 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Church joins real world
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 07 Aug 14 - 12:00 PM and... at the bottom of the page Stu links to, there is an even more amazing cladistic chart and other diagrams about the fossil records of birds and bird-like specimens. I cannot imagine how anyone can see all that data and research without realizing how many millions of years it took to develop such an array. In the article they comment on the enormous number of missing links and other evidence, such as fossil nests (which are obviously hard to preserve) that would help produced even better charts. [Note: IF most specimens WERE available, there would not be enough paper to print the chart on!] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 07 Aug 14 - 06:40 AM Ed's link is rather out of date, but here is a quick and accurate guide to where present research on birds is up to: 50 million years of incredible shrinking theropod dinosaurs. " i'll take that as no, you don't know how to explain away formerly held experimental science." That's not what I said at all, and I explained in simple terms how the process works, how new discoveries allow new understanding. This is a totally unacceptable twisting of my words. "most evolutionists run around trying to find reasons to sideline experimental science to accommodate their Darwin dogma." OK, you can't make statements like this as it is a huge lie, plain and simple. Insulting and false statements like this show a real lack of integrity and you have no right to call the work of so many good, honest people because you are so committed to a dogma. This makes me really fucking angry. You can't debate so you are now resorting to this sort of bullshit. Again. Look on the bright side pete, you can take pleasure in the fact that you've would me up so much. Feel proud. The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.W.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 07 Aug 14 - 03:48 AM I have seen him many times, got just about all his albums from Cream onwards I suppose. His most recent coming being playing a guitar plugged into a car radio on Top Gear... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Aug 14 - 03:30 AM Musket: "Although another fact is that man made God in his image. In which case, how come I can't play guitar as well as he does?" How do you know how well He plays? Don 'DF' Firth: "Goofus, if you know otherwise, PROVE it or shut up!!" Don, If you say, "Is there a God? I have no idea."...then what do you measure ANY proof against?? Once again, you are being obscenely foolish..but, that's never stopped you! For you to even remotely understand anything that applies, you need more of your brain working...and that comes from God. Sorry, can't 'give it to you'...you have to ask Him to reveal himself to you, YOURSELF!!..(it's not a political position, one way or the other..)....THEN you'll KNOW. (Maybe you'll flash, when you look into the mirror, and NOT see your SELF!). ...but then how would you know???..you have NO IDEA what to look for! GfS P.S. Hey, you said it!...and there is NOTHING to discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 07 Aug 14 - 01:53 AM I have an album in my collection that makes it quite clear on the cover that Eric Clapton is indeed God. Works for me. Although another fact is that man made God in his image. In which case, how come I can't play guitar as well as he does ? Superstition moves in mysterious ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 14 - 10:58 PM Goofus, if you know otherwise, PROVE it or shut up!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Aug 14 - 10:53 PM Don 'Df' Firth: "I don't know if there is a God or not. NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE.." Speak for yourself!!...and ONLY for yourself!....and this time try to remember your only one thing accurately you've said, 'I have NO IDEA'. So, in light of that...shut up! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 06 Aug 14 - 10:09 PM "Ed, haven't heard back from you." gosh, GfS.. you heard from ME.. *grin*...whassa matter, I don't call you names, so I'm not a good target? Ah well... just as well. Pete keeps me busy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 14 - 09:46 PM Goofus, you either totally misread what I wrote or you are twisting things in order to take a shot at me, which springs not from anything I say, but from your own long-standing malice toward me. I don't know if there is a God or not. NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE, no matter how much faith they have in the idea that there is. Crawl back into your septic tank. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 14 - 09:25 PM Goofball, you are not competent to judge. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Aug 14 - 09:00 PM Don 'DF' Firth: "Is there a God? I have no idea." ..and them you go on to pontificate on something you have no idea about???????????? ...it ain't the first time you've tried that shit! Go get an education..at least to know that expounding on things you have no idea about' (your words, not mine), is pretty inane, to say the least!...You should abstain from further making an ass of yourself!..because ANYTHING you post regarding something you 'have no idea" about, should be quickly written off as stupidity! Ed, haven't heard back from you..I don't think that my last post will have to wait for scholars in the next century to tell you that it is quite accurate!...though it may fly in the faces of those who think that a political agenda, is the place where life and consciousness comes from.....matter of FACT, DEATH and UNCONSCIOUSNESS comes from adherers of political agendas...and everybody 'gets that'...except adherers of political agendas!! GfS GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 06 Aug 14 - 08:40 PM Pete... if I had a few thousand $$$ to spare, I'd spend a bunch of it to fly over there and spend some time chatting with you at length..(more could be said in a few hours than a couple of hundred posts on Mudcat). But, that being impossible: ...the hard science is being put on hold in favour of the faith position .. You say things that are very close to total misunderstanding of the concepts involved and/or arrant nonsense. ALL of the aspects of dating on fossils involve 'hard science'. There IS no such thing as "origins science" as a definable practice. That is a subjective term invented by [someone] to cloud the issue when the facts & evidence are heavily against your beliefs. "....and why not " committed evolutionists"?" Because accepting evolution is for most scientists merely the situation of seeing many, many years of 'hard science' leading inexorably to the basic conclusions of evolution! Only the details and relationships are in doubt... and 'doubt' is not the right word, as it sounds like confusion when it merely means 'not discovered yet'. As to your reading of the article: "either way they evolutionized according to the predetermined end result." "Evolutionized" in not a real word... it is your loaded language made to sound like the analysis was 'cooked' and artificial. ...and calling the data "predetermined" is flatly incorrect.In fact, they TRIED to not believe stuff about feathers until more & more examples were found... just as soft tissue was a surprise and was doubted until it could no longer BE doubted. "the idea of cladistics does not deal with how such drastic internal and external changes could happen, or how the intermediaries [which of course are, as Stephen gould conceded missing] survived." *rolling my eyes*. Cladistics, as explained in the article, does NOT deal with "how", it deals with logical relationships between observed and cataloged data! It simply helps keep track of huge amounts of characteristics. As to intermediaries... we have gone over that many times..1)not all intermediaries ARE missing...all fossils are intermediaries, and..2) it is logically & physically impossible to find them all. Some of the same tests are used to test drinking water as to examine geological & paleontological evidence,,,yet you accept one and deny the other. You are a hard case.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Aug 14 - 06:27 PM have read article re cladistics. observations- the conclusion is arrived at and the comparisons are done. two option = to bird or not to bird- either way they evolutionized according to the predetermined end result. the contest appears to be between opposing evolutionary ideas. the idea of cladistics does not deal with how such drastic internal and external changes could happen, or how the intermediaries [which of course are, as Stephen gould conceded missing] survived. feathers on some dinos ?. possibly, but who says it is impossible. it is an argument for dinobird but hardly conclusive. I suspect that I could build a cladogram from comparing the development of the wheel from a round rock all the way to trucks and aircraft. but of course, we know there was intelligence, design and builders. bill- faith and belief don't really figure in hard science but does in origins science, and as I keep pointing out, the hard science is being put on hold in favour of the faith position [or preconception, a priori belief, if that makes it easier to grasp]. do I need to reel off that long lewenton quote again to point out that it is not only a creationist charge, but an evolutionist admission ?. water plant purity. yes, I do take that on [informed] faith. there might be a hiccup now and again. maybe their readings might vary from week to week, but I certainly have no qualms on drinking tap water generally. but I doubt that their reading of the same cup of water is going to vary, unless they leave it to stagnate. presumably a sample tested in lab for age should be a point in time too. but different methods, different scientists have differed....sometimes spectacularly so. committed creationists?.......and why not " committed evolutionists" good for the goose..... ? and the labs are usually secular, not creationist. most evolutionists run around trying to find reasons to sideline experimental science to accommodate their Darwin dogma. stu- "considered seriously flawed".......by those who disagree, obviously ! i'll settle for "contested" "...process of discovery.." i'll take that as no, you don't know how to explain away formerly held experimental science. "...liars, pete" I will leave the accusations of lying to you, stu. I just explained my position to bill. no where did I say you were lying. but neither do I think you are as impartial as you claim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 06 Aug 14 - 11:46 AM I just read Ed T.s link and learned something I had not known before.... not specifically about birds and dinosaurs, but about method..(which is really what the article is about). If you read the article, try not to worry about understanding and remembering all the long, technical names of various fossil discoveries. Concentrate on the methods used by different groups to determine what relationship, if any, the various fossils have to one another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 06 Aug 14 - 07:33 AM birds and dinosaurs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 06 Aug 14 - 06:51 AM "the contested belief that little robin was a dino many moons past." IS a dinosaur (right now, actually) and this is only contested by a couple of workers, and I think these might be ornithologists not palaeontologists. These workers still have their papers read and peer-reviewed, but their interpretation if the evidence is considered seriously flawed. so, are you saying that they are getting at how science has formerly been mistaken about how long soft tissue can last......or still hoping to come up with something to evidence its endurance If I get your gist here, you're asking if we are seeking evidence to prove how soft tissue, which we previously thought couldn't survive more that perhaps hundreds of thousands of years can actually last tens of millions, perhaps more? No we're not. We discover the presence of soft tissue, develop a hypothesis about how it served and then test that hypothesis. If the evidence points to the fact this (for instance) a microbial film, then all well and good, if it's soft tissues from a dinosaur then great, if it's a flawed experimental methodology then fine. What the evidence is doesn't matter, we just want to find the truth of what's happened. There is no desire to tip the results one way or another, or what's the point of engaging in the process of discovery? "that is, other than we "know" they were 65+myo and therefore the current experimental science must need revising to accommodate the "discovery"" To do that would be against the very core principles of scientific endeavour and would be dishonest. We would all be liars of we did this, and not engaged in the process of discovery. Do you think we are all liars pete? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 06 Aug 14 - 03:01 AM It was an article of biblical faith that women can't be bishops. Now it's an article of biblical faith that they can. All these years and there was a paragraph nobody noticed till two weeks ago? zzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 14 - 08:07 PM The fact that two plus two equals four is not a "faith position." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 14 - 07:38 PM My assertions are to the point, pete, containing exactly as many words as are required to slap you down. I seldom need very many. other people say that Life is just a Bowl of Cherries. Unless you suffer from severe piles, in which case life is just a bowel of cherries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 05 Aug 14 - 06:40 PM "...I call that a faith position , even if you do object to that." Pete- It is beyond anything as simple as 'my objection'. Calling it "a faith position" is a complete distortion of what multi thousands of scientists do and how they comprehend the very concept of what they do. If you don't grant any scientists even the the idea of being neutral & unbiased, how can you believe anything they tell us on any subject? As I said, "faith" and "belief" are words which MUST have a clear meaning, or we can't even discuss what it means to do something other than 'believe' by 'faith'!..(and perhaps WE cannot, as you insist that 'faith' covers science as well as religion.) "do you deny that scientists have come up with different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data ?." That covers too much.... of course there are some differences when measuring SOME things... but the goal of science is to determine what differences are relevant. Do YOU deny that water treatment plants, when testing for impurities in your drinking water, may get 'different' readings? At some point you have the trust them to be able to measure the relevant things accurately enough to tell you that your water is safe, instead of just putting in a filter and asking you to "have faith". They test.. test again... compare their tests to those of other laboratories in different places... and they constantly refine the tests. They don't ask you to just 'believe' that that stream is safe... it might have been polluted since last week. The tests must be as accurate as possible, even if they sometimes have "different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data". ".. trouble is, a lot of that dating was done at highly regarded labs." Umm...yes..but it is my impression that very few, if any, labs run by committed Creationist scientists do significant basic research. Most of the creationist 'scientists' spend most of their time looking for reasons NOT to accept 'highly regarded' dating procedures that don't seem to agree with their interpretation of Genesis. A lot of that non-acceptance is simply ignoring vary basic science in favor of evidence 'interpreted' in non-standard ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Aug 14 - 05:58 PM bill, whether or not you approve of my use of words, does not directly affect the argument since I explained the basis of my use of those words. my argument is that evolutionists are so devoted to their doctrine [ at least in the core teaching ] that formerly accepted experimental science is set aside in the hope that some discovery will change the science. I call that a faith position , even if you do object to that. using upper case to your assertion that the dating interpretations are so accurate does not make it so, though I presume you did so because you want to stress the importance of the argument. but this acclaimed accuracy/consistency is the question at hand that you seem to view as crucial. do you deny that scientists have come up with different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data ?. if you do deny it, I can give examples. if you don't, your argument loses something, or you have to say that someone got it wrong....but which, and why. maybe, not properly applied ? . trouble is, a lot of that dating was done at highly regarded labs. maybe there is some other option than the foregoing, but I cant think what at present. btw, when I use "imo" it is not to add authority, but an admission that I might be missing something in the argument. I hear you, ed. it would be another discussion as to why I trust the bible as opposed to some other account of creation. just debating that there was a creation as opposed to a big bang out of nothing is time consuming enough for now! I was quite aware , stu, of the contested belief that little robin was a dino many moons past. so, are you saying that they are getting at how science has formerly been mistaken about how long soft tissue can last......or still hoping to come up with something to evidence its endurance ? that is, other than we "know" they were 65+myo and therefore the current experimental science must need revising to accommodate the "discovery" steve, must admit your little joke at my expense was funny. makes a change from your wordy assertions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 14 - 05:47 PM Pardon me for repeating myself, but I just discovered a piece I wrote on another religious discussion thread about seven years ago. With your kind indulgence, I'll post it again here: That pretty well sums up my position. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:57 PM Pardon my hiccups.... Not to make light of the matter, but Clicky. As Mr. Spock used to say, "Fascinating...!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:52 PM "How is a poor wandering pilgrim to know...?" Send $150 in small bills to "Consciousness Revealed Ministries" Box 555, Hackensack, N.J." a perfectly clear explanation will be sent: (You do read Sanskrit, I hope) allow 4-6 weeks for delivery |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:50 PM N |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 14 - 04:07 PM Well, son of a gun! I didn't know that!! I'm getting confused. Some people say Life is but a Dream, other people say that Life is just a Bowl of Cherries. How is a poor wandering pilgrim to know...? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 05 Aug 14 - 03:21 PM Oh, but Don, didn't you know?- those things are 'merely' the manifestations of consciousness in this 3-D world! The true ultimate source is in a different plane of Being! How do 'they' know that? They intuit it... and then they adapt/adopt some combination of linguistic phrases to describe it. Thereafter, even the intuiting is unnecessary, as one needs only to make some reference to the linguistic conventions! So simple, once you get used to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 14 - 01:05 PM If thoughts, mental activity, and consciousness in general is not physical, then why can it be measured on an electroencephalograph? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 05 Aug 14 - 01:01 PM " I do believe that the writers of the Bible and most ancient sacred writings (Koran, Baghdad Vita, Native American myths, Book of Mormon) were inspired by God." I was looking back throughout the posts on this thread when I stumbled across this one from Joe. Joe - Do you not think there is something revealing about this statement? It's typically Christian/Muslim to appropriate other people's religious and secular beliefs to fit your own preferred narrative; in this case those of Hinduism and Native Americans. This is religious imperialism at it's worst, and the same sort of thing missionaries do all over the world as they trash a culture's core beliefs and impose their own religion on the hapless locals. This is the core arrogance of monotheistic religions: there are many paths to god. At heart their followers believe they are the only ones that are correct, and everyone else is wrong. Even if you don't believe in your Abrahamic god of the desert you must be wrong and are simply not recognising the same god guiding you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 05 Aug 14 - 11:46 AM " Now being as all matter is made of light, then it would be safe to say..."... almost anything. First you assert something highly debatable, then you base other assertions on your own premises. " 'Consciousness' is NOT a matter of matter, or putting it differently, 'Consciousness' is not physical, and often categorized in the same 'realm' as 'Spiritual'." ...and awaaaaay we go! I suppose we can now answer "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" .."but FAITH is different than a 'belief'..Faith is just a 'portal' in the 'veil' in the physics of matter,..." "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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Aug 14 - 09:02 AM we have a real live one in the seven stars is beyond me. And it's a dinosaur with plenty of soft tissue. Between the ears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 05 Aug 14 - 06:29 AM Dinosaurs aren't a possibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 05 Aug 14 - 03:03 AM I love hijacking threads so I shouldn't be too upset that my thread about The Church of England dismissing superstitious nonsense in order to redeem themselves of earlier misogyny in their employment criterior is hijacked by yet another discussion over creationist nonsense. That said, one of the first replies if you scroll up was pete saying that women are not worthy of taking on senior roles. So why we are discussing the possibility of dinosaurs when we have a real live one in the seven stars is beyond me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Aug 14 - 02:27 AM Ed, If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then it would then be logical that energy can change forms..therefore what you may be terming as a 'Creator'(or a Creator needing a 'creator') could be the changing of forms. Now being as all matter is made of light, then it would be safe to say that what appears to us in the physical, is just different forms of light...(BTW, when 'light' meets 'time', you have 'matter')...HOWEVER, 'Consciousness' is NOT a matter of matter, or putting it differently, 'Consciousness' is not physical, and often categorized in the same 'realm' as 'Spiritual'...and as evident on here, with some VERY narrow perceptions,'Consciousness' may not subject to 'time'...and in the 'realm'(often referred to as 'a Kingdom') where 'Consciousness' exists, there would be different 'properties'. In our physical state, (or to those who sadly mistakenly think that the 'physical state' is all there is) are not going to perceive all the properties, and lump them altogether under the 'heading' of 'spiritual'...when in fact, the unseen extensions, and 'properties' of our 'known physical reality' are not only far greater than what we 'think' is our reality, but it dwarfs the physical, which is only visible, as light meeting time. 'Consciousness' is NOT subject to the laws of physics, as it pertains to matter. (I think Beethoven was hip to this as well, for he was perceiving things NOT in the physical' realm, (or 'kingdom')... Maybe in another hundred years or so, eh?...when they figure out that matter will never be able to control 'Consciousness'. You mentioned 'beliefs'....YES, people do believe a lot of nonsense and adhere to nonsensical religions of all forms, especially the ones that center around 'rituals for hire'...but FAITH is different than a 'belief'..Faith is just a 'portal' in the 'veil' in the physics of matter, by which one gets a grasp of the workings of 'different' properties, that actually govern the behavior, of what we THINK are the limited laws of physics, and how they work! Once the 'realm' or kingdom'(as referred to in certain 'holy books') is approached with awe and reverence, for what it is, and in grateful wonderment, to the unseen 'realm', does one actually get the benefits of working the properties THERE, and making things manifest, on this side of the 'divide'. Undoubtedly, some VERY UN-Conscious people either can't, or won't get it......................they can be safely ignored.they just don't know better and are locked in to a very small concept of reality...wouldn't you agree??? GfS P.S. ..and that shouldn't be such a hard read....it's straight ahead... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Aug 14 - 06:58 PM Experiments do not set out to prove things. Richard Dawkins does not set out to prove things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 04 Aug 14 - 05:07 PM ""I believe that something from nothing via no one is impossible but that a creator is perfectly logical.....so long as you don't try to define him in non spiritual terms [ie himself needing a creator]"" So, lets suppose this "belief" is true. Pete 7*, What makes "your belief" in a beginning of some type better than anyone elses -throughout history, or currently? Surely just because you believe it, or that it was written down in some form in the past does not make it factual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 04 Aug 14 - 04:46 PM and... unproven experimentally does not mean that science must have ALL possible answers to be relevant. Theories can be verified as basically correct long before we have done all possible tests and found all possible data. As long as collected evidence continues to be consistent and explainable within the parameters of the theory, we may assume we are on the right track. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:51 PM when people believe stuff that is unproven experimentally, whether it be creation and theism, or evolutionism and atheism [yes I hear you, you are not claiming entire atheism] imo that is a faith position. Pete, you may define your own religious beliefs all you like. You may not dictate to others their religious beliefs or what constitutes science or religion for others. If you don't understand it, that's fine. But when you don't understand yet you try to tell others that they are religiously scientific, that is ludicrous. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:15 PM "there might be, might not be, either way it is not evidence for evolution other than an argument from silence ." No, if you find a horse in the Burgess Shale you would go a long way to disproving evolution. However, the absence of a horse in the shales is largely irrelevant to palaeontologists, it's what's there that matters. "not to be expected to survive aeons" No it wasn't, you're right. But survive it did and we're getting closer to understanding how this occurs, and it's implications. Surprises like this often happen in science and are known as 'discoveries'. "a scientific argument for a more recent life of dino." No it isn't. Had it been, life would have become very interesting but as I said, we're getting a handle on the taphonomic processes that meant some of these proteins survived. Shine on, you have only picked on one tiny part of an exciting field of discovery. By the way, dinosaurs are still with us. You mean 'non-avian dinosaur'. There. You might have actually learnt something useful today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 04 Aug 14 - 03:05 PM Pete- there are several answers to your various assertions, depending on which ones are involved and how you phrase them. In this case you simply use the words 'belief' & 'faith' incorrectly when you attribute it to scientists. Saying" ..imo that is a faith position." does not make it so. 'Faith' is a very specific word, used to describe a position that can NOT be experimentally or scientifically tested & the tests revised & updated. The fact that science is always learning and refining its conclusions and is always open to new data does NOT... repeat..NOT make its current status one of 'faith'. Some parts of paleontology and related studies will always be open, as we can never find examples of all stages of all entities. Most animals did not die where they could be preserved, thus the idea of THE 'missing link' is only a wish. What we find is 'occasional links'. Now... this is important... while we can only find a tiny portion of the various stages, and must do a lot of comparison and guessing to fill in the gaps, the dating measurement techniques remain remarkably consistent!. The rocks ARE clocks when the decay of various elements and other *measurable* phenomena are properly applied! We KNOW that various strata are multi-millions of years old...not to day & hour, but close enough to discover relationships of various specimens. They don't 'believe' these things as a matter of 'faith', they use them as we would a ruler or a laser test, because they ALWAYS are within constant parameters! These tests were applied to various scriptural parchment, and we know pretty closely how long ago they were written. We do NOT have any way to test and measure the claims and stories described in the documents! THAT is a matter of 'faith'. Pete... this is not a matter of prefacing an assertion with "imo" and asserting it gives your claim of 'faith' a status as good as measurable scientific claims.. it-just-is-not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Aug 14 - 02:06 PM when people believe stuff that is unproven experimentally, whether it be creation and theism, or evolutionism and atheism [yes I hear you, you are not claiming entire atheism] imo that is a faith position. ie, I believe that something from nothing via no one is impossible but that a creator is perfectly logical.....so long as you don't try to define him in non spiritual terms [ie himself needing a creator] your faith position consists of believing that something has come from nothing via no one[ though you are slightly more open minded than many of the more strident atheists here]. the "some" soft tissue preserved, seems to be more and more as time passes, yet still you prefer dating methods evolutionaly interpreted, despite some obvious errors and contradictions/ disagreements by scientists using them. these methods seem to be your reason to believe there must be some reason these soft tissues are preserved. the more logical explanation, till otherwise demonstrated, is that these dino bones etc are not as old as claimed. imo, that is a faith position. in fact, I would say that it requires less faith to accept an explanation that ties in better with experimentally verified time frame. neither of us are geologists, but I don't accept that evolutionary geologists would forsake their deep time dogma, and that it is as deeply ingrained as in creationist geologists. you may continue to reject my analysis, but I have explained why. I am inclined to think stu , that it is you who is being wilfully ignorant , and evasive. horse in burgess shale.....there might be, might not be, either way it is not evidence for evolution other than an argument from silence . soft tissue finds....according to experimental science , not to be expected to survive aeons......a scientific argument for a more recent life of dino. thing is, stu, you explain very little....more evasion . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 04 Aug 14 - 06:47 AM "the first - an argument from silence, the 2nd an argument from science." What does this even mean? "and I predict that should any of the examples you give be discovered that most evolutionists will not change their faith position, but rejig it, or claim reburial or some such scenario." Did you not read what I said, or are you being wilfully ignorant and trollish? It might do you some good to actually meet some scientists in person to actually understand what they do and how science works. Explaining it to you in a forum is obviously not working. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 03 Aug 14 - 07:13 PM also.... " creationist geologists would certainly want to discuss " etc. In so far as they are thinking and acting as creationists, they are NOT following the scientific method required for open-minded geologists. Religious beliefs and scientific inquiry are two entirely different areas of study. One can believe in God and still be a reasonable geologist, but one cannot apply the belief in God to decide issues in geology! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 03 Aug 14 - 06:45 PM revising your wording to agree with reality.. " operative, testable, science indicates " but as you got college training in logic, you may have the advantage." I usually defer to those who have more training on a topic than I do... until they reach a point where MY training warns me that they are being careless. " is it logical to say that because there are differences in religion, that therefore none are true , and probably no God. " Of course not... and *I* have never claimed it was! I have said many times that I cannot comment on whether a God 'made everything'..or whether one controlled it. I am skeptical about it, but can't prove anything. What I am compelled by that logic to understand is that IF God made & controlled it all and gave us the intelligence to study His creations, the evidence is merely showing us the process He used! Why resort to 2000 year old manuscripts written by men to guide our studies? Religions do not even agree about which documents should BE read & believed! and ONE MORE TIME... evolutionary science is NOT a "faith position". You must get out of that logically flawed position in order to deal with what it actually is! You cannot make it so by continuing to repeat the assertion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 03 Aug 14 - 04:10 PM Since when was evolution a faith position? Discovery is the antithesis of superstition, not a branch of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 03 Aug 14 - 04:08 PM bill, those instruments are utilized to give measurements, not to tell time. assumptions are made, that favour the deep time mindset. but even then there are anomalies and disagreements. for the life of me, I cant see why my arguments are less logical than yours, but as you got college training in logic, you may have the advantage. however, it seems logical to me that if operative, testable, science indicates no evidence of soft tissues surviving millions of yrs, that the bones are not that old. and while science should be open to some unknown mechanism, the obvious conclusion till that is validated is that dinos were much more recent. despite you and stu again claiming utter impartiality , the deep time worldview discounts the obvious conclusion. and is it logical to say that because there are differences in religion, that therefore none are true , and probably no God. I recognize that I am saying something similar about evolutionists, and I reckon it just goes to show that consensus is not much of an argument. which brings me to your use of the words "science/scientists" as though they are a priori evolutionist. most do subscribe to that worldview, but that would only be an appeal to numbers. the atheist argument seems to be that creationist scientists are either blinkered, or worse dishonest, as though an atheist, evolutionist scientist must never be , or usually not, be researching with the aim of confirming their own faith position. of course the well known lewontin quote supports my contention. ....a horse in the burgess shale........or soft tissue in dino bone ? the first - an argument from silence, the 2nd an argument from science. and I predict that should any of the examples you give be discovered that most evolutionists will not change their faith position, but rejig it, or claim reburial or some such scenario. and of course creationist geologists would certainly want to discuss what this evidence is that can only be interpreted according to the deep time paradigm. I'm sure they could find a few problems for you too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 03 Aug 14 - 07:16 AM "I don't insist you read reams of creation articles" I have gone and read relevant articles (on your beloved CMI for instance), and they tend to be appallingly inaccurate and contain arguments based on fallacy. To even attempt to start going through them point by point would be an utter waste of life, and I wonder what whomever wrote them is motivated by. Truth? I don't think so. " if you have a answer , you tell us what it is." Sorry, what was the question again? I've looked but can't find an actual question - although I did answer your point on 'evolutionists'. This however, also deserves comment: . . . coupled with an assurance that new info will be followed without bias, and of course discounting any creationist explanation a priori." Actually, this isn't true. Scientists work very hard to eliminate bias as being human it might creep in to research. However, recognising bias exists is the first step on the road to eliminating or reducing it to levels where it won't affect a set of results. There are many ways this is done, but statistical techniques are widespread and useful, as is the peer review process that should spot bias and unacceptable equivocation too, (amongst a whole slew of other things). The reason creationist explanations are not considered is because there is no evidence for them in the geological record. If there were, then a hypothesis would be drawn up and tested; in fact, this has happened and the idea of a young earth was dismissed many, many years ago (in the 1830's to be precise). Since then all the evidence points to a 4.3 billion year old earth. Of course Pete (and as I've said many time before), you could challenge this theory in a meaningful way by finding a horse in the Burgess Shale, a bony fish in the Edicarian, a hominem in the Mesozoic. Seeing as the entire creationist movement has found not a single hint of any of these, and predictions are they won't (they can be tested - off you go!), all available evidence points to creationism being total bunkum. Come on Pete, there are fossil sites all around the country - go and be the man who changed the course of human history and re-write the earth sciences text books (prediction: you won't). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:48 PM To echo Steve Shaw...rocks ARE clocks if you use the right instruments to read them. "...but you, bill, have already decided that creationist scientists have invented silly science to validate their faulty conclusions. " You again mistake how my decision process... and that of 'most' scientists... works. I did not begin with a viewpoint that creationist scientists were probably wrong. I began, about the age of 14, with the idea that all 'information' presented to me should be taken seriously until some clear data, science, or reasoning showed otherwise. This included religious doctrines. When assorted & numerous inconsistencies about religion began to bother me, I wondered why there were so many. This led to my education in philosophy & logic and now over 60 years of sorting thru theories and their basis. "...if there can be any...let alone many, inconsistencies, why should we trust evolutionist dating at all." What is clear is that the inconsistencies in science and in religion are just usually of different sorts... and, as I have said a dozen times, science has a built-in system for finding & resolving inconsistencies. That is what Mary Schweitzer and her team was doing....and what MOST honest scientists do! This is an entirely different system from that used by those who feel they MUST come to a conclusion that agrees with some set of religious precepts...AND.. you cannot simply "return a form of 'my' words back..." and assert that scientists are guilty of faulty reasoning and interpretation of evidence... that is a HUGE error in understanding how it all works- but you are trapped into that idea as the only one that allows you to deny the obvious. You cannot... fairly... decide to revise the basic principles of logic and language to suit your needs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:28 PM Pete, My points were not in reference to any one person on Mudcat, Pete7*. They were mainly in reference to views put forward towards science, scientists and their work-which seem to be at times misunderstood and misrepresented (intentionally, or otherwise) by some to make a religious point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Aug 14 - 06:02 PM rocks aren't clocks Oh yes they are. And, in a slightly different context, you are almost certainly wearing a rock on your wrist that is infinitely more accurate than the most elegant clockwork movement ever invented. |
