BS: Is there any merit to creationism?

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

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

I'm with Steve Shaw though:

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

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

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

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

But I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed.

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Joe Offer-

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Joe-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relax, Pete. No-one has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2013

All Scientists Are Blind

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

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

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

That is from

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

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

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

But there are occasions. Witness the Rule of 48.

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

You did the hard part, Jeri.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Somebody have his revolutions confused with his rotations?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you both, gentlemen.

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

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

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

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

Otherwise...

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

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

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



What the fuck am I doing?

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

Thoughts for a rainy Saturday:

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

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

What if time behaved like a fractal?

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

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

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

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

Correlation does not imply causation.

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

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

Hilarious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works for me.

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somebody have his revolutions confused with his rotations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(how's that for vague rambling?)

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

Somebody have his revolutions confused with his rotations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other interpretation is colloquial nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

I think you might be right pdq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is.

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

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

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

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

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

SOMETHING has to trigger the Big Bang

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

I can live with that.

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

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

even if He is just called the Great Spirit

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

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

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

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