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

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 May 12 - 08:06 PM

YEC and Trickle Down Economics are products of faith based belief systems.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 May 12 - 03:59 PM

yes don,i know you are not an atheist.i know you call yourself a christian and in the broad sense i accept that.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 May 12 - 07:05 PM

""yes don,i know you are not an atheist.i know you call yourself a christian and in the broad sense i accept that.""

I don't give a tuppenny damn whether you accept it or not, as long as you stop lying and misrepresenting my position.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 12 - 01:31 AM

That link - are they serious?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 May 12 - 05:09 AM

""yes don,i know you are not an atheist.i know you call yourself a christian and in the broad sense i accept that.""

BTW, I do not, and never have called myself a Christian!

You really must pay attention to what people actually say and stop misinterpreting and misquoting. It destroys any vestige of credibility in your rather weak attempts at discussion.

If you can be arsed to look, you will find my self assessment clearly delineated further up this thread, though I doubt you'll bother, given that you didn't bother to read it the first time.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 May 12 - 10:34 AM

My mistake.

It was in the original thread as follows:

""Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:45 AM

""Don, frankly I find it a bit scary that I'm part of a minority of 14.09%!""

I wouldn't worry Shimrod, at least you haven't any evangelising fundamentalists in that group, which makes it probably the best place to be.

I'm there too, though not an atheist. I follow no organised religion, but deal direct with the manufacturer, as it were.

I never could see the need to listen to the personal interpretations offered by men in black frocks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 23 Apr 12 - 11:15 AM

There is a basic flaw too, in the reasoning process of fundamentalists, who make the entirely erroneous assumption that if you are not one of them, you are an atheist.

This is demonstrably not the case. Most Christians do not believe in YEC, and a belief in YEC is neither necessary nor logical as a requirement for following Christ's teachings as they have been reported to us by generations of men with varying agendas.

I believe in the basic tenets of that teaching, but not in the Christian Church, fundamental or moderate.

I believe in a Deity, so I suppose I am a Deist or Theist, what you will!

I have no need of organised religion of any stripe, it is simply irrelevant to my existence.

The reason why I combat fundamentalism and particularly YEC, is the total denial of all logic in its expression, combined with a proselytising fervour in the disemination of its false reasoning to the most impressionable of humans, our children.

Don T.""

Try reading and making some attempt at understanding this time.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 12 - 12:42 PM

Ebbie.. "that link" about Jesus & dinosaurs.

The story is written tongue-in-cheek......... but the museum does exist, and the basics are true. They DO have exhibits which try to reconcile paleontology with purported biblical chronology. They don't succeed very well, but bad science never hindered the faithful much.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 12 - 03:58 PM

I recall Minchin's comment at the Reason Rally about having a rally for the bloody obvious 380 years after the enlightenment...

Nur in Amerika!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 May 12 - 05:17 PM

don-i seem to recall that you did call yourself a christian sometime on the previous thread but i am willing to admit mistakes, and if you find having some kind of christian belief offensive,it was unintentionally so.
if you recheck my last post you will i hope notice i used the word "appear"
the object of the use of this word was intended to indicate that i did not charge you with being an atheist but with pursueing arguments that atheists would use.
on that post i indicated the eternality of God by 3 texts.you latched on to the 1st two asking when the "beginning" was.the 3rd text read "from everlasting to everlasting".
sorry if you dont read that as meaning "eternal"but that is how i understand it.
i was presuming that you would believe God[the maufacturer!]was eternal but i am at a loss as to how you would describe him.
of course it is your perogative to be vague should you wish.
best wishes    pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 12 - 11:35 PM

Uhhhhh.... pete, just asking....do you intend to use "atheist" as a pejorative?

Sure seems so from the interchanges with Don.
(E.g. semi-apologizing for having called him an atheist or "appearing" to be an atheist.)

Do you look down on atheists?

Is that a Christian attitude?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 23 May 12 - 03:50 AM

Interesting question. His track record is that he does.

As well as atheist, he makes similar withering remarks about what he calls creationists and Darwinists.

You see, his particular diagnosis includes seeing opinions as belief systems, in the same way as he is wedded to his idea of a supernatural comfort blanket. (I wonder how many ways the term "god" has been represented on this thread and it's predecessor?.. Wonder how many different ways by me alone for that matter.)

Mind you, at least he acknowledges Don. His "Christian" approach of debating with those he doesn't agree with seems to include blanking me out completely. Ok, he doesn't have to acknowledge me, but if I take that as a sign that he cannot argue with my position, I'll be smug enough to accept that.

You see, I have faults, hundreds of the buggers. But I at least am comfortable with being wrong from time to time, and welcome the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with my take on life.

So long as the beer flows, the wine pours and the BBQ fires up, I don't give a shit. Am I an atheist? I support Sheffield Wednesday, so I can't be...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 May 12 - 04:45 AM

pete,

You wrote, further up this thread:

" ... it is an illogical challenge to say who caused him [God}.you may say you dont believe in him but IMO it is nonsence to ask who or what caused him ..."

No, it's not an "illogical challenge to say who caused him [Him]" - but asking the question generates a problem i.e. if the creator had a creator then that implies that the creator's creator had a creator ... and so on (an infinite doodah ... can't remember the right word at this time in the morning!). Just to insist the it all started with The Creator because it says so in the Bible may have been enough to stop a superstitious medieval peasant from asking awkward questions - but no-one on this thread is a superstitious medieval peasant (although I wonder about you sometimes, pete!).

It's interesting to compare your absolutist position with the question, "what came before the Big Bang?" The fact is that some physicists will tell you that all time and space started with the Big Bang - so the question has no meaning, others will tell you that the question does have meaning but we just don't know - and some in that camp will tell you that we will never be able to answer the question, while others will tell you that we may be able to answer the question some day ... and so on. At least we don't have tyrannous absolutism which denies us the right to ask questions based on some dubious ramblings in an old book!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 23 May 12 - 05:05 AM

I wouldn't worry Don. As pete eschews fact-based evidence he's no more likely to be correct about any of our views or opinions expressed by us on these threads than he is about some pretty basic facts on subjects he keeps pontificating on.

Found a horse in the Burgess Shale yet pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Monique
Date: 23 May 12 - 05:11 AM

Guys, there're two Don's... so maybe this explains that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 23 May 12 - 08:51 AM

Three if you include the great Don Megson, Capt of Sheffield Wednesday in the late '60s and father of Gary.

(Managed to get my faith system in twice in one day. Result.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 May 12 - 04:35 PM

i'm quite sure that if a horse fossil were found in the burgess shale,or any other fossil in the "wrong" strata that evolutionism would be able to accomodate it.is it not true that the upper limits and lower have extended to accomodate finds that were formerly in a settled place in the geological column?.the rationale would be that scientists are open to new evidence.inasmuch as thats true that must be good but it seems to me that it also means that there is no way the GTE can be proved false as it is so flexible.
fossil record for example-neo/darwinism claims that there is a gradual column revealing "simple" to complex progression[except maybe the cambrian explosion?]whereas punctuated equilibrium acknowledged the extreme rarity of transistional forms and that became the evidence for that theory.i think there has been more of a merger since[closing ranks?]but i think it will do for an example.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 May 12 - 05:13 PM

What I have learned over the years is that sometimes I'm wrong and sometimes I'm right. As with many unfortunate souls, I am in a quandary as to the existence of a supreme being.

It remins me of a story I heard from a good and dear friend who was in the lecture hall when Edward Teller was speaking to third-year university students at I think Berkeley. This friend is a co-discoverer of black holes, so he's no slouch in the brains department. Parenthetically, he doesn't believe in God, G-d or gods. Anyway, when Mr Teller came to the end of his lecture he asked if there were any questions. A student raised his hand and said, "Dr Teller, do you believe in God?" Teller replied in the affirmative. The student then queried, "Well, if there is a God, what was he doing before he created the universe?" Dr Teller responded, "He was dreaming up Hell for people who ask such questions!"

I think that Pete is wonderful. He never loses his cool, and he's straight-forward with his opinions. Although I disagree with most of his beliefs, I take refuge in the fact that they are his beliefs and call for no remarks from me. I saw a side of him on another thread that will evermore disallow me to fight with him or denigrate what he thinks. He has a moral stature which I feel should be envied. He's polite where I know I would not be, and he cares for others. He's a 10/10 as a Christian as far as I'm concerned, so there ya go. I have nothing to add to this thread other than what I just wrote. Keep well, Pete, and best wishes to your Mom.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 May 12 - 05:40 PM

""whereas punctuated equilibrium acknowledged the extreme rarity of transistional forms and that became the evidence for that theory.""

You seem to have almost as much of a problem with joined up thinking as you do with punctuated text.

Every form found is a transitional link between its past and its future,.....INCLUDING US!

And I can't help thinking that Young Earth Creationists may be a dead end branch.

The possibility of abiogenesis is less unlikely than the possibility of Intelligent Design, unless of course the Designer used abiogenesis as a means to an end.

One thing however is abundantly clear and backed by irrefutable scientific evidence. Whatever happened certainly didn't take place six thousand (or ten thousand for some YECs) years ago.

And the cherry picking of various ancient writings, to exclude inconvenient contradictions, throws the whole of the bible account of genesis into doubt and confusion, while still leaving irreconcilable contradictions throughout the Old Testament.

And just bear in mind that not one of the OT chroniclers was a Christian, all of them worshipped Jehovah, and none of them believed that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, in fact none of their descendents believe it today.

It is illogical to cite the OT at all, since the New Testament is the first Chronicle of Christianity, and YECs are without exception Christians, not Jews.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 12 - 06:02 PM

And, I might add, only a minority of Christians at that. Most main-stream Christians take the Old Testament and some of the New as myth and metaphor, and have no trouble with the idea that the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years. And that, as for humans are concerned, and all life on earth for that matter, evolution is the way God did it.

They tend to sigh a lot and roll their eyes when they hear the assertions of Young Earth Creationists.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 12 - 07:13 PM

He [pete] has a moral stature which I feel should be envied.

Well I don't envy it. A stature that dismisses science selectively, serially pruning out all the bits that don't fit in with his extremist, rigid view of the world, shitting all the while on hard-working, honest-to-goodness scientists with cheap, facile unthinking remarks, is not a moral stance at all, let alone one that deserves to be envied. Frankly, the man is a buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 May 12 - 11:38 PM

How does it help your argument to call people names?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 May 12 - 01:05 AM

Mr Shaw, opinions are like assholes, everybody got one.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 May 12 - 02:14 AM

OOPS.

Steve, my apology for that. It was uncalled for and I'm sorry. However, fact is, there is little difference in one regard between you and Pete. He believes what he does as you believe what you do. Where I see you both being 'the same' is in the belief arena. For Pete it is his thought about the origin of this place we live in and on. For you it is the thought about the origin of this place we live in and on. Your differences are few in reality.

Science, which you respect and in someways adore has given us much. The methods of scientific research are sound, as far as we know. BUT, scientists are no more moral than YECs. Some scientists have proven themselves to be moral prostitutes, little better than two-bit whores.

You will no doubt require proof for that statement, so I put forth those who worked to develop nuclear weaponry, chemical weaponry and biological weaponry. Indeed you may say that political people 'swung the ship off course', but we'd both know that that argument is at once wrong and disingenuous. I submit to you that science is no less perverted than religion. Both 'disciplines' follow their versions of God, with complete beliefs in the rightness and righteousness of their respective causes, but in the end, neither holds a superior high ground.

Newton, best known for his thinking about the first, second and third laws should rightfully be equally recognized for creating the gold standard. That is selectively ignored when scientists speak about Sir Isaac. Today, scientists work not for science but rather for governments. That in itself should shame y'all.

Your detestation of Pete brings you no honour. It does diminish you somewhat, however, because while he holds to an unprovable belief, you, even with your science can not prove him either right or wrong. In short, I prefer what I've seen of his 'morality' to what I've seen of yours. Take that as you will, and in the words of the prophet, so mote it be, a statement I think is bullshit wrapped in crap inside a veneer of wtf.

Have a good day. And next time you decide to take offense, please remember that this old sonuvabitch is an old sonuvabitch who does not care who he offends.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:41 AM

What has pete's "moral stature" (let's assume he's a good person) got to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 24 May 12 - 07:18 AM

We've all got a "moral stature". Contrary to popular belief Christians (or other religious types) don't have a monopoly on that. I'm not arguing against pete's character (although I think his self-deprecation is tiresome and means he can be evasive in a lazy way), I'm arguing against his YEC. I'm not even arguing against the existence of God.

Pete, if you did find a horse in the Burgess Shale it would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Evolution would need to accommodate it's presence there, and as far as I understand evolution, it doesn't. It would make you famous. It would go a heck of a long way to disprove the theory thou so despise.

"there is no way the GTE can be proved false as it is so flexible"

No it's not. If the evidence was there, it could be disproved. Also, you'd have to move the upper and lower limits of the Burgess Shale formation to accommodate a horse being present, and most scientists would not allow that.

As for gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium, the debate is nowhere near as absolutist as that. For what it's worth, I think both are valid, but variables in local conditions where isolated populations exist mean either can come into play.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 12 - 12:19 PM

Hello Sailor!

Sailor Jack wants to know how name calling can help your argument.

Well when I have taken the piss out of you and your stance, the cathartic effect has been rather pleasant.

However, for pete, I can't feel that way. I respect 999 but on this, I beg to differ. If the likes of pete gather influence, we might as well go back to banging the rooks together. Here in The UK, we still have parts of Norfolk where people point at aircraft. If YECs win the argument, we might even start worshipping them...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:08 PM

999-i hope i dont topple off this pedestal you put me on.it's probably higher than it should be!-but thanks for the kind words.

don-i think you overstate your case.the 1st christians were jewish following a jewish messiah.there are still messianic jews now and i very much doubt they are all evolutionists-probably the opposite IMO.

sugarfoot-it remains to be seen how much would be accomodated when cherished philosophical ideas are challenged.
i did indicate that there had been a merging of equilibrium and gradualism.that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other ,as was the case initially.
regards   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:08 PM

I visited Norfolk the other day - and I saw some rooks!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 May 12 - 03:10 PM

On my visit to Norfolk I may even have pointed at the rooks!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 12 - 07:53 PM

Our pete serially insults the whole of scientific endeavour with his disingenuous, quasi-religious, anti-intellectual nonsense. He is impenetrable and he does not engage in any genuine way with anyone here who questions his viewpoint. It's a completely dishonest and nefarious position, yet 'tis me wot gets picked up for allegedly calling him names. Nice one, Jacky Tar. Do continue to give the man succour. We'll be here all year.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 12 - 09:59 PM

Let me say it this way Steve... you are like an old friend of mine who was very smart, and who was usually right about things, but sadly, had no idea how to BE right. It is NOT the case that those who WE are sure are both wrong and not 'getting it' are by definition "dishonest".

Allegedly? You called Pete names "cheap, facile unthinking...buffoon".

He is none of those. He thinks...and you & I know where his thinking has problems. Facile? "..affable, agreeable, or complaisant; easily influenced:". Not exactly... we educated, intelligent folk sure aren't budging him! He IS trying to cope with both your arguments and MY arguments. He is far from 'cheap', if I glean your meaning. He is far from a buffoon...look it up!
You, Steve, toss those words around loosely, rather than trying to find really fitting language that 'might' get you some attention, if not agreement. *I* might say he is 'stubborn', but from his theological viewpoint, he NEEDS to be stubborn.

I read an opinion once that... no matter what your religion, club, family, team, or political party, there is always someone on your side who you wish was on the OTHER side.
I disagree with Pete on almost every major point, but I can talk to him.... I'm not really sure I'd have YOU on my side in a debate.

"Oh wad the gift the giftie gie us..."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 May 12 - 03:37 AM

"i did indicate that there had been a merging of equilibrium and gradualism.that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other ..."

Really?? I very much doubt that Creationists have that much influence on evolutionary theory!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 25 May 12 - 04:34 AM

"it remains to be seen how much would be accomodated when cherished philosophical ideas are challenged."

Then challenge it with observable, testable evidence.

You're dead wrong in thinking cherished beliefs are the sacred cows of science - far from it. Scientists challenge each other constantly, and any review of current discussions would demonstrate that. Science encourages challenge as it's how we test our methods, data and conclusions.

"that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other"

Huh? How the heck did they arrive at that conclusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 05:05 AM

Now Bill. I explode with justifiable impatience at this man's silly notions, we've been at him for months like a bunch of lunatics and now you tell me I "have no idea how to be right." Well I'm telling you that no-one here has succeeded, no matter how "right", in penetrating this man's armour. In fact I suspect that he's all armour with nothing inside. I groan every time I see you or anyone else giving pete a long, patient, gentle explanation of the way things really are. It's a lamentable waste of time. He is enjoying this business of toying with us, serially employing the one ploy he knows (pretending to be stupid and ignorant about science then shitting all over it). pete has persuaded us all what a nice man he is. Well I demur. Nice men don't close their eyes tight shut and shit all over science - and scientists. He feigns dignity (and has hoodwinked a number of people here into believing it) from a position which utterly lacks any semblance of dignity, that of glorying in pig ignorance. If you "know how to be right", Bill, show pete, and hurry up about it. You've failed miserably (just like the rest of us) so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 May 12 - 06:44 AM

Hi Steve. Have you had a chance to read up about falsifiability yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 12 - 08:47 AM

I wouldn't worry about it mate. In another thread, simply for refusing to accept religion, I was called a fundamentalist.

Now that WAS interesting. It seems you can be slightly religious but not slightly atheist. (Don't start a thread on agnostic versus atheist, I'll start swearing and spoil it.)

I'm probably slightly human too. Good job I don't give a f

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 12:47 PM

"If you "know how to be right", Bill, show pete, and hurry up about it. "

The point is, a debate is not useless because one side fails to convince the other.

You see, I don't expect to convince Pete. All I really do in this case is try to leave ".... a long, patient, gentle explanation of the way things really are.". I 'hope' Pete might have a crack in his armor someday, but I have spent many years dealing with personal friends & acquaintances who hold awkward views on this & similar topics. With few exceptions, they are sane, nice, friendly, enjoyable people. We just don't discuss certain topics a lot. Pete gets our/my attentions because he chooses to directly enter the discussion.....and he doesn't call US names or question our honesty or intelligence.

   Remember, YEC is only an extreme subset of a belief system that posits metaphysical entities... and there are many similar belief systems. I find that it is useful to ME to hone my own understandings by discussing/debating them when they appear in this forum. Yes, it is frustrating when the same categories of logical & factual errors seem to crop up over & over, but I am quite sure I'm not going to win converts to MY point of view by insults, ridicule and general assumptions about what is 'in the mind' of those I debate.
"He is enjoying this business of toying with us....He feigns dignity ...etc."

I am assured by two people who know him personally that Pete is honest and decent.... but I don't NEED even that. *I* have the choice to give up and end the discussion if someone seems belligerent and attacks me personally....and I have done so a few times here. I suggest that course if your blood pressure seems too high.....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 01:30 PM

The blood pressure's fine, thanks. How many more times do we really have to hear that pete is honest, decent, etc. etc.? That one gets thrown in so many times! pete represents himself here in the way he wishes to represent himself. I take that at face value. And what I see is a man who studiously disses science and scientists and who refuses to embrace honestly any scientific concept whatsoever. It's a fundamentally dishonest stance. If he's a nice bloke down the pub singing his songs it's because that's the way he wishes to represent himself down the pub.      He doesn't pepper his singing with religious rants, I'll be bound. But the kind of nonsense he propagates here has done massive intellectual damage to a lot of people by helping to switch off part of their brains. Bet you won't hear pete telling his fellow travellers to shut up with their nonsense in front of kids, for example. You're being suckered, Bill. Soft faces, hard cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 02:18 PM

"You're being suckered, Bill"

☺

Ah well... I am not suddenly consumed with the desire to read Revelations or join a church. If I met Pete and found him smirking at me for being led into all this to further his amusement, I'd be upset...but I kinda doubt that's how it would go. More likely we'd sit and thrash out more of the details in a conversation. That's an easier way to debate anyway.

..."the kind of nonsense he propagates here has done massive intellectual damage to a lot of people by helping to switch off part of their brains. "

keywords... "has done".... I don't feel in danger....do you?

I have an interest in saying whatever I can to find a switch to turn ON parts of brains that have a wiring problem. We in the USA have a serious issue with folks who want to insert religious ideas as far out as Pete's into politics. I rehearse my reasoning by friendly debates with Pete... and earlier, with Iona..... and WAY earlier with several others. I have not converted anyone, and they have not converted me. I just do it to be sure MY views are represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 12 - 02:24 PM

Whilst knowingly putting kindling on the fire, I have to say Steve makes a very fundamental (that word again) point. We have to take posters at face value, not based on either knowing them or second hand opinions of them.

It is what we say on these posts that we judge each other by. I would be horrified to think my whole persona was accurately reflected in what I rant on about all the same, and with our little YEC pete, I can only say that I am posting replies and observations in terms of how he portrays himself.

And it ain't pretty.

in fact, if too many people take he and his fellow patients seriously, downright bloody frightening!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 04:52 PM

"We have to take posters at face value.."

Indeed... and I do my best to read not only the words, but to read 'between the lines' and make a reasonable guess at motivation and character. This DOES lead to conflicts as to how to respond.

I cannot let the basic errors in understanding of science go unchallenged, but neither can I condemn a person simply on the basis of what I consider 'wrong' ideas. I almost always react to **ideas** in a forum like this, not to a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 May 12 - 06:18 PM

""don-i think you overstate your case.the 1st christians were jewish following a jewish messiah.there are still messianic jews now and i very much doubt they are all evolutionists-probably the opposite IMO.""

Slack and slapdash thinking Pete. The first Christians were followers of Jesus who so far departed from Jewish custom and thought that his fellows chose to save a murderer rather than this (to them) false Messiah.

There are indeed many Messianic Jews, but a very tiny proportion of their number believe that the Messiah is Jesus, and orthodox Jews to this day believe that the Messiah is yet to appear.

""I cannot let the basic errors in understanding of science go unchallenged, but neither can I condemn a person simply on the basis of what I consider 'wrong' ideas. I almost always react to **ideas** in a forum like this, not to a person.""

Bill D, I couldn't agree more with that statement.

After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character.

He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist.

I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air.

Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 25 May 12 - 06:58 PM

Did you notice the thread about the 42,000 year old flute? Obviously it was played by angels or some such, seeing as humans weren't invented until 6000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 08:18 PM

We in the USA have a serious issue with folks who want to insert religious ideas as far out as Pete's into politics.

Hmmm. You haven't done very well, then, have you? Perhaps you should consider being a little less chummy with these guys and a little more critical instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 12 - 08:32 PM

After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character.

I don't give a stuff about pete's "real-life character." I'm perfectly prepared to accept that he's a personable sort of chap when it comes to his troubadour exploits. But he talks shit here. That's what I concentrate on, Don. What are you actually on about?

He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist.

Ignorance of what subject? And what's this "portrays himself" shite, Don? Would you like me to send you my certificates?

I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air.

Well you've lost me there. Are you still talking about me or what??? Who said that about you, Don? Would you like me to punch them on the nose for you?

Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners.

Well, Don, if you think that dropping shite on the whole of science and on every scientist, refusing to listen to a single scientific idea, and feigning ignorance is good manners, I can't help thinking that you've been deluded. Charm is no substitute for integrity and honesty, qualities that pete has yet to demonstrate on this forum, if not in, er, real life.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 12 - 09:32 PM

"consider being a little less chummy with these guys and a little more critical instead."
I am not the least bit chummy with those who are trying to do that. I get along fine with those who mostly keep their beliefs to their church. (I don't hear Pete suggesting that YEC be taught in schools as fact.)

Don T... it's hopeless to make the point about 'manners' sometimes...hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 26 May 12 - 03:19 AM

He doesn't have to argue. Everybody else argues instead.

Bill, I fully accept your point that it is ideas rather than people we should be considering although on a posting site such as this, ideas do tend to be personified.

Steve's exasperation is both justified and rational. We can never move forward as civilisation whilst facts are weighed against myth. I used to work with a couple of guys who belonged to a devout Christian cult that had decided that mobile phones were banned somewhere in the bible. (don't ask, and I never did either...). Now, if their interpretation became widespread, the upturn in fortunes of the Masai in rearing cattle and getting to market more efficiently could not have come about. The upturn being less starving African children because phone masts were put up for tourists on safari. Small example and nothing compared to religious disdain of blood transfusions or insisting on mutilating childrens' genitals. Let alone the noble art of book burning!

I am coming off the fence here. It is one thing to disagree with a scientific hypothesis but another to dismiss through ignorance and preconception. It is rather insulting too, hence I have no problem with being insulting back. Other than a misgiving over mocking the afflicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 May 12 - 01:17 PM

"Creationism" should be reframed as "delusionalism". There is nothing creative about it.
I am appalled that this thread continues as if there were some rational defense for this delusion.

I will not attack the character of any individual but I won't stand still for delusional ideas or belief systems for which I have no respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 May 12 - 01:54 PM

Ian, were the anti-mobile-phone guys Exclusive Brethren? They have some sort of belief about Satan being the Prince of the Air (presumably Biblical), and therefore that which travels through the air is subject to him. They attribute quite a lot of power to the fallen angel, and could probably be described as dualists. The reverse of Dawkin's (?) remark about having gone one more step in the number of gods not believed in, having gone one step backwards. They are very afraid of him. I did challenge a couple of parents on this over the extension of this belief to computer use, pointing out that Jesus was supposed to have defeated Satan, but they feel he can still work his wicked way on those who have not accepted adult baptism within the sect. such as their children.

Oddly for a very exclusive group, a number of their beliefs I had met in other places such as that odd group from the hippy period - Children of God, was it, with an abusive leader? They weren't directly from the Bible. (Bar codes being 666 was one, I think.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 May 12 - 04:42 PM

don t -certainly most jews do not believe Jesus is the messiah.i understood your comments to be claiming none of them did.certainly if you had said "most"i would agree.however you said "none ".
i dont really get your point as to the OT chronaclers not believing that Jesus was messiah since they wrote prior to his appearing.[whether they would recognise him given the opportunity in their lifetime can only be affirmed by ref to our beliefs.i would answer in the probable and i guess you in the negative].
i read your post again,and perish the thought ,could it be slightly slapdash!.

sugarfoot-i agree that scientists do challenge each others or existing theories, and equilibria and gradualism is one of those instances-though closing ranks since.
darwinisn in some form or the other is IMO the cherished holy cow that will not countenance creationism and excludes papers that support it-though sometimes scientists have suceeded in publishing if not directly creationist.
i understand that catastrophism is now accepted as a mechanism in the evolutionism story,where once it was totally dismissed following lyell ,if i remember correctly ,stating that the past was only to be interpreted by ref to present prosseses.uniformitarianism ruled!
catastrophic geological action is now ok-as long as its not biblical!
i stand to be corrected on the details if i'm mistaken.
best wishes to everyone! pete