BS: Is there any merit to creationism?

Subject: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 06:31 PM

From: TheSnail - PM
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 12:10 PM

Good decision SRS. Any chance of re-opening the Darwin's Witnesses thread so that the discussion that saught refuge here can return to where Bill D, Troubador and DMcG (when he returns from holiday) can find it? This thread is supposed to be about the Cosmos programmes.

I think this is the best option the Darwin's Witness thread was way off topic. Here is a deal that might help keep the peace here. I'm tire of discussing this. I promise and to stay off of this thread unless my name "Jack the Sailor" and nickname jts or any of the mocking variants thereof. SRS, you and your moderator friends can keep me silent here if the folks who do not want to see me (or anyone mocked) point this out. I think I have made it very clear that I am not starting this thread to stir the pot.

theSnail there is no barrier to someone held in as high esteem as you are from starting a thread.

If this thread is peaceful and civil after 400 posts, I will ask to be release from my promise. If ten posters say yes. I will consider myself free to participate subject to the posted rules of this forum.

Thanks

I hope this works.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 07:35 PM

Of course there's merit to creationism. It serves as a reminder that the forces of creativity should not be forgotten or ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 07:52 PM

Are you pissed or something? Why have you started this? But Jesus this might be fun, so off we go...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:18 PM

Is there any merit to creationism

No.

Unless there's also merit to stupidity and terminal ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:33 PM

Jack, you said you were leaving Mudcat. What happened?

I think all this shit has been discussed to death long ago. There are probably two Mudcatters who see any value in "creationism." Why not talk with them privately?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:52 PM

What Greg F said.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:54 PM

"Is there any merit to creationism?"

Sure...it's just the 'time' it is taking and the method of how it is coming around that has everyone confused.
To some it takes forever, so it can't be right....and to others, it's all one big day!

Happy Living and Evolving!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:54 PM

"Creationism" is a misleading word, really. It sounds as if it should be about what most people mean when they say they believe in God, and that the world is God's Creation, but it's not, it's about a sort of Sci-Fi idea about the world being assembled a few thousand years ago, complete with artificial fossils put there to fool people. it's rather like something out of the Hitchhikers Guide. And like the Hitchhiker's Guide it's quite entertaining, but strictly fiction.

What mainstream Christians, and others, mean when they talk about God as Creator is much more complicated, and since it isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution, it's not really worth arguing about in this context. Well "creationists" would argue against it, but that's a different context. And not an argument I personally would have any interest in engaging in.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,schlimmerkerl
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:02 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM

it isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution

Au contraire. It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alpone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:10 PM

Alpone is nothing to do, in short, with Al Capone.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:20 PM

I'd be more likely to put as God creating us all the time rather than about something happening long ago. Science is about how the world works, and what happens. Why there is anything rather than nothing just isn't a scientific question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 01:35 AM

I think nobody is quite as doctrinaire as a born-again atheist. Mr. Shaw demonstrates that admirably.

But of course you're right, Steve. God, as you and some fundamentalists define God, couldn't possibly exist - and thus couldn't possibly have created anything. There are, however, other understandings of God that you are apparently unable to comprehend or allow for. Nobody's expecting you to believe in a God, but tolerance and respect on your part would be a blessed relief from your intolerant arrogance.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:44 AM

So the problem is, if you can't accept subtle forms of God, you are a fundamentalist and have no place in debate.

If someone is countering claims that faith contradicting scientific evidence is a conundrum, they aren't disrespecting faith, they are pointing out that the stories faith is built on shouldn't be confused with reality, yet intelligent people allow this to happen.

I can't understand it either. Superstition is so deeply ingrained it clouds reason. For that alone, it should be treated with caution.

I would remind Joe of the story of the King's new clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

Is there a merit to creationism? Only to folklorists and storytellers - like me! I take a keen interest in religion and mythology & often tell Creation Myths, of which there are 1,000s, including the two very different ones giving in Genesis. I can't resist taking a dip into the Pseudo Science of Creationism as a caution as what happens when people start taking these things literally as part of a more sinister agenda.

The universe pre-dates humanity by billions of years; it will also ante-date humanity by billions of years. We invented God to account for things in the darkness of our ignorance, to place ourselves at the centre of it all when, in reality, we're barely on the edge. Science at least tells us where were at.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Janie
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 07:45 AM

Well said, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

Steve, this bloke was on R4 about 7.30 this morning.

Revd Professor David Wilkinson, BSc, PhD, MA, PhD, FRAS

Professor and Principal of St. John's College in the Department of Theology and Religion

Before working in Durham as a theologian, I was a scientist and then a Methodist minister in inner city Liverpool. My background is research in theoretical astrophysics, where my PhD was in the study of star formation, the chemical evolution of galaxies and terrestrial mass extinctions such as the event which wiped out the dinosaurs. I am a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and have published a wide range of papers on these subjects.
https://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/profile/?id=2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

So obviously not a creationist then.

Do read thread titles before putting in so much effort eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 09:43 AM

"So much effort"

The view that posting a link involves a high expenditure of effort would seem to indicate a radical degree of lethargy, which doesn't seem characteristic of Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 09:45 AM

Ha!

New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:22 AM

Oi Vey!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:24 AM

Hoo, boy...; so further confirmation of the great big pop theory equals further confirmation that the Genesis account is literal. What I would get from that would be that the great big pop really happened, but it happened about six thousand years ago. Now I won't have to find all this so confusing anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM

Appropriation of the Big Bang by an "orthodox physicist." I think you have a triple oxymoron going there.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:57 AM

merit-schmerit
creationism-schmeationism
bigbang-schmigbang

I never got a satisfactory answer -- or any answer actually IIRC -- on a thread that I OPd a few years ago that ran & ran, simply titled "What went Big Bang?". Till someone can answer that to the satisfaction of anybody whatsoever, all is vanity & vexation of spirit. {Ecclesiastes}

Let us conjugate the essential verb ~~~

I dunno
thou dunno
he/she dunno
we dunno
you dunno
they dunno

Ta·ra

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 01:06 PM

Joe Offer, 26 Mar, said all this shit has been discussed to death long ago.
Mark me ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 02:36 PM

What went Big Bang?

There are a lot of models, but I like this best, maybe because I love lava lamps...

New Big Bang evidence also hints that we may exist in a multiverse

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:26 PM

Models of WHAT, Jack? I am not remotedly interested in all this fatuous speculation about the quadrillion-trillion-billion-million-googol·+·1 things that might have happened in the microsecond after the big bloody bang. I just want to know what it was that went big bloody bang in the first place; what it was, where it was; and whence it came. Till anyone can answer those questions, there is no point so far as I can see in engagement with any further discourse. Sod the models & the multiverses!

Ben Elton has a character in one of his novels say that apparently these are questions that only stupid people ask. That's OK. So I'll be stupid; fine. Now can any of the non-stupid answer, please.

~M~

Elizabeth-Ann
Said to her Nan
'Please will you tell me how God began'

A.A Milne Now We Are Six

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

As a member of the DILLIGAFF group, it shouldn't matter to you if the rest of the world chooses to continue trying to find out about the origins of the Universe(s).

All you need to know is that somebody IS trying to ascertain the answer to YOUR question, and one day will succeed.

Without the scientific work you dismiss as unworthy of your attention, that would certainly NEVER happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:08 PM

Never mind Jack's silly title Musket.
McGrath said, "What mainstream Christians, and others, mean when they talk about God as Creator is much more complicated, and since it isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution,"

Steve reposted, "Au contraire. It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alpone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that."

My post was to Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:14 PM

it isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution,

Say whut?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: michaelr
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM

Evidence here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:13 PM

Having gone to school before thr 'big bang' was in serious contention as a theory, I have followed the debate for over 50 years.,,,close to 60. The most popular idea back then was 'continuous creation, where atoms of hydrogen just kept 'popping into existence' and than getting disturbed and knocked about until they joined others.'

Better? Worse? Neither.... we could still argue where one atom came from, as well as where a singularity cane from..... and whether some infinite intelligence **decided** where to create an atom.

What we have now is better instruments and computers to look more directly at stars & galaxies and even detect & measure stuff we barely dreamed of 60 years ago, Much of this new data demands new and/or revised theories to integrate it, and pushes (or drags) us in certain directions. We are essentially trying to describe the relationships, using complex math and super-computers, between the various news observations.
The more information we have, the more certain basic lines of thought rise to the top,....except for creationist themes which have essentially NO new data. What they have is the assertion that "God did it".... and because, as MtheGM says."I dunno... and YOU dunno", we can't prove them wrong, it IS the case that creationism is irrelevant EXCEPT as a personal opinion. Merit? Well... it provides a hobby. If I were a betting man, I bet a large sum that we will never find any 'ultimate' answer....but I would also bet that YOUNG EARTH creatinoism will gradually fade more into the backwaters as real *evidence* overwhelms it

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

scientific beliefs"...don't exist

That's what you believe, of course, Steve, or you wouldn't have written it. Is there conceivably a contradiction in that?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:32 PM

That's a little difficult for the doctrinaire adherents of 'science' to accept, Kevin - the fact that even THEY have beliefs....in what they perceive as science. True scientists know that they have theories that have varying levels of proof, but that there are other possibilities. And one of those possibilities is that theories can collapse.

These doctrinaire adherents of 'science' claim certainty, just as the doctrinaire adherents of a literal biblical view of creation claim certainty. The only certainty I have, is that both of them are certainly wrong.

The rest of us have some level of doubt, some acknowledgement that we don't know as much as we'd like to know - which means that there is mystery in much of what we see and wonder at the further discoveries that will unfold. Some of us have a spiritual perspective on this. We respect and accept the discoveries of science, but still seek a meaning behind it all - knowing that we will never find an absolute answer. We may or may not see value in tradition and ritual and myth in the exploration of the Unknown, but we accept and respect that there are many avenues in the quest for understanding.

In the exploration of the Unknown, many of us have gained respect for ancient myths and traditions, finding truth in the poetry of Celtic and Teutonic and Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Native American and Asian and Christian and Hebrew and Muslim and other systems of belief.

I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:29 AM

If by the term "creationism", you are referring to the belief held by a select number that insist that a literal interpretation of Genesis reveals that the earth is less than 7 thousand years old, evolution is some kind of false doctrine and that their beliefs have some kind of scientific validity... than I am forced to say that not only does it it lack merit, but it is actually dangerous.   

I say dangerous because thirty years ago when I attended a national convention of biology teachers it was quite evident that religious doctrine was causing textbooks to become "watered down" by publishers to avoid being boycotted by major book buyers. The Texas Book Depository - the one involved in the Kennedy assassination- is the central purchaser of school books in Texas. So if a Christian fundamentalist attitude runs that authority, they wield tremendous power. And trust me, they do.

Creationism is just one expression of religious zealotry... the Inquisition was another... as was the Russian purges of Jews. It may involve less violence, but it is oppressive to freedom of thought and speech.

What preceded the big bang... I have no clue, and I leave it at that.
But I do know biology, ecology and evolutionary theory, and there is no way I will accept or tolerate their attempts to deny facts and replace them with their absurd assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

finding truth in the poetry of Celtic and Teutonic and Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Native American and Asian and Christian and Hebrew and Muslim and other systems of belief.

Finding truth and persisting things to be true are two different things. There are thousands of creation myths (apart from the two quite contradictory ones in Genesis!) each one part of thousands of different storytelling traditions. Not a single one of these is any way TRUE, on the contrary, though we might pause to ponder when one chimes in with known scientific data (i.e. True in the Literal Knowable Falsifiable Demonstrable Peer Reviewed sense) like the ancient Hindu cosmology as touched upon in the particularly mind-scrambling episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos I was watching last night...

Carl Sagan on Hindu Cosmology

We can know these things. It's what being human is all about. This is why religion is essentially inhumane as it confuses what is objectively True and concerns us all, with subjective truth, which only concerns one of us - a you or a me - and proceeds to feed it into the impressionable brains of children. TRUE reverberates in the background radiation of the Big Bang which pre-dates humanity by billions of years, and will still be reverberating billions of years after we've gone. Truth, OTOH, is what we choose to eat for breakfast, read on the toilet or put on our car stereos on our drive to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: andrew e
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:35 AM

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:37 AM

Creationism has zero merit.

Also, religious folk don't seem to understand the scientists feel the same wonder and awe that they do, that in our own way we too are looking for meaning and understanding but do so by using our own innate curiosity.

I would also suggest religious folk don't aren't exclusively the ones contemplating the numinous and mysteries of existence; as a scientist I also seek the fundamental truths addressed in the visual arts, poetry, culture and importantly music.

I am also spiritual, but my beliefs in this realm I try to ground in science. I was raised CoE, went to methodist and free churches, investigated the occult and paganism, engage in buddhism for a while, and in truth science and art are the only things that I have found that seem to address the corporeal and unknown nature of the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:47 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:02 AM

If the year indicated is the standard solar year, the answer is


NO.



If the days counted to add up the age include the "days" in the old testament that actually translates as closer to "a period of time", and those "days" are of variable length, up to billions of solar years, then the answer is


One might make an argument that it is.



day (dā)
n.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.


The words in the Old Testament have the meaning of 6, 7 or 8.

Thus the Bible could be an accurate explanation IN THE WORDS of the time of the big bang, and the subsequent evolution of the universe and life herein.

The current problem is that "Creationists" as presented here do not look at the source material (God's Word) but at their own favorite INTERPRETATION of it. The KJV is a great work of literature- but a flawed translation of a flawed translation of a flawed translation.

The question is whether to take God's Word ( facts as shown by the real universe) or the written words of human beings as the truth- Where the written words are the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:56 AM

the written words of human beings as the truth- Where the written words are the Bible.

Even the EARLIEST written copies were

1. written down long after the original enlightenment by God of the original person
2. filtered throughout the understanding and language of a specific people and culture.

Science is the art of trying to understand God's Word in the facts of the universe, rather than accepting a translation by humans of a human's interpretation of what someone generations before had understood God to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:50 AM

"The words in the Old Testament have the meaning of 6, 7 or 8."

The days in the Genesis creation myth are defined as a morning and evening which constitutes a day; it didn't take the earth a billion years to rotate. The ages of the patriarchs are counted off in years; if those "years" meant eons, the stated ages would be that much further from real possibility by magnitudes. It takes desperately wishful thinking to make Genesis a literal historical account in the language of any period of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[25] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[26] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[27]
The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[29] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos)."

"And God said "Let there be light.""

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:56 AM

One MIGHT make said argument, but it would still be nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:56 AM

Joe. Who are the doctrine filled people who claim science as a certainty?

Perhaps if you see them, you might inform them of Mudcat where science is discussed as best knowledge till proved otherwise.

Not an easy concept for those who think the bible is historical fact, but the rest of us seem to have a grasp of the scientific PROCESS as opposed to religious RESULT.

When you say "they" have beliefs, you may be correct, but the mental leap to belief in "science" is to truly misunderstand people. We have many people learned in branches of science on these threads including a smattering of relevant PhDs.

Try not to prejudge people who refuse to let superstition interfere with reality. Religion as a comfort is fine when applied to the minds of some humans. But the mass involved in the brains of religious humans is about as close to zero as you can measure when putting it up to the universe. Even if you include all the bricks in Guildford Cathedral.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

frogprince,

So you insist on only that meaning? Isn't my childhood the morning of my life, and my old age it's evening?

I have never said that the use of those many-times mistranslated words are all equal- a "year" can be whatever someone wants it to be, - A season, 12 cycles of the moon.

Genesis is "literal" ONLY in that it is the translation of the recollection of what was told to the ancestors of the original writer by those who listened to the human words of the person "enlightened" by God.

To believe that over the direct observation of God's universe is to accept a thousand errors for every one that science, in it's less than perfect state, allows for a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:26 AM

Okay, Bearded Bruce; so maybe if we could recover the Genesis account, just as it was before being retold orally for a few billion years, then written down and mistranslated for thousands of years, we would have...

...an accurate account (in the language of it's time) of man's memory of what the Big Bang was like.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Circa 2010 CE:
"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[25] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[26] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[27]
The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[29] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos)."



Circa 2010 BCE:
"And God said "Let there be light. And there was Light.""


Both say the same thing, WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIME.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:49 AM

Not true. The "god said" version assumes a thinking and powerful cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

1) Even the EARLIEST written copies were 1. written down long after the original enlightenment by God of the original person 2. filtered throughout the understanding and language of a specific people and culture.

Er - no. It was ALL MADE UP BY HUMAN BEINGS. As was GOD. We made it all up for comfort in the darkness of our ignorance because that's what human beings do. When we don't know, we tell stories. When we do know, we consign the stories to mythology.

2) Both say the same thing, WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIME.

What idiocy is this? They DO NOT say the same thing at all. One is a made up story about a fictitious creator. The other is an interpretation of available scientific data in which there is no creator, nor any need of one. All Gods and religions are inventions of human culture. Science is the discovery of universal truth. Best not confuse the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

All depends on your definition of God, doesn't it?




God is Truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:00 PM

Still trying to pin down what you are postulating (while wondering why I'm trying). What I'm getting now is that, somewhere around 4024 years ago (Yes, that is as credible a date as anyone has for the first written version) someone wrote down, within the available language of his time, what God then or at some unknowable time revealed about the process of creation.

When God revealed all this, was it in a deep, resonant voice? Or, did He cause someone to see it all in a dream? Or did He plug a USB cord into someone's ear?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:25 PM

If on the FOURTH DAY, in Genesis, 'God made the sun'....how long were the 'days' before the sun came into being??

Maybe ALL your figurings are off!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:49 PM

All depends on your definition of God, doesn't it?

I'd say God is pretty well defined elsewhere without me having a definition too. God was humanity's imaginary friend before we grew up and put him away with all the other childish things. The religious retards still imagine he's there though - telling them to do unspeakable things & harbour unspeakable thoughts. His kingdom is that of Metaphor - believers do the concept, and other humans, great wrong by taking it literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:49 PM

An Earth day is approximately 86,400 seconds, with or without the flashlight.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:51 PM

day (dā)
n.
…
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:51 PM

All depends on your definition of God, doesn't it?

I'd say God is pretty well defined elsewhere without me having a definition too. God was humanity's imaginary friend before we grew up and put him away with all the other childish things. The religious retards still imagine he's there though - telling them to do unspeakable things & harbour unspeakable thoughts. His kingdom is that of Metaphor - believers do the concept, and other humans, great wrong by taking it literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:59 PM

I disagree with YOUR definition of God- that is not what I mean when I refer to God.

God is the INITIAL cause of the universe- NO further interaction is required.

Even the cyclic big bang requires an a priori. If the mono bloc is stable, then what causes it to expand, and where did it come from? If it is unstable, where did it come from?

At some point, it goes beyond the realm of physics and becomes metaphysics (BY DEFINITION)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:22 PM

BeardedBruce: Granting you, for the purpose of discussion, complete flexibility as to the meaning of the word translated "day" in Genesis:
No human was there to remember the creation; man had no scientific tools with which to theorize about the creation process. How did the author of Genesis obtain accurate knowledge,in the language of his or anyone else's time, of this kind of data.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:31 PM

So... Call the Big Bang an act of God and as everything needs to be called something, you have God.

I could run with that, same as using the "God did it" as a colloquial way of saying we haven't got a decent working hypothesis for something yet.

But do that... And it doesn't half set some hares running. Superstition requires lack of rational thought to be effective. Call something God and you aren't doing them any favours encouraging the buggers.

Beardedbruce. Just two things need tidying up in my opinion. You assert that Big Bang is cyclic. The evidence base for this is far more hypothetical than Big Bang per se. Your need for a priori assumes something prior to Big Bang, yet our best estimate to date puts time itself as a product of Big Bang, so there was nothing before, no need for any priori. There was no prior.

If you need something prior, make it prior to something other than Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:44 PM

The origin of the Bible is in stories passed down from someone who claimed to have been informed by "God".

I do NOT claim they were correct or accurate, but IF they had been told the 2010CE version in 2010BCE, I suspect that ( with the translation of photon to light) "God said…" would have been what they got out of it.

++ I ++ do not claim that creationism is CORRECT: ONLY that there can be an argument made that it represents the best explanation AT THE TIME, based on what they knew. Is today's science any more than that?





" How did the author of Genesis obtain accurate knowledge,in the language of his or anyone else's time, of this kind of data."

AT THE TIME, to get the word of an oracle, or "hear God", would have been an accepted means of determining "truth". I MAKE NO CLAIMS as to the accuracy of what they heard, or interpreted.


AS I STATED, to believe in Creationism TODAY based on the present Bible, rather than the far more accurate ( but still imperfect) scientifically determined facts of the universe ( God's Word) is to believe in the word of Man( the translation of the interpreted memories of someone trying to understand more than they can comprehend) over the word of God( (The facts as far as we can determine them).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:46 PM

Musket; is there developed theory to negate the possibility that there was a cycle including time before the latest Bang, and that that time ended at the point of the Bang and was replaced by the beginning of time as we know it?

(Don't bother to tell me I'm out of my depth here; I don't even suspect that I have any depth regarding any of this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:54 PM

Musket,

SOMETHING has to trigger the Big Bang.

If it is stable, it has to be set off- THAT push is from "God".

If it is unstable, than the less than stable configuration that Bangs had to come from somewhere-either Creation by "God", or the collapse of a previous cycle. But that just pushes it back.


MY OPINION is that there is a cycle, with Bangs and collapses ad infinitum. I DO NOT HAVE, nor claim to have definitive evidence either way. I can see an argument that, IF IT IS NOT INFINITE, there has to be some cause, which can be labeled "God" ( or George, or Bruce, or Musket)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:02 PM

"Also, religious folk don't seem to understand the scientists feel the same wonder and awe that they do, that in our own way we too are looking for meaning and understanding but do so by using our own innate curiosity."

I imagine you could find some "religious folk" who would see it that way. A lot more, I would estimate, who wouldn't. Some of them scientists, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

some cause, which can be labeled "God" ( or George, or Bruce, or Musket)

Or bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

http://www.oldearth.org/The%20Hebrew%20Word%20Yom%20Used%20with%20a%20Number%20in%20Genesis%201%20-%20distribution.pdf



So the text OF THE BIBLE does NOT support the 24 hour solar day in Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:20 PM

No GregF. YOU are the shit around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:22 PM

So the text OF THE BIBLE does NOT support the 24 hour solar day in Genesis

You don't say...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:48 PM

All peoples and all cultures have a basic belief in gods or God, even if He is just called the Great Spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 02:54 PM

How long 'was' the 'Big Bang'?....is it 'done' yet?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:26 PM

How long 'was' the 'Big Bang'?....is it 'done' yet?..maybe tomorrow, huh?...but then, 'tomorrow is another day'.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

All peoples and all cultures have a basic belief in gods or God

ALL peoples? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:19 PM

Well, I guess most did/do. But then, that doesn't mean they always will. I mean, until veryveryveryveryvery recently, ALL states, nations, whevs, had capital punishment too. Now only the nasty ones we have to pretend aren't all that nasty coz it would be [whisper it racist [the unspeakable!], and anyhow they've got the oil, still do.

~M~

Oh yes - & America. SSSSSHHH!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:22 PM

Sometimes, you have to step back and look at the sort of people you're arguing with and marvel at the bravery some people have in facing looking stupid in public, then look at the willingness other people have to argue with them. It's a funny old world, innit...

(If anyone reads stuff like this and takes any of it seriously, you're probably going to wind up blowing a gasket. Laugh instead at the capacity for dumbassness we humans can exhibit.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:23 PM

even if He is just called the Great Spirit

Now there's a loaded statement if ever there was one...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM

SOMETHING has to trigger the Big Bang

Why? Maybe it just happened. Without reason. Beyond human comprehension.

I can live with that.

(whilst scientifically trying to understand as much as I can)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 05:07 PM

We are all out of our depth. Even when Einstein demonstrated that time and space are relative, neither he nor anyone since has been able to explain what cannot be explained by our understanding. If we are wedded to certain concepts such as time, cause and effect and triggers, we introduce false variables.

To say something triggered the Big Bang requires time before time existed.

It isn't my subject either. But I have enough knowledge I suppose to say that if the Big Bang is to be discussed, you have to discuss the Big Bang. Which means that time does not predate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 05:14 PM

...Creationism... represents the best explanation AT THE TIME, based on what they knew [in 2010BCE]. Is today's science any more than that?

Yes, it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:19 PM

" But I have enough knowledge I suppose to say that if the Big Bang is to be discussed, you have to discuss the Big Bang. Which means that time does not predate it. "

The theory I've heard is that the big bang happened, the universe has been expanding ever since, but is slowing down. One day, it will begin to collapse, eventually to one very dense particle. This will be essentially what things were like before the "big bang", and it will happen all over again, over and over. I suppose it would all end when things stopped moving

Maybe these bangs would happen identically, and maybe time would behave the same way. And if God exists, maybe he keeps running this experiment over and over just to see all the things that can happen.

It's the questions that make life fun. If you have all the answers, there isn't much point getting out of bed, do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:05 PM

And if God exists, maybe he keeps running this experiment over and over just to see all the things that can happen. ~ Jeri

I think there was a Twilight Zone episode about this exact concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:13 PM

I think you might be right pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:37 PM

So when the commandment says to rest on the Sabbath day, because God did, maybe it means that we should work for about six billion or so years, and then take a billion or so off to rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:44 PM

Ob. Bruce; a question that hadn't occurred to me before: If the author of the Genesis account understood enough about the Big Bang to describe it as well as the language available to him permitted...
how did he learn that much about it? Did God tell him? If so, how did God communicate that sort of knowledge to him?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:58 PM

"So you insist on only that meaning? Isn't my childhood the morning of my life, and my old age it's evening?"

No Bruce, with respect, it's a facile colloquialism, or else a euphemism for childhood and old age, just as "Napoleon's day" is a colloquialism.

Even in the 1 - 6 examples, in practical terms the definition of "day" didn't matter.

The salient point was and is that seven of them represented 168 hours and seven revolutions of the planet about its north/south axis.

That 365 and one quarter (approx) represented one revolution of the planet around its sun.

Any other interpretation is colloquial nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:04 PM

Somebody have his revolutions confused with his rotations?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:33 PM

On Jan.1, 1989, I came up from my workshop, handed my wife a wooden bowl, my first ever, and informed her that I had been practicing my "New Years Revolutions"... then immediately had to qualify that as I knew that working at a lathe involved **rotations**...

...but it was a good line and is now part of family lore.

.... and 'God' is an anthropomorphic term used by our remote ancestors who hadn't yet worked out the concept of "first cause". Now that both terms... and a few others... are in common usage, it is well to to be careful how & where we employ them, as the commonly capitalized term has a huge amount of implications and psycho-emotional baggage....

(how's that for vague rambling?)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 09:27 PM

There are merit badges and Merit cigarettes but there are no creation merits. We could give a fecund black hole merits for creating new universes but in our universe alone a new one is created every day.

If we give a merit badge to one we would have to give them to all infinity of them throughout the multiverse. They don't need no stinking badges.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 09:55 PM

Somebody have his revolutions confused with his rotations?

RPMs are revolutions per minute, no? Seems to me the two words are synonyms.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:04 PM

Creation stories are never history, and should never be taken as that. In a way, taking the creation stories in Genesis as history is a kind of idolatry. So is treating the Bible as the word of God in a quasi-magical sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:14 PM

The Earth revolves around the Sun. The Earth rotates on its axis. There are two words to distinguish the situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:31 PM

I said something earlier because of a history of science teachers correcting students. Just passing it along.
The problem one has when one is in a country without an official state religion is whose creation myth should be the accepted-as-fact one. We have loads of them in the US, including an American Indian one involving a world turtle which is way to close to Discworld. That the religions right nutjobs think the Christian version should be taught in public schools is something that unconstitutional as well as Children of the Corn creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:39 PM

I'd find it more natural to say a record revolves on a turntable than that it rotates. ("What's a turntable? And what's a record?")

Maybe if Genesis was written in a more folksy style people would recognise it was a story, and stories don't have to be factual to be true.

"One time God woke up and he said 'It's too dark to see - let there be light". And the world lit up, and that was the first day. And God picked up the dark, and stuck it in his pocket till it was time to let it out, and that was the first night..."

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:49 PM

frogprince: "So when the commandment says to rest on the Sabbath day, because God did, maybe it means that we should work for about six billion or so years, and then take a billion or so off to rest."

Works for me.

frogprince: "If the author of the Genesis account understood enough about the Big Bang to describe it as well as the language available to him permitted...how did he learn that much about it? Did God tell him? If so, how did God communicate that sort of knowledge to him?"

God invited him up for lunch... Navy beans and ham....the rest is history.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:49 AM

How come the authors of the original texts that have been continually altered to eventually form the bible knew about Big Bang then?

Hilarious.

Even someone who knew what he was talking about, the astronomer Fred Hoyle, didn't see enough evidence in his day to buy into the concept. Newton, who had even read the bible, (including in ancient Hebrew) didn't catch onto this, as he thought time and space were absolutes. Einstein had problems with probability, which is a necessary variable in Big Bang concept.

The art of theology is fine, but the branch that twists ancient fairy stories to fit in with reality and displays semi literate ancients as visionaries....

When you say visionary, you have to compare them with real ones such as the late Arthur C Clarke. He had his faults but you don't need to twist his ideas to fit in with modern thinking. They are and were what they are and were.

Ancient scriptures are, I'm sure, fascinating for understanding human development from a couple of thousand years ago, but reading anything further into it, you may as well read an Area 51 conspiracy website.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 05:55 AM

""And God said "Let there be light."

Correlation does not imply causation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 09:40 AM

Thoughts for a rainy Saturday:

How would you think up the idea of light if you'd never experienced, encountered or 'seen' any?

Maybe we got a big bang era because someone forgot to bring the 'd'.

What if time behaved like a fractal?

Find out who first said that history repeats itself because historians repeat each other.

Write a limerick about how one would feel on finding out the spider plant's single-minded intention is to eat the cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 09:47 AM

A female plant of the spider,
Thought that the cat would deride her
And of this young kitten
Was gob smacked and smitten
So ate him and now he's inside her.



What the fuck am I doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 10:11 AM

Is there any merit to the Is There Any Merit to Creationism? thread? Perhaps a word from Jack the Sailor would be helpful at this juncture - I find his continued absence disquieting. Or will all this find its way into his novel as well?

Otherwise...

An overfed Tom of Miss Ryder,
Was tempted by the shoots of her spider,
He toppled the crock,
All over her frock,
Now Tom is Miss Ryder's spider's fertiliser.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: bobad
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 10:39 AM

I notice that the OP started this thread and disappeared. I am wondering if his purpose is to gather fodder for his supposed novel or is he simply flaming as he is wont to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 10:39 AM

Thank you both, gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

Bobad, I don't think anyone cares.
I tried to write a limerick about time being fractal, but couldn't find a reason why the confused pterodactyl who was very precise and exactyl should figure out time was fractal. While it wouldn't surprise me if it was, I think it's more apt to be Fibonacci... although I think a fractal might be a Fibonacci that dropped acid.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 11:43 AM

Today Fibonacci went fractal
With Clive who's my pet pteradactyl
I should say they was
Quite beside themselves 'cause
They're not sure that they did so exactyl.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 11:54 AM

No merit to Creationism whatsoever, the biggest hoax perpetrated on the public by religious zealots and fanatical nuts. The idea that it should be given any credence whatsoever is as ludicrous as the Flat Earth theory today. It's based on misinterpretations and random cherry picking of that contradictory and confusing hodge lodge of literature called the bible.
It has no place in any science class.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 11:55 AM

"Somebody have his revolutions confused with his rotations?"

OK Jeri, now you've got the snooty comment aboutlanguage out of the way, anything to say about the content?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 12:08 PM

A pyro-manic old novelist called Jack,
Lit the fuse and sat himself back,
To watch all the fun,
Though himself he got none -
He was too busy scribbling to join in the crack*.

* Crack is a Tyneside word. More frequently in Folk / Mudcat realms we see something called craic. Crack is real and everlasting, whereas craic is the stuff of 90s Irish theme pubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 12:35 PM

From Facebook: The good thing about Science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 01:02 PM

GUEST, major applause. You're one step ahead of me... and two behind, and 1.17 to the left, and one ahead, and...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 01:11 PM

"The good thing about Science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it."

But there are occasions. Witness the Rule of 48.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You did the hard part, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 01:17 PM

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2013

All Scientists Are Blind

From The Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton, Chapter 12, page 125.
It was Leavitt who, some years before, had formulated the Rule of 48. The Rule of 48 was intended as a humorous reminder to scientists, and referred to the massive literature collected in the late 1940's and the 1950's concerning the human chromosome number.

For years it was stated that men had forty-eight chromosomes in their cells; there were pictures to prove it, and any number of careful studies. In 1953, a group of American researchers announced to the world that the human chromosome number was forty-six. Once more, there were pictures to prove it, and studies to confirm it. But these researchers also went back to reexamine the old pictures, and the old studies — and found only forty-six chromosomes, not forty-eight.

Leavitt's Rule of 48 said simply, "All Scientists Are Blind."

That is from

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 02:30 PM

From Facebook: The good thing about Science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it.

Oh well, if it says so on Facebook it must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 02:50 PM

""The good thing about Science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it."

But there are occasions. Witness the Rule of 48."

But the lesson to be learned is that when better information became available... SCIENTISTS did not declare heresy and refuse to accept change... they said a scholarly "dang it all" and then incorporated the new and better information into their "databases" along with a cautionary rule to remind themselves and their successors that mistakes will happen, so don't get too wedded to your assumptions.

Not so with fundamentalists- who refuse new information and attempt to rewrite anything that refutes their cherished beliefs.

I am of the opinion that the assorted posts to this thread have made the case against any presumed merits to creationism.

Intransigent belief has no intentions of bowing to scientific investigation... or logic ... or reason...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:20 PM

sciencegeek, I agree. And when the bible needs bringing into line it is simply rewritten. It's a vibrant world we live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 05:13 PM

SCIENTISTS did not declare heresy and refuse to accept change... they said a scholarly "dang it all" and then incorporated the new and better information into their "databases" along with a cautionary rule to remind themselves and their successors that mistakes will happen, so don't get too wedded to your assumptions.

Not entirely. If you're interested in the in-fighting between different schools of thought in the area of ecological science (in which "paradigm shift" is more of the tidal wave of acceptance of a new idea that washes the old beliefs and believers aside) you might want to read Donald Worster's Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. In the nineteenth and twentieth century some of the participants were not very happy when their ideas were set aside.

This is the area where I've done most of my study, and while philosophers and philosophies can be in vogue or not, science is not so optional. Some of the early scientists who refused to accept proven theories became obsolete quickly. They still made important contributions as far as they went - when something is proven wrong that can be as big a deal as when something is proven right. The long view of history shows us where their flawed ideas were critical to inducing others prove them wrong, which is a good thing, but tough on the ego at the time it happens.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 06:56 PM

well, I never expected a lot of posters committed to evolutionism to ascribe any merit to biblical creationism !.
one merit is that it raises challenges to the prevailing dogma.
a dogma that appeals to various disciplines ,but short on much specific. it also has the advantage of claiming the higher ground because it can keep changing the story when new data messes up the previous version....except that deep time and naturalistic only causes are sacrosanct lines in the sand.
creation scientists point to specifics to evidence a much younger creation than deep time. but evolutionists just seem to believe they will eventually account for problems.
I don't need to be a scientist to understand that soft tissue could not survive 65+ million yrs, but you have to believe in deep time to make that belief override what science has measured as possible.

I did try and get my head around beardedbruces link, but I noted that it does not address the problem of the Sabbath day [ as frogprince pointed out] or numbers 7 where numbered days are clearly not long ages as claimed for gen 1 by dr whitehead.
I can of course cite Hebrew professers [not just evangelical] who say that the Hebrew reads much as it says in English.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 07:35 PM

No, pete, "dogma" is what you subscribe to! And for the umpty-billionth time, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist"! Watch my lips, pete - no real scientist would EVER start from a position of believing himself/herself to be in possession of absolute truth.

And, if you criticise dating evidence, remember that you are not just taking on evolutionary biology - you are also taking on modern physics.

I asked you a question in another thread - and here it is again: Do you believe that modern science is some sort of vast conspiracy aimed at discrediting the Bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 08:07 PM

I never expected a lot of posters...to ascribe any merit to biblical creationism ! M

Relax, Pete. No-one has.

PS: A reminder; There's no such thing as "evolutionism".

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 08:40 PM

Jack started a thread on the merits
Of science v dogmatic clerics.
He never took part,
Perhaps he's too smart,
Or just wanted to watch our hysterics.

I did a belter on fractals on acid but it disappeared. Maybe it will flash back.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 10:13 PM

Hahaha - good one!
I'd guess if you do a belter on fractals while you're on acid, it's very understandable that it might disappear. Shit wears off after a while...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:24 AM

Stu sez (24 Mar 14 - 08:37 AM ):

I would also suggest religious folk don't aren't exclusively the ones contemplating the numinous and mysteries of existence; as a scientist I also seek the fundamental truths addressed in the visual arts, poetry, culture and importantly music.

And I would agree with that completely. Therefore, I think there is good reason for mutual respect and tolerance.

---

Musket sez (24 Mar 14 - 10:56 AM):

Joe. Who are the doctrine filled people who claim science as a certainty?

and (23 Mar 14 - 03:44 AM):

So the problem is, if you can't accept subtle forms of God, you are a fundamentalist and have no place in debate.
If someone is countering claims that faith contradicting scientific evidence is a conundrum, they aren't disrespecting faith, they are pointing out that the stories faith is built on shouldn't be confused with reality, yet intelligent people allow this to happen.
I can't understand it either. Superstition is so deeply ingrained it clouds reason. For that alone, it should be treated with caution.
I would remind Joe of the story of the King's new clothes.

---

I was responding to this rather doctrinaire post from Steve Shaw (22 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM), which proves my point:

Kevin McGrath: it (most religious faith) isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution
Steve Shaw: Au contraire. It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004 BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alpone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that.

It's time you people figure out that fundamentalism is NOT the core of Christian religious belief. It is the creed of a relatively small, narrow-minded, and very vocal minority that spends a lot of money on media. Most religious believers feel far more at home with most atheists and agnostics, than they feel with the simple-minded born-again set (the one exception being the narrow-minded fundamentalist atheists, who are of the same ilk as their narrow-minded religious kin).

Since Musket has rephrased my statements so extensively, allow me to rephrase one of his restatements of what I said:

So the problem is, if you can't accept and respect those who pursue the idea of more subtle forms of God, you are a fundamentalist and have no place in debate.

I would ask a fundamentalist Christian to accept more subtle forms of God, but it would be disrespectful for me to ask an atheist or agnostic to accept any notion of God at all. All I ask is that they respect the people who seek meaning through a variety of belief systems and their thinking and beliefs. I think this is a reasonable request - to respect people and their beliefs, even though you may not agree with them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:40 AM

And then there's Jack Blandiver (23 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM )

Is there a merit to creationism? Only to folklorists and storytellers - like me! I take a keen interest in religion and mythology & often tell Creation Myths, of which there are 1,000s, including the two very different ones giving in Genesis. I can't resist taking a dip into the Pseudo Science of Creationism as a caution as what happens when people start taking these things literally as part of a more sinister agenda.
The universe pre-dates humanity by billions of years; it will also ante-date humanity by billions of years. We invented God to account for things in the darkness of our ignorance, to place ourselves at the centre of it all when, in reality, we're barely on the edge. Science at least tells us where were at.

Well, Jack, I don't think that "creationist" fundamentalists can accept the idea of "story." I use that word and the term "sacred story" quite often when I'm teaching religion, and it has caused me trouble many times. The word "story" makes fundamentalists very uneasy. Stories, even when they are based on premises that may not be factually correct, can lead us to wisdom and deep insight. Sacred aboriginal stories can lead us to respect the wisdom of cultures that we of European ancestry once considered savage and ignorant. Likewise, there is value in seeking the wisdom in the sacred aboriginal stories of our own culture.

But absolutists, believers and nonbelievers alike, cannot accept or respect the concept of story. They see only narrow "facts," and have little tolerance for "ideas."

One other thing - I think it is disrespectful and dismissive to say that humankind "invented" God. That oversimplifies and dismisses a process that was far more complex and profound. Better to say that that some humans "came to believe in" a God/gods. There's no reason to be insulting, even if you do not share that belief.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM

Respect is a two way street Joe. When the. "Vast majority " of religious people tell their fundamentalists to shut the fuck up, I reckon I could go along with your comments. They are either members of your club, in which case control them, or they aren't. In which case stop accepting their coins when you pass the plate round.

However, whilst ever religion lite sides with their fundamentalists by attacking others for being rational, and deriding us for pointing out how dangerous and deluded fundamentalism is, I'm afraid I don't see much respect.

Makes it kind of difficult to show respect back. Even when you put words in my mouth, it still doesn't quite hack it for me.

Snail. There was no quote on Facebook any more than Facebook is responsible for the word "Whatever." The quote is by Neil deGrasse Tyson. "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:23 AM

Jack B -- in interest of accuracy & clarification, & with my "legendary pedant" hat on:

'pre-date' & 'ante-date' in 1st line of last para of Joe's copy-paste of you above, are synonyms, not antonyms. You meant 'post-date' the second time.

But I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:26 AM

Joe, in religious terms I'm probably an agnostic at the atheist end of the spectrum (show me proof that God exists and I might be persuaded to change my mind). Nevertheless, I'm perfectly prepared to 'live-and-let-live' and, as far as I'm concerned, you can believe whatever you like. We might come into conflict though if you start evangelising or attempt to impose your beliefs on me or others.

I'm with Steve Shaw though:

"[Religious faith] is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004 BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got."

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:35 AM

I think it is disrespectful and dismissive to say that humankind "invented" God. That oversimplifies and dismisses a process that was far more complex and profound.

I disagree. Without Humanity there is no God - we made it up and it only exists in the context of human religious culture. Nowhere else. It is not in the sea, or the stars, or the mountains or the valleys. If it is there, then we put it there. It is in no way insulting to say this, it's simply the way it is. The invention of God - or the Anthropomorphism of Malevolent & Benevolent Nature if you like - was a natural step in our sudden need to understand Nature into which we suddenly became self-aware, so we gave the elements a human face. Thus we made God very much in our image, and gave him all our very worst attributes in the process, until we saw Nature as a metaphor of God the Creator - and made ourselves its master, to exploit it with impunity until we stand on the very brink of global ecological catastrophe.

Earlier polytheistic pantheons of Greek & Norse myth function very much as metaphorical soap-operas on the human condition. Abrahamic Monotheism takes it a stage further, giving the whole thing a decidedly misanthropic & psychotic twist - everything from The Fall to The Passion is about as disrespectful to the human condition as you can get, hence the inherent inhumanity of those faiths.   

All I ask is that they respect the people who seek meaning through a variety of belief systems and their thinking and beliefs. I think this is a reasonable request - to respect people and their beliefs, even though you may not agree with them.

I respect people period. I don't respect their beliefs. Like the old woman I was talking to in Oxfam in Liverpool a few weeks back about the nature of spiritualism suddenly said she felt insulted when I said it was culturally interesting but ultimately self-serving bullshit. She took offence on behalf of her religion. That much, I said, was her choice - she was taking offence where none was meant. Same with the Christian ladies who come knocking on my door from time to time intent on saving my soul - them I respect enough to tell them just how noxious they are being by spreading their rancid & hateful message in the name of love.

In any case, the Physical Un-mythologised Material Universe will long POST date (sorry MtheGM!) our brief tenure of this planet. When we're gone, God will be gone too. There is no eternal deity to mourn our passing. To say there is, is the ultimate disrespect to 50,000 years of human inquiry which we might measure between the astonishing inventions of Göbekli Tepe (c. 10,000 BCE) and the building of the The Large Hadron Collider (c. 2008 BCE). The real wonders - the true divinity if you like - is only just beginning to be revealed. Or (a far better strapline) the human adventure is just beginning...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM

Joe Offer
I was responding to this rather doctrinaire post from Steve Shaw (22 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM), which proves my point:

I don't know if you have noticed, Joe, but I have been arguing against Steve's somewhat evangelistic take on evolution for quite some time. I don't think anything he says proves your point if your point is supposed to be about science or scientists, It merely proves a point about Steve.

Unfortunately, I was told to "Give it a rest" by Stilly River Stage the other day. Since she was brandishing her power to close threads and delete posts at the time I thought it best to obey.

Likewise, invoking Jack Blandiver as a "doctrinaire adherent of 'science'" rather boggles the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM

building of the The Large Hadron Collider (c. 2008 BCE).

.,,.

Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM

Oops! Yeah, I only noticed that once I'd posted it. A genuine typo. Some editing powers might be nice...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:03 AM

invoking Jack Blandiver as a "doctrinaire adherent of 'science'" rather boggles the imagination.

It's this sort of puerile sneering that is the worst of Mudcat, but par for the course with a certain mindset who dwell in realms of a more autistic absolutism. I'm arguing here for as OBJECTIVE & INCLUSIVE a world view as is humanly possible; meanwhile, The Sycophantic Mollusc can only smear everything with his petty little slime trails. Get a life, eh? - oh shell-bound one. This belongs to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM

The problem with creationism is it an extremist position. It's followers are Biblical literalists and seem unable or unwilling to engage with Biblical texts in any meaningful way. The logical conclusion to a literalist approach to religion of any kind is it will end up supporting violence and the oppression of women, gays and whomever else their particular key texts spoke against. In truth, there's little difference in intent to forcing Christian creationism to be taught in schools or there Taliban stopping girls from going to school; both are expressions of the literalist mindset.

Personally I cannot understand this passive-aggressive approach to religion. It eschews nuance and contemplation for the worst kind of blind faith; to illustrate this note our resident creationist always gets his information from a limited range of sources, and expresses no opinion of his own that contradicts these sources, despite the fact they inaccurate, misrepresentative or even outright lies. All we get is a constant, negative repetition of these tired old ideas.

Although I'm not religious in the sense that we are guided by the hand of a supernatural deity, I don't agree with Steve's assertion "[Religious faith] is absolutely in conflict with science". Many palaeontologists (as with other scientists) are religious and I'm guessing that their faith is a tad more considered and sophisticated than that of the extremists. Many of these scientists conduct and publish research that gives the creationists the howling fantods, but which they somehow reconcile (or do they?) with their faith. If they are scientists, I suspect the internal debate is ongoing as (and I'm not singling scientists out here as being special in this regard) they have very active internal dialogues on the go as research never really stops.

Of course, any group of people is a microcosm of our wider society and scientists have their own extremists, although these tend to be sidelined as the peer review process means these people are prevented from publishing (as are sloppy or plagiaristic scientists), although they are increasingly finding a voice on the internet. Although Dawkins doesn't fall into this category, I do find his approach a tad too confrontational and can't help think it alienates more people than it converts.

You have to wonder how these extremists end up with so much money and power. How come creationists and climate change deniers are able to operate to the point where they effect policy creation? There's no doubt many of these people seem pretty aggressive and rather boorish in nature.

I worry about the polarisation of science and religion as it is driven by extremists. Dialogue is the only way forward, even if we don't agree on many things.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:58 AM

I like some of what you just put Stu, but one thing you said doesn't sit quite so comfortably;

You spoke of Dawkins converting people. I don't go along with a science versus religion debate, and I doubt Prof Dawkins does either. It is the separation rather than the polarising that he puts forward. I doubt he or anybody else would have an issue if something in the bible turned out to be on the button. It is the use and abuse of religion as a tool that rankles him in his humanist talk.

Science isn't really about truth, whereas religion is. Religion uses the subjective word "truth" whilst science would be more comfortable with the objective word "fact."

You find facts whilst truth is a measure of your perception.

Hence those of a superstitious mind conveniently confuse the two.

If Steve is wrong in his assertion that religion is absolutely in conflict with science, it would only be due to narrow confines of the word science, ie physics, chemistry and biology. Whereas religion has shaped social sciences since the first human communicated with the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

thank you, Stu for a thoughtful, balanced and nicely presented post.

that said, it has been my experience with more than a few "born again" Christians and other fundamentalists that it is a central obsession that their lives revolve around. I honestly can not understand how anyone can read and reread a single book with such fervor... as if their personal salvation is jepardized by even a hint of "heresy". I venture to guess that it is more a psychological and emotional issue than an intellectual one.   

I recently drove past a church with a sign out front... All are welcome...

but then I read in the newspapers about defrocked ministers whose "crime" was to marry a gay couple or support birth control and I have to wonder how ALL is defined by some.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:58 AM

Personally I have no respect for any Christian who DOESN'T take the Bible literally. The science behind Evolution & the Big Bang is born of Secular Enlightenment. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, science is a light shining in the darkness of a demon-haunted world. It leads us away from divided contradictory realms of religion and superstition and unites us all to a common end in a common context of a Godless universe where even God as a pantheistic metaphor is woefully inadequate.

Then, along comes Christianity and says 'Ahah! Yes indeed - but God created the Big Bang! And God created Evolution too!'

Gah! What bollocks & how utterly disrespectful to the secular humanist cause that banished God to the demon haunted darkness from whence he sprung once we got wise to Cosmic order & the origins of life on earth and, as a consequence, realised that the Bible was 100% horse chocolate born of ignorance, and ruthlessly promoted over the centuries in order to perpetuate ignorance.

If there is any faith at all in the idiotic inhumane premises of The Bible (and its many idiotic inhumane religious manifestations over the past 3,000 years) then integral to that faith is its idiotic assumptions about God and his Creation. Christians should get over themselves and embrace Godless reality, or else reject reality altogether and embrace their 6,000 YO universe, complete with Floods, Virgin Births and all the other crazy gubbins revealed in The Bible as The Word o' God. They can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:34 AM

"Science isn't really about truth"

Without getting onto semantics, I think scientists are interested in truth, but objective truth. I realise this statement could spark an extended philosophical discussion itself, but I'm not convinced all truth is subjective.


" as if their personal salvation is jeopardised by even a hint of "heresy"

This is the fundamental (forgive the pun) difference between those with a more balanced religious worldview and extremist elements such as the creationists. Their worldview is shaped by an extreme form of confirmation bias, and in their mind to find fault with the teachings of the web gurus is to deny their faith. It's a shallow and frankly rather immature way of seeing the world, perhaps borne of some innate personal insecurity. Who knows?


"To paraphrase Carl Sagan, science is a light shining in the darkness of a demon-haunted world."

This. My problem is every religious person must think everyone that doesn't subscribe to their form of dogma is wrong (to not believe this would imply doubt in their own faith), and that seems like an awfully arrogant attitude to your fellow humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM

We Anglicans enjoy the both/and sort of thinking. These two apparent polar polar opposites (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain. They both have their distinct merits.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

(intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain

Actually, they do not and cannot in a thinking brain.

They may co-exist in a believing brain, but thinking and logic and science have nowt to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM

We Anglicans this, we Anglicans that...

Can anybody speak for anything other than themselves?

I castigate Joe and wysiwyg thunders in and makes my point....

I prefer my coffee black with one sugar but that doesn't mean I can't accept the need for capitalism to help fund social programmes.   My thoughts on board level assurance and governance don't prevent me from enjoying Bach.

Religion and science too. I support Sheffield Wednesday but accept probability as a key plank (Planck?) of quantum mechanics....

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:14 PM

and that seems like an awfully arrogant attitude to your fellow humans

I respect my fellow humans, just not their proclivity to fucking people over in the name of religion or any other position of unsubstantiated absolutism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 01:29 PM

" ... (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain."

How?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3

IMO, it's worth a read (or refresher for those who've encountered it before).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:18 PM

Sorry, Joe... but I have to disagree with you here.

"One other thing - I think it is disrespectful and dismissive to say that humankind "invented" God. That oversimplifies and dismisses a process that was far more complex and profound. Better to say that that some humans "came to believe in" a God/gods. There's no reason to be insulting, even if you do not share that belief."

If you go onto a thread such as this, you must expect to find a wide spectrum of attitudes and positions. And some of them will not make you feel very happy... just think for a second how infuriating it is for a scientifically inclined individual to be confronted with the total BS presented by the creationist side... where they distort facts and do their best to ignore scientific method.

I have plenty of friends who are people of faith... I do not agree with their faith... actually faiths because they are of various persuasions... but I do not bring up the subject either. And change it as quickly as I can if it does come up.   

But on a thread like this, a person should be free to bring up their viewpoint... and defend it if challenged. If you find this particular one disrespectful and dismissive, that may be more of a reflection on you than the other poster.

Why are you dismissive and disrespectful of their position? Can you not understand or at least accept that not everyone has a need for spiritual answers (for want of a better term that escapes me now). I reached similar conclusions myself years ago and see no reason to alter them.   It would actually be hypocritical to deny them.

When a kid is taught for 8 years in school that they are doomed to hell if they deny the tenents of the Catholic faith, you can be pretty sure that they have thought long and hard on the whole issue before they reach the conclusion that they just can not accept or live with those beliefs... much less determine that they do not even believe in a diety.

I do not share your faith and doubt that I ever will, anymore than I think you could share my beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:43 PM

" ... (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain."

I can accept that...IF I remind myself that rationalization is one way a brain often thinks. We humans can use our complex language to make concepts 'fit' to suit our preconceptions. This is often called equivocation. Sometimes people *agree* on a term when none (or very few) of them have carefully defined exactly what they mean. (and obviously, careful definition can be an impediment to agreement: witness "folk".)
I would argue (Hi, Susan *grin*) that intelligent design & evolution don't get along very well without some genteel equivocation. IF one assumes that 'evolution' was one aspect of intelligent design... well...ummm... ok, but the big assumption is that there is any need to make them compatible. One is constantly being observed & explored... the other is merely a subjective opinion.



re: "The rule of 48".... the accepted 'facts' of science need to be checked now & then: just to look at what might have been overlooked or mis-measured.

http://www.livescience.com/32921-whats-normal-body-temperature.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

We Anglicans enjoy the both/and sort of thinking.

I was raised as an Anglican, and perhaps this sort of thinking is why it seemed so vacuous (than and the fact the sermons were so DULL, and although I love singing hymns and carols the free church had much better sing-alongs; I only wish I got to sing in a gospel church, as I love that music).


just not their proclivity to fucking people over in the name of religion or any other position of unsubstantiated absolutism.

That is a broad church.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 05:05 PM

has it ever occurred to you that the cry of extremist is a subjective judgment. the further a pov is from your own stand ,the more extremist it becomes in your estimation. therefore it is meaningless talk as far as meaningful communication is concerned.
what is it good for?....well, it gets the amen of all the other believers....maybe you can intimidate the dissenters....
same is true of claiming the other side of the argument engages in lies and misrepresentation of the facts.
what is it good for?.....see above!
the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics.
I can make mistakes, as it seems I did about the enigma code cracker, and I like to think that if I am shown something that I definitely got wrong, that I will own up to it. but not just taking someones unsubstantiated say so.

I do have some agreement with jack blandiver [and dawkins ] in his estimation that Christians are supposed to believe the bible!
but maybe that's just my extremist pov !......smile.

seems to me that many of the posts betray just as much fundamentalism as mine. jack for example seems even more dogmatic than even dawkins that their is no God. seems he possesses the omniscience of the God he denies!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM

the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics.

Pete, you don't HAVE any specifics that could be discussed.

All you have is blind faith in a fairytale that has been clearly and objectively demonstrated time and time again to be absolute nonsense.

And your views are those of a small and increasingly deluded minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:49 PM

jack for example seems even more dogmatic than even dawkins that their is no God. seems he possesses the omniscience of the God he denies!

Let's look for God. Where does he exist? He only exists in religious fiction as a character of that fiction. He is nowhere else. That is not dogma, it is fact. How do we know it's fiction? People made it up - its value lies not in objective reality, but in the richness of folklore, storytelling and mythology. If it tells anything about ourselves at all it tells we're fond of a good yarn, and, more worryingly, gullible to the nth degree, especially at the point of the sword or having our brains bolloxed up by this crap as kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:38 PM

I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things.

-Joe-

Why, how very profound. To follow on, because we don't know much, we have to accept that weird and wonderful evidence-innocent manifestations such as God are possible. Not only that, we have such tiny minds that there simply must be Greater Truths that we mortals just can't get our heads around. Well Joe, you see things that way, I'm right with you there, your prerogative, but fer chrissake do not ask me to "respect" it. You call me doctrinaire (your buzzword of the week, I note). I simply ask for evidence. Real evidence, not woolly shite from scripture or tradition or ceremony or witness or mass hysteria or what priests tell you. There is nothing "doctrinaire", you insulting bugger, about a chap who says he knows nothing for certain but who asks for evidence. You know, I love to respect and learn from the way others see things. But I see Catholics et al. forcing their children to see things the way they see things and refusing to let them learn. You need to address that elephant in your own room before you have a pitch at us blokes who just want everyone to have the freedom, the skills and the resources to think freely for themselves. And to be free to ask for evidence without being demonised as "doctrinaire" by scared Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:09 PM

I don't agree with Steve's assertion "[Religious faith] is absolutely in conflict with science".

Disappointing, Stu, coming from an ally, but I still love ya baby. But let's just have another lookee here. I said:

It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004 BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that.

Actually, I think my argument was well made there. But let me expand a little. First, off, you can believe in God and be a damn good scientist. I've said that a dozen times. A bloke in the lab or in the field who conscientiously applies the scientific process to his work (shit - or her, sorry) can go home that evening and kneel down and pray and that is wonderful. Why not. Has anyone ever said different? Not me, for sure, and I'm a rabid atheist. I don't think that science need not be in conflict with religion.
But read what I said: religion is absolutely in conflict with science. NOT the other way round. Religion has, for millennia, set its face against science. In the most fundamental way, religion refuses to accept evidence whereas science is entirely predicated on it. Every single tenet of every religion is based on refuting evidence. Religion exists only because it sets its face entirely against science. But that is entirely religion's problem (and it's a growing problem as science advances). Science can't put itself in conflict with religion because religion deliberately puts its tenets beyond reason. The two can't communicate with each other even on the most basic level. Religion wants the conflict (I wish we could ask Darwin or Gallileo or Dawkins) but science is uninterested. Yes, Dawkins is interested, but not particularly as an evolutionary biologist, which is what he is. Dawkins' evolutionary biology can't confront religion because there is no common ground, based on reason, for a conversation to be had, but that isn't what Dawkins is really about. Religion seeks conflict with science and always has done, because science is a mortal threat to religion. But science can only concern itself with science. Which is why humanity has done quite well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:13 PM

Bit of a double negative crept in there. I wish I couldn't not not correct it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:03 PM

The Snail sez (26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM): invoking Jack Blandiver as a "doctrinaire adherent of 'science'" rather boggles the imagination.

Damn. I thought I bent over backwards to make myself clear. The only "doctrinaire adherent" I have identified is Steve Shaw, although Musket comes close when he comes out of his fog. I don't always agree with Jack Blandiver, but I think he's quite reasonable.

But as for the idea of the conflict between Religion and Science, I don't buy it. If religious believers accept the findings of scientists, where's the conflict? Yeah, I suppose there's a conflict if believers see God as an outside force controlling the process of creation. However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not. My perception is that there is an essence within the evolutionary process and the Laws of Nature that I see as divine, and that is the focus of my religious practice and meditation. If others see it otherwise, that's their perspective; and Joe saw that it was good.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:50 PM

Actually one meaning of invent - and the original one at that - is "to discover", so there's no problem with saying humanity invented on that, we can all agree on that. We just might be using a different sense of the word. But that's diplomacy...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 12:37 AM

Pete: I can make mistakes, as it seems I did about the enigma code cracker, and I like to think that if I am shown something that I definitely got wrong, that I will own up to it. but not just taking someones unsubstantiated say so..

Pete, you rarely do, though. And only on points unimportant to the general discussion, such as the Enigma code above. One reason you probably regard things as being "unsubstantiated say so" is that when you *are* provided with "chapter and verse" such as research articles that directly contradict your own assertions, you don't bother reading and trying to understand them but just look for something on a creationist website that you can bounce back with. The rest of this post is copied from my last on "cosmos" since the sentiments are identical:

I know there's no point arguing with you, Pete, as you always look only to creationist literature for your information. I've time and again here gone into the actual evidence against several of your assertions, whether it be "carbon dating" of diamonds or "soft tissues in dinosaurs" but all you do is say that the articles or papers I've pointed you at are "too difficult as I'm not a scientist" and fall back on your creationist websites to provide "answers" that you can quote without actually doing any real thinking.

I've pointed out on several occasions where prominent creationists (eg Gish, Snelling, Woodmorappe, Hovind etc) have been caught out using arguments that they *knew* to be wrong at the time they used them (called "lying" anywhere else) and you simply won't look at the evidence for that "because they aren't here on the site to defend themselves"!!!

I even pointed you at articles in Christian papers showing that the general claims made by RATE and other creationists re their tests on diamonds and zircons contradicted RATE's own conclusions in their actual analysis....ie saying one thing in their internal literature but letting the general public believe they've said something else (again, called "lying" by most reasonable people).

But you ignore all this. You like to portray yourself as reasonable and tolerant, but in fact you're quite clever in the way you can be snidey and slippery in the way you use or ignore arguments.

I was particularly annoyed last time I went to the Crayside session when you sang your "Mungo Man" song which is a farrago of misinformation and untruths about age determination of bones found in Australia...but I sat there and politely clapped instead of standing up at the end and explaining what a lot of bollocks it was...I really wish I had now!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:18 AM

From Musket (26 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM):

Respect is a two way street Joe. When the. "Vast majority " of religious people tell their fundamentalists to shut the fuck up, I reckon I could go along with your comments. They are either members of your club, in which case control them, or they aren't. In which case stop accepting their coins when you pass the plate round.
However, whilst ever religion lite sides with their fundamentalists by attacking others for being rational, and deriding us for pointing out how dangerous and deluded fundamentalism is, I'm afraid I don't see much respect.
Makes it kind of difficult to show respect back. Even when you put words in my mouth, it still doesn't quite hack it for me.

I'm a pacifist, Musket, and I really don't see much value in doing battle. A while back, you said that as a Christian, I have some sort of responsibility for controlling anti-gay Rev Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. Let me remind you that I am a Christian of the Roman Catholic variety. Wikipedia tells us Westboro Baptist refers to Catholic priests as "vampires" and "Draculas" and talks of Catholic priests sucking semen out of male children's genitals like vampires suck blood from their victims. In addition, WBC called Pope Benedict XVI such epithets as "The Godfather of Pedophiles" and "Pervert Pope". In April 2008 the WBC protested Pope Benedict XVI during a papal visit in New York City. Other fundamentalists still refer to my church as the Whore of Babylon, although some have formed a strange alliance with ultra-conservative Catholics.

In other words, Westboro Baptist and I are not really on very good terms, and I don't think I'm have much luck talking sense into them. In fact, I don't think I'd have much luck talking sense into the heads of any fundamentalists, because their brains aren't wired to be able to understand any kind of thinking other than their own. That being the case, I try to be polite but to keep my distance.

The born-again churches in my area have been generally reluctant to join in any of the "faith-based" social justice activities. I think that's partly because some fundamentalists have a disdain for the poor because poverty may be an indication that the poor are not favored by God. But I think also that the fundamentalists question the morality of the "mainline" churches. Musket refers to progressive Christianity as "religion lite," which seems to indicate that fundamentalism is the only real religion. I think Musket has it wrong, and I think that's because he perceives religion as ideology. Since the early days of Christianity, the faith was called the Way, because it was a way of life, not an ideology. In my view of Christianity (and of life, for that matter), service and good will and compassion are far more important than correct ideology.

So, no, I'm not going to go tell the fundamentalists to shut the fuck up. It wouldn't do any good. I will, however, continue to invite the fundamentalists to join in our social justice activities - and some are beginning to join. And while I'm not going to attack fundamentalism, I will continue to promote tolerance and respect for the homeless, for gays, and for immigrants - those are my main areas of activity.

Did I mention that two of the people I work with are the pastors of the local Unitarian church? They're a lesbian couple, by the way. I suppose their presence might make it difficult for the fundamentalists to join us. That's too bad - the pastors are wonderful people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:26 AM

Creationism of the monotheistic and paternalistic school is a waste of brainpower. But the underlying proposition that material universes are the result of spiritual Causation of some kind, at some level, strikes me as one worth holding onto. Without it, we are left with the coldest "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism, which has too great flaws. One is that as a model it fails to account for known phenomena,. The other is that it is a demoralizing worldview, IMNSHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:39 AM

I hope people pay attention to what Amos says in the previous message. There's a lot there that's worth consideration. For many of us, we tend to value our environs more if we see a spiritual Center. And even if that Center does not exist on objective terms, isn't there value if it helps us appreciate and respect our environment and our fellow humans? [And if we don't see that spiritual Center, there's nothing wrong with that, either.]

The Snail says (26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM):

I don't know if you have noticed, Joe, but I have been arguing against Steve's somewhat evangelistic take on evolution for quite some time. I don't think anything he says proves your point if your point is supposed to be about science or scientists, It merely proves a point about Steve.

Exactly. I was asked to provide evidence of those who take a doctrinaire view of science. Mr. Shaw seems to be a good example. And Mr. Blandiver and Mr. Musket approach it. Science and scientists generally take a far more honest and far less doctrinaire approach, and I almost always accept the findings of science. Real Science and real scientists have no business proving or disproving the existence of God. That's a spiritual matter, not a matter of science.

The fundamentalists try to provide scientific and historical and logical proofs of the existence of God. We who practice "religion lite" (Musket's term) have no reason to do that. We simply believe, and aren't particularly concerned if others don't believe.

It's really difficult for me to discuss religious belief and practices with the likes of Shaw, Blandiver, and Musket, because they are only able to understand faith in fundamentalist terms. I don't speak that language, because it is incapable of expressing my way of thinking.

Wizzy says (26 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM):

We Anglicans enjoy the both/and sort of thinking. These two apparent polar-polar opposites (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain. They both have their distinct merits.

I think that's true for most of us progressive Christians - and for thinking atheists, for that matter. We don't see things as absolutes, and therefore we cannot speak the language of the fundamentalists.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 02:20 AM

In which case Joe, we need another word to use.

I don't actually recognise some of your conclusions of my comments, but even if I did, you are still failing to read the thread title and are getting prickly by association.

You describe how the metaphor of god can he used as the glue to hold together a set of principles with which community groups can support people, give a shared purpose and come to an understanding.

Religion lite isn't an insult, it is a description of making good use of the legacy we have from our more superstitious ancestors. If we are playing top trumps, I fight like a dog with a leg in it's mouth to retain adequate hospital chaplaincy funding and ensure they get input to many other work streams as their perspective is invaluable. I see no ultimate threat to society by them and the peace of mind they can offer makes curative or palliative care better for those patients wishing their social care.

Don't lecture me on the good work done in the name of faith. Sponsorship is sponsorship, but just because a football team has Coca Cola written on their shirts, they still know how to kick a ball.

And yet....

Your comments concerning what we don't know sum it up for me. The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe means the God scenario is being ever squeezed out of relevance. Do you consider that enlightenment or threat?

Interesting point by pete by the way. He can't understand why people can claim to be religious but not believe scripture either.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 03:37 AM

Musket/Seaham,
The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe means the God scenario is being ever squeezed out of relevance.

You have not listened or not understood what Joe has tried to tell you.
If someone came up with an unchallengeable explanation for everything in the cosmos, mainstream Christians would be as excited as everyone else, and give thanks for it.
God would be as relevant as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM

" ... the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics."

So, pete, let's get back to the specifics of those beetles! I'm not sure that I could penetrate the 'hand-waving' (not to mention the bad grammar) of your previous answers - so can you please clarify? Were there just two beetles (of some 'ur-species') on the Ark? Did those two beetles subsequently speciate, post-flood, into all of the (non-interbreeding) species of beetles that we see today? And if that was true of beetles, was it also true of flies and bees and ants and grasshoppers and shield bugs and ... etc., etc., etc.? Was it also true of other invertebrates, such as worms, leeches and molluscs? And don't forget about plants (why does everyone forget about the most important organisms on Earth?). Where did all of the plant species come from? Did Noah carry a couple of 'ur-plants' in pots on a windowsill of the Ark? And did those two plants then, somehow, disseminate themselves and clothe all of the continents and islands in vegetation. And, in passing, where did the timber, that the Ark was made of, come from?

Specifics, pete, specifics! What do your red-neck, fundamentalist, creationist websites have to say about those specific specifics?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan

Both he and his wife meditated.He was a tad obsessed with the space brothers angle for me.Didn't they record and send the vibrations of their minds and bodies into space via the voyager golden record thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:32 AM

Guest quotes (27 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM): "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan

Sounds pretty good to me. What Musket nastily calls "religion lite" (and then pretends it's not an insult) is just that - finding spirituality in the facts given us by science. Seems to me that what we should seek is whatever brings us to a positive, constructive view of life and the environment that surrounds us.

To seek to refute and destroy attempts at constructive thinking, seems to be small-minded and mean-spirited, at the very least. Sometimes I wonder whether some of our Mudcat Brethren understand the concept of constructive discussion. Messrs. Blandiver, Shaw, and Musket may well need a shrink to get them out of their funk.

-Joe Offer-

You'll find some terrific quotes from Sagan on this subject here (click).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM

Wow, did two of us say the same thing Keith?

Must be true then eh? Especially as the other person is a real person unlike you, on the basis I have met him.... (I'd rather keep it that way round too.)

You need to read yourself before jumping down my throat as your default position. Joe had a pop at Steve and said that;

"I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things.

-Joe-"

If wallowing in ignorance is the greatest thing we can know, such a statement can only support not questioning scripture, as it allows the god delusion to maintain a foothold in perceived reality. The only thing I can learn from religion from a scientific angle is the need for scientific approach to be clear, unequivocal and factual. Any deviation from that opens the door for superstition to question reality, and that is a backward step.

Having a go at people purely on the basis they have weighed you up doesn't help your creaky credibility. By the way, I only glanced at the list of contributors but I can't see where Seaham Cemetery posted that line? I know you like things to be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:02 AM

Let's get that in context shall we?

In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind.

"Spirit" comes from the Latin word "to breathe." What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word "spiritual" that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996)

*

For what it's worth, I don't think Science & Spirituality are exclusive either, just that Science and religion are. Spirituality is the unique reserve of each & every one of us, as with our Sexuality. Religion seeks to exploit our Spirituality in the same way pornography exploits our Sexuality. We can be Spiritual without religion, just as we can be Sexual without pornography. In fact we are happier, sexually, spiritually, without either because we all prefer the real thing. But, as Voltaire said:

The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.

If there is a Supreme Universal Consciousness (and who am I as one mere mortal caught between two infinities and facing a glad eternity of a joyful infinity to preclude such a possibility?) then it will be nothing like that the all-too human demiurge that has been conceived of by religion. The God I disbelieve in as an Atheist, is the God of religion that people only believe in because of their natural, however so conceited, and subsequently exploited, fear of death.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

Seaham Cemetery? Huh???

Musket Says (27 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM):

If wallowing in ignorance is the greatest thing we can know, such a statement can only support not questioning scripture, as it allows the god delusion to maintain a foothold in perceived reality. The only thing I can learn from religion from a scientific angle is the need for scientific approach to be clear, unequivocal and factual. Any deviation from that opens the door for superstition to question reality, and that is a backward step.

Musket's warning against "any deviation" sounds amazingly like the rigidity of the born-again fundamentalists. Too bad he's so afraid about being a bit more open-minded and tolerant....and respectful of the thinking of others.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:12 AM

Blandiver, Shaw, and Musket may well need a shrink to get them out of their funk.

This is as profoundly & personally insulting as anything else I've seen posted on Mudcat, Joe. You turn an impersonal debate into a personal questioning of the mental health of named individuals because their take on life doesn't square with your own. Whatever goes on in that demon-haunted mind of yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:15 AM

So thats that then everyone basically agrees.Plus the Sun is out happy days!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

"Disappointing, Stu, coming from an ally, but I still love ya baby"

Aww…*blushes* .… ta Steve. As I see fellow scientists who do have faith yet produce some incredible work, I'm willing accept they have reconciled their faith with their science. I don't personally know these people, but some of them are world authorities and are massively capable people. So whilst I personally do not have a faith, I do have hope that there could be some common ground between science and religion, even if the methodologies and philosophies are seemingly too different to reconcile.


"Without it, we are left with the coldest "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism"

It might seem that way, but it's not. The indifference of the universe to our fates is scary, but there is wonder there too, and a deep profundity that gives meaning to life and is the basis for a solid moral code; all discovered by science. As the Sagan quote illustrate (thanks Jack - a truly inspirational passage), spirituality is a part of being a scientist (for myself at least) and is based in objective truth and not superstition and in that sense is not the same spirituality as that experienced by a religious person. When Sagan talks about spirituality he means that we are the universe itself made conscious, contemplating itself and its own nature. This is why the scientific method is so wonderful and powerful, a constantly refined methodology for inquiry that is an unbroken process going back to the earliest scientists. As a scientist I don't need to invoke a supernatural being to comfort me in the cold, hard universe because we are inseparable from it.

The universe creating art, music, cheese butties, beer, Aston Villa, microscopes, Lego, iPads, irish bouzoukis, Cheetos, ballet, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. I mean, think about it. No cold, hard materialism there, but warm, living, creative and vibrant materialism with a profoundly spiritual and scientific basis.


"has it ever occurred to you that the cry of extremist is a subjective judgment. the further a pov is from your own stand ,the more extremist it becomes in your estimation. therefore it is meaningless talk as far as meaningful communication is concerned.

same is true of claiming the other side of the argument engages in lies and misrepresentation of the facts."

You can try to wiggle out of this all you want, but the truth is yours is an extremist point of view, retrogressive, unthinking and rather vulgar in approach. There's an interesting discussion going on in this thread with people of faith who are able to see beyond the literal and are obviously capable of giving some considerable thought to their position. With the greatest respect, you're not one of them (I might not be either, so there you go).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:14 AM

The universe creating art, music, cheese butties, beer, Aston Villa, microscopes, Lego, iPads, irish bouzoukis, Cheetos, ballet, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. I mean, think about it. No cold, hard materialism there, but warm, living, creative and vibrant materialism with a profoundly spiritual and scientific basis.

Perfect!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

Nasty eh Joe?

You think "religion lite" is an insult then Joe? So how do we distinguish between the social worker persona you portray and those who tell us their god wants them to slay infidels? How can I call a sweet old lady religious and at the same time call those who want women to be second class citizens religious too?

You both reckon it is your faith that drives you.

Yes, deviation is unhelpful. Doesn't mean you take the word out of context knowingly in order to call people fundamentalists for refusing to speculate whether the beautiful garden has fairies at the bottom of it. You cannot be a fundamentalist unless you defend a position. I am delighted when my position alters through finding something new. I even sat as an assessor on a PhD viva panel for someone who shot one of my own findings down in flames, and was the first to shake his hand when we accepted his thesis. Doesn't sound like a fundamentalist to me? Or to anyone else unless they are in a weird position of defending the basis upon which fundamentalists in religion get their views.

You love saying god this, god that and god the other, but when impressionable people of less intelligence than you actually believe it in a way a child does, you wash your hands of them. Funny that.

Why do religious people get so touchy when reminded of the absurdity of what they like to profess? They love handing it out, but scream persecution when put against rational argument. Why is that? Why is pete wrong, me wrong and Joe right?

Classic. Someone saying I insult their superstition thinks I am the one needing a shrink.... Here in The UK, we don't pay snake oil merchants to analyse our more irrational traits. 1. Psychiatrists analyse you when you are referred, not when you want comfort and 2. My wife analyses me in a far more forensic manner than any "shrink" could.

She thinks religion is for the weak and feeble too by the way. Despite having a vicar for a brother. (Possibly because of for that matter....)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM

I find it strange but increasingly so that if you really want to dismiss religion. If you have any doubt and you feel the need to justify said doubt....

Listen to the likes of Joe. Not pete, but Joe.

When the true colours come out, all that love and understanding crap is lost in the vitriolic insulting bilge water. Twisting what you said as if he lived in Hertford rather than California. If saying that spirituality, never mind religion, has no place in scientific approach and discovery makes you a fundamentalist, well give me an arts grant to explore my fund.

It is said that religion has respect by those who don't suffer from it due to the other nicer traits of the people involved. Personally, I reckon judging as you find works a treat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM

However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not. My perception is that there is an essence within the evolutionary process and the Laws of Nature that I see as divine, and that is the focus of my religious practice and meditation. If others see it otherwise, that's their perspective; and Joe saw that it was good.

-Joe-

Joe... the topic is about creationists... a zealous splinter of Christianity that does not "leave it at that". Not only do they want to inject their concept of god into the process... but also dictate how we are supposed to understand it. All so that it will conform to their interpretation of a book.

If you want to believe in the cosmic clockmaker, knock yourself out... but don't expect everyone to buy into it or contrive a way to convince yourself that it is any way "scientific". It is a belief.. unsubstantiated and untestable. Scientific method can not be applied to it. You might as well go back to using Aristotle as your sole guide to understanding the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM

Not only do they want to inject their concept of god into the process...but also dictate how we are supposed to understand it.

AND they want to require their garbage to be fed to public school children under the guise of "education" - which is a particularly insidious form of child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:59 AM

You might as well go back to using Aristotle as your sole guide to understanding the universe.

Actually, that would be a more advanced position than that espoused by most creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

If believers see the hand of a God in evolution, they are absolutely in conflict with the science, one hundred percent. The whole concept of evolution is predicated on the fact that it isn't "driven" by any goal-oriented or intelligent mechanism. Impose that on it and you've ditched the whole bloody theory. Many well-meaning people of faith have tried to reconcile their belief in a God who made us all with the science of evolution, but I'm afraid the science of evolution is simply not interested. "I believe in evolution but I also believe that God kicked it all off and runs it" is simply a massive and abject intellectual copout, religion trying to be nice to uninterested scientists.

Interesting that a man who believes in evidence-innocent mythology, and lives his life by it, can think that another bloke, who simply asks for evidence and who has stated many times that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not, needs a shrink. You may not need a shrink yourself, Joe, but you do need a surgeon to get that bullet out of your foot.

Now for some Wacko-style misrepresentation from a surprising source.

Mr. Shaw seems to be a good example. And Mr. Blandiver and Mr. Musket approach it. Science and scientists generally take a far more honest and far less doctrinaire approach, and I almost always accept the findings of science. Real Science and real scientists have no business proving or disproving the existence of God.

I wish to point out that I have said on many occasions that I am not interested in trying to prove or disprove anything. Science does not set out to prove things, and I certainly can't disprove God and I don't even want to try.

It's really difficult for me to discuss religious belief and practices with the likes of Shaw, Blandiver, and Musket, because they are only able to understand faith in fundamentalist terms.

I have said in the last few days that I care not a jot what private beliefs people entertain and that it is perfectly possible to be both a believer and a scientist. I could spend all day telling you what I think YOU don't understand but I won't and I'll thank you for reciprocating. As a not entirely irrelevant aside, I'll have you know that we militant atheists spend a lot of time thinking about what belief means to people. I wouldn't assume that people of faith have any sort of monopoly on understanding what faith means. Sometimes the view is clearer from outside.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

Amos said back up there: "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism, which has two great flaws. One is that as a model it fails to account for known phenomena,. The other is that it is a demoralizing worldview"

Well... as a skeptic about various NON-materialistic worldviews, I don't feel particularly "demoralized" that what is known can't account for ALL phenomena. I am kinda curious about which ones are most troubling ...but it's not a big deal.... besides, that ancient *mud* several billion years ago got quite a workout by various KNOWN physio-chemical processes. I think it's rather fascinating to be considered a product of all that.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:44 PM

Liking what Greg F is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:08 PM

There is no astrological evidence that science is anything but a medieval superstition. (Caroline Casey)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM

Well that's a lot of accusations, rob.    Too much and too late at this hour, so how about you say what the untruth and misinformation was in mungo man.       And perhaps you can remind me what I got wrong about soft tissue in dino bones and carbon 14 in diamonds.........in your own words please, link if you must but I reckon that if you as a scientist can not explain it, how do you think I will understand tech stuff in the link.                Shimrod, I think you got the gist of my previous posts about beetles, I am not about to go over it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:18 PM

Pete, I *did* explain the gist of both those items, in reasonably plain English, but I *also* linked to papers to back up my explanations. I'm not about to re-do the work for you....it's all there in previous posts.

You're being your usual slippery self and sloping your shoulders to (a) try to get others to do the work for you and (b) to avoid having to think for yourself rather than just re-quoting technically flawed stuff from creationist websites. As you said to Shimrod, I'm not about to go over it again.

As for Mungo Man...please post the lyrics here and I'll go through them point by point!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM

Musket sez (27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM):

I find it strange but increasingly so that if you really want to dismiss religion. If you have any doubt and you feel the need to justify said doubt....
Listen to the likes of Joe. Not pete, but Joe.
When the true colours come out, all that love and understanding crap is lost in the vitriolic insulting bilge water. Twisting what you said as if he lived in Hertford rather than California. If saying that spirituality, never mind religion, has no place in scientific approach and discovery makes you a fundamentalist, well give me an arts grant to explore my fund.
It is said that religion has respect by those who don't suffer from it due to the other nicer traits of the people involved. Personally, I reckon judging as you find works a treat.

I have to admit I don't understand a word of what he's talking about now. Can somebody please explain?

---

...and then there's Steve Shaw (27 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM):

If believers see the hand of a God in evolution, they are absolutely in conflict with the science, one hundred percent. The whole concept of evolution is predicated on the fact that it isn't "driven" by any goal-oriented or intelligent mechanism. Impose that on it and you've ditched the whole bloody theory. Many well-meaning people of faith have tried to reconcile their belief in a God who made us all with the science of evolution, but I'm afraid the science of evolution is simply not interested. "I believe in evolution but I also believe that God kicked it all off and runs it" is simply a massive and abject intellectual copout, religion trying to be nice to uninterested scientists.

Notice his use of the word "absolute," and then explain to me the difference between his "absolute" beliefs, and the "absolute" beliefs of the born-again believers.

There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:18 AM

Surely you don't cut and paste your own big words Joe? Giving me an opportunity to reiterate for that matter.

You call me a fundamentalist and get all upset when I say there should be no deviation.

I repeat. There should be no deviation. Where the scientific process is concerned , there should be no deviation from being clear, unequivocal and factual.

You went on to say you had a problem with that and I was being fundamentalist. You said every view is valid. It isn't. Never was. Never can be.

That's why I said that Christian lite or boutique Christians can be more bloody dangerous than deranged fundamental Christians of limited intelligence. You try to get god in through the back door to a party he isn't invited to. There is no room in science for superstition. Full stop.

Plenty of room in just about every other subject if that's what floats your boat. But leave rational subjects to rational debate eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:39 AM

" Shimrod, I think you got the gist of my previous posts about beetles, I am not about to go over it again."

Right, well, as far as I could tell from the your previous 'explanation' (of the beetles thingy), you believe that Noah's two 'ur-beetles' speciated after the Flood - even though you had previously stated that you didn't believe that speciation happened at all (correct me if I'm wrong there, pete?). The only other possibility is that the Ark contained twice as many beetles as there are species of beetles alive today - that's an awful lot of beetles! And it gets worse because, of course, beetles are not the only species of invertebrates - not by a long way - the ARK must have been just a seething, crawling mass of 'creepy-crawlies'!!

But I think there's a better explanation. I think that your red-neck, creationist buddies, whose websites you parrot, don't know anything about the real world around them and hadn't even thought about invertebrates (because, of course, they're too 'trivial' for a 'puffed-up', born-again fundamentalist to even think about). As a result, when put on the spot, and having no 'web-guru' to refer to, you just made stuff up (correct me if I'm wrong there, pete?).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket the plagiarism philosopher
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:50 AM

Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire.



You can say that again.

Musket.



Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire.



Thank you.

Musket.


You're welcome.

Voltaire.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:15 AM

There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty.

And we're all mad and need treatment for our - er - funk right, Joe? Funny, where I come from, funk was always a good thing...

Okay. We can be certain about a lot of things. That all religions are made up by humans within the very finite limits of their times & contradict both themselves & each other at every turn. We can be certain that they can't all be be right, but they can all be wrong. We can be certain that viewing them as Truth does them a disservice as to their true value of what they can tell us about the mytho-poetic process and how even this might be used to justify the massacre, exploitation, abuse and suffering of countess thousands by the Roman Catholic Church alone. We can be certainly certain that such atrocity is the consequence of Absolute Certainty.

Otherwise I'm not absolutely certain about anything. Every morning I wake up and open my eyes I give quiet thanks that I'm still alive to experience my particular take on life on a ill-starred planet I share with billions of other human beings most of whom I'll never meet, but each of whom I know enjoys the same uniqueness of perception that I do. I'm pretty certain that if there was a greater emphasis on individualism in human culture as a whole we might get rid of speciesism, racism, sexism, homophobia, territorialism, religion, folk music and all the other insular parochial shit that have humanity forever at logger-heads, only now with the potential to take out the planet at the push of a button.

I am certain of uniqueness and diversity within the infinite commonality of the universe that Science has revealed to us through centuries of hard work and understanding - a process that continues to this day and will continue as long as there are human beings on this earth. Like I say, from Göbekli Tepe to the Large Hadron Collider and beyond - I hope - a thousand years into a potentially glorious tomorrow. But if only if we look to that tomorrow, turn our eyes away from the past, at least use it to build on as part of the process, not obsess over as the source of the truth. Truth is not of the past - Truth is the light that guides us into the future.

It is always easier to say what things AIN'T than what they ARE. I think that's the basis of human inquiry, a long process of joyful elimination that opens up before us a universe of fathomless possibility. As Carl Sagan says in Episode 13 of Cosmos:

And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars - organized collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos.

That's arrogant certainty for you! Pure glorious funk in the best sense of the word. Life is splendid. And all the things the religious people think of as God - even in his more 'subtle' forms - are INTEGRAL to everything and every single one of us, bar none, only we might have different names for it.

I know a lot of very lovely religious people, some of them Roman Catholics, and quite a few of them Roman Catholic Priests. They are wonderful for their humanity, not their religion. Even if they stopped believing tomorrow (belief is only Optional after all, it is the choice that defines our humanity, not the nature of what we choose, no matter how baffling at times that choice might be) they'd still be wonderful people. You can be certain of that much - abso-fucking-lutely certain...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:47 AM

nice post, Jack

spent last night at the local United Methodist Church for their spaghetti supper and music jam. Nice folks, many elderly, who come together to share a nice time.

Needless to say, the bawdy sea shanties remain unsung... but I like to sing songs like "What Wondrous Love is This" that is new to them. They seem to have a simple faith, at based on the songs they sing. Believe, praise God and you will be rewarded in the end.

While I can't share their beliefs, I can share a pleasant evening of food and song.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:04 AM

Not a bad post indeed, Sean. But your roguishness in including "folk music" amongst the "insular parochial shit" could be a bit counterproductive as to your points being taken seriously, IMO!

LoL

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

I first read that as spaghetti western supper... that's my brain filling things in! I knew an RC priest once who was a total Spaghetti Western freak - all we ever talked about was the mythological themes of love & brotherhood in Leone's films. He had an especial fondness for Duck You Sucker (as he persisted in calling it!) which to him carried the same message of selfless-sacrifice that was integral to his faith. I watched it with him once & we were both in tears. But that was nothing compared to the end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. He told me 'Human love is the bullet that cuts Tuco's noose'. Couldn't really argue with that!

What worries me about Christians is that they think it's all unique to them and that non-belief is a negative. In their hearts they carry around hope of life ever-lasting - which is fine - but that it's predicated on damnation for the rest of us is kinda sad. Ironic really as the Star Stuff of which we're made is damn near everlasting relative to our own 'life' spans, which means we all share that anyway. We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM

But your roguishness in including "folk music" amongst the "insular parochial shit" could be a bit counterproductive as to your points being taken seriously, IMO!

Well, Folk is religious too - it's all a matter of faith that leads to quite a groundswell by way of a sub-genre of popular music based on what remains an essentially pseudo-scientific theoretical perspective that, for the most part, remains unquestioned, or shouted down by the faithful when you do question it. Folk too is based on what is already there - albeit selectively calibrated to fit the ideology, with the facts tweaked & falsified along the way until its ultimate absorption into culture as a whole. Idiomatically I dare say that's always been the case, with the ballads of Longfellow and Kipling et al, but they weren't self-consciously Folk in the way that somehow links the outpourings of a select group of highly idiosyncratic Traditional Singers to the Theorists who went out and collected them, and to the faithful today who sing their songs in the belief they are somehow keeping that tradition somehow alive.

The main thing here is that ALL music is traditionally derived and perpetuated in exactly the same way as the various idioms that are accepted as being Folk. That is, demonstrably, what music is. To see the various tenets of (say) the 1954 Definition as being unique to Folk is rather akin to a Christian seeing such qualities as love, compassion, self-sacrifice, spirituality, nonviolence as being a) unique to Christianity and b) anathema to non-believers. Far from it. Religion is a consequence, not an inevitability. Like Folk it remains Optional, not Absolute, much less Real. Like Folk it is a matter of Faith and Theory of appeal to what is still a tiny minority of enthusiasts and specialists.

Science, OTOH, is like Pop Music, which is a transcendental artform simply because it transcends art & is as totally feral as the beings that make it. TheSnail is always banging about evidence for evolution (and ignoring it when it's presented to him) but it's right there in the evolution of popular musical idioms (including all the various idioms cited as being Folk and the oral processes thereof) in an unbroken tradition some 50,000 years young and renewing itself as each new generation comes of age (supposing a musical generation to be around 7 years or so).

There is unity, but, as in all Life on Earth, there is a myriad of diversity as a consequence. Each voice is unique, yet each voice is singing a song common to us all.

That's science right there. Like music, it belongs to each and every one of us to create and delight in, whatever peer-reviewed community tradition we belong to, be it gamelan, hip-hop, opera, Post-Delian Radiophonica, or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:24 AM

"And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars - organised collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos."

Here be wisdom.

Fantastic. Grounded in solid science yet more appreciative of the incalculable value of life than any religion could ever be, as it recognises that we are special for no more reason than we exist, and can reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:32 AM

"However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not."

The conflict, as far as I can see, is in taking a wholly evidence based system and introducing into it, an intrinsically untestable item, for which there is no evidence and for which there can never BE any evidence.

Add to that the fact that your own statement ("The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not."), leads to the corollary that the process is the same, whether there IS a God, or not!

Since the inclusion of a God adds no evidence, adding God to the system improves its validity not one jot. Removing God diminishes its validity not one jot.

There is simply no rational need for the inclusion of a deity.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:26 AM

There is simply no rational need for the inclusion of a deity.

I agree with this statement, but feel compelled to add a qualifier.

Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a diety... anymore than is a mathematical equation or arithmatic exercise. That said, people of faith have a need to view things through their faith... those of no faith lack that need and so "exclude" faith from the deal.

As long as it "makes no nevermind", inclusion fails Occam's Razor but does no harm either. And it does meet an emotional need in humans.

BUT... when the emotional needs of people interfere with the scientific exploration of the world around us, then I am forces to say "stick to your own playground & leave us alone to play in ours".

A parting thought... I suspect that in a "reality" where a book with all the answers were to suddenly appear... those of faith would cherish it and repeat sections of it to enhance the experience...

and then there would be those like me who would take it and examine it and then test each answer to see if it holds true.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:10 AM

Notice his use of the word "absolute," and then explain to me the difference between his "absolute" beliefs, and the "absolute" beliefs of the born-again believers.

There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty.

Going from Joe's recent track record I can hardly say I was surprised to see this egregious misrepresentation. Sailor Boy has clearly been giving him lessons. However, enough has been said by several thoughtful contributors since I hit the sack last night for me to let it go. I do like this, however:

Pure glorious funk in the best sense of the word. Life is splendid. And all the things the religious people think of as God - even in his more 'subtle' forms - are INTEGRAL to everything and every single one of us, bar none, only we might have different names for it.

The world and the universe out there are so lovely and so normal. So ordinary. So lovely, joyous, normal and ordinary that the concept of adding God simply diminishes everything. We've got to get ourselves back into the garden because the garden is lovely, and doesn't need fairies at the bottom of it to make it lovelier. Thanks, Douglas!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM

Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity.

Maybe not. But you simply can't include a deity within the theory of evolution. A deity is a driving force, a guiding hand, an instigator, a formulator of goals. Evolution theory can't embrace any of these concepts (if it did, the theory is trashed). To say that God has a hand in evolution is to completely misunderstand evolutionary theory, which is entirely predicated on the explanation of a process without goals and replete with dead ends, extinctions and useless mutations (none of which represent "attempts"). Now we have lots of compelling evidence for evolution but we have none for God. So I know which camp I'm staying in. Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:46 AM

Oh, yay, Sean. I should have remembered that any mention of the F [for folk] word brings out the latent ɷ-hole in you. Do you really think I'm going to read all that ole banjo again!

Still, keeps you harmlessly & happily occupied, I spoge. As my late wife used to say, PYG!*

~M~

* = play your games

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM

Not a game MtheGM - just a perspective gained from 40 years of involvement with so-called Traditional Music. Folk is a religious construct based on a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the music & culture one social class by another. Not that an old bourgeois Tory like yourself gives a toss, huh?

As my wife says, SYBUYAHFB*!

Sean

* = Stuff Your Banjo Up Your ɷ-hole, Folk Boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Oh dear. Any explanation of "folk" that does not distinguish it from art or composed music is absurd, for then the boundary is merely a matter of taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:01 PM

"Not that an old bourgeois Tory like yourself gives a toss, huh?"

Ah, you've got that bit right at least.
,..,

"my wife says, SYBUYAHFB*!"

Bet she doesn't really!


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM

As long as she doesn't take it upon herself to execute the deed in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:26 PM

... and if she did, how would she pronounce it? Sibyuyahɘfɘb? I think not!

Whereas "PYG" made a perfectly pronounceable acronym.

Oink!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:07 PM

Any explanation of "folk" that does not distinguish it from art or composed music is absurd, for then the boundary is merely a matter of taste

Getting back to the nature of the thread, all aspects of human culture share a common root from which they've evolved into a multiplicity of idioms. We might say language is different to music, although many notable scholars & linguists will point out the similarities not just the connections between one language and other, but between language on the whole and music on the whole, the structures of which - from basic syntax to sonata form to the morphology of the Indo-European folktale - are, somehow, biologically determined by the brain that made them.

Morphologically there's a lot of similarities between humans and other mammals - be they giraffes or bats - that are well known and demonstrable and are part / parcel of our understanding of evolutionary process. We learn in school that we have the same number of neck bones as a giraffe and that a bat's wing is essentially the same as our hand because we share a common evolutionary ancestor.

Music arises at some point 50,000 years ago. As with language and other cultural attributes it evolves - it accumulates and diversifies into a multiplicity of different possibilities, but, as with life, always with more similarities than differences. The idioms we think of as Folk Music - and it is idiomatic, nothing to do with the truly absurdist and patronising precepts of the 1954 Definition - are no different to any other music - Popular, Art, or whatever. Human beings create idiomatic music within idiomatic idioms driven by cultural commonality and the needs of the individual who is always part of a community. It is that which defines all human culture, and all music, bar none, be it Border Balladry, Hip Hop, Baroque concertos or the furthest reaches of experimentalism - all is changing, evolving and born from what went before it. All is fluid, flux and ever changing tradition because that is the law of the cosmos. Amen to that!

*

and if she did, how would she pronounce it?

Sib You Yarf! of course. That final B is silent...

*

I do hope all this horse play doesn't result in deletions; the worst ire I ever invoked from Pope Joe was when, back in November 2009. I defended MtheGM's right to call me a cunt. I wasn't excommunicated as such but I received a PM to tell me how much I disgusted him.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM

You're lucky. He sent me an email, which I believe is illegal unless he was addressing my account.

In both his country and mine.

Something to pad out tonight's confession if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:34 PM

Maybe there's something in the Mudcat small print underwriting Pope Joe's infallibility in such matters? And that he alone can insult without getting deleted...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM

full marks , rob, for a clever back at yer !
however, I am not about to trawl over hundreds of posts just to see if there were any unanswered.......i'll accept that there probably are. bearing in mind that I am the only biblical creationist here tackling a lot of skeptics , I am bound to miss something, and was admittedly unequal to some challenges.   but I don't see that as prohibiting a pov based on what is not tech science but basic reasoning.
as to mungo man,- it is a long song as far as words are concerned. I wrote it from an article called the dating game by tas walker. it detailed the various conflicting dates from different methods and the disagreement between the lake mungo discoverers. my conclusion based on that history being that the "dating game" is "so uncertain, not as sure as some suggest"
it does not say that, therefore the bible timeline is reliable....though of course, I believe it is.

shimrod,- quick clarification-
beetles probably on the ark but not included in the nostril breathing life as qualified in the text.
speciation, yes
all the details....I don't know.
evidence for microbe to man evolution....no.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:48 PM

Jack Blandiver says:

What worries me about Christians is that they think it's all unique to them and that non-belief is a negative. In their hearts they carry around hope of life ever-lasting - which is fine - but that it's predicated on damnation for the rest of us is kinda sad.

That's probably true for the most part with regards to born-again Christians, Jack. I don't think it applies to more progressive Christians. I know somebody cautioned me that this thread is about "creationists" and not about those "other" Christians - but most of the numerous blanket statements being made in this thread are addressed to "Christians."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:53 PM

Pete,

I didn't for a minute expect that you'd go back and look. It's how you always respond to comments of "I refer the honourable Member for Foot's Cray to my previous answer" comments, so nothing unexpected there. And it's the basic reasoning that you also fail miserably on, not just the "tech science"!

However, I would expect you, if you have an ounce of decency, to at least post the lyrics of your Mungo Man song, as requested.

You asked me what were the misrepresentations and incorrect items in your song. I picked up on a number of points during your performance of the song, but for you to expect me to remember it in sufficient detail to critique its accuracy, after hearing it once, several months ago, is a bit, well, unchristian, IMO.

You seem to be trying to cop-out by referring me to the Tas Walker article that you used as the basis for your song. Not good enough. What are you afraid of? Man up and post the lyrics!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM

the only biblical creationist here tackling a lot of skeptics

Actually, Pete, YOU'RE the skeptic - skeptical of fact and reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:07 PM

You stopped reading too soon. my quote is "Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity."

Reality is not affected by belief or disbelief... it is what it is. Otherwise the earth would be flat for some and round for the rest of us. I don't think so.

As long as we all play by the same rules... objective scientific method, I'm willing to say live & let live...

mess around with the rules and the gloves come off.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:51 PM

"beetles probably on the ark but not included in the nostril breathing life as qualified in the text.
speciation, yes
all the details....I don't know."

How many beetles (and flies and ants and grasshoppers and butterflies/moths and ... etc., etc., etc.), pete? And what the f***k have f***ing NOSTRILS got to do with anything???

Speciation NO - according to you in earlier posts - which is it, pete, yes or no? Or is it only YES when it suits you?

'All the details you don't know'!!! Understatement of the f***ing century!!!

I refer you to my post earlier today: "But I think there's a better explanation. I think that your red-neck, creationist buddies, whose websites you parrot, don't know anything about the real world around them and hadn't even thought about invertebrates (because, of course, they're too 'trivial' for a 'puffed-up', born-again fundamentalist to even think about). As a result, when put on the spot, and having no 'web-guru' to refer to, you just made stuff up ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:08 PM

Usual rubbish, Sweeney. You assert that there is no difference between folk and other music. Statistics demonstrate other wise - folk music has manifested in ways that differ from classical, pop, etc. But the difference lies not inform because otherwise a song could be composed in a form that would make it "folk" when obviously it is not. Also, the concept is not monocultural and if the distinction lay in form that would be impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:35 PM

The Seven Bridges of Königsberg demonstrates that this problem has no solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:57 PM

You stopped reading too soon. my quote is "Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity."

No worries. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Your clarification is welcome. We rational chaps can clear things up. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: michaelr
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:35 PM

Reality is not affected by belief or disbelief... it is what it is. Otherwise the earth would be flat for some and round for the rest of us.

That really is all that needs to be understood about the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:11 PM

"The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe "

Actually it's pretty clear that everything we find out increases the amount of stuff we realise we haven't found out. Our lack if knowledge increases the more we know.

That's me being pedantic, rather than God-of-the-gaps stuff.

So now the thread isn't just about Religion and God, but also about What is Folk.

Can't be long until Palestinian Liberation and Norther Ireland make an appearance...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:36 AM

Joe : I don't think it applies to more progressive Christians.

Hmmmm. Progressive Christianity sounds like an oxymoron to my ears, at least as far as the innumerable stripes of Christianity as manifest these last 2,000 years and still embodied in the monolithic absolutism of the Roman Catholic Church, and others... We're all pretty clear on what that sort of Christianity is all about, but the 'progressive' prefix makes it all kinda 'lite' somehow, and maybe a bit of an insult to all the countless thousands who've been ruthlessly persecuted for thinking outside the box of your church down the years - yeah! Even unto this very day! Still, a little bit of timely Re-branding never did anyone any harm, did it? Hey - why not have a KKK that no longer persecutes Black people? Or a Nazism that embraces Judaisim? Or why bother calling yourself Christian at all if you don't actually believe in any of it? I'm reminded of one high-up UK church type who said, in all seriousness: 'Of course Jesus might not have existed, but I'm sure if he did, he would have been a really nice man.' There was one vicar who ruined my elderly neighbor's Christmas with his message that there was no virgin birth, much less a nativity. Quite possibly there was no God also...

Don't get me wrong here, I have a VERY selective approach to Christianity myself - I love the more humane teachings of Christ Storyteller, and take a very keen interest in the theology with respect of its archaeology, history, architecture, music and folklore, but I would never call myself a Christian, though I occasionally refer to myself as a Jesuist and a Neo-Gnostic Marxist.

*

Richard : Statistics demonstrate other wise - folk music has manifested in ways that differ from classical, pop, etc.

Statistics demonstrate nothing. The 1954 Definition accounts for ALL musical idioms in terms of human creativity, community and tradition & tell us nothing that isn't applicable to ANY other music - from Raga to Rap, from Border Balladry to Be-Bop. Folk exists ONLY as a multiplicity of idioms that have been designated as such by The Faithful and artificially selected & cultivated on their idiomatic / aesthetic / National merits.

The very idea that Folk is somehow different is patronising paternalistic bullshit that does a serious injustice to the creative idiosyncratic genius & improvisatory virtuosity of the working class men & women who made it. Folk is a matter of fundamental faith backed up with a pseudo science that makes it the cultural equivalent of Creationism. We all know and love the same songs, just we differ on how those songs came into being. I say they were composed & passed on within an idiomatic fluid oral tradition of free-styling that accounts for the myriad so-called 'variants' because in their Natural Habitat these songs were living things that came out different every time. As all music does to a greater or lesser extent, because that's how it EVOLVES.

We are all human beings. All human beings make & experience music, just as all human beings live, breathe, eat, shit, fuck and die. Unless there is a particular form of Folk Fucking that is inherently different from all others... Folk music is ONLY different because the Upper Class Folk Faithful Fundamentalists WANT it to be different, not in terms of its idiomatic uniqueness, but because they couldn't hack the idea of the uneducated peasantry being able to create great art as individuals, because that would challenge the rancid cultural apartheid on which their privileges are built.      

Anyhoo : talking about Upper Class Folk Fundamentalist Faith, I dug this up a few months ago which I thought you might like:

Cecil Sharp's Folksong Epiphany

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 06:03 AM

M of H.
"Actually it's pretty clear that everything we find out increases the amount of stuff we realise we haven't found out. Our lack if knowledge increases the more we know."

My view exactly. So why should we condemn those who choose to follow a belief system that atheists do not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 06:34 AM

So why condemn those who choose to follow a belief system that atheists do not understand?

It's the belief system that gets condemned, not those who believe in it. We leave the believers to do the condemning, then we condemn them for their condemnation, not their beliefs, which are are wholly & utterly irrelevant to the misery they espouse. I condemn you for your homophobia, not whatever bollocks you might use to justify it - though I condemn that too of course, but on a more philosophical level.

Atheists are atheist not because they don't understand the belief systems, rather because they understand them too well, i.e. in the objective sense of seeing them as Belief Systems in the first place, rather than as being literal truths. Part of Human Evolution is the process of coming to knowing both Ourselves and the Cosmos of which we are eternally a part. In the face of such Knowledge, mere Belief falls away into the same realms of cultural archaeology as superstition, mythology and folklore.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 07:25 AM

PS - by folklore I mean the accumulated feral secretions of all humanity not just the so-called folk. Folklore is the spontaneous cultural rampancy that comprises a goodly proportion of the living waters in which we swim. I don't mean such unnatural contrivances as Morris Dancing and Jacks-in-the-Green, but I do mean everyday religious observance, ritual and customary usage, most of which is of no interest to folkies because it is not proper folklore. Getting back to Richard's point, proletarian musical experience in the UK is seen as not being folk because it no longer includes Child Ballads or Broadsides or derivations thereof* rather pretty much everything but.

* We had Steve Roud on here a while back saying Shoals of Herring was now a proper Traditional Folk Song with its very own Roud Number because it had been collected from a bona-fide Traditional Singer. Naturally I find this utterly absurd and contrary to the known laws of the cultural universe in which there exist no bona-fide anything, but there you go!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 07:20 PM

Sciencegeek: You stopped reading too soon. my quote is "Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity."

Reality is not affected by belief or disbelief... it is what it is. Otherwise the earth would be flat for some and round for the rest of us. I don't think so.

Absolutely! It's always interesting asking Post-Modernists who state that "western science" is just a belief system like any other and no more absolutely valid than any other world-view, to follow that precept to its logical conclusion by doing something (anything) that goes against the tenets of established theory. I've never yet had one take me up on the request. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 01:40 AM

Jack Blandiver says (30 Mar 14 - 05:36 AM): Hmmmm. Progressive Christianity sounds like an oxymoron to my ears, at least as far as the innumerable stripes of Christianity as manifest these last 2,000 years and still embodied in the monolithic absolutism of the Roman Catholic Church, and others... We're all pretty clear on what that sort of Christianity is all about, but the 'progressive' prefix makes it all kinda 'lite' somehow, and maybe a bit of an insult to all the countless thousands who've been ruthlessly persecuted for thinking outside the box of your church down the years - yeah!

Well, Jack, throughout history, religions have had some people who approach religion as doctrine, authority, and rules. Perhaps "conservative" is not an accurate term for them, but it's the term that's used nowadays.

And at the same time, they have those who approach religion in a benign, philosophical, and altruistic manner - tending to emphasize social justice issues, and not overly concerned with sexual morality. Perhaps "progressive" is not an accurate term for them, but it's the term that's used nowadays.

And yet there others who take the part of sheep, and follow the prevailing winds.

I would venture to say that all institutions function more-or-less the same way - an interesting mix of good, bad, and indifferent forces. Rarely will we find any organized group of human beings that is uniformly good or uniformly evil. They're all a mix - and the balance of the mix is constantly changing.

-Joe-

---

Late Tuesday Night: Well, I had no Internet connection today, so I wrote this offline and now I see the thread is closed. Since I worked hard on it, I'm going to post it to an existing message of mine.

I guess I get drawn into posting in these threads when I see something that just seems unfair, especially when the preponderance of the discussion consists of putting down what others hold sacred. I really don't want to defend what I believe. Defending my beliefs puts me in a position where I don't want to be, because I don't pretend to have to have possession of the Truth. My faith life is a life of exploration, pondering the questions and mysteries of life. I believe the Truth lies not in one answer, but in a delicate balance of many answers and many perspectives.

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Pete and for many other born-again Christians. They put their hearts into what they believe, and it makes a difference in their lives. Their dedication and their integrity is certainly admirable and inspiring. I have known conservative Jews and Muslims with this same dedication and integrity. I have also learned a great deal from atheists who look at life through a non-theistic perspective. They often come up with honest, profound answers that don't rely on platitudes or preconceptions. Their insights are often invaluable to me.

I suppose I'm more eclectic, fitting best into what are referred to as "mainline" Christians. I try to study every position I can come across, and learn from them all. Some may call me a "Cafeteria Catholic" because I adhere to no one ideology, but I prefer to see the truth wherever I find it - and most often, the answer is "both," or all of the above.

To my mind, my religious beliefs and traditions need satisfy only one person - me. I can't understand why people seem to think they have the right to tell me what a horrible person I am for believing this or not believing that. Or, for that matter, condemning me or my beliefs for what some other Catholic did. I acknowledge the Inquisition. I acknowledge the child molestation scandal. I didn't do it, and I didn't support it.

I went to a convention of 40,000 Catholics two weeks a ago, a gathering sponsored by the Archbishop of Los Angeles with the official blessing of Pope Francis. There were ultra-Catholics outside with newspapers and posters telling us what heretics we were. There were also born-again street preachers on the scene, telling us what sinners we were for being Catholics. We somehow didn't suit their particular ideology, so somehow we were terrible persons - despite the fact that we were Christians gathered to worship God. Now, there were 40,000 of us and maybe 15 protesters, so I guess we weren't all THAT bad. I know that for some people the main point of their religion is pointing out how horrible other people are for one thing or another, mostly for their beliefs or their sexual conduct. I feel bound to speak up when people do injustice or injury to others, but I don't see the private conduct of others is any of my business.

The one thing I can't stomach, is those people who live to tear others down. Very often, they seem to have no thinking of their own - they only seek to destroy the thinking of others. There's a lot of that going on here at Mudcat. It's disheartening, and it serves to prevent a civil and constructive exchange of ideas. The bullies and naysayers beat everybody into defensive positions, and then very little good can happen. If Messrs. Blandiver and Musket and Shaw think I have insulted them by criticizing their endless attacks, so be it. I don't wish to insult anyone, but I don't think it's right to attack nonaggressive people for what they hold sacred. If another one of these threads comes up, I'll paste this message there. I worked hard on it, and it's what I believe.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:00 AM

Joe: "I don't think it applies to more progressive Christians."

Is that sorta like Charismatic Catholics?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:36 AM

Darn. My message didn't take. Hope this one does.

Charismatic Catholics are a group unto themselves. I wouldn't call them "progressive" - they share aspects of both "progressive" and "conservative" Catholicism. The distinctive thing about Charismatic Catholics, is their group prayer sessions. Their style of prayer seems to work for them, but not for me. I tend to think silence is the best form of prayer. I study the stories and writings of the mystics, and try to adapt their way of living to my life.

It's hard to come up with a "one size fits all" description of Catholic. With a billion members, you're going to find a wide spectrum.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:47 AM

I still have no real image in my head of the vast majority of people in pews listening to the "truth" of being sinners and needing unswerving adherence to God etc and then walking out each and every week comfortable in the knowledge that it doesn't actually apply to them as they are too sophisticated for that sort of thing.

No problem with boutique religion by the way. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't start bringing your weekly metaphor to the party on the basis it is the same god pete and his mates talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:17 AM

Yeah, it's a whole different story, Musket. If you sit in a pew in a typical US Catholic church (or in most of the "mainline" denominations), the sin addressed is likely to be society's failure to care for the homeless and the immigrant. It is highly unlikely that you will hear condemnation of homosexuality or other sexual conduct from the pulpit of a typical U.S. Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Congregationalist, or (West Coast) Methodist church.

We had a bishop speak in our parish this week, and I think he made a number of our parishioners quite nervous when he started talking about "distribution of wealth" and the scandal of the "one percent" owning so much while others own so little. Catholic bishops in the U.S. say a lot about poverty and immigration, and not much about sexual morals. Unfortunately, they turned a blind eye to the sexual misconduct of priests, and that was a terrible scandal.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:46 AM

That is how CofE and Methodist services are in UK too Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 05:21 AM

I can't see, tho, that the fact that many churches these days have acquired social consciences makes the basic postulations on which their entire existence is predicated any the less self-evidently absurd. Or, if that is expressing it a tad too strongly for some, any the less evidentially unlikely by a factor of googol to the power of googol to pretty well ∞. However you conceptualise this "God" entity of yours, do you really think your concept have any existential referent in actuality?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 05:45 AM

Yes.
(most of the time)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:13 AM

So what is this concept of yours, Keith (& Joe & pete et al)? Man with long white beard in long white nightshirt, sitting on gold throne on enormous sapphire pavement surrounded by orchestra of winged blond epicene males in their own ickle white nightsirts playing on harps & timbrels & psalteries & such & singing #s from Hymns Ancient & Mid-Victorian? [honest ~~ that was what dear old pious Miss Holding used to tell us at Northampton Town & County School in 1942 -- & she truly believed it, what's more: you could tell; & she genuinely looked forward to going & standing on the edge & looking on].

Or more of a sort of a you·know thingummy-wotzit? In which case wot SORT of a...?

Or wot!?

~M~

just asking

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:26 AM

Funnily enough, I was at a Methodist service yesterday. (Family thing, christening etc.).

Despite the preacher speaking of world affairs, inequality and helping the poor, not to mention that he and his partner are to be wed at long last, the prayers and hymns, not forgetting the baptism speech, did indeed speak of adherence to God, spreading the gospel, asking forgiveness and earning his mercy.

Perhaps it's more of what you choose to remember about the service? Like asking my niece and her husband to raise their child to fear God.

Is there a book for wannabe boutique Christians telling them which bits to believe and which bits are just for show? Then once you have that sorted, you can address children and vulnerable adults. At what point do you advise them of the metaphor? Before or after their minds have been tampered with?

Fascinating.

(Enjoyed the service though. Plenty of thee and thou, hymns I remember from school assemblies. Just try not to ask what the words mean eh? A it like a retired steelworker singing about being a West Country farmer in a folk club.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:33 AM

My old RC priest pal said to me once: 'God is a metaphor for the unsayable - only as science progresses, the unsayable recedes. The only unsayable things left are the atrocities of humanity - so maybe God is a metaphor for that? I simply don't know.'

To which I replied : 'So why bother?'

And he said : 'Because the people in congregation need me to. So maybe God is a metaphor for them too? Because they don't know about science the way I do. Neither do they want to.'

'So God is a metaphor for human ignorance?'

'Not quite. God is a metaphor born from human ignorance. You see it's those people who need him most, and the need is pretty real. If they get that from this weekly theatre I put on during mass, then I've done my job. One thing's for sure though - as slow as I watch them come in, I never see a building empty so fast once it's over. Because that's all they want.'

That was the gist of it anyway. I guess he was progressive. He once asked me if I believed in Jesus, and half through my rambling response dealing with theology, Gnosticism and scriptural inconsistency, he stopped me and said : 'Every homeless person I see is Jesus - which I why I give them space in my home, and then they rip me off. And that's Jesus too in a way, reminding me to set my treasures in heaven.'

*

Charismatic Catholics are a group unto themselves. I wouldn't call them "progressive"

Too right. I've known Charismatic Catholics praying for a lottery win, praising God for their wealth, then speaking in tongues before the laying on of hands. All a world away from old Father O'Ryan.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:20 AM

Rob Naylor : It's always interesting asking Post-Modernists who state that "western science" is just a belief system like any other and no more absolutely valid than any other world-view, to follow that precept to its logical conclusion by doing something (anything) that goes against the tenets of established theory.

To them I usually point to the abundance of technology & medical science that such a 'belief system' has made possible. Maybe my faith in technology is blind to the extend I don't personally understand it - be it my laptop, my TV or my synthesisers & FX - but I don't believe they are unknowable in any sort of supernatural sense, otherwise they wouldn't exist. My life is currently dependent on 5 different types of medication - I owe my very being here to science. The other day I read of a skull transplant involving a 3-D printed cranium. Amazing!

Belief system? We're entering an age where belief is redundant. All we need is Gnosis!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:47 AM

Mike, this is an inadequate place to explain God, even if I could.

I believe there are books on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:53 AM

Mike, this probably means nothing to you, but I had this strange dream the other night when God told me He had sent you a sign.

Something about a glasses case?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 08:09 AM

Teehee, Keith. You have been reading my ongoing thread, ha'n'tcher? A proleptic dream, anyhow. The sign didn't arrive till yesterday, so old God seems to have mixed his tenses up "the other night".

LoL to GoD!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 10:03 AM

I believe there are books on the subject.

But you haven't read any of them, right, Sunshine?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 12:54 PM

"It's always interesting asking Post-Modernists who state that "western science" is just a belief system like any other"

I'm intrigued - what aspect of creationism/religious zealotry is post-modern?


"Our lack if knowledge increases the more we know."

Now there's a potentially fascinating topic of discussion for the philosophically minded amongst us.


"All we need is Gnosis!"

Agreed! I love Italian food.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 12:59 PM

Gnocchi! Gnocchi!

Who's there-ee?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

"many churches these days have acquired social consciences"

I'd think it more likely the social consciousness has been there in the churches longer than elsewhere. "Not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth, but theirs." John Chrysostom writing around 400 AD (Quoted recently by Pope Francis).

Looking through this thread it strikes me the only people being outrightly dogmatic are those who are eager to share their expertise on religions they so deplore.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:38 PM

It's always interesting asking Post-Modernists who state that "western science" is just a belief system like any other and no more absolutely valid than any other world-view,

I've never encountered a postmodern resistance to science such as you suggest. I see and use pm as a way to explain why we don't all really read the same book even if we all pick up the same text and read it. Postmodern interpretation understands that when you read the word "tree" and I read the word "tree" we each have our own set of trees that we deal with an visualize something known to us. It was a response to formalist/formalism as a teacher-led "this is what the book means, period" and disregards what the reader brings to the text.

Perhaps it is because of my background in English and Philosophy that the the postmodern readings I used simply privilege the reader as bringing something to the text. It doesn't however dismiss the text, or in your usage, it doesn't dismiss science. I think it is laying too much on the term "postmodern" to suggest that people who don't accept science because they bring their own fallacies to the topic are using a postmodern approach. I considered myself a postmodernist all through my graduate studies, and I know it is imperative that people take science seriously and treat it as credible.

Postmodern thinking is a point of view that tends to move a certain privileged class from the center. Derrida mentioned "writing back to the center" as a way to indicate that others have equally valid understandings in the context of literature and intellectual discourse. That doesn't mean the lunatic fringe may dismiss science and portray said dismissal as purely semiotics in action. Willful stupidity by offering faulty reasoning and logical fallacies is not a function of postmodernism, even if flat-earth thinkers may attempt to characterize their knuckle-dragging ideas in such a way.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:40 PM

A few logical fallacies that are used here at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:32 PM

Jack Blandiver: "Too right. I've known Charismatic Catholics praying for a lottery win, praising God for their wealth, then speaking in tongues before the laying on of hands."

Jack, believe it or not, your spiritual instincts may be more in tact than you give credit......
James4:3.."You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend {it} on your pleasures."
- New American Standard Version (1995)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

Indeed. The core of Jesus' teachings on such matters are fairly unambiguous I'd say, GfS - standing in diametric opposition to pretty all Christian denominations thus far manifest...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 05:33 PM

Mtheth, believing you are asking a serious question, rather than the argumentation of some here, I will venture a few, far from exhaustive thoughts.       As you are aware that I trust the bible for revelation, you will expect that to be the bedrock of any "concept" I have on the subject.    First, Jesus said that god is spirit, so although we may have an image in our minds, and religious art has portrayed him oft as you describe ,I don't know that he is visible as such.      However these descriptions are taken from visions that bible characters experienced, and are described as seeing him.    This looks like a bit of a contradiction but bearing in mind that Jesus said that " he that has seen me has seen the father" seeing a vision of him might also in some sense be seeing him who is essentially nvisible.   But as Jesus ascended bodily back to the father believers will see the divine in the person of the saviour in eternity. As I say....a few thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,BigDaddy
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:04 PM

Is there any merit to beating a dead horse?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:34 PM

It's not over until the dead horse sings. And we say so, and we hope so...

As for pictures of God...

In medieval art he's depicted as looking a lot like Jesus, as in this amazing image of The Creation from the Ashmole Bestiary, MS 1511 early 1200s, which looks rather like Jesus having a day out at the zoo.

God at the Zoo

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:35 PM

Jack Blandiver: "The core of Jesus' teachings on such matters are fairly unambiguous I'd say, GfS - standing in diametric opposition to pretty all Christian denominations thus far manifest..."

Ah yess...Christian denominations!....hmmm..well, as in all religions, and denominations thereof,..."In the beginning God created man in His own image....and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:14 PM

SRS: I've never encountered a postmodern resistance to science such as you suggest. I see and use pm as a way to explain why we don't all really read the same book even if we all pick up the same text and read it.

There seem to be several strands of post-modernism, as far as I can see. At least one strand of it seems to see "truth" as entirely socially constructed, and I've definitely met a few people who subscribe to this idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:19 PM

Pete: Mtheth, believing you are asking a serious question

And MY serious question, again, is: are you going to post the lyrics of your song "Mungo Man" so that I can critique it rationally and without ambiguity?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 08:14 PM

I for one am tired of half of all threads being started by Jack.
But then again there surely were people exasperated by my cause to accept people with dyslexia, before I lost my sight and could not read or post.

Joe, we all have a tendency to heal, get better and/or evolve.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 08:51 PM

IF we're actually going to address the question, we should recognize that there are two really important and very separate issues at play.

One is the fundamental question whether there is a creative vector to be found behind the rich panoply of deterministic factors in the physical universe. If there is no creative vector at all, then the entire gamut of existence in our known space-time framework was a complex chain of effects without an initial cause, apparently.

But if we admit that some sort of creative principle is part of this nish-mash, the second wide-open question is the nature of it.

STandard pop-religion Christianity would hold that it is a unary, all-encompassing One who is characterized as omniscient, omnipotent, somehow very paternalistic, and preoccupied with our species out here on the rim of a second-rate galaxy. Not only with our species, but with what we do with out peepees.

Other theories would offer the idea that there are whole families of creative super-beings, who divide up the universe into zones of responsibility. They occasionally mess with each others' heads and get into squabbles. In some versions they come from one Gigantic Forefather, in others not so much.

ANother variation on the "creative" theme is that we as conscious beings are all tapped in to a gigantic Sea of Creative Will, and that we as individuals are sort of pseudopods, like tendrils of wave-foam linked to the abysmal oceans.

Another model, the one I favor, is that each of us a creative source, contributing to the Grand Charade we call reality, and entertaining ourselves thereby.

In any case these (and other) models could all be called "Creationism". Some of them are more interesting and applicable than others, in my experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 09:05 PM

Or maybe it just happened, we understand it to millionths of a nanosecond after it happened, one day we'll get even closer, and, in the meantime, we should try to not disappear up our own quasi-philosophical arses.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 01:28 AM

Notice how pete chooses his battles? Fight the good fight eh?

A pity he dismisses most of us. I have pointed out he is the only person on these threads to my knowledge who could be described as truly religious. He may be daft as a brush with his insistence that belief means to actually believe, (perish the thought!) but the only alternative by our boutique Christians has a whiff of hypocrisy about it.

So let's get this right. The creationists stand for the miracles, metaphysical nonsense and old bloke with beard philosophy. The boutique lot get credit for buying water wells in Africa and arranging the beetle drives.

Who lays claim to the misogyny, homophobia and desire to enlarge membership at any cost?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:27 AM

Good question, Musket!

I note pete's tactic of not posting for a while after being challenged - and then abruptly changing the subject. He knows that the absurdities exposed by 'speculating' about beetles (and other invertebrates) on the Ark makes a nonsense of creationist 'arguments' and that neither he, nor his creationist 'web gurus' have any sensible answers (except silly ones that they desperately make up as they go along)!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:40 AM

Yes but when you start from a basis of make believe, you can continue to make it up as you go on. In a weird way, that makes pete (or the people he cuts and pastes, I wouldn't wish to give him credit for actually sitting and considering beetles) more consistent than you think.

The boutique Christians have it even easier. They can swap between make believe and reality at will and claim credibility in either sector.

The pointy hats and titles stemming from "revere" help with the credibility bit, as well as being allowed to scrutinise democratic government for all in our country's case.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 07:59 AM

One of the more fascinating aspects of Christian Folklore concerns the Noah's Ark Drogue Stones as well as the various claims over The Ark itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 08:17 AM

Thank you, Amos.

I believe that my posts earlier match at least one of your "creative" scenarios.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 08:42 AM

Which one would that be, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 08:52 AM

The question is whether to take God's Word ( facts as shown by the real universe) or the written words of human beings as the truth- Where the written words are the Bible.

….Even the EARLIEST written copies were

1. written down long after the original enlightenment by God of the original person
2. filtered throughout the understanding and language of a specific people and culture.

Science is the art of trying to understand God's Word in the facts of the universe, rather than accepting a translation by humans of a human's interpretation of what someone generations before had understood God to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:00 AM

Science is the art of trying to understand God's Word

You really don't see how ridiculous that is, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:08 AM

Where God's Word is the FACTS of the universe, rather than the text that people pro port to give it to us.

Try to comprehend something instead of attacking based on who is saying it.

I am stating that SCIENCE is the search for Truth, and is a far better road to the "Creative Force" than the text of any religion.

What part of that do you take exception to ???????

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:11 AM

"God's Word" has nothing to do with the facts of the universe, or with science.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:19 AM

Kind of like having a zombie chihuahua chasing you everywhere...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:22 AM

Gee, Jeri - do I need your permission to comment on topic? How do I apply for your approval?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:25 AM

GregF,

Try to read for comprehension.

I have stated that

"God's Word ( facts as shown by the real universe) "

What part of this simple statement do you not comprehend???



GregF.:""God's Word" has nothing to do with the facts of the universe, or with science."

What do YOU define "God's Word" to be, and why do you insist that the rest of us agree with your definition????

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:29 AM

You can state that "Gods Word" is smoked whitefish, Bruce, but that don't make it so.

I define "God's Word" as a pernicious faiytale.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:35 AM

You can define "God's Word" as a pernicious fairytale, GregF., but that don't make it so.


So why do you place your definition above the rest of the world's?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:52 AM

"MY" definition above the rest of the world's? I'm the only one?

Get a grip, man.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:56 AM

GregF,

I have stated MY OPINION of what I think "God's Word" is.

YOU have insisted on what YOU define as "God's Word" to be the only one allowed.


I think YOU need to get a grip, a life, and some sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:56 AM

Kind of like having a zombie chihuahua chasing you everywhere...

Reminds of...

The Word of God

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:59 AM

"If there is no creative vector at all, then the entire gamut of existence in our known space-time framework was a complex chain of effects without an initial cause, apparently."

It had a cause, just one we don't understand yet. Ascribing that to some supernatural being is creationism by another name, pure and simple . . . unless evidence is found to the contrary of course.


"God's Word ( facts as shown by the real universe)"

You're invoking a God where there is zero evidence of one, however if this is a simple turn of phrase then it's a rather unfortunate one, because some people believe in no god or one god or some gods or many gods or spirits of place or ancestors etc etc

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM

YOU have insisted on what YOU define as "God's Word" to be the only one allowed.

Where, exactly, did I do that? Tweak your meds again, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 10:16 AM

Then you had best further explain your comments of 01 Apr 14 - 09:29 AM .

You seem to be defining FOR ME what a phrase I am using HAS TO MEAN.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 10:55 AM

See Stu, above. And tweak your meds.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 11:02 AM

See my posts previously, learn to read, and get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 11:02 AM

Oh and Bruce: You seem to be channeling Humpty Dumpty.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 11:07 AM

GregF,

Have you run out of duct-tape for the guinea pigs again?