BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 01:06 PM

If you read King James bible you will find that Jesus said some contradictory things.
Some not so nice.
In science, this doesn't work. If it's wrong, it will be disprovable.
The alternative to science can only be unprovable.
Love can be proved by psychoanalytic means.

"It has been noted that humans void of these attributes become self-centered psychopaths, who do offenses to their fellow man, without ANY cognizant empathy, or remorse for their behavior."

This could easily be said of many self-described Christians, or any other religious view.
That's why we had bible verses engraved on American rifle butts in Iraq.

As for the logical fallacy of defending the lack of proof of any god, this seems to me
to be the epitome of self-centered psychopathy. This is why many religious inmates are running the asylum. You can't prove BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 01:15 PM

Hey Strings....talk to Pete, that is if you still communicate. I'm not the one to prove or disprove 'God'..but I can and WILL ask questions..that frankly some of our resident evolutionists can't answer..BUT, if it makes them THINK harder and beyond the box that they are trying to convert everyone to, then let them answer the questions..I mean, THEY are the ones who are claiming to have all the answers!
So far, I haven't seen doodily-squat except stupid name calling if you don't agree with a premise they cannot prove, nor answer simple questions.
Is that really THAT unreasonable??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 06:37 PM

I must have missed the bit where an 'evolutionist' (whatever one of those is?) tried to convert someone into a box! Now behaviour like that NEEDS to be stopped!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 06:54 PM

a lot of the evolutionist talk consists of assertions,appeals to authority or downright mockery.as i have said before-argument weak,shout like blazes. lack of understanding due to lack of explanation is supposed to be cured by extensive reading of darwin,dawkin,j gould etc.if i,m asked what the bible says about something i can mostly tell someone and give the ref,but if i ask about something in their sacred text i just get told to read it-eg where is the mechanism explained in origins or elsewhere for the information increase that facilitates increasing higher lifeforms?
admittedly evotheory is so complex[not to mention flexible]that it may be difficult for its followers to give explanations understandable to the layman.or maybe thats to their advantage!
i was amused gfs by your challenge about half and half transitions but in fairness it is not what they now say.mind you the 40yr long half and half hoax was accepted gladly by darwinists back then!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 07:20 PM

admittedly evotheory is so complex[not to mention flexible]that it may be difficult for its followers to give explanations understandable to the layman.or maybe thats to their advantage!

Stop being such an insulting bloody idiot. I'll be patient with you one more time. Darwin's idea is so simple that even a confounded thickie like you should be able to understand it. Are you ready? Here goes, the whole thing, chapter and verse, alpha to friggin' omega, the sentence that explains the whole of life on Earth, and probably on any other planet where there's life as well, in all its beauty and complexity. Sit your arse down on a chair and allow it to sink in. It's more sublime in its directness and simplicity than ten million bloody words in your liar-Bible!

Ready??

"Given sufficient time (four billion years in our case), the non-random survival of hereditary entities (genes, if you like), which occasionally miscopy (mutate, if you like), will generate complexity, diversity, beauty and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish it from deliberate intelligent design."

(Thank you, Richard, and apologies for the contents of the brackets)

I should give up trying to be a layman if I were you. It appears that that role, in your case, has the odd effect of making the blindingly simple, nay, blindingly sublime, look impossibly complicated to you. Have you considered taking up golf? As only wankers do that, you can't really do much harm by annoying your fellow participants with your silly nonsense, and the game lasts so long that you won't have time to come on here to spout your ignorant verbiage.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 05:32 AM

Well ducked on the feather issue Pete.

"where is the mechanism explained in origins or elsewhere for the information increase that facilitates increasing higher lifeforms"

Er, what defines a 'higher lifeform'?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 06:35 AM

That guest above was me - got cookie problems.

SFJ

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

Yeah. And what is "information increase" supposed to mean? That's it, pete. Toss around a few faux-technical terms that you think make you sound all sage. After all, that's what tossers are good at.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 09:14 AM

dont know what i,ve ducked jack.you say your machine proves feathers and my sources wisps/collogen? .i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds.neither does the creation model insist on no feather dino anyway.
is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer?sure you can put it more tech and accurate to evolutionary theory but hopefully i got the drift
higher life form?-well i suppose if a man is of no more value than a monkey,a mouse or the muck we was supposed to have come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 09:52 AM

Does starry pete write in lower case in order to make it difficult to read?

I didn't notice that evolution had "followers" as it isn't a superstitious cult, it is a term describing what we have deduced about how we got to where we are.

Higher life forms is an interesting one I suppose. As crocodiles, lions etc could eat us easier than we could eat them, or that we have weapons that tilt the table the other way, are we higher? I don't know.

I am however reminded of many orators who point out that if aliens landed and tried to work out which life form was in charge of the planet, they may make observations to confirm it. They would see me and my dog out walking. My dog has a crap, I pick it up, put it in a bag and carry it for him......

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 09:59 AM

Pete, have you ever *read* an introductory book on evolution?

There are lots of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:04 AM

is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer

The possibility of a common designer has never been ignored. It's just that rational people tend to weigh possibilities against the evidence for them. Natural selection (the alternative possibility that I prefer myself) explains every bit of complexity in every organism without the need for miracles or magicianly intervention. Not only that, the explanatory ratio is superb. You have to make next to no assumptions. The evidence is all there. We know that genes exist. We know that genes occasionally miscopy. We know that genes are non-randomly selected. We know the mechanisms of replication and protein synthesis. We know that there has been a huge amount of time - over four billion years - for evolution to work. Whether you think that is sufficient time, well, you get your head round four billion.

Now, pete, every time I say the word "know" in the above, it means that there is a mass of evidence for it that ticks all the boxes for what real evidence is. It adds up to an explanation of life that requires very little in the way of assumptions, and nothing at all strays from any laws of nature that we have ever discovered or requires any form of divine intervention.

Now let's look at your preferred possibility, the common designer. Well it's a nice idea, but whoever this designer is he's never shown himself. Let's contemplate what he must be like. Well, a pretty complex being if he really has created the whole universe as well as myriad complex and diverse life-forms, all from scratch. Intuition strongly suggests that he must be far more complex than anything he's ever created. Some brain-power there all right, and you don't find that squashed into a simple little box of tricks! But this complexity is only the start. He also appears to know how to circumvent all the laws of nature, and, if his advocates are to be believed, he had no beginning and will have no end. Now the thing is that, in order to believe in him, we have to start by suspending our disbelief that the laws of nature can be breached. Well, as I suppose they're his laws, let's assume he can do what he likes with 'em! We have to also assume that he has good reason for never showing his hand. Oh well, he is supposed to work in mysterious ways.

The trouble with all this is that, in order for him to have any credibility, we have to make a mass of assumptions. It wouldn't be half so bad if all those people who want to believe in him would agree on those assumptions, but they don't. One minute he's the big cheese up there with a beard, next minute he's down here personified as Jesus, next minute he's some kind of underlying force that drives everything, like a wind kissing us with life...Blimey!

So for natural selection we have a mass of real evidence and have to make very few assumptions (and the beauty of Darwin is that everything we've discovered in biology since he died has tended to corroborate his idea). A brilliant explanation ratio, in other words. But the common designer, alas, endures a pathetic explanation ratio. We have no evidence and we have to make a mass of assumptions, about his breaching the laws of nature, his eternal existence and his impossible-sounding complexity. And no-one has ever produced even remotely convincing evidence that they have ever seen him.

So weigh the two "opponents" up. Applying what's left of any rationality I still possess to the choice, I think I'm going with natural selection. I do like evidence, you see! I can't categorically dismiss the possibility of a designer out of hand, but from a personal perspective I'd score the two at, lessee, about 99.9999999% for natural selection and evolution and about 0.00000001% for the designer. Not much of an insurance policy there if I'm wrong, but hey-ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:14 AM

He don't need no introductory books, Lighter. Origin is a lovely read, even though it's tautly-argued with no flannel. You do have to keep your concentration, a bit like getting the most of hearing a great symphony. You can get versions with pictures to leaven the task slightly. Don't forget, Darwin was writing before the days of the technical language that can befuddle the uninitiated who chance a delve into modern genetics and evolution.

I like the dog turd scenario, Musket. Brilliant! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM

i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds.


FWIW, an article in the Guardian happened to ponder that question a few days ago:

Could pterosaurs really fly?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 11:31 AM

Consider this scenario.

Six thousand years ago God created feathered dinosaurs, which could not fly. He created birds, which could. He created creatures that resembled both: maybe some could fly, maybe they couldn't.

Then, he set things up so that millions of bits of evidence discovered by our God-given intellect, would fool us into thinking that none of that happened, that instead the earth was billions of years old, that evolution is real, and that birds almost certainly evolved from certain kinds of dinosaurs.

Dos that seem likely to you? That God would go out of His way to *trick us* into not believing His own Biblical word? If you think that's what happened, you should be prepared to explain why God is a hoaxer, and why He went to such lengths to deceive us. If it's to "test our faith," then he set reason up not as a complement to faith but as faith's enemy. How benevolent a God would that be?

Or was belief in evolution inspired by the devil? If you think so, you should remember that the devil can't do anything without God's permission because God is omnipotent. Would God make a deal with the devil?

Well, He did where Job was concerned, which raises a larger question. Do you really believe human life is a joke sprung by an all-loving God who then makes deals with the devil to test human beings (whom He knows are gullible, since He created them) in ways He knows will lead more and more of them into atheism and, for all we know, eternal punishment? What would be the point?

Is the universe just a game set up for all but Biblical literalists to lose? Or is reason (which Adam and Eve were forced to use in order to survive after The Fall) really a tool of deception and evil?

Those, it seems to me, are the choices: evolution revealed by reason or some kind of enormous cosmic hoax.

(I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God - the Vatican's view, by the way - but that's not in line with Creationist or literalist thinking, which is the subject here.)

So which is it? And why?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 11:39 AM

"you say your machine proves feathers and my sources wisps/collogen?"

The synchrotron (which is not 'my' machine - I've never seen one) is used for studying the microstructure of feathers (amongst other things) and reading the chemical signatures in them. It doesn't 'prove' feathers at all. As for the collagen theory, that was disproved years ago, so do keep up. I don't know what you mean by 'wisps'.

"i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds"

So? Because you said it then it must be true? Well, feathers are a derived character that have only evolved once as far as we know. We have that pathway, we understand the way feathers form and we also knew before finding feathers on dinosaurs that birds were actually dinosaurs themselves. The adaptions that led to flight didn't occur in one morphological frenzy, but occurred stepwise over hundreds of millions of years.


"Is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer?"

Science doesn't ignore the possibility of a common designer, it's just zero evidence that stands up to any scrutiny has ever been discovered that supports the existence of a designer. Not a scrap. You can't count the Bible as it's the old testament represents the scrawlings of a load of (not particularly) imaginative desert tribesmen. It's not evidence, it's unsupported by any factual data at all and even the many writers over the years who have proposed dates for the creation of the earth by god can't agree, with estimates ranging between 20,000 - 3600 years ago. The reason for this is they are making the date up.

"sure you can put it more tech and accurate to evolutionary theory but hopefully i got the drift'

Pete, I'm going to let you into a little secret. I'm thick. Stupid. Dense. I struggle to form my words into coherent sentences and I have to wrestle my thoughts onto the page. I'm not joking, I am quite fucking ignorant. But here's the thing: I'm trying, to the best of my limited capabilities not to be, to better myself through learning about the world I live in, and palaeontology is my way of doing that, as it encompasses many aspects of science and asks some pretty big questions, which remain big despite the efforts of people such as yourself to corrupt the ideas they raise to fit your myopic dogma. So don't come all that "I can't understand because I'm not clever enough" crap any more. It's boring and I don't believe it.

"higher life form?-well i suppose if a man is of no more value than a monkey,a mouse or the muck we was supposed to have come from?"

OK, this is where I get a tad heated. The idea that man is a 'higher life form' is patently absurd, destructive, disrespectful, dangerous and inherently evil. Our 'dominion' over nature is based on our ability to destroy it, to kill that which we don't understand. In pogroms, the holocaust and in countless wars the enemy are portrayed as 'animals' or 'subhuman', giving those with power the right to inflict unimaginable suffering and death on millions. This whole concept, with it's arrogant, anthropocentric and utterly heartless central conceit of man being 'higher' than the rest of the natural world came to being because some nameless dirtwad wrote it down a few thousand years ago. The poison in this idea has caused, and continues to cause, has meant untold suffering across the world for both humans and the beings unfortunate enough to share the planet with us.

I can't articulate my contempt for that mean, nasty and evil verse. Is a man of more value than a monkey or a mouse? How do you judge value? Do you have the right to? You might say that right was god-given; I will say you have no right at all and should show some humility.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM

An excellent demolition of the creationists' case, if I may say so, Sugarfoot Jack?
Like you I am constantly sickened and appalled by the "man is a higher life form" dogma and its horrific effect on the world around me. I suspect that the next couple of generations are destined to find out the hard way just how wrong that obscene, shitty assumption really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 12:37 PM

All this hassle for a mere theory that you can't prove...
Welcome to too much time on your hands!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM

more on cladistics from following Peter Labans link

You MUST realize, Pete, that evolution is so very much more complicated than the fairly simplistic way Creation.com tends to analyze it by taking concepts 'out of context' and then interpreting them in ways that by definition do not contradict their biblical presuppositions.

99% of scientists CAN quote chapter & verse showing not only what their conclusions are, but also the evidence & reasoning that got them there.

*I* can quote many interesting and crucial parts of the King James bible, but nowhere in the bible is the substantive basis for its validity.... that is why the words "faith" and "belief" exist... to refer to stuff that cannot be tested- much less proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:10 PM

Is that more or less the 'faith' and 'beliefs' it takes to believe Darwin?..Who BTW, re-canted his whole rap?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM

If you can even ask that, GfS, you do not comprehend the basic difference between **believing** Darwin -- and studying and understanding the science and reasoning involved in working out the relevance of what Darwin brought to our attention!

(You don't..ummm.. "re-cant" something unless you find better evidence. ANYONE who claims to didn't understand it well enough to have an opinion!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:39 PM

'Who BTW, re-canted his whole rap?"

Reference?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:39 PM

*Darwin* recanted?

Please give the passage and the details.

Perhaps you're thinking of superstar evangelist Marjoe Gortner, who revealed in 1972 that he'd really been an unbeliever for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 02:04 PM

Well, Lighter, I did look it up..and on this link this paragraph wound up the post:

"CON 3

First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue, but it is something that comes up frequently. Darwin did not recant. He was not an atheist either. Darwin moved from an anemic orthodoxy in his early years to a nonorthodox theism in his middle years to agnosticism in his senior years. Reports of Darwin's alleged conversion have been common in some evangelical circles. None of Darwin's biographers report such an experience, and there are no other records of it. Even a study of the letters written by Charles Darwin between the time of his alleged conversion and the time of his death clearly reveal that he experienced no such change of mind and heart. As far as can be determined, Darwin remained an evolutionist and an agnostic to the day of his death."

It appears that he did not 're-cant'.
...but, as the link said "First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue,...."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 02:28 PM

"...but, as the link said "First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue,...."

Credit for this much, GFS, you admitted the recant-by-Darwin is a myth. But you were the only one who brought it up, and I'd bet you were quite happy to let it stand if you hadn't been called on it. There remains that stinky little suspicion as to whether you knew better in the first place, and thought you could get away with announcing that Darwin was moving production of evolution to China to score points.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 03:37 PM

Well Froggie, It was a piece of common misinformation' that was out there...and at least I made it right...nonetheless, Darwin's Theory is just a theory, and not a proven fact...if you read on.
Some people hold onto the 'Big-Bang' Theory...maybe we're still in the middle of the 'bang'!
Regardless, in the premise I laid down, about man evolving still holds true to both 'creationists' AND 'evolutionists'.
I mean, how many people on here walk around during the day pondering the two?..or even worse yet, is I think you're a buffoon and have no value as a person because you believe one over the other!
Either way, I still believe that we should be loving one another..and this IS the path........

...and if not, have it your way..you piece of worthless crap!

Just for what it's worth...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 03:47 PM

All this hassle for a mere theory that you can't prove...

{He rattles on at us because we won't watch his hours of silly video. But he can't even take in one very, very simple idea, can he, no matter how often we say it.)

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 04:32 PM

Because certain persons on this thread cannot or will not adapt to the requirements of a logic environment, I suggest letting it die out naturally.

Darwin is buried in Canterbury Cathedral. He didn't recant. Even religious leaders like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama accept the scientific findings of evolution. Biblical literalists and creationists lack even one leg to stand on.

Like it or not, you're stuck with it. The end.

Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 04:35 PM

No Steve, that's not why I 'rattle on'....you've been rattling about the video THAT YOU NEVER WATCHED!
How sane is that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 06:21 PM

I rattle on about quantum mechanics in the pub but I've never see a quark. At lesdt there is a reason for that. To do with sight being photon dependent.   Goofus' s video has to lack reason due to the bollocks he says is the conclusion.

The last video I saw was Men in Black 3 and I'm not sure some of that was true. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 06:40 PM

Figures!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 04:29 AM

Just in passing, GfS, I wonder if you can clear up a point that has been puzzling me? That is, how can you be a Guest FROM an abstract noun (i.e. 'Sanity')?

I suppose that your nom-de-plume would make more sense if you were from a PLACE called 'Sanity'. Is there such a place, I wonder? Are you, in fact, a denizen of ... oh I don't know ... Sanity, Missouri or somewhere?

And, if it makes any grammatical sense at all, what is your nom-de-plume supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that you are saner than others? If this is the case, isn't this a rather sweeping assumption? In what way are you saner than others who contribute to this board?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:05 AM

Easy. Guest from sanity is easy to condense into the far more logical Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:46 AM

I will (rather reluctantly) reserve judgement, Musket, until I hear from GfS himself/herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:22 AM

I'm a little surprised that amongst the futile attempts to involve pete, Guest from Sanity and Chongo in rational debate, nobody batted an eyelid at Lighter's "I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:50 AM

I'm a little surprised that amongst the futile attempts to involve pete, Guest from Sanity and Chongo in rational debate, nobody batted an eyelid at Lighter's "I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God".

Well, quite. I have prattled on about this several times before. At least s/he said "might" and didn't put a figure on it. Bolting on God in that way turns a beautiful story into an inelegant and clumsy hybrid notion. I'd like to know at what point God could possibly have intervened in order to make stuff happen. Seems to me like the laws of nature take care of all it, but hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 08:10 AM

Aren't we touchy?

Evolution is the subject at the moment. Perhaps I should have said, "might possibly, conceivably, and without flying in the face any absolute supercosmic law of ineffable existence that anyone is aware of, be guided."   

When the most highly educated theologians of every faith concede in principle that Darwin was right, it certainly makes the Creationist position look...well, choose an adjective.

Particularly since the theologians can't logically be charged with being slaves to atheistical, hubristic science.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a reply to yesterday's Big Question, "Is the Cosmos a Just a Con Game?" and please explain your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 10:50 AM

""I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God".

That is a perfectly fair sentence IF it means that some 'god' ***might*** have pushed the Big Bang button 14 billion years ago. It plays hell with Occam's Razor, because it then requires all sorts of speculation about how & why there was a 'god'... and where he got a button.

I like the idea because it does give fundamentalists a way to accept evolution as "God's mechanism" and stop trying to deny all the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:08 AM

Occam's Razor doesn't have the force of a logical law: it's a useful guideline for investigation.

Sometimes it can mislead, particularly when an unchallenged premiss turns out to be wrong, or when a previously unknown factor is suddenly revealed to be operative.

But to hell with that. Is the Cosmos a Con Game? Or, for those who prefer a choice, Is Reason the Devil's Tool? And please explain your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:16 AM

I'm gonna borrow a bit from another thread to compare examples of thought:

"....at least those who were REALLY floating above the operating table KNOW what they're talking about!"      GFS

Yes, they know what they're talking about; they are talking about an experience in which it honestly seemed to them that they were floating up there. Neither of us is a know-allogist about it. You don't know for a fact that they were floating up there, and I don't know for a fact that they weren't. FP

Yeah..all we got is the 'testimony' of the witnesses....
What do you got?    GFS

All this hassle for a mere theory that you can't prove... GFS

Those who accept the reality of evolution have overwhelming evidence from genetics and every other branch of biology, from zoology, physical anthropology, geology…
What do you got?      FP

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:19 AM

interesting that this thread has been overwhelmed by the creationist/intelligent design vs. natural selection argument...


where are the Astrologers or Alchemists fighting for their beliefs vs astromony or chemistry?

horoscopes vs the Hubble telescope?

life on this planet is a temporary situation... and not just on the individual level... long before our little star dies, the change in solar radiation will make planetary body number 3 uninhabitable...

maybe our species... or some other species.... will move on to other worlds... I can only hope that they will leave this argument behind when they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM

> long before our little star dies, the change in solar radiation will make planetary body number 3 uninhabitable...

If the government doesn't interfere, maybe the private sector will be able to fix that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:56 AM

Oops. I forgot the requisite Irony Alert on that one.

Sorry if I've mislead.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 12:57 PM

Lighter

Aren't we touchy?

When it comes to intruding God into scientific theories, yes.

Evolution is the subject at the moment. Perhaps I should have said, "might possibly, conceivably, and without flying in the face any absolute supercosmic law of ineffable existence that anyone is aware of, be guided."

Well, you can say that if you like, but it's nothing to do with Darwin's theory which is " The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". It is somewaht fundamental to the theory that evolution is NOT guided by supernatural forces or anything else.

My real point was that, although various people seem to be quite prepared to argue with pete, who is a self declared believer in the literal truth of the Bible, Guest from Sanity , who appears to be deranged, and Chongo, who is a fictional chimpanzee, nobody seems to be prepared to address your challenge to scientific orthodoxy which only differs from Creationism by degree not principle. Those three seem to be beyond reason but I would have thought that you were still open to persuasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 01:05 PM

good one, Lighter   lol

I remember when I first realized that the original air pollutant was ... drumroll... O2 ... from those pesky photosynthetic organisms.... :)

and not too long ago I watched a show that discussed the expected changes as our sun started to age and the resulting changes in solar radiation would result in the likely demise of photosynthetic organisms and "life on earth" would likely be little different from the original primordial slime.... humbling, don't you think

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM

Well I'm not feeling touchy. The problem is, Lighter, that your suggested notion flies in the face of reason. What you're doing with your evolution-guided-by-God notion is bolting something highly improbable and completely explicable, needlessly, on to something that is very well explained already (almost certainly a complete explanation itself, in fact, for all of life on earth), and which is highly probably true (OK, Snail, I bloody know you're watching....). All that evidence! Self-contained, elegant and in accord with all the laws of nature, working perfectly without add-ons. What you're trying to do is insert Little Red Rooster into the Pastoral Symphony, or blu-takking a crumpled Tracy Emin photocopy on to the Mona Lisa. Your God additive detracts severely from the science. It looks about as good as Bradley Wiggins with stabilisers. But the more thoughtful believers know they can't, in all honesty and rationality, ditch the science. So they have to find a desperate way of inserting God into it instead. This is so common with evolution, but it's just nonsense. Now I'm not saying you either have to ditch one or ditch the other (though they are incompatible, in spite of the strenuous attempts of theologians to deny it), but you have to have some kind of partition in your head, with evolution, done properly without bolt-ons, on one side and God on the other, and just regard God's role as a mystery at best. That should do you. Alternatively, take the rational path, apply the evidence and conclude (inevitably if you're doing this properly) that the possibility of your God existing, whilst not absolutely zero, is vanishingly small.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 03:36 PM

Inexplicably I said explicable instead of inexplicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:32 PM

i looked up the word "tautology" today.basically means a lot of surplus repetitive verbage repeating the same thing-i know,i just done it-LOL.The assurances of the GTE being established fact being pushed ad nausium in my direction is not evidence of fact.
im going to press you on just 2 issues i think have not been answered yet.
chemical evolution/abiogenesis is unscientific as at this time and is taken by darwinists as an article of faith by virtue of an apriori position that it is virtually impossible that there is a God.

despite over 150 years since darwin PREDICTED discovery of fossil evidence of transitional forms there are only a handful of debatable candidates-which will likely join previous candidates since binned.

jack -i note your admission that you are no better than an ignorant animal.just jesting because you know I dont believe that!

lighter-if you want to talk theology specifics ask elsewhere as creation is enough at present

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:54 PM

...and is taken by darwinists as an article of faith by virtue of an apriori position that it is virtually impossible that there is a God.

If you want to have a proper conversation with thinking people you desperately need to desist from making provocative and stupid comments of this kind. There are no articles of faith among "Darwinists". There are conclusions based on evidence. It is not "virtually impossible" that there is a God. The kinds of God described to us by believers in him, especially with regard to his longevity, his breaching of the laws of nature and his incomprehensible complexity, allied to a complete lack of evidence for him, renders the likelihood his existence, in the minds of rational people, highly improbable. There is nothing possible or impossible about it. Why don't you have a rethink and pose your queries again. Better still, start to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM

"Occam's Razor doesn't have the force of a logical law: it's a useful guideline for investigation."

Of course... but that razor is one decent guideline when deciding whether to simply accept a theological statement about 'creation' or **look** for answers that can be tested with math/physics..etc.
   Theology sounds simpler... "God did it." But buried in that are way more complex implications than can even be listed easily.
There is an important logical principle that is seldom appreciated properly: "From false premises, anything follows."
   Thus...**IF* God did notin factdo it, myriads of convoluted theological assertions are suspect, and Willie-O would not have enough blades for his razor.


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

Pete... you are truly NOT appreciating "fossil evidence of transitional forms" properly. I and others have tried to explain this, but you are treating lack of definitive details on transition as 'evidence' for your own unsupported beliefs. You ARE in a real minority, despite your confidence.