BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 12 - 10:18 AM

SfJ-
Brilliant. Got a laugh-out-loud visual.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 May 12 - 12:00 PM

Yes indeed, Steve, TIA has it right. One of the things he gets right is to make a clear distinction between "evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". You have, in the past, given the impression that you found that distinction important but seem to have become distinctly less particular as time has gone on. I offered a definition of the former from a university text book a while ago - "Biological evolution means change in the characteristics of descendant populations of organisms.". Do you have any problem with that? That is what TIA describes as a "fact". Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"'. No amount of "Steve says" is going to change that. By the way, I don't think your "general thrust" makes the slightest difference.

I happened to notice that a while ago you said "I only said evolution is true, not any other theory.". What's the difference? Why is evolution (the theory of) different from any other scientific theory?

I look forward to your next display of Yah! Boo! Sucks! playground style abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 12 - 12:53 PM

"What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true""

Actually no... I have pointed out many times (on many threads - particularly the predecessor to this one) that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.

In an attempt to illustrate this identifying and powerful aspect of science I have tried very hard to get pfss to explain the circumstances under which YEC is provisional, while providing the circumstances (which I would actually love to find) that would overturn my belief in evolution.

This is not intended to pick a fight. Just want to be very clear about what I have said about science (because I am quite snoody about what is and what isn't science). I suspect that we agree, yes TheSnail?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 May 12 - 01:01 PM

Indeed we do. I wasn't implying that you thought otherwise, just that you hadn't explicitly said it in that post. You invariably speak good sense.

As you may have noticed, I can get a bit snoody myself.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 12 - 01:14 PM

Hmm. Just picked up on this quote from pete:

"the central doctrine [of science] of purely naturalistic causes is sacresanct"

No it isn't. But if someone hypothesizes a non-naturalistic cause they must also make a prediction about some implication of that hypothesis, and design an experiment to test that prediction.

So let's do that...if the Earth was created 6000 years ago with essentially its current flora and fauna, then we should *not* be able to observe__________________________.

Fill in the blank, and we will come up with the experiment!

Note the formulation of the prediction as a falsifiable "null hypothesis". This is because we can't prove all swans are white by counting white swans, but we can prove *not* all swans are white by finding just a single black one (example stolen from Karl Popper of course).

This challenge is not a trap pete. It is science.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 12 - 08:44 PM

Well, TIA, you don't have to believe in evolution. Only believers have to believe! We have evidence.

Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'.

There ya go, Snail. Clear as mud!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 May 12 - 11:40 PM

?puzzled?
But not confrontational.
Let's talk to pete.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 12 - 05:42 AM

Sure. How much time have we got?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 May 12 - 06:35 AM

Steve Shaw

There ya go, Snail. Clear as mud!

Crystal clear, Steve.

Just as puzzled as TIA. Do you still not get the point?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 May 12 - 07:29 AM

Been reminded of another whose scientific studies were religiously impeded. The other day I saw an add for finding little squares on holiday, and remembered the Campo de Fiori in Rome with its statue fo Giordano Bruno. Didn't post it, as it didn't fit in the argument, but have been reminded again today with a BBC Radio 4 "From our own correspondent" piece on the same place and statue. He did not recant believing that the Earth went round the Sun, and that other stars were also suns, probably with their own planets and life, and wrote to the Pope from prison to say so. For which he was burned to death in the Campo de Fiori.

He also suggested the method of finding extraterrestrial planets by observing their passing in front of their stars. (Probably got the relative sizes wrong.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 12 - 07:50 AM

The Theory of Evolution is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'.

Bwahahaha! You think this statement is crystal clear, huh? Shall we do a poll? Better still, would you care to explain precisely what it means? Careful now - we have our dictionaries to hand, you know! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 May 12 - 08:35 AM

You think this statement is crystal clear, huh?

Yes. I don't think I can do better than TIA's precision.

If you don't think it is clear, why did you say "Tia has it right."?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 May 12 - 08:50 AM

Y'know the root of all of this is the difference between being curious and seeking knowledge as opposed to wanting pat answers that people think they find in "The Bible" that do not require questioning. It requires intellectual insecurity and uncertainty to question. Many people lack the courage to live with that uncertainty.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 12 - 10:46 AM

Righto Saul.
In the words of Anthropologist Matt Cartmill;
"As a youth I craved certainty, so I became a scientist...that's a bit like becoming an Archbishop to meet girls."

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 05 May 12 - 11:14 AM

The process of natural selection as identified by Darwin is just that, a process. It has since been called 'evolution' as a result of the hypothesis which was developed to explain that process. The hypothesis is called the theory of evolution. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the word 'evolution' has been applied to the observable process rather than kept just as the label for the theory.
To describe a theory as true goes against scientific method because in scientific terms the word 'true' is an absolute -to say something is true means that it cannot be challenged or denied, such a stance would be unscientific which is why, at best, scientists will only go so far as to acknowledge a provisional truth (which is probably an oxymoron).
We can observe the process of evolution experimentally, we cannot observe the theory of evolution because it is an intellectual construct which has been developed to explain the observable process. It remains possible that another theory could be developed to explain what we currently call evolution in different terms - hard to believe, but possible. We can observe gravity and for a long time we thought we could explain it - recent developments have shown us that may not be the case. Gravity happens but our longstandin

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 05 May 12 - 11:19 AM

Sorry, doing this on an iPad and my finger slipped!
To continue - gravity happens but our longstanding belief in the theory of gravity has been kicked into touch.
That is my understanding which a scientist friend called 'a reasonable exposition for a non-scientist' - a bit grudging I thought!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 May 12 - 11:21 AM

Or, as I once heard Professor Jack Cohen say -

"Some people think that scinece is about knowing things. They are wrong, science is about not knowing things. Knowing we leave to religion."

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 May 12 - 11:46 AM

My last post was in response to TIA.

Sounds pretty good to me, Brendan. There's a few points that could lead to interesting discussion (as opposed to "I'm right and your wrong" desk thumping).

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 May 12 - 01:58 PM

penny-unless i have been mislead the idea so embraced by darwinists that galileo was a case of science vs the church is simplistic.his opposition at least initially was from other scientists.the church at first was ,i understand quite favourable to him.it was when the pope recognized the character of "simplicico" in galileos writings as mocking of himself that the trouble began.
i'm not sure what the quote from augustine proves ,but it was interesting.of course just about all the church fathers held to a YEC position and i doubt that augustine would have appreciated your use of his words.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 12 - 03:50 PM

I said TIA had it right because s/he did. What you did is to completely misrepresent what s/he said. You are out of your depth here. Have you actually got any original views of your own?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 12 - 04:24 PM

"...his opposition at least initially was from other scientists.the church at first was ,i understand quite favourable to him"

Pete... you must remember that in Galileo's time, there was barely a difference between the beliefs of scientists & the church. If most 'scientists' are committed to church doctrine as a given, they cannot DO science very well.... (at least science as we understand it today).

Galileo was a fairly early example of allowing observation, experiment and mathematics...that is, **science**, lead where it needed to go. If Galileo had done his analysis and then said, "Oh...that can't be right...the church fathers tell us very clearly that the Earth is at the center!", well, he would be barely a footnote in history today.

Do not be fooled by simple words. "Scientist" has to mean something specific; and those who try to wear both hats must be VERY careful which one they are wearing when they make statements.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 May 12 - 05:44 PM

It was the science which Galileo was forced to recant, even if it was the mistake of representing the Pope's views as foolish that triggered the trial.

As for claiming the Church Fathers as YECs, that is projecting a modern concept back where it does not belong. Not to say that they did not believe in a biblical timescale (though at one time, as he worked through Genesis several times, Augustine believed himself to be in the sixth millenium), but that they did not believe in it in the face of evidence to the contrary. The alternatives to the biblical account were the theogonies of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians or even the Hindus, and others which were manifestly lacking in rationality. Augustine was concerned with the dualist ideas of the Manichaeans, not the evidence of science. The age of the world was not as important as the author. We can't know what any of them would say about the modern arguments, or the modern uses their works might be put to (and I am not alone in using that particular passage).

We might hazard a guess that they would want to direct us to more important issues. And that was in that passage, quite clearly.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 12 - 05:49 PM

pete - you have been misled. Entirely misled.

In 1632, after publishing "Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems", the Holy Office of the Inquisition ordered Galileo to Rome. Though gravely ill,Galileo made the journey, and in April 1633 he was charged (by the church) with heresy. The specific charge was that he was teaching and defending the Copernican Theory that the Sun is at the center of the universe with the Earth moving around it (which was counter to the doctrine of the church). This theory had been declared heretical (by the church) in 1616, and Copernicus' books had beeb placed (by the church) on its "Index of Prohibited Books".

Sorry, you are dead wromg. The *church* condemned Galileo for supporting the findings of other scientists.

Why else would Pope John Paul II have apologized 400 years later for the behaviour of *the church*?

Sorry just as much as I cannot let you misdefine science, I cannot let you revise history.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 12 - 12:42 AM

I'm curious. Who are these "Darwinists" that pete keeps talking about? Do they have their own church? Or is it a lodge, like the Masons? Where do I get an application to join? Or do I have to be asked?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 May 12 - 03:57 AM

Steve Shaw

I said TIA had it right because s/he did. What you did is to completely misrepresent what s/he said. You are out of your depth here. Have you actually got any original views of your own?

No debate. No answers to questions. Just more insults. TIA was "As clear as mud" and "had it right".

Off to make music for a couple of days.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 04:32 AM

Snail ~~ Not taking sides, because I honestly can't remember how this particular spat began. But would point out that claiming when challenged that one's opponent is not answering rationally but merely resorting to 'insults' can often merely constitute a cop-out. From the tones of the two entries, Steve's & yours, I suspect this could be the case here.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 06:11 AM

When I said that Snail had misrepresented TIA, this is what I meant. This is what Snail said TIA said:

Of the Theory of Evolution he [TIA] says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'

But this is what TIA actually said:

There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis).

In my book, that is misrepresentation. The more charitable explanation for his doing that is, as I suggested, that he is out of his depth.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 06:18 AM

"Darwinists" and "evolutionists" are terms, intended by pete and ilk to have a slightly pejorative ring to them, to characterise those of us who prefer to rely on evidence and reason when it comes to trying to explain the natural world. In riposte, one could refer to pete and ilk as the God Squad and to pete as a God-botherer. That seems about equivalent. Of course, this wouldn't contribute much to a constructive debate, but, then, what would?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 12 - 07:48 AM

I wonder if Pete uses terms such as "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" because he needs to believe that this is some sort of cabal of scientists hell-bent on covering up the truth about the age of the earth? It's easier to believe you're being deliberately targeted than it is to believe that a disparate and open group of intelligent people all understand the evidence points to something that threatens his belief system. Pure poppycock of course; they aren't targeting his (or anyone else's) beliefs, it just happens the evidence doesn't point to Pete et al being correct. That's not to deny the existence of God, just there's that YEC is a fallacy born of ignorance and there is no overt signature of a creator. Heck, even some scientists might disagree with that as there are plenty of religious people practicing science at all levels of achievement.

Whilst Pete might describe me as a Darwinist or evolutionist because the evidence I have seen points to Darwin being correct and evolution as fact, I would suggest I was neither but a palaeontologist (avocational) and budding ichnologist, and studying these subjects is part of what I do.

We can't have a productive debate with Pete because he's not interested. It's all too easy to cry foul when people take issue with you head-on. In science this is called due process, in religion it's heresy.

Pete - I'll say this for the hundredth time: Find me a bony fish in the Burgess Shale. Find me a horse in the Solhofen Limestone. Find me a dinosaur in the Devonian. Body fossils. And none of that Paluxy rubbish - even most YEC's saw the folly in that years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 11:52 AM

On the other hand "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" could just be convenient short hand to describe people who argue for those theories.

Certainly if you are going to attack pete for such words. Is it not incumbent on you do equally condemn Mather for his use of "God-botherers" and Shaw for his near constant stream of snide remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 12 - 12:22 PM

It's incumbent on me to do nowt. I wasn't attacking Pete for using those terms, just questioning his rationale for that usage. I have consistently challenged our resident YEC's (who have said some rather unpleasant things on the other thread) to debate on the subject in specific areas but they refuse. Heck, they could make the scientific discovery of all time, but they're not interested in that either. It's boring to hear repeated pleas of ignorance.

I wouldn't and haven't use the term 'god-botherer' to describe Pete, nor have I issued a stream of snide remarks - plenty enough aggressiveness around here as it is. Alpha males waving their dicks at each other, people popping in to try to stir the shit, but have nothing of value to say themselves; I suppose that's the way MC has been of recent years.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 12:54 PM

Sorry Sugarfoot,

It looked as though you were playing along with Shaw and piling on.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 01:03 PM

Dinosaur fleas, proof of evolution or that God makes mistakes?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 03:01 PM

Jack and I have history. That's what this is about. I've been at pains for months to ignore his posts but now he's cracked. Constant stream of snide remarks my hefty bottom. I've wasted many a typed word trying to explain to Snail that he could do far better things than hassle me constantly over the nuances of words. I've been quite patient, but it's like pissing into a strong wind. There's nothing snide about pointing out that he misrepresented what someone else said in order to have another bash at me. Perhaps Jacky Tar would like to address that instead of deciding to be rather silly.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 07:17 PM

SNIDE

"I've wasted many a typed word trying to explain to Snail that he could do far better things than hassle me constantly over the nuances of words. "

SNIDE

it's like pissing into a strong wind.

You don't discuss. You insult. The only "history" we have is me pointing that out. For that you call me "silly." Have at it.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 12 - 08:00 PM

Of course I discuss. If you reel back over this thread and its predecessor you'll find plenty of posts in which I argue the fat in a pretty extensive fashion. What's happened here is that you have suddenly waded in with two very brief posts, both of which contain no discussion of the substantive issue but plenty of offensive allusion. Jack, do tell us all what you think of the attack on evolutionary science by the likes of pete et al. I really can't be arsed with agendas these days and I strongly suggest you leave yours at home. After all, I suspect we are probably on the same side. Fer chrissake don't give pete and his brain-dead mates any more succour.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 07 May 12 - 04:39 AM

Hello sailor

Yep, that's me. Using terms such as God botherer. It refers to those who insist on ramming home their hobby on others.

I also used terms such as imaginary friend, fairies at the bottom of the garden, mentioned my impression I do of Jesus on a rubber cross and have pointed out that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Come to think of it, I reckon the word cult has been used too.

Why? Maybe perhaps that reasoning with brainwashed delusion merchants (add that to the list) gets you nowhere. Pointing and laughing is the eventual destination of such debate and I just happen to have got there first.

Debating is rather circular in this context, and only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 May 12 - 10:31 AM

pete was wrong when he claimed that the main opposition to Galileo came from other scientists. Astronomers of the time could have ignored him, or attempted to refute his findings, or ridiculed him. But only the Churches had the power to burn him, as the Catholic Church did Giordiano Bruno (among many others). The Protestant churches were little better: read the horrifying story of the execution for heresy of Edward Wightman in 1612.

But Galileo is such an appropriate exemplar: the creationists are in exactly the position of the established astronomers who refused to look through the telescope and see the evidence for themselves. Surrounded by the wonders of nature, they open their book and close their minds.

And hasn't our pete been getting voluble lately? This chap who a few hundred posts ago couldn't string a couple of sentences together now posts whole creeds (stet). It couldn't possibly be that someone else is prompting him, could it?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 May 12 - 11:50 AM

jack the sailor-you are quite right in surmising that the terms i use are not derogatory but descriptive .i did once use "evos" for shorthand until penny suggested that was disrepectful, so i ceased that even though it was only shorthand.meanwhile certain atheists-or should that be antitheists- continue to bemoan debating ignoramouses such as i but still exhibit argument from ridicule-or should that be verbal gutrot!.
a couple other comments made me smile
"pete et al "hardly a large opposition to the darwinist side.
"someone else prompting him" wrong,unless you include my reading.
all this reminds me of dawkins who likes to debate creationists;-as long as they are not scientists!.supposedly he does'nt want to give credance to creationism.
thats not to say that some of you would not debate a scientist,but merely that all you got at present is me.i have never pretended to be more than i am and to those who dispise my honesty all i can say is-
get over it.
best wishes   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 12 - 01:21 PM

""dawkins who likes to debate creationists;-as long as they are not scientists!""

None of the YEC Creationists with whom he debates can truly claim to be more than pseudo scientists, since they tailor the "evidence" to fit their preconclusion.

Undoubtedly there are YEC Creationists who are also genuine scientists, but none in the fields of paleontology and related subjects.

So why would he be debating evolution with dieticians, psychologists, astrophysicists, or any other but those with whom he has an debating issue.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 May 12 - 01:24 PM

>>>Jack, do tell us all what you think of the attack on evolutionary science by the likes of pete et al.<<<

pete is having a mature discussion. You are childishly using insults. I think that if there is anyone here neutral on the topic, you are doing much more damage than good to your supposed side. That goes double for Mather.

If you want my side of it you can read my original post on the YEC thread.

As for why I have come on to this thread, I wish that the two of you would either grow up or find something else to do.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 May 12 - 02:48 PM

I find myself in agreement with Pete the Sailor. It seems that some points of view can enrage others to the point that they are unable to focus on the argument and direct their ire at the individual. I have an interest in the topic and there is a discussion to be had but the smoke generated by axe grinding has served to almost obscure it.
I have yet to be even tempted to believe in YEC by any posts in this thread. In fact, there were some posts in the original thread from a (I assume) fundamentalist Christian which I found repugnant but I do not see how an attack on that person might have encouraged her to question her beliefs; I suspect such an approach would simply harden them.
The posts from pfss are all based upon an unmovable belief in a creator God and a belief in the essential truth of Genesis. While others, including me, might find such unquestioning belief hard to comprehend he has avoided personal opprobrium to the point where someone unsure might find his approach more to their liking than some of the more rationally based posters who allow their frustration to colour their responses. I believe in reason and rationality - it would good to see them being exercised to the exclusion of irritation, defensiveness and emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 12 - 03:58 PM

Well, Brendan, it seems like Jack the Sailor, presumably half of pete the Sailor, is demonstrating exactly those traits you see fit to condemn in others from your assumed lofty perch. As for pete having a mature discussion, well now there's a laugh. What pete is actually doing, with his eyes tight shut, is perennially insulting the whole body of science. He doesn't need to make it personal. If you think that is part of mature debate, Jack, I think you may have lost it somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 May 12 - 04:49 PM

Steve, I am not attempting nor do I desire to be superior or lofty. I just wanted to express my views succinctly and as objectively as possible. I see little gain in antagonising others and I apologise if my post set your teeth on edge.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 12 - 04:56 PM

It didn't. I was pointing out the inconsistency in defending Jack whilst criticising others for showing irritation, defensiveness and emotion, traits absolutely typical of him. I have better things to do than get annoyed with a screen and keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 May 12 - 05:03 PM

Bit of an aside - found myself by chance at Downe House today - didn't go round, but bought a possibly useful book in the shop, and took note of a more expensive one to order from the library.

Both books, on the dispute we've been having here (the main one, that is) were quite disturbing in revealing the lengths to which state authorities in the US will go to make sure that young people have no exposure to the teaching of evolution.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 12 - 05:26 PM

""Both books, on the dispute we've been having here (the main one, that is) were quite disturbing in revealing the lengths to which state authorities in the US will go to make sure that young people have no exposure to the teaching of evolution.""

It would appear that while the US Military Industrial Complex is busy bombing large parts of the Third World back to the Stone Age, a sizeable section of its population is intent upon achieving the same result at home by use of religious fervour.

Judging by history, if they succeed they will be far worse than the Taliban or the Ayatollahs. After all, they've had two thousand years to practice and the Roman role model for dealing with dissent.

Yet there are still people on this forum, and others, who regard them as harmless fruit loops, not worth challenging.

Go figure!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:23 AM

Hello sailor!

I haven't got a "side" so that buggers that theory....

If I had, would it be double? Perhaps not. Rather flattered that a bloke on the end of a keyboard gives me the odd namecheck, but would be happier if you bought an album.

I reckon many on this thread seem to think there are two sides to this debate. I'm not too sure. Nobody other than pete and (where is) Iona are peddling fantasy as fact, and there are those who try to reason with him / them. Thirdly are those who through various posts are bemused that medieval superstition is alive and kicking.

Perhaps my nautical friend will remember he started the debate by querying whether future generations of western world children will end up in sweat shops if we don't sharpen up education?   Oh and giving the teaching of creationism as the example of what is wrong.

Rather interesting that Jack the Sailor started the questioning and then gets all upset when people dismiss nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 May 12 - 07:20 AM

It is interesting to look back at the two strands that make up this thread. The secondary one has focused on the philosophy/semantics of science and has been conducted between people arguing from a basis of reason. The primary thread has looked at the validity or otherwise of YEC and the dangers, as perceived by many people, of teaching it in school. This strand has demonstrated to me the enormous difficulty of having a rational discussion with someone whose starting point is an unmovable faith which seems to ignore or distort evidence which challenges his/her beliefs.
In view of Penny's latest post it appears that education in the UK is a little more enlightened than in the US to the extent that, while creationism can be taught it must be taught alongside evolution, that at least is my understanding. Not to do so must surely constitute a denial of freedom of thought. The comparison with ayatollahs made by Don T does not seem unreasonable. There are many moderate Christians who find YEC and other forms of fundamentalism unacceptable but do not see it as a threat. Perhaps I have got that wrong but in the real world it does not seem to figure on the radar.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 08 May 12 - 07:41 AM

100.

yeah!