BS: Darwin's Witnesses

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: 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: 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 - 12:05 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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,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: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 12:42 PM

Good post, Stu.

SRS

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM

Definitely! Interesting thread drift from a cartoon.

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 - 11:00 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?