 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 01 May 12 - 10:50 AM Cause the old thread is BIG and takes a while to load. OK, have it at, again, still. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 01 May 12 - 11:34 AM "There are no other truths, apart from those we can observe." I have no intention of "going snail" over a statement, but I did pause at that line. Should I just say to self, "this discussion is about the discipline of science, and in that context the statement makes sense to me"? My mind doesn't want to stay compartmentalized. One thought is, there is "observed", and there is "observed" - there is scientific observation, and there is eye-witness observation which can easily be misleading. Another thought (I may wish I hadn't gone here in this context) is, is it true that some of us love some of the rest of us? I could say that that's "observable", but can anyone make that "observable" in a scientific sense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 May 12 - 11:56 AM Scientific knowledge is a consensus of opinion by scientists, not theologians or anyone who doesn't have the scientific discipline and information. Any other "truth" is silly and hypothetical because there is no physical evidence to support it. Without this evidence, there is no approximation of truth. Truth is a relative idea, there can be no absolute truth despite the propaganda offered by religious advocates. That absolute "truth" is unsupportable by scientific physical reality. What scientists know about evolution is evolving itself. The study of the human brain helps to clarify the role of evolution in influencing how we think about such matters as religion, politics, or evolution. Behavioral studies show how the conditioning we have in our lives influences how we think about topics such as evolution. Because of the brain-changing doubling down of certain behavioral patterns which are based on a rigid authoritarian view of life, there can be no rational discussion about these issues until mankind evolves beyond this limitation. The discussion becomes not a vehicle for sharing information but a "King of the Mountain" approach that dismisses any idea not held by the arguing party. Until new ideas are discussed from the vantage point of seeing a different perspective, one based on openness and unclouded by prejudice, the same rancor continues. Evolution as a discipline is an attempt to perceive and clarify a scientific idea which in an non-authoritarian society can be allowed to flourish and enlighten. Will there come a time when ideas can be evaluated on the basis of their usefulness to society, a nurturing of genuine intellectual curiosity rather than a pounding of the table by pundits who atrophy in their self-righteous opinions? With this new enlightenment, can we eliminate war and violence to each other and evolve to a better understanding of our species? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 01 May 12 - 12:14 PM I could only answer Stringsinger's last two questions by saying "Maybe, and I really hope so". The staunch fundamentalist has a definite answer: "No, because since Adam and Eve sinned, all of us inherit an evil nature that can never be entirely eliminated, only forgiven by God if we accept the cleansing blood." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 12:45 PM Er, right. Anyone will tell you what a simple man I am. When I say that evolution is true, here's what I mean. Someone comes up to me and tells me that evolution is not true, that is, it doesn't happen. It's all an illusion, or a dream, or something, or (worse) they give me all that creationist crap. So what do I say? What does any scientist say? I say, you're wrong. Evolution is true (that is, it takes place). I'm not telling you that in a brow-beating sort of way, or because I'm the king of the mountain and won't hear otherwise. I do listen to people who don't think evolution occurs (I wouldn't be a scientist otherwise), but what I'm listening out for is their evidence, then I want to hear their reasoning predicated on their evidence. I have to make one condition: that the meaning of the word "evidence" has to be the scientific meaning. Not tradition, myth, hearsay, or witness. Science is about looking for the truth, and we can't get there if the only evidence we have can't get over that bar. Also, we can't get there if the evidence we do have is improperly subjected to reasoning that goes beyond it (as with the phlogiston chaps. They had to make an assumption that a substance could exist that had negative mass. They were guilty of inventing a parameter for which they had no evidence, so their reasoning went beyond the evidence, in the proper scientific sense, that they did have). Now I am not aware that anyone has ever presented evidence, in the scientific sense, that evolution does not occur. I've heard plenty of notions expressed to that effect, but none has been supported by scientifically-gleaned evidence. I've heard people say that some species have not changed in millions of years, so have not evolved, but any evolutionary biologist finds it very easy to defeat that very narrow view. Not only that, but I also know that we have a mass of proper evidence in favour of evolution taking place. Each individual piece of evidence is up for scrutiny (that's science for ya), but the totality of the evidence has, by now, gone way beyond the stage at which we can dismiss it as a body. It is no longer possible for anyone to come along and overturn the whole body of evidence. There is far too much of it for that, and the different elements within that body of evidence all support each other as well supporting the overriding idea that evolution takes place. Now you may say that that's just my judgement. That's true, but I am saying that my judgement (that, according to all the evidence we have, evolution definitely occurs) must be the same as that of any other person with sufficient understanding of evolution and the scientific evidence. It is only a consensus in a non-optional sense. It isn't possible for a scientist employing evidence and reason to refute it. It isn't a consensus by majority vote. You can't vote against or even abstain. And it isn't me who's the king of the mountain. It's the evidence. And please note that, throughout all this, I am talking about evolution in its overall thrust, not every nut and bolt, nothing like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 01:00 PM ""I could only answer Stringsinger's last two questions by saying "Maybe, and I really hope so"."" I'll second that!......and subscribe. Where do we sign up? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 01:08 PM Because I feel very strongly about it and it was unanswered in the original thread. ""Pete's truth is "the bible is true and everything was created in seven days 6000 years ago!" Why use a word which puts your argument on the same level, when you have myriad other words to describe scientific progress? Don T."" So, somebody, anybody.........WHY insist upon that particular word above all genuinely scientific (and please don't tell me that "truth" is a scientific word) alternatives??? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 May 12 - 01:13 PM Ideas can become addictive, an intellectual drug, the addict being wedded to a certain "truth" or viewpoint that when taken away creates a negative reaction., Creationism is such a drug. Evolution is an antidote because it tears down the wall of addiction and forces inquiry and rational thinking to replace dogma. Evolution is not a religion, a cause celebre, a political football, it is scientific fact embraced by those who really know science. Knowledge for it is evolving itself. It is not an absolute but a method for understanding scientific biological principles. It has been falsely accused of stringent religious principles by those who can't conceive of any other way of looking at ideas. Evolution evolves by physical observation whereas religious tenets about it evolve through speculation which often turns to addictive dependency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,josepp Date: 01 May 12 - 01:15 PM In the words of Descartes, I can doubt EVERYTHING--except the fact that I doubt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 01:20 PM Steve, nobody is disagreeing with your conclusion, but it seems to me a very contrary act on your part to insist upon using the only word guaranteed to give YECs the smug self satisfied illusion that you are simply describing an opposing belief system. Why not simply say Evolution as an overall process is "proven to the limits of current scientific knowledge", both succinct and unambiguous. Slack usage of terminology in the search for one word descriptions has destroyed many an otherwise perfect thesis. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 01 May 12 - 02:48 PM I'm sorry, but: the obvious limitation of current scientific knowledge is precisely that it ignores the truth of the WORD of GOD. Which is to say, there is really no use worrying about what fine point of phrasing you use when debating with a stone wall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 03:02 PM Well Don. "Proven" is another of those words, innit! Yeah, I'm perfectly happy to see evolution, in its general thrust, described as (shall we say) "established to the limits of current scientific knowledge." With that I couldn't possibly disagree. But the sentence contains a hidden proviso, that, once those limits are conquered, there may have to be some revision. I'm up for accepting, nay, wanting there to be revisions, but there can only be revisions within. The fact of evolution, that is to say, that it definitely takes place, is rock-like. It can't be overturned. There is far too much interlocking evidence (of the scientific kind) for any process of reasoning, honestly applied, to be able to contradict it. As for using the word truth, well I've sort of been using it one way or another all my life. I googled the word and read the wiki article on the word and I couldn't bloody understand half of it! I use the word to mean something unassailable, arrived at by having good evidence (in the scientific sense, though you don't have to keep harking back to science every time you talk about truth) which was interpreted using, honestly, reason. A creationist misuses the word. There is no evidence, of the scientific kind, for creationism. Reason cannot be applied to no evidence or faux-evidence (hearsay, witness, tradition, teachings, myth, ritual, dodgy ancient manuscripts) in order to arrive at truth. You cannot arrive at truth via blind faith. All the machinations of an elaborate belief system, with all its theology or whatever orthodoxy, can't get one iota nearer the truth. Creationists who talk about their truths are misusing the word. They have not hijacked the word, like the computer age has hijacked "spam." So that shouldn't stop me from using it. It should merely make me tell them that they are misusing it. My using the word does not put me in their territory. What puts me in their territory is saying things like "I don't believe in God." Or even "I am an atheist." That defines me by their standards. You can't say that if I use a word that they blatantly misuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 May 12 - 04:24 PM pete asks: "if diamonds are millenia old, why can carbon be found?" To which I can only respond: "Is it hotter in the summer or in the city?" and: "What is the difference between a duck?" pete, it is totally impossible to discuss science with you. No offense, but we are talking totally past each other. You have no clue what the scientists are talking about, and we clearly don't understand you... =unproductive discourse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 05:01 PM Shall I try? Pete, ordinary carbon has an indefinite lifespan. There's ordinary carbon around that was formed not long after the Big Bang (and don't start...) Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It's an unstable variety of carbon that breaks down over tens of thousands of years until it isn't carbon 14 any more. Most carbon, though, is not carbon 14, so we're safe. Carbon 14 is constantly being formed, taken in by living things (because plants use carbon dioxide from the air, and some of that carbon dioxide will have carbon 14 in it instead of ordinary carbon - then we eat the plants, etc...) and breaking down. When you die, you stop taking in carbon 14, so the level of carbon 14 in your body slowly falls as it breaks down. The amount left in your body is an accurate measure of how long ago you died, because it breaks down at a very steady rate. This is useful up to about 60,000 years after the creature died. After that, there isn't enough carbon 14 left to give a reliable measure any more. But none of this has anything to do with diamonds, etc. They are made of nearly all ordinary carbon, as they are very old and any carbon 14 they had to start with has virtually all broken down. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 May 12 - 05:13 PM ""But the sentence contains a hidden proviso, that, once those limits are conquered, there may have to be some revision."" Not may Steve, WILL. If one single scientific fact has been known since the dawn of empiricism to the technology of today, it is that there are always revisions. An oak tree trunk may stand for eight hundred years, but there are always new branches, twigs and leaves. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 01 May 12 - 05:41 PM "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.evolution is promulgated as an ideology,a secular religion-a full fledged alternative to christianity,with meaning and morality.i am an ardent evolutionist and an ex christian,but...the literalists are absolutely right.evolution is a religion" michael ruse prof of philosophy and zoology national post 13 may 2ooo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 05:48 PM Don, I did go on to celebrate the fact that revision would always be necessary. But the central tenet of evolution will not be revised, which is that it takes place. I think I was suggesting that your sentence was not quite brave enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 05:59 PM Your man has it all wrong, pete, and it's a well-worn and somewhat tired ploy to attempt to tarnish evolution science with a veneer of religion. The thing is this. Evolution science is predicated on the gathering of evidence (of which there are vast amounts thought still with plenty of entertaining gaps) which is then subjected to the process of reason. The evidence we require has a high bar to jump, the same as with any other scientific evidence. Religious belief is predicated on faith relying on the abandonment of reason. This is because the "evidence" put forward by religion (tradition, hearsay, witness, incomplete and contentious texts full of inconsistencies, teachings of elders, ritual...) fails to meet any of the stringent criteria that science demands. You can try to apply reason to your "evidence", but your conclusion can only be as strong as your weakest link - and that is your evidence. Reason applied to false evidence is reason misapplied. What happens is that religion then has to see certainty in the highly-improbable. The house is built on sand. Not wise, but if it works for you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 May 12 - 06:01 PM though |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Mrrzy Date: 01 May 12 - 10:24 PM Ooh, I like the question is it hotter in the summer or in the city. i will use that in my methodology class, if I may (with footnote, of course!)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 02 May 12 - 04:18 AM pete, the cheap shot remark was because I know you, and I thought you were personally not living up to your usual standards. I might well not make it to anyone on the other side where I don't know them and have any knowledge of their own standards, or where I have already seen that they use that sort of remark habitually. I thought that you were letting yourself down there. As to contaminating diamond - yes, it is hard, but diamond in the raw state is not as smooth as cut diamond. And even cut diamond, at the molecular level, is going to have unevennesses in the surface of the crystal matrix which could pick up modern carbon. Then, as soon as it is processed, by pulverising the diamond and burning it, it is impossible to keep it clear of modern carbon. It's in the air, it's in the water, it's in any solvents used in cleaning (all carbon based), it's in the apparatus. In normal lab processes, these sources of error are calibrated by testing with control materials. It was discussed in the article (or one of those I read). The full process had not been reported in the YEC tests of diamond. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 12 - 08:12 AM Been a bit busy these last few days but it's been interesting to watch. Thanks, Don, for keeping up the questioning of Steve's use of Truth but I am a bit alarmed by "I deplore Snail's campaign of dislike and disdain toward Steve". Considering I have been subjected to lines like "Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One." and "Do you know what, Snail? You're boring. Bloody boring. You're not a bloody snail after all, are you? You're a limpet.", I think I have been remarkably polite and restrained. I take issue with a lot of what Steve says (apart from the quotes above). I am a bit hamstrung if I can't try and debate those points without being accused of making personal attacks on Steve. Back later to discuss the actual issues if I'm allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 02 May 12 - 08:32 AM Bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 09:11 AM Well, you put a protective arm round pete whilst continuing your hectoring and nit-picking campaign against my use of words. I wouldn't mind half so much if you came up with some original debating of your own. It's bloody hard work typing those long messages, you know, just to be shot down by someone who is just nit-picking. Do you know me from somewhere or something?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 02 May 12 - 09:36 AM We might as well be asking, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and pretending to have a rational debate about it. Once again, for the umpteenth time: *Honest process of investigation for which the result has not been previously decided upon and data then cherry-picked to support the "conclusion." *Reproducible results. None of that here from the evolution nay-sayers. So a question to them: How do you run your lives, make decisions on what to do, and when, how, and with whom? What *process* of reasoning and problem-solving do you use? Ah, fuggit. I am sure I will not get anything vaguely representing an intelligent response. So then, how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 12 - 10:26 AM Mr Shaw, I have developed a respect for your knowledge and intelligence through reading your posts but I cannot agree that objecting to your use of the word 'truth' is nit picking. I can understand your resentment of Snail's sometimes heavy handed condemnation but I am convinced that you are able to see that the use of that word implies incontrovertibility which runs counter to scientific method. In consequence use of the word 'truth' in a scientific context would require so much qualification as to make it pretty meaningless. I have no doubt that you are able to rephrase your evaluation of evolution in such a way that pedants (such as myself) could accept it without question and you could bring your intellect to bear on questions more worthy of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 11:47 AM But (whoever you are), my "evaluation" is no such thing. I have no alternative. I can't deny the truth of evolution, because it's undeniable. The only objection can come from people who think that evolution does not take place. That, as I have been at great pains to explain, is all I'm saying is true. That evolution takes place! I don't care whether you're a pedant, a creationist or Snail in disguise. If you think I'm wrong, let's see your evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 11:49 AM And I don't resent him. I'm irritated by him, true enough (am I allowed to say that?) but even so I've typed a lot of words in response to him. One day, perhaps, we'll get to hear some of his ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 02 May 12 - 01:34 PM Sorry, I forgot to put my name in my previous post. I had no intention to criticise anyone, it just seems to me that if there was a way past this semantic difficulty two formidable minds could work together to challenge YECers very effectively. I should probably keep quiet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 01:59 PM A good way past it would be to ignore it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 02 May 12 - 04:28 PM steve-the quote was an admission from an evolutionist;though of course i agree with it .you claim continuously that the weight of evidence supports darwinism,though admitting many gaps,yet the very foundation of the GTE is scientifically improbable to say the least. i am sure abiogenesis is a massive problem for evolutionism notwithstanding hawkins efforts. but thankyou to you and penny for explaining your position on diamond contamination.i am not personally equal to pursueing the argument but it is helpful to know what the argument is. best wishes pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 May 12 - 06:02 PM No, The weight of evidence supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course I admit gaps. Scientists celebrate gaps. It's what gives them the will to live. Creationists hate gaps, which is why they insert God into any gap they find. It gives them the will to hang in and wait for a better time in the next life, Waste o' time if you ask me. Carpe diem! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 02 May 12 - 06:30 PM "His mind was so set on going to Heaven that he was of no earthly use whatever." --overheard quote. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 02 May 12 - 06:33 PM If the Theory of Evolution is just a religion...a matter of faith, then why has it changed so much over the last 150+ years? Has the "Theory of YEC" changed pete? Or has it been dictated by the truth of the Bible? If you agree (as you must) that one theory has changed and the other is immutable, please explain how they can be the same sort of "belief". I would love to hear Professor Ruse answer this as well. (And isn't his name ironic and suggestive?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 03 May 12 - 06:11 AM We are, of course, still evolving. New paper here: Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 03 May 12 - 07:24 AM It isn't just a "semantic difficulty". Steve is trying to redefine the scientific method. But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory. So what does it become? I presume he means it becomes The Truth. This is not science. The null hypothesis rules! Assuming that something must be false unless there is evidence. This principled approach (and I know I'm being a bit of idealist) has the virtue of allowing science to claim genuine truth when it finds it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis is compared with an alternative hypothesis to see which is more probable. It does not allow anyone to claim genuine truth. Some useful stuff about the scientific method here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The creationists come with a health warning; they have FRUITLOOP tattooed across their foreheads. Steve speaks as a scientist so his misrepresentation of science is potentially for more damaguing. Sorry that you find my style heavy handed, Brendan. Would you prefer me tu use Steve's style. By the way, Steve, neither your fig tree nor your statement that there is a fig tree in your garden (and far be it from me to doubt you) are a scientific theory. Your fig tree is an aspect of the physical world and your statement is an empirical observation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 03 May 12 - 08:59 AM Thank you for that information Snail. I do understand your position regarding the use of the word truth, as I tried to make clear in an earlier post. Please forgive my apparently judgemental description of you as heavy handed, I was not referring to your general style, simply to your forceful responses to Steve Shaw. Neither of you need any lessons from me in expressing yourselves with clarity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 03 May 12 - 09:23 AM Sorry, the Null Hypothesis link went wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Brendan Date: 03 May 12 - 11:25 AM I am not attempting to be contentious here-I simply want to understand. It is my understanding that there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the reality of evolution. If that is the case why would I be wrong to describe evolution as an aspect of the physical world established by empirical observation? (Or would I be wrong? As you will have gathered I am not a scientist!). Is the answer that I am not observing a thing but a process and evolution is a hypothesis developed to explain this process? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 May 12 - 02:29 PM Brendan; You've got it. There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis). Similarly, there is an observable fact of gravity, and a Theory of Gravity. Oh, wait. No there isn't. It is the crappiest theory in modern science. But the fact of gravity is still observable. Thus, when confronted by the YEC types and their "Evolution is only a theory" or the "Theory of Evolution is full of gaps and inconsistencies", it is fun to point out that the Theory of Gravity doesn't even exist...but you're not floating off the Earth are you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 03 May 12 - 04:24 PM dawkins said something about; evolution has been observed its just that there was no one there to see it. im still maintaining that the past is not observable ;it can only be interpreted from the data.maybe thats what he meant but it aint the same thing-but its quite funny though! agreed evolutionism is constantly changing but that hardly means that it is not a religio/philosophical position.the central doctrine of purely naturalistic causes is sacresanct.the hostility towards ID demonstates this IMO.AND THEY DONT EVEN INSIST on YEC . in common with past and many present scientists YEC make no apology for seeing scripture as authoritive over scientific theories and under such beliefs science has flourished. just as evolutionists have a non negotiable bottom line;so do creationists.but within the parameters of Gods revelation to us there is room for developing,changing or even discarding models relating to creation'flood etc.pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 03 May 12 - 05:48 PM For instances of science "flourishing" under circumstances of religious belief ruling things, there is the obvious case of Galileo, but also that of da Vinci - who lived much of his life where he could not publish. What would have been achieved for humanity if he had been able to publish his medical and geological observations, instead of their disappearing into royal archives, unable to influence others, is impossible to calculate. Lives would undoubtedly have been saved, though. I don't often find St Augustine helpful - some of his opinions about women were atrocious, but there was another thing he wrote which was important about this issue. "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." Goodness knows what they were doing back then, that he needed to say this. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 03 May 12 - 05:53 PM PFSS is fact-averse. The is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with her/him/it. It will not happen. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 May 12 - 07:07 PM Steve is trying to redefine the scientific method. Oh, fer chrissake. Somebody throw this man a fish. Tia has it right. But anyone who says that the theory of evolution is full of gaps and inconsistencies simply doesn't get it. The evidence, true enough, has gaps, in line with most other areas of scientific endeavour I can think of. That is what keeps scientists going. The trouble with the naysayers is that when a gap is filled they don't see a filled gap. They see two gaps where once there was one. It's also worth pointing out that new evidence when it turns up never turns the theory on its head. My point is that we long ago passed the point when that became no longer possible - because of the sheer weight of evidence. Inconsistencies (or should we call them surprises?) do turn up but they are never weighty enough to challenge the general thrust of the theory. In general, they should not be seen as inconsistencies but as elucidations. I'm making progress. Someone mentioned the fact of evolution and Snail didn't challenge it. Mebbe it's just me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 May 12 - 07:22 PM ""just as evolutionists have a non negotiable bottom line;so do creationists.but within the parameters of Gods revelation to us there is room for developing,changing or even discarding models relating to creation'flood etc.pete."" No Pete!! There isn't, there never has been and there never will be! Your argument is set in concrete! And there is simply NO NON NEGOTIABLE LINE when it comes to evolution. Produce the evidence and the theory will be amended to accommodate it. But you have NO evidence, only faith. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 May 12 - 07:32 PM ""I'm making progress. Someone mentioned the fact of evolution and Snail didn't challenge it. Mebbe it's just me."" Or maybe it's just that he didn't choose to use that word which gives PFSS the comfort of claiming that evolution is a belief system. You know the one I mean; "truth"; the YEC get out clause you are so keen on promoting. Do you get it NOW? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 May 12 - 08:40 PM No. I told you that there's no way I'm letting that bunch of clods usurp a perfectly good word. Saying that evolution is a fact is just as good as saying it's true. If you can't say the one you can't say the other either, if Snail's argument is to be followed (please yerself...) To me, the, er, fact that evolution takes place is incontrovertible. So I'm saying that when I say evolution takes place, it's true. I'm telling the truth. I'm being truthful. I care not a jot that some demented God-botherer or other equates my use of the word with his. His truth is not my truth because his is based on blind faith and mine is based on evidence and reason. I don't recognise truth based on blind faith personally, though I can well believe it's true he thinks it. That's a very easy point to make and it should be made every single time that he claims equivalence. And I do not agree with you that there is no non-negotiable line when it comes to evolution. Oh yes there is. The fact that evolution takes place is utterly non-negotiable. Almost everyone here has been saying exactly that to pete, only in different words. That is the gist of what we are all telling him. Now if anyone has evidence that suggests evolution does not take place, even evidence that so much as faintly undermines that fact, well let's have it. In truth, there isn't any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 May 12 - 10:19 PM Yes pete, you really just refuse to get it. I say refuse because Penny S. has attested to the fact that you are a good decent person, so I do believe you are *capable* of getting it. But you are the one clinging to a non-negotiable bottom line! What is the non-negotiable bottom line that science clings to? Please tell me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 04 May 12 - 07:10 AM "Science is wrong, scientists are wrong and God is right and I'm right" "have they gone?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 May 12 - 08:26 AM God is right-wing. To them that hath it shall be given and to them that hath not it shall be taken away. *Shrug.* Yep, that's two-nation Toryism for you! I bet they have a 5% top tax rate in heaven. Yes, I know... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 May 12 - 10:18 AM SfJ- Brilliant. Got a laugh-out-loud visual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 04 May 12 - 12:00 PM Yes indeed, Steve, TIA has it right. One of the things he gets right is to make a clear distinction between "evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". You have, in the past, given the impression that you found that distinction important but seem to have become distinctly less particular as time has gone on. I offered a definition of the former from a university text book a while ago - "Biological evolution means change in the characteristics of descendant populations of organisms.". Do you have any problem with that? That is what TIA describes as a "fact". Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"'. No amount of "Steve says" is going to change that. By the way, I don't think your "general thrust" makes the slightest difference. I happened to notice that a while ago you said "I only said evolution is true, not any other theory.". What's the difference? Why is evolution (the theory of) different from any other scientific theory? I look forward to your next display of Yah! Boo! Sucks! playground style abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 May 12 - 12:53 PM "What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"" Actually no... I have pointed out many times (on many threads - particularly the predecessor to this one) that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional. In an attempt to illustrate this identifying and powerful aspect of science I have tried very hard to get pfss to explain the circumstances under which YEC is provisional, while providing the circumstances (which I would actually love to find) that would overturn my belief in evolution. This is not intended to pick a fight. Just want to be very clear about what I have said about science (because I am quite snoody about what is and what isn't science). I suspect that we agree, yes TheSnail? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 04 May 12 - 01:01 PM Indeed we do. I wasn't implying that you thought otherwise, just that you hadn't explicitly said it in that post. You invariably speak good sense. As you may have noticed, I can get a bit snoody myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 May 12 - 01:14 PM Hmm. Just picked up on this quote from pete: "the central doctrine [of science] of purely naturalistic causes is sacresanct" No it isn't. But if someone hypothesizes a non-naturalistic cause they must also make a prediction about some implication of that hypothesis, and design an experiment to test that prediction. So let's do that...if the Earth was created 6000 years ago with essentially its current flora and fauna, then we should *not* be able to observe__________________________. Fill in the blank, and we will come up with the experiment! Note the formulation of the prediction as a falsifiable "null hypothesis". This is because we can't prove all swans are white by counting white swans, but we can prove *not* all swans are white by finding just a single black one (example stolen from Karl Popper of course). This challenge is not a trap pete. It is science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 May 12 - 08:44 PM Well, TIA, you don't have to believe in evolution. Only believers have to believe! We have evidence. Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. There ya go, Snail. Clear as mud! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 May 12 - 11:40 PM ?puzzled? But not confrontational. Let's talk to pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 May 12 - 05:42 AM Sure. How much time have we got? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 05 May 12 - 06:35 AM Steve Shaw There ya go, Snail. Clear as mud! Crystal clear, Steve. Just as puzzled as TIA. Do you still not get the point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 05 May 12 - 07:29 AM Been reminded of another whose scientific studies were religiously impeded. The other day I saw an add for finding little squares on holiday, and remembered the Campo de Fiori in Rome with its statue fo Giordano Bruno. Didn't post it, as it didn't fit in the argument, but have been reminded again today with a BBC Radio 4 "From our own correspondent" piece on the same place and statue. He did not recant believing that the Earth went round the Sun, and that other stars were also suns, probably with their own planets and life, and wrote to the Pope from prison to say so. For which he was burned to death in the Campo de Fiori. He also suggested the method of finding extraterrestrial planets by observing their passing in front of their stars. (Probably got the relative sizes wrong.) Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 May 12 - 07:50 AM The Theory of Evolution is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. Bwahahaha! You think this statement is crystal clear, huh? Shall we do a poll? Better still, would you care to explain precisely what it means? Careful now - we have our dictionaries to hand, you know! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 05 May 12 - 08:35 AM You think this statement is crystal clear, huh? Yes. I don't think I can do better than TIA's precision. If you don't think it is clear, why did you say "Tia has it right."? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 05 May 12 - 08:50 AM Y'know the root of all of this is the difference between being curious and seeking knowledge as opposed to wanting pat answers that people think they find in "The Bible" that do not require questioning. It requires intellectual insecurity and uncertainty to question. Many people lack the courage to live with that uncertainty. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 May 12 - 10:46 AM Righto Saul. In the words of Anthropologist Matt Cartmill; "As a youth I craved certainty, so I became a scientist...that's a bit like becoming an Archbishop to meet girls." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 05 May 12 - 11:14 AM The process of natural selection as identified by Darwin is just that, a process. It has since been called 'evolution' as a result of the hypothesis which was developed to explain that process. The hypothesis is called the theory of evolution. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the word 'evolution' has been applied to the observable process rather than kept just as the label for the theory. To describe a theory as true goes against scientific method because in scientific terms the word 'true' is an absolute -to say something is true means that it cannot be challenged or denied, such a stance would be unscientific which is why, at best, scientists will only go so far as to acknowledge a provisional truth (which is probably an oxymoron). We can observe the process of evolution experimentally, we cannot observe the theory of evolution because it is an intellectual construct which has been developed to explain the observable process. It remains possible that another theory could be developed to explain what we currently call evolution in different terms - hard to believe, but possible. We can observe gravity and for a long time we thought we could explain it - recent developments have shown us that may not be the case. Gravity happens but our longstandin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 05 May 12 - 11:19 AM Sorry, doing this on an iPad and my finger slipped! To continue - gravity happens but our longstanding belief in the theory of gravity has been kicked into touch. That is my understanding which a scientist friend called 'a reasonable exposition for a non-scientist' - a bit grudging I thought! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 05 May 12 - 11:21 AM Or, as I once heard Professor Jack Cohen say - "Some people think that scinece is about knowing things. They are wrong, science is about not knowing things. Knowing we leave to religion." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 05 May 12 - 11:46 AM My last post was in response to TIA. Sounds pretty good to me, Brendan. There's a few points that could lead to interesting discussion (as opposed to "I'm right and your wrong" desk thumping). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 05 May 12 - 01:58 PM penny-unless i have been mislead the idea so embraced by darwinists that galileo was a case of science vs the church is simplistic.his opposition at least initially was from other scientists.the church at first was ,i understand quite favourable to him.it was when the pope recognized the character of "simplicico" in galileos writings as mocking of himself that the trouble began. i'm not sure what the quote from augustine proves ,but it was interesting.of course just about all the church fathers held to a YEC position and i doubt that augustine would have appreciated your use of his words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 May 12 - 03:50 PM I said TIA had it right because s/he did. What you did is to completely misrepresent what s/he said. You are out of your depth here. Have you actually got any original views of your own? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 05 May 12 - 04:24 PM "...his opposition at least initially was from other scientists.the church at first was ,i understand quite favourable to him" Pete... you must remember that in Galileo's time, there was barely a difference between the beliefs of scientists & the church. If most 'scientists' are committed to church doctrine as a given, they cannot DO science very well.... (at least science as we understand it today). Galileo was a fairly early example of allowing observation, experiment and mathematics...that is, **science**, lead where it needed to go. If Galileo had done his analysis and then said, "Oh...that can't be right...the church fathers tell us very clearly that the Earth is at the center!", well, he would be barely a footnote in history today. Do not be fooled by simple words. "Scientist" has to mean something specific; and those who try to wear both hats must be VERY careful which one they are wearing when they make statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 05 May 12 - 05:44 PM It was the science which Galileo was forced to recant, even if it was the mistake of representing the Pope's views as foolish that triggered the trial. As for claiming the Church Fathers as YECs, that is projecting a modern concept back where it does not belong. Not to say that they did not believe in a biblical timescale (though at one time, as he worked through Genesis several times, Augustine believed himself to be in the sixth millenium), but that they did not believe in it in the face of evidence to the contrary. The alternatives to the biblical account were the theogonies of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians or even the Hindus, and others which were manifestly lacking in rationality. Augustine was concerned with the dualist ideas of the Manichaeans, not the evidence of science. The age of the world was not as important as the author. We can't know what any of them would say about the modern arguments, or the modern uses their works might be put to (and I am not alone in using that particular passage). We might hazard a guess that they would want to direct us to more important issues. And that was in that passage, quite clearly. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 May 12 - 05:49 PM pete - you have been misled. Entirely misled. In 1632, after publishing "Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems", the Holy Office of the Inquisition ordered Galileo to Rome. Though gravely ill,Galileo made the journey, and in April 1633 he was charged (by the church) with heresy. The specific charge was that he was teaching and defending the Copernican Theory that the Sun is at the center of the universe with the Earth moving around it (which was counter to the doctrine of the church). This theory had been declared heretical (by the church) in 1616, and Copernicus' books had beeb placed (by the church) on its "Index of Prohibited Books". Sorry, you are dead wromg. The *church* condemned Galileo for supporting the findings of other scientists. Why else would Pope John Paul II have apologized 400 years later for the behaviour of *the church*? Sorry just as much as I cannot let you misdefine science, I cannot let you revise history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 06 May 12 - 12:42 AM I'm curious. Who are these "Darwinists" that pete keeps talking about? Do they have their own church? Or is it a lodge, like the Masons? Where do I get an application to join? Or do I have to be asked? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 06 May 12 - 03:57 AM Steve Shaw I said TIA had it right because s/he did. What you did is to completely misrepresent what s/he said. You are out of your depth here. Have you actually got any original views of your own? No debate. No answers to questions. Just more insults. TIA was "As clear as mud" and "had it right". Off to make music for a couple of days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 May 12 - 04:32 AM Snail ~~ Not taking sides, because I honestly can't remember how this particular spat began. But would point out that claiming when challenged that one's opponent is not answering rationally but merely resorting to 'insults' can often merely constitute a cop-out. From the tones of the two entries, Steve's & yours, I suspect this could be the case here. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 May 12 - 06:11 AM When I said that Snail had misrepresented TIA, this is what I meant. This is what Snail said TIA said: Of the Theory of Evolution he [TIA] says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis' But this is what TIA actually said: There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis). In my book, that is misrepresentation. The more charitable explanation for his doing that is, as I suggested, that he is out of his depth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 May 12 - 06:18 AM "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" are terms, intended by pete and ilk to have a slightly pejorative ring to them, to characterise those of us who prefer to rely on evidence and reason when it comes to trying to explain the natural world. In riposte, one could refer to pete and ilk as the God Squad and to pete as a God-botherer. That seems about equivalent. Of course, this wouldn't contribute much to a constructive debate, but, then, what would? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 06 May 12 - 07:48 AM I wonder if Pete uses terms such as "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" because he needs to believe that this is some sort of cabal of scientists hell-bent on covering up the truth about the age of the earth? It's easier to believe you're being deliberately targeted than it is to believe that a disparate and open group of intelligent people all understand the evidence points to something that threatens his belief system. Pure poppycock of course; they aren't targeting his (or anyone else's) beliefs, it just happens the evidence doesn't point to Pete et al being correct. That's not to deny the existence of God, just there's that YEC is a fallacy born of ignorance and there is no overt signature of a creator. Heck, even some scientists might disagree with that as there are plenty of religious people practicing science at all levels of achievement. Whilst Pete might describe me as a Darwinist or evolutionist because the evidence I have seen points to Darwin being correct and evolution as fact, I would suggest I was neither but a palaeontologist (avocational) and budding ichnologist, and studying these subjects is part of what I do. We can't have a productive debate with Pete because he's not interested. It's all too easy to cry foul when people take issue with you head-on. In science this is called due process, in religion it's heresy. Pete - I'll say this for the hundredth time: Find me a bony fish in the Burgess Shale. Find me a horse in the Solhofen Limestone. Find me a dinosaur in the Devonian. Body fossils. And none of that Paluxy rubbish - even most YEC's saw the folly in that years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 May 12 - 11:52 AM On the other hand "Darwinists" and "evolutionists" could just be convenient short hand to describe people who argue for those theories. Certainly if you are going to attack pete for such words. Is it not incumbent on you do equally condemn Mather for his use of "God-botherers" and Shaw for his near constant stream of snide remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 06 May 12 - 12:22 PM It's incumbent on me to do nowt. I wasn't attacking Pete for using those terms, just questioning his rationale for that usage. I have consistently challenged our resident YEC's (who have said some rather unpleasant things on the other thread) to debate on the subject in specific areas but they refuse. Heck, they could make the scientific discovery of all time, but they're not interested in that either. It's boring to hear repeated pleas of ignorance. I wouldn't and haven't use the term 'god-botherer' to describe Pete, nor have I issued a stream of snide remarks - plenty enough aggressiveness around here as it is. Alpha males waving their dicks at each other, people popping in to try to stir the shit, but have nothing of value to say themselves; I suppose that's the way MC has been of recent years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 May 12 - 12:54 PM Sorry Sugarfoot, It looked as though you were playing along with Shaw and piling on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 May 12 - 01:03 PM Dinosaur fleas, proof of evolution or that God makes mistakes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 May 12 - 03:01 PM Jack and I have history. That's what this is about. I've been at pains for months to ignore his posts but now he's cracked. Constant stream of snide remarks my hefty bottom. I've wasted many a typed word trying to explain to Snail that he could do far better things than hassle me constantly over the nuances of words. I've been quite patient, but it's like pissing into a strong wind. There's nothing snide about pointing out that he misrepresented what someone else said in order to have another bash at me. Perhaps Jacky Tar would like to address that instead of deciding to be rather silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 May 12 - 07:17 PM SNIDE "I've wasted many a typed word trying to explain to Snail that he could do far better things than hassle me constantly over the nuances of words. " SNIDE it's like pissing into a strong wind. You don't discuss. You insult. The only "history" we have is me pointing that out. For that you call me "silly." Have at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 May 12 - 08:00 PM Of course I discuss. If you reel back over this thread and its predecessor you'll find plenty of posts in which I argue the fat in a pretty extensive fashion. What's happened here is that you have suddenly waded in with two very brief posts, both of which contain no discussion of the substantive issue but plenty of offensive allusion. Jack, do tell us all what you think of the attack on evolutionary science by the likes of pete et al. I really can't be arsed with agendas these days and I strongly suggest you leave yours at home. After all, I suspect we are probably on the same side. Fer chrissake don't give pete and his brain-dead mates any more succour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Date: 07 May 12 - 04:39 AM Hello sailor Yep, that's me. Using terms such as God botherer. It refers to those who insist on ramming home their hobby on others. I also used terms such as imaginary friend, fairies at the bottom of the garden, mentioned my impression I do of Jesus on a rubber cross and have pointed out that blasphemy is a victimless crime. Come to think of it, I reckon the word cult has been used too. Why? Maybe perhaps that reasoning with brainwashed delusion merchants (add that to the list) gets you nowhere. Pointing and laughing is the eventual destination of such debate and I just happen to have got there first. Debating is rather circular in this context, and only encourages the buggers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 07 May 12 - 10:31 AM pete was wrong when he claimed that the main opposition to Galileo came from other scientists. Astronomers of the time could have ignored him, or attempted to refute his findings, or ridiculed him. But only the Churches had the power to burn him, as the Catholic Church did Giordiano Bruno (among many others). The Protestant churches were little better: read the horrifying story of the execution for heresy of Edward Wightman in 1612. But Galileo is such an appropriate exemplar: the creationists are in exactly the position of the established astronomers who refused to look through the telescope and see the evidence for themselves. Surrounded by the wonders of nature, they open their book and close their minds. And hasn't our pete been getting voluble lately? This chap who a few hundred posts ago couldn't string a couple of sentences together now posts whole creeds (stet). It couldn't possibly be that someone else is prompting him, could it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 07 May 12 - 11:50 AM jack the sailor-you are quite right in surmising that the terms i use are not derogatory but descriptive .i did once use "evos" for shorthand until penny suggested that was disrepectful, so i ceased that even though it was only shorthand.meanwhile certain atheists-or should that be antitheists- continue to bemoan debating ignoramouses such as i but still exhibit argument from ridicule-or should that be verbal gutrot!. a couple other comments made me smile "pete et al "hardly a large opposition to the darwinist side. "someone else prompting him" wrong,unless you include my reading. all this reminds me of dawkins who likes to debate creationists;-as long as they are not scientists!.supposedly he does'nt want to give credance to creationism. thats not to say that some of you would not debate a scientist,but merely that all you got at present is me.i have never pretended to be more than i am and to those who dispise my honesty all i can say is- get over it. best wishes pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 May 12 - 01:21 PM ""dawkins who likes to debate creationists;-as long as they are not scientists!"" None of the YEC Creationists with whom he debates can truly claim to be more than pseudo scientists, since they tailor the "evidence" to fit their preconclusion. Undoubtedly there are YEC Creationists who are also genuine scientists, but none in the fields of paleontology and related subjects. So why would he be debating evolution with dieticians, psychologists, astrophysicists, or any other but those with whom he has an debating issue. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 May 12 - 01:24 PM >>>Jack, do tell us all what you think of the attack on evolutionary science by the likes of pete et al.<<< pete is having a mature discussion. You are childishly using insults. I think that if there is anyone here neutral on the topic, you are doing much more damage than good to your supposed side. That goes double for Mather. If you want my side of it you can read my original post on the YEC thread. As for why I have come on to this thread, I wish that the two of you would either grow up or find something else to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 07 May 12 - 02:48 PM I find myself in agreement with Pete the Sailor. It seems that some points of view can enrage others to the point that they are unable to focus on the argument and direct their ire at the individual. I have an interest in the topic and there is a discussion to be had but the smoke generated by axe grinding has served to almost obscure it. I have yet to be even tempted to believe in YEC by any posts in this thread. In fact, there were some posts in the original thread from a (I assume) fundamentalist Christian which I found repugnant but I do not see how an attack on that person might have encouraged her to question her beliefs; I suspect such an approach would simply harden them. The posts from pfss are all based upon an unmovable belief in a creator God and a belief in the essential truth of Genesis. While others, including me, might find such unquestioning belief hard to comprehend he has avoided personal opprobrium to the point where someone unsure might find his approach more to their liking than some of the more rationally based posters who allow their frustration to colour their responses. I believe in reason and rationality - it would good to see them being exercised to the exclusion of irritation, defensiveness and emotion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 May 12 - 03:58 PM Well, Brendan, it seems like Jack the Sailor, presumably half of pete the Sailor, is demonstrating exactly those traits you see fit to condemn in others from your assumed lofty perch. As for pete having a mature discussion, well now there's a laugh. What pete is actually doing, with his eyes tight shut, is perennially insulting the whole body of science. He doesn't need to make it personal. If you think that is part of mature debate, Jack, I think you may have lost it somewhat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 07 May 12 - 04:49 PM Steve, I am not attempting nor do I desire to be superior or lofty. I just wanted to express my views succinctly and as objectively as possible. I see little gain in antagonising others and I apologise if my post set your teeth on edge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 May 12 - 04:56 PM It didn't. I was pointing out the inconsistency in defending Jack whilst criticising others for showing irritation, defensiveness and emotion, traits absolutely typical of him. I have better things to do than get annoyed with a screen and keyboard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 07 May 12 - 05:03 PM Bit of an aside - found myself by chance at Downe House today - didn't go round, but bought a possibly useful book in the shop, and took note of a more expensive one to order from the library. Both books, on the dispute we've been having here (the main one, that is) were quite disturbing in revealing the lengths to which state authorities in the US will go to make sure that young people have no exposure to the teaching of evolution. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 May 12 - 05:26 PM ""Both books, on the dispute we've been having here (the main one, that is) were quite disturbing in revealing the lengths to which state authorities in the US will go to make sure that young people have no exposure to the teaching of evolution."" It would appear that while the US Military Industrial Complex is busy bombing large parts of the Third World back to the Stone Age, a sizeable section of its population is intent upon achieving the same result at home by use of religious fervour. Judging by history, if they succeed they will be far worse than the Taliban or the Ayatollahs. After all, they've had two thousand years to practice and the Roman role model for dealing with dissent. Yet there are still people on this forum, and others, who regard them as harmless fruit loops, not worth challenging. Go figure! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Date: 08 May 12 - 03:23 AM Hello sailor! I haven't got a "side" so that buggers that theory.... If I had, would it be double? Perhaps not. Rather flattered that a bloke on the end of a keyboard gives me the odd namecheck, but would be happier if you bought an album. I reckon many on this thread seem to think there are two sides to this debate. I'm not too sure. Nobody other than pete and (where is) Iona are peddling fantasy as fact, and there are those who try to reason with him / them. Thirdly are those who through various posts are bemused that medieval superstition is alive and kicking. Perhaps my nautical friend will remember he started the debate by querying whether future generations of western world children will end up in sweat shops if we don't sharpen up education? Oh and giving the teaching of creationism as the example of what is wrong. Rather interesting that Jack the Sailor started the questioning and then gets all upset when people dismiss nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 08 May 12 - 07:20 AM It is interesting to look back at the two strands that make up this thread. The secondary one has focused on the philosophy/semantics of science and has been conducted between people arguing from a basis of reason. The primary thread has looked at the validity or otherwise of YEC and the dangers, as perceived by many people, of teaching it in school. This strand has demonstrated to me the enormous difficulty of having a rational discussion with someone whose starting point is an unmovable faith which seems to ignore or distort evidence which challenges his/her beliefs. In view of Penny's latest post it appears that education in the UK is a little more enlightened than in the US to the extent that, while creationism can be taught it must be taught alongside evolution, that at least is my understanding. Not to do so must surely constitute a denial of freedom of thought. The comparison with ayatollahs made by Don T does not seem unreasonable. There are many moderate Christians who find YEC and other forms of fundamentalism unacceptable but do not see it as a threat. Perhaps I have got that wrong but in the real world it does not seem to figure on the radar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 08 May 12 - 07:41 AM 100. yeah! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 08 May 12 - 08:29 AM I continue to wonder how to talk to "them." "They" are the people who fiercely refuse to live in a fact and reason based reality. This fact and reason based planet has led to virtually all of our real life existence as we know it. That is agriculture, medicine, technology. "They" choose to repeat ideas which are *not* based in fact or methodical processes. "They" have many different names for their systems of thought, and most of them do not agree in some part with the others. The comparison for these thought systems and their discrepencies can metaphorically be described in "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Since an angel cannot be defined and measured, the question cannot be intelligently investigated. We can never get closer to the truth, much less answer in terms that most people can agree on, or that will demonstrate reproducible results. So it is possible to continue to "discuss" it through the night and 4, 7, 11 beers and start over the next night, and so on without resolving anything or adding to the sum of human knowledge. Perhaps I am missing the forest for the trees. Perhaps the goal IS perpetual discussion. However, when the discussion leaves the pub, when people want to make public policy or force their views on me, it does become a problem. And I remain clueless as to how to persuade these people to leave fantasy and join the real world. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 08 May 12 - 09:05 AM OK, lets take this a bit at a time. Here is what TIA actually said - There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis). In the part of that up to the opening parenthesis, TIA makes a clear distinction between the "fact" of evolution and the theory which attempts to explain that fact. I have asked Steve if he agrees with that but he hasn't replied. Immediately after that, TIA says theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis. Here he* is clearly talking about theories in general but it seems pretty clear from the context that he is including the Theory of Evolution amongst them. I condensed this into Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. I do not see that I have misrepresented TIA in any way. Steve will probably repeat that that is because I am out of my depth. If anyone else (including TIA) feels that I have, please say. TIA did take exception to something I had said in that post but not that. I had said What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"' to which he replied - Actually no... I have pointed out many times (on many threads - particularly the predecessor to this one) that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional. I apologised that I had only meant that he had not specifically said it in that post. So, Steve, do you still think that I misrepresented TIA and do you agree or not with TIA that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.? * sorry, can't be bothered with gender neutral pronouns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 May 12 - 09:25 AM You did misrepresent TIA's comments, in an apparent effort to re-align them to your own agenda, but at least you've addressed that now. As for science always being provisional, well it's one of those statements that doesn't actually state very much. I suppose s/he means the findings of science, but I wouldn't be knowing. There is science and science. I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth. In terms of elucidating the process of evolution, I think science has got there - in the general thrust. Not in the detail, of course. If anyone thinks that evolution does not occur, let them produce the evidence that overthrows all the evidence we have which says it does occur. That's my line and I'm sticking to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 08 May 12 - 10:18 AM TIA what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional Steve Shaw I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth. Well, there you are. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 08 May 12 - 10:28 AM From my understanding of UK education, creationism may be taught, but if it is taught in science classes, the school so doing will receive no government funding. Gove has been holding this position since before his appointment. Academies and free schools thus must not teach the subject as science. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 08 May 12 - 10:40 AM Thank you for that clarification Penny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 08 May 12 - 03:40 PM TBliar seemed a little less ready to stamp on that particular matter if I recall - I think I may have emailed about Vardy's academy and it's "science" teacher's opinions, and had an unsatisfactory response. I saw the conditions that teachers have to satisfy in order to qualify when an Aussie teacher was updating to UK standards, and it was quite clear what was expected of an understanding of science, even then, and it was not an understanding which included any leeway to teach creationism. Scrolling through the TV channels while resetting my TV decoder, we came across Horrible Histories Karaoke (on one of the odd numbers at the end 309, or something) - this is absolutely drop dead brilliant and up there with the Pythons' philosophers, and why it is lurking where the adults who would fully appreciate it can't, I don't know. Anyway, along with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Diogenes parodying the Monkees, it had Darwin wandering about Downe House and other places discussing his studies and their effects in quite interesting detail. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 May 12 - 04:01 PM Gove has been holding this position since before his appointment. Academies and free schools thus must not teach the subject as science. It strikes me that no-one should be teaching creationism at all. I wouldn't ever object to schools teaching children that there is such an idea as creationism, that it should be considered alongside religion, that its method contrasts utterly with the process of science in the way it reaches its conclusions and that it denies evidence and reason. Education should be about teaching children the skills to seek information in a discriminating manner and to critically and fearlessly demand and assess evidence for the alleged facts they are presented with. "Teaching creationism" implies that they are being told that there is truth in it. That is a lie. Education is never about peddling lies to children. We have a different name for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 May 12 - 04:05 PM TIA what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional Steve Shaw I'm not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth. Well, there you are. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice. Odd that you should think there's polarity there. You confirm that you are, indeed, out of your depth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 09 May 12 - 12:38 PM so don you say there are no scientists who are creationists who are qualified to debate dawkins!? you are a likeable bloke but look out for low flying buttermoths!. as to ayotollah taunts;-seems i need to remind you again that darwin believers have done much more damage in recent history than centuries of creationist christians. steve is asking for evidence that evolution [GTE]knowing that if i venture anything it can be dismissed by ref to my lack of learning. so i will let evolutionists assess. "evolution a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven......but because the only alternative,special creation is clearly incredible" dms watson. "the more an animal type has lost through this process of progressive subtraction,the less there remains for the production of mutants which will be capable of existence" "given the fact of evolution,one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants.but this is not what the paleontologist finds.instead,he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series" ernst mayr 2001 tbc.... so steve what is your best evidence FOR darwinism? regards pete. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 09 May 12 - 01:13 PM Pete... yesterday I spent a couple of hours with a friend who recently went to the Galapagos, where Darwin collected much of the data which began his inquiry and writings. You only have to listen and seriously take in the information that scientists have gathered there for the last 150 years or so to realize that 'evolution' is clearly happening. The Galapagos is simply a relatively small, isolated natural 'laboratory' where it is easy to follow the various changes to a specific but limited number of species. The islands are 'only' about 6 million years old, and there are ways to prove that age and to show how the life forms on the islands have adapted and changed as the islands changed due to volcanic activity. You may, as you wish, believe that a 'god' started, planned, or controlled the processes there, but if you make the effort to understand ANY geology, physics, botany, thermodynamics or several other sciences, you MUST add in that 'God' spent 6 million years doing it there! There is NO reason to question the age of the islands, or of the Earth in general...except by ignoring science and relying on some theologians' 'interpretation' of parts of a 'Bible' which has been edited and translated by other theologians. It is much easier for 'most' Christians to say, "Well, it sure is interesting to discover HOW God's creation has developed." than to deny obvious facts in favor of counting the supposed life spans of characters in the Bible...when we can't even properly translate some of the sources...or even decide WHICH sources to rely on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 09 May 12 - 01:22 PM Why does pete insist that you have to be a believer in some cult called Darwinism? Darwin observed and offered explanations to those observations. Invisible friends, fairy stories and whacking square theories into round holes till they fit, (after a fashion) is my idea of a belief system. Interpreting the bible being an excellent example. "Darwin believers have done more damage than.... " ????? What in the name of all that is wholly (bullshit) are you talking about? You know, you are making my dismissal of you and your comments all the more sound. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 12 - 06:56 PM I do not have evidence for "Darwinism." On the other hand, I can present evidence for the origin of species by natural selection that overwhelmingly points to the truth of evolution. Points to. Note, pete, evidence. Not hearsay, witness, revelation, proclamation, dubious ancient texts, tradition, ceremony, edicts or miracle stories. Evidence. Evidence that can be questioned, criticised, tested, ridiculed, contested, repeated and peer-reviewed. Even, in some cases, overturned. Nothing delights science more than evidence overturned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 09 May 12 - 09:38 PM "the more an animal type has lost through this process of progressive subtraction,the less there remains for the production of mutants which will be capable of existence" ???? I have never heard the wording "process of progressive subtraction" before. Has it ever been used to characterize evolution by anyone except creationists? Why would any think of evolution in those terms? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 09 May 12 - 10:18 PM "Has it ever been used to characterize evolution by anyone except creationists? " No, it is a direct quote ABOUT a quote at Creation.com... referring to a book from 1930. It is used by creationists to sort of defend the idea that evolution is not even really possible. It is also demonstrably false, as some organisms DO actually gain/add characteristics which aid in survival. Look up the marine iguanas of Galapagos. Pete, you really must give proper attribution to quotes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 10 May 12 - 06:21 AM After Steve's magnificent "Odd that you should think there's polarity there. response to my juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive statements followed by the customary insult to my intelligence - "You confirm that you are, indeed, out of your depth.", I had more or less given up hope. Clearly it was as futile arguing with Steve as with the creationists. But now "I can present evidence for the origin of species by natural selection that overwhelmingly points to the truth of evolution. Points to." and "Evidence that can be questioned, criticised, tested, ridiculed, contested, repeated and peer-reviewed.". Still a long way to go but it looks as if "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" is cooling to the cold light of reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 10 May 12 - 06:54 AM My reading is proving interesting. I had not realised how very young YEC is. I thought it arose in answer to Darwin's work in the 19th century, but apparently, from then until the 1950's, the opponents were Old Earth Creationists, and at the turn of the 20th century there were only about 100,000 YEC's, within the Seventh Day Adventists. On the other hand, and to be fair with regard to Augustine, here he is on the actual subject. "In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily." He has looked at evidence of long-standing Egyptian understanding of astronomy, and found it wanting, which, for a historian looking for documents, it is. As is the understanding of history in other places he had access to. He was not in a position to argue about the convincing evidence of geology, cosmology and so on, which modern YECs do, so where he would stand now is a moot point. His arguments had failed to keep the majority of creationists in the YE camp once physical evidence to contrary was available. He believed, based on the Bible, in a younger Earth than some at the time, but I'm not convinced that makes him what we would now call a YEC, or a good foundation for those beliefs now. What he was chiefly concerned about is in the last sentence: "whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily." I have seen no evidence that believing secular science leads to any more wrong and unhappy living than believing in scripture has over the last 2000 years. Nor that it cannot lead to right and happy living. To blame Darwin's work for the awfulness of the last century one would have to strip out the parallel effects of rapid communications, both private and public, developments in weaponry, and other industrial processes with the changes in where and how people lived and all the other changes following the Industrial Revolution. All of these would have been contributory to that century having politics worse than those of Genghis Khan, the Aztecs, Torquemada, Vlad the Impaler, Elizabeth Bathory, Ancient Rome, the Christian Saxons in Essex who covered a church door with the skin of a Viking, various Chinese Emperors, all those leaders who thought it a good idea to have their households killed and buried with them; who are, thankfully, spread out fairly thinly over history. Unless there are far more others we can't know about. You don't have to be taught to despise others as sub-human if that's what you want to believe. It wasn't Darwin, but the Bible that was cited as a reason for my Granny to be taught see those folk in carriages as her superiors. It almost caertainly wasn't Darwin that caused the Duff-Gordons to have themselves rowed away from the Titanic in a lifeboat with spaces in it because it did not enter their heads to save those they heard wailing, while regretting the loss of the their secretary's nightie. (That's the fairest assumption - Lady D-G was in the lingerie business. But she may have ordered the crew not to return according to some sources.) Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 10 May 12 - 06:57 AM "so steve what is your best evidence FOR darwinism?" I posted a link earlier in the thread to a paper which observes natural selection at work in human populations. Start there. "if i venture anything it can be dismissed by ref to my lack of learning" Ignorance is not an excuse. Go and find out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 12 - 10:31 AM what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional Well, Snail, if you think that this somewhat woolly statement contradicts my saying that we shouldn't regard it impossible for science to reach truth, perhaps you'll like to explain to us precisely what you think TIA's statement actually means. Go on. Make your first original contribution to the substantive matter! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 May 12 - 10:32 AM Everything you need to know to understand the evidence FOR evolution is right at your fingertips, with just a few clicks of a mouse or keyboard Pete. And it doesn't rely upon 4000 years of mythological tales passed down by word of mouth and written stories by human beings who didn't and still don't share your religious beliefs. Neither does it rely upon the writings of a group of fans nearly a century after the event and later altered according to the political and religious agenda of those who passed them on over another 2000 years. The reason why you confine your research to mainly Creationist sources is, to put it bluntly, fear. Fear of finding irrefutable proof that your faith in YEC is misplaced. Much easier to seek to make a virtue of ignorance, and rap yourself in a cloak of sympathy seeking, childish, refusal to learn. So be it!! But don't ever expect to be taken seriously, while you continue to defy common sense and logic out of fear of acquiring knowledge. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 12 - 10:45 AM Evidence for evolution? Well there are two ways of looking at this. First, individual bits of evidence. Any piece of evidence must be potentially subject to all those things I said: questioning, criticism, testing, ridiculing, being contested, repeating and peer-reviewing. Even, in some cases, overturning. That happens all the time in science, even in evolutionary theory. But then there's the other thing. There is such a mass of evidence now that evolution takes place that it is inconceivable that it will be sufficiently overturned in order to negate the theory. The evidence arrives from diverse strands, all interlocking beautifully into a synergy, from observation, fossils, comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, genetics and more. Tweaking will always be possible, but overthrow cannot happen. If anyone has even the beginnings of a suspicion that they might have come across evidence for an alternative big story (evidence, mind), then let's have it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 10 May 12 - 10:50 AM Interesting piece of work reported in today's New Scientist. Especially given creationist ideas about what happens to the amount of information in mutations. Firstly, a particular gene, some time between the splitting of chimps and australopithecus, and the further split between AP and modern types of hominim, a particular gene associated with brain development was duplicated. Subsequently, and at the same time as that second split, the copy duplicated itself, so that there are three copies of this gene in us. Initially this was not spotted, because they were effectively the same. The copying process included deterioration of the genes, so that brains without the original version (work done on mice - I thought of "Flowers for Algernon") do not develop properly, but where all three are present, the brain develops over a longer period, with more complex connections, with cells which look like human brain cells. Moreover, the infants' skulls do not close the sutures until later, allowing the head to pass more easily through the birth canal, and the brain to develop more after birth, characteristics of moodern humans, and seen in the earliest homo skull. There are a lot of links for this on Google today. Try genes, duplication, human brain, and, of course, evolution. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 10 May 12 - 08:09 PM Steve Shaw Well, Snail, if you think that this somewhat woolly statement contradicts my saying that we shouldn't regard it impossible for science to reach truth, perhaps you'll like to explain to us precisely what you think TIA's statement actually means. Go on. Make your first original contribution to the substantive matter! First, let me make it clear that I have no intention of making an originakl contribution to the debate. There is no need. Far wiser heads than yours or mine have already gone over this for decades. It's already there athough it seems to have passed you by. OK, TIA's "somewhat woolly statement" says that "science is *always* provisional", i.e. it is never TRUE. You, on the other hand are "not going to accept that it is always impossible for science to reach the truth". Pretty clear contradiction there don't you think? I'm off for another few days fun, frivolity and folk music in a muddy Sussex field so I haven't got time for a detailed response now but I stumbled across this fascinating and highly relevant document - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, read the first few paragraphs and then jump to IV(C) and take note of the importance of falsifiability as what sets science apart from religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 12 - 08:40 PM TIA, for all his/her wisdom (put me right on the gender issue here, somebody), did indeed make a very woolly statement there. Let me press you further, as you appear to have adopted a quasi-religious fervour about this particular remark, almost as if it had emanated from the quill of a gospel writer. What science does the remark refer to? The process of science (not provisional - it definitely occurs)? The history of science? Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? Scientists? Evidence? The findings of science? You think, perhaps, that every finding of science in history is, er, provisional? Why's that, then? Because you suspect that what I see as red is exactly the same as what you see as blue? That there must always be an alternative explanation on the table for everything, no matter how improbable (now there's religion for you!)? Are you talking about the nuts and bolts of everyday science, technology and medicine as they affect all our lives, as practised in laboratories by technicians who just want to get home for their tea? Or are you, instead, in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies? You set this statement against mine as though the two are sharply at odds with each other, yet you, as an alleged scientific thinker, appear to have forgotten that an equivocal statement can't actually be the opposite of anything. Black can be the opposite of white, but grey can't be the opposite of anything. You really are a most tedious fellow, you know. Can't you go off and join a cricket team or something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 12 - 08:53 PM As Snail loves to misrepresent, as I've demonstrated before, let's have a quick butchers at the bit he wants us to shoot to in his link: More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses). Note "not necessarily." Know what that means? That they might be, but might not be. But they might be. Note the bit about falsifiability. It does not say that good science is always falsifiable. It qualifies the claim by referring merely to cheating and witness, both excluded from any definition I've ever heard of good science (though not of religion - strange how crypto-religiosity insists on creeping into Snail's thinking...) I like the link, actually. But Snail seeks, it seems, to misuse the information therein. Don't let that muddy field bite, Snail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 11 May 12 - 06:09 AM More interesting info from my reading - "Scientists Confront Creationism" ed. Petto and Godfrey. a book of essays by various authors. One. TIA's statement about provisionality appears here. In the form "Though modern creationists refuse to take note of this remarkable scientific fusion (natural selection and genetics*), the theory of evolution is now as much in doubt in biology as quantum mechanics is in physics (whiuch, of course, doesn't guarantee that either of them is "true", since science can by its nature only provide provisional answers). (Massimo Pigliucci) *my brackets. Next, in a piece by Eugenie C. Scott. Reference to the museum at the Institute for Creation Research where a tree of evil shows evolution as the source of communism, imperialism, bestiality, infanticide, slavery, and child abuse. And a book, Johnson's "Reason in the Balance" which equates evolutionary naturalism with tolerance of homosexuality, pornography, abortion, genocide, and other evils. These are given as examples of the creation-science ID proponents posited dichotomy of God, creation, purpose and goodness on one side, and evolution, meaninglessness, and social degeneration on the other. This is clearly the position pete and Iona have imbibed. Then, same piece. a discussion on the use of the word "Darwinism". Not a word in frequent use by scientists, where it could mean either the general idea of evolution by natural selection, or Darwin's specific ideas in the 19th century. In ID and creationist literature it can mean evolution itself, natural selection, Darwin's ideas, neo-Darwinism (modified evolutionary theory, scientific term), but most commonly materialist ideology inspired by godless evolution. The public equates Darwinism with evolution, and this confusion enables certain ID arguments to challenge whether evolution actually occurred, by picking up reasonable scientific controversies about the mechanisms of evolution. The influence of this can be seen in pete and Iona's contributions. Finally, for this time, Scott points out that no-one on the ID/creationist side carries out research, or attends professional conferences, or publishes in peer-reviewed journals, but they report on other scientists' work, often with severe distortions. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 11 May 12 - 03:20 PM Forgot. Link to timetable. for Horrible Histories Karaoke on BBC Red Button. Including a Darwin piece, in which he is accompanied by a drumming gorilla. Song lyrics You might like the Luddites - off subject but folky in a punky way. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 11 May 12 - 05:47 PM and so the general impression i'm getting is that a best evidence for evolutionism is not forthcoming but comprises the vast learning of multiple disciplines which i should go study despite at least some evolutionists themselves admitting the glaring deficiencies of the theory!? penny-though i do think darwinism has contrbuted to moral lapse and mass murder i am not personally persueing that line except in response to those who equate biblical christian faith with evil actions.that some christians do evil sometimes is undeniable ;and they are then inconsistent with their faith.if some one like stalin compares butchering thousands to cutting the grass it is hard to see how they are being inconsistent with their evolutionary ,survival of the fittest beliefs.however i do accept your modern history argument as a contributory factor of the extent of the atrocities. i confess that i do lump all the strands into darwinism but i'm not convinced that i need to differenciate to make a point.but since you mention it;i dont think i've said much about gould and eldridge making the lack of transitional fossils into evidence of their own theory of punctuated equilibria!.they initially rejecting neo-darwism in the 70/80s apparently are more careful what they say now since creationists quoted them ,and include gradualism as a mechanism for evolutionism.hope thats accurate enough for the pedantic! bill-creationists are not in dispute about natural selection on the galapogos or anywhere else darwin went.how does that prove mud to man evolution?.BTW have you come across the [admittedly creation perpective]film"the voyage that shook the world" which films on location places on the beagle voyage. best as ever pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 11 May 12 - 07:11 PM "a best evidence for evolutionism is not forthcoming" OMG Open your eyes my good man. Look around you. Nothing in modern biology makes sense outside of evolution (okay, yes, I stole that quote). The evidence is all around for those who are even the slightest bit receptive. You are not. You will accept no evidence for evolution because your way of thinking is completely incompatible with science. In fact, if you demand certain evidence, you demand further evidence when it appears. YEC=moving goal posts. Thus, I will not argue with you because there is no argument. You have chosen a rock-solid immutable belief system. Good on ya. I will not compell you to abandon it. But I will oppose you or anyone who seeks to stifle or denigrate scientific inquiry, or seeks to impose (often through masquerade) your anti-scientific way of thinking on children who should be taught the method of science. BTW, they should also be taught (comparative) religion. And they should be taught the difference between scientific (provisional) knowledge and religious (unquestionable) belief...even if you are unable to acknowledge, or are confused by, this difference. Best wishes from (male*) TIA. *Steve asked explicitly above. Otherwise I am not in the habit of purposefully aligning myself with any group at all. My Grandmother always told me "folks is folks". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 May 12 - 08:20 PM Cheers. I don't give a monkey's mickey either, but something politically-correct deep inside me (that I am very prone to ditch at the drop of a hat) forces me to do that s/he stuff when I know not the gender of the target individual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 11 May 12 - 09:12 PM "...how does that prove mud to man evolution?. Proof is a matter of degree. It indicates that the processes needed DO work as predicted! Science must be able to posit theories and see if the data agrees. So far, data supports their basic theories! "Mud to man" is not something we can go back and look directly at, but we now know several ways in which that theory can work... it all follows and makes sense. The Galapagos are 6 million years old... there's no way what is there could be there otherwise. As I said, it is just a small laboratory to see the processes working. The point about it is.... the Earth is NOT just a few 'thousand' years old. Now... despite at least some evolutionists themselves admitting the glaring deficiencies of the theory!? That is NOT a common thing.... I don't know ANY serious scientists which 'admit glaring deficiencies'. If there were... so what? You can find someone with supposed credentials willing to say almost anything! You know, Pete, that you can find 'committed Christians' who say all sorts of things about the supposed 'evidence' of the Bible. In fact, all interpretations of the Bible are largely a word game, arguing about language, translation, relevance...etc! Science demands data... and is willing to reassess details as new data is discovered. Most creationists are not even willing to look at some ignored manuscripts which others think should BE in the Bible. So.... it really is a matter of making up one's mind to respect a solid, fair, testable reasonable definition of what counts AS evidence. Otherwise, we can only shrug and talk past each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 12 May 12 - 06:56 AM So when supposed Christians do bad things, it's because they haven't lived up to the message, but when supposed Darwinists do bad things it's because of the inherent mores of the theory. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest, the ones most able to destroy others, it is not a modern version of Might is Right. Fitness can mean, for example, that a group does better in bringing offspring to healthy adulthood because the members work well together and support each other. If some have interpreted it to mean that because they have the power to beat up their neighbours, perhaps through being physically bigger and stronger, or perhaps through happening to live on generous deposits of coal and iron, this is justified by evolution, they are just as wrong as de Montfort wiping out a whole city in the name of God. You have to use the same criteria in the assessments. Ruanda was partly carried out by ordained Christians who would almost certainly have rejected evolution with regard to human beings. Slavery was justified from a biblical episode involving Noah's sons, and the consequent belief in the inferiority of black people was held to until quite recently by Mormons on Biblical grounds. (I know there is some disagreement about their inclusion as Christians, but they certainly used the Bible, and neither their book, nor evolution as the basis for their belief.) Bad people will be bad, sadly. They will justify themselves any way they can in identifying others as inferiors. Black people - the Bible, Darwin. Women - the Bible, the Qu'ran. Jews - the Bible (some in the US who oppose evolution also find Jesus being identified as Jewish a bit difficult to believe.) That doesn't invalidate the material they use. Does it? Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 12 May 12 - 08:49 AM Streuth. This guy's a card. Ta-ra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 12 May 12 - 01:35 PM I suppose if a left handed person commits a crime, we shouldn't blame all left handed people. However, pete's bible does incite people to commit crimes if you do as it says. Perhaps most sane people have "evolved" beyond such superstition? Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 May 12 - 08:07 PM "Prove?" What are you on about, pete? And what "mud" is this to which you refer? Do apprise us all of the exact nature of this inorganic slime to which you refer, where and when it was located and... and... oh, never mind... Prove that your god exists, pete. Go on. We're all sitting here with bated breath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: DMcG Date: 13 May 12 - 05:36 AM Well, I've managed to avoid opening the new incarnation of this continuing thread up to now, but I see that we still seem to be going over the same ground again. But there's one of pete's concerns that I don't think think has been addressed yet. He's said quite a few times that "abiogenesis is a massive problem"; but really, I don't see it as a problem at all. It's true that if you think of a lifeless material giving rise to an enlivened one it's hard to see how it comes about, but that's much more to do with language than with what is present in the world. If challenged, I think both pete and others on this thread would be willing to say that life is a complex concept, including such characteristics as self-organisation and reproduction. Assuming that is agreed, there is no reason that all of these need appear simulatanously, meaning that the tranisition from non-living to living need not be an event, but a spectrum in which non-living and living denote the endpoints. And there is some support for this being a linguistic issue when we look at debates on whether things like viruses are living are non-living. Don't get me wrong - viruses are still extremely complicated and I am not suggesting viruses as an intermediate form in any other sense than linguistically. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 May 12 - 06:51 AM Pete will simply come back with "God gave life" or some such. What I'd like him to tell us is "Who, or what, made God?" And you can't draw the evidence for that from your bible Pete. Why is abiogenesis more difficult to believe than the existence of God in the total absence of time, space and matter? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 13 May 12 - 06:00 PM it seems to me an illogical question.you may deny his existence but if at all admit the existence of God then his eternality excludes anyone/thing creating him.i'm not sure if you are trying to prohibit me using the bible,don,or claiming it wont give an answer.either way biblical revelation supports it and logic suggests it. lets suppose there is no deity .we have a creation[or whatever you call everything]and no maker.it just happened!.IMO that is a faith position more incredible than accepting a creator. even starting with substance and intelligence, life has not been spawned from non life as far as i know.how much less when there was nothing. but there is life and that is to be expected if God is. penny-i am aware that it is not just strength that favours survival in natural selection but neither does that exclude it,does it? and it still seems to me that hitler,stalin etc who were darwin believers were not inconsistent with that belief;even though darwin would not have approved of their atrocities.might he though have thought some "races" nearer to ape descendants than say whites.i understand that slavery was justified on those grounds also?. bill-science personified ,at least as far as origins is concerned is a myth.people do science.people with presuppositions ,agendas,already formed opinions from other disciplines not their own,etc. creationists are upfront about their presuppositions.the data is interpreted accordingly as is the evolutionists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 May 12 - 07:53 PM pete, old fruit. Now listen here. Living things on planet Earth are made of all the same elements that everything else in the known universe is made of. So God didn't piss around. He decided, in her infinite wisdom, to take the easy path (I mean, what god wouldn't!) and make living things out of the exact same non-living elements!!! Therefore life was spawned - wait for it - from non-life! It had to be! Even God didn't want to arse around with the laws of nature and make us out of something unrecognisably esoteric! Of course life came from non-life. That much is self-evident. The real argument boils down to whether natural (and well-documented) processes gave rise to life or whether it was your God wot magicked it. So, take it from there and examine the evidence for both sides of the argument. Which, basically, boils down to whether your God actually exists at all. Now that's the easy bit... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 13 May 12 - 08:42 PM No Pete... you simply do not comprehend the differences between what you call "presuppositions" in science and religious theory. Scientific 'presuppositions', are simply rules that say "look at the evidence and see where it leads...and ** be ready to change your mind** as new data appears. Creationists seem to have a rule that says "accept ONE story about beginnings, and do NOT consider changing your mind!" There is a huge difference, Pete... it is an important difference. One result of not dealing with that difference is constantly asserting that science has presuppositions much like creationism. You are committed to NOT seeing the difference... it makes it very difficult to discuss the whole topic with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 14 May 12 - 05:53 AM Pete, you have several times demanded evidence for evolution. Try these books for a start. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. This is a work of true science (not religion bashing) which identifies the genetic imperative in the process of evolution; and Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones, another respected scientist who uses Origin Of Species and develops Darwin's arguments in the light of more recent research. I recommend these but I am convinced that you will not read them because to do so would involve you in genuine enquiry and that would mean an open mind and sadly you give every indication of having a mind that is firmly closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 May 12 - 06:11 AM He won't even read Origin. I've been pleading with him to do so for months. There are none so blind as those who will not look... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 14 May 12 - 06:12 AM Pete is taking the piss people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 May 12 - 11:15 AM I know Pete, folks, and he is definitely NOT taking the piss. He is NO troll. He REALLY believes what he says, but doesn't have the moral courage to read any other than Creationist literature, for fear that it will instil doubt about his particular faith. Otherwise he would by now have realised that Christianity does NOT demand a belief in the inerrant nature of the bible. Perhaps THAT is what terrifies him. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 14 May 12 - 11:31 AM Thing is Don, he won't even acknowledge the fact to expound on a subject, it helps if you know something about it - even if it's the very, very basics. He can't keep arguing he's just a simple soul and is too stupid to understand and then keep arguing. I can't get where he's coming from. I'd want to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 May 12 - 12:21 PM That's the problem with absolute faith Jack. It leaves no room for logic. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 14 May 12 - 01:26 PM it is true that i dont read evolutionist books although i have looked on darwinist sites.i did begin origins but to be honest i found it too hard going and boring but did read enough to discover that darwins deciples are more dogmatic than he was! if i were afraid of the supposed facts of the GTE i would not be subjecting myself to your arguments;-though they mostly consist of assertions.i am generalising here since some bring some data interpretation eg pennys geology. bill-we are just going to have to agree to differ as i dont accept that scientists are as impartial as you seem to think.i could quote on that! sugarfoot-no one is keeping you here so its pointless moaning.i am here as a witness to God and believe he could use even one as "stupid" as me!what keeps you here? blessings pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 May 12 - 01:59 PM A good start to understanding, Pete, would be to ditch the meaningless terms "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist". There are no such animals. They are scientists my friend, and they run on reproducible evidence, not-pie-in-the-sky. ""if i were afraid of the supposed facts of the GTE i would not be subjecting myself to your arguments;-though they mostly consist of assertions.i am generalising here since some bring some data interpretation eg pennys geology."" No Pete, they do not mostly consist of assertions. They consist of conclusions backed by evidence from reproducible experiment which gives consistent results leading directly to those conclusions. And Penny's Geology which you cite is a case (though not the only one) in point. It completely destroys your claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. Yet you still cling to that assertion, for that is what an assertion is, a claim unsupported by experimental scientific evidence. If nothing else, you now know the difference between "conclusion" and "assertion". Now all that is needed is to teach you the difference of process between: Science........Obtain experimental evidence and draw conlusions therefrom. and Creationism......Make assertion and adjust facts to fit. If all else fails, LIE! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 14 May 12 - 02:38 PM Once again (still) I would ask someone who really thinks that the universe was actually "created" in 6 days if they avail themselves of any technology. By what process was that technology "created?" What process do *they* use in their daily life that allows them to get through the day in some way that makes sense and which results can be reliably reproduced? If there is some such process that is somehow not based on any hypothesis formation and testing, I would certainly like to know what it is. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 14 May 12 - 02:53 PM One of the problems with YECs is that they don't seem to grasp that the timeline implied (note "implied," not specified in detail) in the Bible was written by those who were essentially clueless about the size of the world. Or that it is round, not flat, and that the "heavens" they were so awed about are far vaster and more awe-inspiring than their minds (and, for that matter, our minds are) were capable of grasping. This was accepted as dogma until people like Copernicus and Galileo came along and, although the Church howled like stuck pigs at the time, established some of the basic facts of what the Cosmos is really like. The Biblical view, limited by the understandable ignorance of those who wrote it (NOT God!!), sees the Cosmos as tiny compared to what it really is, and makes God, who allegedly created it all, a mere wizard, pretty much on a par with Zeus or Odin. If, indeed, a Supreme Intelligence and Prime Mover DID create all THIS, then the idea that He/She/It did it a mere 6,000 years ago and actually sculpted a real Adam out of river mud and Eve out of one of Adam's ribs as the Biblical myth has it, rather that setting in motion the existing natural processes that the Prime Mover would also have created, makes a mockery of the real intelligence, power and scope of that Supreme Intelligence. Enlightened Christians have no problem in reconciling the teachings of Jesus with the facts of science. Science merely explains some of the details of how the Supreme Intelligence actually did it. Even if the very sketchy Creation myth is derived from the Bible, it IS a myth, and to insist that it is historical fact rather than myth, minimizes God and verges on blasphemy. As I have said, pete, your God is much too small. Have a care! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 14 May 12 - 03:02 PM I'm not saying you're stupid Pete, you keep telling us you are, for instance: "i am not personally equal to pursueing the argument". Codswallop of course, anyone can learn anything they want to. I firmly believe that we can all learn and in fact, learning is integral to a happy life. Truth is, if you wanted to be equal in pursuing the argument you could be, you simply choose not to. You might be a witness for God, but he'll thank you for taking the time to learn a bit more about the world you believe he created when defending him. As for what keeps me here, I love science. Along with the arts it gives us insight into our nature, and it values truth. Contrary to what you believe about scientists, I value integrity, honesty and an open mind whilst I research my subject are, palaeontology (I'm quite new to being a scientist, having come to it late in life - I am a graphic artist by trade). The universe is such a wonderful, inspiring and incredible place and we are on such a wonderful journey, if we can curb our selfishness and excesses we can reach our not inconsiderable potential. When you know a bit of science, the world becomes even more wonderful. Learn a bit of basic geology and you see the landscape you live in through different eyes . . .learn a bit about biology and the process that is life gains beauty and luminance . . . there is so much depth. The more you learn, the more depth is revealed, the more wondrous it all becomes. Eventually you come across something you want to know and can't find an answer to and become a scientist, and start looking for your own answers. Another corpuscle in the flow of science gathering data and disseminating information. Part of the core of this is interconnectedness. We are not separate from nature but part of it. We are made of the same elements as stars and the earth we walk on. We are part of a story so vast, complex and wonderful it blows your mind. That said, it is explicable. Although we get it wrong, misinterpret and misunderstand the scientific community, through genuine openness and co-operation finds the answers to the tiny part of the universe we study in our disciplines. But also it's rigorous, For my part, I think here is no greater calling than science or art. In these arenas lies the truth of our true nature, for me there is no need for a third party. We are the universe made conscious, and no tale devised by mankind could ever top that concept as it is already as beautiful and profound as can be, and science will only help illuminate it further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 15 May 12 - 04:24 AM You set of dozy buggers....... You realise, of course, that the ultimate conclusion of this debate is that pete will have won and those who are getting exasperated in getting him to see reason will have been converted by him? I'll start a whip round for some tambourines. It's how they do it, you know. They wear you down. Works now and has been working for 2,000 years so they have it down to an art form. Pointing and laughing, the only cure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 15 May 12 - 09:31 AM Steve Shaw Let me press you further, as you appear to have adopted a quasi-religious fervour about this particular remark, almost as if it had emanated from the quill of a gospel writer. No Steve, it comes from debate about the philosophy of science and the scientific method throughout the twentieth century. It is the result of agreement between scientists and forms a cornerstone of the scientific method. None of this comes from me. It is part of first year undergraduate science teaching. What science does the remark refer to? The process of science (not provisional - it definitely occurs)? The history of science? Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? Scientists? Evidence? The findings of science? You think, perhaps, that every finding of science in history is, er, provisional? Why's that, then? Because you suspect that what I see as red is exactly the same as what you see as blue? That there must always be an alternative explanation on the table for everything, no matter how improbable (now there's religion for you!)? Are you talking about the nuts and bolts of everyday science, technology and medicine as they affect all our lives, as practised in laboratories by technicians who just want to get home for their tea? Without going into detail, Yes. In particular with respect to Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? If your work doesn't allow the possibility of experiments that could, potentially, falsify it, it won't get published in the scientific literature. No argument. You set this statement against mine as though the two are sharply at odds with each other, yet you, as an alleged scientific thinker, appear to have forgotten that an equivocal statement can't actually be the opposite of anything. Uncertainty is the opposite of certainty. Can't you go off and join a cricket team or something? I was that little school swot who was very good at science but terrible at sport. I'll stick to what I know. From your following post - Note "not necessarily." Know what that means? That they might be, but might not be. But they might be. Er, yes. That's the point I'm trying to make. MIGHT BE isn't TRUE. Note the bit about falsifiability. It does not say that good science is always falsifiable. It qualifies the claim by referring merely to cheating and witness Oh dear. I try not to come down to your level of childish abuse but sometimes you are a bit of a muppet. More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: ... (5) Its is falsifiable. Simple statement. (Ruse and other science witnesses). is not a qualification, it is a reference to the court testimony of Dr Michael Ruse who was one of the science witnesses at the trial. His testimony is here - http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html Here is an extract - Q: [...]In connection with the attributes of science and this issue of testability, does the concept of falsifiability mean anything to you? A: Yes. The concept of falsifiability is something which has been talked about a great deal by scientists and others recently. It's an idea which has been made very popular by the Austrian-English philosophist, Karl Popper. Basically, the idea of falsifiability is that there must be, as it were, if something is a genuine scientific theory, then there must, at least, conceivably be some evidence which could count against it. Now, that doesn't mean to say that there's actually going to be evidence. I mean, one's got to distinguish, say, between something being falsifiable and something being actually falsified. But what Popper argues is that if something is a genuine science, then at least in the fault experiment, you ought to be able to think of something which would show that it's wrong. For example, Popper is deliberately distinguishing science from, say, something like religion. Popper is not running down religion. He's just saying it's not science. For example, you take, say, a religious statement like God is love, there's nothing in the empirical world which would count against this in a believer. I mean, whatever you see-- You see, for example, a terrible accident or something like this, and you say, "Well, God is love. It's free will," or, for example, the San Francisco earthquake, you say, "Well, God is love; God is working his purpose out. We don't understand, but nothing is going to make me give this up." Now, with science, you've got to be prepared to give up. This is the line that TIA has been taking (rather futilely) with Pete by trying to get him to come up with grounds under which creationism could be falsified to qualify as science. If you think Ruse was wrong, you are saying the creationists should have won back in 1982. Unfortunately..... this opens up a whole new bag of worms/area of interest. Try putting "michael ruse evolution" into Google. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: John P Date: 15 May 12 - 09:51 AM the ultimate conclusion of this debate is that pete will have won pete has already won. A bunch of smart and educated people are taking him seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 15 May 12 - 10:34 AM "A bunch of smart and educated people are taking him seriously." Or perhaps using him as a foil against which to hone their arguments. I don't think anyone really takes him seriously, perhaps not even him. And why should we? This is a discussion with no real consequences. OTOH, when this moves out into the *real world* and wants to become public policy, THEN it becomes REAL and important. And the unfortunate part of this is that there ARE people out there who want to make this kind of silliness into public policy. So we, as thinking people living in a fact-based reality, must figure out a way of dealing with this mindset so that they don't cause damage. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 15 May 12 - 10:34 AM "pete has already won. A bunch of smart and educated people are taking him seriously." Pete can't lose. He is comfortable in his beliefs, and the way he presents them is unwavering. In many ways, he has the easiest approach to the world. Remember, his position is only an extreme version of what we debate in vain with others who espouse religious views that do NOT deny evolution. Those of us who 'know' the flaws in his assumptions & reasoning are only honing our own arguments.... and at the same time, Pete is solidifying HIS positions. Religious beliefs are not the only sort that can be debated like this.... in the past we have had set-tos about aliens, Astrology, reincarnation, out-of-body experiences....etc. I assume that there are those who have managed to convince themselves that the Holocaust "didn't really happen". Humans are interesting AS the only animal which is able to 'believe' things.... and to reflect on our own thought processes. That very ability means that in the billions of people now living, there are astounding things that are accepted as 'fact' that others cannot comprehend HOW they can think that way. It keeps us busy trying to make sense of it all...Pete is just ahead of most of us in having less to cope with. Right, Pete? ☺ I have tried in my ways to explain my points... and others have done it their ways.... and between us, we have left a pretty good set of examples for those who stumble on this thread in the future-- if they to dare to read much of it. It makes little difference to me if Pete holds to his 'unusual' beliefs.... but it IS important in the USA these days that some Conservatives are trying to get their religious positions into school textbooks and into state laws. That requires serious effort to combat. I believe in "freedom of religion"... but 'freedom OF religion' also implies freedom FROM religion for those who wish it. As far as I can tell, Pete is not insisting that WE believe as he does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 15 May 12 - 11:29 AM Interesting.. saulgoldie & I posted at the same time, with similar conclusions..(I just take longer to say anything) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 12 - 03:44 PM Not as long as Snail takes to say nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 16 May 12 - 05:45 AM The good thing about this thread, and other threads discussing religion is it really makes you look at your own feelings on the subject. I don't see anything in the arguments presented by the YEC's that challenges my own position on the subject. In some ways, that's a shame because it would be good to have some really meaningful dialogue, but perhaps therin lies the point - do YEC's actually have anything interesting to say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 16 May 12 - 07:04 AM I echo that Jack, I am convinced that this sort of dialogue helps to clarify one's own views. It has also been valuable in exposing me to better informed people who have pointed me towards further reading and research - Snail's most recent post is a case in point. I suspect that this thread is reaching its natural conclusion so thanks for the entertainment and instruction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 16 May 12 - 09:24 AM I'll plug the OU course on Darwin and Evolution, which is an excellent primer on the subject which I really enjoyed - especially gathering the snails for the practical! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 16 May 12 - 09:36 AM Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see if I can find the materials for sale on line - it's a while since I did an OU course, the last was Understanding Music, since discontinued, but way back in the mists of wossname I did the Science foundation course, the start of a long relationship with Milton Keynes! I'm not sure that I'll be hunting snails however, I think that I'll rely on our virtual Snail for enlightenment! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 16 May 12 - 10:10 AM Don't remember gathering snails when I did OU Evolution. The only experiment I remember is growing mutant tomatoes. I think Prof Steve Jones did his doctoral thesis on snails. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 16 May 12 - 10:57 AM Snails (Cepaea sp.) were collected to study the distribution of various polymorphs within each species, based on the banding and colours of their shells. It's part of a bigger project that is open to the public and can be found here: www.evolutionmegalab.org It's great fun rooting for snails in the local park in the pissing rain! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 16 May 12 - 04:18 PM i guess that in some respects i do have less to cope with .there have been some things that i am not at present,if ever ,academic enough to debate further,but mostly because most arguments amount to argument from authority and assertion without substance. i have often pointed out that abiogenesis is impossible and the fossil record is largely lacking in anything evidencing gradualistic change .i have quoted evolutionists admitting as much. of course you could quote christian compromisers with darwinism,but to be a valid equivalent IMO it should be creationist scientist quote. and you may be able to find something ,as their studies are still ongoing, not withstanding some atheists assertions to the contrary! i read most of the ruse court testimony and found some of it quite entertaining.i thought the cross examination mostly done a good job demonstrating his inconsistencies and prejudice against creationists. i heard an interesting snippet on a radio sermon though i cant ref it. maybe you,s can vouch for or deny its accuracy;- herbert spencer d 1903;said the basic elements of science are - time-force-action-space-matter. if correct i doubt if he considered the biblical text- TIME FORCE ACTION SPACE MATTER. in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.gen 1v1 best pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 16 May 12 - 04:54 PM Bloody hell - they're teaching this shite (i.e. YEC) in British schools now. The second dark age of Christian igorance dawns. Be afraid. Be very afraid... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 16 May 12 - 05:29 PM If I understood Penny's post correctly earlier in the thread no British school that teaches creationism as a science can receive state funding. Some schools teach the ideas of creationism within religious studies. I think that provided there is no suggestion that such stuff should be believed it does no harm for older pupils to be taught what some people believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 16 May 12 - 07:46 PM That's an 'interesting' way of interpreting Spencer's quote, Pete. But that is how someone constructing a sermon might do it. (I personally own Spencer's major work and find it is not exactly what serious scientists refer to these days. He is historically interesting, but not mainstream.) The thing about your remark: " the fossil record is largely lacking in anything evidencing gradualistic change .i have quoted evolutionists admitting as much." is: We are not lucky enough to have every stage in evolution laid out. Most animals did not die 'conveniently'. But, it is NOT true that we do not see "gradualistic change". We do not see ALL stages of it, but we can date many, many fossils and see THAT the changes represent evolutionary progress. For some commoner species, we actually do see a fairly representative 'gradual' series! (All that 'evolutionists' admit is, as I have said, that we don't have every step.... and if we did, there would not be enough museums in the world to hold millions of specimens.) As to abiogenesis, it is quite possible! Science has synthesized certain amino acids and shown how they could combine. from the Wikipedia article:(read it and the links in it- it says much more) "Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be synthesized in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved the simulation some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth. Other equally fundamental biochemicals, such as nucleotides and saccharides can arise in a similar manner." Perhaps "God" controlled what happened way back then - we can't test THAT in a laboratory.... but it did happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 16 May 12 - 09:49 PM Abiogenesis is the scientific study of the origin of life from inorganic matter. "i have often pointed out that abiogenesis is impossible" - Pete Genesis chapter 2, verse 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" I would have to agree with Pete on this; there's no way that statement in the Bible could be true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 12 - 09:59 PM Analogy, frogprince. Metaphor. But pete can't accept that that is what it is. He wants it literal. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 16 May 12 - 10:21 PM Ah, Don? : ) I know, but, why should someone who takes Genesis dead literally say that abiogenesis is impossible? Some of the sources further define abiogenesis in terms of strictly natural processes. Some of them just give the root definition that I gave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 17 May 12 - 05:21 AM No problem Star struck Pete gets his magic pixies to wave their magic wands and his book of fairy tales supplies all the answers. Teaching creationism as being an interpretation of scripture that faith relies on to a greater or lesser extent is good education and helps children understand where people are coming from. But teaching it as fact? I got a bollocking from my lad's teacher because he believed me when I said for fun that wind farms are all about giant fans to counteract global warming. The lecture I got, rightly so, would serve to explain why the teaching of superstitious claptrap is tantamount to child abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 17 May 12 - 06:14 AM The problem is, as Pete hinted a while back, that the group to which he belongs holds that evolution is the claptrap, children are being taught error, and it is important to prevent this. This would presumably be because, on the one hand, their immortal souls are at risk, and one the other, that society would be better if it were founded on their beliefs rather than grounded on the ideas that can be drawn from evolution. Arguing that to teach untruths is child abuse is not, therefore, going to be convincing, since, to them, it is an argument in their favour. Gradual evolution - I have previously referred to the development of micraster heart urchins in the Chalk. Obviously these are heart urchins at the beginning of the sequence and heart urchins at the end, just heart urchins with different features, so maybe this is not convincing. It can be written off as microevolution. I may add to this the development of the horse (see Wikipedia) where a long sequence from little eohippus to modern equus (which they point out does not necessarily mean that each step is in a direct line of descent from the previous) shows a gradual change in time. Technically, this may be called macroevolution. See distinctions from an Indian university Other examples are given. Darwin's finches, camels, elephants. However, these too can be argued to be within "kinds" by creationists. But dinosaurs producing birds, for which change there are more and more genuine transitional fossils being found, would not be. (Yes, Archeoraptor was a fake, but its source fossils were not, and one, Microraptor, was a genuine intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. Arguing from fakes, while ignoring the vast number of genuine evidence is spurious. Piltdown does not invalidate all the African hominims and so disprove evolution. I have suggested Pete would make his song more effective by dropping that reference.) While fact checking on dino-birds, I found the first google suggestion was a creationist site about evolutionist fraud. It included Piltdown and Archeoraptor, but also a number of cases where there had been misinterpretation, subsequently corrected through the normal processes of science, such as the initial identification of Neanderthals as shambling brutes because of the failure to identify the effects of rickets. It referred to the corrections showing the intelligence, altruism, skills and spiritual dimension of Neanderthals. I am getting concerned at the way that when I search for scientific details in this field, the early search results are frequently from creationist sites, and I have to be very picky and go through a few pages. If my search terms are very technical, I get the Royal Society, JSTOR, Wiley et al, behind paywalls. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 17 May 12 - 08:27 AM Microraptor isn't so much an intermediate between non-avian and avian dinosaurs (birds, if you will), it's more a branch on the tree with them. It's later than Archaeopteryx which is still considered a bird despite some recent discussion on the subject. Bird evolution is a fascinating, complex subject. We're finding feather-like integumentary structures on dinosaurs far removed from birds and and it's possible feathers evolved before dinosaurs did. There is a constant stream of new and exciting discoveries on a pretty much weekly basis regarding avian dinosaur and their relatives' phylogeny and morphology and I suspect things are gong to get even more exciting in the future. Heck, we even know Archaeopteryx had black flight feathers, other dinosaurs had black and white plumage, reds and russets also feature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 17 May 12 - 01:38 PM OK, I was a bit lax there - and what a lot of new stuff you've given me there. I seem to remember the feather was one of the features that used to surface in creationist arguments as evidence of something that had no purpose in a form less than the fully developed flight feather. I have been thinking of these things as members of a cohort between definitely dinosaur and definitely bird, some of which would go on to be birds, and some not. So that even if a particular species did not go on to be an ancestor, it could indicate the direction things were moving. Is that reasonable? Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 18 May 12 - 06:12 PM bill-i read that even dawkins admits the urey miller experiments lead to a dead end .even the hoped for protein would be inadequate for life.and that is with controlled tests by intelligent creators . if they come to a dead end it is even more unlikely that life can arise without benefit a creator.dawkins proposes RNA but sarfati in the "greatest hoax on earth" outline the problems in this idea.thats probably as far as i am capable of taking this . penny-i did'nt spot anything in your link that supports macro change. as you say the YEC position is of change within types.this of course is not just argument countering darwinism, but noted by creationists before darwin. pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 18 May 12 - 06:41 PM pete- browse foe up to date experiments. Urey et al was sixty years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 18 May 12 - 07:40 PM As Paul says...there are many new experiments The point is that we have synthesized the amino acids. Nature took many millions of years to get from basic chemicals to recognizable life forms. All that is necessary to know in order to make the theory feasible is that we know the building blocks were there and that we HAVE replicated the 1st steps. Don't forget, Pete, that claiming a 'creator' doesn't even begin to answer why or how such a thing happened. Even science doesn't know "why there is something, rather than nothing".... but all religion does is ignore the question and assert an answer.... and I'm afraid that "God says He did it." doesn't carry much weight when one book written by men is the only data. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 18 May 12 - 07:55 PM Which came first- the arse or the elbow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 18 May 12 - 08:32 PM Must have been the arse.... they seem to have more varieties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 19 May 12 - 05:32 PM well bill;i assume the many new experiments have not obtained their objective ,and whatever may have been achieved still has matter and human effort to facilitate however much is. in the meantime we still have something rather than nothing,which IMO is what would [not] be if there were no cause sufficient.and in this i have every right to believe the revelation of a self existent,eternal creator is as valid as you to believe it has some unexplained cause.simple science so far still posits that anything existing has to have a sufficient cause -last i heard!. is utter nothing a sufficient cause? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 May 12 - 06:19 PM OK, explain how your putative eternal creator could have existed where there was nothing. No matter, no space, no time = no eternal entity. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 19 May 12 - 10:07 PM "anything existing has to have a sufficient cause" So...what caused God ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 19 May 12 - 10:23 PM That was the refutation that tripped up Thomas Aquinas. Unanswerable. The Church made him a saint anyway. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: DMcG Date: 20 May 12 - 03:48 AM Not quite, don f, as I understand it. Aquinus asserted that the first cause was God. There are at least two basic flaws in his argument: one that it is simply asserted that this is the way out of the infinite regress, the other that even if FirstCause exists, it does not necessarily have any attributes of God as commonly understood. It could, for example have attributes much more like BigBang. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: DMcG Date: 20 May 12 - 04:44 AM By way of injecting some interest into this thread, it might be worth examing another issue here. There seems to me a flaw in 'Origins' and many the documents that flow from it - and, by a happy coincidence the same flaw is in the Bible - namely, the assumption that the whole concept of a species is valid. I can, and do, accept evolution occurs, and that we, as a sentient life form' can cluster gene-machines and call them goats, or sheep, or whatever, but the older I get the more I feel that the concept of 'species' is a structure we humans impose on the world rather than what is actually there, in the same way we impose seven colours on the light spectrum. In short: the concept of species is digital but I grow more and more convinced it is continuous at a macro level, (in the sense that a liquid or sand is continuous, though composed of discrete particles; I agree that at the DNA level things are digital). I think this issue is exemplified by beetles where the various species can only be distingished by highly trained specialists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 20 May 12 - 08:59 AM by beetles where the various species can only be distingished by highly trained specialists The important difference is whether they can be distinguished by other beetles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: DMcG Date: 20 May 12 - 09:33 AM LOL! Yes, its important to the beetle, but it doesn't follow that divisions we think are significant bother the beetle one iota (and also things we've not noticed might be vital!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 20 May 12 - 11:09 AM I've thought about that when looking at birding guides, too; the North Livingston County Taupe Breasted Warbler, the South Livingston County Beige Breasted Warbler... : ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 20 May 12 - 03:28 PM My rather flippant, off the cuff remark did have a serious intent. For the purposes of taxonomy, species may well be distinguished by the number of spots on their wing cases, the colour of their winter plummage, the number of petals... The other definition is "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.". In this sense, it is not a "structure we humans impose on the world"" but a practical reality and has nothing to do with the human ability to distinguish between species. Nothing is ever that simple of course. Lions and Tigers don't mate in nature because, under normal circumstances, they never meet. When they do (thanks to human interference), the offspring are of limited viability. (Google on Ligers and Tiglons). Other obvious examples are mules and zebroids. On the other hand, the Ruddy Duck from the Americas has caused problems by crossbreeding with the European White Headed Duck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: saulgoldie Date: 20 May 12 - 03:39 PM And still...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The scientific method of inquiry cannot possibly evaluate that. But the fantasy world can probably come up with thousands of answers, all perfectly explainable. And depending on which Bible you refer to and how you cherry-pick your "evidence," possibly thousands more. Whatever. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 May 12 - 03:41 PM by another coincidence-or maybe not-the article on CMI site today is on the competing theories re-evaluating the big bang. in light of my last post outlining the eternal,self existent nature of God as the bible witnesses to;it is an illogical challenge to say who caused him.you may say you dont believe in him but IMO it is nonsence to ask who or what caused him. don challenging how he can exist if there was nothing before creation. it is not the christian position that nothing was before."in the beginning God..." gen 1v1 "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.."john 1v1"..from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. ps 90v2. rather it is an atheist position[which don t appears to defend?]that has posited absolutely nothing some time past[though some dispute how that is understood ;as the CMI article discussed] in such godless philosophy a spiritual realm wherein God dwells is excluded.what remains is no cause for origins other than it just happened. pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: DMcG Date: 20 May 12 - 04:12 PM The other definition is "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.". In this sense, it is not a "structure we humans impose on the world"" but a practical reality and has nothing to do with the human ability to distinguish between species. Nothing is ever that simple of course. I agree on all counts, especially the latter! As a definition, interbreeding is not too useful sorting out dinosaurs, obviously, but nor can we really use it to determine whether a fox-like creature is capable of cross-breeding with a wolf-like creature. Suppose only 0.1% of the offspring is viable to the extent of being able to have its own offspring. Should we count that as 'able to cross breed' or not? And if we did accept that, would we actually carry out the cross-breeding experiment that long in practice anyway? Probably not. And if you do accept it, how about 0.01, 0.001 etc etc. Now, I've deliberately overstated my position to some extent. I'm quite happy to agree there are groups that definitely won't cross-breed however many candle-lit suppers we give them; it's more that I grow suspicious of a litmus test that says that creature is or is not a lion, for example. It's more accurate to say that there is some idealisation of what a lion is (shades of Plato!) but everything we call a lion is actually an almost-lion. Moreover, when an animal live in packs or prides, there can be genetic variation between them sufficient to identify an individual as belonging to a specific pride. That smacks of the very early stages of differenciation that could in time lead to new species, even though they are capable of interbreeding at the moment. I am no expect on the matter, but it wouldn't suprise me if some of the Galapagos finches could interbreed, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: DMcG Date: 20 May 12 - 04:20 PM 'expert', not 'expect'. Sigh... As usual, assume my posts come from someone incapable of typing. You won't be far wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 20 May 12 - 05:19 PM "...and in this i have every right to believe the revelation of a self existent,eternal creator is as valid as you to believe it has some unexplained cause. Yes...as I have agreed before. The difference is that I think 'God' is an "unexplained cause", so it makes no difference what you call the 'first cause'. The other difference is that you attribute 'conscious caring & planning' to your first cause, and I make no such assumption.... indeed, I don't even necessarily believe there WAS a single 'casual event', God or otherwise. Since it is not something we can prove, I don't worry about it. What concerns me is what we do with the existence we have, and interpreting supposed scripture is not what I care to spend time on. At least science & mathematics can do checks on each other. Interpreting scripture is a HUMAN argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 20 May 12 - 05:42 PM Re Ruddy Ducks - another bird variation is the circum-polar gull distribution. There is a ring of gull "species" around the north pole, members of which can breed with adjacent members, but where the end species, the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull, which can be found together in Europe do not normally do so. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 12 - 06:19 PM Uh. . . ? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 May 12 - 07:48 PM ""in the beginning God..." gen 1v1 "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.."john 1v1"..from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. ps 90v2."" So, when exactly was the beginning?.....Four and a half billion years ago? And please don't tell out and out lies! You know damn well if you've actually read anything I've said, that I am NOT an Atheist. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 May 12 - 07:57 PM ""George W Bush has even been named patron of the creationist movement and was last year honoured at Kentucky Fry University with a Masters in Young Earth Studies."" That definitely settles it! If Geedub believes, it just has to be total f**king nonsense. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 May 12 - 08:05 PM lIKE "tRICKLE DOWN? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 May 12 - 08:06 PM YEC and Trickle Down Economics are products of faith based belief systems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 21 May 12 - 03:59 PM yes don,i know you are not an atheist.i know you call yourself a christian and in the broad sense i accept that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 May 12 - 07:05 PM ""yes don,i know you are not an atheist.i know you call yourself a christian and in the broad sense i accept that."" I don't give a tuppenny damn whether you accept it or not, as long as you stop lying and misrepresenting my position. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Ebbie Date: 22 May 12 - 01:31 AM That link - are they serious? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 May 12 - 05:09 AM ""yes don,i know you are not an atheist.i know you call yourself a christian and in the broad sense i accept that."" BTW, I do not, and never have called myself a Christian! You really must pay attention to what people actually say and stop misinterpreting and misquoting. It destroys any vestige of credibility in your rather weak attempts at discussion. If you can be arsed to look, you will find my self assessment clearly delineated further up this thread, though I doubt you'll bother, given that you didn't bother to read it the first time. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 May 12 - 10:34 AM My mistake. It was in the original thread as follows: ""Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:45 AM ""Don, frankly I find it a bit scary that I'm part of a minority of 14.09%!"" I wouldn't worry Shimrod, at least you haven't any evangelising fundamentalists in that group, which makes it probably the best place to be. I'm there too, though not an atheist. I follow no organised religion, but deal direct with the manufacturer, as it were. I never could see the need to listen to the personal interpretations offered by men in black frocks. Don T. Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 23 Apr 12 - 11:15 AM There is a basic flaw too, in the reasoning process of fundamentalists, who make the entirely erroneous assumption that if you are not one of them, you are an atheist. This is demonstrably not the case. Most Christians do not believe in YEC, and a belief in YEC is neither necessary nor logical as a requirement for following Christ's teachings as they have been reported to us by generations of men with varying agendas. I believe in the basic tenets of that teaching, but not in the Christian Church, fundamental or moderate. I believe in a Deity, so I suppose I am a Deist or Theist, what you will! I have no need of organised religion of any stripe, it is simply irrelevant to my existence. The reason why I combat fundamentalism and particularly YEC, is the total denial of all logic in its expression, combined with a proselytising fervour in the disemination of its false reasoning to the most impressionable of humans, our children. Don T."" Try reading and making some attempt at understanding this time. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 22 May 12 - 12:42 PM Ebbie.. "that link" about Jesus & dinosaurs. The story is written tongue-in-cheek......... but the museum does exist, and the basics are true. They DO have exhibits which try to reconcile paleontology with purported biblical chronology. They don't succeed very well, but bad science never hindered the faithful much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Mrrzy Date: 22 May 12 - 03:58 PM I recall Minchin's comment at the Reason Rally about having a rally for the bloody obvious 380 years after the enlightenment... Nur in Amerika! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 22 May 12 - 05:17 PM don-i seem to recall that you did call yourself a christian sometime on the previous thread but i am willing to admit mistakes, and if you find having some kind of christian belief offensive,it was unintentionally so. if you recheck my last post you will i hope notice i used the word "appear" the object of the use of this word was intended to indicate that i did not charge you with being an atheist but with pursueing arguments that atheists would use. on that post i indicated the eternality of God by 3 texts.you latched on to the 1st two asking when the "beginning" was.the 3rd text read "from everlasting to everlasting". sorry if you dont read that as meaning "eternal"but that is how i understand it. i was presuming that you would believe God[the maufacturer!]was eternal but i am at a loss as to how you would describe him. of course it is your perogative to be vague should you wish. best wishes pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 May 12 - 11:35 PM Uhhhhh.... pete, just asking....do you intend to use "atheist" as a pejorative? Sure seems so from the interchanges with Don. (E.g. semi-apologizing for having called him an atheist or "appearing" to be an atheist.) Do you look down on atheists? Is that a Christian attitude? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 23 May 12 - 03:50 AM Interesting question. His track record is that he does. As well as atheist, he makes similar withering remarks about what he calls creationists and Darwinists. You see, his particular diagnosis includes seeing opinions as belief systems, in the same way as he is wedded to his idea of a supernatural comfort blanket. (I wonder how many ways the term "god" has been represented on this thread and it's predecessor?.. Wonder how many different ways by me alone for that matter.) Mind you, at least he acknowledges Don. His "Christian" approach of debating with those he doesn't agree with seems to include blanking me out completely. Ok, he doesn't have to acknowledge me, but if I take that as a sign that he cannot argue with my position, I'll be smug enough to accept that. You see, I have faults, hundreds of the buggers. But I at least am comfortable with being wrong from time to time, and welcome the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with my take on life. So long as the beer flows, the wine pours and the BBQ fires up, I don't give a shit. Am I an atheist? I support Sheffield Wednesday, so I can't be... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 23 May 12 - 04:45 AM pete, You wrote, further up this thread: " ... it is an illogical challenge to say who caused him [God}.you may say you dont believe in him but IMO it is nonsence to ask who or what caused him ..." No, it's not an "illogical challenge to say who caused him [Him]" - but asking the question generates a problem i.e. if the creator had a creator then that implies that the creator's creator had a creator ... and so on (an infinite doodah ... can't remember the right word at this time in the morning!). Just to insist the it all started with The Creator because it says so in the Bible may have been enough to stop a superstitious medieval peasant from asking awkward questions - but no-one on this thread is a superstitious medieval peasant (although I wonder about you sometimes, pete!). It's interesting to compare your absolutist position with the question, "what came before the Big Bang?" The fact is that some physicists will tell you that all time and space started with the Big Bang - so the question has no meaning, others will tell you that the question does have meaning but we just don't know - and some in that camp will tell you that we will never be able to answer the question, while others will tell you that we may be able to answer the question some day ... and so on. At least we don't have tyrannous absolutism which denies us the right to ask questions based on some dubious ramblings in an old book! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 23 May 12 - 05:05 AM I wouldn't worry Don. As pete eschews fact-based evidence he's no more likely to be correct about any of our views or opinions expressed by us on these threads than he is about some pretty basic facts on subjects he keeps pontificating on. Found a horse in the Burgess Shale yet pete? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Monique Date: 23 May 12 - 05:11 AM Guys, there're two Don's... so maybe this explains that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 23 May 12 - 08:51 AM Three if you include the great Don Megson, Capt of Sheffield Wednesday in the late '60s and father of Gary. (Managed to get my faith system in twice in one day. Result.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 23 May 12 - 04:35 PM i'm quite sure that if a horse fossil were found in the burgess shale,or any other fossil in the "wrong" strata that evolutionism would be able to accomodate it.is it not true that the upper limits and lower have extended to accomodate finds that were formerly in a settled place in the geological column?.the rationale would be that scientists are open to new evidence.inasmuch as thats true that must be good but it seems to me that it also means that there is no way the GTE can be proved false as it is so flexible. fossil record for example-neo/darwinism claims that there is a gradual column revealing "simple" to complex progression[except maybe the cambrian explosion?]whereas punctuated equilibrium acknowledged the extreme rarity of transistional forms and that became the evidence for that theory.i think there has been more of a merger since[closing ranks?]but i think it will do for an example. pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,999 Date: 23 May 12 - 05:13 PM What I have learned over the years is that sometimes I'm wrong and sometimes I'm right. As with many unfortunate souls, I am in a quandary as to the existence of a supreme being. It remins me of a story I heard from a good and dear friend who was in the lecture hall when Edward Teller was speaking to third-year university students at I think Berkeley. This friend is a co-discoverer of black holes, so he's no slouch in the brains department. Parenthetically, he doesn't believe in God, G-d or gods. Anyway, when Mr Teller came to the end of his lecture he asked if there were any questions. A student raised his hand and said, "Dr Teller, do you believe in God?" Teller replied in the affirmative. The student then queried, "Well, if there is a God, what was he doing before he created the universe?" Dr Teller responded, "He was dreaming up Hell for people who ask such questions!" I think that Pete is wonderful. He never loses his cool, and he's straight-forward with his opinions. Although I disagree with most of his beliefs, I take refuge in the fact that they are his beliefs and call for no remarks from me. I saw a side of him on another thread that will evermore disallow me to fight with him or denigrate what he thinks. He has a moral stature which I feel should be envied. He's polite where I know I would not be, and he cares for others. He's a 10/10 as a Christian as far as I'm concerned, so there ya go. I have nothing to add to this thread other than what I just wrote. Keep well, Pete, and best wishes to your Mom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 May 12 - 05:40 PM ""whereas punctuated equilibrium acknowledged the extreme rarity of transistional forms and that became the evidence for that theory."" You seem to have almost as much of a problem with joined up thinking as you do with punctuated text. Every form found is a transitional link between its past and its future,.....INCLUDING US! And I can't help thinking that Young Earth Creationists may be a dead end branch. The possibility of abiogenesis is less unlikely than the possibility of Intelligent Design, unless of course the Designer used abiogenesis as a means to an end. One thing however is abundantly clear and backed by irrefutable scientific evidence. Whatever happened certainly didn't take place six thousand (or ten thousand for some YECs) years ago. And the cherry picking of various ancient writings, to exclude inconvenient contradictions, throws the whole of the bible account of genesis into doubt and confusion, while still leaving irreconcilable contradictions throughout the Old Testament. And just bear in mind that not one of the OT chroniclers was a Christian, all of them worshipped Jehovah, and none of them believed that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, in fact none of their descendents believe it today. It is illogical to cite the OT at all, since the New Testament is the first Chronicle of Christianity, and YECs are without exception Christians, not Jews. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 23 May 12 - 06:02 PM And, I might add, only a minority of Christians at that. Most main-stream Christians take the Old Testament and some of the New as myth and metaphor, and have no trouble with the idea that the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years. And that, as for humans are concerned, and all life on earth for that matter, evolution is the way God did it. They tend to sigh a lot and roll their eyes when they hear the assertions of Young Earth Creationists. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 12 - 07:13 PM He [pete] has a moral stature which I feel should be envied. Well I don't envy it. A stature that dismisses science selectively, serially pruning out all the bits that don't fit in with his extremist, rigid view of the world, shitting all the while on hard-working, honest-to-goodness scientists with cheap, facile unthinking remarks, is not a moral stance at all, let alone one that deserves to be envied. Frankly, the man is a buffoon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 May 12 - 11:38 PM How does it help your argument to call people names? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 May 12 - 01:05 AM Mr Shaw, opinions are like assholes, everybody got one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 May 12 - 02:14 AM OOPS. Steve, my apology for that. It was uncalled for and I'm sorry. However, fact is, there is little difference in one regard between you and Pete. He believes what he does as you believe what you do. Where I see you both being 'the same' is in the belief arena. For Pete it is his thought about the origin of this place we live in and on. For you it is the thought about the origin of this place we live in and on. Your differences are few in reality. Science, which you respect and in someways adore has given us much. The methods of scientific research are sound, as far as we know. BUT, scientists are no more moral than YECs. Some scientists have proven themselves to be moral prostitutes, little better than two-bit whores. You will no doubt require proof for that statement, so I put forth those who worked to develop nuclear weaponry, chemical weaponry and biological weaponry. Indeed you may say that political people 'swung the ship off course', but we'd both know that that argument is at once wrong and disingenuous. I submit to you that science is no less perverted than religion. Both 'disciplines' follow their versions of God, with complete beliefs in the rightness and righteousness of their respective causes, but in the end, neither holds a superior high ground. Newton, best known for his thinking about the first, second and third laws should rightfully be equally recognized for creating the gold standard. That is selectively ignored when scientists speak about Sir Isaac. Today, scientists work not for science but rather for governments. That in itself should shame y'all. Your detestation of Pete brings you no honour. It does diminish you somewhat, however, because while he holds to an unprovable belief, you, even with your science can not prove him either right or wrong. In short, I prefer what I've seen of his 'morality' to what I've seen of yours. Take that as you will, and in the words of the prophet, so mote it be, a statement I think is bullshit wrapped in crap inside a veneer of wtf. Have a good day. And next time you decide to take offense, please remember that this old sonuvabitch is an old sonuvabitch who does not care who he offends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 May 12 - 03:41 AM What has pete's "moral stature" (let's assume he's a good person) got to do with it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 24 May 12 - 07:18 AM We've all got a "moral stature". Contrary to popular belief Christians (or other religious types) don't have a monopoly on that. I'm not arguing against pete's character (although I think his self-deprecation is tiresome and means he can be evasive in a lazy way), I'm arguing against his YEC. I'm not even arguing against the existence of God. Pete, if you did find a horse in the Burgess Shale it would really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Evolution would need to accommodate it's presence there, and as far as I understand evolution, it doesn't. It would make you famous. It would go a heck of a long way to disprove the theory thou so despise. "there is no way the GTE can be proved false as it is so flexible" No it's not. If the evidence was there, it could be disproved. Also, you'd have to move the upper and lower limits of the Burgess Shale formation to accommodate a horse being present, and most scientists would not allow that. As for gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium, the debate is nowhere near as absolutist as that. For what it's worth, I think both are valid, but variables in local conditions where isolated populations exist mean either can come into play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 24 May 12 - 12:19 PM Hello Sailor! Sailor Jack wants to know how name calling can help your argument. Well when I have taken the piss out of you and your stance, the cathartic effect has been rather pleasant. However, for pete, I can't feel that way. I respect 999 but on this, I beg to differ. If the likes of pete gather influence, we might as well go back to banging the rooks together. Here in The UK, we still have parts of Norfolk where people point at aircraft. If YECs win the argument, we might even start worshipping them... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 24 May 12 - 03:08 PM 999-i hope i dont topple off this pedestal you put me on.it's probably higher than it should be!-but thanks for the kind words. don-i think you overstate your case.the 1st christians were jewish following a jewish messiah.there are still messianic jews now and i very much doubt they are all evolutionists-probably the opposite IMO. sugarfoot-it remains to be seen how much would be accomodated when cherished philosophical ideas are challenged. i did indicate that there had been a merging of equilibrium and gradualism.that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other ,as was the case initially. regards pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 May 12 - 03:08 PM I visited Norfolk the other day - and I saw some rooks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 May 12 - 03:10 PM On my visit to Norfolk I may even have pointed at the rooks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 May 12 - 07:53 PM Our pete serially insults the whole of scientific endeavour with his disingenuous, quasi-religious, anti-intellectual nonsense. He is impenetrable and he does not engage in any genuine way with anyone here who questions his viewpoint. It's a completely dishonest and nefarious position, yet 'tis me wot gets picked up for allegedly calling him names. Nice one, Jacky Tar. Do continue to give the man succour. We'll be here all year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 24 May 12 - 09:59 PM Let me say it this way Steve... you are like an old friend of mine who was very smart, and who was usually right about things, but sadly, had no idea how to BE right. It is NOT the case that those who WE are sure are both wrong and not 'getting it' are by definition "dishonest". Allegedly? You called Pete names "cheap, facile unthinking...buffoon". He is none of those. He thinks...and you & I know where his thinking has problems. Facile? "..affable, agreeable, or complaisant; easily influenced:". Not exactly... we educated, intelligent folk sure aren't budging him! He IS trying to cope with both your arguments and MY arguments. He is far from 'cheap', if I glean your meaning. He is far from a buffoon...look it up! You, Steve, toss those words around loosely, rather than trying to find really fitting language that 'might' get you some attention, if not agreement. *I* might say he is 'stubborn', but from his theological viewpoint, he NEEDS to be stubborn. I read an opinion once that... no matter what your religion, club, family, team, or political party, there is always someone on your side who you wish was on the OTHER side. I disagree with Pete on almost every major point, but I can talk to him.... I'm not really sure I'd have YOU on my side in a debate. "Oh wad the gift the giftie gie us..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 25 May 12 - 03:37 AM "i did indicate that there had been a merging of equilibrium and gradualism.that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other ..." Really?? I very much doubt that Creationists have that much influence on evolutionary theory! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stu Date: 25 May 12 - 04:34 AM "it remains to be seen how much would be accomodated when cherished philosophical ideas are challenged." Then challenge it with observable, testable evidence. You're dead wrong in thinking cherished beliefs are the sacred cows of science - far from it. Scientists challenge each other constantly, and any review of current discussions would demonstrate that. Science encourages challenge as it's how we test our methods, data and conclusions. "that may in part be due to creationists highlighting the one cancelling out the other" Huh? How the heck did they arrive at that conclusion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 May 12 - 05:05 AM Now Bill. I explode with justifiable impatience at this man's silly notions, we've been at him for months like a bunch of lunatics and now you tell me I "have no idea how to be right." Well I'm telling you that no-one here has succeeded, no matter how "right", in penetrating this man's armour. In fact I suspect that he's all armour with nothing inside. I groan every time I see you or anyone else giving pete a long, patient, gentle explanation of the way things really are. It's a lamentable waste of time. He is enjoying this business of toying with us, serially employing the one ploy he knows (pretending to be stupid and ignorant about science then shitting all over it). pete has persuaded us all what a nice man he is. Well I demur. Nice men don't close their eyes tight shut and shit all over science - and scientists. He feigns dignity (and has hoodwinked a number of people here into believing it) from a position which utterly lacks any semblance of dignity, that of glorying in pig ignorance. If you "know how to be right", Bill, show pete, and hurry up about it. You've failed miserably (just like the rest of us) so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 25 May 12 - 06:44 AM Hi Steve. Have you had a chance to read up about falsifiability yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 25 May 12 - 08:47 AM I wouldn't worry about it mate. In another thread, simply for refusing to accept religion, I was called a fundamentalist. Now that WAS interesting. It seems you can be slightly religious but not slightly atheist. (Don't start a thread on agnostic versus atheist, I'll start swearing and spoil it.) I'm probably slightly human too. Good job I don't give a f |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 25 May 12 - 12:47 PM "If you "know how to be right", Bill, show pete, and hurry up about it. " The point is, a debate is not useless because one side fails to convince the other. You see, I don't expect to convince Pete. All I really do in this case is try to leave ".... a long, patient, gentle explanation of the way things really are.". I 'hope' Pete might have a crack in his armor someday, but I have spent many years dealing with personal friends & acquaintances who hold awkward views on this & similar topics. With few exceptions, they are sane, nice, friendly, enjoyable people. We just don't discuss certain topics a lot. Pete gets our/my attentions because he chooses to directly enter the discussion.....and he doesn't call US names or question our honesty or intelligence. Remember, YEC is only an extreme subset of a belief system that posits metaphysical entities... and there are many similar belief systems. I find that it is useful to ME to hone my own understandings by discussing/debating them when they appear in this forum. Yes, it is frustrating when the same categories of logical & factual errors seem to crop up over & over, but I am quite sure I'm not going to win converts to MY point of view by insults, ridicule and general assumptions about what is 'in the mind' of those I debate. "He is enjoying this business of toying with us....He feigns dignity ...etc." I am assured by two people who know him personally that Pete is honest and decent.... but I don't NEED even that. *I* have the choice to give up and end the discussion if someone seems belligerent and attacks me personally....and I have done so a few times here. I suggest that course if your blood pressure seems too high..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 May 12 - 01:30 PM The blood pressure's fine, thanks. How many more times do we really have to hear that pete is honest, decent, etc. etc.? That one gets thrown in so many times! pete represents himself here in the way he wishes to represent himself. I take that at face value. And what I see is a man who studiously disses science and scientists and who refuses to embrace honestly any scientific concept whatsoever. It's a fundamentally dishonest stance. If he's a nice bloke down the pub singing his songs it's because that's the way he wishes to represent himself down the pub. He doesn't pepper his singing with religious rants, I'll be bound. But the kind of nonsense he propagates here has done massive intellectual damage to a lot of people by helping to switch off part of their brains. Bet you won't hear pete telling his fellow travellers to shut up with their nonsense in front of kids, for example. You're being suckered, Bill. Soft faces, hard cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 25 May 12 - 02:18 PM "You're being suckered, Bill" ☺ Ah well... I am not suddenly consumed with the desire to read Revelations or join a church. If I met Pete and found him smirking at me for being led into all this to further his amusement, I'd be upset...but I kinda doubt that's how it would go. More likely we'd sit and thrash out more of the details in a conversation. That's an easier way to debate anyway. ..."the kind of nonsense he propagates here has done massive intellectual damage to a lot of people by helping to switch off part of their brains. " keywords... "has done".... I don't feel in danger....do you? I have an interest in saying whatever I can to find a switch to turn ON parts of brains that have a wiring problem. We in the USA have a serious issue with folks who want to insert religious ideas as far out as Pete's into politics. I rehearse my reasoning by friendly debates with Pete... and earlier, with Iona..... and WAY earlier with several others. I have not converted anyone, and they have not converted me. I just do it to be sure MY views are represented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 25 May 12 - 02:24 PM Whilst knowingly putting kindling on the fire, I have to say Steve makes a very fundamental (that word again) point. We have to take posters at face value, not based on either knowing them or second hand opinions of them. It is what we say on these posts that we judge each other by. I would be horrified to think my whole persona was accurately reflected in what I rant on about all the same, and with our little YEC pete, I can only say that I am posting replies and observations in terms of how he portrays himself. And it ain't pretty. in fact, if too many people take he and his fellow patients seriously, downright bloody frightening! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 25 May 12 - 04:52 PM "We have to take posters at face value.." Indeed... and I do my best to read not only the words, but to read 'between the lines' and make a reasonable guess at motivation and character. This DOES lead to conflicts as to how to respond. I cannot let the basic errors in understanding of science go unchallenged, but neither can I condemn a person simply on the basis of what I consider 'wrong' ideas. I almost always react to **ideas** in a forum like this, not to a person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 May 12 - 06:18 PM ""don-i think you overstate your case.the 1st christians were jewish following a jewish messiah.there are still messianic jews now and i very much doubt they are all evolutionists-probably the opposite IMO."" Slack and slapdash thinking Pete. The first Christians were followers of Jesus who so far departed from Jewish custom and thought that his fellows chose to save a murderer rather than this (to them) false Messiah. There are indeed many Messianic Jews, but a very tiny proportion of their number believe that the Messiah is Jesus, and orthodox Jews to this day believe that the Messiah is yet to appear. ""I cannot let the basic errors in understanding of science go unchallenged, but neither can I condemn a person simply on the basis of what I consider 'wrong' ideas. I almost always react to **ideas** in a forum like this, not to a person."" Bill D, I couldn't agree more with that statement. After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character. He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist. I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air. Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 25 May 12 - 06:58 PM Did you notice the thread about the 42,000 year old flute? Obviously it was played by angels or some such, seeing as humans weren't invented until 6000 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 May 12 - 08:18 PM We in the USA have a serious issue with folks who want to insert religious ideas as far out as Pete's into politics. Hmmm. You haven't done very well, then, have you? Perhaps you should consider being a little less chummy with these guys and a little more critical instead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 May 12 - 08:32 PM After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character. I don't give a stuff about pete's "real-life character." I'm perfectly prepared to accept that he's a personable sort of chap when it comes to his troubadour exploits. But he talks shit here. That's what I concentrate on, Don. What are you actually on about? He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist. Ignorance of what subject? And what's this "portrays himself" shite, Don? Would you like me to send you my certificates? I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air. Well you've lost me there. Are you still talking about me or what??? Who said that about you, Don? Would you like me to punch them on the nose for you? Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners. Well, Don, if you think that dropping shite on the whole of science and on every scientist, refusing to listen to a single scientific idea, and feigning ignorance is good manners, I can't help thinking that you've been deluded. Charm is no substitute for integrity and honesty, qualities that pete has yet to demonstrate on this forum, if not in, er, real life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Bill D Date: 25 May 12 - 09:32 PM "consider being a little less chummy with these guys and a little more critical instead." I am not the least bit chummy with those who are trying to do that. I get along fine with those who mostly keep their beliefs to their church. (I don't hear Pete suggesting that YEC be taught in schools as fact.) Don T... it's hopeless to make the point about 'manners' sometimes...hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie Date: 26 May 12 - 03:19 AM He doesn't have to argue. Everybody else argues instead. Bill, I fully accept your point that it is ideas rather than people we should be considering although on a posting site such as this, ideas do tend to be personified. Steve's exasperation is both justified and rational. We can never move forward as civilisation whilst facts are weighed against myth. I used to work with a couple of guys who belonged to a devout Christian cult that had decided that mobile phones were banned somewhere in the bible. (don't ask, and I never did either...). Now, if their interpretation became widespread, the upturn in fortunes of the Masai in rearing cattle and getting to market more efficiently could not have come about. The upturn being less starving African children because phone masts were put up for tourists on safari. Small example and nothing compared to religious disdain of blood transfusions or insisting on mutilating childrens' genitals. Let alone the noble art of book burning! I am coming off the fence here. It is one thing to disagree with a scientific hypothesis but another to dismiss through ignorance and preconception. It is rather insulting too, hence I have no problem with being insulting back. Other than a misgiving over mocking the afflicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 26 May 12 - 01:17 PM "Creationism" should be reframed as "delusionalism". There is nothing creative about it. I am appalled that this thread continues as if there were some rational defense for this delusion. I will not attack the character of any individual but I won't stand still for delusional ideas or belief systems for which I have no respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 26 May 12 - 01:54 PM Ian, were the anti-mobile-phone guys Exclusive Brethren? They have some sort of belief about Satan being the Prince of the Air (presumably Biblical), and therefore that which travels through the air is subject to him. They attribute quite a lot of power to the fallen angel, and could probably be described as dualists. The reverse of Dawkin's (?) remark about having gone one more step in the number of gods not believed in, having gone one step backwards. They are very afraid of him. I did challenge a couple of parents on this over the extension of this belief to computer use, pointing out that Jesus was supposed to have defeated Satan, but they feel he can still work his wicked way on those who have not accepted adult baptism within the sect. such as their children. Oddly for a very exclusive group, a number of their beliefs I had met in other places such as that odd group from the hippy period - Children of God, was it, with an abusive leader? They weren't directly from the Bible. (Bar codes being 666 was one, I think.) Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 26 May 12 - 04:42 PM don t -certainly most jews do not believe Jesus is the messiah.i understood your comments to be claiming none of them did.certainly if you had said "most"i would agree.however you said "none ". i dont really get your point as to the OT chronaclers not believing that Jesus was messiah since they wrote prior to his appearing.[whether they would recognise him given the opportunity in their lifetime can only be affirmed by ref to our beliefs.i would answer in the probable and i guess you in the negative]. i read your post again,and perish the thought ,could it be slightly slapdash!. sugarfoot-i agree that scientists do challenge each others or existing theories, and equilibria and gradualism is one of those instances-though closing ranks since. darwinisn in some form or the other is IMO the cherished holy cow that will not countenance creationism and excludes papers that support it-though sometimes scientists have suceeded in publishing if not directly creationist. i understand that catastrophism is now accepted as a mechanism in the evolutionism story,where once it was totally dismissed following lyell ,if i remember correctly ,stating that the past was only to be interpreted by ref to present prosseses.uniformitarianism ruled! catastrophic geological action is now ok-as long as its not biblical! i stand to be corrected on the details if i'm mistaken. best wishes to everyone! pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 26 May 12 - 04:53 PM Penny, almost all Christians except the good old C of E (who only believe in respectability) and the Quakers, and some of the simpler Catholics, are dualists. There is God; and there is the Devil: and they are of equal power. All these Baptists and Muslims see their god as a puny little thing that needs their intervention in politics to make its way in the world. And the somple Cat'lics take the Bible to its own conclusion, and see the Divil as only another of God's poor creatures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 26 May 12 - 05:13 PM Just for the record, I'm with Steve Shaw! The following statement, for example, took my breath away: "darwinisn in some form or the other is IMO the cherished holy cow that will not countenance creationism and excludes papers that support it-" pete will be demanding that Astronomy journals publish papers based on a geocentric universe next! In the interests of "balance" of course! Just between you and me, the leading Physics journals refuse to publish my work on perpetual motion machines - narrow-minded bastards!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 May 12 - 07:52 PM You just beat me to it there, Shimrod. How any sane person can call "Darwinism" a "cherished holy cow" utterly defeats me. Now I'm not out to assassinate the character of this folkie troubadour, but I would just remind everyone left reading this that I have repeatedly told pete to read On The Origin Of Species. He has failed to do so (even though it's written in beautiful, elegant and easy English - all you have to do is turn off Coronation Street while you're reading it), yet he still comes on here dissing "darwinists," "Darwinism," evolutionism," and whatever else he chooses to pejoratively call it. Ugly stuff it is, not the rather sweet naivety that he hopes we'll all be hoodwinked into accepting. Once you have studied Origin, and understood at least its main thrust, you are entitled to come on here and lambast us all with your objections. But come on here and attempt to lambast us with your ignorant preconceptions and you are asking us to be rude to you and tell you to stop wasting our bloody time. pete may be a nice man down the boozer with his singing mates but he is an absolute horror here. The smiley little man who can't do capital letters is full of the same bogus arguments that maintain almost half the population of the US, for example, in scientific pig ignorance. One hopes he limits his views to this forum where at least he can't do much harm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 26 May 12 - 08:46 PM read your post again,and perish the thought ,could it be slightly slapdash!. Total user. Condemned from his own mouth. Just look at that and think whose thought or presentation is slapdash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 May 12 - 08:58 PM Yep, and, while I'd never actually call pete "sinister" (he's far too insubstantial for that), there is something very incongruous indeed about his (deliberate?) lack of decent grammar and punctuation aligned with his bitingly-expressed prejudices. Read his posts very carefully and you will see a man who is more than happy to misrepresent himself as a rather harmless duffer when, in fact, he is propagating pro-creationist and anti-science notions that have the capacity to maintain millions of people in fearful ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 27 May 12 - 09:42 AM Paul, I know that the dualist idea is widespread, but its application to mobile phones is unusual, and fitted what I had learned of the Ex B. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 27 May 12 - 01:13 PM Penny, I can add fax machines to the list too. They have their women wear handkerchiefs on their heads and someone once told me they were Plymouth Brethren, but having Wiki'd the brethren, I don't think they may be. No matter, it was a throwaway observation that I used to have a customer where the bloke in the sales office had to go home each lunchtime and collect the faxes that came in, as his boss wouldn't have them on the premises, and when I noted mobile phones added to the list of things not permitted on the premises, (how the hell their customers put up with the silly notices all over is beyond me...) I mentally made the connection with where my brother when he was an aid worker in Tanzania told me how Masai communities had been inadvertently transformed by the mobile phone masts he and others had originally objected to. My point was that debunking science may be fun if it gets in the way of your club rules, but when you force your rules on others (the teaching of bollocks in schools?) cause and effect come into play. Jesus didn't raise anybody (Lazar.. something? Help me someone clever?) . We had to wait for science to give us advances in intensive care before such things could be contemplated! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 27 May 12 - 02:00 PM Lazarus. Jesus may have administered CPR and nobody there knew what he was doing. Or more likely--part of the myth. I believe (not sure, though) that Jesus did exist. Josephus, a contemporary historian, mentions an itinerant preacher who was getting up the noses of some to the Establishment (both religious and governmental) and they crucified him for it. As an old friend of mine, Lutheran pastor Bruce Pond, said, "All major religious prophets are said to have worked miracles of one sort or another. It's part of the mythology, a way to telling a good story. Often the person does something that we would consider ordinary, but the onlookers at the time didn't understand. And the fish gets bigger every time the story gets retold." And this from an ordained pastor. Rather than pounding the Bible and insisting that something had to be true because the Bible said so, his speculative take on the improbable was one of the reasons I liked him. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 27 May 12 - 02:55 PM Ian, they're an offshoot of Plymouth Brethren, and were at one time under the rule of a man (of course) with weird ideas. My Dad had clients who were Plymouth, and the son became Exclusive, and had to eat in a separate room. There was a scandal involving the leader and women (what a surprise) which split the Exclusives, but he is now dead, and the rules seem to be relaxing a bit. The women still have the headscarves, but the rest of the dress is wmuch freer. And the meeting houses have had windows put in them. I used to worry about the girls in school. "We don't believe in educating our women," a colleague was told. They did try to run their own school for a while, having worried about the exposure to computers (apparently the organisation now uses them to keep tabs on membership, but they are not allowed to let us unbelievers know this as we would not understand that they are OK used for holy purposes) and increasingly girls doing PE and swimming. But they had some special needs children they could not cope with, who came back to us. They were nice people, who believed what they had been taught, and were prepared to swallow any change unquestioning. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 27 May 12 - 03:04 PM Surprisingly, they have official websites now! Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 28 May 12 - 01:57 PM New information has come out linking mankind to Africa, the first two known antecedents from Richard Leakey form Olorgesailie near Nairobi. Mitochondrial DNA has shown that a single woman existed on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago. The first male existed 90,000 years ago in the Rift Valley of Kenya. "Adam and Eve did exist, 90,000 years apart" according to the author of this piece. This information knocks Creationism into a cocked hat. We are all Africans and racial distinctions make very little difference in our makeup. We are all Africans Unfortunately, fundamentalist African based religions are still in the ignorant stages about this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 12 - 03:06 PM Excellent article, which should be read especially by people such as seven stars pete. Christian fundamentalists and YEC are shooting themselves in the foot. THEY are driving intelligent, thinking, spiritually oriented people out of the churches. CLICKY! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Penny S. Date: 28 May 12 - 03:48 PM Did you see that odd link to the 4 things destroying men? which became three on the comments pages? Looks as though it's selling some junk career boosting snake oil. Interesting article, and very interesting comments. And one of the things it led me to was a reassessment of William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes trial. He had reasoned that social Darwinianism, which included eugenics, and was not what Darwin had taught, was dangerous to American society, because it would lead people away from a politics which supported the poor against the rich - he was, in fact, and successfully so in politics, a socialist. And he was not, in fact, a YEC, but a day age creationist who was prepared to accept evolution, except for the origin of man. An interesting and intelligent man. Look him up on wikipedia. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 28 May 12 - 06:52 PM Mitochondrial DNA has shown that a single woman existed on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago. The first male existed 90,000 years ago in the Rift Valley of Kenya. I could get quite depressed. I am relieved to find that, despite being a fairly sloppy piece of popular science jounalism, what the article actually said was - Our mtDNA appears to coalesce in a single woman, who lived on the African savannah 150,000 years ago. Our Y-chromosome survives from a single man, who lived in the Rift Valley of Kenya or Tanzania 59,000 years ago. This has been around for about 25 years and has been somewhat modified since. It is probably one of the most misunderstood ideas in popular science. This Wikipedia article seems a bit out of date but gives the general idea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve Bizarrely, this article from a creationist website seems to do its literature research very well before reaching some strange conclusions not supported by the evidence.http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 May 12 - 07:21 PM When did ANY Creationist, or Creationist Website, reach conclusions which were supported by scientific evidence? NEVER!............That's when!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: frogprince Date: 28 May 12 - 08:52 PM I GOT IT! I GOT IT! At least the answer to quite a bit of the delimna: God was hanging around out there, all alone, for all of eternity past. Eternity past included what, had there been such a thing as time, would have been a bunch of millions of years of time. It got pretty boring. So he spent at least some of eternity past in a little hobby of creating FOSSILS! Finally he came up with the notion of creating all this other stuff we know of, out of nothing. But he discovered that he was just a little short of enough nothing from which to create everything he had in mind. So he cleaned out his eternal closet, and stirred in enough of the fossil stuff to make up the difference. So the fossil stuff is in fact millions of years old, but that simply has nothing to do with the age of the rest of what we know as the creation! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 29 May 12 - 04:33 PM interesting that the article stringsinger posted on tracing man and woman back was described or called a "creed" project whose "high priest" set out to disprove the garden of eden story-or words to that effect.nothing religious or philosophically founded in evolutionism;is there???! one item mentioned on yesterdays CMI article was that russel humphreys accurately predicted the strength of magnetic fields around jupiter and uranus[if i correctly recall]based on prediction of thousands years only existence.don t; in claiming that creationists never make scientific conclusions is tantamount to claiming complete knowledge of scientific articles-but hopefully you did not mean to convey such lofty self confidence. don f;i read your link.i do not doubt that many people leave the faith because they find it too hard.as you have read the bible-though not believing it-you will know it is expected and predicted. best wishes pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 29 May 12 - 07:19 PM pete interesting that the article stringsinger posted on tracing man and woman back was described or called a "creed" project whose "high priest" set out to disprove the garden of eden story-or words to that effect I don't normally take much notice of anything pete says, but here he has hit on an important point. It illustrates the popular idea of evolution as a sort of pseudo religion and how bad science plays into the hands of the creationists. When I described the article as being "a fairly sloppy piece of popular science jounalism", I think I was being generous. It was published in Intelligent Life magazine which says of itself - Intelligent Life is a bi-monthly lifestyle and culture magazine from The Economist. It covers the arts, style, food, wine, cars, travel and anything else under the sun, as long as it's interesting. It shares The Economist's fondness for crisp prose, dry wit and free thinking. But rather than covering politics and economics, it is about life in general and making the most of your time off, from tailoring to museums, hotels to philanthropy, choosing wine to going green. http://moreintelligentlife.com/ It is not a peer reviewed science journal. According to Wikipedia, its author J.M.Ledgard "has also been a correspondent for The Economist since 1995, specialising in foreign political and war reporting." I'm sure he is a very clever chap and a very good journalist but he is not a scientist. Promoting this distorted view of science is what makes me get so exercised about self-proclaimed scientists who come out with lines like "Evolution is true." I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 May 12 - 07:40 PM I don't think you'll find too many evolutionary biologists fretting over disproving the Adam and Eve story, pete. Actually, I don't think you'll find too many religionists (may I use that word with you?) who would put their head on the block in order to hang on to the yarn either. The article is crap, pete. Not science. Just whimsy. Learn to discriminate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 May 12 - 07:44 PM I wasn't aware that there was a "popular idea that evolution is a pseudo-religion." Sounds like another of your straw men coming up to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 30 May 12 - 06:33 AM Steve Shaw I wasn't aware that there was a "popular idea that evolution is a pseudo-religion." So if you aren't aware of it it isn't true? We've just seen an example haven't we? Try this http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full The creationists love it http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion This chap seems to mean well but manages to set up a direct equvalence between evolution and creationism http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/05/the-whys-of-religion-vs-evolution/ Your "Evolution is true" gives the creationists exactly what they want. Sounds like another of your straw men coming up to me. Another? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 May 12 - 09:38 AM ""don t; in claiming that creationists never make scientific conclusions"" There you go again, misquoting and putting words into peoples' mouths. I didn't say they never reached scientific conclusions. They do (according to their fanbase), but those conclusions are NEVER supported by anything remotely resembling reproducible scientific evidence. ""Because God said so"" may convince those who have already decided on their conclusions, but scientific, or evidence, it ain't!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 30 May 12 - 10:40 AM "I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."" But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist. Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating. If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism. Where is the bad science here? Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated. It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species. There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science, but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 May 12 - 11:54 AM steve-not in the least bothered if you use the word "religionist" re-article;i doubt its science credibility would have been questioned had i not raised it,and snail then took it up,especially as don f endorsed it. don t ;apologies if i misquoted you but i did cite a creationist scientist making an accurate prediction based on creationist time span.that is as far as i can see scientific evidence.i suppose it can be reproduced next time a rocket goes by! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 May 12 - 02:23 PM "".i suppose it can be reproduced next time a rocket goes by!"" No, it doesn't work like that. Reproducible evidence is not just a case of the same pseudo scientist spouting the same bollocks again and again. To be acceptable, it must be repeatable by any competent specialist in the particular field and produce the same result, within reasonable experimental parameters. Your man is one lone self styled "Creation Scientist" who demands belief because he states that "such and such" is the case. Come back and talk about him again when his conclusions have been tested, confirmed and verified by half a dozen non Creationist (i.e. REAL) scientists. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 30 May 12 - 03:01 PM Don, You are not going to get any kind of grounded, rational comments from him. Not only is he not open to change and growth, which is the sign of a confident intellectual. But he does not even recognize that he has a problem. And that is the first step to growth. Sadly, he will not grow. Unless you are talking past him to others reading this who may be interested in the discussion and open. Yeah, that could be it. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 30 May 12 - 03:34 PM I have been following the thread even though I feel it outlived any meaningful interchange quite a while ago and I have decided (no doubt I am being pompous and self righteous) to get some stuff off my chest. Pete from Seven Stars Link, I refuse to accept your appalling refusal to show minimum courtesy to other posters by not even attempting to post at a basic level of literacy, it is simply bad manners. Having re-read as many of your posts as I could bear I have been unable to identify any cogent argument; obfuscation, intentional misinterpretation and an apparent inability to understand what other posters are saying are the clear hallmarks of your approach. I am a practising Christian and may know something of your motivation and I suspect that if you were to undergo real self examination you would find that your underlying motive is fear. There can be no rational explanation for your beliefs but if you were to accept that you would no doubt lose friends and your place in your religious community. I believe that you are an example of a fundamentalist version of Pascal's wager. Christianity does not require that you have to eschew rigorous enquiry, honesty and intellectual humility. I have been impressed by the erudition of some posters but Steve Shaw, you appear to believe that opinion is the same as knowledge. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the scientific method and many of your rants have undermined the considered and informed input of other posters. Abuse does not constitute argument. I was also interested in your statement that Darwin wrote in elegant, easy English. He wrote in the mid-Victorian period for a specific audience i.e. members of the Royal Society, and 'Origin' is frequently challenging. Have you actually read it? I have to admit that I find it difficult and have preferred to read commentaries rather than the original. But there again, I recognise that I have much to learn, how about you? OK, rant over, please feel free to give me the verbal kicking you no doubt feel that I richly deserve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 May 12 - 04:49 PM snail;i read all 3 articles.the last one offering evidences for evolution from coyne,some of which i've not encountered before.not much detail though to comment on. i was wondering what you thought of the 2nd article up to the mention of the bible.do you think origins science is observable and testable as don t seems to assert.would you deny that assumptions about the past guide the interpretation of the past? pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 30 May 12 - 05:27 PM Stringsinger "I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."" But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist. Indeed, but Richard Leakey doen't spout bad science as far as I have heard. Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating. True. If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism. It hasn't been ignored. It is now pretty much mainstream having fought it out for a few years with the multiregional hypothesis. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve is a good place to start. Where is the bad science here? If Steve Shaw and I agree (in our own different ways. I said "It is not a peer reviewed science journal.", he said "The article is crap") that the article is not really up to snuff, I think it is worth considering that it should be read with caution. A couple of quotes - obliterating any literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a new evidence-based creed. The Garden of Eden is not science. Neither evolution nor genetics is a creed. Spencer Wells (pictured below). With his blond hair, blue eyes and Nebraska roots, he is the ideal high priest to explain to white Americans that they are blacks gone curdy. I will not speculate on what the man thinks he is saying here. Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated. Certainly not, which is why I get rather annoyed with people who ought to know better talking as if it is. It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species. Not just mankind, but all life on Earth. All science is transitional; that's why "Evolution is true" just won't do. There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science, but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument. Couldn't agree more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 May 12 - 07:05 PM I have been impressed by the erudition of some posters but Steve Shaw, you appear to believe that opinion is the same as knowledge. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the scientific method and many of your rants have undermined the considered and informed input of other posters. Abuse does not constitute argument. I was also interested in your statement that Darwin wrote in elegant, easy English. He wrote in the mid-Victorian period for a specific audience i.e. members of the Royal Society, and 'Origin' is frequently challenging. Have you actually read it? I have to admit that I find it difficult and have preferred to read commentaries rather than the original. But there again, I recognise that I have much to learn, how about you? OK, rant over, please feel free to give me the verbal kicking you no doubt feel that I richly deserve. I have read Origin cover to cover, again and again. If you really think he wrote it "for a specific audience," then I suggest that 'tis you who haven't read it. At least, not with much insight. Do you also suppose that Shakespeare wrote for a specific audience? Bach? Beethoven? Did Michaelangelo sculpt for a specific audience? What tommy-rot. As for abuse, whatever I say to irritating, obsessive twits like Snail (there I go again!) is as nothing compared to the abuse visited on the whole of science by pete. Incidentally, I should like you either to confirm with quoted examples my "lack of knowledge of scientific method" or just shut up. Hows about "self-proclaimed scientist" from Snail as an example of abuse? All that time spent getting my biological science degree from Imperial College and I'm "self-proclaimed?" Are you Snail's dad or something? Hows about that lot for the verbal kicking you so richly deserve? And might I suggest that you cease to "follow" the thread from some lofty, self-appointed perch and actually contribute something to the substance of the debate (insofar as this thread might be styled a debate at all)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 May 12 - 07:32 PM Stringsinger "I've said it before and I will probably have to say it again, "You can't defeat creatoinism with bad science."" But you can defeat it with the words of Richard Leakey who is a renowned scientist. Indeed, but Richard Leakey doen't spout bad science as far as I have heard. Creationism doesn't qualify as any kind of science and so is self defeating. True. If this information has been around as has been alluded to and ignored, it says volumes about the specious arguments of Creationism. It hasn't been ignored. It is now pretty much mainstream having fought it out for a few years with the multiregional hypothesis. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve is a good place to start. Where is the bad science here? If Steve Shaw and I agree (in our own different ways. I said "It is not a peer reviewed science journal.", he said "The article is crap") that the article is not really up to snuff, I think it is worth considering that it should be read with caution. A couple of quotes - obliterating any literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a new evidence-based creed. The Garden of Eden is not science. Neither evolution nor genetics is a creed. Spencer Wells (pictured below). With his blond hair, blue eyes and Nebraska roots, he is the ideal high priest to explain to white Americans that they are blacks gone curdy. I will not speculate on what the man thinks he is saying here. Evolution is not a religion, regardless of how many times that lie is repeated. Certainly not, which is why I get rather annoyed with people who ought to know better talking as if it is. It is a science in transition that is being used to find new evidence and breakthroughs in the scientific understanding of mankind as a species. Not just mankind, but all life on Earth. All science is transitional; that's why "Evolution is true" just won't do. There may not be total unanimity about scientific studies, that's not the role of science, but to ignore it entirely as the Creationists have done merits no consideration on their part as having a valid argument. Couldn't agree more. I quote the whole of this post in order to illustrate that, here, we have a man who posts for the sake of posting and who actually has nothing to say. If you don't believe me, do scrutinise it all again. There is not a single point of any substance herein, yet he employs the post as a vehicle to have another pot at the point I made many moons ago that evolution is true (which it is). He compounds the error by making the trite and nonsensical statement that "all science is transitional." Meaningless or what! It actually sounds a bit like, er, a creed to me! So is evolution true? Let's break this down (for the umpteenth time, for the sake of the impenetrables hereabouts). Does evolution happen? Yes or no? Are you sure it happens? (I am!) If you're sure it happens, is it not OK to say that it's true that evolution happens? If so, then why can't I economise on words and say that evoution is true? Did I ever say, anywhere, that the science of evolution was thoroughly resolved? Why no, I didn't! Didn't I say that the evidence for evolution, in its general thrust, is incontrovertible? Do you disagree with that? Do you think that evolutionary theory will, in its entirety, ever have to be abandoned? If yes, what will it take? Jehovah arriving in a chariot of fire might just about do it for me! Does this mean my mind is fixed? Why no, not at all! Because, Snail and your new camp-follower, I only said "in its general thrust!" I did not say that the science of evolution is settled. In fact, I've said more explicitly and more often than you have that the opposite is the case. Now no arsing about here, less still another unfocused tirade about "abuse" or creeds or playing into the hands of self-evident creationist idiots or lack of scientific process or that I'm self-proclaimed. I either want answers to the questions I've just asked, or else I want you to go and waste someone else's time. And as for "If Steve Shaw and I agree..." Heheh, don't flatter yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 May 12 - 07:34 PM Damn, I forgot it would all come out in italics. So scrutinise the original! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 05:08 AM 'Do you suppose that Shakespeare wrote for a specific audience, Bach, Beethoven? Did Michaelangelo sculpt for a specific audience?' Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins. If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience, namely those people who had a grounding in and knowledge of natural science (as it was known). That is evident in the assumptions that he makes in his writing of specialist understanding on the part of his readership. With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena. I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 05:55 AM Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins. So if Prince Galitzin commissioned Beethoven to write him some string quartets, he wrote them for the "specific audience" of Prince Galitzin, huh? Gosh, you do write some waffle. If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience... Then he failed abysmally. With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena.,/i> This is just more empty gibberish. Snail is a petty irritant, and referring me back to our "exchanges" in such an unspecific manner is just lazy. Either dig up some hard evidence from said exchanges or give up the potty for the next baby. I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot. Feel free. What's a "science witness", by the way? And it's "principle." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 05:56 AM My italicisation skills failed me again. Tsk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 31 May 12 - 08:46 AM OK, for all the "religionists," who in this particular thread would be referred to as "Christianists" please address the following questions: You routinely point to "the Bible" as *the* explanation for everything. Which version of "the Bible" is the "correct" one? How do we know? "The Bible"--whichever one--was only written down something like 200 years after the alleged birth of someone called "Jesus Christ." Knowing what we do about "the folk process"--um, you DO go above the line from time to time, don't you?--how do we *know* that everything in it was faithfully (faithfully!) relayed to each successive generation without any changes? If "the Bible" is the correct explanation for everything we "know," then why are there so many people who "believe" that some other book, or set of explanations, or philosophy is the "right" one? Are they all "wrong?" If so, are "we" committed to perpetually trying to "convert" them? Must we kill them? Make laws that deny them their religious practices? If we are accepting a "Biblical" definition of something called "marriage," then which of the 8 or more "definitions" that are in "the Bible" should we accept? Why should we accept that one? For starters. I don't really expect anything remotely resembling a rational answer to any of these questions, given what has preceded this post. But at least perhaps the "non-christianists" can pose some of these questions to see the "Christianinsts" run around in rhetorical circles and at least provide some amusement. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 10:10 AM From where I am standing Steve, there is little to choose between you and Pete, you are just defending different sand castles. You are quite right, it should have been 'principle', unlike you I recognise that I am capable of error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 May 12 - 10:14 AM ""Unless you are talking past him to others reading this who may be interested in the discussion and open. Yeah, that could be it."" Indeed it is Saul! I am, to the best of my meagre ability, attempting to ensure that no chance visitor will happen upon any of these nonsensical ideas unchallenged, and thereby believe that there is anything of science in Young Earth Creationism. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 31 May 12 - 10:34 AM The correct name of Darwin's work, which survived only the first edition, would suggest strongly that it was indeed aimed at a very specific audience. "ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY NATURAL SELECTION" is a title which is specific to a learned treatise, aimed toward the attention of one's scientific peers. The path of later publication as "The Origin of Species" may be much more general than that, but the writer's intention is very obviously specific. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 10:39 AM OK Saul, I read the Douai Version of the Bible and I recognise that it may be impossible to identify a definitive text. I focus on the New Testament because that gives me plenty of food for thought about how I should live my life, how others live theirs is none of my business. As far as 'go then and teach all nations' is concerned that can only be done by living according to one's moral precepts and leaving others to judge whether that way of living is worth emulating. Anyone who believes they have a right to kill those of other faiths or deny them their religious practices is, I believe, beyond evil. I do not point to the Bible as the explanation for everything, nor do I subscribe to the fundamentalist view that everything in the Bible is literally true, it demonstrably is not. The Bible is not the correct explanation of everything we know. For me, the first four books of the New Testament present challenges to how I live my life and provide a framework for a morality which I find logical and consistent. Others choose to look elsewhere and that is no one's business but theirs. Please note, I said 'I find....' I am not asking anyone else to buy into it. I think that perceptions of marriage have changed over time. As far as I am concerned marriage is a means whereby two people declare their love and fidelity publicly and thereby achieve a legal recognition of their relationship. If a couple wish to add a religious element to that, as my wife and I chose to do, that is entirely their affair. Where does the term 'christianists' come from? Does anyone talk about muslimists, or sihkists, hinduists, or jewists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 31 May 12 - 10:47 AM "From where I am standing Steve, there is little to choose between you and Pete, ... " What uncritical, unthinking, arrogant nonsense! What the **** are you standing on, 'BrendanB'! For months now Steve, and a few others, have been trying to defend the scientific Theory of Evolution against fundamentalist, religiously inspired claptrap. Meanwhile a few nitpickers have been buzzing around like mosquitoes (of course, I know that in one particular case I'm mixing my metaphors!). Religious fundamentalism is a potential threat to all of us. The views of people like pete, and the woman formerly known as Iona, must be challenged whenever possible! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 31 May 12 - 11:38 AM Just as a matter of passing interest, Shimrod, what's your position on falsifiability? This may help - Falsifiability Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. Take your time. I'm off making merry music and avoiding the Jubilee for a few days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: BrendanB Date: 31 May 12 - 01:15 PM Shimrod, I am not referring to the position he claims to defend but the way in which he does it. Others have demonstrated time and again that Pete's position is intellectually and rationally untenable by deploying their knowledge and debating skills. Pete's only response is to deliberately misinterpret or ignore what he cannot answer and I cannot believe that his 'arguments' would convince anyone. Steve, with his puerile abuse and obfuscatory tactics similar to Pete's does his cause no good at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 31 May 12 - 03:51 PM Yes, Snail, I'm aware of Prof. Karl Heinz Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science - but I certainly couldn't have quoted that passage by heart (if I'm honest I probably haven't fully understood it, nor thought through all of its implications; I wonder how many practising scientists have?). Mind you I can live with: " ... scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings." When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?) Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one. It seems to me that obsessing about the philosophy of science (are there alternatives to Popper's conclusions by the way?), in this particular context serves only to give succour to the enemy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 04:06 PM For me, the first four books of the New Testament present challenges to how I live my life and provide a framework for a morality which I find logical and consistent. Then off your knees and away with the crutches. Then ask yourself how you reconcile this uncritical hogwash with your judgemental attitude to what you allege is my "lack of understanding of the scientific process." Better still, tell all of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 04:10 PM Steve, with his puerile abuse and obfuscatory tactics similar to Pete's does his cause no good at all. And what "cause" might that be? Obfuscatory I am certainly not. You get what I think from the hip, no muckin' about. As for abuse, I am clearly the most heavily-abused person on this thread, but I'm still smiling. Look - face - am I bothered? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 May 12 - 07:55 PM Just as a matter of passing interest, Shimrod, what's your position on falsifiability? This may help - Falsifiability Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. If I thought for one minute that Snail understood a word of this, I'd take him up on it. As ever, he chooses to quote long passages representing someone else's thinking, yet offers very little of his own, not even in support of his quotes. The first paragraph is utterly risible, representing everything that science is not about: failure to communicate ideas clearly (a load of pretentious old bollocks would be putting it less kindly yet more accurately). If ever I saw obfuscation personified, Brendan old chap, that paragraph is it. Uncritical quoting of such drivel brings debate into disrepute, but I doubt whether Snail cares. Of course, as with any crock of shite, there are words of wisdom buried therein, mostly in the second paragraph, but don't, whatever you do, even begin to think of putting it forward for the Nobel Prize for Clear Talk. I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Jun 12 - 03:39 PM I would be what Bart Erhman would call a "mythicist" meaning that I think that from what little concrete evidence there is for the existence of a corporal Jesus, I have to conclude that he didn't exist as a person. Ehrman claims that "mythicists" base their position on a reactionary distaste for religion. I'm not clear that this is true in my case. I think religion is irrelevant and in some instances harmful. I have many religious friends and though the topic never comes up, mainly because they intuitively know where I stand, I will not challenge them unless they inflict their beliefs on me. Here's where Creationism goes wrong. By attempting to replace honest science with this dogma, they are doing harm regardless of their status as being a "nice person". Attacking science with this dubious nonsense, using a bible as a basis for their conclusions, placing themselves as Creationists as "holier than thou" apostles, and insisting on the "rightness" of their position, going beyond the bounds of personal "faith", they are warriors for insanity and since this thread seems to be predicated on the defense of this idiocy, I have to conclude that this is not a discussion but a posted diatribe on the part of a "believer". Operative empiricism has no place in this discussion. Fortunately, science rejects the absolute constructs that inform religious dogma and is elusively changing day by day rather than being a dead set of ideologies that will crystalize into rigid thinking and in the process, destroy rational thought even by possibly changing the brain cells. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:28 PM brendan-criticism of my grammer was dropped long before you joined in and i wont worry if you dont like it.easy remedy;-dont read wot i sez! presumably you dont even accept the gospels, as Jesus referenced genesis. not much to add seeing all the posters are either arguing with each other or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution. if there are any impartial readers they can draw their own conclusions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:43 PM I am. And I have. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:18 PM " ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution." As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)! The implication being, of course, that spouting a load of nonsense about "creation", because it appears to be described in an old book of dubious provenance and is assumed to be the literal truth rather than some sort of muddled metaphor, is a 'good' thing to do! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Paul Burke Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:07 PM criticism of my grammer was dropped long before you joined in Not by me it wasn't sunshine. Being challenged in literacy is one thing. Crowing about it is another. You are ignorant, deliberately ignorant, and aggressively ignorant; about grammar, punctuation, and manners; about science; and about religion. You are not proud of not trying to be better. Some say this is the sin against the Holy Ghost- deliberate and proud benightendness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:16 PM Well said, Paul. You are well sussed, pete. You're not the pleasant, reasonable, slightly off-beam duffer you like to pretend you are, are you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: TheSnail Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:13 PM It would probably be kinder to let this thread quietly die but... Shimrod When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?) Steve Shaw I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath. It's quite simple really. In order to be considered valid science, a theory must be testable. It must be possible to be able to think of a test that could prove the theory wrong i.e. it must be falsifiable. The classic example is "All swans are white.", a perfectly reasonable assumption by someone in the Northern Hemisphere up to a few hundred years ago. This is a perfectly respectable scientific statement because it is easy to think of a way of disproving it; find a swan that isn't white. The fact that travel broadens the mind and Europeans did discover that not all swans are white is not really the point, it is simply that the test was conceivable. I have had this sort of thing drummed into me throughout my scientific education and I'm rather surprised that the two of you seem to find it such a mystery. As far as I am concerned, it is not, as Steve would have it, "in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies" but central to the scientific method. For further reading, this Falsifiability looks quite good. The Wikipedia page it refers to is flawed but has its heart in the right place. Shimrod Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one. Fair enough, but I'm a little unclear as to what you are going to challenge creationism with if you consider the philosophy of science to be a bit of a side issue. Steve Shaw seems to think that personal abuse, sarcasm and scorn are sufficient. This particular strand of thought began when TIA said "what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.", a statement that Steve Shaw describes as "woolly". What, may I ask, sets science apart from religion as far as you are concerned? (Either of you.) " ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution." As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)! Previously from Shimrod 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. Well, I suppose we're all allowed to change our minds. Unfortunately, if you leave aside the "Popperian objections", (not mine) then youi invalidate the scientific evidence in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education trial of 1982 (ref. here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html in case you missed it.) allowing the creationists to win. Is that what you want? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 08 Jun 12 - 03:53 AM This just in.. The bible is truth because it was written 2,000 years ago. The latest Daily M*il is bollocks because it was written 2,000 seconds ago. I was chatting over the weekend with a close friend who happens to be a "smile too much" born again Christian. Their church is into rock & roll modern hymns, bible class on a Wednesday night, child indoctrination on a Thursday etc. (I went to a christening there once. I thought the rumbling sound was the bass turned up too high. Turns out it was Charles Wesley spinning in his grave.) I broached the subject of creationism. He said it was tosh, stupid and mocks faith. You see, the diagnosis is clear. The severity is relative. The delusion is sneaky enough to be rational either side of your own superstition. Fascinating. |
|
Subject: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:46 AM Simple question, on point, easily debated. Please end the bickering on the other thread I started about the cartoon and discuss this like the gentlemen I know you all can be. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old? From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:02 AM If the year indicated is the standard solar year, the answer is NO. If the days counted to add up the age include the "days" in the old testament that actually translates as closer to "a period of time", and those "days" are of variable length, up to billions of solar years, then the answer is One might make an argument that it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:07 AM Why? You already know who thinks it is and why. We all know that it is put at 14 and a bit billion by Science. I know we are running out of BS threads, but this one is a complete waste of whatever it is a thread uses up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old? From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM day (dā) n. 1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset. 2. a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis. b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation. 3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided. 4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days. 5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest. 6. a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long. b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over. year (yɪər) n. 1. a period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into 12 calendar months, now reckoned as beginning Jan. 1 and ending Dec. 31 (calendar year). Compare common year, leap year. 2. a period of the same length in other calendars. 3. a. a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point: We expect to finish in a year. b. fiscal year. 4. Astron. a. Also called lunar year. a division of time equal to 12 lunar months. b. Also called solar year. a division of time equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, representing the interval between one vernal equinox and the next. c. Also called sidereal year. a division of time equal to the solar year plus 20 minutes, the time it takes the earth to complete one revolution around the sun. 5. the time in which any planet completes a revolution around the sun. 6. a full round of the seasons. 7. a period out of every 12 months devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like: the academic year. 8. years, a. age: a person of her years. b. old age: a man of years. c. time; period: the years of hardship. d. an unusually or markedly long time: We haven't spoken in years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old? From: Mr Red Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM more to the point how old is the Earth in dynasaur years? and is carbon dating just a website for Coal Miners? The answer to the OP is NO - you can't have a sensible debate about it. Unless you preclude the religious dimension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old? From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:14 AM dynasaur? I am familiar with dinosaur and dynasoar |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:01 AM "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' 'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?' 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.' 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone. 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Musket Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:40 AM Bruce. Stick to the sonnets eh? Jack. I'm disgusted! I had the final word on that thread, and he who speaks last speaks the truth.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM I don't think it's Jacks fault, Musket. He started (yet) another thread and I think it has just been merged with this one. So you will always have the last word on the original :-) Mind you, I am not sure it is Monsieur Matelot at all. Didn't he say goodbye on another thread? No one would be daft enough to storm off in a huff and come back before the door had slammed would they? :-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM >>>From: saulgoldie - PM Date: 01 May 12 - 10:50 AM Cause the old thread is BIG and takes a while to load. OK, have it at, again, still. Saul <<< I wonder at the thought process that tacks a new thread with a different starting topic onto the above? I guess 300 is not too big. I wonder what is? A thousand maybe? Like that bloody "Darwin's witness thread?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:24 PM Over and over and over and over and over again and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and a thousand times more times more and 111 x 10 to the sixth power again and again ............................................................... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/thanks-anti-vaxxers-you-just-brought-back-measles-in-nyc.html |
