BS: Darwin's Witnesses

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:18 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:47 PM

Bring it on, sunshine!

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 - 06:29 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: 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 - 06:20 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: 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: 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,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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 10:10 AM

Musket.
"fool"
"liar"

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