BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM

frogprince

Yeeeeesh! Decades of properly disciplined scientific observation have established the indisputable fact that evolution has occured and is occuring. Is that a defensible statement?

Last night I drove home very slowly through seventeen miles of driving snow. Weather was definitely occuring. Does that entitle me to say that "Weather is true"? What would that mean?

If someone here had made only the isolated statement "Evolution is true", it would be appropriate to critique it as a "faith statement".

Steve Shaw has not just made an isolated statement, it is a major part of his armoury against the creationists. See for instance thread.cfm?threadid=136154#3112310 and my response at thread.cfm?threadid=136154#3112887. Scroll down and see how long it takes for Steve to descend into personal abuse rather than logical argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM

dmcg-some interesting thoughts and would not wish to disagree though i hope you will permit a few obsevations/questions.


Certainly. Everything I say is open to challenge. That's how it works! *smile*

...since a creationist does not interpret the data the same as darwinists.yet they claim a cast iron case for evolutionism just as we trust the bible as our authority

People often phrase things carelessly, including scientists. No scientist should ever claim they have a cast-iron case for something, because the essence of being a good scientist means accepting that in the light of evidence any theory can be overturned. But that is not evidence from authority, since we are not relying on the fact that the President of the Royal Society and All His Friends are making the declaration that something is so, but on evidence that you as an individual can check. Even when its data from the Large Hadron Collider and you can't actually repeat the expeiment yourself, you can see the data, perform your own analyses to check whether it looks like the data has been fiddled, read all the papers and see if they contain errors in logic, and so on.

That is a world away from 'trusting the bible for your authority'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM

The Mayan calendar restarts in 2012 as well as ending then...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM

"bill one moe time! i believe i had quoted the words of an evolutionist ."

Oh my, pete! WHO made such a claim? That is irrelevant to the discussion. You don't give the exact quote and a link to its source so it can be evaluated in context. If you get all your opinions from anti-evolution, religious sites, you will not SEE relevant sites which carefully explain the evidence.

Even then, no matter what he says...or you THINK he says.... the facts are that there ARE fossil records that DO show intermediate forms. Stating that 'limited' forms must mean "lack" of forms is bad logic and bad science.

Truth is not established by finding a quote which you 'think' supports your preferred answer! I can find quotes from Christian theologians which dispute YOUR view of evolution....but by themselves they prove nothing. The answers are in ongoing scientific study, which has already found many, many, MANY examples of obvious **intermediate forms**.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 01:07 PM

"There is quite a lot of territory between those two views and you have set up your fence very close to the edge of creationism. Apparently all the religions of the world (if felt in moderation), astrology, the end of the world on 21st Dec 2012 according to the Mayan calendar, the coming of Nibiru, the wisdom of David Icke are all OK by you as long as they aren't on the creationist side of the fence."

I'm not sure that any of that follows, Snail ... Oh! Hang on a minute ...

Nibiru! Nice to see you! You must come and meet my friend Snail ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 12:53 PM

Right. Denying evolution requires denying cosmology, biology (including zoology, botany, biochemistry, neurochemistry, anatomy, and all the other living ologies), geology including finding oil and plate tectonics, history, geography, statistics, theology and pretty much everything we actually know.

That's why I like the Test of Faith idea. For the believers who hold that it all happened 6tya, just to appear as if 1.4bya according to rules we could have all *kinds* of fun discovering. As long as we understand that it's all an illusion we can study it all we want and still get into heaven. If we believe what we see and start thinking for ourselves we fail the test... and you know where *they* are all going to end up.

It's those who say the rules we discover *aren't there* that are unbelievably, willfully ignorant of any and all of the above fields plus anything I didn't mention, like common sense.

Or a sense of numbers. Once there are (a few less than infinity) actual data on one side, and none on the other, rejecting that other hypothesis is merely reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM

dmcg-some interesting thoughts and would not wish to disagree though i hope you will permit a few obsevations/questions.
argument from authority applies both ways though i realize you were addressing ionas challenge.being probably the least academic; seems to me to have made me the target of said argumet a number of times.
ie-i should submit to the evolutionist/atheists because i dont have degrees etc.i may have done the same in reply in citing creationst scientists or even evolutionary scientists.
not sure about citing bible as just argument from authority; as much as our presupposition as opposed to evolutionary supposition ;since a creationist does not interpret the data the same as darwinists.yet they claim a cast iron case for evolutionism just as we trust the bible as our authority.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM

Yeeeeesh! Decades of properly disciplined scientific observation have established the indisputable fact that evolution has occured and is occuring. Is that a defensible statement? If so, I am fairly certain that every party to this discussion except Pete and Iona has effectively indicated agreement with that statement. If someone here had made only the isolated statement "Evolution is true", it would be appropriate to critique it as a "faith statement". But to pull the three words out of an extended context that indicates the writers full accordance with science and the scientific method, and brand him as a borderline fundamentalist/creationist, is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 10:10 AM

The context I am working in is the one in which Iona asked for evidence of evolution and, after being given quite a lot which she cheerfully ignored, Steve Shaw fell back on his well worn "Evolution is true. Indeed it is.". That happened on this thread and I am responding on this thread.

The point of this thread is to examine the dichotomy between the scientific view of nature and the creationist view of nature.

There is quite a lot of territory between those two views and you have set up your fence very close to the edge of creationism. Apparently all the religions of the world (if felt in moderation), astrology, the end of the world on 21st Dec 2012 according to the Mayan calendar, the coming of Nibiru, the wisdom of David Icke are all OK by you as long as they aren't on the creationist side of the fence.

The dichotomy for me is between a view of nature based on reason and a view of nature based on faith. I'm sorry if you see that as hair-splitting. The faith side of the fence includes a great may things beside the creationists. As far as I am concerned, it includes "Evolution is true.". I don't know if you have noticed but one of the weapons used by the god botherers is to portray science as just another belief system. Don't give them evidence to justify their claim.

A while ago you said -

But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

Spot on. Unfortunately, if you accept "Evolution is true." just to keep Steve on side, you can't use that one any more.

So, just where are you building your fence?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:43 AM

"So, Shimrod, what do you think? Which side of which fence do you think you are on?"

In this context, Snail I'm on the opposite side of the fence to Bible-thumping, creationist, religious fundamentalists. The point of this thread is to examine the dichotomy between the scientific view of nature and the creationist view of nature. I believe that for you to indulge in your usual confrontational hair-splitting is not helpful IN THIS CONTEXT! If you want to do that perhaps you should start another thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:40 AM

As it appears that in a discussion, I cannot state categorically that there is no such thing as god, that holy scriptures are historical pulp fiction tc etc, then by that logic, Iona can't state categorically that religious jumbo jumbo is the truth.

So, having got that out of the way, I repeat my earlier observation..

Nurse!

Sorry, I can't dissect Iona's frankly insulting diatribe. It isnt a bible or any other guide to life that stops me from carrying out rape pillage and plunder, it's my observations and experiences gained though my life to date. Pack animals manage it without being told they are wretched and need forgiving, so don't bother asking me to be grateful for being here either.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM

How am I being illogical? Please be specific
Ok, I can't resist. I think the ultimate problem lies in that word 'illogical'. So I'll go back to the foundations. I apologise in advance if this sounds patronising: it is certainly not my intention. Please bear with me.

The first step is to understand that English doesn't distinguish very well between an argument that does not attempt to use logic and one that does but gets it wrong - it might be fairer if we called the first non-logical, and the second illogical, but we don't, and we are rather stuck with it. And the second step is to realise that 'logic' is itself a bit of an umbrella word. As a mathematician by training, I tend to use the word to mean a particular method of argument that was only fully formalised around 200 years ago. That was based on a scientific understanding of logic that is very similar, but several hundred of years older, and both of those are based on a philosophical version of logic that is a few millenia old. But whichever formulation we use, the fact remains that almost every argument we hear in daily life is non-logical in that is does not conform to these rules. For example, I doubt very much if many advertisements do, since they tend to appeal to things like 'peer pressure' and 'sense of status', which are things that are very much outside of logic. And again, it is important to understand that the conclusions of non-logical arguments can be true. In fact, when you drive the second-by-second conclusions you are drawing on are essential to keeping you alive but are not really logically based. In common parliance many people use the word 'logical' just to denote that something is not self-contradictory, but that's far too imprecise and vastly different from how any one with formal training in philosophy or science would understand the term.

So if we are surrounded by non-logical arguments, use them constantly in our lives and find that pretty often they give the right answer, why do we get so worked up about logical arguments and take offense if someone suggests our argument is illogical? The answer is certainty. We have no real way of deciding whether the conclusion of a non-logical argument is right, but with a logical argument IF the starting assumptions are correct AND we apply the constraints of logical argument correctly THEN we can be confident in the conclusion. Building those rules has been a many-millenia-long arduous task with many wrong turns but we have now reached a point where a sizeable minority of the population are able to apply the rules 'naturally'. Not that they do all the time, mind: we've a long way to go before we reach that point, and there's no reason to assume that some of the big forces in society - businesses, governments, etc - would really welcome it if we did.

So let's now look at what some of those rules are. Probably the most important one for this thread is referred to as 'argument from authority'. Most logic-based systems reject this completely - certinly mathematics and science do. Were I to claim "this is true because Dawkin's says it" I would be breaching the rule. If, on the other hand I were to say "In 'The selfish Gene' in Chapter 3 Dawkin's makes the argument: ..." then the "..." might be a logical argument, but all the rest is irrelevant to the argument, being merely a signpost to where the argument is written out in full. Either way, the reference to Dawkin's is irrelevant to the argument.

Now, there are a few logic based systems that do allow argument from authority in special circumstances, but the key constraint then is that all participants agree that the authority is reliable.

Finally, we can get back to your posts, Iona. Almost every everything you say boils down to 'this is true because God has revealed it' - which is an argument from authority. As many of the people opposing you do not accept God as an authority, the argument is fundamentally not a logical one, because it does not conform to the rules of logic. Therefore, what you say is non-logical, which English then makes us call illogical.

That's just one of the rules you breach, though, Iona. The two other most frequent breaches are 'circular arguments' and 'non sequitor'. And, whether you see these or not, to people trained in science and philosophy, you might as well have used a highlighter: they leap out at you.

If I had the patience, I'd also explore what the word 'random' means, but I think I've said enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 08:18 PM

So, Shimrod, what do you think? Which side of which fence do you think you are on?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:41 PM

600 years before Christ and half a world away, Gautama Buddha promulgated a moral and ethical code which became Buddhism. It developed and expanded to the point, 265 years before the birth of Christ, when it led to the establishment by the king of the world's first major Buddhist state, of free hospitals and free education and also the first recognition of human rights.

These people had never heard of Hebrews, or the Old Testament, and were a quarter of a millennium ahead of Jesus in suggesting that one should respect the rights of others and indeed respect all life.

Iona, please explain how that relies in any way at all on your world view, on Christianity, or on the Bible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:33 PM

Mr Snail (I tend to think of you more as a slug, actually), your post is a load of unfocussed waffle. You want to pick me up on every little statement but you tie yourself in knots every time. It is patently obvious that you're no scientist, not by a long chalk, and I'm pleased you've outed yourself on that score at least.

Steve, listen carefully. I am not saying evolution isn't true; I am saying that the statement "Evolution is true" is meaningless.

You don't really know what you're saying do you? Go and find someone else to bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:12 PM

I would like to know how Iona can make the claim, "Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good,"

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others taught—and wrote—monumental tomes on Ethics, Virtue, and the nature of Good and Evil three to four centuries BEFORE Christ. Before there WAS a Christian religion!

If anything, Christian ethics and morality is derived from a slumgullion of Greek and Judaic moral systems, complete with a lot of disorganized "local options." In addition, some 150 years after the death of Jesus, some 82 self-appointed "bishops," all claiming to be descendants of the original apostles, were arguing fiercely over doctrinal minutia and "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center. It was not until the Roman Emperor Constantine, 300 years after Jesus, converted to Christianity (at the time, little more than a small but widespread and noisy cult), declared himself the head of the Christian Church, called the conference of Nicea to stop the incessant bickering by banging a few heads together and come forth with a cohesive Creed. Constantine, having established himself as The Boss, made the statement, "Dogma is what I say it is!" thereby lending secular (and arbitrary) power to this small, Mid-East cult, and consolidating his own political power. The rest is history

Much of which has damned little to do with what Jesus actually said!

Which, as far as I am concerned, is what Christianity is all about.

But three hundred years before the birth of Jesus, Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in taking the Virtues to be central to a well-lived life. More here:   CLICKY.

A couple of samples of Aristotle's writing on the subject of Good and Evil:

I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.

And

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.

Iona, read Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

And you might also take a look at the writings of Rev. Barbara Rossing, who deals a lot with modern corruptions of Christian belief.

Further. The many theological writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong, especially Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, (1991).

Educate yourself. God gave you a brain. Use it.

Don Firth

P. S. (Why do I bother. . . ?)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM

I already explained a little how atheists can't call anything evil

All religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity; therefore, all the moral codes and Good & Evil are Atheist by default. Such an instinctive morality underwrites our familial / societal / tribal codes and relationships in terms of altruism and empathy; they are innate as language and music, and might be found in the Humanist Teachings of Jesus as the simple universal absolute of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is something we struggle with for sure - after all the Good / Evil duality is encoded as deep as the Nature / Nurture debate - but it is something we also FEEL pretty deeply too.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM

So, Iona, I'm new to this thread, and I'm a bit lost in all the verbiage. Could you take the time to give us a simple glossary of your terms, like truth, good, evil, Christianity, moral relativism, and knowing?

It seems to me that all of these terms should have a more-or-less absolute meaning, but your understanding of these terms appears to be quite "relativist" - depending on your far-south-of-mainstream brand of Christianity instead of on something more definitive. Certainly, if they are not "relative," then truth, good, and evil must exist of themselves. If so, they must be independent to the ability of anyone to ascertain truth and good and evil.

Could it be that you are a relativist yourself, relating all to your particular shade of Christianity?

Please define your terms.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM

Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think ...

When an atheist reads my words is it my responsibility to make them think that I have a good argument and that they ought to think more deeply?
Yes and no. Yes, since I do have a responsibility ...No in the sense that it is not my job to convince people that Christianity is true. I can't. Only God can change a person's heart.

Can I point out a subtle turn of phrase that slipped past you? I said 'responsibility TO TRY TO make them think, which you read as 'responsibility to make them think'. There was a reason I used that formulation: the recipient is responsible for what they think, but you are responsible for how you phrase it, and so forth. That's a very important difference, and the point was how one goes about meeting 1 Peter 3:15, not whether one does.


As for "How am I being illogical? Please be specific" - again, you miss the point that in a discussion, the writer/speaker decides what to say, but it is the reader/listener who decides whether it makes sense. And, whether you like it or not most of your readers have decided that what you write is logically inconsistant, confused or simplistic. And again, in the interests of avoiding confusion, that's not the same thing as wrong [though of course its quite easy to be both]. So rather than add more examples to the growing pile, why not just deal with the logical inconistancies that have been raised so far. If you need help, there are many sites on the web to help distinguish between valid and invalid logical arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:30 PM

bill one moe time!
i believe i had quoted the words of an evolutionist .

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM

Okay, so I'm going to not do the mile-long answers this time (just *half* a mile long!) , because a lot of the most important points I'm trying to make are getting looked over because my post was so long. So I'm going to do just a few at a time, as I get time to answer them.
____________________________________________________________________

Hello? What on earth has the fact that I recognize evil got to do with the fact that I'm an atheist? My atheism is totally predicated on one simple point: that the probability of the existence of a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of nature and for whom there is no evidence, is vanishingly small. Nothing else! Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents (and most of those pretty casual adherents)?
I already explained a little how atheists can't call anything evil, but I am going into more detail at the bottom of this post. So read on if you want my answer.
"Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents?"
No, I don't. Are you a moral relativist? If not, then surely you don't believe that there is more than one truth. It is not arrogant to believe that Christianity is the only truth, in fact I go so far as to say that without Christianity there can be no such thing as truth at all. Define for me truth.Unless you borrow from my worldview, you can't.
Further explanations below.

____________________________________________________________________


"The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".""

How can all men believe in the God of the Bible when most of the world's population, during most of the history of humanity, had no knowledge of the bible.

The Bible is a divinely compiled collection of documents that were written over the course of earth history. So even though men didn't have the Bible as we do today, they still had the law of God as given to Adam, and to Abraham, and to Moses, etc, etc. That's also what the prophets were for in Bible times--to exhort and apply the law of God to people who perhaps didn't have access to the actual written word. But all that aside, like the Bible says--all men know that there is a Creator, and they know that that Creator holds them accountable for all of their actions. They may not consciously know it, but that knowledge is ingrained in the 'tablets of their hearts'.
_______________________________________________________________________
'Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past.'

Sure, you can also define it that way. I'm talking about 'fossilization'---the process of a substance being 'fossilized'/petrified. Something turning into a rock in the perfect shape of the original specimen. Most people (even scientists) use the term loosely to refer to the mineralization process, but also of old specimens. The argument between us is how old is old?
"fossil, coming from the Latin fossalis, dug up. Fossa and fossil ultimately stem from the Latin verb fodera, to dig." (from the Anatomy Almanac)
My point was simply that it doesn't take millions of years to preserve an object by fossilization/petrification. If you want to be perfectly accurate with your wording, say petrification.
_____________________________________________________________________


All of what you say relies on the bible as being more than a set of translations of translations of stories.

And without my relying on the Bible as being the transcendental, infallible word of God, I would have no basis for believing anything at all! I would have no basis for science, or reason, or knowledge.
Let me explain. I've already slightly touched on inductive inference in a previous post. Inductive inference is, in other words, 'the future will be like the past'. For an atheist/evolutionist, who believes that we live in a random universe, it is impossible to know that the future will be like the past. Just because I drop a pencil today and it falls to the floor does not mean that the same thing will happen tomorrow when I drop the pencil. For all you know, it could float upwards. Perhaps it will turn into a dove! We have no way of knowing what the future will be like in an atheistic universe. Thus, there is no point to conduct scientific experiments. Just because in the past an experiment has produced a certain result, does not mean that it will the same result in the future. For all you know, an experiment you have done in the past and which resulted in one thing, could blow the whole laboratory to pieces tomorrow. You have no way of knowing.Just because in the past, the future has been like the past does not mean that that in the future the future will be like the past. You have no way of knowing.

I.e.: Between points T1 and T2, things have always turned out the same, between T2 and T3, between T3 and T4 they have always been the same as in the past, so I'm assuming that between T4 and T5 I will get the same result. But that's assuming in the uniformity of nature, that the future will be like the past. If you don't assume that, then all of the probabilities from the past are just wasted information. Because if we live in a random universe, you can't know that the future will be like the past, and so the fact that the points between T1 and T4 have all been the same is useless data--you can't carry that into the future and try to apply them to T4 and T6. It's utterly worthless info because it is from the past!

The only way that you can conduct intelligent experiments is if you assume that we live in an orderly universe, in the uniformity of nature, and in inductive inference. I have a basis for those things. Christianity is the basis for inductive inference. "Christianity is the transcendental precondition for intelligibility"--without the Christian worldview, you can't know anything at all. But the whole history of science is based upon the assumption that the world is a regular, uniform place, where we can conduct experiments and make judgements on how they will turn out; you can make weather judgements, experimental predictions, you can discover mysteries and decode puzzles. All of those things are based upon the simple assumption that the world is NOT random and accidental, that there is an absolute truth, that there is such a thing as inductive inference. But again, let me be clear: in an atheistic universe, there is no basis for believing in the uniformity of nature. Therefore you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason.
___________________________________________________________________

"Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"

Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?' rather than 'everything this person says is an incoherent and logical mess and so I can't trust a word they say, including anything about Christ'? If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do.

When an atheist reads my words is it my responsibility to make them think that I have a good argument and that they ought to think more deeply?
Yes and no. Yes, since I do have a responsibility to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15), and I have a responsibility to demonstrate that creationists actually point to observable facts when they make their arguments (see my jellyfish example in a previous post, and I am planning more examples in future posts).
No in the sense that it is not my job to convince people that Christianity is true. I can't. Only God can change a person's heart. I can give evidence upon evidence, rationality upon rationality, philosophical argument upon philosophical argument, and it all fall on deaf ears if the Holy Spirit does not shed light on that person's heart and reveal the truth unto him.

"If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do."
How am I being illogical? Please be specific. I am seeing a lot of generalizations branding me all sorts of names, but I don't quite see why you all are calling me these things. Be specific, so I can see where I'm being inconsistent or not.

I think that this whole discussion is too general. We are all sitting here talking about how much evidence we have, and yet we don't actually get down and say 'here's a specific situation or problem. Let's dig into this one and leave alone the rest for a time'. Shall we? I think it would be a lot more constructive if we did so. How about those jellyfish? :D

________________________________________________________________________

Again, the problem of good and evil.

The problem of evil is this. How could a loving, all-knowing God allow evil in the world? Obviously if he's all good, He would want to stop evil. If He's all-powerful, then He would be able to. So He's either not all good, or He's not all-powerful.

I'm going to repeat what I've said already about this problem, but expound some more.

Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good. Everything is relative without a Christian worldview. I have a basis for defining evil. But atheists don't. So the only way that you can call some of the laws in the Bible "Evil" is by standing on the very presuppositions that the Bible provides--that there are such things as moral absolutes.
Until you are able to establish a foundation of your own without borrowing from the Christian worldview, you have no basis for judging me or anything else. For you, there is no good and there is no evil. And yet you sit here accusing me of being "amoral", you say that the Bible contains "evil", and you state that there are morals and ethics. Splendid! Now, please stop borrowing those terms from my worldview. In an atheistic worldview, there is no good, no evil, no morals and no ethics. For instance, I'm assuming you would call child abuse wrong. Am I correct?
I'll assume you would. All right, by what standard is it wrong? Because you disapprove of it? Because it causes discomfort to your mind? Because it causes discomfort to the child? What defines good? Majority happiness? What promotes life? What gives you pleasure?
But what about the next guy? While you may call 'good' 'what promotes life', Joe Smith over there might define 'good' 'what gives pleasure to most people". Sally Jones might define it "What evokes public approval". But these three definitions are personal opinions. Three opinions that lead to three whole 'cans of worms'. Take Joe Smith's definition. If "good' is what gives pleasure to most people, then extermination of Aborigines in Australia by white men back in the late 1800's and early 1900's (because they were supposed 'missing links') was good, because there were more white men in England/America who were deriving pleasure from getting rid of the 'primitives' for the benefit of their land and studying their bodies.

Take Sally Jone's definition. If 'good' is 'what evokes public approval', then 'good' varies from people group to people group. What is 'good' for Englishmen is different than what's 'good' for East Indians. Because in the Hindu religion, widow burning evokes public approval.

If what has been said here (I think it was Don Firth who said it) is true, that 'Good is what promotes life', then you're assuming that life is good. But lots of people disagree with that. People who commit suicide obviously don't think that life is good. Therefore, good is relative.

Is there absolute right and wrong?

After all, if there are no absolutes, if 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me' . I could pull a gun and shoot you in order to win my argument. Why shouldn't I? Would you protest if I pulled a gun on you during our discussion? If you say "Yes, you shouldn't shoot me," then you obviously believe that there is absolute good and evil (plus, I then win the debate). But if you say "No, it's all relative", then I am completely reasonable to pull the trigger (and hey, I win the debate that way too!).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 08:31 AM

Steve, listen carefully. I am not saying evolution isn't true; I am saying that the statement "Evolution is true" is meaningless. You seem fairly confused about what it means yourself. In a recent post you said "Evolution is a concept." and "That evolution happens is no longer deniable." within a few sentences. Make up your mind. Which? Is it a "concept" i.e. an idea, a human construct, or is it something that "happens" i.e. part of the natural world? In the same post you said "And by saying that evolution is true I was not even attempting to make "a scientific statement," ". So what were you attempting to do? It sounds rather like a statement of belief to be set alongside "The Bible is true.". (At least that is a meaningful statement even if I don't agree with it.)

I'm not a scientist, just someone who has studied science (including evolution) extensively. Come up and see me sometime; I'll show you my certificates. As for letting Shimrod speak for himself, I suggest you take a look at his posts over the last few days.

(And keep your speculations about my sex life to yourself.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM

I think that "comfort" is probably too weak a word, even if taken back to its roots in giving strength. It isn't just a cosy protection against complicated things, but a need for something much stronger which drives this sort of discourse. And the desire for things to be simple, a word often used in this sort of context, actually leads too more and more unsupportable complexity, and a deity which is itself far from simple, comforting, or indeed the God revealed in Jesus. (Surrounded by Hellenistic thinkers and ideas, natural philosophy was something he did not feel it necessary to deal with.)

Last night, while sorting my slides and digitising them, I came across photographs of an unconformity (conveniently beside a rather pleasant hotel in Cumbria). I wonder how the erosion of previously deposited and lithified rocks and the formation of further rocks above them is simply attributed to huge masses of wet slurry rolling about for a year.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 12:20 AM

Iona has no interest in "the truth".
And no actual curiousity.

I encounter this type constantly in my work.
They find comfort in simplicity and pre-packaged arguments.
A complicated world is far too frightening and overwhelming.
Sorry, it's not elitism.
It's actually sad...and frightening when they vote.

Being a social conservative and evangelical does not mean you are ignorant, but the ignorant are far more likely to be social conservatives and evangelical.

Sorry Iona; if you misunderstand that point, you prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,LB
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 09:18 PM

One major problem Iona: The concept of both GOOD and EVIL has been around much much longer than Christianity. So your argument is absolutely and completely baseless.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:28 PM

Damn. The italics should have started at the beginning of that. Grrrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:26 PM

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in trying to engage Steve Shaw in intelligent debate. Even ignoring the puerile abuse in his post, his arguments were too inconsistent to get a grip on.

So, Shimrod, I think we may have built our fences in different places. On the far side of my fence, along with creationism are pseudo-science, intelligent design, bad science and belief in some central "truth". I think you are well aware that a lot of what SS says comes under bad science but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't think you can ever defeat creationism with bad science, in fact, you've already lost.

DmcG's question "When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?'" can easily be adapted to the view from the other side. How is a non-creationist Christian or waverer going to react to Steve's repetition of "Evolution is true" with very little explanation of what he means? They might well say "If that's the best science has to offer, I'll stick with the Bible."

What a load of tosh. Evolution is indeed true, and, if you don't think it is, I should like to hear your detailed reasoning concluding that it isn't true. Not sniping, reasoning. Very little explanation my arse. I told you exactly what I meant, so take it or leave it. You suppose yourself to be some kind of scientist (I doubt your credentials severely, actually - you sound a bit like that woman in the news today who fooled everyone into thinking she had a science degree in order to get a teaching job and mark "A" levels!) Your comments quoted above are full of shit, and, if I know Shimrod even vaguely well enough, I can tell you you're wasting your time. Just shut your gob and let him speak for himself, eh? Why don't you find something useful to do? Don't snails mate at this time of the year?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:15 PM

Excellent article, TIA. Thanks for the link.

On any given moral issue, if the Bible says one thing, the Koran says something different, and the Bhagavad Gita offers yet a third alternative, how, then, is one to decide which of the three is right? Other than nothing more authoritive than the flip of a coin? And DEFEND that choice, except by invoking one's faith?

And despite the strength of your faith, Iona, the correct moral choice might be the Koran. Or the Bhagavad Gita. The only defense for your choice would be your faith that the Bible is right.

Your faith, like it or not, is far less authoritative and knowledgeable than that of an anthropologist's understanding of the priciples that drive evolution. You're guessing. The anthopologist is operating from evidence which is verifiable by any and all.

If they well take their blinders off and look.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM

Interestingly, the origins of morality may be in evolution.

Pinker (for example).

Try also Rutherford, Greene, Moll, Wrangham...get your own dang links (I know you won't).

No Christianity required (unless you will claim that bonobos are Christian).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM

pete...."...even evolutionists have admitted the lack of transistional forms.

ONE MORE TIME! Not lack... there ARE transitional forms.... just not ALL the transitions. You can't expect one example of every change to fall in the right burial spot!

You keep using that weak argument....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:02 PM

Iona, the complexities of Good and Evil were thoroughly discussed in great detail by philosophers centuries before the birth of Christ.

One does not need to be a Christian to know matters of Good and Evil and analyze the complexities of any given situation. You ask me a lot of questions about specific situations. I suggest that you learn these matters the same way I did:   study philosophy. Especially pre-Christian philosophers. Like I have.

Compared to Plato, matters of ethics and morality as spelled out in the Bible are arbitrary, capricious, and very fuzzy at best. And some, as indicated in the "letter to Dr. Laura" posted above, are seriously immoral and unethical.

And I remind you that I am a regular church-goer, and have served on the church council for six years. I have been a council representative to the state synod meetings several times. I also have what has been called "an extraordinary grasp" of the Bible, its contents, and its history. In addition to Bible study classes in connection with church, I have taken a course at the university in "The Bible as Literature," in which we studied and discussed the Bible AS LITERATURE, reading whole sections, not just isolated verse by isolated verse. This gives one a good grasp of what is REALLY meant by a whole section of the Bible, rather than "cherry-picking" the verses you want, taking them out of context, and putting them back together to make them say what YOU want them to say rather than what they REALLY say.

So you can't fault me on that score.

I have met your type before. Young, gung-ho evangelist out to Save the World. All enthusiasm, a little knowledge of the Bible, but of very little else.

And convinced that you Doing God's Work, are filled to the eyebrows with the Sin of Pride.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 02:24 PM

All have a knowledge of good and evil? maybe so, but it shows your appalling ignorance of history and anthropology (to match that of science) that you don't know that what is good in one society or in one age is evil in another.

I can't think of a crime which has not been highly praised, if not compulsory, in other societies. Incest? Compulsory for pharaohs. Child murder? Phoenicians (and probably Abraham's neighbours too, if he ever existed). Murder? Read Huckleberry Finn or vistit the Mayan relics. Rape? It has been the normal courtship rite in many societies. Slavery? only stopped being acceptable the day before yesterday- US ex-slaves were living well into our lifetimes. The list goes on.

And things that are normal now were heinous crimes in the past. Usury was a deadly sin in the Middle Ages. Religious tolerance was a mark of lack of commitment (some contributors probably agree with that one). People were transported for their love of democracy only two hundred years ago.

So, if we have an inbuilt sense of morality, no one can agree on the details.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

""The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".""

How can all men believe in the God of the Bible when most of the world's population, during most of the history of humanity, had no knowledge of the bible.

Particularly those ancient Greek philosophers mentioned above, who didn't have a clue that any monotheistic culture existed.

Your arguments are illogical to the point of imbecility, and serve only to show your abysmal ignorance of anything other than what is spouted by Fundamentalists and Creationists, and particularly your ignorance of the Jewish/Hebrew faith which is the source of the Old Testament.

You don't even have sufficient knowledge of Christianity to know what it is about.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in trying to engage Steve Shaw in intelligent debate. Even ignoring the puerile abuse in his post, his arguments were too inconsistent to get a grip on.

So, Shimrod, I think we may have built our fences in different places. On the far side of my fence, along with creationism are pseudo-science, intelligent design, bad science and belief in some central "truth". I think you are well aware that a lot of what SS says comes under bad science but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't think you can ever defeat creationism with bad science, in fact, you've already lost.

DmcG's question "When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?'" can easily be adapted to the view from the other side. How is a non-creationist Christian or waverer going to react to Steve's repetition of "Evolution is true" with very little explanation of what he means? They might well say "If that's the best science has to offer, I'll stick with the Bible."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM

Pete, will you for Pete's sake read the bloody Origin of Species! All your concerns are beautifully and elegantly addressed therein, "transitional forms" included, and it's all eminently readable. Go on -expose yourself to sin for a change!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 12:38 PM

interesting analogy mrzzy-but as i earlier mentioned even evolutionists have admitted the lack of transistional forms.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 06:26 AM

"Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"

Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?' rather than 'everything this person says is an incoherent and logical mess and so I can't trust a word they say, including anything about Christ'? If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM

What get me is the "to be continued.." bit at the end.

Eternal optimism or what?

Also pissing myself about her "Christians have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong." Just looked in the mirror, seems I'm the Antichrist after all! Well, nice to have turned out with a career, I say...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM

One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil."

Again, I'm glad to see that you are indignant over the evil that exists in the world. To be sure, the fact that you call some things 'evil' proves the point that you aren't as good of an atheist as you say you are. How can you call anything evil? Isn't it 'different strokes for different folks'? How can you call what "Christian Worldview" has produced "evil"? What is evil?
I have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong--but you don't.

Hello? What on earth has the fact that I recognise evil got to do with the fact that I'm an atheist? My atheism is totally predicated on one simple point: that the probability of the existence of a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of nature and for whom there is no evidence, is vanishingly small. Nothing else! Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents (and most of those pretty casual adherents)?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM

Snail, as I said before I may not agree with everything that Steve Shaw says but I know that we both sit on the same side of the fence i.e. the opposite side from the creationists. Perhaps you should be with us on our side?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:44 AM

I have no intention of pandering to your attempts to claim that only Christians know the difference.

Don Firth's recent offering does a pretty good job of showing the evil that lurks in that book you so revere.

The average atheist would never be so amoral as to accept it as the word of any moral or ethical authority.

Fundamentalists, such as yourself, are apparently just that amoral. You give genuine Christians a bad name.

I'm pleased to see you so indignant over evil. That proves my point, which is this:
Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good. Everything is relative without a Christian worldview. I have a basis for defining evil. But atheists don't. So the only way that you can call some of the laws in the Bible "Evil" is by standing on the very presuppositions that the Bible provides--that there are such things as moral absolutes.
Until you are able to establish a foundation of your own without borrowing from the Christian worldview, you have no basis for judging me or anything else. For you, there is no good and there is no evil. And yet you sit here accusing me of being "amoral", "Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"--you say that the Bible contains "evil", and you state that there are morals and ethics. Splendid! Now, please stop borrowing those terms from my worldview. In an athiestic worldview, there is no good, no evil, no morals and no ethics. For instance, I'm assuming you would call child abuse wrong. Am I correct?
I'll assume you would. All right, by what standard is it wrong? Because you disapprove of it? Because it causes discomfort to your mind? Because it causes discomfort to the child?

__________________________________________________________________

One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil."

Again, I'm glad to see that you are indignant over the evil that exists in the world. To be sure, the fact that you call some things 'evil' proves the point that you aren't as good of an atheist as you say you are. How can you call anything evil? Isn't it 'different strokes for different folks'? How can you call what "Christian Worldview" has produced "evil"? What is evil?
I have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong--but you don't.
___________________________________________________________________

Trying to debate with the likes of Iona is pointless. What matters is presenting a clear description of how science works and what the scientific method is and what it can achieve. As Shimrod said, it is not about 'absolute truth'.

But you must have absolute truth if you're going to debate rationally. After all, if there are no absolutes, if 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me' . I could pull a gun and shoot you in order to win my argument. Why shouldn't I? Would you protest if I pulled a gun on you during our discussion? If you say "Yes, you shouldn't shoot me," then you obviously believe that there is good and evil. But if you say "No, it's all relative", then I am completely reasonable to pull the trigger.
By the way, when you say that trying to debate with me is pointless, you are completely right. After all, it's not exactly an equal discussion is it, since you have to borrow my worldview in order to even come to this thread! You bring assumptions with you that aren't even yours to assume, you borrow them from my worldview.
You assume that,
1. There is absolute truth. you prove that you believe this by choosing to debate with me. If you didn't believe in absolute truth, then you wouldn't care what I said.

2. There is absolute right and wrong. All over the place I'm getting called, either indirectly and directly, 'immoral', 'evil', 'unnethical', etc.

That's only the beginning of things that you must borrow from Christianity in order to try to refute Christianity.

___________________________________________________________________

I do NOT have to borrow from the Christian "worldview" to define good and evil. Thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Siddhârtha Gautama Buddha, and many, MANY religious figures who existed LONG before Jesus, not to mention MOSES, I might add—have given answers to the question of Good and Evil. These answers are remarkably similar, and they pre-date the birth of Jesus by centuries.
And here is something YOU don't seem capable of understanding. And that is that one can figure out the nature of Good and Evil on one's own. Without having to turn to some religious figure.

YES! I'm so happy that you brought this up. The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".
You get upset when someone does something that you deem 'immoral'. but if you adhere faithfully to your worldview, then it is only immoral to you and to others who agree with you. To the person who is doing the 'immoral' thing, obviously it's not immoral to them. Their morals are different than yours, that's all. Who are you to judge?
But on my worldview, when I see someone doing something 'immoral', I can tell you why I call it immoral. I have a basis for my belief. And the fact that all the individuals you mentioned propose a fundamental belief in good and evil only proves my point--that deep in their hearts they know the God of the Bible, and they "supress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18)

______________________________________________________________________

That which promotes and enriches life is GOOD.

That which is inimical to life is EVIL.
Promotes and enriches whose life? Yours? The general public? But why in the world should you care what makes other people happy? Obviously Hitler had different ethical standards than you do, because he thought that he was doing good by killing all the Jews and gypsies and the mentally handicapped. He obviously didn't adhere to your standards of good and evil, and who are you to judge him? He was doing what he thought was good!

"That which is inimical to life is evil"
Let's see, then. So self defense is evil, abortion is evil, etc. etc.... but wait, whose life are you talking about? Life in general, or your life, or.....? And why do you call it evil? Because it causes unhappiness? But what if killing someone gives a person pleasure? Then it's enriching their life---it's therefore good! Well, it's inimical to the life of the victim, so it's evil. A paradox! Good and evil at the same time. How confusing!
_______________________________________

To be continued.......
Iona
______________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM

Evolution is true. A meaningless statement and a completely unscientific one. You might just as well say "The Moon is true."

You are trolling. However.

The above assertion is utter rubbish. Evolution is a concept. The moon is a solid object. Your "might just as well" connection is useless. Why don't you think before you post? And by saying that evolution is true I was not even attempting to make "a scientific statement," whatever that's supposed to be. I'm saying it as it is. That evolution happens is no longer deniable. I do not say that the theory of evolution is true. The general thrust is true, but there are still plenty of tweaks to be made and plenty of gaps in knowledge to fill. That does not alter the fact that we have more than enough information by now to declare that evolution certainly happens. So evolution is true.

This bloke, or woman, or mollusc, whatever it/he/she is, appears to get perverse pleasure in contradicting everything I say. The threadbare nature of Snail's approach is betrayed by the above quoted statement. Thoughtless, useless and more than tinged with bile. So my post gets filled with bile too. A classic example, then, of why we shouldn't feed trolls. There's a song thrush in my garden that delights in cracking snail shells and consuming the titbit therein. This specimen would give my thrush serious indigestion, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM

And, Iona, don't fall into the error of thinking those are simplistic answers. They are far more complex than you may think.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM

Iona:    "You see, without your borrowing from a Christian worldview, you can't define those things. So Don, really you have no argument. By your worldview, anything goes and you have no basis for reason."

I do NOT have to borrow from the Christian "worldview" to define good and evil. Thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Siddhârtha Gautama Buddha, and many, MANY religious figures who existed LONG before Jesus, not to mention MOSES, I might add—have given answers to the question of Good and Evil. These answers are remarkably similar, and they pre-date the birth of Jesus by centuries.

And here is something YOU don't seem capable of understanding. And that is that one can figure out the nature of Good and Evil on one's own. Without having to turn to some religious figure.

That which promotes and enriches life is GOOD.

That which is inimical to life is EVIL.

I don't need the Boy Scout Manual. Nor, for that matter, Jesus, to tell me the nature of Good and Evil.

Perhaps, however, YOU do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:40 PM

""I am working on another one of my mile-long answers, but I still think that you all ought to answer me:

Define good.

Define evil.""

I have no intention of pandering to your attempts to claim that only Christians know the difference.

Don Firth's recent offering does a pretty good job of showing the evil that lurks in that book you so revere.

The average atheist would never be so amoral as to accept it as the word of any moral or ethical authority.

Fundamentalists, such as yourself, are apparently just that amoral. You give genuine Christians a bad name.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM

Shimrod

I'm not sure that arguing with Iona is pointless, Snail. I wouldn't normally bother with people like her but she and her kind apparently have quite a bit of political 'clout' in the US - and I believe that that fact puts us all in danger - and I feel duty bound to say something.

Point taken but do you think that you are going to win her over? She stopped actually thinking a long time ago. Her arguments are an incoherent mess. She started off asking about evidence for evolution and now she's talking about Good and Evil. The target audience for rationalists are those who might be won over by her arguments. They need to be shown how science works as I said in my last post. They need to know that it is not just an alternative belief system.

On the other hand I can't resist pointing out that arguing with you seems to be a pretty futile exercise ...

Well, only because you can't admit I'm right. Tell me this, do you think Steve Shaw is right when he says "Evolution is true." If so, what does that mean? No fence sitting.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM

""Just off the coast where I live in Cornwall there a submerged forest about 8,000 years old, inundated by the sea when sea levels rose.""

Oh don't tell her that Steve, you'll destroy her illusory belief in a universe created 6,000 years ago in six days.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM

"Define good."

Aristotle

Kant

John Stuart Mill


etc....


Oh...I'm sorry... you want a 'simplistic' one

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM

Hardly any surprise that Steve Shaw responds with personal abuse.

It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs.

I would certainly not deny that evolution occurs but, as Iona demonstrates, it is perfectly possible to do so if you are sufficiently obsessed with your own world view. Someone might just as well say the Moon does not exist but they won't get taken very seriously.

Evolution is true. A meaningless statement and a completely unscientific one. You might just as well say "The Moon is true."

Trying to debate with the likes of Iona is pointless. What matters is presenting a clear description of how science works and what the scientific method is and what it can achieve. As Shimrod said, it is not about 'absolute truth'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:04 PM

One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil."