BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM

I don't know who josep is but he's not one of my allies, I can assure you.

"are you claiming no unborn feels the pain of being ripped out the womb or just very early stage,and is this from all experts or just some.thanks"

You appear to be doing that typical pro-life thing, resorting to emotion. I can't have a debate on that level. I'd much rather talk about treating women like human beings, a concept not well understood by many organised religions and particularly by so-called pro-lifers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM

steve-you not bitching each other?was that a serious assertion?you and josep oct 6 just to start with.i suppose you could say it was,nt bitching but sure looks like it to me.i shall take it as just another assertion-just depends on how you interprete the data i suppose.same applies to beginnings!.no doubt it is too simple for you but it would seem creation demands a creater and despite widespread acceptance of evolution ,creationism is not everywhere accepted as fact ,and that due to scientific arguments ,despite your denials.it seems you know more about me personally than i know myself and i suspect that carries over to your science.if you can make assuptions about me beyond the evidence,why not on evolution on which you are, i think more zealous.stringsinger-you may wish for an atheist state but for many people theological reasons are not irrelivant.just to clarify-are you claiming no unborn feels the pain of being ripped out the womb or just very early stage,and is this from all experts or just some.thanks

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM

Two men knocked on my door last Sunday morning. All they wanted to talk about was vacuum cleaners. "That's all I need," I thought. "Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

FT, an amusing story. I note, however, that he evidently did not greet Yahweh's Witnesses at the door while in the nude. What's up with that?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM

Hey, didn't anybody think my Ursula Undress with the dinosaur funny was funny?

Ancestors of people, maybe; ancestors of culture, though?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:43 AM

QUOTE
Most of humanity was not huddled round the shores of the badly-behaved Black Sea. No, it wasn't just the other day, but it was supposedly 5,600BC and the world was already full of modern humans by then. Yes, all over the place. Some of those wonderful ancient civilizations were already coming and going. In fact, all the, er, non-modern humans had died out long before that. A little chronological fact-checking wouldn't go amiss here. You'll be telling me next that Ursula Andress really was nearly eaten by dinosaurs.
UNQUOTE

HAHA - this one's for you Steve (and all the others of open mind) - nobody else (most especially narrow minded followers of The Bible!) can read it - it may just hurt their head! :-)


We Are the Other People by Oberon (Otter) Zell

It's far too long to post here.... enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:11 PM

"In which they are kept min poverety through inequality ignorant through lack of decent schooling and denied access to sex education and contraception."

Translator's note:

In which they are kept in poverty through inequality, kept ignorant through lack of decent schooling and denied access to sex education and contraception.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

"must admit im getting over my head with the science"

Good. Honesty is the best policy.

"all of you atheists agree on the concept of evolution"

Not just atheists. The difficulty for those Canute-like evolution-deniers is that evolution has gone way beyond being just an interesting idea. It's a fact. It's true.

"but that seems to be about all, going on the bitching among yourselves."

Show me where we atheists have bitched among ourselves. Watch it -we're a comradely lot, you know.

"despite having sympathy with women in difficult circumstances i dont accept it as moral"

Well I'm sure they're all so grateful for your sympathy. I'll tell you what. Get your nose out of your bible for half an hour, open your eyes and unclasp your hands. Put your God on the back-burner for a little while and have a look at the real world, the one in which women have been serially treated as third-class citizens in a world in which they do three-quarters of all the manual work and do nearly all the child-rearing. In which they are kept min poverety through inequality ignorant through lack of decent schooling and denied access to sex education and contraception. In which religion condemns them for taking any control at all in these matters and serves, deliberately, to perpetuate that ignorance. Men like you do all this then give them "sympathy." Well done. Why not go a step further and give them back control over their bodies, of which you clearly know very little? The God you believe in aborts embryos and foetuses all the time. So where's your moral high ground?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:02 PM

Hee hee - (in a gravelly voice) The name's Rex... T Rex.

Hmmm - I will check my notes. Most likely I have the wrong sea, then.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:46 PM

Well, one thing's for sure. Most of humanity was not huddled round the shores of the badly-behaved Black Sea. No, it wasn't just the other day, but it was supposedly 5,600BC and the world was already full of modern humans by then. Yes, all over the place. Some of those wonderful ancient civilisations were already coming and going. In fact, all the, er, non-modern humans had died out long before that. A little chronological fact-checking wouldn't go amiss here. You'll be telling me next that Ursula Andress really was nearly eaten by dinosaurs.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

Well, whatever interesting thing happened to the Black Sea, one thing that didn't happen as a result was that it wiped out "most of humanity." A glance at a world atlas will tell you that. In the scheme of things the Black Sea is fairly little. Ah, but there weren't people all over the world yet back then, at least, not people who would become our modern people's ancestors. We are not talking just the other day, here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:57 PM

pete from seven stars

Higher education does not have a monopoly on truth but atheists are conversant with a wide range of topics which include both science and religion. Most atheists know more about religion then most "believers".

As to the beginning of the universes, through the Big Bang theory, Hawkings put it very well. Religion is irrelevant to the science of how life began.

Assumptions are O.K. but they are not fact unless verifiable by science. Atheists are not prone to make assumptions about things that are not verifiable. "Belief" in any religion is an assumption that is not verifiable.

The science on abortion is this, there is more neural development in a chimpanzee than as a fetus which is not fully developed enough particularly in utero at early stages. In fact,
the fetus which is not developed does not have the feelings of a sentient developed mammal.

You can't compare a newly formed fetus with a human life such as an aged person.
The newly formed fetus is not developed enough to feel and think. The comparison
doesn't work.

The destruction of a fetus is not the destruction of a fully developed baby. In short,
a fetus is not a baby until it emerges as a living entity that can survive by itself outside of the womb.

What is immoral is the notion that is now claimed by Christine O'Donell and Sharon Angle
that a woman should give birth to a child when she has been raped.

The problem I see with the anti-abortionists is that they base their conclusions on theology rather than science. This will always work against them.

No woman wants to have an abortion. The idea that it is a convenient and pleasant experience is just not true. That accusation given women who have them is from those who hold theological views which really have no relevance to the formation of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

must admit im getting over my head with the science but i take the view that higher education does not mean monopoly on truth.all of you atheists agree on the concept of evolution but that seems to be about all, going on the bitching among yourselves.is it unreasonable then that you are wrong on beginnings? yes i do take the bible as truth .i would believe that ,even if there were not scientists who also do, as already cited and present scientific reasons.yes,they start with assumptions but so do atheists/evolutionists.paul-i have already mentioned one, and remembering that your last challenge resulted in your posting a link that slandered men not on here to defend themselves i shall not address any further what i suspect is a mischievous request.on abortion may i remind you, it was not me that introduced the subject.steve you put your point very well and without the former abuse-thankyou-however despite having sympathy with women in difficult circumstances i dont accept it as moral.all kinds of evil has been rationalized by appeal to undesirable percieved consequences.of course it is quite logical evolutionally but why stop at, destroying babes in the womb ,next the elderly ,disabled etc?its been done before.amos-talking of assertions you deserve an award in creative verbage.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM

Well, whatever interesting thing happened to the Black Sea, one thing that didn't happen as a result was that it wiped out "most of humanity." A glance at a world atlas will tell you that. In the scheme of things the Black Sea is fairly little.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 01:28 PM

Mrrzy...they HAVE done some underwater exploring in the Black Sea and discovered artifacts and an ancient 'shoreline'. It is almost undisputed now that The Bosphorus was once a barrier to the sea, and that it allowed huge changes at one time. Whether it was 'catastrophic' is being debated, but all it would take is ONE major event to start a legend. What IS clear is that there was never enough water to cover 'everything' on Earth, and that legends must be interpreted in terms of who promulgated them...& when.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

Yes, really, Steve. They've dated it. I wish we could archeologically dig under that sea!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

"...-the strata explained by evolutionists as formed over aeons is alternately explained by catastrophism as in a global flood.

No, it is not. You simply cannot create the strata as we find them today by means of a 'flood'...no matter what size. It-don't-work-that-way!

I'm sorry, pete from 7 stars, but you are beginning with the assumption that stuff in the bible is literally true, and then twisting, shoehorning, stuffing and forcing all subsequent information into compliance with the biblical model. You do this by taking a book that has been edited, translated, revised and altered by men...for political, personal, and theological purposes... and then USING what others have told you about that book, and your own flawed reading & interpretation, to claim things about the physical sciences (including biology) in order to uphold your own 'assumption' that I mention in the beginning of this long paragraph.
   That is called 'circular reasoning', and it includes the fallacy of < a href=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html>"assuming the consequent".

You can construct a nice, clear logical argument of the form:

"IF God made us and IF he decided we should have 'immortal souls' and IF he inserts a soul into every fetus at conception, THEN we should not tamper with God's plan by occasionally terminating a pregnancy."

...but all of this depends on those big "IFs"...and the problem is, *IF* any of your assumptions are incorrect, *THEN* the rest of your conclusions are not supported. There is a logical law about this: "From false premises, anything follows!" This means that, if any of your assumptions are incorrect, anything 'could' be claimed about them, and you will see in the hundreds of religions and various interpretations OF religions, that many, many strange and incompatible things HAVE been claimed. They cannot all be right.

No one can force you to believe any of this... no matter how we explain science, but...no one can force anyone else to accept your basic premises either.....so, in matters such as making decisions about abortion, the only way to proceed is for everyone to decide personal matters personally. When you say "... people of other convictions are entitled to campaign (against abortion)provided it is done lawfully.", you are using a concept of "lawfully" which was designed BY those who accept all those "IFs" I noted. This is unfair and interfering...especially when the decision is very hard to begin with.

Believe what you wish, but be VERY careful of how you present those beliefs to others who may not buy into YOUR basic assumptions.
"Belief" is a valuable word....it means accepting stuff that is NOT 'proven'. If I told you that I "believe" that elves live in my garden and chase away the neighbors cats, you'd see my point quickly.

...so...I didn't intend to type so much, but it is difficult to make certain points without elaborating.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM

That is just about the wackiest post I've ever read. Getting rid of fish or reptiles - heheh! And that flood idea. Not really, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

Nice twisting, Mrrzy. Yep, switching genes on and off and all that rigmarole is complicated stuff. But genes code for amino acid sequences whether we like it or not!
What twist? yes, for polypeptides (amino acid sequences) *in an environment* - not in a void.

If your solid foundation is biblical it is, by definition, not scientific, and thus, scientifically speaking, not solid.

admittedly not a scientist mrrzy but is not the DNA already encoded in the feotus.it is baby/child/adult in the making.surely this is not your justification for killing unborn babies.
Sure, in the making, but the way it's done is to start making a fish, change directions into a reptile, change directions again into a mammal, tweak that into a primate, and de*that* into a person. At the time a pregnancy is willfully terminated, it is generally still in the fish stage, sometimes in the reptile one. I don't perform abortions, but I firmly believe in the rights of women to decide for themselves if they want to have a baby at the end of all that, or not. If not, they can get rid of the fish or lizard if they so choose, why every not?

And we know why all civilizations have flood myths - most of humanity was wiped out in the formation of the Black Sea. To those who survived it would certainly have seemd as if the gods just filled their world with water, which over thegenerations of telling the story could easily turn into 40 days and 40 nights of rain, or the Flolod myth of the Navajo, or any of the other flood myths that abound. But it is certainly not the case that a world-wide flood is AS GOOD an explanation as reality for what the strata tell us in the fossil record.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:48 AM

95 Theses nailed to the wall, take one down, pass it around Hic!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:17 PM

Ah - Steve, what these narrow minded clowns forget in their arrogant pontificating, is that 'abortion' is their God given way of ending many potential pregnancies, thus they (and it is mostly guys) condemn every female as evil... but they have for millennia anyway - just read The Book about treating women as evil contaminating beasts at certain times of the month ...

It's in The Book! :-)

(Apologies to Johnny Standley!)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:34 PM

Even educated people occasionally require clarification from someone who writes gobbledegook. In fact, I believe it's a mark of good education so to do.

"but people of other convictions are entitled to campaign provided it is done lawfully"

True enough. But I do object to their calling themselves "pro-life," as if people like me are somehow "anti-life." Of course, they can't really call themselves "anti-abortion," because everybody's anti-abortion anyway (at least I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a marvellous thing). Quite, let them campaign lawfully, but there is also a moral argument about them berating women who choose not to do things their way and about how their wishes, if fulfilled, would condemn thousands of women to deprivation and poverty, or suffering through back-street abortion. It's amazing how so many so-called pro-lifers also oppose contraception and good sex education.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

scientists who not only uphold creationism from a solid biblical foundation

Such as?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM

"solid biblical foundation "

Amigo, I am sorry to tell you, but this is an oxymoronic proposition.

It is an assertion that requires such extreme convolutions of rationalization as to go beyond the pale of meaningful statements.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

admittedly not a scientist mrrzy but is not the DNA already encoded in the feotus.it is baby/child/adult in the making.surely this is not your justification for killing unborn babies.as for a womans choice that is the law pretty much at the moment but people of other convictions are entitled to campaign provided it is done lawfully.this is what wiberforce did as regards slavery when whites often reguaded blacks as subhuman.steve-such an educated man but you dont know what im on about?!you seemed to understand enougth to "answer"me prevviouly.BTW is bullfrog a play on bulldog=huxley i believe who took darwins ideas further than darwin intended.bill-i guess you are being halfway charitable but i think you understood that i was referring to scientists who not only uphold creationism from a solid biblical foundation but give extensive scientific reasons to do so.not that i could develope it fully but to give an example-the strata explained by evolutionists as formed over aeons is alternately explained by catastrophism as in a global flood.best wishes to all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:57 AM

Nice twisting, Mrrzy. Yep, switching genes on and off and all that rigmarole is complicated stuff. But genes code for amino acid sequences whether we like it or not!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:53 AM

"You really should have just told me to fuck off"

In thousands of posts over many years I've got by without saying that to anyone. Actually, I've never even typed the word. Apart from that, I like you in a weird, sympathetic sort of way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:38 AM

The test of if a biological unit has 'independent life' is if it can survive in a basic sense on its own - may still need nurturing such as a kangaroo young, but that is still surviving apart from the mother. A fetus, by definition cannot. It is only with the most advanced SCIENCE and medical intervention that premature human babies can survive - all the theists were ever able to do was pray over it, which never did much but make them feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 12:11 AM

///I wonder what the anti-choice people would think of the idea that, at the fetal age you normally abort if you're going to abort a pregnancy, that fetus or probably embryo is actually a fish, not a person - gills etc. That's my new bumper sticker to counter the people who say It isn't a choice, it's a child - It isn't a child at 5 weeks post-conception, it's a fish. Darwin fish! Hee hee!///

I would say anybody who aborts a fetus on those grounds SHOULD be tried for murder. Regardless of what the embryo is at that stage, the correct answer is that it is the woman's choice to abort it. Period. There's no need to rationalize the status of the fetus which is a very weird thing to do. The woman who carries it has the right to abort it. It is her decision and hers alone whether we agree with it or not and that is the end of the argument.

///I'm interested in josep's age, too.///

Get over me. I don't give that kind of information out. And as weird, dogmatic and authoritarian a misfit as you come across online, I don't care to know anything more about you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:57 PM

///Why should I have to tell you, jojo?///

That's the smart answer but somehow I don't think you're going to stop there.

///I have a biology degree from Imperial College. I have a postgrad certificate in education. I taught science in secondary education for 25 years. I was a chief examiner in 'A' Level biology for the University of London. Fer Christ's sake, I'm telling you more than I feel I need to tell my wife. Honestly, jojo, I don't even want to ask you what you do. By their fruits shall ye know them. All I'm getting from you is two unripe plums (undropped?) in the knicker department and a handful of sour grapes. Don't ask questions you might not like the answers to. I'm guessing you're young. Grow up. Ta ta! ///

I don't know why you told me this either except that I figured you have such a big ego that wouldn't be able to stop yourself. Sorry, I shouldn't have asked. Do not use your real name online, do not tell people what you do, do not tell people where you went to school, or what town you live in or any of that. You really should have just told me to fuck off because it is none of my business what you do or where you do it. For me to bait the hook and trick you is one thing but for you to willingly take the bait knowing full well what you were doing is a perfect example of...never mind. I shouldn't have done it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:15 PM

genes code for a response to an environment"

No they don't. Genes code for amino acid sequences in the manufacture of proteins in cells. Let's not get carried away.

Genes only code for amino acid sequences in the environment of a cell with those amino acids avaiilable ANSD all the other stuff one would expect - e.g., a response to an environment.

That is why your DNA has you make kneecaps after you start walking, not before. It codes for bones to be built up if there is gravity, and resorbed if there isn't any gravity. And so on. 'Tain't as simple as "amino acid sequences" - although that is the small picture. What sequences when is where the response to the environment comes in. That's why you make eyeball proteins in your eyeball environment, dn not elsewhere, and kneecap proteins in your knee-of-a-walking-person-with-gravity-around,, and not otherwise.

That is the key to embryology, which is the key to evolution. The only thing actually tinkered with is the embryology - a little more here, a little less there, and the fish is now a person. But we still go through the fish stage to get to the proper environment to grow a person.

I wonder what the anti-choice people would think of the idea that, at the fetal age you normally abort if you're going to abort a pregnancy, that fetus or probably embryo is actually a fish, not a person - gills etc. That's my new bumper sticker to counter the people who say It isn't a choice, it's a child - It isn't a child at 5 weeks post-conception, it's a fish. Darwin fish! Hee hee!

I'm interested in josep's age, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

Why should I have to tell you, jojo? I have a biology degree from Imperial College. I have a postgrad certificate in education. I taught science in secondary education for 25 years. I was a chief examiner in 'A' Level biology for the University of London. Fer Christ's sake, I'm telling you more than I feel I need to tell my wife. Honestly, jojo, I don't even want to ask you what you do. By their fruits shall ye know them. All I'm getting from you is two unripe plums (undropped?) in the knicker department and a handful of sour grapes. Don't ask questions you might not like the answers to. I'm guessing you're young. Grow up. Ta ta!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM

///Tee hee. Biologist. But, clearly, you won't be able to read that answer due to the steam coming out of your head. You did tell me to take a hike, remember? Good luck to ye, mate.///

No, wait wait!! So what degree do you hold? Biologist. What level? High school? Junior college? University? Written any papers? Come on now, don't be so tongue-in-cheek. This is finally starting to get interesting. I have several family memebers with degrees in biology--two are teaching and two are working on post-graduate degrees and doing a lot of field work.

///And you may call me Steve. Or Darwin's bullfrog. ///

I think Shaw is sufficient. Or is that Professor Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM

"me duck" - I love it! I only know one person who uses that expression and she's Devonian. Are you thusly?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM

Tee hee. Biologist. But, clearly, you won't be able to read that answer due to the steam coming out of your head. You did tell me to take a hike, remember? Good luck to ye, mate.


And you may call me Steve. Or Darwin's bullfrog.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM

Josep:

A tip about this forum: don't take any of the slings and arrows personally. Waterproof thyself, me duck, and it will save yourself endless stress. Honest, man.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

///No you didn't. And you'll be taken more seriously if you refrain from insulting people who take you on. ///

Now, I'm insulting you, is that right? As for taking people on, Shaw, you're a one-trick pony. You just go around "correcting" everyone and yet you have never actually provided any proof to back up anything you say. At least I quote sources and that takes guts in here because the instant you do 30 yay-hoos in here are doing frantic internet searches on ways to tear your source down and vomit it in your face. The only one you name is Darwin Darwin Darwin. Your inerrant, unquestionable Darwin. What's wrong, Shaw? That all you ever read? What are you? Physicist? Biologist? It's very impressive how you're able to pontificate so authoritatively about any and every branch of science anyone brings up without ever quioting a source. It just came out of your own little brain? You must hold several Ph.D's by now.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:25 PM

"There certainly ARE those who do various types of science, who then take off their science hat, put on their personal hat and declare themselves to 'believe' that some creator made it all... insofar as they do this, they are not acting as scientists."

Absolutely Bill, and I have no problem with this attitude (was that way myself, till I got tired of the ignorant bully by those with an agenda to push, and started to think more about the situation - you could say that I was pushed along the path to disbelieving!) - but after Darwin it became fashionable by the non-scientists (many of them clerics - but many clerics had made, and continued to make scientific advances - look at the Jesuit Astronomers!) to mungle belief and 'Science'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

"There are no creationist scientists. "

ummmm... I know what you mean, but like earlier remarks, context is crucial.

There certainly ARE those who do various types of science, who then take off their science hat, put on their personal hat and declare themselves to 'believe' that some creator made it all... insofar as they do this, they are not acting as scientists.

In my opinion, this is the ONLY way to handle 'belief' that does not involve logical error....and they might be right...*shrug*. Even then we are still confronted with the question "Why was there a 'god' before anything else existed?" I will grant certain 'creation' theories might be right, but belief in them is circular. Still, it is possible to hold one of them on Sunday and still do science on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM

"after your rant in response to my post it seems hypocritical steve to criticise josep, and gives me permission not to take your assertions seriously. any other fairminded readers can judge for themselves.i take it you only give challenges-never accept them.BTW the dawkins tv were full length programs on UK tv.foolsetroope-you are no doubt least to some extent correct as to history but not as far as you had accused creationists of being abusive on this thread.if there is an instance,post the date of such and i will apologize.steve has just given an example of how its done and what it looks like,bless him."

This is just dense, cloudy nonsense. One day perhaps you'll tell me what you were on about. And who cares about creationists anyway?

"So although we are surely not the best species, we tend to being the dominating species.

This has nothing to do with God, though."

Yep, that's it. Anything bad happening on God's watch and he's off the hook. Tee hee.

"The hooves of the herbivores keep the grasses healthy, etc."

The shit of the herbivores does it even better.

"genes code for a response to an environment"

No they don't. Genes code for amino acid sequences in the manufacture of proteins in cells. Let's not get carried away.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:40 PM

"The hooves of the herbivores keep the grasses healthy" Mrrzy

Surely that is a misunderstanding. The hooves of herbivores tend to kill the grasses. Far more apt to say it is the teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM

No question, Mrrz. But ours is the only one that can selectively weed out species we dislike. I don't think this is necessarily always a good thing, either, don't get me wrong. I was simply commenting that the notion that we are "at the top of the food chain" has some factual basis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:24 PM

ALL species determine the survival of every other within reach. The hooves of the herbivores keep the grasses healthy, etc. Nothing evolves in a vacuum - genes code for a response to an environment, which inevitably includes all the flora and fauna therein.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

As regards the relative superiority of one species or another, I don't know on what moral grounds one can claim an elephant is better than a fox or a hound dog better than an aardvark. But it is unquestionable that there is one species that defines the survival of every other within reach, and that is the Tool Maker. The food chain is not a moral scale, but very few whales have eaten humans, and a good many humans have lit their way to bed at night with the oil of slaughtered whales.

So although we are surely not the best species, we tend to being the dominating species.

This has nothing to do with God, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM

sorry FT it was not you-you were quoting i believe

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

after your rant in response to my post it seems hypocritical steve to criticise josep, and gives me permission not to take your assertions seriously. any other fairminded readers can judge for themselves.i take it you only give challenges-never accept them.BTW the dawkins tv were full length programs on UK tv.foolsetroope-you are no doubt least to some extent correct as to history but not as far as you had accused creationists of being abusive on this thread.if there is an instance,post the date of such and i will apologize.steve has just given an example of how its done and what it looks like,bless him.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:44 AM

repent
study
repent
study
repent
study

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:08 PM

"i must have missed somrthing on this massive thread.i,ve not seen anyone using such language except unbelievers in God,and mostly abusing each other!"

response to

"once all those pesky questions about man not being the only tool making animal, and thus 'superior' (as God had made him!) started to surface, the sky fairy proponents started frothing at the mouth, as usual, denigrating the mental state of those commenting on, or even making the observations in the field (they must be lying, making it up, insane, spawn of the devil, they could not possibly understand etc) but you've seen all that predictable behavior here in these threads... "

This thread is a microcosm of the world - while you may think you be correct about this thread (people who read it can decide for themselves) - you are are also trying to deny what happened in the real world at the time of those ground breaking discoveries that have changed the way that many such questions way beyond the immediate such topics are now considered (an overhaul of the Philosophy of Science) - thus confusing two different things - not much of a useful contribution to this debate, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

"i must have missed somrthing on this massive thread.i,ve not seen anyone using such language except unbelievers in God,and mostly abusing each other!"

response to

"once all those pesky questions about man not being the only tool making animal, and thus 'superior' (as God had made him!) started to surface, the sky fairy proponents started frothing at the mouth, as usual, denigrating the mental state of those commenting on, or even making the observations in the field (they must be lying, making it up, insane, spawn of the devil, they could not possibly understand etc) but you've seen all that predictable behavior here in these threads... "

This thread is a microcosm of the world - while you may think you be correct about this thread (people who read it can decide for themselves) - you are are also trying to deny what happened in the real world at the time of those ground breaking discoveries that have changed they way - thus confusing two different things - not much of a useful contribution to this debate, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

"Hunter-gatherers led the least intrusive lifestyles. ... The land and its varied flora and fauna was kept pristine."

Totally delusion emotive 'fuzzy feeling' belief, sorry - the documented evidence shows the land did not remain the same, it kept changing - at a much slower rate only because they had less destructive power than later arrivals.

Even Australia's fauna and flora has changed over the alleged 40,000+ years of since human arrival towards a type of fauna that burns more easily, and results in the land being drier, driving out the rain forest ecology, due to the 'fire-stick farming' practices, which caused a new living balance. When left alone, the land rapidly becomes clogged with highly flammable materials which causes greater devastation to the fauna, and has the long term potential, depending on the right weather conditions, to lead to massive erosion and eventual desertification.

There is evidence that similar changes have occurred in the continental USA.