their way!

I'm sorry Pete, but there are many, many, many more reasons to accept the radiometric readings than to reject them. But you are like that juror the clever lawyer needs to plant one seed of doubt in... you vote for what someone wants you to, or because you like the defendant. (In our famous O.J. Simpson murder case, 2 jurors admitted afterward that they had decided at the beginning they were NOT going to find him guilty, no matter what evidence was presented!)

If you cared to, you could find scientific explanations that clarify ALL the supposed dino DNA and mixed rock issues. I suppose I could too, but you'd just re-quote Ham or creation.com and tell me... again... of the same problems that are ONLY seen by the .001% of scientists who are willing to rhetorically twist data and lab results to suit their beliefs.

Pete... unlike 'certain' persons here, I don't question your honesty, but I am amazed at the way you cling to stuff that so few believe. You can have God and very old Earth too....(many Christians do!) you are just caught in this circular reasoning. You told me once(I've lost track of the thread) that you didn't originally believe that way, but were 'convinced' or 'educated' by a certain group. They may have given you comfort in some ways, but they took away a basic understanding of how we really process & analyze data.... it is really unfortunate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:52 PM

pete, I am sorry but I do not believe that you are being honest.

You are trying to make us believe that doubt about the science is proof that your side is correct. You know better. Bill makes a good point with the trial analogy. Bill is very very kind to you.

You are too clever to be as innocent as you pretend to be.

Ham thinks he is clever enough to trick people into coming to Jesus. Do you? A faith that depends on slander science and cherry picking the Bible is a very shallow one.

I have no problem with you believing in Genesis. I don't mind you thinking God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

I don't care if they are your lies or Ken Ham's. Please, please stop lying to us about things that you admit that you do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:53 PM

pete, I am sorry but I do not believe that you are being honest.

You are trying to make us believe that doubt about the science is proof that your side is correct. You know better. Bill makes a good point with the trial analogy. Bill is very very kind to you.

You are too clever to be as innocent as you pretend to be.

Ham thinks he is clever enough to trick people into coming to Jesus. Do you? A faith that depends on slander science and cherry picking the Bible is a very shallow one.

I have no problem with you believing in Genesis. I don't mind you thinking God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

I don't care if they are your lies or Ken Ham's. Please, please stop lying to us about things that you admit that you do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:24 AM

"I will answer one of shimrods questions. are all scientists deluded?
no, there are many that don't buy into the man made myth of abiogenesis, and microbes to man evolution!."

"Many" scientists, pete? Don't you mean the tiny minority of self-styled 'creationist scientists'? As these impostors are the only ones that you listen to, I suppose they may appear like "many" to you.
So, then, are all of the rest (the vast, vast majority) deluded or engaged in an epic conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:33 AM

An epic conspiracy to match the theory to the evidence rather than the "evidence" to the part book they choose to pretend is literal.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:47 AM

bill,- thanks first of all for the character ref. it is a strange irony that that an atheist [agnostic?] is charitable in his criticism but a Christian slanders another Christian.
I am off out now but plan to continue civilized discussion with you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM

In Re: Mr pete-


Here

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:09 PM

it is a strange irony that that an atheist [agnostic?] is charitable in his criticism but a Christian slanders another Christian.

Leaving aside whether such slander is real or not, there is no irony at all about who is charitable to who. How people actually behave is not a matter of what labels they choose to pin on themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:41 PM

A legal requirement to prove slander is that the alleged slanderer must believe that the accusation is false. Its the same defense that you use for your lies. Do you believe that I do not believe that you are spreading falsehoods?

Now that you know what I have told you about slander, to accuse me of it again would entail another lie.

That is the Truth of the Genesis creation story. Before man developed intelligence and morality, man was innocent of any action he took. But with knowledge comes responsibility. You cannot continue to claim ignorance of science after all of our sincere and patient efforts to educate you. Scientific debate cannot be honestly conducted without a basic knowledge of what science is.   Greg F's last link is very appropriate for this discussion.

It is extremely rude of you to figuratively cover your ears about what science is while constantly dipping into your well of pseudo-scientific, that is FAKE-scientific sounding nonsense.

It is dishonest for you to pretend that you consider that equal to science when you refuse to learn what science is.

You may think I am being less polite than Bill because Bill is being kind to you to appease your prejudices and save your feelings. That is probably true.

On the other hand. I would want someone to tell me if I was as clearly off base as you are. I cannot give you the comfort that Bill does. For one thing, I don't consider your purposely and dishonestly spreading nonsense to be a valid part of a civilized discussion. I believe that you are lying.
You have claimed ignorance far too many times to be credible. Willful ignorance is just another way to lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:01 PM

I'm interested to know if you consider me to be uncharitable, pete? After all, all that I tend to do, most of the time, is to ask you questions. I can't help noticing that, most of the time, you either ignore these questions, give evasive answers or change the subject. Under these circumstances, I find that my capacity for treating you in a charitble fashion is somewhat limited!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:10 PM

From my last post: "I can't help noticing that, most of the time, you either ignore these questions, give evasive answers or change the subject."

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins has reported that he has been subjected to these self-same ploys whenever he has attempted to discuss the theory of evolution with creationists. Do they teach you these tactics in Creationist Summer School, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:12 PM

Well... as I posted in some other thread months ago, I wish I had the opportunity sit down... perhaps in the Seven Stars pub... and have a beer and talk to Pete for a couple of hours. We could say more, in a direct face-to-face, and ask for clarifications of points and compare notes and perhaps break down a few misunderstandings.
I do NOT presume that either of us would likely convert the other... to or from... any Christian or skeptic viewpoint. I already know several people in 'real life' with whom I have occasional discussions about religion or politics or race. We have to be careful that we don't use insurmountable differences to 'judge' them as human beings.
In my life there have been only a couple of people that I could not talk to because of their tendency to treat difference of opinion as a personal flaw. I am sure I am lucky that it is ONLY 2-3.

It is a delicate thing to walk that line between wanting to gently critique someone's position and wanting to grab them by the collar and shake some sense into them ☺....

I keep returning to the Peanuts cartoon I have noted several times...most recently in this thread back on Jan. 23.

Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"


HOWEVER: To Pete and various others, my other favorite Peanuts cartoon makes a slightly different point:

Lucy, kneeling on the sidewalk says to Charlie Brown: "You know why that big black bug doesn't move? Because she's the queen bug! She just sits there, see, while the other bugs do all the work."

Charlie Brown gets down and looks closely: "That's not a bug, that's a black jelly bean."

Lucy, bending down and looking VERY closely: "By golly, you're right, Charlie Brown....I wonder how a jelly bean ever got to be queen?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

And, yes... Greg F's post IS relevant in this discussion. It is worth posting the synopsis:

"The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."

Now, I have little doubt that Pete would probably claim that it applies to us as well as himself... he has said as much several times, asserting that we ignore or miss the point of what Ham & other creationists offer. I am not sure how to go about explaining to Pete... or anyone else locked into such a position... how science works and what the rules are for analyzing & interpreting data.

I spent quite a bit of time a few years ago pointing out to *daylia* flaws in her arguments for Astrology... but she wanted to believe that it was accurate and relevant, whether it could be explained or not.
Today, there are many...way TOO many... who 'believe' that one race (always their own) is fundamentally superior to certain others. It eventually boils down to an emotional/psychological mindset. There is little one can do except strive to keep such viewpoints from being embedded in law and being used to affect the rights of those who do NOT hold such views.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:04 PM

no, shimrod, I don't think in those terms regarding you. I don't fully answer all your challenges, but remember I am one only, defending the biblical creation position against more of you. however if you actually present something that is strong evidence for your origins story, I will probably counter it, or possibly concede that I don't know the answer to it. I did at one time totally ignore your posts when you were foulmouthed but since adopting a more polite [ albeit maybe a little sneering!] tone I don't ignore you.   but now I shall add jack, to steve who I don't bother responding to.

bill-seems we shall go round in circles. is the science method not defined in terms of doing repeatable, testable, observable experiments. I really don't see how that can be any more than partially applicable at best, in respect to origins.
how can you insist that they are the same?
operational science can establish scientific findings because of repeated tests and observations yielding consistent results.
this is just not true of something like dating methods, or more precisely the interpretation of their results.
results are dismissed as wrong if they are at variance with the field work - itself being interpretive dating- and then there are a whole range of standard explanations for why it differs.
they may appeal to xenocrysts contamination, or that somehow else old "age" was inherited.
but when the creationist appeals to other factors, somehow that is inadmissible!
yes I got this info from CMI but the author is a geologist.
and I would have thought that dismissing such info because of the source was a fallacy of some kind!
what counts is coherency, and substance to truth claims.
and I would say again that even were it true that 99.9 of scientists were convinced evolutionist, that would not be proof in and of itself that it is true. the most have often been wrong before.
I was also challenged about decay rates, so I found an article on CMI by john woodmorappe entitled
billion-fold acceleration demonstrated in laboratory.
this cited various sources which I think were non creation.
and I would also say, as you inferred I would, that you have the notion that any lab results that contradict deep time belief must be flawed!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:36 PM

Well, chaps, an awful lot of hot air has been wasted here lately on pete. So let me waste just a little more, put as succinctly as I can possibly make it. Ahem:

He's a bloody waste of space. And he's laughing at you. Tell him where to get off.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:28 PM

"I did at one time totally ignore your posts when you were foulmouthed ..."

When was I ever f***ing foulmouthed, pete?!

" ... I would say again that even were it true that 99.9 of scientists were convinced evolutionist, that would not be proof in and of itself that it is true. the most have often been wrong before."

You can only make statements like that, pete, because you don't understand science and you don't understand the difference between science and unquestioning religious faith.

I might also point out that if 0.1% of scientists were 'unconvinced evolutionist' (whatever animal that may be!), it still wouldn't mean that the biblical account of creation is true or is any sort of viable alternative.

As for "strong evidence for [my] origins story" - it's all in Dawkins' book(s) - and he expresses it far better than I can. Of course, there are plenty of other books on evolution besides those written by Dawkins - but they're as good a place to start as any.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

pete, I believe that you have been refusing to answer my points because you have no answers to my points. I don't blame you for not responding to Steve. He doesn't make cogent points.



Please someone ask pete to read this.

Or post the link yourselves.

john woodmorappe poses way more questions than he answers with is theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 08:34 PM

I read most of that... but I also follow the 'Humphries' link to The Institution for Creation Research site.

In their explanation of their purpose and methods we find this:

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. "

Well, that's clear enough! It is also exactly what I argue is a logical fallacy of "assuming the consequent"... one sort of circular reasoning. If one does accept such premises, one must find fault with any science which dares to find anything contradictory.

As Pete says, we go round in circles. I'm getting a bit dizzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM

I don't blame you for not responding to Steve. He doesn't make cogent points.

OK, Wackers, I'll make a cogent point. You are a prince among twats. Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:13 AM

Regarding this statement:

"ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days

The point seems to be lost that the ICR is speaking on that issue, not God.

There is a rather old view that the Bible is inerrant, but our understanding of it is not. That would extend to the ICR and to Pete and his cronies.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:26 AM

Want to take another stab at it?

cogent
adjective \ˈkō-jənt\

: very clear and easy for the mind to accept and believe
Full Definition of COGENT
1
: having power to compel or constrain
2
a : appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:19 AM

"mary swittzer "

If you can't be arsed to even spell her name correctly, you are insulting her. Not very Christian is it.


" well, I suppose he was at least being honest!"

But he's not being a scientist. Was that detractor a scientist? Who was it exactly?


"as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result"

Dang! I bet they never thought of that!


"shim rod wants me to cite scientific literature, outside of creation organisations, and probably I could, but am not inclined to take time indulging his fallacy of dismissing information because it comes from a source he rejects."

Along with Shim I'd be interested to see your citations of peer-review literature. You're not indulging a fallacy, you're supporting your argument in the same way scientists do when they disagree on an issue. By NOT citing the literature, you are simply making uninformed statements with zero evidence to back them up.

Put up or shut up Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

pete, any scientist who has to invoke miracles in order to explain his/her observations should immediately abandon the title of 'scientist' - 'charlatan' or 'idiot' might be more apt under those circumstances! He/she should also wave goodbye to any prospect of his/her work being viewed favourably by the Nobel Committee ... TITANIC UNDERSTATEMENT ALERT!!!! ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

I was also challenged about decay rates, so I found an article on CMI by john woodmorappe entitled
billion-fold acceleration demonstrated in laboratory.

john woodmorappe is a grade school teacher in Chicago public schools using a fake name.

His "article" cited other sources, including a certain grade school teacher from Chicago, himself. But he completely misinterprets the results and his conclusion is nothing less than insane fantasy.

"Conclusion

This exciting demonstration that isotopic 'clocks' can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to creationist scholars. It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic 'clocks'. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open."

The finding that "isotopic 'clocks' can be accelerated at least a billion-fold" is not good news, when that acceleration occurs when heavy elements are heated to the point of plasma is far from good news to "creationist scholars" Its like saying that the ratio of of carbon 14 to carbon 12 can be changed by burning the sample to ash and reconstituting it with a star trek replicator set on "age the sample"

The article DOES not in any way address the problem of carbon 14 dating.

If God created everything in 6 days, isn't it more logical that he simply created all the fossils and biological remains with ratios of isotopes that make them appear to be the the ages that we detect rather than heating them to the point that the atomic bonds start to break down, but only for the isotopes he wants to age while presumably leaving alone the other elements in the rocks such as silicon then magically cooling them and putting back with nothing changed except isotope ratios. Yes Steve, I know that sounds awkward. But john woodmorappe's idea is very awkward.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:07 PM

ah, shimrod, but what you believe amounts to a miracle....but without a miracle maker.   creationists are in line with the law of causality.
and from that perpective alone, creation excels Darwinism as a viable alterntive.
bill-I,ve always said that creationists are upfront about their presuppositions, but thankyou for having looked up the sources.
evolutionists have their bottom life, but pretend that they are open to evidence , though I suspect that this is not always deliberate.
most are religiously committed to evolutionism, though a growing number are questioning the dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:16 PM

"creationists are in line with the law of causality."

Er, just what is the "law of causality" exactly? C'mon Pete, citation needed. Let's all be sure we're talking about the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:26 PM

"evolutionists have their bottom life, but pretend that they are open to evidence ,"

Please show evidence of 6 day creation.

"though a growing number are questioning the dogma."

Please give numbers.
Please give examples of dogma.

Please tell us why the creation theory about the flood changing carbon dating has not yet been proved or disproved by cutting a stick in half and sticking one half it in a bucket of rainwater for a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:29 PM

Ayn Rand?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:46 PM

Ah, so it's philosophical in nature, not a scientific law.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM

Pete- As I have said before, what creationists use as "bottom line" is essentially, basically different in kind and structure & method from what science uses. They use two entirely different concepts of knowledge.
Yes, science has a 'bottom line', but it is that more data & evidence is always useful and must be tested & integrated before being provisionally accepted.
Creationists bottom line is, as they say, and you agree, belief in a particular scriptural view.
If you cannot see the basic incongruity in deciding what the 'truth' will be before...or instead of... getting relevant data, I don't know what to say.
It is really rather an insult to honest scientists to suggest that their methodology is 'merely' one form of belief.... and I don't toss out words like 'insult' randomly. As I have said before, using 'belief' that way is an unfair twisting of language & definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:21 PM

"Yes, science has a 'bottom line', but it is that more data & evidence is always useful and must be tested & integrated before being provisionally accepted."


Perhaps it is worthwhile to point out that on the issues that pete is talking about, Creation, 500 foot wooden boats, supernatural wild animal wrangling, there were "theories" that were generally accepted which were replaced as scientific evidence was discovered. It is my understanding that much of the science and philosophy done in the relatively recent past up to the beginning of the 20th century was to that end.

Very intelligent religious people, people much smarter than Ken Ham and that science teacher from Chicago, looked at the evidence and found that the evidence backed up Darwin and the other "deep time" supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:27 PM

Yes, I too would like to know more about the "Law of Causality" - I confess, I've never heard of it. Let's assume, for a moment, that such a law exists and dictates that the Universe, and everything in it, must have a cause. Why, then, should I believe that that cause is described in an old book containing the translated, re-translated and mis-translated creation myths of a particular bunch of Bronze Age desert tribesmen?

"most are religiously committed to evolutionism, though a growing number are questioning the dogma."

To repeat Jack the Sailor's request: Please give numbers.
Please give examples of dogma.

Oh yes, are all scientists deluded or are they engaged in a gigantic conspiracy? You're STILL dodging these questions, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:09 PM

evolutionists have their bottom life

Nicely, if undeliberately, put. But at least they don't live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM

"Nicely, if undeliberately, put. But at least they don't live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do. "


You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:23 PM

pete - I can tell you exactly the evidence that would cause me to abandon my belief in evolution, and if it is shown to me, I truly will. If you can tell me what would cause you to disavow YEC, then our beliefs are equivalent. If you cannot, please stop comparing your beliefs to mine. As Bill D explains above (many times) you are making a comparison that is inappropriate and insulting.
Best wishes,
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Having been immersed in the various concepts of causality in several university courses in Philosophy, I can say that it is largely a matter of careful phrasing of ideas that seem obvious once clarified.

There are several categories of cause with sub-categories in a couple. (you can look up the details). The one that is really at issue is "remote cause", which refers to the last item in the chain when searching, but the first item when defining.
If you have a Ford, certain events make up the causal chain, with 'material' causes and 'formal' causes present in the process... but one can refer to Henry Ford as one 'remote' cause. He would not be a 'first' cause, because he didn't invent the automobile, and didn't invent metallurgy, and didn't drill for oil...etc... so defining remote causes is a matter of deciding how far you wish to push it.

So.... what is at issue is the formal, philosophical question posed explicitly by Martin Heidegger, William James... and many others.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

We can trace various events and chemical & physical reactions ...and even ideas... with some sort of success, but so far, no scientific way has been found to answer "Why is there something rather than nothing?" We have tests in physics and astronomy that say that the oldest things we can measure are about 14 billion years old, but neither cosmologists or theologians can explain *what came before*.
Here it becomes a matter of who 'needs' an answer, and who is content to just muse on possible answers. Arcane concepts in physics and cosmology are becoming way too boggling for most of us.... like me. But I don't require an answer to something that may not BE answerable.
Those who MUST have an answer simply assert "God did it." and avoid all that math. This is not only convenient, but it creates an entire industry of 'explicating' what God must have thought, done, avoided, planned ...and demanded of His creations. There are thousands of variations on the theological model(s)... and it many ways it is more satisfying and comforting than just shrugging and saying "I dunno..".

My favorite saying about the situation is: "From false premises, anything follows!"... meaning, once you choose and assert premises that 'may' be true... but 'may' be false, you can easily construct any set of answers... and people have done that ever since they were advanced enough to think about it.

Why is there something rather than nothing? *shrug* I dunno...and neither do you!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:46 PM

"Nicely, if undeliberately, put. But at least they don't live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do. "


You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Perhaps you could apprise me of the "personal information" I decided to share by dint of this post that caused you to issue your dire warning. You really can be such a pillock, can't you, Wackers! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

pete - I can tell you exactly the evidence that would cause me to abandon my belief in evolution, and if it is shown to me, I truly will. If you can tell me what would cause you to disavow YEC, then our beliefs are equivalent. If you cannot, please stop comparing your beliefs to mine. As Bill D explains above (many times) you are making a comparison that is inappropriate and insulting.
Best wishes,
Tim

Well, Tim, I seem to differ from both yourself and pete in that I don't see evolution as an area requiring my "belief". I too am a scientist, I have studied the evidence for evolution for many a long year and I find it to be overwhelming and utterly convincing (with gaps still, of course). I don't need to "believe" in it. I tend to leave belief to those persons who have ideas unsupported by evidence. That might make me sound a bit like Mr Spock, but I assure you that I still say "ouch" if I'm pinched.

(I'm fully with you really, of course!)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:08 PM

" live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do."

How could you possibly not have meant to be unkind and snooty when you said this. It put a very ugly picture in my mind.

I promise that I'll give you every possible benefit of the doubt if you can give me an explanation for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:13 PM

I was giving you credit for being able to ascertain which rules apply to you.

Here they are separated out out

Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

unkind and snooty.

I expect this was not meant kindly as well.

"You really can be such a pillock, can't you, Wackers! :-)"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:05 PM

Bad news for pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:12 AM

Thanks, Bill D, for the clarification. It's all very clear now!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:18 AM

Steve Shaw
I don't see evolution as an area requiring my "belief". I too am a scientist,

Previously (many times)
Evolution is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

From this article which I recommend anyone who does not know what theory actually means reads.

Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

By assigning these values, in a scientific context as they suggest, we can readily see that while gravity is indeed a theory, we can also rely on it to be true until disproved by experiment. Note, not by argument, opinion or any amount of philosophical discussion, but by experiment. By the same measure, evolution, while remaining a theory, can also be considered true.

I consider evolution to be the best theory available of how we got here. Until this theory is disproved by experiment I will also consider it to be true. Pretty much like gravity. Until someone proves it is not true and we all float off I will consider the theory of gravity to be true as well :-)

The final paragraph says If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory.

In that context, we can safely say that evolution is true with a tiny margin for error while, in a scientific context, creationism is not even a theory, can never be disproved by experiment and can never have any margin for error.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:07 AM

"evolutionists have their bottom life"

Benthic life, more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:25 AM

The following is for your benefit Pete. I will ask yo to read it and try to understand that, if you cannot show how your pronouncements fulfil the points below, what you are saying owes nothing to science.


Sound Science Crib Sheet

1.       What institution conducted the research? Research should be conducted by institutions, not by individuals currently or formerly associated with them. Also, try and establish that the institutions are respected and credible, with a history of doing sound scientific research.

2.       For whom was the research conducted? Much of the time, reputable institutes are given research grants by government, environmental and industry groups. These groups are hoping that studies will either prove or disprove a particular perception or point of view.

3.       For example, the Tobacco Institute may fund a lung cancer study to be performed by Johns Hopkins University. There is nothing wrong with this situation, as long as the funder exercises no control over the study's design, execution, results or conclusions.
      
4.          When did the study occur? Make sure that results are recent. Otherwise, it's possible that the conclusions have been superceded by more recent studies.

5.       What are the credentials of the people conducting the research? Medical research should include PhDs in the specific discipline being studied. Watch out for studies with "experts" whose credentials seem to be in fields that are not directly related to the research in question.

6.       Were results published in a respected scientific or medical journal that routinely conducts peer reviews? Look for names like Nature, Science, The Journal of the American Medical Association or The Lancet.

7.       Is the sample size large enough to be projectable? Studies of small samples are of dubious value.

8.       Was the sample selected properly? Try to make sure that bias is reduced through the use of properly matched test and control groups. Check the reports for sections discussing methodology and any potential problems relating to it.

9.       Did the study contain other methods to eliminate bias and confounding variables? Good studies go to great lengths to minimize the potential for error. They also go to great lengths to explain both what bias or errors may still exist.

10.       Are results consistent with the generally accepted body of research on the subject? Don't draw conclusions from single studies or ones that contradict the preponderance of available evidence.

11.       Are there other possible reasons for the relationship being discussed? This is a far bigger possibility than you might think! It is also another reason to not rely solely on the results of a single study.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:09 PM

Do note... it is probable that Pete's "bottom life" was just a typing error. I assumed he meant 'bottom line' and answered him as such. It doesn't add much to the discussion to make a lot... humorously or not... of the typo.

----------------------

Read Dave's post above..
.From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

...it says what needs to be said about as clearly as I have seen.

The point being... saying *I* have a theory and also that *you* have a theory does **NOT** mean they are essentially equal in stature or relevance. Misuse of the language to defend a a position may be the single most common cause of ignorance going!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:56 PM

ah- but was it a typo or a Freudian slip? THAT'S the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:02 PM

typo...slip...yes it should have been line.

gnome- I too will remain with what I see as logical, and squares with my worldview, [ just as you do ]until experimentation proves it wrong.
you say you will stay with evolutionism till experiments prove it wrong.
guess what....they already have ! biogenesis , organisms only observed to reproduce according to, and within the limits of their kind ,failure of attempts to produce life from non life.    the general observation that a sufficient cause is required for creation, despite bill dismissing it with a shrug. I am sure there are other things as well but that will do.
perhaps actual scientist can cite experiments [observable, repeatable] that validate evolutionism....and stop insulting scientists that question Darwin dogma!

bill- I will not let your assertion that evolutionism is science and creation isn't go unchallenged. both beliefs seek to claim science as validation. it is you who are unfairly twisting the use of words.
Darwin dogma encompasses abiogenesis, microbes to man, among other things, which are presented as fact but lacking evidence.
these are things that an atheist must believe because of an a priori commitment to naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence.
this is why I say it is a religious belief, ie a negative position respecting an intelligent first cause. these are positions held by faith, just as mine is ,in trusting the bible.

no shimrod, I cant give numbers, but there is a site listing Darwin doubters, or you could look up the altburg symposium [ think that's right], either way there is more dissent , I think, than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:29 PM

>>perhaps actual scientist can cite experiments [observable, repeatable] that validate evolutionism....and stop insulting scientists that question Darwin dogma! <<

pete so far you have quoted or cited no scientists, Ken Ham & john woodmorappe are qualified as middle school science teachers.

Musket and Steve Shaw are at least their equals. If your issue is credentials why don't you just ask them?

But your issue is whether or not they share your oddly narrow interpretation of the first few hundred words of Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:07 PM

Do note... it is probable that Pete's "bottom life" was just a typing error. I assumed he meant 'bottom line' and answered him as such. It doesn't add much to the discussion to make a lot... humorously or not... of the typo.

Christ on a bloody bike, Bill. You have just epitomised all that is wrong with US humour. I won't explain that because you won't get it, and, frankly, the moment has passed anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:52 PM

I think people on this side of the pond outgrow "bottom" jokes. Most of us anyway. But some of us have seen Benny Hill.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:05 PM

Ken Ham & john woodmorappe are qualified as middle school science teachers.

QUALIFIED? I hardly think so.

And whoever "qualified" them, if so, should be shot.

No wonder U.S. education is in the toilet.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:43 PM

I was suspended from Jr. High school for writing an essay on evolution in Vestal NY. My parents had to come for a conference before I was allowed back.

The teacher really held my feet to the fire for having written "Mammals like man and other animals..."

I was supposed to accept that man is not an animal.
I still don't accept that concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:47 PM

Ham Taught school in Australia.

woodmorappe teaches in Chicago. He has an MA in geology.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:58 PM

*I* have seen Benny Hill.. not recently, but it's good point, Jack. Seeing how a brit-joke was meant does not mean I find it funny, just as I don't appreciate the game of trading semi-serious insults as a 'good sport'.

-----------------

Pete..." both beliefs seek to claim science as validation."

Claims are easy... I can 'claim' to be a fine singer, but it might be that a survey of trained musicians would show a different outcome.
As I have said WAY too many times already, when creationists use scripture as their basic, fundamental premise, then look for and twist evidence to fit, they are not acting AS scientists!" It is kinda relevant that 99+% of trained scientists do NOT see faith-based 'science' as the way to decide important questions! Many of that 99% are, in fact, religious... but they see the physics and astronomy and DNA and radiometric dating as HOW God's creation proceeded.

And the same rule goes for asserting that scientists simple use "an a priori commitment to naturalistic causes," It is NOT a priori... it is derived from study and an inductive analysis of how science works. YOU are again trying to define terms in a way that only a tiny minority approve of. No one can prevent you indulging in this self-delusion, but you must realize you are swimming upstream in using words like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice. "Words mean exactly what I want them to... no less & no more"

Sorry Pete... but closing your eyes except when you are reading scripture only gets you a narrow view of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:08 PM

closing your eyes except when you are reading scripture only gets you a narrow view of reality.

Or, more likely, no view of reality whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:15 AM

" ... you say you will stay with evolutionism till experiments prove it wrong.
guess what....they already have ! biogenesis , organisms only observed to reproduce according to, and within the limits of their kind ,failure of attempts to produce life from non life."

So our knowledge of how living things evolved is incomplete. But, then, our knowledge of every other scientific field is incomplete. If we knew everything there would be no need for science! That's why there is no such thing as a 'creationist scientist'. No real scientist would claim to be in possession of absolute truth and then expend energy attempting to discredit the work of every other scientist. And yet again, I must remind you, pete, that if the Theory of Evolution is wrong that doesn't mean that the biblical account of creation is automatically right by default.

Oh yes, are all scientists deluded or are they engaged in a gigantic conspiracy? STILL no answers to these questions, pete!

Donuel, I'm shocked and appalled to learn of your experience in the US education system!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:50 AM

Like I said before. Trying to explain anything to Pete like talking to a three year old. It is difficult but eventually it may sink in. Or we may have to wait until he grows up.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:50 AM

From: Bill D - PM
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Thanks for this Bill, very interesting indeed.

"perhaps actual scientist can cite experiments [observable, repeatable] that validate evolutionism....and stop insulting scientists that question Darwin dogma! "

Here's one actual scientist who has posted links to papers that do exactly this, and indeed the Blount paper quoted in the Nye/Ham debate is pertinent to this subject. It's up to YOU to disprove the theory to the satisfaction of other scientists, not for them to convince you; this is what all of us engaged in actual research have to do. A theory has to be falsifiable, so get to it. For the hundredth time - find a horse in Cambrian sediments.


"I too will remain with what I see as logical, and squares with my worldview"

This is as perfect a demonstration of confirmation bias as you could ever hope to hear from a creationist. Thunderous applause!


"these are things that an atheist must believe because of an a priori commitment to naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence."

Are you sure about that? Methinks you might be getting confused here.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:48 AM

Stu
A theory has to be falsifiable

I was saying the same thing myself just the other day.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:35 AM

Steve Shaw,
I suspect that we disagree on just about nothing, except perhaps a quibbling difference on the meaning and use of the word "belief".
Epistemologically speaking (and rather butchering Plato), belief is synonymous with knowledge if the belief is "true" in the sense that the "believer" has reasonable and plausible evidence to support such belief. In that sense, pete's belief is not knowledge, but I am comfortable saying that I believe in evolution. I have seen plenty of evidence.

pete-
Here is the test of whether our beliefs are equivalent.
If you show me a trilobite and a mammal in the same rock formation, I will abandon my current "belief" in evolution, and adjust my beliefs to fit this new evidence.
Now, what would you need to see to make you abandon your belief in YEC?
Without a simple direct answer to this question, it is really pointless (for anyone) to have this discussion with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:44 AM

It goes a little deeper than that Actual, pete has yet to show a single piece of physical evidence that the Universe is as young as it is, no doubt because no such evidence exists.

All he and Ham have ever done is try to point out that the evidence that does exist is less than perfect. Then they make the logical leap to saying that less than perfect evidence is the same as no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:54 AM

"Then they make the logical leap to saying that less than perfect evidence is the same as no evidence."

They certainly do, Jack. But then they leap even further - in an utterly illogical direction - and claim that God must have done it and the biblical account of creation must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:13 PM

"They certainly do, Jack. But then they leap even further - in an utterly illogical direction - and claim that God must have done it and the biblical account of creation must be true. "

I was thinking in terms of the science only.

I don't think it is possible to prove that there is or isn't a God.

I don't think it is possible to prove whether or not God created the Universe, whereas you can prove, even assuming that he does exist (a huge if from your point of view, I am sure) that he didn't do it in six literal days as we know them. That proof is in the first few hundred words of Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:32 PM

If you want to see an example of conservative religion in the USA, listen to this 5 minute report by Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/cpac-boots-atheist-group-170746435929

(It is about atheists, Thomas Jefferson, and the conservative, religious mindset.... and it is an amazing)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

Not sure how my parenthetical remark ended so strangely...I meant to say it is an amazing example of ignorance of history, but also the impulse to herd everyone into one pen where ONLY one message is permitted. Sadly, we have dozens of current members of the US Congress who are at least as far out on the religious limb as the infamous Tony Perkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:10 PM

Now, what would [pete] need to see to make you abandon your belief in YEC?

Obviously, an act of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Peteseser from seven stars link
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM

Seems I need to clarify my position once more.   I have not said that the evidence proves genesis, but is ,I believe consistent with it. Best I heard, experimental science ,for example ,expects soft tissue to disappear way sooner than millions of years past.. Claiming gaps of knowledge is simply begging the question. The refusal to trust the findings of experimental science to protect evolutionism strikes me as being philosophically committed to naturalism, not because the evidence demands it.                   Well ,actual, I suppose if there actually were the gradulated fossil evidence that Darwin expected I would certainly have a lot less confidence.    And what does it prove if a trilobite and a horse is not found together ?. I would say it might be possible but it would not be in the expected order of burial as the flood prevailed.
Bill...by the same token,the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either!      And to refer to Gould again.....the idea of the totally impartial scientist is self serving myth.                               Stu.....I seem to remember that blounts paper was arguing the toss as to what mechanism provided citrate absorption in E. coli. Lemkis experiments hardly demonstrate microbes to man evolution....just adaption. After all those generations ,we find that E. coli has turned into...e coli!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM

Pete, your "clarification" isn't parsing the evidence, it is grasping at straws.

Now please tell us something useful, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM

by the same token, the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either

I agree. But that is not what happens, so it is a meaningless point. A scientist does not look for information to prove a hypothesis, s/he looks for evidence to disprove the hypothesis. That's not playing with words, it is a most fundamental distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM

"I have not said that the evidence proves genesis,"

You and Ham are arguing that your version of Genesis account is a competing scientific theory on a par with what you patronizingly call "Darwinism" and "evolutionism." You have presented zero evidence to support that claim. I believe that is because there is no such evidence. The best you seem to be able to come up with is "Creation Scientists" can claim.

If Creation scientists are scientists are scientists they can experiment and test their assumption. Rather than assuming that it is possible that the "flood event" could have caused carbon dated items to look 70,000 years old and dry, the could immerse similar items today and see if they get similar results.

Rather than speculate that a year of flooding could some how could have laid down millions of layers of fossils each layer from the bottom containing more and more complex animals they could break a dam of a lake that has existed for a year and see if that has happened.

Obviously all of your speculations and Mr. Ham's are based on the assumption that God is Omnipotent and can do what he wants. That is fine. Few will argue with that. The problem comes when you and Mr. Ham pretend to have a special knowledge, that others do not, because you claim to have special scientific knowledge gleaned from the first few hundred words of the Bible. This is especially dishonest in Mr. Ham's case since he has dismissed the credibility of other books in the Bible out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:22 PM

DMcG nails it.
"It is not possible to prove all swans are white by counting white swans, but it is possible to disprove all swans are white by counting one black swan."
-Karl Popper

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

>>"It is not possible to prove all swans are white by counting white swans, but it is possible to disprove all swans are white by counting one black swan."
-Karl Popper"<<

Isn't that what Ham and pete believe they are doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:29 PM

Isn't that what Ham and pete believe they are doing?

"Believe" they are doing, or are ACTUALLY doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:47 PM

I stand by the question as asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:53 PM

to echo another post...

(BTW... did anyone watch the Lawrence O'Donnell video? )

<>"...the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either!"

But.. I just said very clearly... that is NOT what scientists do! They do NOT believe anything a priori. Even the scientific method itself is a concept derived from various ways of looking at evidence. Then, it is tested by USING it and seeing if predicted results agree with actual results.
People who claim the name of 'scientist', but who readily admit that they evaluate everything in terms of agreement with scripture (one scripture among many) are acting as apologists or as rhetorical theologians who are committed to one theory, no matter what other evidence is discovered.

It won't wash, Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:01 PM

Ah, but then Jack, we're returning to the mists o "belief", delusion and fairytale as opposed to the realm of scientific and/or objective fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

sn't that what Ham and pete believe they are doing?

That's a perfectly fair question, so it deserves a straight answer. In my view, that may be what they believe they are doing, but if so, their belief is based on a misunderstanding since they are not carrying out experiments aimed at disproving evolution or anything else connected with young earth ideas (such as the stick-in-a-bucket experiment proposed above). What they do instead is search the literature for things scientists declare they can't currently explain and leap up and down shouting "Look, look, science can't explain this". But they ignore *why* it can't be explained: maybe the project was exploring something like an igneous outcrop and an observation about a nearby sedimentary bed was observed but there was no funding or time to investigate (I'm not a geologist so apologies if my example is nonsense, but you get the idea I hope.). Or maybe it was a measurememeasurement of something but there's not enough measurements for statistically significant results. Or maybe the PhD student just ran out of time to investigate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:34 PM

Sorry about some oddities above - working by phone and the post went before I was ready. But the gist is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:50 PM

Thanks DMcG ,
That is exactly what I was looking for. I wanted you to explain the black swan principle before pete had a chance to turn it around.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:30 PM

I watched the video.

Lawrence O'Donnell, is smart and logical. The arguments are good, but, I think they are too complicated for anyone likely to pay to attend CPAC.

Coulter, Palin a D'Sousa keep it simpler.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:30 PM

Yes, again DMcG nails it again. I would further point out that Popper is saying that science must be done by *disproving* hypotheses - particularly your own.
I see no evidence that pete or Ham are attempting to disprove YEC, ergo they are surely not doing science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

ergo they are surely not doing science.

Ah, but then they don't "believe" in science.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:41 PM

So in essence, real science is trying to find the log in your own eye rather than pointing to the spec of sawdust in someone else's?

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:48 PM

"...to find the log in your own eye rather than pointing to the spec of sawdust in someone else's?"\


I never met a phor I didn't like ;<)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM

You betcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:39 PM

The most biblical description of science I have ever heard!
Can I please use that?
Never mind... I am going to!
Thanks Sir Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:42 PM

I would be honored if you did use it sir! :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:50 AM

I might use it myself. A company on Amazon will print whatever you like within 500 characters and put them onto a roll of toilet paper. Each sheet.

Slightly cheaper, you can buy pre printed ones. I bought two rolls of Thatcher's "There's no such thing as society"

Seriously, that wasn't too bad Jack. Keep it up and use the level in some of the other threads....





Three ply and kind to your arse. What isn't there to like?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:50 AM

Three ply and kind to your arse.

That's all I am asking you to do. If you see someone acting like and arse, be kind. Be the toilet paper with the ironic remark.

Don't be sandpaper. Sandpaper is not good for arses. It makes them red and angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

Dmcg and bill........asserting that scientists are totally impartial......unless of course they are creationist, it seems!.........is totally contrary to the quotes from Gould and lewontin, and wishful thinking on your part.    And you are still appealing to yet to be discovered data to validate Darwinist dogma, rather than question the framework in light of observable,testable,repeatable science.   Interesting quote from popper.   Fact is ,creationists have counted a lot more than one black swan. And was,nt it popper who said that evolution is non falsifiable?   Whoever it was, I agree. It is so elastic that it can be stretched to accommodate any contrary findings, even to the extent of shelving observably validated operational science.    Whether actual would ditch evolutionism should a mammal and trilobite be found together, I don't know, but I,m sure most evolutionists will attempt a rescue.    If you sideline the evidence now, you will probably continue to do so if your challenge is met in that specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

God, I'm suffering 'ere from excessive associationism...arse...bog paper...logs...laying logs...Wacko...arse (have I mentioned arse?)... Wacko...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:05 PM

"Operational science" would be exposing one biological sample, say half a stick, to water for a year and comparing it to say, the other half of the stick, kept on say, Mr Ham's desk, to see if your theory (speculation) about how carbon dating data was magically aged by "the flood" has any validity. Please tell us why you or Mr. Ham have not done this but you continue to put forward your speculation as if it were science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Actual
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:46 PM

Meaningless post pete

You TOTALLY sidestepped the question.

Let's all ignore until answered, 'kay?

Okay- all can decide.

I am ignoring until answered. Well pete? Cat (unevolved divinely created) cat got your tongue?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Actual
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:01 AM

Btw
Evidence is not sidelined.
It is incorporated.
And yes, scientific understanding is elastic,
That's the whole damn point!
That is why your inelastic views are NOT science.
Sheesh.
Useless talking to you.
Buh bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:42 AM

"Fact is ,creationists have counted a lot more than one black swan."

No they haven't! What they habitually, and obsessively do, has best been described by DMcG above:

"What they do instead is search the literature for things scientists declare they can't currently explain and leap up and down shouting "Look, look, science can't explain this". But they ignore *why* it can't be explained:"

They then make an absurd leap by implying that evolutionary science MUST be wrong and the biblical account of creation MUST be right! Absurd poppycock!

Anyway, pete let's get back to the questions that you've been studiously ignoring for ages but, I believe, lie at the heart of this 'debate': Are the vast majority of the world's scientists deluded or are they engaged in a vast conspiracy? I'm sure you have an opinion on these questions - so why won't you share these opinions with us?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:49 AM

With respect, pete, I never claimed scientists are impartial. They aren't, either individually or collectively. But 'the system' is designed to minimise the effects of that. Peer review, for example, is specifically about eliminating lack of impartiality in an individual and there are notable examples where the collective view changed as a result of evidence.

Remember the whole of science is based on two fundamental observations

(A) we do not know everything
(B) what we do know can be shown to be wrong by new evidence

We recognise that and so have built a system that is able to improve despite our inadequacies.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

By the way, if anyone really wants to understand the white swans/black swans business, they could do worse than read this Wiki article on Bayes Theorem, though it might prove a strain if you haven't looked at maths for a little while.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:00 AM

Shimrod, Perhaps you missed it when pete "explained" that "Darwinism" is a faith and that all of those scientists are religious zealots clinging to their beliefs. Yes I know it is nonsense. But it is genius nonsense. The angrier we get and more offended, the more he appears to be right. That is one of the reason I have tried to get certain very angry vilifiers of pete to tone it down. I am not saying this to get you to tone it down. You are being perfectly reasonable. But I do hope that you find it useful to keep in mind that pete may well think that you are the religious nutter, and that he is the one being rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM

You may have a point, Jack. I've never thought, for a moment, that he was right though.

Mind you, hasn't this been an interesting thread? The stuff about the philosophy of science, alone, has made it worth participating in.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM

Definitely! Interesting thread drift from a cartoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:27 PM

TAXPAYERS TO FUND IDIOCY:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A Christian ministry's long-stalled plans to build Noah's Ark in the hills of Kentucky have been revived.

Creation Museum [sic] founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016.

Bill Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:31 PM

I hadn't realised Noah could find the equivalent of about $73 million...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:38 PM

Noah didn't need taxpayer money. I figure that kind of scam was a reason for the flood. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:20 PM

If they get the thing (ark) completed, I will almost...almost...be tempted to go see it. Some little part of my mind will itch with curiosity to see how he will deal with any number of questions. What whacked out rationalization will he come up with for the myriad of animal lineages that he can't fit on the thing unless he squashes them all with a massive industrial press? Will he make some pretext of accounting for the necessary mountains of food, or will he smile and say that God miraculously relieved all the animals of the need to eat or poop during the time they were confined aboard? Etc., Etc., Etc...

Problem is, though, I will probably never get to see it unless I give those people money for admission, and I would dearly hate to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:01 PM

Tried to post this last night, but Mudcat was away......


".....asserting that scientists are totally impartial.."

Pete, Pete, Pete... again... I did not say exactly that! 'Totally' impartial in every way would be a rare person indeed!

One does not need to be **totally** impartial in order to follow good scientific procedures. And importantly, other scientists monitor and check results... whether or not the theory seems to be impartial. There are divergent scientific opinions... but not different rules about what makes good science! In contrast, there are thousands of wildly different ideas about religious 'truths'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:21 PM

well, frogprince, please don't feel you have to visit the Kentucky ark and part with your money. Kentucky will do very well out of it just by people that think it worth paying to see. and the construction costs are largely privately raised, is taxpayers money involved ?,- there is expected benefit to that states economy. compare that to taxpayers money funding Darwinist beliefs!. all you need to do is look on creationist sites for most of the answers to your questions.....not claiming that you will accept those answers, but I think you will find them a lot less simplistic than you suggest they might be.

dmcg it did seem to me that you were claiming scientists impartiality but thankyou for some measure of clarification.
re-your 2 observations-
A, We don't know everything but the evangelistic zeal of evolutionists here certainly contradicts that notion.....except when they have to eventually change the details of the story.
creation believers know that they don't know everything, but are upfront about their presuppositions.
B, what evolutionists think they know has already been contradicted by experimental, testable, repeatable science, but the alternative of " allowing a divine foot in the door " is clearly unpalatable to atheists.

shimrod- I am not able to quantify how much if any, amounts to "conspiracy", how much to the bias in education, how much to peer pressure, or fear of job loss or sidelining from advancement. certainly I believe there must be an element of deception/delusion involved, for educated people to believe unproven and impossible things. [ the fact that some Christians also believe some of this stuff, in contradiction of the book they claim belief in, only testifies to the success of the deception].
over all is a spiritual blindness, I believe. the devil "is a liar, and the father of it" john 8v44
so there is my answer, shimrod. I expect you will argue the toss, but it is not my intention to argue over it, but to suggest some explantion , though not exhaustive.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:55 PM

Kentucky will do very well out of it

If your idea of doing well, pete, is becoming the laughingstock of the world (although Kansas is second & closing) then Louisville & Kentucky will do very well, indeed.,

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:34 PM

Shimrod
The stuff about the philosophy of science, alone, has made it worth participating in.

Maybe that's why Steve Shaw hasn't been on this thread for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:17 PM

Know summat, slime-trail? The standard of comment apropos of science in this forum is abysmal, yet you continue to focus only on me, even when I'm not posting. Bad form, darling! I almost feel complimented at times. Do get a life, old boy. You are beginning ("beginning"?? Heheh!) to sound like you're just a little obsessed. I inhabit threads when I want to, which, unlike sad cases such as Wacko, is not all day and every day. Can you play tunes?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

"He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."

It is emphatically in their best interests.

When they see the space available and realise how few animals will physically fit into it, they will be unable to continue to believe this nonsense.

That will be a great public service, contrary to what the eejit intends.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:07 PM

"B, what evolutionists think they know has already been contradicted by experimental, testable, repeatable science, but the alternative of " allowing a divine foot in the door " is clearly unpalatable to atheists."

Even if your so called "Creation Scientists" (an oxymoron) could disprove the theory of evolution with genuine peer reviewed evidence, THAT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE FOR YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE!

There is NO connection which even suggests that these two points of view amount to an "either, or" alternative.

You start with a conclusion and work backwards to non existent evidence of the unknowable and untestable.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:13 PM

Teacher asked the class whether they though Noah did much fishing to help feed all those animals.

After a pause, Johnny slowly raised his hand.

"Yes Johnny?" said the teacher.

"He can't have done much fishing Miss, with only two worms!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 01:34 AM

A, We don't know everything but the evangelistic zeal of evolutionists here certainly contradicts that notion.....except when they have to eventually change the details of the story.
creation believers know that they don't know everything, but are upfront about their presuppositions.

Since Troubadour responded to 'B', I'll tackle 'A'.

People are people. Sometimes they get enthusiastic and express things in a way that makes them seem as if they think they are the fount of all knowledge. But when they are calm and have had a nice cup of tea you will find that what they are saying is that we are dealing with a massive amount of evidence for something on one hand, and literally zero evidence for an alternative on the other.

Then you talk about changing stories. It is in the nature of science and indeed growth of knowledge of any kind that when you learn something new you need to incorporate it into what you already know. Occasionally it will involve throwing out a chunk of what you thought you knew, but most of the time it is a slight modification in understanding. So do not say ".....except when they have to eventually change the details of the story" as if that were a problem: it is how we grow and develop either as a society or as individuals - children do it continually as they become adults. It is not a bad thing.

Not is it the case creationists are up front with their assumptions. For example, you will find that they say 'God created it' on occasions, and on others that they insist they are not invoking any notion of God, just questioning the orthodox view. This is especially the case in the US when there are constitutional restrictions on when you can use religion in a state context - "we aren't talking about religion or God, just signs of design" - and other situations where you can - "let's build an ark".

All that creationist admit to not knowing is exactly how God did it, but that God did it is not in doubt (except when the constitution prevents them saying that)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 01:45 AM

Know summat, slime-trail? The standard of comment apropos of science in this forum is abysmal
I'm sorry you feel that, Steve. I do my best! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:58 AM

pete, I didn't ask you to "quantify" anything - and science isn't a question of "belief", to again quote the estimable DMcG above:

"It is in the nature of science and indeed growth of knowledge of any kind that when you learn something new you need to incorporate it into what you already know. Occasionally it will involve throwing out a chunk of what you thought you knew, but most of the time it is a slight modification in understanding."

Anyway, we now know that you think that modern scientists are deluded (oh dear!).

By the way, what does the phrase "spiritual blindness" mean? And who or what is "the devil" (although I suspected he'd appear at some point)? Is "the devil" all-seeing and all-knowing - like God - and made out of nothing? If so, that's two invisible super-beings made out of nothing! What was that about, "educated people [believing] unproven and impossible things"?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 07:41 AM

" I am not able to quantify how much if any, amounts to "conspiracy", how much to the bias in education, how much to peer pressure, or fear of job loss or sidelining from advancement. certainly I believe there must be an element of deception/delusion involved, for educated people to believe unproven and impossible things."

You know Pete, that is a nasty little sentence and one day I hope you will come to understand how insulting that is to genuinely kind and thoughtful people whose life's work is the acquisition of knowledge and attainment of understanding about us, our universe and our place within it, not for personal gain but the common good.


"over all is a spiritual blindness, I believe. the devil "is a liar, and the father of it" john 8v44"

And creationists have been taken in by him utterly, robbed of reason and the ability to interpret or understand the world with any degree of nuance or wonder. He's made them into absolutist, myopic and unquestioning purveyors of lies, misinformation and assassinators of character. He's persuaded them their God-given gifts of intelligence and curiosity are in fact not the tools of enlightenment and knowledge, but agents of self-deception. Creationists are malleable, gullible and nasty extremists, and if there is a devil he's conned you by involving your own wilful ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 09:31 AM

I'm sorry you feel that, Steve. I do my best! :)

Oops, yeah, a bit too much of a generalisation I suppose. Me too!

Great post, Stu. Too many people have been far too nice to our resident creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 09:36 AM

Yes obviously the Devil is clever.

The Devil took Ken Ham, Australian school teacher up on a hill in Kentucky and showed him a big fancy building and a radio show and the respect of children and child like adults and said, "If you want all this all you have to doe is lie about scripture and science."

Is that exactly how it happened?

Probably, in Ham's mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 09:38 AM

Please keep in mind that this thread is about a cartoon which is a joke about religion and science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 10:27 AM

When they see the space available and realise how few animals will physically fit into it, they will be unable to continue to believe this nonsense.

Not. Absolutely Wrong.

Reality and logic have nothing to do with the garbage these idiots are willing to swallow.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 11:41 AM

Ack, sorry Jack but it really bothers me to see so many of my good friends slighted by someone speaking from a position of utter ignorance who can't be arsed to find out even the most basic facts about a subject.

It causes a catastrophic sense of humour failure!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 12:42 PM

Good post, Stu.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 01:35 PM

troubadour,- so what other scenarios do you suggest ,apart from intelligent creator, and blind chance with no one and nothing to chance with?.
but thankyou for conceding that it is unknowable and untestable!
so assuming you have no other alternatives [that could not be subsumed into the two on the table!] we are left with what we can know of repeatable, observable, testable sciences.
and of course, anything popping into existence without some kind of intelligent life effecting such, does not happen, has never been observed.
stu, complaining about me being insulting! please reread your post and realize you are being a hypocrite.
dmcg,- I found myself agreeing with much of your last post, or at least I can see your point. if you can just manage to explain something from that "massive amount of evidence" that cannot also be explained by the creation model , then I will bow out till I can answer it. in the meantime, operative science does not favour the GTE.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:01 PM

That's an interesting challenge, pete. If I take it up we need to establish sone rules.

The first is this: if you say "that's just how it is, no firther explanation is possible" when science claims there is an answer, then you lose. For example if I asked why marsupials are almost (but not quite) in one part of the worls you lose if you just say "that's how it is"

Second rule: I will not present a fact directly but ask questions which you can a two or three word answer. If you dodge the question or write paragraphs, you lose.


Ok? First question. Science recognises some 350,000 species of beetles. Genesis claims some 'of every kind' were on the ark. In the sense used in the bible, how many kinds of beetle were on the ark?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

pete, explain God and the Devil - which are, according to you, two all-seeing, all-knowing super-beings made out of nothing. If you choose to tell me that they're unknowable, why should I believe you or take anything you say seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM

Please keep in mind that this thread is about a cartoon which is a joke about religion and science.

Please keep in mind that this thread is about anything we want it to be about, and you don't get to dictate to us what we talk about. You might not have noticed, but it hasn't been "about a cartoon" for an awful long time. Almost from the word go, actually. You are on an internet forum and, in consequence, you take the risk of your thread going every which way, and it isn't up to you. And I would add that you definitely, sad sacko Wacko, start way too many threads. You love rules, don't you. Hows about a rule that says one thread per week per member? And might I suggest that, if you hate thread drift so much, you desist from posting on footloose and fancy-free internet forums. I'm sure you can find a bunch of like-minded souls in your church hall who will promise to submit to your agenda and your agenda alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 06:07 PM

Pete, how about this. I am God. You are wrong. I did not create everything. Now, disprove that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

Bollocks, Dave. I'm God and you know it! My only rival is Shankly!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:07 AM

As the philosophy of science is forming a backdrop to this thread, I thought I'd better explain why I chose the rules and approach I did. They weren't picked because I thought pete would have difficulty with them, but because the philosophy demands it.

It is insufficient to define a model that encompasses all the known facts. Here's one that does that of the top of my head "Nothing has an explanation, but may appear to have". Every fact in the world fits that, but it is of no use. No, an essential component of a useful model is that it explains things. Now, by and large a model only expainns a part of reality - the theory of evolution does not explain the theory of gravity for instance. So we need to restrict our questions to the right problem domain, but once we do that we can test whether creationist theories are better at explaining than evolutionist theories. And we do that not by determining whether a ffact can be incorporated by simply by asking questions and seeing whether it can give precise answers. Hence my rule which says !asically "precision is an answer, waffle isn't"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 07:04 AM

The theory of evolution doesn't explain gravity, true enough, because evidence gathered to test the theory is not focused in that direction, but there are elegant interconnections between evolution and gravity. Think about the structure of our skeleton, for example, and the fact that land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size. Everything's joined up! Beautiful! Far more beautiful, in fact, than cod "explanations" based on a clumsily-imagined bogus deity!

Pardon the whimsy. It's Sunday morning and I'm doing this instead of going to Mass...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 11:16 AM

Tony McMahon is God.


"stu, complaining about me being insulting! please reread your post and realise you are being a hypocrite."

Hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm simply pointing out the complete and utter negativity of your position as a creationist and therefore someone with an anti-science agenda. Someone who understand and engages with science learns to change their worldview when new evidence is presented, a thing creationists seem utterly unable to do. They're so used to interpreting the world without any hard evidence they have lost the ability to discern reality from fantasy, and expect EVERYONE else in the world to do the same. They try to make the facts fit, but however hard they try they cannot change fundamental truth.

It amazes me people who claim to be devout Christians are the most unchristian people I've ever come across in many ways. Their dim and miserable view of man, nature and the universe lacks wonder and joy. They live their lives under siege, struggling to keep the flimsy construct that is their worldview intact despite the mountain of evidence that the basis of their beliefs is not meant to be taken literally; it's an insult to the writers at the very least that some of their readers are devoid of the ability to understand metaphor and allegory.

These nasty, unimaginative people have turned God into a trickster; a being hellbent on testing his hapless creations by giving them the ability to reason and understand, to seek knowledge whilst all the while attempting to misdirect them with misplaced evidence designed to obfuscate and deceive. Their god is wrathful and vengeful, a mighty spinning vortex of negativity visiting suffering, befuddlement and confusion on the very beings he breathed life into; playthings for the almighty who is indifferent to their suffering because THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO.

Why would anyone seek to paint a supposed benevolent, loving and forgiving god in this way? What are their motivations? To what degree does this brutal God give substance to their own feelings?

Like I said, if there is a devil then Creationists (along with all the other extremists) are in his thrall, even if they lack the wit to understand that they themselves have been deceived into twisting the image of the god they profess to worship into a travesty of what love and compassion actually means to us mere mortals.

I don't do science as part of some ridiculous conspiracy designed to junk religious belief, I do it because I want o contribute in my tiny way to the sum of human knowledge even though I will not see the benefit in my lifetime. I do it for the joy and wonder, and I do despite my own flaws and frailties and it's a constant struggle against my own deficiencies and shortcomings.

Like many non-religious scientists I will change my opinion if evidence of a divine being came to light, or if the earth was 6,000 years old. I too sense the numinous, understand the intuition that there is something greater than us 'out there' and we cannot comprehend it's true nature, despite perhaps seeing glimpses occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 11:49 AM

" Think about the structure of our skeleton, for example, and the fact that land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size. "

If you think about it.
That is as good an argument for intelligent design as it is for evolution. An intelligent designer would not create a land animal that could not walk the earth.

On the other hand evolution would predict that at some point in time in some places there may have been larger non vertebrate animals that were out-competed by vertebrates. If the fossil record showed that somehow, it would be a minor confirmation of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 11:58 AM

Jack, try as I might, I can make absolutely no sense of what you have written!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:05 PM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

STEVE SHAW

I can read the rules. It is a shame that you apparently cannot.


You are free to propose whatever rule you want. You are not free to be rude, unkind argumentative and snooty. As you were in the post below. I can forgive the occasional lapse in any of those things. But you seem to be on a quest to be all of the above all of the time. No one is forcing you to read the threads, I start. I am not trying to offend anyone or get anyone's attention, least of all yours. If you think this forum deserves better thread topics, open a thread or two. If you want to propose rule changes. Don't tell me. You are in my humble opinion a bully and a very rude and ignorant person. You have zero credibility with me and you have long ago used up any benefit of the doubt you may have had.

You have no business trying to sanction me with insults. In my humble opinion you need to grow up and either calm down and engage is civil conversation or find another forum where your boorish behavior is welcome.




Please keep in mind that this thread is about anything we want it to be about, and you don't get to dictate to us what we talk about. You might not have noticed, but it hasn't been "about a cartoon" for an awful long time. Almost from the word go, actually. You are on an internet forum and, in consequence, you take the risk of your thread going every which way, and it isn't up to you. And I would add that you definitely, sad sacko Wacko, start way too many threads. You love rules, don't you. Hows about a rule that says one thread per week per member? And might I suggest that, if you hate thread drift so much, you desist from posting on footloose and fancy-free internet forums. I'm sure you can find a bunch of like-minded souls in your church hall who will promise to submit to your agenda and your agenda alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:28 PM

Shimrod,

The first statement was from Steve Shaw.

Forgetting the questionable theory that "land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size."

Assuming intelligent design as a possibility. It is equally valid to say "Animals evolved the way they are because of gravity." and "Animals were created the way they are because of gravity" Speculation about gravity does not settle the debate in any way or settle the debate.

The only thing you are saying is that the animals that exist today are subject due to limitations due to gravity.

In any given ecological niche, obviously there is a "sweet spot" in size and shape for any given animal. Accord to Steve's "endoskeleton" theory a land crab would be a much less efficient scavenger on land than say a rat. So if rats are introduced to places where the principle scavenger is crabs, then you are likely to see the crabs decrease in number.

Not sure what Steve is saying about endo skeletons per se. But it seems likely that without competition, animals without more efficient competitors are likely to become larger and slower, with the Moa and the Great Auk as modern examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:31 PM

Shimrod. I'm just playing around in my mind on Sunday, instead of going to church. Don't worry if it doesn't make a lot of sense to you. Its not meant to be a scientific thesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 01:41 PM

dmcg- my challenge was quite simple and does not require what you propose. however it does sound more reasonable than the rants of most of your fellow evolutionists so we're see how we get on.
you remind me of a lawyer, who says .....please answer yes and no...there are some answers that do require clarification. and we all know a clever lawyer might get a crook off the hook.
you may succeed in exposing my limitations in understanding, but I will assume that is understood. I have tried not to get out of my depth and stick to easier to grasp arguments. these also have the advantage of still being unanswered convincingly.
I would also like to clarify that I am assuming that what you are calling science, I call evolutionism. if testable, observable, repeatable science has an answer in your favour, then certainly I lose. but I say again real science as I describe, and called, I believe, the scientific method, does not favour Darwinism and abiogenesis.
we could back and forth about the terms of the challenge, but as you have began it anyway, I will give my answer.
what the bible means by "kinds" is not meaning varieties of an organism, but something more basic. rather than thousands of beetles there would probably be just two, and the host of different beetles arose since then from the genetic information contained in the original pair.
the question you posed as an example, I would be unable to give a exact answer to, but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them.
if my answers breaks your rules then we may have come to a stop already!.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 02:26 PM

Thanks, pete. I have no intention of asking lawyers' have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife trick questions, just ones with simple straightforward answers, like that one.

Now, we can forget about the ark. We have two beetles of a single species (using another word like 'type' doesn't matter, its just a single beetle with whatever its genetic attributes happen to be) and we need to end up with some 350,000 species that cannot interbreed to give viable offspring. Your theory is that every ancestor of the beetles around contains the complete genetic code of all its decendents. That is, you consider that splitting into 350,000 parts to have happened entirely by loss of generic material.

Have I understood you correctly?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 02:44 PM

Hi DMcG

Here are some thoughts that may or may not help in your discussion with pete.

"you may succeed in exposing my limitations in understanding,"

The limits of pete's understanding are the crux of this debate.

pete exposes those limits every time he uses terms such as "operational science" and "abiogenesis" which are not scientific terms but encapsulated arguments. There are plenty of observable things in paleontology. These are easily observable and in terms of arguments presented by Mr. Ham and his team. Pete said that "Creation Scientists" may speculate. That carbon 14 readings may have been changed by the flood. OK. If that were true we can immerse similar modern material for a year and compare them to samples that have not been immersed and to the samples which appear to be more than 6000 years old. You can prove or disprove that theory pretty much conclusively one way or the other. That is testable and observable science. pete might call that operation science. Those of us who are not "creationists" would simply call that science.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis vs creation is an ancient argument. It boils down to the following.

Which is more likely? Either life life was created from inanimate matter spontaneously or life was created by a thinking entity of such complexity that he could create a man and matter from nothing and work out all of the natural laws in his head without any know experimentation.

At best, creation is as dubious and unlikely as Abiogenesis.

pete is sure to have heard both of these arguments. He can read a definition of "science" and one of "the scientific method" for himself. He can experiment for himself. He doesn't. He chooses ignorance. He says evolution is not proven. Other than the mere fact of existence and Ken Ham's interpretation of Genesis. He does not even look for evidence of a 6000 year old universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:03 PM

the question you posed as an example, I would be unable to give a exact answer to, but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them.

Ah, but that doesn't do it, you know. The explanation has to account for why the *marsupials* all ended up in the same place (more or less). What was it about being a marsupial that accounts for them ending up in the same location?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:13 PM

", but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them."

Bill Nye answered this well in the debate, when he calculated that it would take the generation of up to 30 new species per day. That is not what we observe today. It is nothing like anything observed in human history.

Pete says science needs to be observable why has this extraordinary explosion of new species not been observed and recorded by any civilization anywhere? Where are the intermediate steps between cattle and moose? or Elk and moose, or elk and deer for that matter if one evolved from the other?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:14 PM

If all extant beetles have descended from one pair on the Ark in the 4000 odd years since the Flood (assuming the dating to be correct - which I don't) then there has been a phenomenal rate of evolution within the "kind" (using the creationist term). A rate of approximately 350,000 divided by 4000, or 87 new species per year, assuming no extinctions as time elapsed, more if there were extinctions. But this is not going on now. So we must assume that in the past, the historical past, when people were recording things, new beetles were appearing at an even greater rate. Which has, for some reason, slowed down. The same sort of thing would have been going on with all other sorts of living things. There is no evidence for this, as far as I know.
Further, if the development of different species has happened since the Flood, then there should be a gradation of an increase in difference from those carried on the Ark such that the furthest creatures from Ararat should be most evolved, furthest from primitive. As the monotremes and marsupials are not. Or are we supposed to assume that the creationist form of evolution is a stripping of genetic code? That would explain, perhaps, that the mean marsupial genome size is greater than the mean placental genome size. Oh. No it wouldn't.

Penny (who was trying to keep out of this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

" Think about the structure of our skeleton, for example, and the fact that land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size. "

If you think about it.
That is as good an argument for intelligent design as it is for evolution. An intelligent designer would not create a land animal that could not walk the earth.

On the other hand evolution would predict that at some point in time in some places there may have been larger non vertebrate animals that were out-competed by vertebrates. If the fossil record showed that somehow, it would be a minor confirmation of evolution.

Absolute bollocks, Wacko. What a bloody lightweight you are. There is no "good argument" for intelligent design any more than there is a good argument for little green men on Mars and Christ knows why I'm having to tell you that. In addition, evolution does not "predict" anything, and your imagined scenario is just brainless tripe. Most of your posts are pretty inane, Wackers, but this one really takes the biscuit. Do try not to waste our time, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:29 PM

Shimrod,

The first statement was from Steve Shaw.

Forgetting the questionable theory that "land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size."

Assuming intelligent design as a possibility. It is equally valid to say "Animals evolved the way they are because of gravity." and "Animals were created the way they are because of gravity" Speculation about gravity does not settle the debate in any way or settle the debate.

The only thing you are saying is that the animals that exist today are subject due to limitations due to gravity.

In any given ecological niche, obviously there is a "sweet spot" in size and shape for any given animal. Accord to Steve's "endoskeleton" theory a land crab would be a much less efficient scavenger on land than say a rat. So if rats are introduced to places where the principle scavenger is crabs, then you are likely to see the crabs decrease in number.

Not sure what Steve is saying about endo skeletons per se. But it seems likely that without competition, animals without more efficient competitors are likely to become larger and slower, with the Moa and the Great Auk as modern examples.

Can anyone enlighten me as to what this bunch of twaddle is supposed to mean? Once again, Wackers, you misrepresent (basically because you don't understand plain English). There were no "theories" in my post. Nor is there any "speculation". There are, however, mentions of observable facts. Deny them at your peril, you bloody nitwit!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:46 PM

Mr. Shaw, based upon our previous conversations, I feel that you are not inclined to discuss these things calmly and rationally. Based on your use of words like "Bollocks, twaddle, nitwit & Whacko, I feel that your intent is to abuse, vilify and punish.

I decline your invitation to bicker.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:08 PM

McMahon? Shaw? Pah! Thou shalt not have false Gods before me. Or after. Or at the side...

Dave the God

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Mr. Shaw, based upon our previous conversations, I feel that you are not inclined to discuss these things calmly and rationally. Based on your use of words like "Bollocks, twaddle, nitwit & Whacko, I feel that your intent is to abuse, vilify and punish.

I decline your invitation to bicker.

Well I live in hope that you will, one fine day, post something of substance that could be regarded as "rational". Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in your last two posts that "being rational" is not in your gift. Your declining my invitation (illusory, as it happens) is no loss, old bean, I assure you. Perhaps a little more genuine scholarship and a little less recourse to meretricious popular science articles might not come amiss in your case. Just trying to be helpful, Wackers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:05 PM

DMcG,
Your questions and rules are a valiant and proper effort.
pete's refusal to abide by or acknowledge the importance of them highlights the fact that he is unwilling or incapable of discussing science, thus making the entire exercise completely futile.
But I too have greatly enjoyed how this thread has made me (and others?) think carefully about the nature of science (and the nature of non-science).

Penny S.,
Another great question. Expect a dismissive (and insulting - whether he intends it or not) answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:11 PM

pete's refusal to abide by or acknowledge the importance of them highlights the fact that he is unwilling or incapable of discussing science

He is both those things, and, worse, in his pig-ignorance, he insults science, honest scientists and the scientific process, and all because he's been sold some twaddle by a rather sinister bunch of manipulative liars. And that's being kind to him, as it assumes that he's merely utterly gullible and not actually one of those sinister liars himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:13 PM

"There is a difference between criticizing people and criticizing a people's uninformed ideals. That is, unless one defines himself or others by their ideals, then he is offended, and usually offended secretly. Because oddly enough, this person is the same person quickest to resort to dismissive name-calling, such as 'bigot' or 'zealot'. And oddly enough, he is always the one, the 'open-minded' one, who adamantly protests for, not only himself, but others not to listen to any type of scholarly theological truth inherently for the sake of his own personal, moral beliefs."
― Criss Jami

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:54 PM

"scholarly theological truth" ??? (Note that I realize that this is a
quotation, not wording originating with JtS or anyone here) Speaking as someone who once studied a great deal of theological material, I could deal with "scholarly theological thought", but as my thinking stands now, the wording "scholarly theological truth" sorta makes me go "yea, riiigghhht"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 02:55 AM

"but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them."

So these two beetles from the Ark 'evolved' into many different species via a process of 'natural selection' did they, pete? But the process took a few thousand, rather than several million, years through the intervention of an invisible, all-powerful super-being ... is that what you're saying, pete? I suppose that you've got TONS of evidence for that, haven't you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:09 AM

As a medical student, I had a clinical attachment to a busy neonatal ward in a large teaching hospital.

I saw a catholic priest, in front of parents who had lost their two day old baby only minutes earlier, shouting at a nurse for not calling him ealrier as their baby won't be allowed into heaven on account of him not baptising the baby before he or she died.

At this point, the parents, who had been quiet, both cried uncontrollably and I helped eject the priest whilst they were being comforted.

Humouring or accomodating religion can be fraught with difficulties. I have great respect for the chaplains I see around hospitals, same as my many religious colleagues who leave their faith at the door when being doctors. (Muslim women treating male patients being a good example.)

But as with any walk of life, you have to be careful of those who take their interests too literally. Arguing reality doesnt always work, as we see in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:23 AM

The priest should also have been bollocked for being 7 years out of date with current RC teachings.

Even us lapsed Catholics can keep up to date so I don't see why he didn't!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM


The priest should also have been bollocked for being 7 years out of date with current RC teachings.

Actually, it is much longer than that. I remember this sort of situation being explained when I was in primary school more than 50 years ago, and he was quite wrong, theologically speaking, even by those standards.

Of course, being theologically wrong was the least of the issues in this sad scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:46 AM

I did say when I was a medical student... I think we are talking around 1996 or thereabouts. My military side means I spend a longer time than most as a junior, hence still a registrar.

I only heard the aftermath third hand, but he was removed from the chaplaincy team by his own church. That makes me think that locally to there (Portsmouth) such things were not the teaching anyway. The navy had some military padres at that hospital, so I'm surprised it was a retired priest via the diocese or whatever they call their regions.

Even if they were, his bedside manner has no place in a hospital, and quite rightly, patients are, hopefully, protected from such abuse. (OK, I did my annual safegarding training last week, so whilst it is fresh in my maind, I know I could have reported that to the local authority safeguarding team as abuse.)

You get mavericks in all walks of life. Enough doctors behind bars for me to try for a higher moral ground, but with clerics, how are they assessed? Where is the peer review? Where is the competency checking or appraisal? These people have access to children and vulnerable adults, often at very sensitive times.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:48 AM

Sorry, SC, I didn't spot the when you was a student bit.

And, yes, DMcG (I still think it must be Dave McGnome :-) ) I did know it went back some while but the first reference I came to dated a ruling from Pope Benedict in 2007 so I just put that at it confirms it goes back to at least then.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:05 PM

Steve Shaw
The standard of comment apropos of science in this forum is abysmal,

I'm glad to see you have retreated from that somewhat arrogant position. There are some quite good minds contributing to this debate.

you continue to focus only on me

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean I'm not out to get you. You seem to dedicate a lot of effort into pursuing the hapless Jack the Sailor. Do you really not have anything better to do with your time? The reason I oppose you is that, while others may be a little wobbly in their arguments here and there, you actively oppose science. Here are some quotes from others -

Stu
A theory has to be falsifiable, so get to it.

An Actual Scientist
I would further point out that Popper is saying that science must be done by *disproving* hypotheses - particularly your own.

Shimrod
The stuff about the philosophy of science, alone, has made it worth participating in.

You, on the other hand, have said in response to my remarks about falsifiabilty -
Now do go along and shove your philosophical carpings where the sun don't shine, dear boy.

and in response to my citing of Popper -
You're either prattling away at me or prattling away about you flavour-of-the-month philosopher, you sad thing you.

You completely reject the underlying philosophy of modern science. You (retired schoolmaster of Bude) tried to argue that Professor Karl Popper CH FBA FRS (University of Christchurch, New Zealand; London School of Economics; University of London) was wrong although I suppose that's nothing compared to your claim to be intellectually superior to Sir Isaac Newton.

I happen to think that science matters. You claim to be a scientist despite the fact that your mind is completely closed to new ideas and you never make any sort of coherent case about anything. You declare things to be true and hurl schoolyard abuse at anyone who dares to disagree with you. You are an embarrassment to science. I worry about the damage that you may have done to your pupils.

Yes, I can play tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:06 PM

Gosh, Snailie, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think! :-)

I have this rather unfortunate trait, you see, of responding negatively to anyone who "thinks they are out to get me". First, I give not a damn whether anyone around here is "out to get me" or not. Second, I will always mischievously fuel your anti-Shaw delusions because I enjoy the reaction so much. Let me put it to you this way: if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. My tactics in that regard are plastered all over these threads for all to see. As I've said so many times, I dip in and out of here when the fancy takes me. I have rather a busy life beyond Mudcat. If you really want to get heavy about your quasi-philosophical burblings, look elsewhere. I've learned that much about this forum even if you haven't. Andy our attacks look pretty threadbare when one considers how you leave Wacko and pete severely alone (what are you scared of?). Let me give you an effin' great big clue as to my tactics with you. Up to you whether you take it on board, of course. Ahem: EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

Nighty night! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:11 PM

"Andy our attacks" was my rather novel way of saying "and your attacks". Had I really meant "Andy our attacks", punctuation pedant that I am, I would have inserted a comma after "Andy".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 10:54 PM

>>>if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. <<<

I've never seen you claim to be a scientist?

Are you one? Are you now claiming to be one?

Other than teaching school children, please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?


Its seems Mr. theSnail that the only thing that you and Mr. Shaw share is a distaste for me. I would thank you both if you were to say that from now on you will leave me out of your feud.

Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:40 PM

dmcg- I am going to be guilty of backtracking. my only defence being that I realized between last posting and looking here again where I had erred. I later realized that I was responding mistakenly to a wrong question.   the record says nothing about insect life, and in fact details those perishing as nostril breathing animals and birds.
so to answer again.....how many beetles on the ark?    ....
I don't know but they were not, I think, included in the 2's or 7,s gen 7v2,3,21,22. neither do I know how many might survive outside the ark on floating wood or vegetation mats for example.
penny done a good job of detailing difficulties for my previous answer, for which I apologize for wasting her time.
of course I do appreciate that if the same difficulties obtain regarding qualifying animal life that I still have a difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:40 AM

"I don't know but they were not, I think, included in the 2's or 7,s gen 7v2,3,21,22. neither do I know how many might survive outside the ark on floating wood or vegetation mats for example." pete

pete, your speculation is not scientific evidence.

So are you saying that the omniscient author of Genesis, the one who wrote something so perfect, so many years ago, that it can be used as science curriculum today did not know that a beetle is an animal?

"2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

Lets put aside that Leviticus 11:20-23 and indeed none of the Books after Genesis had been written before Noah's life, if indeed Noah was a real person. We only have the definitions of "unclean animals" in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate,"
Beetles are clean animals. If Genesis is literally true, At least seven pairs should have boarded the Ark. Many many more pairs if "after his kind means what I think it does."

I am also wondering how you are so convinced that the details are all true and without error when you are so unsure of the details. If the answer is faith. That is fine. But you are presenting these things to us as science and pretending that you know that our knowledge of science is wrong. If you don't appear to know what you are talking about in terms of the "scientific" details of Genesis, you don't have much credibility question science.

King James Version (KJV)

20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:26 AM

"the record says nothing about insect life, and in fact details those perishing as nostril breathing animals and birds.
so to answer again ... how many beetles on the ark? ... I don't know ..."

God (striking infinite, invisible forehead with infinite, invisible hand): "Drat! I forgot the beetles! And it was me that created them! I'll have to be careful - I'll be losing my reputation for omniscience ... I knew I should have given them nostrils ... what was I thinking of?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:34 AM

I'm at work, so I don't have time for a considered response, but I draw your attention to Genesis 7:4: "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."


That doesn't allow much scope for beetles surviving on driftwood to me. Unless that bit of Genesis isn't to be taken literally?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:35 AM

Sorry, that's me immedaitely above. Just the one Guest, not the other. As I say, I'm at work so no cookie here!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:35 AM

Steve Shaw
Let me put it to you this way: if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. My tactics in that regard are plastered all over these threads for all to see.

I think I summed up your tactics in my last post. Statements of truth and schoolyard abuse.

As I've said so many times, I dip in and out of here when the fancy takes me. I have rather a busy life beyond Mudcat.

Really? You were rather heavily engaged in another of Jack the Sailor's threads at the time.

So you consider Popper's work to be "quasi-philosophical burblings," do you? Intellectually superior to both Newton and Popper. I bet you could tell Einstein a thing or two.

I see no point in debating with pete or Jack. pete believes in the inerrant truth of the Bible. I don't think anything I say will change that and others can take note and judge what he says accordingly. Jack is a rather silly fellow who thinks that watching the Discovery Channel makes him an expert. He isn't important.

You, on the other hand, claim to be a scientist while completely rejecting the philosophy behind it that makes it different from religion. There is a danger that people might be misled by you as I fear that hundreds of your pupils already have.

Ahem: EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

So you keep saying. You say that it is self evident. I have asked you several times to show me some but you have failed to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:35 AM

I wonder if they had an ark or two on some of the planets we just found?

Anyway, for once, I am going to say something positive about religious superstition.

Even I know that St Pancake's Day marks the beginning of lent and that Christians give up a few luxuries for a while. So.... The lady who looks cleans for us happens to be a Christian, and goes to church etc. She has some chocolate liqueurs bought for her at Christmas and their sell by date is later this month. She left them for us to have!

I love these Christians. A pity there aren't many of them. (Or millions of them in The UK alone according to our professor of bollocks.)

And in the best BBC tradition of repeats,

Oh! The amoeba went in two by four by sixteen by sixty four by two hundred and fifty six by sixteen thousand, three hundred and eighty four........

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:55 AM

Me again! I was interested in this nostril business,so I looked up the relevant bit of Genesis 7:

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth

That seems a little selective of you, pete. True, verse 22 encompasses things with life in their nostrils. But verse 23 not only doesn't mention nostrils but explicitly covers 'creatures that move along the ground' which seems to include beetles to me. Of course, many beetles can fly as well, but their common method of locomotion is moving along the ground. I'd be interested in hearing why you quoted verse 22 but not 23.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:17 AM

Did the bible include all creatures or just the ones theological scholars in a small area East of the Mediterranean couple of thousand years ago had heard of?

Were there two or seven breeding pairs of duck billed platypuses? Or should that be platypi? Which way would they have spelt it in the bible?

Did people come back from the dead because doctors weren't very good at diagnosing it from deep coma? Would the bible be written differently if they had done their mandatory advanced life support training? Come to think about it, would pork and shellfish be off the menu if fridges had been invented?

Why did he wait another few thousand years in order to deal with bison and carrier pigeon? Were Americans put there to finish off what Noah started?

This could run and run, so if you would be so kind as to humour me, I am in no rush, just flopped out on the settee with jet lag of sorts. Wide awake as a bloody owl all night and sleepy now.

Talking of Americans.. I reckon they have been around longer than we thought. I don't know the bible at all, but from what I gather, the climax is a bit Hollywood to say the least. Revelations can only have been written as a screenplay.

They reckon Jesus was a socialist yet did he contribute to the greater good by paying duty on the water he turned into wine? I reckon the gold and the spices he never mentioned again (probably gave them to the church raffle) hadn't had duty imposed when he got them, although as a child, the tax status is something scholars will have to debate.

I wonder how biblical people defined superstition when speaking of those weird buggers over there?

If you are still reading, have you jet lag too?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:52 AM

The 'Guest' post above about God forgetting to give beetles nostrils ... or something ... was me, by the way.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

I'm glad that you pointed that out, Jack! I was planning to have curried four-legged creeping fowl for tea tonight. Phew! That was close!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:56 AM

One more thing, pete, since I's rather it wasn't just forgotten about. Remember you said "if you can just manage to explain something from that "massive amount of evidence" that cannot also be explained by the creation model, then I will bow out till I can answer it"

Now, the reason I mentioned marsupials being concentrated in Australasia as an example, rather than a main question, was because to me the question was so obvious that I assumed creationists would have a stock answer they roll out. It literally didn't occur to me that they would have no answer, however dubious.

So that's another fact for you to explain using the creation model, namely "Marpusials are concentrated in Australasia". And remember, the rules of the game don't accept "That's just how it is" as an answer, because the evolution model has an explanation for the particular fact derived from the general theory.

Of course, you might well find a stock answer somewhere and just haven't looked. That's fine, record it here and we will continue focus on the beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:53 AM

another fact for you to explain using the creation model,namely "Marpusials are concentrated in Australasia".

You're kidding, right? No Problem!! God wanted it that way.

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:15 AM

"
You're kidding, right? No Problem!! God wanted it that way."

If that were only what pete were saying. That would be faith and this whole conversation which has gone on for literally years.

But pete is concurrently saying that he doesn't know any science, but that he knows that science is wrong but Genesis is right and that can be proved scientifically, but he doesn't know exactly how. And now, disturbingly, he shows us that he doesn't even know what the "science" in Genesis is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:26 AM

Oops.

That would be faith and this whole conversation which has gone on for literally years.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:32 AM

Now ya got me bumfuzzled, Jack; surely Genesis is the WORD of God, and if science exists, God must have created it, too, so if God created Science, how can it be "wrong" unless God is wrong?

I feel a migraine coming.......

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

TheSnail,

I have never had a subscription to The Discovery Channel. You are making false assumptions based on guesses and little data and presenting your assumptions as fact. What's more you are arrogantly presenting these false assumptions in an effort to demean another forum member. Isn't that exactly what angers you about Steve Shaw?

I don't care if you call me silly. I joke quite a bit. That's true. In fact I am joking now....mostly.

Please leave me out of your feud with Mr. Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

ok dmcg I shall keep my word, when you have given the evolutionary explanation. it had better be convincing because I still fail to see why it cant be , because that's where they ended up. of course as you said yourself MOST MARSUPIALS ARE CONCENTRATED in one large area, thus allowing some in other areas, and maybe those areas had more in the past, but selection pressure had thinned them out.
I look forward to your explanation, so I at least know what the argument is.
btw, and you have the advantage here as the scientist,...are there nostril breathing animals that compare to your beetle challenge?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:15 PM

From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:32 AM

Now ya got me bumfuzzled, Jack; surely Genesis is the WORD of God, and if science exists, God must have created it, too, so if God created Science, how can it be "wrong" unless God is wrong?

I feel a migraine coming.

----------------

No where in the Bible does it say that everything God created was perfect. In fact in Genesis the whole point in the garden of Eden story was that Adam and Eve were flawed. God created Lucifer. God created the people who were drowned in the flood for their sins. God created Sodom and Gomorrah, and Pharaoh and Pontius Pilate and Judas.   And so on. Science, according to pete and Ham, being wrong about Evolution seems like relatively small potatoes compared to that. Doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:29 PM

Pretty half-arsed God, then, if he kept/keeps screwing up like that, no?

With a record like that over the milennia, its a wonder pete & Ham would rely on him/her/it for anything whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:31 PM

Ooops.

Suppose I should have specified "over the last 6,000 years".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:47 PM

Ultimately Christianity is about choice, Adam's, Eve's, Pilate's, pete's choice, my choice.

Since the flood at least, we have had free will and are not to be punished for exercising it.

Apparently the people of Jericho were slaughtered simple for being on land that the Israelites coveted. Jesus came up with love thy neighbor. But no government has ever tried to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:00 PM

GOD

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:40 PM

Oh, pete, are you are you REALLY sure you want me to do that? Remember that the challenge you set me was not to prove evolutionary theory correct, but to prove that the theory, whether true or not, predicts different species with a common ancestor will share characteristics.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:42 PM

Argh! No cookie at home now! DMcG above.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:56 PM

"MARSUPIALS ARE CONCENTRATED in one large area, thus allowing some in other areas, and maybe those areas had more in the past, but selection pressure had thinned them out."

Do you mean NATURAL selection pressure, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:06 PM

Yeah Shimrod, they (pete and Ham et al) claim to believe in natural selection now. I guess they are Young Earth Darwinists. Or Post Flood Evolutionists. But only where it does not conflict with their version of Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:50 PM

yes, shimrod. creationists wrote about it before Darwin did. there is even thinking that Darwin borrowed...shall we say... from blyth [ and other authors]. what Darwin did was extrapolate beyond the observable evidence.

dmcg- I seem to remember that the challenge was for you to provide something from the "mountain of evidence" for evolutionism, that could not also/equally be explained by the creation model.
I have been looking into the marsupial question and found [imo] that I was on the right track. I will extend on that perhaps after you explain....if possible in layman talk....what the convincing evolutionary explanation is.
as far as the accusation of my being choosy re gen 7 v 22f , it seems that the Hebrew word translated "creeping things" has a wide range but understood to mean reptiles, because of the qualifier ...nostrils.
I concede though, at least from the English translation, that an argument could be made that the meaning could conceivably be made that v23 extends the meaning.

I watched the ark press on line thing a few days ago. and it seems that there has not been, is not being, is not expected to be, any taxpayers money used in the planning and construction of the project.
I think aig are still waiting for a retraction of the wrong information. I doubt I would need to retract ,when I say a lot of taxpayers money is spent on Darwinist propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:03 PM

>>>if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. <<<

I've never seen you claim to be a scientist?

Are you one? Are you now claiming to be one?

Other than teaching school children, please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?

Where I come from, "teaching schoolchildren" does not amount to "scientific credentials". Do edit, Wacko.

No I am not "claiming" to be one. I don't need to "claim" that I am one any more than I need to "claim" that I'm a boy and that my first name is Steve. Since you ask in such sneery and loaded terms about my credentials (which, in any case, I don't need in order to post here - at least, I don't remember sitting an entrance exam when I signed up), I'm not going to tell you. That would be seriously infra dig on this occasion, duckie.


(Actually, I've declared them on this forum on one or two previous occasions, so dig it out for yourself, you lazy bugger).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

So you consider Popper's work to be "quasi-philosophical burblings," do you? Intellectually superior to both Newton and Popper. I bet you could tell Einstein a thing or two.

Ah, nowt like a little naked misrepresentation when you get cross with someone (my recommendation: don't get cross. There are only two potential reasons for being here: making money or having fun. If you're achieving neither, well you know what to do).

As all literate persons here might glean for themselves (if they could be arsed), 'twas YOUR quasi-philosophical burblings that I was farting in the general direction of. Neither Newton nor Popper burbled (well I suppose Newton did a little bit when he was doing his alchemy...), but you certainly give burbling your best shot at times. For the amusement of all or none, here is the quote of mine that you have so blatantly and foolishly misrepresented:

If you really want to get heavy about your quasi-philosophical burblings, look elsewhere.

You see? No Popper, no Newton, just that little word "your" that is such a f*<£!^g great big clue!

And yes I could certainly tell Albert a thing or two. I have it on very good authority that he was a bloody useless blues harp player. His violin teacher told me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:30 PM

So you are a scientist in the same way you are a boy?

Steve Shaw, the boy.

Nice playing for one so young.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM

I doubt I would need to retract ,when I say a lot of taxpayers money is spent on Darwinist propaganda.

What "Darwinist propaganda"?

Any clue as to how much money churches, here in this supposed secular nation of ours, make out of being charities? All that Gift Aid 'n' stuff? Or how much money we spend supporting faith schools or paying the salaries of religious "education" teachers? All money from taxpayers, even atheist ones!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:39 PM

Jesus came up with love thy neighbor. But no government has ever tried to do that.

Neither has any major religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:09 AM

Sigh. Ok, pete, I will give that explanation, but I fear it will be like drawing teeth. We will have to do it in very small steps, so it may take many, many posts, but here we go.

The basis of the theory of evolution is:

1. Inheritance: characteristics are passed from parents to offspring.

2. Variation: individuals have slightly different inheritances.

3. Natural Selection: The chances of surviving to maturity can be affected by this variation

4. Speciation: With enough accumulated differences, decedents of a given collection of creatures can become sufficiently different they are different species.


Now, to be absolutely clear whether we think that is true or not is not the question. All we are interested in is whether it is an accurate description of the theory. And for other readers of the thread, I'm doing my best to keep it to the simplest form, so I appreciate I haven't, for example, even mentioned genes.

pete: Do you agree it is an accurate description of the theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:10 AM

" ... it seems that the Hebrew word translated "creeping things" has a wide range but understood to mean reptiles, because of the qualifier ...nostrils."

You'd think, wouldn't you, that if God had gone to the effort of creating all of these creatures, his taxonomy would be a bit more exact. You could claim - and no doubt you will, pete - that something of his infinite, omniscient exactitude has been lost in translation but a trifle like translation shouldn't be a problem to an infinite, omniscient being ... should it?

I wouldn't argue with your outline of the Theory of Evolution, DMcG - but pete will. That's because he chooses not to believe it and chooses to believe piffle instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM

I'm getting angry, Pete. I told you I was God and I didn't create everything. Why won't you believe me? Have you lost your faith? If this doubting doesn't stop immediately something bad will happen. Not straight away, but you watch. When something bad happens, you will know it is your fault for not obeying me!!!

Dave the God.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:57 AM

Oy! The job description we agreed to, subject to references, satisfactory occupational health return and consideration of psychometric reports was as follows:

Co Messiah Emeritus with Gnomish attributes.

Doesn't say anything about Dave the God.

pete can spot false prophets you know. It goes with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:30 AM

Damn! Sussed right away. What you get for working with deities...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:16 AM

Darwin was at pains to point out that natural selection acts on heritable traits (he hadn't heard of genes), not on individual members of species.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:25 AM

Evolution, to sane people, by the definition we apply to it, happens. If you deny that evolution happens you are in the same camp as flat-earthers or chocolate teapotters. That's what I mean when I say it's true. The theory of evolution is derived from the evidence that tells us that evolution is true. There is still plenty more to explain and argue about, but the general thrust of evolution in action can never be overturned. It is the theory that is the explanation. It's one of the best explanations we have for any natural phenomenon, but it is just the explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:14 AM

My other fear about this discourse was well expressed by Lewis Carroll in one of his less well known writings ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

Quite correct. One must be careful to separate the *fact* of evolution from the theory of evolution. The theory always needs tweaking, but the fact is undeniable. Gravity is a good example. Does anyone deny the *fact* of gravity? Of course not! Now, the theory of gravity... is terrible. In fact there isn't one.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:54 AM

Now, the theory of gravity... is terrible. In fact there isn't one.

I thought there were a few?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:04 AM

'ere, when we were running our bingo scam con faith sessions, were we dealing with false profits?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:47 AM

None that are effective at both relativity and quantum mechanics scales.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:06 AM

Ah - OK. Sounds too sciencey for me so I will rely on the word of an actual scientist. :-) Unless I can prove otherwise by quoting what must be true because it is on the internet ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:21 AM

Unless I can prove otherwise by quoting what must be true because it is on the internet ;-)

Or, becuz God sez so.   ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:21 AM

No doubt pete will see the impeccable reasoning in this:

Belief in Gravity Requires Faith

Points out (quite cleverly) the utter failure of the theory of gravity to explain *everything*

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:39 PM

Jesus came up with love thy neighbor. But no government has ever tried to do that.

Neither has any major religion. <<

I think these guys try to live it. They do a good job of taking care of the down and out everywhere that I have lived. They were founded in your country.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM

Cute satirical piece An Actual. It seems that the intended audience are those that understand gravity and the basic math.

F = G x (m_1 X m_2}/{r^2} Obviously if you know the math, masses and distances you could calculate the relative attraction of the sun and earth on the moon.

I would think that if you didn't know the math, the arguments would not seem as funny.

There obviously is no theory of gravity effective at both relativity and quantum mechanics scales.

Isn't that one of the goals of modern physics? Isn't that one of the things that string theory was invented to account for? Might one say that some iterations of string theory are, in fact, unproven theories of gravity? That is my understanding of it anyway.

The good thing about gravity is that to "prove" it all we have to do is drop an anvil on a creationist's head and say, "the reason that hurts so much is a phenomenon scientists call gravity."

IMHO the issue with "creation scientists" is their often intentional distortion of definitions of words such as "belief", "theory" and especially "scientist" to place doubt in the minds of people who can't or won't do the math. The issue with people who believe that "creation science" has anything to do with science is that they will not take the trouble to learn what science is.

Bill D expresses this far more eloquently than I do in terms of logic and etymology. I was entertained by the thoughts above and wanted to share them.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:21 PM

Huh. I tried loving my neighbour. I still have half the T Shirt.

Dave, there were no profits!




Officer..



Dunno about gravity, but my mate reckons the earth sucks. Will that do?

I used to try to distinguish between the fact by observation and the theory by deduction in my own work years ago. A Prof tried using gravity rather mischievously by asking me, when challenging the ratio of displacement in a vibro feeder to its concreted in base, whether we could use that to deduce the natural frequency of the planet?

In short, you can prove gravity not to exist as there is no reference point out of the universe that is not subject to gravity, so it is cannot be relative except to er.. Gravity....

I've emptied a few breweries along the way trying to get around that one, and to this day I reckon he was taking the piss. Still, if it looks like the effect of gravity and feels like the effect of gravity, it probably quacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 01:41 PM

Thread drift, I know, but it is worth reminding ourselves that this is not just a Christian and theoretical issue:
=========================================
BBC News
4 March 2014 Last updated at 20:57 GMT

A Jewish girls school in Hackney has been redacting questions on evolution on science exam papers because they do not fit in with their beliefs.

Fifty-two papers were altered by Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls' School to remove questions on evolution.

The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice, saying it has come to an agreement with the school to protect the future integrity of the exams.
=========================================
The decision of OCR seems very dubious to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:00 PM

well played steve. my wife liked it also.

dmcg,-thanks but I did not see much to argue with there , and pretty much seems to accord with creationist belief....assuming that when you say "new species" we are talking about the same kind of animal.
but I think you misunderstood, as I was only asking what the convincing theory was concerning the geographical settling of marsupials.

actual,- gravity is observable, testable science , which is why creationists believe in it. I leave the doubting of operational science to atheists who think all came from nothing via no one.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

and pretty much seems to accord with creationist belief....assuming that when you say "new species" we are talking about the same kind of animal
Well, of course, the theory is precisely that it is not the same kind of animal. But that's fine, because as I say the question was not whether it is thought to be true, but whether it is an accurate statement of the theory of evolution.

Am I right, then, in thinking that it is an accurate statement of what you think the evolutionist's view is?

If so, we can get onto the next step rather faster than I thought. Because, as a matter of logic, the new species that the theory claims occur (even if you disagree with the theory, I can't see how you can disagree the theory claims it) will share characteristics of the ancestor that were not those giving rise to the different species.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:23 PM

Ok, I'll throw in another step we need sometime, that I don't think you will have much objection to.

It is relatively difficult for a land based animal in Australasia to move elsewhere. Birds and aquatic creatures, not so bad, but it is tough for a land animal. So land animal populations in Australia tend to stay there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:42 PM

this is not just a Christian and theoretical issue:

Of course not- its an issue of the brain-dead Vs. reality, whatever the religious persuasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:06 PM

Hmmm a Tasmanian devil and a Koala are the same "kind" of animal in that they are both marsupial but they are wildly different species which could not possibly interbreed.

I think the Ken Hamian definition of "kind" leaves much, much too much wiggle room.

But the picture it paints of pete's theory of natural selection becomes more and more amusing.

In the 4,000 years since the flood did some Asian marsupial migrate to Australia then branch out to become each _kind_ found today? Or did carnivores and Herbivores and other kinds of animals migrate there and spontaneously and simultaneously lose their placentas. Is the platypus the only remaining four footed creeping fowl?

Certainly there seen to be enough wild theories to fill a $23,000,000 museum.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:32 PM

Pardon me while I "drift" back to a prior point in the discussion:
Pete assured us that what some take to be discrepancies between the first and second creation narratives in Genesis are actually simply a matter of the second narrative focusing in on some of the details.

Genesis 1:11-13 tell us that plant life was created on the third day. Verses 26-31 tell us that human beings, male and female, were created on the sixth day.

Genesis 2:4-7 narrates how, before there was plant life, God created Adam. God then planted the garden of Eden for him.

Does "focusing in on some of the details" mean that the narrator first focused from one end of time, and then focused from the other end of time? Or?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:40 PM

Given the nature of platypus DNA, it probably is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:41 PM

If it is a story, it could be two versions from different points of view. The entire creation point of view vs the Eden centric views for the telling of the fall from grace story.

But as a science text, as proof that this was the true story of and omniscient creator, divine, error free word of that creator, it falls short.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:42 PM

Penny :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:19 PM

I just watched 'Gravity'. I now have a few theories of my own. Mainly involving Sandra Bullock in vest and knickers.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM

Yo, Jack; I was just curious to see how Pete might rationalize the differences in the stories in the effort to make them hold up as accurate literal accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:26 PM

Don't worry. He is ignoring me because I said Ham is a liar and if pete doesn't learn what science is then he is one too because it is dishonest to claim to know science is wrong when you don't have a clue what science is.

I was comparing him to Adam and Eve in the garden. Once they put leaves on their naughty bits they showed God that they had disobeyed. Likewise once pete argues until painted into a corner until he admits ignorance about the topic. He does not get to do the same thing repeatedly. It is his responsibility to correct that short coming in his knowledge before again telling people they are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:46 PM

"Since the flood at least, we have had free will and are not to be punished for exercising it. "

So if I choose to exercise my God given free will and serve you up a .44 Magnum suppository, that's OK with your God?

WOW! I can really go to town on the people I don't like, and then tell the boss he's wrong to punish me?

I don't think you meant to SAY that!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:08 PM

I just watched 'Gravity'. I now have a few theories of my own. Mainly involving Sandra Bullock in vest and knickers.

Yeah, I've seen it too and harbour similar sentiments. Not only her vest and knickers but all those little girlie grunts and sighs. Cor. It's sex, Jim, but not as we know it...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:04 PM


As all literate persons here might glean for themselves (if they could be arsed), 'twas YOUR quasi-philosophical burblings that I was farting in the general direction of.

But Steve, as you have been so fond of pointing out in the past, I make no original contributions of my own. I have made no philosophical burblings, quasi or otherwise. All I have done is cite the work of others, mainly Popper but suppiorted by quotes from the famous as varied as Einstein and Dawkins along with contributors to this thread. Please enlighten me as to anything I have said that you consider to be "quasi-philosophical burblings".

Neither Newton nor Popper burbled

Excellent! I am glad to see that you have finally taken on board what Popper was saying. You have embraced falsifiabilty. You have recognised that science doesn't do "True". Welcome into the fold of modern scientific thought. I am glad to see that you will no longer be proclaiming (with religious fervour) "Evolution is true!".

Well, I can dream.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:25 PM

Why oh why Snail, do you persist in misrepresenting Steve's POV?

Evolution happens! FACT! (or to put it another way, TRUE!)

The theory by which it may one day be almost fully explained, is a WORK IN PROGRESS!

That is what I hear from Steve. Why do you hear something entirely different?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:53 PM

Troubadour, I am with TheSnail on this. I don't really mind that he thinks that evolution is true but it irks me when he lords his scienceness over others when he says so. Here is a proposal. I've looked it up. I can't find anyone but Steve and now you who has said "evolution is true."

When I was studying Chemistry, Physics and Psychology in University I was told not to say things like that.

I think that Steve in his zeal is overreaching and overstating the case.

Tell you what though. Find a respected scientist with a reasoned argument who claims "evolution is true" and I will read it thoroughly and keep an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual...
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:30 PM

gravity is observable, testable science

Pete
If you did not see the parallels, you are lost.
I feel kinda bad...
I am off to argue with a three year old to feel better.
Next time you say "I am not up on all the science, but..."
Just substitute a period for everything after "science".
Really.
And next time the Doc gives you a ten-day course of antibiotics,just stop after one.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:57 PM

Pete.. re: " I leave the doubting of operational science to atheists who think all came from nothing via no one."

Tell me which ones actually said that. Some 'may' think that, but most, like me, simply say they do not know! It is not so much a matter of asserting "something came from nothing", but of saying "I don't know... and YOU don't either!" The burden of proof is on the asserter.
Pointing to one religious book among many is not the kind of proof that scientists require. Some of them are comparing various arcane cosmological/physical theories based on math, particle physics...and sometimse just plain 'creative wondering'... to speculate about multiple universes, multiple dimensions, endless-loop collapsing/reconstituting universes.... etc. But none of them have anything like 'proof', and most will admit they might never get a comfortable answer.

It is theology which provides 'comfortable' answers.... or rather, dozens of answers comfortable to various people and cultures, most of which are just versions of "God did it!" Pretty easy, hmm? No more complex math or confusing measurements of astronomical phenomena! Wow... just some books translated from old manuscripts copied by fallible scribes who were usually just dedicated clerks who were told WHAT to copy. And what they copied were stories that served a purpose... sometimes political... sometimes psychological... sometimes coherent... sometimes contradictory- but all of which must "believed in order to be believed". And THAT is a paradigm example of "circular argument", "assuming the consequent", and a couple other fallacious bits of reasoning.

Pete... most scientists do not BOTHER to 'deny' those stories... they just don't 'accept' them..... they are busy trying to see just how much they CAN find out about everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:12 AM

Well said, Bill D. But we both know that, whatever we tell him, pete will go on persistently, blindly and/or wilfully confusing 'belief' and 'evidence'. For example, he insists on BELIEVING that 'all came from something via someone' but the only evidence that he can present is that 'it-says-so-in-the-Bible'. He also refuses to even think about the further implications of his beliefs e.g. if God created everything, where did he get the materials and where did He come from and who created HIM from what materials? All that he can come up with is that he BELIEVES that God is ineffable.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:38 AM

I noticed a snippet from pete that sums this up nicely.

He said in his last post that creationists believe in gravity. Now... I don't know how many creationists there are, or whether the default position for a sentient being is to be a creationist until decided otherwise, or not a creationist until decided otherwise, but to believe in gravity?

Do they believe in gravity because when they jump up, they come back down again? Do they believe that if you carry out calculations using Newtonian formulae they have a knack of being consistent? Do they believe the theory of gravitons?

How do you believe in an observable phenomenon that has had a word attached to it?

I do see where he is coming from. Descartes said, I think therefore I am. In other words, I have to believe in gravity for it to exist. Lots of people splattered on the ground at the foot of cliffs over the years, contesting for the Darwin awards.

We see the same silly notion here on Mudcat in other discussions too. We have some one who analyses every word you put and goes to see if he can find any corroboration or triangulation on dubious websites. Your position is subject to him believing it, and in that regard whether it fits with his prejudice. If he can't find it or indeed finds it and then spends time finding something to contradict it, he calls you a liar. Regardless of whether you were honest or not, it rather spoils the idea of debate, and is boorish. I am sure there are websites where you "debate" by playing top trumps with hyperlinks, but most on Mudcat do actually like to debate. Respect can be relative, but so can gravity. (See Newton's bucket for details.)

pete however does give good entertainment. Yes, his dishonesty is appalling when you think how many people abuse children by feeding them such rubbish, but he is at least willing to debate it.

Expect with me.

Or Jack.

Or Steve.

Or God.

(Not you Dave, sit down...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Troubadour
Evolution happens! FACT! (or to put it another way, TRUE!)

I have asked Steve and got no response. Tell me where I can see some evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:10 AM

Snails crawling around and ignoring the beer and salt traps I put out.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:47 AM

Tell me where I can see some evolution.

Michigan State University maybe? Dozens of others but that was the first on a simple search.

Evolution happens
Gravity happens

Both theories are that. Theories. Simple really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:00 AM

Religion however isn't a theory, or at least not in the established religion way.

You observe and you put a theory as to why that happened. Easy. Gravity, evolution, only putting a single goal past Denmark last night etc.

You observe and try to figure out why it happened. The theory representing a working hypothesis.

Religion started like that. The rain comes? God did it. The other lot kicked the shit out of our soldiers? God was unhappy. We have famine? God punishes us. We are enjoying life too much? God'll put a stop to that malarkey! What gives you the right to be the boss and order us around? God put me here.

However, as superstition decreases and science informs our lives more, the theory of God did it doesn't hold for a single second on a single subject.

Except perhaps the very last one I stated?

All you need to know in that one sentence. Perhaps I'm God? I know who will be the first one here that I will out a painful boil on the arse of.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:57 PM

frogprince.   there are different approaches taken by OT scholars to the narrative in gen 2. these mainly relate to nuances of the Hebrew.
some interpret as " had created". also the vegetation described on the 3rd day would be that not requiring cultivation whereas that planted after adams creation included that which he would tend v15.

yes, dmcg, that seems what I understand the theory entails, though I cant get my head as to what the very last clause is saying.
yes it is tougher for land based animals to leave Australasia.
any chance of saying what the evolutionary explanation for marsupials being concentrated mostly in one area is, and why you suggest it superior to the creation migratory theory.

bill. ok so no one says that. no surprise there. it is obviously a big problem for atheists so better to leave it as an open question, because it is totally inconsistent with observable, testable science.
and do you apply the burdon of proof to evolutionism...
to paraphrase snail...show me some.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:27 PM

>>yes it is tougher for land based animals to leave Australasia.
any chance of saying what the evolutionary explanation for marsupials being concentrated mostly in one area is, and why you suggest it superior to the creation migratory theory.<<

How about common sense?

pete,

Given that you believe in Natural Selection, which is more plausible.
That 4,000 years ago, marsupial carnivores, marsupial insectivores, and marsupial plant grazers (kangas and walabies), each a very different kind of animal, walked off (or hopped) the Ark and walked to Australia, leaving no trace anywhere along the way to propagate and divide into the species we see in that very short time frame. Why did they not procreate and spread out from Africa to Siberia to Sri Lanka. Did God tell them to go directly to Australia? Did God tell, canines and felines and ruminants and rabbits to stay out. You may believe that, but there is no scientific or Biblical evidence of that. Camels and rabbits thrive in Australia why did they have to be introduced by western explorers? Why weren't they there already? If the Kangaroos could hop there and the Koalas could crawl there isn't it obvious that rabbits and camels could do so at least as easily?

Isn't it a thousand times more plausible that Natural Selection occurred there over a much longer time frame in geographic isolation starting with a common ancestor leaving marsupials to fill every unoccupied ecological niche?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:31 PM

What the flying fuck is evolutionism?

We don't have mountainism. We don't have blue shirtism. We don't have iphoneism.

You don't have to prove what exists.

You have to prove what doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:36 PM

any chance of saying what the evolutionary explanation for marsupials being concentrated mostly in one area is, and why you suggest it superior to the creation migratory theory.

Please be patient. I am getting you to agree with every step of the argument. Once we have collected all your agreements I will assemble them in the right order and you will have said what the evolutionary argument is!


yes, dmcg, that seems what I understand the theory entails, though I cant get my head as to what the very last clause is saying.

By the very last clause I assume you mean "the new species that the theory claims occur (even if you disagree with the theory, I can't see how you can disagree the theory claims it) will share characteristics of the ancestor that were not those giving rise to the different species" Now I agree I've expressed that in a complex way, so let's see if you agree with this bit: even if you disagree with the theory, I can't see how you can disagree the theory claims it


Let me give an analogy. Not one atheist in this thread will agree with the statement "God made the world". On the other hand, every one of them will agree with "The Bible claims God made the world". You see the importance of the distinction? So I am not asking you to agree that the evolutionary theory is true, but I am asking you to agree that is what it claims.

If it is other part, I think that is fairly straightforward. Suppose we have a blue-haired small creature and a natural selection pressure to become taller - creationist model or evolutionist model matters not. I am saying that when it does become taller you would not expect it then to become pink. It could, but it is far more probable that it remains blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

What the flying fuck is evolutionism? We don't have mountainism. We don't have blue shirtism. We don't have iphoneism.

But we apparently got dumbfuckism and ignorantism in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:20 PM

I am not asking you to agree that the evolutionary theory is true, but I am asking you to agree that is what it claims.

Sorry, what 'it claims' means was unclear. I should have said evolutionary theory ' claims new species arise in certain circumstance'

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:27 PM

Or perhaps "a prediction of Evolutionary theory is that species speciate to fill ecological niches."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

"and do you apply the burdon of proof to evolutionism..."

Oh, indeed I do! (except I do not use that term...) Evolution is not in serious doubt. Some of the details are, quite naturally, not clear & settled.
We can't possibly know the precise stages in the development of every species of plant & animal: and when a species is extinct, it is even harder. We can take what we do know and learn general principles & patterns. Then we can make educated, informed guesses about what we MIGHT find and how certain species MIGHT develop and what missing links MIGHT look like if we manage to find them.
Then we dig, measure, compare, analyze and debate the evidence and see if it is consistent and, as far as possible, found from several sources. Then we take that data and make NEW predictions and refine our analysis & predictions. That IS "applying the burden of proof"!
Needless to say, scientists do not take new data from paleontology & anthropology and look to see see whether it can be explained by some theological interpretation of some version of some old manuscript.

Sadly, a few groups do NOT allow the burden of proof to interfere with their already-decided-opinion that everything MUST fit into an 8000 year span of history.

-------------------------
I repost for the 3 or 4th time a story I have told before:

..I kinda envy those who just say "Oh, I like THIS answer...I'll just believe it from now on, and avoid all that tedious thinking and juggling."

There was a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, (like that 'money' on Yap Island).

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:55 PM

But Steve, as you have been so fond of pointing out in the past, I make no original contributions of my own.

You can say that again (unless you regard tedious and serial misrepresentations as "original contributions"). And the only time you'll ever see me saying that I'm fond of pointing out anything you say is the day you turn the bloody record over. And to think that I found snails to be so interesting when I was at at university. When I dissected 'em.

Incidentally, one noted scientist who says, quite rightly, that evolution is true is Richard Dawkins. There. I knew that wouldn't shut any of you up!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:58 PM

"Evolutionary theory" is not "true". Evolution is, though. The theory is simply the best explanation we currently have for it. No-one here bar pete should be finding this difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:08 PM

"that evolution is true is Richard Dawkins"

I'd better not hold my breath until you show me a quote or clip of him saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:11 PM

Why evolution is true

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Actual...
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:19 PM

DMcG
I really appreciate your approach with pete.
If he would just answer simple questions with simple answers (that his day-to-day common sense brain fully supports), you would make a brilliant and inescapable point.
Sadly,he senses the trap which is no trap at all (just a roadmap for consistencyncy), and will second-guess, anticipate, and bob-and-weave.
This alone is the proof of the point you are making.
Well played Sir!
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:32 AM

Thank you kindly (and also thanks to several others who have complemented me along the way).


I think I need to make something clear, though: I have no interest in 'beating' pete in an argument. If he goes away cross but otherwise unchanged, then I agree with your earlier remark that the exercise is futile. On the other hand, even if I lost the discussion I would feel it worth while if pete remains a creationist but is more self aware: will he continue to wonder about those beetles, or will he simply forget them? Will he ask himself whether it is really an answer to end his initial creationist defence of marsupials in Australia with "that's how it is"? (We have yet to see the second explanation.) Will he wonder why it took somebody else to point out the number of beetles needed explaining, rather than realising that himself? In short, will he actually spend time thinking about what he believes, rather than simply accepting it.

Thomas Aquinas said that religion must be reasonable, by which he meant 'capable of being reasoned about' rather than 'plausible'. I would deem it a success if pete remains every bit of a creationist that he was before, but spent more time reasoning about it with himself.

The other thing I need to point out is that I go on holiday mid next week and will be absent for about three weeks. It is possible that we do not get to the end of this logical argument before then. That would be a shame, butif that's what happens, it can't be helped - I'm not giving up my holiday!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

There's a snag. pete is, I am sure, liable to go away thinking creationism passed another test of doubting Thomas syndrome and therefore creationism must be true.

I keep repeating, humouring him isn't good for him or indeed anyone he has influence over in the long run. We all need opinions and opinions can be harmless. So long as you don't try to share them. Nobody is going to say anything detrimental about Sheffield Wednesday and expect me to believe it. Not even facts. All facts do is test my faith.

But here's the thing. I don't expect to see anybody on the Kop on Saturday on the basis of me knocking on their door and sharing my faith. If you need to explain, don't bother explaining. I never indoctrinated my children with it either. They both asked for season tickets of their own free will. Why? Because I am a true believer so why shouldn't they?

You can carry on the analogy yourselves if you really must.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM


There's a snag. pete is, I am sure, liable to go away thinking creationism passed another test of doubting Thomas syndrome and therefore creationism must be true

Possibly so. I am not saying I am not trying to win the argument, simply that winning it is not the main goal!

My personal belief is that when a creationist really thinks about what creationism implies they will conclude that it really cannot bear the weight of the number of assumptions and special cases required. As a result, they will come to the conclusion it cannot be the answer. But that's my opinion, not fact. However, I don't think an outside person can convince them of that: they have to come to that conclusion by themselves. So any number of fossils and carbon dating examples and inconsistancies we point out don't make much of an impression. What does is when they find an inconsistancy or other problem themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:33 AM

"there are different approaches taken by OT scholars to the narrative in gen 2. these mainly relate to nuances of the Hebrew."

Er, so the text of the original source you base your beliefs on is open to the interpretation of individual translators?

Seems you're moving even further away from objectivity Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:33 AM

"there are different approaches taken by OT scholars to the narrative in gen 2. these mainly relate to nuances of the Hebrew."

Surely, God wouldn't allow misinterpretation of His message? Do we know of any translators being struck by lightning or meteors?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:51 AM

More impact than being struck by irrelevance...

DMcG, I more than see your point and please do carry on, I find it all rather interesting. But my point is that if I looked at league tables, goals scored, odds of beating Chelsea if we played them etc etc etc, my faith would be shattered.

Or so you would think. But it isn't, because Ozzie Owl moves in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

But my point is that if I looked at league tables, goals scored, odds of beating Chelsea if we played them etc etc etc, my faith would be shattered.

Or so you would think. But it isn't, because Ozzie Owl moves in mysterious ways.
Exactly so! I couldn't have put it better. We can show you every league table/fossil, goal scores/carbon dating etc etc etc and it will not make the slightest impression.


Once you start asking yourself if Sheffield Wednesday are as good as you think, though, the ground suddenly becomes much more shaky ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 08:33 AM

Why evolution is true (Wacko's link)

My, how bloody useful is that! Do you expect us to wade through a 48-minute video to find out either what you agree with or what you don't agree with?

Let me make it easier. Grab your copy of The God Delusion. Turn to page 283, where you will read "I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere."

Glad to be of service.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 08:41 AM

Incidentally, as Mr Molluscan keeps asking me why I think I'm better than Popper, Newton and Einstein, perhaps I should ask him now whether he thinks he's better than Professor Dawkins, who, er, knows a fair bit more about evolutionary biology than yer average man-in-the-street, to slightly understate the case. Yeah, yeah, appeal to authority an' all that, but what's a chap to do? Anyway, I won't ask him, so it don't count!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 09:54 AM

Oh pshaw!!!


"Why evolution is true (Wacko's link)"

If you didn't want to watch it, you could have taken 14 seconds to look up Dr Coyne in Google before you launch into name calling and ranting. Are you not aware that you only make yourself look petulant and deranged when you do things like that?

For God's sakes, you claim to have a brain. You claim to be superior to Newton in the clarity and purity of your scientific dogma. Do you think that Newton wouldn't have Googled before he ranted? I think Newton would have Googled and NOT ranted and called me names.


I think Newton would have said. "Thank you kindly Mr. Sailor for pointing out this excellent informative and humouresque video from the most excellent Doctor Coyne!"


Dr. Coyne wrote a book called "Why Evolution is true" the same time that Dawkins wrote "Greatest Show on Earth." Coyne is a bit less of an apologist for evolutionism than Dawkins. And the evidence he shows on the video is compelling and clear. It might even be clear to pete. Though it must be said that though Coyne is not near the condescending arse that Dawkins is he is a bit of an arse. Is it too much to ask that someone, anyone would produce such a video without being deliberately rude to those that they say that they want to convince?   Much of the evidence presented by Dr. Coyne is new to me at least and Dawkins asked Coyne to make the talk be about undermining Creationism. He does that very well. At the end he comes up with a far more constructive and compelling way for dealing with backward religious folk than any argument I have seen on this forum. He partly credits Theologian and social scientist, Dr. Gregg Paul for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM

It is hardly petulant or deranged to point out to a fellow that providing a link to a 48-minute video for reasons one cannot readily glean (as your rather lazy message provided no other guidance, though the one before that one seemed to hint you didn't believe me), is insufficient. I therefore assisted you, graciously as ever, by demonstrating, as you requested, that Dawkins has indeed stated, rightly, that evolution is true.

You claim to be superior to Newton in the clarity and purity of your scientific dogma.

As you well know, liar, I have never claimed any such thing. And dogma is never scientific, but how would you know that?

Wacko whinges thus:

Do you think that Newton wouldn't have Googled before he ranted?

In short, no, as Tim Berners-Lee was still in his nappies in Newton's time.

...before you launch into name calling and ranting.

Then:

Are you not aware that you only make yourself look petulant and deranged...?

And:

For God's sakes, you claim to have a brain.

Then:

...the condescending arse that Dawkins is he is a bit of an arse.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:25 AM

Humph. "Wacko whinges thus" belongs two lines further down. See what happens when Wackers gets me all petulant and enraged and brainless and...and...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:30 AM

Hmmm. "Dawkins is a bit of an arse." Would a thread with that title run and run? Shame I don't start threads around here. Know anyone who loves startin' 'em? Wacko...??

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:47 AM

"You claim to be superior to Newton in the clarity and purity of your scientific dogma.


As you well know, liar, I have never claimed any such thing. And dogma is never scientific, but how would you know."

"Berlin wall in the brain." Is not exactly scientific "fact" Is it Oh pshaw?

Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.

Berlin wall in the brain
How can we pierce his membrane
when his scientific dogma
has cooled as hard as magma
When it hits the open sea
Creating a crust of prejudice
as far as the eye can see.

Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.
Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw, Oh pshaw.

You know you are darned tootin
He thinks he's smarter than Newton
When pseudo science is fruitin
pete will get a bootin
But its water down the drain
pshaw never takes the time to explain
All he does is complain
And call names
he calls names
And he calls names
Cause he got no brains

And pshaw with all his squawkin's
Thinks he's a baby Dawkins
Diff'rence is plain. People pay
to hear the things that Dawkins say
While pshaw hurls abuse at pete and me
It's worth its price because its free.

And he calls names
And he calls names
And he calls names
cause he got no brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:13 PM

You won't stay away. The only people who stay away are the ones who melt without saying anything. And if I see an atheist called Steve in your novel I might have to sue. :-)

And you're still a liar!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:34 PM

How would we know if he is an atheist? He might be someone who isn't anything to do with religion.....

Nice bit of gangsta rap though, all the same. I'd be flattered Steve.


DMcG. Why in the name of Clapton would I ever ask myself whether Sheffield Wednesday are as good as I think? Think!? I know!!

You get the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:16 AM

You certainly seem to be willing them up the Championship table this season. Had I not been a Lancashire lad I could have applauded that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Just sack your manager.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM

"Tell you what though. Find a respected scientist with a reasoned argument who claims "evolution is true" and I will read it thoroughly and keep an open mind."

Right back at you Jack!

Find one who says that evolution, as a process, DOESN'T happen! After all, it is you and Snail who are issuing the challenge.

Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.

I wish you luck with that.

Meanwhile, the theory of how it happens is still being researched.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 09:05 PM

"Religion started like that. The rain comes? God did it. The other lot kicked the shit out of our soldiers? God was unhappy. We have famine? God punishes us. We are enjoying life too much? God'll put a stop to that malarkey! What gives you the right to be the boss and order us around? God put me here."

I'd like Pete to answer a simple question.

Do you agree with the politician who said that this winter's floods were a punishment for permitting gay marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 09:20 PM

"Will he ask himself whether it is really an answer to end his initial creationist defence of marsupials in Australia with "that's how it is"? (We have yet to see the second explanation.) Will he wonder why it took somebody else to point out the number of beetles needed explaining, rather than realising that himself? In short, will he actually spend time thinking about what he believes, rather than simply accepting it."

No DMcG, Pete's responses will always be a consistent "Ready, FIRE, aim!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:48 AM

No DMcG, Pete's responses will always be a consistent "Ready, FIRE, aim!

"I have seen flowers come in stony places
And kind things done by men with ugly faces
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust too."

John Masefield, English author (1878 - 1967)


Call me a naïve old fool if you like, but I think any of us are capable of developing, and, pretty much always, the first step is to admit to ourselves that something mightn't be as clear cut as we like to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

We had a physics teacher when we were in the sixth form way back in the 60s who we relished plying with awkward questions ("asking the wrong question" deliberately, or baiting, if you know what I mean). His usual response was to rub the back of his head in frustration staring at his blackboard, then he'd whip round to us and declare tersely "God made it so!" We always suspected that he was an atheist really, and that he was demonstrating to us that the easiest answer is usually the wrong answer. Good man!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:33 AM

Ah, I well remember a similar conversation with my flatmate as a student


He: Every ideal in a Noetherian ring is expressible as a finite intersection of primary ideals

Me: Is it?

He: [pause] Yes.

Me: Why?

He:[longer pause] Because I BLOODY SAY SO!



You had to be there, I suppose....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 11:17 AM

>>Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.<<

I wouldn't worry Too much about it DMcG

Trubie cheats when he argues and like his pal Steve doesn't read the thread before he aggressively and arrogantly posts.

Saying that Steve has an erroneous definition of "scientific truth" is not the same as saying evolution does not happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

Oh dear, there's too much to keep up with and I really do have other things to do like playing tunes.

Troubadour
Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.

You are relatively new to this epic battle so perhaps you don't realise my position. I do not have the intention or the desire or the means to produce any evidence that evolution doesn't happen. I have studied evolution and genetics at university level and find them utterly fascinating. They offer the best explanation we have for the myriad forms of life on Earth and almost certainly the best explanation we will ever have. I have absolutely no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is turning evolution into a pseudo religious belief system by declaring it to be true. I have said many times, science doesn't do true. Throughout my education in science I have been taught that you can never say a theory is true only that it hasn't (yet) been proved false.

Unfortunately following up things from the link to Jerry Coyne's talk that Jack posted, I found that the "evolution is true"/"evolution is a fact" stance is taken by a number of prominent scientists in the field of evolution. I can't help but feel that this plays into the hands of people like pete with their accusations of "Evolutionism". It only seems to Evolution. I don't recall anyone saying Quantum Theory is true or Relativity is true.

In the confrontation between Evolution and Creationism, much emphasis is put on the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I think this is wrong because it implies that their is a meaningful contest. The important difference is that the study of evolution is a branch of science and creationism is a branch of religion. They have no point of contact. What matters is to establish what defines science to distinguish it from religion. Steve Shaw dismisses this as quasi-philosophical burbling.

I have asked a number of times for people to show me some evolution and neither Troubadour nor Steve Shaw have responded. Parallels have been drawn between evolution/the theory of evolution and gravity/the theory of gravity. I experience gravity every waking moment. Something is holding me in my chair. If I put my coffee mug on my desk, it stays there, if I put it against the wall... oops. If I throw a ball up, it comes down again. Steve went even further saying that evolution was as self-evident as his left hand and its five digits. I can't see Steve's left hand but my own fits the same description. Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell. I'm afraid that a 23 year experiment involving bacteria in an American university doesn't really hack it as "self-evident".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:43 PM

Excellent points snail.

And to agree with you. The "evolution is true"/"evolution is a fact" seems like a fudge to justify Dr. Coyne's book title.

OTOH, I did find what I had asked pshaw and truebie to find and had the integrity to post it here saving them the trouble. But neither of them had the sense to open the CLEARLY labeled link and see what it was.

It is my opinion that their goal is to fight. May I suggest that the only opponents worthy of such champions of "true" science are each other. So why don't the two of you just pick a topic and without bothering to read the other's posts call each other stupid ad infinitum?

I'm not interested in play that game with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:46 PM

"OTOH, I did find what I had asked pshaw and truebie to find and had the integrity to post it here saving them the trouble. But neither of them had the sense to open the CLEARLY labeled link and see what it was."

You really don't abide by the rules you keep spouting, do you Jack.

Would you like me to post them for YOU to see where you are going wrong.

1. I can't speak for Steve, but I DID watch every second of thayt video, and a very good case was made for the statement. Perhaps you and Snail need to watch ALL of it yourselves?

2. There was a very telling section toward the end regarding the correlation between religious belief and dysfunctional societies, which would make our Pete wet his knickersand which places the US near the top of the religious scale and right down the bottom of the social functionality scale.

3. Perhaps you should be paying more attention to US?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:27 PM

You read it and said this?

"Find one who says that evolution, as a process, DOESN'T happen! After all, it is you and Snail who are issuing the challenge."

You just want to argue when your case is basically won? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

Ah. Peace in our time.

Waving pieces of paper, however figuratively, was always over rated.

Still, eventually everybody says what they are really thinking.

That's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:07 AM

Troubadour
Perhaps you and Snail need to watch ALL of it yourselves?

I have done, Troubadour. I haven't had time to comment on it yet. Have you read my last post?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 09:13 AM

Just tidying up a few things.

Steve Shaw
Incidentally, as Mr Molluscan keeps asking me why I think I'm better than Popper, Newton and Einstein, perhaps I should ask him now whether he thinks he's better than Professor Dawkins, who, er, knows a fair bit more about evolutionary biology

Steve, you have said that you cannot excuse Newton for his work on alchemy despite the fact that that was mainstream thinking at the time. You have argued on another thread that Popper was wrong. The comment about Einstein was a joke and might better be directed at Musket (see below). As far as I can recall, I have never commented on Dawkins' abilities as an evolutionary biologist. I am sure he is brilliant. Do you take my disagreements with you faith based attitude to evolution as criticism of Dawkins?

In my researches, I came across this article by Stephen Jay Gould http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html. In it he says "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's". Dozy sod.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

dmcg.- it was only the very last bit that I could not suss, but I got the example , I think, thanks. I do suspect a trap, I must admit, especially as you are not going to answer the question at present, but I accept that whatever your tactic, and whether it works or not, that you have no ill will toward me, so far as I can see.

snails position interests me. he thinks evolutionism is the best explanation but gives no more explanation than those he criticizes for saying it is true. interesting also that no one is showing him or me what can be demonstrated as evolution.
does that mean that he knows it is not anywhere near proven...
or maybe just wants to show up certain people on this thread.
he does however seem to agree that, at least for certain people that theirs is a faith based position.....
as lewontin said"......a fully fledged religion, replacing Christianity...."

I think the above is relevant to bills claims, except for me to repeat again that imo, ,presupposing biblical creation is no more intractable than presupposing the general theory of evolution.
though of course evolutionism has to keep changing its storyline as more data necessitates it. that's the wonderful thing about it !.
you can change it around to make new data fit.
was,nt it popper who said it cannot be falsified?
and is it therefore science ?
is it not rather a religious position ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:52 PM

dmcg.- it was only the very last bit that I could not suss, but I got the example , I think, thanks. I do suspect a trap, I must admit, especially as you are not going to answer the question at present, but I accept that whatever your tactic, and whether it works or not, that you have no ill will toward me, so far as I can see.

You are right I have no ill will, and have no trap beyond asking you to be consistent. If we got to the end and you didn't agree that I had treated your agreements along the way fairly, I intended to ask you which of the various steps you want to change the answer to and we could explore that in more detail. However, my encroaching holiday makes that unlikely.

I fear, though, I will have to ask you to be explicit:

i) Do you agree that it is a factually undeniable that the evolutionary theory does predict separate species in some circumstances? Once again, whether the theory is or is not true is not the question, but whether it makes that prediction is the question.

ii) Do you also agree that characteristics tend to be preserved if there is no natural selection encouraging change? (the 'blue hair' in my example)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:01 PM

I don't normally bother with anything pete says but just to set the record straight "snails position interests me. he thinks evolutionism is the best explanation". No, pete, that's not what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:04 PM

Musket

Not saying what you are thinking = manners.

There are two way to deal with mudcat bickerers,

Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced

or

Slap them back with one's metaphorical dueling glove without engaging in the bickering.

the third way is to bicker back. But dude isn't listening to me. Dude is giving me zero benefit of the doubt. So I'll be phucked if I'll listen to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:10 PM

Anyone watch Cosmos last night?

So far it is a bald faced polemic aimed at kids. But a very good and entertaining one.

pete, If you watch it you may pick up enough science to not have to claim ignorance so much. Scientific method is explained a couple of times as well as church dogma vs scientific insight.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 07:00 PM

" ... though of course evolutionism has to keep changing its storyline as more data necessitates it. that's the wonderful thing about it !.
you can change it around to make new data fit."

Because it's SCIENCE, based on evidence, pete! It's not absolute, unchanging, unchangeable dogma based on something irrational called FAITH!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 10:49 PM

Ding dong...
"Good morning, we're from the Jehovah's Witnesses."
(Wearily)"Ok, what's He done this time, then?..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:52 AM

One more thing I need from you, pete. Do you agree that if we want to decide whether theory A is better than theory B, we must start without the preconception that A is right and B is wrong, or vice versa. It must be judged entirely on whether the case A makes is simpler and more complete than B, or vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:39 AM

Perhaps Pete's church can have a whip round and fund taking The BBC to court for lying and misleading comments on The Sky at Night? I am sure if what they said about pulsars is accurate, the bible has to be fiction.

So... Why don't they? If religion is truth rather than metaphor, why don't they shut up the boutique followers, atheists and rational people who point and laugh at them by shutting reality up?

Seems they thrive on people taking the piss. I notice some Arab countries have banned the new Noah movie. Those with the unfortunate title Islamists do their creed no favours but at least they don't pick and choose in the spirit of hypocrisy.



Jack. Keeping a lid on it is OK in the real world but without eye contact, you have to say what you really mean in these threads. As you are finding out.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:52 AM

" ... presupposing biblical creation is no more intractable than presupposing the general theory of evolution."

Oh no? Think back to those two beetles on the Ark, pete. According to you they gave rise to every other species of beetle on the Earth. That means that they must have speciated (i.e. changed into other species of beetle - something that you claim is impossible!)- and all in a few thousand years. So those two beetles, of an unknown species, gave rise to (non-interbreeding) Ladybirds, Dung beetles, Stag beetles, Rove beetles, Devil's coach horses, Whirligig beetles, Ground beetles, Tiger beetles etc., etc., etc. The word "intractable" doesn't even come close! Three other words do spring to mind, though: "perverse", "inconsistent" and "ignorant"!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 05:38 AM

"interesting also that no one is showing him or me what can be demonstrated as evolution."

Pete, I've pointed you to papers on this and other threads that show the mechanisms of evolution have been observed and tested.


Aren't you not supposed to bear false witness? Is that naughty devil whispering in your ear again? Conned you have been.


",presupposing biblical creation is no more intractable than presupposing the general theory of evolution."

No it isn't, but then what you seem not to understand is that's not what happens with the scientists studying evolution; the objective facts allow us to form hypotheses and theories on all manner of subjects, not just evolution.

For you however, there are no objective facts but blind, unquestioning faith. Which is fine, but don't suggest it has anything to do with science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 08:03 AM

all in a few thousand years

Actually, it is worse than that. We have no reason to believe that rapid speciation was happening since recorded history. So actually the time available is not much over one thousand years. And there is a second problem, which doesn't really arise in the evolutionary theory but does in the creationist 'equivalent': there is a built-in 'tick of the clock' since inheritance can only happen when the child reaches maturity. In the case of beetles, that's quite a short time, but in the case of say red kangaroos, that's round about three years. Either we assume the creationist form of evolution ran differently in Australia to Europe, which is yet another thing to be explained, or in the case of the marsupials it all happened in something like 250-500 generations. Every one of which must be a viable creature in its own right. Moreover, each must find a mate that is sufficiently similar that they are capable of interbreeding and the offspring inherits the relevant adaption. That isn't a problem for scientific theory because the number of generations is extremely large and the changes each step are correspondingly tiny. Limiting to around 500 steps is a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 12:44 PM

"Jack. Keeping a lid on it is OK in the real world but without eye contact, you have to say what you really mean in these threads. As you are finding out."

There was nothing noble or right in the way I am now behaving. I was told I have to fight my own battles. I am doing the the best I can. I would much rather everyone was civil. As I have said before there are plenty of places to blow off steam on the Internet. None of the them with the intelligence and wit that this place can have when the conversation is allowed to be civil and friendly.

If you want to fight bigotry on the Internet, if want to actually be the brave crusader you paint yourself to be, I can find you a skinhead or KKK forum to join, I am sure.

Why don't you pick up an AK47 and head on off to Ukraine. You and Ake and Keith pissing on each other's corn flakes isn't going to change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:51 AM

Perhaps not.

But our fathers went to war to dissuade people from judging whole sections of society as second class. Bigotry flourishes when you are nice to it.

Peace in our time.

You didn't pick up on the underlying part of my sentence there, did you?

Anyway, being nice is fine when reciprocated. In the meantime, I will happily take my shoes off and feel the soft wet grass under foot that awaits us all here in a high moral place. The sun shines too, and in the distance I can hear the sound of leather against willow.

Yeah, it's great to be right. Keith gave me the idea in fact. He keeps saying to others that he is right and they are wrong. I found that if you take it a stage further and actually be right rather than just say so, the meadows open up and life is good.

Say hello to the peasants for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:41 AM

Musket, I do not call people abusive names.
(The day is young and you have called me "cunt" already.)

Instead I do sometimes point out where I have been proved right and someone else wrong.
I only ever do it where the fact is unequivocal.
That is why the assertion has never once been challenged.

It is also why (confident prediction coming up) you will not produce one single example.

So, am I right, or wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

In my observation, the two of you tend to find each other's mistakes on silly and arcane points, only tangentially related to the topic at hand and count coup on each other. It would be interesting to see a "like button" on mudcat so that you could see if anyone else enjoys this.

I have also observed that this thread has dissolved to the point where it has outlived its usefulness. What say we go on to the next topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:47 PM

dmcg on your first two points, I think we have agreement. in fact I think we are still running in tamden with creationism.
on the A or B, I have always said that I am presupposing that creation is right, and that evolutionists presuppose evolutionism is, and that both have the same evidence. it is the interpretation of that evidence which differs, due to the non negotiable bottom lines of each, which shimrod and stu religiously deny affects their interpretation.
happy holidaying, dmcg.

shimrod....apart from my admitting that I had made a mistake as to whether there were only two beetles surviving the flood, I did not say that there is no speciation. I also wonder [but do not know] if there were only 2 beetles, whether, given the immense numbers ,over numerous locations, that the numerous species might not arise since the flood anyway. not that I need that to stay biblical.

well snail, I assume that you have no fixed position. but as I can think of no 3rd scenario , except maybe ID, and I doubt you entertain that or creation, you will have to forgive me for assuming you prefer evolutionary ideas. clarification is welcome, but it is your prerogative to remain unclear.
but I welcome your challenge to the evolutionist believers to show you some.....!as I say....interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:07 PM

pete, listen up:

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:35 PM

happy holidaying, dmcg.
Thank you. Because of that, though, this will be my last post for some weeks. I assume the thread will probably have faded into oblivion by then, or at least gone quite a different way.


on the A or B, I have always said that I am presupposing that creation is right, and that evolutionists presuppose evolutionism is

Actually, no! There's two problems with that. Firstly: The question, if you recall, was whether A or B gave a better explanation, so you can't really say "I haven't looked at either argument, but I've decided A is better." That's not really a defensible stand.

Secondly, you say that's exactly what evolutionists do. But if you look back, one of the first questions I asked was "How many beetles on the Ark?"   Look carefully. Our mutual friend Shaw would probably say that that's a nonsense question because there never was an Ark. But what I did was to assume creationism was right and ask the questions from that perspective. And it has been the same for every question I have asked you. Since we started this most recent discussion, anyway, I have been careful never to say creationism is wrong. What I have always said, in essence, is: Let us assume it is correct. What questions does that raise and can it answer them?

So I repeat, we cannot decide to choose between two arguments A and B, say we are presuming one is right before we even look, and claim we are being rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:09 PM

Ok. Two things.

Keith. I didn't call you a cunt. I reminded you that you are a cunt. Different thing entirely.

Regarding Darwin's Witnesses... The university that is strange enough to occasionally let me loose on students recently hosted a debate, complete with vote, as follows;

"This house asserts that the bible reflects historical accuracy."

The motion lost it appeared, by quite a few votes. (It was mischievously put up in the first place obviously.)

That said, the people have spoken, so not much point in arguing otherwise pete. Sorry and all that but perhaps people who are comfortable in a faith setting don't have to be embarrassed by ignorance any more? All this from a red brick too. No dreaming spires here, just students dreaming till early afternoon.

I didn't go. I just heard about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:53 PM

"Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced" JtS

In your attempts to get people to obey the rules, by what criteria do you decide that calling somebody a "stupid fool" merits comment, while calling somebody a "fucking disgrace" does not?

I ask out of a genuine curiosity as to whether you believe that the identity of the poster defines whether the rule has been broken, or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:57 PM

"Think back to those two beetles on the Ark, pete. According to you they gave rise to every other species of beetle on the Earth."

And according to entomologists, there are more individual species of beetle on this planet, than individual human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:23 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:41 AM

Musket, I do not call people abusive names.
(The day is young and you have called me "cunt" already.)

Instead I do sometimes point out where I have been proved right and someone else wrong.
I only ever do it where the fact is unequivocal.
That is why the assertion has never once been challenged.

It is also why (confident prediction coming up) you will not produce one single example.

So, am I right, or wrong?"

You claim that you NEVER lie, so let's examine that claim. You made a positive statement in your first sentence, so in the light of that fact, would you like to read the final line of the following, before attempting to answer your own question above?    LIAR!

"Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:08 AM

Musket, you are a disgrace.
An over-paid NHS mandarin who has some responsibility for all this, shown up by a couple of interested amateurs with things you do not know but should.

You were shown to be completely out of touch with the trends and their direction.
You underestimate the issues to the extent that when the true figures are put in front of you, you call it scaremongering.
If only it would scare you out of your complacency.

If someone in your position is scared of and disbelieves the truth, there is no hope.
You did not even understand that you are dealing with an epidemic!

Some of the blame for those thousands of easily preventable deaths and ruined lives falls squarely on YOU.
Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace.

I think we can now safely ignore your future claims!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:23 AM

"From: GUEST,Troubadour - PM
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:53 PM

"Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced" JtS

In your attempts to get people to obey the rules, by what criteria do you decide that calling somebody a "stupid fool" merits comment, while calling somebody a "fucking disgrace" does not?"

"In your attempts to get people to obey the rules,"
I'm not doing that any more. Why?

""Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced"

Pay attention you fracking idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM

"shimrod....apart from my admitting that I had made a mistake as to whether there were only two beetles surviving the flood, I did not say that there is no speciation. I also wonder [but do not know] if there were only 2 beetles, whether, given the immense numbers ,over numerous locations, that the numerous species might not arise since the flood anyway. not that I need that to stay biblical."

pete, this is close to gibberish and gives the impression of you blindfolded and blundering around in a darkened room. You don't know what you're talking about, do you? I should remind you that, in your rejection of evolutionary theory, you have continually demanded that supporters of evolution show evidence of one species changing into another - that's called SPECIATION, pete! The theory of evolution suggests that speciation happens via processes of natural selection acting over immense periods of time. You're now saying that speciation happens, via some sort of 'hand-waving' mechanism, over (geologically) short periods of time - lamer and lamer!

And who says that you don't have to stay "biblical". Do you fundamentalists have a choice? Or are you some sort of heretic who has wilfully decided to stray 'off piste'? I hope that your Church Elders don't hear about this! It could be the stake for you matey!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:29 AM

I do not lie Troubadour.
Calling someone "a disgrace" is not gratuitous naming calling.
Calling someone "a thick cunt" is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:35 AM

Hey Troubadour, thanks for that. Mind you, I doubt anyone needs to see how Keith's party piece of lies and false assumptions works.

Me? I like to remain accurate..   So.

I apologise for stating above that Keith had been reminded that he was a cunt.

I originally said thick cunt.

The qualification is important as stating the obvious isn't my style.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 05:10 AM

My post crossed with Keith's.

Calling someone a thick cunt can be, as in this case, an objective observation.

Calling someone a disgrace is to form a considered opinion.

Calling someone a disgrace for rumbling your politically inspired agenda is a hell of compliment.

Thanks Keith. I'll get on with being a disgrace if it's all the same to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 02:31 PM

"I do not lie Troubadour.
Calling someone "a disgrace" is not gratuitous naming calling.
Calling someone "a thick cunt" is."

I agree!

But calling someone a fucking disgrace certainly IS!

So, once again with feeling: LIAR!

Or to put it another way fucking devious liar!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:36 PM

Three little fishes and the momma fish too, swim said the momma fishie, swim if you can and they swam and the swam right over the dam.

Poop poop diddum doddum wannup poo and by JOVE, MORE POO

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:06 PM

Calling someone "a disgrace" is not gratuitous naming calling.
Calling someone "a thick cunt" is.

One of my pet peeves I'm afraid. Calling someone a thick cunt may well be gratuitous name calling but it is quite obvious the callee is not a particularly dense version of female genitalia. The term is therefore nonsense for all to see and can be discounted. Calling someone a disgrace IS ALSO name calling, gratuitous or otherwise, but it gives an air of respectability. The term may, therefore be treated as a serious slur on the character of the callee.

I find that the 'respectable' name calling, that you advocate as OK, is in fact more damaging, is a sneaky way of trying to besmirch someone and is, in fact, the type of name calling that should not be tolerated.

So there, you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,actual
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:39 AM

Pete- you really have no clue what you yourself are saying

"though of course evolutionism has to keep changing its storyline as more data necessitates it. that's the wonderful thing about it !.
you can change it around to make new data fit."

That is precisely how science works and why YEC is not science

"was,nt it popper who said it cannot be falsified?"

It gets changed around precisely because certain propositions are falsified!

"and is it therefore science ?"

Precisely YES


"is it not rather a religious position ?."

Precisely NO!

With your snarky attempt at derision, you cut yourself off at the knees and prove your utter ignorance of science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:56 AM

I have said what is disgraceful about Musket's attitude as a health professional.
It is not gratuitous name calling like "thick cunt, and putting "fucking" in front does not make it so.

Musket does not just describe himself as "important," he says he is "fucking important."
That is why I put things to him in the same form.
That is how he likes it.
No offence is intended.

Dave, would you equate the terms "a disgrace" and "thick cunt" in normal discourse?
Which would you expect to hear on reasoned intelligent discussions such as BBC1 Question Time and R4 Any Questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:36 AM

I thought you liked to be accurate Keith? I reckon at least every third post of mine on health issues I preface with pointing out I am not a health professional. I have come into healthcare to give a perspective that the Secretary of State (going back to Milburn) thought was lacking. That does not make me a healthcare professional.

I am fucking important. I am certainly not important. (The distinction, or lack of understanding of the distinction on Keith's part forms part of the thick cunt diagnosis.)

Disgrace is a word I hear a lot of both Radio 4 and whilst watching Question Time. Seems your hearing is as faulty as your reading Keith. Most of the time disgrace is used, it is in the direction of Nigel Farage or other right wing lunatics. A pity you can't hear it really....

At the end of the day, Keith likes dealing it out but moans when he gets it back. He says he likes accuracy but defends hate, even when the evidence the hate is based on contradicts what he has put. He screams that statistics are definitive but when Jim gives him Irish famine statistics, he says his pet historians "take it into consideration." When I say public health bodies take statistics into consideration, he says you can't, because they are true, definitive and are acted on at face value. I am glad he knows my role better than I do. I will have to ask him to participate in a 270 deg. Review of my work.

I take a view on his approach, attitude and inconsistency with a purpose. Which in polite terms would be that I feel it beneath contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:52 AM

All that stuff about me is made up.
Look at the "blight" thread and see the truth.
Defend hate?
Never.

You can not challenge anything I have really said, so you have to make up shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:56 AM

"Blight" thread (descending order)
See the extent of Musket's lying.
thread.cfm?threadid=150911&messages=81&page=1&desc=yes

1000 is my gift!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:04 AM

1000!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 08:03 AM

I claim 1000 actually. You are both wrong.

The link says "reply" which makes number one the zeroth post. Hence 10001 is the thousandth reply.

I thought you liked to be accurate Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

I'm struggling to believe that we have a group of people here who would like to be thought of as intelligent adults, but have started out discussing a cartoon and shifted to going on, and on, and on, and on, exchanging a garble of accusations and insulting names and arguing on, and on, and on over whether this or that of the accusations or insults is defensible. Has it for one moment occurred to any one of the combatants that he is making himself look like an irate four-year-old, or that most of the posts on this for day after day after day now have been totally worthless?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 12:04 PM

So... Name me a thread that has substance?

If not, I'll start a thread where we can discuss the glory of Sheffield Wednesday. That'll do nicely.

Out of interest, the thread was started provocatively in order to draw out childish debate. I don't think Jack really wanted to discuss a cartoon, he just likes tying two cats tails together, hanging them over a washing line and watching them fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 01:02 PM

Fuck off Musket. I posted the cartoon because in light of some of the debates here, I found it funny.

Please note I have spent quite a few posts asking at least one of the cats to untangle his own bloody tail and walk away.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 01:43 PM

I couldn't agree more, 'frogprince' - well said! They all need to to f**k off and grow-up or grow-up and f**k off - I'll leave the choice up to them. Alternatively, they could find a space to meet in the 'real world' and beat each other to death with their massive egoes (is that how you spell the plural of ego?)!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:01 PM

"Fuck off Musket."

You know, that's better. You live longer by saying what you are thinking.

It's just as cathartic here on the washing line.

Reaping and sowing... 'Twas ever thus.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 09:03 PM

Hello everybody.

I am not dead or anything, but, twattishly in the extreme, I accidentally turned off the wireless switch (which I did not know existed) on my ancient Vaio laptop while I was fumbling around near the SD card slot. It has taken me five days and a lot of cul-de-sac investigations to find out what was up but I made it in the end. Now as I have just got in from the pub session and lots of beer, I shall wait until we have bad weather to respond to some of the stuff that this thread contains. I do note the following, however, and I hope that the perpetrators like it up 'em: Wacko has ditched rules and gone all insultiferous on us. I think he may be about fourteen. Snailieboy has taken to lying (he always did relish misrepresenting, so no surprise there). Perhaps this useless pair of pillocks would care to revise their posts before I get back. I can be not quite nice (like undies worn twice), you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 01:32 AM

Your forgot Mr. Shaw that no one gives a fuck what you say because you are too fucking stupid to realize that "Fuck Off" is not an insult.

Its pretty fucking stupid to tell us all how stupid you are and then to start hurling insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM

It has to be said, fuck off isn't an insult. I agree with that much Jack.

After all, nothing mealy mouthed, ambiguous or two faced about it. You know where you stand when someone tells you to fuck off.

I think it was Billy Connolly who pointed out that you never read a line in a book with "fuck off, he hinted " in it.

In fact, back to the cartoon. Fuck off has been my stock reply to God botherers knocking on my door in recent times.

And that for once puts me in tune with the thread. No drift on this boy.

Ok.

I'll fuck off now.

Tatty bye

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:48 AM

I think it was Billy Connolly who pointed out that you never read a line in a book with "fuck off, he hinted " in it.

Indeed it was. I saw him live at the Palladium in 1977, making that very point! (I was lucky to get out of that gig alive, having laughed myself uncontrollably almost to death for three hours).

Steve, you have said that you cannot excuse Newton for his work on alchemy despite the fact that that was mainstream thinking at the time.

I care not a jot what was mainstream thinking at the time. In parts of the US in the 60s black people were not allowed to sit on white people's bus seats. That was mainstream thinking at the time too.

You have argued on another thread that Popper was wrong.

No I haven't. You attempted to apply his thinking to an area of this conversation in which it was not relevant. 'Twas you who was wrong to bring him in in the first place. "Evolution is true" is not a statement of science (which is not the same as saying that it's unscientific). The science comes in the explanation, the theory.   

The comment about Einstein was a joke and might better be directed at Musket (see below).

Can't be arsed to make the effort to find out what you're burbling on about here.

As far as I can recall, I have never commented on Dawkins' abilities as an evolutionary biologist.

Possibly not, but I can make my own mind up about him.

I am sure he is brilliant.

But you've commented now. "I'm sure" in this context means that you take me at my word and haven't really looked it up. Yet you appear to be some kind of expert on evolution. I'd contend that it would be difficult to be such a thing in any rounded sense unless you had at least some passing knowledge of Dawkins' advocacy. We've moved on since the 1859 First Edition, you know.

Do you take my disagreements with you faith based [sic] attitude to evolution as criticism of Dawkins?

If that's supposed to be some kind of insult, which of course it is, it simply makes you look like an even bigger twat. Evolution is true and that is not a faith-based statement. It's self-evident. Sane people who apply just a smidgeon of reason to their ruminations think that evolution-deniers such as pete and his sorry ilk are barking. Nay, they know it! The theory is not the truth of it: it's the explanation, damn good but still incomplete, of a phenomenon that cannot be gainsaid. Not falsifiable any more. Gosh, why do you find this so hard?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:59 AM

As for you, Wackers, your metamorphosis into a ranting swearer from an imbecilic, parrot-like finger-jabbing rule-chanter is both amusing and pathetic to behold. To call it "an improvement" would be something that I could agree with Musket about, though there wasn't much of a starting point to improve from to be honest. Keep on swearing. I don't do Fs and Cs online meself, and I'm not going to start now because it would be infra dig to join in with you. I'll stick to the ever-useful "twat" I think. Great word, something to do with sheeps' fannies originally I believe. Good one for you, as you don't half fanny around a lot of the time and you're a bit of a follower really. Plenty of woolly thinking, too. Next... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

This is a folklore site. Surely it means pregnant goldfish? ;-)

I don't mind swearing where it improves on the accuracy of the observation. Of all my descriptions of one mischievous poster here, thick cunt was on the button.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:07 AM

Steve Shaw: Laugh of the day: Brought to you by mule headedness. Mule Headedness making men seem dumber since the last words of StevSha the cave man "A proper cave bear would never be hibernating when the sun is this high in the sky. "

>>>Steve, you have said that you cannot excuse Newton for his work on alchemy despite the fact that that was mainstream thinking at the time.

I care not a jot what was mainstream thinking at the time. In parts of the US in the 60s black people were not allowed to sit on white people's bus seats. That was mainstream thinking at the time too.<<<

The issue is not whether Newton believed in Alchemy, He obviously did. He wrote "scientific papers" about it. The accusation being leveled at you is about your speculations about his insanity.

Tell us Steve, Did Jefferson and Washington have "Berlin walls in their brains?" about slavery? Did virtually every politician in the UK have a similar mental edifice of the mind about Gay rights until recently? Did your ancestors? If you can prove this there is certainly a Nobel Prize in medicine in your future. It will be called the Shaw Wall no doubt.

Rofl rofl R O F L!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:08 AM

Nice to see you back on form Steve. Haven't got the time or energy to take what you've said apart point by point. While you were off for five days trying to find the on switch on your laptop you may have missed this post of mine -
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1012#3608503
Would you be so kind as to give it a look? The link takes you directly to the post.

P.S. Fascinated to discover that you think insulting people makes you look a twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

The link takes you directly to the post.

No it doesn't, Mr Tedious. Were I a Christian (God forbid), I'd be petitioning for sainthood for being so patient with you. At least I find you amusing if nothing else.


Er, and nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:42 PM

The accusation being leveled at you is about your speculations about his insanity.

A false accusation, Wackerjackeroo. He was a brilliant scientist who still managed to harbour wacky notions and he should have known better. He was supposed to be a leader to enlightenment yet he supported magic. Many a great scientist believes in God, fer chrissake! Musket supports Sheffield Wednesday!

Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be pissing off to have a novel ghost-written for you or something (pity your poor bloody proofreader). When shall it be?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:31 PM

"A false accusation, Wackerjackeroo."

Is this a lie? or is your memory as bad as your logic Mr pshaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:44 PM

Neither. Get a grip, Wackerackerdoodah ompompush! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:23 PM

Steve Shaw

The link takes you directly to the post.

"No it doesn't,"

Yes it does, I just tried it. Are you sure you haven't got something switched off on your laptop?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 10:06 PM

Got one of those mudcat unavailable doodahs first time and a thread that seemed to be not connected second time. Might I suggest that you refrain from trying my patience by getting your face out of your big, fat, lazy, chocolate-covered arse and quoting proper quotes. I still won't take any bloody notice, of course, as you do appear to be a bit of a waste of space, but you might just convince me, by so doing, that you're worth a constructive response. I doubt it, but you know me: I live in eternal hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 02:55 AM

We stuffed Birmingham 4-1 yesterday cheeky bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:21 AM

You didn't "stuff" anyone, Musket! A load of over-paid 'prima-donnas', most of whom have no connection with your home city, did. Face it, modern football is boring and massively over-hyped. But then I find all sports unutterably tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:59 AM

The snag is, the overpaid prima donnas buggered off in the mid '90s.

So my point holds. What price reality when I can worship once a week and occasionally mid week too. The only difference between Christianity and football is that our prophets and angels exist. And kick the shit out of other blokes in nightclubs.

I bet Jesus didn't show us how human he was. No empathy with the lads there. Ok. He took them out for supper just before the rozzers caught up with him.

Up the Owls!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:28 AM

Sorry you're having technical difficulties, Steve and apologies to others for cluttering up the thread with a copy of a post that is already easily available. No trouble for me as it was easy to find by following the link. Perhaps it will stimulate Troubador, who it was directed at in the first place, to respond. (I have taken the opportunity to make a small editorial correction.)


Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail - PM
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

Oh dear, there's too much to keep up with and I really do have other things to do like playing tunes.

Troubadour
Surely, it is up to YOU TWO to furnish EVIDENCE that evolution DOESN'T happen.

You are relatively new to this epic battle so perhaps you don't realise my position. I do not have the intention or the desire or the means to produce any evidence that evolution doesn't happen. I have studied evolution and genetics at university level and find them utterly fascinating. They offer the best explanation we have for the myriad forms of life on Earth and almost certainly the best explanation we will ever have. I have absolutely no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is turning evolution into a pseudo religious belief system by declaring it to be true. I have said many times, science doesn't do true. Throughout my education in science I have been taught that you can never say a theory is true only that it hasn't (yet) been proved false.

Unfortunately following up things from the link to Jerry Coyne's talk that Jack posted, I found that the "evolution is true"/"evolution is a fact" stance is taken by a number of prominent scientists in the field of evolution. I can't help but feel that this plays into the hands of people like pete with their accusations of "Evolutionism". It only seems to [apply to] Evolution. I don't recall anyone saying Quantum Theory is true or Relativity is true.

In the confrontation between Evolution and Creationism, much emphasis is put on the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I think this is wrong because it implies that their is a meaningful contest. The important difference is that the study of evolution is a branch of science and creationism is a branch of religion. They have no point of contact. What matters is to establish what defines science to distinguish it from religion. Steve Shaw dismisses this as quasi-philosophical burbling.

I have asked a number of times for people to show me some evolution and neither Troubadour nor Steve Shaw have responded. Parallels have been drawn between evolution/the theory of evolution and gravity/the theory of gravity. I experience gravity every waking moment. Something is holding me in my chair. If I put my coffee mug on my desk, it stays there, if I put it against the wall... oops. If I throw a ball up, it comes down again. Steve went even further saying that evolution was as self-evident as his left hand and its five digits. I can't see Steve's left hand but my own fits the same description. Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell. I'm afraid that a 23 year experiment involving bacteria in an American university doesn't really hack it as "self-evident".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 08:05 AM

"What price reality when I can worship once a week and occasionally mid week too."

Musket, you are free to "worship" every second, as far as I am concerned. Snag is that, as Christianity once was, football now is all-pervasive. Every time I switch on the radio or telly, there's some boring git droning on about football. I open my daily paper and the first thing I have to do is drag out the massive 'Sports' section and heave it into the recycling bin. And I can't even go for a quiet drink nowadays because every pub has a wide-screen telly, and there's a f**king football match on somewhere, every f**cking micro-second, and the pub is full of idiots shouting at the screen!
I warn you, when I become dictator of the world (any day now!)the first thing I'm going to do is ban football and then I'm going to have every manager, player and fan ruthlessly hunted down and brought to justice!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:09 AM

Ok. That's Shimrod up against the wall come the glorious...

Oh.. Thanks to the prophet Murdoch, we already are in the promised land. The revolution isn't necessary.

It's blasphemy talk that, Shimrod. You have to put up with it because it is the true path and if we shove it down your throat enough, you will eventually come to realise that. Religion is as religion does.

All this heresy about 6,000 years or 13 billion, whatever.

The world started making sense, and therefore truly starting existing in 1867.

If anyone has hang ups over the word Atheist, Shimrod has described himself thus rather eloquently.

Here, think how many pubs are only still open because of the footy? It's true. Sky sell their pub licence on that very point. That said, I prefer a quiet pub myself. Snag is, quiet means unviable. My local has a best end and a tap room with screens. Monday night, I am in the tap room watching the match. Friday night, Mrs Musket and I are in the best room, talking with friends.

Sorted.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:42 AM

"Here, think how many pubs are only still open because of the footy? It's true. Sky sell their pub licence on that very point. That said, I prefer a quiet pub myself. Snag is, quiet means unviable. My local has a best end and a tap room with screens. Monday night, I am in the tap room watching the match. Friday night, Mrs Musket and I are in the best room, talking with friends."

And that, my friend, is the beginning of the end of live music, which has kept pubs viable FAR longer than 22 idiots have chased a bag of air up and down a field which would be better used to grow barley or hops.

I am with Shimrod!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 10:27 AM

Keith: Dave, would you equate the terms "a disgrace" and "thick cunt" in normal discourse?
Which would you expect to hear on reasoned intelligent discussions such as BBC1 Question Time and R4 Any Questions?

Of course I would not. The latter offends some peoples sensibilities. Not mine I hasten to add. However, they are both directed at a person and therefore both personal insults. The fact that the former has an air of respectability can therefore make it more damaging than the latter. But that is what I thought I said the first time round so why ask?

As to reasoned intelligent discussions on question time and R4. Well, it depends if there any of the abundance of thick cunts or disgraces that inhabit the shady realms of politics are present. Being on the BBC is no guarantee of intellect.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:08 AM

>>I warn you, when I become dictator of the world (any day now!)the first thing I'm going to do is ban football and then I'm going to have every manager, player and fan ruthlessly hunted down and brought to justice!!<<

If you were to make me viceroy and pay me handsomely. I would institute a system where anyone who yelled at that screen especially denigrating a player or team would be put into a queue to play against those "stupid" players in a match of football skills where only the victors leave the field alive. In this way our benevolent dictatorship could both keep the peace in the pubs and ensure a pay per view revenue stream which would out strip the lottery by a wide margin.   

I'll update my C.V. just in case. Do you have a twitter feed to coordinate your ascension? #Itsforyourowngood?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:14 AM

"
Keith: Dave, would you equate the terms "a disgrace" and "thick cunt" in normal discourse?"

Perhaps a mystery is solved?
Perhaps this is what is meant by "snooty" in the rules? If you use the insult ""a disgrace" you are being snooty, unkind, argumentative and impolite. If you use the insult "thick cunt" you are being unkind, argumentative and impolite.

That would be something to ponder if I still bothered to ponder such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM

"Here, think how many pubs are only still open because of the footy? It's true. Sky sell their pub licence on that very point. That said, I prefer a quiet pub myself. Snag is, quiet means unviable. My local has a best end and a tap room with screens. Monday night, I am in the tap room watching the match. Friday night, Mrs Musket and I are in the best room, talking with friends."

Don't you people have TV's of your own? Don't you people have houses? To hear English people talk it's like they all live in dorms above the pubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:28 AM

To hear English people talk it's like they all live in dorms above the pubs.

No one lives in dorms above pubs. There is no such thing. The only time the terms dorms would be used is in a public school. If you want to make a point about English culture try learning something about it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:43 AM

Jack, you may have just found your new calling! Slight snag about ... errr ... paying you "handsomely". I could take you on, on a trial basis, for a couple of months ... if that's OK? Just until I've got the treasury sorted out ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

Musket, we are surrounded by philistines here. I have just followed Liverpool stuffing Man U at The Theatre Of Nightmares 3-0 and my very heart singeth with joy (as would anyone's who justifiably hates Man U). Let us not be divided on this one as we have many a deluded detractor hereabouts. I hereby undertake not to take the piss out of Sheff Wed ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

I have no clue as to why Snail spouted all that, though I'll admit that blue is quite pretty. Maybe he thinks he's been saying it until he's blue in the face. I haven't the energy to keep repeating myself and I have nothing new to add to this cloth-eared clot's silly attacks. Suffice to say (again) that "evolution is true" is not a scientific statement. All the scientific statements to do with evolution are embraced within the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution in anatomy, morphology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, ontogeny and the fossil record is overwhelming. All those areas are used to explain evolution. That's the theory thereof. But evolution as a phenomenon is undeniable. I find a certain elegance in being able to say that evolution is true. As for playing into pete's hands, I don't give a monkey's flying fart. I only worry about serious people. All the rest is fun. Eh, Wackers!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Ah well, you see. The colonies haven't worked sport out, any of it really. They don't understand football or cricket, and have made rounders a national sport.

I have no idea what Jack is talking about regarding televisions?   I try to get to a match if I can. Otherwise, with mates and a pint and then, as a last resort, watch it at home. Not quite the same thing mind. Mrs Musket says she isn't watching it, then comes and watches it anyway, then has you explaining offside for the millionth time.

Troubadour and Shimrod might have valid points to make when it comes to silly types of religion, but when it comes to the real religion of footy they have the credibility of pete.

Up the Owls!



ps. Shimrod. You are welcome to Jack. Just watch out if you allow him out in public though... He tends to shout Fuck Off when excited.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM

Steve Shaw
I have no clue as to why Snail spouted all that,

I was responding to what Troubador said in the quote at the beginning of my post. Makes perfect sense if you think about it. You have shown a similar failure to understand the point in the past. I thought it might help you to read it. Still no response from Troubador.

though I'll admit that blue is quite pretty.

If you'd followed the link in the first place, I wouldn't have needed to do it. (Just done it again. Works fine.)

Suffice to say (again) that "evolution is true" is not a scientific statement. All the scientific statements to do with evolution are embraced within the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution in anatomy, morphology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, ontogeny and the fossil record is overwhelming.

Strange that you are so at odds with the current thinking in the Dawkins camp. Perhaps you should have a look at that link that you refused to follow because it came from Jack. Here it is again to save you from searching for it - Why evolution is true

But evolution as a phenomenon is undeniable.

I've asked you (and Troubador) several times to show me some that is as evident as your (or my) left hand but still no response.

I find a certain elegance in being able to say that evolution is true.

...and others find delight in saying things like "and God said Let there be Light". Much joy may it bring you.

As for playing into pete's hands, I don't give a monkey's flying fart.

If you really don't care that you are giving pete moral support, I wonder why you have put so much effort into arguing against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 06:57 PM

probably because he has to convince himself its true, when he cant do anymore than assertions that its true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:47 PM

Eeeee, bugger me, I am verily surrounded by twats!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:50 PM

"As for playing into pete's hands, I don't give a monkey's flying fart."

An intelligently designed monkey no doubt. With a Berlin Wall in its brain like yours to separate your poop flinging from your illogical lectures.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 08:01 PM

probably because he has to convince himself its true, when he cant do anymore than assertions that its true.

Does this mean anything I ought to be aware of?

An intelligently designed monkey no doubt. With a Berlin Wall in its brain like yours to separate your poop flinging from your illogical lectures.

Or this?

I might well be a bit of a rude bastard at times but I'm not rude enough to post unchecked gibberish such as is contained in these two posts. The English language is a beautiful and elegant thing. Those who would abuse it so radically as to have me doing unnecessary mental processing can bugger off. I'm too old, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:54 AM

Abuse the English language?

Let me put is in language you might be capable of understanding.

You are simply too fucking stupid to understand anything but curse words and fucking moronic insults.

You are too fucking brain dead to remember your own posts.

Process that you braying jackass.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:24 AM

Of course, when it all boils down, some here are trying to convince us of either the reality or the concept of an imaginary friend borne of man's fertile imagination.

So you can never get to the bottom of a debate when non realistic ideas insist on intellectual respect.

At least Hillsborough and the promised land (Wembley) are kickable assets and the demigods and deities therein walk the earth amongst mortals.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:34 AM

Ah! There you are, pete! I thought that you'd left us - especially after your most recent outburst. Seen any beetles speciating recently? But you don't believe in speciation, do you? ... But ... you do now ... but only when you say it happens ... in biblical time (?) ... Oh, I'm so confused!!

But, I suspect, not even the teensiest, weensiest bit as confused as you!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:37 AM

In terms of the age of the universe, these still are biblical times.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:37 AM

"I was responding to what Troubador said in the quote at the beginning of my post. Makes perfect sense if you think about it. You have shown a similar failure to understand the point in the past. I thought it might help you to read it. Still no response from Troubador."

Be careful what you wish for Snail!

You accuse Steve of giving moral support to Starry Pete by saying evolution is true.

In fact, YOU give much greater support to Creationism by asserting that he is wrong and stating that he and I cannot show that evolution happens.

This is a classic strawman fallacy and ignores completely the weight of evidence for evolution.

I was an analytical chemist, and spent half my working life in experiments involving identifying substances, from which I could list the constituents of virtually any mixture or amalgam.

I could say with absolute certainty "This mixture contains X% of substance Y", but I couldn't see, or show anyone else the substance.

So for anybody to refuse to believe the result without seeing the substance in a test tube would be arrant bloody nonsense.

Same goes for your nit picking attitude to Steve's comments and your demand to be shown something which happens over millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:12 AM

With apologies for the thread drift involved, the purpose of which will become apparent:

At Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, the oldest man made construction known has been uncovered and is challenging the previously held belief that communal building and religion did not arise until man settled and began to farm crops and livestock. Parts of the construction date as far back as 14,000 years, while the latest is more than 10,000, over 1000 years before the earliest known farming and domestication.

http://socialevolutionforum.com/2013/05/17/complex-societies-before-agriculture-gobekli-tepe/

The reason for posting this is to provide an example to Pete, of the difference between religion and science.

The scientists have accepted that they were wrong and accommodated the new knowledge into an enhanced explanation of social evolution.

Creationists cannot admit the existence of anything 12,000 years ago or more, so can only fall back on the tired "scientists have got the dating wrong", "we don't believe it", or any one of a dozen irrational responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

Careful, Wackerissimo, you'll be doing yourself a mischief! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 09:14 AM

O pshaw!

"stating that he and I cannot show that evolution happens."

Don't be so thick Troubie! Snail stating nothing of the kind.

Here is a teaser for you. How can you both claim that evolution is "true" and claim that you are being an open minded adherent to scientific principals? You say that the Turkish building caused the following. The scientists have accepted that they were wrong and accommodated the new knowledge into an enhanced explanation of social evolution.

Is it totally impossible that new evidence may be found that affects the theory of the evolution of life in the same way.

"True" is an absolute and a binary state. Things are either true or they are not. Good science is not. Science has lots of gray areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:39 AM

(Sigh. Does this man NEVER listen?)

Wacko, darling, go back over my posts why don't you and count the number of times I've said that "evolution is true" is not a scientific statement. Poor chap - you wasted all that time on that post - because you don't understand plain English!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 11:45 AM

"True" is an absolute and a binary state. Things are either true or they are not.

OK then, as you appear to disagree with me that I can say "evolution is true", in the light of this quote from you you clearly think that evolution is not true. Binary state, remember, Wacko. No in-betweens, no cavils, no qualifications, no fence-sitting. It's either true or it isn't, according to you. So - is it true or is it not true? Scary, innit, Wackers! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 12:09 PM

No no no Dogma Shaw!

You are the one applying the word "true."

I am saying that a scientist would say that there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of Evolution. Because scientists keep their minds open and let the evidence speak for its self.

Religious Zealots are the ones who stomp on the floor and insist they know what is "true."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM

Evolution comes in many forms.

For instance, Jack the Sailor telling his detractors to fuck off.

Now, you wouldn't have read that a few weeks ago.

The test of evolution is the straight line of time. If he carries on telling people to fuck off, it is evolution. If he reverts to insisting on rules, it was a passing fashion. After all, once a finch has a beak, he can't start wearing his Granddads....

The only real link between science and superstition I can think of is that of placebo effect. Statistically, if a hundred people with galloping lurgy prayed for a cure, up to 20% of them would start feeling better.

Evidence for Jesus?

Err..   No. Just a phenomenon used extensively in double blind trials of new drugs.

I think therefore I am.
I don't think, therefore I'm Spam.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:24 PM

yes, shimrod...still here, and a previous post didn't appear.
did I say ...I don't believe in speciation....well I suppose I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word, but as you are claiming that, I leave that to you to substantiate........just in case it might be YOU who is confused!

of course you can name the constituents of a substance, troubadour.-it is observational science. what happened in distant past is not. it leaves evidence that is interpreted according to the presuppositions of the researcher.
this may be a strong religious position, such as most of you,[and more obviously-creationists] or the secondary influence.
in a recent study of peer review ,the phenomenom known as ..herding..is described
which "subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that , under certain conditions, science may not be self correcting"
nature.com,4 dec13.
how science goes wrong, economist.com 19 oct 13.
for one with such superior qualifications it seems that you are not able to identify the meaning of my words. sure science may correct in light of new data, but my point is that evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to, and the deep time position is non negotiable, just as much as the biblical creationist position.
and when creationists say dating is wrong , examples of diverse datings are given. that is not irrational but reasoned objection, but still evolutionists trot out the tired idea that eons of time are proven despite evidence to the contrary from testable, repeatable, observable science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Actual
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:54 PM

"evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to"
Exactly how science works!

"and the deep time position is non negotiable"
Wrong. Entirely negotiable, and will change if it has to!
I have given you what I would need to see to make me negotiate. You have pointedly avoided telling me what you would need to see to make the biblical position negotiable. So the two are not equivalent at all are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:12 PM

"did I say ...I don't believe in speciation....well I suppose I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word, but as you are claiming that, I leave that to you to substantiate........just in case it might be YOU who is confused!"

I'm confused by your mangled prose, pete! "I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word ..." Now there's a phrase to conjure with! Is 'speciation' the "wrong" word that you've mistakenly misused? In which case, perhaps you've mistakenly misused the RIGHT word. And if, indeed, that is the case, what alternative to the word 'speciation' were you thinking of? How did the two beetles, of the same species, that you claim were on the Ark, change into all of the thousands of (non-interbreeding) species of beetle that we see today?

Science may well "go wrong" occasionally - but that doesn't mean that the Bible is right!

"evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to, ..." Ugghhh! Current evolutionary models change when enough evidence accumulates to justify changing them. That's how science is done, pete! When will you ever grasp that elementary concept?

Yep! The "deep time position is non negotiable". Go read up on it in something other than a red-neck creationist website. Remember, if you challenge the techniques behind dating measurements, you're not just taking on evolutionary biology but you're taking on some of the fundamental concepts of modern science - and you and your red-neck friends are just not up to it, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:27 PM

It's too bad that it wasn't jts who posted the "Freedom From Religion con" Thread. It would have given Steve Shaw another good opportunity to snort "Now what idiocy are you spouting, Whacko" without looking to see what the thread was actually about.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM

Thank's for your reply, Troubadour. Can I take it you no longer think that I am looking for evidence that evolution doesn't happen?

that he [Steve Shaw] and I cannot show that evolution happens.

No, I'm asking you to show me evolution happening with, I admit, the unspoken challenge that you cannot do so. Your post seems to admit as much. Perhaps I should remind you of Steve's position on this -

Evolution happens (only dimwits such as pete with his third-hand received unwisdom would demur). It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it. Therefore evolution is true. But, you see, a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is not science. My left hand self-evidently possesses five digits. It is not science to say that my left hand has five digits. It is not science to say that the bleedin' obvious occurs.
This thread - 14 Feb 14 - 08:19 PM

He seems to think that evolution is there for all to see. When you say "This mixture contains X% of substance Y" it is clearly not self-evident and probably involves a great deal of science.

In "The Descent of Man", Darwin, referring back to "The Origin of Species" says "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change". His first aim, building on the work of others, was to establish the concept of evolution before moving on to the theory of evolution and the mechanisms for it including natural selection. Why would he do that if it was "bleedin' obvious"?

the weight of evidence for evolution.

Wrong way round. Nobody came up with the concept of evolution and then went out looking for evidence for it. The evidence was there in abundance in the form of the many and varied forms of life around us and in the fossil record. The challenge was to come up with an explanation. The old one was separate creation; the new one was evolution. The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon. It is a theory. Unfortunately "The Theory of Evolution" has been bagged for "The Origin of Species".

In fact, YOU give much greater support to Creationism by asserting that he is wrong

But he IS wrong. Do you want me to suppress that fact for the sake of defeating pete? Do you go along with Jack the Tar when he says " I'm trying to make up examples and analogies that are easy to understand without a scientific background."? Sorry, can't do it. I have said from the start that you can't defeat creationism with bad science. Getting the science right is what matters most. If pete doesn't understand it, what a pity, never mind. At least other people will be able to see that he hasn't' a clue what he's talking about.

I'll wait to see whether Steve can show me some evolution but, judging by his recent posts, we're unlikely to get anything coherent out of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:12 AM

This is really simple, mollusc. Evolution is true. It happens. It's here and always has been. Now nothing I've said there is bad science because it isn't even science at all. The five digits on my hand are not science. The science might come in explaining how the muscles receive nerve impulses, etc., to make the fingers work in a coordinated way. Plenty of good science there. Explaining my hand, its evolution, its structure and how it works is the science. The truth that there is a befingered hand on one end of my arm is not the science. Darwin was competing with a lot of people who should have known better (proto-petes who had no evidence at all) in order to get his description of evolution accepted, but idiots denying the self-evident in no way diminishes truth. His context was different to ours as we no longer have that mountain to climb (because we know now that evolution is true) and you're just being disingenuous. He revealed evolution to us in a coherent way but he did not invent it. It was as true then as it is now, as it was before he happened along. Humanity can't alter that truth one jot. But we can try to explain it. All the science in evolution comes within the theory, the attempt at the explanation of evolution. There's a robin sitting on my spade handle which I can see through the window. That's true (I'm not interested in proving it to anyone, however). But I have not touched on science in the slightest in that sentence. But let's argue about how its wings and eyes worked in order to get it there.

And who cares about playing into the hands of creationist idiots? Not me. Don't give a monkey's. I give a monkey's only about playing into the hands of serious people. Come and join us, Snail.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 11:11 AM

His context was different to ours as we no longer have that mountain to climb

You mean we should judge him by the standards of his time?

Come on Steve, show me some evolution happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:03 PM

As ever, Pete has only quoted a part of the abstract of the Nature paper, which is part of an ongoing dialogue within the scientific community about how we avoid the very pitfalls of peer review Pete accuses all scientists of. The full abstract is here:

Nature. 2014 Feb 6;506(7486):93-6. doi: 10.1038/nature12786. Epub 2013 Dec 4.
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review.
Park IU1, Peacey MW2, Munafò MR3.
Author information

Abstract
The objective of science is to advance knowledge, primarily in two interlinked ways: circulating ideas, and defending or criticizing the ideas of others. Peer review acts as the gatekeeper to these mechanisms. Given the increasing concern surrounding the reproducibility of much published research, it is critical to understand whether peer review is intrinsically susceptible to failure, or whether other extrinsic factors are responsible that distort scientists' decisions. Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers' behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting. We further demonstrate that exercising some subjectivity in reviewer decisions, which serves to curb the herding process, can be beneficial for the scientific community in processing available information to estimate truth more accurately. By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:03 PM

Question, born of ignorance: Can a mutation be evidence of potential evolution? If a kitten is born with eight toes on one foot, say, and in due time is allowed to breed, might a line of cats emerge that all have eight toes?

mutation
biology : a change in the genes of a plant or animal that causes physical characteristics that are different from what is normal

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:26 PM

I doubt Steve could be castigated by reference to a foreign dictionary. He is English and speaks English.




That's another pint Co Messiah.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:06 PM

"True" is an absolute and a binary state. Things are either true or they are not.

Bollocks. The IRA is a group of freedom fighters. The IRA is a bunch of terrorists. Both true. Both false.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:10 PM

(back from nursing a cold and shoveling MORE snow)

"Can a mutation be evidence of potential evolution?"

Yes.. it can.

"mu·ta·tion
/myo͞oˈtāSHən/
noun
noun: mutation; plural noun: mutations
1.
the action or process of mutating.
"the mutation of ethnic politics into nationalist politics"synonyms:        alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation; More
humoroustransmogrification
"cells that have undergone mutation"

2.
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.synonyms:        alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation;
------------------------------------

Now a "variant form" may be tiny, such as small coloration differences which allow some individuals better blending to escape predation.. (there's an entire study of some moths)... or it may be large, such as extra fingers & toes, which may or MAY NOT be useful.

We tend to use 'mutation' to refer to the larger, more visible changes that happen suddenly, but the whole problem of the debate between Snail & Troubador about "show me some evolution" is that most of it is in small increments and is hard to pin down in its detailed steps. Those moths, and fruit flies...and the famous finches are examples which are **evidence** of an evolutionary process, because significant changes can be observed in a short period of time. In paleontology we have only a minuscule number of most lines of research, with a lot of guesswork & prediction involved as to where the missing pieces fit.

Now... one can debate precise linguistic use of the word 'evolution', but it does little to establish anything 'scientific' about the process itself. Sometimes it is useful to stop and examine whether much of the debate IS only about how a word is used.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:42 PM

Waiting for a reliable opinion- from the finches of the Galapagos Islands.



(Hmmm- all of the usual are here)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 02:38 PM

for those who don't know the details of the Galapagos finches theories

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 04:36 PM

Let's give Bill D an "A for Effort" in trying to bring this hot mess of a thread around. "Darwin's Witnesses" seems to be a boorish examination of science, punctuated by several arguments between people who largely seem to agree with each other. Except Pete, and we all expected that.

Boggles the mind.

SRS