BS: Gravity solved?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:44 AM

I have often though that Daniel reads like a script to be performed. Not sure whether there was any tradition of performing arts in Maccabean Judea, which is when it seems to originate, but its post the great age of Greek theatre, so its possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 05:08 PM

"according to shimrod, that the ancient men who wrote the biblical accounts were a bunch of sheep herding ignoramuses .....or similar wording..."

"A bunch of Bronze Age, Middle Eastern GOAT herders" is what I actually wrote. They probably weren't ignorant ... I bet they knew a lot about GOATS!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 05:07 PM

scientifically qualified

You don't know what the term MEANS, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:55 PM

Bill, I have just read your link. The writer has largely given examples of arguments that informed and especially scientifically qualified creationists do not use. Certainly the less informed might use such arguments, and they are the sort that the likes of Dawkins likes to engage. Some of the other points raised might have merit in defending Darwinism inasmuch as why it might not be false , but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact. I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:21 PM

How , Dave, can you KnOW the biblical writers did not intend their writings to be taken literally? Of course people like Daniel and Ezekiel when writing down their visions were unlikely to think the many strange images were literal , and as you yourself generously concede, there are other good , creative passages elsewhere.   I would say the internal evidence , however, indicates that those writing historical narrative intended it to be understood as exactly that.      As far as the gospels are concerned , I don't think anyone claims they were written during ,or straight after Jesus 'earthly life. And it is clear that there are different details esp john. Of course, had there been exact correspondence the skeptics would be crying collusion!          As far as "ignoramuses " are concerned , you will maybe recall according to shimrod, that the ancient men who wrote the biblical accounts were a bunch of sheep herding ignoramuses .....or similar wording...   From what you say here , I take it that you don't go along with that blinkered assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:51 PM

Thank you stu.             Bill and musket, I was replying to Dave re the link by s. Tompkins .       Did you read that link , before you took one part of my reply to Dave out of context ?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 07:55 AM

" pikaia and Lancelot please"

Good question. The Lancelet's muscles are configured differently to Pikaia's. They are taller and narrower allowing Lancelets to swim faster; it's likely Pikaia could not do that. There are other morphological differences too, including tentacles on the head of Pikaia, the presence of nine appendages that might be something to do with the respiratory system (lancelets breath through their skin).

While lancelets are considered very close relatives of vertebrates (,molecular biology has given new insight into their position), the status of Pikaia is far less certain; I'm not sure what the current thinking on this is.

It's interesting to note that during the very early development of humans, we too have a notochord and pharyngeal slits.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:00 AM

I think the point about ignoramuses is that every age has them, but their contribution does not usually survive. Most people have heard about Thomas Aquinas, few about Etienne Tempier, who tried to shut him up.

And the writers of the Bible, well many of them were pretty good. Deutero-Isiah, and the writer of Ecclesiastes, well they were up there with the best, Shakespeare for instance. Its a great pity that the term "gospel" has come to be used to mean "to be taken absolutely literally". For I am sure that is not what most of the writers of the Bible mean't, any more than Milton or Bunyan. The gospels sure, have a great deal of historical veracity, particularly that of Luke, but even there the differences between accounts of the same events reflect that they were assembled from second hand, often imperfect recollections some years after the events that they describe.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:49 AM

Alex Jones of the One Show???

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:48 AM

GfS single handedly probes that he doesn't have the slightest understanding of what natural selection is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:02 AM

Glad it was a complement because it certainly wasn't a compliment.

Hey pete! Nobody said the script writers of the bible and other ancient story books lacked imagination. They seemed to have tons of the stuff. So did the people s thousand years later who rewrote most of it to satisfy their sponsors.

Doesn't make it err.. Gospel.

What makes the religious claims to answers absurd is that even people who believed in imaginary friends couldn't help disproving the notion. Galileo and Darwin were greatly worried that their work conflicted with their brainwashed upbringing. Newton failed to make the link that his own work suggested. Even old Albert put a theological argument up against quantum probability.

Yet still, reality marched on. And still marches. Not much chance of dark matter having a white beard and a grudge against normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:35 PM

Hey Hey Hey!!..The troll club is back...bringing with them their snide wannabe jabs.

It's OK....and for what it's worth, Greg... In regards to your last post, I was giving you a complement!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:21 PM

Ya think Goofus is incoherent? Check out his script writers, Alex Jones & Howard Nema - both easily "Googled".

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:08 PM

Bill refers to gfs's recent content as "convoluted"; I beg to differ

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 07:09 PM

Greg F. just single-handedly just disproved the evolution theory.
Atta boy!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM

ancient men were ignoramuses

So, unfortunately, are certain modern men.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:47 PM

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


Bill: "God must NOT exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the my secular liberal agenda says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe your liberal agenda?"
Bill: "Because it was written by God."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:27 PM

"according to the gospels Jesus affirmed the genesis account."..Ummm... if they had said anything else, they'd have been edited like many other parts were. But the real issue is that you are begging the question:
"Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

some more reading, done by experts who explain things better than I do.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:01 PM

"Usual stuff from shimrod who is so convinced , against all the evidence that ancient men were ignoramuses."

So where did I write that ancient men and women were ignoramuses? I am not "convinced" of any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:28 PM

Biblical literalism is a somewhat vague expression but if you mean reading narrative as narrative , poetry as poetry , proverbs as proverbs etc , then that is my position. And I don't agree that that is a modern phenomenon . The church fathers , though prone to excessive allergories sometimes, were biblical creationists , and according to the gospels Jesus affirmed the genesis account. The article did however, make some valid points, like the tendency of many charismatics to ask what the bible says to them without finding out what it meant to the original hearers. But I fail to see how the original hearers would understand the teaching of the narrative parts of scripture as allegory !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:00 PM

Biblical literalism appears to be largely a modern phenomenon. Here is an article by Stephen Tomkins on how it has taken root.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:59 PM

Dave, maybe I did,nt make myself clear enough in my reply to stu, but I am not interested in disproving dinos , or some of them at least,had feathers , as it makes no difference to creation . If they did, they would not be the first mosaic creature. However , to evolutionists (who were promoting dino to bird before any feathers were found) it would be important.   Agreed ...pushing ...might be a bit of a blanket word not applicable to all scientists but certainly would be to a lot of evolutionists.      Your last question was answered previously by# but it also goes by creation.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:36 PM

You seem, Dave, to have appropriated my remarks re shimrod , to yourself.   Yes people have always been bright enough to distinguish between myth and allegory , but the writings of the early church fathers are affirming of the biblical account.   Those accounts themselves are written in narrative with stylistic indicators that early genesis is narrative as much as later genesis.       And who are these modern people that think the ancients lacked creativity and imagination? Certainly not bible scholars., though not negating the work of the Holy Spirit in the expressive sections of scripture.      I was aware that aquinas was influenced by Greek thought , but it seems he did,nt fall for their evolutionism !.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:33 PM

Dave: "Actually Pete I don't think that ancient men and women were ignoramuses, and I believe that they were bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."

I guess that's why you believe in evolution...because, as you said, "...and I BELIEVE* that they were bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."

* "I BELIEVE (there is that nasty word again, 'BELIEVE', as in the exercising of 'faith'}....

So, let me get this straight, according to you...we have evolved to a higher level.....but you 'BELIEVE' that ancient men and women were NOT 'ignoramuses'....but the higher evolution of mankind produced the ignoramuses????....."who aren't bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."

What the hell are you arguing about?..to to whom??....one of those 'higher evolved' life forms who are not "bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account."??????????

Maybe you didn't understand it.....and a lot MORE!!

GfS

P.S ...and he agrees with Bill D about convolution!!..except his own!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:24 PM

pete, scientists do not "push doctrines". They assemble facts and propose theories. Its not my subject, but from what I hear from people whose subject it is, the most favoured theory at present is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. And there is substantial fossil evidence, particularly from China and Mongolia, that many theropod dinosaurs had feathers. And possibly preserved feathers in amber, which may be from birds but more likely dinosaurs.

Now what evidence do you have that this is not so?

And what the blazes is cmi??

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:11 PM

Bill D: "Maybe I DO have "..a LOT MORE to CONSIDER."... like when to recognize I'm batting my head against a wall and quit debating.

Well, if it's a block wall, it might serve to be brain food!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM

So stu, that, according to you is a lie , by which I assume you mean a deliberately dishonest statement. I did do a quick check on sources favourable to the evolutionary paradigm and it seems that some dinos evidently had feathers , though I did not actually see feathers. Seems though that most had scales. You did not provide a date for the cmi quote so I don't know if they were correct at the time. For that matter I don't know if they might still be correct. But , as acknowledged in the quote, feathers or not, is not important to the issue as far as creation is concerned. Of course, for evolutionists who are pushing the dino to bird doctrine, it is far more important.                                        And , not that creation stands or falls on the answer, what are the significant differences between pikaia and Lancelot please.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:03 PM

Actually Pete I don't think that ancient men and women were ignoramuses, and I believe that they were bright enough to distinguish myth and allegory from a literal account. And to understand nevertheless that myth and allegory have their place in improving understanding. Its modern people, and even then, not very many of them, who believe that ancient people were so lacking in creativity and imagination that they could write down nothing but what is effectively a diary. And even then that they were inspired to do so by God, and if God had inspired them to write a mere diary, well then it wouldn't say much for God or the people he had created.

Aquinas of course was a great follower of Aristotle, as well as God, so he was indeed influenced by the Greeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:00 PM

Thank you, Guest Dave....I was not going to give GfS any more explanations to ramble on about... especially when his parting shot to me was a bunch of Bible quotations about God=Love.

Maybe I DO have "..a LOT MORE to CONSIDER."... like when to recognize I'm batting my head against a wall and quit debating ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 02:45 PM

Dave: "Nice one GfS, you very comprehensively make Bill D's point for him."

Glad you understood it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 02:32 PM

Usual stuff from shimrod who is so convinced , against all the evidence that ancient men were ignoramuses.   A scientist is not someone who labours under " the grossly , silly, delusion............"   Oh dear , all those scientist of the past believing all that stuff !   Never had the benefit of people like shimrod to enlighten them....          And of course, anyone who is a creationist is too much of an idiot , no matter how learned.   Talk about blinkered !

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM

Actually Dave, I think there has been evolutionists of some kind or other since the ancient Greeks, so had aquinus been using "reason and rationality" according to your self serving definition he surely would have denied believing in the biblical account!          I don't recall promoting Barry setter fields speed of light ideas , so that is a straw man, however , since you mention it, have,nt evolution believers done same or similar to overcome the horizon problem ? The claim that "creationists reject rational thought" is also self serving and unsubstantiated. I might just as well say the same of evolutionists for holding to their unproven interpretations of the data.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 01:48 PM

Mind you, castigating what I said (or actually Hawking said) for lack of evidence,

I did not.
That is why I ask for quotes and links when you claim to have read something.

a simple statement from Hawking that you don't need a god concept as everything since the Big Bang can be eventually explained

I fully agree.
I would go further and say that the start point can be explained too.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 01:34 PM

Still stands.

Time is a product of an occurrence that has a finite reference in said time, from our relative position. Hence time has an index reference. If Hawking and others are correct in their assumption, (I am not equipped to put a counter argument) then every dimension has the same start reference. That dimension is time, being the variable you can relatively measure other dimensions by. Not sure how you can single that out as a philosophical issue?

It isn't a common problem to science and religion as religion can make it up as it goes on. Religion has nothing to offer other grasping at straws to support their medieval claims. They get confused by different beaks on finches so astrophysics isn't exactly their issue.

Your mislaid book and as you say, religion may have an issue with "before time" but most published papers would call such a phrase an oxymoron. Either there was no "before" or several aspects of the Big Bang cannot be considered valid. According to my son, a post doc working on quantum tunnelling, (which is about as relevant as my mechanical vibration..but he does at least keep an interest, as his first degree was in that field) dismissing "before" takes a leap of logic, but there is little alternative. I on the other hand have to read a lot in order to keep up when we sit with a bottle chewing the fat.

Not my field professionally but focussing within the confines of a start of dimensions, it seems to hold up. If I am not up to date or got hold of the wrong end of the present thinking stick, then I stand corrected but sorry, your post doesn't seem to help me in that regard. It stems from, and this is widely published, a simple statement from Hawking that you don't need a god concept as everything since the Big Bang can be eventually explained and you can't trigger the Big Bang as you cannot have an instance in time to trigger it. If that's out of date, then what has replaced the notion?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:27 AM

[Dave] I am not sure who Jack was getting at, me or Musket.

Musket. You ninja'd me while I was writing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:08 AM

Nice one GfS, you very comprehensively make Bill D's point for him.

I am not sure who Jack was getting at, me or Musket.

Anyway, I disagree with this part of Musket's post:

"Also, how can he create when there is no time before it happening in order to create it?"

Time as a dimension is created at the same time as the other dimensions. So the non-existence of time before creation/Big Bang is a philosophical problem common to science and religion.

PCW Davies wrote some time ago a book called "The Mind of God", which considered this kind of issue. I seem to have mislaid my copy though.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:54 AM

Bill D. "GfS.... you have rhetorically convoluted the issue beyond belief!"


Are you trying to tell me(while trying to play to the crowd), I've convoluted something 'Beyond belief'?????.....Belief???...'Belief' requires 'faith'...so whose 'faith'?? ....YOURS???...I thought that earlier you were railing people who 'believed' in God, and that it required 'faith'!!??!!
You are the one convoluting your own rhetoric, with more of your own rhetoric.

Jack Campin: "The fact that fundies come up with glibly superficial strawman arguments about science is not an excuse for doing the same yourself about theology and the philosophy of religion."

"....about theology and the philosophy of religion."


You left out politics, and their(or your)"...glibly superficial strawman arguments about science..."

Bill D.(continuing)" 'You seem to want to keep drawing a difference between the creation, and some sort of creator....consider that perhaps they are ALL one in the same...'

??I do what? I never think that way....and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose..."

Again, you keep displaying how much you are unaware of what you are talking about...."??I do what? I never think that way....and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose..."

That is OBVIOUS....and it was your response to, "....CONSIDER THAT PERHAPS they are ALL one in the same..."

So, your response equates to, 'I'm a fundie secularist block-head, who is too blocked to consider ANYTHING outside my blocked mindset'

Consider that.
It's already obvious to a lot of other people....and it didn't require a lot 'faith' to believe it!!!!

Then you continue:
Bill D: "Just asking the question: "Do you believe in God?" is phrased as if "most people are aware there is a God... are you with them?" One needs to ask something like: "Do you suspect or believe that there is at least one metaphysical entity which occupies some 'realm' that we in our physical configuration cannot access, and which had some influence in creating/designing/organizing our physical state for some difficult-to-comprehend reason of 'its' own??"

I thought you just said, "...and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose..."

I can see why you want to talk about 'convolution'...Jeez!

here, let me give you a hand....., you posted, "Just asking the question: "Do you believe in God?"

PERHAPS <<<<<--- YOU'VE got a LOT MORE to CONSIDER.

GfS

Jeez!...secularists!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:41 AM

Sorry Keith. There is nobody more clever than me, or cleverer as you eloquently put it.

Mind you, castigating what I said (or actually Hawking said) for lack of evidence, then saying God can do what he likes made me smile and anyone who can do that can't be all bad. You forgot to factor in Gandalf by the way. Tolkien saw him as having particle / wave duality in The Silmarillion.

I repeat, time is a product of the Big Bang, if any of the fundamental properties of the Big Bang stand up to scrutiny. Without time, you can't create. Simple really.

There again, why the flying fuck am I bothering? If the brains through the ages hadn't been constrained by superstition, we would have found a way to keep my guitar in tune by now. Might even have cured the aging process or made friends with little green men. Instead, we get mocking of the subject of this thread by semi literate nutters such as pete. Even Keith tries to find a place in this for his invisible friend.


"And those who were dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't hear the music"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:25 AM

The onus isn't on science to prove or disprove the existence of the on true God/all the other true Gods/the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If there is evidence for any god then that's fine, hooray for god! If there is none (and there isn't at present, as far as I'm aware) that's been published join per-reviewed scientific journals (and not that pseudoscience pap that creationists publish in because no-one else will have them), then that's fine too.

However, if it bothers you feel free to prove the existence of whichever of the gods you believe in. You'll make a name for yourself for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:17 AM

Musket,
If this God is outside the constraints of space and time, he cannot have any bearing whatsoever on the universe, as the universe would be outside of his sphere of being.

You assertion is based on no evidence, and wrong in my opinion.
He would not be constrained by space and time but quite free to operate inside or outside of it, as He chose.

Also, how can he create when there is no time before it happening in order to create it?

Er, because He would not be constrained by time, or space.

Much cleverer people that you have been trying to prove the non- existence of God for centuries. Your effort is pitiful.
Sorry.

I think Jack is telling you that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 09:25 AM

So then clever clogs disbelievers, how did Isaac Newton discover gravity in the first place
if God didn't make little green apples
and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime ???

Let the Lord rain down his almighty cider apples on the heads of all satanist pagan atheist commie pervert science teachers & students !!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:59 AM

The fact that fundies come up with glibly superficial strawman arguments about science is not an excuse for doing the same yourself about theology and the philosophy of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:58 AM

Pete, Thomas Aquinas predates evolution by 600 years, and its deniers by 700. Evolution is but one issue, a symptom or focal point for the current generation. Aquinas' point was that reason and rationality were not at variance with Christian thought. For this he was condemned by Etiene Tempier. However the church in subsequent generations reaffirmed its belief in Aquinas' theology, not that of those who condemned him. Popes Pius V and Leo XIII affirmed this in encyclicals.

Creationists reject rational thought, they are the Tempiers of the present day. All sorts of nonsense comes out of creationist institutes, such as Setterfield's variable speed of light theories in a vain attempt to preserve Bishop Ussher's estimate of the age of the universe. Easily refuted by observation and experiment. And all of this creationist nonsense is rejected not only by science, but by every mainstream church.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:13 AM

Interesting. I mention that Hawking noted that you don't need a God for the Big Bang and that time could not exist before the event and pete asks if Hawking said it. Well yes, I just posted saying exactly that!

Err Keith. If this God is outside the constraints of space and time, he cannot have any bearing whatsoever on the universe, as the universe would be outside of his sphere of being. Also, how can he create when there is no time before it happening in order to create it?

Bloody hell mate. You propose a construct that doesn't need logic to exist and still get confused in your own logic...

Goofus reckons some people deny this here God. Maybe they do, but what has that to do with the vast majority of educated people who don't deny it because they see nothing to deny. You have to be religious in the first place. Most people over here aren't and never have been.

So anyway. Let's make waves!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:02 AM

"It's just a matter of level of classification."

Pikaia and the Lancelet are examples of convergent evolution and are totally different animals despite appearing superficially the same; both possess a notochord and chevron-shaped muscle bundles as do all chordates, of which the Lancelet is a extant representative. However, there are significant differences between the two animals.



"Of course if you can substantiate any accusation of lies from this prominent resource it is a serious matter and I would not want to be ignorant of such."

Fine. From CMI, this statement is a lie:

"While feathered dinosaurs are not ruled out by the biblical creationist model, the claims of feathers are looking more and more dubious.?"

In fact, the opposite is true. We now find feathers on far more dinosaurs than we originally thought, and it now appears some sort of filamentous integument might be a basal condition in archosaurs as pterosaurs were also covered in fuzz. By the way, citing Lingham-Soliar in any discussion on feathers in dinosaurs rings alarm bells. In his latest publication of around 18 refs (suspiciously few) eleven are self-citations. Bad science.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 07:26 AM

" ... but I do know Dawkins won't debate qualified scientists , creationists who might be considered equal , but you often see him on YouTube taking on what might be called easy targets.       Basically ,your definition of who serious scientists and theologians is self serving, ie, who agree with your view, or at least are not YEC,s however highly qualified."

Oh dear! I don't blame Prof. Dawkins for ignoring superstitious, obtuse idiots who are in no way his "equal"! He would be wasting his time and energy "debating" with wilfully ignorant fools. The words "scientist" and "creationist" are oxymoronic.

Here's my definition of a scientist (in this context, let's say an evolutionary biologist): A person who is qualified in an appropriate field who approaches the study of the Universe around her/him with an open mind. A scientist is definitely NOT someone who labours under the grossly silly delusion that the myths and legends of a bunch of Bronze Age, Middle Eastern goat herders represent the literal truth about the origins of life on Earth!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 06:42 AM

"....and in one of the infinite beginnings God created everything and he called it the universe. Lo, he saw that all the parts were going in different directions in a chaotic manner. Verily this was not good so he said, "Let there be gravity and lo, there was gravity and all the things that he created behaved themselves....."

And today we all experience it`s effect but can we give a better explanation of why it is there?.

I have a great deal of time for Prof. Brian Cox but when I hear him and others put figures and dimensions, with such conviction, for things such as black holes, etc., which are suggested billions of light years away I do sometimes wonder!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 09:45 PM

GfS.... you have rhetorically convoluted the issue beyond belief!

You said "many proclaim gravity, (but) deny the existence of God." Quite apart from the fact that 'many' just shrug at the idea of "god", rather than bothering to 'deny' it, those ARE concepts that really cannot be compared that way. Gravity is obvious, whether we understand it or not... 'god' is an attempt to explain the unexplainable with a sweeping simplification.


"You seem to want to keep drawing a difference between the creation, and some sort of creator....consider that perhaps they are ALL one in the same...

??I do what? I never think that way....and I have no idea how to consider the metaphysical conundrum you propose... Every way you can phrase it..."creation requires creator"... "creation equals creator"... "creator IS its creation"... is a circular argument in which unproven assumptions are used to explain themselves.

Just asking the question: "Do you believe in God?" is phrased as if "most people are aware there is a God... are you with them?" One needs to ask something like: "Do you suspect or believe that there is at least one metaphysical entity which occupies some 'realm' that we in our physical configuration cannot access, and which had some influence in creating/designing/organizing our physical state for some difficult-to-comprehend reason of 'its' own??
   Not easy to even ask a fair question, hmmm? Too much work to even learn how to talk that way. Easier to proclaim "god", then enquire suspiciously "Do YOU accept HIM?"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM

I was not aware Thomas aquinas was an evolutionist, Dave. Do you have a quote from him please ,that demonstrates that .         I see a TV programme that had john Mackey talking in a church not far from me .   Dawkins turned up and sat in the audience with his TV Entourage. Seems he did,nt challenge him in the meeting but after made some assertions to which I thought McKay answered well.   I have no idea whether he had declined debate with polkinghorne , but I do know Dawkins won't debate qualified scientists , creationists who might be considered equal , but you often see him on YouTube taking on what might be called easy targets.       Basically ,your definition of who serious scientists and theologians is self serving, ie, who agree with your view, or at least are not YEC,s however highly qualified.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:00 PM

GfS, I am not talking about serious scientists, nor serious theologians, but about creationists who are neither, but fancy themselves as a bit of each. The likes of John Mackay is who I mean, happy to spout bollocks in churches about science, and to spout bollocks about Christianity in lecture theatres. Except that when faced with someone who really knows about both science and religion, like John Polkinghorne, they run a mile.