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

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 08 May 12 - 08:29 AM

I continue to wonder how to talk to "them." "They" are the people who fiercely refuse to live in a fact and reason based reality. This fact and reason based planet has led to virtually all of our real life existence as we know it. That is agriculture, medicine, technology.

"They" choose to repeat ideas which are *not* based in fact or methodical processes. "They" have many different names for their systems of thought, and most of them do not agree in some part with the others. The comparison for these thought systems and their discrepencies can metaphorically be described in "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Since an angel cannot be defined and measured, the question cannot be intelligently investigated. We can never get closer to the truth, much less answer in terms that most people can agree on, or that will demonstrate reproducible results. So it is possible to continue to "discuss" it through the night and 4, 7, 11 beers and start over the next night, and so on without resolving anything or adding to the sum of human knowledge.

Perhaps I am missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps the goal IS perpetual discussion. However, when the discussion leaves the pub, when people want to make public policy or force their views on me, it does become a problem. And I remain clueless as to how to persuade these people to leave fantasy and join the real world.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 May 12 - 09:05 AM

OK, lets take this a bit at a time. Here 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 the part of that up to the opening parenthesis, TIA makes a clear distinction between the "fact" of evolution and the theory which attempts to explain that fact. I have asked Steve if he agrees with that but he hasn't replied. Immediately after that, TIA says theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis. Here he* is clearly talking about theories in general but it seems pretty clear from the context that he is including the Theory of Evolution amongst them.

I condensed this into Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. I do not see that I have misrepresented TIA in any way. Steve will probably repeat that that is because I am out of my depth. If anyone else (including TIA) feels that I have, please say.

TIA did take exception to something I had said in that post but not that. I had said What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"' to which he replied -

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.

I apologised that I had only meant that he had not specifically said it in that post.

So, Steve, do you still think that I misrepresented TIA and do you agree or not with TIA that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.?


* sorry, can't be bothered with gender neutral pronouns.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 12 - 09:25 AM

You did misrepresent TIA's comments, in an apparent effort to re-align them to your own agenda, but at least you've addressed that now. As for science always being provisional, well it's one of those statements that doesn't actually state very much. I suppose s/he means the findings of science, but I wouldn't be knowing. There is science and science. I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth. In terms of elucidating the process of evolution, I think science has got there - in the general thrust. Not in the detail, of course. If anyone thinks that evolution does not occur, let them produce the evidence that overthrows all the evidence we have which says it does occur. That's my line and I'm sticking to it.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:18 AM

TIA
what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional

Steve Shaw
I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth.

Well, there you are. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:28 AM

From my understanding of UK education, creationism may be taught, but if it is taught in science classes, the school so doing will receive no government funding. Gove has been holding this position since before his appointment. Academies and free schools thus must not teach the subject as science.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:40 AM

Thank you for that clarification Penny.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:40 PM

TBliar seemed a little less ready to stamp on that particular matter if I recall - I think I may have emailed about Vardy's academy and it's "science" teacher's opinions, and had an unsatisfactory response.

I saw the conditions that teachers have to satisfy in order to qualify when an Aussie teacher was updating to UK standards, and it was quite clear what was expected of an understanding of science, even then, and it was not an understanding which included any leeway to teach creationism.

Scrolling through the TV channels while resetting my TV decoder, we came across Horrible Histories Karaoke (on one of the odd numbers at the end 309, or something) - this is absolutely drop dead brilliant and up there with the Pythons' philosophers, and why it is lurking where the adults who would fully appreciate it can't, I don't know. Anyway, along with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Diogenes parodying the Monkees, it had Darwin wandering about Downe House and other places discussing his studies and their effects in quite interesting detail.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:01 PM

Gove has been holding this position since before his appointment. Academies and free schools thus must not teach the subject as science.

It strikes me that no-one should be teaching creationism at all. I wouldn't ever object to schools teaching children that there is such an idea as creationism, that it should be considered alongside religion, that its method contrasts utterly with the process of science in the way it reaches its conclusions and that it denies evidence and reason. Education should be about teaching children the skills to seek information in a discriminating manner and to critically and fearlessly demand and assess evidence for the alleged facts they are presented with. "Teaching creationism" implies that they are being told that there is truth in it. That is a lie. Education is never about peddling lies to children. We have a different name for that.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:05 PM

TIA
what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional

Steve Shaw
I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth.

Well, there you are. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.

Odd that you should think there's polarity there. You confirm that you are, indeed, out of your depth.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 May 12 - 12:38 PM

so don you say there are no scientists who are creationists who are qualified to debate dawkins!?
you are a likeable bloke but look out for low flying buttermoths!.
as to ayotollah taunts;-seems i need to remind you again that darwin believers have done much more damage in recent history than centuries of creationist christians.

steve is asking for evidence that evolution [GTE]knowing that if i venture anything it can be dismissed by ref to my lack of learning.
so i will let evolutionists assess.

"evolution a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven......but because the only alternative,special creation is clearly incredible"    dms watson.

"the more an animal type has lost through this process of progressive subtraction,the less there remains for the production of mutants which will be capable of existence"

"given the fact of evolution,one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants.but this is not what the paleontologist finds.instead,he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series"    ernst mayr   2001

tbc....

so steve what is your best evidence FOR darwinism?
regards   pete.

.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:13 PM

Pete... yesterday I spent a couple of hours with a friend who recently went to the Galapagos, where Darwin collected much of the data which began his inquiry and writings.

You only have to listen and seriously take in the information that scientists have gathered there for the last 150 years or so to realize that 'evolution' is clearly happening. The Galapagos is simply a relatively small, isolated natural 'laboratory' where it is easy to follow the various changes to a specific but limited number of species.
The islands are 'only' about 6 million years old, and there are ways to prove that age and to show how the life forms on the islands have adapted and changed as the islands changed due to volcanic activity.

You may, as you wish, believe that a 'god' started, planned, or controlled the processes there, but if you make the effort to understand ANY geology, physics, botany, thermodynamics or several other sciences, you MUST add in that 'God' spent 6 million years doing it there! There is NO reason to question the age of the islands, or of the Earth in general...except by ignoring science and relying on some theologians' 'interpretation' of parts of a 'Bible' which has been edited and translated by other theologians.

It is much easier for 'most' Christians to say, "Well, it sure is interesting to discover HOW God's creation has developed." than to deny obvious facts in favor of counting the supposed life spans of characters in the Bible...when we can't even properly translate some of the sources...or even decide WHICH sources to rely on.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:22 PM

Why does pete insist that you have to be a believer in some cult called Darwinism? Darwin observed and offered explanations to those observations.

Invisible friends, fairy stories and whacking square theories into round holes till they fit, (after a fashion) is my idea of a belief system. Interpreting the bible being an excellent example.

"Darwin believers have done more damage than.... " ?????   

What in the name of all that is wholly (bullshit) are you talking about?

You know, you are making my dismissal of you and your comments all the more sound.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 12 - 06:56 PM

I do not have evidence for "Darwinism." On the other hand, I can present evidence for the origin of species by natural selection that overwhelmingly points to the truth of evolution. Points to. Note, pete, evidence. Not hearsay, witness, revelation, proclamation, dubious ancient texts, tradition, ceremony, edicts or miracle stories. Evidence. Evidence that can be questioned, criticised, tested, ridiculed, contested, repeated and peer-reviewed. Even, in some cases, overturned. Nothing delights science more than evidence overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 09 May 12 - 09:38 PM

"the more an animal type has lost through this process of progressive subtraction,the less there remains for the production of mutants which will be capable of existence"

???? I have never heard the wording "process of progressive subtraction" before. Has it ever been used to characterize evolution by anyone except creationists? Why would any think of evolution in those terms?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 12 - 10:18 PM

"Has it ever been used to characterize evolution by anyone except creationists? "

No, it is a direct quote ABOUT a quote at Creation.com... referring to a book from 1930. It is used by creationists to sort of defend the idea that evolution is not even really possible. It is also demonstrably false, as some organisms DO actually gain/add characteristics which aid in survival. Look up the marine iguanas of Galapagos.

Pete, you really must give proper attribution to quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 May 12 - 06:21 AM

After Steve's magnificent "Odd that you should think there's polarity there. response to my juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive statements followed by the customary insult to my intelligence - "You confirm that you are, indeed, out of your depth.", I had more or less given up hope. Clearly it was as futile arguing with Steve as with the creationists.

But now "I can present evidence for the origin of species by natural selection that overwhelmingly points to the truth of evolution. Points to." and "Evidence that can be questioned, criticised, tested, ridiculed, contested, repeated and peer-reviewed.". Still a long way to go but it looks as if "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" is cooling to the cold light of reason.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 May 12 - 06:54 AM

My reading is proving interesting. I had not realised how very young YEC is. I thought it arose in answer to Darwin's work in the 19th century, but apparently, from then until the 1950's, the opponents were Old Earth Creationists, and at the turn of the 20th century there were only about 100,000 YEC's, within the Seventh Day Adventists.

On the other hand, and to be fair with regard to Augustine, here he is on the actual subject.

"In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily."

He has looked at evidence of long-standing Egyptian understanding of astronomy, and found it wanting, which, for a historian looking for documents, it is. As is the understanding of history in other places he had access to. He was not in a position to argue about the convincing evidence of geology, cosmology and so on, which modern YECs do, so where he would stand now is a moot point. His arguments had failed to keep the majority of creationists in the YE camp once physical evidence to contrary was available. He believed, based on the Bible, in a younger Earth than some at the time, but I'm not convinced that makes him what we would now call a YEC, or a good foundation for those beliefs now.

What he was chiefly concerned about is in the last sentence: "whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily."

I have seen no evidence that believing secular science leads to any more wrong and unhappy living than believing in scripture has over the last 2000 years. Nor that it cannot lead to right and happy living.

To blame Darwin's work for the awfulness of the last century one would have to strip out the parallel effects of rapid communications, both private and public, developments in weaponry, and other industrial processes with the changes in where and how people lived and all the other changes following the Industrial Revolution.

All of these would have been contributory to that century having politics worse than those of Genghis Khan, the Aztecs, Torquemada, Vlad the Impaler, Elizabeth Bathory, Ancient Rome, the Christian Saxons in Essex who covered a church door with the skin of a Viking, various Chinese Emperors, all those leaders who thought it a good idea to have their households killed and buried with them; who are, thankfully, spread out fairly thinly over history. Unless there are far more others we can't know about.

You don't have to be taught to despise others as sub-human if that's what you want to believe. It wasn't Darwin, but the Bible that was cited as a reason for my Granny to be taught see those folk in carriages as her superiors. It almost caertainly wasn't Darwin that caused the Duff-Gordons to have themselves rowed away from the Titanic in a lifeboat with spaces in it because it did not enter their heads to save those they heard wailing, while regretting the loss of the their secretary's nightie. (That's the fairest assumption - Lady D-G was in the lingerie business. But she may have ordered the crew not to return according to some sources.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 10 May 12 - 06:57 AM

"so steve what is your best evidence FOR darwinism?"

I posted a link earlier in the thread to a paper which observes natural selection at work in human populations. Start there.

"if i venture anything it can be dismissed by ref to my lack of learning"

Ignorance is not an excuse. Go and find out.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 12 - 10:31 AM

what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional

Well, Snail, if you think that this somewhat woolly statement contradicts my saying that we shouldn't regard it impossible for science to reach truth, perhaps you'll like to explain to us precisely what you think TIA's statement actually means. Go on. Make your first original contribution to the substantive matter!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 12 - 10:32 AM

Everything you need to know to understand the evidence FOR evolution is right at your fingertips, with just a few clicks of a mouse or keyboard Pete.

And it doesn't rely upon 4000 years of mythological tales passed down by word of mouth and written stories by human beings who didn't and still don't share your religious beliefs.

Neither does it rely upon the writings of a group of fans nearly a century after the event and later altered according to the political and religious agenda of those who passed them on over another 2000 years.

The reason why you confine your research to mainly Creationist sources is, to put it bluntly, fear.

Fear of finding irrefutable proof that your faith in YEC is misplaced.

Much easier to seek to make a virtue of ignorance, and rap yourself in a cloak of sympathy seeking, childish, refusal to learn.

So be it!! But don't ever expect to be taken seriously, while you continue to defy common sense and logic out of fear of acquiring knowledge.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 12 - 10:45 AM

Evidence for evolution? Well there are two ways of looking at this. First, individual bits of evidence. Any piece of evidence must be potentially subject to all those things I said: questioning, criticism, testing, ridiculing, being contested, repeating and peer-reviewing. Even, in some cases, overturning. That happens all the time in science, even in evolutionary theory. But then there's the other thing. There is such a mass of evidence now that evolution takes place that it is inconceivable that it will be sufficiently overturned in order to negate the theory. The evidence arrives from diverse strands, all interlocking beautifully into a synergy, from observation, fossils, comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, genetics and more. Tweaking will always be possible, but overthrow cannot happen. If anyone has even the beginnings of a suspicion that they might have come across evidence for an alternative big story (evidence, mind), then let's have it.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 May 12 - 10:50 AM

Interesting piece of work reported in today's New Scientist. Especially given creationist ideas about what happens to the amount of information in mutations.

Firstly, a particular gene, some time between the splitting of chimps and australopithecus, and the further split between AP and modern types of hominim, a particular gene associated with brain development was duplicated. Subsequently, and at the same time as that second split, the copy duplicated itself, so that there are three copies of this gene in us. Initially this was not spotted, because they were effectively the same.

The copying process included deterioration of the genes, so that brains without the original version (work done on mice - I thought of "Flowers for Algernon") do not develop properly, but where all three are present, the brain develops over a longer period, with more complex connections, with cells which look like human brain cells. Moreover, the infants' skulls do not close the sutures until later, allowing the head to pass more easily through the birth canal, and the brain to develop more after birth, characteristics of moodern humans, and seen in the earliest homo skull.

There are a lot of links for this on Google today. Try genes, duplication, human brain, and, of course, evolution.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 May 12 - 08:09 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, Snail, if you think that this somewhat woolly statement contradicts my saying that we shouldn't regard it impossible for science to reach truth, perhaps you'll like to explain to us precisely what you think TIA's statement actually means. Go on. Make your first original contribution to the substantive matter!

First, let me make it clear that I have no intention of making an originakl contribution to the debate. There is no need. Far wiser heads than yours or mine have already gone over this for decades. It's already there athough it seems to have passed you by.

OK, TIA's "somewhat woolly statement" says that "science is *always* provisional", i.e. it is never TRUE. You, on the other hand are "not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth". Pretty clear contradiction there don't you think?

I'm off for another few days fun, frivolity and folk music in a muddy Sussex field so I haven't got time for a detailed response now but I stumbled across this fascinating and highly relevant document - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, read the first few paragraphs and then jump to IV(C) and take note of the importance of falsifiability as what sets science apart from religion.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 12 - 08:40 PM

TIA, for all his/her wisdom (put me right on the gender issue here, somebody), did indeed make a very woolly statement there. Let me press you further, as you appear to have adopted a quasi-religious fervour about this particular remark, almost as if it had emanated from the quill of a gospel writer. What science does the remark refer to? The process of science (not provisional - it definitely occurs)? The history of science? Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? Scientists? Evidence? The findings of science? You think, perhaps, that every finding of science in history is, er, provisional? Why's that, then? Because you suspect that what I see as red is exactly the same as what you see as blue? That there must always be an alternative explanation on the table for everything, no matter how improbable (now there's religion for you!)? Are you talking about the nuts and bolts of everyday science, technology and medicine as they affect all our lives, as practised in laboratories by technicians who just want to get home for their tea? Or are you, instead, in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies? You set this statement against mine as though the two are sharply at odds with each other, yet you, as an alleged scientific thinker, appear to have forgotten that an equivocal statement can't actually be the opposite of anything. Black can be the opposite of white, but grey can't be the opposite of anything. You really are a most tedious fellow, you know. Can't you go off and join a cricket team or something?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 12 - 08:53 PM

As Snail loves to misrepresent, as I've demonstrated before, let's have a quick butchers at the bit he wants us to shoot to in his link:

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Note "not necessarily." Know what that means? That they might be, but might not be. But they might be. Note the bit about falsifiability. It does not say that good science is always falsifiable. It qualifies the claim by referring merely to cheating and witness, both excluded from any definition I've ever heard of good science (though not of religion - strange how crypto-religiosity insists on creeping into Snail's thinking...) I like the link, actually. But Snail seeks, it seems, to misuse the information therein. Don't let that muddy field bite, Snail.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 May 12 - 06:09 AM

More interesting info from my reading - "Scientists Confront Creationism" ed. Petto and Godfrey. a book of essays by various authors.

One. TIA's statement about provisionality appears here. In the form "Though modern creationists refuse to take note of this remarkable scientific fusion (natural selection and genetics*), the theory of evolution is now as much in doubt in biology as quantum mechanics is in physics (whiuch, of course, doesn't guarantee that either of them is "true", since science can by its nature only provide provisional answers). (Massimo Pigliucci)

*my brackets.

Next, in a piece by Eugenie C. Scott. Reference to the museum at the Institute for Creation Research where a tree of evil shows evolution as the source of communism, imperialism, bestiality, infanticide, slavery, and child abuse. And a book, Johnson's "Reason in the Balance" which equates evolutionary naturalism with tolerance of homosexuality, pornography, abortion, genocide, and other evils. These are given as examples of the creation-science ID proponents posited dichotomy of God, creation, purpose and goodness on one side, and evolution, meaninglessness, and social degeneration on the other. This is clearly the position pete and Iona have imbibed.

Then, same piece. a discussion on the use of the word "Darwinism". Not a word in frequent use by scientists, where it could mean either the general idea of evolution by natural selection, or Darwin's specific ideas in the 19th century. In ID and creationist literature it can mean evolution itself, natural selection, Darwin's ideas, neo-Darwinism (modified evolutionary theory, scientific term), but most commonly materialist ideology inspired by godless evolution. The public equates Darwinism with evolution, and this confusion enables certain ID arguments to challenge whether evolution actually occurred, by picking up reasonable scientific controversies about the mechanisms of evolution. The influence of this can be seen in pete and Iona's contributions.

Finally, for this time, Scott points out that no-one on the ID/creationist side carries out research, or attends professional conferences, or publishes in peer-reviewed journals, but they report on other scientists' work, often with severe distortions.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 May 12 - 03:20 PM

Forgot.

Link to timetable.

for Horrible Histories Karaoke on BBC Red Button.

Including a Darwin piece, in which he is accompanied by a drumming gorilla.

Song lyrics

You might like the Luddites - off subject but folky in a punky way.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 May 12 - 05:47 PM

and so the general impression i'm getting is that a best evidence for evolutionism is not forthcoming but comprises the vast learning of multiple disciplines which i should go study despite at least some evolutionists themselves admitting the glaring deficiencies of the theory!?

penny-though i do think darwinism has contrbuted to moral lapse and mass murder i am not personally persueing that line except in response to those who equate biblical christian faith with evil actions.that some christians do evil sometimes is undeniable ;and they are then inconsistent with their faith.if some one like stalin compares butchering thousands to cutting the grass it is hard to see how they are being inconsistent with their evolutionary ,survival of the fittest beliefs.however i do accept your modern history argument as a contributory factor of the extent of the atrocities.
i confess that i do lump all the strands into darwinism but i'm not convinced that i need to differenciate to make a point.but since you mention it;i dont think i've said much about gould and eldridge making the lack of transitional fossils into evidence of their own theory of punctuated equilibria!.they initially rejecting neo-darwism in the 70/80s apparently are more careful what they say now since creationists quoted them ,and include gradualism as a mechanism for evolutionism.hope thats accurate enough for the pedantic!

bill-creationists are not in dispute about natural selection on the galapogos or anywhere else darwin went.how does that prove mud to man evolution?.BTW have you come across the [admittedly creation perpective]film"the voyage that shook the world" which films on location places on the beagle voyage.
best as ever   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 May 12 - 07:11 PM

"a best evidence for evolutionism is not forthcoming"

OMG

Open your eyes my good man.
Look around you.
Nothing in modern biology makes sense outside of evolution (okay, yes, I stole that quote).
The evidence is all around for those who are even the slightest bit receptive.
You are not.
You will accept no evidence for evolution because your way of thinking is completely incompatible with science.
In fact, if you demand certain evidence, you demand further evidence when it appears.
YEC=moving goal posts.

Thus, I will not argue with you because there is no argument.
You have chosen a rock-solid immutable belief system.
Good on ya.
I will not compell you to abandon it.
But I will oppose you or anyone who seeks to stifle or denigrate scientific inquiry, or seeks to impose (often through masquerade) your anti-scientific way of thinking on children who should be taught the method of science.

BTW, they should also be taught (comparative) religion.
And they should be taught the difference between scientific (provisional) knowledge and religious (unquestionable) belief...even if you are unable to acknowledge, or are confused by, this difference.

Best wishes from (male*) TIA.



*Steve asked explicitly above. Otherwise I am not in the habit of purposefully aligning myself with any group at all. My Grandmother always told me "folks is folks".

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 12 - 08:20 PM

Cheers. I don't give a monkey's mickey either, but something politically-correct deep inside me (that I am very prone to ditch at the drop of a hat) forces me to do that s/he stuff when I know not the gender of the target individual.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 12 - 09:12 PM

"...how does that prove mud to man evolution?.

Proof is a matter of degree. It indicates that the processes needed DO work as predicted! Science must be able to posit theories and see if the data agrees. So far, data supports their basic theories!

"Mud to man" is not something we can go back and look directly at, but we now know several ways in which that theory can work... it all follows and makes sense. The Galapagos are 6 million years old... there's no way what is there could be there otherwise. As I said, it is just a small laboratory to see the processes working.

The point about it is.... the Earth is NOT just a few 'thousand' years old.

Now... despite at least some evolutionists themselves admitting the glaring deficiencies of the theory!?

That is NOT a common thing.... I don't know ANY serious scientists which 'admit glaring deficiencies'. If there were... so what? You can find someone with supposed credentials willing to say almost anything!

You know, Pete, that you can find 'committed Christians' who say all sorts of things about the supposed 'evidence' of the Bible. In fact, all interpretations of the Bible are largely a word game, arguing about language, translation, relevance...etc! Science demands data... and is willing to reassess details as new data is discovered.
Most creationists are not even willing to look at some ignored manuscripts which others think should BE in the Bible.

So.... it really is a matter of making up one's mind to respect a solid, fair, testable reasonable definition of what counts AS evidence. Otherwise, we can only shrug and talk past each other.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 12 May 12 - 06:56 AM

So when supposed Christians do bad things, it's because they haven't lived up to the message, but when supposed Darwinists do bad things it's because of the inherent mores of the theory.

Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest, the ones most able to destroy others, it is not a modern version of Might is Right. Fitness can mean, for example, that a group does better in bringing offspring to healthy adulthood because the members work well together and support each other. If some have interpreted it to mean that because they have the power to beat up their neighbours, perhaps through being physically bigger and stronger, or perhaps through happening to live on generous deposits of coal and iron, this is justified by evolution, they are just as wrong as de Montfort wiping out a whole city in the name of God.

You have to use the same criteria in the assessments.

Ruanda was partly carried out by ordained Christians who would almost certainly have rejected evolution with regard to human beings.

Slavery was justified from a biblical episode involving Noah's sons, and the consequent belief in the inferiority of black people was held to until quite recently by Mormons on Biblical grounds. (I know there is some disagreement about their inclusion as Christians, but they certainly used the Bible, and neither their book, nor evolution as the basis for their belief.)

Bad people will be bad, sadly. They will justify themselves any way they can in identifying others as inferiors. Black people - the Bible, Darwin. Women - the Bible, the Qu'ran. Jews - the Bible (some in the US who oppose evolution also find Jesus being identified as Jewish a bit difficult to believe.) That doesn't invalidate the material they use.

Does it?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 12 May 12 - 08:49 AM

Streuth.

This guy's a card. Ta-ra.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 12 - 01:35 PM

I suppose if a left handed person commits a crime, we shouldn't blame all left handed people.

However, pete's bible does incite people to commit crimes if you do as it says.

Perhaps most sane people have "evolved" beyond such superstition?

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 12 - 08:07 PM

"Prove?" What are you on about, pete? And what "mud" is this to which you refer? Do apprise us all of the exact nature of this inorganic slime to which you refer, where and when it was located and... and... oh, never mind...

Prove that your god exists, pete. Go on. We're all sitting here with bated breath.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: DMcG
Date: 13 May 12 - 05:36 AM

Well, I've managed to avoid opening the new incarnation of this continuing thread up to now, but I see that we still seem to be going over the same ground again. But there's one of pete's concerns that I don't think think has been addressed yet. He's said quite a few times that "abiogenesis is a massive problem"; but really, I don't see it as a problem at all. It's true that if you think of a lifeless material giving rise to an enlivened one it's hard to see how it comes about, but that's much more to do with language than with what is present in the world. If challenged, I think both pete and others on this thread would be willing to say that life is a complex concept, including such characteristics as self-organisation and reproduction. Assuming that is agreed, there is no reason that all of these need appear simulatanously, meaning that the tranisition from non-living to living need not be an event, but a spectrum in which non-living and living denote the endpoints. And there is some support for this being a linguistic issue when we look at debates on whether things like viruses are living are non-living. Don't get me wrong - viruses are still extremely complicated and I am not suggesting viruses as an intermediate form in any other sense than linguistically.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 12 - 06:51 AM

Pete will simply come back with "God gave life" or some such.

What I'd like him to tell us is "Who, or what, made God?"

And you can't draw the evidence for that from your bible Pete.

Why is abiogenesis more difficult to believe than the existence of God in the total absence of time, space and matter?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 May 12 - 06:00 PM

it seems to me an illogical question.you may deny his existence but if at all admit the existence of God then his eternality excludes anyone/thing creating him.i'm not sure if you are trying to prohibit me using the bible,don,or claiming it wont give an answer.either way biblical revelation supports it and logic suggests it.
lets suppose there is no deity .we have a creation[or whatever you call everything]and no maker.it just happened!.IMO that is a faith position more incredible than accepting a creator.
even starting with substance and intelligence, life has not been spawned from non life as far as i know.how much less when there was nothing.
but there is life and that is to be expected if God is.

penny-i am aware that it is not just strength that favours survival in natural selection but neither does that exclude it,does it?
and it still seems to me that hitler,stalin etc who were darwin believers were not inconsistent with that belief;even though darwin would not have approved of their atrocities.might he though have thought some "races" nearer to ape descendants than say whites.i understand that slavery was justified on those grounds also?.

bill-science personified ,at least as far as origins is concerned is a myth.people do science.people with presuppositions ,agendas,already formed opinions from other disciplines not their own,etc.
creationists are upfront about their presuppositions.the data is interpreted accordingly as is the evolutionists.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 12 - 07:53 PM

pete, old fruit. Now listen here. Living things on planet Earth are made of all the same elements that everything else in the known universe is made of. So God didn't piss around. He decided, in her infinite wisdom, to take the easy path (I mean, what god wouldn't!) and make living things out of the exact same non-living elements!!! Therefore life was spawned - wait for it - from non-life! It had to be! Even God didn't want to arse around with the laws of nature and make us out of something unrecognisably esoteric! Of course life came from non-life. That much is self-evident. The real argument boils down to whether natural (and well-documented) processes gave rise to life or whether it was your God wot magicked it. So, take it from there and examine the evidence for both sides of the argument. Which, basically, boils down to whether your God actually exists at all. Now that's the easy bit...

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 13 May 12 - 08:42 PM

No Pete... you simply do not comprehend the differences between what you call "presuppositions" in science and religious theory.

Scientific 'presuppositions', are simply rules that say "look at the evidence and see where it leads...and ** be ready to change your mind** as new data appears.
Creationists seem to have a rule that says "accept ONE story about beginnings, and do NOT consider changing your mind!"

There is a huge difference, Pete... it is an important difference. One result of not dealing with that difference is constantly asserting that science has presuppositions much like creationism.
You are committed to NOT seeing the difference... it makes it very difficult to discuss the whole topic with you.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 14 May 12 - 05:53 AM

Pete, you have several times demanded evidence for evolution. Try these books for a start. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. This is a work of true science (not religion bashing) which identifies the genetic imperative in the process of evolution; and Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones, another respected scientist who uses Origin Of Species and develops Darwin's arguments in the light of more recent research. I recommend these but I am convinced that you will not read them because to do so would involve you in genuine enquiry and that would mean an open mind and sadly you give every indication of having a mind that is firmly closed.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 12 - 06:11 AM

He won't even read Origin. I've been pleading with him to do so for months. There are none so blind as those who will not look...

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 12 - 06:12 AM

Pete is taking the piss people.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 12 - 11:15 AM

I know Pete, folks, and he is definitely NOT taking the piss. He is NO troll.

He REALLY believes what he says, but doesn't have the moral courage to read any other than Creationist literature, for fear that it will instil doubt about his particular faith.

Otherwise he would by now have realised that Christianity does NOT demand a belief in the inerrant nature of the bible. Perhaps THAT is what terrifies him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 12 - 11:31 AM

Thing is Don, he won't even acknowledge the fact to expound on a subject, it helps if you know something about it - even if it's the very, very basics.

He can't keep arguing he's just a simple soul and is too stupid to understand and then keep arguing. I can't get where he's coming from. I'd want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 12 - 12:21 PM

That's the problem with absolute faith Jack. It leaves no room for logic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 May 12 - 01:26 PM

it is true that i dont read evolutionist books although i have looked on darwinist sites.i did begin origins but to be honest i found it too hard going and boring but did read enough to discover that darwins deciples are more dogmatic than he was!
if i were afraid of the supposed facts of the GTE i would not be subjecting myself to your arguments;-though they mostly consist of assertions.i am generalising here since some bring some data interpretation eg pennys geology.

bill-we are just going to have to agree to differ as i dont accept that scientists are as impartial as you seem to think.i could quote on that!

sugarfoot-no one is keeping you here so its pointless moaning.i am here as a witness to God and believe he could use even one as "stupid" as me!what keeps you here?
blessings   pete

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 12 - 01:59 PM

A good start to understanding, Pete, would be to ditch the meaningless terms "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist".

There are no such animals. They are scientists my friend, and they run on reproducible evidence, not-pie-in-the-sky.

""if i were afraid of the supposed facts of the GTE i would not be subjecting myself to your arguments;-though they mostly consist of assertions.i am generalising here since some bring some data interpretation eg pennys geology.""

No Pete, they do not mostly consist of assertions. They consist of conclusions backed by evidence from reproducible experiment which gives consistent results leading directly to those conclusions.

And Penny's Geology which you cite is a case (though not the only one) in point. It completely destroys your claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. Yet you still cling to that assertion, for that is what an assertion is, a claim unsupported by experimental scientific evidence.

If nothing else, you now know the difference between "conclusion" and "assertion".

Now all that is needed is to teach you the difference of process between:

Science........Obtain experimental evidence and draw conlusions therefrom.

and Creationism......Make assertion and adjust facts to fit. If all else fails, LIE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 May 12 - 02:38 PM

Once again (still) I would ask someone who really thinks that the universe was actually "created" in 6 days if they avail themselves of any technology. By what process was that technology "created?" What process do *they* use in their daily life that allows them to get through the day in some way that makes sense and which results can be reliably reproduced? If there is some such process that is somehow not based on any hypothesis formation and testing, I would certainly like to know what it is.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 May 12 - 02:53 PM

One of the problems with YECs is that they don't seem to grasp that the timeline implied (note "implied," not specified in detail) in the Bible was written by those who were essentially clueless about the size of the world. Or that it is round, not flat, and that the "heavens" they were so awed about are far vaster and more awe-inspiring than their minds (and, for that matter, our minds are) were capable of grasping. This was accepted as dogma until people like Copernicus and Galileo came along and, although the Church howled like stuck pigs at the time, established some of the basic facts of what the Cosmos is really like.

The Biblical view, limited by the understandable ignorance of those who wrote it (NOT God!!), sees the Cosmos as tiny compared to what it really is, and makes God, who allegedly created it all, a mere wizard, pretty much on a par with Zeus or Odin.

If, indeed, a Supreme Intelligence and Prime Mover DID create all THIS, then the idea that He/She/It did it a mere 6,000 years ago and actually sculpted a real Adam out of river mud and Eve out of one of Adam's ribs as the Biblical myth has it, rather that setting in motion the existing natural processes that the Prime Mover would also have created, makes a mockery of the real intelligence, power and scope of that Supreme Intelligence.

Enlightened Christians have no problem in reconciling the teachings of Jesus with the facts of science. Science merely explains some of the details of how the Supreme Intelligence actually did it.

Even if the very sketchy Creation myth is derived from the Bible, it IS a myth, and to insist that it is historical fact rather than myth, minimizes God and verges on blasphemy.

As I have said, pete, your God is much too small. Have a care!

Don Firth