 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Mar 14 - 05:21 AM I can't see, tho, that the fact that many churches these days have acquired social consciences makes the basic postulations on which their entire existence is predicated any the less self-evidently absurd. Or, if that is expressing it a tad too strongly for some, any the less evidentially unlikely by a factor of googol to the power of googol to pretty well ∞. However you conceptualise this "God" entity of yours, do you really think your concept have any existential referent in actuality? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:46 AM That is how CofE and Methodist services are in UK too Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:17 AM Yeah, it's a whole different story, Musket. If you sit in a pew in a typical US Catholic church (or in most of the "mainline" denominations), the sin addressed is likely to be society's failure to care for the homeless and the immigrant. It is highly unlikely that you will hear condemnation of homosexuality or other sexual conduct from the pulpit of a typical U.S. Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Congregationalist, or (West Coast) Methodist church. We had a bishop speak in our parish this week, and I think he made a number of our parishioners quite nervous when he started talking about "distribution of wealth" and the scandal of the "one percent" owning so much while others own so little. Catholic bishops in the U.S. say a lot about poverty and immigration, and not much about sexual morals. Unfortunately, they turned a blind eye to the sexual misconduct of priests, and that was a terrible scandal. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:47 AM I still have no real image in my head of the vast majority of people in pews listening to the "truth" of being sinners and needing unswerving adherence to God etc and then walking out each and every week comfortable in the knowledge that it doesn't actually apply to them as they are too sophisticated for that sort of thing. No problem with boutique religion by the way. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't start bringing your weekly metaphor to the party on the basis it is the same god pete and his mates talk about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:36 AM Darn. My message didn't take. Hope this one does. Charismatic Catholics are a group unto themselves. I wouldn't call them "progressive" - they share aspects of both "progressive" and "conservative" Catholicism. The distinctive thing about Charismatic Catholics, is their group prayer sessions. Their style of prayer seems to work for them, but not for me. I tend to think silence is the best form of prayer. I study the stories and writings of the mystics, and try to adapt their way of living to my life. It's hard to come up with a "one size fits all" description of Catholic. With a billion members, you're going to find a wide spectrum. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:00 AM Joe: "I don't think it applies to more progressive Christians." Is that sorta like Charismatic Catholics? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 14 - 01:40 AM Jack Blandiver says (30 Mar 14 - 05:36 AM): Hmmmm. Progressive Christianity sounds like an oxymoron to my ears, at least as far as the innumerable stripes of Christianity as manifest these last 2,000 years and still embodied in the monolithic absolutism of the Roman Catholic Church, and others... We're all pretty clear on what that sort of Christianity is all about, but the 'progressive' prefix makes it all kinda 'lite' somehow, and maybe a bit of an insult to all the countless thousands who've been ruthlessly persecuted for thinking outside the box of your church down the years - yeah! Well, Jack, throughout history, religions have had some people who approach religion as doctrine, authority, and rules. Perhaps "conservative" is not an accurate term for them, but it's the term that's used nowadays. And at the same time, they have those who approach religion in a benign, philosophical, and altruistic manner - tending to emphasize social justice issues, and not overly concerned with sexual morality. Perhaps "progressive" is not an accurate term for them, but it's the term that's used nowadays. And yet there others who take the part of sheep, and follow the prevailing winds. I would venture to say that all institutions function more-or-less the same way - an interesting mix of good, bad, and indifferent forces. Rarely will we find any organized group of human beings that is uniformly good or uniformly evil. They're all a mix - and the balance of the mix is constantly changing. -Joe- Late Tuesday Night: Well, I had no Internet connection today, so I wrote this offline and now I see the thread is closed. Since I worked hard on it, I'm going to post it to an existing message of mine. I guess I get drawn into posting in these threads when I see something that just seems unfair, especially when the preponderance of the discussion consists of putting down what others hold sacred. I really don't want to defend what I believe. Defending my beliefs puts me in a position where I don't want to be, because I don't pretend to have to have possession of the Truth. My faith life is a life of exploration, pondering the questions and mysteries of life. I believe the Truth lies not in one answer, but in a delicate balance of many answers and many perspectives. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Pete and for many other born-again Christians. They put their hearts into what they believe, and it makes a difference in their lives. Their dedication and their integrity is certainly admirable and inspiring. I have known conservative Jews and Muslims with this same dedication and integrity. I have also learned a great deal from atheists who look at life through a non-theistic perspective. They often come up with honest, profound answers that don't rely on platitudes or preconceptions. Their insights are often invaluable to me. I suppose I'm more eclectic, fitting best into what are referred to as "mainline" Christians. I try to study every position I can come across, and learn from them all. Some may call me a "Cafeteria Catholic" because I adhere to no one ideology, but I prefer to see the truth wherever I find it - and most often, the answer is "both," or all of the above. To my mind, my religious beliefs and traditions need satisfy only one person - me. I can't understand why people seem to think they have the right to tell me what a horrible person I am for believing this or not believing that. Or, for that matter, condemning me or my beliefs for what some other Catholic did. I acknowledge the Inquisition. I acknowledge the child molestation scandal. I didn't do it, and I didn't support it. I went to a convention of 40,000 Catholics two weeks a ago, a gathering sponsored by the Archbishop of Los Angeles with the official blessing of Pope Francis. There were ultra-Catholics outside with newspapers and posters telling us what heretics we were. There were also born-again street preachers on the scene, telling us what sinners we were for being Catholics. We somehow didn't suit their particular ideology, so somehow we were terrible persons - despite the fact that we were Christians gathered to worship God. Now, there were 40,000 of us and maybe 15 protesters, so I guess we weren't all THAT bad. I know that for some people the main point of their religion is pointing out how horrible other people are for one thing or another, mostly for their beliefs or their sexual conduct. I feel bound to speak up when people do injustice or injury to others, but I don't see the private conduct of others is any of my business. The one thing I can't stomach, is those people who live to tear others down. Very often, they seem to have no thinking of their own - they only seek to destroy the thinking of others. There's a lot of that going on here at Mudcat. It's disheartening, and it serves to prevent a civil and constructive exchange of ideas. The bullies and naysayers beat everybody into defensive positions, and then very little good can happen. If Messrs. Blandiver and Musket and Shaw think I have insulted them by criticizing their endless attacks, so be it. I don't wish to insult anyone, but I don't think it's right to attack nonaggressive people for what they hold sacred. If another one of these threads comes up, I'll paste this message there. I worked hard on it, and it's what I believe. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Rob Naylor Date: 30 Mar 14 - 07:20 PM Sciencegeek: You stopped reading too soon. my quote is "Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity." Reality is not affected by belief or disbelief... it is what it is. Otherwise the earth would be flat for some and round for the rest of us. I don't think so. Absolutely! It's always interesting asking Post-Modernists who state that "western science" is just a belief system like any other and no more absolutely valid than any other world-view, to follow that precept to its logical conclusion by doing something (anything) that goes against the tenets of established theory. I've never yet had one take me up on the request. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 30 Mar 14 - 07:25 AM PS - by folklore I mean the accumulated feral secretions of all humanity not just the so-called folk. Folklore is the spontaneous cultural rampancy that comprises a goodly proportion of the living waters in which we swim. I don't mean such unnatural contrivances as Morris Dancing and Jacks-in-the-Green, but I do mean everyday religious observance, ritual and customary usage, most of which is of no interest to folkies because it is not proper folklore. Getting back to Richard's point, proletarian musical experience in the UK is seen as not being folk because it no longer includes Child Ballads or Broadsides or derivations thereof* rather pretty much everything but. * We had Steve Roud on here a while back saying Shoals of Herring was now a proper Traditional Folk Song with its very own Roud Number because it had been collected from a bona-fide Traditional Singer. Naturally I find this utterly absurd and contrary to the known laws of the cultural universe in which there exist no bona-fide anything, but there you go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 30 Mar 14 - 06:34 AM So why condemn those who choose to follow a belief system that atheists do not understand? It's the belief system that gets condemned, not those who believe in it. We leave the believers to do the condemning, then we condemn them for their condemnation, not their beliefs, which are are wholly & utterly irrelevant to the misery they espouse. I condemn you for your homophobia, not whatever bollocks you might use to justify it - though I condemn that too of course, but on a more philosophical level. Atheists are atheist not because they don't understand the belief systems, rather because they understand them too well, i.e. in the objective sense of seeing them as Belief Systems in the first place, rather than as being literal truths. Part of Human Evolution is the process of coming to knowing both Ourselves and the Cosmos of which we are eternally a part. In the face of such Knowledge, mere Belief falls away into the same realms of cultural archaeology as superstition, mythology and folklore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: akenaton Date: 30 Mar 14 - 06:03 AM M of H. "Actually it's pretty clear that everything we find out increases the amount of stuff we realise we haven't found out. Our lack if knowledge increases the more we know." My view exactly. So why should we condemn those who choose to follow a belief system that atheists do not understand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:36 AM Joe : I don't think it applies to more progressive Christians. Hmmmm. Progressive Christianity sounds like an oxymoron to my ears, at least as far as the innumerable stripes of Christianity as manifest these last 2,000 years and still embodied in the monolithic absolutism of the Roman Catholic Church, and others... We're all pretty clear on what that sort of Christianity is all about, but the 'progressive' prefix makes it all kinda 'lite' somehow, and maybe a bit of an insult to all the countless thousands who've been ruthlessly persecuted for thinking outside the box of your church down the years - yeah! Even unto this very day! Still, a little bit of timely Re-branding never did anyone any harm, did it? Hey - why not have a KKK that no longer persecutes Black people? Or a Nazism that embraces Judaisim? Or why bother calling yourself Christian at all if you don't actually believe in any of it? I'm reminded of one high-up UK church type who said, in all seriousness: 'Of course Jesus might not have existed, but I'm sure if he did, he would have been a really nice man.' There was one vicar who ruined my elderly neighbor's Christmas with his message that there was no virgin birth, much less a nativity. Quite possibly there was no God also... Don't get me wrong here, I have a VERY selective approach to Christianity myself - I love the more humane teachings of Christ Storyteller, and take a very keen interest in the theology with respect of its archaeology, history, architecture, music and folklore, but I would never call myself a Christian, though I occasionally refer to myself as a Jesuist and a Neo-Gnostic Marxist. * Richard : Statistics demonstrate other wise - folk music has manifested in ways that differ from classical, pop, etc. Statistics demonstrate nothing. The 1954 Definition accounts for ALL musical idioms in terms of human creativity, community and tradition & tell us nothing that isn't applicable to ANY other music - from Raga to Rap, from Border Balladry to Be-Bop. Folk exists ONLY as a multiplicity of idioms that have been designated as such by The Faithful and artificially selected & cultivated on their idiomatic / aesthetic / National merits. The very idea that Folk is somehow different is patronising paternalistic bullshit that does a serious injustice to the creative idiosyncratic genius & improvisatory virtuosity of the working class men & women who made it. Folk is a matter of fundamental faith backed up with a pseudo science that makes it the cultural equivalent of Creationism. We all know and love the same songs, just we differ on how those songs came into being. I say they were composed & passed on within an idiomatic fluid oral tradition of free-styling that accounts for the myriad so-called 'variants' because in their Natural Habitat these songs were living things that came out different every time. As all music does to a greater or lesser extent, because that's how it EVOLVES. We are all human beings. All human beings make & experience music, just as all human beings live, breathe, eat, shit, fuck and die. Unless there is a particular form of Folk Fucking that is inherently different from all others... Folk music is ONLY different because the Upper Class Folk Faithful Fundamentalists WANT it to be different, not in terms of its idiomatic uniqueness, but because they couldn't hack the idea of the uneducated peasantry being able to create great art as individuals, because that would challenge the rancid cultural apartheid on which their privileges are built. Anyhoo : talking about Upper Class Folk Fundamentalist Faith, I dug this up a few months ago which I thought you might like: Cecil Sharp's Folksong Epiphany |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:11 PM "The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe " Actually it's pretty clear that everything we find out increases the amount of stuff we realise we haven't found out. Our lack if knowledge increases the more we know. That's me being pedantic, rather than God-of-the-gaps stuff. So now the thread isn't just about Religion and God, but also about What is Folk. Can't be long until Palestinian Liberation and Norther Ireland make an appearance... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: michaelr Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:35 PM Reality is not affected by belief or disbelief... it is what it is. Otherwise the earth would be flat for some and round for the rest of us. That really is all that needs to be understood about the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:57 PM You stopped reading too soon. my quote is "Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity." No worries. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Your clarification is welcome. We rational chaps can clear things up. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:35 PM The Seven Bridges of Königsberg demonstrates that this problem has no solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:08 PM Usual rubbish, Sweeney. You assert that there is no difference between folk and other music. Statistics demonstrate other wise - folk music has manifested in ways that differ from classical, pop, etc. But the difference lies not inform because otherwise a song could be composed in a form that would make it "folk" when obviously it is not. Also, the concept is not monocultural and if the distinction lay in form that would be impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:51 PM "beetles probably on the ark but not included in the nostril breathing life as qualified in the text. speciation, yes all the details....I don't know." How many beetles (and flies and ants and grasshoppers and butterflies/moths and ... etc., etc., etc.), pete? And what the f***k have f***ing NOSTRILS got to do with anything??? Speciation NO - according to you in earlier posts - which is it, pete, yes or no? Or is it only YES when it suits you? 'All the details you don't know'!!! Understatement of the f***ing century!!! I refer you to my post earlier today: "But I think there's a better explanation. I think that your red-neck, creationist buddies, whose websites you parrot, don't know anything about the real world around them and hadn't even thought about invertebrates (because, of course, they're too 'trivial' for a 'puffed-up', born-again fundamentalist to even think about). As a result, when put on the spot, and having no 'web-guru' to refer to, you just made stuff up ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: sciencegeek Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:07 PM You stopped reading too soon. my quote is "Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity." Reality is not affected by belief or disbelief... it is what it is. Otherwise the earth would be flat for some and round for the rest of us. I don't think so. As long as we all play by the same rules... objective scientific method, I'm willing to say live & let live... mess around with the rules and the gloves come off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Greg F. Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM the only biblical creationist here tackling a lot of skeptics Actually, Pete, YOU'RE the skeptic - skeptical of fact and reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Rob Naylor Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:53 PM Pete, I didn't for a minute expect that you'd go back and look. It's how you always respond to comments of "I refer the honourable Member for Foot's Cray to my previous answer" comments, so nothing unexpected there. And it's the basic reasoning that you also fail miserably on, not just the "tech science"! However, I would expect you, if you have an ounce of decency, to at least post the lyrics of your Mungo Man song, as requested. You asked me what were the misrepresentations and incorrect items in your song. I picked up on a number of points during your performance of the song, but for you to expect me to remember it in sufficient detail to critique its accuracy, after hearing it once, several months ago, is a bit, well, unchristian, IMO. You seem to be trying to cop-out by referring me to the Tas Walker article that you used as the basis for your song. Not good enough. What are you afraid of? Man up and post the lyrics! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:48 PM Jack Blandiver says:
That's probably true for the most part with regards to born-again Christians, Jack. I don't think it applies to more progressive Christians. I know somebody cautioned me that this thread is about "creationists" and not about those "other" Christians - but most of the numerous blanket statements being made in this thread are addressed to "Christians." -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM full marks , rob, for a clever back at yer ! however, I am not about to trawl over hundreds of posts just to see if there were any unanswered.......i'll accept that there probably are. bearing in mind that I am the only biblical creationist here tackling a lot of skeptics , I am bound to miss something, and was admittedly unequal to some challenges. but I don't see that as prohibiting a pov based on what is not tech science but basic reasoning. as to mungo man,- it is a long song as far as words are concerned. I wrote it from an article called the dating game by tas walker. it detailed the various conflicting dates from different methods and the disagreement between the lake mungo discoverers. my conclusion based on that history being that the "dating game" is "so uncertain, not as sure as some suggest" it does not say that, therefore the bible timeline is reliable....though of course, I believe it is. shimrod,- quick clarification- beetles probably on the ark but not included in the nostril breathing life as qualified in the text. speciation, yes all the details....I don't know. evidence for microbe to man evolution....no. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:34 PM Maybe there's something in the Mudcat small print underwriting Pope Joe's infallibility in such matters? And that he alone can insult without getting deleted... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Musket Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM You're lucky. He sent me an email, which I believe is illegal unless he was addressing my account. In both his country and mine. Something to pad out tonight's confession if nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:07 PM Any explanation of "folk" that does not distinguish it from art or composed music is absurd, for then the boundary is merely a matter of taste Getting back to the nature of the thread, all aspects of human culture share a common root from which they've evolved into a multiplicity of idioms. We might say language is different to music, although many notable scholars & linguists will point out the similarities not just the connections between one language and other, but between language on the whole and music on the whole, the structures of which - from basic syntax to sonata form to the morphology of the Indo-European folktale - are, somehow, biologically determined by the brain that made them. Morphologically there's a lot of similarities between humans and other mammals - be they giraffes or bats - that are well known and demonstrable and are part / parcel of our understanding of evolutionary process. We learn in school that we have the same number of neck bones as a giraffe and that a bat's wing is essentially the same as our hand because we share a common evolutionary ancestor. Music arises at some point 50,000 years ago. As with language and other cultural attributes it evolves - it accumulates and diversifies into a multiplicity of different possibilities, but, as with life, always with more similarities than differences. The idioms we think of as Folk Music - and it is idiomatic, nothing to do with the truly absurdist and patronising precepts of the 1954 Definition - are no different to any other music - Popular, Art, or whatever. Human beings create idiomatic music within idiomatic idioms driven by cultural commonality and the needs of the individual who is always part of a community. It is that which defines all human culture, and all music, bar none, be it Border Balladry, Hip Hop, Baroque concertos or the furthest reaches of experimentalism - all is changing, evolving and born from what went before it. All is fluid, flux and ever changing tradition because that is the law of the cosmos. Amen to that! * and if she did, how would she pronounce it? Sib You Yarf! of course. That final B is silent... * I do hope all this horse play doesn't result in deletions; the worst ire I ever invoked from Pope Joe was when, back in November 2009. I defended MtheGM's right to call me a cunt. I wasn't excommunicated as such but I received a PM to tell me how much I disgusted him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:26 PM ... and if she did, how would she pronounce it? Sibyuyahɘfɘb? I think not! Whereas "PYG" made a perfectly pronounceable acronym. Oink! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM As long as she doesn't take it upon herself to execute the deed in question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 12:01 PM "Not that an old bourgeois Tory like yourself gives a toss, huh?" Ah, you've got that bit right at least. ,.., "my wife says, SYBUYAHFB*!" Bet she doesn't really! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM Oh dear. Any explanation of "folk" that does not distinguish it from art or composed music is absurd, for then the boundary is merely a matter of taste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM Not a game MtheGM - just a perspective gained from 40 years of involvement with so-called Traditional Music. Folk is a religious construct based on a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the music & culture one social class by another. Not that an old bourgeois Tory like yourself gives a toss, huh? As my wife says, SYBUYAHFB*! Sean * = Stuff Your Banjo Up Your ɷ-hole, Folk Boy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:46 AM Oh, yay, Sean. I should have remembered that any mention of the F [for folk] word brings out the latent ɷ-hole in you. Do you really think I'm going to read all that ole banjo again! Still, keeps you harmlessly & happily occupied, I spoge. As my late wife used to say, PYG!* ~M~ * = play your games |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a deity. Maybe not. But you simply can't include a deity within the theory of evolution. A deity is a driving force, a guiding hand, an instigator, a formulator of goals. Evolution theory can't embrace any of these concepts (if it did, the theory is trashed). To say that God has a hand in evolution is to completely misunderstand evolutionary theory, which is entirely predicated on the explanation of a process without goals and replete with dead ends, extinctions and useless mutations (none of which represent "attempts"). Now we have lots of compelling evidence for evolution but we have none for God. So I know which camp I'm staying in. Absolutely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 14 - 10:10 AM Notice his use of the word "absolute," and then explain to me the difference between his "absolute" beliefs, and the "absolute" beliefs of the born-again believers. There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty. Going from Joe's recent track record I can hardly say I was surprised to see this egregious misrepresentation. Sailor Boy has clearly been giving him lessons. However, enough has been said by several thoughtful contributors since I hit the sack last night for me to let it go. I do like this, however: Pure glorious funk in the best sense of the word. Life is splendid. And all the things the religious people think of as God - even in his more 'subtle' forms - are INTEGRAL to everything and every single one of us, bar none, only we might have different names for it. The world and the universe out there are so lovely and so normal. So ordinary. So lovely, joyous, normal and ordinary that the concept of adding God simply diminishes everything. We've got to get ourselves back into the garden because the garden is lovely, and doesn't need fairies at the bottom of it to make it lovelier. Thanks, Douglas! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:26 AM There is simply no rational need for the inclusion of a deity. I agree with this statement, but feel compelled to add a qualifier. Evolution or any other scientific study is not enhanced nor diminished by the inclusion or exclusion of a diety... anymore than is a mathematical equation or arithmatic exercise. That said, people of faith have a need to view things through their faith... those of no faith lack that need and so "exclude" faith from the deal. As long as it "makes no nevermind", inclusion fails Occam's Razor but does no harm either. And it does meet an emotional need in humans. BUT... when the emotional needs of people interfere with the scientific exploration of the world around us, then I am forces to say "stick to your own playground & leave us alone to play in ours". A parting thought... I suspect that in a "reality" where a book with all the answers were to suddenly appear... those of faith would cherish it and repeat sections of it to enhance the experience... and then there would be those like me who would take it and examine it and then test each answer to see if it holds true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:32 AM "However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not." The conflict, as far as I can see, is in taking a wholly evidence based system and introducing into it, an intrinsically untestable item, for which there is no evidence and for which there can never BE any evidence. Add to that the fact that your own statement ("The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not."), leads to the corollary that the process is the same, whether there IS a God, or not! Since the inclusion of a God adds no evidence, adding God to the system improves its validity not one jot. Removing God diminishes its validity not one jot. There is simply no rational need for the inclusion of a deity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Stu Date: 28 Mar 14 - 08:24 AM "And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars - organised collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos." Here be wisdom. Fantastic. Grounded in solid science yet more appreciative of the incalculable value of life than any religion could ever be, as it recognises that we are special for no more reason than we exist, and can reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM But your roguishness in including "folk music" amongst the "insular parochial shit" could be a bit counterproductive as to your points being taken seriously, IMO! Well, Folk is religious too - it's all a matter of faith that leads to quite a groundswell by way of a sub-genre of popular music based on what remains an essentially pseudo-scientific theoretical perspective that, for the most part, remains unquestioned, or shouted down by the faithful when you do question it. Folk too is based on what is already there - albeit selectively calibrated to fit the ideology, with the facts tweaked & falsified along the way until its ultimate absorption into culture as a whole. Idiomatically I dare say that's always been the case, with the ballads of Longfellow and Kipling et al, but they weren't self-consciously Folk in the way that somehow links the outpourings of a select group of highly idiosyncratic Traditional Singers to the Theorists who went out and collected them, and to the faithful today who sing their songs in the belief they are somehow keeping that tradition somehow alive. The main thing here is that ALL music is traditionally derived and perpetuated in exactly the same way as the various idioms that are accepted as being Folk. That is, demonstrably, what music is. To see the various tenets of (say) the 1954 Definition as being unique to Folk is rather akin to a Christian seeing such qualities as love, compassion, self-sacrifice, spirituality, nonviolence as being a) unique to Christianity and b) anathema to non-believers. Far from it. Religion is a consequence, not an inevitability. Like Folk it remains Optional, not Absolute, much less Real. Like Folk it is a matter of Faith and Theory of appeal to what is still a tiny minority of enthusiasts and specialists. Science, OTOH, is like Pop Music, which is a transcendental artform simply because it transcends art & is as totally feral as the beings that make it. TheSnail is always banging about evidence for evolution (and ignoring it when it's presented to him) but it's right there in the evolution of popular musical idioms (including all the various idioms cited as being Folk and the oral processes thereof) in an unbroken tradition some 50,000 years young and renewing itself as each new generation comes of age (supposing a musical generation to be around 7 years or so). There is unity, but, as in all Life on Earth, there is a myriad of diversity as a consequence. Each voice is unique, yet each voice is singing a song common to us all. That's science right there. Like music, it belongs to each and every one of us to create and delight in, whatever peer-reviewed community tradition we belong to, be it gamelan, hip-hop, opera, Post-Delian Radiophonica, or whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM I first read that as spaghetti western supper... that's my brain filling things in! I knew an RC priest once who was a total Spaghetti Western freak - all we ever talked about was the mythological themes of love & brotherhood in Leone's films. He had an especial fondness for Duck You Sucker (as he persisted in calling it!) which to him carried the same message of selfless-sacrifice that was integral to his faith. I watched it with him once & we were both in tears. But that was nothing compared to the end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. He told me 'Human love is the bullet that cuts Tuco's noose'. Couldn't really argue with that! What worries me about Christians is that they think it's all unique to them and that non-belief is a negative. In their hearts they carry around hope of life ever-lasting - which is fine - but that it's predicated on damnation for the rest of us is kinda sad. Ironic really as the Star Stuff of which we're made is damn near everlasting relative to our own 'life' spans, which means we all share that anyway. We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:04 AM Not a bad post indeed, Sean. But your roguishness in including "folk music" amongst the "insular parochial shit" could be a bit counterproductive as to your points being taken seriously, IMO! LoL ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: sciencegeek Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:47 AM nice post, Jack spent last night at the local United Methodist Church for their spaghetti supper and music jam. Nice folks, many elderly, who come together to share a nice time. Needless to say, the bawdy sea shanties remain unsung... but I like to sing songs like "What Wondrous Love is This" that is new to them. They seem to have a simple faith, at based on the songs they sing. Believe, praise God and you will be rewarded in the end. While I can't share their beliefs, I can share a pleasant evening of food and song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:15 AM There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty. And we're all mad and need treatment for our - er - funk right, Joe? Funny, where I come from, funk was always a good thing... Okay. We can be certain about a lot of things. That all religions are made up by humans within the very finite limits of their times & contradict both themselves & each other at every turn. We can be certain that they can't all be be right, but they can all be wrong. We can be certain that viewing them as Truth does them a disservice as to their true value of what they can tell us about the mytho-poetic process and how even this might be used to justify the massacre, exploitation, abuse and suffering of countess thousands by the Roman Catholic Church alone. We can be certainly certain that such atrocity is the consequence of Absolute Certainty. Otherwise I'm not absolutely certain about anything. Every morning I wake up and open my eyes I give quiet thanks that I'm still alive to experience my particular take on life on a ill-starred planet I share with billions of other human beings most of whom I'll never meet, but each of whom I know enjoys the same uniqueness of perception that I do. I'm pretty certain that if there was a greater emphasis on individualism in human culture as a whole we might get rid of speciesism, racism, sexism, homophobia, territorialism, religion, folk music and all the other insular parochial shit that have humanity forever at logger-heads, only now with the potential to take out the planet at the push of a button. I am certain of uniqueness and diversity within the infinite commonality of the universe that Science has revealed to us through centuries of hard work and understanding - a process that continues to this day and will continue as long as there are human beings on this earth. Like I say, from Göbekli Tepe to the Large Hadron Collider and beyond - I hope - a thousand years into a potentially glorious tomorrow. But if only if we look to that tomorrow, turn our eyes away from the past, at least use it to build on as part of the process, not obsess over as the source of the truth. Truth is not of the past - Truth is the light that guides us into the future. It is always easier to say what things AIN'T than what they ARE. I think that's the basis of human inquiry, a long process of joyful elimination that opens up before us a universe of fathomless possibility. As Carl Sagan says in Episode 13 of Cosmos: And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos - we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars - organized collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos. That's arrogant certainty for you! Pure glorious funk in the best sense of the word. Life is splendid. And all the things the religious people think of as God - even in his more 'subtle' forms - are INTEGRAL to everything and every single one of us, bar none, only we might have different names for it. I know a lot of very lovely religious people, some of them Roman Catholics, and quite a few of them Roman Catholic Priests. They are wonderful for their humanity, not their religion. Even if they stopped believing tomorrow (belief is only Optional after all, it is the choice that defines our humanity, not the nature of what we choose, no matter how baffling at times that choice might be) they'd still be wonderful people. You can be certain of that much - abso-fucking-lutely certain... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Musket the plagiarism philosopher Date: 28 Mar 14 - 05:50 AM Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire. You can say that again. Musket. Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire. Thank you. Musket. You're welcome. Voltaire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:39 AM " Shimrod, I think you got the gist of my previous posts about beetles, I am not about to go over it again." Right, well, as far as I could tell from the your previous 'explanation' (of the beetles thingy), you believe that Noah's two 'ur-beetles' speciated after the Flood - even though you had previously stated that you didn't believe that speciation happened at all (correct me if I'm wrong there, pete?). The only other possibility is that the Ark contained twice as many beetles as there are species of beetles alive today - that's an awful lot of beetles! And it gets worse because, of course, beetles are not the only species of invertebrates - not by a long way - the ARK must have been just a seething, crawling mass of 'creepy-crawlies'!! But I think there's a better explanation. I think that your red-neck, creationist buddies, whose websites you parrot, don't know anything about the real world around them and hadn't even thought about invertebrates (because, of course, they're too 'trivial' for a 'puffed-up', born-again fundamentalist to even think about). As a result, when put on the spot, and having no 'web-guru' to refer to, you just made stuff up (correct me if I'm wrong there, pete?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:18 AM Surely you don't cut and paste your own big words Joe? Giving me an opportunity to reiterate for that matter. You call me a fundamentalist and get all upset when I say there should be no deviation. I repeat. There should be no deviation. Where the scientific process is concerned , there should be no deviation from being clear, unequivocal and factual. You went on to say you had a problem with that and I was being fundamentalist. You said every view is valid. It isn't. Never was. Never can be. That's why I said that Christian lite or boutique Christians can be more bloody dangerous than deranged fundamental Christians of limited intelligence. You try to get god in through the back door to a party he isn't invited to. There is no room in science for superstition. Full stop. Plenty of room in just about every other subject if that's what floats your boat. But leave rational subjects to rational debate eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM Musket sez (27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM):
Listen to the likes of Joe. Not pete, but Joe. When the true colours come out, all that love and understanding crap is lost in the vitriolic insulting bilge water. Twisting what you said as if he lived in Hertford rather than California. If saying that spirituality, never mind religion, has no place in scientific approach and discovery makes you a fundamentalist, well give me an arts grant to explore my fund. It is said that religion has respect by those who don't suffer from it due to the other nicer traits of the people involved. Personally, I reckon judging as you find works a treat. I have to admit I don't understand a word of what he's talking about now. Can somebody please explain? ...and then there's Steve Shaw (27 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM):
Notice his use of the word "absolute," and then explain to me the difference between his "absolute" beliefs, and the "absolute" beliefs of the born-again believers. There's too damn much absolutism around here for me. It makes me gag, all these arrogant chaps and all their certainty. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Rob Naylor Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:18 PM Pete, I *did* explain the gist of both those items, in reasonably plain English, but I *also* linked to papers to back up my explanations. I'm not about to re-do the work for you....it's all there in previous posts. You're being your usual slippery self and sloping your shoulders to (a) try to get others to do the work for you and (b) to avoid having to think for yourself rather than just re-quoting technically flawed stuff from creationist websites. As you said to Shimrod, I'm not about to go over it again. As for Mungo Man...please post the lyrics here and I'll go through them point by point! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM Well that's a lot of accusations, rob. Too much and too late at this hour, so how about you say what the untruth and misinformation was in mungo man. And perhaps you can remind me what I got wrong about soft tissue in dino bones and carbon 14 in diamonds.........in your own words please, link if you must but I reckon that if you as a scientist can not explain it, how do you think I will understand tech stuff in the link. Shimrod, I think you got the gist of my previous posts about beetles, I am not about to go over it again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: GUEST,michaelr Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:08 PM There is no astrological evidence that science is anything but a medieval superstition. (Caroline Casey) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:44 PM Liking what Greg F is saying. |