BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:18 PM

Steve Shaw.

Time did not start with the Big Bang. Just time that we can measure. Think of the singularity as a wiped, thoroughly formatted hard drive and our science as incapable of analyzing anything other than digital files. Obviously the hard drive existed in some form before we could see data on it. But we have no way of measuring the nature of that existence.

Where did the singularity come from? How long did it exist before it "Banged?" We cannot know.

So tell me more about this "time" that we can't measure. You sound as confused as I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:21 PM

Righto Pete. I can't find a citiation for the Gould quote, so am not sure of it's context so if you could supply one I'd be grateful and I'll look it up. It could be he did day it, but ~I can't find where or when so it's over to your good self.w

"there are many creationist scientists now and many in the past-under whose biblical worldview science flourished."

Citations to support this argument please - of peer-reviewed papers published in the usual literature. I would like to read these papers.

"i am impressed that you can reel off so many scientific disciplines.i could,nt-even less know enough about them to assert that they all attest to any theories verity."

Don't be (I suspect you're still taking the piss). However, with respect you also know rag all about geology and palaeontology but still feel qualified enough to pronounce on the inaccuracy and apparent dishonesty of much that I have presented in this thread. The fact is, how the fuck do you know whether you're right or not if you don't know anything about the subject. Where do you get your facts from?

"the fact that most scientists [say they ]believe darwinism is not a valid argument"

You know what I'm going to say. Put up or shut up time! I can't wait to see which scientists are eschewing natural selection. Fill yer boots. Shock me.

One more thing that bugs me. Much of the dogma you have expounded in this thread is widely available in creationist websites. How come you believe them without question? You obviously question my motivation for posting here, so do you ever question theirs.

My motivation? Truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:52 PM

Pete... The only reason that transitional fossils are missing is that most of them didn't die in a convenient place! They were eaten, or burned, or just generally broken up by nature like the bones of the chicken you had for dinner and disposed of.

As I have noted several times before, if most transitional fossils HAD been saved, there would not be enough museums on Earth to display them! However...every year MORE transitional fossils are found in various places. How many will it take to convince you that evolution DID happen, if if it was a god who designed it?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 01:23 PM

Gfs, would you mind providing us with a legitimate description of God, as he would be understood if churches and religion hadn't messed up our understanding for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 02:21 PM

pete,

You creationists are not very hot on logic, are you? As I understand your 'philosophy', the Earth (or, possibly, the Universe?) was created 6,000 years ago and it's all in the Bible - and because the Bible is 'the word of God' it must be true (?)

But when you post on here all that you seem to come up with are 'criticisms' of current scientific knowledge. But even if (big IF) you, and your creationist chums, have found genuine inconsistencies, they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE. First, you cannot look for holes in the scientific data and then just insert God into the holes. Second, the biblical description of creation cannot represent the sole resolution of any inconsistencies that you may find (or think you've found); there may be a plethora of other explanations.
So, by continuously posting criticisms of current scientific knowledge your are wasting your time - you will not convince anyone of anything - and certainly not convert anyone to your biblical creation 'model'.

I don't expect you to respond to this post, by the way. You obviously only hear what you want to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:52 PM

Reappearing just to say that Pete's quote from Stephen J. Gould is accurately reproduced from Natural History Magazine (May, 1977), p. 14.

Gould did not believe that the "rarity" was entirely due to haphazard fossilization.

He never "got it in the neck from Darwin believers," BTW. Quite the contrary. And he never regretted saying it (except to observe that creationists completely distorted the sense of what he wrote).

There's more to it than that. But the rest is up to you....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:10 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, he was talking horse sense.

It was a feeble joke the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any better.

Don't get me too enmeshed in the physics of that stuff, but what I said is how I understand it.

In other words, you don't understand it. Neither do I. You need advanced degrees in theoretical physics to even come close. (I started out in chemistry then moved into genetics and evolution.) We don't (and cannot) know whether any of it is true, we just have to trust that the people who are doing the work are following proper scientific principals. We come dangerously close to taking it on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:12 PM

GUEST,Shimrod

You creationists are not very hot on logic, are you?
...
I don't expect you to respond to this post, by the way. You obviously only hear what you want to hear.

It's taken you this long to notice?

Why are people trying to engage in rational debate with irrational people?

And as for GfS....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:23 PM

Yes, Snail, I'm afraid you're right. I was engaging in a futile exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:46 PM

Steve Shaw

>Well, he was talking horse sense.

It was a feeble joke the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any better.

It was a different joke second time, Mr Po-Face.

>Don't get me too enmeshed in the physics of that stuff, but what I said is how I understand it.

In other words, you don't understand it. Neither do I. You need advanced degrees in theoretical physics to even come close. (I started out in chemistry then moved into genetics and evolution.) We don't (and cannot) know whether any of it is true, we just have to trust that the people who are doing the work are following proper scientific principals [sic]. We come dangerously close to taking it on faith.

Well, my dodgy mathematical credentials make comprehension of such matters difficult but I do my best. I don't even come close to taking anything on faith, so speak for yourself. I don't know how many times I've said it, but I require evidence for any assertion put to me that is beyond my current state of knowledge or understanding. And there is never any need to be so defeatist as to take anything on trust from anyone. All you have to do is ask for evidence. A good scientist is a good communicator and can give you their ideas in words of one syllable. Like I did with pete and natural selection (OK, cribbed from Richard Dawkins...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:18 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, my dodgy mathematical credentials make comprehension of such matters difficult but I do my best.

So do you fully understand all the theory behind the Big Bang? Have you, or have you not, assessed all the evidence for yourself and concluded that The Big Bang Theory offers the best explanation for the Universe as we observe it?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:28 PM

PS

It was a different joke second time

But just as feeble.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:49 PM



Of course not. And I am not able to assess all the evidence as my poor brain can't take it all in. But I've read what I can and I'm listening to the arguments proposed on the basis of evidence (some of which I get, some of which is beyond me). Whilst I'm still slightly agnostic about it, in general I do feel that it is the best explanation currently available. My agnosticism is predicated partly on the fact that no scientist is anything like certain of the nature of the origin of the universe but mostly on my inability to absorb some of the evidence. But all that's perfectly OK in my book. I do try and I do have to get on with life.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:54 PM

And when you say just as feeble, I do at least note your implied acknowledgement that it was a different horse joke. If you disagree, I'm sure you'll flick your widdicks in indignation and say "neigh, lad."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 01:23 AM

Actually we are talking apples and oranges. Froggie actually asked a fair question...which would be great to get into!...but this whole BUSINESS of reducing "God" into a religious box is staggering on the amount of damage it has caused to peoples potential to view a lot larger reality!

Here, I gave you three distinctly 'diverse' people who all tapped into something unseen, and created wonders.....Beethoven, Jesus and Tesla...and they all had something in common.(There are a lot more..but I wasn't planning on writing another thesis on Mudcat!)
All stood the test of time, and all ahead of their time...and all tapped into the unseen. Beethoven called it 'God'..Jesus called it "My Father who sent Me", Tesla says 'God' as well.
Scientists and psychologists agree they don't know why music works, how it works, or where composers go to get their 'inspiration' or 'channeling'...some scientists point to the possibility of a parallel universe or dimension....but this thing the do know, that it activates more neurons in the brain than any other activity on the planet...at present..including sex...Good Lord, where Beethoven must have plugged into!
So I'll leave you this for now to whomever, and Froggie...Beethoven, Jesus and Tesla tapped into something free for all humanity to plug into and have the benefits from..and access is open....to those who..........(?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:16 AM

Scientists and psychologists agree they don't know why music works, how it works, or where composers go to get their 'inspiration' or 'channeling'...some scientists point to the possibility of a parallel universe or dimension....but this thing the do know, that it activates more neurons in the brain than any other activity on the planet...at present..including sex...

Do investigate "weasel words" (wiki is quite good). It just might help you to avoid, in future, writing drivel like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM

""Beethoven, Jesus and Tesla tapped into something free for all humanity to plug into and have the benefits from..and access is open....to those who..........(?)""

What a sneaky example of false juxtaposition.

Take two people whose life history is well known and sandwich between them a man who (if he existed) was reported to have preached certain very compelling ideals, which any moralist would have found quite obvious, by men who did their reporting many years after his death.

Voila, evidence for God...........NOT!

Music is basically a mathematical construct, and like so many of that ilk, can exhibit great beauty when manipulated by one who has a particular feel for its relationships, hence Beethoven and many other great composers. Beethoven may have ascribed his success to God, but that was the limit of his knowledge showing through, since he was unaware of the mathematical aspect and composed by instinct.

It can also exhibit horrendous degrees of ugliness when mishandled. e.g. 1960s "Quarter ear music" consisting of the most horrid discords.

Tesla, I won't bother with, irrelevant or some such animal.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:45 AM

Beethoven may have ascribed his success to God

I should like to see Guffaw's evidence for this. Beethoven was given to rather high-flown language at times, but his feet were very much on the ground and he believed in helping yourself and grafting to achieve what you wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 09:51 AM

Steve Shaw: "The great thing is, most gustiferous one, that your posts are relatively entertaining. The only difficulty is that I don't read them. Christ, I used to..."

Steve Shaw: "Scientists and psychologists agree they don't know why music works, how it works, or where composers go to get their 'inspiration' or 'channeling'...some scientists point to the possibility of a parallel universe or dimension....but this thing the do know, that it activates more neurons in the brain than any other activity on the planet...at present..including sex...

Do investigate "weasel words" (wiki is quite good). It just might help you to avoid, in future, writing drivel like this."

I thought you weren't reading them...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM

I lied. I wanted you to think I was out of your way so that you could talk even bigger entertaining crap. My underhand ploy seems to be working.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 04:22 PM

an admission of dishonesty on steves part...??!
does he lie?--well the ref indicated he told the truth this time-ie he is telling the truth that he lied...
i shall not accuse him of dishonesty where he appears to say i reject natural selection,-and jack infers the same.maybe oversight rather than deliberate equivocation?
creationists are quite aware that there is information encoded in species that can give rise to variation and that mutational change may confer survival advantage in certain environments.there is for eg no quarrel that darwins finches adapted according to food source but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution.
i have said this many times but just to reiterate-there is natural selection.i dont accept that develops one species beyond what is coded in it.do you know of any mutation that has added information?
oops-was that another tautology?!

thankyou lighter,that was very fair of you.
goulds admission is not the only one by evolutionists, and demands that i provide ref will only be met with -go look it up,like i,m often told!

shimrod -as you were quite civil,i will respond.
yes i do accept creation because the bible says so, but i think that in general science supports creation inasmuch that no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause and as i said before there is nothing scientific about saying that the absence of anything and everything can somehow arrive at a singularity that explodes...etc etc
you accept that on faith!
just because the bible is old does not mean it is unreliable.i take that as trustworthy on what i believe is a reasonable faith.
no -i dont expect to convert you but you never know!
and someone less entrenched may consider the arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:07 PM

Pete: "an admission of dishonesty on steves part...??!
does he lie?-"

The worst lie is when we lie to ourselves..and close off 'life', and its intelligence and instincts.
Less information is available to you, because your delusion, blocks out the info you really need.

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:18 PM

"".there is for eg no quarrel that darwins finches adapted according to food source but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution""

Oh for fuck's sake Pete.

I come to your defence on the basis that your posts represent hionest beliefs, and you come up with utter crap like that.

I give up.

You are now truly on your own here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:40 PM

but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution.

Well, you put that incredibly clumsily, but yes they do.

have said this many times but just to reiterate-there is natural selection.i dont accept that develops one species beyond what is coded in it.do you know of any mutation that has added information?
oops-was that another tautology?!

Of course mutations "add information". I mean, as with everything you say, it was a completely shite way of putting it. Mutations occasionally result in novelties that give natural selection "more information" to work on. Your problem is that you regurgitate this stuff from God knows where else, and it comes out like the usual regurgitated stuff, namely, puke.

no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause and as i said before there is nothing scientific about saying that the absence of anything and everything can somehow arrive at a singularity that explodes...etc etc
you accept that on faith!

There is an abundance of evidence for the Big Bang. Sure, we don't know (yet) what happened in the first ten to the minus 15 of a second after the Big Bang, but that isn't too bad in a span of 13 billion years, and we're closing in. On the other hand there is not one scrap of evidence for your alternative. I mean, it's all right to invent a "sufficient cause" in the way you do, but, you see, we have evidence for our sufficient cause but you not only don't have evidence but you suggest a sufficient cause that breaks all the laws of physics. At least we don't have to resort to that desperate measure. It is scientific to present what evidence we have and to suggest the best possible conclusion from it. Don't worry, when any alternative evidence comes along (and, unlike you, we're looking hard) we might change our minds.

just because the bible is old does not mean it is unreliable.i take that as trustworthy on what i believe is a reasonable faith.
no -i dont expect to convert you but you never know!

But it isn't evidence. It's the sayings of long-dead men, few if any of whom even came within a hundred years of Jesus, and they might have been lying, and it's wide open to interpretation and duff translation. It is of interest but it is not evidence.

and someone less entrenched may consider the arguments.

You are one of the most entrenched, hands-joined, eyes-closed, one-track minded, insulting eejits it's been my displeasure to come across.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 11:30 PM

Subject: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MtheGM - PM
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 02:28 AM

In one of his novels, Ben Elton makes a character say that he has been told, by one of those who didn't really know either, that this is a question that only stupid people ask.
.,,.
But till this question is answered, the BB is, so, another matter of faith. Never mind about the infinitessimal period right after that Steve refs so eloquently above: what about before? Tho I agree with his entire position re the predominance of evidential Science over 'faith', whatever that is, this question must be responded to before the thing is satisfactorily parcelled up. Though perhaps 'origins' is a separate question from this thread, and my old thread might be refreshed in parallel if anyone so inclined?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 11:50 PM

They're trying....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 04:12 AM

OK, I have enjoyed reading and sometimes participating in this thread but realised a while ago it was never going to get anywhere.

Starry Pete said above that he believes something on the basis that it is in the bible. So why bother trying to rationalise with him? He goes on to refer to science supporting creationism. A bit of a stretch of logic but to be fair to him, the only alternative would be chaos supporting evolution which is asking a lot of the word "chaos" from the established definition.

Where he falls down is smugly assuming his particular book of tales, most of which invoke discredited magic, holds the key to the answer.

Before you seek the answer, you should first phrase your question.

(I came out with all that without using words like superstition, imaginary friends, population control, clappy happy chuffs, dangerous people who should be kept away from kids, sanctimonious hypocrites, institutional bigots and irrelevant remains of society's past. I think I deserve a pint. Thanks, I'll get one or five tonight.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 05:01 AM

Thank you for responding to my post, pete. Nevertheless, you have not addressed the issues I raised, namely:

"But when you post on here all that you seem to come up with are 'criticisms' of current scientific knowledge. But even if (big IF) you, and your creationist chums, have found genuine inconsistencies, they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE. First, you cannot look for holes in the scientific data and then just insert God into the holes. Second, the biblical description of creation cannot represent the sole resolution of any inconsistencies that you may find (or think you've found); there may be a plethora of other explanations.
So, by continuously posting criticisms of current scientific knowledge you are wasting your time - you will not convince anyone of anything ..."

You certainly will not convince me because the biblical explanation that you espouse makes no sense in the light of current knowledge (incomplete though that may be). And to put it as bluntly as I can, I do not trust the motives of religious fundamentalists - history (not to mention current events) suggests that such people are very dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 12:22 PM

steve-i accept that i may put things a bit awkwardly at times.
but if you would like to see [though i doubt it!] the case put by a scientist the lead article on CMI just by co-incidence [maybe!] covers what i said yesterday about mutation-and finches!it is called "speedy species surprise".
there is a comment box at the bottom so may be you can question there.
the tone of your posts however suggests that you are not interested in what the arguments are ,much less have an open mind.
i,at least am up front on my presuppositions.

shimrod-i did mean to add more but time and forgetfulness intervened.
i accept that the biblical testimony is insufficient for the unbeliever but admit that it is the guiding principle for the believer.having said that i know many christians try to manipulate the plain meaning of the text to accomodate the theories of the day.

absence of evidence is also evidence of absence and i have shown that even evolutionary believers have admitted the insufficiency of the theory.
into such absences the atheist posits yet unknown discoveries.
the creationist scientist however works on the basis of a creator and as someone said are "thinking Gods thoughts after him"
it was in a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides.the notion that a creationist perpective hinders useful science is nonsence.darwin dogma has hindered science as i previously demonstrated.
i also think the "dangerous" assertion is a gross exageration when compared to the atheist record.but thats been done to death previously.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 02:15 PM

darwin dogma has hindered science as i previously demonstrated.

Well, I haven't got the time to address all the rest of the drivel in your post, but let's just take a look at this little gem. It contains three bare-faced lies, so well done! The first is that there is such a thing as "Darwin dogma". There is a theory of natural selection on which thousands of scientists have worked hard, using the scientific method, to add further corroborating evidence or to refute. That is not how dogma is arrived at. As you yourself are the king of blind dogma, I'm amazed you made that mistake. Second, that Darwin's work hindered science. In fact, Darwin's big idea revolutionised biology and is still doing so. The only thing that Darwin hindered was the continuing occupation of the place usurped by the God squad for their non-existent hero in the great scheme of things. Third, that you "demonstrated" that Darwin hindered science. That is such an incredibly ignorant and insulting remark, but I can't work up much annoyance because I'm so busy laughing at your crass stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 02:54 PM

" ... i have shown that even evolutionary believers have admitted the insufficiency of the theory ..."

You've shown nothing of the sort! You have highlighted, what you believe to be, gaps in the current model - and then you've shoved God into the gaps!

For the hundred, millionth, billionth time (haven't I told you never to exaggerate?) science is NOT an unchangeable, unassailable monolith like your religion. Scientific models can be subject to change with new evidence. But, having said that, most current scientific models are built on very firm foundations. Don't expect, any time soon, a scientist to say: "Oh no! We got it all completely wrong - it must have been God wot dun it!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 03:04 PM

Steve Shaw
The first [lie] is that there is such a thing as "Darwin dogma".

Previously from Steve Shaw
Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 07:33 PM

""absence of evidence is also evidence of absence""

Here Pete you shoot yourself through both feet, even as you stuff the pair of them in your mouth.

For if you were correct, you just offered proof that there is NO God, the absence of evidence being evidence of HIS absence.


""it was in a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides.""

Wrong again! It was in spite of a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides. And it would have done so more quickly and more effectively without the stifling effect of that biblical world view.

The church wanted science to prove the biblical view correct, and when it didn't, people like Galileo were imprisoned or forced to recant.

The greatest scientific advances all took place after the church lost its complete control of the population.

2/10 for historical knowledge! Must do better!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:10 PM

Steve Shaw
The first [lie] is that there is such a thing as "Darwin dogma".

Previously from Steve Shaw
Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true.

OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood. What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour. Now evolution is indeed true in its main tenets. It will never be be overthrown in that regard, and you know it (well, unless you're a closet God-squadding creationist, something I have occasionally suspected about you, actually). We have long since gone past the point at which the general principle of natural selection can be questioned. Nuts and bolts, deliciously yes, and don't you just relish all the hard science still to come, but overall thrust, never. Why? because it's true. It isn't true because I say so (dogma) - it's true because the evidence and the corroboration from related fields of biology is so overwhelming that no-one with any credibility at all is ever going to try to deny it. Now you can swivel around all you like, agonising as to whether the word "true" should ever be used for anything (maybe the word scares you), but I'm using it here and now. Evolution in its main tenets is truer than true. And, slug-with-shell, do you know something? Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true. So why don't you just bugger off, stop being so stultifyingly annoying and go and look stuff up. I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:34 PM

..."no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause..."

Um...Pete... this true, but trivial. It is 'almost' a tautology and proves **nothing** about what kind of cause in this case. We who accept evolution do not KNOW what the "sufficient cause" (more narrowly, the "remote cause") was. We are interested in speculating about it, but we do not need an absolute answer.

Stating that "god did it" because the bible says so and god inspired the bible is simply circular... the 'proof' is included in the assumptions!

You know, all this is not really necessary... no one can fault you for 'believing' that some supreme Being set everything in motion, but we can and DO fault you for rejecting the hard evidence of science for WHEN it happened and how everything developed AFTER 'creation'.

It is simply, flatly, clearly impossible for all that IS on the Earth to be only a few thousand years old. It DID take hundreds of millions of years for many complex changes to bring about the things we see...and are.
Your 'faith'...which you have admitted was late in coming and as a result of listening to other men in a fundamentalist church... is impressive, but is very insular and leaves you in an awkward position.
If you are happy there... *shrug*.. fine. The reason so many of us debate you is that we worry about bad reasoning infecting others and affecting real studies and science.

take care....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

no one can fault you for 'believing' that some supreme Being set everything in motion,

Well, that's very kind of you, Bill, but wide of the mark unfortunately. No-one could fault an indoctrinated child or someone who has been brainwashed into thinking that he will go to hell if he briefs against God, but your buddy pete is in neither category. He comes here and exposes himself deliberately to views that are at odds with his own strange and pig-ignorant prejudices, but he then chooses to not listen. Not to you, me or anyone else. Now any minute now he will be back here thanking you for your lovely, courteous reply, etc., as he has a hundred times before. But he will not have listened. He is the champion of champion piss-takers, and you are his numero uno sucker.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 04:18 AM

Well, Pete once more ducked my questions and avoided addressing anything head on, still fills his posts with remarkable contradictions and inaccuracies and is infuriatingly evasive. Thing is, I really don't think he knows what exactly he's defending.

Ha ha! Charade you are!

I've got science to do. Good luck the rest of you.

Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 11:41 AM

Steve... I debate *ideas*, and try very hard not to get into speculation about the personalities of those I talk to.... not with Pete, not even with you.
I see the temptation to throw derogatory remarks at those who don't seem to have MY enlightened approach *wry smile*, but it never helps. I try to type as if I were sitting across from a person in real time. If they insult ME, I will simply leave and cease talking to them. This has happened once in my 16 years at Mudcat.... and Pete has not done that. I am sad & frustrated that he... who I am assured by two people who know him is a nice guy... fails to see certain points. I just will not insult him. I actually worry more about why YOU feel YOU must. You & I agree on the logic & science, but..... *shrug*
(You realize, Steve, that there are FAR worse ideas and attitudes than Pete's version of fundamental views to cope with in this world...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM

Bill. Fundamentalist views of the kind that deny evolution and which take holy books literally have done a massive amount of damage to humanity and have kept millions of people not only ignorance but in a state of religious repression. The lie of creationism is no more than a blunt instrument of control of people's minds. "Nice guys" do not go about denying science and propagating intolerant and misguided mythology as truth. If pete had his way the human race would be thrown back into some kind of superstition-ridden dark age. There are enough elements of that pervading major organised religions already without pete and his ilk adding further layers of pig-ignorant denial of reality. Pete is severely misguided and deluded. You might be correct in thinking he isn't actually wicked in his intentions but I wouldn't be so sure. He has backing from some very nasty people. His refusal to listen or address any points of fact put to him make him sound just like somebody else's stooge. You indulge him with your softly-softly attitude and he plays gleefully on that by pretending to be all diffident and humble. Well bugger that. Tell it like it is, or he'll make an even bigger mug of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 02:52 PM

Steve Shaw: (to Pete).."OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood. What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour. Now evolution is indeed true in its main tenets. It will never be be overthrown in that regard, and you know it (well, unless you're a closet God-squadding creationist, something I have occasionally suspected about you, actually)."

Does this qualify as a rabid, frothing fundamentalist, or what?
There is NO reasoning with this kind of 'devotion' for an unprovable THEORY!

Such FAITH..it's amazing!!...AND, as far as I'm concerned on here, I haven't even promoted creationism!....but Steve, you are over the top with being a closed minded jerk-off!....which brings us back 'on topic':....."Alternative to Science??"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM

"..."Nice guys" do not go about denying science and propagating intolerant and misguided mythology as truth. "

Sure they do... some of them. I fight as hard as you do against those who try to take over institutions in the name of some religion... or who tell ME what I 'should' believe. Pete has not done that. I suppose he'd not object if many others believed as he does, but he is not involved (as far as I can tell) in any movement to harass ME.

Most people who think and live and worship as Pete does are very little threat... but woe be to those who seek to inflict their religious views on my society & state!

In the USA we have a constant struggle with those who try to get Creationism taught in schools as 'equal' to science. All I do when debating pete is sharpen my own ideas and read HIS...in order to know what to pay attention to.

I assure you... I am no stooge.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 04:48 PM

Steve Shaw
OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.

But all I did was quote a couple of things you said!

What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour.

You're so kind. Still, it's nice to see you back on form. You're still not getting it though are you? It's nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true, it's about how science works and what makes it different from religion. You seem to think that the point is to accumulate such a vast pile of evidence that no-one can deny the truth of a theory. No, that's how religion works; wave a book around and declare it to be true. Science works by diligently searching for something that will DISPROVE the theory. As long as that quest fails, the theory stands. It is impossible to say that the quest will never succeed. Taking that approach to religion gets you burnt at the stake.

Bill D
The reason so many of us debate you [pete] is that we worry about bad reasoning infecting others and affecting real studies and science.

With pete (sic), What You See Is What You Get. He states his position very clearly and sticks to it. He has found a comfortable place which relieves him of the trouble of having to actually think about anything. He simply goes to his creationist websites and looks up the appropriate answer. You are never going to persuade him of anything. People can see exactly where he is coming from and judge accordingly.

Steve, on the other hand, declares himself to be a scientist. He clearly knows a great deal but understands very little. The target audience is not the petes of this world but the middle ranks who possibly have a rather uncommitted attitude to religion and a rather distorted idea of science gleaned from popularising programmes like that Turin Shroud nonsense. Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion and his eagerness to resort to playground abuse is hardly going to win them over. I think he does more harm than pete ever can.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 04:54 PM

bill- the assertion that it is impossible for the earth to only be thousands of years only is obviously not universally accepted even if darwinism is the ruling patadigm at this time.
i do know you dont advocate the numbers game so i can only conclude that it is your belief that that paradigm is true.after all,though much more informed than i am, you cannot know all areas of knowledge and presumably you are not accounting for the presuppositional/worldview influence that affects your interpretation of the data,or your acceptance of other scholars conclusions.
i am ,of course quite ready to admit that i trust the sources i quote [and just to reinforce their writings,quote the evolutioists that recognize the weaknesses of the GTE !]
It seems to me that you concur with steve that "evolution is true" but thankfully without the verbal gutrot that does no favours to his arguments
both you and shimrod say i insert God as explanation, but my contention is that evolutionists insert naturalism into the gaps trusting that later discoveries will validate their faith.
but present day science still only supports life from life and to say that evolution is true so it must have arisen from non life is surely circular reasoning!
jack exiting but saying i did not adress his points.what was that?
he did not address mine - that darwin dogma hindered useful science.
steve did but only by a rant
i also asked what creation belief has ever been a hindrance to useful science.
best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 05:24 PM

BillD: ". He has found a comfortable place which relieves him of the trouble of having to actually think about anything.

AMEN!!...Oh, is it OK to say 'Amen'??....or will it upset the resident mutant gnomes??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 06:08 PM

GfS... that was not me you quoted!

Pete-"you are not accounting for the presuppositional/worldview influence that affects your interpretation of the data,or your acceptance of other scholars conclusions"

I'm sorry Pete, but I am fully aware of what I bring to the discussion. I studied not only science, but the rules of logic and testing of evidence that determine what is relevant AS evidence.
I wish there were an easy way to explain to you the difference between your presuppositions and my 'attitude' about scientific studies.
When you say that my view "is obviously not universally accepted", you miss the point that many, many experts even MORE informed that you OR I have looked at all aspects of the problem and DO accept the basic data & conclusions that science leads to!
I am not sure what it feels like to know that 99% of those who seriously study evolution and Darwin's influence on it totally DISagree with you. You ...and those who tutored you... seem to think that just taking a deep breath and **accepting** the biblical accounts ..plus all the interpretations of biblical accounts by fallible men... is all that is required to 'know the truth'.
   It just doesn't work that way.... reality cannot be 'believed into submission.

Best wishes to you also... but do consider pondering these things from a different angle... and even discussing them with other religious leaders near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 06:29 PM

just been doing some shroud reading.i,m not committed either way but found it interesting that the nail marks exit at least through the wrist as consistent with supporting body weight but inconsistent [unless anyone can cite otherwise] with 14c art.

as regards other post still not addressing points raised - just kindly exhortations to rethink and more appeals to authority-and i did,nt think you played the numbers game bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 06:38 PM

What is "the numbers game"?

Do you mean just trusting the majority? That's not what I do. I do feel that when the majority reaches a conclusion after many many years, one ought to be concerned how they got there! I don't just blindly nod... I look at WHY they say what they do.

Do you not wonder why so relatively few accept creationism?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 07:42 PM

Pete, When the Romans crucified people, they would use a square piece of wood, in which they would drive the nails. This was done to support the body weight.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:05 PM

You seem to think that the point is to accumulate such a vast pile of evidence that no-one can deny the truth of a theory. No, that's how religion works

Christ on a bloody bike, what on earth is the matter with you! The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge. If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth. If you don't think that science is a quest for truth then there's no helping you. And that is not how religion works. What a crassly stupid thing to say. Religion does not seek evidence in any real sense of the word and you know it. Evidence is the enemy of religion. Why don't you think before you open your agenda-laden gob?

Science works by diligently searching for something that will DISPROVE the theory.

Science sets out to disprove nothing. I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry if you think that it sets out to prove or disprove anything at all.

The target audience is not the petes of this world but the middle ranks who possibly have a rather uncommitted attitude to religion and a rather distorted idea of science gleaned from popularising programmes like that Turin Shroud nonsense.

"Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Do demonstrate where I've ever done that. Why don't you do what snails do, which is, to put it politely and biologically, go and mate with yourself instead of coming on here with you insulting, stalking bad attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:13 PM

but woe be to those who seek to inflict their religious views on my society & state!

Cor, Bill, I'll bet they're all shivering in their boots in case you threaten them with a big warm understanding cuddle.

I assure you... I am no stooge.

I didn't say you were, or say that anyone else was, actually. Do try to read.