BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 04:45 PM

interesting that a different verdict is now concluded on the dino soft tissue despite the previous best efforts to prove the same.yes,i know it happens,-things that were once definite to evolutionists are shelved in light of new evidence,but as it was a ref not to hand i will remain sceptical ,having read some secular as well as creationist articles on the original discovery.
it is at least refreshing that gould[and apparently some of yourselves ]admit that arguments exist against darwinism.i,for my part admit creationism has the same-and certainly with my limited ability am not equal to some of your challenges.thankyou to those who opposed me in a civil manner- pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:44 AM

pete.... back aways you answered me this way:

"....though respecting your learning an argument from authority is not exactly convincing,though greatly superior to argument by ridicule!."

I somehow missed the opportunity to ask you just how MY opinion constitutes "an argument from authority" while yours does not.

If you 'respect my learning' - and possibly the learning of several others here who debate you on this topic - I must ask why you consistently reject this learning? My primary education was in philosophy and logic, which is why *I* dispute the patterns of reasoning you use. Others here, as you see, have pretty extensive knowledge of paleontology and geology...and even I have read extensively in those areas. You, on the other hand, refer mostly to creationist web sites which offer 'evidence' about things like 'hell ceek', which have been studied by experts and shown to not prove what you suggest.

I appreciate that you are anxious to preserve & defend ideas which seem to support the Biblical accounts of Genesis. The problem is- Genesis, as a book, is several thousand years old, and those who copied and translated it (and probably are the 'authors') only had myth and guesswork to work from. We have only had science which can understand dinosaur bones and DNA and carbon dating of materials for a short time. We can now begin to KNOW what happened when the Earth was young, and what our place in it represents.
If, as I said before, you want to say that this is HOW God directed it all to happen, I can't prove you wrong....but it is really an exercise in futility to cling to 'young Earth' theories and assert that all these experts, whose learning you respect, are wrong. The math and the science simply show that Earth IS several billion years old and that human history IS several million years old and that legends about floods are based on local events, not world-wide events.

There are many ways to express religious convictions and show reverence for Higher Powers that you believe in, but stubborn denial of obvious scientific facts is NOT a very useful way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:11 AM

"for example i doubt anyone before hell creek dinos would countenance the idea of soft tissue/blood spots lasting 65 mill yrs.i,ve no doubt that if they find dinos in the congo darwinism will adjust again because anything goes except darwinian dogma."

Pete, had you been at the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology meeting this year in Las Vegas you might have seen a presentation which indicates the soft tissues found in the Hell Creek Tyrannosaur were not blood at all. I have a ref for this but can't be arsed to trawl the abstract book.

They are find dinosaurs in the Congo (birds are dinosaurs) ;-) If they were to find non-avian dinosaurs in the Congo I doubt there isn't a palaeontologist in the world that wouldn't be cock-a-hoop over the discovery, as it would answer the many questions we have regarding these animals. Of course, the survival of a non-avian dinosaur in no way runs counter to Darwinism - why would it?

All you have to do Pete is find a horse in the Solnholfen, a bony fish or a whale in the Burgess Shale, an elephant in the Hell Creek (I hope to be there digging dinos later in the year so hopefully I might find one) and you can challenge the robustness of evolutionary theory and be famous as the man who brought down Darwinism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:11 AM

CMXCIX

I think if it had been IX IX IX It would have been respectful. But I don't think roman numerals even included small case.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 10:34 PM

Yep. It is a bad time. (I've never been called ixixix before. Better than vivivi :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 09:18 PM

I have mentioned Stephen Jay Gould before...I have been reading The Panda's Thumb for weeks now. If YOU,Pete *******, would take the trouble to actually read something like that by someone who understands the issue and explains all the arguments for & against evolution, you might avoid some of these attacks.

I will tell you... understand that **evolution happens** need not be a hindrance to your basic faith.... there are many sincere Christians who accept the age of the Earth and the forces of evolution and still go happily to church.
Try it...you might feel better with the idea that God was even clever than you thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 08:56 PM

ixixix:

Parthenogenesis doesn't (per se) include a mechanism for mixing genes. And anyway gods are immortal. So in theistic evolution not Darwinian, but Pratchettian.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:39 PM

I'm guessing this would be a bad time to mention theistic evolution, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 05:15 PM

Hi *******
The preservation of soft tissues is an unexpected bonus, exactly the opposite of a "problem". Similarly, the survival of archaic lifeforms is not a problem. Were ichthyosaurs to be discovered in Loch Ness, or pterosaurs in Pakistan, that would be a wonderful new field for study. Sadly this does not often happen.

As for "flexibility", that is better described as toughness. When evidence comes forward that contradicts the current understanding, it is studied, and if found to be true, the theory changes. That's science. Like wrought iron, it bends to a new shape, but doesn't break. (As an aside, it's really difficult to beat swords into ploughshares. Carbon steel is hard and springy, not tough and malleable).

If you really want to find out about the wonderful world of the (sometimes successful) prediction of the forms of transitional fossils, read some of the excellent popularising writers- Stephen Jay Gould is very good. You'll also read about failures, because failures are sometimes as important in science as successes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 03:27 PM

paul-at least you attempt an insult in a more grammatically eloquent form than some of your fellow evolutionists!
seems i try your patience for alledgedly trying to be stupid.you are entitled to your opinion though i suggest you misunderstand what i say ,unintentionally[?]setting up a misrepresentation .
i am fully aware that scientific theories are flawed and incomplete and that applies to creationists also.however,IMO,evolutionism is so flexible it can accomodate whatever evidence is raised against it.
for example i doubt anyone before hell creek dinos would countenance the idea of soft tissue/blood spots lasting 65 mill yrs.i,ve no doubt that if they find dinos in the congo darwinism will adjust again because anything goes except darwinian dogma.
however iam interested to know what these predictions are you mention.i can venture no comment on the general claim .
regards pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 02:08 PM

Genesis being a "scientific" explanation for anything is specious.

Young Earth Creationism is one of the most adolescent views of religion that I have ever seen.

Faith=ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM

" ... fully qualified scientists that use their expertise not only in operational science but in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism."

Yes, pete, it's been said before, but it bears repeating, a "fully qualified scientist" who spends his/her time "defending creation" is not practising science in any legitimate or recognisable form.

On the other hand a "fully qualified scientist" who exposes the "flaws in neo darwinism" may (possibly) be practising science. Or to express that concept in a more reasonable form: a scientist who critically examines an existing theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, in the light of new evidence is practising legitimate science.

Note that the contents of an ancient text, of dubious provenance, or the dogmatic ramblings of its past or present adherents does not constitute new evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

pete 7*, I'm getting a little short of patience with your studied obtuseness.

As I've pointed out, ALL science has many flaws, some of them fundamental (though we don't know which ones, and why, yet). And all scientists are trying to find these flaws. That's how our understanding of the world improves. It's never perfect, and nobody expects that it ever will be. All scientists have to do is show their evidence.

Evolution science has progressed in the last 250 years fromn a guess based on the apparent similarities of some animals, to a hugely powerful tool that can, amongst other things, successfully predict the form of ancestral animals whose fossils were unknown. The subsequent discovery of fossils that matched the description closely shows that the theory is on the right track.*

Creationists are dismissed, not because they are too bold for science or for fear of upsetting the applecart, but because they have not brought up any verifiable evidence to support their point of view.

Religious people and romantics are fond of claiming that science does not present a complete picture of the world. That is true. But if they then claim that their contribution expands, complements, or supersedes that picture, why should anyone believe them, unless they present their evidence? At which point the evidence can be tested, and it becomes science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:53 AM

sorry bill,-maybe i should have said"problems/gaps/inconsistences"or something else.though respecting your learning an argument from authority is not exactly convincing,though greatly superior to argument by ridicule!.
being very sure of your position you would be an excellent candidate to tackle the "15 questions for evolutionists"?
best wishes-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 10:36 AM

fully qualified scientists that use their expertise...in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism.

If they are doing that, they obviously do not understand the scientific method and are therefore, de facto, not "scientists".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:43 PM

sorry pete...but "exposing the flaws" is an unwarranted assumption that there are such flaws.

As whether they are 'ignorant' arguments or not depends on how they(meaning each one individually) explain & justify their beliefs. A "qualified scientist" can mean either one who has some 'credentials' or one who carefully follows scientific procedures. A scientist with advanced degrees who ignores logic and picks & chooses evidence based on data that is NOT scientific is not behaving as a good scientist.

This problem occurs in many areas of science, from chemistry to genetics to astronomy.....some people just WANT certain results more than they want accuracy.
As YOU can appreciate, I suspect that 'creationist scientists' usually make some error along those lines. The hard evidence simply shows that, over long periods of time, we and other living beings DID evolve from simpler forms.
   If you want to claim that 'God planned it that way', I can't prove otherwise, but it is what it is, whether it was planned or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:33 PM

1) How can religious morality be used to stop misapplications of scientific research?

It can't because religious morality is all over the map and means different things to different people. The misapplications of scientific research such as the Manhattan Project or hydrogen bombs will never be stopped by religious morality in fact religious morality has been used to rationalize the use of these odious weapons.

2) Can science provide a framework for a moral system?

Of course it can, when it is applied for the benefit of society. The problem with frameworks for a moral system is that it turns out to be system(s) which often clash with one another.

3) Which religion should be allowed to exercise it's moral authority over science (or anything else for that matter)?

None. It should not interfere with the practice of science. There is no moral authority that can govern the behavior of mankind without damage. There is "ethics", however, and you don't need religion for that.

4) What is the ultimate source of that authority?

The ultimate source is the dictatorial constructs used to manipulate others.

5) Is it possible the source of religious moral authority might not sit too well with the people who are being directed by it?

Dictatorship never sits well with anyone. The religious moral authority is often an excuse to oppress others.

6) Does politics have a role in this?

Religion is a form of politics. It has been so since Saladin and Constantine. It is hierarchical in nature and hence political.

Make it so even a pompous fat twat like me can understand.

Religion's use is only as good as it improves the way society functions for the benefit of all. Young Earth Creation serves no positive function to improve society. It is a construct
that has meaning only to oppress those by subjecting them to a cultish mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:02 PM

"origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism."

That is a very unscientific thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 06:55 PM

bill-i think i understand your point.but in using the term i intend a shorthand that more fully means,-fully qualified scientists that use their expertise not only in operational science but in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism.
you ,i appreciate ,do not accept their conclusions but i hope that you accept that they are not ignorant arguments,as is the argument by ridicule advanced by gregg et al that they are idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 02:55 PM

Maybe you should aim for tit reduction instead, and avoid straining yourself. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:12 AM

Dunno about the rapture, but for me the rupture will be this Saturday. I have decided to pull out a tree stump that is getting on my tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:59 AM

What's the latest on the dates for:

*Doomsday ?

* The Rapture ?

* The next messiah's arrival ?

as I want to plan this year's festivals & gatherings without clashing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

" Explanation of experience and belief are chalk and cheese."

Careful . . . try telling that some some people and you'll be slagged off big style.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:37 AM

And people are still making comparisons between religion and science. Explanation of experience and belief are chalk and cheese.

I believe Sheffield Wednesday to be the best football team ever. Facts tend to disagree with me, but I don't let facts get in the way of my belief.

You can't have a theory about anything, let alone time travel without either acknowledging or adequately disproving current theories.

Bringing imaginary concepts into the argument to balance observable evidence doesn't help, doesn't explain and doesn't need courtesy either. Rather, it requires either ignoring or the noble art of pointing and laughing.

(Bridge got it right, (stop saying that Mather!) at the very top of this thread when he said he could do with a good laugh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:33 PM

last i heard evolutionary cosmology had its own problems to solve.creationist scientists have theories too about time /light travel.

This illustrates neatly the necessary conflict between science and "revealed" religion. All science always has problems, that's what's really exciting about it, and why it is so fruitful. Every explanation provided by science is provisional; it's the best we can do until some snag shows our understanding to be incomplete or even completely wrong. The work of getting to the next better explanation is the exciting bit, and where all the advances made by science, and which benefit us all, come from.

Dogmatic religion on the other hand already has all the answers, and so is never looking for better ones. Indeed, if any fault in their understanding is pointed out, they simply refuse to consider the evidence. And that is why this sort of religion has never in thousands of years advanced the human condition one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:23 PM

Aw, Greg, you say the sweetest things!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:22 PM

"creationist scientists " is an awkward term...

No, its not. Its an oxymoron and arrant bullshit into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:02 PM

The amount of sheer dullness awaiting any poor soul who is unwilling to face simple facts is unfathomable.

Science is about the measurable testable, falsifiable. Morals is about consideration of individual, group, and global goodness of choices. The too may have some intersecting territory but they have no claim on each other.

There is no science to creationsim. The creationist hypothesis requires the ignoral of huge amounts of simple, irrefutable data, and avoids hundreds of simple, direct questions it cannot answer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:46 PM

"creationist scientists " is an awkward term. One can do certain kinds of science and still believe in biblical creation... but in so far as one is expressing creationist views, one is NOT being a scientist. It's similar to a teacher who also has kids in school-- when you act as a parent, you can't also act directly as a teacher. There a lot of quick hat changes involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:07 PM

tia-last i heard evolutionary cosmology had its own problems to solve.creationist scientists have theories too about time /light travel.i,m not scientific enough to explain it in any depth and you are u nlikely to consider it anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

Mather, Obviously your religion is a Quixotic quest to to waste the time of people with better things to do by drawing them into arguments through insults and taunts. May the GSM bless you and rain marinara upon you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:17 PM

"I think you got the initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed."

Bingo - you got the joke.

"Where you got the idea you are able to give ANYone a clue is beyond me. That has to be the single-most puffed-up and egocentric remark I've read on this site."

Haven't read much then have you? I apologise if my remark came across as holier than thou, perhaps I misunderstood your point. I'm full of shit but at least I admit it; after a decade posting here I'd be a fool not too. Especially given some of the crap talked on here.

"Science is one, mathematics another, ethics also another, philosophy yet again another. If you stop your thinking in a single area of human research you cut yourself off from other truths. "

Agree. But science and religion can co-exist only if each other side agrees to disagree, and then what's the point?

"If religion is about morality and not power, then it can be used to help keep the misapplications of scientific research from being put to nefarious/evil purposes."

This is the bit I must have misunderstood Guest 999. So clear this up for me:

1) How can religious morality be used to stop misapplications of scientific research?

2) Can science provide a framework for a moral system?

3) Which religion should be allowed to exercise it's moral authority over science (or anything else for that matter)?

4) What is the ultimate source of that authority?

5) Is it possible the source of religious moral authority might not sit too well with the people who are being directed by it?

6) Does politics have a role in this?

Make it so even a pompous fat twat like me can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:13 PM

Hello Sailor!

Wow! I'm out of my depth here. Unlike you, I am not qualified to make clinical assessments.

You must be though, to drag the word "homosexual" into the debate. I don't understand that bit, so as I say, out of my depth. If by homosexual you mean that YEC is a load of cock, then I am with you in a tenuous way...

The other bit that is spooky is how you brought the flying spaghetti monster into your reply to, I think, my post, as opposed to the post it was mentioned in above? It is spooky because I joined the said church (largely because I like being called a pastafarian) in order to put something silly on the monitoring forms I get to fill in when doing work for the government. Atheist is an insulting term for those of us who see religion as irrelevant to us and a pain to society, although comforting for some.

So you don't think young age creationism is a fairy story? What, pray, is it then?

(Do you like how I managed to put the word "pray" in there? Does it make me sound like the voice of reason? Who here from The UK can remember the voice of reason, Woodrow Wyatt? it was pricks like him who made me act like a child of taunting mockery in the first place.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:54 AM

"Fairy Stories" Deliberate, insult and attempt to provoke with possible homosexual overtones.

If that is "clinical assessment, I AM the flying spaghetti monster. You are obviously not a voice of reason, you are a acting like a child of taunting mockery.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM

At the risk of sounding like one of pete from some star or other's "foulmouthed insult" jockeys...

Of course people will listen politely to your reasoned argument. I have a friend who does that all the time.

He listens to people, nods as to respect what they are saying. he even makes notes whilst they are saying it.

Then he makes his clinical assessment.

Look. Surely far better for someone to tell you that your ideas are silly, weird and have no place in reality over and above any other fairy story than to have people pretend to debate with you because they feel sorry for you?

I am at least treating you as an equal by taking the piss?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 05:26 AM

Amongst others from here

There are several creation stories in Egypt, attached to rival gods. The most common one begins with Nun, the primeval ocean, from which Amen rises in splendour. He takes the name Re, thus in effect merging two rival deities. By an act of masturbation (described as such in the temple texts) he produces a divine son and daughter. These two breed a race of gods, while the tears of Amen-Re become mankind - appropriately enough, for man's behaviour soon persuades the creator to withdraw from earthly affairs. He retires to the heavens, where he reigns as the sun.

I don't believe this. Nor do I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Does that make me a "fundamentalist nonbeliever" or is that only lack of belief in specific creation myths?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:22 AM

That is how we do it in UK Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:08 AM

Well, I think it would be a very good idea for students to learn about the various creation myths in school - along with understanding that while these are not merely myths and they do have great value, they are not scientific fact.

I suppose the fundamentalist believers would have trouble with the "myth" and the fundamentalist nonbelievers would still have trouble with "creation," even if described as myth. If we could manage to offend the extremes on both sides, then we might accomplish something.

Myths are not (necessarily) untrue, and they often have profound meaning - although they are not scientific or historical fact.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:47 PM

If God actually created (on purpose; to test your fatih perhaps?) those photons enroute from all those suns, galaxies, and nebulae farther than 6000 light years away, he/she is just purely fucking with your head, so why do you believe anything else he/she tells you?
Or are you going to claim that the universe is finite, with a radius of 6000 light years?
Sorry, you've got no other choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:52 PM

"...initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed."

**stifling a giggle**

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:40 PM

"Then you need to understand what science is, how it works and what its fundamental aims are. I'll give you a clue: It's about finding out the truth."

If by truth you mean something that can be observed and repeated by people in other times and places, I am aware of that, but in your dash to be superior you neglected to read what I wrote. The search for truth is found within most disciplines. Science is one, mathematics another, ethics also another, philosophy yet again another. If you stop your thinking in a single area of human research you cut yourself off from other truths.

Where you got the idea you are able to give ANYone a clue is beyond me. That has to be the single-most puffed-up and egocentric remark I've read on this site. I think you got the initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:57 PM

bill-i certainly agree that a polite reasoned case is more likely to be heard than the foulmouthed insults of some who perhaps have no other means of making a case?!not that i can recall anything you,ve said as making me rethink,but at least communication is possible.

paul-just to say,-creationists have no argument against natural selection.species were known to change within the parameters of their type before darwin as you probably know.indeed it is thought by some that he got it from the creationist edward blythe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:00 AM

Well, ONE of the real points
I stand corrected. I did not intend to imply the point I raised was the only one. I agree it lacks a fundamental understanding of logic that such things should be put to the vote, but, in at least the case of these current bills, that's what's happening. So they need to be defeated (or, if you are that way inclined, won) by persuading others who are not in committed to one camp or the other. Which means these arguments are worth having, even though neither side expects to convert the other. But, agreeing with Bill's point, they need to be persuaded by reasoned argument, not be either side simply declaring the other to be fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:44 AM

" I fail so see why two 'great' areas of human thought cannot co-habitate."

Then you need to understand what science is, how it works and what its fundamental aims are. I'll give you a clue: It's about finding out the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:17 AM

Nurse! Nurse!

Ahhh.... that's better.

When's supper?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:57 PM

I agree with Bill's general statement. I fail so see why two 'great' areas of human thought cannot co-habitate. If religion is about morality and not power, then it can be used to help keep the misapplications of scientific research from being put to nefarious/evil purposes. And for some people that is the reality. Conversely, cloning is a concept that was shown to us in Genesis(?) when Eve was made from Adam's rib.

God made it and Darwin explained it. Then came Jerry Falwell. Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

Well, ONE of the real points is that such issues should not be "put to the vote". The very idea that matters of either morality or science are subject to occasional 'votes' is crazy.
No one can tell you what to think...but it is possible to describe and identify bad reasoning, which, if taught openly and clearly, can gradually 'help' clarify both matters of morality and science.

This is what is implicitly embodied in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution when it says that we will not deny the right to worship, but also will not endorse any religion. Views specifically based on religion...OR the rejection of religion... should not be a matter of who can get the most votes....yet many current members of Congress ignore this. *IF* rational thinking were more common, this at least would begin to sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

////A common response to the fact that YEC has an explanation for everything is to say, "See, those YEC guys aren't scientific; their theory is unfalsifiable". Be fair, guys. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If creationism is dismissed on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable, then AEN had better check its own house.////

Yes, I've read your examples of how AEN, as you call it, is unfalsifiable and found it wanting. Piltdown man was simply a hoax not something that proves AEN right or wrong--it was just a hoax. You brought up nothing that proved AEN was wrong. Your argument about the various timelines in a work of art was similarly unconvincing simply because your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to compare an ordinary human endeavor to something that no human endeavor can be compared, i.e. the creation of the universe. And you did this without offering a shred of proof. No need to go all philosophical on you. You offered a bad analogy and nothing else. I hope you have more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

I'm not as venerable as either Bill or Greg, but I venture to say I think the real point being missed, and it's one I raised months ago. When these get put to the vote it will not be decided (directly) by the enthusiasts from either camp, but by those who are either genuinely undecided or, more likely I am afraid, those asking where their personal political advantage lies. That's why neither bunch of enthusiasts can afford to let the others talk away and just assume 'those of good sense' will simply agree with them

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:35 PM

"..., after a lifetime of experience spanning some 65 years, I'm able to recognize a lost cause and a futile waste of time and energy when I see it.

*grin*.. I'm 72, and have had genuine success [admittedly never enough] using MY system. Go thou and try it.....,

"Banging your head on the wall is such a great thing, because it feels so good when you stop."