 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 20 Apr 12 - 06:36 AM Er.... I was not recommending the video, I was recommending the book. I agree that the video is not particularly satisfying but I found the book a stimulating read. I should point out that I have no connection with Dr Law who I first came upon at the Oxford Literary Festival in March this year but as a practising Christian I relish the constant challenge of reconciling my faith position with the significant advances of science. I dislike fundamentalism in all its forms and I recognise my own inability to satisfactorily explain my own beliefs - sometimes even to myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Apr 12 - 10:40 PM I just finished watching the Law video. I cannot recommend it. Bill D. has made the same points more succinctly, many times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Apr 12 - 05:18 PM Law talks about the book |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 19 Apr 12 - 05:05 PM May I recommend ' Believing Bullshit' by Stephen Law. It is an easy to read exploration of some of the main arguments used by cults, YECs and others to defend what a rational mind finds indefensible |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Apr 12 - 04:32 PM Paul I've seen a slightly less on the nose version of that same thing. I wonder when Einstein did all that work in physics considering his more than impressive body of work in the field of Creationist polemics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Date: 19 Apr 12 - 03:53 PM I'd like to share this uplifting story with y'all to restore your faith in Hugh Mannity after all this godless communist propaganda. God bless Old Gory and the NRA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 19 Apr 12 - 02:44 PM 1,500! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 19 Apr 12 - 02:43 PM Subinhe, what the Folk are you smokean? :D Too much Fortean Times I think. Hold on... isn't this...? Yes - I think it is. It's.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Apr 12 - 01:47 PM Don, I think those are positions they create arguments to support. "Truth in Genesis" is a leader in assembling and disseminating these arguments. Here is and example. Bill D., with your respect for logic, I urge you to skip the rest of this post. http://www.truthingenesis.com/Star_Distance.html >>Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old there should be several hundred million supernovas; however, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the bible says. << |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Amos Date: 19 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM Subinhe, what the Folk are you smokean? :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Apr 12 - 01:30 PM No guys, they really do think in terms of facts......like:- The "fact that the World is 6000 years old! The "fact" that it was completed in seven days! The "fact that two people can produce a gene pool which is viable! The "fact" that the bible is the inerrant word of God! The proof of all this?......GOD said so! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: frogprince Date: 18 Apr 12 - 07:20 PM Although at times it's "What facts can we pull out of context to support it". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 12 - 06:56 PM Creationism says:- Here's the conclusion. What |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM Year nine Creation Science for schools:- "And on the eighth day God, giggling to himself, buried fossils all over the place". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM Science says:- "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?" Creationism says:- Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?" Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 17 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM "Meanwhile - Keep on Folkin', Folks!" Oh, I do... in a traditional way. I'm a modal folker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Apr 12 - 05:34 PM Still deliberately ignorant in Tenn, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 17 Apr 12 - 10:02 AM Folkinanity? Folkinanity is for those who believe in Folkin' - they're the Folkineans, as oppose to the Folkeans who don't do a lot of active Folkin' as such, but do a lot of Folk - maybe too much, which can be bad for you: if the Folk's too pure it's difficult to handle, but you don't want the impure stuff either because no one knows what it's been cut with. Folkin' is a positive world view - it smiles and celebrates on a joyful, intuitive level; it welcomes and accommodates all comers and eschews celebrity squares and those who take things (& themselves) too seriously. I worry though. Earlier today I picked up my recently acquired 1986 reprint of the 1974 edition of The Faber Book of Popular Verse (I keep my 1971 first edition for Sunday best) and when I read New Year's Water on p.279 I immediately tried to find our copy of the Waterson : Carthy Holy Heathens CD because I recall a sleevenote with to the effect that the title of their song Residue was a mondegreen of something, but no one knew quite what. I failed to locate the CD, but looking on Mudcat I see that particular mystery's already been dealt with. Like it matters, eh? But, to the Folkean, of course, such things do matter - for they are, like me and countless others, helpless victims of a dark dependency on Folk that drives them to obsess over such irrelevant minutiae and, worse still, find considerable meaning therein. Rest assured, I am seeking a cure, and, when I do, I intend opening a clinic devoted to providing essential care for those poor souls similarly afflicted. Meanwhile - Keep on Folkin', Folks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Date: 17 Apr 12 - 07:19 AM Penny S: Kettlewell's experiment is still taught in the OU's Darwin and Evolution level 1 course. Kettlewell's experiment was actually looking at predation by birds on the moths. The increase of melanic moths in industrial areas was first noticed in 1848 and had been studied for around sixty years before Kettlewell was even born, and the hypothesis that the change in morphotypes in the peppered moth population was due to natural selection had been proposed during that time; Kettlewell set out to prove it was bird predation driving the process. Which he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Date: 17 Apr 12 - 06:46 AM Folkinanity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Apr 12 - 12:01 AM Once again...shuttin' up 'cause Penny S. has gots it in spades. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Date: 16 Apr 12 - 08:06 PM A-wop-bop-a-loo-lop a-lop bam boo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM TinySpell if you're on a PC. Cleverest thing since sliced bread... you can choose UK spelling, and it follows your typing everywhere and warns you....and corrects with one click. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 16 Apr 12 - 04:11 PM Thanks for correcting my spelling of Chaos anyway. Much appreciated! I really need to instal a spell-check on this thing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 12 - 02:47 PM "...religions form to give succour and identity to societal misfits in the face of a greater chaos of general inglorious humanity." Now there's a line to remember! Not necessarily to USE in the wrong delicate circumstances, but it certainly clarifies one viewpoint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Date: 16 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM Tooraliooraliooralay |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Apr 12 - 01:25 PM Dating back to the Tiff Paul had with Peter, the history of the Christian church has been a history of schisms. You can't have schisms if everyone agrees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 16 Apr 12 - 12:54 PM The other way of looking at it is that religions form to give succour and identity to societal misfits in the face of a greater choas of general inglorious humanity. Christianity is founded on this sort of reactive moral superiority in which everyone but them is going to spend an eternity in hell, and The Folk Revival is too to a greater or lesser extent, with the notion that 'the sort music we like' is inherently different or else superior to others. I've been in some Folk Clubs where I expected glossolalia in the choruses - unless all those twanky-dillos and fol-de-rol de ridos is glossolalia. Gulp! Now there's a grim thought! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM "in any group, some people just like to hate. (or at least to complain bitterly about the opinions of others.)" No! Really? Wow... what a revelation! (he said with tongue firmly buried in cheek..) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Apr 12 - 12:37 PM Suibhne Astray I think the common thread is that is that in any group, some people just like to hate. (or at least to complain bitterly about the opinions of others.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Date: 16 Apr 12 - 09:26 AM Apparently, pete is right to suggest that some moths were glued to trees. This was, apparently, done to determine the effect the density of moths had on predation. See: Lots of moth discussion : which took me by surprise. And, also apparently, the original photographs of moths on bark were staged. BUT, the final development of Kettlewell's work on the moths (See Discussion of Kettlewell's work. ) used the capture, mark, recapture technique to estinmate populations, and did not depend on any observations, photographed or not, of glued moths. FURTHERMORE, the observation that with the drop in heavy industries, the light form of the moths showed a resurgence is independent of that work, and serves to confirm the effect of differential predation. The OU foundation science course included a module on this experiment - I didn't catch any peppered moths with the lamp they issued, so cannot comment directly (I lived in the wrong place). But if the many students involved had shown up any problems, I would think it would have been published by now. There's plenty of discussion about the mothy business by non-creationists out there. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 16 Apr 12 - 05:48 AM Not forgetting the Creation Myths, Visionary Epiphanies, Holy Days, Old Testament Prophets, Latter Day Saints, Hell-Fire Preachers and general air of the Sanctimonious (especially among the newer converts). Of course, as with any other religion, there are enough Heretics, Random Visionaries and Cranky Wetherbeaten Ascetics to keep things interesting. The difference between Folkeanity and a Christianity seems to be one of Chronological Yearning: your average fundamentalist Christian would like things to be a lot Younger than they actually are, whereas the fundamentalist Folkean wishes them to be older... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Apr 12 - 05:16 AM Ha ha, I like that! Well said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 16 Apr 12 - 04:22 AM The evidence of this is on is on nearly every religious discussion on this form, and also on a lot of discussion about folk music. But there is a lot of religiosity in folk music - faith, dogma, holy cows, sacred scriptures, rabid fundamentalism and unquestioning self-righteousness - and all over a thing that only exists in the eyes & ears of a small inner-sect of orthodox believers and initiates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Apr 12 - 11:47 PM How can anyone hate anything that doesn't exist? You can't hate insanity. ------------------ One can hate a concept. One can hate an ideology. One can hate a belief. One can hate the believers and adherents. One can mock and insult believers and beliefs. The evidence of this is on is on nearly every religious discussion on this form, and also on a lot of discussion about folk music. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Apr 12 - 06:33 PM ""no need to find out if moths settle on bark,light or dark;they just glued dead ones on the trees!"" No need either to libel respectable scientists who could, if they could be arsed, sue the pants off you for that statement. Their conclusions were drawn from far too small a sample over too short a time. Nevertheless, their conclusions were correct in principle, though not representing definitive proof. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 15 Apr 12 - 05:16 PM pete... no one SHOULD claim that Ussher was a 'crank'. He was sincere, talented (for the 1600s)....but simply wrong in his premises about how things worked. In those days, belief in the literal truth of the Bible was pretty common, and Ussher's 'work' simply put numbers to common beliefs. But even then, he had to make many assumptions when scriptural details were lacking and had no idea to what extent translations and 'editions' of the Bible had affected what he had to do in calculations.... much less any idea how science would centuries later show that geology and chemistry and paleontology had to be given attention. The message in the Bible had to be considered apart from the historical disputes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Apr 12 - 04:34 PM Oops ~~ sorry Dave!! 〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Date: 15 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM pete ~~ I think you were responding to me there, 12 Apr 1146 AM, not Doug. Indeed, and not to me either (Dave,* smiling*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Apr 12 - 03:28 PM pete ~~ I think you were responding to me there, 12 Apr 1146 AM, not Doug. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 15 Apr 12 - 02:56 PM bill-i thought wiki article on ussher was quite complimentary on his academic achievements and demonstrated that he was not the crank a lot of evolutionists portray him as.however i suspect most creationists would be less specific than he was. dmcg-no i dont believe the fossils were put there as a test.i believe mostly they were the result of catastrophic flood conditions. steve- the agreement betwit us was re the moth "experiment" no need to find out if moths settle on bark,light or dark;they just glued dead ones on the trees! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 15 Apr 12 - 02:38 PM test post as last one failed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM How can anyone hate anything that doesn't exist? You can't hate insanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Date: 13 Apr 12 - 02:20 PM ALIENS!! Recurring visits. That's who Adam and Eve's and Noah's offspring must have mated with. It's the only possible explanation. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Mr Happy Date: 13 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM A collation of conclusions extrapolated from the knowlegeable ones above; The deity from the work of fiction called 'The Bible' made a man & a woman. This couple mated & produced 2 sons, of which one was a murderer who killed his sibling. The murderer then mated with his mother or another female already existing who wasn't made by the deity. Some years later, there was localised flooding which extinguished all the humans & animals in that area except for a family on a boat called 'The Ark'& some livestock on board. After the waters subsided, the family left the boat & the owner's sons mated with some other females already existing & not specially created by the deity. Does this all make sense so far? I can't wait for the sequel!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Date: 13 Apr 12 - 08:33 AM Back on 23rd October, 1996, we held an office party to mark the Universe being 6000 years old! Of course, we know about the year zero problem, and that the various changes to the calendar make even this date a bit suspect, but as no-one took it as anything more than an excuse for a party with some specially composed dinosaur-related ditties, no-one was too bothered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 12 Apr 12 - 04:17 PM Bishop Ussher The point is that he merely added up all the 'stated' ages of the various named persons from Adam on down...assuming that a 'year' was a solar year. Read the 'chronology' part of the article to see just how awkward it was...even with the care Ussher used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Apr 12 - 03:35 PM Don ~~ Bishop James Ussher claimed some time during the 1650s to have calculated the date of the Creation as 23 [I think it was] October 4004 BC, working, so he said, from evidence provided by analysis of the tests of various books of the Pentateuch, & elsewhere in the Old Testament. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Date: 12 Apr 12 - 03:23 PM In most copies of the Bible, the number "4004" is printed at the top of the first page of Genesis. But nowhere in the text of the Bible do I find the assertion that this was the year in which God created the heavens and the earth. So where did this idea—that the all of this was created 4,004 years before the birth of Christ come from? Especially since NOW we are informed that Jesus was born in the year 4 B.C. That would seem to throw the whole system off by four years. Since this date of 4004 cannot be found in the text of any of the books of the Bible, who came up with this figure? Is this some kind of Heavenly copyright date? Who put it there? And when was it put there? The whole Young Earth Creationist canon seems to be based on this number. I submit that the Cosmos is at least 13 billion years old, as the lasted scientific findings—backed by plenty of observable evidence—tells us. And the solar system, including the Earth, was created out of swirling eddies of cosmic dust—which, as we now know, is the way stars and their planetary systems are formed—some 4.5 billion years ago. Our sun is a second or third generation star, which means that the gas cloud from which it and the planets formed included a quantity of heavy atoms and molecules "cooked" in the cores of earlier stars that, by various means including going supernova, blew their material into space to reform into new stars. Given all these organic (carbon containing) molecules, a medium such as water, and an energy source such as the heat of the sun, they combine in various ways and form micro-organisms. And these micro-organisms in turn tend to combine in various ways and produce even more complex organisms. Simple but living creatures such as the amoeba and other one-celled animals. And algae, the beginnings of plant life. This is when the process of evolution begins. Those living creatures that can survive well in their medium proliferated, genes combine and recombine in various ways, and these living creatures grow even more complex and sophisticated. We are the result. And we reside in a Cosmos so awe-inspiringly immense that the mind boggles at trying to take it all in. Indeed, the human mind can't really grasp it. Assuming that the Cosmos was actually created by some intelligent entity, something or someone we call "God," He, She, or IT is so far beyond our comprehension that there is no way that anyone can grasp Its nature and intent, much less claim to understand "the Will of God." But some people, suffering from a form of conceptual agoraphobia (All that space! All that time!) become frightened at the true nature of the Cosmos. So they construct a much cozier concept of the world for themselves. Back to childhood. Their house and their neighborhood is all they know, having no real concept of the size of the town or city they live in, much less the size of the world they live on. They are taken care of by parents. A father who is kindly and benevolent because he provides (giving us this day our daily bread), but who can be a stern disciplinarian ("Thou shalt not—"), but who forgives us our trespasses. Warm and fuzzy. Comparing the god of the Young Earth Creationists with the (presumed) God who created the Cosmos as it IS, along with the Laws of Nature that resulted in the emergence of Life, which over eons of time and experiments of evolution eventually resulted in US, the god of the Young Earth Creationists is little more than some sort of "super-wizard." Gandalf on steroids. The god of the Young Earth Creationists is much too small. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 12 Apr 12 - 01:05 PM Here is why Spencer is hard to interpret: (I have a copy of Spencer's original work in my basement ...that I found in an old bookstore 50 years ago...it is hard reading!) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/ He USED the concepts of evolutionary theory to explain certain ideas about social theories..like justice. The problem was that many people...then, as now... grabbed onto the words and didn't take the trouble to sort out the actual thrust of his arguments. The major flaw in Spencer was that he took Lamarkan ideas seriously..(the idea of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics"). This has been overwhelmingly disproved in biology (as least as Lamarck understood it), but can be related to social, psychological...etc. theory...if done carefully. It would be better explained without Lamarck's name attached to confuse thing. Interesting: I just learned for the 1st time that Darwin and Galton were cousins, and that Galton was heavily influenced by his older cousin!. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0003/francis_galton.htm Evolutionary theory is constantly being refined and the details debated... as science reqires....and while names such as Darwin, Spencer, Lamarck...and Galton... are necessary to study the HISTORY of the theory, it is entirely possible to explain, debate and verify the ideas with no reference to ANY of them. The science of sorting out the history of the Earth and our place in it requires only finding data and relating all the data to itself. What in going on in this thread is that religious "beliefs" are being alternately claimed and denied as relevant to the study of evolution as a science. I see why this happens, but it just cannot work that way. *IF* religion is correct as an explanation for "the beginning of everything", we cannot test the details beyond what science can say about specific assertions about dates. IF presumed Biblical dates don't match the science, the proper conclusion is that translations and interpretations of the Bible have been confused....because the data science uses remains there, unaltered...to study as best we can. Biblical 'data' changes and is interpreted (and interpreted in a different way than scientific data). If you read..when you can find it... the religious beliefs of various scientists...from Darwin on up.. it becomes evident just how easy it is to confuse different ideas about data itself and the proper place OF science & belief in understanding data..... gotta stop... too much 'life' going on right now |
