BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:29 PM

" as long as I explain what I mean [if need be] I don't see much of a problem.
using the term "

It is like categories of music, Pete. If all you are doing is filing your own LPs and CDs, any system is fine. YOU know what you mean, and silly attempts to tell you what should be called 'folk' is intrusive.

...however, if you are going to open a music store or run a concert series...etc., it is well to name and describe things in a way that is intelligible to as many as possible.

Modern science has moved way beyond the terms 'evolutionist' and 'Darwinist' in describing their position(s). On the other hand, various fundamentalist groups and individuals seem to adopt 'creationist' as a term of honor. If that is incorrect, let me know. But since scientists in general do not begin with religious premises, and proceed in very different ways than creationists in interpreting data, it is just jarring to hear the term 'creationist science'. They may do science part of the time, but when redefining terms to suit religious beliefs and going out of their way to look for ways to deny scientific research in order to make YEC compatible, they are simply not acting AS scientists. They have become adept at switching hats quickly... sometimes in the same speech or paragraph... but reinterpreting evidence that 99% of regular scientists agree on is anti-scientific. (just as someone writing a song on the way to the pub and introducing it as 'folk' is playing fast & loose with the term)

"re [3,] specific examples....well stuff like dating rocks of known recent age as myo. would you like the specific examples when I got more time ?

Yep... because geologists don't like being wrong, and they check on each other when measurements don't agree. So... "known by" whom? That IS why the scientific method so often refines it's specific conclusions... and very occasionally makes major modifications. As I said way above, Gould explains at great length how the amazing man, Wolcott, who found the Burgess fossils, made major errors in his methodology ... for various reasons. Others, who used the very same materials, thought a bit differently and reconciled some quite awkward ideas Wolcott had about categories. And they are still woring on some of the specimens to refine it. That is science.

I... ummm.. see very little progress in integrating the 'banned gospels' into the Bible, although many experts feel they were left out for political and other purposes.

4a...maybe so...


""...the 'easier' way...? going against the flow at best and martyrdom at worst ?!."

That is essentially 'Pascal's Wager'... but Pascal only allowed 4 options, when there are logically many others. (read about the various criticisms). Still... I do have sympathy for the idea, and see why in Pascal's formulation, it make sense to so many.. they just don't want to take chances. I also wonder if a god would not know when someone was merely formally 'believing' for the reward, instead of for doing good. *shrug*....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:16 PM

"using the term -evolutionist- is loaded.....
and -creationist- is not ?"

Yes!

I see you're not speaking to me, pete. Is it because I was rude to you (although you richly deserve being rude to)? Or is it because I caught you out on the faith vs reason thing?

By the way - are you ready for the faith vs reason debate yet, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:34 PM

good for you, DMcG...

I am old enough to remember when science was not a required subject in school... it was the three Rs. reading, 'riting & 'rithmatic.

It was during the third grade that Sister Seraphine came into the classroom and told us we would have a new subject to learn... science. This was because the Russians had sent up Sputnik and the US Congress was not about to let those Ruskies beat us to the moon... since we had already lost out on being the first into space.

Those poor nuns were barely a step ahead of their classes... they thought whales and dolphins were fish and barely understood most of general science. But the books weren't bad and we even had science fairs each year.

Kids are bright and love to learn... but they need access to good information and teachers who can help them investigate the world... not spoon feed them misinformation. Leave that to tyrannies that fear freedom of thought and inquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:28 PM

I see what you mean Bill D. IMO, there is really little point in this thread anymore.

What is sad, if not humourous, is as soon as you raise the topic of pointless and futile insults, versus making a point, someone will follow up shortly after demonstrating the very pointless approaches you raised:)

IMO,among most readers (outside hose with already polarized positions) this approach tends to minimize any points these posters seem to have a desire to pass on to others, versus reinforcing their case.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:05 PM

Sorry for that last post of mine - I am not usually so cynical.

There is an election coming up in the UK shortly. I'd begin by asking every candidate what their view is on teaching creationism in schools and what additional legislation is needed to promote or ban it, depending on their view.

I would expect one of two answers:
a) They are opposed to creationism in school, but do not think any additional legislation is needed
b) They believe that if an academy wishes to teach creationism, they should be free to do so, providing only that it is made clear to parents of prospective pupils. The parents will pick whatever school they think fit, so again no legislation is needed.

So overall, I think the politician's response will be no action is needed.

If you want to try and take this further, I'd then run the answers past the local paper and see if you could interest them, or send them to one of the nationals. Who knows, maybe it might stir something.

====

No pete, not Lamarkism. But the field of epigenetics is interesting ... maybe some other time.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:37 PM

yes, dmcg , you did raise some interesting angles....some lamark ideas revived ?,but that is more inter-evolutionist than directly what I am occupied by.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:30 PM

So, how do we get this crap out of the science classes?

In short, you can't. It is down to luck.

In longer form, you must vote for people who use believe will cut it out, even if that means voting for other policies that you really don't like: remember they are the ones who decide what is packaged with what.

Now suppose one thing is to insist on fully qualified science teachers from properly accredited universities, etc. That may cost more. So maybe solving the schools problem means higher taxes. Do you reckon people would vote for it? I don't.

Or suppose a party in favour of it has immigration policies you can't stand? What then?

Luck, I am afraid, may be all there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:25 PM

bill..tried 17 ways....been counting ?
apart from words having often range of meaning and evolving [smile] as long as I explain what I mean [if need be] I don't see much of a problem.
using the term -evolutionist- is loaded.....
and -creationist- is not ?
"it seems to me" is merely an admission that I might be missing something in the argument, and trying not to sound too combative.
re [3,] specific examples....well stuff like dating rocks of known recent age as myo. would you like the specific examples when I got more time ?
re [3a] "..refuting the idea..." at least in your estimation !
re [4a] you have a point there, I concede. you would be happy if you achieved a theistic evolutionist result with me, I believe.

"...the 'easier' way...? going against the flow at best and martyrdom at worst ?!.

very apt word you coined, bill.
I will leave it up to you bill. all the time someone posts on the topic, assuming 1/2 way civility I will probably answer. those who post abuse and ad hominem only demonstrate their evangelical atheistic philosophy/religion.
I predict, that should you close this, one of them will start another, such is their crusading fervour.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:21 PM

And there was I thinking I'd raised a few interesting angles fairly recently. Oh, well, what a gift the giftie gae us, and all that. But I agree that separating discussion from noise is getting a bit wearisome. I'll stop at or before post 1000 unless something dramatic occurs

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

So, how do we get this crap out of the science classes?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 01:04 PM

It's just over thirty years since I got my teaching certification and was made aware of a concerted effort to turn back the clock and attempt to get creationism legitimized as science. Thirty freaking years later and they not only are still at it, but when foiled in their attempts to replace real science with their religious propaganda, they have gone the route of supporting politicians who will change the law in their favor. These same politicans who are attempting to dismantle fair elections, separation of church and state, fair wages and the unions that help ensure them, proper oversight of financial institutions, and fair and equal treatment of women and minorities.

Do I find this alarming... you bet I do. If the USA becomes a democracy in name only, who's going to be next?

If these guys kept to themselves, the way my Amish neighbors do, I would just shrug my shoulders and it would be live and let live. They have their belief system and I have mine...

but that is not the case... and I for one am not about to roll over and let it happen on my watch. I know it's useless to convince pete of anything, but if I can point out the fallicies to others I will make that effort. There is a bigger picture out there that is being obscured by the "trees".


taken from wiki:

The Creation Science Movement (CSM, founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement) is a British Creationist organisation which lays claim to the title "the oldest creationist movement in the world". It was a member of the Evangelical Alliance until its resignation in 2008, and is a registered charity.

But while fundamentalists have always been hostile to evolution, the modern creationist movement in North America got its start in the 1960s, primarily due to the influence of an evangelical author named Henry Morris. Morris' 1964 book The Genesis Flood argued, among other things, that Noah's flood happened just as the Bible describes it -- in other words, it was reasonable to believe that eight people could care for a floating zoo containing at least two members of every species on Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:51 PM

when the number of insults and atheisticamonious (opposite of sanctimonious... I just invented it) remarks far exceeds relevant stuff

Well, Bill, I suppose that depends upon what you deem as "relevant", dunnit? You asked me a while back what my "career" was. I assume that yours involved/involves running off at the mouth at great length to no effect whatsoever. Sir Sisyphus of Verbiage.

Also, if you will check back, I have nothing against those who choose to practise religion of whatever form - including the nonsensical fundagelical creationist kind - as long as they don't inflict their idiocy on anyone else - particularly upon children and especially children in public schools - which amounts to child abuse by preventing children from using/exercising the brains God gave 'em.

The fundies seem to revel in their ignorance & stupidity & wear it as a badge of honor. Does not bode well for the future of the globe should the idiocy spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:15 PM

" show me what of human didn't come from microbes " mrrzy asks.
that's a tricky question, because physically we are a lot of microbe.
but that is not the same as demonstrating that microbes developed into man as per Darwin dogma.
I know you object to me calling it that....maybe dawkins dogma updates it..... , and all you have to do to demonstrate it is more than that, is to answer the question dawkins evaded, and I believe you did also. yes , I am not as educated as you, but I is all you got to respond to the evangelical atheists that start these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

Interesting approaches? Amos is full of it them. ☺

Seems like the thread is wearing very thin in any attempt to add useful info to the stated topic. Pete & I do manage to get in a few ideas to compare, but even those have begun to sound repetitious. Several others do add some relevant ideas, but when the number of insults and atheisticamonious (opposite of sanctimonious... I just invented it) remarks far exceeds relevant stuff, there's not much use in going on.

I'll see how it goes, but I see little reason to let it go beyond the approaching 1000 mark.

Any opinion, Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:28 AM

Thats an interesting approach;)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:27 AM

Actually, stupidity and ignorance, like all things, are gradient phenomena. They range from slight to great in infinitely subdivisible degrees. Like all relative things it in endlessly entertaining to compare the various kinds and degrees. You could make a whole career out of it, becoming a Stupidologist!

On reflection I have only ever encountered one absolute in all the universe I know of, and that is the absolute dinglicheit of the moment of Now. Unfortunately no testing is admissible, since it just left, but another will be along shortly... :D

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:16 AM

I entirely agree, Ed - the creationist clowns are indeed ignorant as well! Glad we've had a meeting of the minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:05 AM

Ignorant:Oxford

ADJECTIVE
1
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated:
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid."
Origin
late Middle English: via Old French from Latin ignorant- 'not knowing', from the verb ignorare (see ignore).

2
Informal, discourteous or rude:""this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:53 AM

Hmmmmm. Per Merriam-Webster;

stupid    adjective:    (stü-pəd, styü-)

1. lacking common sense, not sensible or logical.
2. having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things, obtuse.
3. given to unintelligent decisions or acts; acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.

Wherein is this off-base?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:34 AM

When I observe someone calling another person "stupid", I normally see this as a sign that this person has stopped thinking, for one reason or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:08 AM

G: Stupidity and ignorance, Joe, are absolute.

B: Greg... what was your career? Writing obnoxious bumper stickers?

So Bill - are you saying that're not? Please elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 02:58 AM

Of course the irony is that the casting of doubt on the veracity of religious texts is only a by-product and unintended consequence of modern science. Although pete has avowed that he doesn't believe that science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy, that is, in fact, how he appears to view it. His determined and constant use of the invented term "evolutionism" is a case in point. His use of that absurd term suggests that he views modern evolutionary biology as a sort of competing dogma to creationism. Meanwhile, in the real world, modern science is an on-going process, not a dogma. Real scientists live day-to-day with uncertainty - something which pete is manifestly unable to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:41 AM

Well, Steve, I guess you'll believe what you want to believe. I can click a link and see all the deleted posts in a thread. They show up with a grey background. I see a number of deleted posts in the thread - many of them seem to have something to do with someone who was impersonating Musket, and the responses made to the impersonator. And I checked the list twice, and I see no deleted posts in this thread, and no deleted posts in any thread under your current IP. The usual reason for disappearing posts, is that the post doesn't "take," usually because you posted on a page stored on your computer instead of loaded fresh. Occasionally, a post simply disappears, leaving no trace. But posts that are intentionally deleted are visible to me, and to most of the moderators.

Call me a liar if you like, but I have no reason to lie.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 12:34 AM

I enjoy talking to the ones who listen. I believe I can save their bodies.

And I find it amazing that pete could have grown up so ignorant and not be in one of the backward theocracies like the US or a few middle eastern nations.

Everybody else teaches science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 10:35 PM

As theater of the absurd, this thread is pretty damned funny. On one hand, you have one guy who seems impossibly impervious to clues, and on the other, a whole bunch of easily provoked people, jumping through every hoop he holds up, equally impervious to clues. Of course, he's missing the clue about the logic of science, and the other guys are missing clues about the futility of trying to talk about logic and science with someone who's determined not to ever get it.

Of course, that's why trolls do so well here. People enjoy reacting and are having too much fun being manipulated to care that they're being manipulated.

Personally, I never heard of people who took the Bible literally until I was in high school, and I didn't know of any atheists until then either. People who take things literally are at a distinct disadvantage in life. I have a hard time believing anyone who's studied the Bible at all doesn't have an understanding of parable.

That's the last I'll say here, because I don't want to be one of those people who doesn't know when to walk away from stupid... at least occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 09:40 PM

Pete, in other words, you have no data. That's what I said. I see that you don't understand the data. However, and again, thinking that your not understanding the data is evidence for the supernatural, just demonstrates that you don't know what evidence is.
You. Have. To. Have. A. Datum.

And you have none. Not a single *fact* fails to support the theory. That's why it's a theory, like gravity, not a model or paradigm.

Not understanding the theory isn't evidence against it.

Show me what of human didn't come from microbe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 09:06 PM

Joe, I'm glad you were able to homeschool... but there are way too many school districts out there that are threatened with book bannings and replacing science with non-science... who's going to help out those kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 09:04 PM

This is the last time I'm going to bang on about this, because I care quite a bit less than I'm letting on (I'm more annoyed than anything that the alleged moderators here choose to be in denial), but a post of mine, criticising pete and correcting his misrepresentations, has been deleted from this thread (and I unfailingly check that my posts have actually posted). I don't care whether my posts get deleted or not, as in hey ho. But when the high and mighty around here, on their moralising high horses, deny that it's happened, well, I think y'all should know about it. Moving swiftly on, as they say. I might be nasty, Joe old chap, but at least I'm an honourable man.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:55 PM

sorry, Ed... but I stand by my observations, based on pete's posts in this and several other threads. His behavior is consistent from thread to thread.

How can you expect honest discourse with someone who responds with comments like this...

"thank you shimrod for answering my question,....and even more for conceding that your science education and interests has no bearing on evolutionist beliefs. to my mind, that means that you do in fact take what you are told about it on faith.
and also, confirming that evolutionism serves no useful purpose, other than providing some well paid jobs for propagating evolutionism."

If I used examples from my work experience, it was because they were handiest. We all have issues, pete's seem to revolve around feeling threatened by science and the theory of evolution in particular. Mine deal more with feeling threatened with the thought of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers taking over my country. As if Sarah Palin as VP wasn't scary enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:44 PM

To sum things up: The Scientific Method vs The Creationist Method

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: bobad
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:30 PM

How'd you guess Bill? His most well known one reads "Yeah, but what about.......?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:14 PM

Greg... what was your career? Writing obnoxious bumper stickers?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 08:08 PM

Don't hold onto anything as absolute

Stupidity and ignorance, Joe, are absolute.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:51 PM

Well, Ed...it is indeed funny when said lightly, but the serious side of it is that belief in various religious constructs is deeply embedded in human history, and thus, when I debate certain ideas, I try very hard to keep in mind why the 'easier' way is so common. Doubting & skepticism have not only required a 'different' form of thinking in history, but also of the courage to question in the face of inquisitions and burnings...etc.

IF I had a magic button that would instantly make believers into... whatever I am.. I would not push it. It scares me to think of the chaos. It will take centuries... if ever... for religion to become just one aspect of how 'thinking' has evolved, as well as our bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:46 PM

I concede, Lighter, that it wouldn't be fair to put the "stodgy conservative" on the thinkers who came up with truly groundbreaking ideas like the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity. At any time in history, their thoughts would be original and innovative. But there are many hangers-on who codify the words of the thinkers into Truth with a capital "T," never to be changed or built upon. Like Mr. Shaw, for example, who can't accept that the 1859 writings of Darwin are now "primitive."

"Pig-ignorance" and "Christian Fascism."

Allow me to quote that great philosopher, Abby Sale:

Damn their eyes! Bloody hell! Shit!

Oh, and as far as I know, Big Mick and I are the only moderators who claim to be Christian. And we have very little to do with deletion of posts nowadays.

[I as a moderator who can see the entire history of the thread, can see21 deleted posts. None of them are by Steve Shaw]

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:38 PM

In fact, the post that this one of yours is supposed to be a response to was deleted!

No it wasn't - sorry about that. But I'm not sorry about anything else. You lot should be!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:36 PM

But yes, Steve, the tone of your posts is often unnecessarily nasty. I was surprised to find that at least in this thread, none of your posts have been deleted.

That is a bloody lie, and you know it. In fact, the post that this one of yours is supposed to be a response to was deleted! Are you Christians always like this?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

Keith, they are not now "stodgy conservatives." They simply did not have the extent of scientific information that later became available.

They were skeptical on the basis of what was then known - in contrast to those who are completely credulous when it comes to rationally unsupportable beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

""I assure you it is far easier to just 'believe' in that than to wonder IF it is so, and have debates with others... and with one's self... about the implications.""

LOL, a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM

Just for the sake of correctness, I checked and found that there were no posts from Steve Shaw deleted from this thread. Bill D said from the onset that this was going to be a moderated thread, and there were some messages deleted from this thread because they were too combative.

But yes, Steve, the tone of your posts is often unnecessarily nasty. I was surprised to find that at least in this thread, none of your posts have been deleted.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:12 PM

"..., but seems to me that just as creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. "

I have tried 17 ways to reply to that basic mistake you make, Pete. "It seems to me..." is sidestepping...or ignoring... or whatever. You ARE using the phrases subjectively, and not in the way they are intended to convey meaning. If a *scientist* (not evolutionist...that is in its self a loaded word which 'sounds' close minded) accepts evolution, it is because he did NOT presuppose it...otherwise he would not be acting as a scientist.


Ok.. the dino prints are merely one example of flawed notions of evidence. I don't have time to go see what you might have referred to.

3) No I don't want science to be imprecise... but if & when they are off, they have ways to remeasure & correct. "Way off" needs specific examples... and how do they know they are way off except by doing the remeasuring & correcting? It is a process to get as accurate as possible. In our dispute, is is really only necessary to continue showing that 'a few thousand years' as the age of the world is WAY, WAY off.


3a)You changed my language, and thus my point. I was refuting the idea that "assertions that disagreement over *detail* by scientists casts doubt on their *overall* conclusions.
there is a reason for carefully phrased 'textbook' definitions and reasoning....else some guy in Seven Stars pub could come along and change the meaning to suit his conclusions ☺. "It seems to me" is STILL not a good answer to anyone except that 'me'.

4a)"why should I accept the illogical idea that everything could begin without a first cause ?" I didn't say you should... I say that it is possible to just not fret about having that issue decided.
What you have is a belief... and I fully understand why someone would prefer that belief. It has a nice ring to it, whether it is fact or not. Your source for that belief is a book... written and copied by men. Believing that it was 'inspired' is still another belief. I assure you it is far easier to just 'believe' in that than to wonder IF it is so, and have debates with others... and with one's self... about the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:10 PM

well, mrrzy, you are the scientist, presumably subscribing to the grand theory of evolution, and neither you nor anyone else here can demonstrate how that has happened.    when dawkins was asked for an example he was silenced, till giving an answer that was not to the question put. as I said before, I hear there are perhaps a handful of debatable examples of information added mutations. but if you know of more, and more definite........?

I don't agree that the Christian has faith and that's that, as though there is no reasoning involved as well. in fact the NT exhorts to be "ready to give an answer" and to "demolish arguments"

bill, I guess your virus example might be one of those doubtful examples. but as I say, I would have thought that fast reproducing organisms observed over many decades might have changed into something else. I suspect that was the evolutionist hope, though of course, I expect you will say that they were impartial scientists just following the evidence.

as the only one on this side of the debate, dmcg, I can assure you that I do not despise you.....or anyone else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:07 PM

Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. We've built on that, and we know a whole lot more than Darwin's primitive thoughts.

Darwin was incredibly advanced in his thinking, not at all primitive. You display your pig-ignorance when you post such comments. As does the person who deletes my posts which destroy pete's arguments whilst leaving all his ludicrous posts intact. Christian fascism or what!! You and your fellow moderators should be bloody ashamed of yourselves. And go on, delete this. I know you will!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 06:05 PM

"creationists presuppose creation"

And that's just the problem. Creationists (think they) know the answer already (so why bother with data?) and then they manipulate the data to give them the answer they (think they) know already! Manipulating the data to give you the answer you want is called 'fiddling' or 'fudging' or 'cheating' or 'downright dishonest' or however you want to phrase it. If a real scientist tried that he/she wouldn't get past the peer review process ... but then a real scientist doesn't (almost by definition) know the answer already ... which is why she/he does science!

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

creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. both have the same evidence and data,

No, there ARE no data that are better explained by the supernatural than by the natural. None. Not even pete can claim a single *datum* that supports his side. Sure, he can claim that the data that *do* exist don't support our side, but that only shows that he doesn't understand the theory, not that he actually HAS evidence against it.

Second, those who use science don't *presuppose* anything, they can conclude, from the data. Only faith requires pre-supposition. And using your faith to deny the data regardless of what they show is not science.

Believers who think their faith is evidence-based understand neither evidence, which doesn't support the supernatural, or faith, which doesn't require evidence.

IF you want to believe in the supernatural, that's fine, but don't pretend you are drawing a logical conclusion from scientific evidence. You don't NEED to - you have faith, that's the point of faith, is that it doesn't require evidence.

If the existence of supernatural entities or forces could be demonstrated or had been demonstrated, then faith would not be required to believe in them, they would be, well, demonstrable. Like, well, data.

Pete, find us a single molecule that shows how people could possibly have happened without coming from microbes first, and you'll convince the scientific community.

But simply saying I see your molecules and am not convinced because to be so would be failing to bow before god, just shows you haven't actually looked at the molecules, not that you are thinking like a scientist.

You need to come up with actual data, not keep harping on how you don't believe the data that there are.

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

Lighter says: At a more sophisticated level, it's [the theory of relativity] 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.

And that is exactly my point. I think that it's safe to say that evolution has generally been accepted as fact for the better part of a hundred years. Sure, there are a few flat-earth people who don't accept the idea of evolution, but what's the use in getting all hot and bothered about them?

I homeschooled my stepson through high school a few years ago, and I'm proud to say he graduated with honors from the Physics Department of the University of California at Davis, and he's now a graduate student. But I taught him General Science, and we both really enjoyed it. I was amazed at how many things there were in the textbook, that had not been known when I graduated from college in 1970. The most significant thing was plate tectonics, but there were so many other things that were completely beyond imagination in 1970. The same will be true in another 40 years - what we know now, will be no big deal 40 years from now.

So, what bothers me in many of the posts above, is that they are so absolutist and combative, not to mention simplistic. What we have left to learn, is infinite. Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. We've built on that, and we know a whole lot more than Darwin's primitive thoughts. Forty years from now, humankind will know a vast amount more, and our current thinking will be seen as primitive.

Don't hold onto anything as absolute - there is far more yet to be explored, so why waste your time trying to convert fundamentalists? If I may expand on what I said before, some of you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses....trying to convert a Mormon. Why bother?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:33 PM

I posted this on another religious thread before, the life wisdom/experience from my barber (it was something like):

"There are only two things I dont allow to be discussed in my barber shop, religion and politics. Both of these topics often lead to emotionally-packed discussions, quite often filled with more personal views and beliefs than logic. This quite often leads to bad feelings and insults with no party, including the innocent observer, feeling better for it."

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 04:18 PM

bill,- presuppositions may come in different flavours, but seems to me that just as creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. both have the same evidence and data, and both claim it supports their position.
so how does each side present their evidence. I suggest that though biblical creationists unashamedly begin with the revelation of God, they support this presupposition with scientific and logical arguments. opponents may offer some kind of answer, or they may fall back on the science being provisional and open to new data claim.........which is being done as in dino bones for example.
most of the arguments I am getting amount to it is true because lots of scientists say it is.
to reinforce this you all use the term -scientist- as though synonomous with evolutionist. this, conveniently forgetting that most of scientists in history have not been evolutionists, quite a number still aren't, and who knows for the future.
responses to list......
1, anyone acting as evolutionist is not acting as a scientist ! how can you assume the creationist is less biased than the Darwinist, other than assertion it be so ?.
2, straw man, have I ever claimed human/dino prints as proof....although I might have mentioned someone who was convinced about them. I personally don't, unless further finds are much less dodgy evidence.
3, so you want science to be inprecise ? in any case, sometimes they are way off, even by their own standards.
3a, I would -suggest-, that disagreements do cast doubts. if the science is so evidenced, I would have thought they would all agree, for example, on whether the data supported dino- bird evolution or not.
4, if I am not textbook per argument from authority/ numbers, I have explained why I say it, and still seems logical to me.
4a, I believe in God, why should I accept the illogical idea that everything could begin without a first cause ?

I understand the force of belief in a naturalistic beginning for one who is not willing to bow before God, but it is sad ,imo that so many "good Christians" caved into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:48 PM

Sciencegeek:

Not intending to disrespect your profession nor training, but from your statements, what you may be experiencing, related to Pete, is a perceptual set (top down processing) related to your job training and experience?

In top-down processing, perceptions of others begin with the most general and move toward the more specific (aka pete) - If we expect someone whose views we strongly disagree with to behave in a certain way in life, regardless of the reliability of the information set, we are more likely to perceive that person in a negative way, related to a prior learned ecpectation pattern. Sometimes, we don't see the error in applying such patterns, with such limited information to draw from.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 14 - 03:32 PM

Quality, not quantity, Ed... *grin*