BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:08 PM

" live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do."

How could you possibly not have meant to be unkind and snooty when you said this. It put a very ugly picture in my mind.

I promise that I'll give you every possible benefit of the doubt if you can give me an explanation for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

pete - I can tell you exactly the evidence that would cause me to abandon my belief in evolution, and if it is shown to me, I truly will. If you can tell me what would cause you to disavow YEC, then our beliefs are equivalent. If you cannot, please stop comparing your beliefs to mine. As Bill D explains above (many times) you are making a comparison that is inappropriate and insulting.
Best wishes,
Tim

Well, Tim, I seem to differ from both yourself and pete in that I don't see evolution as an area requiring my "belief". I too am a scientist, I have studied the evidence for evolution for many a long year and I find it to be overwhelming and utterly convincing (with gaps still, of course). I don't need to "believe" in it. I tend to leave belief to those persons who have ideas unsupported by evidence. That might make me sound a bit like Mr Spock, but I assure you that I still say "ouch" if I'm pinched.

(I'm fully with you really, of course!)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:46 PM

"Nicely, if undeliberately, put. But at least they don't live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do. "


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

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Perhaps you could apprise me of the "personal information" I decided to share by dint of this post that caused you to issue your dire warning. You really can be such a pillock, can't you, Wackers! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Having been immersed in the various concepts of causality in several university courses in Philosophy, I can say that it is largely a matter of careful phrasing of ideas that seem obvious once clarified.

There are several categories of cause with sub-categories in a couple. (you can look up the details). The one that is really at issue is "remote cause", which refers to the last item in the chain when searching, but the first item when defining.
If you have a Ford, certain events make up the causal chain, with 'material' causes and 'formal' causes present in the process... but one can refer to Henry Ford as one 'remote' cause. He would not be a 'first' cause, because he didn't invent the automobile, and didn't invent metallurgy, and didn't drill for oil...etc... so defining remote causes is a matter of deciding how far you wish to push it.

So.... what is at issue is the formal, philosophical question posed explicitly by Martin Heidegger, William James... and many others.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

We can trace various events and chemical & physical reactions ...and even ideas... with some sort of success, but so far, no scientific way has been found to answer "Why is there something rather than nothing?" We have tests in physics and astronomy that say that the oldest things we can measure are about 14 billion years old, but neither cosmologists or theologians can explain *what came before*.
Here it becomes a matter of who 'needs' an answer, and who is content to just muse on possible answers. Arcane concepts in physics and cosmology are becoming way too boggling for most of us.... like me. But I don't require an answer to something that may not BE answerable.
Those who MUST have an answer simply assert "God did it." and avoid all that math. This is not only convenient, but it creates an entire industry of 'explicating' what God must have thought, done, avoided, planned ...and demanded of His creations. There are thousands of variations on the theological model(s)... and it many ways it is more satisfying and comforting than just shrugging and saying "I dunno..".

My favorite saying about the situation is: "From false premises, anything follows!"... meaning, once you choose and assert premises that 'may' be true... but 'may' be false, you can easily construct any set of answers... and people have done that ever since they were advanced enough to think about it.

Why is there something rather than nothing? *shrug* I dunno...and neither do you!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:23 PM

pete - I can tell you exactly the evidence that would cause me to abandon my belief in evolution, and if it is shown to me, I truly will. If you can tell me what would cause you to disavow YEC, then our beliefs are equivalent. If you cannot, please stop comparing your beliefs to mine. As Bill D explains above (many times) you are making a comparison that is inappropriate and insulting.
Best wishes,
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM

"Nicely, if undeliberately, put. But at least they don't live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do. "


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

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:09 PM

evolutionists have their bottom life

Nicely, if undeliberately, put. But at least they don't live their lives up their own bottoms, as you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:27 PM

Yes, I too would like to know more about the "Law of Causality" - I confess, I've never heard of it. Let's assume, for a moment, that such a law exists and dictates that the Universe, and everything in it, must have a cause. Why, then, should I believe that that cause is described in an old book containing the translated, re-translated and mis-translated creation myths of a particular bunch of Bronze Age desert tribesmen?

"most are religiously committed to evolutionism, though a growing number are questioning the dogma."

To repeat Jack the Sailor's request: Please give numbers.
Please give examples of dogma.

Oh yes, are all scientists deluded or are they engaged in a gigantic conspiracy? You're STILL dodging these questions, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:21 PM

"Yes, science has a 'bottom line', but it is that more data & evidence is always useful and must be tested & integrated before being provisionally accepted."


Perhaps it is worthwhile to point out that on the issues that pete is talking about, Creation, 500 foot wooden boats, supernatural wild animal wrangling, there were "theories" that were generally accepted which were replaced as scientific evidence was discovered. It is my understanding that much of the science and philosophy done in the relatively recent past up to the beginning of the 20th century was to that end.

Very intelligent religious people, people much smarter than Ken Ham and that science teacher from Chicago, looked at the evidence and found that the evidence backed up Darwin and the other "deep time" supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM

Pete- As I have said before, what creationists use as "bottom line" is essentially, basically different in kind and structure & method from what science uses. They use two entirely different concepts of knowledge.
Yes, science has a 'bottom line', but it is that more data & evidence is always useful and must be tested & integrated before being provisionally accepted.
Creationists bottom line is, as they say, and you agree, belief in a particular scriptural view.
If you cannot see the basic incongruity in deciding what the 'truth' will be before...or instead of... getting relevant data, I don't know what to say.
It is really rather an insult to honest scientists to suggest that their methodology is 'merely' one form of belief.... and I don't toss out words like 'insult' randomly. As I have said before, using 'belief' that way is an unfair twisting of language & definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:46 PM

Ah, so it's philosophical in nature, not a scientific law.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:29 PM

Ayn Rand?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:26 PM

"evolutionists have their bottom life, but pretend that they are open to evidence ,"

Please show evidence of 6 day creation.

"though a growing number are questioning the dogma."

Please give numbers.
Please give examples of dogma.

Please tell us why the creation theory about the flood changing carbon dating has not yet been proved or disproved by cutting a stick in half and sticking one half it in a bucket of rainwater for a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:16 PM

"creationists are in line with the law of causality."

Er, just what is the "law of causality" exactly? C'mon Pete, citation needed. Let's all be sure we're talking about the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:07 PM

ah, shimrod, but what you believe amounts to a miracle....but without a miracle maker.   creationists are in line with the law of causality.
and from that perpective alone, creation excels Darwinism as a viable alterntive.
bill-I,ve always said that creationists are upfront about their presuppositions, but thankyou for having looked up the sources.
evolutionists have their bottom life, but pretend that they are open to evidence , though I suspect that this is not always deliberate.
most are religiously committed to evolutionism, though a growing number are questioning the dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:27 AM

I was also challenged about decay rates, so I found an article on CMI by john woodmorappe entitled
billion-fold acceleration demonstrated in laboratory.

john woodmorappe is a grade school teacher in Chicago public schools using a fake name.

His "article" cited other sources, including a certain grade school teacher from Chicago, himself. But he completely misinterprets the results and his conclusion is nothing less than insane fantasy.

"Conclusion

This exciting demonstration that isotopic 'clocks' can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to creationist scholars. It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic 'clocks'. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open."

The finding that "isotopic 'clocks' can be accelerated at least a billion-fold" is not good news, when that acceleration occurs when heavy elements are heated to the point of plasma is far from good news to "creationist scholars" Its like saying that the ratio of of carbon 14 to carbon 12 can be changed by burning the sample to ash and reconstituting it with a star trek replicator set on "age the sample"

The article DOES not in any way address the problem of carbon 14 dating.

If God created everything in 6 days, isn't it more logical that he simply created all the fossils and biological remains with ratios of isotopes that make them appear to be the the ages that we detect rather than heating them to the point that the atomic bonds start to break down, but only for the isotopes he wants to age while presumably leaving alone the other elements in the rocks such as silicon then magically cooling them and putting back with nothing changed except isotope ratios. Yes Steve, I know that sounds awkward. But john woodmorappe's idea is very awkward.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

pete, any scientist who has to invoke miracles in order to explain his/her observations should immediately abandon the title of 'scientist' - 'charlatan' or 'idiot' might be more apt under those circumstances! He/she should also wave goodbye to any prospect of his/her work being viewed favourably by the Nobel Committee ... TITANIC UNDERSTATEMENT ALERT!!!! ...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:19 AM

"mary swittzer "

If you can't be arsed to even spell her name correctly, you are insulting her. Not very Christian is it.


" well, I suppose he was at least being honest!"

But he's not being a scientist. Was that detractor a scientist? Who was it exactly?


"as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result"

Dang! I bet they never thought of that!


"shim rod wants me to cite scientific literature, outside of creation organisations, and probably I could, but am not inclined to take time indulging his fallacy of dismissing information because it comes from a source he rejects."

Along with Shim I'd be interested to see your citations of peer-review literature. You're not indulging a fallacy, you're supporting your argument in the same way scientists do when they disagree on an issue. By NOT citing the literature, you are simply making uninformed statements with zero evidence to back them up.

Put up or shut up Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:26 AM

Want to take another stab at it?

cogent
adjective \ˈkō-jənt\

: very clear and easy for the mind to accept and believe
Full Definition of COGENT
1
: having power to compel or constrain
2
a : appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:13 AM

Regarding this statement:

"ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days

The point seems to be lost that the ICR is speaking on that issue, not God.

There is a rather old view that the Bible is inerrant, but our understanding of it is not. That would extend to the ICR and to Pete and his cronies.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM

I don't blame you for not responding to Steve. He doesn't make cogent points.

OK, Wackers, I'll make a cogent point. You are a prince among twats. Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 08:34 PM

I read most of that... but I also follow the 'Humphries' link to The Institution for Creation Research site.

In their explanation of their purpose and methods we find this:

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. "

Well, that's clear enough! It is also exactly what I argue is a logical fallacy of "assuming the consequent"... one sort of circular reasoning. If one does accept such premises, one must find fault with any science which dares to find anything contradictory.

As Pete says, we go round in circles. I'm getting a bit dizzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

pete, I believe that you have been refusing to answer my points because you have no answers to my points. I don't blame you for not responding to Steve. He doesn't make cogent points.



Please someone ask pete to read this.

Or post the link yourselves.

john woodmorappe poses way more questions than he answers with is theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:28 PM

"I did at one time totally ignore your posts when you were foulmouthed ..."

When was I ever f***ing foulmouthed, pete?!

" ... I would say again that even were it true that 99.9 of scientists were convinced evolutionist, that would not be proof in and of itself that it is true. the most have often been wrong before."

You can only make statements like that, pete, because you don't understand science and you don't understand the difference between science and unquestioning religious faith.

I might also point out that if 0.1% of scientists were 'unconvinced evolutionist' (whatever animal that may be!), it still wouldn't mean that the biblical account of creation is true or is any sort of viable alternative.

As for "strong evidence for [my] origins story" - it's all in Dawkins' book(s) - and he expresses it far better than I can. Of course, there are plenty of other books on evolution besides those written by Dawkins - but they're as good a place to start as any.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:36 PM

Well, chaps, an awful lot of hot air has been wasted here lately on pete. So let me waste just a little more, put as succinctly as I can possibly make it. Ahem:

He's a bloody waste of space. And he's laughing at you. Tell him where to get off.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:04 PM

no, shimrod, I don't think in those terms regarding you. I don't fully answer all your challenges, but remember I am one only, defending the biblical creation position against more of you. however if you actually present something that is strong evidence for your origins story, I will probably counter it, or possibly concede that I don't know the answer to it. I did at one time totally ignore your posts when you were foulmouthed but since adopting a more polite [ albeit maybe a little sneering!] tone I don't ignore you.   but now I shall add jack, to steve who I don't bother responding to.

bill-seems we shall go round in circles. is the science method not defined in terms of doing repeatable, testable, observable experiments. I really don't see how that can be any more than partially applicable at best, in respect to origins.
how can you insist that they are the same?
operational science can establish scientific findings because of repeated tests and observations yielding consistent results.
this is just not true of something like dating methods, or more precisely the interpretation of their results.
results are dismissed as wrong if they are at variance with the field work - itself being interpretive dating- and then there are a whole range of standard explanations for why it differs.
they may appeal to xenocrysts contamination, or that somehow else old "age" was inherited.
but when the creationist appeals to other factors, somehow that is inadmissible!
yes I got this info from CMI but the author is a geologist.
and I would have thought that dismissing such info because of the source was a fallacy of some kind!
what counts is coherency, and substance to truth claims.
and I would say again that even were it true that 99.9 of scientists were convinced evolutionist, that would not be proof in and of itself that it is true. the most have often been wrong before.
I was also challenged about decay rates, so I found an article on CMI by john woodmorappe entitled
billion-fold acceleration demonstrated in laboratory.
this cited various sources which I think were non creation.
and I would also say, as you inferred I would, that you have the notion that any lab results that contradict deep time belief must be flawed!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

And, yes... Greg F's post IS relevant in this discussion. It is worth posting the synopsis:

"The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."

Now, I have little doubt that Pete would probably claim that it applies to us as well as himself... he has said as much several times, asserting that we ignore or miss the point of what Ham & other creationists offer. I am not sure how to go about explaining to Pete... or anyone else locked into such a position... how science works and what the rules are for analyzing & interpreting data.

I spent quite a bit of time a few years ago pointing out to *daylia* flaws in her arguments for Astrology... but she wanted to believe that it was accurate and relevant, whether it could be explained or not.
Today, there are many...way TOO many... who 'believe' that one race (always their own) is fundamentally superior to certain others. It eventually boils down to an emotional/psychological mindset. There is little one can do except strive to keep such viewpoints from being embedded in law and being used to affect the rights of those who do NOT hold such views.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:12 PM

Well... as I posted in some other thread months ago, I wish I had the opportunity sit down... perhaps in the Seven Stars pub... and have a beer and talk to Pete for a couple of hours. We could say more, in a direct face-to-face, and ask for clarifications of points and compare notes and perhaps break down a few misunderstandings.
I do NOT presume that either of us would likely convert the other... to or from... any Christian or skeptic viewpoint. I already know several people in 'real life' with whom I have occasional discussions about religion or politics or race. We have to be careful that we don't use insurmountable differences to 'judge' them as human beings.
In my life there have been only a couple of people that I could not talk to because of their tendency to treat difference of opinion as a personal flaw. I am sure I am lucky that it is ONLY 2-3.

It is a delicate thing to walk that line between wanting to gently critique someone's position and wanting to grab them by the collar and shake some sense into them ☺....

I keep returning to the Peanuts cartoon I have noted several times...most recently in this thread back on Jan. 23.

Old Peanuts cartoon:

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

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


HOWEVER: To Pete and various others, my other favorite Peanuts cartoon makes a slightly different point:

Lucy, kneeling on the sidewalk says to Charlie Brown: "You know why that big black bug doesn't move? Because she's the queen bug! She just sits there, see, while the other bugs do all the work."

Charlie Brown gets down and looks closely: "That's not a bug, that's a black jelly bean."

Lucy, bending down and looking VERY closely: "By golly, you're right, Charlie Brown....I wonder how a jelly bean ever got to be queen?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:10 PM

From my last post: "I can't help noticing that, most of the time, you either ignore these questions, give evasive answers or change the subject."

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins has reported that he has been subjected to these self-same ploys whenever he has attempted to discuss the theory of evolution with creationists. Do they teach you these tactics in Creationist Summer School, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 01:01 PM

I'm interested to know if you consider me to be uncharitable, pete? After all, all that I tend to do, most of the time, is to ask you questions. I can't help noticing that, most of the time, you either ignore these questions, give evasive answers or change the subject. Under these circumstances, I find that my capacity for treating you in a charitble fashion is somewhat limited!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:41 PM

A legal requirement to prove slander is that the alleged slanderer must believe that the accusation is false. Its the same defense that you use for your lies. Do you believe that I do not believe that you are spreading falsehoods?

Now that you know what I have told you about slander, to accuse me of it again would entail another lie.

That is the Truth of the Genesis creation story. Before man developed intelligence and morality, man was innocent of any action he took. But with knowledge comes responsibility. You cannot continue to claim ignorance of science after all of our sincere and patient efforts to educate you. Scientific debate cannot be honestly conducted without a basic knowledge of what science is.   Greg F's last link is very appropriate for this discussion.

It is extremely rude of you to figuratively cover your ears about what science is while constantly dipping into your well of pseudo-scientific, that is FAKE-scientific sounding nonsense.

It is dishonest for you to pretend that you consider that equal to science when you refuse to learn what science is.

You may think I am being less polite than Bill because Bill is being kind to you to appease your prejudices and save your feelings. That is probably true.

On the other hand. I would want someone to tell me if I was as clearly off base as you are. I cannot give you the comfort that Bill does. For one thing, I don't consider your purposely and dishonestly spreading nonsense to be a valid part of a civilized discussion. I believe that you are lying.
You have claimed ignorance far too many times to be credible. Willful ignorance is just another way to lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:09 PM

it is a strange irony that that an atheist [agnostic?] is charitable in his criticism but a Christian slanders another Christian.

Leaving aside whether such slander is real or not, there is no irony at all about who is charitable to who. How people actually behave is not a matter of what labels they choose to pin on themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM

In Re: Mr pete-


Here

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:47 AM

bill,- thanks first of all for the character ref. it is a strange irony that that an atheist [agnostic?] is charitable in his criticism but a Christian slanders another Christian.
I am off out now but plan to continue civilized discussion with you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:33 AM

An epic conspiracy to match the theory to the evidence rather than the "evidence" to the part book they choose to pretend is literal.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:24 AM

"I will answer one of shimrods questions. are all scientists deluded?
no, there are many that don't buy into the man made myth of abiogenesis, and microbes to man evolution!."

"Many" scientists, pete? Don't you mean the tiny minority of self-styled 'creationist scientists'? As these impostors are the only ones that you listen to, I suppose they may appear like "many" to you.
So, then, are all of the rest (the vast, vast majority) deluded or engaged in an epic conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:53 PM

pete, I am sorry but I do not believe that you are being honest.

You are trying to make us believe that doubt about the science is proof that your side is correct. You know better. Bill makes a good point with the trial analogy. Bill is very very kind to you.

You are too clever to be as innocent as you pretend to be.

Ham thinks he is clever enough to trick people into coming to Jesus. Do you? A faith that depends on slander science and cherry picking the Bible is a very shallow one.

I have no problem with you believing in Genesis. I don't mind you thinking God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

I don't care if they are your lies or Ken Ham's. Please, please stop lying to us about things that you admit that you do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:52 PM

pete, I am sorry but I do not believe that you are being honest.

You are trying to make us believe that doubt about the science is proof that your side is correct. You know better. Bill makes a good point with the trial analogy. Bill is very very kind to you.

You are too clever to be as innocent as you pretend to be.

Ham thinks he is clever enough to trick people into coming to Jesus. Do you? A faith that depends on slander science and cherry picking the Bible is a very shallow one.

I have no problem with you believing in Genesis. I don't mind you thinking God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

I don't care if they are your lies or Ken Ham's. Please, please stop lying to us about things that you admit that you do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:33 PM

Well Pete, your 'explanation': "these results however are given in an interpretive framework that assumes there are no other conditions that may affect the result. as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result." is just simply labored obfuscation ....which you have gotten from people like Ham, who begins, as you do, with the notion that any lab results that contradict scripture MUST be flawed.
Very highly paid defense attorneys try to convince juries that their clients (whom everyone is sure are guilty) 'might' be innocent because some lab sample 'might' have been touched inappropriately by someone and 'might' have been contaminated. In legal matters, they don't have to be right about such speculations.... all they have to do is convince one or two jurors to vote their way!

I'm sorry Pete, but there are many, many, many more reasons to accept the radiometric readings than to reject them. But you are like that juror the clever lawyer needs to plant one seed of doubt in... you vote for what someone wants you to, or because you like the defendant. (In our famous O.J. Simpson murder case, 2 jurors admitted afterward that they had decided at the beginning they were NOT going to find him guilty, no matter what evidence was presented!)

If you cared to, you could find scientific explanations that clarify ALL the supposed dino DNA and mixed rock issues. I suppose I could too, but you'd just re-quote Ham or creation.com and tell me... again... of the same problems that are ONLY seen by the .001% of scientists who are willing to rhetorically twist data and lab results to suit their beliefs.

Pete... unlike 'certain' persons here, I don't question your honesty, but I am amazed at the way you cling to stuff that so few believe. You can have God and very old Earth too....(many Christians do!) you are just caught in this circular reasoning. You told me once(I've lost track of the thread) that you didn't originally believe that way, but were 'convinced' or 'educated' by a certain group. They may have given you comfort in some ways, but they took away a basic understanding of how we really process & analyze data.... it is really unfortunate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,I was talking to Musket,
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:47 PM

the "rational one" who doesn't believe in anything. I was also mostly joking.

The nit that is worth picking depends on whose nit is being picked.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:37 PM

I'd like to be alone for five minutes with the stupid arse that perpetuates your own whinging baleful presence on this board.

?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:40 PM

"How can Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy crave anything? Or "talk bollocks"?"

You can only get away with a certain amount of nit picking Jack, before everyone realises that the nit is you.

Don't join KA of H in this.

You are better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:36 PM

"There are isotopes of carbon.
Carbon is not an isotope."

Go away K A! He knows that, and nit picking is supposed to be beneath the infallible among us.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:02 PM

bill,- seems we are not understanding each other here. I read and reread what I said, and I still cant see what is amiss, other than your disagreement with it. so I will try again to be clearer.
no argument about the data as such.    as I understand it no one as far as I know ,argues with the accuracy of the labs , say, in giving radio carbon results. these results however are given in an interpretive framework that assumes there are no other conditions that may affect the result. as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result.
I very much doubt that the cases of contradictory dating is as rare as you believe it, but even a significant amount ought, I would have thought, be cause for rethinking , for a truly impartial [if such can truly be] scientist.
one example of geological anomaly was given by ham, of wood with radio carbon buried in lava lain rock dated far too old by deep time geology. I seem to remember that Nye suggested it had slid beneath, but ham made clear that it was encased in it. how does that scanner fix that?
I understand that coal consistently gives the same result, and diamonds, which have extremely little chance of contamination.
shimrod wants me to cite scientific literature, outside of creation organizations, and probably I could, but am not inclined to take time indulging his fallacy of dismissing information because it comes from a source he rejects. it should also be added that the creationists get their info from secular science sources, often, or their own scientists have sometimes investigated where evolutionists have not done so as they would assume it would be pointless looking, as they already "know" their story is true.
I recall, that it was only accidentally that mary swittzer made the dino discovery of soft tissue, and had a lot of resistance for some time. she asked one detractor what would convince him, and he answered "nothing". well, I suppose he was at least being honest!
I will answer one of shimrods questions. are all scientists deluded?
no, there are many that don't buy into the man made myth of abiogenesis, and microbes to man evolution!.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 05:55 PM

I'd like to be alone for five minutes with the stupid arse that perpetuates your own whinging baleful presence on this board.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM

Pete has, for several years, remained basically consistent

Absolutely!. Consistently wrong.

Consistently wrong. Consistently blind. Consistently stupid. Consistently insulting. Consistently dishonest. "Evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control..." Yeah, right. Consistently indulged by pious types who really ought to know better and who serve only to perpetuate his baleful presence on this board.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM

"I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars (of money)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 12:53 PM

"I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice the futures of their children to the gods of ... money."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:21 AM

He left out... as far as he went.. (from memory)Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon....

but in a play, they have to avoid boring the audience TOO much. (Proverbs 13:3)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:16 AM

Why am I thinking "Spencer Tracy?"