 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 26 May 12 - 04:53 PM Penny, almost all Christians except the good old C of E (who only believe in respectability) and the Quakers, and some of the simpler Catholics, are dualists. There is God; and there is the Devil: and they are of equal power. All these Baptists and Muslims see their god as a puny little thing that needs their intervention in politics to make its way in the world. And the somple Cat'lics take the Bible to its own conclusion, and see the Divil as only another of God's poor creatures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 26 May 12 - 05:13 PM Just for the record, I'm with Steve Shaw! The following statement, for example, took my breath away: "darwinisn in some form or the other is IMO the cherished holy cow that will not countenance creationism and excludes papers that support it-" pete will be demanding that Astronomy journals publish papers based on a geocentric universe next! In the interests of "balance" of course! Just between you and me, the leading Physics journals refuse to publish my work on perpetual motion machines - narrow-minded bastards!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 May 12 - 07:52 PM You just beat me to it there, Shimrod. How any sane person can call "Darwinism" a "cherished holy cow" utterly defeats me. Now I'm not out to assassinate the character of this folkie troubadour, but I would just remind everyone left reading this that I have repeatedly told pete to read On The Origin Of Species. He has failed to do so (even though it's written in beautiful, elegant and easy English - all you have to do is turn off Coronation Street while you're reading it), yet he still comes on here dissing "darwinists," "Darwinism," evolutionism," and whatever else he chooses to pejoratively call it. Ugly stuff it is, not the rather sweet naivety that he hopes we'll all be hoodwinked into accepting. Once you have studied Origin, and understood at least its main thrust, you are entitled to come on here and lambast us all with your objections. But come on here and attempt to lambast us with your ignorant preconceptions and you are asking us to be rude to you and tell you to stop wasting our bloody time. pete may be a nice man down the boozer with his singing mates but he is an absolute horror here. The smiley little man who can't do capital letters is full of the same bogus arguments that maintain almost half the population of the US, for example, in scientific pig ignorance. One hopes he limits his views to this forum where at least he can't do much harm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 26 May 12 - 08:46 PM read your post again,and perish the thought ,could it be slightly slapdash!. Total user. Condemned from his own mouth. Just look at that and think whose thought or presentation is slapdash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 May 12 - 08:58 PM Yep, and, while I'd never actually call pete "sinister" (he's far too insubstantial for that), there is something very incongruous indeed about his (deliberate?) lack of decent grammar and punctuation aligned with his bitingly-expressed prejudices. Read his posts very carefully and you will see a man who is more than happy to misrepresent himself as a rather harmless duffer when, in fact, he is propagating pro-creationist and anti-science notions that have the capacity to maintain millions of people in fearful ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 27 May 12 - 09:42 AM Paul, I know that the dualist idea is widespread, but its application to mobile phones is unusual, and fitted what I had learned of the Ex B. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 27 May 12 - 01:13 PM Penny, I can add fax machines to the list too. They have their women wear handkerchiefs on their heads and someone once told me they were Plymouth Brethren, but having Wiki'd the brethren, I don't think they may be. No matter, it was a throwaway observation that I used to have a customer where the bloke in the sales office had to go home each lunchtime and collect the faxes that came in, as his boss wouldn't have them on the premises, and when I noted mobile phones added to the list of things not permitted on the premises, (how the hell their customers put up with the silly notices all over is beyond me...) I mentally made the connection with where my brother when he was an aid worker in Tanzania told me how Masai communities had been inadvertently transformed by the mobile phone masts he and others had originally objected to. My point was that debunking science may be fun if it gets in the way of your club rules, but when you force your rules on others (the teaching of bollocks in schools?) cause and effect come into play. Jesus didn't raise anybody (Lazar.. something? Help me someone clever?) . We had to wait for science to give us advances in intensive care before such things could be contemplated! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 27 May 12 - 02:00 PM Lazarus. Jesus may have administered CPR and nobody there knew what he was doing. Or more likely--part of the myth. I believe (not sure, though) that Jesus did exist. Josephus, a contemporary historian, mentions an itinerant preacher who was getting up the noses of some to the Establishment (both religious and governmental) and they crucified him for it. As an old friend of mine, Lutheran pastor Bruce Pond, said, "All major religious prophets are said to have worked miracles of one sort or another. It's part of the mythology, a way to telling a good story. Often the person does something that we would consider ordinary, but the onlookers at the time didn't understand. And the fish gets bigger every time the story gets retold." And this from an ordained pastor. Rather than pounding the Bible and insisting that something had to be true because the Bible said so, his speculative take on the improbable was one of the reasons I liked him. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 27 May 12 - 02:55 PM Ian, they're an offshoot of Plymouth Brethren, and were at one time under the rule of a man (of course) with weird ideas. My Dad had clients who were Plymouth, and the son became Exclusive, and had to eat in a separate room. There was a scandal involving the leader and women (what a surprise) which split the Exclusives, but he is now dead, and the rules seem to be relaxing a bit. The women still have the headscarves, but the rest of the dress is wmuch freer. And the meeting houses have had windows put in them. I used to worry about the girls in school. "We don't believe in educating our women," a colleague was told. They did try to run their own school for a while, having worried about the exposure to computers (apparently the organisation now uses them to keep tabs on membership, but they are not allowed to let us unbelievers know this as we would not understand that they are OK used for holy purposes) and increasingly girls doing PE and swimming. But they had some special needs children they could not cope with, who came back to us. They were nice people, who believed what they had been taught, and were prepared to swallow any change unquestioning. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 27 May 12 - 03:04 PM Surprisingly, they have official websites now! Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 28 May 12 - 01:57 PM New information has come out linking mankind to Africa, the first two known antecedents from Richard Leakey form Olorgesailie near Nairobi. Mitochondrial DNA has shown that a single woman existed on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago. The first male existed 90,000 years ago in the Rift Valley of Kenya. "Adam and Eve did exist, 90,000 years apart" according to the author of this piece. This information knocks Creationism into a cocked hat. We are all Africans and racial distinctions make very little difference in our makeup. We are all Africans Unfortunately, fundamentalist African based religions are still in the ignorant stages about this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 12 - 03:06 PM Excellent article, which should be read especially by people such as seven stars pete. Christian fundamentalists and YEC are shooting themselves in the foot. THEY are driving intelligent, thinking, spiritually oriented people out of the churches. CLICKY! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 28 May 12 - 03:48 PM Did you see that odd link to the 4 things destroying men? which became three on the comments pages? Looks as though it's selling some junk career boosting snake oil. Interesting article, and very interesting comments. And one of the things it led me to was a reassessment of William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes trial. He had reasoned that social Darwinianism, which included eugenics, and was not what Darwin had taught, was dangerous to American society, because it would lead people away from a politics which supported the poor against the rich - he was, in fact, and successfully so in politics, a socialist. And he was not, in fact, a YEC, but a day age creationist who was prepared to accept evolution, except for the origin of man. An interesting and intelligent man. Look him up on wikipedia. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 28 May 12 - 06:52 PM Mitochondrial DNA has shown that a single woman existed on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago. The first male existed 90,000 years ago in the Rift Valley of Kenya. I could get quite depressed. I am relieved to find that, despite being a fairly sloppy piece of popular science jounalism, what the article actually said was - Our mtDNA appears to coalesce in a single woman, who lived on the African savannah 150,000 years ago. Our Y-chromosome survives from a single man, who lived in the Rift Valley of Kenya or Tanzania 59,000 years ago. This has been around for about 25 years and has been somewhat modified since. It is probably one of the most misunderstood ideas in popular science. This Wikipedia article seems a bit out of date but gives the general idea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve Bizarrely, this article from a creationist website seems to do its literature research very well before reaching some strange conclusions not supported by the evidence.http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 May 12 - 07:21 PM When did ANY Creationist, or Creationist Website, reach conclusions which were supported by scientific evidence? NEVER!............That's when!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 28 May 12 - 08:52 PM I GOT IT! I GOT IT! At least the answer to quite a bit of the delimna: God was hanging around out there, all alone, for all of eternity past. Eternity past included what, had there been such a thing as time, would have been a bunch of millions of years of time. It got pretty boring. So he spent at least some of eternity past in a little hobby of creating FOSSILS! Finally he came up with the notion of creating all this other stuff we know of, out of nothing. But he discovered that he was just a little short of enough nothing from which to create everything he had in mind. So he cleaned out his eternal closet, and stirred in enough of the fossil stuff to make up the difference. So the fossil stuff is in fact millions of years old, but that simply has nothing to do with the age of the rest of what we know as the creation! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 29 May 12 - 04:33 PM interesting that the article stringsinger posted on tracing man and woman back was described or called a "creed" project whose "high priest" set out to disprove the garden of eden story-or words to that effect.nothing religious or philosophically founded in evolutionism;is there???! one item mentioned on yesterdays CMI article was that russel humphreys accurately predicted the strength of magnetic fields around jupiter and uranus[if i correctly recall]based on prediction of thousands years only existence.don t; in claiming that creationists never make scientific conclusions is tantamount to claiming complete knowledge of scientific articles-but hopefully you did not mean to convey such lofty self confidence. don f;i read your link.i do not doubt that many people leave the faith because they find it too hard.as you have read the bible-though not believing it-you will know it is expected and predicted. best wishes pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 29 May 12 - 07:19 PM pete interesting that the article stringsinger posted on tracing man and woman back was described or called a "creed" project whose "high priest" set out to disprove the garden of eden story-or words to that effect I don't normally take much notice of anything pete says, but here he has hit on an important point. It illustrates the popular idea of evolution as a sort of pseudo religion and how bad science plays into the hands of the creationists. When I described the article as being "a fairly sloppy piece of popular science jounalism", I think I was being generous. It was published in Intelligent Life magazine which says of itself - Intelligent Life is a bi-monthly lifestyle and culture magazine from The Economist. It covers the arts, style, food, wine, cars, travel and anything else under the sun, as long as it's interesting. It shares The Economist's fondness for crisp prose, dry wit and free thinking. But rather than covering politics and economics, it is about life in general and making the most of your time off, from tailoring to museums, hotels to philanthropy, choosing wine to going green. http://moreintelligentlife.com/ It is not a peer reviewed science journal. According to Wikipedia, its author J.M.Ledgard "has also been a correspondent for The Economist since 1995, specialising in foreign political and war reporting." I'm sure he is a very clever chap and a very good journalist but he is not a scientist. Promoting this distorted view of science is what makes me get so exercised about self-proclaimed scientists who come out with lines like "Evolution is true." I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 May 12 - 07:40 PM I don't think you'll find too many evolutionary biologists fretting over disproving the Adam and Eve story, pete. Actually, I don't think you'll find too many religionists (may I use that word with you?) who would put their head on the block in order to hang on to the yarn either. The article is crap, pete. Not science. Just whimsy. Learn to discriminate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 May 12 - 07:44 PM I wasn't aware that there was a "popular idea that evolution is a pseudo-religion." Sounds like another of your straw men coming up to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 30 May 12 - 06:33 AM Steve Shaw I wasn't aware that there was a "popular idea that evolution is a pseudo-religion." So if you aren't aware of it it isn't true? We've just seen an example haven't we? Try this http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full The creationists love it http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion This chap seems to mean well but manages to set up a direct equvalence between evolution and creationism http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/05/the-whys-of-religion-vs-evolution/ Your "Evolution is true" gives the creationists exactly what they want. Sounds like another of your straw men coming up to me. Another? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 May 12 - 09:38 AM ""don t; in claiming that creationists never make scientific conclusions"" There you go again, misquoting and putting words into peoples' mouths. I didn't say they never reached scientific conclusions. They do (according to their fanbase), but those conclusions are NEVER supported by anything remotely resembling reproducible scientific evidence. ""Because God said so"" may convince those who have already decided on their conclusions, but scientific, or evidence, it ain't!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 30 May 12 - 10:40 AM "I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."" But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist. Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating. If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism. Where is the bad science here? Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated. It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species. There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science, but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 May 12 - 11:54 AM steve-not in the least bothered if you use the word "religionist" re-article;i doubt its science credibility would have been questioned had i not raised it,and snail then took it up,especially as don f endorsed it. don t ;apologies if i misquoted you but i did cite a creationist scientist making an accurate prediction based on creationist time span.that is as far as i can see scientific evidence.i suppose it can be reproduced next time a rocket goes by! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 May 12 - 02:23 PM "".i suppose it can be reproduced next time a rocket goes by!"" No, it doesn't work like that. Reproducible evidence is not just a case of the same pseudo scientist spouting the same bollocks again and again. To be acceptable, it must be repeatable by any competent specialist in the particular field and produce the same result, within reasonable experimental parameters. Your man is one lone self styled "Creation Scientist" who demands belief because he states that "such and such" is the case. Come back and talk about him again when his conclusions have been tested, confirmed and verified by half a dozen non Creationist (i.e. REAL) scientists. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 30 May 12 - 03:01 PM Don, You are not going to get any kind of grounded, rational comments from him. Not only is he not open to change and growth, which is the sign of a confident intellectual. But he does not even recognize that he has a problem. And that is the first step to growth. Sadly, he will not grow. Unless you are talking past him to others reading this who may be interested in the discussion and open. Yeah, that could be it. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 30 May 12 - 03:34 PM I have been following the thread even though I feel it outlived any meaningful interchange quite a while ago and I have decided (no doubt I am being pompous and self righteous) to get some stuff off my chest. Pete from Seven Stars Link, I refuse to accept your appalling refusal to show minimum courtesy to other posters by not even attempting to post at a basic level of literacy, it is simply bad manners. Having re-read as many of your posts as I could bear I have been unable to identify any cogent argument; obfuscation, intentional misinterpretation and an apparent inability to understand what other posters are saying are the clear hallmarks of your approach. I am a practising Christian and may know something of your motivation and I suspect that if you were to undergo real self examination you would find that your underlying motive is fear. There can be no rational explanation for your beliefs but if you were to accept that you would no doubt lose friends and your place in your religious community. I believe that you are an example of a fundamentalist version of Pascal's wager. Christianity does not require that you have to eschew rigorous enquiry, honesty and intellectual humility. I have been impressed by the erudition of some posters but Steve Shaw, you appear to believe that opinion is the same as knowledge. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the scientific method and many of your rants have undermined the considered and informed input of other posters. Abuse does not constitute argument. I was also interested in your statement that Darwin wrote in elegant, easy English. He wrote in the mid-Victorian period for a specific audience i.e. members of the Royal Society, and 'Origin' is frequently challenging. Have you actually read it? I have to admit that I find it difficult and have preferred to read commentaries rather than the original. But there again, I recognise that I have much to learn, how about you? OK, rant over, please feel free to give me the verbal kicking you no doubt feel that I richly deserve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 May 12 - 04:49 PM snail;i read all 3 articles.the last one offering evidences for evolution from coyne,some of which i've not encountered before.not much detail though to comment on. i was wondering what you thought of the 2nd article up to the mention of the bible.do you think origins science is observable and testable as don t seems to assert.would you deny that assumptions about the past guide the interpretation of the past? pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 30 May 12 - 05:27 PM Stringsinger "I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."" But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist. Indeed, but Richard Leakey doen't spout bad science as far as I have heard. Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating. True. If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism. It hasn't been ignored. It is now pretty much mainstream having fought it out for a few years with the multiregional hypothesis. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve is a good place to start. Where is the bad science here? If Steve Shaw and I agree (in our own different ways. I said "It is not a peer reviewed science journal.", he said "The article is crap") that the article is not really up to snuff, I think it is worth considering that it should be read with caution. A couple of quotes - obliterating any literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a new evidence-based creed. The Garden of Eden is not science. Neither evolution nor genetics is a creed. Spencer Wells (pictured below). With his blond hair, blue eyes and Nebraska roots, he is the ideal high priest to explain to white Americans that they are blacks gone curdy. I will not speculate on what the man thinks he is saying here. Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated. Certainly not, which is why I get rather annoyed with people who ought to know better talking as if it is. It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species. Not just mankind, but all life on Earth. All science is transitional; that's why "Evolution is true" just won't do. There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science, but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument. Couldn't agree more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 May 12 - 07:05 PM I have been impressed by the erudition of some posters but Steve Shaw, you appear to believe that opinion is the same as knowledge. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the scientific method and many of your rants have undermined the considered and informed input of other posters. Abuse does not constitute argument. I was also interested in your statement that Darwin wrote in elegant, easy English. He wrote in the mid-Victorian period for a specific audience i.e. members of the Royal Society, and 'Origin' is frequently challenging. Have you actually read it? I have to admit that I find it difficult and have preferred to read commentaries rather than the original. But there again, I recognise that I have much to learn, how about you? OK, rant over, please feel free to give me the verbal kicking you no doubt feel that I richly deserve. I have read Origin cover to cover, again and again. If you really think he wrote it "for a specific audience," then I suggest that 'tis you who haven't read it. At least, not with much insight. Do you also suppose that Shakespeare wrote for a specific audience? Bach? Beethoven? Did Michaelangelo sculpt for a specific audience? What tommy-rot. As for abuse, whatever I say to irritating, obsessive twits like Snail (there I go again!) is as nothing compared to the abuse visited on the whole of science by pete. Incidentally, I should like you either to confirm with quoted examples my "lack of knowledge of scientific method" or just shut up. Hows about "self-proclaimed scientist" from Snail as an example of abuse? All that time spent getting my biological science degree from Imperial College and I'm "self-proclaimed?" Are you Snail's dad or something? Hows about that lot for the verbal kicking you so richly deserve? And might I suggest that you cease to "follow" the thread from some lofty, self-appointed perch and actually contribute something to the substance of the debate (insofar as this thread might be styled a debate at all)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 May 12 - 07:32 PM Stringsinger "I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."" But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist. Indeed, but Richard Leakey doen't spout bad science as far as I have heard. Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating. True. If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism. It hasn't been ignored. It is now pretty much mainstream having fought it out for a few years with the multiregional hypothesis. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve is a good place to start. Where is the bad science here? If Steve Shaw and I agree (in our own different ways. I said "It is not a peer reviewed science journal.", he said "The article is crap") that the article is not really up to snuff, I think it is worth considering that it should be read with caution. A couple of quotes - obliterating any literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a new evidence-based creed. The Garden of Eden is not science. Neither evolution nor genetics is a creed. Spencer Wells (pictured below). With his blond hair, blue eyes and Nebraska roots, he is the ideal high priest to explain to white Americans that they are blacks gone curdy. I will not speculate on what the man thinks he is saying here. Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated. Certainly not, which is why I get rather annoyed with people who ought to know better talking as if it is. It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species. Not just mankind, but all life on Earth. All science is transitional; that's why "Evolution is true" just won't do. There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science, but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument. Couldn't agree more. I quote the whole of this post in order to illustrate that, here, we have a man who posts for the sake of posting and who actually has nothing to say. If you don't believe me, do scrutinise it all again. There is not a single point of any substance herein, yet he employs the post as a vehicle to have another pot at the point I made many moons ago that evolution is true (which it is). He compounds the error by making the trite and nonsensical statement that "all science is transitional." Meaningless or what! It actually sounds a bit like, er, a creed to me! So is evolution true? Let's break this down (for the umpteenth time, for the sake of the impenetrables hereabouts). Does evolution happen? Yes or no? Are you sure it happens? (I am!) If you're sure it happens, is it not OK to say that it's true that evolution happens? If so, then why can't I economise on words and say that evoution is true? Did I ever say, anywhere, that the science of evolution was thoroughly resolved? Why no, I didn't! Didn't I say that the evidence for evolution, in its general thrust, is incontrovertible? Do you disagree with that? Do you think that evolutionary theory will, in its entirety, ever have to be abandoned? If yes, what will it take? Jehovah arriving in a chariot of fire might just about do it for me! Does this mean my mind is fixed? Why no, not at all! Because, Snail and your new camp-follower, I only said "in its general thrust!" I did not say that the science of evolution is settled. In fact, I've said more explicitly and more often than you have that the opposite is the case. Now no arsing about here, less still another unfocused tirade about "abuse" or creeds or playing into the hands of self-evident creationist idiots or lack of scientific process or that I'm self-proclaimed. I either want answers to the questions I've just asked, or else I want you to go and waste someone else's time. And as for "If Steve Shaw and I agree..." Heheh, don't flatter yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 May 12 - 07:34 PM Damn, I forgot it would all come out in italics. So scrutinise the original! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 05:08 AM 'Do you suppose that Shakespeare wrote for a specific audience, Bach, Beethoven? Did Michaelangelo sculpt for a specific audience?' Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins. If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience, namely those people who had a grounding in and knowledge of natural science (as it was known). That is evident in the assumptions that he makes in his writing of specialist understanding on the part of his readership. With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena. I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 05:55 AM Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins. So if Prince Galitzin commissioned Beethoven to write him some string quartets, he wrote them for the "specific audience" of Prince Galitzin, huh? Gosh, you do write some waffle. If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience... Then he failed abysmally. With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena.,/i> This is just more empty gibberish. Snail is a petty irritant, and referring me back to our "exchanges" in such an unspecific manner is just lazy. Either dig up some hard evidence from said exchanges or give up the potty for the next baby. I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot. Feel free. What's a "science witness", by the way? And it's "principle." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 05:56 AM My italicisation skills failed me again. Tsk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 31 May 12 - 08:46 AM OK, for all the "religionists," who in this particular thread would be referred to as "Christianists" please address the following questions: You routinely point to "the Bible" as *the* explanation for everything. Which version of "the Bible" is the "correct" one? How do we know? "The Bible"--whichever one--was only written down something like 200 years after the alleged birth of someone called "Jesus Christ." Knowing what we do about "the folk process"--um, you DO go above the line from time to time, don't you?--how do we *know* that everything in it was faithfully (faithfully!) relayed to each successive generation without any changes? If "the Bible" is the correct explanation for everything we "know," then why are there so many people who "believe" that some other book, or set of explanations, or philosophy is the "right" one? Are they all "wrong?" If so, are "we" committed to perpetually trying to "convert" them? Must we kill them? Make laws that deny them their religious practices? If we are accepting a "Biblical" definition of something called "marriage," then which of the 8 or more "definitions" that are in "the Bible" should we accept? Why should we accept that one? For starters. I don't really expect anything remotely resembling a rational answer to any of these questions, given what has preceded this post. But at least perhaps the "non-christianists" can pose some of these questions to see the "Christianinsts" run around in rhetorical circles and at least provide some amusement. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 10:10 AM From where I am standing Steve, there is little to choose between you and Pete, you are just defending different sand castles. You are quite right, it should have been 'principle', unlike you I recognise that I am capable of error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 May 12 - 10:14 AM ""Unless you are talking past him to others reading this who may be interested in the discussion and open. Yeah, that could be it."" Indeed it is Saul! I am, to the best of my meagre ability, attempting to ensure that no chance visitor will happen upon any of these nonsensical ideas unchallenged, and thereby believe that there is anything of science in Young Earth Creationism. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 May 12 - 10:34 AM The correct name of Darwin's work, which survived only the first edition, would suggest strongly that it was indeed aimed at a very specific audience. "ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY NATURAL SELECTION" is a title which is specific to a learned treatise, aimed toward the attention of one's scientific peers. The path of later publication as "The Origin of Species" may be much more general than that, but the writer's intention is very obviously specific. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 10:39 AM OK Saul, I read the Douai Version of the Bible and I recognise that it may be impossible to identify a definitive text. I focus on the New Testament because that gives me plenty of food for thought about how I should live my life, how others live theirs is none of my business. As far as 'go then and teach all nations' is concerned that can only be done by living according to one's moral precepts and leaving others to judge whether that way of living is worth emulating. Anyone who believes they have a right to kill those of other faiths or deny them their religious practices is, I believe, beyond evil. I do not point to the Bible as the explanation for everything, nor do I subscribe to the fundamentalist view that everything in the Bible is literally true, it demonstrably is not. The Bible is not the correct explanation of everything we know. For me, the first four books of the New Testament present challenges to how I live my life and provide a framework for a morality which I find logical and consistent. Others choose to look elsewhere and that is no one's business but theirs. Please note, I said 'I find....' I am not asking anyone else to buy into it. I think that perceptions of marriage have changed over time. As far as I am concerned marriage is a means whereby two people declare their love and fidelity publicly and thereby achieve a legal recognition of their relationship. If a couple wish to add a religious element to that, as my wife and I chose to do, that is entirely their affair. Where does the term 'christianists' come from? Does anyone talk about muslimists, or sihkists, hinduists, or jewists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 31 May 12 - 10:47 AM "From where I am standing Steve, there is little to choose between you and Pete, ... " What uncritical, unthinking, arrogant nonsense! What the **** are you standing on, 'BrendanB'! For months now Steve, and a few others, have been trying to defend the scientific Theory of Evolution against fundamentalist, religiously inspired claptrap. Meanwhile a few nitpickers have been buzzing around like mosquitoes (of course, I know that in one particular case I'm mixing my metaphors!). Religious fundamentalism is a potential threat to all of us. The views of people like pete, and the woman formerly known as Iona, must be challenged whenever possible! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 31 May 12 - 11:38 AM Just as a matter of passing interest, Shimrod, what's your position on falsifiability? This may help - Falsifiability Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. Take your time. I'm off making merry music and avoiding the Jubilee for a few days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 01:15 PM Shimrod, I am not referring to the position he claims to defend but the way in which he does it. Others have demonstrated time and again that Pete's position is intellectually and rationally untenable by deploying their knowledge and debating skills. Pete's only response is to deliberately misinterpret or ignore what he cannot answer and I cannot believe that his 'arguments' would convince anyone. Steve, with his puerile abuse and obfuscatory tactics similar to Pete's does his cause no good at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 31 May 12 - 03:51 PM Yes, Snail, I'm aware of Prof. Karl Heinz Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science - but I certainly couldn't have quoted that passage by heart (if I'm honest I probably haven't fully understood it, nor thought through all of its implications; I wonder how many practising scientists have?). Mind you I can live with: " ... scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings." When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?) Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one. It seems to me that obsessing about the philosophy of science (are there alternatives to Popper's conclusions by the way?), in this particular context serves only to give succour to the enemy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 04:06 PM For me, the first four books of the New Testament present challenges to how I live my life and provide a framework for a morality which I find logical and consistent. Then off your knees and away with the crutches. Then ask yourself how you reconcile this uncritical hogwash with your judgemental attitude to what you allege is my "lack of understanding of the scientific process." Better still, tell all of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 04:10 PM Steve, with his puerile abuse and obfuscatory tactics similar to Pete's does his cause no good at all. And what "cause" might that be? Obfuscatory I am certainly not. You get what I think from the hip, no muckin' about. As for abuse, I am clearly the most heavily-abused person on this thread, but I'm still smiling. Look - face - am I bothered? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 07:55 PM Just as a matter of passing interest, Shimrod, what's your position on falsifiability? This may help - Falsifiability Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. If I thought for one minute that Snail understood a word of this, I'd take him up on it. As ever, he chooses to quote long passages representing someone else's thinking, yet offers very little of his own, not even in support of his quotes. The first paragraph is utterly risible, representing everything that science is not about: failure to communicate ideas clearly (a load of pretentious old bollocks would be putting it less kindly yet more accurately). If ever I saw obfuscation personified, Brendan old chap, that paragraph is it. Uncritical quoting of such drivel brings debate into disrepute, but I doubt whether Snail cares. Of course, as with any crock of shite, there are words of wisdom buried therein, mostly in the second paragraph, but don't, whatever you do, even begin to think of putting it forward for the Nobel Prize for Clear Talk. I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:39 PM I would be what Bart Erhman would call a "mythicist" meaning that I think that from what little concrete evidence there is for the existence of a corporal Jesus, I have to conclude that he didn't exist as a person. Ehrman claims that "mythicists" base their position on a reactionary distaste for religion. I'm not clear that this is true in my case. I think religion is irrelevant and in some instances harmful. I have many religious friends and though the topic never comes up, mainly because they intuitively know where I stand, I will not challenge them unless they inflict their beliefs on me. Here's where Creationism goes wrong. By attempting to replace honest science with this dogma, they are doing harm regardless of their status as being a "nice person". Attacking science with this dubious nonsense, using a bible as a basis for their conclusions, placing themselves as Creationists as "holier than thou" apostles, and insisting on the "rightness" of their position, going beyond the bounds of personal "faith", they are warriors for insanity and since this thread seems to be predicated on the defense of this idiocy, I have to conclude that this is not a discussion but a posted diatribe on the part of a "believer". Operative empiricism has no place in this discussion. Fortunately, science rejects the absolute constructs that inform religious dogma and is elusively changing day by day rather than being a dead set of ideologies that will crystalize into rigid thinking and in the process, destroy rational thought even by possibly changing the brain cells. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:28 PM brendan-criticism of my grammer was dropped long before you joined in and i wont worry if you dont like it.easy remedy;-dont read wot i sez! presumably you dont even accept the gospels, as Jesus referenced genesis. not much to add seeing all the posters are either arguing with each other or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution. if there are any impartial readers they can draw their own conclusions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:43 PM I am. And I have. Don Firth |
