BS: Church joins real world

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 06:07 PM

Pete, if you accept the Bible as the "Inerrant Word of God," then that bit of "mockery" of mine posted above (quotations from the Bible) demands answers. Those are actual quotes from the Bible

It is either the Inerrant Word of God – or it is NOT.

You seem to be very selective as to which of God's "Inerrant Words" you chose to believe.

You can't just blow that off and be regarded seriously as anything other than a naïve dupe or a bit of a con man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 05:44 PM

Well Pete... every time I try to hone in on one point, you sidestep by returning to another one I answer before!

".."....representative links..."    what might they be but the fossils that gould admitted were extremely poorly joined together by transitionals."
   'Admitted' is a loaded term designed to suggest that the position shows some innate weakness, when all it is is a statement about the obvious. All scientific measurements indicate very long time periods... longer than you choose to 'believe', even when shown the evidence.
   Consider.. IF science is ultimately totally correct about the long time-frame (deep time, as you choose to label it), it is still absolutely and obviously true that they will never, never, never HAVE all the transitional forms!! Millions of years means billions of individual samples were not buried in a form that could BE found. I have made this point many times...yet you just twist that from me AND Gould as if it DISproves the analysis. Doing that simply indicates that you are ignoring & evading the actual value of the forms that ARE found. When dating processes are mapped against the changes in the transitional forms we have found, it is clear that there was an evolutionary process involved. You deny this based on shallow & faulty understanding of the science... but you offer no counter explanation of the data except to rely on your religious beliefs. What do you think did cause the seemingly clear transition from early hominids to the finds in Africa and to caves in France? You want to deny the dating of Neanderthals and their human counterparts that can be accurately dating by radio-carbon decay!

Now... it pains me to have to do this again:

"so flies become....flies! how about them turning into something else after multiple generations observation?."

NO ONE IS CLAIMING that flies become birds...or whatever. Just as the stupid remark about "men being descended from monkeys" is not an accurate
representation of what IS shown by the records and by comparison to other types of lineages.
What is asserted is that all life did come from simple, lower forms in very complex ways... as shown over & over by bio-chemical processes compared to radio-carbon dating compared to geological mapping compared to cosmological analysis ...etc. None of this is directly incompatible with some metaphysical Being kick-starting it all..... but that's not as 'comforting' as accepting the 'ancient manuscript' thesis...hmmm?

finally: "I am not impressed , bill , by what and how you think a deity might choose to communicate with his creation. and neither am I impressed by your suggestion that he could not use ancient times men as the means he chose to convey his word.."

*shrug* how could you be? You are committed to accepting those things in spite of science and reason(again, if God gave us reason, why does that reason lead the majority to accept science and to realize that we flawed humans might get confused & need some ..ummm... clear reminders... of what His will is?)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:44 PM

Smells kinda "footy" to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:36 PM

Co Messiah Steve may wish to provide the appropriate Shankly quote.

'If Everton were playing at the bottom of the garden, I'd pull the curtains.'

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 04:27 PM

I don't believe anything, pete. I require evidence. Liverpool 2 Southampton 1. Manchester Ubollocksnited 1 Swansea City 2. What more evidence does one need than this that the planet is in good shape?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:44 PM

""when something is clearly taught in scripture I take that as a certainty""

Well, it depends on who does the teaching and whose "interpretation" they are wedded to? My observation is that many of those doing the "teaching" are very selective on what interpretation they put forwardas Biblical fact, and what they put in the back burner. Christian history is full of different interpretations that have been "taught" that councidently conforms to the "organizational politics" of the time. The different Chrustian churches of today cant even come up with even somewhat similar interpretations, and we are only a couple of thousand years away from Christs birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:23 PM

Origins appear to be a singularity followed by lots of fireworks up to and including iron. The rest is astrophysics till the plant naming guys enter stage left.

It really is that easy pete....

By the way, science doesn't to my knowledge have belief. It isn't a superstition for starters. You know, it really isn't helpful for vulnerable children to be taught your dangerous shit.

Talking of shit...

Eyup Michael! Nice to see you have a friend. You need someone batting on your side during best interest meetings.


Football AND philosophy? There is more philosophy appertaining to footy than anything else!* Co Messiah Steve may wish to provide the appropriate Shankley quote. Michael would too if he admitted to his masochistic hobby of reading my posts. He taught Frank Swift how to be a goalie you know....






*Perhaps cricket, to be fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:06 PM

part 2-
"...almost all scientists [appeal to numbers/authority]...except those...religious text [we admit our presupposition, darwinists don't generally admit to theirs]
" pete opposes science.." no, he challenges the validity of calling it science, except as an origins worldview claiming to be equivalent to observational, repeatable, tested, operational science.

this must be the third time at least that dons c @ p has appeared
and I have no intention of gracing this veiled mockery with a serious response!

seems steve believes that evolution can happen before there is anything to evolve......and the answer is in "origins!.

ed- maybe to clarify....when something is clearly taught in scripture I take that as a certainty[ though not ultimately provable], but in the area of science I am less certain. and as evolutionist claims of their belief being verified fact is only wishful thinking there is no contradiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:04 PM

"believe the bible"

Or, should that read, "interpret the Bible", (aka bible) and meaning of the Bible, as you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 02:32 PM

grief ! good !...if it is only my arguments. the reason ,bill, that I am repeating myself, is because you are not answering the actual points. so here we go again.
gould quote....did I say he was embarrassed ?. don't think so....whether he was or not ,I don't know, but I still think his ensuing comments were damage control, and closing ranks with the gradualists in the face of the creationist face value reading of his admission that the Darwin tree was more or less bare. that was after all the reason for introducing punctuated e.
"....representative links..."    what might they be but the fossils that gould admitted were extremely poorly joined together by transitionals. I hear there are a handful of debatable candidates , but no where near what Darwin thought might be found.
"it IS established fact...."....and then go on to admit that it cannot be observed experimentally....except citing fruit flies being mapped. so flies become....flies! how about them turning into something else after multiple generations observation?.
the observational, repeatable, testable science is not favouring macroevolution .
I am not impressed , bill , by what and how you think a deity might choose to communicate with his creation. and neither am I impressed by your suggestion that he could not use ancient times men as the means he chose to convey his word..
neither do I think the "silly" pertains to him, or even to his biblical messengers.
I remind you too, that I am not quoting lots of bible as my argument. my presuppositions are understood and not denied, though I might do when countering those who claim to believe the bible but embrace evolutionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:35 PM

Just to mention that a friend has PMed to tell me that unconscionable little swine Mr Mouthie-Mather is irrationally abusing me again on this thread. Oh, well, we all have our hobbies, rational or otherwise; so I hope he is enjoying it before his own poisonous spit finally polishes him off. Meanwhile, he is wasting time as far as I am concerned, as I still don't read more than 1 in 10 of his ½·witted posts. I don't even get much of a giggle out of the few I do bother with these days. Seem to be getting more & more confused, if such were possible. Think I'll entirely give them up again. There are more agreeable ways of inducing vomiting if one feels so inclined -- all-in-all, I'd rather think of real heaps of smelly pigshit than contemplate that one, thanks...

☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:34 PM

I meant first time, but fist time also seems fitting.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:33 PM

A fist time for everything, I guess - this thread now has UK football and philosophy mentioned in the same sentence.

"Only in England, you say!"

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:27 PM

I see the football has kicked off!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 12:15 PM

His collection is doing the round(er)s .

Hang on, it was funnier before I wrote it.....

Sorry, but anyone who who refers to football as "team tribe" is not mentally equipped to discuss philosophy with real people such as Co Messiah Steve and I.

Regarding pete and his views and creed, this is someone who at the top of this thread said that men who refuse to have women bishops shouldn't be confused with bigots. You work it out. Be buggered if I can tell the difference.

Michael has gone quiet, they must have upped the dose.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 11:45 AM

""You have to sneak up to playing fields with clandestine videoing capabilities...""

Any chance of borrowing a copy from your collection?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 09:08 AM

What channel-times are these lusty big girls sports on?

They're not. You have to sneak up to playing fields with clandestine videoing capabilities, only to be promptly arrested...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 07:29 AM

""lusty big girls in navy knickers and pleated skirts with slightly-chapped upper inner thighs.""

Actually, I don't normally have much interest in any sport, nor folks (commonly male) who boyishly obsess over discussing past games or their favoured team- tribe.

However, the sport described above seems quite interesting. What channel-times are these lusty big girls sports on? I must check it out after the wife falls asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 07:18 AM

The reason I ask is when you refer to Pete in an earlier post you seemed to say that he was not presenting his belief, just his viewpoint (opinion). What you were trying to say puzzled me. The terms belief and opinion are defined quite differently by different folks, so, I was curious of your definition (which I still harbour skme uncertainity). Some folks even say the definition is merely subjective in nature?

IMO, pete is both stating both his opinion (aka viewpoint) and beliefs related to religion and science on this and on other threads.



Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 06:42 AM

"I have it on good authority that their supporters are selected from those of the city who would have problems chanting "Birmingham!" from the terraces on account of too many syllables. "Villa!" being less of a linguistic challenge. "


Your 'good authority' (was it divine, perchance?) is mistaken, my dear Musket. Perhaps you were misled by one of those poor, bitter souls from Small Heath?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 03:13 AM

There's nothing quasi about Sheffield Wednesday.... Up the Owls!

The comment about there being two teams in Sheffield is correct though. You have Sheffield FC, the oldest league team in the world still playing.

I think most people got there regarding my point. We can all entertain irrational idealism, but we get caught out sometimes when we feel everyone else should be just as irrational. In thinking others should share our outlook, we get over the deep down feeling it just might be all bollocks....

By the way, regarding Aston Villa. I have it on good authority that their supporters are selected from those of the city who would have problems chanting "Birmingham!" from the terraces on account of too many syllables. "Villa!" being less of a linguistic challenge.




Nurse! Michael is awake! Do you want me to get a fresh pad ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Aug 14 - 01:53 AM

Just as likely, tho, Don, that it is unlucky to walk thru the centre of a triangle, the ladder, wall & ground forming such a magic shape renowned in sorcery, (tho not as much probably as a pentagon; but there are few chances of walking thru one of those, so presumably not worth the bother of inventing a superstition about doing so)...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 11:09 PM

Well, walking under a ladder when a painter is falling could bring you bad luck.

(Sorry....)

Don Firth

P. S. Bit of trivia:   the origin of the walking under a ladder superstition is believe to come from early warfare. When storming a castle with scaling ladders, the more cowardly soldiers might duck under the ladder rather than climbing it. This often resulted in them getting a bath of boiling oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 09:00 PM

Ed.. there is not-- to me-- a huge difference between a "personal opinion" and a "belief" until one specifies that that they consider it to be different...or act on it in some way. You gotta ask people to define & clarify what they mean before you can debate them properly.

if I personally 'believe' that homosexuality is evil and forbidden by some religious doctrine, then even talking... much less trying to control it... about it causes uproar & concern.

If I 'believe' that dancing is immoral and forbid my children to participate in dancing in school, this creates tension and embarrassment for everyone.

If I 'believe' that (Christian) prayer ought to precede public events like sporting events, no matter who is attending and how everyone else feels, it will cause conflict. (and I have experienced this at meetings of a woodworkers club!)

....but if I 'believe'(or say that I do- with a straight face) that my moderately successful team is 'really' better than others, it only affects those who take such silliness seriously. Of course, if the belief IS serious, and involves accusations of cheating...etc., it can become serious.

similarly, if I 'sorta' believe that black cats & walking under a ladder are bad luck.... and other cultural superstitions and 'old wives tales', it usually makes little difference. It may make others tease you or make remarks, but is not usually a major area of conflict for society.... although at one time, some beliefs WERE important.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 07:19 PM

The myth that those outside the UK circle has any interest in following anything (including inside tales) about British sports is an unfounded belief, though, one should admit, a minor one.

The absolute epitome of jealousy, coming as it does from a denizen of a nation that lionises a sport played in the UK only by lusty big girls in navy knickers and pleated skirts with slightly-chapped upper inner thighs. Mmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM

We've had several threads on—dare I say it?—the ins and outs of homosexuality, but I think pete has managed to settle that matter for us. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, we can simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.

I do need some further advice from you, pete, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. A friend of mine has a daughter who misbehaves all the time. He would like to sell her into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have another neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. But I have to wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My wife has a cousin who has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Since you are highly conversant with these matters, pete, I'm sure that you can advise me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:24 PM

Bill D, clearufy the difference between a "personal view", founded or otherwise, that may influence others and "a belief" that may influence others?

You kinda lost me on the sports analgy, but, I suspect it is not significant to the discussion, and is an inside discussion of some type, (though in a public domain:)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:11 PM

Ed... that is not what *I* meant about what Musket said.

The personal and "minor" beliefs I meant are those such as pretending to believe that one's sports team is inherently better.

Beliefs that influence others, when allowed to proliferate unchallenged are, by definition, NOT personal and "minor"...no matter which side they are promulgated by.... and no matter what the claimed evidence for them shows.

Stated beliefs for OR against a Supreme Being, when forcefully advocated, are divisive, unprovable and foolish. I **doubt** claims about metaphysical concepts, but I can't prove anything one way or another, and as long as those beliefs are not taught AS proven in schools...etc., it only affects me subjectively- as careless thinking always does.

Pete does 'openly challenge science', but so far, he seems to just be presenting his viewpoint--flawed as I feel it to be. I present the viewpoint OF science, and *I* am not "seeking to attract a response". I am just presenting as best I can, my own view...which includes the errors I see in the other viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:04 PM

The myth that those outside the UK circle has any interest in following anything (including inside tales) about British sports is an unfounded belief, though, one should admit, a minor one.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 04:57 PM

Hey...even *I* got that Musket was using Sheffield's team to show HOW people sometimes 'believe what they want to believe

Jaysus, I told you you didn't know what you were talking about. Everyone on the planet except you knows that Sheffield has two teams. Just like Liverpool has two teams. Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves, in case you didn't know...

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 04:29 PM

""people sometimes 'believe what they want to believe'... and that some of these quasi-beliefs are minor, personal idiosyncrasies, rather tahn the kind that can disrupt all of society.""

Well yes, if course-this has been stated many times (in other ways)by others in the throughout the religious discussions/threads, including by Joe O.

If such beliefs are personal and "minor", as to influence on others, a question-why do some agressive, anti-religion types, make such a big deal about what other people personally believe (including ridiculing them)? At afminimum, the beliefs are possibly of some personal value to them as artifacts of their early up-bringing?

Let's be clear, I in no way refer to folks like Pete 7*, who openly challenges science from a religious perspective, for what seems to be a clear purpose of attracting a response of this nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 03:54 PM

Hey...even *I* got that Musket was using Sheffield's team to show HOW people sometimes 'believe what they want to believe'... and that some of these quasi-beliefs are minor, personal idiosyncrasies, rather tahn the kind that can disrupt all of society.


... at least that better be what he meant... ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 01:49 PM

In fact, Mr Mouthie-Mather's delusion that our leading football club is one that has fluctuated between League One and Championship (ie third and second tiers of clubs) over past several seasons, ending last season ¾-way down the Championship table, just about places him as regards reliability of, or respect due to, his opinions in any direction or particular whatsoever ...

Eh wot wot!?

☺〠☺~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 01:36 PM

re: reading Gould-
I have read 3 of his books all the way through..plus some articles....but I got to hold and thumb thru for an hour this magnum opus last November. I opened it at random 10-12 times and read a few pages... and EVERY page I read had relevant, deep insights, not only on the process OF evolution, but also on the "... historical study and exegesis of classical evolutionary thought, drawing extensively upon primary documents."

I doubt that I would ever attempt to read it all, as the technical concepts require more than I have ever studied... but it shows how careful Gould was in approaching the topic(s).

It is natural in almost all scientific study that some who look at the same data will have differences at interpreting the relevance of various data, specimens and tests... so it is with paleontology....etc. But almost NO scientist disputes the basic understanding that evolution happens, except those who artificially insert an arbitrary religious text into their decision making process while evaluating the scientific data.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Stu
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 12:50 PM

" i.e., creationists know gould is not of their number and therefore his admission was all the more powerful."

Funk and Wagnell. Have you actually read any of Gould's books Pete? I mean all the way through?

By the way, do you believe in plate tectonics?

"yet if anybody tries telling me there is a football team better than Sheffield Wednesday, it'll take more than mere facts to persuade me."

If you believe there are no football teams better than Sheffield Wednesday you're as delusional as a flipping creationist. Up the Villa!

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 12:28 PM

at least Musket makes a good point in the well-phrased sentence:

"Some here are confusing scientists who happen to be superstitious away from their test tubes and superstition as a science."

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 05:41 AM

The point of the poll I linked related to Pete's last comment to me, and had nothing to do with any science argument. Odd that you would see it any differently, Musket?

In fact, I have never posted any comment questioning the validity of science versus Petes interpretation of the Christian Bible's account of "the beginning".

The survey indicates increasingly fewer Christians share Petes interpretation, and gives some demographics on who does so. (I find it odd that scripture called for "one" Christian church, and there are now a multitude of them-it seems that this directive (strict interpretation) is ignored by the faithful? If it were not, everyone would likely be in Joe Os church?)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 18 Aug 14 - 03:00 AM

Assuming you see statistics and opinion polls as a science :-)

The idea that a million lemmings cannot be wrong falls down when number one million and one says "fuck going near the edge of that cliff, it's dangerous."

Some here are confusing scientists who happen to be superstitious away from their test tubes and superstition as a science. I have used the tools of science, the analytical approach and allowing my predictions to be blown away, yet if anybody tries telling me there is a football team better than Sheffield Wednesday, it'll take more than mere facts to persuade me. So I see no problem with the concept of the pathology labs at your local hospital being a bit thin on the ground during Friday prayers or an astrophysicist going to church on Sunday. Reality and the search for reason are mutually exclusive to religion. We all have hobbies.

But I were to say that the angle of incidence has to hit the centre of gravity in a vibro feeder because Chris Waddle curled a ball into the net in 1993, ....... What's the difference between that and explaining quantum mechanics as "god did it"?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:39 PM

From a 2011USA survey:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man.




USA Bible viewpoints 

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:35 PM

I seem to have left a sentence unfinished.

" we have tens of thousands of representative links," with obvious gaps that can never be filled- but which are clearly related.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:24 PM

"Believin" and interpreting meaning are two different things, Pete 7*, and represents nothing new in history. Question: why would humans have the power to reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 07:01 PM

good grief, Pete... you repeat things I/we have explained 10 times!

Gould did not 'admit' anything serious. His only concern was that his phrasing would be used... as it has been... to make it sound like he was embarrassed. No one could EVER find all the 'missing links'... be we have tens of thousands of representative links, with obvious

the whole process is far from established fact , and to quote snail " show me some evolution "

It IS established fact.... as a process... 'most' evolutionary changes do not happen so that they can be displayed & photographed in a lab....but.... SOME DO! Fruit flies have thousands of documented generations, with mapped DNA showing which genes have changed.

" you could show me natural selection, but that is not the same thing "

It is not THE means, but it is one of the means...or more precisely, it is what happens when a change in an organism either helps or hurts its survival & reproductive chances.

and... "..God could have used evolution over aeons......but then he would be a liar, because he told us different !."
No, Pete.... some guys who cobbled up some old manuscripts "told us different". If a 'god' wanted to be sure we got the right message, he wouldn't trust the message to a few people 2000-4000 years ago. Expecting his poor, fallible 'creations' to remember and get the quotes right in thousands of documents & languages is a bit silly for an omniscient Being.

This IS the issue... you want to quibble with supposed flaws in science, yet you have no problem 'believing' in ONE interpretation of ONE version of ONE selection of musty, crumbling documents written by MEN who claimed to have heard it from.... some reputable source. If this were about anything but Creation, you'd laugh at that kind of evidence. You LIKE the story... and it's a valuable story in many respects, but it doesn't hold up to the hard questions. Some things in science need to be reevaluated at times... but they are willing to look at new data... you aren't.


But... here I go, trying to explain again. Let me give you one-more-thing to read...

http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html

There's a lot of reading there, some of which is fascinating in its own right, but if you don't care to indulge, you may scroll to almost the bottom, where he has a paragraph on his CONCLUSION... and under that, really relevant links- some better than I have offered.

Oh... and welcome back from vacation... I hope it was pleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 06:53 PM

The idea that God set evolution in motion then let it run is the most abject intellectual copout imaginable. It is simply the valiant, yet futile, attempt by religion to embrace the science it knows it can no longer exclude (though it wishes it could). And there wasn't the need to create "something that could then evolve". That simply reveals that you don't really know what you're talking about. Evolution is mundane, ordinary and unexceptional, and it doesn't require one to disappear up one's own philosophical backside in order to understand it. Read Origin. Beautiful, simple, honest, easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Aug 14 - 06:20 PM

back from holiday.
bill.....sample of water. I was talking comparison/contrast, you answered analogy.
the "he" referred to gould. ie, creationists know gould is not of their number and therefore his admission was all the more powerful.
you can of course ignore the elephant in the room, but as you concede, even evolutionism can only begin when there is something to begin with. but the whole process is far from established fact , and to quote snail " show me some evolution ". you could show me natural selection, but that is not the same thing ,and though claimed to be the means thereof , is a long ways short of demonstrating bacteria to biologist evolution.
don firth....God could have used evolution over aeons......but then he would be a liar, because he told us different !.
I follow , best I can, the God of revelation.
you follow a deity in you own likeness.
ed,...this idea, that believing the bible is odd, is a fairly new fad compared to most judao,christian history.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 11:05 AM

You still havent come up with a good example of scientific investigation, Musket. Sure, some scientists getting caught up in church politics - but, represents scientific investigation much like saying a scientist doing cement work at home is conducting scientific investigation.

As stated before by others, a belief in a deity can easily fit within any scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe and thevevolution of life, as we know it. Just because some folks, like Pete, hold to an odd idea does not rule other beliefs out.

Maybe you are attempting to be "the control" in the science discussion? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 09:14 AM

You got my point eventually Ed. Historically, the god concept tended to fit in on the basis of discovering why and how "god" made x happen. That everything was to the glory of god was a given, and when superstitious belief ran contrary to what was being observed, it caused problems.

Newton held onto a fixed state hypothesis despite his own work describing a purely relative state universe. It was a couple of hundred years before anybody saw fit to accept the logical relativity arguments.

Galileo may have pissed off the church with his observations and conclusions but he still described it as the work of god.

Darwin struggled with what his work told him, to the point of suppressing it till he saw that someone else had come to the same conclusion....

It is fairly recent that established scientific research, c/w university credibility could dismiss dissent from theological sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 06:05 AM

""It isn't an argument put forward by "science" because a God concept hasn't stood up to any scrutiny so dropped off the hypothesis list years ago.""

IMO-As a belief is not something that would normally be subject to mainstream scientific investigation, I suspect this statement actually holds little or no water. This does not rule out the liklihood that throughout history scientists engaged in personal and public debates and projections related to the existance if a god. But, that would in itself not catagorize these as scientific investigations.

I suspect when organized religion's influence on science ended many yeas ago, the scientific community abandoned any consideration of pointless non-scientific dalliances to determine "why we are here".

However, I am open to consider evidence of related scientific investigation, versus thise that are mistly personal opinion, if it is put forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Musket
Date: 14 Aug 14 - 02:36 AM

It isn't an argument put forward by "science" because a God concept hasn't stood up to any scrutiny so dropped off the hypothesis list years ago.

Most religions have a god that looks like their members. "In his image" seems to be a popular superstitious description of humans. That it took billions of years to get to something that looks like him just shows the arrogance of the concept.

If the top of the food chain is in the image of a god, the Sistine chapel needs Adam's finger and no more, as he would undoubtably be touching some bacteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 07:52 PM

Cartoon: Small angel beside 'God', gesturing out over 'infinite cosmos'. "Really? You made it all out of quarks? Aww.. c'mon!"

Evolution does not require OR exclude a god to proceed... evolution is what happens after there is **something** to evolve. How there came to be something is what some worry about. I don't worry about it... I just recognize it as a (or the) primary philosophical question which, as primary, has no specific premises.
Demanding an answer is a psychological, emotional concern for both theologians & physicists.

Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 14 - 06:51 PM

If God is Omniscience, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent, and Eternal, it strikes me that evolution would be a simple way to set things in motion without having to spend time and effort micromanaging the process, and that the idea of the Universe being 13.5 billion years old and the solar system, including the sun, moon, and Earth 4.5 billion years old would be no problem at all for an All Powerful, Eternal Deity.

In fact, this probably isn't the only project He, She, or It is up to. According to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, we live in a multiverse. There are many universes like the one we inhabit all living together like a clump of grapes.

Perhaps building universes is God's hobby, like kid building model airplanes, and does not really reflect His, Her, It's real work.

Considering the cosmos and possible surrounding real estate as science knows it to be (so far—we're still learning), compared to the kind of entity that God would have to be to make all of this, pete*******'s concept of God, and that of other fundamentalists and Biblical literalists, is a bit puny.   Might make a more or less competent teaching assistant at Hogwarts.

Don Firth