 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 15 - 06:42 PM I wonder if there is one "guest" or more. Gets a bit confusing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:29 PM It is a popular science programme, not made for creationists. That market is not big enough. Most of the world has moved on. I though it was a bit too much 'first person', but that's TV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:03 PM whats up, unnamed guest.....abuse your only answer.....speaks volumes ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:00 PM well, I just finished watching the rather fishy excuse for evolutionism. tiktaalek [ probably wrong spelling ! } appears to be shubins supposed clincher. he was a bit selective about the data , and omitting qualifiers he himself has admitted elsewhere. I suppose I could elucidate at this point, but I will let you show me what you reckon tikis discovery demonstrates to substantiate the evolutionary story ?! what you cannot do, is charge me with evading evolutionary "science". however, I will put pt 2 on hold till you engage with the supposed evidence of pt 1. go on, show me some evolution.....credit snail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:50 PM Still. If you prefer pre conceived bullshit to reality, your intelligence is lower than that of rational people. Live with it. Just stop trying to make others lower themselves to your shallow concepts eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:30 PM McGrath from harlow, I made that point early on. it is the nature of their ultra evangelical atheism that they latched onto, what at the time, was the slimmest of hints that the judge might be a creationist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 15 - 03:24 PM yes, certainly eloquent, like a preacher delivering a sermon praising the true god of "science" the "true light of the world". you say it is not religious doctrine but a, the extreme devotion displayed by your posts to it, and the irrational paranoia about belief in God belies that statement. b, I have quoted above the statements of evolutionists that admit their faith position c, evolutionists believe things that they cannot prove, as TRuE science can mostly demonstrate by observation and testing repeatedly. c2, even the story that evolutionists string together from the data has chunks missing. c3, they also believe things that "natural law"/ observational, repeatable, testable indicates are impossible. c4, like organized religion, the more informal religion of evo/atheism has a fair number of denominations ..gradualism,.....by jerks ...panspermia, ....bird from dino or not..... ".....it is a demonstrable scientific model...". ok, riah, how about demonstrating it. maybe just a couple of things that can only have Darwinian interpretation of the data. not too much to ask to balance all the science that demonstrates it is impossible, or at least highly improbable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 01:16 PM I think, Steve, that they understand evolution perfectly well. They have an understanding of 'God' that differs from yours and is less well-defined than their books and some of their high-priests would indicate. It is the religion side of things that does not need to be consistent. As in the "you believe in your god(s) and I will believe in mine" approach. Eloquent posts Riah Sahiltaahk, thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jun 15 - 10:17 AM Followers of Abrahamic religions often do make valiant efforts to "believe in evolution", but they are at best espousing a distorted version of the science. The obstinate fact is that evolution is a completely blind process with no aims, no goals, nothing kicking it off, no end points, no striving for ultimate perfection and no underlying driving force. If you don't understand that, you don't understand evolution at all. There is no place for God in that scheme of things. He is completely redundant, a useless, helpless bystander. If you think you "believe in" both God and evolution, then your God needs a serious and radical redefinition. The judge is only marginally more deluded than the average believer; the latter's version of a creator is just a bit further back in time, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk Date: 20 Jun 15 - 09:59 AM Religion happens. It may happen for evolutionary reasons. There's been a lot of discussion recently on that very subject in scientific journals, which seems pretty obvious : religion is real, it exists; its nature is, therefore, self evident in its multiplicity and ubiquity. It is an observable phenomenon. But we do not need it to survive; it remains an optional extra, an entertainment. To some, sadly, it is a means to mass hysteria & psychosis. I don't think any of this is in question, on the contrary. Religion is, objectively, part of the cultural diversity of humanity. We may consider it even as an enrichment in terms of ethnology and human uniqueness the world over, but no single religion is consistent with any other, other than in matters which are common to us all anyway. All religions derive from basic every day secular concerns and moralities. All religions seek to offer succour in the face of the inevitability of the unsayable. In this all religions are as valid as any other; but they are all - each and every one of them - made up. They embody truth (for example in the bon mots of Christ and The Buddha) but those truths are pretty much self-evident, arising quite naturally as part of human nurture. We note that Fundamentalist Christian largely ignore the humanist teachings of Christ, obsessing themselves with issues of sin and salvation, thus fabricating a church that stands in diametric opposition to the man they claim as their Messiah. The same is true of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. WWJD? I think that much is self-evident too. Religion is, ultimately, a) optional and b) subjective. Religion is the repository of a culture's folklore and mythology, and, as such, they are objectively fascinating. Country churches, cathedrals, pyramids, mosques, stone circles, the Llibre Vermell de Monsterrat, the Vivaldi Gloria, Bach's B Minor Mass, the ritual music of Tibetan Buddhism and Vedic Scripture all stand testimony to its humanity. Creationism and Anti-Science stand testimony to its very inhumanity, stemming no doubt from some other evolutionary essential in which those who differ from regimented compliance are to be routed and stamped out. Happily, they will pass, as can be seen with the dwindling congregations as people, happily, find better things to do with their Sunday mornings. We know better now; science has lit the candle in the dark and it shines upon us all. The true Light of the World. Secularism can thus celebrate human religious diversity as part and parcel of the very stuff that makes us human, but taken objectively, all together, the truth to which they point to has nothing to do with any God, or any other non-existent supernatural power, but the sheer inventiveness of the collective mind that leads, ultimately, to the scientific enlightenment that will pave the way into the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 09:08 AM Unquestioning faith is the essence of religion. It is when religion is analysed from a philosphical viewpoint, but many followers of religion are content to take a "you believe in your god(s) and I will believe in mine" approach when interactting with people from other religions. Faith is often not a big deal until challenged. Religions are something that happen in human groups and some of the things they take account may well be inherited - a tendency for humans to like ritual, to see agency in inaminate objects, to feel 'spooked' in the dark or at other times of restricted sensory input about potential threats, to think about the future (e.g. what happens when I am dead ?), to feel more comfortable with 'people like me' than strangers. Every child is born innocent with a biologically programmed curiosity to know and understand the reality in which they've found themselves by the accident of birth.. Yes, and repeatedly this has resulted in religion. Religion happens. It may happen for evolutionary reasons. Saying it is idiocy won't make everyone stop doing it. Some will becomes followers of the Jedi code or whatever. Or not be able to cope with anything more complicated than a creation story from a book. The discussion started over the issue of those people becoming judges in powerful nations with armed forces tasked with defending them like savage beasts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:56 AM It is encouraging to see that there are still schools that don,t push the evolutionist religion wholesale. Though of course it is upsetting for a fanatical true believer like yourself. Evolution is not a religious doctrine - it is a demonstrable scientific model based on an empirical understanding of natural law. Unlike creationism, no one has made this stuff up - it is there, in observable nature, and fits in with other cosmological models in which life comes into being as a random process amongst other random processes, rather than the whim of some despotic deity such as that portrayed in the scriptures of Abrahamic tradition. The only thing I am a fanatical believer in is the opportunity that every human being should be empowered to see themselves as part of the objective reality of the cosmos. Every child is born innocent with a biologically programmed curiosity to know and understand the reality in which they've found themselves by the accident of birth. Free access to objective scientific truth and the means of understanding that truth through education and inspiration is their inalienable right and privilege. To teach any child that the Bible is anything more than a collection of fables, myths, metaphors and folklore is the violation of an innocence which must be, at all costs, considered sacrosanct. Creationism is such a violation; it enforces a grave injustice on basic human rights by propagating ignorance as learning and lies as truth. It takes a self-contradictory allegorical creation myth (but one several thousand self-contradictory allegorical creation myths humanity has made up over the millennia) and insists, in the face of all available objective evidence to the contrary, that it actually happened. The propagation of creationism is nothing more than noxious misanthropy. Believers in it are small minded noxious misanthropists informed by an evil fundamentalism that reacts fervently, and negatively, in the light of objective reality. Even Carl Sagan was circumspect about absolute Atheism (in 1985 he even took a year out from his scientific work to write a novel about it , Contact, later a film...) but one thing he was very clear about was the idiocies and dangers of religion and religious absolutism. Unquestioning faith is the essence of religion. No one has unquestioning faith in evolution, because evolution is born from asking questions. Evolutionary theory keeps on asking questions, as all science does, and must, and as new discoveries are revealed, so old postulations must die. In this way, there is no scientific BELIEF, only scientific KNOWING and - unlike religion - that knowing is ALL INCLUSIVE. It is REAL for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US - even for those who, for reasons best to themselves, have elected to delude themselves they are somehow exempt from natural law and are not the product of some 4.6 billion years of natural selection on Planet Earth, much less 100,000 years of cultural development giving rise to unfathomable cultural diversity. Creationist reject that unfathomable diversity and boil it down to but one simple and odious and inhumane lie. Reality is a wonderful thing - it deals in freedom, wonder, truth, diversity and near infinite potential. Religious fundamentalism is its diametric opposite - it deals in none of these things, but nurtures the dark retardation of ignorance. To be fanatical in its opposition, is, I think, an essential part of celebrating the reality of natural cosmic law in which religion can have no part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:59 AM Sorry pete, I crossed so was not able to comment on you last post in my last (about Musket's LOTR reference). (very nearly lost the whole thing so gald I copy before trying to Submit.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:55 AM I think you are looking too deeply into what Musket was saying. I was basically agreeing with Musket but saying that I thought his way of arguing the point was counterproductive. Unless his point was just to annoy pete rather than offer him another way of thinking about things. There are many followers of the 'Abrahamic faiths' who believe in evolution. There are religious scholars of at least two of them who are happy to pull the old texts apart the way that is happening with Barbara Allen above the line here, to seek out other writings that did not get included in (or were edited out of) their 'holy texts' and to discuss the motives of the 'editors'. Creationists don't seem to be able to understand this so sarcasm or irony that we understand but they don't isn't going to convince them. Neither, unfortunatly, are those programs being put out by the BBC just now because the creationists see evolution as the 'holy text' (or maybe a 'magical text') of those of another faith, rather than hearing or understanding the evidence and reasoning that is behind it. Pete is probably a lost cause. I hope the US justice system is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 15 - 05:52 AM Thanks for that link, riiah. It is encouraging to see that there are still schools that don,t push the evolutionist religion wholesale. Though of course it is upsetting for a fanatical true believer like yourself. Btw, I have only had time for half of pt one of inner fish phantasy on the beeb, and so far the argument from homology is useless, since the same data translate as well, if not better , for common design, as common ancestry. I must concede though, that aesthetically , they done an impressive job of promoting evolutionist storytelling on fish. Pity they are using my license fee to do it !. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk Date: 20 Jun 15 - 04:46 AM The loonies are trying to set the bloody syllabus! Despite the government ban on such idiocy, some schools still persist with this Child abuse*. Creationism still taught in faith schools despite Government funding threat * Too emotive a term? I think not. Fair enough adults choosing to believe such nonsense by way of religious freedom (the ultimate oxymoron) - but inflicting it on their kids is akin to Jehovah's Witnesses willing to let their children die for want of a blood transfusion - something they are mercifully not allowed to do under British law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 15 - 02:46 AM I think you are looking too deeply into what Musket was saying. If I read him correctly, he was pointing out that stories doing the rounds 2,000 years ago eventually got condensed into something to worship. I agree with the idea that there is nothing to prevent other fantasy stories of good v evil to suffer a similar fate, if superstition remains advantageous to man in a manner that fits survival. What is the difference between a myth of wizards with magical powers and the myth of Jesus with similar tricks up his sleeve? Both he and Gandalf rose from the dead, both used conjuring tricks to make the party flow, both got pissed off with their peers and both wanted others to follow them. Jedi Knight and Pastafarians both pass the test for recognised religions in The EU. How many generations before we forget they are taking the piss out of group delusion? How long before theologians explore divine reasons for their fundamental flaws? Here, not only in C21, but actually on Mudcat, we have people who genuinely believe mythical nonsense and strive to shoehorn it into science, for crying out loud. Education? The loonies are trying to set the bloody syllabus! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Jun 15 - 08:31 PM Surely the point he was making was that everyone agrees we've been around for a long time, using the 5000 as a minimum figure that is even accepted by the strange sect if American "creationists". It doesn't imply that the actual time people have been around isn't a great deal more, or that he thinks the 5000 year figure isn't daft. I can even imagine circumstances in which Richard Dawkins might say the same thing. After all, it's a perfectly true statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:23 PM To some, the bible is the complete work of one imaginary friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 19 Jun 15 - 04:06 PM Look above at the links to those programs on the BBC just now which are just like taking a cat (fish, human, reptile, monkey) apart to see how it works. Like Tolkien taking apart a body of literature which is a mixed bag of history, invention, superstition and propoganda. Folks analyse the bible in the same way. It's a mixed bag of stuff. I remember a bishop once saying on the radio that the early books were someone (can't remember who, was it Moses ?) trying to make sense of a load of stuff that had been handed down and that there is more than one creation myth in the bible because there was more than one doing the rounds. On the otherhand, LOTR as a work of fiction was created as a complete work. Created by the hand of Tolkien... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Musket Date: 19 Jun 15 - 01:45 PM You appear to be taking a cat apart to see how it works. In two thousand years time, there may well be as many people seeing LOTR as the word of some god or other unless, ironically, the Temple of The Foundation and its revelations from the prophet Asimov (peace be upon him) don't get more members first. Yer bible stuff was exactly that. It's just that now things are stored in Kindles rather than scrolls next to inland seas so probably won't get so many self serving translations designed to keep the petes in their place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 19 Jun 15 - 09:37 AM Read the post carefully Musket (sheesh, it's as bad as talking to some others here). "A mixture of myth and sensationalised (and corrupted) accounts of history" coming down through history is what Tolkien studied as an academic. That's the analogy with the bible. I thought I was making it obvious enough. Lord of the Rings is just a made up story, like most of those ballads discussed above the line. It's irrelevant - other than that the guy who wrote it knew the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Musket Date: 19 Jun 15 - 07:46 AM "A mixture of myth and sensationalised (and corrupted) accounts of history." You make my point perfectly. Tell me, were you referring to Lord of the Rings or The Bible? 😂 I am an observant Sheffield Wednesday fan, but I still have books and papers published on mechanical vibration and board governance assurance.. zzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 19 Jun 15 - 06:25 AM Musket, repeatedly making comparisons with fantasy stories that are complete works of fiction detracts from your argument. Lord of the Rings was written by an observant Christian who was an expert on iron-age (not bronze-age) writings that were a mixture of myth and sensationalised (and corrupted) accounts of history. He drew on that story telling tradition but the story is fiction so it is irrelevant here. Sloppiness gives succor to your opponents in the debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Musket Date: 19 Jun 15 - 03:27 AM I saw it as Akenaton calling my post gibberish. Which figures of course. The idea of a fantasy story becoming holy text over two thousand years is over his head. Although I didn't post it for his benefit. I was aiming at those on Mudcat blessed with education and intelligence, not to mention a healthy outlook on life. I put Sagan's Cosmos up there with Clark's Civilisation. Both dated, both lending their generation's thoughts and understanding to vexed questions and both orators of the highest standard. Although of course, Clark's son was a character... I do note though that the good members of Mudcat agree his "Donkeys" ruffled appropriate feathers and has been seen to be bang on the money. 😎 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk Date: 19 Jun 15 - 03:21 AM I savoured The Demon-Haunted World for months, not wanting it to end. Billions and Billions is similary awesome. Currently on with The Pale Blue Dot. The Cosmos DVD should be in every home and school. I think '...in the beginning man created God in his own image...' is from the cover of Aqualung by Jethro Tull, which contains a lesser rendering of My God than the classic Bunker / Cornick line-up gave at the Isle of White a year or so earlier (on the Nothing is Easy DVD, but you can watch it on YouTube HERE). * The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. - Carl Sagan (Billion and Billions) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jun 15 - 07:36 PM Steve who says there is no such thing as the general theory of evolution. It is the theory of evolution by natural selection. The word "general" does not appear in the title nor in any characterisation of the theory that I have ever read. Accuracy in characterisation is very important to us scientific types. Less so, it seems, to those of more romanticated predilections, but hey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jun 15 - 06:59 PM Talking of the mighty Carl Sagan, one can still get the DVD set of Cosmos for a low price, and his book "The Demon-haunted World" is a beautiful read, as tightly-argued as On The Origin Of Species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jun 15 - 06:51 PM Thanks for the mention of the sublime Carl Sagan. As for akenaton and his accusation of my resort to gibberish, well of course I shall have to bow down before this mighty man's superb erudition, elegance of expression and mastery of English grammar. However, I would respectfully point out that my name is spelled Stephen, not Steven. Steve will always do fine, unless you happen to be my mother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Bill D Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:55 PM There's a famous quote like that lurking somewhere in the back of my mind, but Satan seems to be blocking me from remembering it correctly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Musket Date: 18 Jun 15 - 03:14 PM Your opinion of God would take a bit of a downer if you think we were created in his image but then saw me earlier trying to put a sticking plaster on my arse with the aid of two mirrors. And on that subject. Does he have a belly button, if we are in his image? Not to mention a pair of knackers and a dual purpose willy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk Date: 18 Jun 15 - 02:20 PM Next week : Your Inner Monkey. One wonders why BBC4's science programming doesn't feature anything on Intelligent Design or Creationism as it seems to be such a foregone conclusion. Trouble with creationism is, it demands a creator, in the payable absense of which (or whom) the whole thing is a bit of a non-starter really. This is still worth watching 35 years on: Carl Sagan on Evolution (from Cosmos) Here there is wisdom, erudition, humility and elegance. You won't find much of that amongst creationists, who are driven by self-righteousness and an all consuming faith in a non-existent God humanity created in its very worst image. An image perpetuated by Christians the world over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 18 Jun 15 - 12:37 PM I,m sure some posts have gone missing. one replying to guest, who commented that my position wasn't supported by the quotes I posted, to which I replied "well, it sure don't support yours !" the other replying to bill, but I think that went missing too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 18 Jun 15 - 12:33 PM Thanks for the link. It is going to the second episode though (Your Inner Reptile) Episode 1 of 3 Your Inner Fish Oo, I am going to be comming back here !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk Date: 18 Jun 15 - 12:25 PM Tonight on BBC4, UK, 22.50: Your Inner Fish : An Evolution Story |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 18 Jun 15 - 12:04 PM Yeh dan, but maybe help someone else cross ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars Date: 18 Jun 15 - 11:59 AM Steve who says there is no such thing as the general theory of evolution. Try looking up kerkut, and I expect you will find the definition of the man who framed the expression. Seems to me pretty much what you believe, and encompasses the whole thing, as opposed to the bait and switch so often employed by evolutionists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 18 Jun 15 - 11:53 AM Oh sorry Richard . You were actually appealing to consensus science. We will never make progress with that you know.....it ain't science. Btw, I had to grin when you mentioned praying for fair festival weather ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: akenaton Date: 18 Jun 15 - 05:52 AM Bloody hell, where is Steven Shaw when you need him! Gibberish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Musket Date: 18 Jun 15 - 03:30 AM Aw well pete. Look at it like this. The observable and deduceable happens regardless of belief. Two thousand years from now, the superstitious, if evolution hasn't kicked in and the need for it no longer applies, will possibly be getting their moral compass from the good book. The church of the glory of Gandalf will be shunning the reformed poor Congregational church of Samwise. Meanwhile, there will be those practicing the dark arts of Mordor... Those who kick the bucket will be queuing at the Grey Havens quayside and the best way to lead an enchanted life will be if you are lucky to be short in height with hairy feet. Yet strangely, f will still equal ma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Amos Date: 18 Jun 15 - 01:07 AM "The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State." ~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, "Essays In Addition to America's Real Religion" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,Olddude Date: 17 Jun 15 - 08:35 PM Hey pete, Give up cause ya can't fix bridge over the river stupid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Jun 15 - 07:53 PM Well, Pete, if you don't know that the vast preponderance of scientific opinion accepts evolution - and indeed that the vast preponderance of religious opinion regards your creation myth as allegory - and that virtually nobody or at least an insignificant minority swallows the absurd fantasy that an omnipotent god created all humans in substantially their modern form at some point in the last 5 to 10 thousand years, then you really, really, must get out more and meet more normal people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:25 PM Once again, with bells and whistles if only I had any: there is no such thing as "the general theory of evolution". There is such a thing as wilful pig-ignorance, of course. I get very animated about out-and-out anti-abortionists. To my mind, they are among the most intolerant and wicked people on earth. That is not to say I don't acknowledge sincerely-held, measured views that I personally and quite vehemently disagree with. I can see the arguments for time-limits, etc., though I think they are misguided. I can't argue with need for vulnerable young people to be surrounded by good advice and support (of the practical, non-moralising and non-tendentious sort). But rampant anti-abortionists, with few exceptions that I know of, support their moralising prejudices with the promotion of ignorance or religious fervour or both. It's just horrible, and I won't even mention the name of that wicked Catholic woman who taught her flock that poverty, ignorance and sexual abstinence were virtues and that birth control and abortion were the greatest evils on the planet. She's probably going to be sainted soon. Just remember that when you next hear that the Catholic church is "making progress". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:23 PM nice one simples Richard, I KNOW no such thing, and as the above quotes infer, neither do a lot of those who subscribe to it. it is only because you are ideologically driven that you claim superiority of evidence. if you think I am going to tap all those figures in....wrong. like I say, YOU just give me a couple of things that can only be interpreted in accordance with the general theory of evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Bill D Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:09 PM "...the unsubstantiated and changeable evolution myth..." awww... c'mon Pete. It is overwhelmingly substantiated. Changeable simply means willing to integrate new data about the details! Myth? You play very freely with the term when the fuzzy details of Genesis are considered fact, while DNA & paleontology are called myth. Your system cannot document even which humans recopied religious texts, much less anything about how they were 'inspired'. It seems that many were 'inspired' in different ways... but most view the basics as UNchangeable. Sorry, but I'll stick with the views of folks who have not already decided what the answers are before looking at the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST Date: 17 Jun 15 - 05:08 PM Neither of those quotes support your position |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Jun 15 - 04:59 PM no doubt, there will be the usual objections to my describing your beliefs as faith so....... "the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionalism and is based entirely on ideology " yockey, information theory and molecular biology p284 1992 "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion......" m, ruse. national press may 13 2000. I could find more quotes from other honest non creationists, but these are pretty representative......to which I only add, amen ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Jun 15 - 04:34 PM Pete - you KNOW that the overwhelming balance of scientific authority favours evolution. Stop being silly. a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS From: GUEST,simple Date: 17 Jun 15 - 04:02 PM unique in all creation is man with different feet and hands |