BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:49 AM

I said I might do this. The "Church in Modern World" thread has gotten too long & fragmented. I include religion because many specific arguments against evolution have religious claims at their base.

I request that people keep to the topic here and refrain from insults & personality clashes. I will request editing if it gets out of hand.
(it may be appropriate to C&P posts from the other thread(s) to avoid typing the same things again)

Let me begin with an article I happened across this morning.

walking-fish-evolution

several excerpts for those who want the main points: ", life as we know it began in Earth's oceans. At some point, those fish developed the ability to walk on land, using their fins as simple walking appendages..."

" researchers from the University of Ottawa and McGill University took modern fish known for walking on land, and raised them there for two years."

" "After two years, what they observed was essentially evolution at work. The 'terrestrialized' fish walked much more capably than their aquatic brethren, holding their fins closer to their bodies and their heads more upright. Their skeletons even adapted, developing stronger pectoral attachments and reducing connections with the head, allowing for longer strides and improved head mobility."

Pete has often said that 'we can't see any evolution'... but this seems to be a good example of how it might appear.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:58 AM

Well, that's more like Lamark than Darwin, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:04 PM

Good job now how about some good old threads on my political views are better than yours..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:06 PM

Some people on mudcat stopped at the ape stage

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:26 PM

That lasted a long time Bill. Hard luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:31 PM

Dan... you are already tossing in the kind of remark I asked to be avoided,

Lamarck? No...not really. It's easy to see why some would think that way, but Lamarck never dealt well with the mechanisms of change. One doesn't inherit bigger muscles as such, but merely the capacity to develop them. Those fish seemed to actually experience small, though basic, DNA changes. An individual fish might, thru practice, increase its breathing capacity, but ability to breath better in successive generations 'without practice' requires actual evolving mechanisms. Research & DNA sequencing is required to sort out which ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:35 PM

We shall see how it goes, Musket...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:08 PM

In religion, it's the other guy who is always wrong.

If you want a bananas vs. Limburger thread, so be it.

My ancestors were climbing trees while yours were limpets on the rocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:09 PM

You cannot change your DNA. Male circumcision has been practised for a while now and is showing no signs of becoming inherited.

Evolution has nothing to do with belief. Either you know about it or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:12 PM

That was me

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM

Correct, Guest...

now I have shop work to do, for God's sake ummm.. I mean for Pete's sake..oh, heck.. just try to keep it sane & relevant, hmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM

Another popcorn thread if I ever saw one. At least 200 posts and nothing will be decided. Count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:35 PM

*peeking in one last time before shop work*

It's not FOR deciding! It's for discussing! Not every human issue has simple things that can be decided!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:36 PM

Wesley, like Monday night football, I go to sleep after the first half of the first quarter.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:38 PM

There are subjects that can be debated and subjects that cannot be debated. The latter are those which involve an unquestioning faith. This is because such a faith allows no possibility of changing belief. Debating evolution with a fundamentalist Christian falls into this category.
Not all people of faith are unquestioning in their belief. Some believe that because humanity is endowed with intelligence that requires them to think for themselves. It is true that that can lead to difficulties when seeking to align religious orthodoxy with personal morality but seeking for truth in one's spiritual life is a valuable activity in developing self understanding.
There are those who will condemn such an approach as 'boutique religion', well, so be it.
In short, this thread cannot possibly achieve anything. Although it may afford opportunities for the usual suspects to hurl abuse at anyone who admits to having a Christian faith. Strange that some people are so infuriated by perceived homophobia and yet indulge in what might be termed rabid christophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:07 PM

Most faiths accept evolution. Some members of them faiths don't. This should not come as a surprise since many members of most faiths don't know the details of their own faith

Best wishes

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:20 PM

Viva la religolution!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:45 PM

""This seems to be the classic paranoid-fundamentalist mindset: a very small 'elect', in possession of the truth who see themselves as besieged by a powerful elite who control everyone else's thought and expression. It is often possible to believe that you are a member of an oppressed minority and to simultaneously believe that you are silent majority who everyone really agrees with. A lot of the time, proponents seem to see themself as a member of a minority of one."" Taken from 'Upton Park'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:12 PM

"My ancestors were climbing trees while yours were limpets on the rocks."

Limpet on the rocks.

The devil made me do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:14 PM

""Once you've managed to believe in Quantum Theory, the Holy Trintiy is relatively straightforward"" Andrew Rilestone

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:16 PM

No problem with Christophobia" or whatever you want to call it. Pointing out bigotry is pointing out bigotry, even if it is carried out by old biddies organising the church fete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:26 PM

""For the benefit of Americans and people who don't care, I should point out that a complex series of historical accidents means that the British head of state (Liz, not the PM) is also the head of the Church of England. This means that Church and State are bound together in complicated ways; however, it makes very little difference since the Queen gets to keep her political and religious powers only on condition that she doesn't use them for anything. There is a general feeling that disestablishing the church of England—legally separating church from state—would be a bad thing: it would mean that everyone would stop going to church and we wouldn't be able to teach school children about evolution. I mention this only because it gives me the excuse to use the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism.' "
Andrew Rilestone

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:37 PM

BTW... it's a good idea to read the OP every now and then. Jus sayin eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:51 PM

from Q: In religion, it's the other guy who is always wrong.

But must it always be that way?

I suppose you could also say, "In Internet discussions, it's the other guy who is always wrong."

But maybe that's the wrong approach. It seems to me that for most questions and most issues, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer - there is a wide variety of valid perspectives.

[well, there are some answers that seem downright ridiculous, but there are also many valid answers]

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:51 PM

A bit dense, today so I looked up OP on Google-

noun informal

-a surgical or other operation
-military operations


Why not a discussion, OPs vs. APs

Fergit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:54 PM

Yes, keep that in mind, gnu;)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bettynh
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:26 PM

As for the original article: There's no talk of inheritance or generations. So they're describing the same fish two years apart. If you were required to climb a ladder every day for your food, you'd have stronger arms and legs after two years and you would probably move more efficiently up that ladder. I saw no reference at all to DNA changes. As far as I can see, the point to doing the experiment was to demonstrate that changing environment can change physical structures without needing mutation to cause the change.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:12 PM

"Strange that some people are so infuriated by perceived homophobia and yet indulge in what might be termed rabid christophobia."

I'm not 'afraid' of Christians - I just think that they're a bit silly. Having "faith" i.e. a fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence just seems ... well ... a bit silly to me. But, as far as I'm concerned, Christians are free to believe whatever nonsense they like ... as long as they don't try to convert me ... like the two numpties who turned up on my doorstep the other afternoon ... Oh, what fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:58 PM

" As far as I can see, the point to doing the experiment was to demonstrate that changing environment can change physical structures without needing mutation to cause the change."


Bettynh- I see why you say this, but upon going to the researcher's site we see:

"Standen's team said that if some ancient fish adapted this way, the pressures of evolution would select the most successful for life on land.

"Potentially an ancestor (to modern land animals) had that same plasticity, which allowed it to engage in new environments," she said.

A couple of years is indeed not a direct demonstration of evolution, but of observable traits that are similar to indications in certain fossil records. We can't, as the relatively short article notes, "view the behavior" of very old fossils, but we can see HOW such things might happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:26 AM

I think the opening post , with it,s link , though interesting does not show evolution in action, as has already been hinted at. true 2 yr is.nt much to go on , but albeit quite remarkable *adaption* is not the information gaining process required for fish to philosophers evolution. you did however claim [or link did] that their experiment was verified by fossil record.....but elucidation required to demonstrate the validity of that claim.
we do know that longer times can be extrapolated by using fast reproducing critters like flies, but again, best I can see, whatever adaption and natural selection may be observed, evolutionism is,nt being observed, ie flys is still flys.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:00 PM

But flys ...ummm flies...(my spell checker yelled at me).. change to more interesting flies...not butterflies.

The fish in some fossil records do show fin structures similar to those walking fish of today. This experiment merely shows how survival OF fish which accidentally developed such structures might have been aided. It's just one of many indicators.

(And by the way, a couple of years ago, another outcropping of very ancient fossils was found near the Burgess Shale in Canada. Remember... these fossils, which originally lived under water were found at 8000 ft altitude. It takes awhile to get up there.)

Dozens of scientific discoveries in various disciplines ALL point to extreme age and various dating methods support the basic calculations. Science has to go where the hard evidence takes it, even if the evidence & map has to be re-evaluated due to new data. NONE of the data indicates any 8000-10,000 year age.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bettynh
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:23 PM

" the point to doing the experiment was to demonstrate that changing environment can change physical structures without needing mutation to cause the change"

"Potentially an ancestor (to modern land animals) had that same plasticity, which allowed it to engage in new environments"

I see only semantic differences in these statements. The English language can be a bugger.

We're looking at academic science here. Well done for getting it published in Nature! But the point to academic papers is a) to get grants for the lab and b) to suggest topics for further research. As seen here three grants supported the lab. Presumably they're finished supporting this particular research. The potential further subjects are more interesting to me. I don't know what correlations were made to actual fossils (can anyone access Nature to actually look at the paper?). That would be one direction. Someone might look at amphibian muscle and bone structures of the shoulder and neck to see whether the changes observed after birth in the fish had become embryonic in amphibians. That would imply an actual change in DNA. Further along that line, a demonstration of the chemical change in the DNA active in the development of that structure would be strong indication of evolution in action. There may be other directions.

My point is that this study, interesting as it may be, is no answer but an inspiration for questions. I suppose some of those questions might involve God, but as Richard Dyson said once, "I'm OK with not knowing the answers."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:23 PM

Pete.. I'm going to try to move the discussion which relate to evolution and to trust/faith --whatever... over to this thread

so. "Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link - PM
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:46 AM

joe, if Jesus seemed to regard Jonah as real, I see no reason to mistrust its historicity.,,,

One would distrust it because the basic Jonah story.. as well as the Noah story and the Adam & Eve story... do not seem very likely based on what we know about fish, water, floods, population genetics and systems of writing and preserving exact information. If all you base the truth of Jonah on is the word of Jesus, then you must have some way to verify that Jesus was not only real, but that he knew what he was saying and where HE got his information. Whether Jonah was supposed to have been swallowed by a "big fish" or a whale, it seems unlikely because whale's throats are too small, and the few fish that 'might' swallowa man... i.e. big sharks, would not swallow him whole....and so forth..

If you merely believe it all because of 'faith' in the inerrant word of the Bible.... well, you can only speak for yourself, as those of us who really need solid evidence for such 'interesting' stories can't take it all in.....and there ARE good scientific theories now about how a local flood could have grown into a big story about a World Flood.

Joe Offer has his sincere faith.. but he does a pretty good job of tempering it with the idea of Biblical stories being more guidance than absolute fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:02 PM

""it seems unlikely because whale's throats are too small, and the few fish that 'might' swalsperm wa man... i.e. big sharks, would not swallow him whole....and so forth..""

Well, while not intending to take sides on the overall issues, the above not totally (scientifically) accurate on the sperm whales throat size. Additionally, there are some fishes that do have the capacity (throat size) to swallow a whole human. While it is unlikely they would do so (from researchers observations), based on that, I suspect the potential is not totally outside the rhelm of being possible.

""Unlike most species of whale, sperm whales have a relatively large throat which is designed to allow it to consume large prey such as giant squid.While these whales do have large throats that would make it easier to swallow a human most of their hunting takes place several miles below the sea, up to 3,000 ft., which is much deeper than a human is able to swim.""

whale facts 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:40 PM

Have you noticed how an increasing number of Western citizens have evolved beyond the need for religion?

(As some smart arses have found a link between aardvarks and toast, I thought I'd find the link between evolution and religion.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:42 PM

It's likely that what we consider to be a tetrapod style of locomotion is derived from a far older origin than thought. The coeleocanth uses a very similar cycle when sculling, and many fish 'walk' along the substrates in their environment using the same cycle. This is too widespread to be convergent evolution, and it is likely that it's origin lies with early fishes or perhaps earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:59 PM

"Have you noticed how an increasing number of Western citizens have evolved beyond the need for religion?"

Well yes, of course-but that does not automatically translate to a disbelief in a God. Beliefs that are established at early life stages residing solidly with many folks, who have no similar attachment to organized religion-for a number of reasons (including bad behavour of some of those in charge).

Many if these folks have made their accomodations for aspects that do not "fit" with what others (including those who have left such beliefs behind) may see as logic stacked against such beliefs.

One can argue and "belittle" those with such a belief as they wish, but that alone will not change much.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:12 PM

"...evolved beyond the need for religion?"

Linguistic equivocation on 'evolved'.

Some *societies* have fewer members who identify as religious, but I doubt many individual citizens have 'evolved'. I did alter my view on acceptance of biblical stories soon after I was about 15. If that is what you wish to CALL evolving, then we can agree on a process, if not a name.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:18 PM

Oh, and by the way... if I remember correctly from a couple of years ago, Pete explained to me (because I asked politely) that he had also 'changed' from something like 'not sure' to believing. Maybe we can label him as having evolved.... though I suspect he would decline the label.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:35 PM

O whoop-de-doo!
Lets not confine evolve-- evolution to one meaning.
It has many, if the dictionaries are to be believed, from its first use in 1622.
Define your usage. A few variations from the Merriam Webster Collegiate (A lot more in the OED:

- One of a set of prescribed movements
- a process of change in a certain direction. Unfolding.
-The action of a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse, to a higher more complex or better state.
-A process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, economic advance...
-The historical development of a biological group....
- meanings related to phylogeny. Modifications, etc.

I find such discussions fruitless.
Having spent my working life as a research paleontologist-paleoecologist with an oil company laboratory, determining ages of strata and their environment from the changes in the organisms through time, and running up against "belief" from time to time, I will no longer argue whether one particular person's dunghill is better or worse than another's.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:21 PM

I think that a clear definition is what I was requesting when someone uses a word with those variations.... what I was protesting was use of the word in a context where one definition is not relevant.... but Musket knew that (if he thought about it at all while making clever remarks)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:25 PM

Seems like "philosophy lingo" is peeping out of your last post, Bill D.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:50 PM

"(And by the way, a couple of years ago, another outcropping of very ancient fossils was found near the Burgess Shale in Canada. Remember... these fossils, which originally lived under water were found at 8000 ft altitude. It takes awhile to get up there.)" Bill D

My birth family had a comfortable answer for that, Bill. They believed that in the Great Flood shells all over the world were left behind as the water receded.

Incidentally I'm not sure what premise this thread is built upon. I read in the other thread from time to time but got bored and quit some time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM

Yes but no but.

I may or may not know what I speak if, but please judge the words printed rather than an estimate of the intent eh?

Yes, the noble art of equivocation did assist me in my use of the word "evolve" in the same way as the word "folk" is used by me in a current thread above the line.

This is what happens ;

Person A has faith and gets on with his life.

Person B doesn't have faith and gets on with his life.

So far, no guns.

Person C has faith and wants to prove why he is right to person B.

Person B says it's all bollocks, so don't bother trying.

Person A accuses person B of belittling faith.

Before person C started feeling embarrassed by his belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden and wanting to assert it to give it credibility, persons A and B had been getting on alright, saying hello as one was leaving church at the same time as the other was off down the pub.

We seem to have a number of A B and C in the Mudcat community.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:21 AM

What I speak OF not if.

iPhone and sausage fingers. Interesting combination.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:08 PM

Mek Twain told about the disacovery of oyster shells at the top of a mountain (Ararat?) He pointed out that this prove that, in biblical times, oysters could climb mountains.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:53 PM

" They believed that in the Great Flood shells all over the world were left behind as the water receded."

Oh right...*grin*... at steep angles and in random patches. I think that Dick's story is better more interesting.

"Incidentally I'm not sure what premise this thread is built upon. "

Simply that Pete & I have been discussing these things for 2-3 years, and several threads started for other purposes have been co-opted by this topic. I just thought I'd see if we could confine it a bit.

-----------------------------------------------\
"Seems like "philosophy lingo" is peeping out of your last post, Bill D."

You noticed! Guilty as charged. I do that in semi-automatic mode when I detect ambiguity in the verbiage,,, (eeek..he's babbling again.)

I also can't easily shorten what I want to say... like the guy who said: "I don't have time to write a short paper!"
I had a professor who sometimes taught a 2 hours graduate level class, and was still always surprised and frustrated when time ran out. Every line of thought led to something else. That what philosophy was about.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:02 PM

methinks , bill, that, re Jonah you applied it as if I was addressing you, who is not claiming any belief in the bible, whereas I was replying to joe who seemed to be intimating he does [of sorts] and asking me for my reasons for taking Jonah as historical narrative.
it is interesting to consider whether any existing sea creature that we know of, is capable of swallowing a live man whole, but the text itself says that God "prepared" a great fish. as I said before, if you believe in God, miracles are no problem. I reckon atheists need more faith for their secular miracles, ie ideas that don't jive with observational science.
it is worth noting, bill, that you are asserting stuff as fact that even those who disagree with me, are providing some measure of correction on.
you are also asserting that none of the data supports a more recent creation -
1, I have given data that does just that, but you have faith that science will yet show where observational science is, so far, wrong
2,data and evidence are interpreted according to the researchers worldview and/or peer pressure and need for funding.
but if you have specific evidence of deep time, other than more assertion that all the data and disciplines agree.........
I will say it again, textbook definition or not, that, is an appeal to numbers/authority.
btw, from the aig site was a link to a video of the walking fish.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:26 PM

Talk about picking up the goal posts and sprinting!

God did it.. Poor bugger, it must be difficult for him to live up to pete's expectations...

If anyone wants to explain to me what a secular miracle is, do us both a favour and don't bother eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 12:50 AM

"you are also asserting that none of the data supports a more recent creation -"

I am asserting that only certain interpretations of carefully selected data indicates the type of recent creation you prefer.

There is, after all, something to be said for the 'data' about what % of scientists accept such selective data when almost all data shows otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:05 AM

Well, I posted a brilliant response to Pete in the "Church joins real world." I posted there because I was answering Pete, but I see he's saying the same thing here. The other thread should have died long ago, so let me say what I said:

Thread #155013   Message #3655342
Posted By: Joe Offer
30-Aug-14 - 04:39 PM
Thread Name: BS: Church joins real world
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world

Pete, I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

In this day and age, we have a vastly different standard of "historicity" than that of ancient times. Philosophies are different, languages are different, methods of collecting information are different, everything is different.

Does this mean that ancient writings are unreliable, and of no value to us because they do not meet modern standards? Are Homer and Virgil, the Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Celtic mythologies, the Histories of Josephus and Tacitus, all false and misleading? Certainly not.

These ancient writings are what they are. If they are read in the spirit the authors intended, they are of infinite value. And, though they maybe in part fictional, they are of extraordinary historical value. I think, my friends, that the line between fact and fiction may not be as clearly defined as we think it to be. Oftentimes, fiction may be a better conveyor of truth, than can be done by what we consider to be "fact."

Now, the absolutists on both ends of the discussion, will never understand this. The religious absolutists, or fundamentalists, will tell you that their scriptures (and only their scriptures) are incontrovertibly true from all perspectives, and therefore must be binding for all the world according to their most simplistic interpretation (although these fundamentalists may deny even the possibility of "interpretation"). And the atheistic absolutists will argue that these documents (particularly the ancient documents of their target groups) and incontrovertibly false and intended to deceive and control people - and thus they must be suppressed so they can do no further damage.

I don't think there's much value on either extreme of the discussion, but I do think there is great value in learning to study ancient documents, especially ancient sacred documents, with a critical eye. We need to understand historical context, literary forms, the philosophies of the times, and the original intent of the authors. And in our critical study of ancient documents, we must always keep in mind that our interpretation may be wrong or only partially correct; so we must be open to alternate interpretations and perhaps a wide spectrum of interpretations in some circumstances.

But there are no absolutes in the study of ancient writings. If you think your understanding is absolutely correct, then I can tell you with certainty that you are absolutely wrong.

-Joe-

---

And in fairness, allow me to post how Musket responded.
Thread #155013   Message #3655364
Posted By: Musket
30-Aug-14 - 06:22 PM
Thread Name: BS: Church joins real world
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world

Brendan. You ask me not to mock you, but when a person with the benefit of education and books, a few hundred years of scientific discovery and shared experience prefaces such debate with "I believe in God," we are not having the same debate.

Hey Joe! You describe me to a T! I don't see it as negative though. Religion fucks up vulnerable people. Not everyone has your intellect and ability to use faith rather than be captured by it. Worse still, those in control of organised religion prefer the petes of this world rather than the Joes.

At the end of the day, I can do more than smile and patronise when people say they believe in magic and expect me to respect it in the same way I may respect a differing political view.

Fundamentally, that's it. Not faith as a comfort blanket or moral compass, not even a sense of belonging and comradeship. But an elephant in the room based on magic and supernatural beings.

Asking rational people to respect such nonsense at any intellectual level is far more insulting than any god botherer, imaginary friend or other derogatory term I might use.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:31 AM

Massaging my ego ain't going to get my boney arse on a pew Joe.

I did like your reply. Replies don't have to be nice though. Sometimes they have to be uncomfortable.

The alternative can only be to say things you don't actually believe to be the case in order to not offend. I genuinely feel that this approach is wrong. If someone says they believe in magic, there is no point whatsoever discussing related matters with them. If it walks like a delusion and quacks like a delusion...

pete and his belief have no room for the likes of Joe. If they wish to argue over the last deck chair on The Titanic, go ahead. I'm stood on dry land.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:06 AM

" ... data and evidence are interpreted according to the researchers worldview and/or peer pressure ..."

Talk about the 'pot calling the kettle black'! That's exactly what 'creationists' do!!

"but if you have specific evidence of deep time, other than more assertion that all the data and disciplines agree........."

What?! Evidence is evidence, pete. If "all the data and disciplines agree" that's bloody good evidence!

Now provide us with some evidence that God exists and created everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:14 AM

Cue pete quoting Descartes...

Or he would if he could find it on creation.com.......

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 05:31 AM

Reminds me of the man trying to improve bad women's morals by giving them lectures in philosophy: putting Descartes before the whores.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:34 AM

I give in. Are you reading my posts or not? I agonise over different ways to wind you up, so need to know if my endeavours bear fruit..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:54 AM

I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

Jesus gives very clear support of the OT scripture : 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' (Matt 5:18). Very much a man of his time, there's little reason to believe he took the OT stories in any sense other than literally, as all good Christians should of course instead of adopting a secular scientific view of the godless Cosmos as part of their Godly cause. In this sense I'd say Pete from Seven Stars Link has it absolutely spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:09 AM

Very much a man of his time, there's little reason to believe he took the OT stories in any sense other than literally

Of course, two millennia later, most humans have evolved past such primitive superstition.

Some have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:21 AM

Yeah, you tell them there Christians to behave more like pete! No room for secular science eh Jack?

Reminds me of the two week hiatus on bells at a church not a million miles away last year when the new vicar moaned that none of the ringers stayed for the service and said they had to if they wanted to ring the bells.

After two weeks of silence and a bollocking from his church committee, Bristol Maximus rang out again and the cafe down the road got its Sunday morning business back..

You see, if you want religion to flourish, you have to be pragmatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 10:27 AM

" Are you reading my posts or not? I agonise over different ways to wind you up, so need to know if my endeavours bear fruit."

I suspect that he is reading your posts, Musket. But I've realised that he has this little tactic which he uses all the time. He posts a load of tosh and then when challenged he shuts up and keeps his head down. Then, when everyone has had time to forget that particular exchange, he posts another load of tosh. So shifty and dishonest these fundamentalists!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 10:44 AM

Here is an interesting new article about the role of DNA in the domestication of various animals

Pete... this is just one more small study showing how we are gradually learning how evolution actually works. The ability to study DNA and map specific genes directly allows science to comment on issues that Darwin only wondered about.
Who knows... perhaps God created Darwin to stir us up and make us think.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:57 PM

well thankyou jack, I believe you are not sympathetic to creation, so very fair of you.
joe, my reply re Jonah on other thread.
" I posted a brilliant response........." and I thought you was such a humble fella ! -grin-
would you care to give an example verifying your charge, shimrod ? ! "exactly what creationists do..." yes, freely admitting our bias, unlike evolutionists who don't recognize, or refuse to admit, their own bias. and certainly creation scientists are swimming upstream against the flow of origins belief in academia.
I tend to skim muskets posts, just in case there is anything of any substance that is,nt clothed in mockery or vulgarity.
bill, I will look at new link, but your previous short response still needs, imo , a counter response,-
"....interpretations of carefully selected data..." those to which I refer, relate to data that accords to observational science.
if you care to look again on creation sites ,you will find articles on many aspects, covering much data, including existing problems for creationism.
"...when all other data shows otherwise"    unless you can demonstrate, bill, that remains just an assertion. I reckon the other scientists must have said the same to galilieo.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:08 PM

Nothing more vulgar than trying to put fantasy on the same level as reality and demanding normal people to consider it as an option pete.

I don't mock. I do however play the part of the little boy who points out the emperor's willy on show.

Ok. The joke about how to get Jesus off the cross may have been distasteful in principle, but as the Jesus who died yet came back never existed, poking fun at delusion is fair game.

Mary ! You can see our house from up here !

Etc

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:10 PM

This standard-form reply, held in my word-processor memory, is the only response I propose to make to your recent post, Shimrod:—

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:17 PM

Yeah, you tell them there Christians to behave more like pete! No room for secular science eh Jack?

Damn right! We owe the current enlightenment to the work of scientific objectivism Carl Sagan describes as A Candle in the Dark. I meet too many Christians who want their cake and eat it - i.e. expect their God 'n' Son soap-myth to fit into the wonders of Atheist Cosmology from which they were ousted by Ionian Philosophers hundreds of years before e'er Jesus blathered his platitudes on Mounts and Plains.

*

well thankyou jack, I believe you are not sympathetic to creation, so very fair of you.

I'm not sympathetic to Creationism or Religion, but I am as sympathetic to Christian Individuals to any sufferer of psychosis - as long they don't feel that anything they believe applies to ANYONE else other than themselves. That said, I feel Christians ought to fly their true colours. If they can believe in any sort of God or Supernatural dimension, or that there is any currency whatsoever in Religion, then why not accept the rest of it as integral to that faith?

That said, I'd make it a criminal offence for Christians to proselytize in any public context or have any say whatsoever in matters of education, even of their own children.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:30 PM

As you've been told umpty million billion times, pete, science is not about 'belief' - it's about evidence! And the evidence in favour of an evolutionary model has been accumulating for 155 years plus. Meanwhile you creationists have NO evidence to support your rigid beliefs. Note that the Bible doesn't count as evidence because it merely contains unverifiable, often ambiguous (not to mention preposterous) anecdotes with no known authors.

And let's get this 'science is all a conspiracy' out of the way. It's highly unlikely that the corridors of academe are full of closet creationists all shaking in their boots in case their true predelictions are discovered and fudging results in order to placate their peers and appease their funders. You really do live on another planet, don't you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:26 PM

at least, jack, you are perfectly honest about your bias and desired censorship of alternative thought. but don't you think there is a contradiction between saying Christians ought to fly their true colours on the one hand, and then on the other hand, suggesting that they should not talk about it to others.
shimrod, don't you have anything specific to bring out of your storehouse of scientific knowledge. it is getting hard to keep coming up with original answers to these assertions and appeal to numbers of scientists who believe the same as you. I might be on another planet, but you seem to be sticking your head in the sand in this one.
ps, I can laugh at myself.....can you ?
pps todays article on the aig site is about blue whales.....swallowed Jonah....?...maybe him, maybe not, but he certainly could swallow a man.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:42 PM

ps, I can laugh at myself.....can you ?

You ought to be ASHAMED of yourself. Jocularity doesn't enter into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:06 PM

Pete: "...when all other data shows otherwise"    unless you can demonstrate, bill, that remains just an assertion"

I could say the same thing to you, Pete, about both the veracity of the bible and the claims of so called 'creationist science'. I could cite 379 sites and tests and collection of data that show the basic evidence for evolution, but you would do that circling back to your assertion that we are just 'believing' such things as a matter of 'faith' in science because we are lacking ALL relevant data. Why, someone 'might' dig up a human in the jaws of a dinosaur!~

To shorten this post, I can simply say "yes!" to Shimrod's post above. Your way of changing the accepted sense of basic scientific & logical terms to validate your own opinions is not only unfair, but unsound. I can't say it much more politely than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:07 PM

And then there's my impersonation of Jesus on a rubber cross...

My bodily contortions are nothing to the linguistic ones on this thread though.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:19 PM

Woah... I thought Jesus on a Rubber Cross was my thing???   Curse this wretched oral tradition & folk process!!!

*

Contradiction, Pete? Not at all. Just stick to your guns. Discussion - fine. Shouting on street corners, going door to door & indoctrinating innocent minds - not fine. Nothing to do with censorship any more than opposing other forms of crime, violence and child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 04:54 PM

yes bill, you could say the same thing, but can you demonstrate your claim to the veracity of evolutionism. it is you who are circling round, just saying it in slightly different ways, and it amounts to appeal to numbers of scientists who you agree with. I am not claiming that everything must be known before a theory can be considered sound, but just saying it is , because you could cite any or all of 379 sites, is not providing any other evidence than that 379 sites say it is true !. I have rarely quoted bible, so that part of your charge is hardly relevant ..straw man , maybe...I have always admitted my faith position. however, I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story.
if you can bring evidence ,other than appeals to numbers/authority you might make a case, otherwise we will just keep repeating our positions.
I don't mind that too much, as there might be open minded people looking in who can assess which of us has the sounder argument.
at a singaround last week someone [not a practising Christian] commented on the weakness of one of shimrods posts, quite out of the blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 06:24 PM

"shimrod, don't you have anything specific to bring out of your storehouse of scientific knowledge. it is getting hard to keep coming up with original answers to these assertions and appeal to numbers of scientists who believe the same as you."

Oh dear! Here we go again! It's not about belief or faith, pete, it's about evidence. My "storehouse of scientific knowledge" (scant as it is - evolutionary biology is not my field) is not at issue here. Creationism is a faith position whose adherents believe that they are in possession of absolute truth. Science, on the other hand, is a system for investigating reality. Scientists can never be in possession of absolute truth - there is no such thing. But the accumulation of evidence in support of hypotheses can bring them to a better and better understanding of how reality 'works'.

"at a singaround last week someone [not a practising Christian] commented on the weakness of one of shimrods posts,..."

I'm sure that some of my posts are weak - but then I'm not in possession of absolute truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 07:28 PM

Why try to reason with those who reject the relevance of reason to their beliefs?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:16 PM

Posted By: Jack Blandiver
31-Aug-14 - 07:54 AM
Thread Name: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"?

Jesus gives very clear support of the OT scripture : 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' (Matt 5:18). Very much a man of his time, there's little reason to believe he took the OT stories in any sense other than literally, as all good Christians should of course instead of adopting a secular scientific view of the godless Cosmos as part of their Godly cause. In this sense I'd say Pete from Seven Stars Link has it absolutely spot on.

---

OK, I gotta repeat Jack's post to refute it. I don't think that "literal" interpretation at the time of Jesus, was the same as the literal interpretation of modern-day fundamentalists. I picked Jonah because of all the books of the Bible, Jonah is one character that is most clearly identifiable as fictional, because the entire book is written in language that is clearly fictional (it's a great story, and I think it's the funniest book in the Bible). I would imagine that Jesus took the story of Jonah much as Americans take the semi-mythological stories of George Washington and Abe Lincoln and Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan. We know there are elements of both fact and fiction in those stories, and we don't bend over backwards to separate fact from fiction. The stories are part of our culture and we more-or-less respect the integrity of those stories without really bothering to carefully define what is fact and what is fiction. I mean, why bother? They are good stories and they serve a purpose, so why not just tell the stories and not go to the trouble of careful explanation of what is what?

And then if you go to the creation stories in Genesis (there are two), you may note that both Adam (human) and Eve (living one or source of life) have very generic-sounding names that could well be translated as "everyman" and "everywoman." Those are really big clues that these people with symbolic names are very likely to be mythological. I think the Jews of the time of Jesus had an understanding of their sacred stories that was similar to the understanding that pre-Columbian Native Americans had of their ancient stories. The stories were part of who they were, and they were told as factual - but with an understanding that they were not "facts" as modern-day Europeans and Americans understand fact.

It seems pretty clear that there were fundamentalists at the time of Jesus, but their fundamentalism was expressed in legalism, in seeing the Law as governing every moment of life. And Jesus and his followers were forever getting into trouble for transgressing the restrictions of that legalistic fundamentalism.

Now, I'm sure Jesus didn't spend any time trying to refute what we call the "biblical account of creation" - evolution was most certainly not part of his vocabulary [so, you want to blame Jesus for not teaching evolution?]. But on the other hand, there is no evidence that Jesus followed the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific literalism of current-day fundamentalists.

So, that's my point. I suppose you could argue that ancient peoples took a literal view of their mythology - to a point - but I just can't bring myself to believe that their literalism was anti-intellectual and anti-scientific like current-day literalism.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:36 PM

> I just can't bring myself to believe that their literalism was anti-intellectual and anti-scientific like current-day literalism.

Of course it wasn't, because when it came to the Big Questions, the communally agreed-upon authority of tradition was all they had. The only "science" that existed was "common sense." And we know how unreliable that can be. ("Of course the sun goes round the Earth. You can see it with your own eyes!")

There are still unanswered Big Questions, but evolution isn't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:35 PM

Pete.. I typed an answer just as the storms knocked Mudcat off the air for awhile, and I lost my post. Maybe tomorrow.

(yes..I know it's ALWAYS a good idea to compose in a program and save it if things look chancy.... but I've had such good luck lately. Must be my 'faith' getting in the way,)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:46 AM

An excellent post, if I may say so, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 01:52 AM

Jack, it's been part of my "bugger about till I think which song I am supposed to be singing next" since about the mid '80s. I'd love to know where I got it from but like the others , (pigeon coming home from the chippy and the mating call of the giant deep sea clam,) I have no idea.

So yes, it is living tradition. Although judging from Jim 's comments on another thread, I could hardly collect royalties for it on that basis.

Sorry. Religion. Let's see. Not much more to say hopefully.

Joe sees the bible as a book of bedtime stories. pete sees it as a documentary. Both defend the principle of a sentient creator who gives a shit. Me? I believe the result against Nottingham Forest on Saturday was a test of my faith, what with my eldest brother attending that particular church rather than the true church forty miles North of his heretic turf.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 04:46 AM

You think I see the Bible as bedtime stories, Musket?

No, not at all. The Bible is sacred, and rightly so. It's the product of people over a period of a thousand years, who pondered the questions of life very deeply.

But it's a document of faith, not a scientific or historical document.

And my faith is important to me. If it's not important to you, that's fine. But I do wonder why you're so cynical and combative about it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 04:58 AM

I don't think that "literal" interpretation at the time of Jesus, was the same as the literal interpretation of modern-day fundamentalists.

It never pays to second guess how people felt 2,000 years ago. Their understanding of the observable Cosmos was very different to our own and their myths had arisen in direct response to this - the myth of God, for example, which derives from the illusion of a Geocentric universe coupled with the Patriarchal supremacy of a species more concerned with fabricating answers than asking questions simply because it hasn't yet acquired the nous or technology to do so.

We can look back and see how we invented God and trace the evolution of religious 'thinking' over the last 10,000 years and more (though the Abrahamic God is a relatively new kid on the block). We can despair that humanity's brilliance as storytellers goes hand in hand with our capacity for believing our own hype and massacring those who disagree with us. This is the church's true foundation!

Religion is the measure of the capacity for Mythological Literalism that persists into our own time as a quite frightful anachronism. If it it like this now I shudder to think what it was like back then, especially for a man who believed himself to be the son of a non existent (though to him very literal) God to the extent he was prepared to accept death on a cross. To Jesus, the likes of Jonah and Job would have been veritable role models; not just stories, but literal truths enshrined by a sacred scripture that was the very word of a very God.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 05:03 AM

PS - I love the way you have editing privileges, Joe. It's a shame the same courtesy can't be extended to other members of this forum.

---

You caught me. I did correct an error I made above. I had left out one word, and that reversed the meaning of what I wanted to say. If you make a mistake and need to have it edited, just let me know. -Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 07:21 AM

"I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story."

You've been presented with evidence on other threads Pete, I have linked to papers and articles explaining current evolutionary research, but it all falls on deaf ears. None of the current research bolsters the Biblical creation myth, otherwise it would be the leading theory of how life got to this point. Your apparent imperviousness to evidence speaks volumes; just because the truth at any one point in time doesn't fit our own beliefs doesn't lessen the fact it is the truth nonetheless. There are no absolutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 08:52 AM

> To Jesus, the likes of Jonah and Job would have been veritable role models; not just stories, but literal truths enshrined by a sacred scripture that was the very word of a very God.

Emphatically so.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:32 AM

I reckon, stu, that the same or similar sentiments could be addressed to you........and be just as meaningless.
you keep insisting that you have thoroughly refuted my arguments. my memory must be so bad , though of course you suggest it is more likely dishonesty. I do know though that when I give arguments supported by experimental science ,you just resort to the pious sounding get out, of science not being sure of everything.
yet the obvious attack against creation belies the claim of open mindedness.   "there are no absolutes"......are you absolutely sure of that? !.
shimrod...firstly credit for a clever last line, that made me smile.
other than that your post is just a variation of stu,s. you keep saying that belief does not enter into science, and your objection is noted....and rejected, and I could find quotes by evolutionists who admit the belief and faith dimension of their atheist thinking.
yeh, bill, frustrating is,nt it. I did read the rabbit link , but that appears to be about artificial/natural selection, and that figures into the creation model anyway, but if I missed something, please do point it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:45 AM

Not only do they reject reason in matters of faith, it is virtually a tenet of their religion that they do so.

More back and forth. To what end?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM

" though of course you suggest it is more likely dishonesty"

No pete lad, it's dishonest to suggest scientists are working to some agenda other than the truth, simply because you're blinded by belief (wait for it . . .). I'm not so naive to think everyone is, but I know plenty who work on earth and biological science and who are interested in finding out the objective truth, where ever that leads us. Just because it doesn't chime with your own myopic viewpoint isn't an issue. You're the one losing out with your clingy, simplistic, absolutist world view.


"you just resort to the pious sounding get out"

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:50 AM

There are no absolutes ... but because I don't believe in absolutes, I can't be absolutely sure of that!

"you just resort to the pious sounding get out, of science not being sure of everything."

It may sound 'pious' to you, pete, but it's an inescapable fact.

By the way, pete, if you attack evolutionary biology - which is based on the accumulation of evidence and hypothesis testing - you attack the whole edifice of modern science. You not only attack Darwin and Dawkins but also Newton, Einstein, Hawking etc. The fact is that by steadily revealing the true nature of reality, modern science threatens the whole edifice of religion - and has done for several centuries now. That is, of course, why the Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:10 AM

That is, of course, why the Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest.

...And why the Vatican didn't admit they were wrong to do so until 1992.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 11:40 AM

Joe. Does your faith also require to read my threads in a light of what you think I put rather than what I do?

How many times have I said that idiots such as pete do the church (s) no favour as they are an embarrassment to those who see religion as a part of themselves rather than a set of medieval instructions by men who wished to control society a couple of thousand years ago?

I agree with everything you say about the history of the bible and how it helps understand the evolution of human understanding as well as a fascinating insight into times when superstition and fact intertwined.

I'd fall short of the word "sacred" though if its all the same to you. It elevates the bible with baggage and at the end of the day, it is no more than a book of stories.

You think I have a fascination with questioning religion Joe? No. I am far bemused by the fact that to get to the bit where I paraphrased your approach to the bible, you had to read about my impersonation of the mating call of the deep sea clam.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 12:57 PM

it is virtually a tenet of their religion that they do so[ i.e., reject reason]

More of a prerequisite.

And not only in matters of faith, as amply proven by the ten thousdand and one repetetive threads on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 14 - 08:58 PM

Jack Blandiver says: It never pays to second guess how people felt 2,000 years ago.

...and the alternative, of course, is to understand nothing about them and to view our current age, and only our current age, as the pinnacle of all wisdom.

---

Musket says: Joe. Does your faith also require to read my threads in a light of what you think I put rather than what I do?

I can't figure out what you're talking about there, Musket. Sorry. I do try to read and understand your messages, but sometimes I just can't follow what you're saying.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:02 AM

What we really need here is a special thread on the Evolution of Religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

And editing privileges, it goes without say - and a little less of the Papal Bull that appears in the form of red subscripts. But I'm forgetting, such policies are absolute and must never be raised on open forum.

---

Shitfire, Jack, I only offered to edit something for you if you needed it. Don't get all bent out of shape.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 09:37 AM

Joe. That being the case, it doesn't appear to stop you from forming an opinion of what I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 05:52 PM

well, shimrod,..not so sure there are no absolutes ? that's quite an admission for you.
perhaps you would like to give an example of evolutionary science that threatens the bible. as theology is not your area of expertise, and by your own admission, neither is biology, your assertions are only second hand. i'm no scientist, but I give specific arguments anyway, which you and your fellow believers can only dismiss by hoping that currently held observational science is sometime future proved wrong.
and, btw, I think galileo got into trouble, not for his science , but for
                                                                     portaying the pope as "simplicico" in some writings.

lighter- "..reject reason in matters of faith..." unless you can demonstrate Darwinism is true ,it remains a faith position, as much as creation. in fact , at least creation can point to causation, even if that cant be fully proven.
in the mean time, you all seem to believe it, because it is the accepted dogma. if I,m wrong, prove it by producing evidence, rather than further assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:06 PM

Considering Galileo was in trouble for his celestial observations, I think pete is trying, rather unsuccessfully to be revisionist.

That he picks on a well recorded trial just shows the shallowness of his argument.

By the way pete, you keep falling at the first hurdle, calling observation "belief." Just because you have to cram things into a "belief" it doesn't mean that normal rational intelligent people have to.

You're the one with the delusion, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 06:51 PM

Contrary to what some have stated here, many people do hold srongly onto beliefs, even where science contradicts these beliefs with evidence. I recall taking a course I the philosophy of science in University, many moons ago, which discussed this in great detail. In many cases hanging onto beliefs which contradict science is a personal choice and does little harm (beyond intensively annoying those that see things differently-nit I did not say Musket:) . Where it does really matter, in daily lives, I suspect people make adjustments to reduce negative impacts.

I link an interesting article on one perspective on why this happens:


Why Many Don't Believe In Science 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 08:15 PM

Funny how the religious claim that all forms of understanding are "faith-based" boils down to the nihilist creed that every form of interpretation is "just your opinion."

Religious "faith" is not the same as "faith" in scientific procedures and results. One is based mainly on authority and the imagination, the other exclusively on logic and the meticulous examination of evidence.

There are few resemblances in either procedure or the proven quality of the results.

And at some point, one simply throws up one's hands and realizes that further discussion on either side is a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 08:44 PM

""And at some point, one simply throws up one's hands and realizes that further discussion on either side is a waste of time.""

Many wise people state in the past that science and religious belief discussions ard just that, discussions-sharing personal perspectives. Only the unwise, approaches such discussions intent on converting either side to "their beliefs, or way is thinking". That approach most likely leads to frustration, and possibly unintentional loss of respect for other folks and nice people, who merely see things differently (for one reason or another).

I note that Bill D participates in the discussion, and gets his points across in a straight firward way in a most respspectful fashion. A "tip of the old sou'wester" for him in doing so, and adding to what is , at times, an interesting discussion of a potentially divisive topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:00 PM

In many cases hanging onto beliefs which contradict science... does little harm

And in a great many more cases it does a great deal of harm. As is usually the case when one substitutes fiction and superstition for reality and fact.

There are serious real world consequences for believing nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:19 AM

"perhaps you would like to give an example of evolutionary science that threatens the bible."

Oh, I don't know, evidence for deep time, dinosaurs etc., etc.,etc. For God's sake, pete, you know what the examples are - and if you don't, go and read Darwin and Dawkins (although you won't will you?). And then you'll re-gurgitate some 'facts', that you got off some redneck 'creationist' website, that claim to refute that evidence - and round and round we will go.

Leaving aside evolutionary science, here's an example of just plain common sense that threatens (a literal interpretation of)the Bible: You couldn't possibly get two of every living thing onto Noah's Ark - no matter how big it was. And if somehow you could get two of every living thing onto Noah's Ark, there would not be enough genetic variation in their populations to save them in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 04:25 AM

I would never say faith doesn't harm.

There are far too many people fucked up, abused and radicalised to say faith isn't harmful. Every King in history has had his preachers to spread his message and control his subjects.

Not harmful? Advocating stupid fantasy explanations to the world around us when objective discovery reveals more wonder than the restrictive shallow explanations of religion could ever dream of?

Our children deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

As to harm, why confuse a belief in a god and the politics of organized religion? They clearly differ. Many folks have a" hang up" with the previous role of organized religion, which has many negative impacts (in relationship to Christianity this impact has declined significantly), and use this history try to "dictate" what others choose to personally believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:25 AM

"As to harm, why confuse a belief in a god and the politics of organized religion?"

Because they're inextricably entwined. They don't "clearly differ". People don't usually worship alone, do they?

"Many folks have a" hang up" with the previous role of organized religion, ..."

Previous? I've just had a conversation with my Iranian barber about the present role of organised religion in his country.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:33 AM

Martin Luther admonished us that Reason was "the devil's whore." He blamed Aristotle personally for utilizing it too ingeniously in codifying logic. It may have been the worst thing since the Fall.

Reason, Luther believed, works to seduce us from faith and thus does the devil's work. For real. Do not consort with Reason. If you can help it.

If you buy that, fine. But it does make rational discussion impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:00 AM

""Because they're inextricably entwined. They don't "clearly differ".

Not at all- a check on more recent surveys show fewer and fewer Christian folks attend church on a regular- or even any basis, and choose their own course on life decisions, versus that dictated by an organized religion (Joe O has discussed this in detail many times, regarding the RCs).

"People dont worship alone, do they?"

That assumption, dressed up in a question, leads one to assume all Christian folks have a need to "worship" anything at all- likely an error in todays world? An increasing number of folks who say they live in a God, but do not attend a church would lead one to a clear answer. The question reminds me of the old song lyrics, "living in the past, is not living at all".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:22 AM

(in relationship to Christianity this impact has declined significantly)

We're living in a post-religious age. I doubt anyone believes in God in the same way they did even 200 years ago, let alone 2,000. Religion is elective, like Folk Music, or Fantasy Role Play, any other essentially hobbyist pursuits that in no way reflect the current status of humanity as a whole where spirituality is more likely to found in the writings of atheistic scientists such as the late Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, than it is in the mumbo-jumbo of 'believers', whose message is invariable one of despotic obedience to a terrible law. Christianity represents a very terrible law - ethically and morally its foundations are one of an all powerful God who created humanity simply to indulge his misanthropic jealousy. We can see this in the effects of Roman Catholic Doctrine on such matters as homosexuality, contraception, the status of women and abortion which remain the cause of untold misery and atrocity getting worse by the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:29 AM

An interesting perspective on the declining influence of organized Christian religions and a belief in a God in today's Christian world, JB.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:36 AM

Ed T's link from yesterday is worth a look by everyone on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 10:38 AM

"...ethically and morally its foundations are one of an all powerful God who created humanity simply to indulge his misanthropic jealousy"

One of the major flaws of Christianity is the contradiction between the loving, benevolent God presented by those with faith and the reality we see around us every day, where human suffering is ubiquitous, where lies and deceit are part and parcel of everyday life, so much so we don't even consider them most of the time. I don't know why the misanthropic God of a group of desert tribespeople has become so popular, but the core ethics and morality of the various abrahamic religions do have a source.

If we take Christ's teaching of compassion and love as being the real core of Christianity, we can also recognise these concepts in many disparate religious philosophies. They are universal, deeply held values held by people regardless of their religious beliefs. Tolerance, compassion, altruism and love are an integral part of the human condition and not some God-given gift we previously lacked. We evolved to be like this.

Sagan knew this, and he understood we don't need a god to understand the preciousness and beauty of all life and the universe of which we are a conscious part of. This is way more profound than any story imagined by man, and all these religions catechisms, teachings and shallow attempts to impose rule are crude attempts to codify and explain this deep, wondrous and scientifically explicable core of our very being. That we don't recognise how incredible that is and fail to reach our potential and understand the innate beauty of everything is one of our most problematical flaws as a species.

We are the universe made conscious, curious, enquiring and intelligent, contemplating it's own nature and origin and that is true profundity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 10:56 AM

I love to be amazed by the wonder of the universe, the fascination you can have with quantum mechanics, the intense beauty of discovering how we got to how and where we are today.

Why would anybody prefer anything as mundane and restrictive as the imagination reduced bible could ever offer?

As I keep saying, and people who can't see beyond their in built superstition get offended by.. Most people are far too sophisticated to actually believe, and of those who have a belief, those who believe think that having belief is the same thing so get confused when what they call boutique christians call the bible a set of fictitious stories.

I tell you, its about time rational people stopped humouring them and (in the case of The UK) allowing them to disregard laws designed to protect the rights of all equally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 11:20 AM

> but the core ethics and morality of the various abrahamic religions do have a source.

Which is thus human and encouraging.

BTW, have you ever observed that the popular understanding of "Thou shalt not kill" has evolved to encompass much more than the literal biblical injunction of "Thou shalt not murder"? Are some theologies then becoming more humane, even though they originate with screwed-up human beings?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:25 PM

Who knows Stu, your last post could be found in the internet rubble of the future, forming the basis of a new organized religion? LOL

Why should human-kind not revere such good social messages, rather than belittle them? If there were "one source of all of this", should one expect the messages to be different from the various historic delivery sources?

Of course most religions, even buddhism, proposes goodness and kindness to others. How humans (and organized religions) interpret and deliver these messages is much of what leads to the many historic downsides of organized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:40 PM

I strongly suspect that the most insidious aspect of Christianity is its teaching that man was made by God to have 'dominion over the Earth and everything in it'. In fact, at this moment in time, for all of our much vaunted 'God given' 'intelligence', we are nothing more than locusts devouring the Earth. And it's happening blindingly fast. I've noticed the environment deteriorating noticeably around me in my lifetime - and my lifetime is no more than an infinitesimally small fraction of a geological eye blink! We're basically fucked - we're extinct already! And when we're gone, all of these arguments about religion will mean fuck all (as will art and science and history etc., etc., etc.).

Apparently we of the 'end times' are living through the sixth episode of extinction in the history of the planet. Although, of course,life, in some form, will continue after us.

The only thing which gives me the vaguest thread of hope is that this sixth extinction is being studied, in meticulous detail, by representatives of the causal agent. And that's yet another reason why we need to dump the supreme irrelevance of religion and concentrate on the thing that might (only just) save us - science and the understanding it gives us of who we are and how we relate to the rest of the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:44 PM

U.S. church sign:

"God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts"


http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Funny-Church-Signs.aspx?b=1&p=25&utm_campaign=Yahoo&utm_medium=paid_distribution&utm_source

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

""Apparently we of the 'end times' are living through the sixth episode of extinction in the history of the planet. Although, of course,life, in some form, will continue after us. ""

So, if one excludes the notion of the importance of the human life form, why would that be a bad thing, and not just another aspect of the evolution of tge various life forms?

What would be your answer to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

well, I read the link, ed. as usual there is the confusing of observational , testable, repeatable, experimental science , with evolutionism that can only superficially, at best equate with the former. dropping cannonballs off towers is of the first, and digging up some fossil, for example, is of the latter. the researchers might not even agree on it. there is interpretation of data, not experimental science, as in the gravity experiment.
evolutionists, of course love to make us think that these are the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:07 PM

I "believe" you missed the main points in the article Pete7*.

Regardless, whatever interpretation turns your crank works fine with me:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:09 PM

lost another post last night. I think I am getting behind.

several things...first, thanks to EdT for the vote of confidence in my 'style'. I try to discuss/debate only with those who listen ... whether they agree with me or not. Agreement is not required- civility is. It is awkward... to me, anyway... to have the not-so-civil on my side of the issue, 'helping'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

so, a reply to Pete from several days ago:
Pete, you said
"I am not claiming that everything must be known before a theory can be considered sound, but just saying it is , because you could cite any or all of 379 sites, is not providing any other evidence than that 379 sites say it is true !. I have rarely quoted bible, so that part of your charge is hardly relevant ..straw man , maybe...I have always admitted my faith position. however, I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story.
if you can bring evidence ,other than appeals to numbers/authority you might make a case,..."

First, "straw man" is not relevant...but bible is always relevant as a general case, as it form the basis of your position. You say that it..(the authority of the bible) is supported by "experimental, observational science". Some biblical history IS obviously supported.... certain kings, places and stories were referred to in other writings.... some can still be visited. None of this supports taking everything in the bible literally as a basis for 'faith' in the many complex and often contradictory religious claims. How can I say it? Faith is faith is faith....the word MEANS belief in something that cannot BE proven by science or observation.
   When you deny the strength of 379..or 1486.. sites & studies, you undermine the very basis of what it means to have experts who collect and correlate data! If the topic were farming practices, or the efficiency of diesel engines or of the relative use of fire retardant materials, you'd not have too much difficulty in seeing the value of agreements of experts, even if a few could be found who disagreed on certain concepts.
But when the topic is carbon dating of human remains back to 35,000 years or so, or comparative DNA studies between humans and other primates, or contradictory translations of ancient documents, you place **subjective filters** based on interpretation of biblical passages between the data and its analysis. Then you cite 'creation scientists' who use the same filters to deny the collective wisdom of the vast majority.
You can 'believe' that the basic origin of "everything" is spiritual... *shrug*... but it is not rational to insert a religious view to decide issues which are not in its realm of study. The very process of doing so is circular and depends on assuming the very things which are being used AS proof.

When I was in high school, 60 years ago, I was shown the argument:
1)God is, by definition, the most perfect being that can exist.
2)The most perfect being must obviously have existence as one of its attributes'
3)Therefore, God exists.

I shook my head in awe at the clear flaws in that, even though I didn't then know the technical words for its errors. Since then, I have seen many arguments (not all religious) based on similar misunderstanding of reason. In the above example, #1 implicitly assumes #3. #3 'may' be correct, but the syllogism is totally flawed. In the same way, the attempt to use logic to refute the definitions and conclusions of science one does not approve of, must itself be subject to the rules OF logic, and not just arbitrarily 'interpreted'. If that sounds complicated, read it again...carefully.

Science is designed to be self-correcting when new data is found. The process can be slow & awkward in some cases, but when many experts attack the same issues, progress usually results. Gould explains this in great detail in the early chapters of "Wonderful Life"..the story of the Burgess Shale. The early researchers assumed that the strange fossils they found were just odd forms of current phyla. It took a number of years and some technological advances and some "ah-ha!" insights to re-evaluate most specimens as totally different, many eons extinct forms. Once that barrier was broken, many other things fell into place about age, continental drift, tectonic uplift and the means of preservation. No one claims that 'we' are descended specifically from things like Wiwaxia, but there is NO compelling, testable evidence that we 'just appeared' about 8000 years ago. God may have kick-started everything, but he left it to us to sort out the details as best we can.....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:23 PM

Fundamentally, how can you have a discussion on any philosophical basis with someone who believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden?

I chat in the pub with the most ill informed bores you could imagine about whatever subject you like, but in my past work, I doubt I would tolerate such views or factor them in our deliberations. Same with religion. My brother in law, a vicar, had to move house and all the cost etc, I wanted to help. "The Lord will provide" he said, declining politely. Fine, and I said "that's nice." Between you and I, I think he 's a fucking looney, but of course in real life, we don't say that. We just hope his family isn't being denied any of the comforts we can give them just because he puts a fairy story above his responsibility to his wife and kids.

The internet is like a few pints. Say it like it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:30 PM

Wow... a lot happened while I was composing.

Regarding EdTs link on "not believing in science", it is startling on one hand to see the steady 46% here who favor the "within 10,000 years" idea of human existence, but they have done a decent job of show how just "being human" colors our way of coming to conclusions.

I have argued for years that simpler answers just 'feel better', and don't require so much taxing study. Add to that the natural tendency to 'like' the simple answers that are more emotionally satisfying, and you have a formula for widespread ignorance. (NOT 'stupidity'... that is inability to learn. Ignorance is just not being aware.... whether thru carelessness or being misled by others.)
No one can do all the basic research and learn all the math & science required, but almost anyone can absorb the basic claims of a concept they already 'like' the feel of. In today's world there are so many things competing for our attention... from political problems to internet forums (grin) to just how to keep the kids fed. No wonder following the myriad working of science is not topmost in many minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:45 PM

well, shimrod, where do you think I,m going to get the other side of the story to counter all the Darwin propaganda ?. it is surely evident that I have read more of your evolutionist stuff than you have of creationist.
"...evidence of deep time..."    which is?
"..dinosaurs..." maybe, you have,nt even read my posts. the discovery of stuff that should not have survived[ found in dino bone]is evidence that the dinos could not possibly be as old as alleged. but as I keep saying, you got real faith, and are waiting for observational science to expand to accommodate evolutionary belief.
as to the ark, it has been estimated that all the requisite passengers needed to repopulate after the flood, would fit with room to spare, on the 450 long, 3 deck construction. my information is that there would be diverse genetic information on board to diversify after, producing the array of life we now have.
btw, what is your area of science, and how does it confirm Darwinism for you?.
..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:29 PM

" it has been estimated that all the requisite passengers needed to repopulate after the flood,..."

Would that include invertebrates - beetles, butterflies and moths, bugs, flies, bees and wasps, spiders, slugs and snails etc., etc., etc., pete?
And what about plants? Would there have been enough room for redwoods and oaks and birches and maples as well as ferns, mosses, primroses, saxifrages, tulips, narcissi, daisies, buttercups, irises, forget-me-nots, orchids etc., etc., etc.?

"my information is that there would be diverse genetic information ..."

And what would be the source of that information, pete?
'redneckcreation.com' by any chance?

"the discovery of stuff that should not have survived[ found in dino bone]is evidence that the dinos could not possibly be as old as alleged ..."

Yes, I dimly remember some of that stuff from previous threads. But when a scientist finds an (alleged in this case) anomaly she/he doesn't immediately throw up her/his hands and shout: "Oh no! The whole of modern science must be wrong and the Bible must be right!" That's illogical and stupid (but par for the course for creationists, I suppose).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:37 PM

My brother in law, a vicar, had to move house and all the cost etc, I wanted to help. "The Lord will provide" he said, declining politely. Fine, and I said "that's nice." Between you and I, I think he 's a fucking looney, but of course in real life, we don't say that. We just hope his family isn't being denied any of the comforts we can give them just because he puts a fairy story above his responsibility to his wife and kids.

Musket:

How could he determine that your offer of help was not the way the Lord chose to provide?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM

Pete.. we have gone over that "discovery of stuff that should not have survived" several times. Finding of soft tissue was unexpected, but once discovered after a new type of test it had to be investigated.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil1.htm Read about it...carefully! Nothing in there contradicts the basic age of the find.. it merely adds new data to what can happen under certain conditions.
You cannot just keep referring to an argument that has been refuted without a relevant counter argument! "It shouldn't be there!" is not relevant if it WAS there!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:53 PM

But you "weren't there," I "wasn't there," Creationists "weren't there."

So - according to some - anything is possible!

Why argue with a viewpoint that, combined with a rejection of Reason, leads to blind belief in whatever sounds good?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM

Why argue with a viewpoint that, combined with a rejection of Reason, leads to blind belief in whatever sounds good?

Because that's what ignorant, deluded idiots DO!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:23 PM

How do you, Greg, distinguish between "ignorant, deluded idiots" and average people who just have a deep, emotional commitment to a church and its doctrines? Do you simply define anyone who doesn't 'see' the reason & logic the same way as you & I as 'idiot's?
   I have known quite intelligent people I considered to be "ignorant & deluded" but who had been deluded & rendered ignorant by very clever means. It can be very awkward to back out of some 'delusions', especially when one's entire life has been permeated by the situation.

Remember Jonestown?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:54 AM

Here's a very simple question for pete:

Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?

I wonder if I'll get an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:45 AM

Quick answer for you, Shimrod: you shouldn't "believe" any ancient creation story.

But I don't think you should dismiss them, either. There's too much that can be learned from them. The absolutists will tell you either that they should be believed completely as absolute truth, or they should be dismissed completely as absolute falsehood.

My response to both sides is, "Not so fast, buddy."

But what is the value of these ancient sacred writings? It seems to me that modern "enlightened" people are quick to dismiss and ridicule the myths of their own culture, while sometimes holding the myths of foreign cultures in esteem? What is it that determines what is "good myth" and "bad myth"? Personally, I tend to think it's all mostly good, and worthy of consideration.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:06 AM

Thanks, Joe. A sane and rational answer as ever. But I'm really interested in pete's answer to my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:18 AM

Uncle Dave. That reasoning leads to drink and I am trying to lose weight...

Joe. I'm not sure anybody is dismissing stories. Most on here are dismissing so called historical accounts though.

In the meantime, pete is finding a way for marsupials to leave the ark and swim to the antipodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:35 AM

Good Myth inspires the soul with dreams of perfect wonder and no one is left under any doubt as to its allegorical (at best) relationship with Truth which it nevertheless manages to enrich by simply being told. Bad Myth. OTOH, oppresses the soul with lurid histories that glorify rape, massacre, oppression, racism, misogyny, infanticide, and every other human atrocity ever devised in the name of a totalitarian Godhead.

Good Myth is devised to tell us about ourselves and our sacred relationship with Nature in archetypes, dreams, patterns and fluid morphologies that were ancient when the stones of Avebury were being raised. Bad Myth, OTOH, is devised to be enforced as Truth at the point of axe and sword and is thus drenched, every word, in the blood of the countless millions of innocent souls who have been massacred to that end.

Sadly, the ancient sacred writings of the bible belong very firmly to this latter category.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:56 AM

"is evidence that the dinos could not possibly be as old as alleged."

Oh pete.


"It seems to me that modern "enlightened" people are quick to dismiss and ridicule the myths of their own culture..."

Like many, I hold the myths of my own culture very close to m y heard. Jack says it better than I ever could.

An like he says, Christian culture is a relative newcomer to my own traditions, which are far more relevant than those of some desert nomads.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:57 AM

Foithermore...

Bad Myth is recounted by rote into the numb skulls of the dead-eyed offspring of The Faithful to inhibit, repress and propagate ignorance in the name of absolute truth by dry & joyless pedagogues convinced of the righteousness of their cause and woe to any child who doesn't conform. Bad Myth abuses the natural joys of childhood inspiring a lifetime of guilt and routinely obedience in dread terror of the hellish torments consequent on any form of deviance. Bad Myth teaches that We are right, and that They are wrong; that We are not They, and that They are worse than We are.

Good Myth, OTOH, inspires the laughter of children and fills their eyes with a light that is an honour for any storyteller to behold in the realisation that they are but a conduit in a process of inspirational recounting in which human individuality is magnified in the name of an all-inclusive objectivism in which the wonders of the universe are there to be questioned, verified, understood merely as part of one evolving brother-sisterhood of 50,000 years of human cultural evolution that seeks and celebrates Unity in Diversity. Good Myth is Myth Unity in which there is no We let alone They for all is togetherness as part of the oneness of The Cosmos which is the whole of the case.

To paraphrase Chris Cutler : Bad Myth deals in force and reaction; Good Myth deals in self-criticism and revolution.

*

Interesting that the only Good Stuff in the bible was filched from elsewhere and attached to seasonal traditions derived from pagan archetypes in which Nature is duly revered by way of rebirth and renewal inspiring a host of vernacular lore by way of an oral apocrypha which is pretty suspect however so intriguing. In folk song we have The Bitter Withy and The Cherry Tree Carol, to name but two; these intrigue because there's no priest up there telling us it's true by way of corporate mind-fuck. And still they celebrate the birth of Jesus on the Winter Solstice, and his death on the first Friday after the first Full Moon after the Spring Equinox.

A simple equation : Whenever Myth becomes in anyway True, it becomes irreversibly Bad. In this sense the bible is positively putrid.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:34 AM

This link relates to different approaches used to interpret the Bible.

I post it for Petes consideration. Others are free to review the link. But, if you are offended by people who interpret a book you dont have any use for, what would be the point?


For Pete7* consideration 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:38 AM

Interesting that guest Musket knows how to abuse children?

Hopefully the moderators will spare us any further details? Musket is always logged in.

---

There was a flurry of trollish posts overnight, and alas, many of them abused the good name of "Musket." They are gone, but there may appear to be blips in threads where individuals responded with disbelief to the spoofed posts. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:53 AM

But, if you are offended by people who interpret a book you dont have any use for, what would be the point?

The biggest Myths inherent in the bible, is that it's a) God's Word and, therefore b) Sacred. This is has been the source and scourge of humanity for millennia and is cause enough for offence whether we have any use for it or not.

Interpret it any way you like, it still reads like the ravings of a mad horse and represents the very worst humanity has ever dreamt of. Starless and bible-black; the nightmare continues not just for those who have elected to believe in it, but to those whose very innocence is afflicted by it noxious content.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:26 AM

Why be shy, why not clearly state you hate the Bible, JB, and by association, anyone who has a contrary opinion. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:54 AM

Life's too short for hatred, Ed. We're here to love, be joyful & engender liberation through learning in a Cosmos of infinite beauty and wonderment. To this end, we must forever be wary of the obstacles in the path to all-inclusive objective enlighenment. The bible is one such obstacle - be it in terms of fundamentalist literalism or allegorical liberalism, much less the suffering it has caused, and continues to cause, thousands of years down the line.

It's more about fear than hate; fear of the sort of goodness it inspires in the dark hearts of the faithful; fearful that the guttering candle-flames of Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking et al will soon be snuffed out by a literal starless & bible-blackness and consigned to same fate as the Ionian Philosophers of 500-600 BCE.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:08 AM

I agree JB.

My life experience is kindness and understanding of other perspectives can do more to "open ears", and minds, versus an alternative aporoach. I state that with an understanding that other approaches at times also make an impact - just not for me, and IMO not likely here and less likely on this topic. That is, of course, if the desired result is to change viewpoints, not just silence them?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:49 AM

"Good Myth" encourages good: like the Good Samaritan.

"Bad Myth" encourages bad: like the idea that "God hates unbelievers."

"Great Myth" encourages thought: like Job and the Trojan War.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 09:37 AM

"The God Deusion" and "The Demon Haunted World" and "The Martyrdom of Man" also encourage thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 09:48 AM

Scientific reasoning (as an abstraction) has certainly been a tremendous boon to mankind.

Unfortunately you can't separate the reasoning from the reasoner.

Hence nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, among other gifts of science.

Whether the existence of the human race is enhanced by science or eliminated by it remains to be seen.

(Just trying to complicate the issue.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:07 AM

More importantly, you can't separate the un-reasoning from the non-reasoner.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:11 AM

Still no answer to my recent question from pete. Funny that!

Anyway, here it is again, pete:

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

Still waiting for an answer, pete ...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:29 AM

Does anybody on this forum personally know anyone who is not an American who denies biological reality as revealed through science? In this I include people who know biology but say it doesn't apply to them because they were created, people who refuse to learn the biology because it's wrong, obviously, since everything was created, and people who won't even let their children learn biology either because ditto.

My take on people from anywhere else is yeah, biology is real, and we learn it in school, but I am still somehow a child of god with an undying soul (or you can just stop at "biology is real" if you are an atheist).

I wish that the American freedom of religion hadn't mutated into freedom from information that contradicts my religion. The way science is taught here, with "respect" for "beliefs" in counter-reality, has done generations of my fellow citizens a great disservice.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:55 AM

Mrzzy, you might find Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM

Mrrzy.. I have known people who I suspect held that view, though we never got quite that far in discussing the idea. It is not always a good idea to prod them about such things, as one can either get sanctimonious preaching or cold, angry accusations regarding one's destiny. It just isn't worth stirring up a hornet's nest.

I discuss it with Pete, because he is willing to compare views and has at least read some of the arguments on both sides and does not insult me for being 'unconverted'.

In the US, there certainly are many who hold the approximate view that Pete defends. I used to live in Kansas, and I can assure you they are there.

-------------------------------------------------------

Shimrod... Pete has essentially answered that general question a number of times. He admits it is 'faith', but then asserts that there is scientific evidence that supports HIS view against MY view.... we continue to discuss the details.

I asked in the original post for reasoned comment on BOTH the science of evolution...with examples... and on religion in so far as it disputes the scientific view of evolution. (At least that is what I intended to convey). It seems that this often devolves into general condemnation of religion in general, which is sometimes interesting, but not particularly helpful.... especially when it becomes a sarcastic dismissal of the intelligence of those with 'traditional' religious faith.

Ed T just posted an article about various ways to interpret the bible, in hopes the Pete will respond to it. The article is pretty good, though I doubt Pete will care to answer the lengthy questions it raises. Still, it is interesting and keeps to the basic topic I hoped for.


   I DO hope for more comments on evolution itself and the advances in science that support it.... like... a program I saw last night on the domestication of dogs. Here is one basic article
It seems that DNA/genetic studies have found the specific genes that allow the complex developments in canine characteristics (making dogs the most widely varied type of mammal on earth). It seems that certain pairs of genes make it possible for breeders to control a wide variety of dog sizes, shapes, hearing, smell, and general 'attitude'. The line in the program was (paraphrased): "A cow (bovine) anywhere will look like a cow, but dogs can vary from a Mexican Hairless to a Great Dane and still have 99% of the same genes."
The relevance of this is that we can essentially see evolution at work in dogs when WE selectively breed for certain traits! They now have a 'mutt' bred for sniffing explosives that simply LIKES to do it, and will make choices about where to search, instead of being led to suspicious areas by the trainer.
Other examples were given about herding dogs, digging dogs,..etc.

Repeating the point: By selective breeding, we are seeing traits develop that 'might' have developed accidentally over time in random evolutionary ways, but can be controlled and found in just a few generations.


(I am aware of Pete's general answer to these articles, but that's why I started this thread....there's more to a forum than Pete & I typing opinions... and LOTS more than people taking righteously indignant pot-shots at Pete *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:34 AM

[ Pete] asserts that there is scientific evidence that supports HIS view against MY view.

Yet he has failed so far to produce any. Just garbled pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM

shimrod, I don't sit on top of my puter waiting for you to post. even once a day is difficult sometimes as I am quite a busy man.
I am not evading your question.
btw, did you say what your science line is, and how it informs your evolutionism ?.
by all means trust the findings of science above the bible ,.....if you can demonstrate those findings disprove the bible. as you are not claiming much knowledge of biology or theology, maybe your own discipline will help you. I can wait a few days , if you are busy too.
and bugs and plantlife were not requisite passengers on the ark.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM

Greg... he has produced his version of the requested answers. I disagree with them. YOU denigrate them and him. This says more about you than about the science. (you never never answered MY question above)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:11 PM

he has produced his version of the requested answers

His VERSION of reality?

So do the Holocaust Deniers, Birthers, climate change deniers, and folks that think the moon landing was filmed on a movie set in Hollywood.

So whawt?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:23 PM

"By selective breeding, we are seeing traits develop that 'might' have developed accidentally over time in random evolutionary ways, but can be controlled and found in just a few generations."

This indeed proves what can be done through selective breeding, but falls far short of proving what occued in a real-life, "free range" situation. Unfortunately, such breeding often reinforces meducal problems, making long term survival success (including the generated adnormalities) in the wild less likely.

One related quote I once heard was "if one let all the inbred dogs run loose and freely breed, in a few generations all of the inbred features would dissapear and the result would be dogs that mostly look like the dogs running wild in many third-world countries today."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:23 PM

"and bugs and plant life were not requisite passengers on the ark."

Plants maybe not, but where does it say no arthropods? According to biblegateway.com verse 20 of Genesis says this:

" Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

You're making this up Pete. If you don't read the bible what hope scientific papers?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 12:37 PM

Here is another story of dinosaur studies and here is the shorthand, popularized translation

----------------------------------------------

"This indeed proves what can be done through selective breeding, but falls far short of proving what occued in a real-life, "free range" situation. Unfortunately, such breeding often reinforces medical problems, making long term survival success (including the generated adnormalities) in the wild less likely."

Quite so, Ed... but it shows HOW the mechanisms work. By observing both positive AND negative results of breeding, they show in a relatively short time what might have happened if natural selection didn't ...ummmm... select.
The program made the specific point that many of show dogs (about 1 in 4) do have medical issues that would affect their survival. By metaphorically 'playing God', we better understand better how Nature works...

(off to get some shop work done)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:08 PM

bill, can I ask that you frame your own arguments. posting a link is fine, and if I knew how to do it , I might do so too, but I hope as extension of the point rather than instead of actually making the point myself. the fact is , the dino bone soft tissue argument has not been refuted as yet. but I will look at links later, if I get time. but , unless this link proves otherwise, these finds contradict experimental science, IF- dem bones is really myo !.
I do note that you express the ideas about dog breeding as evidence for evolutionism, but again, that is natural/artificial selection, and is part of the creation model also.
and now to your post many post past.
maybe, I had not expressed myself well, but you are quite right that many of the bible details are confirmed in archaeology, but I was referring more to experimental science being more in line with creation than evolutionism.
in your next paragraph you again do the bait and switch thing. of course I would be unlikely to doubt the scientists in regard to farming, as their findings are observationally, experimentally verified in the present. what happened in the [alleged] aeons past is not observable, but is interpreted from data. worldview colours this interpretation.....as testified to even by hostile witnesses.
your charge that I am discounting the mass of sites that believe evolutionism, is just, seems to me, yet another appeal to numbers and authority.
the last paragraph, looks like you are saying that I am using illogical arguments, by comparing them to a formulae you heard 60 yr ago [and which I have not used!]. I may well make some logic errors, but sometimes you say I have, but I have not always agreed.
even college educated can get it wrong sometimes!.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:22 PM

So Pete, you didn't go to college? How far DID your education proceed?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:24 PM

You are reading it Greg...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:16 PM

""the dino bone soft tissue argument has not been refuted as yet.""

Maybe the findings will be svientifically, refuted, maybe not. If not, that does not mean it will not be added to the scientifuc knowledge base.

But, I suspect that you still don't grasp fully how this type of science knowledge evolves, Pete7*?

Like with all science, knowledge builds on what can be proven (using standard processes) to be seen as reliab3le (aka peer reviewed) information. If new credible information becomes available, and is found to be solidly based, it is incorporated into the mosaic of existing "reliable" knowledge. Rarely does any new, (and previously seen as unlikely) knowledge come forward that cannot be accomodated within existing scientific knowledge framework. When it does, it is unlikely to totally break down the walls of all existing knowledge, as you seem to suggest should occur. The knowledge is accepted and accomodated, even if there is uncertainity as to where it fits in the science knowledge puzzle. It is not ignored, thrown away, nor will it be given meaning beyond what it can be proven to inducate. Quite often the science knowledge process is slow and methodical, to avoid error. This can frustrate those seeking a "quick and dirty" answer to the meaning if the new information..

On a similar note, you do not tear your entire solidly built house down because one brick building block seems to be different than the others. It certainly does mean it is wise to check your house out to ensure the other bricks are solid, and that the new brick does not impact the structure. But, only a nieve fellow would "run off" in all directions crying in wild speculation that this solidly built house is bound to fall because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:22 PM

"and bugs and plantlife were not requisite passengers on the ark."

But they're "requisite passengers" on the earth.

Anyway, back to my question. Just in case you've forgotten what it was, here it is again:

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

You answer my question and I might consider having a go at answering the questions that you chose to ask me in order to avoid answering my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:28 PM

But, I suspect that you still don't grasp fully how this type of science knowledge evolves, Pete?

Of course he doesn't- he's stated many times that he does not know anything about science, that he has never read anything about science and/or the scientific method science, and he doesn't intend to.

You're trying to discuss nuclear physics and quantum theory with a 12-year-old.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:24 PM

ah, but I did answer it , shimrod. your question assumed the answer, wheras I say,...if it is the reality revealed by modern science...then you need to demonstrate that it is what you say, and not just you believing what you have been told.
so, as you are not too busy, how about telling us what your scientific discipline is, and how that convinces you of evolutionism.
well, ed, if I built my house and then discovered that the foundations were shaky at best, and missing at worst,....you bet I would dismantle it. deep time is at least one major block in evolutionary foundations, and until or unless the evidence for a far younger creation is refuted, I reckon your structure is being held up by scaffolding rather than solid foundation.
yes, greg/musket, my education did,nt amount to much, but I seem to be giving more coherent posts. your contributions probably only reinforce my position ,and be an embarrassment to the more moderate skeptics here. so mock on!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:39 PM

What I love about the biblical creation myth is that God creates the universe some 2,000 years before he was created himself, at a generous estimate. The only existence of such a being is in the stories that are told about him. I'm supposing Christians are atheists are far as other equally credible deities are concerned (Thor, Odin, Horus, Ra et al - see

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:08 PM

Where's the rest of my post???

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:13 PM

Ah, but pete7*, but, we are not talking about the finding of a support wall in a house but one brick. You would likely sue a carpenter that tire your house down because one odd brick was found in the wall. Even the Christian believing scientist finding the anomoly cautioned Christians not to read too much into this discovery.

You are willing to shoot down the foundation of all science, because a scientist found one item that currently seems not to fit in the otherwise logical science puzzle. Why, because it suits a theory you already hold.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:53 PM

pete reckons I mock his education.

Wrong.

I agonise over how my tax appears to have been wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:29 PM

but I seem to be giving more coherent posts

Now, that really IS amusing.

your contributions probably only reinforce my position

Of course they do. Ignorant, uneducated persons can be very set in their delusions, and and no facts need apply.

You are attempting to discuss things you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of, pete, and thus all you can do is spout nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:31 PM

By the way, pete - have you ever been abducted by space aliens and had fiendish experiments performed upon you?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:45 PM

In response to Jack Blandiver, allow me to say that what  I  love about the biblical creation myths is that they are beautifully poetic, and I read them as such.

Yes, these myths were written in accordance with the cosmology of the day, and our modern scientific discoveries have rightly refuted that cosmology. But I don't think the cosmology is the central aspect of these creation myths. The author unfolds the beauty and wonder of our beginnings in six "days," six parallel poetic descriptions of the amazing world that surrounds us. I think the most important phrase in the first creation myth (Genesis 1:1-2:3), is the oft-repeated statement, "And God saw that it was good." And then it ends with a statement of completion, that God rested on the seventh day and thus blessed rest and time for appreciation as a good and sacred thing.

Now, the second biblical creation story (Genesis 2:4-3:24) is the creation and fall of Adam ('Everyman') and Eve ('Everywoman'), and their eventual discovery of the knowledge of good and evil, symbolized by the eating of fruit (in Latin, "malum," a play on the words meaning "evil" and "apple" which is not present in the Hebrew). The end of this story is often described as the "fall" of Adam and Eve, but it's also the beginning of their adventure outside the protection of Eden and into the challenge of the world.

Now, there are those above who say that they don't need such poetic myths for them to appreciate the world that surrounds them, and that's completely true. We don't need art, or poetry, or fiction, or music, or myth. Hell, we probably don't need natural beauty, either. All these things aren't pragmatic, and they're a waste of money, and a lot of people won't understand them. Some may even use these useless and hard-to-understand things in wasteful and even destructive ways. So, I guess that some of the people above would then conclude that we shouldn't have these possibly dangerous things, because somebody might misuse or pervert them.

Jack Blandiver clearly characterizes the Bible as Bad Myth [which] oppresses the soul with lurid histories that glorify rape, massacre, oppression, racism, misogyny, infanticide, and every other human atrocity ever devised in the name of a totalitarian Godhead.

I'd say Jack is reading something into scripture here, just as some religious and anti-religious fundamentalists have done for millennia. The Bible doesn't glorify - it reports, warts and all. If the patriarchs rape and pillage, the Bible doesn't sanitize the story and leave that out. And it also honestly reports the deep shame of mighty David after he seduced and impregnated Bathsheba and arranged for the death of her husband. It reports the grief he felt over the death of his son Absalom, who was trying to overthrow him.

The Bible is a very complicated document, full of internal contradictions that do not fit the oversimplifications of some religious and anti-religious fundamentalists. I think that normal people can read the Bible and get a lot from it, but it's a dangerous thing if they can't read it with an educated and open mind. To read the Bible (or any ancient sacred myths) wisely, one must be skilled at critical thinking.

Despite what some assert above, I just can't believe that the Bible or most sacred writings are meant to be an instrument of control. I don't think that's what the writers intended at all. Now, it's clear that people of power and authority through the centuries have abused sacred writings as tools for asserting their power, but I don't think that was the intent of the authors. I've read propaganda, lots of it - and it doesn't sound anything like what I read in the Bible.

These people I call "absolutists" (both religious and anti-religious) - I think they are people who tend to see the bad side of other people; and I think they also tend to see the power in their lives as being outside themselves, rather than within. There are lots of people like this - authority is a very big thing for them, because they see their lives as being controlled (or at least seriously impacted) by external forces. And they have good reason to fear these forces and fight to see them controlled. Many religious people use their religion in their fight to control or subdue or defeat these forces, which of course they see as evil. And many anti-religious people see religion as the evil they must fear and subdue and defeat.

Many of the rest of us see the power in our lives as being within us, and thus we have less to fear and can be more relaxed and tolerant in our world view.

And then some of us just don't care, or maybe we have burdens or responsibilities or joys in our lives that are far more important then worrying about our Weltanschauung just now.

But anyhow, for those of you who have no need of sacred myths, that's fine, although I hope you take the time to let art and music and poetry and nature affect you. But don't be afraid of myths - they are what they are, and many people find great value in them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:08 PM

So, nobody knows any biodeniers that aren't American? I can't decide if that is good news or not.

And finding value in mythology is not the same as belief that the myths are historical truth. That fallacy/delusion is dangerous and should not be "respected" any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:26 PM

No, pete, you wrote:

"by all means trust the findings of science above the bible ,.....if you can demonstrate those findings disprove the bible."

That is not an answer to my question. My question was:

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

And if you must know, I trained as a chemist and worked for more than 40 years in commercial labs. For the last 17 years I was responsible for all testing related to product claims. This entailed having a detailed knowledge of how to design scientific experiments and how to interpret the data. Of course, this had nothing to do with evolutionary biology - which, of course, I have freely admitted. Nevertheless, pete, I suspect that I've had more scientific training and 'hands on' experience of practical science than you have.

I'm also an amateur botanist and, since I retired, I've had the great privilege of working with some of the best field botanists and ecologists in my part of the country. Because of my interest in natural history I have read fairly widely around the subject.

Oh yes and plants are the most important organisms on the planet. The process of photosynthesis ultimately sustains us all. So why did Noah leave them off the ark? And what does the Bible have to say about photosynthesis?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:35 PM

So why did Noah leave [ plants ] off the ark?

God told him to, obviously, since God don't make mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:45 PM

Goes to show ya that God is carnivorous. He ain't no friggin' vegetablarian...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM

""So why did Noah leave [ plants ] off the ark?""

Beats me where Mary Jane came from, then:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:09 PM

Pete.. we have a basic disconnect.

"bill, can I ask that you frame your own arguments"

It seems that because I trust science and logic, you expect that I should type, at great length, a defense of all the points and experiments and discoveries that might bear on my position. And to each of them you merely need to reply that ...'those don't really **prove** your claims, because there are too many missing links or some scientists who don't agree'...
On the other hand, your ultimate fall back position is 'faith', and one doesn't need to prove faith positions. Then you use for support a few creationist scientists who use their versions of MY science & logic to cast doubt on the majority of their disciplines.
Doesn't seem fair to me.

Now, a few people have made remarks about your education. Do remember, you occasionally mention that in your explanations about not delving into technical web sites or following detailed arguments about physics or chemistry.
   I do not make fun of anyone's education. It is not necessary to go to college to follow the basic ideas about most issues, (and yes..*I* see your posts becoming clearer, even when I disagree)..... but suppose you had followed a different course and found yourself in school, taking courses in biology, geology, logic, etc. There you are, face to face with supposed experts in the very topics we are now discussing, trying to follow the same data you ask ME to explain simply in my own words for you.
Assuming you still follow the same religious beliefs you now have, do you raise your hand in class and dispute what these experts tell you? These guys who can answer the question and explain the theories in detail? Would you tell a logic teacher that his concept of circular reasoning and "appeal to authority" and "straw man" are just a matter of opinion and that yours are just as valid? That is what you have done with mine on several occasions.
   Some definitions and rules of proof...etc... are just not arbitrary, and I HAVE studied them and learned whether & how they conform to standard rules. But you find that 'inconvenient' when I point out some error in your position. You are not dumb.. but you are some combination of stubborn and resolute that you have the right answers..or at least that you don't have to accept that I DO because 'not everyone agrees with me'. You are flatly, absolutely, demonstrably incorrect about what 'appeal to authority & numbers' really means and when it is applicable. You apply a standard rule of argument incorrectly. But...*shrug*... that is about the only way you can deal with much of the points about science and evidence that I & others have made.... and at the same time you assert that religious beliefs are not required to meet the same standards of proof and evidence. You assert broadly that " I was referring more to experimental science being more in line with creation than evolutionism."...and you base this on - what? Experimental science confirms evolution-- over & over & over! And the 'dino bone soft tissue argument' has been refuted! You cannot demand that all possible data be required before the unusual situation is sensibly explained.


Do I sound frustrated? Yup....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:29 AM

In the "Church Joins the Real World" thread, BrendanB said, "This forum is a refuge for fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise."

I had to laugh, because it sure doesn't feel like much a haven for even my far more moderate views. Bill, you may be frustrated with Pete, but he states his position honestly and tenaciously. If we didn't have people like Pete to stand up for the conservative point of view, we wouldn't have any representation of the opposing position. So, he fulfills a valuable function, and he does it pleasantly and quite well.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:12 AM

Bill D makes some very good points about the sheer bloody-minded unreasonableness of your position, pete. Of course, you still stubbornly refuse to answer my question:

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

Let me take a stab as to why you refuse to answer it.

You believe that the Bible is 'the word of God'. It is because it says it is - but that's circular reasoning - there is no independent authority which confirms that the Bible is the word of God. You could fall back on concensus and authority (within the established churches) but you've arbitrarily decided not to believe in those (except the authority of so-called 'creationist scientists'). Alternatively, you could fall back on faith - but faith is not logical - it is fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence. Therefore, if you rely on faith to support your own position, you can't demand that others use logic, reason and evidence to support theirs. Every time you post, you paint yourself further and further into an illogical, and frankly rather stupid, corner, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:11 AM

". . . .and he does it pleasantly and quite well."

That explains a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:50 AM

Joe. There's nothing pleasant in scoffing at the advances in knowledge, dismissing reality and insisting on children being taught fairy stories as real purely because religion attracts people without the wit or wisdom to distinguish fact from fiction.

No. pete and his like aren't harmless. They hold society back, or would do if people weren't too sophisticated to be gullible these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:30 AM

Like I say, Myth becomes Bad when people assume that its in any way True, or Sacred. Sacred things are enshrined by Myth; enriched and glorified with humility, wit, wonder, humour and humanity. All the bible tells us is that some psychotic god created an entire & infinite Cosmos billions and billions and billions times bigger than need be simply to make miserable the lives of a few pathetic human beings though punishment or mindless obedience. It is dark demonic turgid dogma that underwrites the repressive religions it has inspired, and continues to inspire, dragging us down into the dark as we struggle towards the light.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:47 AM

I was going to say that lots of people seem to take a literal view of the biblical story of creation, and they seem to be very nice people, for the most part. But I guess I have to admit I don't know anybody who rejects the idea of evolution, except for a few people I've met online.

Still, it seems to me that a person's thinking about evolution or the lack thereof, is just not all that important. Most people who are not ideologically inclined, can go for years without thinking about evolution at all.

I want my children to know about evolution and accept it as reality, because that's what literate people do. I suppose I see rejection of evolution as a sort of illiteracy, but I don't see it as an evil thing. If I come across illiterate people, I try to be polite and to work around the shortcomings brought about by that illiteracy.

Now, Pete isn't going to like that any more than what he gets from all the people who want to do battle with him.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:49 AM

The lauding of those that engage in evasion, obsfucation and fallacy amazes me. The idea that the misrepresentation of methodology and result, insinuations of dishonesty and intimation of agenda where there is none, when presented in a certain way is admirable shows how myopic our collective vision has come as a society.

This is the same myopia that allows climate change deniers the run of the media, the anti-vaccination crowd to frighten uninformed parents into exposing their kids to deadly but preventable diseases and is intent on rolling back all the advances made in science, art and culture since the enlightenment, and way before.

Things are better said straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:01 AM

The bad part if the anti religion myth is the obsessive negativism some people opposed exhibit, here and elsewhere.

It surely must take much "dark" internal energy to focus on maintaining a myth (with little actual evidence) that none of the millions of people currently experience any positive benefit-socially, personally or otherwise, from their association with an organized religion, or in a belief in a God. A myth that seems to be well maintained in some obsessive anti-God and religion quarters, sometimes masquerading as logical thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:21 AM

So let's get this straight.

Did God invent the parasitic worm that resides in children's' eyes in parts of Africa, causing them to go blind?

Sometimes, it needs straight questions to get there. When regulating healthcare, it included inspecting and assessing children's hospices. I actually got angry when I recalled school assemblies and RE, being told God is love. Jesus seemed to be harvesting sunbeams alright.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:28 AM

> one doesn't need to prove faith positions.

Nor can one.

> Would you tell a logic teacher that his concept of circular reasoning and "appeal to authority" and "straw man" are just a matter of opinion and that yours are just as valid?

I've had one or two students (out of thousands) who, while not going that far, would indeed question axiomatic concepts because they ran counter to what the students already believed. As I recall, they quickly dropped the course.

For the rest (and I can recall myself in their position), the fallacies Bill mentions became immediately obvious as soon as the prof explained, with examples, just why they were fallacies. And treacherous ones, at that.

Our textbook also grouped them under "propaganda techniques."

Joe, evolution deniers used to be harmless. Then they decided on an education and political agenda, backed by rich evolution deniers.

You might remember the 2012 Republican debate when five of seven Presidential candidates publicly denied that he or she accepted evolution as a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:34 AM

""I actually got angry when I recalled school assemblies and RE, being told God is love."" 

I propose that there is ample evidence that: For every "angry guy" obsessed with promoting anti-God, and attempting to seek recruits to feed this anger, there are millions of good, hapoy and kind religious folks who feel and practice goodess and exhibit the opposite of anger and disrespect towards others- and their personal life choices.

Why dwell on feeding an anger monkey an angry banana? (Aka, get over it and move on to more positive exploits). Just a suggestion, btw, to promote inner peace.:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM

I think you will find it is god botherers who recruit. Dragging rational objectiveness down to the level of a cult just proves how blinkered cults are.

I just point out the stupidity of perpetuating it in the light of a reality the shamans and their acolytes cannot answer.

Again. To what degree is god putting children in the hospices?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:58 AM

There are plenty of reasons to be "very angry" with past bad (and often disgusting) practices of those in power, and individuals directly associated, with many organized religions and also the many government enablers.

However, belittling and targeting all good religious people with such misdirected anger, merely because they have a God belief, IMO, is a misguided and illogical persuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:13 AM

If we didn't have people like Pete to stand up for the conservative point of view...

Joe, Pete isn't standing up for "the conservative point of view" - he's standing up for fantasy, nonsese, ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

it seems to me that a person's thinking about evolution or the lack thereof, is just not all that important.

Its important, Joe, because if people like Pete are weak-minded enough to embrace creationist hogwash, what OTHER idiocies they are prepared to embrace?

There are real-world consequences to believing nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM

Hang on, I feel a Voltaire moment coming on again.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM

Did God invent the parasitic worm that resides in children's' eyes in parts of Africa, causing them to go blind?

Yes, I believe he did - and there was a little jar on Noah's Ark reserved especially for a breeding pair...

I prefer the Gnostic view of things in which the despotic creator God of the Old Testament is, in fact, The Devil, and all His Material Works are inherently EVIL. Good is the pure spark of spirit that resides in us as our souls. Hell is therefore Earth...

Just as much bollox as the other lot of course but it provides a neat allegory for the essential duality that rests at the heart of the human condition even if it tells us SFA about the real substance of Cosmic purpose, micro or macro.

Myth is Dead; it was killed off by Religion. Religion was killed off by Philosophy, and, as Stephen Hawking tells us, Philosophy was killed off by Science which illuminates our very souls - in a strictly allegorical sense of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:17 AM

"what OTHER idiocies they are prepared to embrace?"

One assumes a fundamentalist and literalist treats all parts of their holy text in the same way. Disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:35 AM

While Stephen Hawking is very good at his job, in his field of science - beyond that, should one seek his advice/opinion to guide ones life, that which is unrelated to his field of science? Probably not, as I would not likely seek his guidance on doing concrete work at my house.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:37 AM

If it were only the holy text it would be disturbing.

But it often carries over into secular idiocies as well - which is frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:47 AM

So Ed T, what's your job and your field so we know better how to deal with what YOU have to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:54 AM

as I would not likely seek his guidance on doing concrete work at my house.

Er - we're discussing Cosmology and The Meaning of Life here, Ed T, not bleedin' DIY, for which you'll find all the advice / materials you need down at your local B&Q.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 11:47 AM

Mercy! My reply to Pete got some replies, though not yet from Pete.

Joe said: ", but he states his position honestly and tenaciously."... and that is why I keep talking to him. It IS frustrating to me to have my detailed arguments & explanations denied in what I am quite aware are fallacious ways. For all I know, it may be frustrating to Pete that we smart-alec liberal "evolutionists" (I even dislike that word!) can't see the logic of HIS position.
Yes... I feel at times like I'm beating my head against a wall, but I'm learning a lot in the process about the structure and resilience of certain types of walls, and the exercise hones my wall-chipping methods. I don't necessarily expect to make holes in a strong wall with my poor, aching head....but I hear the echoes that show my banging is getting some attention....and... I always have the option of getting a ladder and bypassing the wall if it gets too wearying.
Enough silly metaphor? Okay.
I have debated Pete for several years... (how time flies when you're having fun)... and he IS honest as far as I can tell... and 2 people who know him personally have assured me that is the case. I look at it this way... there are people who hold Pete's basic position MUCH more strongly and with far less concern for even trying to construct a defense of it. Those are the ones who frighten me. Pete has, at least in here, made no attempt to convert anyone or insult anyone. He is locked into a position which requires certain re-doing of logic, definitions of proof & evidence, etc.. in order to proceed. That is why I keep banging my head on that block in the wall.

    I have said that I wish it were possible to meet Pete at the Seven Stars and spend some time going over things face-to-face... and replying with no hours or days long breaks. *shrug* It is not exactly crucial that I get Pete to see/admit my points, but it is important to ME to practice making them as carefully as possible.

(Hi, Pete... I've been talking about you. You are a tough nut to crack....)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:19 PM

The danger in the US at least is one of willful (wilfull?) ignorance. The idea that you can opt your children out of education, or that education is tilted to "respect" the deniers' denials, has resulted in a level of ignorance of science that is unparalleled in the world unless it's where there is no education at all.

The fact that Americans can get all the way through high school without knowing arithmetic, let alone the basic biology that would allow them to know how making babies works, and whatever is even stronger than "let alone" enough to understand the reality of evolution...


...whether god made it the way it is, or not, in your opinion.

It isn't dangerous to believe that a) science does show an old world but god made it look the way it does, and he did it 4000 years ago, or b) the world is old and evolution happened but god made it happen so that we would be the result. What is dangerous is c) Science is wrong and it *isn't* the way it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM

?.."what's your job and your field so we know better how to deal with what YOU have to say?""

So, why would that matter as to a posters opinions? My preference would be to be dealt with respectfully. No one has to deal with, "what I say" in any particular way, other than to take it as opinion, nothing more.

Like others here, I am only expressing my personal opinion.That olinion changes nothing on how the world or universe evolved. I am hardly telling others how to think, what to believe, how to live their lives, nor am insisting that others share my views on the, so called, meaning of life". However, I do occasionally suggest, to maximize interest, the discussion remain respectful and logical-though I have no say in what others choose to do.

""Er - we're discussing Cosmology and The Meaning of Life here, Ed T""

Discussing Cosmology? That one passed me by, I musta blinked.

Where did Hawkins get his science acccredition on to be considered an expert on "the meaning of life"?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:28 PM

That may be the case, mrrzy, in some situations. But, is it reasonable, logical and fair to put all "Americans" in the camp you suggest? That would eems very odd to me, and I susoevt you do not intend to suggest that?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:37 PM

"Did God invent the parasitic worm that resides in children's' eyes in parts of Africa, causing them to go blind?"

"Yes, I believe he did - and there was a little jar on Noah's Ark reserved especially for a breeding pair..."

Oh, Jack! Don't you know that: "... bugs and plantlife were not requisite passengers on the ark." Do try to keep up!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:41 PM

"Where did Hawkins get his science acccredition on to be considered an expert on "the meaning of life"?"

Lots of famous people get 'noticed' when they speak on any subject. Linus Pauling made his 2nd round of fame discoursing on Vitamin C.

Some famous people are famous because they have learned to think deeply, which 'may' help them see points in areas other than their specialty... it is up to us to be careful not to automatically nod in agreement just because they are famous.

(*I* am an expert on the Meaning of Life, because I have collected many dozens of cartoons on the topic. ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:42 PM

Where did The Archbishop of Canterbury get his?

Prof Hawking has described, using evidence based measured observation, how the universe could come into existence, using time as a variable within the laws of said universe, and not require any divine intervention.

I believe it was Martin Luther who said that proof denies faith. Which was well timed as he lived when people were beginning to observe, record and measure.

And god was found wanting...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

So, why would that matter as to a posters opinions?

So, then, why would matter as to Hawkins' opinions?

Where did Hawkins get his science acccredition on to be considered an expert on "the meaning of life"?

Where, then, did you?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

That may be the case, mrrzy, in some situations. But, is it reasonable, logical and fair to put all "Americans" in the camp you suggest?

You misunderstand. He's not saying that all U.S. citizens are ignorant fundagelical lunatics. He's saying ALL "Americans" are negatively impacted when this lunatic garbage infects (infests?) public education, public health, politics & etc.

May I suggest to you the same volume I've suggested to others:
    Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:15 PM

Ooops- that should read Hawking. That's what I get for quoting another poster....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:29 PM

""So, why would that matter as to a posters opinions? 

So, then, why would matter as to Hawkins' opinions?""

:)

Yes, you finally got it, sych opinions, IMO, are all the same. Hawkings opinions are no better or worse than other opinions, yours, mine, Tiny Tims,   nor Petes, in fields outside their expertise. I make no claim that my opinions are more than that, mere olinion, unlike some. His only potential advantage, if reasonably exercised,-which we have no evidence that it is, is the pitential use of surperior logical reasoning-again, if reasonably applied.

""Where did Hawkins get his science acccredition on to be considered an expert on "the meaning of life"?

Where, then, did you?""

As earlier stated, I claim none, just as I suspect Hawking would. Thus, consider the relative value of Hawkings quotes, outside his field of expertise, including concrete work.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

""You misunderstand. He's not saying that all U.S. citizens are ignorant fundagelical lunatics. He's saying ALL "Americans" are negatively impacted when this lunatic garbage infects (infests?) public education, public health, politics & etc.""

Thanks for that- posdibly the case. However, fir accuracy, I normally prefer to have explanations made first hand, where possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 01:41 PM

> "Did God invent the parasitic worm that resides in children's' eyes in parts of Africa, causing them to go blind?"

Yes and no (say my religious friends).

Yes, he did "invent" it. But it was thoroughly harmless in the Garden of Eden. Original Sin (humans and Satan) screwed up the world and introduced evil right up and down the line.

There is disagreement about whether the Fall is a factual story or a symbolic one.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:52 PM

Hawkings opinions are no better or worse than... Petes, in fields outside their expertise.

Hawking's opinions are a GREAT DEAL better than Pete's as Pete's are opinions derived from absolute ignorance and are easily proven to be utter nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM

But it was thoroughly harmless in the Garden of Eden.

So once upon a time Ebola and Smallpox and ALS were harmless, too?

Damn that Adam and Eve anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:07 PM

well ed, what you call an insignificant brick, I consider to be a major component that I reckon destabilizes what is already an unproven,and philosophically constructed edifice derived from data that can be otherwise interpreted.   seems a bit like the minecraft building our youngster does on his laptop....its on the screen, and of wondrous proportions, but would collapse in real life.
as for shooting down science, I freely confess to that , when it is of the above origins interpretive sort. contrariwise you hope for an out , for the observational science that contradicts the myo dogma.
did you read what the scientist first said when she discovered that "anomaly".
being as she trusts long age theory more than the bible account, I bet she wishes her comments had been more guarded.
operational science will get along just fine without Darwinism. can you name any inventions that needed any imput from evolutionism?

joe- now I know why the apple choice of word!.

thankyou shimrod for answering my question,....and even more for conceding that your science education and interests has no bearing on evolutionist beliefs. to my mind, that means that you do in fact take what you are told about it on faith.
and also, confirming that evolutionism serves no useful purpose, other than providing some well paid jobs for propagating evolutionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:18 PM

If Hawkings, as a science celebrity, was quoted as saying " cats are better than dogs", should we accept this as true, based on his science authority? Or, would we ask , did he say this, was a personal observation from a personal experience, and in what context? Would questions arise on whether he had expertise to base this on, and on what evidence and criteria was it based? Possibly not.

If an entertainement celebrity, lets say Wolf Blitzer, Bob Dylan, or Axl Rose made the same statement, few would take it as more than personal opinion/preference, without asking the same questions.

The issue is, in all cases, the statement may be based on the same information, but its legitimacy taken differently, as to whether it was merely opinion. Why should we not logically subject notable scientists, and their opinions, to the same, or similar, litmus tests and caution?

BTW, I am a supporter of science, the science method, and scientific logic and feel Pete is " out to lunch" on his thories on creation. However, I am never too closed minded nit to question something I see as "out of whack", as my standard of evidence is high. Applaud Petes tendancy to seek such evidence, though I have little patience for other agendas, nor what seems to be a "fixation" to disregard what does not fit in a preconceived picture of one perspective on Christian history.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:44 PM

Considering such a massive amount of evidence collected to date, Pete, it is hard to fathom (seems highly unlikely) that one piece of new information, which will most likely be accomodated into science within time (science works that way), could collapse such a solid scientifuc structure. I will respectfully file this scientific collapse theory under the catagory of "wishful, if not fanciful, thinking, in my minds memory time capsule, Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:45 PM

yes bill...a disconnect
here is how I see it. I am allowed to debate but not to question the opinion of experts even when I explain why I disagree. they are experts and therefore are right.
that probably looks simplistic to you, but I will say it again [because I did not make any promises - smile] your very long post looks to me, another and eloquent angle on appeal to numbers and authority.
dino bone soft tissue argument refuted ? I have yet to see it.
there was the claim that iron might have been a binding preservative, so they soaked ostrich bone in it, and after 2 yr, it was still "recognizable"
then there was the.... we never knew it could last so long till we found it in dino bone......don't you call that circular reasoning!
and lastly of course the usual....science is about looking at new data and this is just an anomaly to be resolved in future.
I call that selective handling of the data.
now, was there something I missed in this "refuted" ?
it seems to me that the supposed overwhelming evidence consists of what can not be produced, except by expansive and complex information.
when I ask for the evidence [ie what can only be evolutionaly interpreted] nothing is forthcoming except assertions that there is overwhelming evidence!.
"experimental science confirms evolution...." such as ?
I can understand why you are frustrated.....the only creationist here wont accept that evolution is confirmed without evidence.
true, there may not be anything you could say, but you never know, if I am thoroughly stumped I may bow out quietly!
mind you , it did. nt stop dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:53 PM

"thankyou shimrod for answering my question,....and even more for conceding that your science education and interests has no bearing on evolutionist beliefs. to my mind, that means that you do in fact take what you are told about it on faith."

That weasely response, which was entirely predictable, suggests to me, pete, that you're a dishonest little creep. Now how about keeping your side of the bargain and answering my question, which is (for the umpteenth time):

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:14 PM

Applaud Petes tendancy to seek such evidence,

Ed, pete does not seek "evidence"- he spouts dogma. He HAS no "evidence", nor IS there any for his nonsensical claims.

The issue is, in all cases, the statement may be based on the same information,

No its not, as pete's statements are based on preposterous nonsense and ignorance.

Why should we not logically subject notable scientists, and their opinions, to the same, or similar, litmus tests and caution?

Why should we not so subject Pete and his fellow fundagelical lunatics?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:27 PM

"Why should we not so subject Pete and his fellow ...?""

Why not, indeed. But, why be like Pete, and have a preceived answer before such an opportunity is provided-as Bill D was attemoting to provide? why cant it be done in a respectful manner? By not doing so, it provides those envolved with an avenue, a reason, not to participate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:38 PM

all that learning , shimrod, and the best you can do is abuse !.
but I am still thankful to you for confirming the points I made.
your religious devotion to evolutionism is not making you very nice.
when you can demonstrate what your idea of scientific reality is I may be able to give another answer. in the mean time you have just conceded that your learning has no bearing on evolutionary belief, so why should I believe you, who follows the fashion, or the changeable opinions of men, rather than that there is a God.

so, ed, it should not be too hard to give some of this massive amount of evidence, then all the evolutionists and atheists here can gloat when this simpleton is silenced!.
I rather suspect that near all that you might cite has been answered.....
I will respectfully file this massive amount of evidence assertion as wishful thinking !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:02 PM

But, why be like Pete, and have a preceived answer before such an opportunity is provided-as Bill D was attemoting to provide?

I checked the last couple of Bill D's & you've lost me , Ed. Can you cast that in simple English?

why cant it be done in a respectful manner?

I'm sorry, Ed - you may choose to respect ignorance, anti-intellectualism, denial of fact and bloody-minded bullheadedness, but I can't and don't.

YMMD

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:03 PM

"there was the claim that iron might have been a binding preservative, so they soaked ostrich bone in it, and after 2 yr, it was still "recognizable""

eeeek! "claim" that it 'might' is not a serious claim! It was a guess... and 2 years, against millions of years is hard to test !

" then there was the.... we never knew it could last so long till we found it in dino bone......don't you call that circular reasoning!"

NO! As I said back up there, you are flatly misusing the term 'circular reasoning'! **WHEN** it was found in old bones, a reasonable scientific explanation had to be found. One WAS found. Circular reasoning would involve making the conclusion without doing the tests! It was simply the scientific method of modifying a theory to fit observable evidence, then understanding how & whether the newly modified theory held up.
You MUST understand that the hard evidence, gathered over many years and using many tests, is that the basic age of the bones was no in doubt! YOU wish to go "ah-ha!" and cast doubt based on one odd discovery before the odd discovery was explained. THAT is a logical error of making an assumption that the odd discovery could not BE explained, because you 'knew' or 'believed' that the bones could not be that old in the first place!
You never quite explain how, if dinos & humans were there at about the same time, why no references to being chased by a tyrannosaur is found in old writings.. including the bible.... and why, if they lived together, soft tissue is not found in most of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM

why no references to being chased by a tyrannosaur is found in old writings.. including the bible...

Obviously because the potential writer in each case was eaten, Bill.

You MUST understand that the hard evidence...

No, he mustn't, and doesn't, and never will. Nor does he understand the definition of evidence, and never will.

Hey, its your time to waste, but.....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:21 PM

Where did Hawkins get his science acccredition on to be considered an expert on "the meaning of life"?

'To understand the universe at the deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?

This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. We shall attempt to answer it in this book. Unlike the answer given in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, ours won't be simply "42".'

Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, 2011.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:22 PM

Ed T says: Thus, consider the relative value of Hawkings quotes, outside his field of expertise, including concrete work.

....and I wouldn't consult God for advice on concrete work, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

Pete.. I forget to ask about this

"when I ask for the evidence [ie what can only be evolutionaly interpreted] nothing is forthcoming except assertions that there is overwhelming evidence!."

What do you do with overwhelming evidence? It is there.. all the tests and measurements and data that I and others have pointed at many times. There is no need to repeat the details every time the topic is mentioned. You never have any way to dispute overwhelming evidence other than the sidestepping trick of saying that 'some do doubt it' or 'there are pieces missing'.

Experts are experts for a reason.... I am closer to knowing the scientific details than you are to having faith defense. I have read the bible quite a bit, and many discussions about the bible... you barely skim the sites on evolution and the related science, explaining that you "don't have the education."

overwhelming evidence is... ummmm....overwhelming evidence

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:30 PM

A good one Joe O.

Greg, I will have to get back to you, off to an Italian food festival for awhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:38 PM

"when you can demonstrate what your idea of scientific reality is I may be able to give another answer. in the mean time you have just conceded that your learning has no bearing on evolutionary belief,..."

At least I've got some learning - you know fuck all about anything! Why, precisely, do I have to demonstrate my learning to you? Your arrogance is astonishing you stupid, ignorant, fundamentalist twat! Is that nasty enough for you, pete?

Oh, and by the way: "Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

As I wrote earlier today, let me take a stab as to why you refuse to answer it.

You believe that the Bible is 'the word of God'. It is because it says it is - but that's circular reasoning - there is no independent authority which confirms that the Bible is the word of God. You could fall back on concensus and authority (within the established churches) but you've arbitrarily decided not to believe in those (except the authority of so-called 'creationist scientists'). Alternatively, you could fall back on faith - but faith is not logical - it is fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence. Therefore, if you rely on faith to support your own position, you can't demand that others use logic, reason and evidence to support theirs. Every time you post, you paint yourself further and further into an illogical, and frankly rather stupid, corner, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:41 PM

> Why is there something rather than nothing?

Hold on, Professor H. Maybe the real question is "How could there be nothing rather than something?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:30 PM

Ed. I tried taking you seriously.

You appear to be a fucking loony after all.

Ah well.

Mind you , you and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has the right to lick the boots of Prof Hawking. He has access to experiments, conclusions and theses to back up his conclusions. I may have written a PhD thesis , but I was delighted to be on the viva panel of a student who ripped a section of it apart.

Show me a creationist willing to be me on such a topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:31 PM

well bill, you know how to lift former posts and repost them. I guess it should not be too difficult for you to repost all these evidences. that way you don't have to write all the details again.
" overwhelming evidence is ummm overwhelming evidence"....is not evidence !.
again you say that a reasonable scientific explanation was found....but don't say what that is, unless it is your "knowing" all the evidence is that they are that old, and therefore soft tissue can last that long. still sounds like circular reasoning to me.
"..were in no doubt...".....and how many binned scientific -facts- have had that said about them in time past?.
dinos in the bible?...the term was not coined then, but leviathan sounds like it might be a dino. job 41. there are accounts of dinos/dragons in history and artifacts picturing them, though of course such might well be otherwise interpreted, esp by evolutionists.
"....not found in all of them" quite frankly, I think it was a surprise that it was found in any of them, but some has survived as they are only thousands of yr old. that any at all would have persisted, even in the most favourable conditions..eg very low temp...beggers belief, except for those committed to deep time.
we are away for weekend.......that's for the benefit of those who think I,m evading all this [alleged] evidence for evolutionism!.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:48 PM

I learned long ago that you can't argue with fundamentalists - but yet you have to live with them, and sometimes need to work in harmony with them to achieve common goals.

Everything Pete says makes perfect sense to him. He believes with all his heart that God can do anything, so of course God can defy the rules of nature and logic. If you believe God can do anything, then why can't this God create everything in its current or near-current status in a period of six days?

I see it as overly simplistic and many of you see it as an outright lie, but that's the way Pete sees it. I think he has a right to hold that position. But I also believe he has a right to speak up and express his position, even within earshot of me and my children. I don't think he has a right to force schools or teachers to teach his position.

I visited the American Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian Institution a couple years ago, and I was fascinated by the exhibit on evolution. I was humbled by the complexity of it all, and realized that my basic understanding of evolution is oversimplified - but it works pretty well for me. I wondered, though, what American fundamentalists think about this kind of stuff being presented in a government-owned institution. There was no mention whatsoever made in the exhibit of the "biblical view of creation."

A while back, I read a number of Internet screeds condemning the fact that there was a "creationist" book for sale in the bookstore of Grand Canyon National Park. I went to that bookstore a few months ago and found hundreds of different books. I didn't see any creationist books there, but I don't know how anyone would find one creationist book among the hundreds.

I think many of you get too darn upset about what fundamentalists think. They have a right to have idiotic incorrect ideas, as we all do.

-Joe-

P.S. Pete, I have to say that lately you've been getting a little testy toward Bill D, and treating him a lot less fairly than he's treated you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:58 PM

Everything Pete says makes perfect sense to him.

Same with most scizophrenics, racists, alien-abductees, holocaust deniers, Raelians, & etc. etc. etc.

So?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:07 PM

It is obvious from your last comments, Musket, you are having diffuculty "keeping up" with the discussion.

No one disrespected the contribution of Hawkings expertise in his field (Nor Dylan or Axl Rose, for that matter). Since there are no crib notes to assist, you will have to pay attention and read to be in the know, before you post-maybe younwill then show evidence here that you earned the phd( that you brought up for some odd reason).

Prematurely shooting "lip from the hip" does little to "impress me much"- nor likely many others, as a popular Canadian country singer once stated in a song.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:40 PM

By the way, Joe - did Pete have to pay you for his enconium, or was it gratis like the one for BeadedBS - or did Bruce pay you, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:55 PM

Give it up Greg, no one cares.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:12 PM

Oh, BullShot cares, Boo, you betcha! - and you must too if you felt it necessary to comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:15 PM

By the way, Boo - aren't you the one who's always pissing and moaning and whining about being "stalked"???

What brings you here now right after a post of mine since you've never posted on this thread before, eh?

Do tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:28 PM

I'm feeling up for a little stalking myself tonight if you must know. It's Friday night, I'm watching a football game, having a few pops as a prelude to celebrating my upcoming birthday - I'm feelin' alright.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:30 PM

Man, you guys really throw yourselves into your hate! What a worthy use of Mudcat...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:33 PM

BTW, on being looney:

A good friend of mine has been a news reporter for many years, and has interviewed many people and personalities throughout.Once over a beer he confided to me a general observation from this unique exposure to many people: "give anyone enough time to speak freely, and they will eventually hit a topic that shows you clearly their looney side. Yes, and we all actually have at least one", he added.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 09:38 PM

C'mon Jeri, I don't hate Greg, I even offered to meet up with him over a beer but he turned me down. I'm not giving up though.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 10:10 PM

Pete... I have read Job... and Leviathan clearly indicates whales.

biblical scholars seen to agree

" I guess it should not be too difficult for you to repost all these evidences. "

You gotta be kidding!

" but some has survived as they are only thousands of yr old." Land leviathans? Like the big thing they just found in Patagonia"? There were people in Patagonia 8-10000 yrs. ago. They probably didn't think anyone would believe that big thing, so they didn't mention it.

error..."Assuming the consequent" . You believe stuff is only a few thousand years old, so any soft tissue found is that old. *sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 02:39 AM

I see that, yet again, you've avoided answering the points that I've made, pete.

Is it because I called you a "stupid, ignorant fundamentalist twat"? Well, there's no getting away from it, you are! Here's what reduced me to 'calling-a-spade-a-spade':

"when you can demonstrate what your idea of scientific reality is I may be able to give another answer. in the mean time you have just conceded that your learning has no bearing on evolutionary belief,..."

In that 'chunk of words' that passes for a sentence, you casually dismissed, belittled and mocked the learning that I have gained in my lifetime and the things that I have achieved in that lifetime. I do not have to 'demonstrate' anything to you! How about you 'demonstrating' something for a change - something other than appeals to the dubious authority of the Bible and stuff you've re-gurgitated from creationist websites. YOU have conceded that you've got no scientific "learning" or background so it's your conclusions and statements which can legitimately be called into question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 03:22 AM

Ed. Try reading what you put. Back-pedalling is fine but you run the risk of the chain coming off.

I referred to a thesis Prof Hawking wrote and inferred that if a published doctoral thesis isn't good enough for you, I have to dismiss you as a loony. I also pointed out that a key point in a thesis of my own has subsequently been kicked into touch after new research, and that rather than argue the toss, I was delighted. I compared that to when people point out the lack of possibility of biblical accounts being true.

If you are having problems keeping up, ask rather than state. Less embarrassing that way. Your defence of faith is honourable, but doesn't alter the flaws it contains.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:09 AM

I've read a number of "published doctoral theses," Musket, that just don't ring my chimes. I hate to have to tell you this - but to me, they're no more infallible than the Pope...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:19 AM

True. But unlike papal utterances, physics theses are based on observed and measured phenomena. They make conclusions fit evidence rather than evidence fit conclusions.

Don't confuse them with divinity, which is, like music, an abstract art.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:38 AM

"**WHEN** it was found in old bones, a reasonable scientific explanation had to be found."

Bill D: There is a fair amount of ongoing debate about what Schweitzer et al did actually find in their T. rex bone. For instance it was argued the presence of iron in the samples was what helped preserve them (iron is important in fossilisation), but iron is a very common metal and might have found it's way in to the bone spaces during fossilisation, rather than being present from the start. I personally attended a talk at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in North Carolina whose author had tested proteins in the bone and found biomarkers from native fauna, indicating the presence of proteins associated with birds could have been introduced from the outside environment (that's sort of how it went, I haven't looked up the abstract). Then there's the whole biofilm debate, which goes beyond soft tissues in dinosaurs to biomarkers in feathers and other integument. It's a very interesting area of research, although I'm not that up to date with it as you can tell.

Pete's not even keeping up with the current debate, as he's missed quoting a right old rumpus that has occurred in the past year or so involving this very subject, but with wider ramifications.


"I also pointed out that a key point in a thesis of my own has subsequently been kicked into touch after new research, and that rather than argue the toss, I was delighted."

This is the way of science, and if I ever finish my own PhD I fully expect the same might well happen to my own work; our hypotheses have to be tested. Our research is part of an ongoing process of discovery and correction. Brill it is!


"give anyone enough time to speak freely, and they will eventually hit a topic that shows you clearly their looney side."

Never ask me about whelks.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 07:38 AM

Well, Musket, nice to see you seemingly matching your education to post content. Good job in contributing to discusdion versus shoiting off repeating one line statements.
Keep it up, I have regained confidence that you have the staying power to read posts and comment in a manner that makes a contribution.

Since Joe Offer responded, and jt is a side isdue to tge OP, I will leave it at that.

Today, you get a shiny gold star in your homework pad for paying attention in class, not wiggling around too much in your school seat and for not putting the red headed girls pigtails in your grade schools inkwell (or, petes either) Keep up the good work, there are more shiny stars with your name on em waiting.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:19 AM

By the way Musket, you "somehow" amazingly suggest that, in my recent posts, that I am defending faith-"wrong".

My related posts (if you were paying attention at tbat point in Pete and Bills main discussion, on this thread refer to the logic of using quotes (where the context is uncertain) of a science personality to score any point, in a field (religion ir not) where the scientist has no clearly stated scientific expertise. If the discussion related to his or her scientific research or science expertise, that is fine. If it is not, then it clearly an opinion-and unless shown otherwise, why it shoud be considered a better opinion than others?

My case was not made to defend and prop up religion nor shoot it down, but relates to the logic of using opinion quotes of personalities-whether scientific, entertainement, sports or political, to score points for any position in a debate on a topic.

My other point in the discussion related to giving those attempting to actually debate the OP topic, Bill D and Pete 7* the opportunity to do so, without disrespectful comments from the side. IMO, those comments, mostly attacking Pete, using mistly repetitive and disrespectful phrases, serve only the interests of thise who wish tk silence the discussion and scare Pete away from participating. If you were paying attention, Bilk D requested this in frustration awhile back. There is another thread on religion with ample opportunity to fling shit. My recollection is, Bilk D set this one up to avoid that disruptive aspect/influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:09 AM

That red headed girl? Why should I pull her pigtails when she offers to pull my plonker behind the bike sheds? Her name was (hopefully still is) Nicky. She did have pigtails, was a redhead and I lost my cherry to her. The force is strong in you, young Skydreamer.

You'll have to help me out here. What's a grade school?

In reply to your withering subsequent post. pete is the one being dismissive, disrespectful and insulting. I, as ever, respond merely in kind.

You speak of religious opinion as if it has any relevance in this thread, and put forward the idea that all opinions are equal. Not when they dismiss reality in a desperate attempt to make fairy stories look real, they aren't.   I love Tolkien's fairy stories myself but I don't try altering geography to fit Middle Earth into the equation....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:38 AM

". pete is the one being dismissive, disrespectful and insulting. I, as ever, respond merely in kind."

Your concept of 'insulting' is as broad a brush as I've ever seen. Pete is merely frustrating... he doesn't stoop to the name calling and ridicule that you seem to relish whenever someone doesn't reach the level of reason YOU demand.

I accuse Pete of overusing/misusing certain terms... you match him and then some.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:40 AM

There is worm tonic for the wiggles, Musket.

Because unlike you and pete, I have not made my mind up on many things, and am open to give the opportunity to reasoned logic from anyone.Even if I find their position
lacking in logic, I appriciate that others may not.

I do draw the line in intervening when folks are unkind, or promote hate to individuals or groups, a topic which I suspect we share some solid ground on.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 11:04 AM

and am open to give the opportunity to reasoned logic from anyone.

That, then, leaves pete out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 11:20 AM

I don't demand anything. I certainly haven't made my mind up on anything. Believing make believe and having an imaginary friend has never been something I considered in the first place.

Demanding a level of logic is one thing, but when people introduce absurd notions outside the bounds of physics and want them to be respected, I find "fuck off" to be appropriate in response.

In humouring him and trying to be logical to an absence of logic, I think it could be said that the Bills of this world are the ones taking the piss out pete, not those of us who have no time for creationist nonsense and the harm their influence is having on our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 12:34 PM

""I think it could be said that the Bills of this world are the ones taking the piss out pete, not those of us who have no time for creationist nonsense and the harm their influence is having on our children.""

Indeed so, that is exactly why I suggested others back off with thedisrupting insults to Pete, and let Bill D have this discussion with Pete, which I recall he requested a few times, and I suspect has not completed. Contrary to what you say, some folks here seems to be plenty of time for that, versus giving Bill some room for his OP discussion.

On the face of it, it seems to be lacking in logic that pete holding a belief hurts anyone ellse. Do you have evidence Musket, that pete is promoting his belief on creation in schools, to children. If so, you should present it, and I suspect that would matter to other folks here.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 12:37 PM

""and am open to give the opportunity to reasoned logic from anyone.

That, then, leaves pete out.""

OK, I also have time to allow people to state their case, to clearly expose the lack of logic in their case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 01:01 PM

Yes Ed. It's called Mudcat. In particularly the thread regarding YEC.

That is where he went from a harmless fruitcake to a worrying trend. Harmless fruitcakes are needed in order to keep the rest of us sane. I have mentioned my mate who thinks the moon landings didn't happen. I have friends and family who genuinely think there is a god and has the thoughts and deeds of what the bible says of him. I even remain civil to a neighbour who has a season ticket for Sheffield United.

But you know what? None of them feel their take on life needs promoting and spreading.

Perhaps that's why I don't tell them to fuck off. Although a vicar friend who said that believing in god isn't actually a prerequisite for the job got both barrels when he went on to say the job is merely to ensure others do.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM

pete holding a belief hurts anyone ellse

Ed, if pete was the only idiot holding & promulgating these absurd beliefs you'd be right. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions?) JUST LIKE HIM in the U.S. doing real harm collectively as well as individually. I'm assuming you're in Blighty?


OK, I also have time to allow people to state their case...

Hey, if you like listening to idiots and psychotics babble, knock yourself out. Most folks have better things to do, but what the hey, that's what makes horse races.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

I'm afraid that, for me, the gloves have come off with pete. He is not only deluded and lacking in logic (not to mention illiterate) but he's also arrogant and disrespectful. For a start, he thinks he's in possession of absolute truth and, leaving aside anything else, that's a pretty arrogant position to take - about as arrogant as you can get!

Further up the thread I asked him a simple question; for the record:

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

He has consistently avoided answering this question and instead demanded to know about my scientific qualifications. When I supplied him with these he belittled them and suggested that they did not qualify me to distinguish sense from nonsense. And this from a man who has no scientific background whatsoever and, by his own admission, has never read a standard, or even popular, text on evolutionary biology and who thinks that regurgitating rubbish that he has read on fringe creationist websites makes him some sort of expert on a par with the likes of Stu who has genuine, real world qualifications in evolutionary biology. We really should not be wasting our time debating anything with this fool!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 02:36 PM

Well, I never followed pete before this thread (just mostly saw a couple of his posts)!-it looks like some folks seem to be shell shocked on religion evolution discussion. If so, it ouzzles me why they would even consider entering this thread and and even staying here?

While there may be masses of creationist folks, engaging in nasty things somewhere, Bill seems eager to engage in a "meaningful" debate with Pete-I see no reason, nor harm, or reasons to put barriers up to such a wish? Mudcat is hardly a spot where mass numbers of creationists gather to plan sinister creationist plots. It seems like it is mustly Pete, treading water against a big current of opinion-I have yet to encounter others, though I have not checked in every corner, nor under the Mudcat dirty laundry basket.

With all the negative forces facing young children in many locations, I would put Pete and his beliefs very low on the "danger in growing up in school" reichter scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 05:30 PM

Bill seems eager to engage in a "meaningful" debate with Pete

Unfortunately, that's not possible - for Bill or anyone else, as even a small exposure to pete should make abundantly clear.

Mudcat is hardly a spot where mass numbers of creationists gather to plan sinister creationist plots......I would put Pete and his beliefs very low on the "danger in growing up in school" reichter scale.

Ed, You put things a lot more flippantly than you would if you were personally acquainted with the very real harm creationist fundegelical assholes do. If you're in Britain this is to some extent understandable, but you should look a little more closely into the situation in the U.S. before dismissing the problem.

If you're in the U.S., you're just not paying attention and there's NO excuse for that.

(And that's Richter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 05:43 PM

Dunno about The UK. Religious bigots have successfully lobbied for equality legislation to not include their organisations. In fact, it was made illegal for Church of England churches to conduct gay weddings in order to throw legal challenges to their obscene bigotry.

We still have a state religion. A theocracy we share with Iran. The Queen is head of the church. Yet less than 1% of the country attend their churches. When Prince Charles said he would alter the role of monarch when he ascends in order to be defender of faith rather than defender of the faith, which puts the monarch against 99% of the people, the church bigotry brigade used money they raise "for the poor" to get a legal opinion on whether he can or not.

Whoa betide you if you are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or rational, if the bigoted Christian cult under The Archbishop of Canterbury get their way. They want to see us as constitutionally second class citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 06:36 PM

Greg,
I live in neither location-where there is little exposure to non-evolution theories-so, it is not an issue. I have no notion as to who believes what in my neighbourhood, and I suspect my neighbours feel the same-regardless, it never seems to get in ones way or face.I almost never hear the religion topic being raised in the workplace, at functions, or, in fact, elsewhere.

In China and India, a huge percent of the worlds people have some wacky ideas (in my opinon) that go against scientific reasoning. I could stay awake and fret about it-with little actual impact. I dont know about you, but, pete believing odd things about the age of the world wont keep me from sleeping-and I doubt that it would change things much if I did. Personally, as one who is not attached to any religion, I cant fathom how the issue of religion stirs up so much emotion with individuals on either side. But, I guess it has followed this pattern for a long time in history, and will be with us for a long time-and likely be so to the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 07:00 PM

I live in neither location-where there is little exposure to non-evolution theories-so, it is not an issue.

Gotcha, Ed - it don't effect you personally, so it's nothing worth worrying about. The rest of the people in the country?-screw 'em. Not your problem. The spirit that has brought the U.S. to the current deplorable state its in.

Check This out.

Or possibly This

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 07:38 PM

You seem kinda uppidy and" flippent" yourself in the last post Greg- Having a bad day, possibly?

In fact, I never heard creationism as being an issue amongst my fellow countrymen in the country where I live-I suspect because most if us are tolerant of the views of others, and mistly do not get into their personal affairs. Most people attend public schools, free of religion. We dont have a connection between state and church, our constitutional provides for religious freedom.

So, put that in your pipe and inhale, matey, before you sling insults at people of other nations, where it seems that you have little direct knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:24 PM

So Ostrich Ed - Stop beating 'round the bush: who are your "fellow countrymen" and in what country DO you live?

And which constitutional are you talking about? Post-prandial or otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:27 PM

*sigh* Is it even possible to have a discussion of evolution and the relevant aspects of religion without it drifting into a general condemnation of religion?

I KNOW that there are religious extremists in various countries who tax the soul patience and cause thinking people to worry about their influence. I have met some of them.... several have knocked at my door. They send me mailings. They are tedious.

YOU can start a thread about it.   That is not what I want to do here....

I thing we need a thread about people who have knee-jerk responses to anything resembling their favorite pet peeve, whether it was specified or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:38 PM

I think you are onto something Bill D, Unfortunately, like with wars, bringing up the topic of religion most often uncovers the worst on both sides,with representatives of each frequently claiming the hallowed ground - and illogical attacks anyone calling for logical thinking in the middle.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 08:47 PM

Sorry Greg, you can do your own homework, if you have the interest and capacity to do so-and I assume you have the capacity, if you have the staying power. However, I never rule out that some folks just prefer to "blow smoke" versus using their noggin.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:08 PM

Still no answer to my question, "How could there be nothing instead of something?"

Makes as much sense as the more popular version. How do we know that "nothingness" is the default setting and "somethingness" the exception?
Even Stephen Hawking seems to make this baseless assumption.

Bill's quest for a reasonable discussion is doomed to failure when the thread's chief, perhaps sole, disbeliever in evolution won't even respond to the simple question of why his view is preferable and his understanding of science and belief is more profound than anyone else's.

When one advances a position on anything, one generally says why it should be accepted. Otherwise it can be ignored, because there's no basis for discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:25 PM

"My own homework" Ostrich Ed? Please. What's the big secret of your nationality? You're not a spook are ya? Just answer the question.

And the discussion isn't about "religion". Its about idiots who wilfully reject fact in favor of bullshit, and those that condone and enable their so doing.

Apparently, you're one of the latter- and yet you prate on about "logic" and "blowing smoke".

Fascinating.


evolution and the relevant aspects of religion

Uh, Bill - there ARE no "relevant aspects of religion".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:34 PM

Good luck finding someone to argue with greg, versus meaningful discussion, since this seems to be your main preoccupation-based in my snapshot observation, of course. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 09:38 PM

Lighter asks: Still no answer to my question, "How could there be nothing instead of something?"

Look in my bank account...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:00 PM

Nothing, a turd with the crap taken out of it:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:17 PM

""Ere Time and Place were, Time and Place were not,
When primitive Nothing Something straight begot;
Then all proceeded from the great united What.""

Earl of Rochester: "Upon Nothing"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 14 - 10:41 PM

The generally accepted specific formulation of the "Something Rather Than Nothing" issue in philosophic studies came from Martin Heidegger, but has been so widely used.. even to book titles, that it is almost a universal topic now.

A.N. Whitehead said early in "Process & Reality"... "everything must be somewhere" and went on to assume (in a MOST convoluted way) that 'something' must have always been... ummm.. here.

Too bad those guys didn't have Greg F. to clarify it all and save them all that thinking. (there sure are relevant aspects of religion when the Texas school board meets.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 07:12 AM

But even Joe assumes that there *should be* something in his bank account.

The nothingness he finds is the aberration. The bank wouldn't have granted him an account on a deposit of nothingness.

Any mere assertion of what came first cosmically, however, is just an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM

"On the face of it, it seems to be lacking in logic that pete holding a belief hurts anyone ellse."

Pete does come here to engage in debate and it's not the fault of UK catters if the Americans don't have or understand our debating culture. That said, phrases Like " the gloves have come off with pete." don't sound too nice at all and I don't like that. He does bullshit though. Lots.

I've had plenty to say to pete, and he's given as good as he's got even if it's gone over the heads of his advocates. He's a teacher at the very least (from a buddhist perspective), but he isn't interested in debating the core issues. But then who is?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 08:17 AM

> he isn't interested in debating the core issues. But then who is?

Looks like Bill, Shimrod, Joe, and me, for starters.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 08:52 AM

Good luck finding someone to argue with greg

Atta boy Ed! When the questions become too difficult, or you find yourself on the losing end, take your ball & go home.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:13 AM

Do " teachers at least" cut and paste their arguments from creationist websites, then get all flustered when asked to justify their sneering contempt for the real world though?

Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:18 AM

Greg,
When you post in a disrespectful manner, you normally win at your own circular arguments, versus meaningful debate- as you remain alone.

From what I have seen of youer aporoach here, (I havent seen much of your posts before) I suspect you feel like such a winner quite often. Good luck with that, and your attempts to lure others into such a pointless solitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM

Look arouund atbothers, even on thisvthread greg, maybe you will, by chance, learn something on how to discuss versus argue. While I suspect you have no interest or capacity for that, surprises do occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 04:49 PM

Proof read your posts, there's a good lad.

It's difficult to see whether you are lazy or no concept of spelling or grammar. Such things help decide whether to debate or dismiss you as simple, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 05:12 PM

A deal Musket. I will proof read my posts if you agree to proof-wash some of your posting "pottie" language.

It oft colours your debating style to a whores breakfast. Kinda makes one wonder if your oft-braged phd is in pottie language.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 05:38 PM

Fuck shit arsehole Sheffield Utd.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 06:09 PM

I suspect Musket has the stickiest keyboard on Mudcat.

No, don't jump to conclusions- you have it all wrong. It's not from self abuse. It's from the keyboard-humping enjoyment I suspect he gets from a bit of internet attention that cums his way throughout the day-good or bad. Like kids who get excited when they hear the word "poopie".

Get down, Rover ! Down boy.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 07:56 PM

Hi. I'm back, I was away, there was a wedding, it was great, there was no religion in it. Anyway.

EdT, back to your question about Do I think all Americans are biodeniers and ignoramuses (ignorami), no, but I am beginning to notice that all biodeniers and ignorami that are actually high school and sometimes even college graduates, rather than uneducated (say, girls in places where girls aren't allowed to *be* educated) are Americans.

My twins went through public schools here and could have never learned anything and still passed every single grade.

The only reason they know basic science is not they were smart, minimally motivated, but that I jumped in and taught them reality where their school failed (like AP history explaining judaism and islam as beliefs but then claiming christianity as documented history, citing the bible as the documentation, I kid you not) because I went to French schools where you can be assumed to be christian but you certainly still learn biology in science classes, as did the moslems, atheists and animists. Religion was irrelevant although discussed in philosophy class.

I also teach here in the US at the college level and the ignorance of my public-educated student body is appalling. Absolutely bloddy appalling.

*That* is the danger of "respecting" willful ignorance. It is not a danger of faith itself, just the idea that beliefs should be treated as equal to facts. What nonsense. Time to stop it. Seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 08:02 PM

You got MY vote, Mrrzy

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 08:20 PM

I haven't seen locally what you have stated, Mrzzy. But, then I am not realy "in tune" with the USA educational system. Is religious education actually offered in all USA public schools-if I understand you correctly, (I suspected it would be so in private religious schools), or is it limited to specific areas? This seems very odd to me?

I suspect a failure to focus more on science related preparation in the school system is, from what I read, broad in many western countries. This may explain why some Asian countries have leaped ahead (or, caught up) of western nations in many fields of science- in recent years.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:28 PM

Actually, I think it is possible that the "something" and "nothing" stress might well be at the root of religious impulses.

You won't find the entity known as the spirit within the framework of time and space, so if you are convinced that existence is identical with matter, energy and space-time, then you're bound to conclude that such things as the human spirit are non-existent.

Should you be among the minority who admit existences byond the material universe, then you may find the spirit is actually "something" (meaning an existent thing) even though it is not a matter-and-energy "thing".

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 10:43 PM

It wasn't billed as "religious" education, it was supposed to be an Advanced Placement (that is, a college-level class being offered to high schoolers who'd finished the high school levels) history class that had a textbook stating, not implying or mealymouthing around, that the bible stories about jesus were historical, and citing passages as fact, while islam and judaism were not treated as historically factual but as global phenomena which people studying history should know about.

Also, this is the free and obligatory education being offered all children in my city, I didn't pay my money and I shouldn't have had to correct this kind of crap in their textbook.

I remain absolutely bloody appalled, even if I don't proofread well.

Bill, if I ran / stood for office, I'd be run out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered. I live in Virginia.

Not to be mistaken with its neighbor, West By God Virginia.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 14 - 11:04 PM

Mrrzy.. I have friends in Virginia, including the southern part. I have met some of the people near my friends who'd heat the tar for you. I lived in Kansas till I was 37. I had good friends who were sane and non-religious. We often felt outnumbered.... and that was in a larger city.
   It was perfectly possible to go for months & years without a confrontation, but one learns to know when not to speak one's mind in public. Most of the schools avoided direct religious pressure, but one could sense it and hear remarks.
When I was a graduate teaching fellow in Philosophy, we had to grade shortish papers on an assigned topic. We made a mistake the first time and thought we'd make the topic 'interesting' and assigned "The Existence of God". We explained several times that this was not about accepting or denying God... but about understanding the philosophic arguments for each side. We might as well have explained in Sanskrit. (Well, maybe a dozen or three out of 300-400 got it... their religious background made the majority slip into expressing their faith..often to the exclusion of understand the basic assignment.)
   It was a learning experience for ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 02:19 AM

"Should you be among the minority who admit existences byond the material universe, then you may find the spirit is actually "something" (meaning an existent thing) even though it is not a matter-and-energy "thing"."

It seems to me that there are far too many people in the world who don't know the difference between a notion and a fact. It's all very well to posit "something" beyond "matter-and-energy" but unless evidence is available to support such a concept, it remains a mere notion. Is it possible to find evidence for "something" beyond "matter-and-energy"? Well that is not my problem - but the problem of the holder of the notion! Trouble is there are far too many holders of such notions who would impose them on others - including children.

The other day a couple of 'fundagelicals' knocked on my door and asked me if I believed in God and if I believed that God created everything. I replied that I had seen no evidence to support such notions. One of the fundagelicals then touched my doorframe and said, "well someone created this house so someone must have created the universe." I replied, "I'm sorry but that's just an hypothesis based on an analogy; have you got any evidence to support your hypothesis?" They left rather smartly!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:15 AM

They leave rather smartly when you shout "Fuck off!" loudly and slam the door too...

The problem is Shimrod, your approach may have wit that is wasted whereas my approach may be understood.

What is clear here is that superstition has to be taught whereas logical reasoning can be deduced.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:49 AM

One thing I've spent a lot of my life exploring, is how to carry on respectful and friendly dialogue with people who are never, ever going to agree with my point of view. Usually, this requires finding the common ground between us, and discussing what we have in common while politely skirting what divides us.

But I would really like to talk about the "elephant in the room" - whatever it is that we profoundly disagree about. I find it can sometimes be possible once we have built a relationship over a period of time, but oftentimes it seems to end up destroying the relationship.

It's even harder here on the Internet. There's something about the Internet that brings out division. I wonder how to get past that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 05:32 AM

Yes, Musket, that's the approach that I have finally had to take with, pete. I believe that he insulted me by (a) refusing consistently to answer a simple, but fundamental question and (b) belittling my scientific qualifications and insisting that they invalidated any views that I might hold about evolution (and this from a man who has no scientific qualifications himself!). I'm a gentle soul at heart - but can only be pushed so far.

And, yes Joe, I believe in dialogue too - but when idiots attempt to take the piss, I won't stand for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 08:44 AM

I once attended a private boys' school that was connected with the YMCA (that's "Young Men's *Christian* Association," just to remind you.)

We had one course - one semester - when I was twelve, called "Comparative Religion." It stressed the sincerity of all major religions (including Hinduism, Shinto and Jainism, BTW) and the attempts of their believers to achieve peace and benefit others.

No sectarian propaganda, no insistence that one was "realer" than another.

But that was half a century ago. I dunno what might be goin' on now.

(By today's educational standards it was pretty demanding: lots of info, no "activities.")

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM

Mrrzy:
I observed no religious-related content, nor religious discussions in my school years, nor none in my childrens schools.

However, I did observe that the local education system did a poor job of preparing students for science related careers, which I suspect would have an impact on some students considering future careers in science. In biology, information on human evolution was presented, with no related religious discussion.

What seemed puzzling to me in school was how my early grade history classes tended to show a strong western bias (mostly pro British and USA) in history, wars and governing systems- and little to explain the perspectives of the other sides. My recollection is educational materials related to socialism and communism were more akin to propaganda-versus descriptions that stimulated a students thought processes. But, this may have changed since, and, on reflection, may have been influenced by the cold war period when I was in school. Additionally, the material may have mirrored the perspectives of the societies where the books were published, which were mostly not local?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 09:56 AM

"What seemed puzzling to me in school was how my early grade history classes tended to show a strong western bias (mostly pro British and USA)..."

no need to limit it to lower grades... I never expected much during my first 8 years in St. Joseph's... I often knew more history & definitely science than my teachers.   So it was with great anticipation that entered 9th grade in our public jounior/senior high school and saw that 9th grade history was called World History. I felt like crying when I opened my textbook and discerned that it was world history as seen through western european eyes... it was a crushing blow to learn that it wasn't just my old parochial school with had tunnel vision.

Thankfully, my mom and dad loved books and our home library also contained several TimeLife series that included ancient history and various world cultures.

And this is the crux of the issue here... fundamentalists reject viewpoints that do not wholeheartedly support their own... there never seems to be an honest attempt to consider alternatives or examine various viewpoints in an unbiased manner.

While many (if not most) atheists and agnostics support the science of evolutionary theory, this is NOT a requirement... there are as many or more folks of religous conviction that accept science and scientific method as the valid tools that they are. It is only those who not only do not understand science, and seem to reject any attempt to understand because to do so would jeopardize they cherished beliefs, that are so vocal in their attempts to discredit science, scientific method and the information gained through it.

This has just been one more tired exercise in futility... because you can lead a zeolot to knowledge, but you can't make them learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

guest, just because this particular creationist is not a scientist, does not mean that this is true across the board, though such a notion might be comforting to Darwinist fundamentalists. he does however know that there is a difference between the scientific method, and origins ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM

How many more times...

You can use scientific approaches to your day job, whatever that may be. You can believe in creationism whilst promoting randomised clinical trials of a new lotion for athletes foot, still fine.

But.. Creationist science is an oxymoron. Not through my or anybody else's opinion but because there is no observational phenomena that leads to a creationist hypothesis being a credible explanation.

None.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 02:34 PM

hi joe, me again with my "idiotic" ideas ! "evolution...humbled by the complexity" funny that...sure I,ve been told what a simple idea it is !.
"testy toward bill" ? I,m sure bill knows I am not being disrespectful, though maybe more direct. the claim that the soft tissue in dino bone has been refuted , had not itself been substantiated by bill, nor anyone else, though stu,s post since seems an interesting angle.

seems to me that shimrod is upset because I caught him out in a couple of things.....
there are NO absolutes....but he is not absolutely sure about that !.
he is well versed in science but none of the areas of expertise or interest have a bearing on evolutionism . sounds like an own goal to me. I usually am led to believe that it was vital to science....so I was most sincere in thanking him for the info and insight.

so musket...what is the observational phenomenom that makes evolutionism a credible hypothesis ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:08 PM

well bill, maybe I was kidding.....one reposting of the a. .rgument refuted will do. I rather suspect that your meaning of "refute" is really -commented on -. if that be the case, I am sure thatyou really thought it had been refuted.
leviathan = whale....well maybe, just like a lot of scholars say behemoth [job 40] is a hippopotamus.
maybe believing dinos are myo and therefore soft tissue can last that long, is some sort of fallacy too.
I,m off out now.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:10 PM

Pete, even in the mostly unlikely case you were to provide good evidence, and convince anyone here, of the flaws you see in what science has shown us about evolution-this in itself does nothing to build onto the creationist theory and the age of the world.

For example, if you were to provide convincing evidence that my dog is not a German Shepherd, it does nothing to add to a potential notion that he must be a Poodle.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM

"what is the observational phenomenom that makes evolutionism a credible hypothesis ?."

if you really want to understand, then I suggest you get rid of the term "evolutionism" which may have been useful in the 1800s but is worthless today. One thing about science... it moves on, based on new information that helps explain observable facts.

If you want to know what is going on today, you need to use the phrase "modern evolutionary synthesis" which is seen as the best explanation of current data.

Things that were unknown in the mid 1800s, such as nuclear decay, plate tectonics, molecular genetics have been merged with new paleontological finds around the globe - among other sources of information- and these widely disperate disciplines have supported the theory of evolution.

Scientific method is asking questions that provide information used to ask better questions. The answers are used to formulate a better understanding of the world/universe. The goal is to increase our overall knowledge and understanding, not to cling to an ignorant past.

If you really believe in an all powerful, all knowing God... why do you then insist that said being is restricted to only what you can "understand". Sounds like the sin of pride to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 03:30 PM

"he is well versed in science but none of the areas of expertise or interest have a bearing on evolutionism . sounds like an own goal to me."

But you have no scientific qualifications whatsoever, you silly arse!! So, by your reckoning, you're not qualified to take part in the evolution vs creation debate at all!

And if you really wanted to know about evolutionary biology you would read something other than crackpot creationist websites. There's lots and lots of books out there - want us to supply you with a reading list?

And if you didn't understand the subtleties of the no absolutes/not absolutely sure 'joke' - then there's no hope for you.

Oh, and by the way: "Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:12 PM

When I complained to the publishers of the textbook my kids were being preached to out of (take that, grammar police!) I was informed, well, that's what Virginia wants; we have textbooks that don't preach in our history line but they aren't bought by your schools. I was unable to interest the ACLU in taking on the publishers, and now my twins are out of high school and majeurs so am no longer in charge of their educations.

And there is really no aspect of science that doesn't have a bearing on evolution since evolution underlies the life sciences, it isn't a separate discipline. Take some biology, chemistry, physics, and you can understand evolution. There isn't such a thing as teaching "evolution" but rather such a thing as teaching science, life sciences in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:27 PM

Thanks science geek.

Saves me calling pete a fucking looney and upsetting Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:38 PM

Einstein had some"opinions" on science and religion. As noted, they are just
Opinions, no better of worse than manybothers and I suspect reflect his upbringing and the times he lived in.

Einstein, Science and Religion  

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 04:43 PM

> we have textbooks that don't preach in our history line but they aren't bought by your schools.

This comment shows (surprise!) that educational publishers may be more interested in $$$$$ than in education.

Textbooks tailored to heavily fundamentalists states like Texas have been a problem for almost as long as I can remember. They buy so many books that it's can be too costly for some publishers to print anything the locals might object to. (That includes a "liberal" slant on American history.)

Local school boards (made up of local parents and teachers) purchase (and reject) whatever books they wish. If a fundamentalist history book is likely to bring in extra $$$$$, the publishers are happy to provide it. After all, if they don't, their competitors will.

This foolishness essentially disappears at the college level - except for a number of small private colleges that pride themselves on their fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 05:23 PM

It is the government, through the Department of Education, Book Bureau, that selects school books for programs from grades one to 12, where I live.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 14 - 05:34 PM

A bit off topic, but, government science has its problems, which especially impacts, to some, degree, the environment.
.


some additional problems impacting science 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:22 AM

I suspect that I know why Pete7* does not concede that he may be wrong. It is because it would, in his opinion, be disloyal and disrespectful to his God- and that could have dangerous consequences.

Years ago, my sis reared her daughter with what I considered short sighted, ignorant mores; she didn't appear to want to consider anything than the fundamentalist viewpoint, no matter what anyone in the family believed.

The poor girl went through a rough time after she became grown and left home, going through drug use and various other experiments.

Guess what- the 'girl' is now about 50 years old and as dogmatic as her mother...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:26 AM

I don't know what the consequences for pete would be if he upset his god but after demonstrating my "Jesus on a rubber cross" in the pub last night, perhaps I should keep a lookout for stray thunderbolts ?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:25 AM

There's an article about the Nigerian, Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram in today's (09.09.2014) Independent newspaper (UK). My attention was caught be the following quote:

" ...Boko Haram, whose name translates colloquially as "Western Education is sin" and which began life in 2002 as a movement to reject concepts such as evolution and the big bang theory ..."

So religious fundamentalists, who reject the findings of modern science, can be very dangerous indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:41 AM

"guest, just because this particular creationist is not a scientist, does not mean that this is true across the board, though such a notion might be comforting to Darwinist fundamentalists. he does however know that there is a difference between the scientific method, and origins ideas."

and here we have a clear example of why pete will never understand science... "Darwinist fundamentalists" are purely a construct of creationists and their propagandists...

"Darwinist fundamentalists" are imaginary people who follow the false prophet and blindly accept his writings... in other words - creationists actually believe that anyone who accepts the validity of evolutionary theory are mere counterpoints of themselves. They can and will not accept the reality that we do not think as they do. We question and question and question... and when we stop questioning is when we stop behaving as scientists. And the questions that we ask are more discerning than earlier questions because we take what we learned from the first questions and applied that to the new ones.

Fundamentalist do not question their own "knowledge"... they restrict their questioning to those that do not share their beliefs. They do not even understand how to craft proper questions. pitiful...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:01 PM

I'll repeat my favorite bumper sticker:

"Don't Believe Everything You Think."

Of course, a creationist will simply say that it applies to evolutionists only.

There's a reason why universities offer courses on logic and argumentation. Cogent reasoning doesn't often come early or naturally.

But if you believe that Reason is the devil's whore, you're not likely to sign up for a course like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:11 PM

Love that bumper sticker. Also I used to like god, protect me from your followers, but then decided not to pretend there were gods to beseech... another good one is god was my copilot until we flew into a mountain and I had to eat him.

Sorry for the thread creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 12:33 PM

I can't help noticing that pete, as well as being a bit of a gullible, arrogant dork, is a sort of 'digital' person, i.e. he thinks only in 0s and 1s, yes's and no's and black and white.That's probably why he didn't get my 'joke' about absolutes. pete's religion represents, to him, absolute truth; anything which contradicts that truth must be wrong.

I suspect that, deep down, pete is terrified by the complexity of the world/universe - so he tries to simplify the world/universe by adopting fundamentalist religious beliefs and making himself wilfully blind to any of the difficult bits of reality.

Of course much of the world/universe isn't digital. Most sets and classes of things exhibit natural variability. So members of a specified population will display a range of values for a particular parameter or characteristic. For example, all adult men within a specific ethnic group, will display a range of heights but these heights will be clustered around a mean value with exceptionally short and exceptionally tall men in the 'tails' of the distribution. This is a statistical concept and statistical thinking is central to many areas of science - including evolutionary biology. It's not difficult to see that when a species is subjected to changes to its environment, such changes may tend to select sub-populations in a tail of a distribution and the mean will tend to shift in the direction of that tail. Such changes, accumulating over long periods of time, will mean that one species may change into a new species.

Have you ever studied statistics, pete? Silly me! Of course you've never studied statistics - you've only ever studied the pages of www.redneckcreation.com - haven't you? For the record, I spent most of my working life making measurements and analysing the data statistically - that's one thing that qualifies me to compare the claims of the science of evolutionary biology with the pathetic pseudoscience of 'creationism'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM

GUEST,sciencegeek - PM
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 11:41 AM

he said it well.

I will say this ONCE... if no one has anything to contribute beyond petty pot-shots at Pete and his motives & intelligence, I will ask for this thread to be closed!
I wanted a place to debate the issues... not the psychology & character of anyone.

I have made many attempts to clarify the importance of new discoveries in various areas of science, while at the same time seeking to show the logical & scientific flaws in various of Pete's claims and analysis.

This thread is supposed to be about those ISSUES, not a a vehicle for snarky insults!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Pete... I asked once if you would consider becoming a member so some comparison of views could go on without the knee-jerk personal remarks... it's not a big deal, but I don't think you've ever said why you don't bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:31 PM

Just wondering:
Does this thread have a purpose in being open any more, beyond the "manly sport" of heaving personal attacks at Pete 7*s?

IMO, that's about as interesting as watching someone kick their pet dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:32 PM

Check this idea out: evolution is not to be believed or disbelieved, but either understood or not.
Why you should stop "believing" in evolution.

From slate.com, always a great place.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:44 PM

Well pete has become a bit of a target because he's the only one, on here, pushing full strength, undiluted creationism. You argue with him, you argue with full strength, undiluted creationism. And with his one-track, bloody-minded, wilfully blind stubborness he doesn't do himself any favours!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM

""Well pete has become a bit of a target because he's the only one""

Well, yes. But, it kinda reminds me of a heavily lopsided football game, with not many interested watching- only a few players idly kicking a ball about. At some stage, is it not reasonable to ask the question-"whats the point in that"?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 03:23 PM

Problem solved. From wiki-proof alone that the world is older than some speculate:

""The world's oldest known dildo is a siltstone 20-centimeter phallus from the Upper Palaeolithic period 30,000 years ago that was found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm Germany.""

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:17 PM

I guess I have no particular reason not to be a member, bill, but though it might be in some ways advantageous to have a one to one , and thereby bypass all the badmouthing and vulgarity, those same offenders do their own case no favours, but rather demonstrate the poverty of their argument. that leaves you and I, and a couple of others debating in a civil manner. anyone else looking in can form their own conclusions, and as neither you nor I look to be bending in belief , private debate would only be on my radar if I had the time to tackle private and thread.
shimrod flatters himself. I got the joke, but the joke is on him, as either there are absolutes or there aint...I think it is known as a self refuting argument.
he also makes completely unwarranted comparison of Christian creation belief with violent islamists. if you want to go down that road again we can talk about atheist democide also.
sciencegeek.....what you posted may sound convincing , but only if what you assert can be verified. essentially, you are making the same argument as bill, and others, that all the scientific disciplines converge on, and support evolutionism [ that term is accurate enough for me , and I am not about to let you tell me the terms of discussion], but again, as I said to bill,....an argument from authority/ numbers[or variation thereof] really you are expecting us to just believe, that if we do just enough evolutionary reading we would all be evolutionists. the corollary of this, is that you are not able to produce much, if anything specific to evidence your position.....or maybe anything that creationists would grasp !
we on the other hand do deal in specifics, and I am happy to let anyone unbiased decide on explanations of the data.
mrrzy...I read the link...the usual equating of observable , testable science with unobservable ,unproven Darwinist belief.
ed...if you got an Alsatian, I got no interest in claiming its a poodle. in fact we could debate whether its one of scores of breeds..
origins, best I can tell, are a choice of 3, or variation thereof-
steady state
evolutionary
creation
does anyone still follow the first?
that essentially leaves the two options. I fully recognize that there is the faith factor in creation, though, I believe more in accord with observational science. my aim is to dent the faith of evolutionists, and inform those who accept it blindly of the evidence against it. thankfully, though being a scientist would be a great benefit, some of the more simple arguments are useful too.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:23 PM

Shimrod!!

"You argue with him, you argue with full strength, undiluted creationism. "

So bloody what? That IS the issue! If he were just sort of vaguely unsure, we'd probably have won him over by now.

Unquestioning youngEarth creationism IS an issue. Pete presents it because of a deep conviction, and we (at least several of us) try to counter his explanations because we accept the evidence & logic of science!

It is not **relevant** to turn the entire discussion to calling him insulting names and implying his beliefs 'insult' YOU.
If you cannot refrain from remarks like "wilfully blind stubborness", you don't do yourself any favors.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:28 PM

sigh...

the human lifespan is simply not long enough to conduct "experiments in evolution". BUT we do have other observations which support the theory of evolution.

this is not faith, this is observation, study and peer review. once again, there is no faith of evolutionists. nada

please be respectful enough to accept that

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 04:47 PM

Ok, Pete..(you beat me by a few minutes).

I will see how it goes, but even if you are willing and have the fortitude to ignore most of the abuse, I may not be willing to see the discussion diluted by their digressions.

More a bit later.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:22 PM

Where is there "unobservable darwinist belief" in that article? isn't darwinism by definition science-based?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 05:46 PM

yeh bill, I understand where you are coming from. but if you get the thread closed, I predict someone will raise the subject again, such is the thinly disguised animosity to people with Christian faith...esp those termed fundamentalist because they believe the bible.
respect goes both ways, sciencegeek. true you are qualified and I am not, but as you know, not every scientist is an evolutionist either, and such are routinely dissed by evolutionists.
and since you see fit to preach at me on post 8/9/14 3;14, I shall return the compliment. it is not pride to accept the teaching believed to be Gods word, whatever faults I might otherwise have. pride, rather is shown by those who rebel against God, refusing to believe both biblical revelation, and the witness of creation.
....so , what are these observations that support evolution[ism] ?.
and they must support the microbes to man sort of evolution, and therefore going beyond the creation science model, to be convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 06:10 PM

"shimrod flatters himself. I got the joke, but the joke is on him, as either there are absolutes or there aint.."

Oh digital pete! 0s and 1s, yes's and no's, black and white?

"It is not **relevant** to turn the entire discussion to calling him insulting names and implying his beliefs 'insult' YOU."

But he DID insult me. I asked him a simple question and he refused to answer it and then, rather irrelevantly asked me about my scientific background. I politely complied with his request and he then proceeded to belittle my experience and career by insisting that they did not entitle me to have an opinion on evolutionary biology. I considered this to be a bit rich coming from a man with no scientific background whatsoever! He continually dreams up arbitrary rules which only appear to apply to his opponents and not to him. When one of his opponents transgresses one of his made-up rules he jumps up and down claiming some sort of great victory.

I've been debating with him for a couple of years now, and I've tried to be as polite as possible but I'm getting heartily fed up with his appalling lack of logic, his fatuous tricks and his sneaky, underhand subterfuges when on the ropes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 06:12 PM

Pete, my above question was directed to you...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 08:43 PM

"I asked him a simple question and he refused to answer it ..,"

It was only a "simple question" in the phrasing. It was NOT a simple question to answer.

""Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?""

He did not suggest that YOU should believe it..(though he'd probably be delighted if you did)... he said HE believes it. The short answer is that he believes it because he believes it. That, of course, is not a very good answer, but it is the position held by millions of Christians... and of course, there are similar positions held by Muslims, Astrologers, racists.. and superstitious people all over the world.
   The long answer is a complex description of how he came to his belief, what he hears from those who share his beliefs and his understanding of the place of logic & evidence and how to recognize & evaluate each. I have been debating these things with Pete for several years.

You... and several others... fail to note that Pete is quite a rare bird. He takes the time to TRY to face the combined might of several learned of us who disagree with his basic concepts and definitions and, to us, odd conclusions. I enjoy... well, am fascinated by, the insight into how fundamentalist creationist/YEC positions are defended.
   I do NOT feel 'insulted' by having my position(s) misunderstood and denied. I feel frustrated and vaguely 'worried' about how the human mind can work in order to follow such amazingly awkward tracks. Pete is no threat to me, and if I understand the trends in the UK, no threat to any of you either.



I am reminded of one of my 5 or 6 all time favorite Peanuts cartoons...(this can apply to either side of an argument, but here it seems similar to the idea that yelling at Pete will help)

Lucy is standing in front of Charlie Brown, demanding..."Change your mind!"

Charlie Brown looks startled.

2nd panel..louder.."Change your MIND!"

Charlie Brown looks upset..

3rd panel..screaming"CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!"

4th panel..Lucy, walking away muttering.."I wonder why it's so hard to get people to change their minds these days."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 14 - 09:59 PM

I found this linked article interesting, on why people establish illogical beliefs and why they continue to hold onto them, even when faced with significant evidence that such beliefs are not based on logic.

Below is one interesting statement I cut out:

""We need to be clear that the overall purpose of understanding the drivers of beliefs in pseudoscience or alternative beliefs is not to ridicule, but to understand.The "Ha ha ha, aren't you dumb" approach, common among some sceptics and critical thinkers, wins few arguments. It might feel easy to triumphantly declare one way of looking at the world is superior to another, but fail to note that some people get enormous purpose and meaning from the way they do.""

Why clever people believe in silly things 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 04:43 AM

Thumbs up on that one, Ed - but then, I give a "thumbs up" to almost everything you say.

We don't win people over by defeating them in rational combat. We win them over by drawing them in, respecting them while slowly presenting our own point of view.

Not that I think we'll ever convert Pete - and that's OK with me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:28 PM

mrrzy, what evolutionists do , is bait and switch. they point to observations of changes in organisms, and extrapolate from that, that microbes became man, even though that can not be observed. of course, they say that other scientific areas support the theory, but just about any data can be alternately interpreted. even Darwin conceded his own observations were open to other interpretation. sciencegeek observed that human life was not long enough to do experiments in evolution [well, origins science and observational science are not exactly the same !], however observations have been made on fast reproducing organisms, such as flys, but however much change is observed the fly is still the fly.

methinks ,shimrod you are forgetting, that it was you that said your areas of science were not relevant [or similar wording] to evolution.
like I sais.....own goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:39 PM

Despite the title, there is nothing special about this thread. It is merely one more series of postings by members and guests who are unable to actually create a discussion or dialog because of entrenched positions and an unwillingness to make an honest effort to understand the actual issues.

Before you can engage in meaningful dialog, you need to set the ground rules… and then try to stick to them. Think of peace talks… to even get to table there is usually a list of demands/requirements that need to be met before anyone agrees to show up.

Trust vs Faith - this is where I suspect our inability to discuss the issue of evolutionary theory in relation to faith and/or revelation dogma. Religion requires faith and science requires objective observation and trust in those who use the tool of scientific method to do so properly. That's why science relies upon peer review and the ability to replicate observations. Science relies upon trust in the process. There is no other way to build upon a body of work without the need to replicate centuries of prior work. And when an observation does not agree with what was previously learned or thought, then that's when more work is done to explain the discrepancy – either as an error or a special case that better explains the facts.   So faith and trust are not the same… faith is internal belief and can resist outside influences. Trust must be supported… if trust is betrayed, trust is lost. Trust is maintained by verification… I don't need faith to accept that 2 plus 2 equals 4… it's an equation that I can replicate for myself. I have taken college courses that deal with chemistry and physics. I know there is more than one form of carbon and that carbon 14 is radioactive and can used to determine the age of organic samples as old as 50 thousand years.   Using uranium decay we can age rocks from the earth and the moon in the range of 3 billion years. This is trust, not faith.

People of faith take from their dogma the facets that they select… facets that fit their personality. They take for themselves what them want or need to believe.   How else to explain how a single book(s) such as the Christian bible or the Islamic Koran can be used by both rational moderates and extremist zealots to support their viewpoints.    Can you really have it both ways? Which is truth and which is heresy?

Throughout this and other thread on science and religion, there has been a pervasive refusal by those supporting the creationist viewpoint to accept the assertion that science does not rely on faith. This includes Pete because he is the one posting on this thread and who keeps coming back to phrases that imply that anyone who accepts evolutionary theory as clinging to faith or belief.

I regret that Pete is like those door to door evangelists… who come to "save" you whether you need it or not.   They listen only closely enough to formulate a response that is designed to put their viewpoint as the correct one and really make no effort to understand, much less accept, what you may tell them. They parrot back to you what they have been told are legitimate arguments. You can not hold a discussion with a parrot any more than you can converse with a wall.

Pete, I am sorry that you find it so upsetting; but the world is far older than 6 thousand years and it has been billion or so years since the earliest discovered lifeforms arose. And no... we do not have all the answers, but we do have enough to support evolutionary theory and nothing at all to support the garden of Eden.

Harking back to my reference to peace talks… world peace is as likely as an actual discourse on this thread. Mores the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:46 PM

"Refusing to believe god's word" isn't pride, its simple, rational common sense.

Why do you keep insulting people pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:56 PM

I read that rather long link, ed.
highly educated tend to accept evolution....well they would, if they are not told how it don't stack up....
the more intelligent are more likely to suffer "backfire"....
and quite a few of them here playing the "scare card"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:01 PM

"...extrapolate from that, that microbes became man, even though that can not be observed"

Oh, sure it can... all that is required is a 4 billion year life span.

If there is a God, HE observed it as He watched His creation develop. I do wish he'd drop in and clear all that up. Our ancestors 2000-4000 years ago were a bit confused with how they copied down the instructions.

( and yes... Ed T is usually right on the mark.. as is Lighter)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:07 PM

No- nothing special about the link, as it is kinda common sense to me.

Unfortunately, common sense seems not that common at times, especially when people have entrenched positions, or feel they have (infallible) superior ideas and mostly put others down - those who merely see things differently, for one reason or another. Interesting and productive debate works best with tolerence and respect (as Bill D does). But, some see it differently and feel compelled to act in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:15 PM

Well said, Geek.

Except for the part about the Christian bible being a single book. It is a collection of books by a number of authors. And I believe you mean the "Judaeo-Christian" bible, since the New Testament is an organic outgrowth of the old. It couldn't have come into existence without it.

(There is some disagreement about the relevance of a few established books deleted by the Council of Nicaea - after a couple of centuries of equal status. But they still appear in most bibles as the Apocrypha.)

And then there's the Book of Mormon, a very popular outgrowth of the New Testament. Whether Mormons are "really" Christians is another focus of debate - by those who love labels above all. (I have also heard the "Christianity" of Catholics impugned.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:45 PM

well, Lighter, I settled for book(s) because I didn't want to go too deeply down that road... I also left out the Talmoud or eastern religions... too much like a tar baby...   also a bit distracting from the point.

I once had the dubious pleasure of meeting a couple at a friend's house who got quite exicited when I mentioned a local group of performers who called themselves Orion's Belt. At first I thought they were pulling my leg, but they actually believed that humans were galactic refugees from somewhere in Orion's Belt and somehow contact was being kept through crystals... the details of their tale are fuzzy but the feeling of shock and disbelief on my part are with me still. I did manage to remain politely quiet - though I'm sure my body language would have given me away eventually.   

By my fifth year in parochial school - 8 total- I had looked closely at belief systems that rely on faith and determined that I am not a person of faith. Faith really does not make sense to me. I know enough people of faith... many different faiths at that... to accept that there are those who value or need their faith. But I see nothing in the various dogmas out there to see how one is right and all the others wrong. The best we can hope for is to be able to agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:21 PM

true bill, you would need an awful long time to observe microbe to mudcatter evolution, but the best we got, is a few human generations that can observe multiple generations of fast reproducing organisms.
as the desired effect has not been achieved, I presume evolutionists need more human generations, or ultra fast reproducers.
as a highly skilled scientist, sciencegeek, I assume you can tell me if the dating techniques know the starting conditions/amounts, whether they can be certain of the rate over the unobserved ages, whether you can be sure that nothing added or subtracted/escaped over those ages in a test sample.
in the mean time, I take the view that , if rocks of known age have been wildly incorrect, why should I trust any other reading.
yes, I should like to see you all "saved" ,but remember, it is not me starting these threads , and I am not planning on letting you have an agreefest!.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:46 PM

Pete... you are free to prattle on, but please do not insult me with "offers" to dispute your points. You are not listening and have no intention of listening. Your own words give us your true intentions... which are to throw whatever monkey wrench or distractions you can into what might otherwise become a productive discourse (however unlikely).

"yes, I should like to see you all "saved" ,but remember, it is not me starting these threads , and I am not planning on letting you have an agreefest!."

"Agree fest?!?" Are you so insecure that the very thought of a civil discussion of "heresy" compels you to take up the gauntlet against those who disagree with you? Might not prayer ( if not action) for world peace be a better use of your religious convictions?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:18 PM

"..., if rocks translations of known age scripture have been wildly incorrect, why should I trust any other particular reading?"

It does work both ways,Pete... and dating rocks is more accurate than translating many old manuscripts.... not to mention the wildly different interpretations OF the many translations.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:27 PM

By the way... I have reading one of Gould's books (the one discussing in overwhelming detail the Burgess Shale), and there is more relevant analysis in just one chapter on just 'how to think about science' than I can possibly condense into a few paragraphs here.

He does not just assert 'truth', he explains at length how science work, how 'scientists' work and fail to work, and how corrections are done & recognized.
I will not expect you, Pete, to go read that book, but I would wonder how, in your view, all those translations & interpretations of scripture are corrected & correlated?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:34 PM

If you'd care to dip into the basics, this review is pretty good

(scroll down to Opabinia if you want the very brief treatment)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:48 PM

Pete, please cut and paste where you think the article I posted does the bait and switch thing you mention. I don't agree that molecular evidence in dna diversion can be alternatively interpreted if it is properly understood. I don't think they are talking about what you think they are talking about, to paraphrase The Princess Bride.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:52 PM

I was about to mention the amazing variations in translation - respected translations - but have none at my fingertips.

The usual claim is that while some idioms have been "modernized" or "can exhibit more than one shade of meaning," the "essential meaning" of every verse is identical across translations since before KJV.

In my experience this is not always true. I do not have examples at hand, but someone else might look into it.

BTW, I grew up as a "spiritual person."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:37 PM

One simple example of differences of interpretation is regarding the age of Methuselah... and by extension, other ages and calculations.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:28 AM

"methinks ,shimrod you are forgetting, that it was you that said your areas of science were not relevant [or similar wording] to evolution.
like I sais.....own goal."

And 'methinks', pete that you have NO scientific qualifications(?)So using your own 'reasoning', how is it that you are uniquely qualified to discuss science with scientists?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:44 AM

I could add, how many here are qualified to deal with pete? I'm certainly not a trick cyclist.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:30 AM

suggestion: why not concentrate instead on ALL the other religions and philosophies out there and their take on evolution?

As a greatly lapsed Catholic, I'll start with them from wiki:

Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach.

uhmmm no problems here... guess they learned a lesson with the Galileo mess... knowledge 1 inquisition 0

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:44 AM

What I don't understand is that while mainstream Protestantism and Judaism have no problem with evolution, many people insist on creationism - even though creationism (and as far as I know *even a literal interpretation of everything in the bible*) is not a requirement of basic Jewish or Christian faith. (Islam is a different case.)

And there are all those other important religion followed by millions.

I was once told, rather sternly, by a Native American with a college degree that "evolution" was a white man's myth. Other Native accounts were similarly wrong. The Crow account of creation was the truth, recognized as such since the birth of the Crow nation in the immemorial past. It was *absolutely* obvious to her.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:01 AM

Interesting, science geek.

My parents enrolled me in Christian church education when I was a youth (I was never too eager to attend). I do not recall any teachings nor material mentioned, challenging evolution. I did not see it to be an issue, until the creationist stuff was raised in the media in recent years, mostly from the southern USA, if I recall correctly. Locally, it is a non-issue, except possibly it is discussed in private, among folks in some small religious groups. While the notion gets media attention, as it is odd, I suspect that few Christians or others, actually subscribe to such an strange interpretation of Christian documents. Taking it farther, and rigidly challenging the basis of important science, IMO, is just weird. But, then, weirdness is certainly not exclusive to this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM

So in February 2010 the Church of England declared that evolution and faith are compatible. Wonder if Pete went to spoil their little "Agreefest"? Am I correct in presuming that the King James version of the bible is the one approved by the Anglican Church? Maybe Pete should check out his version. The blurb is below:

The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.

Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area."

He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons.

The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith.

Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain.

Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists.

"Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.

Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

"We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

Zimmerman, who is leading "The Clergy Letter Project," says those who promote "narrow religious views" and reject the compatibility of science and faith do not speak for all of the world's religious communities.

"Evolution Weekend shows that the disagreement is actually not between religious leaders and scientists, but rather between those who believe that their particular religious views should be incorporated into the science curriculum and clergy who recognize and respect the diversity of different faith traditions," he noted.

The compatibility, or lack thereof, of evolution and faith remains a hot debate among Christians. Prominent evangelical theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. has said he finds it impossible to reconcile the two. While he does not deny that changes do take place in the animal kingdom and that there is even a process of natural selection, he firmly rejects theistic evolution and the argument that the process is entirely natural and in no case supernatural.

"God was not merely fashioning the creation of what was already pre-existent, nor was He merely working with a process in order to guide it in some generalized way, nor was He waiting to see how it would turn out," Mohler has said.

Evolution Weekend is scheduled to be celebrated in conjunction with Charles Darwin's birthday and the anniversary of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:06 AM

ah yes... our Native People of North Ameica... at least since the last glacial retreat.

Have you noticed that most tribal names translate out to "the People" and other tribes are the "not People" or often derogatory terms.

Classic US vs THEM....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM

Hi pete,

May I just remind you of this recent exchange?

"methinks ,shimrod you are forgetting, that it was you that said your areas of science were not relevant [or similar wording] to evolution.
like I sais.....own goal."

"And 'methinks', pete that you have NO scientific qualifications(?)So using your own 'reasoning', how is it that you are uniquely qualified to discuss science with scientists?"

So come on, pete, what scientific qualifications have you got?? What's the matter - Old Testament prophet got your tongue?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:19 AM

Religion and science are not adversaries, ......

God said "Let there be light" and e equalled mc².


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:27 AM

just a thought, Shimrod, but since pete is very clear about his lack of qualifications in science and keeps referring to biblical references, perhaps we should really be inquiring about his qualification in that area...

a divinity degree perhaps. Surely something more than the occassional Sunday school session or weekly visit to the local church... what ecclesiastical scholarship does he have... or is merely parroting of some creationist propaganda site?

I'll wager that he is unlikely to disparage the scientific training of any medical staff that provide him with treatments or forego such treatments as a testament of his faith.... the same science that developed said treatments also supports evolution theory.

It does get a bit tiresome with their "I want to have may cake and eat it too" attitude. If you want scientific progress, you get a complete package not some adulterated piece of garbage. That's the problem with truth and reality... it gets uncomfortable at times...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:31 AM

But when did he say it Doug?

Cause and effect.

Before e equalled mc2, there was no time, so nothing could have caused it. Time is a result of the Big Bang, not a prerequisite.

A bit of a bugger for superstition when it was deduced that you didn't need a god to create the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:35 AM

Re the 0902 post. What a spectacularly pusillanimous & question-begging copout. As ever in attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, both positions come out as untenable.

ROTFL.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:37 AM

"Us" vs "Them" is a deeply ingrained universal pattern of thought.

You're born into a family: "us." A little later you identify most strongly with your tribe - religion - nation - etc. Outside there's everybody else, some of them scary and threatening, all of them more or less unpredictable.

Realistically, what other mindset was possible?

(Of course the contempt of some Mudcat Brits for Americans - see the "gun control" thread - remains inexplicable by reason.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:40 AM

A propos -- I remember some years ago OP-ing a thread called "What went Big Bang?"

It ran & ran -- Sep 09 to Nov 12; but no satisfactory answer ever emerged.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:43 AM

Unjustifiable drift, Lighter. We do not contemn you; simply think you mistaken about the social desirability of guns. If we can't say that much without being accused of showing "contempt"- why, deary-me. what a sad world we do live in!

Best regards

≈Michael≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 11:07 AM

I didn't mean you, M.

There are others, who need not be named.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 11:28 AM

Today there was an online article explaining the sequencing of Gibbons' DNA, the last primate species to be finished. There were some surprises of sorts, but even the unusual results gave some new insights into how continental drift and environmental changes affected the evolutionary model and made Gibbons divide into different sub-species very early.... like about 4,000,000 years early.

This and other discoveries just add to our growing list of data which clarify the basic concepts of evolution.

Pete... you, of course, hold to the view that 'scientists are making some basic mistakes, because no DNA/tissue can be more than a few thousand years old'. In all your defenses of that claim, you end up relying on 'faith' in a religious position which itself is defended by purporting to show 'scientific' studies disputing the majority.
   In a strange circular way, those who deny evolution depend on science to argue against science. When specific anti-evolution assertions are supposedly answered, the response is to demand *more proof* in ways that go against all standards of defining scientific method. There is a principle that: "The burden of proof is on the asserter."
   Standard evolutionary theories constantly add & revise THEIR evidence, while those who deny evolution never seem to have anything new to say, but merely re-state the same objections which have already been answered...or invent new definitions to suit their pre-defined conclusions.

It's enough to make one dizzy.........

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:13 PM

Me Lighter! Name me!

Look at me! I crave attention!

Mind you, I don't have contempt for Americans. After all, the vast majority seem to share my disgust at the gun lobby and what it says about reason, democracy and progress in the modern world. Come to think about it, try getting on in US politics without pretending to believe in god...

He says,

Dragging it back to the thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:15 PM

OK, so, why is it that the Americans, alone of the educated world, have gone back to clinging to mythology? The Scopes trial was, what, in the 40's?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:25 PM

What I meant to add was, and then there were generations where science was taught as normal, and then what happened?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:52 PM

what happened? good question, Mrrzy, and one we ask ourselves...

how did the REpublican Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower turn into the pack of Tea Party clowns we have today???

politics, money & power are a good start. JFK's shooter was perched atop the Texas Book Depository... A giant warehouse that was owned by a private firm that stocked and distributed textbooks for public schools in north Texas and parts of Oklahoma. A single buyer with tremendous purchasing power and able to influence education in accordance with their own personal agenda. What publisher is going to offend a major customer like that?

No one has ever accused the Bible Belt of being socially progressive... heck they used the Bible to defend slavery, while the Abolitionists used the very same Bible to condemn slavery. They spawned the KKK, segregation and worse following the American Civil War. It's their legacy that continues to bedevil our country... and influence others like our friend Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM

The Scopes Trial, just in interests of accuracy, was in 1925.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM

> they used the Bible to defend slavery, while the Abolitionists used the very same Bible to condemn slavery

That should tell you something about biblical literalness right there.

Of course, the reply could be that slavery didn't matter because the soul is more important. The bible is not a political manifesto.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:30 PM

"..." try getting on in US politics without pretending to believe in god...


Pretty much true.... sadly.(well, above local, anyway) Dwight Eisenhower was a major example. He 'may' have had some sort of faith- or not- but when he was nominated, he had to quickly go looking for a non-controversial church, and he & Mamie 'attended' semi-regularly.

I'd love it if the media would refrain from even mentioning a candidate's religious leanings.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM

I'd love it if the media would refrain from even mentioning a candidate's religious leanings. ....

I'd love it if they actually got their facts straight. As for FOX News... sigh ... they've turned freedom of speech into freedom to slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:12 PM

In the past, I suspect Christians, and many other religions, and non-religious folks condoned slavery, for one convenient reason or another. The research link below gives some historic Christian information.

Christianity and slavery 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM

another group heard from:

United Methodist Church General Conference, the only entity that speaks for the United Methodist Church, makes these three statements regarding evolution:
•        "We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." (¶ 160. F. The Book of Discipline 2008)
•        "The General Conference of The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools." (Resolution 5052 of The Book of Resolutions 2008)
•        "[The United Methodist Church] endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science, and urges United Methodist clergy participation." (From resolution 1027 of The Book of Resolutions 2008)

WOW Christians who recognize that Creationism is not only NOT Science, but should be kept out any science curriculum. Nice to know that there are those who want to avoid a repeat of the Dark Ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:50 PM

Generally speaking, the vast majority of slave owners thought slavery was a great idea.

"It worked for them."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:57 PM

a couple weeks ago I rewatched Amazing Grace and last night rewatched Amistad... sobering

though I will admit watching the special features for Amistad and going fan girl on the ships and Mystic Seaport...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 03:58 PM

""It worked for them""

Depends on which "them".

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:55 PM

Notwithstanding that the bible was written by men with an agenda.

It is whatever you want it to be, which is why it is of interest as an historical book of tales but otherwise irrelevant to anyone with the benefit of education and the heritage of sophistication.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:02 PM

If you insist, American slaveholders thought it was to everyone's benefit, not least the slaves'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:06 PM

""Anyone with the benefit of ....the heritage of sophistication""

Would this refer to the Royal family? I mistakenly understood that Eliz 2 was the head of the Church of England? Silly bunt was I.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 05:11 PM

I suspect slave holding was in existance longer and broader geographicaly than in the USA. And, many of the slaves were likely delivered by ships from the enabling motherlands. But, indeed, the USA south could have been better at it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM

> I suspect slave holding was in existance longer and broader geographicaly than in the USA.

As a matter of fact it was. I don't see your point.

Slavemasters like to have slaves do the work. In the American South, the owners believed that they were doing the slaves a favor.

If they weren't slaves, they'd be non-Christian heathens in Africa at the mercy of lions and hyenas, living the lives of primitives.

Slavery was said to be better: it taught them Christian values (including the virtues of work) and it protected them from wild nature.

Did other slave-holding societies think that way? Undoubtedly some did: Brazil, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 07:48 PM

My point was thatslavery was not limited to the USA , directly, or indirectly. Nothing more deep than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:46 PM

Slavery got its start here in the Triangle Trade, but when the cotton gin was invented, it became profitable to grow LOTS of cotton, and cheap labor was needed. When large amounts money was involved, moral concerns got rationalized. Religious rationalization was easy to work in.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:30 PM

Slavery was old, old long before the triangle trade, probably long before hte evolution of white people. People have been selling their neighbors on one side to the neighbors on the other side since there have been people; thousands and thousands of years of prehistory involved taking and selling slaves. The old testament has instructions on how to do it, the code of hammurabi says how to treat slaves and it's thousands of years older than that...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:31 PM

Oops I missed the word "here" there - you were talking US slavery. Very recent. And they think they have a monopoly on it, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM

WOW Christians who recognize that Creationism is not only NOT Science, but should be kept out any science curriculum. Nice to know that there are those who want to avoid a repeat of the Dark Ages.

Also Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, ........

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 06:49 AM

"But I would really like to talk about the "elephant in the room" - whatever it is that we profoundly disagree about."

This is the most pertinent point in the entire thread (in fact ion all these threads) and deserves further consideration. Funnily enough, I was thinking about this very issue on the train on the way home yesterday morning, so it's great it's been raised.

The answer to this isn't as simple as it first appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 08:18 AM

We disagree equally on many things, including epistemology, ontology, theology, and teleology.

Where to begin....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 08:46 AM

well, I really do not think that the elephant in the room is belief or disbelief in a diety...   though that does get dragged into it by both sides.

using scientific method I have to base this conclusion on observation... my own personal observations.

My own college advisor was a wonderful person who encouraged his students to explore and seek answers. He taught ecology and used evolutionary theory as one of the tools to understand the natural world as it is today. He and his family also attended services at the local Unitarian church.

Trying to be a "good Catholic" as a school child, I tried to reconcile the Inquisition with the ideals taught by Christ... how could anyone imagine that torture and brutal execution was part of the teachings of Christ... yet there they were, cross and bible in hand burning heretics. Then there were the sad examples of the burning of witches...

We were taught about the mayrterdom of saints... what can we make of those murdered at the hands of Christians? Was this the work of the devil? Did I even believe in the devil? In my case the answer is no... I neither believe in a supreme being nor an eternal adversary.

So if you can have two individuals who accept evolutionary theory... one an atheist and the other a believer... then the conflict is not intrinsic to that issue.

I would say that it is only a small, but very vocal, group that are offended by the thought that they are not the sole reason for the existence of the universe. Call it pride or hubris, but it is their egos that can't abide the threat to their own self styled "godhood"... made in the image of god... follow the rules and you will be exhalted in heaven.

I was eleven years old when I came to the conclusion that if heaven existed and was filled with the hypocrites I observed around me, then hell probably attracted a better class of people. I decided that I was a good person and for anyone else to say I was going to hell because not agreeing with them made me a "bad" person was an example of the real evil in this world. The desire by humans to control other humans.

Older now, I see positive actions than improve our condition and negative actions that harm ourselves and others. No good ... no evil. I'm Ok with htat.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 09:45 AM

More discoveries...

Scientists report first semiaquatic dinosaur

Very rare find, which will mean some careful analysis to work out where it fits in the evolutionary scheme.

One more piece of evidence for Pete to explain as inadequate to prove anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 10:02 AM

IMO, while the argument- often for arguments sake, seems big, I suspect differences among most here are small. "The elephant", may be the desire to argue and put other folks down- those folks, for one reason or another,merely see things differently, or whose perspectives (sometimes unreasonably determined), pose some type of threat?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 10:39 AM

ah... the very term, argument, has more than one meaning in regards to civility... especially as human emotions become involved.

but more to the point regarding threat... there is a very real threat to the human endeavor of investigation and promotion of information/knowledge posed by "militant" Creationists. This threat is every bit as dangerous and repulsive as Nazi book burnings, religious burning of "heretic" books - including the destruction of written records kept by pre-Columbian cultures. The list goes on about censorship promoted by religous zealots.

So I identify the proverbial elephant to be zealots - regardless of their affiliations... and those who manipulate said zealots for their own gain. Those who feel their's is the only correct belief and therefore gives them permission to discount or destroy any and all opposing viewpoints.

While pete's belief that he has every right (in fact, more an obligation) to prevent an "agreefest" of those who accept evolutionary theory is pretty innocous, it only differs in degree.

I know I have no hope of "converting" pete, anymore than he has a snowballs chance in you know where of persuading me to his viewpoint. However, there is always the hope that a reasonable presentation of as unbiased information as I can make will help others who are not polarized to make an informed choice. I try to teach or inform, not indoctrinate. At least, that is my intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 10:48 AM

What bothers me, is that so much of the talk in this thread about "creationism," seems to be seeking to suppress it. Some posters here seem to think that the idea of evolution is threatened by "creationism" - and that that therefore, "creationism" must be suppressed.
The suppression of ideas, even of incorrect ideas, is dangerous.

And I really can't believe that "creationism" poses any threat to evolution (evolutionism?). After all, the fittest will survive....won't they?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 10:57 AM

The theory of evolution is not an "ism", and people who try to label it as such wish it to be seen as equal to their beliefs. It's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 11:02 AM

I don't see any effort to suppress it, just the inability to overlook its political ramifications - which resurfaced almost out of nowhere during the 1980 Presidential run.

Well do I remember an astonishing headline in a New York newspaper, possibly on the first day of the campaign: "Reagan Takes Swing at Apeman Theory."

Think of it: the candidate of one of the country's two major parties opening his campaign by rejecting the theory of evolution. That candidate was elected by a landslide. During his time in office, he wondered aloud if events in Lebanon might not be setting the superpowers up for Armageddon - with the implication that they would be powerless to avoid it. (Which is not to suggest he wouldn't have tried.)

Pete is not a threat. His clergyman is not a threat. Their confusions about biology are not at threat. Taken to an extreme, however, ignorance - especially willed ignorance (as much the product of free will, it might be argued, as anything else) - is a real threat, and it always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 11:49 AM

I have to agree with Lighter and take it further...

I got my teaching certification in 1983 and we were already seeing a real dilution in the teaching of biology at the High School level. Where colleges have to include remedial biology in order to get students up to a level where they can actually start to understand enough to move forward.

We have seen too many voters who are single issue voters... electing officials not because they will do a good job, but because they parrot the correct phrases that push folk's buttons at the ballot box.

Creationists are the new Flat Earth Society... do you want your grandchildren being taught physics or geography by people who think the eart is flat and the Lunar landing was a giant hoax? Some of these poor deluded souls have moved onto other conspiracy theories... but these people exist and seem to swell the numbers of our current Tea Party... and look at what havoc those folks are causing our country.

Abraham Washington 1492 is not a partial credit answer... it's meaningless jibberish.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 12:01 PM

Nobody wants to suppress a fairy story of historical significance Joe. But brainwashing children into believing it to be true suppresses their objective thought process and ability to discover the world around them.

That stupidity and child abuse does need stamping out. Telling children lies in order to control them? This is supposed to be 2014 for fucks sake!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 12:01 PM

"After all, the fittest will survive....won't they?"

Evolution isn't survival of the fittest . . . it's survival of the best adapted to react to contingency. In terms of organisms, the generalists tend to be the ones that survive whatever environmental change places stress on an ecosystem.

"The suppression of ideas, even of incorrect ideas, is dangerous."

The challenging of them is not, and perhaps here we get a glimpse of the elephant. Is it OK to challenge ideas, even the most fundamental ones that might be a foundation so much is built on? This could be scientific or religious in nature.

Can we challenge everything and anything, or are some things inviolate? Is this where faith and science part company?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 12:03 PM

"We have seen too many voters who are single issue voters..."

And far too many 'single' issues linked lumped together in order to lure voters to support one candidate or party whose basic goal may be at odds with stuff they don't want or care about. Abortion & guns & taxes & immigration and God. Which one is the candidate's real interest?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 12:45 PM

> colleges have to ... get students up to a level where they can actually start to understand enough to move forward.

About a dozen years ago I was teaching a group of third- and fourth-year college students (and perhaps even a grad student or two) a literature course that required come knowledge o history.

I was floored when they told me that *none* of their mandated high-school American history courses went *beyond 1945*!!!

And none of the students had taken an elective history course in college - at least yet.

The reason high-school history stops in 1945, of course, is partly because of an overemphasis on some earlier periods, but largely because after 1945 it becomes "controversial."

So they had "heard of" the Cuban Missile Crisis, but had no idea what it was. Martin Luther King, Jr., led the Civil Rights Movement, but what exactly did he stand for? They didn't know. Vietnam? Pretty confusing, but either protesters wouldn't let us win, or else we were trying take over Vietnam for the oil.

Watergate? Something about Nixon. "Reagan Revolution"? Oh, he was the President who won the Cold War. Everybody knows that. What *was* the Cold War? Um, America and Russia yelling at each other about politics and who was better?

That takes you to 1988. Some stuff may have happened since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 01:10 PM

"And I really can't believe that "creationism" poses any threat to evolution (evolutionism?). After all, the fittest will survive....won't they?"

And here is part of our failure to accurately communicate important details that support our position... or maybe even the position itself.

No dictator or polical party has been able to repeal the Law of Gravity. Pass whaterver bill they want and gravity continues to operate. Now... is gravity a directive by a supernatural being or is it the function of the nature of space/time and governed by the extrapolated rules that define the Law of Gravity?

When mankind reached the moon, they got the opportunity to perform the classic physics experiment... dropping the feather and hammer at the same time. Without the interference of an atmosphere, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously. Newton lived in the so called Age of Enlightenment and came up with his law of universal gravitation in the 1680's.   The lunar experiment was based upon the work of Galileo who had figured out much of the basics a century earlier than Newton's work.

Who was lucky not to be burned for heresy (like Bruno before him); and who was acclaimed by his peers? The difference in the two cases? Religious intolerance ruled during the lifetime of Galileo and much less so during Newton's.

Gravity went on as it has since the Big Bang... it's the affairs of humankind that was affected.

I have no intention of letting religous zealots to control science or medical research or decisions based on their silly superstitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 01:21 PM

well said joe. seems to me , that most of the evolutionary fraternity do want to muzzle descent from their dogma. what are they afraid of.
maybe, that those facts that don't fit , might make doubters, but there also seems to be an elitist mindset that reminds me of the gnostics....only the initiated by expansive learning will understand it. this , of course is convenient, and the corollary of which is, that anything that don't fit..or is evidence against it, can be left till the expected answer can be found, because we "know" evolutionism is true !
shimrod keeps digging himself into a hole-
3 sept 01;45 pm "btw, what is your area of interest, and how does it confirm Darwinism for you"   pete
    his eventual reply.. part of...
"..of course, this had nothing to do with evolutionary biology-which of course, I have freely admitted"    4 sept 06;26 shimrod, after detailing his quite extensive science experience.
my reply was to thank him for his answer and insight.....ie that evolution was not relevant to his [regular] science.
like I said....own goal.
then there is there is diversionary tactic of my qualifications!
I freely admit, that the best I have done is distance learning ,with London bible college at certificate level, and nothing compared to the dizzy heights attained by the scientists here.
however, it is the validity of the argument that matters, not the letters a debater may have after his name.
having said that, I have no argument with shimrods concession that his science fields have no bearing on evolutionism !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 01:27 PM

Dogma? You really are a tedious, vacuously-ignorant man. I don't know why any of you lot bother with him any more. Waste of space.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 01:56 PM

nicely sidestepped sciencegeek. just in case anyone does not know, dating methods as c14 etc operate by measurements taken in the present, but do not tell you any unseens in the unobservable past. these are subject to interpretations controlled by assumptions.
to simplify,,, for MY sake. if you saw an hourglass with sand running through, you might calculate how long it had been running, but supposing some sand had been added or subtracted, or the flow had been slowed or speeded somehow, then your calculation would be out. you were not there to observe the whole time.
you, nor I were in the long gone past, so only assumptions can be made about the amounts and conditions in the past.
and as I said, some results have been spectacularly wrong. I certainly hope that if I have to go into hospital that the doctors practise much better science than that. and if I have to have an MRI scan, I can be thankful that it had a creationist inventor !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM

what are they afraid of....

ignorance coupled with arrogance, for a start.
blind faith without judgement

your bible talks about stoning people to death for adultry... is that going to be next on your agenda? where will it stop?

pete, it is your choice to remain ignorant. but it so chosing, your are not following any teaching of Christ that I am aware of... in fact, it stikes me more that you are aligned with opposing side to help foster ignorance.

you can keep insisting that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4... but 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of your assertions and distortions of facts... why do you hide from reality?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM

so bill, a water capable dino bigger than t rex...maybe he was leviathan ? !.
"...use science to dispute science.." so what do you think should be used to demonstrate that a theory lacks scientific validity.
"the burden of proof is on the asserter"   quite agree ! when I assert that soft tissue/dna could not last myo, I think there is experimental, observational, repeatable substantiation for that.
when you assert that evolutionism is true....prove it.
"...dating rocks is more accurate than translating many old manuscripts". i.m surprised, bill, you using this argument, as it sounds like a logical fallacy to me. which is more accurate, is open to question, but seem to me irrelevant . even if you were correct, it says nothing about the dating in question. ie even if there were massive problems with mss, it would not mean dating rocks was not problematic.
however, we have been here before, and I explained that infallibility only applied to the original ms, and i have never claimed that mistakes have not arisen since. despite this, these mistakes are relatively insignificant. your methusaleh example is a case in point.
the Masoretic [Hebrew] text has him dying in the year of the deluge, while the Septuagint [greek translation] has him expiring after.
a copyist error is the most likely explanation.

mrrzy- I don't know how to do c an p, but if you can pull out the validity of extrapolating bugs to botanist evolution from the observable adaption and variability using that link, or any other, please do.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 03:48 PM

I can understand indifference... there are plenty of things in the world that facinate some and leave me quite cold...

but pete is not indifferent, he is fearful... fearful of what I regard as part of the beauty of the universe. Some find joy in equations, others in how different aspects of the universe work... but there seems to always be those who find fear instead of facination. Who not only want to run and hide, but work to deny others their joy. Why is that?

As I said earlier... science builds on trust. There are people of faith who also possess that trust. Pete is not one of those people. He has his faith and has demonstrated no ability to place any trust in those who do not accept what he accepts on faith. He gives lip service to me and others on our education and training, but then refuses to trust what we tell him. Because we are in error - at least, to him we are- by simply disagreeing with him and his beliefs.   

And Pete, you are lying to yourself when you say that you want to save me or any of the rest of us. You only care about yourself and make these absurd comments to reassure yourself that your blind faith will assure your own salvation. I truly believe this because of the smug attitude I find in your posts. There is nothing humble about your belief or your inability to even try to understand our position and what we are saying. That is why there is no hope of a meaningful dialog with you and why there is unlikely to be such in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 04:46 PM

Is it possible, through science physics, that Pete 7* and sone others are connected through Quantum Coupling, where when Pete posts it has an immediate impact on others.

Just wondering, from a sciece perspective, of course.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Sep 14 - 04:49 PM

Sciece=Science, that one was for Musket. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 02:41 AM

" MRI had a creationist inventor."

Dunno where to start with that one.

Once we saw that X rays can produce images, there was a race to use magnetic flux in a similar manner. A hell of a lot of people worked on that.

Application of science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 04:58 AM

Nobel prize for medicine awarded to MRI inventor

Published October 6, 2003

(AP)- An American and a Briton won the Nobel Prize in medicine yesterday for discoveries that led to MRI, the body-scanning technique that has revolutionized the detection of disease by painlessly revealing internal organs in exquisite 3-D detail.


Paul Lauterbur, 74, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sir Peter Mansfield, 69, of the University of Nottingham in England were honored for work they did independently of each other in the 1970s.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 05:07 AM

New York Times, March 23 2004

" In his notes, Dr. Lauterbur acknowledged that he had been inspired by Dr. Damadian's work.

Dr. Mansfield refined the techniques, making them more practical.

Dr. Damadian built the first machine for medical M.R.I. scanning in 1977 and named it Indomitable, producing the first images of a human subject, his assistant Larry Minkoff. That machine is now at the National Museum of American History of the Smithsonian Institution."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 05:31 AM

".....only want to run and hide..." sciencegeek says.....
does it look like it ?
pride on my part ?   maybe
"the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it" jeremiah 17 v 9
seems sciencegeek is a pycho anylizer , distance diagnosing me as well.
I suppose , one way to deal with debate is to demean the debater !.

musket..i don't think I meant to imply there was no others imput in the MRI scanner. the point is, that belief in evolutionism plays no part in operational science....other than the expected references to it in papers. can you name one invention that needed Darwinist imput ?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 09:44 AM

" I think there is experimental, observational, repeatable substantiation for that."

Don't think it, share it with us here.


"you were not there to observe the whole time"

Yer wot? You initially assert the vast majority of geologists, sedimentologists, petrologists, mineralogists and palaeontologists are wrong because they weren't there to observe it first hand because only first hand observations count (which is why I don't believe in Blue Whales or wombats), but in the statement on dinosaur bone quoted above you say observational data is there to show soft tissues cannot be preserved in the fossil record, which means you have data obtained by someone who sat to check the entire fossil record.

Let's see it! This is great stuff! I'd be very disappointed if you were, er, making this up again.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 12:49 PM

Find a grownup and ask them

Try googling "rational person free from superstition" to find one.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 01:03 PM

pete, I had a sudden vision of you the other day (hallelujah!!). You are valiantly defending an unassailable 'edifice' called The Bible from an evil 'edifice' called Modern Science. Your favourite mode of defence is attack!! You crawl all over the second edifice with a magnifying glass looking for cracks, chinks and flaws. When you find such a flaw (or think you've found one) you cry in triumph, "Ahaa! Science is wrong and that means that the Bible must be right! Hallelujah!!"

All that, of course, is nonsense. The Bible may be an edifice (of dubious unassailability) but Science isn't. Science is a collection of methods and techniques for investigating reality. Through a process called 'peer review' Science advances, changes and (dare I say it?) evolves. Genuine peer reviewers make you look like the eccentric, obsessional, not very clued-up, amateur that you are. And, of course, if Science (currently) really is wrong about some things, this most emphatically doesn't mean that the Bible must be right! There are, almost certainly, lots of other, much more plausible, explanations.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 04:35 PM

stu, I am not sure if I don't explain enough what I mean, but I am rather inclined to think that you know what I mean, even if you can get some other meaning out of my posts.
it is my understanding that it was universally accepted that there were limits to how perishable things like soft tissues and DNA [IF THE WIDER SCIENCE COMMUNITY HAS ACCEPTED ITS PRESENCE IN ANCIENT BONE YET]could last. I would be very surprised if this was just assumed, rather than based on observation . it is also my understanding, that there was never any doubt that such perishables would not be detectable in anything myo. in fact , it is reported that when the scientist discovered it, she expressed disbelief because that was indeed her understanding. but the deep time paradigm trumped formerly accepted experimental science, because we "know" they are myo !.

well shimrod, such imagery is contained in some creationist articles.
seems to me, that cracks in your edifice are not hard to find, which is hardly surprising when it has such poor foundations.
at the very base is whether nothing can produce anything, or there is a creator. I say that is self evident, and you say there is no evidence. what have you left but something out of nothing via no one.
"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
so what are some of these more plausible explanations then ? !.
oh, and can either of you tell me what invention could not be, without recourse to darwinistic ideas ?.
at least, I suppose, you are trying to erect an edifice, instead of still digging yourself into a hole !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 13 Sep 14 - 05:42 PM

The man who first said "In the beginning god created etc"

Where was his evidence? Did he publish his research, conclusions, reasoning, rejected hypotheses, analysis of evidence etc etc?

No? Well stop confusing it with scientific reasoning then. Give objective evidence for converting a superstition and metaphor into fact before trying to convince educated rational people.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 02:56 AM

"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

That's not evidence! It's a myth recounted in an old book. At the moment all of the evidence that we have points to something like 'something from nothing'. But all of the evidence probably isn't in yet. Will it ever all be in? Who knows? You see, pete, there is probably no such thing as certainty ... although it's very close to certain that all knowledge is NOT contained within the pages of an old book! Just because you and your creationist and fundamentalist mates don't like some of the conclusions reached by modern science is utterly irrelevant. In the real world, real scientists, often disagree with each other - that's how science works and how it evolves (that word again!). But standing on the side-lines booing and jeering and grabbing little bits of the various, on-going debates and twisting them to bolster up your rigid, pre-conceived ideas is just - well - silly!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 03:32 AM

Don't forget the programme on Noah's Ark on Channel 4 tonight!

The Real Noah's Ark: Secret History

I confess to a certain Fortean fascination on this one from childhood when I read of the various evidences of the ark, such as The Boat Shaped Object on Mount Ararat and (of course) the Noah's Ark Drogue Stones of Durupınar. Sadly the perfect weirdness of all this is all too easily eclipsed by dour biblical literalism, but my fascination still persists, so I'll be tuning in (or at least recording it to watch at a later date) tonight's show which promises (gulp!) New Evidence. I can't wait!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 08:36 AM

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Scott Weitzenhoffer

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 10:48 AM

Love that quote, bodad! I will have to remember that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM

Pigeons know when to give up.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 11:59 AM

Pete... you said:

""...use science to dispute science.." so what do you think should be used to demonstrate that a theory lacks scientific validity."

What a strange phrasing. It sounds like you are verifying that some who accept Creationism do begin with the premise that certain scientific theories 'lack validity', and only wish to cast doubt on them.
The proper concept is 'test'. Science, using proper methods and logic, *IS* the way to test, analyze and evaluate scientific theories. I have no difficulty with that. What I am criticizing is the amazing idea that it is ok to deny, condemn and dispute certain standard scientific theories as 'unproven', and then to turn around and pretend to defend those actions by claiming scientific reasons!
How can I put it very simply.... IF you understand and employ the scientific method properly, you do not find the contradictions and flaws asserted by Creationists! They are ignoring widely demonstrated and proven measurements and data and then using careless, misinterpreted and just plain silly *bad* science to dispute the science they are against because of their religious beliefs... which they assert do not NEED scientific verification.
   I find myself struggling to express simply the flawed, convoluted argument form that "creation science" is forced to use in order to oppose the vast majority of standard theories about topics like evolution! It involves several logical fallacies, and one of the most egregious is 'circular argument'. It can take long explanations to show how they can even deceive themselves by using words in non-standard ways and inserting unwarranted assumptions to appear to dispute a theory, when they are actually fooling themselves with circular reasoning

I sometimes use a quotation to show a short example of what some of this form of thinking looks like.
An old woman is quoted as saying: "Of course it was a just war, my son died in it!"
There are various unstated but assumed premises in such a remark.... but it might be very hard to talk the woman out of her feeling because it is so emotionally important to her to believe things about her son, her country and some 'other country'. She ASSUMES her son would not be involved in anything unjust, then adapts her reasoning to fit.


Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 12:15 PM

""Pigeons know when to give up.""

Not when people keep feeding them. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

Smoked.

Had one as a starter last week in fact. The best contribution to society feathered rats offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 03:50 PM

pretty intelligent then , them pigeons .
there you go...one silly retort to one silly quote.
bill,- it is certainly true that creationists begin with the position, that the bible is Gods word to us, and to be trusted [whilst still acknowledging some relatively minor copyist errors]. in other words, as relating to this subject, they would not start by looking at the creation account and see if it is true scientifically. the bible is our admitted presupposition. so there is a measure of agreement with you there. but scientific ideas continually change [as you's all rejoice in!] whilst we say that a reliable eyewitness is preferable to mens constantly changing stories.
is that a faith position ?....yes, but not without good scientific backup. even in the simple concept of causality, creation is a clear winner. shimrod claims there are other more plausible explanations. he has not said what these are, retreats to waiting for these explanations to be discovered, and then concedes that we might never know. is that a faith position....you bet it is !
as you know bill, I argue that religious devotion does not only relate to theism, but atheism also. you express yourself quite mildly, but most of your fellow believers express their fervent devotion to their belief by the verbal jihad evidenced here.
even if you bulk at the charge of religious, it is imo, mistaken to think that scientists are totally impartial, and rather, actively pursue what conforms to their preconceived ideas, and worldview. in other words evolutionists have their presuppositions too
of course, my critics will remind me that I am not a scientist.....to which I reply.....shall I quote evolutionist scientists again to reinforce my point ?.
circular reasoning?....you mean like...we know dinos are myo, so soft tissue and DNA must be able to survive that long....
"....proven measurements and data..." no problem with that, its the interpretation of these that are often wrong. the reasoning of, and examples of, often posted before.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 04:01 PM

whilst we say that a reliable eyewitness is preferable

You ever read the studies on the accuracy (or rather, inaccuracy) of eyewitneess testimony, pete?

Also, which translation (these keep changing) of the several "bibles" are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 04:20 PM

pete just put that devotion applies to atheism as well as theism.

Wrong

Most people are too intelligent, stable enough to live without a fantasy to justify themselves and believe what can be believed.

Don't judge rational people by your own silly inadequacies.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 04:28 PM

have you got a bible , greg, that don't say "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ?.
if the eye witness is God, that is supremely reliable. if you read the whole post, you will , I think, see that this is my presuppositional position. I admit to my presuppositions, but you do not, but most of your antagonistic posts belie any claim you might make to non bias.
ps, as your post was not abusive this time, I have answered. thankyou.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 04:47 PM

So . . . If God is the eyewitness, he wrote those words himself did he? That's a first hand account from God himself is it? He, in his infallibility, actually put those words down?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 05:15 PM

" ... it is certainly true that creationists begin with the position, that the bible is Gods word to us ..."

Have they (or you) got any evidence for that? Or do they (and you) believe that the Bible is God's word ... err ... because it is written in the Bible that it is? I seem to remember that you're familiar with the phrase "circular reasoning", pete? Is there any independent evidence that confirms that the Bible is God's word?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 06:20 PM

have you got a bible , greg, that don't say "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ?

Sure do, pete - the Wycliffe Bible. There are others.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 14 - 06:42 PM

"as you know bill, I argue that religious devotion does not only relate to theism, but atheism also. "

As YOU know, this really bothers myself & others. You are trying to imply that it is 'denial' of God. A-theism simply means 'not theism'. It is merely the absence of belief. The assertion by theists is that there is a God. A-theists say "you haven't convinced me, and I will not be convinced without a different kind of evidence than you offer." They don't begin with a claim... they respond to a claim. Theists assert... atheists resist. (Agnostics do have sort of an opinion... "it might be and it might not")(Skeptics, like myself, distrust certain ideas by the way they are defined and expressed.)

And calling God an eyewitness is a gross form of assuming what you wish to prove. We need and eyewitness TO God... and Moses (if there was a real, historical Moses) seems to us skeptics as having made claims impossible to verify.

"scientific ideas continually change [as you's all rejoice in!] whilst we say that a reliable eyewitness is preferable to mens constantly changing stories."

Rejoice? Not exactly... We just see changing ideas as being honest about the addition of data and analysis. As to "reliable eyewitness"...you can't even get one to most auto accidents! 'Mens constantly changing stories'..... like all those different translations & interpretations of scripture? It simply won't do to assert that the 'first' version was inspired and then some mistakes were made in copying if you don't have and can't identify the first version! If 'mistakes were made', how can you be sure that some basic facts were gotten wrong in the 2nd copy and that '6 days' merely meant "a long time"? etc. etc. etc. And who knows what some copyist thought a leviathan was? Nothing we can identify could both swallow a man and still spit him out.

I guess I will never understand how a group can hold to literal versions of creation when all you'd need is to 'believe' in God and that he made it work like science is discovering.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 04:19 AM

It's unfortunate that Atheism is seen as a negative term. It's akin to Non Smoker - it's something people don't do despite the fact that people were Atheists countless aeons before ever they were Theists, just as they were Non Smokers before ever there Smokers. Non Smokers & Atheists breath the good clean air of Cosmic Default without the noxious fumes of cigarettes and religion afflicting our minds and bodies with carcinogens that run very much contrary to the common good.

Atheism is not a matter of exclusive subjective faith, it is a matter of all-inclusive objective reality, one which unites each and every one of us whether one chooses to believe it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 04:56 AM

You may have the academic definition of the word right, Bill; but I'm not so sure that what you describe is the reality of it. It seems to me, that a good number of people who call themselves atheists, go well beyond simply not having a belief in God - they actively deny that God exists. And in this age of Internet Infallibility, they're avid crusaders against those who dare to profess any sort of belief in a deity. We have some of those crusaders right here at Mudcat. These infallible atheists are every bit as rigid and intolerant, as are the religious fundamentalists they oppose.

The ones you describe as saying, "you haven't convinced me, and I will not be convinced without a different kind of evidence than you offer." - those are the ones I think of as agnostic.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 06:40 AM

I actively deny there are beasties under the bed!

What do you mean by actively deny Joe?

The reality is that there is no more evidence for a god concept than there is for the beasties, so why say "actively deny?"

You make it sound as if normal people capable of rational thought have some disfunction?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 06:40 AM

These infallible atheists are every bit as rigid and intolerant, as are the religious fundamentalists they oppose.

Funny how as a Believer you expect Atheists to be Agnostic. Are you agnostic, Joe? Where's the evidence for your belief? As an Atheist I see plenty of evidence everywhere I look - at least an absence of evidence - for God only exists in a scriptural context with a vague sort-of mythological provenance by way of a twisted mirror-metaphor on the very worst attributes of patriarchal human nature based on earlier pantheistic traditions. There's nothing so very fundamentalist in saying this - or infallible, or intolerant and rigid : it's simply pointing out the obvious.

Religious people actively elect to believe, just as smokers actively elect to smoke, and junkies actively elect to use heroine. Non-religious people don't seek that sort of fix, rather they find it in the everyday wonders of cosmic nature or the joyful diversity of human society whatever they believe or don't believe and feel, rightly, we'd be better off without the obfuscations of a non-existent God because nature is the whole of the case & every more wondrously so the more that is discovered.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 09:38 AM

> nature is the whole of the case

Well, yes, but the human mind is part of nature, and if that mind everywhere on earth has demonstrated the need to believe in a meaning-imparting deity or deities to keep it from emotional disorganization and collapse, complaining about it seems to be extraordinarily small-minded.

The most significant argument is not with theism but with the negative - and often dangerous - effects of certain beliefs and practices. (Or with deism, for that matter, which at least requires fewer imaginative assumptions.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 11:38 AM

"The ones you describe as saying, "you haven't convinced me, and I will not be convinced without a different kind of evidence than you offer." - those are the ones I think of as agnostic."

Is that is agnosticism? I don't deny the existence of God or the Gods or endless Gods, and I don't deny that if they did exist they were unknowable. I have, however, zero data that confirms the existence of a deity of any kind and haven't seen any, apart from personal experience which is gloriously unquantifiable.

So I'm open to the possibility God or Zeus whomever, but although I don't deny their existence, I don't accept it either. I'm open to be convinced, but not by hearsay. That might seem like missing the point but as far as I'm concerned if that means I fail the test, so be it.

This opens the possibility if we could somehow detect the presence of God using scientific methodology (perhaps not by direct observation Pete), would She still be divine? Might She simply be a being so old, massive and powerful that Her technology and/or ability to alter the fabric of the universe seem (as the man said) indistinguishable from magic?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 12:56 PM

"... that a good number of people who call themselves atheists, go well beyond simply not having a belief in God - they actively deny that God exists. "

but, you can't prove a negative, so why bother going about it?

Yes Joe, there are those... it is hard to define simple categories. Humans have more sub-categories than we have words for. Perhaps, pragmatically, 'atheist' needs sub-categories, just as 'believer' of 'Christian' do. A 'fundamentalist atheist'? to go along with 'fundamentalist Christian'? I personally try to follow the etymological rules in order to clarify the point I am making, but it ain't easy when everyone has their own notions of what words convey.

There really are, as Jack Blandiver notes, those who simply don't fight a battle that they see can't be 'won' by either side. I call myself a skeptic because that word still carries the connotation that I wish to express.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 01:00 PM

and if that mind everywhere on earth has demonstrated the need to believe in a meaning-imparting deity or deities to keep it from emotional disorganization and collapse, complaining about it seems to be extraordinarily small-minded.

A big If... But no, it's not small minded, on the contrary. It accepts all of the above as one small part of the picture, but it also accepts (as we must) that they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong - and that wrongness is inherent in the nature of religious belief, that the real dangers come from believing it to be true for others.

So we fit that into the Human Scheme, our capacity for delusion and idiocy which exists side by side with The Questing Mind which will never come to an end of its questioning, that the next lot of questions haven't even been dreamt of yet. Meanwhile, the myth process continues - from The Kalevala to Rendezvous with Rama - in the hope that no one starts to believe any of it, or, more to the point, judging others for being of a different mythic mind.

Atheism and Adeism are still the default states. God is no more driving the universe than Captain Kirk is at the helm of the Starship Enterprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 02:31 PM

It's this shallow mindset that thinks everybody has considered religion and rejected it. Really gets my goat.

To a growing population it is something many have never considered. As said earlier, religion is elective. I would add that it is socially coerced in some quarters too.

I suppose if I were superstitious I'd feel less embarrassed about it if I thought everybody had been earlier in their lives and lost their way.

Dream on.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 02:51 PM

reasons for "non-faith" are as varied as the reasons for the various faiths... and the number of different belief systems (both present and historic) should stand as mute evidence to the lack of unity among believers...

so why should it be any different for those of us who do not profess faith in "whatever"?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 06:13 PM

I wouldn't say that I deny the *possibility* of deity, it's just not a *reasonable* hypothesis if you actually have an education.

I don't have any belief in anything supernatural, and haven't since I was too old for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. Don't remember ever believing in ghosts or ghoulies or things that go Bump! in the night on purpose. But were actual evidence for it (such that you wouldn't need faith to believe) to start appearing, I would adjust that conclusion along with any other critical thinker.

However, or furthermore, I also do not see any reason in today's world to pretend that it's reasonable for people to attribute anything we actually do know how it works, to deity.

I think people should not be permitted to "protect" their beliefs by avoiding reality.

I do not believe that freedom of religion means freedom from education.

I think keeping evolution out of science in K-12 education is child abuse and should not be allowed.

Any mollycoddling of these ridiculous beliefs is tantamount to betraying humanity, and it IS betraying our intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 14 - 10:24 PM

Ummm... Mrrzy... 'amen'... however you wish to take it. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 01:04 AM

Please note that I did not and would not say that all atheists are rigid, intolerant crusaders against belief. Here's what I said: It seems to me, that a good number of people who call themselves atheists, go well beyond simply not having a belief in God - they actively deny that God exists. And, I might add to explain what I mean by actively deny,, these people seem driven to redefine, refute, and ridicule religious belief.

Most religious people believe what they believe, because it works for them - not because they feel compelled to prove themselves right and somebody else wrong. Most atheists are the same - they don't believe because believing doesn't work for them, and then they go on with life and do their best to get along with the people they encounter.

But there are a few fundamentalists among both theists and atheists, and these people just don't seem to fathom the concept of accepting and respecting people who see things differently. Maybe that's the primary aspect of a fundamentalist mindset - an obsession with proving oneself right and others wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 01:44 AM

Good point, Joe. For some, justifying their existence involves bringing others around to their POV, whether for or against a god. I would hazard a guess, though, that there is a subset that finally feels free to push back after being bullied by the believers for a long time. It is certainly that way with non-smokers who were put upon for many years by smokers, until the wind shifted, so to speak.

I haven't read the entire thread, I just dropped in at this point to see who was here and how the topic had evolved. So this is a statement without reference to anything before about five posts back.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:23 AM

I still can't see how you can be a fundamentalist on a subject that is other peoples's hobby.

You can complain about how superstition shouldn't be allowed to influence society, but that doesn't make you a fundamentalist.

From most Christian cults treating gay people and all women as second class citizens to beheadings in the false name of an excuse some religious men refer to as God, it ain't rational people who are fundamental.

Trust me.

I'd personally like the shops to be open all day.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:54 AM

""I would hazard a guess, though, that there is a subset that finally feels free to push back after being bullied by the believers for a long time.""

I suspect this may be so, especially for some, with a big dash of bittnerness, for one reason or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:26 AM

go well beyond simply not having a belief in God - they actively deny that God exists.

Well, eh, yeah. That's the nature Atheism. It goes even further than that - they'll also tell you why God doesn't exist by pointing out the evolution of such thinking from basic mythological animistic impulses (in which God emerged as a metaphor of Nature) to hardline religious orthodoxy (in which nature was belittled as a metaphor of God). They'll also point out that Religion was killed off by Philosophy, and Philosophy by Science; that Human Spirituality exists in our relationship with eternal infinity of the quantum cosmos which is far richer than anything we've dreamt of hitherto and all the more so for being utterly Godless.

On the latest Sky at Night (BBC's monthly half-hour astronomy slot) it was suggested that humanity has only been truly intelligent for the last 100 years or so. A sobering thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 08:40 AM

> far richer than anything we've dreamt of hitherto and all the more so for being utterly Godless.

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the observer.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 08:50 AM

You don't deny God exists any more than you deny the washing machine is connected to a sock sucker, cos be buggered if I can ever pair them up afterwards...

There is nothing to deny. Not sharing a delusion isn't denying it, it's noting old fashioned custom and superstition still exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:06 AM

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the observer.

Not at all, because this is a common objective reality we all share in whether we know it or not. Thus we can sit in our respective regions of planet earth tapping away on our laptops, MacBooks and PCs having this discussion. It's not a matter of opinion that these things work - they work because of the universal laws of nature.

Of course the observer might be of a a deistic cast of mind, believing it all to be the work of a creator, but the onus is on them to say why they think this to be the case when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. I have heard it said that God created the illusion of his non existence, in which he did a very through job. 10/10 in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:14 AM

It's hard for some to accept the concept of a universe indifferent to our suffering.

Except . . . we are the universe made conscious, and for the most part are not indifferent to each other's suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 09:53 AM

It is the certainty that defines the fundamentalist.
An intelligent atheist might say God is unlikely, improbable and unproveable, but not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:07 AM

It all depends, Jack, on what you mean by "far richer."

In other words, on the observer.

Reality is objective, but we appreciate it in different ways.

You believe science makes it richer; others may believe that the continued interest of their ancestors in them makes it richer, or the existence of a glorious afterlife, or the assurance that God thinks they're doing good works.

The Greeks thought the Olympians, unpredictable as they were, made it plenty rich.

The estimation of "richness" has nothing to do with "what's out there," everything to do with what's in one's own head.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:43 AM

"An intelligent atheist might say God is unlikely, improbable and unproveable, but not impossible."

And that is what many, if not most, of us do say. But saying that it no impossible DOES NOT mean, much imply, that any given alternative scenerio is automatically to be assumed to be correct. And that is what annoys me about fundamentalists and zealots... they make no allowance for alternatives to their own thinking/beliefs. There is no "agree to diasgree" in their way of thinking...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 11:38 AM

BillD, I'll take it as the crusty old southern country doctor in Red Planet kinda translated Ipsi Dixit - they sure said a mouthful!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 12:29 PM

An intelligent atheist might say God is unlikely, improbable and unproveable, but not impossible

Intelligent? That's barely literate. All the indicators are that God is impossible other than in terms of highly specialised fiction and absurdist make-believe. He he thus on the same level as the Starship Enterprise and Mr Bean - I derive great joy from both these latter, even the former, but never in the sense of literal truth or anything so conceited as sacred. Not only do we do such concepts a disservice by taking them literally, we do ourselves a disservice by allowing that our mythic dreamings can be in any way true.

If we allow for the God of Abraham being real, then we must allow for them all being real. That's quite a pantheon of possibility you have there, which must also include astrology, ETH-UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Trolls, Goblins, and a myriad of subjective supernatural bogeyman humanity has created by way of folklore down the ages. Far better we understand these things for what they are than what they, most evidently, are not .

As Carl Sagan says : '"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 01:22 PM

As Carl Sagan says : '"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."   And I say be careful what you wish for...

When hubby was young and went on long car trips with the family, his spinster aunt would keep him quiet by betting him a million bucks he wouldn't find a pink cow in the many farms they would pass.

Sure enough, that came to an end the day he spotted a very sunburned Holstein out in a field. LOL ... He never did get that million bucks.

Anyway... I'm not holding my breath waiting for divine revelation, nor am I walking around with lightning rods to protect myself from bolts from above.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:05 PM

Jack, could you provide a list of "All the indicators are that God is impossible."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:07 PM

They say their god is infinite.

I know what they mean now. I can't say he doesn't exist any more than my next door neighbour's Aunty's podiatrist can say my super sock sucker isn't attached to the washing machine.

If something has credence simply by the fact you can't prove an abstraction is otherwise, we'll be here all night!

Prove your god is anything more than an invention of man to control others and I will accept the sock sucker is just an excuse for my domestic inadequacy.

In the meantime, laughing at people who are superstitious is not a sign of lack of intelligence, it is enjoying the absurdity of it still being relevant to shallow people.

No problem in people having hobbies, it's when hobbies start affecting people not involved in silly games that they deserve scorn and ridicule.

I remember saying, just as a turn of phrase, when a work colleague said he accidentally forgot to pay for a newspaper he took at the train station, that I would pray for him. He took me seriously and said, "You don't believe in that fucking rubbish do you?"

No, I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM

?Jack, could you provide a list of "All the indicators are that God is impossible."

FKWT, would you pleas provide a comprehensive list of all the hard evidence that God exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:25 PM

Yes, yes, yes we've been here before - but if God exists, His existence raises more questions that it answers. I'm talking, of course, about 'infinite regress'. If God created the Universe, who, or what, created God - and who or what created the God creator etc., etc., etc.?

At this point, pete, and his fundamentalist mates, look all pious and intone that "God is unknowable". But that's just a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card - and I don't trust people who pull 'get-out-of-jail-free' cards. In addition, if they're not prepared to even think about the Big Questions like the possibility of infinite regress and its implications, they certainly shouldn't be tinkering about with questions connected with evolution and other areas of contemporary science which make them uncomfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 02:27 PM

You pray... I'll say 'amen'.

Those who care will understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 03:07 PM

"Jack, could you provide a list of "All the indicators are that God is impossible."

Could you provide a single indicator he is?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:00 PM

we certainly have been here before, shimrod, though your memory is a little hazy. I said that God was eternal and spirit, though of course, he is in a sense also unknowable in his complete attributes. can there be such a thing as infinite regress ?. the Christian has an answer from the bible. you don't accept that. I do. equal ? well, as I said before you are left with believing that everything came from nothing via no one. that is totally against science and logic. you and your fellow believers elect to believe that. atheism [whatever your dictionary says] must believe in some sort of self creation. that goes against logic and science. is that a faith position...you bet it is ! and then jack says God is impossible, perhaps the most outlandish of his eloquent but unsubstantiated assertions. and the animosity with which most exhibit, it seems, betray evidence of their religious devotion to their no god worldview.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:37 PM

and then jack says God is impossible

I do indeed, because we can trace his invention in the inventions of scripture which are neither infinite nor eternal, but only a few thousand years old, before which time - no God. Other Gods - lots of Gods, any amount of the bloody things, but not the idiot bastard God of the Bible. And I say this without animosity to anything or anyone other than a total disrespect for the whole biblical mythos which reads like a particularly bad episode of Dr Who.

God is VERY knowable in terms of fiction, folklore and bad myth. Look outside scripture - look at nature, look at the sun, moon, stars, clouds, galaxies, planets - all the things that move our out hearts to a sense of the numinous. It's right there - Nature, the Cosmos, the whole of the case in all its Godless & godless glory.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:58 PM

"well, as I said before you are left with believing that everything came from nothing via no one. that is totally against science and logic."

It's neither against science nor logic! Your assertion that everything has to have been created by someone is actually an hypothesis based on an analogy i.e. in your very, very, very, very etc. limited experience of 'everything', pete, people create (some) things. That does NOT mean that everything has to have been created by someone! Where's the evidence to support your hypothesis? Oh and by the way - the Bible doesn't count as evidence - it's just an old book containing, mainly unsubstantiated (or poorly substantiated) stories. Oh, and further by the way, I'm not expressing a 'belief' here - I'm merely asking you to produce evidence in support of your belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:24 PM

God is not an impossibility. The problem for God and his advocates is that he is, by any stretch of even the wildest imagination, extremely improbable. Nothing in nature is inexplicable. Much in nature remains to be explained, but we are closing in, and the endeavour is wonderful. But as soon as you insert that dismal copout of an "explanation" for everything, in other words God, you are sidelining that wonderful thing that you might have expected the God-squadders to laud above all other human attributes, our intellect. You can't believe in God and also be entirely rational. Not that being entirely rational is always a great thing, as we are not all Mr Spocks, and a good thing too. But to have your life, your behaviour, your relationships and your moral compass all based on an irrational notion is a bad thing. Just think it through. Nothing you see in nature cannot be explained by natural laws, and whatever we have yet to understand will one day be explained once we understand those natural laws better than we do. But God is above natural laws. He is supposed to explain all of nature and the laws that govern it, yet be not just above nature but also against nature. All-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, no beginning and no end - all these supposed attributes are counter to nature. But the real clincher is that there is absolutely no evidence for his existence. Not a scrap. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means that he's about as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle. I'm an atheist and I don't know whether God exists or not. But I'm not what you might call fifty-fifty.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:26 PM

oh, and of course, creation is an indicator that he is, greg !

bill, a lot of the above has bearing on your post too.
"...they don't begin with a claim..." I have read lots of atheist claims here. and of course the underlying assumption is that we all and everything came from nothing. I suppose I could do the atheist tactic and say, you cant prove a negative, so maybe it could make itself. only trouble is, it would not be entirely honest, as I believe it accords with science and logic to say there must be a creator.
it may "bother" you that I describe atheism as a religious belief, but I am not intending to leave atheists comfortable in their unbelief, it seems to bother you, even as a "skeptic", but I guess we can agree that we speak from our own perpestive
"..God as an eyewitness." I was not trying to convince you of that, merely expressing what my preconceptions are. I am fully aware that I could never provide enough evidence to convince you of the bibles trustworthiness....let alone the crusading atheists.
having said that, your dismissal of my explanation for the [minor] mistakes, fails to take account of the much greater agreement of most of the mss with each other. despite gregs claim that gen 1v1 does not read the same in the Wycliffe, there are, I am sure ,no biblical ms that say anything other than God creating, and in 6 night/day cycles.
that is further attested to in ref to the Sabbath commandment [exodus20 v 11], so it is clear that deep time is not taught in scripture.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM

It's is not only religeous folks who have all the odd beliefs/notions. Scientists can also come up with a lot of weird stuff (theiries and notions) -some of it "loosely hitched" to quantum theory science (aka quantum physics).


scientific notions/theories linked quatum science 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:55 PM

I see jack has proved the point , that he is actively against [he would say the idea of] God, and prefers to stifle discussion by aggressive badmouthing.
"...nothing in nature is inexplicable. much remains to be explained... " says steve. now that seems like, either a contradiction, or a faith position....and a very big one.
"..but we are closing in..." another faith statement.
shimrod, as I keep saying, I admit to my presuppositions, but causality and the impossibility of an infinite regression, imo, makes a logical case for an eternal, supernatural creator.
so, where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:15 PM

" ... but causality and the impossibility of an infinite regression, imo, makes a logical case for an eternal, supernatural creator."

No they don't!

Define "eternal". Define "supernatural".

" ... where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator ?"

I have not expressed a belief and neither have I formulated an hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:20 PM

oh, and of course, creation is an indicator that he is, greg !

What the fuck is that supposed to mean, pete???

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 06:53 PM

and prefers to stifle discussion by aggressive badmouthing.

I'm only bad-mouthing a fictitious God based on the crap in the bible in which he comes across as an idiot misbegotten bastard. As Richard Dawkins famously put it in The God Delusion:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Amen to that! Though I doubt the God of the New Testament is any better. Dawkins again:

"It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself."

*

so, where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator ?

The evidence is EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING (excluding religious fiction, natch). God is in NONE OF IT. It is not belief, it is not hypothesis, it is simple commonplace beautiful joyful all inclusive objective natural REALITY.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:40 PM

I'm not "against" God. I could say that I'm just waiting for him to turn up. No luck so far. Nor is it a "faith position" to accept that, whilst science has explained a lot, much is still left to be explained. It is not a "faith position" to predict that much that is yet to be explained will be explained by scientific endeavour. After all, that is exactly how everything we understand about the world so far has been explained, and by no other means. The trouble with you and your ignorant ilk, pete, is that you wish to superimpose upon us an "explanation" for the mysteries of the universe that is infinitely more inexplicable than those mysteries themselves. He is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-seeing. No law of nature can apply to this fellow, yet we are supposed to accept that he is the explanation for everything that has either been resolved already or is still being closed in on by good science (which you know nothing about, and, sadly but entertainingly, which you appear to be proud of your pig-ignorance of).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:43 PM

"Impose" would have sufficed.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:53 PM

Infinite regression is less opposed to reason than the existence of an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, all-benevolent, all-present deity, because infinite regression is just one phenomenon (regression) extended infinitely into the past.

The deity, on the other hand, has many infinite attributes, not just one - and infinite regression in the form of eternal existence in the past is one of them.

Furthermore, infinite regression, if true, does not conflict in any way with what we see around us every day of our lives.

Zoroastrians believe in two gods - one good, one evil - who are constantly at war in the world. That at least is more consistent with everyday experience.

It is very difficult to believe that the sort of unitary deity described above could approve of things like Ebola, rabies, and the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, none of which can logically be chalked up to the human misuse of free will.

Unless, of course, Original Sin is invoked to explain and justify them. But the only evidence of Original Sin is the assertion of it in the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:09 PM

Deity didn't "approve" of ebola, rabies etc, they made them happen, I thought, if you went that way.

The above "where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator" shows a lack of understanding of the concept of a hypothesis. You posit the null then seek evidence of its *contrary* - there is no such thing as evidence *for* a null hypothesis. It is the position that a creator is needed that calls for evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:33 AM

Thread #155384   Message #3660870
Posted By: Bill D
16-Sep-14 - 02:27 PM
Thread Name: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion


You pray... I'll say 'amen'.

Those who care will understand.

---

I think there's a song (click) in there....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:04 AM

""where is the evidence for your belief/hypothesis that there is no need for a creator" shows a lack of understanding of the concept of a hypothesis. You posit the null then seek evidence of its *contrary* - there is no such thing as evidence *for* a null hypothesis."

Very well expressed, if I may say so, Mrrzy?

So you see, pete, the onus is on you to produce evidence for a creator. You might also like to brush up on what the word "logic" means. It certainly does not mean "something that I can believe in" - as you seem to think it does!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM

What's all this about atheist claims pete?

There's no such thing.

You re the one with the unrealistic proposition. Justify your claim rather than saying that dismissing your claim is a claim in itself.

Which it isn't.

Steve, you are being too realistic, logical and accurate. I've told you about this before. No use, it goes over too many heads. You can't tell a mason not to roll up his trouser leg...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:52 AM

Greg and Stu, I never claimed, and do not claim there is "hard evidence that God exists" or that there are any "indicators" that he does.

Jack did state, " All the indicators are that God is impossible"

It is reasonable to ask what those indicators are.
Do you know what they are?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:56 AM

It is reasonable to ask what those indicators are.

Essentially it comes down to two things : 1) Understanding the mythological / folkloric origins of the very concept of God and 2) Understanding the utter redundancy of the concept in the light of ongoing scientific discovery. Also, it's about the incompatibility of the concept within the sheer diversity of 'supernatural' options on offer - the old 'They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong' equation. I remember an old very non-PC cartoon featuring a psychiatric ward full of delusional messiahs. The caption, spoken from one orderly to another, was : "They can't ALL be Jesus."

As ever, objectivism is the key. The human predeliction for mythological invention and storytelling is NOT evidence of God, Gods, UFOs, Ghosts, Fairies, Monsters, Angels, Demons, Men in Black etc. rather evidence of our equal capacity for a) inventiveness and b) delusion. Basically, we invented God in our ignorance and science has shown us the error of our ways as it reveals to us the origins of the universe, our solar system, our planet, the evolution of life and, ultimately, ourselves.

Then comes our culture, our myths, our dreams, our religions, our wild imaginings born from the very depths of awe, wonder & terror from the dawn of human consciousness that gave rise to cognition and language. And there we were, unique in all of nature; the very cosmos contemplating itself and asking itself : 'What the fuck???' and coming up with a myriad of different certainties all of which claim monopoly on the truth.

50,000 years or so down the line, Science asks the same question, though it doesn't make shit up to fill in the blanks, much less does it put ourselves at the centre of it all. As it said on The Sky at the Night recently, humanity has only been truly intelligent for 100 years - the nature of that intelligence is a) peer reviewed and b) ever-evolving. Who knows where we'll be in another hundred?

Fear not ye faithful Godly believers! Chances are we'll fuck it up and be plunged back into an apocalyptic pagan / Abrahamic nightmare of rancid tribalism in which our Gods and Demons will rule supreme once more. Sounds like a fair few of you are already there, cozying in for the long dark night of the human soul when Planet Earth will be cold and silent once more...

Still, at least the wildlife might get a chance to recover. Every cloud, as they say...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM

steve, whatever science has discovered, you cannot know that it will explain what it has'nt as yet. you just believe that based on your a priori assumption that there are only naturalistic explanations to be found.
lighter, that is a clever argument , but just because the simplest explanation involves belief in a deity encompassing multiple attributes, does not mean that infinite regression is more viable. do you think that stacks up in observational science, better than , everything [that has a beginning] must have a sufficient cause ?
yes, as a biblical Christian, I do believe original sin is the reason and outcome of all that is evil and disastrous. why should zorastrianism be considered a better explanation.
mrrzy, whether or not I misuse word- hypothesis- does not alter the fact that , if you think about it at all, you must believe in self creation, or steady state of some description .
you posit nothing to start with [I presume ] ,I posit God.
despite claims that there is no evidence for him, it is at least logical that if there is a deity/creator , creation follows.
if there was absolutely nothing, where is the logic in anything from that [ except that "that" implies something when actually there is [         ....       ]

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:48 AM

Jack, neither of those two indicators make God "impossible."
If there was any "indicator" that made God impossible, there would be fewer intelligent people who believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:35 AM

I don't think intelligence and belief are incompatible; just as I don't think believers are fools. I know a lot of very clever believers - and a lot of very idiotic atheists. Like music, it's all a matter of taste. This has nothing to with the nature of the God Myth, or the nature of belief, or yet of religion which serves to engender and exploit that belief in a myriad of ways all of which are utterly inconsistent with one another. I spend a lot of time immersed in religious folklore, maybe too much (pity my long-suffering wife last week on the Three Hare Trail in darkest Devon!) but it's something of a passion of mine. The humanity of these things is paramount, just as an awareness of the inhumanity inherent therein is worth bearing in mind, but such is life.

There is one common reality we all share in; we are all born from it, and we we will all die back into it. Matter can't be created or destroyed, like it says in the Egyptian Book of the Dead : Existence is for all eternity. We are starstuff. As human beings we tell stories, and some of them catch on, for whatever reason. This doesn't make them true. Science is ongoing and revelatory, it is engendered by enlightenment that is (slowly but surely) replacing a need for the supernatural with something far greater than anything we have ever conceived of hitherto. Furthermore, it is real, it is everything, it is everywhere and it is common to us all. Unlike God, who is just a character in a book of noxious fairy tales told to children to get them to behave. Thus do I maintain, God is impossible simply because he is nowhere else other than in human fiction and, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are NO indicators whatsoever of him being a possibility. Least of all belief, no matter how intelligent the believer.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:45 AM

That reminds me. I clean forgot. I am a signed up member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I signed up in order to put it on a form I had to fill in when doing some public sector advisory work.

We pastafarians tend to forget our faith from time to time. A bit like anybody of any other faith when it suits them...

pete says sin is the reason there is so much evil. Considering Christians consider themselves sinners, stop sinning then!

Never mind. Let he who is stoned cast the first sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

You can probably tell me then, Ian, some things I have long wondered:—

Is that True Deity worshipped ketchupped or plain?; Bolognese or carbonara?; with or without Holy Parmesan? I think these most vital theological and liturgical points, which I require settled before I could even think of becoming a worshipper.

≈M≈

---

Post number 500. I think you win a prize, Mike. Damned if I know what the prize is or who gives it out...but it is significant that this thread has gone on in relative peace for 500 posts.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:56 AM

Jack, I accept and agree with your first sentence, which is not compatible with God being impossible.
Only a fool would believe in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:34 AM

Many of you may scoff, but the divinity I seek and sometimes glimpse, is a divinity that is beyond the ability to describe or define. Words can only approach that divinity, but can never encompass it. Myth and metaphor approach that divinity far more effectively than can doctrine or theology or logic. The Orthodox Christian tradition is to speak of that divinity in oxymorons - Trinity being one of the better-known of these. The Jewish tradition is not to pronounce the true name of G-d, YHWH. There are many different traditions or "systems of belief" that attempt to approach this divinity - all are valid, but all can only approach the reality of the divine, whatever that reality might or might not be. The "system of belief/unbelief" that holds that there is no God, is also valid. But since all have validity and all fall short of the reality, all should owe respect to each other. Western religious tradition, particularly Christianity, tends to anthropomorphize this divinity - and most of the arguments above are about this anthropomorphic god. I see the arguments on both sides, as futile. How does one argue a metaphor? Too many "religious" people worship the myth or the anthropomorphosis or the metaphor, and then they lose sight and fall short of whatever is Beyond.

Perhaps God is, and perhaps God isn't...or maybe the both. Whatever the case, all things would be the same either way. If this God is, then human belief would neither increase or decrease God's essence or efficacy. But somehow, I find value in exploring the question of God. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but it works for me. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine - but I don't walk in your shoes, nor you in mine.

My working definition of The Divinity is That Which Is Beyond and That Which Is Within. I've explored that oxymoron for years, and haven't come up with any answers. But the exploration has opened many doors for me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:35 AM

"whether or not I misuse word- hypothesis- does not alter the fact that , if you think about it at all, you must believe in self creation, or steady state of some description .
you posit nothing to start with [I presume ] ,I posit God.
despite claims that there is no evidence for him, it is at least logical that if there is a deity/creator , creation follows."

Continued misuse of the words "hypothesis" and "logical". And you're the one doing the "positing". The scientific evidence, so far, points to something like something from nothing - I'm keeping an open mind (but I'm an aganostic - and that's what agnostics do).

I've thought about it, pete, and I find that I don't develop any sort of belief in "self creation" (whatever that is) and I'm not even sure what you mean by "steady state" - let alone believe in it!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:53 AM

Wow, Joe. Thank you. I will watch every mail agog to see what my prize will be!

Reminded --to drift for a second [blame Joe -- he started it!] -- of a cartoon in one of my old bound volumes of Punch magazine from about 1920s; caption:

Proud Father: Young man, the man who marries my daughter will win a prize.

Young Man: By Jove, Sir, that's a wonderful idea! Will it be a cash prize or a silver cup?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:03 AM

"yes, as a biblical Christian, I do believe original sin is the reason and outcome of all that is evil and disastrous."

Do you blame the victim then? How come the totally innocent suffer?


"Thus do I maintain, God is impossible simply because he is nowhere else other than in human fiction and, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are NO indicators whatsoever of him being a possibility."

But surely if we have no indication of him that doesn't preclude him from existence? I doubt we are close to recognising what life actually is, as obsessed as we are with our own carbon-based makeup. Even then I'll warrant we can't detect some carbon-based life forms, let alone the denizens of the wonderfully-named 'shadow biosphere'.

Extrapolate that lack of understanding to a cosmic scale and all bets are off. Sentinent gas clouds, beings so old we can't even recognise them as being alive let alone attempt communication as a single thought might take eons to form for them. We might be able to detect god but not have a clue what we're looking at.

Until it's disproved nothing is impossible, even god. At the moment, at this level of technology and understanding there is however not a jot of evidence he exists, only hearsay.

I heard a voice in a stream near our house once (true).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:08 AM

"Voice" in what sense, Stu Did it just say 'gurgle gurgle' in tones approximating to some sort of human voice; or did it say "Men may come, and men may go, but I go on for ever"?

I think we should be told!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:28 AM

"Sentient cloud."
Such a thing was the subject of a fictional story by the brilliant astronomer Fred Hoyle.
Early 60s?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:45 AM

I'm going to look the Fred Hoyle story up, not sure where I heard it but I love the idea.

MGM: I'm not rising to the bait ;-) I am. I could hear the voice but not make out the words, it was as if is was muffled or heard through a wall. A case of aural pareidolia I guess, but really quite wonderfully odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:50 AM

Lightly tossed in olive oil, served with tomato, buffalo mozzarella, basil and pine nuts.

The simplest deities are often the true ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:07 PM

science fiction... where we get to color outside the lines and play round with ideas...

Issac Asimov's The Last Question is a lighthearted piece that no one should be taking seriously either...

I was still a kid when Fred Hoyle graciously conceded that the Big Bany theory had more supporting evidence than his theory of a steady state universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:10 PM

Spaghetti Monster? I'm more of a Linguine Demon myself, though since buying our Gefu Spiralfix Spiral Cutter all of our noodles are now 100% vegetable - mostly courgette, but carrot is good too. Consequently my pasta faith is wavering rather.

I must tell you, we ordered our first one from Selfridges and when it arrived it was a £200 Vivienne Westwood shirt. In my size? I think not! But since replacing proper noodles with vegetable ones, I'm getting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:26 PM

> more supporting evidence than his theory of a steady state universe.

Unless it turns out that what we see is a three-dimensional holographic projection on the "shell" of a black hole formed by the collapse of a four-dimensional star in a far larger universe.

Think I'm kidding?:

http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

which all goes to illustrate that science moves on with better and better questions, Lighter.

think anyone was in a position to ask that question 40 years ago?

be interesting to see how they test for answers to this one... the cosmic background noise was found by Bell engineers looking for answers to a totally different question/problem.

and back to science fiction... Arthur C. Clarke had some "fun" with "The Nine Billions Name of God" & "The Sun"...   again, not to be taken literally...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:59 PM

2000AD did a great Future Shock 30+ years ago where the action starts in a school biology class where the pupils are looking into microscopes at life in a single drop of water on their slides. We then pan back and back until we see our universe was in a drop of water on a microscope slide being studied by unimaginably huge aliens pupils in a classroom and the voiceover was the alien teacher all along.

Much of this modern physics is way more weird than any religion dreamt up by humankind. I can be really quite odd indeed.

Bostin stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:44 PM

steve, whatever science has discovered, you cannot know that it will explain what it has'nt as yet. you just believe that based on your a priori assumption that there are only naturalistic explanations to be found.

Oh yes I can. Science is the only way that anything that has already been explained has been explained. That has been the trajectory of the human race since, er, Adam were a lad. I do not believe, but I am certain, that science will go on explaining things. I am also pretty certain that there will be things that will be unexplained even as the last human dies out. And I have made no assumptions, a priori or otherwise. In all of human endeavour, not one phenomenon has ever been explained, with evidence, by non-naturalistic means. To suggest that, aha, currently unexplained things may yield to non-naturalistic explanations makes you no more more than a fraudster suffering from severe sour grapes just because it's never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:51 PM

Many of you may scoff, but the divinity I seek and sometimes glimpse, is a divinity that is beyond the ability to describe or define.

I won't scoff, but I will point out that this is exactly how big religion deliberately puts their invented God safely beyond explanation. Religion doesn't want a God who is vulnerable to the challenges of human intellect, hard evidence and rationality. That would lead to far too much doubt and uncomfortable discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:04 PM

The best creation myths : 2001 : A Space Odyssey and Quatermass and the Pit. I'm a huge fan of both Nigel Kneale and Arthur C. Clarke. I love Carl Sagan's Contact as well for deep spirituality & a keen awareness of a Creator in terms of classic mythic narrative. The Alien mythos is pretty neat too; I love its recent extension into the realm of Prometheus, not the best of films but a top concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:29 PM

shimrod,- presumably you now know what is meant by the "steady state" .
so what is this scientific evidence that points to "something like something from nothing" then ?.
stu says " how come the totally innocent suffer then " I don't pretend to have the complete answer to that, and as much as I do know from scripture, certainly wont be accepted by you.
following adam and eves disobedience God pronounced a curse on the earth. suffering came into the world as a consequence of sin and judgment. I know that raises more questions and challenges, but my job is not to defend God ,where I don't know all the answers, but proclaim his message.
well steve, as you know, I don't accept that science has explained as much as you claim, and even your beloved Darwin acknowledged that the data could be otherwise accounted for beside his ideas.
and if anything, there is even more to explain as science uncovers even more complexity. now the genetic code is found to have another code on that, so that there is even more accounted for in DNA. seems the complexity is often irreducible....but of course an evolutionist is committed to deny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:58 PM

"My job is to defend God..." Well, tell the all-powerful bastard to stop wasting your bloody time and bloody well defend himself! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:59 PM

Oops, misread that one!!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 06:33 PM

following adam and eves disobedience God pronounced a curse on the earth. suffering came into the world as a consequence of sin and judgment.

According to apocryphal Christian folklore, when Adam died, certain seeds were planted in his mouth which grew into the wood which was used to make the rood, the cross on which Christ was crucified. In Norwich Cathedral cloister there is an amazing Foliate Passion in which Christ is nailed to the same foliage afflicting the neighbouring foliate heads (erroneously known as 'Green Men' since 1939) possibly depicting Adam as Everyman in a state of natural fallen sinfulness. Adam is often portrayed as looking like Christ / God in medieval iconography (i.e. in his literal image).

One of the more remarkable medieval foliate heads is a 15th century wooden boss in the church of St, Andrew's at Samford Courtenay in Devon which depicts a possible 'Green Christ', but as the face is quite obviously dead, this is more likely to be Adam, and the growth symbolic of the sinfulness for which Christ died on the wood of the cross thus grown. Here's a picture of it from my visit there last week.

Green Christ, or Dead Adam, Sampford Courtenay, Devon

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:08 PM

Begod, you could have called in for a pint! Steve, of Bude...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:39 PM

Reminded of the lines from Donne

"We think that Paradise and Calvary,
Christ's Cross and Adam's Tree'
Stood in one place"

on which one annotation [by Redpath, I think] comments, "We don't any more".

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religi
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 12:27 AM

Sigh, OK, we had our debate about whether Neil deGrasse Tyson was a mealymouthed weasel about whether we was an atheist or not, and grumble grumble ok ok well, maybe, by distancing himself as a scientist from those awful atheists, yeah, ok, I can see that maybe he did *science* a favor. By buying into the whole badmouthing atheists things. And more science means more atheists in the long run... grumble grumble ok, yeah, maybe weasel is too strong a term. What do y'all think? Does distancing their lack of belief in deity from the term atheist do more good for science than it does harm for atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 03:28 AM

pete says he is not defending god. We worked that out a long time ago. Joe manages it with a modicum of thought and appreciation of the subject.

Still, considering we understand science to work on the relative level, let's be relative about religion.

So many cults. So many claims that contradict each other. Perhaps the brethren amongst us might consider which tenets they hold dear that a different religion might have a better explanation for?

Haven't you already carried out such a study? No?

Well stop trying to put superstition on a level with the sciences. Try the arts department instead. They have a better understanding of abstract thought.

By the way, there is more written about the Noodly one now than had been written about the Christian god in Victorian times, when you were socially conditioned to be superstitious.

Makes you think...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:05 AM

"following adam and eves disobedience God pronounced a curse on the earth. suffering came into the world as a consequence of sin and judgment."

It does raise more questions, but that's what we're here for. I don't understand why innocents should suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve?

Didn't Christ pay for our sins? How can those without guilt or guile be made to suffer if they have done nothing wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:54 AM

Interesting Jack.
Do you know the old carol Jesus Christ The apple Tree?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3fZDZxiko

1. The tree of life my soul hath seen,
Laden with fruit and always green:
The trees of nature fruitless be
Compared with Christ the apple tree.

2. His beauty doth all things excel:
By faith I know, but ne'er can tell
The glory which I now can see
In Jesus Christ the apple tree.

3. For happiness I long have sought,
And pleasure dearly I have bought:
I missed of all; but now I see
'Tis found in Christ the apple tree.

4. I'm weary with my former toil,
Here I will sit and rest awhile:
Under the shadow I will be,
Of Jesus Christ the apple tree.

5. This fruit doth make my soul to thrive,
It keeps my dying faith alive;
Which makes my soul in haste to be
With Jesus Christ the apple tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 05:21 AM

Steve, of Bude...

Looking at the map the nearest we got to Bude was a toilet stop-cum-pilgrimage at Tescos in Launceston - reputedly the supermarket of choice for Tori Amos, but what are the chances?? Didn't do any pubs / folk in' at all this time; back in 2009 I remember a pleasant evening at a singaround in Bideford...

*

So many cults. So many claims that contradict each other.

Objectivism is a problem for so subjective a thing as religion. Whilst we might revel and draw strength and succour from the amazing fictions of Arthur C. Clarke and Dr. Who, there is, as yet, no one who insists these things are in any way true to the point of wholesale massacre of heretics or suicide bombings or the simple conviction that whilst they are saved, those of a different mind are damned for all eternity, much less actively propagating ignorance, AIDS, misogyny, homophobia, institutionalised child abuse or else making saints out of evil old cows who routinely withheld painkillers from those in her care so they might better experience the love of Jesus.

This is but another signifier on the impossibility of an all powerful supernatural omniscient God. Though I don't doubt that somewhere in the infinite multi dimensional quantum possibilities of the cosmos resides a being of such advancement and complexity that I can no more contemplate their essence than the slugs in our Lancashire kitchen can conceive of Tori Amos doing her weekly shop at Tescos in Launceston. I doubt, however, such a being would be a) supernatural or b) at all bothered with the goings on here on Planet Oith any more than Tori Amos is bothered about our slugs.

For the most part though, I reckon LIFE is a matter of perfect ordinariness. Indeed, it's the very ordinariness of life that makes us seek the divine. If, as Carl Sagan believed, life is a cosmic inevitability then the lot of any sentient civilisation must lie in the mundane. Light years away, as I write this, an alien intelligence will be contemplating eternity whilst stuck waiting for a space in the supermarket carpark of some rural backwater hoping to catch a glimpse of Godlike Genius going about their everyday business. To some of us, it doesn't get more sacred than that - the special treasures of subjective ordinariness that might transfigure the objective commonplace into something truly numinous.

*

On our way down to Devon we stopped of at Worcester (very exotic fort us!) where I headed for the cathedral and my wife headed for the shops. Half an hour later, she rang me to say she'd found something very special in Oxfam and could't wait to give it to me. I don't have the words to impart the joy I felt at so perfectly ordinary a juxtaposition (much less that I'd been after a copy for years) so here's the picture I took on her Nokia Lumina so I might upload it to Facebook and share my happiness with the world:

Numinous Exultation! 6th September 2014

Each to their own, but we're all in this thing together. There is nothing more sacred than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 05:30 AM

Keith - I do indeed, but only from the singing of Jane Siberry (another of my wife's little pantheon along with Tori Amos, Laura Nyro, Judee Sill, Bat for Lashes et al.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XYNNVLKuyJg

*

I dare say Tori Amos might have had more of a hand in remaking it, as evidenced by her recent(ish) album of Christmas carols. Here's one to get you in the mood - only 14 weeks to go! I can just see her singing this getting in the Xmas goodies in Launceston Tescos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHZYmffegXc

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 09:20 AM

A first-person explanation:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-portas/god-speaks-the-reason-we-are-here-on-earth_b_5826348.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 11:15 AM

My counter to Musket's last post.

How can any one person have the one true answer about relegion?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 12:12 PM

The prodigal returns! Where did I put that fatted calf?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:10 PM

everyone was happy when the prodigal son came home, except the older brother and the fatted calf !
that foliate thing is interesting, jack. the Christ/adam likeness may stem from pauls comparison and contrast, in his letters to the romans, and Corinthians.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:25 PM

Jack. Are you the one checking his arse or holding what you mistakenly think is his willy?

How many answers do you have? 42 perchance?

I don't quite understand your jibe. You cannot come up with answers about religion any more than you can about Star Wars. As I didn't write the bible, I don't have a single answer and neither do I wish to come out with one.

A christian might have a stab, but it is irrelevant to rational people. Except how superstitious people insist on wishing it to be relevant to others, forcing bigoted agendas under the disguise of God wants it that way.

Quite.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:46 PM

mrrzy ,- I don't think more science will make more atheists, more likely the reverse. take Anthony flew for example, a committed atheist till he looked into the complexity of DNA.
IF YOU MEAN...MORE EVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA, I would tend to agree.

musket, there are quite a few different evolutionary stories also. so saying that different ideas of God is an argument that there is none is a non starter.

well stu, as I said, I can only go so far, as the bible does not give all the answers. in fact, it infers that we should leave the things to God that he has not revealed, and trust him for those.
in one sense, no one is innocent, because we are all sinners, but of course small children and others without moral responsibility suffer. I can only conjecture that this is because they are part of this world ,and I don't know that parellel systems are a credible option.
yes , Christ did die for our sins, and those that repent and believe will be saved. that death[ and resurrection] also reverses the curse so that there will come a return to a paradise state. the suffering of the past will be past and the innocent will be eternally recompensed.
I don't know that you wanted all that....but you did ask !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

but of course small children and others without moral responsibility suffer. I can only conjecture that this is because they are part of this world

Or is it because the "God" you worship is a real prick?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 02:03 PM

And now, a Musical Interlude

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 02:07 PM

I start teaching another quarter of ethics tomorrow, I should have them read this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 02:35 PM

Another musical interlude...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMUx_9_trGw

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 03:52 PM

the Christ/adam likeness may stem from pauls comparison and contrast, in his letters to the romans, and Corinthians.

Possibly, but medieval iconography portrays God in exactly the same way so it's more a matter of Genesis 1:27 : So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

There are some lovely images in a Bodleian bestiary (Ms. Ashmole 1511, c. 1190) of the Creation in which the family resemblance is so strong it looks like Jesus having a day out at the zoo:

http://www.wga.hu/art/zgothic/miniatur/1151-200/2english/37englis.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 03:53 PM

The true story:

www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/2/.../azmak.pdf

Scroll to bottom of page six.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:05 PM

Steve, of Bude...

Looking at the map the nearest we got to Bude was a toilet stop-cum-pilgrimage at Tescos in Launceston - reputedly the supermarket of choice for Tori Amos, but what are the chances??

Quite high. That is our Tesco of choice, though we're normally in Lanson either for Specsavers or for Lidl!

...back in 2009 I remember a pleasant evening at a singaround in Bideford...

I'd bet it was the Joiners Arms and that my old mucker Derek was there, singing his song about the beast of Bodmin Moor... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:27 PM

My previous post was meant for a different thread. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 06:10 PM

When we got there, Lanson was closed apart from Oxfam, briefly. I missed the church, but saw a Chinese takeaway called Sun Wah, which made me smile, although that was closed too.

I think it was the Joiner's Arms in Bideford, but I can't remember too much about it other than a very genial sing and I sang Butter & Cheese & All. Not sure about the Beast of Bodmin, but we did see the Beast of Exmoor on a trip to Exmoor Zoo. I think we went to Bude in 2009 as well - I remember eating a pasty by the sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 08:13 PM

I enjoin anyone in north Cornwall who wishes to eat a pasty by the sea to make sure you get it from the Chough bakery in Padstow. Endure any other pasty in the area (with the honourable exception of Barnecutts of Rock) and you are severely letting yourself down. I hereby wish to point out that I have connections neither with Chough's bakery nor with Rick Stein.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:40 AM

Cheers Pete, and I did ask hoping for a genuine reply. As you guess, it still leaves me rather befuddled and I can't comprehend how any supposedly benevolent god would allow innocents to suffer. I can't accept his motives aren't open to question and we should accept this is the way of the world. For me, that's a real problem with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:06 AM

Looks like God fucked up pretty bad, huh? Still, maybe he ain't so wicked after all, more of a Bad Father in the classic Homer Simpson mode of things, acting with best intentions as he neglects & strangles to life out of his kids by turns only to make some grand gesture of supreme selflessness in which he ends up being crucified on his own carpentry. D'oh!

*

Next time I'm Way Out West, Steve, I'll try those Padstow Pasties.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

Well, don't blame "God" for "original sin", Stu - it was invented by Irenaeus & Augustine several centuries after Christ died.

Of course, you CAN blame pete & his ilk for perpetuating the obscenity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 10:02 AM

What? Youm mean 'original sin' isn't in the bible?

I dunno. Science is much simpler and lots more fun, especially palaeontology. That comes with beer. Mmmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 10:26 AM

I had a lovely pasty or two from the little pasty shop in Dartmouth.
thankyou stu. for a respectful question, and exchange of view. I certainly wish that there were not suffering, but I guess that is where faith comes in, and if nothing else it gives the opportunity to express kindness, care, and active love for others.
certainly not so respectful, greg.
original sin may have been formulated as doctrine later on, but that formulation came from what was already in the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:00 AM

True, Pete, but it remains no more than a human interpretation projected onto a story that has every hallmark of being a fable in itself.

As a persuasive explanation for the amazing amount of horror and evil in the world, not all of it man-made by any means, it leaves many of us rather cold.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 12:42 PM

pete, glancing back through recent posts, I was struck by the following phrase in one of yours: "MORE EVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA".

What is 'evolutionary propaganda'? Who, exactly, is responsible for 'evolutionary propaganda'? The word 'propaganda' implies that there are people out there with an agenda who wish to recruit others to their way of thinking; again, who are these people? Are they politicians, academics or servants of the Anti-Christ or the Devil? I suspect that you really do think that there's some sort of vast conspiracy out there, don't you? Are there really thousands of academics, in hundreds of universities throughout the world, spending their lives and vast sums of public and private money on a secret project to discredit the stories in an old book?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 12:45 PM

but that formulation came from what was already in the bible.

Can you render that statement into comprehensible English, pete?

Is that kinda like Hollywood movies "based on a true story"?

Or is it more like John Darby's 19th Century invention of "The Rapture"?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:03 PM

Pete... 2 days ago you said:" but my job is not to defend God ,where I don't know all the answers, but proclaim his message"

I was once told essentially that by Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked at my door. We had a polite but intense discussion as they read me more Bible verses. (They couldn't seem to get the point that I did not accept the message in those verses because I did not accept the authority of the Bible.)

The discussion ended when I finally explained that even IF their claims, 'proclaiming his message' were true, I would not wish to live eternally in a heaven run by a deity whose rules were as they said. Condemning all following generations for Adam's Fall and various other unreasonable ideas just didn't please me.
The JWs were startled and unable to deal with an answer like that... but several days later, an older elder with more experience came by to try to 'clear things up'. He... ummmm... read me MORE bible verses. I explained once more that I didn't accept the bible's authority. He left, and I haven't seen them since. I think I'm on a list with the heading "Hopeless".

   Their church is only a 5 minute walk from my house. I have toyed with the idea of stopping by and asking if such a list exists... but..... nawww..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:07 PM

Oh, by the way... not long after, a pair of LDS (Mormons) knocked. I saw their suits and book and assumed they were JWs again, and said so....

wow... you talk about offended! They have never been back again either.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:32 PM

It seems the the Archbishop of Canterbury and I have a lot in common, in that neither of us is certain as to whether God exists or not. Yet he's the archbishop and I'm an atheist. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

the the minus the

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 03:12 PM

Some people ask Jehovas Witnesses what their individual number is. Others ask them that if their God wanted them to follow him, he would get in touch direct rather than send door to door sales staff.

Nothing beats shouting Fuck Off! loud enough for the neighbours to hear and slamming the door, especially as some try to keep their hands in the way. (Considering our cottage stands on its own, it helps to have a big mouth with which to let the neighbours know. I think of it as community service.)

What is interesting is that I have never seen a door to door God botherer think that a sign saying no hawkers or unsolicited callers applies to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:01 PM

but I guess that is where faith comes in, and if nothing else it gives the opportunity to express kindness, care, and active love for others.

All of which can be, and regularly are, expressed WITHOUT "faith", pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:18 PM

Mostly, I'd say. Kindness, care, and active love for others have evolved as integral to our humanity, unlike religion, which, however so prevalent, is nevertheless optional.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:22 PM

> I would not wish to live eternally in a heaven run by a deity whose rules were as they said.

Thomas Nagel said something similar in "What Does It All Mean?" (1987), one of the best philosophy books under 125 pages ever written for the astute but average Joe.

However, I don't think Nagel went so far as to suggest he'd reject Grace and Forgiveness if they were directly and unmistakably offered.

Your position seems more, um, Miltonic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:05 PM

Miltonic? I guess so... but I 'invented' the idea before hearing anyone else express it that way. Maybe 'developed' the idea over time is a better way to put it.

---------------------

"Nothing beats shouting Fuck Off! ".. Oh sure it does... for me anyway. They get the loud rejection often enough- they are even taught to 'roll with the punches', but careful, reasoned argument and discussion seems to get to them. I much prefer to plant a tiny bit of doubt & confusion as I explain alternatives to blind acceptance. Whether it works or not, it's good practice for me.
I am not interested in just being 'offensive'. They are free to tell me their position... I am free to explain mine. (I spent 20-30 minutes talking to 2 young ladies one evening in the St. Louis, Missouri airport. [I warned them before we began]...They didn't seem to have ever heard a quiet, polite counter-argument before. Maybe they just went home and learned 'standard replies', but they certainly listened as I allowed how I liked being a skeptic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:50 AM

pete! Are you there? pete! Did you read my post about the absurdity of the phrase "evolutionary propaganda"? I don't seem to have had a response from you on that one ... pete ... ?

Anyway, on the bus the other day I was thinking idly about why anyone would want to propagandise the findings of evolutionary biologists when suddenly a blindingly obvious thought struck me! Evolutionary biologists have nothing to gain from propaganda - but creationists do! Just think of all those hell-fire preachers and fundamentalist zealots in the churches and on the lecture circuits of the Deep South and the Mid-west (and probably Essex, Gloucestershire, Northumberland etc., etc. too). They're probably all making a 'nice little earner' and have lots of power and influence over their (gullible, pious) flocks too. But there's a huge and unavoidable cloud on the horizon: the findings of modern science. That science makes it obvious that the Bible is just an old book full of myths and none of it is literally true - as they've been preaching for ages. So they pump out loads of pseudo-scientific nonsense about evolutionary biology being 'wrong' and all evolutionary biologists being wicked deceivers. All of the stuff that you parrot is propaganda in my book, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 12:01 PM

They are free to tell me their position... I am free to explain mine.

To what end? I'm surprised you don't have better and/or more productive ways to waste your time, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM

Not that my opinion matters, but I have found that the best approach to JW's is a polite "No thank you." and if they return, "Please do not come back." Carol tried to engage them. But that makes them think that they have a chance to convert you.

Mormons don't come here. If they did, I would ask them "how do I get my own planet?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

Shimrod... it is indeed propaganda, but very few of the serious propangandists understand and admit what they are doing. Emotionally and psychologically, they **believe**.      

   Whether it is because of generations of being raised with the 'fear of God' hovering over them, or being converted as adults by something like "Pascals Wager" (assuming that believing is the safest bet), their defense begins (as Pete admits) with belief... and therefore they MUST accept some degree of logical fallacy in order to remain faithful.
   It is just fascinating (to me anyway) that part of being human includes the ability to deny the obvious and accept the incredible.

Fake moon landings, flat earth, ghosts, Tarot cards, astrology, phrenology, elves, reincarnation, and a host of 'interesting' superstitions are all an aspect of having a brain that can conceive of such things. It is, frankly, much more 'work' to sort thru the odd claims and keep a genuinely open mind. It is much easier to just nod and adopt a few cultural variants of obvious historical meanderings.... even among some of the supposedly most 'intelligent'. Intelligence can be used to construct clever, convoluted defenses of non-scientific concepts.

I debate Pete and others... I also try as best I can to 'see' what is at work in their world that sends them in certain directions.... and some of those directions have positive aspects, no matter what we feel about their basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 12:58 PM

I enjoy debating intelligent people of faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 01:19 PM

are all an aspect of having a brain that can conceive of such things

Or, rather, an aspect of having no real brains at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 01:26 PM

Oh, don't be silly, Greg....

.wait...never mind, you can no more avoid that sort of remark than Pete can help believing.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:50 PM

"....deny the obvious , and accept the incredible" said bill.       Can you really not see, that something from nothing via no one falls neatly into that description !?       But from your earlier post, I am not really surprised. You are not about to bow before deity, even were you persuaded intellectually . Sad about it though.                                              Shimrod, some or all of your suggested propagandists , but not all aware that they are so. And there's a lot of well paid jobs.....probably much more than most clerics earn.....that might just sway reasoning.    But I mainly use that term in terms of contrast. Instead of presenting evidence for their dogma, it is just presented as fact. These posts, and probably mostly yours, shimrod,, are perfect examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 05:19 PM

We were accosted by two Christians on our way back to the car in Manchester earlier; we politely ignored them but when they began hailing after us to 'Have a nice day!' with patronising cheer, I turned round and told them with suitable jubilation to go fuck themselves.

I'd make it unlawful for religious people to preach on the streets much less trouble innocent passers-by with their noxious delusions. As Christ himself said : 'Be passers-by.' (Gospel of Thomas, 42).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 06:47 PM

"Can you really not see, that something from nothing via no one falls neatly into that description !?"

No, because it's an hypothesis based on an analogy. Now where's the evidence to support your hypothesis, pete? All of the evidence, so far, suggests (something like) expansion of a point source of infinite density at some point in the distant past. On the other hand, there's absolutely no evidence for a big beardy bloke in the sky creating everything. Just because you can't imagine something, doesn't make it wrong and scientific conclusions are drawn from evidence - not belief or faith (i.e. the fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:17 PM

Same concern as Shimrod..
"Can you really not see, that something from nothing via no one falls neatly into that description !?"
Can YOU not see that I just don't concern myself with a conundrum that we have no way to answer? And can you not see that IF I accepted that 'something' required a creator first cause, how am I supposed to answer the obvious question as to why there was a creator in the first place?
All your belief does is push the question back one step. Granted, it makes a good story, but it requires all sorts of unproven assumptions about existence... and why a god would care... and the serious question of how a few old manuscripts got that story!
It is you, Pete(and of course, many others), who asserts that it all happened as the Christian bible seems to state..... I just don't make any assumptions, so I don't have to defend anything. (well, I do assert things about valid logic & such, but that doesn't require metaphysics.)

(And Pete... just curious...is that really you? why suddenly capitalization & punctuation? You used to not capitalize much except for 'God'. This does make reading easier.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:30 PM

There is a troll afoot. Quite easy to recognise, guys. Don't make twats of yourselves by responding to not Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:35 PM

Intelligent people of faith. Mmm. Have to think about that one. There are intelligent people abound and many have a form of faith but trying to reason it with people who don't share the delusion is never going to get them anywhere so why try!

Which just leaves us with those not quite so intelligent so maybe "fuck off" saves time for both sides after all.

I just find the arrogance of assuming I wish to waste good arse scratching time discussing their hobby to be on a level with those who think I have been missold credit card insurance. (I asked one who rang if she was a girl? I said our conversation would have to be our little secret because my key worker says I am not allowed to speak to girls.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:04 PM

> expansion of a point source of infinite density

Part of the difficulty is that such a thing is so unlike anything we're used to, all analogies and inferences break down.

Quantum mechanics, which has been verified by experiment, is just as bizarre.

But none of these things - and others that are almost sure to be encountered in the future - leads to the conclusion that it was all put in motion by a personal, ultraconscious force that has any interest in human welfare.

All the reliable evidence is to the contrary.

The burden of proof is on those who say they that these scientific and practical observations are wrong, or add up instead to something in the bible. (And why are Buddhism and Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and Greek paganism ruled out of the running?)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 02:48 AM

Intelligence can be used to construct clever, convoluted defenses of non-scientific concepts.

You can read that as implying that everything can potentially be explained using scientific concepts. I don't, of course, mean we could do so today; I mean the assumption that it is inherently possible. But that seems to me roughly equivalent to the belief [and I use the word with trepidation!] that everything could be understood through the laws of mechanics as a 'clockwork universe', a view that the whole of science pretty much accepted before the discovery of radioactivity started us down the path of things being rather more complicated than that.

On this question I am agnostic: I do not know whether science is potentially capable of explaining everything or not. But on balance, despite sciences tremendous powers of explanation, I suspect not. None of which should lead us to assume a book written so long ago can do so.

Now, I think it entirely proper to use our intelligence to construct models, explanations and interpretations of things that are either currently or perhaps eternally beyond science. Philosophy, for example, is a good discipline for working with uncertainties of that type. Bill is however completely right in declaring we should not be using our intelligence to assert such models as correct in the light of evidence which demonstrates they cannot be valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 07:19 AM

". . . and if nothing else it gives the opportunity to express kindness, care, and active love for others."

These values are certainly not exclusive to any religion, they are important to any half-decent person regardless if they have faith or not. I believe people are good at heart; our primate instincts are a fine balance of close social and family bonding and often brutal violence and we've developed societies that can keep a lid on the worst excesses, channeling our more belligerent instincts into sports etc.

At the end of the day, compassion for all living beings is the the best we as individuals can achieve.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 07:32 AM

> I believe people are good at heart; our primate instincts are a fine balance of close social and family bonding and often brutal violence

I detect a contradiction.

People have both kind and brutal tendencies. The fact that most societies encourage the kind ones and discourage the others suggests that "goodness" may outweigh "badness," but that still leaves the bad to be pretty damned bad.

Consider Nazis, ISIS, Assyrians, Soviet and Maoist Communism....

Everyone involved in these groups grew up in an orderly and presumably "nurturing" society.

And let's not even mention warfare, which might be nonexistent if humans were good at heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 12:10 PM

Troll?

pete doesn't troll.

unlike Mr Shaw he is not abusive, he makes an effort to discuss the topic and he shows respect for those with whom they differ.

He isn't abusive and he tr

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 12:27 PM

There are distinct differences in some posts supposedly by Pete. Some are by "pete from seven stars link" and some by "Pete from seven stars"... and one I found by "Peter from seven stars."

I wish for clarification, as 'my' *pete* is pretty consistent in his writing style. *Pete* uses the shift key.....

An obvious need for membership........

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:48 PM

pete doesn't troll He just bullshits.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,This is Pete on the I pad
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 05:20 PM

And the I pad automatically capitalises. I also have to write out my handle on it. Mostly, at home I use laptop. Sometimes explanations supposedly arrived at from evidence can be diverse......and totally wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 06:11 PM

"Sometimes explanations supposedly arrived at from evidence can be diverse......and totally wrong!"

Possibly, but so what?

And going back to your previous post:

"And there's a lot of well paid jobs.....probably much more than most clerics earn.....that might just sway reasoning."

Oh, right, so we're back to that extraordinary suspicion of yours that the evolutionary biology departments of the world's universities are teeming with closet creationists who go along with scientific orthodoxy in order to protect their well paid jobs! Amazing!! In more ways than one!

You really do think that modern science is a vast, anti-christian conspiracy, don't you, pete? Come on, why don't you admit it? Or is that thought too ridiculous, even for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:15 AM

Don't hold your breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:02 PM

well shimrod, you certainly demonstrate the evolutionist tactic of finding something that is true , and then inflating it to mean far, far more than the original data denotes !.
nice of you to demonstrate my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:40 PM

" and then inflating it to mean far, far more than the original data denotes !"

Like interpretations of translations of Genesis?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:46 PM

Don't you mean, "interpretations of different translations of a traditionally handed-down version of Genesis"?

People can't even agree on the meaning of the Sixth Commandment.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:50 PM

" ... you certainly demonstrate the evolutionist tactic of finding something that is true , and then inflating it to mean far, far more than the original data denotes !"

What, exactly, have I "inflated", pete? I'm not clear ... ?

And, oh yes, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist". How many more times?

And do you believe that modern science is a vast, anti-christian conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:47 PM

Yeah, Wacko. Utterly naive. You wouldn't recognise a troll if it reared up, bit you on your big fat sailor's bottom and shouted "I'm a troll and I have here a mouthful of Wacko's arse for supper!"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:28 AM

One bite at a time, sweet Jesus!
That's all I'm going to get through

All together now!

Perhaps any real Christians on this thread can confirm whether they see science as a cult with predetermined stances to defend against other cults?

Or is just pete bastardising religion through ignorance and causing embarrassment for real Christians?

(Notwithstanding the shaky tenets it stands on to begin with)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:38 AM

No such thing as Evolutionist, but there is - gulp! - Scientism... Naturally Carl Sagan's one it's greatest demons:

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/sagan.htm

Here he is on evolution. Soul stirring stuff - supposing Christians ever had such a thing as a soul, which I sorely, and sadly, must doubt...

Evolution is a Fact, not a Theory. IT REALLY HAPPENED

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 07:16 AM

Perhaps any real Christians on this thread can confirm whether they see science as a cult with predetermined stances to defend against other cults

I consider myself as real as Christian as any (but of course, other sects don't agree!) I assert science is *not* a cult with a predetermined stance, etc, etc.


Glad to be of help!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 08:27 AM

So pete falls at the first hurdle...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 11:37 AM

"No such thing as Evolutionist, but there is - gulp! - Scientism"

wow... so maybe I'm a Scientisimist! Gotta look THAT up:


back- 30 seconds later: I thought I was being funny, but no.... http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/25/i-myself-am-a-scientismist/

and many other uses, says Google. Humpty-Dumpty was right!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 12:10 PM

Just so long as you're not a Scientologist....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 12:54 PM

well bill, you are correct that interpretations of genesis go far beyond the data. the reading of genesis is fairly straightforward, esp ch 1. but in an effort to fall in with supposed science, the gap theory, framework hypothesis and theistic evolution have arisen. only the first, can be at all supported theologically, but far from airtight, imo. the others read ideas into the text that were never read before in the narrative.
"....translations..." ? .is that relevant ?. my information is that Hebrew scholars whether conservative or liberal, are agreed that the author[s] intended the narrative to be read as 6 normal length days of creation.
shimrod,- it is true that I said that evolutionism is the reigning paradigm, and that there are a lot of well paid jobs depending on that dogma being accepted. I did not say there was an organized conspiracy involving all of science.
you took something that was true [ ie what I said] and exaggerated my words.
in the same way, evolutionists extrapolate beyond the data, from observing natural selection, and mutations ,that pondscum can turn into people . of course the changes are so miniscule over countless aeons that it cant be seen , and so the lacking of evidence becomes the evidence, it would seem !.
of course there is something called an evolutionist, just like there is such a thing as a creationist. you are of the first, and I of the second. opposing positions on origins. whats your problem ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

Time to start a new thread, methinks, on "The Theory Of Gravity" where we can discuss Gravitationists & Anti-Gravitationists.

Or possibly one on "The Theory Of Heliocentrism".....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:06 PM

poor pete finds the evolutionary theory so threatening to his belief in the absolute accuracy and truth of his particular version of Genesis that he can't agree to disagree but feels compelled to argue his case... using examples that he gleans from like minded sources.

to be honest... he is more in danger from random acts of violence conducted by individuals who literally hate any and all christians, along with non christians who seem to be guilty by association. Or has he been so absorbed in his creationist tracts that he has missed the latest threats from the most current batch of rabid zealots...

why not rain on their parade? regale them with those pesky ten commandments... or the parables of Jesus of Nazareth.

for all his conspiracy theory regarding "evolutionists"... there hasn't been a single bombing or beheading attributed to those of us who support evolutionary theory... we don't even stage riots outside the doors of creationist offices. pretty boring folks if you ask me..   we just support open investigation and disclosure of information, regardless of who finds it offensive to their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:22 PM

Hmmm, I said something pithy last night that seems to have vanished into the ether...

Why can't the faithful agree with science and just have faith that deity made it look that way?

In other news, I've possibly decided, now that Neil deGrasse Tyson has kind of screwed down the coffin lid on the word atheist that I've been trying to take the hoodoo off of for over 20 years now, to start calling our side the naturalists. That way we have the unmarked term and people of faith can be the supernaturalists.

What do y'all think about that, while you aren't straw manning and ad hominemming each other?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:40 PM

Pete- "my information is that Hebrew scholars whether conservative or liberal, are agreed that the author[s] intended the narrative to be read as 6 normal length days of creation."

??how many Hebrew scholars of today have you consulted about this? And what difference does it make what anyone 'intended' a short passage to mean? The goal is to determine what DID happen. Reading it as 6 days of 24 hours each is a blatantly circular path assuming what you want to discover. In order to sustain such ideas, you must .. as you have done...try refute 27 areas of science, including, but not limited to, the amazing regularity of radioactive isotope decay and carbon¹⁴ decay.
As to 'gap theory', I have just been reading details of how that fits.. or doesn't.. and it doesn't lend itself to short explanations.

....................

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:55 PM

in the same way, evolutionists extrapolate beyond the data...

Even an old duffer like me can see the morphological evidences for Evolution throughout the animal kingdom and fossil record. All you have to do is do a skeletal comparison between whale flippers, bat wings and human hands to see how the same basic patterns morph through BILLIONS of years of incremental environmental adaptation into very different, though entirely related, things.

Life on Earth is a lot more wondrous and diverse than can ever be accounted for by the facile storytelling of Genesis, which is based on far earlier myths and imaginings which reflect the bounty of imaginary & metaphorical responses to nature, but don't tell us anything about how it all came about, much less our place in it.

The Bible is one thing we can examine the evolution of in great detail; we can point to a time when there was NO BIBLE: the Pre-Bible Earth of a mere 3000 years ago. No God. No Genesis. Just a bunch of proto-myth types getting kicked around by way of mystic riffing on the part of would be priests and storytellers that served the general purpose of answering & inspiring wonder in nature whilst in the UK so-called Primitive communities were building their myths in STONE at Avebury and Stonehenge just so they could make something bigger than both themselves and nature. They had NO GOD either; they were part of the process that links Göbekli Tepe of 10,000 BCE with the Large Hadron Collider of today. All of it utterly GODLESS but all of it wonderfully HUMAN.

The Bible was pieced together over time; God is Created in a good deal more than 6 days, but he remains a work of palpable fiction nevertheless because WHERE THE FUCK WAS HE BEFORE? And, more the point, WHERE THE FUCK IS HE NOW?   

As I might have said several post ago, we really do both the myths and ourselves a grave and serious disservice by taking this shit literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM

Yeah but every time I say pete gives religion a bad name, my posts disappear. The Lord certainly provides in his case...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:15 PM

> there hasn't been a single bombing or beheading attributed to those of us who support evolutionary theory... we don't even stage riots outside the doors of creationist offices

Perhaps they're routinely covered up by the secularist media. Can you prove otherwise? Why should anyone believe your claim when somebody else can assert the contrary as often as he wants?

Darwinist book publishers have the mass media in their pocket. Prove they don't.

Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:26 PM

So, pete, let me get this straight. Modern science isn't a vast anti-christian conspiracy. Phew! That's a relief!

But a few evolutionary biologists are closet creationists - and they tend to fudge their results in order to hang on to their well paid jobs (?) Have I got that right? If it's true, it doesn't say a lot for the moral integrity of creationists, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:28 PM

Think about it.   ?!? coherent thought has nothing to do with paranoia and conspiracy nuts... reason and rational thought is ignored on a regular basis.

nest we'll have Elvis sightings as proof of who knows what... or Area 51 has the Ark under lcok & key...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:17 PM

Secularist.. Now there's a word. Does that mean ex superstituous, anti superstituous or the vast majority who see superstition as someone else's delusion?

Got fuck all to do with science, either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:28 PM

Why can't the faithful agree with science and just have faith that deity made it look that way?

Beats the phuk outa me!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:52 PM

bill. it is true that I have not personally consulted Hebrew scholars, as I am sure you suspect. it is admittedly 2nd hand reading, but including one james barr [I think] who stated what I indicated in my previous post.
and it is relevant because it was specifically related to your challenging what the text said, seemingly implying the uncertainty of what it said.
as to the dating methods supposed "amazing regularities", have - you -consulted the lab experts on that ?
and did you ask them if they know the starting conditions of samples, conditions throughout, and if they are sure there was no gain or loss during unobserved time. did you also ask them how rocks of known age have been read as myo?.
and, of course, I cannot refute the 27 areas of evolutionary interpretations of data,........anymore than you can confirm them !.
I suspect you just have faith in the ruling paradigm.

shimrod "...moral integrity of creationists" not necessarily creationist...IDers, Darwin doubters, who might be Christians or might not . certainly a biblical creationist might not volunteer information that might endanger his job, as Darwinism has precisely nothing to offer, or to do, with practical science.

jack has a stab at making an argument, but as he is a foulmouthed antagonist , I will not reply any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:23 PM

I wonder how a "Darwin doubter" - or a creationist(!) - would go about getting him/her self a post in a modern evolutionary biology department?

" ... Darwinism has precisely nothing to offer, or to do, with practical science."

Hhhmmm! Now who should I listen to? Some of the great modern evolutionary biologists, such as Richard Dawkins or Steven Jay Gould, or someone called pete who parrots stuff off www.redneckcreationist.com. Hhhhmmm? A tricky one ...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:58 PM

" did you ask them if they know the starting conditions of samples, conditions throughout, and if they are sure there was no gain or loss during unobserved time.

Why, no... but in science they ask each other! Anyone who falsifies data or makes silly conclusions is eventually (usually sooner) called to task. And I can read the results and compare their conclusions. That is quite different from debating 'intent' of ancient scribes and wondering where they got their information. I ask about recent scholars, because some of them might have done more reading of ancient Hebrew than I have. *grin*

And I just looked up Jmaes Barr.. very interesting. He had personal opinions about linguistics, as you suggest, but his theology went in several directions..

"He was also an outspoken critic of conservative evangelicalism, which he attacked in his 1977 book Fundamentalism. In particular he criticized evangelical scholars such as J. I. Packer for affirming the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, the teaching that the Bible is without error. "

hmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:31 AM

Perhaps he will put Mr Barr on the same naughty step as he has just put Jack. If someone doesn't give him loopholes to wriggle through he tends to ignore them.

pete. If your God is anything more than a rather limited imagination, let him win points over rational people instead of ignoring them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:21 AM

jack has a stab at making an argument, but as he is a foulmouthed antagonist , I will not reply any further.

Oh get over yourself, pete! The word FUCK in any context is a lot less foul than GOD - the former is a jubilant celebration & continuity of the very stuff of life, the latter amounts to its very denial & oppression which is the essence of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 06:21 AM

denial & oppression which is the essence of religion.

It is not.
Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King had religion but hated denial and oppression.
Likewise all those 19th Century reformers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:14 AM

But they didn't see the bible as fact, especially the bits about keeping slaves.

Tsk.
Pointing out they were Christians is as relevant as pointing out they had curly hair. You were brainwashed into being a Christian in their day. It isn't the same as the choice we have in sophisticated enlightened western society now. It takes shallowness to defend the ethos now, as the majority of "social" Christians would tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:37 AM

Both MLKjr & NM co-opted essentially secular concerns over and above their religious ones. The essence of their struggle was secular / political, otherwise neither of them would have had a leg to stand on.

Ethical & moral concerns have evolved as an essential aspect of our humanity; Religion would seek to exploit that much as it exploits our natural born spirituality too. Religion has the same relationship to spirituality as Pornography does to our sexuality. Morality is part of what we are; religion is optional & exploitative hobbyism & utterly irrelevant to the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:36 AM

Musket believes them stupid enough to be "brainwashed" and Jack seems to think they fought "denial and oppression" in spite of their religion and not because of it.

If you read their own words you will see that they were inspired by their faith to make their stand against oppression, as were those 19th Century reformers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:37 AM

And.... MLK probably did believe the bible to be factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM

But not literally true or beyond informed interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:15 AM

Why do you think that?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM

"that pond scum can turn into people"

Yawn. Seriously pete, you need to move your argument on. So much info has been offered on these threads it's worrying you're not interested in engaging with any of it.

Cyanobacteria are wonderful organisms, and come from a very ancient lineage. Show some respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:51 AM

I see that you are probably right about that, but the statement Musket made about believing the bible to be fact has no bearing on my original point anyway.
It was just about religion not fundamentalist religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 10:26 AM

"Cyanobacteria are wonderful organisms, and come from a very ancient lineage"

Indeed... I've been researching my ancestry, starting with the Scottish branch, and after much effort and DNA sampling, together with analysis of continental drift, I've determined that Pete & I are 12,483,991,927,446,127,003,128,372th cousins, 732,993,428 times removed. I hope we can sit sometime and compare notes on which primordial swamp we might have shared.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 10:44 AM

So which parts of the bible are bollocks and lies Keith, and which are true? Who the flying fuck are you to differentiate? What makes a bloke coming back from the dead true and an ark fantasy? Let's face it, plenty of medical papers describing how crucifixion does a one way job, and Romans weren't known for being half arsed about their work.

MLK believed the bible as fact? Citations needed please. Evidence or retraction. Own opinions are valid in debate, presupposing others opinions and presenting them as argument are not valid.

Probably can't tell the difference between debate and masturbate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:03 AM

> just about religion not fundamentalist religion.

The remark wasn't aimed at Keith but at fundamentalist literalism.

And of course MLK "believed in" the bible in one degree or another, but probably not to a fundamentalist's liking.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:21 AM

I was not talking about the bible Musket, and why the ill-tempered abuse?
This was what I posted,

denial & oppression which is the essence of religion.

It is not.
Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King had religion but hated denial and oppression.
Likewise all those 19th Century reformers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:25 AM

MLK believed the bible as fact? Citations needed please. Evidence or retraction.

I only said he "probably" did, and then I did retract because I took the trouble to research it.
As I said, it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:32 PM

bill says that they ask each other......ask each other what, bill ?
whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable......or whether they have different assumptions ,maybe ?
no question that they read the data accurately, the question is interpretation.
james barr.....attacks fundamentalists , shock horror! actually, it makes his testimony all the more valuable. if he had not been a hostile witness, you would have labelled him a blinkered fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:35 PM

" ... whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable..."

Do you mean unobservable like the entire contents of the Bible, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:43 PM

"whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable"

Do you have the foggiest clue what you're talking about Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:52 PM

I have never denied the faith factor , shimrod. that's you, that's in denial.
but I did trust your scientific assessment that your wide experience and training had no bearing on evolution
"hmmmmm, now who should I listen to....dawkins....gould, or someone called pete....."
tell you what shimrod, as I just said, your own extensive science interests having no bearing on science.
but if you can name one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM

Neural networks in computing are based on Darwinian principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:40 PM

You see Keith.. I always reply in the way others put forward. You read my comments and thought them abusive.

I merely, as ever, wrote them with how you normally write, except with clearer grammar of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:44 PM

""If Pete 7*s did not exist on Mudcat, it would be necessary (for some here) to invent him" Anon quote (lol)

How else would these frequent "frustrated with pete (aka pissed off)" posters fill the waking hours, and find such a pedestrian internet route to express their frustration with pete - who clearly and consistently sees things differently than they do (and, that is unlikely to change).

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:03 PM

No Musket.
Unlike you, I am always polite and respectful, and make a case without using profanity.
Also, your challenges were not relevant to my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,MTB
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:34 PM

"...if you can name one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say."

A great deal of genetic and genomic research is done using model organisms. This research has given rise to the invention of treatments for cancer and infertility amongst others and current day research is closing in on degenerative diseases such as Alzheimers.

A model organism is a non-human species (yeast, fly, mouse, primate) that is used to understand particular biological phenomena, with the expectation that discoveries made in the organism model will provide insight into the workings of other organisms.

Model organisms are widely used to research human disease when human experimentation would be unfeasible or unethical.

This successful strategy is made possible by the common descent of all living organisms, and the conservation of metabolic and developmental pathways and genetic material over the course of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:40 PM

"I have never denied the faith factor , shimrod. that's you, that's in denial.
but I did trust your scientific assessment that your wide experience and training had no bearing on evolution"

So let's just clarify things so far, pete: If scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right?

And no, I have no background in evolutionary biology but I can follow a scientific argument and have done a fair amount of background reading. You, on the other hand, appear to have had no scientific training and have done no background reading - except the stuff that you parrot from 'www.redneckcreationist.com'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 04:46 PM

There you go, Cousin Pete... an answer from MTB, who obviously doesn't need to look up a relevant answer, as I would.

"Ask them what?" I can ask relevant scientists all the probing questions you might... but I wouldn't be prepared to dismiss all their conclusions before I heard the replies.

(I am leaving town Friday for a music weekend... don't know if I'll post again before I do)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:55 PM

one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say

Vaccines
Shoes
Coats
Socks
OK, Clothing
musical instruments
intervention between people and their imaginary gods (the priesthood as a class)
Sex
Agriculture

Oh, you mean besides clean water, etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 04:25 AM

"but if you can name one useful invention that needed any Darwin imput, do say."

You assume that each scientific discipline works in complete isolation, and that is most certainly not the case. Any research these days is multi-disciplinary to a certain degree, and all rely on the same principles. The chemistry behind the creation of new materials such as graphene is based on the same fundamental principles that allow us to understand the water cycle, how bones fossilise, how to make the glass on your iPhone, the changes in composition of magma due to pressure and temperature etc.

All science is interconnected; you can deny evolution until you're blue in the face but by denying evolution you're also essentially denying science itself; we know about evolution because of chemistry, biology, physics, maths, statistics and the myriad of other disciplines that make up science.

And therein lies the point. Fundamentalists like Pete are science deniers. Despite the fact they are surrounded by things that science has made possible (God did not invent your computer, iPad or paracetamol) they refuse to entertain it's validity or even integrity. They can't understand it's interconnectedness or even the very nature of scientific enquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 04:33 AM

Well said, Stu! I've tried to make this point to pete before (though not nearly so eloquently) but, like a lot of truths about science, he just doesn't want to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:07 AM

just had a read about neural pathways on brittanica. it did not even mention evolution, as far as I could see. in fact , it fits entirely into here and now science, and it looks to me that , it is simply assumed to have evolutionary basis. the other way which you claim Darwinist imput is by studying natural selection/mutations, but without acknowledging that this does not equate to microbes to man evolution, and is part of the creation model too. ie because you believe in it, it is assumed to be relevant. to hear stu talk, it would make you wonder how anything got invented before Darwin !

"...would,nt be prepared to dismiss....." said bill. unless of course they are creation believing scientists !. it just goes to show that it is your a priori dismissal of God that informs your choice of which scientists you will trust before even asking the questions....oops hearing the replies.

don't be so sensitive, shimrod. I am quite happy with your admission that your own extensive training had no bearing on evolution, especially when stu insists all of science is interconnected !.
maybe you need to use some of that extra reading to demonstrate the evolutionism you so passionately believe in.

ed,- how very true. at present, I shall let my critics keep trying to persuade without presenting any proof of their position, and only offer evidence that generally can also be interpreted in the creation model just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:30 AM

"to hear stu talk, it would make you wonder how anything got invented before Darwin !"

Pete, can't you see the point I'm making? You can't isolate Darwin any more than you can Curie, Crick, Watson and Franklin, Fleming or Feynman. Darwin wasn't a person who worked in utter isolation, he was part of the scientific community that gave birth to modern science. Neither did he arrive at his conclusion alone; Wallace had independently discovered natural selection too and they were in touch before the publication of The Origin of Species.

All of this took place in a wider biological, palaentologoical and geological framework, which in turn relied on chemistry, physics etc and still does. The interconnected nature of our universe is one of it's wonders, we're part of it. Today a paper has been published in nature that demonstrates this perfectly: the asymmetry of biochemical molecules (not something I profess to understand) was caused "by electrons from nuclear decay in the early days of evolution". That's chemistry, biology, physics, palaeontology and even astrophysics right there and it affects us all.

There's the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:46 AM

granted, Darwin done some scientific work in artificial and natural selection. but the extrapolating beyond this was his idea, not his unassailable truth. he, himself, acknowledged that his idea was open to other interpretation. I assume the same is true of Wallace, though I seem to remember he came up with evolutionism after a feverish delirium.
I cant comment on the article in nature mag, other than a suspicion that the evolutionary element is assumed, by them and yourself...if the former posts here are anything to go by.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 08:06 AM

> God did not invent your computer, iPad or paracetamol

Well, in a sense he could have, if everything that happens is a furtherance of his Plan.

But in that case, there's no reason to deny Evolution. It's how God advances living things toward his goal.

Besides, Evolution is irrefutable because its simply describes (though some precise details are still elusive) what happens to organisms stressed by their habitat and by other organisms. Dinosaurs can't adapt, they're gone. Crocodiles can, and they're still with us.

Dinosaur mutations, and environmental opportunities, lead step by step to birds.

Every internal and external change leads to consequences, and over a billion years pressures and mutations take you from amebas to humans.

I'm no biologist, but even I can comprehend these things.

Of course, you can believe in Noah's Ark instead by substituting blind faith for all the evidence of observation and reason. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy into it. Further discussion is obviously futile, as Pete seems to see himself as an instrument of conversion - not, of course, to mainstream Christianity, which accepts Evolution, but to his own literalist and sectarian take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 08:12 AM

Probably thinks that before Newton we had to nail our shoes to the floor...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:21 AM

Hey, gang - fasnatics is fanatics of whatever persuasion, "Christian"[sic], Muslim, whatever.

Y'all want a terrorist organization? Consider one run by the likes of pete. Now THAT'S scary!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:52 AM

FIRST OF ALL, there is no argument here. Yep. That's right, we are ALL really in agreement here. Even for Greg who says he can't understand why people have made such a fuss. Let me show you why, how, what and when.

( Yes I hear you think "why should I listen to this guy, what makes him uniquely qualified to solve or settle such a long lasting debate ?". Its because I am certifiably simple. My certified IQ is 42, the lowest measured IQ for a person who can seemingly write.
More accurately my IQ defies measurement due to what some might call dyslexia or willfully supplying answers outside the test's expectation or by not answering other questions at all, even at age 7.)


         Its really quite simple.

Evolution is change. Every thing there is changes. you've SEEN IT.
Everything evolves, for example take your average universe at the moment when its slightly wobbly nothingness starts to expand to balance out the energy of its somethingness and grows exponentially.

Figuratively speaking "at first" the all there is amorphous incredible ball of energy has not differentiated into atoms or elements or molecules. Hell it has not even made an electron yet.

Now look at it, here comes the leap for some of you...Your mind can see this universe by looking up at it or from another Point of view by looking down on it. Some of you will see a changing ball of energy become more and more a system of increasingly different pieces of energy taking form in an ever growing complexity while others will look up and see all there is and will ever be as a all radiant God.

Some will see entropy and others will see unity.

No matter where you look there is some of that initial nothingness among concentrations of somethingness just as there is somethingness in concentrations of nothingness.

The universe in its hottest furnace forges small bits of somthingness until bosons appear, 8 in all but are sure of 1 today, and mass and ergo for the first time, true time begins.



For some of you God is expressing itself in all "his glory" or for others the forging of elements in this new universe is about to begin leading to hydrogen and helium and the first stars that go on to make even more elements. WIth enough cooling and growth molecules are built amino acids fly and planets will soon be changed by life.

The evolution of life in my mind is a tiny side show compared to all the evolution that has already gone on.


How much you know or wish to know, feel or only wish to feel, do or only wish to do, is all up to you. It free for you to choose. In my opinion you should not force the expression of free will upon others, it is their own journey. If you build a beautiful park or orchard near their path they may decide to join you. But its up to them.

best regards, Donuel

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 10:38 AM

Semantically in this way of thinking about the changes we see as evolution, you could see social evolution in a far for expansive way. Islam evolved as the fertile crescent failed and the loss of arable land hardened survival the people turned turned from cooperation to predatory practices. Today Syria has lost 50% of its farms and farmers to climate change leading to concentrated populations in cities with less food and work.

Of course the west's historical colonial systems, enriching only a few for the oil, and slave trades have caused on going strife.

Like matter and anti matter, opposite cultures will fight it out for survival until they are both a little bit more like the other but unfortunately for some only after a phenomenal explosion. Islam may evolve quite naturally into a greener more peaceful culture. The West may become more tolerant. One can only hope.

I bet if the middle east was today a great rainy place to grow watermelons and the profits from oil were evenly distributed, there would be peace and Islam would evoke a welcoming feeling of being a shepherd to the Earth instead of warrior of the Earth.
We may not be able to change the rainfall but we can change the economics. Will the greedy abide? They might have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 11:15 AM

"maybe you need to use some of that extra reading to demonstrate the evolutionism you so passionately believe in."

More like 'acceptance' rather than 'passionate belief' (it's you that does passionate belief, pete). And you are as capable of reading the relevant texts as I am. It's high time that you educated yourself properly - rather than parroting all of that creationist nonsense. You go away and read about the philosophy of science and then Dawkins, Gould et.al. - and then we might have something to talk about. But you won't do any such thing, will you?

Finally, let's get back to that fundamental question that you chose to ignore:

If scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right? Remind me what 'faith' is, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM

lighter, if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers of its dogma. but the fact is there is considerable doubt about it , wholesale and in particulars. and it is not just fundamentalists either.
shimrod, I suspect that your continuous persistence in espousing evolutionism is betokening more than mere acceptance.
no, I have not read dawkins et al books, but there is a good chance that I have read/viewed more of it than you have of creation.
and why should I read it ? it has not helped you to come up with any arguments, other than assertions that is!
definition of faith? assuming that you don't want a theological answer, i shall take you as an example. you can present no evidence for your position but you believe it anyway. is that a faith position ?. sure is, just not in anything substantial. of course if your religion has given you an experience that instilled that assurance in you.........!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 12:21 PM

...if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers...

Of COURSE there would be, pete. You can always find ignorant close-minded idiots who will not accept any and/or all aspects of reality.

They're a growth industry in the U.S. at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM

> lighter, if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers of its dogma.

Science, for the umpteenth time, has no "dogma."

Also, I believe my post explained why evolution *is* irrefutable. Or it is if you recognize change in anything in response to inner and outer conditions.

Your statement, of course, would be fine if you'd said, "...no rational and informed deniers of it."

Because there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 01:00 PM

just had a read about neural pathways on brittanica. it did not even mention evolution, as far as I could see

I think you expect a little much of brittanica! One of the most common way of training neural networks in computing is to generate a number of small variations from a 'parent', test each and eliminate those that are less successful at matching. This is then repeated over a large number of generations until one is found that is a good recogniser of whatever it is being trained for. Totally inspired by Darwinian concepts.

If you want me to give you a title for some books discussing the topic in rather more detail than Britannica, let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 01:11 PM

If you want me to give you a title for some books discussing the topic

No chance. Apparently you missed this in 25 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM
no, I have not read dawkins et al books...and why should I read it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 01:33 PM

Well yes Greg, but maybe we have an opening here. It is evolution in action and demonstrating its effectiveness in a part of the real world (say number plate recognition or other image processing) which isn't directly threatening the microbe-to-man stance. Of course, once you accept it works very effectively in one scenario it makes it that shade harder to reject in others.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:28 PM

"I have not read dawkins et al books, but there is a good chance that I have read/viewed more of it than you have of creation.
and why should I read it ?"

Because you might learn something you don't want to know?

If you think I'm going to expend good effort producing chapter and verse on evolutionary biology just so that you can shout "oh no it isn't!" you've got another think coming! I've seen the way you respond to people like Stu and sciencegeek. You don't hear a word they say because you've made up your mind already - on the basis of rubbish churned out by a small minority of close-minded religious fanatics.

Oh yes (for the second time), if scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right?

Remember that anyone can assert that they have 'faith' i.e. claim that they unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there is no evidence. But to be a scientist you have to train bloody hard for years and you have to have above average intelligence, imagination, a disciplined approach to your work and an open mind. So who am I most likely to believe: a real scientist or a religious nutter ... who has faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:55 PM

but maybe we have an opening here

About as likely in pete's case as my being able to fly thru interstellar space.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:17 PM

While we know Pete is, shall we say "of settled opinion" on biological evolution, we haven't yet found out how he reacts to demonstrable non-biological evolution
Can it fit into his thinking or will he, as I anticipate decide it isn't evolution but be at a loss to explain why.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:20 PM

Bloomin' cookies: me above

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

it's all about ego... the "sin" of pride is what lies behind the creationist rejection of evolutionary theory.

What upset people about Darwin's work was twofold... he included humans along with the rest of the animal kingdom AND worse yet, believed us to be related to apes. gasp... horror!

When Darwin pointed out that humans had the closest ties to apes, he based it on physical characteristics. Later discoveries dealing with blood typing and the occurrence of the Rh factor... so named because the research was based on work using the Rhesus monkey. Later work in genetics has found that humans and chimps share over 98% of our genetic makeup.

Now pete's main gripe is the thought of being related to pondscum, however distantly...   he just can't get past that. His problem is vanity...

He completely ignores plate tectonics and continental drift... ask scaarpi about spreading plates for a first hand account... it's happening right under our noses...

if Genesis is so accurate... how come it ignores this major feature of the so called firmament? 150 million years ago the hill I live on was part of Wales... before seafloor spreading started and the Atlantic Ocean opened up. Why would god leave out something so important in his little book? For that matter, why leave out dinosaurs?

Darwin's reading of important, new geological theories of the time were critical in providing a timeline that supported his theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:02 AM

Getting close I see...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM

...to that dreaded mark of Revelation 13:18...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:06 AM

...whin in the context of this thread must, I suppose, be taken as LITERALLY as the other damned books of the bible. So...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

...allow me to nudge you just that little but closer! Who will be The Beast?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:53 AM

Of relevance to this discussion is this paper about the dinosaur-bird transition, the fact there are no missing links and of course that birds are dinosaurs: From T. rex to treecreepers.

I'm sure there are plenty more articles about on the subject if you Google it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:40 AM

> Why would god leave out something so important in his little book? For that matter, why leave out dinosaurs?

Because the bible is about man's relationship to God in human history; it isn't about geology or dinosaurs or aerodynamics.

Why don't any of the posts on this thread mention ISIS or ebola?

Because they're not relevant to this particular discussion.

(Of course, *I* just mentioned them, but that was only by way of contrast.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:54 AM

Theres another reason the bible didnt mention dinoaurs, despite apparently naming lots of animals and types of animals in the book.

The people who invented God hadn't heard of dinosaurs because we hadnt evolved to the stage of discovery and question, preferring the lazy superstitious route to explaining the world around us, in line with the standard of intelligence and understanding we had back then. The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends in order to control others.

The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology. All within six days apparently.

If relevance has to dictate the thread, then why put superstition and the real world in the same thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM

The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends in order to control others.

The Greeks were and are a very religious people.

The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology.

It certainly does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 09:28 AM

Genesis 1:1, 1:2, 1:9, 1:10

Geology
noun, plural geologies.
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Astronomy, zoology, and botany are also covered in the same range of verses.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 09:32 AM

"Because the bible is about man's relationship to God in human history"

Apart from all the talk of creation in Genesis. And except for the nasty little line about giving man dominion over all living things. A real pearler that one.

As for ISIS, that is the natural result of the abandonment of reason that is fundamentalism and literal readings of religious texts. It's another reason why creationism is to be thundered against.

In the case of ebola, one can openly presume that God is having a laugh over that. More dead innocents, suffering horribly because they ate contaminated bush meat he said they were entitled to from which they caught a virus he created. It's left to those awful scientists to ease the suffering and attempt to contain and eradicate this particular wonder of his creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:00 AM

So geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc., need only consult the bible to do their work?

Oh. I see. A put-on. Good one!

Around here it's hard to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:18 AM

if evolution were irrefutable there would be no deniers of its dogma. Boy, is that sentence full of evidence that its writer has no idea what science is, so no wonder they don't understand something as fundamental as evolution. I repeat, American education is child abuse.

For starters, nothing scientific is irrefutABLE, or it isn't scientific. The thing about evolution is, no data have ever refuted it, so it's one of the strongest theories out there, along with gravity, speed of light, and other scientific certainties. What makes them certain is the tremendous lack of evidence against them, stacked up against the tremendous amount of data for them. But it remails refutable - find the preCambrian rabbit, and voila.

There ARE no scientists denying science. Only undereducated American children of christians, who were denied education because of their parents' faith and the incomprehensible US habit of allowing faith to interrupt knowledge, continue to fail to comprehend that evolution is as true as gravity or the speed of light. American education's kowtowing to faith is child abuse.

And, finally, there is no dogma involved. Nobody, not even a scientist, thinks that the Origin of Species had everything right, was inspired by the divine, or cannot be questioned and must be taken literally. Instead, the idea Darwin published has been refined and added to over the decades, we now have molecular evidence he could not have dreamed of, all of which continues to demonstrate the *fact* that life adapts through the survival of the genes that best fit the environment in which they were sexually combined.

Oh, maybe it's because it's about ess ee ex that nobody is allowed to learn about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:51 AM

> More dead innocents, suffering horribly because they ate contaminated bush meat he said they were entitled to from which they caught a virus he created.

That may not say it all, but it does come close.

Those who find "Original Sin" to be a satisfying explanation, though, will nit change their opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 11:01 AM

Yup - Randy Newman had it pretty close to rights, didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:03 PM

Do you deny Greek religion?

And, what "geology" were the writers of Genesis aware of?
None Musket.
That is why there is no geology in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:23 PM

If science is enslaved by "dogma," how'd they ever let this out?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1499174/chinese-discovery-puts-evolutionary-accuracy-in-question/

And when will the biologists involved lose their jobs for being "heretics"?

Wait, I know the answer: "They probably won't, because their findings are still safely within the mistaken framework of evolution."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:34 PM

My posts refer to deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:38 PM

Interesting......lighter says evolution is irrefutable.....and mrrzy says nothing in science is irrefutable.   Now, I wonder who is going to refute who.    They do both believe evolution is true, and both believe the evidence says so.   Marry seems to blame American education for me being a biblical creationist, even though I,m English. She is certain we won't find a pre Cambrian rabbit, but the Cambrian explosion strongly suggests no evolution prior to this supposed era. And then, I have not forgotten all that perishable stuff surviving supposed myo. Who is not facing up to the evidence?          I think science geek may be behind the times in her claim that there is evidence of kinship between man and monkey. The nature of that two or more percent difference is , I hear, much wider since more recent findings.   I also hear that we share 50 percent genetics with bananas.   I am tempted to a little joke here ! She also thinks dinos ought to be named in the bible, but terrible lizards were not so named till more recent history, but they are included in what God created, and are described, in probability, in job, and elsewhere.                         Dmcg, not sure what your point is, except you seem to assume that adaption and variation is not part of the creation model. Creationists actually wrote about it before Darwin . I don't see how it has any bearing on goo to you via the zoo evolution.   I suggest it is observable and testable science,, rather than Darwinian concept.    But thanks for a civil post.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:56 PM

Evolution is a factual entity on the planet Earth. It is no more a piece of science than the fact that Liverpool are in the Premier League, or that (to me at any rate) my left eyeball is to the left of my right eyeball. All the science in evolution comes in its explanation, not in the fact of its existence (which is irrefutable). Every single piece of explanation of evolution must be, and is, vulnerable to refutation. Your piece of guff about the Cambrian explosion, along with everything else you say about science, demonstrates that you do not have the faintest inkling of what science is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:04 PM

Your posts usually refer to your deleted intelligence.

No, in deference to the moderators, I take that back. There was no intelligence to delete.

Creating the world in six days and fuck all to do with geology eh?

That's Magic, that is. I wonder if he can use his magic to stop suffering?

Pity he doesn't exist then. Just think, you could use Sunday mornings to read up on everything you embarrass yourself with when you spout off Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:05 PM

Interesting again.....just looked at lighters link. And as he suggests, any evidence that throws the evolutionary story into disarray will just mean yet another adjustment of the storyline and timeline......of course, this is hailed as science being open to new evidence.....but it is also evolutionism being unfalsifiable. Even should the pre cam bunny be found, that will be slotted in to the story, I predict.               Oh yes, shimrod.....not offering any evidence, because I will probably be able to challenge it.   Fair enough......it was enough to have you confess that your science qualifications had nothing to do with evolution !.    I know of a few scientists whose faith in the bible fits with observable science though !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:21 PM

What's "observable science" when it's at 'ome? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:43 PM

You don't see my point, Pete? It is that we can build devices that with no human intervention can develop from just identifying light and dark to reading licence platea as accurately as humans using the exact process Darwin Described: the interplay of inheritance, variation and differential survival. And you are really saying you see no connection? Honestly?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 26 Sep 14 - 08:20 PM

I am surprised you're English, you're right. Very few Europeans are ignorant enough to deny science. At least I think you meant me (Marry for Mrrzy is an interesting typo, projective test anyone?).

The *evidence* for evolution is certainly irrefutable. But it's a pendantic quibble of mine to prefer to phrase it that way. I am a scientist, we quibble pedantically a lot. Also pedagogically, as seems to be required here.

Later (microscopic) of the Burgess Shale does indicate a whole lot of evolution before the Cambrian explosion, which was of forms you could see with the naked eye. Now that we can clothe our eyes with lenses there is a lot of pre-Cambrian change in form leading up to the once-called Explosion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:42 AM

pete, you keep banging on and on and on and on ... etc. about my lack of qualifications in evolutionary biology, always conveniently forgetting that you have no scientific qualifications whatsoever! And to quote Steve Shaw above: " ... everything ... you say about science, demonstrates that you do not have the faintest inkling of what science is all about."

You also demand that I provide you with evidence that evolution is true. For a start, you DO NOT give me orders you pompous, ignorant little shit, and secondly there are volumes and volumes of evidence out there that you could consult if you really wanted to! And it's you that is in an indefensible position and needs to provide evidence to support your absurd notion that everything was created, in seven days, by some big beardy bloke in the sky - just because it says so in some old book of myths. Oh, but I forgot, you have something called "faith", don't you? And possessing faith means that you can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence ... have I got that right, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:55 AM

The other thing that I should point out, pete, is that if the creationist idiots that you parrot ever succeed in discrediting the vast edifice of modern science (LOL!) that still won't mean that the myths recounted in the Bible are true. Not only do you not understand science but you don't understand logic either, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 05:38 AM

"And as he suggests, any evidence that throws the evolutionary story into disarray will just mean yet another adjustment of the storyline and timeline"

So you're saying we should look at the available evidence, then formulate hypothesis and never attempt to disprove that but assume we got it right first time and stick to it regardless of further evidence coming to light as technology and understanding advances? That's an insight into your mindset to be sure Pete.

The research discussed in Lighter's link does not challenge evolution at all; it's talking about the emergence of multicelluar life. This is an important question and is part of a far wider field of research that looks into the rate of evolution and speciation; a question palaeontologists tend to be very interested as our work has bearing on the rate of evolution and our research specimens were subject too.


"but the Cambrian explosion strongly suggests no evolution prior to this supposed era"

How the heck did you come to that conclusion? Where is your evidence to support such a claim? What do you think was actually going on before the Cambrian explosion?

That said Pete, you appear to have accepted the Cambrian explosion was an actual evolutionary event so that's a start. This means you acceptant the conclusions of palaeontologists and geologists and molecular biologists etc. Nice one! I do believe you're beginning to see reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 07:52 AM

> possessing faith means that you can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence ...

Not quite. "However absurd" implies there's no limit, which may be true in the abstract.

But in discussions of religion, "faith" gains credence for some because it's widely shared in a community of believers, each of whose faith reinforces everyone else's. Consider the Raelians.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 10:54 AM

Thank you 'Lighter' - but I find myself somewhat underwhelmed by your qualification.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 11:26 AM

Consider the Raelians.

Oh yeah. Lunatics par excellance. Hale-Bopp to you, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 02:50 PM

Creating the world in six days and fuck all to do with geology eh?
Correct.
Nothing at all to do with geology.
To a fundamentalist, just a miracle.
To the rest of us, just an ancient creation myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 04:30 PM

Far too sensitive, shimrod. I am not banging on about any lack in your qualifications. Quite the reverse. I am applauding your science qualifications. You admitted they had no bearing on evolution.......contrary to most others who infer science depends on it.             Stu, you are right to correct me, inasmuch as what I should have said was, that ,as I understand it , the major life organisms appear fully formed without transitional evidence beforehand. When I use your term....Cambrian.....it is for convenience. Rather, I view the supposed geological column as roughly equating to order of burial in the noahic deluge disaster.    No, I am not saying that you should stubbornly hold on to something once it has been shown wrong, and i know that is the scientific method to continually reexamine . However, it also has the advantage to evolutionists of their belief being unfalsifiable. Wrong ideas can be recast, and anything that conflicts with here and now science can be shelved in the hope of future resolution in favour of evolutionism !.            Mrr.....the marry was a I pad wrong correct.   Maybe it was just like all those Americans you think are ignorant !                   Dmcg ....it is certainly interesting that such things can be achieved , but do you think your device is going to develop into something else....?? Yes, I think I do see the connection, but how does demonstrating that in device or living organisms support goo to you evolution.......honestly ?,!.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 04:43 PM

Right, so now you've decided to stop belittling my hard won qualifications, pete (don't do it again because a punch in the teeth often offends)let's get back to this question of faith vs science. Am I right in thinking, that you think, that those who possess faith can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence? You seem reluctant to answer this question, pete ...?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 14 - 04:48 PM

When I use your term....Cambrian.....it is for convenience.

It isn't his term. It's everybody's term. Like when I use the term "Bible" I'm not using it "for convenience". And I dislike the Bible (fables) at least as much as you dislike the Cambrian (reality). Arrogant tosser.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:44 AM

No Musket, I was just making a reasonable and sensible point.

You said, "The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology."

I told you that it does not.
Just an ancient creation myth.
Creation myths do not incorporate any geology.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM

....or any other Science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM

Well, Pete, it does depend on what you are prepared to accept as something else. I would say that since the same device can be trained to recognise other things - Musical scores, say, or faces it is perfectly capable of evolving into something else. It is also capable of speciation since it van separate into different co-existing "species" each self selected to recognise a different format of licence plate say, or one for licences and one for music


But that is fine detail. The salient point is that using just the Darwinian rules the device has evolved from nothing beyond a light and dark detector into a full blown efficient image recogniser with no human intervention
Do you agree? Because to do so is to agree the Darwinian process works in at least this limited context

Let us get this settled before we get onto goo to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 02:12 PM

,just lost a post........short version!      Dmcg, if it is trained it may be tec evolution but not Darwinian.          Shimrod, you have not demonstrated that yours is not a faith position, since you admit your training has no relevance, so I think it may be bluff and bluster from you.   I reckon ,I present more evidence than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM

Parroting stuff from a dodgy website is not 'presenting evidence', pete!

Anyway, where were we? Oh yes, I know, am I right in thinking, that you think, that those who possess faith can just declare something true (however absurd) whilst those without faith have to provide evidence?

And someone with no qualifications is still belittling my qualifications!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 03:57 PM

The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 04:06 PM

Let me elaborate what 'training' means in this context. It is providing an environment rich in, for example, licence numbers together with a mechanism to determine whether a licence has been correctly identified

Nothing else is needed

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 04:30 PM

You see, pete, my scientific qualifications have left me with an inquiring mind and a nose for bullshit. In addition, I don't do 'faith', faith is an alien concept to me. To my mind, only feeble-minded idiots fervently and unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there's no evidence. The scientific evidence for evolution strikes me as being very, very, very credible and it has all of the vast foundations and butresses of modern science to support it. That the myths in an old book bear any relation to the reality is just LUDICROUS - however much you try to dress it up in parroted pseudo-science!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:20 PM

""Because the bible is about man's relationship to God in human history; it isn't about geology or dinosaurs or aerodynamics.""

1. That dinosaurs existed is irrefutable (we have the bones to prove it).

2. The evidence for dinosaurs existing at the time of the events described in either version of genesis is entirely absent in those accounts.

3. That evidence is also absent throughout the father to son record, of which the Old Testament consists.

4. No mention of any form of creature, from dinosaur to ice age megabeast appears anywhere in any biblical text.

Strange indeed, if the bible is an inerrant divine explanation of the period from Creation of the Universe to the time of Christ (some 4000 years), and not, as the idiot comment above states, ""about man's relationship to God in human history;"".

Where is the mention of strange huge reptiles and woolly "elephants", flying lizards and sabre toothed cats marching aboard the ark. They would certainly be sufficiently outstanding to warrant comment in such a historical document.

They don't feature, not because they have no relevance to said document, but because they predated its existence by millions of years.

Belief in Young Earth Creationism is a perfect example of the triumph of successful brainwashing over sanity and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:29 PM

""The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.""

Of course he hasn't read, and will never read, Origins. He doesn't need to.

His "knowledge" comes pre-digested from Creationist "Scientists" whose word he implicitly believes, because it reinforces what HE believes.

If he did read it, it would make absolutely no difference. He would simply dismiss it as the "Dogma" of the Evolutionist "Faithful".

You cannot re-educate a fanatical religious zealot!

That is the root cause of many of this world's problems!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:30 PM

""?..only feeble-minded idiots fervently and unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there's no evidence""

Outside the discussion with Pete, if that statement were true, how would one explain the beliefs of many academically-intelligent people in the world, includiing scientists, who believe in a deity and ascribe to one religious belief or another?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 06:34 PM

""Praise the disgraceful Lord for the ability to suppress those who laugh at weird God botherers.""

What an odd thought-a "Mudcat Lord". I like it.
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 08:06 PM

Outside the discussion with Pete, if that statement were true, how would one explain the beliefs of many academically-intelligent people in the world, includiing scientists, who believe in a deity and ascribe to one religious belief or another?

That's an easy one. They compartmentalise. We all do it to some extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 08:12 PM

Gosh, I hit send there afore I'd finished. I was going to say that one of the most rational people on this board is also a severe compartmentaliser: Musket. He supports Sheffield Wednesday in spite of everything. Man City 7 Sheff Wed 0. Cardiff 2 Sheff Wed 1. Bet they're bloody dreading Ipswich on Tuesday! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 09:00 PM

""That's an easy one. They compartmentalise. We all do it to some extent.""

Well yes, of course, they/we all do that. But, that alone hardly puts you, Musket, scientists who believe in a deity, nor the rest of the world, in the "feeble-minded-idiot" category-for merely compartmentalizing:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 09:08 PM

Newton was a wonderful scientist who believed in alchemy. I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 14 - 09:18 PM

I find only cloudy matter in your pudding-like analogy:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 01:47 AM

""The system is evolving by following the rules Darwin set out without any human intervention
How do you come to the conclusion it is not Darwinian? True he formulated them for biological systems but if you read 'Origins' carefully you will see it is not restricted to that.""

Of course he hasn't read, and will never read, Origins. He doesn't need to.

I admit to a rhetorical flourish when I wrote that, Troubadour. I know Pete hasn't read Origins. Let me explain why I am interested in this example. As I insist, it is Darwinian outside the biologal context. As a result it totally overcomes pete's main objections to The mechanics of Darwinism by showing it working effectively within what he delights in calling observable science. Now rationally you can say yes that proves the Darwinist approach works sometimes, but it does not prove it worked for the biological sphere. However, in pete's case his antagonism to Darwinist ideas is so intense he seems unable to accept it ever works, even in a different context in this odd observable scientific world.

Now, I can see only one rational basis for claiming my illustration is not Darwinian, and that is that his theory is so focussed on biological systems that it applying it to non-biological itself stops it being Darwinian. So I headed that off by saying nothing in Origins restricts it to only biological systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 02:03 AM

" ... how would one explain the beliefs of many academically-intelligent people in the world, includiing scientists, who believe in a deity and ascribe to one religious belief or another?"

I haven't got the faintest clue! You would have to ask them.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM

I have identified errors of knowledge in your posts Musket.
Found any in mine yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 04:31 AM

Or would be if history were Keith's strongest subject.

I am not an historian, so I learn from historians.
You memorably declared that you know more about history than historians do.
"All those historians should know better" you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 05:19 AM

""I haven't got the faintest clue!""

Ok, thats fine-thanks for the honesty. A much more reasonable response than those who have difficulty admiting to such.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 05:21 AM

"Rather, I view the supposed geological column as roughly equating to order of burial in the noahic deluge disaster."

If there was evidence for such an event, then I would accept that fully. However, there is no evidence the sedimentary strata we see making up large parts of the surface of the earth was laid down in a single event. Not a jot.

We can recognise flood events in the geological record; they form distinctive lithofacies.

Questions:

How to you account for the zoning of fossils (i.e. why are they not mixed up)?
How do you account for the increasing complexity of multicellular life we see in the fossil record?

As I've said gawd knows how many times before Pete; go and find a horse in the Burgess Shale, a lion in the Triassic rocks of Utah, a pig in the Late Cretaceous rocks of the Hell Creek in Montana. If you're correct then these fossils should all be mixed up, but there are thousands of collectors out there looking in many, many fossiliferous beds and they have not found any of these yet. Why is that (clue: not a conspiracy, not confirmation bias, not a vested interest in keeping their job as most are volunteers, not dishonest scientists)?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 05:53 AM

Musket, you said, "The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends in order to control others.

The Greeks had quite a lot of "imaginary friends" Musket.

You also said, "The bible, if what I hear is true, certainly does cover geology."

It does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM

The ones rewriting a World War 1 to hide the callous indifference and incompetence should know better, yes.

So you know more about WW1 History than all the historians.
You could not produce a single living historian who agreed with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 07:58 AM

Keep on saying it and one day even you will believe your own nonsense.

Funnily enough, I even quoted the ones you quote before the likes of Hastings decided there was more money in being outrageous, hence defending killing our own soldiers with mental health issues.

Then I mentioned Alan Clarke. Right wing enough even for you and your toy soldier fixation.

Just about everybody up to living memory had an
imaginary friend. It takes time for sophisticated society to grow out of shallow tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 08:50 AM

I believed the historians.
There was not one living historian who shared your view of the period.
Why bring up a discussion from months ago anyway?

If you post howlers such as geology in Genesis, or Greeks "shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends" expect someone to point out your misapprehensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 08:56 AM

"Everyone is someone's devil." ― Matthew Dicks, Memoirs of an Imaginary Friend

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 09:39 AM

Greeks discovering the world around them based on evidence of observation. Another howler presumably.

No. I recognise the advances made by Greeks and by Islam long before Science in the West.
The howler was to say "The Greeks had a stab but were shouted down by those who needed imaginary friends"
Why are you making such an issue of it?

Historians " only started revising history so we could be less embarrassed by our past."
Of course they did.
Historians can not be relied on in matters of History.
Musket knows better.
Silly me.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 11:31 AM

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

What in the world is evolution that isn't darwinian? His name is attached to the idea, not to a subset or type.

Maybe we need to define our terms, again?

(Almost typoed as Terns, which would have been an interesting Linnaean digression.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM

Just had a read of this article. Rather worrying really, everything considered, that our children could be subjected to lies and bullshit that should make superstitious people hang their heads in shame. It explains a lot about pete and his christian mates..



Pseudoscience the stain


My last post got deleted. No reason for it happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Sep 14 - 02:55 PM

seems to me , dmcg, that you misrepresent what I say, but maybe I am unclear. I think we agree that Darwin was big on natural/artificial collection. and he meticulously recorded his findings. I have no argument with that, nor do I think most all creationists do. however, he falsely extrapolated pond scum to people evolution from that. I only got about 1/4 way through origins before getting bogged down and bored. I do remember though, that he was a whole lot less definite than this mudcat crowd about it, admitting that his theory could be otherwise interpreted.
what he recorded from observation, is not the same as what he claimed, or more so modern darwinists, claims, and the two ie, the observed, and the extrapolated, as though the same thing. neither was Darwin the first to write about it.so Darwinist mechanism is somewhat of an exageration.
I obviously can not say too much about Darwin applied to computers, except to suggest that what very clever things being accomplished, appears to equate [ if such equasion is even plausible] to natural selection, rather than microchip to the self conscious computer some scientists may dream of. so, it seems to me that the point you claim to have made , is not as you suppose.
stu, not ignoring you, but off out now, and have been busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:20 AM

I am afraid I found that a bit obscure, Pete. It seems you agree that my example demonstrates natural selection. I am not clear if you also agree it demonstrates evolution. That's important. all natural selection says is that, for example, slower animals are more likely to be caught. Evolution says that natural selection leads to change.

Now, in an earlier post you said my example demonstrated tec evolution. So we seem tou have reached the point where you agree using Darwin's rules gives evolution by natural selection, if only in this example. If you still don't agree you have to withdraw or clarify one of your earlier posts, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 01:27 AM

I should also mention something else in passing. When scientist's refer to Darwin's theory or Newton, or Copernicus it is no more than an acknowledgement of their contribution. It matters not one jot whether others thought of it before him.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 02:58 AM

"seems to me , dmcg, that you misrepresent what I say, but maybe I am unclear."

Maybe??!! Surely you must have won prizes for 'fuzziness', pete? Whatever the deficiencies in my education, at least I can string a (reasonably) coherent sentence together!

"I do remember though, that he [Darwin] was a whole lot less definite than this mudcat crowd about it, admitting that his theory could be otherwise interpreted."

Do I really need to point out to you, pete, that 'Origin' was first published in 1859? Evolutionary biology has inevitably moved on since then. 'Origin' is a scientific text - not some unchangeable monolith like the Bible - you silly twonk!

And what do you mean by: "however, he falsely extrapolated pond scum to people evolution"? Do you mean that you disagree with him? Your disagreement is not sufficient grounds for accusing Darwin of false extrapolation ... you silly twonk!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:39 AM

we have the same evidence , stu. it is the presupossitions and worldviews of the researcher that tends to influence how that evidence is interpreted. from the creationist pov ,what we would expect to see in a major catastrophic event like that described in genesis, is millions of dead things buried in thick layers of waterborne sediment, and that is what we find.
what is your evidence that it was not laid down within a year ?
or what distinquishes a flood event from slow and gradual in the evolutionary timeline interpretation ?, if that can be explained to a non geologist .
"..account for the zoning of fossils..." I have already said that order of burial accounts for it. however unexpected finds have also been unearthed that did not fit the slow and gradual
timeline........so what do they do.....they change the timeline ! problem solved !. multicellular ? well, did not someone do a link to such in the pre cam ? perfect example. was that not thought far too early before ?
and as I said before....if they find a pre cam bunny or whatever else we are challenged with, the evolutionary faith will find a way to account for it, I predict.
return question.
if the strata were laid down over immense ages, how do you account for polystrate fossils. ie how did a tree not rot , if it had to wait for aeon long geologic ages to be buried ?.
I expect there is an evolutionary out, but I am curious as to what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:14 AM

must admit dmcg, that I thought natural selection was much more than slower animals getting caught easier. does it not also involve the refining and even loss of genetic information, adaptability, and even speciation. I expect I missed some other ideas as well. if such limited changes equals evolution, I guess that makes me an evolutionist !.....except that these days it is conjectured that random mutations [even though most are downhill] lead to new information to develop microbes to man macro change, and that is also called evolution. but the evidence offered is only of limited change that pertains to evidence only of change within the kind....not beyond it.
point taken re subsequent post, but bearing in mind darwins almost godlike position in some of his devotees minds, I thought it worth saying, especially as he seems to have - borrowed- ideas from creationists and other evolutionists prior to his book.
and it even brings into question whether "darwins rules" is an accurate and worthwhile ascription.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:23 AM

"it is the presupossitions and worldviews of the researcher that tends to influence how that evidence is interpreted."

No it's not! That's a slur on modern scientists (from someone who knows nothing about how science works). It's creationists who make "presupossitions" and have (perverse) worldviews! You do talk utter garbage, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 07:14 AM

Pete - you still haven't answered my point on how God could have created the universe in 4004 BCE when we didn't invent him until around 1000. There's a huge gaping hole in the Mythic Record for your Omnipotent Deity!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 07:58 AM

Talking of unanswered questions, pete: On the 24th Sept at 01:32 PM you used the phrase, "whether they make assumptions about what is unobservable". I interpreted this to mean scientists making assumptions about the unobservable past.

At 02:35 PM, on the same day, I asked you: "Do you mean unobservable like the entire contents of the Bible, pete?

At 02:52 PM you replied: "I have never denied the faith factor shimrod."

At 04:40 PM I asked you: "If scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right?"

I received no reply.

Since then, I have re-asked this question several more times ... still no reply.

Have you got an answer to my question, pete? Or did I catch you out in a spot of hypocrisy and you'd prefer not to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 09:49 AM

"is millions of dead things buried in thick layers of waterborne sediment, and that is what we find"

But they're not mixed up. How did they sort themselves into clearly defined zones? What is the mechanism for this? What does "order of burial" actually mean?

"what is your evidence that it was not laid down within a year ?"

Sedimentary rocks come in a wide variety of types and these are laid down in a number of different ways. We do find flood events as well as lahars and other deposits laid down quickly, and we also find deposits laid down in tiny amounts that take aeons to accrue.

These layers can appear and disappear in a stratigraphic column as seas rise and fall, rivers meander and volcanic events occur. We find wonderfully delicate fossils that were laid down in very quiet environments with very fine sedimentation (Solhofen, Jehol) and we can find the poorly sorted deposits of alluvial fans and glacial moraines. The principles to look up are uniformitarianism (modern rather than Lyell's, revised to take neocatastrophic events into account) and superposition.

Flood events are violent, high-energy occurrences that deposit sediments in very distinct ways. Deposits tend to be poorly sorted and poorly stratified; smaller flooding events like levee breaks can deposit localised loads of suspended sediment (such as sand in a river) that settles as the energy decreases leaving sheet-like deposits. Rivers show very specific cycles of erosion and deposition, as do prograding deltas.

So we know some deposits take eons (abyssal plains, chalk etc), some take tens of thousands of years, some take days, some hours or minutes. All of this tells us there has never been (as far as we know from the evidence) a single worldwide flood event. Ever.

One more thing. The root of studying sedimentation is facies analysis, looking at the rocks to define the bed type and develop a hypothesis on how the scenario for the creation of a stratigraphic sequence. Apart from assuming the laws of physics and chemistry haven't changed there are no a priori assumptions allowed! Existing analysis must be tested robustly to ensure subjective interpretation is kept to a minimum. Question everything.

"Polystrate" is a creationist term and not one used by palaeontologists or geologists. As usual with creationist concepts this term seeks to apply one term to a wide variety of events, in this case the idea some fossils such as tree trunks span different beds. I could spend all day typing a reply, suffice to say the wikipedia page does a pretty good job of explaining these fossils and the numerous mechanisms that means this mode of preservation can occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:14 AM

No, Pete, natural selection takes moments and occurs every time a preditor catches its prey. It is evolution by natural selections that takes a long time (or more precisely a
Large number of generations). It is important to keep the distinction clearly in mind.

So back to the main point. You have agreed that in this very limited example Dawinian mechanisms are the driving force, even you you would prefer to quibble about the name. You have also agreed natural selection is taking place. And also, despite the offer of a chance to withdraw or rephrase it, you have agreed evolution is taking place. So by any sort of logic I am aware of, you have agreed Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taking place, unless you have an alternative explanation.

Such an agreement would go down in Mudcat history, so it is as well to note what is not covered by this. No mention of goo--to-you; nothing about gaining or losing genetic material; nothing about consciousness and certainly nothing about self consciousness. Nothing about biological systems at all.

But still an agreement the in some circumstances, Darwin's ideas work.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:28 AM

I'm home, but tired....

Even before I read Stu's post just above, Pete, I had copied this part of your comments:
"what is your evidence that it was not laid down within a year?"

That is both answerable, as Stu has done, and is in another sense the wrong question. Without giving the technical answers Stu provided, it is simply the case that ALL scientific evidence points toward a very long timescale and layered deposition. Asking those of us who follow where scientific evidence leads to show YOU all that evidence is redundant. Every post about the relevant evidence for several years here is "our evidence".

   The point is- YOU and those you follow have made the assertion that the vast majority of science is careless, misled, badly interpreted or just plain lazy and predisposed to ignore the 'inspired' teachings of the bible. YOU have claimed that all that 'stuff' was " was laid down within a year" or some other short period. That is the claim that disputes the standard theories, but when asked for YOUR proof, all we get is rationalized criticisms of OUR evidence. You continuously refer to 'gaps' and 'possible errors in measurement' of radioactive decay as if lack of precise, to the second, calculations therefore casts doubt on the entire system and suggests that YOUR choice, based of much less less precise data, is 'just as good a choice', That ain't how it works. Science is **NOT** faith based. That is your awkward defense in order to preserve your admitted basis of faith in your position. Saying "well, you evolutionists do the same thing" is simply unfair and inaccurate.
Faith in a religious position is what it is... and it leads where it leads... but just because that is how YOU think, it is not reasonable to assume that is how WE think.

Think about it .... no, wait... what am I asking?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 10:50 AM

but just because that is how YOU think,

Ah, but you see, Bill, he DOESN'T think - he parrots & regurgitates & therein lies the basis of the difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:48 AM

Bill's nailed it. It's all about TIME.

Creationists don't have enough time in their sequence of events since creation to squeeze everything in: the development of so many diverse and disparate life forms, the laying down of sediment, the action of plate tectonics, the cooling of the earth, chemistry, the formation of the oceans, the time it takes for light to reach us from other stars, the formation of the moon, the existence of any number of observable cosmic events and objects.

Deep time is a very difficult concept to grasp, and that's just the geological timescale. By the time you're talking about the cosmic timescale even a relative demonstration becomes meaningless as the time distances are so huge. I'm not sure any of us are capable of grasping these ages - we live for a paltry three score years and ten and have a very constricted concept of time.

Much easier (and lazier) to chalk it all up to god and then not have to think too hard about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 11:50 AM

Read that link to The Guardian article about dangerous Christians I posted earlier, a few posts up. It gives what could be a bit of an explanation as to why reason doesn't work with pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:25 PM

Musket - I read the article at the weekend. Depressing stuff really. Pink sky? Crikey.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:42 PM

I certainly wish I were qualified to address each challenge point by point, but apart from these being claims that there is only the one way of interpreting the geological data, it would be difficult to discuss general claims, but there is not much likelihood that I would know the answer if you did present specifics. ideally such challenges should be to a geologist rather than this lesser learned creationist.
I can make a few observations on stu/bills posting though.
you mention lyells uniformitarianism and the current adoption of neo-catastrophism. this of course must have come about when the weight of evidence for only slow and gradual became impossible to maintain, and the formerly thought best science was modified.
a diverse number of explanations are employed for different layers and geologic data, but this is true of flood geology also, which again brings me back to the role of worldview in interpreting data.
this also reminds me that I have been exaggerated to the point of misrepresentation. I have not said that scientists are careless and lazy. that is "simply unfair and inaccurate" ! I said that the research is coloured by worldview.
do I have to find those quotes by evolutionists again, that admit the same ?
I seem to remember a tv road trip programme where a creationist asked a evolutionist geologist if he would discuss with a creationist geologist, and the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time. I would say that betrayed a fixed position, that did not want challenging. I would hope there were others who might be less arrogant.
I note that you are not able to give me an explanation for polystrates [or whatever term you prefer !] beyond assurances that wiki explains it.
by the same token, probably most of your points would be answered by a flood geologist far more than I possibly could.
I prefer to stick to the more basic and simpler ideas....like soft stuff not being able to survive the claimed myo ! .

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 05:53 PM

"I seem to remember a tv road trip programme where a creationist asked a evolutionist geologist if he would discuss with a creationist geologist, and the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time."

I think that the "evolutionist" (whatever that is) geologist (did you mean 'real' geologist, pete?) was being very polite. I would have told the "creationist geologist" (whatever one of those is) to f***k off!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM

reationist geologist

Yet another oxymoron, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 06:47 PM

"I said that the research is coloured by worldview."

Ok Pete... I wasn't quoting you exactly. I was spelling out what many of your posts imply. If all the evidence by the majority of traditional scientists were wrong, "colored by worldview" wouldn't begin to explain their conclusions.

""the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time. I would say that betrayed a fixed position, that did not want challenging."

Unless you read minds Pete, that is not likely to be the case at all. How could anyone possibly 'debate' a position that even you admit is faith based? In many ways, *I* ...and Stu.. and others... are wasting time, but we are not geologists whose careers goes way beyond such debates. Other geologist and various scientists have made all the relevant points in various places. He made a personal decision not to get involved.... who knows exactly why.
   His "fixed position" is NOT reading Darwin and simply nodding in agreement. His fixed position is the scientific method which leads in complex ways with ever changing **details**, all of which.. so far... point to billions of years of data. As I said above, most creationist claims amount to just weak attempts to dispute the main body of evidence.

------------------------------

And Greg... Pete certainly DOES think! I disagree with him on most points because of where he starts, but his efforts certain involve much thinking.
He is certain more interesting to chat with than to roll my eyes at YOUR simplistic insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 07:14 PM

Natural selection is nothing to do with what happens every time a predator takes its prey. I once watched an amazingly-fit wood pigeon brought down by a pair of peregrines. The pigeon's only problem was that it was unsuspecting. Even James Bond might have been killed for that reason alone. A common misconception that leads us up shit creek sans paddle. Natural selection is the non-random survival of genes in a gene pool, survival being the operative term, and genes being the appropriate hierarchical level to discuss. Darwin might have called them heritable factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:21 PM

Pete certainly DOES think!

Oh, I believe ya, Bill- thousands wouldn't.

I disagree with him on most points because of where he starts Starts? Its where he concludes that's the problem.

And you know that he isn't simply repeating ridiculous bullshit he's absorbed from other idiots.....how exactly? His stated conclusions show no thought worthy of the name whatsoever.

As I've said before, if you like to entertain yourself by "chatting" with idiots, knock yourself out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:33 PM

""He is certain more interesting to chat with than to roll my eyes at YOUR simplistic insults.""

LOL, that's a good one, Bill D..but, many folks are guilty of that charge. What is likely intended as clever, among a majority tribe view point! is more often like you call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 08:52 PM

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." 
― Winston Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 30 Sep 14 - 09:27 PM

""but there is not much likelihood that I would know the answer if you did present specifics. ideally such challenges should be to a geologist rather than this lesser learned creationist.""

Unbelievable.

You are the one who is presenting challenges to geologists, all of whom confirm the evidence for evolution, and you are suggesting WE ask a geologist rather than ignorant you.

Talk about blind arrogance.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:38 AM

Wonderful comedy Pete, you pretending to not understand as well as repeating the age old logic conundrum.

But just in case you are serious,
If an idiot like me gets it why can't you Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 02:16 AM

I disagree, Steve, but I think we are just debating what "every time" means. In any form of competition the "weaker" will sometimes triumph over the stronger so you are quite correct to object if you thought I meant it so directly. But which of the inheritable traits survive to the later generations is statistical in nature and every single event contributes to the statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 02:43 AM

I need to elaborate on that slightly. It is true that each predation contributes to the statistics. But is also true, and potentially as powerful, that failed attempts at predation contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 03:21 AM

So, pete, is it the case that you believe that real (faithless) scientists have to provide evidence to support their cases but creationists can rely on faith alone? Is that the the rule you've arbitrarily decided to play by, pete? If that's the case, then perhaps you should have stated that rule at the top of this thread. We could then have voted down your rule and told you to stuff it somewhere unmentionable!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 04:59 AM

Thanks for the Guardian like, Muskrat...

Here it is again for ease of access:

Pseudoscience I was taught at a British creationist school

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 05:01 AM

Oops! Musket! I now have visions of that character from Deputy Dawg, which, come to think of it, I haven't seen in too long a while. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 08:34 AM

Oh dear. My self esteem has taken a blow.

I shall now take this loaded revolver into my study. there will be no need to put the kettle on, on my account.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 09:15 AM

I wrote a big reply to Pete and the bloody site went down. I can't be arsed to type another at the moment, got to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 09:32 AM

But you don't approve of guns Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 10:48 AM

"just had a read about neural pathways on brittanica. it did not even mention evolution, as far as I could see"

and if you read about constructing furniture, it wouldn't discuss Archimedes and the screw... or Newton and gravity in a discussion of how to keep a ladder in place so you don't fall off.

it makes the sometimes unfortunate assumption that the reader has some background knowledge to start from.

you also need to understand that every expert is a layman in other fields that they haven't worked in or studied. if scientific method is honestly employed, then the all the known and relevent facts are investigated. bottom line... cherry picking "facts" in order "prove" a pre-determined outcome is dishonest and unscientific. period... exclamation point...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:11 AM

or Newton and gravity

HEY!!! That's the THEORY of gravity, buddy!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:23 AM

A new study on evolutionary change about dinosaur arms morphing into bird wings This is a quite interesting development in basic concepts about what is possible.

I realize that Pete will not accept the general concepts involved, but it is the sort of thing that bears reading & understanding, no matter what one thinks about its implications.

This is my ongoing attempt to do more than just bandy words and personality jibes. The thread, after all, was to discuss evolution and evidence for it, as well as to debate the religious viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:27 AM

That's why I choose one to..

Oh forget it, they'll only delete if I call him a

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:36 AM

""This is my ongoing attempt to do more than just bandy words and personality jibes. The thread, after all, was to discuss evolution and evidence for it, as well as to debate the religious viewpoint.""

Good points, Bill D-many of the last few hundred posts were in the first category, which does little to enlighten nor entertain.

""The devil made me do it."" Flip Wilson

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:40 AM

HEY!!! That's the THEORY of gravity, buddy!

LOL... and let me know when some "august body" manages to invalidate that one...

the black hole of fundamentalism.... you get sucked in and can't get out...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:56 AM

Newton had a theory of gravity.

Einstein had a different - and better - theory.

Now there's "quantum gravity" - which may be an even better theory than that.

Or maybe not.

But everybody agrees that gravity exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:09 PM

There is no "debating" the creationism, Bill- its complete and utter bullshit.

People can "debate" their various interpretations of facts/evidence, but you can't "debate" nonsense.

Would you attempt yo "debate" witha Holocaust denier?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:17 PM

But everybody agrees that gravity exists.

Except pete- gravity isn't mentioned in the Bible.

The reason things fall is because God wants them to.

Until He changes his mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:34 PM

I don't think that there is too much danger, science geek, of the here and now, testable, observable theory of gravity being invalidated. mind you, it seems that the here and now science about how long perishable material could conceivably last, is now here and gone since it was found in dino bone !.
you and bill have both appealed to the "scientific method ", which, last I heard involved testable , repeatable science that is observable, not that which is not observable. a geologist can measure, quantify and describe rocks and strata, but how that is interpreted is coloured by worldview and how he or she has been trained to interpret.
bill insists that presupposition is not sufficient to sway scientists interpretations, but as I can look up a few quotes by evolutionists that admit as much, I will stick to what I have said.
"...evidence by the majority..."
1- everyone has the same evidence....it is how it is interpreted.
2-assuming you meant that most scientists believe they have evidence that favours their view, then you are again appealing to authority ["traditional scientists"], and numbers ["the majority"].
someone said something like...if its consensus , it is,nt science.. presumably emphasizing that just because most scientists say they are right, does not by itself make it so.
interesting that dmcg and steve don't seem to agree what natural selection is. I was quite surprised by disagreement on that.
maybe it is just clarification issues.
frustrating innit stu. happened a few time to me. I try not to do too long posts now as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:48 PM

interesting DMcG and Steve disagree what natural selection is

We will have to wait for Steve, Pete, but I reckon you will find any such disagreement is entirely about whether the words I used were an adequate reflection of the concept. As far as I can tell we both agree on what that concept is and how it works. The 'disagreement' is about whether we best describe it in terms of the overall effect, or through detail, but we are still both describing the same thing.

Unless Steve disagrees, naturally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 12:56 PM

"repeatable science that is observable, not that which is not observable"

we are getting closer to the crux of the issue...

the study of life on earth had two important componants:
1)natural history as observed today and 2)as inferred, based upon historic evidence.

a simple example... pete lives in England and his monarch is currently Queen Elizabeth II. he could go to London & see her ride by or whatever... directly observable, after a fashion. It could be her doppleganger, but probably not.

now we go to historic evidence not observable... the first Queen named Elizabeth lived some 4 centuries ago... nobody alive today ever saw her... BUT... there are public records, paintings and various first hand written accounts that support the historic fact of her existence. In fact, we can use scientific means to determine if a document is actually authentic and not a fake based on the age of the paper and ink used and if it is consistent with what was available back then.

The same kind of scientific methodlogy is used when working on the geologic record that supports the theory of evolution. It is not a complete record... but then again, do we actually know every detail of Elizabeth I's life? No, but we do know enough to accept the reality of her existence and how long she was around.

There will never be a complete picture of the past, but that in and of itself does not negate what we do know. The fact of earlier life forms is as valid as the existence of the Tudor family line... while it lasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 01:06 PM

Point of order. Einstein didn't have a different theory of gravity. He did however, through relativity describe how "Newton's bucket" was no longer a conundrum. The laws of mass and attraction still hold. Newton did not question steady state and absolutism, hence Einstein's simple relativity was all the more profound.

it is the reason for gravity that is being refined. Newtonian physics are constantly refined as indeed they should be. A copy of the Principia I had when doing research into mechanical vibration is a hell of a lot thinner than the copy Mrs Musket bought me last year, as the appendixes concerning refinements and impact grow all the time. I especially like the citation on page 923 of appendix 4, but I digress.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 06:11 PM

Natural selection and "survival of the fittest" (the latter a term Darwin despised) are much-bandied around by people who often haven't a clue what they're talking about, but who think they do. Natural selection is all about the non-random survival of genes within a gene pool. It has nothing to do with "weeding out" the weakest or slowest wildebeest, etc. That is to consider selection on entirely the wrong hierarchical level, something Darwin counselled against. Similarly with "survival of the fittest". That concept, misrepresented, led to Hitlerism, and Darwin would be turning in his grave. It's a term I try to not use, as selection is all about differential survival within a species, not between species or between "races" (which, in human terms, don't exist).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 06:18 PM

> there are public records, paintings and various first hand written accounts that support the historic fact of her existence.

And the evidence for evolution is even better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 06:28 PM

pete keeps banging on and on and on about the past not being observable but when I challenged him by pointing out that the events depicted in the Bible are not directly observable he mumbled something about "faith". It was then that the 'penny dropped' for me. He believes that those who have faith can claim any old nonsense but those without faith have to provide evidence to support their claims. Nevertheless, I have challenged him repeatedly on this point and he resolutely ignores me and carries on with his incoherent diatribes about dinosaur bones and "Noachian deluges" and other bollocks. Let's face it chaps, we're wasting our time talking with this brainwashed numbskull.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 06:35 PM

I've been telling y'all that for months, Shimrod. Just take the piss out of him about once a fortnight. He deserves no better and you're guaranteed plenty of material to work on.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 07:24 PM

Not sure what to make of this article?, It seems to be from a credible scientist that understands the basics of related science of astronomy and physics, which he attempts to explain within Christian beliefs.

Have you read anyhing fro this person, pete7*, or Bill D?

Do Creationists Believe in "Weird" Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, a 

Dr Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D. (Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor of Astronomy/Physics and Chair, Division of Math, Science, Nursing & Public Health at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster, where he teaches physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 10:09 PM

As I understand the Faulkner article, the bottom line for him is that he will accept anything as a robust scientific theory, or as a viable hypothesis, IF he doesn't perceive a conflict with young earth creationism. As with Pete, the bible interpreted literally is the trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 14 - 11:14 PM

Pete, what makes evolution appear to be so untestable, to you? What about breeding dogs - can't you make new breeds by selecting traits from other breeds? What makes that not a demo of evolution? What about needing a new flu shot every year? Malaria and sickle-cell, hooves and grasses, cystic fibrosis and diarhheal diseases, all demonstrate evolution, by existing here and now and changing the way they change if variables are manipulated in testing hypotheses. Moths in the UK changing color with pollution levels... there are countless demontrations of it, many of which have led to testable hypotheses, all of which, when tested, have been borne out. This why evolution is a theory, like gravity, and not an mere superstition, belief, or credo. Which *part* of evolution, precisely, do you think cannot be tested? Maybe by figuring that out we can figure out where the crux of your fundamental misunderstanding lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:46 AM

Look at how humans have gradually altered and refined till eventually you get me, the perfect specimen.

Difficult to see how you can improve on that.

Although the petes of this world are arrogant enough in their vanity to say we are in the image of his God invention. Belly button apart, which of us is in his image? The European looking Middle East blokes in Renaissance paintings? A nazi inspired Aryan soldier? An Australian aboriginal? A Zulu child? A Pakistani Imam?

👲👳👷💂👶👨👧👩👴👵👹🙉🙊🙈💩

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 06:14 AM

They do not mean we should all be identical to each other silly!
Never mind racial differences, what about gender?
Facial features?
There are many criticisms you can make of creationists, but that is just being silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 06:39 AM

sciencegeek/lighter, how on earth can you say that the evidence for evolution[ism] is equal, let alone better than that of the tudors ! ?
if you dig up a fossil, you can certainly identify pretty much what it is , but there is no label on it saying.....I am xxxmyo...that is interpreted, as I said in my last post. for the tudors, you have artifacts, pictures, and historical writings...oops, I forgot, you discount historical narrative. I exagaratte, of course, it must fit in with your naturalistic worldview !
mrrzy, as I was saying to dmcg, and your post illustrates the point, what is observable, repeatable testable science, is described as Darwinist rules, but Darwinism asserts [as I assume you do] that microbes to man evolution can be extrapolated from that. the examples you give do not evidence the latter. I hear that information gaining mutations are less than a handful of doubtful examples so far. would you not think that they would be plentiful, if neo Darwin were true ?
btw, that moth thing is not the same story now, if we are thinking of the same thing.
ed, I have that book, but not read that chapter yet. but thankyou for just one example of a creationist scientist, which some insist is an oxymoron !
frogprince,= and I assume that you will accept anything as a robust scientific theory, as long as it does not conflict with evolutionism !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 09:58 AM

> sciencegeek/lighter, how on earth can you say that the evidence for evolution[ism] is equal, let alone better than that of the tudors ! ?

Because it is. Why? Because one cannot rule out 100% the possibility that all those paintings and documents are part of a giant fraud by the English nobility to pretend that "Elizabeth II" was the head of state, or that she even existed.

Was she? Did she? I don't know. I wasn't there. A lot of people believe in Elizabeth II on the basis of old books and pictures, but maybe they're wrong.

One might do DNA testing on her alleged bones, but the DNA researchers would certainly not want to risk their jobs by coming up with an earth-shaking unorthodox result, now would they? Anyway, just because there may have been a woman called "Elizabeth II," what makes you so sure she was really the queen? Were you there?

As this thread has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for evolution comes from a convergence of advanced and proven sciences, practiced by scientists from every nation on earth who in the aggregate have no conceivable political or other agendas to commit a massive fraud. What's more, their basic principles and findings can be tested by any other scientist right now. We don't have to rely on their say-so alone, or on paintings (by court painters who had to follow orders), or on easily faked political documents that could be covering up the real truth.

Of course, if your argument boils down to all facts are just another kind of opinion, and all opinions are equally likely to be "true" (whatever that means), then there's no point to any discussion except to display one's supposed skill in one-upmanship.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 10:12 AM

poor pete doesn't get it and likely never will...

the point he keeps missing is that the TOOL of scientific method is used for both cases... examining the evidence and drawing conclusions. And used to identify 3000 year old mummies... where enough DNA evidence remains.

the same tools were used to identify the recently uncovered remains of another King of England... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

so pete, consider your goose cooked. you just haven't figured that out yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 10:40 AM

The tool in this case is and always has been pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 11:02 AM

"frogprince,= and I assume that you will accept anything as a robust scientific theory, as long as it does not conflict with evolutionism !. "

I will accept anything as a robust scientific theory if it has a long and broad record of experimental and observational confirmation extending all across the modern scientific disciplines.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 01:17 PM

a robust scientific theory... defined as a theory which gains support through evidence garnered from a number of different disciplines.

When Darwin wrote his book on the origins of species, he knew very well that he lacked a mechanism whereby traits were passed from one generation to the next. With the development of the study of genetics, that lack was replaced with new information... evidence, if you will, supporting Darwin's hypothesis.

A century later, exploration of the sea bottom turned up more information that lead to the study of plate tectonics... that not only explained continental drift (a much abused theory for many years) but also provided more evidence of long term changes to the earth which also supports Darwin's theory.

There is not a single field of science that negates the theory of evolution... after a century and a half of people seeking to do just that. It's only half baked pseudo scientific claims that do not hold up to independent study that pete can reference. Faith is not science... an scientifically trained people who feel compelled to ignore facts thta conflict with their faith held beliefs are being dishonest to themselves and the rest of the world. A pity they feel a need to shackle their all powerful diety to ancient fairy tales.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 02:26 PM

Well if you are in his image, we're all fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 02:50 PM

""As I understand the Faulkner article, the bottom line for him is that he will accept anything as a robust scientific theory, or as a viable hypothesis, IF he doesn't perceive a conflict with young earth creationism.""

Well, the scientist/author made it clear in the article that he is a person with a belief in a Chrustian God. As there is a lack of certainity in science, (and among those who develop theories about the origion of the universe and how it operates and moves forward)- it seems reasonable that this uncertainty leaves christian scientists with room to maintain their belief within their professional science field, versus compartmentalizing, as another poster suggested.

IMO, what separates Pete from this scientist, is he is well educated in science, seems to understand it well, and works in a science field related to the topic. As a scientist, unlike Pete, I suspect he accepts the scientific understanding of "evolution" witnin his religious belief. While Petes claim is made, IMO in opposition to fairly reliable scientific research conducted first hand-here on earth, (as opposed to theories made by scientists on the expanse of the universe, where no man has ventured).

This is confounding to views put forward by some, that only those who have little understanding of science (the uneducated) could have a belief in "a God".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 02:54 PM

""Well if you are in his image, we're all fucked.""

And, what would be wrong with that? It is rather enjoyable with a partner-you should try it some time (with a partner, I mean).

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 03:40 PM

Full marks lighter, for your exercise in one upman ship!   The difference is that the comparison is seriously flawed due to the massive difference in alleged time past between origins and the Tudors. There is also a vast difference in the quality and detail of the evidence between them. You could , I suppose, question the evidence for the Tudors, but the differences I outlined above make such scenario much mor unlikely.   your arguments mostly consist of appeal to authority and numbers of scientists that agree with you.         Ed, I am certain that Danny Faulkner does not follow evolutionism. His science agrees with, or more accurately is more consistent with the bible. As I say, worldview guides and directs interpretation of data.          You can of course , take refuge in my lesser learning, but I have offered evidences against evolutionism in accord with simple science that have not been answered, beyond assurances that there are answers or are waiting in faith for them.          Darwin certainly knew he did not have an unshakable theory, and you have not demonstrated that genetics, nor any other branch of science has improved that. In fact ,with so much complexity revealed increasingly since the simple cell idea, I reckon there is even less proof.                   The increasing censure of views other than Darwinist in education is hardly scientific, when science is supposed to question rather than demand unquestioning acceptance.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 03:58 PM

"Darwin certainly knew he did not have an unshakable theory, and you have not demonstrated that genetics, nor any other branch of science has improved that."

Quite to the contrary, without us going into college level depth, you have been told repeatedly that 150 years of scientific advances have not only supported the theory of evolution, but have refined it further than Darwin ever could. Twisting our words is dishonest, pete, and further proof that you really have no interest in learning anything... you only want to continue parroting your self serving little crock of BS.

Clinging to the tale of genesis doesn't make you a better christian... it just shows how closed minded you insist on remaining. you blind yourself to the glories of the world and cling to the feeble writings of ancient people who were trying to find answers that made them feel important and special.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:01 PM

 ""Ed, I am certain that Danny Faulkner does not follow evolutionism.""

Don't quite know what you mean by "follow" . But, if you mean "does not subscribe to evolution science" do you have evidence to present that shows this to be so? (In his direct words-I like to do my own interpretations).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:09 PM

"As I say, worldview guides and directs interpretation of data."

No it f**ing doesn't! Except, of course, if you're a creationist and you twist every bit of information until it gives the creationist's preferred answer!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 04:37 PM

There is not a single field of science that negates the theory of evolution..

For fuck's sake, GOD himself negates the "theory of evolution". And in writing!!

Ain't that enougf for you guys???

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:02 PM

> Clinging to the tale of genesis doesn't make you a better christian.

As most major Christian dominations agree (see upthread).

So what *does* it do?

BTW, the very fact that such a basic idea as evolution vs. creation has led to disagreements with Pete's views in the minority) proves that the bible requires interpretation. If it didn't every Christian would agree.

Also BTW, Mormons supplement the bible with the Book of Mormon - of interesting origin. They absolutely consider themselves to be Christians, even if some other churches do not.

So there isn't even general agreement on who "counts" as a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:22 PM

Pete 7 *
Below is a comment from Danny Faulkner, you may be right on his views on rejecting evolution. While he makes good sense on many science perspectives related to science theory and the universe, IMO, he is "out to lunch" on this topic, and possibly on rejectng evolution, if he does so.

""Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 15, 2013:Jim, the universe was created in six days, about 6,000 years ago. Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heaven(s) and the earth. Some try to argue that this is an introductory statement/summary, thus allowing for some of the creation to have been earlier. This tact usually attempts to demonstrate that much of the universe was from an ancient past. However, Genesis 1:14-19 describes God making the stars after he made the earth. This would preclude stars being far more ancient than the earth. Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 states that in six days God made the heaven, earth, and sea, and all that is in them. Three times in Genesis 1:14-19 we're told that the stars are in the heaven, so the description of Exodus 20:11 must include stars as well.""

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:28 PM

Interesting reading:

""Some of these verses are in the poetic books, such as the Psalms. It is poor practice to build any teaching or doctrine solely or primarily upon passages from the poetic books, thought they can amplify concepts clearly taught elsewhere. It is also important not to base doctrines upon any passage that at best only remotely addresses an issue. That is, if cosmology is clearly not the point of a passage, then extracting a cosmological meaning can be very dangerous.""




resources 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:37 PM

mrrzy, as I was saying to dmcg, and your post illustrates the point, what is observable, repeatable testable science, is described as Darwinist rules, but Darwinism asserts [as I assume you do] that microbes to man evolution can be extrapolated from that. the examples you give do not evidence the latter.

Microbes to human doesn't need to be extrapolated, it's in the molecular data. Look at the microbes that *make* people - only about 1 in 100 cells in you are coded for my *your* dna, the rest are one-celled animals that live within your cells and make your tissues work. The tree of life is fairly well established but you have to have a microscope to see us on it, since there are so very few species that are multicellular or big enough for us to see. We are at the very end of a twig at the very end of a tiny branch called Animals-and-Fungi; the rest of the entire tree is branch after branch upon bough after bough of microbes going back to a single trunk.
Here are a bunch of illustrations; this one shows it like a usual tree, but there are plenty of better visual representations like this or this.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:41 PM

>> Clinging to the tale of genesis doesn't make you a better christian.

>As most major Christian denominations agree (see upthread).

>So what *does* it do?

Possibly exemplifies the Sin of Pride in the service of faith?

Just askin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 06:05 PM

>So what *does* it do?

Makes one a brain-dead idiot?

Just askin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 07:57 PM

We need to clear one or two things up here. Evolution by natural section has nothing to do with the favouring or disfavouring of individuals within a species. Natural selection is concerned with the non-random (think about it) survival - survival - of heritable traits (as Darwin might have said) or genes (as we might say) within gene pools. The weakest and slowest wildebeest might well be the one caught by the lioness, but don't jump to conclusions here. That poor beest might have got caught because it was a bit older and therefore slower, or because it had an injured back leg, or because it was lumbered with a huge foetus inside it. Nothing there to do with genes. That poor thing might well have lived a full reproductive life before it got caught. Its genes will go on and on. The only way its genes will not go on and on, or go on and on a bit less, is if it gets caught young, or is somehow a bit less appealing to males. Discuss! Let's counsel against being simplistic. Please read "Origin" cover to cover. Especially before you bombard me with PMs telling me how I'm getting it so "tactically" wrong apropos of idiot pete. Honestly, guys, he doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:00 PM

Pete- I don't remember if I posted this link before--- I assume I must have, but I hope you will read it... about 9 times

I have an answer to another of your points about 'disagreements within science', but it will require some scanning or typing that my head cold is not ready for.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:13 PM

but I hope you will read it

Bill, have you missed the ten thousand times where pete has said he doesn't read and won't read anything that contradicts his delusions?

I'm beginning to think you're as fuckwitted as he is, if not more so!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:31 PM

The bit in Bill's link "Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation" is worth a look. There, Bill, you see - I do follow things up. You won't be wasting your time on me, but, sure as eggs is eggs, you're wasting your time on pete. It's even worse than that, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:52 PM

All I can do is provide answers.. I am technically addressing Pete, but I am really just replying to the entire fundamentalist view, to allow anyone who cares to see the best information.

It is a bit more work than short, sniping insults, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 03:42 AM

As I thought Steve and are in extremely close agreement, and I can certainly interpret what he wrote so that I am in 100% agreement. From a different perspective I have a relatively minor disagreement, so let"s go through things in more detail.

I fully concur that what matters for evolution is a non-uniform distribution of genes in the pool. No question here.

Also, if an individual dies for whatever reason any of its genes (ignoring direct mutations) may well be present in a sibling, cousin or more distant relative. So one could say the death of the individual is not important. Also, I am fully aware that focussing on the individual risks losing sight of the fact it is genes that are important, or even totally unaware of them, which can lead to also of confusion and, as the sorry history of eugenics shows, much worse. Finally, of course, when students are being taught it is most important that they understand it is the gene not the individual that matters.

So far, I think, Steve and I are fully aligned. I am certainly opposed to any simplistic understanding of what the role of the individual is.

We can even go further. When the theory of evolution is expressed these days, it usually does so without any mention of individuals at all.

So what is this minor disagreement I mentioned? simply this. For many species, by no means all, there is a correlation between the number offspring and the length of life of the parent. That is, for many species there is not a single mating, it continues for a substantial part of their life. And this has a direct bearing on what genes @from that invidual@ are in the gene pool. I must emphasise again that the same gene could also be present from a relative of varying degrees of closeness. But tit this direct passing on why I can't go quite as far as Steve in saying deaths of individuals are not important, though yet again I must emphasise they are only one factor in the complex web.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 03:57 AM

I know the debate has moved on in the last 24 hours, but I'm still laughing from where I pointed out the silliness of God and being in his image, and being told I was the one being silly for not understanding how it works...

You couldn't make it up.

Although someone obviously did.
👼👹

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:05 AM

Sorry for the large number of grammatical and typing errors in that: I dashed it off while being summoned to breakfast, so it was a bit "flow of concioisness" in style!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:21 AM

Ed T's link to the Faulkner piece was interesting, mainly because of the final paragraph:

" As with the question of origins, we must strive to interpret these things on our terms, guided by the Bible. Do the new theories adequately describe the world? Can we see the hand of the Creator in our new physics? Can we find meaning in our studies that brings glory to God? If we can answer yes to each of these questions, then these new theories ought not to be a problem for the Christian."

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth: creationist and other fundamentalist christians ignore scientific method and cannot let the facts speak for themselves. They have to see everything as though through the distorting lens of religious dogma and are subject to almost ludicrous confirmation bias. These people are charlatans plain and simple; they approach scientific research from the outset expecting to find "the hand of the creator". They're not setting out to test a hypotheses as they don't have one, only an immovable and unquestionable a priori assumption (something pete accuses people like me of) that everything shows the hand of god.

Madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:47 AM

Musket, do you really believe that the person who thought we were made in God's image did not know that we all look different?
Even a blind person can distinguish individuals!

Do you really think you have found a serious intellectual floor in the argument because you noticed we all look different?

You are trying so hard to make a contribution to the debate, but you don't know anything and understand less.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 05:41 AM

I appreciate your link, Bill D. Although, of course, pete won't because (a) he probably won't read it, and (b) if he does read it, he will dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts his "world view".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:26 AM

I understand your superstition clouds objective thought.

I wonder if dinosaurs were in his image when they thought they were top dog?

Are we second choice? That would explain a lot regarding his indifference to those who claim him as a hero that exists. Willie Nelson said 90% of us are with our second choice of partner, that's why we have juke boxes.

Are you really trying to discuss biblical nonsense as real? I brought up the image nonsense as a point of creationism ignoring evolution, not to discuss the likelihood of your imaginary friend, you oaf.

😹😹😹

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:52 AM

> only an immovable and unquestionable a priori assumption (something pete accuses people like me of)

Freud calls it "projection."

Freud, of course, was a theorist, not a scientist. The bible, however, seems to concur in the line about not seeing the beam in your own eye.

But you don't need to be a scientist or a theologian to see projection at work every day.

Since no mainstream Christian denomination requires belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis, Pete should consider whether his determination to disprove thye facts of evolution (which would make him smarter than, say, Darwin, Dawkins, and Gould combined) really is a Sin of Pride, a sin that might be shared with other creationists.

If he thinks there's any chance that it is, it might be wise for him to stop now. And if not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:39 AM

Musket, man in God's image never meant we all have to look the same.
Pointing out that we don't is not an intellectual achievement on your part.
It just shows that you completely failed to understand the whole concept!
You so want to be part of the debate but you lack any knowledge or understanding.
Stick to name calling.

Are you really trying to discuss biblical nonsense as real?

No.

I brought up the image nonsense as a point of creationism ignoring evolution,

Then you show your ignorance of the concept once again.

not to discuss the likelihood of your imaginary friend, you oaf.

I was not discussing that, oaf.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:49 AM

Of course I don't understand the concept. Why should I? I am too rational to believe it and too mentally competent to need it.

Tell you what. I don't understand evolution at the level of Steve and one or two others. We have experts in the field discussing it so I read with interest.

I don't understand the ins and outs of christian superstition because I was raised being told how to think, not what to think.

I most certainly don't understand how some religious people say you have to believe supernatural fairy stories to be a christian whilst others say you can pick and choose the less fantasy claims and others say you can be a christian who doesn't actually have belief whilst looking down on the superstituous and vulnerable members.



So... Which parts of the grown ups' debate do you claim to understand?

👪

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:33 AM

I have been following it with interest Musket, but could not let pass such nonsense as,
"Belly button apart, which of us is in his image? The European looking Middle East blokes in Renaissance paintings? A nazi inspired Aryan soldier? An Australian aboriginal? A Zulu child? A Pakistani Imam?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:43 AM

"I wonder if dinosaurs were in his image when they thought they were top dog?"

With 10,000+ species of dinosaurs extant, they are still top dog. Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:04 AM

It is a bit more work than short, sniping insults, Greg.

Possibly, Bill - but it is also considerably more useless and more of a waste of time...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:07 AM

"... do you really believe that the person who thought we were made in God's image did not know that we all look different?
Even a blind person can distinguish individuals!"

So if that is the the "literal truth"... why the clinging to a 6 day creation, etc.??? Anyone with an open mind and even a modicum of scientific understanding accepts the evidence of our own eyes/viewing equipment that the universe is billions of years in age and that it took three generations of stars to generate the heavier elements that are needed for life on earth to exist... still waiting for the evidence of extraterrestrial lifeforms...

We can't help it if some folks chose to remain blind... and uninformed. Though we are trying to help you out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:39 AM

I am not a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:43 AM

....and the first generation of stars produced the elements not provided in the Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:09 AM

Just in case you weren't taken in by the first post

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:07 PM

"Possibly, Bill - but it is also considerably more useless and more of a waste of time..."

MORE useless than sniping insults? *grin*.. I'll waste my time in my manner, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 05:32 PM

I'll waste my time in my manner, thank you.

Waste yout time any way you want, Bill - as long as you don't harbor any notions that its anything BUT a waste of time.

As I said, below, if you enjoy matching wits[sic] with an idiot, knock yourself out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:31 PM

Yep. A bit like those blokes who sit there all day on the bank of Bude canal with thousands of pounds' worth of cutting-edge super-lightweight titanium-coated carbon-fibre equipment, to try, mostly unsuccessfully, to catch....a bloody carp.

OK, so I made up the bit about titanium-coated... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:53 PM

I would not be so unfeeling as to state that the deaths of individuals are unimportant. We are talking here about the mechanisms of evolution, remember. As I keep trying to say, evolution is predicated on survival, not on "weeding out". That is not what natural section is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:03 PM

for all I know, greg may be very intelligent, and have a string of letters after his name, but I cant recall a single post that betrays his great mind.
bill, I read the relevant bit of the link. I think you can see that though it purports to demonstrate evolution as observable science, the examples it gave only related to changes within the organism . they call it evolution. then they talk about pond scum to people , and call that evolution, as though it were the same thing. what it is, is bait and switch. best wishes for head clearing.
mrrzy, best I can see, your post describes what you believe rather than demonstrating microbes to man type evolution. I found it strange that you describe single cells as an animal ?.
sciencegeek, you are right in suggesting that going into college level might well lose me, and so you have to again use the argument from authority. but I suspect, that if you could demonstrate that evolution happened beyond change/adaption within the kind, you would do so. tec stuff has been posted before, and although beyond me in details, I could see that it did not evidence slime to sciencegeek evolution.
and who said anything about being a better Christian ?. were I a complete hypocrite, it would not have any bearing on the argument itself. that was not a constructive...dare I say it, scientific...argument imo !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:12 PM

A bit of historical context to the science of evolution, including the contribution of
Lamarak. Lamrak's early contribution was mostly forgotten, until recently, when some of his theories were found to hold more water than it seemed.


Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck 

Lamarckian Evolution 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:14 PM

re stu.-yeh we see through the lens of religious dogma, just like evolutionists see through the lens of Darwinian dogma.
steve,- does not " the preservation of favoured races " not presuppose the "weeding out" of those not so favoured ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:46 PM

I've said nothing about the preservation of anything, you ignorant git. Evolution has no goals, least of all the "preservation" of anything. Why don't you just toddle off (for good, preferably), and go and misrepresent yourself (instead of me) to your fellow delusionals, and stop misrepresenting good, honest science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:47 PM

""does not " the preservation of favoured races " not presuppose the "weeding out" of those not so favoured ?.""

No, it doesn't! Evolution has no goal, target or preference.

What you describe as "weeding out" is nothing more than the inability to adapt sufficiently for survival. There is nothing as purposeful as "weeding out" in that.

And even if all you say about evolution theory were true in every detail, that still isn't evidential proof of the existence of God, the inerrant nature of the bible, or even the need for either to exist.

Instead of belittling and sneering at the achievements of men far exceeding your abilities in any field, why not present YOUR testable and falsifiable evidence for YOUR claims?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:53 PM

I have muddled about with the topic for a long time:
from my freshman class in Philosophy, 58 years ago. (from memory)

"Evolution is the integration of matter and the concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."

...Herbert Spencer

We had to memorize that: I never did understand what it meant or why it was included in a basic class... except that the old man who taught it also taught religion courses, and it was perhaps a way to avoid Darwin.   

---------------------------------------------------

Pete... "... changes within the organism . they call it evolution. then they talk about pond scum to people , and call that evolution, as though it were the same thing.

Well... there are changes "within the organism" that affect YOU, you highly developed bit of pond scum! We all get common colds because the virus changes so fast.... it evolves quickly.... as does the flu virus. Some diseases can be prevented by vaccination, because the relevant organism does NOT evolve rapidly.

I'm not sure why I neglected to mention this before as an example of evolution in a short time scale.

As to pond scum..(or teeny little whatevers). The evidence is there, whether you choose to accept it or not, that all life began in some primordial bubbling. It is fascinating to follow the attempts to find as many links & details as possible, even knowing we can NEVER assemble all the stages.

You might be interested to know that the guy who found the Burgess shale *(Walcott )and its weird Cambrian fossils was a very religious Presbyterian who had no problem with the 'idea' of evolution, but made some scientific errors in analysis, partly because of his religious training and preconceptions. He believed that God "revealed Himself" thru evolution, but assumed a more regular, simple progression than what we actually see.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:27 PM

for all I know, greg may be very intelligent, and have a string of letters after his name, but I cant recall a single post that betrays his great mind.

While there are a plethora of posts, pete, that display your utter and complete mindlessness.

Don't try to be cute because I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:58 PM

mrrzy, best I can see, your post describes what you believe rather than demonstrating microbes to man type evolution. I found it strange that you describe single cells as an animal ?
The pictures I gave you links to show not what I believe, but what is known to science. Molecular genetics is demonstrating, has demonstrated, and continues to show you various ways to diagram the fact of microbe to humanity and to every other living thing. Best you see the pictures, that's why I linked to them for you.

Also, there are one-celled animals and there are one-celled plants. The one cell that gave rise to you wasn't an animal, though, it was just a cell. I wasn't calling all single cells "animals" but the ones whose ecosystem we are aren't plants or fungi, nor are they "us" genetically in the sense of being coded for by the union of our parents' gametes. They do not arise from the zygote that gave rise to us, yet are a basic part of us without which us wouldn't function or be.

We do have a lot of one-celled animals who live amongst our cells within our tissues. If the microbes that live in your skin stop working, you die because your skin stops working. If the microbes that live in your eyelash follicles die your eyelashes fall out. If the ones in your gums die all your teeth fall out, because those "germs" are what make your gums work to keep your teeth in, and so on.

But the microbe-to-all-life is well-established. Which of the diagrams do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 01:31 AM

Troubadour,
isn't evidential proof of the existence of God, the inerrant nature of the bible, or even the need for either to exist.
Instead of belittling and sneering at the achievements of men far exceeding your abilities in any field, why not present YOUR testable and falsifiable evidence for YOUR claims?

Because there is none.
It would be so easy to be a good (insert religion) if there were.
It would limit our free will.
This is about the evidence for evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:02 AM

I would drop this little diversion, Steve, but it leads us into an important alley in evolution world, so I will pursue it just a little further. It is not a matter of whether we are feeling or unfeeling about whether an individual survives, it is that the number of offspring directly alters the non uniform distribution of genes we agree is important. Now, at one extreme we have say grasses or locusts. Here instead of the pool containing a million copies of the gene it contains a million and one. whoopie! Yes, the distribution has altered, but a level that is for all practical purposes undetectable. But now let's go to the other extreme, such as tigers. Here there are so few individuals that the gene pool for tigers is tiny: an invidual gene might only have a handful of copies so every new instance is a very large change in the distribution.


And this is where we get to the new alleyway. There may only be say ten copies of that gene in the tiger genetic pool. But there may be millions of the same gene in, say, the domestic cat. So we need to make clear that the survival of the gene and the survival of the species are not as closely linked as one might at first think.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:16 AM

" ... tec stuff has been posted before, and although beyond me in details, ..."

Then you've got a lot of work to do, haven't you pete? If you hope to keep up with some of the people posting on this thread, then you need to be a lot better informed than you are. And remember your 'faith', the myths in the Bible, or what you choose to believe or not to believe, or your (f***ing) "world view" are irrelevant; only real world evidence matters. And I hope that you have read that link that Bill D posted above(?) It effortlessly demolishes all of your silly, parroted objections.

Signed,

A human being descended from and sustained by (and occasionally threatened by) single celled organisms (not necessarily "pond scum").

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 04:12 AM

" ... and so you have to again use the argument from authority."

I would suggest, pete, that argument from authority is far superior to argument from 'faith' (i.e. fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence). After all, you yourself have admitted that you believe that the myths in the Bible represent the literal truth, merely because you have faith that they do.

You also bang on and on and on about the past being unobservable whilst conveniently forgetting that the events recounted in the Bible are unobservable too.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 08:28 AM

Travelling home now after a short break and it strikes me we have discussed the science and creationist aspects in some detail but there are philosophical aspects which Bill D can help us with. For those who care, what led me to it was wondering how Nagel's bat fit into
this. The question I suggest we reflect on is to what extent species exist in a formal sense and to what extent they are arbitrary human constructs.

Let me express it another way
Humans are fantastic pattern recognition devices but are prone to detecting patterns that don't really exist. To what extent are we doing this?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 08:53 AM

> going into college level might well lose me, and so you have to again use the argument from authority.

Sorry, Pete, but your glib refusal to familiarize yourself with science and scientists on the basis that you are incapable of understanding it, does not reduce the rest of us to "arguing from authority."

"Argument from authority" means basing an argument on supposed expert opinion (including one's own) *while providing no good evidence to back it up.* Many of us have provided you with considerable evidence from world-recognized experts. You may choose to ignore it if you wish, just as you ignore some of our questions to you, but that doesn't make us gullible fools "arguing from authority."

A refusal to look at substantive evidence for evolution as presented even at the college level (in other words, in a form graspable even by nineteen- or twenty-year-olds) does, however, reduce the debater to "arguing from ignorance."

Much of this thread just begs for transactional analysis - another subject taught at the college level in easily understandable form.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 09:05 AM

perhaps it might help to define our terms, because they are getting tossed back and forth pretty freely. And over the course of history, folks have used the same terms to mean quite different things.

I'll start with a few basic terms and ideas:

natural history - the study of life, both past and present, along with the environments it is found in

evolution - changes observed/postulated in populations of organisms over the course of time

genetics - the study of self replicating biochemical compounds that are found in lifeforms that regulate how an organism both lives and produces new generations

just like history, evolution is based on observations of historic facts and there is no pre-determination of a final outcome. The history of England did not direct itself so that the present monarch is Elizabeth II, but rather the result of a number of historic events (that could have gone another way) is the historic past that resulted in today's situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:27 AM

here I is with no pretense of being a scientist asking steve a perfectly civil question and was answered with abuse, and that there is no preservation of favoured races because evolution is purposeless.
knowing how he promotes Darwin so much, I was somewhat surprised.........and so
   on the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Charles Darwin   1859.
neither did I intend to convey a meaning of intention when I utilized the already tendered term "weeding out". I did not realize that this expression could only be used in terms on intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:34 AM

the above also applies to you troubadour.
seems I need to repeat myself yet again. creationists freely admit their presuppositions, and faith, though supported by scientific and logical argument. evolutionists however refuse to admit presuppositions and their faith.....probably offering the same evidence , largely, but interpreted naturalistically.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:49 AM

Ah, Pete. I just don't know mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

pete... how many times must you be told that Darwin's book on the Origin of species is not a holy tome to be revered ... it was the distillation of decades of observations and study by the author to put forward a hypothesis.

That hypothesis has been studied over the following years and refined... We've learned more and have a better idea of how things work. that's it... increased knowledge about the natural world.

your bible, on the other hand, isn't even the only version out there... yet you want others to blindly accept it as some kind of truth about the natural world... in spite of all the evidence that it is not correct. that's the sticking point, pete. your vanity want to believe that you have the answers neatly spelled out, while the rest of us understand that there will always be more questions out there and we probably won't ever have all the answers, but that doesn't keep us from looking...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:03 AM

bill   "..in a sh0rt time scale" illustrates what I say. you call it evolution, but it is observational science in line with just about any biblical creationist position.......not the same thing as goo to you via the zoo evolution story, though confusing the two is a useful evolutionist tactic , intentional or not.
mrrzy, I appreciate that diagrams teach what is the perceived connections that link everything together, but does it demonstrate that it actually does. I think that what you ascribe to common ancestry ,I ascribe to common design. identical and similar, is to be expected. if God had not done it that way, I would assume there would be biological breakdown, but I confess to tentative thoughts on this.
lighter- argument from authority, does apply to you, because you have not presented evidence for the grand theory of evolution, only the short scale stuff which is far short of the evolution you adhere to.
......and of course I can direct you to renowned experts as well, but then I would be......arguing from authority !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:26 AM

"...and of course I can direct you to renowned experts as well,..."

"Renonwned" among a deranged cult of religious nutters, probably!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:42 AM

"...ignore some of our questions to you..." says lighter.
here you may need to cut me some slack. I thought I had replied to every objection or point , best I can, though not to every post.
bear in mind that there is just me, and all you opposing me. neither can I realistically read every link posted, purporting to demonstrate the evolution story. I do have a life outside mudcat !.
sciencegeek- context is everything ! I know you, ..personally.. don't revere "origins" ,and that you believe the theory has been verified, but steve has been nagging me for years to read it, evidently believing it sufficient for evidencing evolutionism.

interesting that steve has got pm's ,presumably in an effort for a united front against little old ignoramus pete. it would be funny, if it were not serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:55 AM

"... creationists freely admit their presuppositions, and faith, though supported by scientific and logical argument. evolutionists however refuse to admit presuppositions and their faith...."

That, Pete. is at the core of our disagreement. "Freely admitting" your presuppositions does not give them special status.

Here is the problem: you state that 'evolutionists' also have some. That is not a good way to describe what 'scientists' begin with, but even if we allow that term, we need to understand that presuppositions come in more than one flavor.
You begin with presuppositions about unverified 'facts'. Old documents are data, not 'truth'... they must be tested, examined & translated and compared to other data... not merely copied and inserted into a corpus of beliefs.

We... and science... begin with presuppositions about how to IDENTIFY and test facts. That is, we assume nothing about the data that is not looked at from various angles by multiple experts and that is correlated with other facts/data. Old documents are subject to the same rigor as old bones and old rocks.

When you are presented by science with data & logic which seems to cast doubt on your beliefs, you specifically look for ways to defend your set of beliefs no matter what the data & logic show, which leads to
1) equivocation over terms (creationist 'scientists'), Anyone whose basic premise is religious is not acting AS a scientist in that context.
2) flawed interpretation of evidence (dino 'footprints' which are proven not to be what you need them to be'),
3)nit-picking over time scales and detail (claiming that slightly different measurements cast doubt on the entire system),
   3a)assertions that disagreement over detail by scientists casts doubt on their overall conclusions.
4)really, really bad logic/reasoning trying to accuse scientists of the same fallacies you employ. (argument from authority...etc.) (which is also an equivocation on 'authority') Science does NOT accept something simply because they read it in a book, or because someone famous said so.... and if some individual scientist does so, science in general is designed to correct it!)
   4a)assuming what you wish to prove in your premises: "you can't have something from nothing, therefore there must have been a creator". It has a certain ring to it, but is essentially only a feeling. We can only speculate about that. We can measure a lot about the Universe, including general age and development, but beginning? *shrug*

I could, of course, expand on all those points in various ways... and have done so in the past... and could define the numbered points in various ways.

I DO understand the force of belief as to 'creation' and metaphysical concepts, but as you know, millions of 'good Christians' also accept, as Wolcott did, the idea that God 'revealed himself through evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:55 AM

"I know you, ..personally.. don't revere "origins" ,and that you believe the theory has been verified, but steve has been nagging me for years to read it, evidently believing it sufficient for evidencing evolutionism."

That is the most perverse nonsense you've ever written, pete! And you've written some pretty perverse nonsense in your time!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 12:07 PM

Well Pete... all I can say is that your notion of what 'short time scale' shows is totally subjective, and depends on a distorted concept of what evolution actually is. Fruit flies & viruses DO undergo basic changes in genetic structure which are quite different from just variation among individuals.

You are stubbornly calling that process something else because your system requires you to refute it or change one of your subjective beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:13 PM

pete... if you have been nagged to read Origins, it to have you see what was actually written... not what others have told you what it said. As in, go to the original source if you want to dispute it. Not some highly edited and glossed over summary.

At no point did anyone here tell you that Origins was nothing other than an early attempt (that was quite accurate, considering the available information) at explaining what Darwin himself observed in nature and others had determined in their studies of geology and biology.   And Darwin was honest about acknowledging where his lack of information was a hindrance to a fuller explanation and trusted that further study would help support his theory... which it did and continues to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:51 PM

Anyway, pete, are you ready to discuss faith vs reason yet? Let me know when you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:00 PM

don't hold your breath, Shimrod... the 7 star wonder is only intersted in spoiling our agreefest... raining on our parade... and pissing in our soup... no more no less

sad reason for existence, but there you have it...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:05 PM

going into college level might well lose me,

Going into the 4th grade level has apparently lost you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:29 PM

A hell of a lot of posts here, all to see if fantasy and superstition is more truthful than reality?

Sod the bible. What does Mordor and evolving orcs tell us about how the universe trundles along?

👹👹👹

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 04:33 PM

> Darwin was honest about acknowledging where his lack of information was a hindrance to a fuller explanation

Quite the opposite of creationists, who neither require nor wish to contemplate additional information that is inconsistent with their doctrinal belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 05:43 PM

A hell of a lot of posts here, all to see if fantasy and superstition is more truthful than reality?

Nothing to do with truthful.

Question is: Which is more POPULAR, superstition and/or nonsense vs. reality.

Nonsense and fantasy and superstition will win every time.

That's why the world is in deep shit currently.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 06:25 PM



Sure - you can add god into it if you want to, but there is no need for that hypothesis. It's simpler, and therefore more likely to be true, that common ancestry exists. Adding a designer just makes the picture less clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 06:28 PM

Oh well, if it is a question of more popular, you should have said so.

Anyone need a lift to a book burning?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:10 AM

All you who keep fighting Pete and trying to convince him of the "Truth" - do you realize how much you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses?

The Theory of Evolution is still the Theory of Evolution, even if Pope John Paul II said that it was "more than just a theory." It makes sense to me, but I predict there will be a time when people will see our thinking about evolution as "primitive"...and, no doubt, they will see Pete's thinking as "pre-primitive."

Whatever the case, there is much we still don't understand. Don't hold onto your "truth" too tightly. It's likely to change at any time, and then you'll be stuck looking like a stodgy conservative.

And in the end, what does it matter? Is it worth doing battle over it all?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:28 AM

Joe. Who is holding to a truth? I may be thick but even I know that scientific discovery relies on observing and deducing.

In other words, tomorrow somebody might say something that makes sense but contradicts present conclusions and lots of what you and pete call "evolutionist dogma" will disappear perhaps. Unlikely, because the changes that come through evolution are strengthened by each and every piece of research. But let's just assume.

And yet, despite said discovery also burying biblical dogma even further, pete will still stick to his creationism, you will wonder how the bible helps explain the recent findings and the rest of us? We will have discarded whatever is seen to be lacking.

Doesn't sound like a Jehovas Witness approach to me. Seems more like dismay that children are being taught creationist nonsense as an alternative to reality.

Or child abuse, as decent society calls it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:09 AM

"The Theory of Evolution is still the Theory of Evolution,..."

And the Bible is just an old book containing old Middle Eastern myths.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:37 AM

Joe, I don't know whether you read that brilliant link that BillD posted a few days ago on misconceptions about evolution? But that link contains an important perspective on the nature of scientific theories too:

"[A] misconception [about the nature of scientific theories] stems from a mix-up between casual and scientific use of the word theory. In everyday language, theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. Evolution is a well-supported and broadly accepted scientific theory; it is not 'just' a hunch."

So you can't 'just' dismiss the Theory of Evolution as "just a theory".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:42 AM

do you realize how much you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses?

Harsh, but not entirely unfair. There is certainly a strong vibe of "you must see the world our way or you (and the children you are misleading) are all doomed." And it is not entirely correct to say that bible followers think there is no higher revelation. As St Paul puts it: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known".

It is because of such things that I suggested we examine the question of what we really mean by a species, as that should not be a world-against-pete discussion. It is hard to justify an "Origin of Species" unless one is clear what constitutes a species. And, as I hinted, I suspect we are less certain of this than we imagine. Over the years I grow less convinced that a 'visiting alien' who wanted to organise all creatures into groups would end up with even a similar set of categories to those we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 05:03 AM

"It's likely to change at any time, and then you'll be stuck looking like a stodgy conservative.

Read the thread, try to understand how science works and you might learn something. Posting stuff like this does your cause no favours.

Also, scientific theories aren't hunches or guesses. We confirm theories through testing and they are comprehensive explanations of facts. Gravity is a theory, but it's also a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 05:59 AM

"It is because of such things that I suggested we examine the question of what we really mean by a species, as that should not be a world-against-pete discussion. It is hard to justify an "Origin of Species" unless one is clear what constitutes a species. And, as I hinted, I suspect we are less certain of this than we imagine."

You may, possibly, be right. But so what? Science is equipped to handle such uncertainties - if a convincing case can be made that it is necessary to do so. On the other hand, religious fundamentalists, like pete, insist that all truths are contained within the pages of ancient texts and it is sacrilege to question, contradict or reject those truths in the light of new evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 07:15 AM

"It is hard to justify an "Origin of Species" unless one is clear what constitutes a species."

There is considerable debate amongst scientist concerned with any degree of phylogeny about what constitutes a species; there are various definitions. This is because (contrary to our christian friends misconceptions) every organism is in a state of transition; we know speciation occurs and we know some of the mechanisms of speciation, but when does one species become another? There are no absolutes. Some of the things that creepeth along the ground flyeth and swimeth also. God was ribbing everyone by making it all appear so simple in his big book..

This is one of the true delights of science; things refuse to be pigeon-holed and are invariably far more interesting than first meets the eye. And far more wonderful than the bible ever supposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:00 AM


This is one of the true delights of science; things refuse to be pigeon-holed and are invariably far more interesting than first meets the eye.

I wish I'd said that. Stu. You are absolutely right, and that expresses my attitude to science far better than anything I've posted.

You may, possibly, be right. But so what? Science is equipped to handle such uncertainties
Most science, leaving aside the [admittedly huge] topic of quantum mechanics, is only really comfortable with the idea that there is a single right answer, even if we haven't worked out what it is. A bit like Newton's clockwork universe: science was pretty comfortable things worked like that, even if they hadn't figured out all the rules. In biology, I suggest, there is an implicit assumption that there is a 'right' taxonomy of inheritance, for example, and while what we know may have flaws and omissions, each discovery will take us towards that 'true' solution.

Science is much less comfortable with the idea that maybe the taxonomy is no more than a matter of human convenience and we could use a completely different one in some circumstances where it happened to suit us better, which neither being more corre4ct than the other. The further we get from pure science into the applied, the more often this seems to happen. Medication, for example, often ends up with a whole range of drugs each of which helps a proportion of sufferers, but no effective way of telling whether a specific drug will help a specific purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:07 AM

do you realize how much you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses?

unkind and untrue and unworthy comment, Joe.

we sound more like frustrated teachers who are trying to present important information to contrary pupils... been there, done that.

if there is any one like a Jehovah's Witness, it is pete who freely admits to coming into this thread to prevent an agreefest... and never once admits that his distorted view of the world is anything other than absolute god given truth... when in fact he is part of a highly vocal MINORITY of christians that is doing religion no favors with their behavior.

I find myself sickened by his smug, complacent attitude that his form of ignorance is superior to sane and rational objectivity...

and here in the USA, pete's counterparts are being manipulated by people like Karl Rove and Koch brothers to vote in politicians who give lip service to democracy, while they attempt to turn us into an oligarchy. fundamentalism is every bit as dangerous as communism was 50 years ago because it relies on dogma and the desire of leaders to control everything they can get away with.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:19 AM

Pete is not at all like a "contrary pupil."
I should know.
He has listened, considered and engaged.

It is just that your combined assaults and weeks of goading and haranguing have failed to shake his simple faith and belief.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a much better success rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:21 AM

"Science is much less comfortable with the idea that maybe the taxonomy is no more than a matter of human convenience"

I would like to qualify that statement... it is people in general who want simple answers... and get impatience with qualified answers. just look at how pete regards any honest answer that doesn't presume absolute assurance as meaning it is somehow wrong.

science is tool for asking questions and finding answers... it is tool used by people who try to be sufficiently objective and don't always succeed.

and rereading my comment about fundamentalism above, I realize I left out an important point... dogma provides opportunity to gain power and attracts people who desire power and often abuse said power.

the Inquisition is a classic case of abuse of power in the name of dogma. the KKK used/uses religion to perpetuate hatred...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:56 AM

Joe, ever hear of the "Theory" of Relativity?

It's been confirmed again and again. And never seriously controverted.

So why is it still "just a theory"?

In large part because a hundred years of habit have made people used to talking about "the theory of relativity" instead of plain "relativity."

At a more sophisticated level, it's still a "theory" because there are loose ends that have not yet been definitively tied up: most notably how it ties in with quantum mechanics.

Einstein's "theory" doesn't mean Einstein was just making up some wild idea. Relativity, like evolution over eons, is a fact: exactly how it might be explained is not yet entirely clear.

It's Pete virtually alone who keeps this thread going. If he were tired of the subject, he'd quit posting and it would fade away.
He keeps insisting, however, that he wants to understand the "erroneous" acceptance of evolution and point out its alleged fatal flaws.

Yet he shows no inclination to consider the numerous logical fallacies in his own "arguments." Getting those straight is fundamental to any understanding of *any* topic, but when we point them out, he glosses them over. I no longer believe he has any serious intention, ever, of first understanding evolution (so that, in theory, he could probe for any "real" weaknesses, so there's no further point in responding to his posts.

The last straw was his calm assertion that though understanding even an introductory college course would be beyond him, his natural-science wisdom surpasses that of generations of professional scientists, whom he paints as a conglomeration of liars and fools.

Name one prominent scientist of the last 150 years who now looks like a "stodgy conservative." Perhaps you're thinking of the unscientific inquisitors who threatened to torture the scientist Galileo for discovering something new and important.

At worst, those "stodgy conservatives" look like scrupulous, hard-working practitioners who did not have all the relevant facts, but were eager to keep on discovering.

Creationists believe they do have all the relevant facts and do not wish to be confused by more.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 10:51 AM

And in the end, what does it matter? Is it worth doing battle over it all?

It matters, Joe, becuse ignorance and stupidity have real-world consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:24 AM

It beggars belief that there are those who would have people believe superstition in these enlightened times. Not all religious people, in fact not many at all are capable of distinguishing between belief and believe. You see them as having your values Joe, when they are as alien to the petes of this world as my own.

When I mentioned a vicar who didn't actually believe the bible as fact, one sanctimonious contributor said he found that hard to believe.

And it wasn't pete...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:31 AM

"Pete is not at all like a "contrary pupil."
I should know.
He has listened, considered and engaged.

It is just that your combined assaults and weeks of goading and haranguing have failed to shake his simple faith and belief."

and now children, I'll tell you all about the brave little hen who alerted the world to the falling sky...

He has listened- looking for cue words he can twist the meaning of

considered - looked for the pre-programmed response from his propaganda material

and

engaged.... yeah, came on the site to deliberately disparage anyone who does not agree with his blind faith.

you make excuses for pete, but he is displaying passive- agressive behavior and we are his targets...

Most chronically passive-aggressive individuals have four common characteristics:

    They're unreasonable to deal with.
    They're uncomfortable to experience.
    They rarely express their hostility directly.
    They repeat their subterfuge behavior over time.

Passive aggressiveness may be directed towards a person or a group. The root causes are complex and deep-seated. Whatever the reasons that may drive an individual to be passive-aggressive, it's not easy to be on the receiving end of such veiled hostilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:49 AM

for the record... part of what makes a person good in the sciences is their ability at pattern recognition coupled with the ability to extrapolate. You'll see it in testing materials, especially for young children.

where you find passive- aggressive behavior is in people who feel vulnerable and defenseless. For whatever reason, it appears that pete has chosen to believe that strict belief in selected parts of his bible will save him/keep him safe and is afraid to risk that safety net by ignoring non-believers...   he has to take action to prove his worthiness of salvation. If it were otherwise, he could merely decide to pray for all us "sinners" and trust in his god to handle us.

I'll never forget what a former professor said about living in the bible belt... every week they would be visited by various churches and invited to services... it never ceased and his observation was that they were very polite... but not very nice. Strict adherence to politeness kept them from becoming violent. Nice people don't need that layer of control.

Perhaps that helps explain the militarized police in some of our more fundamentalist towns/states...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:37 PM

another place you will passive aggressive behavior is in work environments where inappropriate behavior - racist or sexist remarks, etc. - are not tolerated, at least not overt behavior... but I've seen first hand how blind hatred of gays, non-whites or women can manifest itself. It's not pretty and hard to root out because it comes from a culture of blind acceptance of irrational behavior... turning people into noting more than stereotypes.   

In the 1960's I witnessed blind hatred of blacks and experienced the reverse hatred from young black girls... what I hated most about that experience was that for the first time it made me see black people as "them".. irrational, but a lasting kind of conditioning. Imagine having to live in that kind of environment with no escape...

so how is a category different from a stereotype... category is based on temporary convenience.. a mudcatter, christian , atheist with common traits in general. stereotype is assigning permanent traits to a category irrespective of their accuracy and applicability. Neill deGrasse Tyson is a scientist, an astrophysicist, and he happens to be a black American man- to believe in stereotypes regarding black Americans is in direct conflict with what we can observe to be the actual case.

I see pete as a fundamentalist zealot... based on his behavior on this site. And I strongly suspect that had he been born into a Muslim family, he would be waving the Koran and railing against indecent women.. based on the personality traits I've observed. Personality types seem to gravitate to compatible belief systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:46 PM

Name one prominent scientist of the last 150 years who now looks like a "stodgy conservative."

Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert, were outspoken critics of continental drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:53 PM

Pete is not any kind of "aggressive."
He is entitled to express his beliefs, and has done so with a complete absence of aggression.
There has been aggression showed to him.

When I mentioned a vicar who didn't actually believe the bible as fact, one sanctimonious contributor said he found that hard to believe.

I doubt there is one single CofE vicar who believes the bible to be literal fact.
Who was that sanctimonious fool Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:02 PM

The "theory of evolution" is just words... they once meant something like 'whether evolution'. Now, if they are to be used at all, they signify 'how evolution'.
   There is no serious doubt that a basic process summarized as 'evolution' is at work. Unpacking the concept to comprehend everything it implies is staggeringly complex.

I am reading Gould's "Wonderful Life" about the Burgess shale, in which he uses the study of those amazing fossils to discuss the entire range of issues relating to "science in general" and how mistakes are made... and corrected... and what it means to re-evaluate our data as we discover more examples.

Not only is 'life' evolving, but conceptual science itself is growing and evolving as we refine our ability to integrate our self-image with the discoveries about the changing world we are part of.
This means integrating our history & psychology & culture & religious concepts with the measurements of science.... as best we can.
   If humans have 'free will', whether given by a god or just as a natural byproduct of the brains neural workings, the result is the ability to **rationalize**..... and so far, no one has figgered out how to be sure when we are doing it. (Phenomenology... if you wanta spend a few years absorbing THAT can of worms... is one attempt)

(by the way... there are those who do not believe in free will. That debate gets very interesting)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:07 PM

Free will is an interesting issue Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:26 PM

Phenomenology... if you wanta spend a few years absorbing THAT can of worms... is one attempt

I can't let that pass without remarking it is my daughter's specialism!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:27 PM

"Name one prominent scientist of the last 150 years who now looks like a "stodgy conservative."

Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys ( died 1989) and Charles Schuchert (died 1942 - 25 years before the Glomar Challenger), were outspoken critics of continental drift."

Jeffreys was a strong opponent of continental drift. For him, continental drift was "out of the question" because no force even remotely strong enough to move the continents across the Earth's surface was evident.

Starting from August 1968, the Glomar Challenger embarked on a 15 year-long scientific expedition, the Deep Sea Drilling Program, cris-crossing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between South America and Africa and drilling core samples at specific locations. When the age of the samples was determined by paleontological and isotopic dating studies, this provided conclusive evidence for the seafloor spreading hypothesis, and, consequently, for plate tectonics.

Until the Glomar Challenger, there was no physical mechanism to explain continental drift... or the Ring of Fire or how mountains arise.... so there was lively debate.   That debate is over and plate tectonics accepted by the scientific community.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:32 PM

without wishing to defend myself [ but thankyou keith] , it strikes me that our mudcat scientists are making a lot of assumptions about me, and what dangers lie ahead for society , if they fail in their mission to make me mistrust the bible. just goes to show how strictly disciplined scientists can extrapolate beyond the evidence.....
I would also suggest, that they will be far safer living in the good ol USA, THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LIVING IN MANY STATES WHOSE LEADERS WERE EVOLUTIONISTS. and that is historically verified.
and it is , seems to me , irrational suggesting that one biblical creationist in England is of any consequence to politics anywhere !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:45 PM

if they fail in their mission to make me mistrust the bible

Not so. The "mission" - if such exixts - is to have you use your brain, become educated, and shed your ignorance.

As a sign at a local church once explained:

"Jesus came to take away your sins - not your mind."

"Faith" is not incompatible with evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:46 PM

"Pete is not any kind of "aggressive."
He is entitled to express his beliefs, and has done so with a complete absence of aggression.
There has been aggression showed to him."

Most of the studies were done in relation to work requirements and dealing with difficult people in the workplace. pete is in a social medium, but still exhibting the negative traits associated with the behavior. As in demeaning the education and qualifications of those with opposing viewpoints and basically setting up two standards: one for those he approves of and the second for everyone else.

"passive-aggressive personality disorder as a "pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations". Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible."

One of the most frequent complaints about pete is that he demands debate but ignores every convention of legitimate debate... which does result in some verbal abuse...

but you are incorrect in assuming that pete is not aggressive... he is very aggressive in his passive aggressive manner. he may fool you, but there's plenty of others who are on to him... and have left. I prefer to continue pointing out the lack of substance to his arguments and why I consider people like him dangerous to a free society that needs to be able to agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:52 PM

bill, I will come back to your big post later, as I got to do some running around soon.
by short time scale, I mean, by what can be observed in living memory or more recent records, but certainly not any myo time scale.
"....of what evolution actually is.." kerkuts definition seems to encompass it concisely. would you disagree with him ?
"....basic changes in genetic structure..." that sounds impressive !. so what did the fly and the virus turn into ?
these are very fast reproducers , I believe, so they must be just the thing to prove macro and information gain type evolution !.
maybe it is you who stubbornly refuse to see the difference between evolution as per kerkut, and scientific observations accepted by scientists whether evo ,crea or anything else !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:01 PM

and it is , seems to me , irrational suggesting that one biblical creationist in England is of any consequence to politics anywhere !

if it was just you, pete, I would fully agree... but where are you getting your so called facts from ... if you admit to not reading any of the original source material? Frankly, you are merely a stooge for those who are using you... and your vote and that of others like you. But the bible to one side for awhile and read up on your history... one thing that doesn't seem to change is human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:03 PM

I think you probably disagree with Kirkut, Pete, when he says that the proof of what he calls general evolution theory will be found in future experiment. In experiment, mind you, not the bible. Or do you accept that in principle an experiment can overrule the bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:14 PM

I submit that misplaced binary thinking, versus ternary thinking, on both sides in this thread have taken over the discussion, where each side can only see two extreme alternatives. The middle ground has become mostly invisible, making people say illogical and emotionally charged things about the other side, possibly with a misguided belief that they trancend such reactions.

Under such a scenario, one should not expect much rewarding from the discussion, as I suspect anyone with anything to contribute that does not reinforce either side would be cautious to do so, or likely left some time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:16 PM

an experiment can overrule the bible

REALITY overrules the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:34 PM

That is tricky, Ed. As it happens I am, as I've said before, a practising Christian (though some sects would not agree). I am also a scientist and mathematician by training and career. So I don't fall neatly into either camp and am no doubt to some extent reviled by both.

So when I challenge Pete it is not on the grounds of nature of God, though there could a good discussion on that from a few members here. It is that the 'greatest commandment' is that you should love God with, amongst other things, your whole mind. So every challenge I make can be expressed in the form "does this look like a determined effort to use your whole mind? If so, have I missed something?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:11 PM

So, DMcG, in response- do you see what you have stated as being repesentative of the majority of the posts on this thrad? If not so, (whi I feel is tge case) that is the answer to your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:13 PM

Ed, to have a middle ground both sides need to find a common point to discuss... and by definition faith and science are polar opposites.

as for my issues with pete... I am very sincere in my evaluation of him... one of the "joys" of my state service job is the constant barrage of training classes we have to take on such things as dealing with difficult people, sexual harassment, violence in the workplace, ad nauseum...   but they do have some salient points and value.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... might I also suggest a reread of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley...

Oh.. another "joy" of my job is occasional contact with politicians and their lackeys... by and large, a most unimpressive bunch... it's the political machines that are the real scary ones... run by folks that think they are above the law.. until they can change it to suit themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:26 PM

Phenomenology... if you wanta spend a few years absorbing THAT can of worms... is one attempt

I can't let that pass without remarking it is my daughter's specialism!"

------------------------

I considered it myself 50 years ago, but had little access to either time or $$$$ to get myself to one of the few places where it was a major course of study. Where is she? And is she working in the field or just studying?
---------------------------------------------

Pete...". so what did the fly and the virus turn into ?"

Basic mistake in assumption, Pete. They 'turned into' different forms of themselves in the short timescale. The virus, for example, became one which was immune to penicillin. Not every event in evolution leads to something which might be seen in a photograph. And not every evolutionary change is for the 'better' of an organism. An elk with VERY large antlers might attract more female elk , but they might hinder his ability to feed or to evade human hunters. (And yes, they CAN carbon date specimens to dates much older than you are willing to admit exist!)

Evolution does not automatically mean something as simplistic as "survival of the fittest". The conditions something is 'fit' for can change.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:19 PM

Wtf, 800

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:20 PM

Plus 100
lol

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:32 PM

Quality, not quantity, Ed... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:48 PM

Sciencegeek:

Not intending to disrespect your profession nor training, but from your statements, what you may be experiencing, related to Pete, is a perceptual set (top down processing) related to your job training and experience?

In top-down processing, perceptions of others begin with the most general and move toward the more specific (aka pete) - If we expect someone whose views we strongly disagree with to behave in a certain way in life, regardless of the reliability of the information set, we are more likely to perceive that person in a negative way, related to a prior learned ecpectation pattern. Sometimes, we don't see the error in applying such patterns, with such limited information to draw from.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:18 PM

bill,- presuppositions may come in different flavours, but seems to me that just as creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. both have the same evidence and data, and both claim it supports their position.
so how does each side present their evidence. I suggest that though biblical creationists unashamedly begin with the revelation of God, they support this presupposition with scientific and logical arguments. opponents may offer some kind of answer, or they may fall back on the science being provisional and open to new data claim.........which is being done as in dino bones for example.
most of the arguments I am getting amount to it is true because lots of scientists say it is.
to reinforce this you all use the term -scientist- as though synonomous with evolutionist. this, conveniently forgetting that most of scientists in history have not been evolutionists, quite a number still aren't, and who knows for the future.
responses to list......
1, anyone acting as evolutionist is not acting as a scientist ! how can you assume the creationist is less biased than the Darwinist, other than assertion it be so ?.
2, straw man, have I ever claimed human/dino prints as proof....although I might have mentioned someone who was convinced about them. I personally don't, unless further finds are much less dodgy evidence.
3, so you want science to be inprecise ? in any case, sometimes they are way off, even by their own standards.
3a, I would -suggest-, that disagreements do cast doubts. if the science is so evidenced, I would have thought they would all agree, for example, on whether the data supported dino- bird evolution or not.
4, if I am not textbook per argument from authority/ numbers, I have explained why I say it, and still seems logical to me.
4a, I believe in God, why should I accept the illogical idea that everything could begin without a first cause ?

I understand the force of belief in a naturalistic beginning for one who is not willing to bow before God, but it is sad ,imo that so many "good Christians" caved into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:33 PM

I posted this on another religious thread before, the life wisdom/experience from my barber (it was something like):

"There are only two things I dont allow to be discussed in my barber shop, religion and politics. Both of these topics often lead to emotionally-packed discussions, quite often filled with more personal views and beliefs than logic. This quite often leads to bad feelings and insults with no party, including the innocent observer, feeling better for it."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 05:05 PM

Lighter says: At a more sophisticated level, it's [the theory of relativity] still a "theory" because there are loose ends that have not yet been definitively tied up: most notably how it ties in with quantum mechanics.

And that is exactly my point. I think that it's safe to say that evolution has generally been accepted as fact for the better part of a hundred years. Sure, there are a few flat-earth people who don't accept the idea of evolution, but what's the use in getting all hot and bothered about them?

I homeschooled my stepson through high school a few years ago, and I'm proud to say he graduated with honors from the Physics Department of the University of California at Davis, and he's now a graduate student. But I taught him General Science, and we both really enjoyed it. I was amazed at how many things there were in the textbook, that had not been known when I graduated from college in 1970. The most significant thing was plate tectonics, but there were so many other things that were completely beyond imagination in 1970. The same will be true in another 40 years - what we know now, will be no big deal 40 years from now.

So, what bothers me in many of the posts above, is that they are so absolutist and combative, not to mention simplistic. What we have left to learn, is infinite. Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. We've built on that, and we know a whole lot more than Darwin's primitive thoughts. Forty years from now, humankind will know a vast amount more, and our current thinking will be seen as primitive.

Don't hold onto anything as absolute - there is far more yet to be explored, so why waste your time trying to convert fundamentalists? If I may expand on what I said before, some of you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses....trying to convert a Mormon. Why bother?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 05:12 PM

creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. both have the same evidence and data,

No, there ARE no data that are better explained by the supernatural than by the natural. None. Not even pete can claim a single *datum* that supports his side. Sure, he can claim that the data that *do* exist don't support our side, but that only shows that he doesn't understand the theory, not that he actually HAS evidence against it.

Second, those who use science don't *presuppose* anything, they can conclude, from the data. Only faith requires pre-supposition. And using your faith to deny the data regardless of what they show is not science.

Believers who think their faith is evidence-based understand neither evidence, which doesn't support the supernatural, or faith, which doesn't require evidence.

IF you want to believe in the supernatural, that's fine, but don't pretend you are drawing a logical conclusion from scientific evidence. You don't NEED to - you have faith, that's the point of faith, is that it doesn't require evidence.

If the existence of supernatural entities or forces could be demonstrated or had been demonstrated, then faith would not be required to believe in them, they would be, well, demonstrable. Like, well, data.

Pete, find us a single molecule that shows how people could possibly have happened without coming from microbes first, and you'll convince the scientific community.

But simply saying I see your molecules and am not convinced because to be so would be failing to bow before god, just shows you haven't actually looked at the molecules, not that you are thinking like a scientist.

You need to come up with actual data, not keep harping on how you don't believe the data that there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:05 PM

"creationists presuppose creation"

And that's just the problem. Creationists (think they) know the answer already (so why bother with data?) and then they manipulate the data to give them the answer they (think they) know already! Manipulating the data to give you the answer you want is called 'fiddling' or 'fudging' or 'cheating' or 'downright dishonest' or however you want to phrase it. If a real scientist tried that he/she wouldn't get past the peer review process ... but then a real scientist doesn't (almost by definition) know the answer already ... which is why she/he does science!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:07 PM

Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. We've built on that, and we know a whole lot more than Darwin's primitive thoughts.

Darwin was incredibly advanced in his thinking, not at all primitive. You display your pig-ignorance when you post such comments. As does the person who deletes my posts which destroy pete's arguments whilst leaving all his ludicrous posts intact. Christian fascism or what!! You and your fellow moderators should be bloody ashamed of yourselves. And go on, delete this. I know you will!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:10 PM

well, mrrzy, you are the scientist, presumably subscribing to the grand theory of evolution, and neither you nor anyone else here can demonstrate how that has happened.    when dawkins was asked for an example he was silenced, till giving an answer that was not to the question put. as I said before, I hear there are perhaps a handful of debatable examples of information added mutations. but if you know of more, and more definite........?

I don't agree that the Christian has faith and that's that, as though there is no reasoning involved as well. in fact the NT exhorts to be "ready to give an answer" and to "demolish arguments"

bill, I guess your virus example might be one of those doubtful examples. but as I say, I would have thought that fast reproducing organisms observed over many decades might have changed into something else. I suspect that was the evolutionist hope, though of course, I expect you will say that they were impartial scientists just following the evidence.

as the only one on this side of the debate, dmcg, I can assure you that I do not despise you.....or anyone else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:12 PM

"..., but seems to me that just as creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. "

I have tried 17 ways to reply to that basic mistake you make, Pete. "It seems to me..." is sidestepping...or ignoring... or whatever. You ARE using the phrases subjectively, and not in the way they are intended to convey meaning. If a *scientist* (not evolutionist...that is in its self a loaded word which 'sounds' close minded) accepts evolution, it is because he did NOT presuppose it...otherwise he would not be acting as a scientist.


Ok.. the dino prints are merely one example of flawed notions of evidence. I don't have time to go see what you might have referred to.

3) No I don't want science to be imprecise... but if & when they are off, they have ways to remeasure & correct. "Way off" needs specific examples... and how do they know they are way off except by doing the remeasuring & correcting? It is a process to get as accurate as possible. In our dispute, is is really only necessary to continue showing that 'a few thousand years' as the age of the world is WAY, WAY off.


3a)You changed my language, and thus my point. I was refuting the idea that "assertions that disagreement over *detail* by scientists casts doubt on their *overall* conclusions.
there is a reason for carefully phrased 'textbook' definitions and reasoning....else some guy in Seven Stars pub could come along and change the meaning to suit his conclusions ☺. "It seems to me" is STILL not a good answer to anyone except that 'me'.

4a)"why should I accept the illogical idea that everything could begin without a first cause ?" I didn't say you should... I say that it is possible to just not fret about having that issue decided.
What you have is a belief... and I fully understand why someone would prefer that belief. It has a nice ring to it, whether it is fact or not. Your source for that belief is a book... written and copied by men. Believing that it was 'inspired' is still another belief. I assure you it is far easier to just 'believe' in that than to wonder IF it is so, and have debates with others... and with one's self... about the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM

Just for the sake of correctness, I checked and found that there were no posts from Steve Shaw deleted from this thread. Bill D said from the onset that this was going to be a moderated thread, and there were some messages deleted from this thread because they were too combative.

But yes, Steve, the tone of your posts is often unnecessarily nasty. I was surprised to find that at least in this thread, none of your posts have been deleted.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

""I assure you it is far easier to just 'believe' in that than to wonder IF it is so, and have debates with others... and with one's self... about the implications.""

LOL, a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

Keith, they are not now "stodgy conservatives." They simply did not have the extent of scientific information that later became available.

They were skeptical on the basis of what was then known - in contrast to those who are completely credulous when it comes to rationally unsupportable beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:36 PM

But yes, Steve, the tone of your posts is often unnecessarily nasty. I was surprised to find that at least in this thread, none of your posts have been deleted.

That is a bloody lie, and you know it. In fact, the post that this one of yours is supposed to be a response to was deleted! Are you Christians always like this?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:38 PM

In fact, the post that this one of yours is supposed to be a response to was deleted!

No it wasn't - sorry about that. But I'm not sorry about anything else. You lot should be!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:46 PM

I concede, Lighter, that it wouldn't be fair to put the "stodgy conservative" on the thinkers who came up with truly groundbreaking ideas like the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity. At any time in history, their thoughts would be original and innovative. But there are many hangers-on who codify the words of the thinkers into Truth with a capital "T," never to be changed or built upon. Like Mr. Shaw, for example, who can't accept that the 1859 writings of Darwin are now "primitive."

"Pig-ignorance" and "Christian Fascism."

Allow me to quote that great philosopher, Abby Sale:

Damn their eyes! Bloody hell! Shit!

Oh, and as far as I know, Big Mick and I are the only moderators who claim to be Christian. And we have very little to do with deletion of posts nowadays.

[I as a moderator who can see the entire history of the thread, can see21 deleted posts. None of them are by Steve Shaw]

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:51 PM

Well, Ed...it is indeed funny when said lightly, but the serious side of it is that belief in various religious constructs is deeply embedded in human history, and thus, when I debate certain ideas, I try very hard to keep in mind why the 'easier' way is so common. Doubting & skepticism have not only required a 'different' form of thinking in history, but also of the courage to question in the face of inquisitions and burnings...etc.

IF I had a magic button that would instantly make believers into... whatever I am.. I would not push it. It scares me to think of the chaos. It will take centuries... if ever... for religion to become just one aspect of how 'thinking' has evolved, as well as our bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:08 PM

Don't hold onto anything as absolute

Stupidity and ignorance, Joe, are absolute.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:14 PM

Greg... what was your career? Writing obnoxious bumper stickers?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:30 PM

How'd you guess Bill? His most well known one reads "Yeah, but what about.......?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:44 PM

To sum things up: The Scientific Method vs The Creationist Method

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:55 PM

sorry, Ed... but I stand by my observations, based on pete's posts in this and several other threads. His behavior is consistent from thread to thread.

How can you expect honest discourse with someone who responds with comments like this...

"thank you shimrod for answering my question,....and even more for conceding that your science education and interests has no bearing on evolutionist beliefs. to my mind, that means that you do in fact take what you are told about it on faith.
and also, confirming that evolutionism serves no useful purpose, other than providing some well paid jobs for propagating evolutionism."

If I used examples from my work experience, it was because they were handiest. We all have issues, pete's seem to revolve around feeling threatened by science and the theory of evolution in particular. Mine deal more with feeling threatened with the thought of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers taking over my country. As if Sarah Palin as VP wasn't scary enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 09:04 PM

This is the last time I'm going to bang on about this, because I care quite a bit less than I'm letting on (I'm more annoyed than anything that the alleged moderators here choose to be in denial), but a post of mine, criticising pete and correcting his misrepresentations, has been deleted from this thread (and I unfailingly check that my posts have actually posted). I don't care whether my posts get deleted or not, as in hey ho. But when the high and mighty around here, on their moralising high horses, deny that it's happened, well, I think y'all should know about it. Moving swiftly on, as they say. I might be nasty, Joe old chap, but at least I'm an honourable man.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 09:06 PM

Joe, I'm glad you were able to homeschool... but there are way too many school districts out there that are threatened with book bannings and replacing science with non-science... who's going to help out those kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 09:40 PM

Pete, in other words, you have no data. That's what I said. I see that you don't understand the data. However, and again, thinking that your not understanding the data is evidence for the supernatural, just demonstrates that you don't know what evidence is.
You. Have. To. Have. A. Datum.

And you have none. Not a single *fact* fails to support the theory. That's why it's a theory, like gravity, not a model or paradigm.

Not understanding the theory isn't evidence against it.

Show me what of human didn't come from microbe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 10:35 PM

As theater of the absurd, this thread is pretty damned funny. On one hand, you have one guy who seems impossibly impervious to clues, and on the other, a whole bunch of easily provoked people, jumping through every hoop he holds up, equally impervious to clues. Of course, he's missing the clue about the logic of science, and the other guys are missing clues about the futility of trying to talk about logic and science with someone who's determined not to ever get it.

Of course, that's why trolls do so well here. People enjoy reacting and are having too much fun being manipulated to care that they're being manipulated.

Personally, I never heard of people who took the Bible literally until I was in high school, and I didn't know of any atheists until then either. People who take things literally are at a distinct disadvantage in life. I have a hard time believing anyone who's studied the Bible at all doesn't have an understanding of parable.

That's the last I'll say here, because I don't want to be one of those people who doesn't know when to walk away from stupid... at least occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:34 AM

I enjoy talking to the ones who listen. I believe I can save their bodies.

And I find it amazing that pete could have grown up so ignorant and not be in one of the backward theocracies like the US or a few middle eastern nations.

Everybody else teaches science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:41 AM

Well, Steve, I guess you'll believe what you want to believe. I can click a link and see all the deleted posts in a thread. They show up with a grey background. I see a number of deleted posts in the thread - many of them seem to have something to do with someone who was impersonating Musket, and the responses made to the impersonator. And I checked the list twice, and I see no deleted posts in this thread, and no deleted posts in any thread under your current IP. The usual reason for disappearing posts, is that the post doesn't "take," usually because you posted on a page stored on your computer instead of loaded fresh. Occasionally, a post simply disappears, leaving no trace. But posts that are intentionally deleted are visible to me, and to most of the moderators.

Call me a liar if you like, but I have no reason to lie.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:58 AM

Of course the irony is that the casting of doubt on the veracity of religious texts is only a by-product and unintended consequence of modern science. Although pete has avowed that he doesn't believe that science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy, that is, in fact, how he appears to view it. His determined and constant use of the invented term "evolutionism" is a case in point. His use of that absurd term suggests that he views modern evolutionary biology as a sort of competing dogma to creationism. Meanwhile, in the real world, modern science is an on-going process, not a dogma. Real scientists live day-to-day with uncertainty - something which pete is manifestly unable to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:08 AM

G: Stupidity and ignorance, Joe, are absolute.

B: Greg... what was your career? Writing obnoxious bumper stickers?

So Bill - are you saying that're not? Please elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:34 AM

When I observe someone calling another person "stupid", I normally see this as a sign that this person has stopped thinking, for one reason or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:53 AM

Hmmmmm. Per Merriam-Webster;

stupid    adjective:    (stü-pəd, styü-)

1. lacking common sense, not sensible or logical.
2. having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things, obtuse.
3. given to unintelligent decisions or acts; acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.

Wherein is this off-base?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:05 AM

Ignorant:Oxford

ADJECTIVE
1
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated:
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid."
Origin
late Middle English: via Old French from Latin ignorant- 'not knowing', from the verb ignorare (see ignore).

2
Informal, discourteous or rude:""this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:16 AM

I entirely agree, Ed - the creationist clowns are indeed ignorant as well! Glad we've had a meeting of the minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:27 AM

Actually, stupidity and ignorance, like all things, are gradient phenomena. They range from slight to great in infinitely subdivisible degrees. Like all relative things it in endlessly entertaining to compare the various kinds and degrees. You could make a whole career out of it, becoming a Stupidologist!

On reflection I have only ever encountered one absolute in all the universe I know of, and that is the absolute dinglicheit of the moment of Now. Unfortunately no testing is admissible, since it just left, but another will be along shortly... :D

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:28 AM

Thats an interesting approach;)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

Interesting approaches? Amos is full of it them. ☺

Seems like the thread is wearing very thin in any attempt to add useful info to the stated topic. Pete & I do manage to get in a few ideas to compare, but even those have begun to sound repetitious. Several others do add some relevant ideas, but when the number of insults and atheisticamonious (opposite of sanctimonious... I just invented it) remarks far exceeds relevant stuff, there's not much use in going on.

I'll see how it goes, but I see little reason to let it go beyond the approaching 1000 mark.

Any opinion, Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:15 PM

" show me what of human didn't come from microbes " mrrzy asks.
that's a tricky question, because physically we are a lot of microbe.
but that is not the same as demonstrating that microbes developed into man as per Darwin dogma.
I know you object to me calling it that....maybe dawkins dogma updates it..... , and all you have to do to demonstrate it is more than that, is to answer the question dawkins evaded, and I believe you did also. yes , I am not as educated as you, but I is all you got to respond to the evangelical atheists that start these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:51 PM

when the number of insults and atheisticamonious (opposite of sanctimonious... I just invented it) remarks far exceeds relevant stuff

Well, Bill, I suppose that depends upon what you deem as "relevant", dunnit? You asked me a while back what my "career" was. I assume that yours involved/involves running off at the mouth at great length to no effect whatsoever. Sir Sisyphus of Verbiage.

Also, if you will check back, I have nothing against those who choose to practise religion of whatever form - including the nonsensical fundagelical creationist kind - as long as they don't inflict their idiocy on anyone else - particularly upon children and especially children in public schools - which amounts to child abuse by preventing children from using/exercising the brains God gave 'em.

The fundies seem to revel in their ignorance & stupidity & wear it as a badge of honor. Does not bode well for the future of the globe should the idiocy spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:04 PM

It's just over thirty years since I got my teaching certification and was made aware of a concerted effort to turn back the clock and attempt to get creationism legitimized as science. Thirty freaking years later and they not only are still at it, but when foiled in their attempts to replace real science with their religious propaganda, they have gone the route of supporting politicians who will change the law in their favor. These same politicans who are attempting to dismantle fair elections, separation of church and state, fair wages and the unions that help ensure them, proper oversight of financial institutions, and fair and equal treatment of women and minorities.

Do I find this alarming... you bet I do. If the USA becomes a democracy in name only, who's going to be next?

If these guys kept to themselves, the way my Amish neighbors do, I would just shrug my shoulders and it would be live and let live. They have their belief system and I have mine...

but that is not the case... and I for one am not about to roll over and let it happen on my watch. I know it's useless to convince pete of anything, but if I can point out the fallicies to others I will make that effort. There is a bigger picture out there that is being obscured by the "trees".


taken from wiki:

The Creation Science Movement (CSM, founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement) is a British Creationist organisation which lays claim to the title "the oldest creationist movement in the world". It was a member of the Evangelical Alliance until its resignation in 2008, and is a registered charity.

But while fundamentalists have always been hostile to evolution, the modern creationist movement in North America got its start in the 1960s, primarily due to the influence of an evangelical author named Henry Morris. Morris' 1964 book The Genesis Flood argued, among other things, that Noah's flood happened just as the Bible describes it -- in other words, it was reasonable to believe that eight people could care for a floating zoo containing at least two members of every species on Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

So, how do we get this crap out of the science classes?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:21 PM

And there was I thinking I'd raised a few interesting angles fairly recently. Oh, well, what a gift the giftie gae us, and all that. But I agree that separating discussion from noise is getting a bit wearisome. I'll stop at or before post 1000 unless something dramatic occurs

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:25 PM

bill..tried 17 ways....been counting ?
apart from words having often range of meaning and evolving [smile] as long as I explain what I mean [if need be] I don't see much of a problem.
using the term -evolutionist- is loaded.....
and -creationist- is not ?
"it seems to me" is merely an admission that I might be missing something in the argument, and trying not to sound too combative.
re [3,] specific examples....well stuff like dating rocks of known recent age as myo. would you like the specific examples when I got more time ?
re [3a] "..refuting the idea..." at least in your estimation !
re [4a] you have a point there, I concede. you would be happy if you achieved a theistic evolutionist result with me, I believe.

"...the 'easier' way...? going against the flow at best and martyrdom at worst ?!.

very apt word you coined, bill.
I will leave it up to you bill. all the time someone posts on the topic, assuming 1/2 way civility I will probably answer. those who post abuse and ad hominem only demonstrate their evangelical atheistic philosophy/religion.
I predict, that should you close this, one of them will start another, such is their crusading fervour.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:30 PM

So, how do we get this crap out of the science classes?

In short, you can't. It is down to luck.

In longer form, you must vote for people who use believe will cut it out, even if that means voting for other policies that you really don't like: remember they are the ones who decide what is packaged with what.

Now suppose one thing is to insist on fully qualified science teachers from properly accredited universities, etc. That may cost more. So maybe solving the schools problem means higher taxes. Do you reckon people would vote for it? I don't.

Or suppose a party in favour of it has immigration policies you can't stand? What then?

Luck, I am afraid, may be all there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:37 PM

yes, dmcg , you did raise some interesting angles....some lamark ideas revived ?,but that is more inter-evolutionist than directly what I am occupied by.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:05 PM

Sorry for that last post of mine - I am not usually so cynical.

There is an election coming up in the UK shortly. I'd begin by asking every candidate what their view is on teaching creationism in schools and what additional legislation is needed to promote or ban it, depending on their view.

I would expect one of two answers:
a) They are opposed to creationism in school, but do not think any additional legislation is needed
b) They believe that if an academy wishes to teach creationism, they should be free to do so, providing only that it is made clear to parents of prospective pupils. The parents will pick whatever school they think fit, so again no legislation is needed.

So overall, I think the politician's response will be no action is needed.

If you want to try and take this further, I'd then run the answers past the local paper and see if you could interest them, or send them to one of the nationals. Who knows, maybe it might stir something.

====

No pete, not Lamarkism. But the field of epigenetics is interesting ... maybe some other time.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:28 PM

I see what you mean Bill D. IMO, there is really little point in this thread anymore.

What is sad, if not humourous, is as soon as you raise the topic of pointless and futile insults, versus making a point, someone will follow up shortly after demonstrating the very pointless approaches you raised:)

IMO,among most readers (outside hose with already polarized positions) this approach tends to minimize any points these posters seem to have a desire to pass on to others, versus reinforcing their case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:34 PM

good for you, DMcG...

I am old enough to remember when science was not a required subject in school... it was the three Rs. reading, 'riting & 'rithmatic.

It was during the third grade that Sister Seraphine came into the classroom and told us we would have a new subject to learn... science. This was because the Russians had sent up Sputnik and the US Congress was not about to let those Ruskies beat us to the moon... since we had already lost out on being the first into space.

Those poor nuns were barely a step ahead of their classes... they thought whales and dolphins were fish and barely understood most of general science. But the books weren't bad and we even had science fairs each year.

Kids are bright and love to learn... but they need access to good information and teachers who can help them investigate the world... not spoon feed them misinformation. Leave that to tyrannies that fear freedom of thought and inquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:16 PM

"using the term -evolutionist- is loaded.....
and -creationist- is not ?"

Yes!

I see you're not speaking to me, pete. Is it because I was rude to you (although you richly deserve being rude to)? Or is it because I caught you out on the faith vs reason thing?

By the way - are you ready for the faith vs reason debate yet, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:29 PM

" as long as I explain what I mean [if need be] I don't see much of a problem.
using the term "

It is like categories of music, Pete. If all you are doing is filing your own LPs and CDs, any system is fine. YOU know what you mean, and silly attempts to tell you what should be called 'folk' is intrusive.

...however, if you are going to open a music store or run a concert series...etc., it is well to name and describe things in a way that is intelligible to as many as possible.

Modern science has moved way beyond the terms 'evolutionist' and 'Darwinist' in describing their position(s). On the other hand, various fundamentalist groups and individuals seem to adopt 'creationist' as a term of honor. If that is incorrect, let me know. But since scientists in general do not begin with religious premises, and proceed in very different ways than creationists in interpreting data, it is just jarring to hear the term 'creationist science'. They may do science part of the time, but when redefining terms to suit religious beliefs and going out of their way to look for ways to deny scientific research in order to make YEC compatible, they are simply not acting AS scientists. They have become adept at switching hats quickly... sometimes in the same speech or paragraph... but reinterpreting evidence that 99% of regular scientists agree on is anti-scientific. (just as someone writing a song on the way to the pub and introducing it as 'folk' is playing fast & loose with the term)

"re [3,] specific examples....well stuff like dating rocks of known recent age as myo. would you like the specific examples when I got more time ?

Yep... because geologists don't like being wrong, and they check on each other when measurements don't agree. So... "known by" whom? That IS why the scientific method so often refines it's specific conclusions... and very occasionally makes major modifications. As I said way above, Gould explains at great length how the amazing man, Wolcott, who found the Burgess fossils, made major errors in his methodology ... for various reasons. Others, who used the very same materials, thought a bit differently and reconciled some quite awkward ideas Wolcott had about categories. And they are still woring on some of the specimens to refine it. That is science.

I... ummm.. see very little progress in integrating the 'banned gospels' into the Bible, although many experts feel they were left out for political and other purposes.

4a...maybe so...


""...the 'easier' way...? going against the flow at best and martyrdom at worst ?!."

That is essentially 'Pascal's Wager'... but Pascal only allowed 4 options, when there are logically many others. (read about the various criticisms). Still... I do have sympathy for the idea, and see why in Pascal's formulation, it make sense to so many.. they just don't want to take chances. I also wonder if a god would not know when someone was merely formally 'believing' for the reward, instead of for doing good. *shrug*....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:58 PM

By the way - are you ready for the faith vs reason debate yet, pete?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAH!!!! Good one, Shimrod!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 04:13 PM

For the benefit of non-American readers, the United States is far from being a theocracy, and real science is taught in all but a minute fraction of colleges.

I have the feeling, however, that a good many home-schoolers brainwash their children against evolution.

That (and similar reasons) is why those particular parents home-school them in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 06:10 PM

Lighter, based on a number of home schooled kids, I've met, you are not too far off. What is amazing is the number of small christian schools that cater to separate sects. They can't seem to agree even among themselves... in spite of using the same bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM

But posts that are intentionally deleted are visible to me, and to most of the moderators.

"Most"?? Yeah, whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 06:40 PM

real science is taught in all but a minute fraction of colleges

Colleges??? Yeah, but by then the kids have been poisoned by the fundagelical creationist bullshit foisted upon them in primary and secondary PUBLIC schools - not only home schooled kids are the victims of this bullshit. vide Kansas, et. al.

Nice try, but too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 07:35 PM

Steve, I can see deleted messages, too, and there aren't any from you in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 07:38 PM

If they've been "poisoned," it was far more likely at home.

Some public secondary schools may *mention* creationism as an "alternative theory," but science teachers are far more likely to avoid the whole topic of evolution as "too controversial." They don't want to end up debating the parents.

But because the United States is not a "theocracy," public school teachers cannot legitimately "teach" creationism (and I don't know what percentage even wants to, at least in a science class). What's more, dedicated creationist parents can home-school or, if they can afford it, send their kids to a private fundamentalist religious school.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:01 PM

But because the United States is not a "theocracy," public school teachers cannot legitimately "teach" creationism

Bullshit. Its happening even as we speak. You'd better check the curriculae of any number of state school board mandates, starting with Kansas.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:09 PM

It is fine to note and briefly explain that two different views exist. There's no good can come from pretending that one viewpoint is not there, especially when many of the students in the room come from very religious backgrounds, but in public school, it needs to be made very clear that all they do is present the standard scientific method and mainstream conclusions. The religious viewpoint WILL be offered to them at home & in church.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:12 PM

Some public secondary schools may *mention* creationism as an "alternative theory," but science teachers are far more likely to avoid the whole topic of evolution as "too controversial." They don't want to end up debating the parents.

But because the United States is not a "theocracy," public school teachers cannot legitimately "teach" creationism (and I don't know what percentage even wants to, at least in a science class). What's more, dedicated creationist parents can home-school or, if they can afford it, send their kids to a private fundamentalist religious school.

Why, what a dreadfully backward country you live in. What are you going to do about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:30 PM

Wait, is this really a problem in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:41 PM

When I went to public school, there was no mention of religion, nor was there with my kids- and I suspect the same is true today.Science was taught from primary to grade 12- though, on reflection, the caliber of the teaching was not excellent. But, that is another,unrelated, issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:12 PM

When I got my BA in biology and environmental studies back in'73, I had some really great teachers that shared their enthusiasm and love of learning. A small school that provided a top notch education... good enough that it wasn't that hard to score top grades when I took my Graduate Entrance Exams. I wasn't planning on graduate school, but it never hurts to keep your options open.

The oil embargo and poor job market saw me back in school in '75 in the SUNY system - State University of New York. It was in SUNY-Fredonia that I first encountered watered down science... it was a graduate level course in Evolution. The textbook was a joke, but the real eye opener was during one class where we were to do short presentations on some aspect of the subject and follow up with a Q & A. I did mine on the role of random factors - mainly because the text glossed over so much.

So there I am going on about population genetics and gene distribution with the Professor constantly interjecting strange comments. I thought he was acting as a "devil's advocate", though why he didn't have the courtesy of waiting until the Q & A was eluding me. Call me dim, but after the caliber of teachers I had as an undergrad, I just wasn't expecting that a graduate level course in Evolution would be taught by a believer in Divine Intervention.

It turned out that he had recently survived colon cancer surgery, regarded that as a miracle and had found god. And lost his scientific objectivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 12:43 AM

Sciencegeek:

Not intending to disrespect your profession nor training, but from your statements, what you may be experiencing, related to Pete, is a perceptual set (top down processing) related to your job training and experience?

Good grief, do you think I am some kind of an insensitive twit? And in the end, what do we actually have but our experience to base our judgements upon? Training is merely a way of sharing insights gained from the experience of others.

So my response to your comment is this... I do not live in some isolated bubble...

in my 63 years on this planet I have known a great number of individuals from many different cultures and time spans including my own grandparents who were born in the 1880's. I have personal experience with prejudice, segregation, homophobia, stereotyping, poverty, the homeless street people, people with bipolar disorder, passive aggressive people and sexual predators. I have personally known murder victims and their killers. I have had to stand back and watch family members slowly kill themselves with alcohol. From all of my experiences, I have tried to learn from them and better understand what happened and why. The only real thing we can leave behind in this world is to have made it a little better for having been here... and if you don't understand why something happens, how can you hope to prevent it from happening again. Or at least how to deal with it.

I do not judge people by the color of their skin, their social or ethnic background or even their religion. I base my determinations on their actions... and posting to this thread is an action, the content of that action serves as the basis for my "judgement".

I did not make my statements rashly and gave my reasoning for them. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 03:45 AM

Wait, is this really a problem in the UK?

To nothing like the extent it appears to be (at this distance) in places like Kansas, no. But there were certainly 'creationist academies' established when all the rules were changed: I have little idea if they have thrived or not, or how many more have opened since. I am sure google searches would help.

There was also a case last summer of a school which had submitted students for a biology course but had not taught them evolution. Naturally, they were unable to answer the questions. The schools protested and the examining board declared they would ensure the pupils were not disadvantaged in the results by this. To my mind, that's completely wrong. The school had disadvantaged them, it was not up to the examining board to disguise the fact.

However, it is all part of a much wider question: to what extent should holy books, of whatever religious body, override the rest of society? And there are precious few parts of the world where that isn't an important question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:14 AM

Evolution is a compulsory part of the curriculum in UKRAINE and must be taught in all schools, enforced by the inspectorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:16 AM

UK!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:24 AM

I see I am behind the times

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:32 AM

good to see that science is not being distorted on your side of the pond, I do envy you. We still have a long fight on our hands over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:43 AM

Thank you for that link, DMcG. I'm pleased to note that it represents a hearty kick in the teeth for the forces of unreason!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:59 AM

"I did not make my statements rashly and gave my reasoning for them."

My opinion is you do not have enough direct information to base such judgement on, regardless of the personal experience you seem to state. That, in my opinion, would clearly put your judgement, in this case, in the "rash" catagory.

As to a possible purpose of such rash and over-extended reasoning, I have only related comments here to base my own "rash" personal opinion on, nothing more.

Personally, I respect other people and would never make such a serious claim about another person without more direct "professional" information-more than one would have access to on a Mudcat post. I know of no "professional" in my life experience that would do such a thing, based on such a limited infirmation set-and, like you, I have been exposed to a significant number of professionals from many fields throught my work and personal life.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 11:08 AM

Yeah, I thought this was a purely American issue. (Still wonder how pete grew up so ignorant of how to think since he's British, apparently.)

Freedom of religion should not mean freedom from actual information that may contradict your faith. Not to mention that it doesn't HAVE to contradict anyone's faith. Why not see the world as it is and believe deity made it that way, rather than denying that the world actually is as it is? Can't gods do everything? Why can't they have made the world 6000 years ago to look as if we evolved from microbes over a billion years or more? Then you can study biology as it is, and still even be a young earth creationist. I just don't see why they have to deny reality instead. Makes no sense.

Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist I would point out the definite advantages to government of having an ignorant and fearful polulace to govern...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 11:28 AM

"Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist I would point out the definite advantages to government of having an ignorant and fearful polulace to govern..."

LOL... or better yet, a scapegoat to blame. or use the guilt by association card...

those who agree with modern science also tend to be more progressive and also support equal rights for women and minorities, open government, social support programs and less so fighting wars and giving more wealth and power to the 1%.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:29 PM

""those who agree with modern science also tend to be more progressive and also support equal rights for women and minorities, open government, social support programs and less so fighting wars and giving more wealth and power to the 1%.""

And, that group also includes many people who also hold a belief in a Diety, many who also are assiciated with an organized religion, and, btw, also agree with "modern science. That leaves a minority of those with a deity belief, that is contrary to evolution, and mostly aligned with Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:07 PM

well bill, I am not opening a music store, I am having a discussion with you. I think I read you, and I think you, me. having said that---on your last paragraph about pascals wager , there seems to be a mix up. one of us got the wrong meaning of the what of the who was the "easier way".
but when I say that you are arguing from authority and numbers, I mean that your arguments are rarely specifics but that it must be true, because most scientists say so. if that fails your textbook definition, it does not change the point.
when we describe ourselves as creationists, we are certainly not ashamed of it, however when evolutionists use the term they invariably contrast it with "scientist", as though being a scientist means being evolutionist , or holding that belief [ though claimed as fact ]. this is somewhat bizarre, considering that much, if not most of modern science was conducted by biblical creationists. this also gives the lie to the strange idea that being a creationist will hamper scientific progress.
the bulk of your main post was again claiming that creationists filter the data and evolutionists don't [ or someone corrects them ].
I can only counter by again offering to ,again, quote evolutionist scientists that admit their bias that only naturalistic explanations are accepted, whatever the evidence.

this bias has infiltrated the UK public school system where evolutionism is protected by law. questioning it is effectively banned,
and they call that science ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:06 PM

You keep banging on and on and on and on ...about "arguing from authority", pete, but isn't that exactly what you are doing? After all, don't you rely on quoting from creationist 'scientists' who you believe to be 'experts'? And don't you rely on (on what you believe to be) the authority of the Bible? Or have I got it all wrong? Do you, in fact, spend lots of time in the field painstakingly examining fossil beds and their stratigraphy? Or do you spend your time in the lab subjecting interesting samples to a variety of dating methods or following fruit flies or bacteria through many, many generations. If, though, you're not a 'hands-on' practical scientist, then, surely, you're 'merely' arguing from authority and, presumably, we can ignore everything you say ... have I got that right, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:28 PM

(Still wonder how pete grew up so ignorant

pete has CHOSEN to be ignorant, and embraces ignorance as a badge of honor and of superiority over other mere mortals who rely on facts and science.

The God delusion in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 07:04 PM

this bias has infiltrated the UK public school system where evolutionism is protected by law. questioning it is effectively banned,
and they call that science ?.

Ah, the delusion of the wilfully pig-ignorant. Evolution is "not protected by law" any more than any other aspect of the school curriculum is protected by law. To teach biology without including evolution would be akin to having a pub with no beer. I hate organised religion, but a curriculum that did not include telling children about organised religion in a neutral way would be a travesty. And questioning anything at all in school (except the existence of God - ironic, eh, pete?) is not banned. Education without permitting critical questioning is not education. That's why we have religious instruction and why there is no such thing as God-based religious education.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

"..your arguments are ... that it must be true, because most scientists say so."

That's a total misunderstanding of what I say, and what scientists in general think. You continue to warp the meaning of "argument from authority".

One- It is not 'necessarily' true, but if one is doing science, is is best to follow where the tests, measurements and analysis leads in the process of taking a theory and seeing if it stands up to scrutiny. What "most scientists say" is where the research leads. If that changes, they say something a bit different. They do not simply all march in orderly files to each new idea, they double-check each other... and themselves, and *as a group* they take seriously evidence that seems to be a problem... such as soft tissue in old bones. It turned out to be a rare instance where preservation happened in ways that surprised them, but once checked & double checked, it all made sense.... to everyone except those who had a vested interest in NOT having it make sense.

When evaluating complex data and overlapping fields of study, isn't it useful to know that "most scientists" are in basic agreement? Why do you want to clutch tightly to an opinion that only a few accept? You and the minority have different theories... but you have very few ways to test YOUR ideas, so you content yourselves with trying to cast doubt on ANY research that leads in directions that contradicts YOUR favored 'authority'... which has changed little, even when various religious 'authorities' have accepted those deluded scientists.

Me? I'll wager against Pascal and take my chances.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:29 AM

When I taught evolution in schools, I was aware that some pupils had issues with it.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims.
I acknowledged that many people do not accept it.
They also have to know the evidence for it, fossils, DNA and observed adaptation.
They had to know about variation, mutation, and both natural and artificial selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:17 AM

"if not most of modern science was conducted by biblical creationists"

What??? That's trolling pete, plain and simple. Total and utter bullshit. Show me how you came to that ridiculous conclusion. I've never met a creationist scientist, and I've met a lot of scientists.


"his also gives the lie to the strange idea that being a creationist will hamper scientific progress."

Creationism is NOT science. A creationist scientist doesn't seek the truth, they seek to confirm their own preconceived dogma based on an old story written down by some desert tribesmen.


"and they call that science?"

No they don't. We don't teach native Australian or Shinto creation myths (check these out, they're far more beautiful and profound in concept and story than that Abrahamic folktale) in science classes for the same reason; it has rag all to do with what science is how it is conducted.


"When I taught evolution in schools, I was aware that some pupils had issues with it.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims."

Sod 'em. Sod any religious type who wants their 'truth' to b e taught as science. It's not and should be kept out of science classes.

We have to give our kids a chance before the fundamentalists get their evil claws into their education. This is why (to the befuddlement of the Christians here) those of us who are involved in science are so vociferous in defending our views. The future is under threat from people who want to take the world back to the middle ages, with the church ruling everyone and fundamentalists dictating how we live, abandoning reason and our innate curiosity.

You start with literalist interpretations of your chosen sacred text and your fundamentalist principles and you end up with ISIS. End of. Two sides of the coin of ignorance. Anyone who is a literalist or fundamentalist (i.e. a creationist) is on that slippery slope.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:47 AM

Not "sod em" (pupils).
It was not their fault.
Religion IS kept out of Science lessons, I just chose not to make things more difficult for them than necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:56 AM

I pondered that sentence for a while as well, stu. As far as I can understand it, "modern" means since Galileo and the claim appears to be that they didn't subscribe to his theory before it was written. That is, I think we will all agree, not too surprising. But that is the nature of learning anything. You work within the way you understand the world until find out something new and then you have to change what you thought. As st Paul said "when I was a child I thought like a child... Now I am a man I have put aside childish things". That applies to society as much as individuals in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:02 AM

I'm with Stu when it comes to child abuse.

Especially the obligations of teachers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:54 AM

"I can only counter by again offering to ,again, quote evolutionist scientists that admit their bias that only naturalistic explanations are accepted, whatever the evidence."

More desperate and pathetic bullshit from pete. There is no 'bias' towards 'naturalistic explanations' because no evidence for the supernatural exists (except in the minds of the religious)! Unless, that is, you've got some (convincing) evidence for the existence of the supernatural, pete? Come on, present us with the evidence for the supernatural, pete, we can't wait to see it!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 11:50 AM

Time to move this thread above the line:


Origin Of Species


by Chris Smither

Well, Eve told Adam
Snakes? I've had 'em!
Let's get outta here!
Go raise this family someplace outta town.

They left the garden just in time
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.

One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.

And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.


Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.

The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!

How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a cinch they didn't
live on cakes and jam.

Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.

Well, Charlie Darwin looked so far
Into the way things are.
He caught a glimpse of God's
unfolding plan.

God said: "I'll make some DNA"
They can use it any way they want
From paramecium
Right up to man."

"They'll have sex
And mixed up sections of their code
They'll have mutations...
The whole thing works like clockwork over time."

"I'll just sit back in the shade
While everyone gets laid.
That's what I call
Intelligent design."

Yeah, you and your cat named Felix,
Both wrapped up in that double helix,
Is what we call
Intelligent design.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

Well BUGGER that makes TWO thoughtful posts that vanished into the ether! Oh, does that mean gods don't want me to make this post? I will go away and do something else and come back, as it is annoying me that I keep hitting the wrong key and getting away from this page before finishing what I'm trying to say!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:27 PM

re shimrods post after mine....the difference is, is that though I am getting my arguments from creation sites, I am not saying that creation is true because they say so, but I am using specific arguments gleaned from them......and I should add, just the ones that are less technical. what most of you do is claim that because most scientists hold[ to some version] of evolutionism that this is of itself evidence. it is of course ludicrous to think the status quo must be always right, as obviously it has been wrong frequently through history. and while you all will agree with that, the religious fervour displayed against creationists, imo, is evidence that evolutionism is more a philosophical mindset than it is science.
but, you cry. the western world will go to pot if creation is given even the slightest voice. considering you are scientists, that is unfounded and irrelevant. it is true or false, regardless of whatever fanciful dreads you might conjecture !. infact, it is true or false even if you were justified in your conjectures as to consequences of creation belief.
and yes, I do take the bible as authoritive , but in case you have not noticed, when debating non believers [in God that is !] I have used specific non biblical arguments.
bill, not sure that soft tissue in old bones is that rare anymore, but we should not expect to always find it. it is a bonus that it lasted thousands of years, that it might survive myo is stretching credibility except to those committed to, and" having a vested interest" in the evolutionary story. your claim that it now makes sense is only an assertion unless you can show how it could defy what operational science was not expecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:45 PM

My fervor against creationists is anything but religious.

But it is fervid.

Not all strong emotions are religion.

IF I am infuriated by idiocy it isn't religious.

If I am impatient with willful ignorance it isn't religious.

If I mind people's ability to think being undermined by their own education (or lack thereof), it isn't religious.

It isn't ritualized.
It isn't dogmatic.
And it isn't based on a supernatural explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:56 PM

"...know the evidence for it......" then keith you list a few things, but do not say how those things are evidence for evolutionism.
in fact creationists use the same as evidence for creation and intelligent design.
dmcg, yep, you got "modern" right. what you did not, was the context.
my point ,was, that having belief in creation did nothing to hamper scientists. bill nye made a major play on that angle ,and ken ham demonstrated that it is far from the case of the technological poverty he imagines , historically or currently.
but I have demonstrated how evolutionary think has delayed /hindered science. and of course, Darwin was not the first by a long chalk to conjecture evolutionism/long ages, though he was the first to gain popularity for it.
heres a link I stumbled across when trying to find info on your devices evolution idea.
some of it, I am not sure how it fits exactly with either of our views but interesting stuff.
www.viewzone.complasticbrain22.html
I am quite sure st paul would not support your syncretism !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:00 PM

" ...though I am getting my arguments from creation sites, I am not saying that creation is true because they say so, but I am using specific arguments gleaned from them ..."

I don't really see the difference; you're still relying on 'authority'. And the likes of Stu, sciencegeek and others have given you lots of "specific arguments" gleaned from real scientists and you still consistently ignore them because they don't supply you with the conclusions that you want.

" ... I do take the bible as authoritive , but in case you have not noticed, when debating non believers [in God that is !] I have used specific non biblical arguments."

But all of your 'arguments' are based on your (strange) belief that all of the myths and parables in the Bible are literally true; that belief is the basis for all of your posts. That sounds like "arguing from authority" to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:07 PM

"It was not their fault."

My ire wasn't directed at the pupils, but the gooners who think religion should be taught in science lessons; whomever they are. Hence my sentence underneath; kids deserve the chance to get off the right foot in life and form their own opinions either way. Science in science classes, religion in RE. The only way you defeat ignorance and superstition is by education. Arm people with the facts and the techniques to make up their own mind on things. After that, it's up to them.

For what it's worth, I think philosophy should be taught in schools in all years. We are not encouraged to question enough in school and challenge ideas in a creative and considered manner. People need to engage in some form of philosophical enquire about what they and others are and are doing; which is as true for science as it is the rest of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:17 PM

dmcg, yep, you got "modern" right. what you did not, was the context. my point ,was, that having belief in creation did nothing to hamper scientists.

Post 994, I believe: nearly stopping time!

I did get both the meaning and the context, I see from your response. It did not hamper them (much) then, but it would still hamper them now.

Let me give an analogy. A group of people are climbing a cliff. Naturally, they start from the bottom, and each metre they climb is hard won. Having got a very substantial way up this cliff, and learned a lot of the nooks and crannies, and the hidden hand-holds, a voice calls out that we should start at the bottom again, because the people who started were able to make progress even though they lacked of knowledge of these handholds...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

It's not pete's fault, either, that he was raised without being taught how to think critically or evaluate sources. He's a vic, not a perp, to use TV terminology.

It's sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:21 PM

Every state in the U.S. has a constitutional requirement to educate children. We also have a constitutional requirement to keep religion and government separate from each other. Religious schools, besides being child abuse, are unconstitutional. This includes religious home-schooling.

The Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and many other denominations are part of a well-organized and well-funded conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution of the United States by chipping away, until it's gone, the separation of church and state. They are winning.

On another topic, I can't decide what is more dangerous: pete, or debating with pete. After all his willful ignorance, it should be plain than he won't learn anything. The only interest we should have in the inside of pete's brain is to find out whether or not he thinks his religion should be reflected in our laws. Then at least we'll know whether he's dangerous or has just chosen to be stupid by choosing ignorance. What's everyone else's excuse? It just looks to me like you all are willing to allow pete to be taken seriously by having a "debate" with him. There is no debate, and that should be the only answer to anything he says: "There is no debate".

If you just want a venue to formulate and express your views, you can do that just fine without pete. If you want to make sure his idiocy doesn't go unanswered, the only reply needed is "there is no debate". In any event, it should be clear by now that "debating" with pete is about as worthwhile as debating philosophy with your dog. "Arf Arf whine whine wow arf". Have you changed your dog's mind yet? Actually, debating with a dog is better -- at least my dog acts like she's listening.

Please stop feeding the willfully ignorant. It just makes them feel relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:37 PM

On another topic, I can't decide what is more dangerous: pete, or debating with pete.

have to agree with you there... you can no conduct a one sided debate, only make corrective statements to clarify where the errors in logic or fact are found.

as for projection... this is likely my last chance to make clear my position regarding pete's behavior.

everyone at some point engages in passive-aggressive behavior, just as we also lose our tempers or tell little white lies. Pointing out said behavior is NOT branding them as pathological liers, etc. That's is your presumption.

That said... for all of Bill's attempts to "debate" pete... has anyone seen an iota of change? There's a reason for that... and I put forward my guesses as to the underlying reasons.

I believe that Joe is very sincere in his beliefs and does not need to try to undermine another's viewpoint to valdiate his own. Maybe pete should give that a try... it does seem to be more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:12 PM

I dunno... there's always more that can be said, but it is getting pretty repetitious.
Pete has agreed that he does accept the authority of the bible, and several of us have make clear that we don't... with varying degrees of intensity.

I have tried very hard to get Pete to use standard terminology.. or at least NOT to use the terms in ways that distort the common meanings, but some of his beliefs seem to require playing freely with definitions in order to accuse me of making the same errors I accuse him of.

He is committed to a certain viewpoint, and I never expected him to change them. I repeat that I treat him as honest and sincere, even with our basic disagreements. I would far rather compare opinions with someone like Pete than deal with the many others who ask toward me as some of you have done toward Pete. We all live in this world, and we'd better find sane ways to at least understand each others viewpoint, whether we like it or not.

I am not entering the crazy part of craft show season, and will have limited time to follow this, so I will ask for the thread to close.... 1000 ought to have given everyone a chance, hmmm?

So... some time later today...

(Of course anyone can start a thread... even Pete. I may occasionally post about some new discovery in science.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

Then at least we'll know whether he's dangerous or has just chosen to be stupid by choosing ignorance.

He's both, and we know it already.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:19 PM

I repeat that I treat him as honest and sincere,

A lot of the members of the Ku Klux Klan were/are honest and sincere, Bill. So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:27 PM

Gee... if there was any doubt we've gone on enough, trust Greg to prove it.

click