BS: in the beginning and now

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 06:12 PM

You are an idiot who thinks he's a clever idiot. In fact, you are just a plain idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 07:30 PM

Naaww, Steve.... Donuel can be confusing in his rhetoric at times, but he is no idiot. He lives near me, and I actually met him for lunch a few years ago. I wish I could visit YOU in person... but this ocean..(and I'd like to meet Pete too. We'd never agree on some things, but I have known people personally that I consider much harder to talk to.)
Don has so many interests that he can barely focus on just one... or rather, his focus shifts as he reads about new stuff. (Mine does too... but at my age, I have learned to just browse.)
   Remember when Don linked to cartoons that he created?...usually based on current events. Some of those were really brilliant.
You, Steve, are also pretty durned smart and aware... but you have a pretty short fuse when you think someone is wrong or careless. I prefer to debate and critique positions, not personalities. Over 20 years here have given me... ummm.. perspective. *grin*
   Your post yesterday at 6:52 Mudcat time was right on. We agree on everything except detailed usage and definitions. It's just a matter of emphasis...

again.. onward

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 08:38 PM

I have a short fuse when I'm being patronised. That's for sure. This chap revels in self-regarding obscurantism, which is a ploy I've always detested in anyone who's tried it on. True scientists are communicators, who are able to speak about their mission in simple and direct language, but Donuel revels in deliberately tortuous verbiage, which confirms that he's maybe read a lot but actually knows very little. As with all of us, he has dimensions in real life that don't come across on a forum. Next time you have dinner with him, give him my love. I'm sure he's a luvly feller. I hope that this message will confirm to him once and for all that I find him to be an irritant who would be well advised to try to not wind me up. He's an idiot now but that doesn't mean that he's beyond redemption. I also can patronise, see.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 07:34 AM

I see your perspective clearly but it may be overtaken with first impressions in which I daresay I did write obscurities decades ago, epecially when testing the waters. A new idea often comes to me while casting about. The new idea is rarely new but is only new to me.

I remember meeting Bill and recall I made an effort to tone it down.
I only regret not singing in my weak baritone average voice. There are many such voices.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 09:40 AM

Well let's see how it goes from here. I prefer not to be a target, right?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 09:44 AM

Bill your knowledge of the principles and arguments of the question of 'what is truth' is imo more valuable today than ever before in your lifetime. The conspiracy theory conundrum confounds society in a similar manner as it did 90 years ago.

It seems to me you do not speak BS and you don't like to hear it.
Your analysis may be at least a footprint in the sand and at its most a credo for the future but the world needs to hear it.

Only you know the best format to present truth, whether its an anthropormorphic metaphorical tale or a succint statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 05:58 PM

I do not like BS... and you are correct that I don't like hearing or reading it. The question is what to do.. and when.

BS from some quarters comes with blinders on which makes responding useless--except for occasional addition of clarification and facts for any who 'might' be confused. Direct arguing with those wearing blinders is mostly useless (like the joke about trying to teach a pig to sing).

Conspiracy theories are especially awkward to deal with because they usually/often include.. and rely on... circular arguments about why we can't find the 'truth'. **(There was a cast, complex set of evil planning to blow up building on 9/11.. apart from Saudis and airliners! Why can't we prove it?.. Why because experts at high levels have hidden the evidence!)** Likewise the 100 MPG carburetor. The oil companies didn't want it, so the specs were hidden!.

Resident Trump may not know the formal names for bad rhetoric that I studied, but he has all the instincts for deploying it.

Mudcat has been a real boon to my continued education, as I have 20 years of examples of all levels of debate to compare & use.
   Some may remember this bit from a number of years ago... I saved it as a paradigm of jaw-dropping BS.. and I 'think' it was totally sincere..but *shrug*
   "I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning"
   No form of argument can combat that.

I have no idea how long I will follow Mudcat... Max says he'll keep IT going, but what will keep ME going?

Y'all take care.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 06:11 PM

Genuinely begs the question, Bill... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: keberoxu
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 10:48 PM

Bill D speaks of having met Donuel in person,
Donuel corroborates same.
The post about that meeting makes great good sense to me,
even though Donuel and I have never met.

I would not express myself as Donuel does,
nor would I take it all that personally that he does his thing.

My experience is one of growing up in a household
where even though we were all blood relatives,
we were wildly different from each other in some respects;
and you could either let it drive you demented,
or you could observe each other's differences with benevolent interest.
What I did come to understand was that
there was no way on God's green earth
that my relatives were going to alter
the ways that they expressed themselves.

I had one relative who seemed to have
five simultaneous channels of input, in terms of
perceptions. "Scattered" is putting it mildly!
But it was never personally intended to drive anybody crazy.

Me, I pretty much have one dedicated channel of input
and I can appear inflexible and intolerant because of same.

I can't really comment on the opening threads in this post,
I sort of read through them,
and nod, and keep going.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 11:47 AM

My husband, known here as CET and elsewhere online as Himself, recently started working on a doctorate in law. The other day, he brought me a draft of a document his advisor calls a "framework statement" though it looks to me remarkably like a thesis proposal. It's about a Canadian legal case called Stillman and its effect on the jurisdictional reach of courts martial and the civil rights of military personnel.

I strongly believe that even the most complex idea can be stated in simple declarative sentences using basic words. I also believe that one does not fully understand any concept until one can state it in simple declarative etc. I was able to read the thesis proposal, replete as it is with terms of art, and restate it in plain words, thus probably earning a gig as a thesis editor.

But that's how I earned my living for more than thirty years. I'm an editor, and most of my clients were professionals whose projects typically end with extensive reports, especially engineers and program managers. Much of that time, I worked in the Department of National Defence, known to many as Jargon Heaven. Editing is painful and exacting, especially when its purpose is to convey complex information to intelligent but uninitiated readers who have a lot of competition for their time and attention. My clients knew they needed me if they wanted their projects to be funded. Many did not enjoy the editing experience, and some resisted it quite fiercely. These latter clients most resented the "dumbing down" of their special language, seeing it as an attack on their professional standing and authority.

But the few clients who sought out and even enjoyed the editing process had one important thing in common: they all wanted to share their ideas and experience, first with me, and then with any and every other person in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 01:32 PM

I discovered literary and philosophy theory in graduate school, and I discovered that some writers heap in such complex words in extremely long sentences (filling entire paragraphs) that it takes a dictionary and breathing exercises to get through their tomes. And there are others who speak clearly, give excellent examples, and when needing to quote the pompous writers, keep it extremely brief or paraphrase.

Both types can claim important positions in their academic worlds, but I know which ones I'd much rather read.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: keberoxu
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:00 PM

Himself is retired, and pursuing a doctorate?!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:10 PM

We finally measured gravity waves and it is a big deal
HOWEVER
Now that we have measured ufos and putting an end to the senseless lies, I claim it is a much bigger deal on the effect it can have on our planet. Having our entire population work out the technology that has been called impossible can help pure research and applied back engineering. I say 'can' because there are still those who want to throw road blocks in the way.

Folks this is no alien autopsy hoax.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:12 PM

"I also believe that one does not fully understand any concept until one can state it in simple declarative .."

In some thread a few years ago, I was commended for some post I made about arguments. I can't remember my exact clever phrase right now, but it was something like: "One cannot really defend one's own point unless one can clearly and accurately state the opponent's point."

All too often people intent on a position will argue right past each other.... both failing to see what the other is saying in their haste to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:26 PM

One can take a metaphorical approach with comedic relief such as:

The Prophet by Donuel Gibran

And then a man stepped from the group of villagers and asked the Prophet “In these troubled times behind this veil of tears what should we be most wary of?” The Prophet said, “Beware the great long lasting lies and those who defend those lies. With this in mind, keep an eye out for the man who builds fake golden towers and temples so people may worship, pay and obey him. Having a Canadian Passport is also not a bad idea.”

Then a young woman approached the Prophet. She looked up at his pleasing appearance and asked ,”why do men seek to possess and control my body?” To this the Prophet said, “ Some men covet the divine curve, the flower of creation and some men want to have power over a woman's body in a misguided attempt to have power over creation and an advantage in the work space.”

Then a child asked, “why are some things beliefs and others just exist?” The Prophet said, “One demands evidence and the other does not. The standard of evidence should be the same but there are some who lack the reason to argue the evidence.”
“How will I ever know the difference?” asked the concerned child.
Donuel said “Unfortunately that is up to your free will in the long run.”

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:45 PM

It’s no surprise to me that atheists deny having faith in their beliefs .                                 “A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched ideology”. Sir Karl Popper

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:47 PM

A succint declarative:

Albert showed how Mass can be turned into energy.
I claim that with enough energy you can transmute mass into space time inside a black hole and further separate time and space, stopping time and generating space. This is my explanation for dark energy accelerating and generating more space.

dealing with 6 variables is hard to make succint.
nevermind :^?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 03:11 PM

Pete..Karl Popper was right of course... the operative word being "may". Most scientists do not think so carelessly... and Popper himself knew the difference.

Popper on religion

Much more in the article.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 03:26 PM

keberoxu — Himself is no longer in the Army, having passed the magic kicking-out age of 60, but he’s hardly “retired”. He’s still practising law, for one thing, so he goes to court and all that. And yes, he’s pursuing a doctorate. I think he has quite enough credentials for one lifetime, but that’s how he chooses to while away the hours. On the whole, I would rather have a legal scholar in the house than, say, somebody who’s fixated on (shudder) golf.

BillD, I completely agree with you on stating the opponent’s point; however, have you not noticed how often your point is re-stated in the most hostile terms your opponent can muster? In some battles of wits, that’s when the gloves hit the ice and the fight is on.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 04:14 PM

Charmion... Oh, sure.. it's just similar to U.S. politics right now. I'll roll with the punch until someone goes to mostly personal insults. At that point, I usually stop.
   I enjoy trading opinions, but I only debate seriously with those I respect in general.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Dec 19 - 06:21 PM

I skimmed the article Bill. He seems to contradict himself a bit , though it’s probably not as straightforward as that . On the one hand he seems to say that Darwinism is far from proven , and on the other that it has been tested - though not saying how !                      As you correctly point out . My quote was qualified by an indefinite , though I could provide more definite quotes from others

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 12:24 PM

I think thread drift is good and natural
however...

What makes sense to me is that:
In the beginning there was no beginning, we are still beginning.

A new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. How can this be?

The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many folks confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’
The new model – in which our universe has no beginning and no end – comes from Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
Their paper looks at a result derived from Einstein’s theory of general relativity known as the Raychaudhuri equation. WTF?

Basically his equation describes how a volume of matter changes over time, so its a great way of finding where physical singularities exist in your model. But rather than using the classical Raychaudhuri equation, the authors use a variation with a few quantum tweaks. This approach is often called semi-classical …

The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model.

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new take does nothing to question its legitimacy.

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

There is ample evidence to show that the universe did undergo an early inflation in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, I explain this away as a artifact of what it looks like when time was at a virtual stand still do to gravitation stopping time in a black hole. The universe is thought to have expanded by a factor of 1078 in volume. For one, the universe is still expanding in every direction. The farther away an object is, The faster it appears to move away from an observer, suggesting that space itself is expanding (rather than objects simply moving through space at a steady rate). Soon we will see beyond our observablecurrent horizon of the farthest galaxies with new infra red telescopes.

Another key piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is thought to be heat left over from this great cosmological event. It can be observed in every direction and has no single origin point. Scientists think the CMB began propagating through the universe about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when atoms began to form and the universe became transparent, says the ESA. I bet no one has read this far, so kofefe is found to be coffee.

What this new look at the beginning allows is the old cyclic universe theory which allows for an infinite existence with no beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 02:50 PM

"...he seems to say that Darwinism is far from proven.."
It depends on whether you trust the scientific method or not. Absolute 'proof' is for math. Details in evolution theory change, but saying that means 'unproven' is a subjective use of the language.
    Evolution (not "Darwinism", which refers obliquely to what Darwin himself worked out), has been studied, refined, examined, re-examined and re-explained for many decades as various aspects of geology, anthropology, bio-chemistry and DNA research and even astronomy are refined with new and ever changing data. Details change.. but so far, evolution in general stands up to scrutiny as a description of HOW biological entities change. Those who wish preface it with a separate "WHY" are free to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 05:02 PM

Excellent bullshit-buster of a post, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 05:22 PM

The word WHY did it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 19 - 11:18 AM

Dead stars are exploding all around the universe and we aren’t really sure why – but now a pair of researchers think that minuscule black holes made from dark matter might be to blame.

Burnt out stars known as white dwarfs can ignite into a type Ia supernova when they gather matter from a neighbouring star or merge with other astronomical objects. Exactly how this works is still open to interpretation. “The dirty secret of supernovae is that in the computer models, we can’t ever actually get them to do the dark matter bomb.

For something as ubiquitous and non interactive as dark matter, maybe they have different properties under an immense gravitational crush. The earliest black holes are thought to be all dark matter.
BOOM --> go directly to black hole. do not pass GO



https://www.newscientist.com/article/2226326-black-holes-formed-from-dark-matter-could-be-making-dead-stars-explode/#ixzz67LL6e7E7

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 19 - 01:47 PM

Einstein had a hard time comparing or contrasting anything to an immense black hole until Hiesenberg suggested a small white penis.

Hipparchus, Copernicus, and Galeleo walk into a bar and meet Newton Herchel, Maxwell, Kepler and Einstein when Maxwell chides "you guys were suppose to be here first, you're late.
Einstein tells Maxwell, not if time stopped sufficiently for you late newcomers Max.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:08 PM

“Another key piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background ..”    what do you make of the horizon problem Donuel ?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:19 PM

I agree Bill , that absolute proof is not scientific language , it’s just that certain atheists speak as though it is when it comes to the ‘fact’ of evolution. Seems to me Bill , that you come close to it in your affirmation of evolutionism .                I rather suspect that we will differ on what constitutes the scientific method relating to evolution . I would say that you cannot do experiments on the past and make repeatable observations , and so the evolutionist has to extrapolate from what is observable       “Details change “ I would say that was an understatement , and ask why something that has to undergo so many changes and retractions can be thought of being so tried and true !                                  But I appreciate your civil discussion Bill

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:43 PM

However we can take future observations and extrapolate. That is much the same as using past indicators to see the present changes.

I don't know anyone here who wants to wrest your beliefs away. Well I know Steve a little. I prefer addition of knowledge over subtraction.
At least for a short while.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 06:56 PM

I have no interest in wresting anyone's beliefs away. I don't mind challenging them of course. The anti-evolution post just before this one is such garbled, ignorant nonsense that I'm amazed that its perpetrator could be so daft as to want to expose his idiocy by posting it. Now it's time for you to do your good cop bit, Bill... ;-)

I was at the house of some good friends today. They have one of those beautiful potted orchids that have become very popular. What a lovely, beautiful, intricate, delicate thing, came the remark (they're fine Christian people). Sez I, it is. A tiny part of the beauty, complexity and diversity of life on Earth. But, sez I, adding a slightly less romantic though pertinent note, just like us that orchid flower is the fruit of four billion years of evolution*, a process that progresses in tiny juddering steps. I think that anti-evolutionists have real difficulty in getting their heads round that terrifying time span. Well I know they have. They appear, some of them, to have invented 4004 BC...


*With a bit of artificial selection tweaking, of course...
.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 08:24 PM

Knowing why there was such a 7*'s post, contains more wisdom than having a atheist diatribe by Steve who I mentioned in jest.
aside
Today I learned about Steve stars

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 08:31 PM

What are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:48 AM

You're kidding? Have you lost your memory?
It would be callous to bring up the glorius tragic anguish which was soothed by faith and guided all concerned. Let it be said folks chose the best path for them and remained faithful in the midst of a momumental challenge and gift. Real human events rise above arguments that are pithy in comparison. The freedom to choose your own medicine is a key to a pursuit of happiness. If a person wielded their truth/lie like a club you should probably arm yourself but I don't see that happening.
If you still do not understand Steve, let it be.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:59 AM

I've never had an issue with people who follow their own private paths through life as long as they don't use it as a stick to control others with (children in particular). I do have a big issue with people who come on to this discussion forum propagating ignorant and unscientific nonsense. Pete gets his wisdom from creationist websites and he hasn't got even the faintest clue as to what evolution is, let alone evolutionary theory. Do try to be clear-sighted enough to realise that. He's a propaganda mouthpiece, naive in that shall we be kind enough say, for some very nasty, very controlling people.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:00 AM

At least he uses a pen/keyboard while you use a club.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:05 AM

Some will rob you with a six-gun
And some with a fountain pen

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 11:14 AM

Ooh it's a music thread now!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 11:50 AM

Pete.. "experiments ON the past" is not a fair way to characterize what scientists do. In one sense, any experiment done today IS on the status of some material as it 'was'... even if that's only minutes, hours or days ago.
When bones are found..or even buried carcasses of Wooly Mammoths...or Otze the Ice Man.., science can do radio-carbon dating and determine approximate age. That, in one clear sense, is an experiment on the past.
   I know you have objected to that sort of science because you 'believe' that dates over 8000 years or so are precluded by religious texts... but we will of course differ on that. Scientists WILL continue to refine techniques and measure "the evidence from the past". Some aspects of *now* don't make sense without it.

(good cop, Steve?. Just a quick reminder to Pete that he is outnumbered... which he already knows.)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 01:05 PM

Steve:

You do realize you'd have better luck "debating" a Scientologist, a Holocaust denier, or even a Trumpist.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 03:11 PM

While it is true that any experiment done in the present is then immediately in the past , that is not the point is it . The experiments done in the present , and even in the recent past, are observed , verified, and recorded. Granted, there have been frauds, and many ‘peer review’ have initially slipped through the net, and been passed. Who knows how many have not been uncovered . But , back to evolution, whatever has been concluded from anything from the far past, not observed, and recorded, carries with it the the bias , and conditioning of the researcher, which often a priori excludes other explanations                “Science can do radio carbon ...”      indeed it can , but only by making assumptions about past conditions do they arrive at whatever date , and if they don’t like the date , they reject it and try another method , and if they can’t get the result they want , they can put it down to the continuous development of science

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 03:30 PM

He likes being outnumbered, Bill (x2) in a perverse "last man valiantly standing" role. What he lacks in that role is a sword of truth to wave.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:25 PM

"No one expected the Scopes Trial inquisition in 2019"
But there is still a buck to be made at Creationist museums as animatronic pet dinosaurs are petted by cavemen around the campfire.
"Sit Dino sit"

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:05 PM

Obscurantist tripe from Donuel, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:23 PM

" But , back to evolution, whatever has been concluded from anything from the far past, not observed, and recorded, carries with it the the bias , and conditioning of the researcher,..."

*grin* like ancient parchment scrolls? Were they really 'recorded'..or just re-told until they were accepted? *shrug*
   No one doubts that they were physically written down by men.. and the same stories were told differently by different men. We have only their crumbling documents to assure us that the stories were given to some by some spiritual being in some metaphysical way. There is certainly no way to 'test' that!
   Science at least is willing to adjust its findings when new data is discovered. I don't think the religious tenets of any belief system... Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist..etc. are often updated. The Catholic Pope in the 2nd Vatican Council was given the right to rule **Infallibly** on matters of faith & morals... and that has been an awkward and argued thing ever since. Several Muslim groups are seriously at odds over who the rightful successor to Muhammad was. A couple of Buddhist groups differ markedly on basic doctrines. And Christians even argue about which Books of the Bible were left out and how they were chosen by King James' preferred scholars.
I just shrug and try to keep up with the various sciences.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 12:03 PM

Sigh. Faith is belief *without* evidence. Atheists and other skeptics require evidence to believe.

And no scientist says Prove. We demonstrate.

Also if you say We evolved from X and we have consciousness therefore X had consciousness, you understand neither evolution nor consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 03:50 PM

Well yes on the whole, but I don't require evidence to "believe," thanks. I require evidence to assess and come to a judgement. I don't need any evidence at all to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 04:01 PM

Actually, "we demonstrate" doesn't chime with me either. I remember my first year at university being severely told off for heading a write-up "Experiment to demonstrate..." Science isn't about demonstrating: it's about investigating then communicating your findings.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 07:27 AM

Here is the Creationist Museum with anamatronic evolutionary BS

Truth often looks like sarcasm but since I do both I understand your confuson Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 04:33 PM

My "confusion" is as nothing alongside yours, you patronising git. You are the most confused and uncommunicative person around here by a country mile, one who routinely tries to bullshit us with the latest bit of some complicated book or other you've recently managed to half-digest, bullshit ill-concealed in your cod-obscurantism. You would do really well to resolve never to mention me by name in your posts. I may have suggested that before. Cheers.