BS: Darwin's Witnesses

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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 02:11 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:09 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:40 AM

" Jerk nicely shared with us,"

Violation of the terms of use of this forum.

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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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
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: 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: 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.