BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:43 PM

Steve Shaw,

I am surprised you found statements 14 and 15 misleading, incorrect, garbled and off-beam. Statement #14, the one that says that "In a population, the degree of divergence from the common ancestor is inversely related to the proportion of successfully reproducing organisms in the population" is straight Darwinism. It is a bit of Darwinism that creationists also accept, and it was well known before Darwin was born, but he adopted it as part of his theory.

Consider two previously finch-free islands. A storm blows 20 finches (10 male and 10 female) to each island. These 40 finches all come from the same population on the mainland. Island one is perfect for the finches. All 20 of the original colonizers reproduce and reproductive success is high for many generations. Island two is terrible for finches. Only six of the original colonizers reproduce (the six with, let us say, the longest beaks)and the population barely hangs on for generations. A century later, which population will be most divergent from the mainland population? It will be the population on Island Two. Their beaks will be longer than those of the mainland population and longer than those of the population on the other island. In other words, the degree of divergence is inversely related to the proportion of successfully organisms in the population.   

As for statement #15, the one that says that, in a population, the traits of the organisms with the greatest reproductive success will tend to increase, and the traits of those with the lowest reproductive success will tend to decrease, that too is straight Darwinism. Mr. Darwin called it sexual selection, I believe. This occurs naturally, or it can be done artificially. In my population of sheep, I am reducing the reproductive success of certain organisms, the rams Bartlett and Dale, to zero (by keeping them in the ram's field, with no access to the ewes). The traits of those organisms are therefore not being passed on. I am increasing the reproductive success of another organism, Caldwell the Ram, by putting him in with the ewes. His traits will tend to increase.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:08 PM

Banjo Ray, The Snail, Smokey, etc.

I am trying to be clear, but somehow what I'm saying is not getting across.   Please let me try again.

First, if you will allow a little rant, let me repeat for about the fourth time: I am attempting to explain a viewpoint, not attempting to prove that the viewpoint is correct. . Pardon my capitalization but I KNOW FULL WELL THAT I HAVEN'T PROVED CREATIONISM TO BE TRUE. I'M NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE, as I stated in the first post on this thread. Feel free to stop pointing out to me that I'm "failing" to do what I said at the outset that I would not even try to do. I have a job. I have a family. I don't have time to write the Creationist equivalent of THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES and, if I did have time, I wouldn't write it as a string of posts on Mudcat. Rant over.

Here is what Young Earth Creationists believe: God exists. He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent. He made the universe. Being omnipotent, He could have made it any way He choose and, being eternal as well, he could have made it in 767 quintillion years, or in 30 billion years, or in six days, or in 0.04 milliseconds.    He could have made it 17 octillion years ago or 7,000 years ago or this afternoon.

God knows how long He took to create the universe and He knows when He created it. He could have chosen to keep this information from us, or He could have chosen to reveal this information to us. He chose to reveal it to us. If He did not reveal it, we could never figure it out, because it is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in.   

Why is it impossible?   Let me answer by first asking another question:   For how long had Lady Margaret's hair been growing?

Why do I ask such a question? Well, tonight I was singing about Lady Margaret combing her long yellow hair (Child Ballad #14) and I noticed , about 6 seconds into the song, that she and Sweet William were arguing. Sweet William said (for I had revealed it to him) that the song had been going on for about six seconds. Lady Margaret said he was an irrational fool because anyone could see that it would take at least a year for a lady's long yellow hair to grow as long as hers.   Sweet William replied that the singer made her hair long to begin with. Lady Margaret said this was nonsense. Such a singer would be nothing but a liar, tricking poor innocent ladies into believing their hair to be a year old when it was really only six seconds old. Sweet William replied that there was no lie involved; that the singer had made it perfectly clear how long the song had been going on.

I hope you see the point. If the universe is God's ballad, then the only possible way we (who are inside the "ballad") can know when the ballad began is by the revelation of the Singer. It is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in.   

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:18 PM

No-one has asked you to prove creationism is true, Kent.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:30 PM

Smokey,

Not many have asked me to prove that creationism is true, but many have had a grand old time pointing out that I haven't proved it. Ed T. did ask me to prove it (yesterday at 8:45), perhaps other as well.

Oh well, I hope those who are interested at least have a better understanding of what creationists believe.   

Have a great evening!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:43 PM

What creationists believe is easily available knowledge, though I appreciate your efforts. The question is, why? On what grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:51 PM

Ed T. did ask me to prove it (yesterday at 8:45)

No he didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:05 AM

Quote from Ed T. at 8:45 yesterday "Kent, How can it be so?"

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:18 AM

Well, I suppose it depends on what meaning you ascribe to things - I expect Ed knows what he meant better than either of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:21 AM

Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:24 AM

". It is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in. "

Not really. With some scientific analysis you could deduce when a picture was painted. You could use the wooden frame to establish a dendrochronology, the fabric of the canvas will carry debris such as pollen that indicates a certain climate and location, the weave of the fabric will be unique in a certain place and time and the constituent materials of the pigments used will almost certainly be able to be traced and indicate their origin. All someone has to do is apply their mind to the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:43 AM

Can't see what all the fuss is about here.

If somebody exhibits irrational thoughts and behaviour, you ain't going to win him over with logic and reason.

I know all about such things, being a Sheffield Wednesday fan.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:31 AM

Kent. What you do with your rams, etc., may enlighten us as to processes in nature but the crux is that natural selection does not favour traits because they can be successfully reproduced. Any individual that reproduces will pass on both useful and non-useful traits. Many of the latter will not immediately confer "reproductive disadvantage" because they will be recessive. It favours traits which are advantageous to the species. Chihuahuas are full of inherited traits via "reproductive success" but these were not installed via natural selection. Set every chihuahua in the world free and see how many you have left after six months.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:34 AM

First, if you will allow a little rant, let me repeat for about the fourth time: I am attempting to explain a viewpoint, not attempting to prove that the viewpoint is correct

Sorry, but I still don't quite get it. If all your intention is to list out what creationists believe, then I have no problem. You could, equally validly list out Viking beliefs concerning Ginnungagap and Ymir. Both accounts of belief are interesting from anthropological, theological and social viewpoints.

My problem comes when anyone - and I accept you may not be doing this Kent - tries to take it even one step further. If they do so, there needs to be reasons why one set of beliefs is preferencial in any sense to the others. And that's the reason the insistance on 'why' this is believed keeps recurring.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:53 AM

To clarify further: why something is believed is quite a different thing to whether it is true. Lots of things are believed when their truthfulness is unknown or unproven. Equally 'denial' is a shorthand for the common human behaviour when things that are true are not believed. To me if you 'explaining a viewpoint' could easily include why it is *believed*, but need not go as far as whether it is *true*.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:21 AM

Try being a Liverpool fan, Willie. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:38 AM

I would but don't you have to have at least one conviction for handling stolen goods before you are a scouser?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:45 AM

It's okay, folks...we can quit debating... the Pope has weighed in. "God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident:"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:56 AM

I know information on "critical thinking" on the site below is elementary. But, it could give a guide (to anyone interested) to avoid some pitfalls in obtaining knowedge from discussions (and separating the non-meaningful from meaningful dialogue) I assume considering other viewpoints and obtaining knowledge is at least one reason for participating in Mudcat threads? But, I could be wrong:)

Anyway, its fairly short, so, look it over if you wish. Or, ignore it if you prefer. I hope it contributes in some small way to discussions, and a reduction of discourse. But, I will not be dissapointed if it does not:))

Short guide to critical thinking

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:24 AM

It's a fine synopsis, Ed... sadly, NON-critical thinkers will simply define their thoughts as being in compliance and inform us that they DO analyze all sides fairly & reasonably before settling on a rigid position. You just can't win when someone has mastered circular reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:33 AM

A Liverpool fan? Luxury! The season the Villa are having is making me wish for divine intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:15 PM

Ahah!

Now... if I pray for divine intervention for Sheffield Wednesday to win the FA Cup this year, Jack does the same for Villa and Steve prays for Liverpool...

Every football fan knows, you cannot accomodate more than one faith. So somebody (any non Owls fan) is barking up the wrong tree.

There's a point to this somewhere but to be honest, thinking about winning the FA Cup has distracted my thought train somewhat. I'd settle for winning the next home game if truth be known and after the nail biting match at Huddersfield the other day.

Oh, and so M'unlearned friend can join in the debate, that's association football. (His phrase to describe what the rest of the world (except our friends across the pond) call football.)

Creationism is something Chris Waddle and David Hirst were doing in the box almost twenty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:34 PM

As Mr Fluids knows but chooses to ignore, the term "association football" distinguishes that endeavour from "rugby football" - and indeed from Australian Rules football. It is the correct designation. The prevalence of an error does not make it other than an error.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:46 PM

Quote from Ed's link:

We are thinking critically when we...require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...

Why, Ed, whenever I've proposed precisely this as the only way to think about God you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint! Good to see you onside at last...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:59 PM

"you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint!"

This from the man who believes that Atheists don't have to think logically.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:12 PM

Why don't you give us your opinions, Dave, instead of the pointless and vacuous one-liners? Does your brain work?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM

Bill said:"NON-critical thinkers will simply define their thoughts as being in compliance and inform us that they DO analyze all sides fairly & reasonably before settling on a rigid position. You just can't win when someone has mastered circular reasoning."

Steve Said:"We are thinking critically when we...require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...

Why, Ed, whenever I've proposed precisely this as the only way to think about God you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint! Good to see you onside at last"


Steve,
Unfortunately, I expected you to be the first to demonstrate just what Bill predicted earlier.

I suggest you read the entire article, rather than pick out what is convenient, and reinforce your approach to discussion on religion, (which you seem to mostly limit your BS thread participation to).

While you surely have asked for evidence a multitude of times, IMO, you have done it in a manner to stifle debate, rather than encourage it.

IMO, you have consistently dismissed or ignored those who have posted viewpoints counters to your (lack of) a god belief.

IMO, you have not made any attempt to follow where it leads, or encourage others to do so (the rest of the article, Steve).

Rather than be receptive, IMO you have belittled (and, IMO, bullied) others who have openly attempted to state their views on their belief and dismissed their points in a non-productive manner.

Yes, you have indeed given your opinion on how others should think about God. In fact, your approach, IMO, has contributed to folks not giving their views, rather than encouraging dialogue.

I don't recall having many discussions with you, opposing any such thing, as you state. But, unlike you, I will not ask you to "provide evidence" to back up the statement.

I have in a couple of occasions taken you to task when I felt you were disrespectful to others. However, since it only seemed to stimulate retaliation on your part, and seemed pointless, I have mostly avoided discussing anything with you directly.( I was also given wise PM advise from a number of other objective Mudcaters to avoid such discourse with you).

Hopefully, you will objectively read the entire article I linked to, rather than select snippets. It is never too late to brush up on ways to make a meaningful contribution to discussions.

And, in closing...it really does not matter to me what people believe in a god or not. IMO, it is their choice, using whatever criteria they wish. What does matter to me, is how they treat and respect others.

Adios

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:34 PM

Kent,

My thoughts on your explanations below:

"Here is what Young Earth Creationists believe: God exists. He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent. He made the universe. Being omnipotent, He could have made it any way He choose and, being eternal as well, he could have made it in 767 quintillion years, or in 30 billion years, or in six days, or in 0.04 milliseconds.    He could have made it 17 octillion years ago or 7,000 years ago or this afternoon."

Logic suggests that the creator must have been created (if so, who created the creator's creator?) ... Oh, I see you only have to declare that the creator is uncreated! But how do you know that?

Creation requires stocks of material, tools, computing power etc. Where, exactly were all those things stored before creation occurred? Where's the super-dooper, mega-computer that runs it all?

If I, and the rest of creation, were created "six days or 0.04 milliseconds" ago, does that mean that all of my memories of a previous life are just illusions and I'm really just sort of 'frozen in time'?   

"God knows how long He took to create the universe and He knows when He created it. He could have chosen to keep this information from us, or He could have chosen to reveal this information to us. He chose to reveal it to us. If He did not reveal it, we could never figure it out, because it is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in."

But he didn't reveal this to everyone, did he? Eskimos, American Indians, Tibetans, Papuan New Guineans, Australian Aborigines, the Chinese etc. seem to have been left 'out of the loop'.

To be frank, all of this seems to be an extreme example of a common human failing i.e. start from the conclusion and work backwards, ignoring any inconvenient information that doesn't fit. The creator might have been omnipotent but his creations are certainly not perfect, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:46 PM

I'm still waiting to hear Kent's promised explanation of Creationism. All we've had so far is a sparse description, albeit couched in somewhat patronising allegory. A more comprehensive description can be found at creationist.com, but again no actual explanation; so far it looks rather self-referential to me, not to mention unsure of its ground, judging by Kent's reluctance to address any of the questions raised in response to what he has said, other than by claiming persecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Creationism is curious as a concept. But it is a "belief" rather than a "fact" supported by science. As such, we should, as thinking people, keep it in its place as fun (if it IS fun) parlor chat (maybe three or four beers into chat) rather than base any curriculum or public policy on it.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:31 PM

I read it all, Ed. Unfortunately, you either didn't read or didn't heed the bit I quoted, which is totally at odds with what you and your believer fellow-travellers have been preaching. My requests for evidence are eminently reasonable, in view of the fact that we're expected to believe in a supernatural being who is in breach of all the laws of physics, who is ludicrously more complicated and inexplicable than the things he's supposed to be the explanation for, and who has so far deigned never to put in any sort of appearance, and no amount of your bluster (as a result of your being sussed) can cover up for that. All I want is something even vaguely convincing. Not even proof! But you never get anywhere near. You're confused about this, Ed. Join the rational and ask for evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:39 PM

"...so far it looks rather self-referential to me,"

It **is** basically self-referential... "The Bible says 'X'...I grew up believing the Bible, so I believe 'X', and no one can show me any 'proof' that 'X' is false, so my belief is as valid as your science.." --some version of that. And, it is the case that no one CAN 'prove' it false....all we can do is appeal to the intellect to recognize the circular reasoning and make the effort to integrate religious beliefs with scientific evidence...like the Pope just did. I have my issues with the Catholic church, but they are slowly responding to modern times better than many Protestant groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:40 PM

It ain't fun, Saul- its mindless, corrosive, dangerous bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:45 PM

"The Bible says 'X'...I grew up believing the Bible, so I believe 'X', and no one can show me any 'proof' that 'X' is false, so my belief is as valid as your science.."
That's it in a nutshell. But the belief is not as valid as the science. That's the whole point. It's self-evidently not so. I believe in the science (without accepting it as truth) because science searches for and presents me with evidence. Growing up being made to believe in the Bible instructs you to stop looking for evidence. And no, I won't turn the bloody record over. It's the whole nub of the thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:02 PM

"its mindless, corrosive, dangerous bullshit"

Oh...just like most modern political propaganda and corporate advertising, then? ;-) I'll do my best to avoid it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:07 PM

One explanation:

Click

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:12 PM

Steve... I basically agree with your position...but unlike you, I temper it with my awareness (perhaps from my years in **Kansas**) of how deeply religious beliefs are ingrained in some families, culture, nations...etc.

You cannot just say.. "get over it, you fools. I have better evidence & reasoning." You can explain patiently why you cannot buy into their belief system and you can offer 'divergent views' in a way that may at least invites their attention, instead of putting them off in a way that suggests they have wasted their lives & money going to church. I try to show Kent... and others... why I began IN a church, saw things that made me say...hmmmmmm... and eventually become a skeptic about religion and many other 'metaphysical' concepts.

It's as important as 'being sure you are right' to work out how to be right.... and that goes for BOTH sides.. including the guy who stuck the "pray to Jesus" circular under my car's wiper the other day.

--------------------------------------

(reposted for about the 6th time)
Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these days!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:18 PM

Hi Bill. I'd agree with you up to a point, but there's a lot of good scholarship developed out of that sort of upbringing. Bart Ehrman tells in "Whose Word is it?" how his initial acceptance of a literalist interpretation led him to a completely new and much wider understanding of the sources and method of transmission of the texts. In David Kotz's "Words on Fire: the unfinished Story of Yiddish", he makes the case that cycles of Orthodoxy within the Jewish community have created the circumstances that led to Jews being able to contribute to a greater degree to the various non-religious disciplines in succeeding generations. A similar case has been made for the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment being fueled by the Puritanism of the 17th.

Having said that, I've never come across an argument for Creationism which didn't make the case for the accepted theories of evolution etc, then claim that they'd proved creationism with a quite 'elegant' non-sequitur.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:23 PM

ps Bill, Iwas talking about you're previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:54 PM

"...there's a lot of good scholarship developed out of that sort of upbringing.."

Sure.. scholarship flourishes when its driving force is rooted in promoting and documenting deeply held and valued cultural values. But as is often said: "scholars differ". We learn about ourselves when we investigate the foundations and development of our ancestors...and of 'theirs'.

Music & architecture all thru history were enhanced by the desire of artists to glorify their god(s). Would we have the secular equivalent of cathedrals & Bach's B Minor Mass without religion?...*shrug*... no way to test that. I can still appreciate the feeling and power of them....and I will NEVER be surprised when someone asserts that such creations must have been 'inspired'. Indeed they WERE inspired..by the very concept they strive to exemplify, whether 'real' or not.

..................................

BTW I did a search on the Lucy/Peanuts post I have reposted, and found this thread on Astrology. I could have saved typing by copying some remarks there and substituting some terms... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

Well, Bill, There is much religion in my own family and I have to learn to understand that, though "respect" is something that, in my view, is a little harder to win. Actually, whilst respect is demanded from us atheists, I detect very little respect from religion for the non-religious stance. Quite a double standard there. In spite of Ed's ludicrous assertions about me being some sort of bully (he's a confused man - I'm just a bit persistent, that's all! ;-)), it's the religious right, who have plenty of representatives on this board, who do nearly all the insulting and the bullying (I got fed up of constantly reproducing that sailor-boy's litany of offensive remarks, for example). The argument is simple (and these are threads which entice people to take one of two sides, unpalatable as that may seem to some). Any notion you wish to promote, in the presence of those who may embrace an opposing view, is either supported by evidence or it is open to ridicule. I have no issue (as I've said many times) with the billions of people who lean on God and quietly get on with their lives. But if such folks come on here with their unsupported assertions they have to be prepared to take the flak. Religion has managed to defend itself from criticism over the centuries by dint of ridiculous blasphemy laws (not to speak of death threats), but times have changed and we now find religion to be very uncomfortable indeed with criticism whilst having no recourse any longer to these repressive methods of shutting up its opponents. That old mindset which assumed that you'd be protected by having those daring to demur burned at the stake has cast rather a long shadow. All that remains for believers of a militant ilk is to demonise their opponents, having realised that there really is no recourse to argument. We see that in these threads all the time. Ed's intemperate and frustrated rant is merely the most recent in a long line of such desperate examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:11 PM

"I detect very little respect from religion for the non-religious stance."... Yes, I know... but I know a number of quite religious people who DO respect my feelings...and several who often post here..(I have been told seriously that I "am being prayed for" and that "God will see that you are honest and 'good' and you'll be fine" )....such a deal! I win either way....

*shrug*.. it's just my approach. You have yours...and you are a 'bit' less confrontational than a couple of others. *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:14 PM

Would we have the secular equivalent of cathedrals & Bach's B Minor Mass without religion?...*shrug*... no way to test that. I can still appreciate the feeling and power of them....and I will NEVER be surprised when someone asserts that such creations must have been 'inspired'. Indeed they WERE inspired..by the very concept they strive to exemplify, whether 'real' or not.

I agree with you that they must indeed have been inspired by the well-rooted religious concepts. I love all that stuff meself and I struggle to contribute to this forum whilst Radio 3 is playing so much of Mozart's religious music, which is sublime (I'm even thinking of having the Ave Verum Corpus played at my solidly-atheistic funeral...) In a theoretical world without religion, there's no doubt in my mind that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven would have composed with just as much energy and given us secular works to "replace" those religious ones. But in no way do I regret that they composed religious stuff. Hey, religion is an unshiftable part of everyone's heritage, believer or atheist or pagan. I lay claim to that just as vigorously as any devout believer would. And all that church architecture too. Pagan tax money is worth exactly the same as believer tax money!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:18 PM

If someone says publicly that they are going to pray for me, I'm very inclined to tell them to sod off and keep their stupidity to themselves. It's arrogant and offensive and they shouldn't do it!

Or maybe I should tell them I'll slit a goat's throat in their honour. No, hang on - that's more potential bodhrans. I retract that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

BTW... I have quite a large collection of religious 'literature' and other anti-evolution...etc stuff from those extremists we both decry... I leaf thru it at times and remind myself that there is much to be done to at least keep the extreme views from impinging on my life thru crazy politicians...etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

They can pray for me...can't hurt ME, and they feel better. just don't let them tell me they are going to make the textbooks agree with their view..


goodnight all...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:16 PM

Steve, I have no doubt you read it all. But, did you take it all in? Or, only the parts that show you have a superior thinking ability to others?

I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science". Where is the evidence here? I don't see it?

No credible scientist would broadly (and inaccurately) lump all "people" together like you frequently do, and more recently did with me based on sparse evidence.

Before you make broad generalizations about others, at least pay a bit of attention on the content of what they post. That way, you can claim, at least, accuracy. That way, you would "seem" credible that you at least follow some concepts of scientific or critical reasoning to others, like me.

Please provide evidence that I have been preaching anything in any mudcat post that you say (such as "believing" like the "fellow-travelers" you refer to).

I did not say that your request for evidence (though your constant whine gets a bit tiring) is unreasonable...check it out. What I did say was you did not follow through on the other parts of the article you quoted ... ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...you don't do that by setting unreasonable conditions for evidence, or blasting others when they give views that you disagree with.

Nowhere did I ever say I believed, nor supported, concepts that break the laws of physics, (religious or otherwise) such as evolution, creationism nor the 6000 old earth theories.... where is your evidence that I did that.

You probably missed posts where I raised new and evolving research in physics, that don't even make sense to physics experts.

You seem to conveniently miss recent questions I posed to Kent (in this thread), to explain his concepts YEC concepts...and yes, I stated creationism has been debunked and asked for evidence for the 6000 geological concept. But, I believe it is "critical thinking" to actually hear people out, before making broad pronouncements.

You probably missed it all, because, unlike you, I asked in a sprit of respect, to encourage meaningful dialogue.... as noted in the article.

One does not have to be disrespectful elitist, and boorish, just because one has arrived at a different conclusion (right or wrong) than others. You may be right. But, does that give you a license to be disrespectful of others? To get the most out of a discussion, and others participating, why not try a bit of respect?

You say, "All you want is something even vaguely convincing". Well Steve, you likely have to find that for yourself...and it seems that you have (as others have). Why are you still searching? Maybe it's time to admit you have found what you are seeking, or if not, never will? Especially through the approach you have chosen.


I hate to say this, but Steve we have to stop meeting this way. It does not work for me, and I suspect it does not do much for you either. :))

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM

Did I see above that the Pope has now said that God was there at the big bang?

That would seem to make OEC the view of the religious establishment and so YEC a heresy, wouldn't it?

I still can't get my head round anyone believing that a god made stuff that was millions of years old when he or she made it. The evidence is that the earth is millions of years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:12 PM

"I still can't get my head round anyone believing that a god made stuff that was millions of years old when he or she made it."

Makes no sense to me either, and I suspect likely not even most folks belonging to, or even regularily attending an organized Christian religion (me not being one of those, so I cant speak fer 'em). If it is proven to be true someday, I will be surprised, and open to correction:)

Like a previous poster speculated, most people who believe in a God (for whatever reason and personal choice) have no difficulty accepting evolution and all that science has proven to be most likely true (most, because there is always some room for new discoveries and updating). But, in most areas there is always a fringe group. Most are harmless (since they are small in number). It just makes life more colourful and interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:15 PM

Regrettably the apparent influence of the fundagelical right in the USA seems to me to be far more sinister (no pun intended) than that.