BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:20 PM

Plus 100
lol

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:19 PM

Wtf, 800

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:26 PM

Phenomenology... if you wanta spend a few years absorbing THAT can of worms... is one attempt

I can't let that pass without remarking it is my daughter's specialism!"

------------------------

I considered it myself 50 years ago, but had little access to either time or $$$$ to get myself to one of the few places where it was a major course of study. Where is she? And is she working in the field or just studying?
---------------------------------------------

Pete...". so what did the fly and the virus turn into ?"

Basic mistake in assumption, Pete. They 'turned into' different forms of themselves in the short timescale. The virus, for example, became one which was immune to penicillin. Not every event in evolution leads to something which might be seen in a photograph. And not every evolutionary change is for the 'better' of an organism. An elk with VERY large antlers might attract more female elk , but they might hinder his ability to feed or to evade human hunters. (And yes, they CAN carbon date specimens to dates much older than you are willing to admit exist!)

Evolution does not automatically mean something as simplistic as "survival of the fittest". The conditions something is 'fit' for can change.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:13 PM

Ed, to have a middle ground both sides need to find a common point to discuss... and by definition faith and science are polar opposites.

as for my issues with pete... I am very sincere in my evaluation of him... one of the "joys" of my state service job is the constant barrage of training classes we have to take on such things as dealing with difficult people, sexual harassment, violence in the workplace, ad nauseum...   but they do have some salient points and value.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... might I also suggest a reread of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley...

Oh.. another "joy" of my job is occasional contact with politicians and their lackeys... by and large, a most unimpressive bunch... it's the political machines that are the real scary ones... run by folks that think they are above the law.. until they can change it to suit themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:11 PM

So, DMcG, in response- do you see what you have stated as being repesentative of the majority of the posts on this thrad? If not so, (whi I feel is tge case) that is the answer to your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:34 PM

That is tricky, Ed. As it happens I am, as I've said before, a practising Christian (though some sects would not agree). I am also a scientist and mathematician by training and career. So I don't fall neatly into either camp and am no doubt to some extent reviled by both.

So when I challenge Pete it is not on the grounds of nature of God, though there could a good discussion on that from a few members here. It is that the 'greatest commandment' is that you should love God with, amongst other things, your whole mind. So every challenge I make can be expressed in the form "does this look like a determined effort to use your whole mind? If so, have I missed something?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:16 PM

an experiment can overrule the bible

REALITY overrules the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:14 PM

I submit that misplaced binary thinking, versus ternary thinking, on both sides in this thread have taken over the discussion, where each side can only see two extreme alternatives. The middle ground has become mostly invisible, making people say illogical and emotionally charged things about the other side, possibly with a misguided belief that they trancend such reactions.

Under such a scenario, one should not expect much rewarding from the discussion, as I suspect anyone with anything to contribute that does not reinforce either side would be cautious to do so, or likely left some time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:03 PM

I think you probably disagree with Kirkut, Pete, when he says that the proof of what he calls general evolution theory will be found in future experiment. In experiment, mind you, not the bible. Or do you accept that in principle an experiment can overrule the bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 02:01 PM

and it is , seems to me , irrational suggesting that one biblical creationist in England is of any consequence to politics anywhere !

if it was just you, pete, I would fully agree... but where are you getting your so called facts from ... if you admit to not reading any of the original source material? Frankly, you are merely a stooge for those who are using you... and your vote and that of others like you. But the bible to one side for awhile and read up on your history... one thing that doesn't seem to change is human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:52 PM

bill, I will come back to your big post later, as I got to do some running around soon.
by short time scale, I mean, by what can be observed in living memory or more recent records, but certainly not any myo time scale.
"....of what evolution actually is.." kerkuts definition seems to encompass it concisely. would you disagree with him ?
"....basic changes in genetic structure..." that sounds impressive !. so what did the fly and the virus turn into ?
these are very fast reproducers , I believe, so they must be just the thing to prove macro and information gain type evolution !.
maybe it is you who stubbornly refuse to see the difference between evolution as per kerkut, and scientific observations accepted by scientists whether evo ,crea or anything else !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:46 PM

"Pete is not any kind of "aggressive."
He is entitled to express his beliefs, and has done so with a complete absence of aggression.
There has been aggression showed to him."

Most of the studies were done in relation to work requirements and dealing with difficult people in the workplace. pete is in a social medium, but still exhibting the negative traits associated with the behavior. As in demeaning the education and qualifications of those with opposing viewpoints and basically setting up two standards: one for those he approves of and the second for everyone else.

"passive-aggressive personality disorder as a "pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations". Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible."

One of the most frequent complaints about pete is that he demands debate but ignores every convention of legitimate debate... which does result in some verbal abuse...

but you are incorrect in assuming that pete is not aggressive... he is very aggressive in his passive aggressive manner. he may fool you, but there's plenty of others who are on to him... and have left. I prefer to continue pointing out the lack of substance to his arguments and why I consider people like him dangerous to a free society that needs to be able to agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:45 PM

if they fail in their mission to make me mistrust the bible

Not so. The "mission" - if such exixts - is to have you use your brain, become educated, and shed your ignorance.

As a sign at a local church once explained:

"Jesus came to take away your sins - not your mind."

"Faith" is not incompatible with evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:32 PM

without wishing to defend myself [ but thankyou keith] , it strikes me that our mudcat scientists are making a lot of assumptions about me, and what dangers lie ahead for society , if they fail in their mission to make me mistrust the bible. just goes to show how strictly disciplined scientists can extrapolate beyond the evidence.....
I would also suggest, that they will be far safer living in the good ol USA, THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LIVING IN MANY STATES WHOSE LEADERS WERE EVOLUTIONISTS. and that is historically verified.
and it is , seems to me , irrational suggesting that one biblical creationist in England is of any consequence to politics anywhere !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:27 PM

"Name one prominent scientist of the last 150 years who now looks like a "stodgy conservative."

Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys ( died 1989) and Charles Schuchert (died 1942 - 25 years before the Glomar Challenger), were outspoken critics of continental drift."

Jeffreys was a strong opponent of continental drift. For him, continental drift was "out of the question" because no force even remotely strong enough to move the continents across the Earth's surface was evident.

Starting from August 1968, the Glomar Challenger embarked on a 15 year-long scientific expedition, the Deep Sea Drilling Program, cris-crossing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between South America and Africa and drilling core samples at specific locations. When the age of the samples was determined by paleontological and isotopic dating studies, this provided conclusive evidence for the seafloor spreading hypothesis, and, consequently, for plate tectonics.

Until the Glomar Challenger, there was no physical mechanism to explain continental drift... or the Ring of Fire or how mountains arise.... so there was lively debate.   That debate is over and plate tectonics accepted by the scientific community.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:26 PM

Phenomenology... if you wanta spend a few years absorbing THAT can of worms... is one attempt

I can't let that pass without remarking it is my daughter's specialism!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:07 PM

Free will is an interesting issue Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 01:02 PM

The "theory of evolution" is just words... they once meant something like 'whether evolution'. Now, if they are to be used at all, they signify 'how evolution'.
   There is no serious doubt that a basic process summarized as 'evolution' is at work. Unpacking the concept to comprehend everything it implies is staggeringly complex.

I am reading Gould's "Wonderful Life" about the Burgess shale, in which he uses the study of those amazing fossils to discuss the entire range of issues relating to "science in general" and how mistakes are made... and corrected... and what it means to re-evaluate our data as we discover more examples.

Not only is 'life' evolving, but conceptual science itself is growing and evolving as we refine our ability to integrate our self-image with the discoveries about the changing world we are part of.
This means integrating our history & psychology & culture & religious concepts with the measurements of science.... as best we can.
   If humans have 'free will', whether given by a god or just as a natural byproduct of the brains neural workings, the result is the ability to **rationalize**..... and so far, no one has figgered out how to be sure when we are doing it. (Phenomenology... if you wanta spend a few years absorbing THAT can of worms... is one attempt)

(by the way... there are those who do not believe in free will. That debate gets very interesting)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:53 PM

Pete is not any kind of "aggressive."
He is entitled to express his beliefs, and has done so with a complete absence of aggression.
There has been aggression showed to him.

When I mentioned a vicar who didn't actually believe the bible as fact, one sanctimonious contributor said he found that hard to believe.

I doubt there is one single CofE vicar who believes the bible to be literal fact.
Who was that sanctimonious fool Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:46 PM

Name one prominent scientist of the last 150 years who now looks like a "stodgy conservative."

Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert, were outspoken critics of continental drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 12:37 PM

another place you will passive aggressive behavior is in work environments where inappropriate behavior - racist or sexist remarks, etc. - are not tolerated, at least not overt behavior... but I've seen first hand how blind hatred of gays, non-whites or women can manifest itself. It's not pretty and hard to root out because it comes from a culture of blind acceptance of irrational behavior... turning people into noting more than stereotypes.   

In the 1960's I witnessed blind hatred of blacks and experienced the reverse hatred from young black girls... what I hated most about that experience was that for the first time it made me see black people as "them".. irrational, but a lasting kind of conditioning. Imagine having to live in that kind of environment with no escape...

so how is a category different from a stereotype... category is based on temporary convenience.. a mudcatter, christian , atheist with common traits in general. stereotype is assigning permanent traits to a category irrespective of their accuracy and applicability. Neill deGrasse Tyson is a scientist, an astrophysicist, and he happens to be a black American man- to believe in stereotypes regarding black Americans is in direct conflict with what we can observe to be the actual case.

I see pete as a fundamentalist zealot... based on his behavior on this site. And I strongly suspect that had he been born into a Muslim family, he would be waving the Koran and railing against indecent women.. based on the personality traits I've observed. Personality types seem to gravitate to compatible belief systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:49 AM

for the record... part of what makes a person good in the sciences is their ability at pattern recognition coupled with the ability to extrapolate. You'll see it in testing materials, especially for young children.

where you find passive- aggressive behavior is in people who feel vulnerable and defenseless. For whatever reason, it appears that pete has chosen to believe that strict belief in selected parts of his bible will save him/keep him safe and is afraid to risk that safety net by ignoring non-believers...   he has to take action to prove his worthiness of salvation. If it were otherwise, he could merely decide to pray for all us "sinners" and trust in his god to handle us.

I'll never forget what a former professor said about living in the bible belt... every week they would be visited by various churches and invited to services... it never ceased and his observation was that they were very polite... but not very nice. Strict adherence to politeness kept them from becoming violent. Nice people don't need that layer of control.

Perhaps that helps explain the militarized police in some of our more fundamentalist towns/states...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:31 AM

"Pete is not at all like a "contrary pupil."
I should know.
He has listened, considered and engaged.

It is just that your combined assaults and weeks of goading and haranguing have failed to shake his simple faith and belief."

and now children, I'll tell you all about the brave little hen who alerted the world to the falling sky...

He has listened- looking for cue words he can twist the meaning of

considered - looked for the pre-programmed response from his propaganda material

and

engaged.... yeah, came on the site to deliberately disparage anyone who does not agree with his blind faith.

you make excuses for pete, but he is displaying passive- agressive behavior and we are his targets...

Most chronically passive-aggressive individuals have four common characteristics:

    They're unreasonable to deal with.
    They're uncomfortable to experience.
    They rarely express their hostility directly.
    They repeat their subterfuge behavior over time.

Passive aggressiveness may be directed towards a person or a group. The root causes are complex and deep-seated. Whatever the reasons that may drive an individual to be passive-aggressive, it's not easy to be on the receiving end of such veiled hostilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 11:24 AM

It beggars belief that there are those who would have people believe superstition in these enlightened times. Not all religious people, in fact not many at all are capable of distinguishing between belief and believe. You see them as having your values Joe, when they are as alien to the petes of this world as my own.

When I mentioned a vicar who didn't actually believe the bible as fact, one sanctimonious contributor said he found that hard to believe.

And it wasn't pete...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 10:51 AM

And in the end, what does it matter? Is it worth doing battle over it all?

It matters, Joe, becuse ignorance and stupidity have real-world consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:56 AM

Joe, ever hear of the "Theory" of Relativity?

It's been confirmed again and again. And never seriously controverted.

So why is it still "just a theory"?

In large part because a hundred years of habit have made people used to talking about "the theory of relativity" instead of plain "relativity."

At a more sophisticated level, it's still a "theory" because there are loose ends that have not yet been definitively tied up: most notably how it ties in with quantum mechanics.

Einstein's "theory" doesn't mean Einstein was just making up some wild idea. Relativity, like evolution over eons, is a fact: exactly how it might be explained is not yet entirely clear.

It's Pete virtually alone who keeps this thread going. If he were tired of the subject, he'd quit posting and it would fade away.
He keeps insisting, however, that he wants to understand the "erroneous" acceptance of evolution and point out its alleged fatal flaws.

Yet he shows no inclination to consider the numerous logical fallacies in his own "arguments." Getting those straight is fundamental to any understanding of *any* topic, but when we point them out, he glosses them over. I no longer believe he has any serious intention, ever, of first understanding evolution (so that, in theory, he could probe for any "real" weaknesses, so there's no further point in responding to his posts.

The last straw was his calm assertion that though understanding even an introductory college course would be beyond him, his natural-science wisdom surpasses that of generations of professional scientists, whom he paints as a conglomeration of liars and fools.

Name one prominent scientist of the last 150 years who now looks like a "stodgy conservative." Perhaps you're thinking of the unscientific inquisitors who threatened to torture the scientist Galileo for discovering something new and important.

At worst, those "stodgy conservatives" look like scrupulous, hard-working practitioners who did not have all the relevant facts, but were eager to keep on discovering.

Creationists believe they do have all the relevant facts and do not wish to be confused by more.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:21 AM

"Science is much less comfortable with the idea that maybe the taxonomy is no more than a matter of human convenience"

I would like to qualify that statement... it is people in general who want simple answers... and get impatience with qualified answers. just look at how pete regards any honest answer that doesn't presume absolute assurance as meaning it is somehow wrong.

science is tool for asking questions and finding answers... it is tool used by people who try to be sufficiently objective and don't always succeed.

and rereading my comment about fundamentalism above, I realize I left out an important point... dogma provides opportunity to gain power and attracts people who desire power and often abuse said power.

the Inquisition is a classic case of abuse of power in the name of dogma. the KKK used/uses religion to perpetuate hatred...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:19 AM

Pete is not at all like a "contrary pupil."
I should know.
He has listened, considered and engaged.

It is just that your combined assaults and weeks of goading and haranguing have failed to shake his simple faith and belief.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a much better success rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:07 AM

do you realize how much you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses?

unkind and untrue and unworthy comment, Joe.

we sound more like frustrated teachers who are trying to present important information to contrary pupils... been there, done that.

if there is any one like a Jehovah's Witness, it is pete who freely admits to coming into this thread to prevent an agreefest... and never once admits that his distorted view of the world is anything other than absolute god given truth... when in fact he is part of a highly vocal MINORITY of christians that is doing religion no favors with their behavior.

I find myself sickened by his smug, complacent attitude that his form of ignorance is superior to sane and rational objectivity...

and here in the USA, pete's counterparts are being manipulated by people like Karl Rove and Koch brothers to vote in politicians who give lip service to democracy, while they attempt to turn us into an oligarchy. fundamentalism is every bit as dangerous as communism was 50 years ago because it relies on dogma and the desire of leaders to control everything they can get away with.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:00 AM


This is one of the true delights of science; things refuse to be pigeon-holed and are invariably far more interesting than first meets the eye.

I wish I'd said that. Stu. You are absolutely right, and that expresses my attitude to science far better than anything I've posted.

You may, possibly, be right. But so what? Science is equipped to handle such uncertainties
Most science, leaving aside the [admittedly huge] topic of quantum mechanics, is only really comfortable with the idea that there is a single right answer, even if we haven't worked out what it is. A bit like Newton's clockwork universe: science was pretty comfortable things worked like that, even if they hadn't figured out all the rules. In biology, I suggest, there is an implicit assumption that there is a 'right' taxonomy of inheritance, for example, and while what we know may have flaws and omissions, each discovery will take us towards that 'true' solution.

Science is much less comfortable with the idea that maybe the taxonomy is no more than a matter of human convenience and we could use a completely different one in some circumstances where it happened to suit us better, which neither being more corre4ct than the other. The further we get from pure science into the applied, the more often this seems to happen. Medication, for example, often ends up with a whole range of drugs each of which helps a proportion of sufferers, but no effective way of telling whether a specific drug will help a specific purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 07:15 AM

"It is hard to justify an "Origin of Species" unless one is clear what constitutes a species."

There is considerable debate amongst scientist concerned with any degree of phylogeny about what constitutes a species; there are various definitions. This is because (contrary to our christian friends misconceptions) every organism is in a state of transition; we know speciation occurs and we know some of the mechanisms of speciation, but when does one species become another? There are no absolutes. Some of the things that creepeth along the ground flyeth and swimeth also. God was ribbing everyone by making it all appear so simple in his big book..

This is one of the true delights of science; things refuse to be pigeon-holed and are invariably far more interesting than first meets the eye. And far more wonderful than the bible ever supposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 05:59 AM

"It is because of such things that I suggested we examine the question of what we really mean by a species, as that should not be a world-against-pete discussion. It is hard to justify an "Origin of Species" unless one is clear what constitutes a species. And, as I hinted, I suspect we are less certain of this than we imagine."

You may, possibly, be right. But so what? Science is equipped to handle such uncertainties - if a convincing case can be made that it is necessary to do so. On the other hand, religious fundamentalists, like pete, insist that all truths are contained within the pages of ancient texts and it is sacrilege to question, contradict or reject those truths in the light of new evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 05:03 AM

"It's likely to change at any time, and then you'll be stuck looking like a stodgy conservative.

Read the thread, try to understand how science works and you might learn something. Posting stuff like this does your cause no favours.

Also, scientific theories aren't hunches or guesses. We confirm theories through testing and they are comprehensive explanations of facts. Gravity is a theory, but it's also a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:42 AM

do you realize how much you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses?

Harsh, but not entirely unfair. There is certainly a strong vibe of "you must see the world our way or you (and the children you are misleading) are all doomed." And it is not entirely correct to say that bible followers think there is no higher revelation. As St Paul puts it: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known".

It is because of such things that I suggested we examine the question of what we really mean by a species, as that should not be a world-against-pete discussion. It is hard to justify an "Origin of Species" unless one is clear what constitutes a species. And, as I hinted, I suspect we are less certain of this than we imagine. Over the years I grow less convinced that a 'visiting alien' who wanted to organise all creatures into groups would end up with even a similar set of categories to those we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:37 AM

Joe, I don't know whether you read that brilliant link that BillD posted a few days ago on misconceptions about evolution? But that link contains an important perspective on the nature of scientific theories too:

"[A] misconception [about the nature of scientific theories] stems from a mix-up between casual and scientific use of the word theory. In everyday language, theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. Evolution is a well-supported and broadly accepted scientific theory; it is not 'just' a hunch."

So you can't 'just' dismiss the Theory of Evolution as "just a theory".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:09 AM

"The Theory of Evolution is still the Theory of Evolution,..."

And the Bible is just an old book containing old Middle Eastern myths.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:28 AM

Joe. Who is holding to a truth? I may be thick but even I know that scientific discovery relies on observing and deducing.

In other words, tomorrow somebody might say something that makes sense but contradicts present conclusions and lots of what you and pete call "evolutionist dogma" will disappear perhaps. Unlikely, because the changes that come through evolution are strengthened by each and every piece of research. But let's just assume.

And yet, despite said discovery also burying biblical dogma even further, pete will still stick to his creationism, you will wonder how the bible helps explain the recent findings and the rest of us? We will have discarded whatever is seen to be lacking.

Doesn't sound like a Jehovas Witness approach to me. Seems more like dismay that children are being taught creationist nonsense as an alternative to reality.

Or child abuse, as decent society calls it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:10 AM

All you who keep fighting Pete and trying to convince him of the "Truth" - do you realize how much you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses?

The Theory of Evolution is still the Theory of Evolution, even if Pope John Paul II said that it was "more than just a theory." It makes sense to me, but I predict there will be a time when people will see our thinking about evolution as "primitive"...and, no doubt, they will see Pete's thinking as "pre-primitive."

Whatever the case, there is much we still don't understand. Don't hold onto your "truth" too tightly. It's likely to change at any time, and then you'll be stuck looking like a stodgy conservative.

And in the end, what does it matter? Is it worth doing battle over it all?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 06:28 PM

Oh well, if it is a question of more popular, you should have said so.

Anyone need a lift to a book burning?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 06:25 PM



Sure - you can add god into it if you want to, but there is no need for that hypothesis. It's simpler, and therefore more likely to be true, that common ancestry exists. Adding a designer just makes the picture less clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 05:43 PM

A hell of a lot of posts here, all to see if fantasy and superstition is more truthful than reality?

Nothing to do with truthful.

Question is: Which is more POPULAR, superstition and/or nonsense vs. reality.

Nonsense and fantasy and superstition will win every time.

That's why the world is in deep shit currently.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 04:33 PM

> Darwin was honest about acknowledging where his lack of information was a hindrance to a fuller explanation

Quite the opposite of creationists, who neither require nor wish to contemplate additional information that is inconsistent with their doctrinal belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:29 PM

A hell of a lot of posts here, all to see if fantasy and superstition is more truthful than reality?

Sod the bible. What does Mordor and evolving orcs tell us about how the universe trundles along?

👹👹👹

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:05 PM

going into college level might well lose me,

Going into the 4th grade level has apparently lost you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:00 PM

don't hold your breath, Shimrod... the 7 star wonder is only intersted in spoiling our agreefest... raining on our parade... and pissing in our soup... no more no less

sad reason for existence, but there you have it...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:51 PM

Anyway, pete, are you ready to discuss faith vs reason yet? Let me know when you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:13 PM

pete... if you have been nagged to read Origins, it to have you see what was actually written... not what others have told you what it said. As in, go to the original source if you want to dispute it. Not some highly edited and glossed over summary.

At no point did anyone here tell you that Origins was nothing other than an early attempt (that was quite accurate, considering the available information) at explaining what Darwin himself observed in nature and others had determined in their studies of geology and biology.   And Darwin was honest about acknowledging where his lack of information was a hindrance to a fuller explanation and trusted that further study would help support his theory... which it did and continues to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 12:07 PM

Well Pete... all I can say is that your notion of what 'short time scale' shows is totally subjective, and depends on a distorted concept of what evolution actually is. Fruit flies & viruses DO undergo basic changes in genetic structure which are quite different from just variation among individuals.

You are stubbornly calling that process something else because your system requires you to refute it or change one of your subjective beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:55 AM

"I know you, ..personally.. don't revere "origins" ,and that you believe the theory has been verified, but steve has been nagging me for years to read it, evidently believing it sufficient for evidencing evolutionism."

That is the most perverse nonsense you've ever written, pete! And you've written some pretty perverse nonsense in your time!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:55 AM

"... creationists freely admit their presuppositions, and faith, though supported by scientific and logical argument. evolutionists however refuse to admit presuppositions and their faith...."

That, Pete. is at the core of our disagreement. "Freely admitting" your presuppositions does not give them special status.

Here is the problem: you state that 'evolutionists' also have some. That is not a good way to describe what 'scientists' begin with, but even if we allow that term, we need to understand that presuppositions come in more than one flavor.
You begin with presuppositions about unverified 'facts'. Old documents are data, not 'truth'... they must be tested, examined & translated and compared to other data... not merely copied and inserted into a corpus of beliefs.

We... and science... begin with presuppositions about how to IDENTIFY and test facts. That is, we assume nothing about the data that is not looked at from various angles by multiple experts and that is correlated with other facts/data. Old documents are subject to the same rigor as old bones and old rocks.

When you are presented by science with data & logic which seems to cast doubt on your beliefs, you specifically look for ways to defend your set of beliefs no matter what the data & logic show, which leads to
1) equivocation over terms (creationist 'scientists'), Anyone whose basic premise is religious is not acting AS a scientist in that context.
2) flawed interpretation of evidence (dino 'footprints' which are proven not to be what you need them to be'),
3)nit-picking over time scales and detail (claiming that slightly different measurements cast doubt on the entire system),
   3a)assertions that disagreement over detail by scientists casts doubt on their overall conclusions.
4)really, really bad logic/reasoning trying to accuse scientists of the same fallacies you employ. (argument from authority...etc.) (which is also an equivocation on 'authority') Science does NOT accept something simply because they read it in a book, or because someone famous said so.... and if some individual scientist does so, science in general is designed to correct it!)
   4a)assuming what you wish to prove in your premises: "you can't have something from nothing, therefore there must have been a creator". It has a certain ring to it, but is essentially only a feeling. We can only speculate about that. We can measure a lot about the Universe, including general age and development, but beginning? *shrug*

I could, of course, expand on all those points in various ways... and have done so in the past... and could define the numbered points in various ways.

I DO understand the force of belief as to 'creation' and metaphysical concepts, but as you know, millions of 'good Christians' also accept, as Wolcott did, the idea that God 'revealed himself through evolution.