mudcat.org: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Jack the Sailor 02 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM
GUEST,Shining Wit 02 Jan 12 - 11:57 AM
Little Hawk 02 Jan 12 - 12:03 PM
Stringsinger 02 Jan 12 - 12:04 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jan 12 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Jan 12 - 12:18 PM
GUEST,Eliza 02 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 12:25 PM
Mrrzy 02 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM
Jim Dixon 02 Jan 12 - 12:54 PM
Amos 02 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM
Greg F. 02 Jan 12 - 01:09 PM
GUEST,michaelr 02 Jan 12 - 01:17 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 01:33 PM
Richard Bridge 02 Jan 12 - 01:51 PM
Bill D 02 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM
Greg F. 02 Jan 12 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 02:13 PM
Paul Burke 02 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 02:45 PM
Greg F. 02 Jan 12 - 02:59 PM
GUEST 02 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM
gnu 02 Jan 12 - 04:57 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jan 12 - 05:55 PM
Amos 02 Jan 12 - 06:02 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM
Bill D 02 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM
Ed T 02 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 06:25 PM
gnu 02 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM
Ed T 02 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM
gnu 02 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM
Ed T 02 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jan 12 - 07:04 PM
gnu 02 Jan 12 - 07:16 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 07:36 PM
Ed T 02 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM
Little Hawk 02 Jan 12 - 11:19 PM
GUEST,999 02 Jan 12 - 11:24 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM
Musket 03 Jan 12 - 04:17 AM
Jack the Sailor 03 Jan 12 - 05:20 AM
GUEST,Shining Wit 03 Jan 12 - 06:30 AM
GUEST 03 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM
GUEST,Shining Wit 03 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM
Richard Bridge 03 Jan 12 - 07:55 AM
Little Hawk 03 Jan 12 - 08:42 AM
Bee-dubya-ell 03 Jan 12 - 09:16 AM
Greg F. 03 Jan 12 - 10:05 AM
Bill D 03 Jan 12 - 10:16 AM
Ed T 03 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM
Little Hawk 03 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,Shining Wit 03 Jan 12 - 12:01 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM
Amos 03 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM
Richard Bridge 03 Jan 12 - 01:05 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Eliza 03 Jan 12 - 01:50 PM
gnu 03 Jan 12 - 01:59 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jan 12 - 02:32 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM
DMcG 03 Jan 12 - 04:06 PM
Bill D 03 Jan 12 - 04:11 PM
gnu 03 Jan 12 - 04:41 PM
Little Hawk 03 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM
Richard Bridge 03 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM
Greg F. 03 Jan 12 - 09:12 PM
Bill D 03 Jan 12 - 09:37 PM
GUEST,999 03 Jan 12 - 09:56 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Jan 12 - 11:36 PM
GUEST,Shining Wit 04 Jan 12 - 05:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 12 - 06:09 AM
Musket 04 Jan 12 - 11:30 AM
Jack the Sailor 04 Jan 12 - 12:04 PM
Mrrzy 04 Jan 12 - 12:10 PM
Bill D 04 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM
Richard Bridge 04 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM
Bill D 04 Jan 12 - 12:31 PM
Musket 04 Jan 12 - 12:32 PM
GUEST,Shining Wit 04 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Jan 12 - 12:42 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Jan 12 - 12:52 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM
Bill D 04 Jan 12 - 12:58 PM
Musket 04 Jan 12 - 01:02 PM
Bill D 04 Jan 12 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM
GUEST,Eliza 04 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM
Bill D 04 Jan 12 - 02:30 PM
Musket 05 Jan 12 - 04:49 AM
Richard Bridge 05 Jan 12 - 05:38 AM
Richard Bridge 05 Jan 12 - 05:41 AM
Ed T 05 Jan 12 - 06:17 AM
Musket 05 Jan 12 - 07:10 AM
GUEST,999 05 Jan 12 - 10:39 AM
Greg F. 05 Jan 12 - 10:46 AM
Musket 05 Jan 12 - 11:07 AM
Musket 05 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM
Jack the Sailor 05 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,999 05 Jan 12 - 11:44 AM
Musket 05 Jan 12 - 12:02 PM
Joe Offer 05 Jan 12 - 11:55 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Jan 12 - 01:04 AM
Donuel 06 Jan 12 - 08:41 PM
GUEST 06 Jan 12 - 11:50 PM
Bill D 07 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM
akenaton 07 Jan 12 - 03:03 AM
Richard Bridge 07 Jan 12 - 04:42 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Jan 12 - 10:57 AM
Musket 07 Jan 12 - 11:51 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Jan 12 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,999 07 Jan 12 - 07:59 PM
Paul Burke 07 Jan 12 - 08:51 PM
Bill D 07 Jan 12 - 08:54 PM
GUEST,Shining Wit 08 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Jan 12 - 11:54 AM
GUEST,Shining Wit 08 Jan 12 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Jan 12 - 05:11 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Jan 12 - 06:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Jan 12 - 02:28 AM
Richard Bridge 09 Jan 12 - 03:16 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Jan 12 - 04:25 AM
GUEST,KP 09 Jan 12 - 08:06 AM
Richard Bridge 09 Jan 12 - 08:12 AM
Bill D 09 Jan 12 - 10:12 AM
GUEST,Iona 26 Jan 12 - 12:42 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 26 Jan 12 - 01:37 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 26 Jan 12 - 01:53 AM
GUEST 26 Jan 12 - 03:53 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Jan 12 - 04:50 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Jan 12 - 04:59 AM
Mr Happy 26 Jan 12 - 05:05 AM
Stu 26 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM
Richard Bridge 26 Jan 12 - 07:13 AM
Richard Bridge 26 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 26 Jan 12 - 07:31 AM
Mr Happy 26 Jan 12 - 08:03 AM
MGM·Lion 26 Jan 12 - 09:09 AM
MGM·Lion 26 Jan 12 - 09:16 AM
Richard Bridge 26 Jan 12 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jan 12 - 10:23 AM
Mr Happy 26 Jan 12 - 10:29 AM
GUEST 26 Jan 12 - 01:25 PM
akenaton 26 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM
Mr Happy 26 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM
Don Firth 26 Jan 12 - 01:44 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM
akenaton 26 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM
Paul Burke 26 Jan 12 - 02:17 PM
akenaton 26 Jan 12 - 02:17 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM
akenaton 26 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 12 - 02:36 PM
Paul Burke 26 Jan 12 - 02:45 PM
akenaton 26 Jan 12 - 02:48 PM
Don Firth 26 Jan 12 - 04:36 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 12 - 05:35 PM
akenaton 26 Jan 12 - 07:44 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM
GUEST,Iona 27 Jan 12 - 12:34 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Jan 12 - 12:43 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 27 Jan 12 - 01:43 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 27 Jan 12 - 01:47 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 27 Jan 12 - 01:47 AM
Don Firth 27 Jan 12 - 01:51 AM
GUEST,Iona 27 Jan 12 - 02:16 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 27 Jan 12 - 02:17 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 27 Jan 12 - 02:59 AM
GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack 27 Jan 12 - 03:56 AM
Penny S. 27 Jan 12 - 04:02 AM
Mr Happy 27 Jan 12 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Jan 12 - 05:41 AM
Richard Bridge 27 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM
GUEST 27 Jan 12 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,TIA 27 Jan 12 - 07:49 AM
DMcG 27 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM
Mr Happy 27 Jan 12 - 09:31 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Jan 12 - 09:44 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Jan 12 - 09:45 AM
Don Firth 27 Jan 12 - 12:55 PM
Paul Burke 27 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM
Greg F. 27 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Jan 12 - 02:29 PM
Penny S. 27 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM
Penny S. 27 Jan 12 - 02:48 PM
Bill D 27 Jan 12 - 03:18 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 12 - 04:39 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 27 Jan 12 - 06:27 PM
Richard Bridge 27 Jan 12 - 06:43 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Jan 12 - 06:50 PM
Paul Burke 27 Jan 12 - 07:03 PM
Bill D 27 Jan 12 - 07:11 PM
Don Firth 27 Jan 12 - 07:50 PM
GUEST 28 Jan 12 - 12:00 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 28 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM
Don Firth 28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM
GUEST,Iona 28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Jan 12 - 04:15 AM
Paul Burke 28 Jan 12 - 04:24 AM
akenaton 28 Jan 12 - 05:19 AM
DMcG 28 Jan 12 - 05:30 AM
Mr Happy 28 Jan 12 - 07:39 AM
Mr Happy 28 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM
GUEST 28 Jan 12 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 28 Jan 12 - 09:01 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 28 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM
GUEST,Suga foot Jack in the electron cloud 28 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Jan 12 - 11:25 AM
GUEST,Iona 28 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM
Bill D 28 Jan 12 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM
Bill D 28 Jan 12 - 03:38 PM
Bill D 28 Jan 12 - 03:52 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Jan 12 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Jan 12 - 04:49 PM
Don Firth 28 Jan 12 - 04:51 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Jan 12 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Jan 12 - 05:31 PM
Bill D 28 Jan 12 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Jan 12 - 05:58 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM
Don Firth 28 Jan 12 - 07:27 PM
Bill D 28 Jan 12 - 08:50 PM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 29 Jan 12 - 03:34 AM
akenaton 29 Jan 12 - 03:57 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Jan 12 - 04:11 AM
GUEST 29 Jan 12 - 05:28 AM
MGM·Lion 29 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Jan 12 - 09:25 AM
Mr Happy 29 Jan 12 - 09:51 AM
Bill D 29 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Jan 12 - 11:34 AM
Paul Burke 29 Jan 12 - 12:49 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Jan 12 - 01:18 PM
Greg F. 29 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Jan 12 - 02:53 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Jan 12 - 04:19 PM
frogprince 29 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM
Bill D 29 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jan 12 - 06:54 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jan 12 - 07:07 PM
Paul Burke 29 Jan 12 - 07:24 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jan 12 - 07:34 PM
akenaton 30 Jan 12 - 03:58 AM
MGM·Lion 30 Jan 12 - 04:07 AM
Mr Happy 30 Jan 12 - 04:14 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 30 Jan 12 - 04:30 AM
Stu 30 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Jan 12 - 08:30 AM
GUEST,Iona 30 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM
Greg F. 30 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM
MGM·Lion 30 Jan 12 - 02:14 PM
DMcG 30 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM
frogprince 30 Jan 12 - 02:28 PM
Amos 30 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 12 - 04:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Jan 12 - 05:10 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Jan 12 - 05:14 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM
DMcG 30 Jan 12 - 05:42 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Jan 12 - 06:04 PM
Bill D 30 Jan 12 - 06:05 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jan 12 - 06:08 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM
Bill D 30 Jan 12 - 07:54 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jan 12 - 08:01 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 12 - 08:06 PM
Don Firth 30 Jan 12 - 08:10 PM
Greg F. 30 Jan 12 - 08:15 PM
Bill D 30 Jan 12 - 08:18 PM
John P 30 Jan 12 - 11:51 PM
Jack the Sailor 31 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM
John P 31 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 31 Jan 12 - 02:05 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 31 Jan 12 - 02:56 AM
Stu 31 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM
Mr Happy 31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM
DMcG 31 Jan 12 - 07:30 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Jan 12 - 10:07 AM
Mr Happy 31 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM
John P 31 Jan 12 - 10:27 AM
MGM·Lion 31 Jan 12 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 31 Jan 12 - 11:26 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM
Stu 31 Jan 12 - 12:40 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jan 12 - 12:41 PM
Penny S. 31 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM
GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack 31 Jan 12 - 01:27 PM
Amos 31 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jan 12 - 03:46 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jan 12 - 03:48 PM
Greg F. 31 Jan 12 - 04:28 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jan 12 - 05:28 PM
akenaton 31 Jan 12 - 06:01 PM
Don Firth 31 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM
akenaton 31 Jan 12 - 08:02 PM
GUEST,999 31 Jan 12 - 10:44 PM
MGM·Lion 01 Feb 12 - 01:21 AM
GUEST,999 01 Feb 12 - 02:10 AM
MGM·Lion 01 Feb 12 - 03:19 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 01 Feb 12 - 05:01 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Feb 12 - 06:02 AM
Mr Happy 01 Feb 12 - 06:07 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM
MGM·Lion 01 Feb 12 - 07:31 AM
Mr Happy 01 Feb 12 - 08:30 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM
Penny S. 01 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM
Bill D 01 Feb 12 - 12:24 PM
Mrrzy 01 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM
Don Firth 01 Feb 12 - 02:01 PM
frogprince 01 Feb 12 - 02:35 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Feb 12 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,999 01 Feb 12 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,Iona 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM
Mr Happy 02 Feb 12 - 05:00 AM
DMcG 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 AM
Musket 02 Feb 12 - 06:08 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 12 - 06:24 AM
MGM·Lion 02 Feb 12 - 06:28 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 12 - 06:36 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Feb 12 - 07:24 AM
Stu 02 Feb 12 - 07:27 AM
DMcG 02 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM
TheSnail 02 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM
akenaton 02 Feb 12 - 09:28 AM
GUEST,TIA 02 Feb 12 - 09:39 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Feb 12 - 10:19 AM
TheSnail 02 Feb 12 - 10:33 AM
Bill D 02 Feb 12 - 11:32 AM
Don Firth 02 Feb 12 - 12:16 PM
Penny S. 02 Feb 12 - 12:32 PM
Penny S. 02 Feb 12 - 12:35 PM
Greg F. 02 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM
Don Firth 02 Feb 12 - 01:32 PM
frogprince 02 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Feb 12 - 03:47 PM
Don Firth 02 Feb 12 - 04:06 PM
Don Firth 02 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM
Mrrzy 02 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Feb 12 - 05:49 PM
GUEST,Iona 02 Feb 12 - 05:59 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 12 - 06:04 PM
TheSnail 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM
Bill D 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM
TheSnail 02 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Feb 12 - 06:40 PM
Don Firth 02 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM
Don Firth 02 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM
GUEST,Iona 03 Feb 12 - 03:44 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 03 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM
Musket 03 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM
DMcG 03 Feb 12 - 06:26 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Feb 12 - 12:38 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM
TheSnail 03 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM
Paul Burke 03 Feb 12 - 02:24 PM
Don Firth 03 Feb 12 - 03:02 PM
Bill D 03 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM
Don Firth 03 Feb 12 - 07:15 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Feb 12 - 08:26 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Feb 12 - 08:28 PM
GUEST,LB 03 Feb 12 - 09:18 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Feb 12 - 12:20 AM
Penny S. 04 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM
TheSnail 04 Feb 12 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,Iona 04 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Feb 12 - 01:30 PM
DMcG 04 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM
Joe Offer 04 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 04 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM
Don Firth 04 Feb 12 - 04:12 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Feb 12 - 04:33 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Feb 12 - 06:41 PM
TheSnail 04 Feb 12 - 08:18 PM
DMcG 05 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 05 Feb 12 - 04:40 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Feb 12 - 04:43 AM
TheSnail 05 Feb 12 - 10:10 AM
frogprince 05 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 05 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM
Mrrzy 05 Feb 12 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Feb 12 - 01:07 PM
Bill D 05 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM
Mrrzy 05 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM
DMcG 05 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM
TheSnail 05 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM
TheSnail 05 Feb 12 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Feb 12 - 05:27 PM
DMcG 05 Feb 12 - 05:34 PM
TheSnail 05 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Feb 12 - 06:55 PM
Dave Hanson 05 Feb 12 - 07:22 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Feb 12 - 08:14 PM
GUEST,Iona 06 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM
GUEST,Iona 06 Feb 12 - 02:16 AM
GUEST,Iona 06 Feb 12 - 02:30 AM
MGM·Lion 06 Feb 12 - 02:47 AM
DMcG 06 Feb 12 - 03:26 AM
DMcG 06 Feb 12 - 03:28 AM
Musket 06 Feb 12 - 03:49 AM
DMcG 06 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 06 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Feb 12 - 05:39 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Feb 12 - 05:41 AM
DMcG 06 Feb 12 - 06:06 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM
TheSnail 06 Feb 12 - 07:07 AM
Mr Happy 06 Feb 12 - 07:29 AM
Penny S. 06 Feb 12 - 09:41 AM
Musket 06 Feb 12 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,TIA 06 Feb 12 - 10:34 AM
DMcG 06 Feb 12 - 11:36 AM
GUEST,999 06 Feb 12 - 12:05 PM
GUEST,Iona 06 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Iona 06 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM
Don Firth 06 Feb 12 - 03:00 PM
Don Firth 06 Feb 12 - 03:05 PM
DMcG 06 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM
frogprince 06 Feb 12 - 05:37 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM
Bill D 06 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM
Bill D 06 Feb 12 - 07:41 PM
frogprince 06 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM
Bill D 06 Feb 12 - 07:44 PM
Bill D 06 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM
GUEST,TIA 06 Feb 12 - 07:59 PM
Mrrzy 06 Feb 12 - 09:32 PM
GUEST,Iona 07 Feb 12 - 01:52 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 07 Feb 12 - 01:54 AM
GUEST,Iona 07 Feb 12 - 02:12 AM
GUEST,Iona 07 Feb 12 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 07 Feb 12 - 04:20 AM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 04:25 AM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 06:50 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM
GUEST,Eliza 07 Feb 12 - 07:05 AM
Greg F. 07 Feb 12 - 10:33 AM
Bill D 07 Feb 12 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,999 07 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM
Bill D 07 Feb 12 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,999 07 Feb 12 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,Eliza 07 Feb 12 - 12:26 PM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 12:30 PM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 12:33 PM
Stilly River Sage 07 Feb 12 - 12:46 PM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 01:06 PM
Don Firth 07 Feb 12 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,Iona 07 Feb 12 - 02:20 PM
Don Firth 07 Feb 12 - 02:41 PM
DMcG 07 Feb 12 - 02:57 PM
Stilly River Sage 07 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Feb 12 - 03:26 PM
GUEST,999 07 Feb 12 - 03:36 PM
GUEST,Iona 07 Feb 12 - 04:15 PM
Don Firth 07 Feb 12 - 04:53 PM
GUEST,TIA 07 Feb 12 - 05:46 PM
Don Firth 07 Feb 12 - 06:20 PM
Bill D 07 Feb 12 - 07:21 PM
Bill D 07 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 08 Feb 12 - 10:04 AM
Bill D 08 Feb 12 - 01:34 PM
Paul Burke 08 Feb 12 - 01:38 PM
Don Firth 08 Feb 12 - 01:46 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Feb 12 - 06:22 PM
Bill D 08 Feb 12 - 07:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Feb 12 - 07:35 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM
Don Firth 08 Feb 12 - 10:16 PM
GUEST,TIA 08 Feb 12 - 11:41 PM
GUEST,Paul Burke 09 Feb 12 - 01:49 AM
GUEST,Iona 09 Feb 12 - 02:48 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM
DMcG 09 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM
Stu 09 Feb 12 - 11:11 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Feb 12 - 11:25 AM
GUEST 09 Feb 12 - 11:42 AM
GUEST,999 09 Feb 12 - 11:45 AM
Stilly River Sage 09 Feb 12 - 12:01 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Feb 12 - 12:09 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Feb 12 - 12:09 PM
Bill D 09 Feb 12 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,999 09 Feb 12 - 12:33 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Feb 12 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,999 09 Feb 12 - 12:47 PM
Don Firth 09 Feb 12 - 02:14 PM
Don Firth 09 Feb 12 - 06:03 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 09 Feb 12 - 06:24 PM
DMcG 09 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM
Bill D 09 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM
GUEST,Iona 10 Feb 12 - 01:21 AM
GUEST,Iona 10 Feb 12 - 02:04 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 10 Feb 12 - 02:04 AM
GUEST 10 Feb 12 - 02:37 AM
Penny S. 10 Feb 12 - 02:46 AM
Penny S. 10 Feb 12 - 03:06 AM
GUEST,Iona 10 Feb 12 - 03:11 AM
GUEST,Iona 10 Feb 12 - 03:18 AM
GUEST,Iona 10 Feb 12 - 03:19 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Feb 12 - 04:56 AM
Penny S. 10 Feb 12 - 07:36 AM
frogprince 10 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM
Stu 10 Feb 12 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,TIA 10 Feb 12 - 10:04 AM
GUEST,TIA 10 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM
Bill D 10 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM
Greg F. 10 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM
Penny S. 10 Feb 12 - 11:37 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Feb 12 - 11:43 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Feb 12 - 11:51 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Feb 12 - 11:51 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 10 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM
DMcG 10 Feb 12 - 01:38 PM
DMcG 10 Feb 12 - 01:40 PM
MGM·Lion 10 Feb 12 - 02:31 PM
GUEST,999 10 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM
MGM·Lion 10 Feb 12 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,999 10 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM
Paul Burke 10 Feb 12 - 03:12 PM
MGM·Lion 10 Feb 12 - 03:13 PM
Don Firth 10 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM
Don Firth 10 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM
Bill D 10 Feb 12 - 03:28 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Feb 12 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,TIA 10 Feb 12 - 04:13 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 10 Feb 12 - 04:29 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 10 Feb 12 - 04:54 PM
Don Firth 10 Feb 12 - 05:07 PM
Don Firth 10 Feb 12 - 05:08 PM
Paul Burke 10 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,999 10 Feb 12 - 07:29 PM
Bill D 10 Feb 12 - 07:43 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Feb 12 - 08:22 PM
Don Firth 10 Feb 12 - 09:12 PM
GUEST,Iona 11 Feb 12 - 01:19 AM
GUEST,Iona 11 Feb 12 - 01:32 AM
Don Firth 11 Feb 12 - 01:37 AM
GUEST,Iona 11 Feb 12 - 03:04 AM
DMcG 11 Feb 12 - 03:08 AM
DMcG 11 Feb 12 - 03:31 AM
Penny S. 11 Feb 12 - 03:35 AM
Penny S. 11 Feb 12 - 03:55 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 11 Feb 12 - 05:08 AM
Joe Offer 11 Feb 12 - 05:32 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 11 Feb 12 - 05:56 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Feb 12 - 06:17 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Feb 12 - 06:31 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Feb 12 - 06:32 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Feb 12 - 06:43 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Feb 12 - 06:53 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Feb 12 - 07:01 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Feb 12 - 07:01 AM
DMcG 11 Feb 12 - 07:08 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather 11 Feb 12 - 07:25 AM
Stu 11 Feb 12 - 08:18 AM
GUEST,999 11 Feb 12 - 09:29 AM
Paul Burke 11 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,999 11 Feb 12 - 10:46 AM
frogprince 11 Feb 12 - 11:06 AM
MGM·Lion 11 Feb 12 - 11:20 AM
Bill D 11 Feb 12 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,999 11 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM
Bill D 11 Feb 12 - 02:07 PM
Mrrzy 11 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM
Don Firth 11 Feb 12 - 03:33 PM
Paul Burke 11 Feb 12 - 03:36 PM
Don Firth 11 Feb 12 - 03:59 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Feb 12 - 04:07 PM
GUEST,999 11 Feb 12 - 04:55 PM
DMcG 11 Feb 12 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Feb 12 - 06:08 PM
Bill D 11 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM
mayomick 11 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 11 Feb 12 - 06:53 PM
MGM·Lion 11 Feb 12 - 11:57 PM
Musket 12 Feb 12 - 09:48 AM
DMcG 12 Feb 12 - 10:13 AM
Mrrzy 12 Feb 12 - 11:03 AM
DMcG 12 Feb 12 - 11:47 AM
GUEST,999 12 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,999 12 Feb 12 - 12:50 PM
Don Firth 12 Feb 12 - 01:43 PM
GUEST,Eliza 12 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM
Penny S. 12 Feb 12 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 12 Feb 12 - 05:31 PM
frogprince 12 Feb 12 - 05:41 PM
frogprince 12 Feb 12 - 05:43 PM
Don Firth 12 Feb 12 - 08:45 PM
GUEST,TIA 12 Feb 12 - 09:33 PM
GUEST,Iona 13 Feb 12 - 02:48 AM
DMcG 13 Feb 12 - 03:00 AM
DMcG 13 Feb 12 - 03:15 AM
DMcG 13 Feb 12 - 03:42 AM
Joe Offer 13 Feb 12 - 04:02 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Feb 12 - 05:14 AM
GUEST,999 13 Feb 12 - 07:37 AM
GUEST,999 13 Feb 12 - 08:38 AM
Penny S. 13 Feb 12 - 08:45 AM
GUEST,999 13 Feb 12 - 08:52 AM
Penny S. 13 Feb 12 - 09:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Feb 12 - 09:40 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Feb 12 - 09:55 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Feb 12 - 10:02 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Feb 12 - 10:05 AM
Penny S. 13 Feb 12 - 10:30 AM
meself 13 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM
Bill D 13 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM
Penny S. 13 Feb 12 - 11:22 AM
Bill D 13 Feb 12 - 11:34 AM
Bill D 13 Feb 12 - 11:50 AM
MGM·Lion 13 Feb 12 - 12:15 PM
MGM·Lion 13 Feb 12 - 12:18 PM
Penny S. 13 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM
MGM·Lion 13 Feb 12 - 12:56 PM
Penny S. 13 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM
DMcG 13 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM
Don Firth 13 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM
GUEST,999 13 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 Feb 12 - 05:26 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Feb 12 - 05:29 PM
Don Firth 13 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM
frogprince 13 Feb 12 - 07:21 PM
John P 13 Feb 12 - 10:56 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Feb 12 - 11:26 PM
GUEST 14 Feb 12 - 01:46 AM
DMcG 14 Feb 12 - 03:13 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 14 Feb 12 - 04:49 AM
Musket 14 Feb 12 - 04:50 AM
Ed T 14 Feb 12 - 06:42 AM
Penny S. 14 Feb 12 - 06:44 AM
Penny S. 14 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM
DMcG 14 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM
DMcG 14 Feb 12 - 07:19 AM
Penny S. 14 Feb 12 - 07:50 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 14 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM
John P 14 Feb 12 - 09:53 AM
DMcG 14 Feb 12 - 10:05 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 14 Feb 12 - 04:19 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 12 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,999 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 PM
Don Firth 14 Feb 12 - 09:36 PM
DMcG 15 Feb 12 - 02:20 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 15 Feb 12 - 04:03 AM
Musket 15 Feb 12 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,999 15 Feb 12 - 10:41 AM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM
Mr Happy 15 Feb 12 - 10:59 AM
GUEST,999 15 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,999 15 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM
Mr Happy 15 Feb 12 - 11:27 AM
Musket 15 Feb 12 - 11:28 AM
GUEST 15 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM
GUEST,999 15 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM
Don Firth 15 Feb 12 - 02:31 PM
Bill D 15 Feb 12 - 02:43 PM
Bill D 15 Feb 12 - 02:53 PM
DMcG 15 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM
GUEST,999 15 Feb 12 - 04:52 PM
DMcG 15 Feb 12 - 05:39 PM
Don Firth 15 Feb 12 - 05:51 PM
John P 15 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM
Bill D 15 Feb 12 - 10:09 PM
GUEST,999 15 Feb 12 - 11:49 PM
Paul Burke 16 Feb 12 - 02:18 AM
GUEST,Iona 16 Feb 12 - 03:17 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 12 - 06:42 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 12 - 06:46 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM
Penny S. 16 Feb 12 - 07:22 AM
Penny S. 16 Feb 12 - 07:39 AM
beardedbruce 16 Feb 12 - 07:44 AM
DMcG 16 Feb 12 - 07:54 AM
beardedbruce 16 Feb 12 - 09:06 AM
beardedbruce 16 Feb 12 - 09:14 AM
Mr Happy 16 Feb 12 - 09:15 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Feb 12 - 09:56 AM
GUEST,TIA 16 Feb 12 - 10:03 AM
DMcG 16 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM
Paul Burke 16 Feb 12 - 01:13 PM
GUEST,Iona 16 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,Iona 16 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM
DMcG 16 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM
DMcG 16 Feb 12 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,999 16 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM
Penny S. 16 Feb 12 - 03:55 PM
GUEST,Iona 16 Feb 12 - 04:01 PM
DMcG 16 Feb 12 - 04:26 PM
GUEST,Iona 16 Feb 12 - 04:46 PM
DMcG 16 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM
Paul Burke 16 Feb 12 - 05:18 PM
Don Firth 16 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM
Penny S. 16 Feb 12 - 05:45 PM
Don Firth 16 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Feb 12 - 07:31 PM
GUEST 16 Feb 12 - 07:38 PM
GUEST,999 16 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM
Don Firth 16 Feb 12 - 08:25 PM
Bill D 16 Feb 12 - 08:38 PM
GUEST,999 16 Feb 12 - 09:31 PM
DMcG 17 Feb 12 - 03:02 AM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 12 - 08:21 AM
Penny S. 17 Feb 12 - 08:35 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM
DMcG 17 Feb 12 - 10:14 AM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 12 - 10:20 AM
Penny S. 17 Feb 12 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,999 17 Feb 12 - 10:36 AM
Penny S. 17 Feb 12 - 10:53 AM
Mr Happy 17 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM
Bill D 17 Feb 12 - 12:06 PM
GUEST,999 17 Feb 12 - 12:30 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,999 17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 12 - 02:02 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,999 17 Feb 12 - 02:34 PM
Penny S. 17 Feb 12 - 03:11 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 12 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,999 17 Feb 12 - 03:20 PM
Jeri 17 Feb 12 - 03:21 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Feb 12 - 05:02 PM
DMcG 17 Feb 12 - 06:28 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 12 - 07:04 PM
Don Firth 17 Feb 12 - 07:20 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Feb 12 - 07:31 PM
Jeri 17 Feb 12 - 07:40 PM
Jeri 17 Feb 12 - 07:48 PM
GUEST,999 17 Feb 12 - 10:19 PM
GUEST,Iona 18 Feb 12 - 01:17 AM
GUEST,Iona 18 Feb 12 - 01:31 AM
GUEST,Iona 18 Feb 12 - 01:55 AM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 03:41 AM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 03:59 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM
Musket 18 Feb 12 - 06:10 AM
TheSnail 18 Feb 12 - 08:38 AM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 10:38 AM
Jack the Sailor 18 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,TIA 18 Feb 12 - 01:23 PM
Don Firth 18 Feb 12 - 01:45 PM
GUEST,Iona 18 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,Iona 18 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM
Jeri 18 Feb 12 - 03:20 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Feb 12 - 03:31 PM
GUEST,Iona 18 Feb 12 - 03:58 PM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 04:07 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Feb 12 - 04:08 PM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 04:27 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Feb 12 - 04:47 PM
Stringsinger 18 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM
Don Firth 18 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM
DMcG 18 Feb 12 - 05:13 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Feb 12 - 05:26 PM
Paul Burke 18 Feb 12 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Feb 12 - 12:46 AM
DMcG 19 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM
DMcG 19 Feb 12 - 04:23 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM
Penny S. 19 Feb 12 - 05:00 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Feb 12 - 06:08 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Feb 12 - 06:15 AM
Paul Burke 19 Feb 12 - 06:20 AM
Mr Happy 19 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM
DMcG 19 Feb 12 - 07:57 AM
Musket 19 Feb 12 - 09:34 AM
Mr Happy 19 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM
Paul Burke 19 Feb 12 - 03:38 PM
Don Firth 19 Feb 12 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Feb 12 - 07:02 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Feb 12 - 08:02 PM
GUEST,Iona 20 Feb 12 - 02:34 AM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 03:08 AM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 03:22 AM
GUEST,Iona 20 Feb 12 - 03:56 AM
Penny S. 20 Feb 12 - 04:05 AM
Musket 20 Feb 12 - 04:15 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Feb 12 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 20 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 05:12 AM
Stu 20 Feb 12 - 05:15 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Feb 12 - 05:29 AM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 05:37 AM
Penny S. 20 Feb 12 - 06:27 AM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 07:33 AM
Mr Happy 20 Feb 12 - 07:34 AM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Feb 12 - 02:12 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM
Bill D 20 Feb 12 - 02:36 PM
GUEST,Iona 20 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 04:05 PM
Bill D 20 Feb 12 - 04:24 PM
DMcG 20 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM
Bill D 20 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM
Don Firth 20 Feb 12 - 05:31 PM
DMcG 21 Feb 12 - 03:24 AM
GUEST,Iona 21 Feb 12 - 03:42 AM
DMcG 21 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM
GUEST,Iona 21 Feb 12 - 03:52 AM
DMcG 21 Feb 12 - 04:07 AM
Mr Happy 21 Feb 12 - 04:34 AM
Mr Happy 21 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM
Penny S. 21 Feb 12 - 05:24 AM
Stu 21 Feb 12 - 05:58 AM
Musket 21 Feb 12 - 06:10 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Feb 12 - 06:57 AM
DMcG 21 Feb 12 - 07:30 AM
DMcG 21 Feb 12 - 07:42 AM
GUEST,999 21 Feb 12 - 12:44 PM
Paul Burke 21 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM
Don Firth 21 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM
Don Firth 21 Feb 12 - 08:41 PM
Stringsinger 22 Feb 12 - 01:57 PM
Don Firth 22 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM
GUEST,999 22 Feb 12 - 10:24 PM
Bill D 23 Feb 12 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Feb 12 - 12:11 PM
DMcG 23 Feb 12 - 12:58 PM
Mr Happy 23 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM
Paul Burke 23 Feb 12 - 01:26 PM
Bill D 23 Feb 12 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 23 Feb 12 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,999 23 Feb 12 - 04:28 PM
Penny S. 23 Feb 12 - 05:09 PM
Bill D 23 Feb 12 - 05:37 PM
Penny S. 23 Feb 12 - 05:41 PM
Bill D 23 Feb 12 - 05:59 PM
Don Firth 23 Feb 12 - 06:05 PM
Penny S. 23 Feb 12 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 23 Feb 12 - 06:19 PM
GUEST,999 23 Feb 12 - 06:35 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Feb 12 - 06:56 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Feb 12 - 07:37 PM
GUEST,Iona 24 Feb 12 - 12:47 AM
Don Firth 24 Feb 12 - 01:50 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 24 Feb 12 - 02:06 AM
GUEST,Iona 24 Feb 12 - 02:19 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Feb 12 - 04:35 AM
Musket 24 Feb 12 - 04:49 AM
Penny S. 24 Feb 12 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Feb 12 - 12:12 PM
Paul Burke 24 Feb 12 - 01:08 PM
Don Firth 24 Feb 12 - 02:23 PM
DMcG 24 Feb 12 - 02:26 PM
Stringsinger 24 Feb 12 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Feb 12 - 04:02 PM
Paul Burke 24 Feb 12 - 04:24 PM
GUEST,Iona 24 Feb 12 - 04:40 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 12 - 04:42 PM
GUEST,Iona 24 Feb 12 - 05:16 PM
GUEST,999 24 Feb 12 - 05:18 PM
Greg F. 24 Feb 12 - 05:19 PM
Don Firth 24 Feb 12 - 06:03 PM
Bill D 24 Feb 12 - 06:11 PM
Bill D 24 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM
Don Firth 24 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Feb 12 - 06:51 PM
Bill D 24 Feb 12 - 06:53 PM
DMcG 24 Feb 12 - 06:57 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Feb 12 - 07:06 PM
Bill D 24 Feb 12 - 07:16 PM
Paul Burke 24 Feb 12 - 07:17 PM
Bill D 24 Feb 12 - 08:53 PM
TheSnail 24 Feb 12 - 10:17 PM
GUEST,Iona 25 Feb 12 - 01:40 AM
GUEST,Iona 25 Feb 12 - 02:22 AM
Penny S. 25 Feb 12 - 03:37 AM
DMcG 25 Feb 12 - 03:55 AM
DMcG 25 Feb 12 - 04:03 AM
Penny S. 25 Feb 12 - 11:34 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Feb 12 - 03:48 PM
Paul Burke 25 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 12 - 04:10 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 12 - 04:29 PM
GUEST,Iona 25 Feb 12 - 05:35 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 25 Feb 12 - 05:49 PM
Mrrzy 25 Feb 12 - 06:35 PM
DMcG 25 Feb 12 - 07:54 PM
Don Firth 25 Feb 12 - 07:58 PM
Penny S. 26 Feb 12 - 04:27 AM
Musket 26 Feb 12 - 11:06 AM
Stringsinger 26 Feb 12 - 02:35 PM
Don Firth 26 Feb 12 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Feb 12 - 03:48 PM
Don Firth 26 Feb 12 - 04:46 PM
Paul Burke 26 Feb 12 - 05:20 PM
Don Firth 26 Feb 12 - 05:48 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Feb 12 - 09:10 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Feb 12 - 09:25 PM
GUEST,TIA 26 Feb 12 - 11:39 PM
Penny S. 27 Feb 12 - 04:24 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 27 Feb 12 - 12:09 PM
frogprince 27 Feb 12 - 01:26 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM
Don Firth 27 Feb 12 - 04:43 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Feb 12 - 06:57 PM
GUEST,Paul Burke 28 Feb 12 - 01:52 AM
GUEST,Iona 28 Feb 12 - 03:06 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 28 Feb 12 - 04:43 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM
Stu 28 Feb 12 - 04:57 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 28 Feb 12 - 05:10 AM
Mr Happy 28 Feb 12 - 05:28 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 12 - 05:46 AM
Stu 28 Feb 12 - 07:05 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 12 - 07:53 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 28 Feb 12 - 10:13 AM
Bill D 28 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM
Stringsinger 28 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM
Paul Burke 28 Feb 12 - 01:16 PM
Paul Burke 28 Feb 12 - 01:19 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Feb 12 - 01:48 PM
DMcG 28 Feb 12 - 01:53 PM
Don Firth 28 Feb 12 - 03:38 PM
Bill D 28 Feb 12 - 03:44 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 12 - 03:54 PM
Don Firth 28 Feb 12 - 04:49 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 28 Feb 12 - 04:57 PM
Mrrzy 28 Feb 12 - 05:09 PM
GUEST,TIA 29 Feb 12 - 12:27 AM
GUEST,Iona 29 Feb 12 - 02:22 AM
GUEST,Iona 29 Feb 12 - 03:43 AM
GUEST,Iona 29 Feb 12 - 03:45 AM
Stu 29 Feb 12 - 04:25 AM
Penny S. 29 Feb 12 - 05:20 AM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 12 - 07:07 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM
Bill D 29 Feb 12 - 12:32 PM
Penny S. 29 Feb 12 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,Iona 29 Feb 12 - 01:19 PM
Paul Burke 29 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Feb 12 - 03:03 PM
beardedbruce 29 Feb 12 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Feb 12 - 05:25 PM
Bill D 29 Feb 12 - 05:28 PM
Don Firth 29 Feb 12 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,Iona 29 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM
Don Firth 29 Feb 12 - 06:19 PM
Don Firth 01 Mar 12 - 12:53 AM
GUEST,TIA 01 Mar 12 - 01:14 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 01 Mar 12 - 02:00 AM
GUEST 01 Mar 12 - 02:44 AM
GUEST 01 Mar 12 - 02:48 AM
Joe Offer 01 Mar 12 - 02:59 AM
Mr Happy 01 Mar 12 - 04:17 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 01 Mar 12 - 04:39 AM
Penny S. 01 Mar 12 - 06:54 AM
beardedbruce 01 Mar 12 - 07:12 AM
Stu 01 Mar 12 - 11:53 AM
Bill D 01 Mar 12 - 12:15 PM
Mr Happy 01 Mar 12 - 12:26 PM
Jeri 01 Mar 12 - 12:29 PM
Paul Burke 01 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM
Don Firth 01 Mar 12 - 02:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 01 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM
Don Firth 01 Mar 12 - 06:20 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Mar 12 - 07:57 PM
Don Firth 01 Mar 12 - 08:25 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM
Don Firth 01 Mar 12 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 12 - 01:15 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 02 Mar 12 - 04:34 AM
Penny S. 02 Mar 12 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Mar 12 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 02 Mar 12 - 07:00 AM
Penny S. 02 Mar 12 - 12:12 PM
Musket 02 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM
Musket 02 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM
Don Firth 02 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 02 Mar 12 - 06:36 PM
Don Firth 02 Mar 12 - 07:12 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 02 Mar 12 - 07:36 PM
Penny S. 03 Mar 12 - 03:44 AM
Penny S. 03 Mar 12 - 04:16 AM
DMcG 03 Mar 12 - 04:40 AM
DMcG 03 Mar 12 - 04:43 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 03 Mar 12 - 04:48 AM
DMcG 03 Mar 12 - 04:54 AM
Greg F. 03 Mar 12 - 12:00 PM
frogprince 03 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM
Don Firth 03 Mar 12 - 03:55 PM
Bill D 03 Mar 12 - 04:45 PM
Greg F. 03 Mar 12 - 05:09 PM
Don Firth 03 Mar 12 - 05:16 PM
Greg F. 03 Mar 12 - 09:19 PM
GUEST,Iona 04 Mar 12 - 02:47 AM
DMcG 04 Mar 12 - 03:54 AM
Penny S. 04 Mar 12 - 04:41 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Mar 12 - 05:22 AM
Greg F. 04 Mar 12 - 09:30 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 04 Mar 12 - 12:10 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Mar 12 - 03:18 PM
Don Firth 04 Mar 12 - 03:29 PM
DMcG 04 Mar 12 - 03:29 PM
Penny S. 04 Mar 12 - 03:40 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 04 Mar 12 - 04:38 PM
Paul Burke 04 Mar 12 - 04:39 PM
Bill D 04 Mar 12 - 06:56 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Mar 12 - 04:59 AM
Penny S. 05 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 05 Mar 12 - 05:15 AM
Penny S. 05 Mar 12 - 05:23 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Mar 12 - 05:44 AM
Penny S. 05 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Mar 12 - 06:11 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Mar 12 - 08:09 AM
Penny S. 05 Mar 12 - 08:35 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 05 Mar 12 - 09:06 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Mar 12 - 09:20 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Mar 12 - 10:24 AM
Penny S. 05 Mar 12 - 10:32 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Mar 12 - 10:46 AM
Penny S. 05 Mar 12 - 10:53 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Mar 12 - 11:38 AM
GUEST,999 06 Mar 12 - 09:40 AM
Mr Happy 06 Mar 12 - 10:06 AM
Bill D 06 Mar 12 - 11:43 AM
Paul Burke 06 Mar 12 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,999 06 Mar 12 - 01:32 PM
Penny S. 06 Mar 12 - 02:46 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Mar 12 - 03:24 PM
Paul Burke 06 Mar 12 - 03:45 PM
Don Firth 06 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM
GUEST,999 06 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 12 - 09:14 PM
GUEST,999 06 Mar 12 - 09:24 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Mar 12 - 06:11 PM
Don Firth 07 Mar 12 - 06:56 PM
GUEST,Iona 10 Mar 12 - 02:27 PM
Paul Burke 10 Mar 12 - 02:48 PM
Don Firth 10 Mar 12 - 03:06 PM
Bill D 10 Mar 12 - 03:16 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Mar 12 - 04:18 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Mar 12 - 04:32 PM
Don Firth 10 Mar 12 - 04:36 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Mar 12 - 04:52 PM
GUEST,Iona 10 Mar 12 - 05:31 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Mar 12 - 05:58 PM
Paul Burke 10 Mar 12 - 06:06 PM
Don Firth 11 Mar 12 - 12:53 AM
Don Firth 11 Mar 12 - 01:23 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Mar 12 - 05:51 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Mar 12 - 07:59 AM
Stu 11 Mar 12 - 08:43 AM
Penny S. 11 Mar 12 - 10:10 AM
Jon Corelis 11 Mar 12 - 11:45 AM
frogprince 11 Mar 12 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,999 11 Mar 12 - 12:21 PM
GUEST 11 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM
DMcG 11 Mar 12 - 01:06 PM
Don Firth 11 Mar 12 - 02:04 PM
Musket 12 Mar 12 - 05:54 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Mar 12 - 07:37 AM
Joe Offer 13 Mar 12 - 02:22 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 13 Mar 12 - 05:04 AM
Don Firth 13 Mar 12 - 03:41 PM
GUEST 14 Mar 12 - 01:30 AM
MGM·Lion 14 Mar 12 - 02:28 AM
Don Firth 14 Mar 12 - 02:38 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 14 Mar 12 - 03:06 AM
GUEST,Iona 14 Mar 12 - 03:15 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 14 Mar 12 - 07:47 AM
DMcG 14 Mar 12 - 08:32 AM
beardedbruce 14 Mar 12 - 08:48 AM
MGM·Lion 14 Mar 12 - 10:38 AM
Bill D 14 Mar 12 - 11:23 AM
Bill D 14 Mar 12 - 11:28 AM
Bill D 14 Mar 12 - 11:29 AM
GUEST,Iona 14 Mar 12 - 05:21 PM
TheSnail 14 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM
Bill D 14 Mar 12 - 08:42 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 15 Mar 12 - 04:51 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 15 Mar 12 - 06:04 AM
Musket 15 Mar 12 - 06:20 AM
Greg F. 15 Mar 12 - 01:55 PM
Don Firth 15 Mar 12 - 03:29 PM
Bill D 15 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM
Don Firth 15 Mar 12 - 07:41 PM
John P 15 Mar 12 - 10:59 PM
Don Firth 15 Mar 12 - 11:15 PM
GUEST,Iona 16 Mar 12 - 02:56 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 16 Mar 12 - 03:16 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 16 Mar 12 - 03:16 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Mar 12 - 04:38 AM
Dave Hanson 16 Mar 12 - 05:21 AM
beardedbruce 16 Mar 12 - 07:15 AM
Musket 16 Mar 12 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Mar 12 - 09:12 AM
saulgoldie 16 Mar 12 - 09:21 AM
John P 16 Mar 12 - 09:31 AM
Bill D 16 Mar 12 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Mar 12 - 02:21 PM
Don Firth 16 Mar 12 - 02:22 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Mar 12 - 03:40 PM
Bill D 16 Mar 12 - 03:58 PM
Don Firth 16 Mar 12 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Mar 12 - 04:46 PM
Penny S. 16 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM
Bill D 16 Mar 12 - 05:39 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Mar 12 - 07:09 PM
Mrrzy 16 Mar 12 - 07:13 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Mar 12 - 07:18 PM
GUEST,BanjoRay 16 Mar 12 - 07:47 PM
Penny S. 17 Mar 12 - 05:32 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 17 Mar 12 - 06:48 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Mar 12 - 07:36 AM
Mr Happy 17 Mar 12 - 08:33 AM
Penny S. 17 Mar 12 - 08:41 AM
DMcG 17 Mar 12 - 08:50 AM
Mr Happy 17 Mar 12 - 08:57 AM
Musket 17 Mar 12 - 09:42 AM
Greg F. 17 Mar 12 - 09:51 AM
Mr Happy 17 Mar 12 - 11:09 AM
Paul Burke 17 Mar 12 - 11:21 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Mar 12 - 12:26 PM
Mr Happy 17 Mar 12 - 12:52 PM
TheSnail 17 Mar 12 - 01:11 PM
Penny S. 17 Mar 12 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 17 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM
Don Firth 17 Mar 12 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Mar 12 - 05:14 PM
Don Firth 17 Mar 12 - 05:27 PM
Bill D 17 Mar 12 - 05:34 PM
DMcG 17 Mar 12 - 07:59 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Mar 12 - 05:17 AM
Bill D 18 Mar 12 - 11:38 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 18 Mar 12 - 02:31 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Mar 12 - 02:37 PM
Mrrzy 18 Mar 12 - 04:06 PM
Bill D 18 Mar 12 - 04:15 PM
DMcG 18 Mar 12 - 05:03 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Mar 12 - 05:04 PM
DMcG 18 Mar 12 - 05:15 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Mar 12 - 08:17 PM
frogprince 18 Mar 12 - 11:25 PM
GUEST,Iona 19 Mar 12 - 12:03 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 19 Mar 12 - 03:14 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 19 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM
TheSnail 19 Mar 12 - 06:39 AM
Bill D 19 Mar 12 - 10:40 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Mar 12 - 10:51 AM
Bill D 19 Mar 12 - 11:12 AM
Jack the Sailor 19 Mar 12 - 11:59 AM
DMcG 19 Mar 12 - 12:36 PM
DMcG 19 Mar 12 - 12:43 PM
Musket 19 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM
Paul Burke 19 Mar 12 - 02:07 PM
Bill D 19 Mar 12 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Mar 12 - 02:39 PM
Don Firth 19 Mar 12 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,Iona 19 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Mar 12 - 08:22 PM
saulgoldie 19 Mar 12 - 08:25 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Mar 12 - 08:28 PM
Don Firth 19 Mar 12 - 09:54 PM
GUEST,Iona 19 Mar 12 - 10:12 PM
Don Firth 19 Mar 12 - 10:30 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Mar 12 - 10:33 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Mar 12 - 10:40 PM
Don Firth 20 Mar 12 - 12:19 AM
GUEST,Iona 20 Mar 12 - 12:52 AM
Iona 20 Mar 12 - 02:07 AM
Musket 20 Mar 12 - 05:11 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 20 Mar 12 - 07:26 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Mar 12 - 08:58 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Mar 12 - 01:00 PM
TheSnail 20 Mar 12 - 01:07 PM
Iona 20 Mar 12 - 01:29 PM
Bill D 20 Mar 12 - 04:51 PM
Iona 20 Mar 12 - 05:51 PM
Bill D 20 Mar 12 - 05:59 PM
Iona 20 Mar 12 - 07:54 PM
Iona 20 Mar 12 - 08:01 PM
John P 20 Mar 12 - 08:58 PM
Bill D 20 Mar 12 - 09:20 PM
TheSnail 20 Mar 12 - 10:02 PM
Bill D 20 Mar 12 - 10:09 PM
TheSnail 20 Mar 12 - 10:25 PM
Iona 20 Mar 12 - 10:27 PM
John P 20 Mar 12 - 11:11 PM
John P 20 Mar 12 - 11:45 PM
Iona 21 Mar 12 - 02:54 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 21 Mar 12 - 03:05 AM
MGM·Lion 21 Mar 12 - 04:34 AM
DMcG 21 Mar 12 - 04:51 AM
MGM·Lion 21 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 21 Mar 12 - 05:27 AM
Joe Offer 21 Mar 12 - 05:32 AM
Mr Happy 21 Mar 12 - 05:35 AM
Penny S. 21 Mar 12 - 05:54 AM
TheSnail 21 Mar 12 - 07:14 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 21 Mar 12 - 07:51 AM
TheSnail 21 Mar 12 - 08:55 AM
Musket 21 Mar 12 - 10:10 AM
John P 21 Mar 12 - 10:22 AM
John P 21 Mar 12 - 10:23 AM
John P 21 Mar 12 - 10:26 AM
Bill D 21 Mar 12 - 10:42 AM
TheSnail 21 Mar 12 - 10:44 AM
Joe Offer 21 Mar 12 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 21 Mar 12 - 02:26 PM
Penny S. 21 Mar 12 - 02:35 PM
Paul Burke 21 Mar 12 - 02:38 PM
Don Firth 21 Mar 12 - 03:50 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 21 Mar 12 - 06:21 PM
DMcG 21 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM
Don Firth 21 Mar 12 - 07:04 PM
MGM·Lion 22 Mar 12 - 12:50 AM
Don Firth 22 Mar 12 - 01:34 AM
Joe Offer 22 Mar 12 - 02:07 AM
MGM·Lion 22 Mar 12 - 02:14 AM
Joe Offer 22 Mar 12 - 02:40 AM
MGM·Lion 22 Mar 12 - 02:57 AM
Joe Offer 22 Mar 12 - 03:22 AM
Penny S. 22 Mar 12 - 04:23 AM
Mr Happy 22 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM
TheSnail 22 Mar 12 - 06:39 AM
Stu 22 Mar 12 - 07:09 AM
Penny S. 22 Mar 12 - 07:59 AM
Mr Happy 22 Mar 12 - 08:06 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 12 - 08:08 AM
Mr Happy 22 Mar 12 - 09:24 AM
Jack the Sailor 22 Mar 12 - 09:45 AM
Musket 22 Mar 12 - 10:27 AM
Mr Happy 22 Mar 12 - 10:53 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 12 - 12:20 PM
Bill D 22 Mar 12 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 22 Mar 12 - 05:41 PM
Bill D 22 Mar 12 - 07:38 PM
Penny S. 22 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM
Don Firth 22 Mar 12 - 09:01 PM
Penny S. 23 Mar 12 - 04:14 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 23 Mar 12 - 05:22 AM
Musket 23 Mar 12 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 23 Mar 12 - 06:20 AM
Penny S. 23 Mar 12 - 06:40 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 23 Mar 12 - 07:47 AM
John P 23 Mar 12 - 09:52 AM
Stu 23 Mar 12 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 23 Mar 12 - 11:07 AM
Musket 23 Mar 12 - 01:09 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Mar 12 - 01:34 PM
Penny S. 23 Mar 12 - 01:37 PM
Don Firth 23 Mar 12 - 02:10 PM
Paul Burke 23 Mar 12 - 02:14 PM
Penny S. 23 Mar 12 - 04:35 PM
Penny S. 23 Mar 12 - 04:42 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Mar 12 - 05:07 PM
Iona 24 Mar 12 - 01:59 AM
Musket 24 Mar 12 - 08:59 AM
MGM·Lion 24 Mar 12 - 11:14 AM
Mr Happy 24 Mar 12 - 01:03 PM
Paul Burke 24 Mar 12 - 05:27 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Mar 12 - 06:06 PM
Don Firth 24 Mar 12 - 06:23 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Mar 12 - 06:28 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Mar 12 - 06:30 PM
MGM·Lion 24 Mar 12 - 06:40 PM
Bill D 24 Mar 12 - 10:29 PM
Bill D 24 Mar 12 - 10:39 PM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 12 - 12:06 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 25 Mar 12 - 06:09 AM
Musket 25 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM
MGM·Lion 25 Mar 12 - 07:10 AM
Musket 25 Mar 12 - 07:42 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Mar 12 - 06:25 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Mar 12 - 06:58 PM
John P 25 Mar 12 - 09:27 PM
Musket 26 Mar 12 - 04:19 AM
beardedbruce 26 Mar 12 - 07:30 AM
DMcG 26 Mar 12 - 08:34 AM
Musket 26 Mar 12 - 09:33 AM
DMcG 26 Mar 12 - 11:17 AM
Paul Burke 26 Mar 12 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Mar 12 - 06:00 PM
Don Firth 26 Mar 12 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 27 Mar 12 - 04:49 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Mar 12 - 06:13 PM
BanjoRay 27 Mar 12 - 07:20 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 12 - 08:24 PM
Penny S. 28 Mar 12 - 06:24 AM
beardedbruce 28 Mar 12 - 07:26 AM
saulgoldie 28 Mar 12 - 07:33 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Mar 12 - 05:10 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Mar 12 - 06:37 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Mar 12 - 07:13 PM
Musket 29 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM
frogprince 29 Mar 12 - 01:14 PM
Don Firth 29 Mar 12 - 01:28 PM
Greg F. 29 Mar 12 - 01:30 PM
GUEST 29 Mar 12 - 01:34 PM
Penny S. 29 Mar 12 - 01:50 PM
GUEST,999 29 Mar 12 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Mar 12 - 05:33 PM
frogprince 29 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM
Bill D 29 Mar 12 - 06:31 PM
Don Firth 29 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM
frogprince 29 Mar 12 - 07:12 PM
GUEST,BanjoRay 29 Mar 12 - 08:38 PM
GUEST,BanjoRay 29 Mar 12 - 08:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Mar 12 - 08:47 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Mar 12 - 08:52 PM
Penny S. 30 Mar 12 - 06:46 AM
Musket 30 Mar 12 - 08:47 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 12 - 09:18 AM
Musket 30 Mar 12 - 09:31 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 12 - 09:40 AM
Paul Burke 30 Mar 12 - 01:25 PM
Stringsinger 30 Mar 12 - 02:04 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 12 - 02:22 PM
Paul Burke 30 Mar 12 - 02:42 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM
Paul Burke 30 Mar 12 - 04:31 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM
DMcG 31 Mar 12 - 08:03 AM
DMcG 31 Mar 12 - 08:27 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 31 Mar 12 - 04:02 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Mar 12 - 05:10 PM
Musket 01 Apr 12 - 09:15 AM
BanjoRay 01 Apr 12 - 09:33 AM
Musket 01 Apr 12 - 11:19 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 Apr 12 - 05:17 PM
Paul Burke 01 Apr 12 - 05:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 01 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM
BanjoRay 01 Apr 12 - 08:17 PM
Paul Burke 02 Apr 12 - 01:53 AM
Penny S. 02 Apr 12 - 04:27 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Apr 12 - 04:31 AM
Stu 02 Apr 12 - 05:44 AM
Musket 02 Apr 12 - 07:51 AM
Mrrzy 02 Apr 12 - 11:41 AM
Stu 02 Apr 12 - 12:10 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Apr 12 - 01:22 PM
TheSnail 02 Apr 12 - 07:31 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Apr 12 - 08:00 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Apr 12 - 08:01 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 03 Apr 12 - 05:44 AM
Mr Happy 03 Apr 12 - 05:50 AM
saulgoldie 03 Apr 12 - 06:21 AM
Musket 03 Apr 12 - 07:26 AM
beardedbruce 03 Apr 12 - 07:27 AM
Stu 03 Apr 12 - 07:34 AM
BanjoRay 03 Apr 12 - 12:12 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Apr 12 - 12:36 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Apr 12 - 01:17 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Apr 12 - 01:26 PM
TheSnail 03 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM
Paul Burke 03 Apr 12 - 02:14 PM
Don Firth 03 Apr 12 - 03:24 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 03 Apr 12 - 05:10 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 12 - 07:47 PM
frogprince 03 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM
Paul Burke 04 Apr 12 - 01:56 AM
Mr Happy 04 Apr 12 - 05:09 AM
Stu 04 Apr 12 - 05:32 AM
Musket 04 Apr 12 - 05:35 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Apr 12 - 06:45 AM
TheSnail 04 Apr 12 - 11:53 AM
Penny S. 04 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Apr 12 - 12:59 PM
TheSnail 04 Apr 12 - 01:43 PM
Musket 04 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Apr 12 - 02:11 PM
MGM·Lion 04 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM
Bill D 04 Apr 12 - 02:34 PM
TheSnail 04 Apr 12 - 02:45 PM
Penny S. 04 Apr 12 - 04:47 PM
frogprince 04 Apr 12 - 04:56 PM
TheSnail 04 Apr 12 - 05:41 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Apr 12 - 06:19 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Apr 12 - 06:59 PM
Don Firth 04 Apr 12 - 07:00 PM
Joe Offer 04 Apr 12 - 10:45 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Apr 12 - 10:53 PM
Paul Burke 05 Apr 12 - 02:16 AM
Musket 05 Apr 12 - 03:50 AM
Stringsinger 05 Apr 12 - 10:26 AM
Jack the Sailor 05 Apr 12 - 12:04 PM
MGM·Lion 05 Apr 12 - 12:25 PM
Penny S. 05 Apr 12 - 05:00 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Apr 12 - 05:17 PM
DMcG 06 Apr 12 - 02:34 AM
Musket 06 Apr 12 - 04:00 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Apr 12 - 11:05 AM
Stringsinger 06 Apr 12 - 11:06 AM
Jack the Sailor 06 Apr 12 - 12:30 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 06 Apr 12 - 02:53 PM
Paul Burke 06 Apr 12 - 03:27 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Apr 12 - 03:32 PM
Stu 07 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM
Musket 07 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM
Stringsinger 07 Apr 12 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Apr 12 - 03:16 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Apr 12 - 05:55 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Apr 12 - 06:07 PM
Joe Offer 08 Apr 12 - 04:13 AM
DMcG 08 Apr 12 - 04:44 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Apr 12 - 05:42 AM
TheSnail 08 Apr 12 - 05:43 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 08 Apr 12 - 06:13 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Apr 12 - 12:55 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Apr 12 - 02:31 PM
Stringsinger 09 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Apr 12 - 10:29 AM
Musket 09 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Apr 12 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 09 Apr 12 - 02:58 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Apr 12 - 03:04 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Apr 12 - 03:44 PM
Bill D 09 Apr 12 - 05:36 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Apr 12 - 07:43 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 12 - 07:51 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Apr 12 - 06:56 AM
Jack the Sailor 10 Apr 12 - 01:38 PM
DMcG 10 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM
Stringsinger 10 Apr 12 - 06:16 PM
Musket 11 Apr 12 - 05:19 AM
Jack the Sailor 11 Apr 12 - 06:40 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 11 Apr 12 - 06:51 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Apr 12 - 07:02 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 12 - 07:50 PM
Penny S. 12 Apr 12 - 04:43 AM
Musket 12 Apr 12 - 07:18 AM
MGM·Lion 12 Apr 12 - 11:46 AM
Bill D 12 Apr 12 - 01:05 PM
Don Firth 12 Apr 12 - 03:23 PM
MGM·Lion 12 Apr 12 - 03:35 PM
Bill D 12 Apr 12 - 04:17 PM
DMcG 13 Apr 12 - 08:33 AM
Mr Happy 13 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM
Don Firth 13 Apr 12 - 02:20 PM
Stringsinger 14 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 15 Apr 12 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 15 Apr 12 - 02:56 PM
MGM·Lion 15 Apr 12 - 03:28 PM
DMcG 15 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM
MGM·Lion 15 Apr 12 - 04:34 PM
Bill D 15 Apr 12 - 05:16 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Apr 12 - 06:33 PM
Jack the Sailor 15 Apr 12 - 11:47 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Apr 12 - 04:22 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Apr 12 - 05:16 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Apr 12 - 05:48 AM
Penny S. 16 Apr 12 - 09:26 AM
Jack the Sailor 16 Apr 12 - 12:37 PM
Bill D 16 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Apr 12 - 12:54 PM
Jack the Sailor 16 Apr 12 - 01:25 PM
Penny S. 16 Apr 12 - 02:06 PM
Bill D 16 Apr 12 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Apr 12 - 04:11 PM
Bill D 16 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM
TheSnail 16 Apr 12 - 08:06 PM
GUEST,TIA 17 Apr 12 - 12:01 AM
Mr Happy 17 Apr 12 - 06:46 AM
Stu 17 Apr 12 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 17 Apr 12 - 10:02 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Apr 12 - 05:34 PM
Bill D 17 Apr 12 - 06:25 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Apr 12 - 06:56 PM
frogprince 18 Apr 12 - 07:20 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Apr 12 - 01:30 PM
Amos 19 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Apr 12 - 01:47 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 19 Apr 12 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 19 Apr 12 - 02:44 PM
Paul Burke 19 Apr 12 - 03:53 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Apr 12 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,Brendan 19 Apr 12 - 05:05 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Apr 12 - 05:18 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Apr 12 - 10:40 PM
GUEST,Brendan 20 Apr 12 - 06:36 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Apr 12 - 11:09 AM
Jack the Sailor 20 Apr 12 - 12:36 PM
GUEST,Brendan 21 Apr 12 - 06:20 AM
Bill D 21 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM
Jack the Sailor 21 Apr 12 - 01:18 PM
GUEST,Brendan 21 Apr 12 - 03:20 PM
Jack the Sailor 21 Apr 12 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 21 Apr 12 - 06:30 PM
Bill D 21 Apr 12 - 08:57 PM
Jack the Sailor 21 Apr 12 - 09:52 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Apr 12 - 09:06 AM
Bill D 22 Apr 12 - 10:38 AM
Jack the Sailor 22 Apr 12 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 22 Apr 12 - 12:48 PM
Jack the Sailor 22 Apr 12 - 01:11 PM
Bill D 22 Apr 12 - 03:04 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Apr 12 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Apr 12 - 05:46 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Apr 12 - 07:33 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 12 - 08:05 PM
TheSnail 24 Apr 12 - 08:28 PM
Bill D 25 Apr 12 - 09:58 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM
TheSnail 25 Apr 12 - 11:02 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie 25 Apr 12 - 12:16 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Apr 12 - 12:20 PM
saulgoldie 25 Apr 12 - 12:51 PM
TheSnail 25 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Apr 12 - 03:28 PM
TheSnail 25 Apr 12 - 03:59 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Apr 12 - 04:48 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Apr 12 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Apr 12 - 05:54 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Apr 12 - 06:22 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Apr 12 - 06:26 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Apr 12 - 06:30 PM
Bill D 25 Apr 12 - 07:25 PM
TheSnail 26 Apr 12 - 07:26 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Apr 12 - 09:40 AM
TheSnail 26 Apr 12 - 11:33 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 26 Apr 12 - 01:02 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Apr 12 - 01:43 PM
TheSnail 26 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM
frogprince 26 Apr 12 - 02:54 PM
Bill D 26 Apr 12 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Apr 12 - 05:58 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Apr 12 - 08:23 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Apr 12 - 08:27 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Apr 12 - 08:28 PM
TheSnail 26 Apr 12 - 08:51 PM
frogprince 26 Apr 12 - 08:53 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Apr 12 - 09:09 PM
GUEST,TIA 26 Apr 12 - 10:44 PM
Penny S. 27 Apr 12 - 07:39 AM
TheSnail 27 Apr 12 - 09:44 AM
Stu 27 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Apr 12 - 03:01 PM
Paul Burke 27 Apr 12 - 03:50 PM
frogprince 27 Apr 12 - 04:02 PM
TheSnail 28 Apr 12 - 06:29 AM
TheSnail 28 Apr 12 - 07:30 AM
TheSnail 28 Apr 12 - 08:21 AM
Musket 28 Apr 12 - 08:27 AM
Paul Burke 28 Apr 12 - 09:08 AM
TheSnail 28 Apr 12 - 09:30 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Apr 12 - 09:53 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Apr 12 - 10:23 AM
Bill D 28 Apr 12 - 10:33 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Apr 12 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,SFJNo 28 Apr 12 - 10:46 AM
Paul Burke 28 Apr 12 - 12:18 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Apr 12 - 02:03 PM
Musket 29 Apr 12 - 08:45 AM
TheSnail 29 Apr 12 - 09:10 AM
TheSnail 29 Apr 12 - 09:28 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Apr 12 - 02:52 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM
Paul Burke 29 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Apr 12 - 04:29 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Apr 12 - 05:40 PM
Penny S. 29 Apr 12 - 06:18 PM
Penny S. 30 Apr 12 - 03:22 AM
Musket 30 Apr 12 - 03:46 AM
GUEST 30 Apr 12 - 06:44 AM
saulgoldie 30 Apr 12 - 06:55 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Apr 12 - 09:02 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Apr 12 - 08:29 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Apr 12 - 08:48 PM
Stu 01 May 12 - 04:13 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 01 May 12 - 05:25 AM
Steve Shaw 01 May 12 - 05:26 AM
Steve Shaw 01 May 12 - 05:27 AM
Steve Shaw 01 May 12 - 05:31 AM
Stu 01 May 12 - 05:52 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 01 May 12 - 06:08 AM
saulgoldie 01 May 12 - 10:51 AM
Stringsinger 01 May 12 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 May 12 - 03:54 PM
Steve Shaw 01 May 12 - 04:07 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM

Somehow I got sucked into reading about half of a year old thread about an ages old argument until I skipped to the end and found that the thread had been updated to report recent news on the subject.

But I did not skip until I had read the original poster opine that like an artist, the creator of the universe had created his work of art, the universe, with an "ideal time line" (His explanation of "ideal" has something to do with The Macbeths being married when the play starts) of 14 billion years a few thousand years ago.

But isn't this the solution to the "evolution vs creation" debate. Can't we just go to New Hampshire and all those places trying to teach "Creation Science" and say to the school boards something like, "Hey we get that you believe that God created us and all that and have no problem with you as a school board telling kids that you believe that, but we believe that God created all of this evidence and if we don't teach it as science then in a generation or two your kids will be working in sweat shops making technology for the Chinese."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:57 AM

Good idea.

Whilst we're there we can also ask them what scientific evidence they have to support the YE/creationist fallacy. Show me a horse in the Solnhofen limestone alongside Archaeopteryx. Show me a whale fossil amongst the numerous ammonite fossils that contain the extinct reptile fossils amongst them. You'll need several, but if you're right those fossils are there. Somewhere amongst the Burgess Shale you should find a modern, bony fish.

Make yourself the most famous person in the history of science by proving, by turning scientists own tools against then, that dinosaurs existed alongside horses, or rhinos or whatever. Unequivocally. Think of it! You would change the world. You'd be immortal! Palaeontologists would love you for this massive advance in our knowledge. You'll have statues of you in the halls of the world's great museums.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:03 PM

One has to wonder why "God" (assuming the existence of such an intervening entity in the first place) would bother creating a whole bunch of misleading scientific evidence to make His (or Her) created human beings believe they were living on a planet far older than it really is!

What would be the purpose of such sleight of hand? To make both atheists AND religious people happy?

AHA! That must be it! God wanted everyone to be happy and to get to be "right" (or at least feel that they were) even though they disagree with each other about really basic stuff.

Animals don't have to worry about any of that. God must like them even better than He (or She) (or It) likes us human beings...although we are (in the view of some)...animals...ummm...

Hmmm. Gets a bit confusing, doesn't it? Now where DID Adam's sons find those women they went off and married?

Christianity's only been around for about 2,000 years. That's a very small chunk of time in the overall tale of humanity on this planet. It's amazing that a cultural phenomenon that's only been around since, relatively speaking, last week can exert this much power over people's minds, but hey....look at the effect Justin Bieber is having! And he's only been around about as long as a fruit fly.

So anything's possible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:04 PM

Jack, there are sweatshops extant in the US today, we don't have to worry about working for the Chinese. We certainly aren't going to stop this practice through another "creationist" doctrine.

If we learn anything from theology, it should be that of liberation theology, not scientific in application but a model for how we can equal the playing field for the have-nots and those cheaters who are hoarding taxpayer dollars for themselves.

Again, a doctrine just to define someone's view of a god is not useful to society.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:08 PM

There are many differing views of "God". Some are useful to society. Some are not. I could give examples, but I'd have to go on typing for days...and I don't have time for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:18 PM

There are no computers, televisions or radio telescopes in the Bible - therefore I refuse to believe that they exist! But, hang on ... I'm typing this on a computer keyboard ... which doesn't exist ...Oh, never mind, I'm sure that God knows all the answers!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM

Everyone is entitled to believe any theory they wish and to follow any religion they subscribe to. The problem I have is with the indoctrination of children, whose minds are not mature enough to form unbiased conclusions, as adults would. As long as ones beliefs do no harm to others (and that's a tall order) one should be left in peace to pursue them, and treated with respect by others. But if one teaches children that all was created at once, and even to infer that it is evil and a sin to believe otherwise, one is guilty of keeping from their young minds the scientific evidence which most of the world now accepts. However, to teach that, for example, Jesus is our Saviour or Jehovah is the One God etc etc could be viewed as similar indoctrination of children. Maybe all these tenets should be left until people are deemed old enough to assess, accept or reject them for themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:25 PM

Did you hear the one about . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

No, Little Hawk, it is all a test of faith.

Then I have no issue with the YECs. Sure it was made a few thousand years ago, but it was made to Look As If, and we can study what it looks as if. Like evolution, plate tectonics, and so on.

If you believe what you see, you fail the test of faith.

If you believe your sacred text in the face of all that evidence, you pass.

However, it is only those of us who fail who will get to find out if we were wrong!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:54 PM

Jack the Sailor: You're referring to the Omphalos hypothesis. I wrote a brief summary of it in a thread called Bible question back in October, 2000.

Little Hawk: The Omphalos hypothesis, as expressed by Philip Henry Gosse, includes a thoughtful theological answer to your question "Why would God create misleading evidence?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM

In the dark, one crock of shit smells about the same as another.

Better to light one candle than to stand about in a cloud of unknowing smelling horse manure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:09 PM

"Everyone is entitled to believe any theory they wish ...."

You're getting very close to "fire in a crowded theater" here, Eliza.

They may be allowed to think it as long as

1. IT DOES NO HARM TO OTHER CITIZENS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IT.

2. THEY DO NOT ENDEAVOR TO FORCE THEIR IDIOTIC BELIEFS ON OTHERS.

3. IT DOES NOT RESULT IN DIRECT HARM TO OTHERS.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:17 PM

Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one. It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't take it our in public and wave it around.
And don't try to shove it down my children's throat!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:33 PM

Doesn't this happen anyway?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:51 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. All theories are not created equal. People who teach children stupid theories are child abusers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM

See my last post on the YEC thread......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:09 PM

See my last post on the YEC thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:13 PM

You can see my last and first post on the YEC thread on THIS thread:


Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM

I fail to see what an individual's belief in a supreme being has to do with anyone else. Basically, people have a right to their beliefs. That doesn't give them the right to tell me about it.

When proselytizing people come to my door I politely ask them to leave. If they don't, I tell them to leave. If they still don't, I start talking in tongues. Religious, political and other.

Yer gabbit shafling corderum ragables fernucormun. BEASTS! FORNICATORS!

I get very very few second visits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM

The intellectual decline of creationists in the last hundred and fifty years is highlighted by the reception of Gosse's book when it was published. In those pre- Origin of Species days, the response of the religious world was almost as horrified as that later given to Darwin. The omphalos theory proclaims God as a liar, tempting his people into sin, a concept theologically impossible then. For the modern young- Earth fundamentalist, any tool or trick from misrepresentation of evidence, through ad- hominem attacks, to the lie direct is acceptable if it can gain a tactical advantage; there is no concept of honour or morality.

The theory itself is of course rubbish (despite its author's good intentions- and he was an important scientist) as it could be used to support any arbitrary assertion. If God can lie in one matter, why not others?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:45 PM

If God played golf or went fishing, he'd/she'd lie as often as the rest of us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:59 PM

Especially fishing, Bruce.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM

"Hours are long. Wages are pitiful. But sweatshops are the symptom, not the cause, of shocking global poverty. Workers go there voluntarily, which means—hard as it is to believe—that whatever their alternatives are, they are worse. They stay there, too; turnover rates of multinational-owned factories are low, because conditions and pay, while bad, are better than those in factories run by local firms. And even a local company is likely to pay better than trying to earn money without a job: running an illegal street stall, working as a prostitute, or combing reeking landfills in cities like Manila to find recyclable goods." ― Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 04:57 PM

Yech.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 05:55 PM

Hey! Don't blame God for the Bible, folks. God didn't write the Bible. A large number of men wrote it. Further large numbers of men in Rome and Constantinople decided which books to include in it and which books to censor out of it. The latter were termed the Apocryha. Some of them contain some very interesting material.

Then you have the ancient Hindu scriptures, the Muslim scriptures, the old Jewish scriptures, the Buddhist scriptures, the Gnostic Gospels, the Taoist scriptures, the Popul Voh (Mayan scriptures), etc....holy books from many traditions, some very ancient, some more modern.

Men wrote all of them (although, a few may have been written by women too). A number of those traditions (but not all of them) say that God directly inspired the writings and that they are "the Word of God". That's a matter of opinion, and it's unprovable either way.

But don't blame it on God, okay? God didn't do it. People did. (And I'm not saying God doesn't exist...I'm just saying that people wrote all those books.)

As I'm sure you know...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:02 PM

You're not being very enlightening, Hawkster!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

I'm just having some fun, Amos. For enlightenment, you must secure a private appointment...and bring mucho dinero! (grin)

Note: I am all booked up right through March 31. Try for early in April, okay?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM

hmmmppff...I'll bet the dachshund doesn't need a private appointment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM

Why did dogs not write any "good books? 'cause they have dirty mouths, and left it up to humans to spread the good words.

Dogs vs Humans


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:25 PM

I'm working on a new set of religious books right now, LH.

First, there will be a revelation (OK, I need a desert to wander in, so I was thinking about Alberta's badlands). After forty-ish days and nights--I was thinking about maybe a few hours and then bullshi##ing the rest--I'd smoke a jay and have a visitation. From that we'd do up a new ten commandments. You with me on this or not? I know you don't smoke, so I'll describe what is revealed to me to you and then we figure out how to market it. Is that a plan or what?

Think BIG picture here. TV stations, radio shows, ads in newspapers, all to the greater glory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM

"Men wrote all of them".

But, you are God. We are God.. if we choose to be in the sense that we extend a hand to all others... love thy neighbour and all that.

God is in every one of us. We are one. Unfortunately, far too many choose to ignore the common good and think only of themselves. I understand that. Hedge your bets and don't let the other guy fuck you over on accounta he will if he gets the chance... best to either fuck him over first or pile up enough firepower to fuck him over if he tries to take your stuff. And we need our stuff.

I view God as a goal, not a deity. The deity only exists in the minds of SOME men (yeah, I mean humans... womenz too).

Is that cracked?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:31 PM

Ali G on Science


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM

How disgusting. I watched over half of that to see if anyone was gonna say to the piece of trash what I would have said to him. Humour? Not in my books.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM

Seems very logical that we all see humour differently, as we see many things differently. What is one persons "trash", is another persons treasure:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 07:04 PM

I agree with you, gnu, we are all God...in manifestation...whether we know it or not...and so is everything else. But that's just too cosmic for a lot of people. They start making those "doo-doo...doo-doo..." twilight zone sounds and they freak out and start using absuive terms like "mumbo-jumbo", and the whole conversation turns to shit from that point on.

We certainly don't want that happening, do we? ;-D So let's just pretend you didn't say it and I didn't agree...

****

999 - Sounds like a hell of a plan to me! I'm with ya. But yer gonna have to do the whole forty days in the desert for real, man. Too much likelihood of trouble somewhere down the line if you don't. What've you got figured for the new 10 Commandments?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 07:16 PM

I got one.

1. Thou shalt not be an asshole.

Any need for any more?

And, yes, I know, I know.

But, of course, I know there will be more. I just hope they are more humourous than my suggestion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 07:36 PM

Well, LH, taking into account my good friend Gnu's suggestion, may I suggest

1) Thou shalt be nice to everyone


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM

"Thou shalt not be an asshole"

Good advice for all to heed, except for the field of humour. Sometimes it takes "a humourous asshole approach" to through humour to bring folks back to reality-to lead them to take a close look at what they propose/preach and how they treat the personal views of others, that are likely no better or worse than those they hold :)

BTW, gnu, expect humour when you see the name Ali G. Since you do not seem to like his type of humour, I expect you will pass it by).

If "asshole statement was in all the holy books and preached by those who have "found the light", with or without a diety.These folks have found something that works for them personally. Great stuff. But, acting like assholes with others, who have found something different that works for them, is really being a big asshole.

I am not pointing at anyone here in the last paragraph. But, does anyone really expect to read something new in Mudcat that has not been said before in the many religious posts about God, or a no God?

Maybe it will happen? But, I am not optimistic. It is more likely that someone may see something that was said before in the merry-go-round, that may seem new?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:19 PM

NO!!!!!!!!!

It is not.

But that won't stop us. ;-)


999 - Good commandment.

I would add:

Thou shalt be truthful.

Thou shalt make war no more, not upon any excuse (this applies to those who start wars, specially in the case of those who are far better armed than the country they attack)(and it specially applies to those who bomb or INVADE the territory of another nation with the clear intent to conquer it.)

Thou shalt cease violence against thine own citizenry (in the case of governments), thy neighbours, and thy family.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not engage in fraudulent activity.

Thou shalt not value money above brotherhood.

Thou shalt not charge the sick or injured for needed medical care.

Thou shalt not profit off the suffering of one's fellow beings, but shall seek solutions that benefit and profit all members of the community.

Thou shalt reward great accomplishments with promotions...with public honors...and with great respect...but NOT with money or material gain. (this was the method used to motivate people in the fictional society imagined by Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek show...and it's a brilliantly intelligent way of organizing and motivating a society. There was no money in that society, no bankers, no loan sharks, and no poverty either.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:24 PM

I had very little beer on New Year's eve. I've been making up for it tonight. I agree with all you said, LH. However, I think many are subsumed by #1. Whatdya think?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM

Look its pretty simple. You put the following as the first paragraph in every science text. "Your elected school board believes the following..(then spell out what they believe.)"   The second paragraph would be the following. "The scientific evidence, which was put into the universe for humanity to find, by God, if you believe God created everything, says the following... (insert entire science text here) The last paragraph would be "Belief in God is not necessary for the examination and use of this knowledge."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:17 AM

Hello Sailor!

I take your last point but as children are impressionable, and there is a need for authority to be respected when you are a child, (as training to question it appropriately as an adult, but I digress...) Is't it incumbent on the school board not to put it forward in the first place rather than prompt children to take a view on the sanity of the elected school board?

There are times when the wishes of a school board have to be be implemented rather than examined, so surely the best route is to ensure they act responsibly in the first place.

We have faith schools in The UK, and whilst the statistics add up to better achievement than those run by the local authorities, I suspect that is due to better discipline rather than teaching fairy stories as fact. Science is on the curriculum and whilst there may still be a few renegade teachers out there, we put religious education in a religious education class and Darwin in a science class.

That said, one of my teachers didn't believe in dinosaurs and claimed there was more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Hitler. I respected him as an adult figure, (but we called him Larry Gooseneck behind his back,) but I recall even as a child, dismissing his silly fundamentalist viewpoints.

(Now there's something. I recall being told that he moved to The USA where he became a preacher. But there again, many preachers come from the villages around here; The Wesleys, William Brewster, Peverill to name a few. Obviously if it is something in the water, I didn't drink enough...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:20 AM

School boards are elected here. Presumably they are following the will of the people. My suggestion is the only way we can preserve democracy and remain competitive. But I am not suggesting that the children should be calling the board members insane and laughing at them behind their backs. They should be taught to respect the person without regard to that persons beliefs. They should learn that no one is perfect and that it is not acceptable to grow up snickering at one's elders. Especially if they are Christian, but even if they are not they should learn to "Judge not, lest they be judged."   I am suggesting that they get the data, presented as information in such a way that even if they do graduate believing in a "young earth" that they still are able to do science and technology work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:30 AM

"The scientific evidence, which was put into the universe for humanity to find, by God, if you believe God created everything, says the following... (insert entire science text here) The last paragraph would be "Belief in God is not necessary for the examination and use of this knowledge."

Not right. In no way should science be associated with the work of any deity. You can associate them if you want but science stands alone from God, Allah,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM

. . . Yaweh, Osiris, Odin or The Great Turtle.

We are the universe made conscious, a far more profound thought that needs no explanation that science doesn't currently provide. This just the beginning of the scientific age. It's going to get a whole load more incredible yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:34 AM

Arrrgghhh! Still asleep after the break! 'twas I above.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 07:55 AM

If people teach folly they should be treated as fools. Irrespective of age.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:42 AM

Hmm. And how does one treat a "fool"? Who decides who is "a fool" and who isn't? It's a matter of opinion, isn't it? After all, one man's wisdom is another man's folly...it all depends on whose opinion you consult about it.

I've known any number of people who believed in various things I don't believe in...but I didn't necessarily regard them as fools for that. I usually regarded them not as fools, but as people who had grown up in different familial or cultural surroundings than mine, and therefore they had developed different ideas about things.

In any case, if you openly treat another person as "a fool", it's likely that he (not thinking of himself as a fool) will get angry. He'll retaliate in some way. He'll probably start treating you as a fool. And then you'll get angry.

Where does that end? I think we've seen historically where it ends, and it's not a nice place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:16 AM

Myths exist as tools by which wisdom is transferred. They are metaphorical frameworks for metaphysical exploration and investigation. They're to be ponderd, analysed, interpreted, and transcended, not accepted at face value. Insisting that a myth is literally true is a metaphysical dead-end. It's like a pilgrim coming across a signpost that points the way to wisdom and enlightenment, and deciding to worship the signpost instead of attempting to get to the place toward which the sign is pointing. It's a foolish practice which does disservice to a myth's underlying wisdom by making it look foolish as well. The wisdom of Genesis has suffered greatly at the hands of metaphysically constipated Christian fundamentalists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:05 AM

Can't we just go to New Hampshire and all those places trying to teach "Creation Science"...

Won't work, Jack- you're trying to counteract/influence lunacy with rational thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:16 AM

"metaphysically constipated "....I like that!

There was once some graffiti on the wall of the men's room in the Methodist Student Union and the Univ. of Kansas... it asked:

"Can a metaphysician be sued for malpractice?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM

""They can't stop me, even if they stopped me"" Lil Wayne quote


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM

Beautifully said, Bee-Dub. We can learn a great deal from ancient myths...and from ancient religious texts...if we are not so foolish as to take them literally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 12:01 PM

But isn't any non-literal interpretation way too subjective to be of any real use? In the case of interpreting the Bible, we are so far removed from the context in which it was written much of the actual meaning must be lost. Certainly the interpretation of most allegorical passages could well be well wide of the mark - the original writers were desert tribesmen living in a massively different world.

If you're reading Beowulf in the modern translated version with no knowledge of the original language with all it's subtleties and wordplay can you really be said to understand the finer points of what the poet was trying to say on a particular subject? Were they joking? Being serious? Perhaps they was referring to some cultural trope which was common at the time of writing but has been long lost? Even with the translation (say of the King James version; the definitive English language translation) much of the symbolism 'translated' (added?) by the translator will be lost as our culture evolves (if you don't believe me, go and stand in front of a Pre-Raphelite painting, write down what it says to you and the read the interpretation given by the painters or contemporaries themselves - you'd be surprised how different they will be and they're not that far removed from us in the timeline of human history).

I'm always intrigued by the interpretation of religious texts. Who chooses which bit is to be taken literally and which is allegorical? Who decides what's relevant to the modern world and what's not? Or perhaps it's some sort of free-for-all of divine revelation where everyone believes what bits they want?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM

"But isn't any non-literal interpretation way too subjective to be of any real use?"

It is the rigidly literal interpretation that is of utterly NO use, if the original text was not intended literally. Religious adepts in the various mystery schools that existed in ancient times were accustomed to finding the allegorical and metaphorical meanings in sacred texts. It was almost like a code that only the initiated fully understood. Common people back then mostly were illiterate. The texts were not intended to be interpreted by the common people (who probably did take them literally if they heard them). They were intended to be interpreted by trained iniatiates in sacred traditions.

If the writing is allegorical and symbolic, then one must attempt to understand it in a non-literal way to get anything useful from it. One must ask questions, think, analyze, think some more, follow intution, and find the best interpretation one is capable of.

There's no guarantee that your interpretation will be the right one or the best one. But at least you tried! That's better than being a literal-minded doofus and not trying at all.

"Who chooses which bit is to be taken literally and which is allegorical?"

Each thinking person chooses that for himself. That's intellectual freedom.

"Who decides what's relevant to the modern world and what's not?"

You do. Or I do. It's up to each one of us to decide for ourselves.

"Or perhaps it's some sort of free-for-all of divine revelation where everyone believes what bits they want?"

Yeah, everyone does believe what they want. Of course. The question is, what DO they want? If they want harmony and love, then that's what they'll look for. If they want discord, battle, condemnation, punishment, and victory, then that's what they'll look for.

Which of those paths do you think is the wisest? You choose. I choose. Every one of us chooses which bed we're going to lie in. The ancient texts are a guide...but no one can guarantee that a guide will be followed well or badly, can they? It isn't the guide that determines that, it's the nature of the one following the guide.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM

I think both the Ten COmmandments and the Bill of Rights need a serious, intelligent revisitation. Clarifying the Senior Policies By Which MEn Shall Live Together is a very good idea indeed.

We know it can work--just look at all the positive effects derived from these two sets of maxims. Why, most of our difficulties come from the parts which were badly or ambiguously designed!!

As for those who think science should mix with religion, I suggest they try mixing chocolate milk with brown shoe polish, instead. At least it will constrain the damage.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM

hi -its the "fool" checking in
children certainly can be impressionable and i think thats evident from the way so many accept evolutionism despite no evidence for abiogenesis,no proven change of one animal to another and the complexity of the once thought simple cell.neither are they told of the large number of darwin doubters among scientists who have not towed the party line.
Its a pity i.m the only YEC creationist here and i dont know if i shall continue stoking your antagonism/mockery.maybe i should just leave you to bolster up your faith position unopposed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 01:05 PM

I agree with the first line. Go and damage impressionable children elsewhere. Or better still not at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM

Richard Bridge,

"If people teach folly they should be treated as fools. Irrespective of age."
"Go and damage impressionable children elsewhere. Or better still not at all. "

What are you trying to teach us? That the children of fundamentalists are NOT damaged until they get to school and only then when there is a paragraph about creationism in their texts?

No it is far better that they learn to judge what is useful for themselves. Give them all sides. If the event that they keep their literalist world view, teach them enough to be able to separate dogma and data at least enough to be scientists and technologists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 01:50 PM

'It isn't the guide following that, it's the nature of the one following the guide'. I agree LH. I have to confess that I sometimes 'do' a Tarot spread, even though as a Christian such things are frowned upon. But I don't do this from a belief standpoint. I use the ancient symbols, myths and legends for meditation. My Tarot deck is a Celtic-based one, and a card representing eg 'quest' or 'search', coupled with a Celtic story, will help me to delve into my mind to find what my mental state might be, how I might proceed, what possibilities are available etc. The legends didn't really happen, the Tarot is not religion, but I find it useful occasionally as a guide or enlightenment tool. Bible stories (esp the OT) may be similarly meant to provoke thought, consider outcomes and form judgements. To take everything literally is one way, but to develop and absorb ideas in an objective way to modify ones morality is another. Both have their place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 01:59 PM

LH... "Thou shalt not value money above brotherhood."

Been to the grocery store lately? A brand name box of crackers is $3.69 but Sobeys' "Compliments" brand is $1.99. Cut-throat bastards!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM

Developing and promoting brands is expensive. There is design, formulation, advertising and legal costs. Having the same factory produce the same product in a white box with your own label is way cheaper. Store labels are a great way to save, if you are not influenced by brand. But how does that tie into my plan to save the US education system from ignorant religious tea party zealots?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 02:32 PM

You say "the legends didn't really happen", Eliza.

No, they didn't happen exactly as they are told. But something happened. The legend arises out of something that happened, and the legend is a signpost that points toward what happened.

For instance, the legend of a Great Flood is not limited to Judeo-Christian holy books. Similar legends appear in cultures all over the world, and they are tales of a worldwide inundation that affected vast areas, not just a local flood of some sort.

Something definitely happened. It happened in a very remote time. And it is remembered in literally hundreds of legends from separate cultures all over the world. This is something we might do well to look further into, and indeed there are some books that do look further into it, books written not by religious people but by science-minded investigators, and they propose very interesting theories about what may have happened...on a planetary scale.

Needless to say, it wasn't one family and one "Ark" that rode it out. There would have been many survivors in many scattered locations. But each local tribe or culture made up their own legend about it, and they made it a simple and symbolic story that could be passed on through oral tradition...which generally outlasts written records (unless they're carved in stone). Even if they are carved in stone, the alphabet or hieroglyphs they were carved in are often completely forgotten as cultures rise and fall. Oral tales are not forgotten, they are passed on with each succeeding generation. And that's mainly where legends have come from, oral tradition.

The Bible incorporated many of the old legends from a much earlier time period...legends which had been passed on for thousands of years through oral tradition, and they predate both Christianity and Judaism, in my opinion. They probably even predate the Egyptian civilization.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

What makes you think that the same flood happened everywhere at once? There is no evidence of that that I am aware of.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:06 PM

This Wiki article summarises what we know about a flooding of the Black Sea and includes links to some academic and other official articles


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:11 PM

"...,no proven change of one animal to another and the complexity of the once thought simple cell."

That is simply incorrect, pete... although the way you phrase it..."one animal to another" is awkward. We don't directly observe a reptile-like animal changing into a bird, but we DO have many carefully documented examples of changes in characteristics, which can make such a changes over hundreds of millions of years.

There are finches in the Hawaiian islands which adapt/evolve in a short period of years to cope with climate changes and El Nino/La Nina.
And any decent text can show you about experiments with fruit flies.

There is a building at the Univ. Of Kansas which houses cabinets with thousands of generations of mouse skins, in order to observe various changes and do DNA research on them. In 40 years, 'mice' don't change to rats or other rodents, but they DO exhibit changes which can only be accounted for by random mutations....billions of generation, under various conditions COULD generate something which was no longer a 'mouse'.

You cannot say simply "no proven change" just because you *suspect* it would violate some religious belief you already hold.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:41 PM

JtS.... "But how does that tie into my plan to save the US education system from ignorant religious tea party zealots?"

Can't say that I thought it did. I was commenting on LH's post to the effect that Sobeys (and Lawblaws (The Real Atlantic Stupidstore)) is attemting to put MANY other companies out of business thru cut-throat business practices and then charge whatever they want. They might not knock down Christies crackers but they sure have put a lot of small(er) businesses in the gutter along with their employees... robots don't need retirement plan.

I was speaking to the quote I provided at the beginning of that post.

BTW... I will NEVER use those check-yerself-out checkouts at the shops. I don't work for Sobeys.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM

Anyway, why are Creation and evolution seen as mutually exclusive processes?

There must be a lot of literal thinkers out there. They want Creation to be an event that takes place in a day, I suppose? Or 7 days? And they want science and religion to be, like East and West, the twain that shall never meet?

What foolishness. In really ancient times the scientists and the spiritual leaders were one and the same in society. It was a single discipline...the search for truth, by any and all means possible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM

Jack. Occam's razor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:12 PM

What makes you think that the same flood happened everywhere at once?

What makes anyone think this fairytale actually happened anywhere at all?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:37 PM

The flood has some historical/geologic evidence. If you haven't already, read about the Black Sea hypothesis.

There weren't many records being kept then, but stories abound, and the geology is interesting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:56 PM

Should global warming continue, we are liable to experience a great flood. Science has determined that global warming is a cyclic event.

DING!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:36 PM

Jack. Occam's razor.

The simplest explanation of ancient flood stories on different continents is different floods. or even just that big floods make for memorable stories.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 05:53 AM

"The flood has some historical/geologic evidence."

You mean A flood surely? This has nothing to do with the Biblical flood which was global on nature. There are countless neocatastrophic events recorded in the geological record, including the regression/transgression of seas etc, and creationists etc love to trot these out as evidence for Noah's flood. For a delightfully misguided creationist interpretation of Mount St Helens and it's relevance to the study of the Biblical flood have a pike at this: Mount St Helens— exploding the old-earth paradigm[pdf]. This analysis is so bereft of scientific interpretation and full of supposition that it's impressive; it's also a typical YE/Creationist document.

LH:
"If the writing is allegorical and symbolic, then one must attempt to understand it in a non-literal way to get anything useful from it. One must ask questions, think, analyze, think some more, follow intution, and find the best interpretation one is capable of."

Even if this interpretation is not in any way what the original authors intended? It seems to me that if it's up to the individual to interpret religious texts based on nothing more than reflection and intuition then these texts are little more value than a scrying glass or tarot cards. When I read the Mabinogion can I really be sure I'm fully understanding the symbolism of the story? Probably not, even though that text is from one of my own cultural traditions. And I'm not arguing against intuition and reflection; they are part of the scientific process but they can only take you so far before you need hard data.

There are many paths to God . . . but I'd argue that what people understand as God is the underlying sense of our own place in the universe. The universe contemplating itself, discovering it's true nature by harnessing our natural curiosity. This is a profoundly spiritual concept but doesn't need a supreme being or a divine act of creation to give it credence - it is testable, reproducible and explicable by science - your very existence is evidence of that, and that is a truly wonderful revelation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 06:09 AM

There was no concept of "global" in those times.
The Black Sea event could indeed be the origin of the story, which occurs in the myths of other ccultures of that region, e.g. the epic of Gilgamesh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:30 AM

If you scroll up a bit, you can see where Eliza mentions how she enjoys tarot cards and how this helps her. Fair enough, not knocking the fact, whatever floats your boat. Mine's football. If you pushed me, I might add music. They are both abstract, subjective and do it for me.

However, I also note that Eliza reckons that Christians frown on tarot card readings. Why?

If tarot is based on superstition, why should Christians feel uncomfortable about it? After all, I get pulled up for dismissing religion as superstition. If people get touchy about tarots from a theological aspect, they must think their own delusion is the same thing but gift wrapped in gold gild and splendour, (sorry, had a look around the Vatican a few years ago and left feeling angry.) I wonder if there is a moral in this? Petards and hoisting techniques spring to mind.

(I should talk. Found myself agreeing with ruddy Bridge again in this thread. Especially his assertion that Young Earth Creationism if taught is tantamount to child abuse.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:04 PM

Ian Mather, Congratulations! As someone who voices opinions based upon next to no knowledge of the subject (Why Christianity "frowns" on Tarot cards for example) You qualify as a "faith based" person rather than a reason based one. Certainly allowing children to believe that ignorance based mockery is acceptable is as much child abuse as teaching them religion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:10 PM

Oy vey.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to believe or teach, nonsense.

People only have a right to an EDUCATED opinion. Nobody has the right to ignorance.

And they certainly do not have the right to impose ignorance on their or anybody else's children.

I kind of like the penis analogy... but it's fine not to have one, too!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM

As Keith A. says....they didn't even know the earth was round in about 5000 BC. If your whole life is centered in an area of a few days travel, and you 'hear' of someone who has made a long trip, one BIG flood like the Bosporus event can easily lead to legends.
Suppose some guy managed to save his family and a few animals by floating on some debris, and later told stories about it?

Even the bible doesn't speak of 'the world' as a sphere, but uses words that basically mean 'everything we know about'.... which for most people wasn't much.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:16 PM

Oh Damn, oh damn, do I really have to agree with Mither again?

Jack - Occam's razor - one flood or many floods? One flood. A big one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:31 PM

"People only have a right to an EDUCATED opinion. Nobody has the right to ignorance."

gee, Mrrzy... as much as I usually agree with your basic conclusions, I don't see how that can be defended in any practical OR legal way. At best it is a 'hope' or a description of some ideal world.

Let's just edit your other remark this way: "And they certainly do not have the right to impose ignorance their beliefs on their anybody else's children."

(I don't LIKE it that they can teach stupidity to their children, but all we can do is attempt to provide a better alternative in schools and by example.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:32 PM

Hello Sailor!

You following me around the threads? I should be concerned being followed by a sailor, especially one who sprung the word homosexual into the "other" thread for no apparent reason when trying to mock me. I've always wanted my own stalker, makes me feel special. Pity it had to be a blasted sailor.. Ah well, so long as you don't make my eyes water.

Yeah, right. Who said Christians frown upon tarots cards? I certainly didn't, you prat. I said that Eliza seemed to think some do, and that, my ho ho ho, barrel of rum, Jack Tar friend, is another kettle of fish completely.

I just noted that if there is something in that, it is hilarious that one superstition wants to have the moral high ground on another.

Look, let's get off the fence here. No problem with seeing happy faces going into church. Live & let live, whatever floats your boat etc.

But I see an increasing desire to reduce society to the age of superstition, stifle free speech, scientific advancement and equality and worst of all, provide convenient but ineffectual answers to peoples' anxieties. It would be rather trite to point out there is no such thing as God and that the bible etc are fairy stories, and many not even nice ones... But as I said, it would be trite to mention it.

Oh, and I might have no knowledge of a subject but there again I might know more than anybody else. The thing is, you don't know which.

So stop saying it eh? There's a good chap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

"There was no concept of "global" in those times."

I've read the New Testament but not the old so I didn't realise this but thinking about it it's bloody obvious. Is this book a good basis for a world religion and teaching children if it the basic facts are so wide of the mark? It might be an idea to write a third testament in the light of knowledge gleaned since the last one was written. In 200 years time when we have to explain cosmic ecosystems, all those funny little boingy particles physicists keep finding etc and our knowledge has moved on then it'll be time for another one.

Interesting second link Bill D. Someone needs to re-translate the whole Bible again. Then we could all start debating this subject upon reviewing that, a definitive version everyone agrees on (although I guess all men not being equal the pope and other churchy head honchos get a bigger say - get a younger pope for this part of the job). In the meantime, let's teach the kids right and proper and keep the religious stuff in the RE class (or whatever they have these days).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:42 PM

Mather, I didn't read that last long post of yours because it was addressed to me an your taunts are boring.

Bill,

I think that you have hit upon my purpose in starting this thread. In exchange for a chance to educate their kids, they get a chance, if they can dominate a school board, to say their piece to everyone else's kids, in that school board. At the end of the course, the kids get to make up their own minds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:52 PM

"Jack - Occam's razor - one flood or many floods? One flood. A big one."

Are you arguing the faith based side?

One flood that covered the entirety of American continents, Africa, Europe, Asia, and according to Little Hawk's assertion, the populated parts of Australia and most populated islands is the simplest explanation? Even when I was about five years old and first learned the story of the flood, I couldn't take it literally. I realized that there was a finite amount of water and could see that it found its own level. I was not blessed with any special insight. I simply lived near the ocean at a seaport where it rained a lot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM

Bill - "they didn't even know the earth was round in about 5000 BC"


That is the common assumption that's in vogue in our present culture, Bill. Our present culture imagines that man came from relatively primitive beginnings a little over 5,000 years ago, and that we now know more than people ever knew before and are now at the apex of man's development on this planet.

I think our culture is utterly mistaken in its view of the remote past, and that there were plenty of people on this Earth a very long time prior to 5000 BC who knew perfectly well that the Earth is round, who understood the yearly path of the Earth around the Sun, who understood the Earth's rotation and inclination on its axis, and the cyclical wobble in the Earth's rotation and how that changed the Earth's position in regards to the various constellations, and who had mapped the entire globe as it existed at that time...and it has changed significantly since that time. There has been movement. There were planetary disasters that virtually wiped out those past civilizations and left some fertile, temperate areas frozen under polar icecaps...and they are probably disasters of a cyclical nature. They can...and may...happen again.

I could point you to some interesting reading on the subject, reading which presents much geological and archeological evidence, but I know I might be wasting my time even trying that, because it's not the mainstream conventional view of the past. I will not talk about it in any further detail on the open forum, because I'd definitely be wasting my time doing that, and it wouldn't make any difference anyway. What could it possible matter whether I got anyone here on this forum to listen to something they're pretty much determined not to listen to in the first place? And if I did convince one or two people here....so what? (grin) What difference would that make either? None, as far as I can see. It might be some salve to my ego...if I chose to bother seeing it that way...but it would make NO difference whatever to anything that actually matters. And I know it.

It would be like talking to people in Europe in the year 1,000 about electricity and the internal combustin engine. They thought they had it all figured out in the year 1,000 too! They figured THEY were the ultimate development of man on this planet! Just ask them...they'd tell you the whole story of their cultural grandeur over all that preceded them. ;-D And you couldn't tell them differently without arousing their scorn, anger, ridicule, all the usual predictable defensive reactions of the conventional mind when it's trapped in its little familiar and very temporary cultural bubble.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:58 PM

Indeed, Jack.... that's how it works in Texas especially....and Texas buys so many textbooks, that many companies, to avoid printing 4-5 editions, base their textbooks on the ones Texas approves! Thus, Texas' religious conservatism tends to seep into national educational materials.

"...the kids get to make up their own minds."... well, officially, yeah. :>(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:02 PM

You'll never be educated if you don't read.

Same as kids making up their own mind. Some can, some can't. Makes fertile recruiting ground for those grooming kids into their delusion.

Amen


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:21 PM

well, LH... I am 'generally' familiar with your theory , but as you note, it doesn't have wide acceptance.
My own opinion is that any significant group such as you describe would have left artifacts and/or archeological evidence. Suggesting that those are now under "polar ice caps" is counter to the best geologic/climatological studies so far. (Even Atlantis seems to be gradually being identified as related to Minoan culture and the Thera/Santorini eruption)
We DO have some evidence of our remote ancestors which does not lead us that way....they were pretty primitive. If, as I suspect, you are hinting at some culture which was not our direct ancestors, but possibly alien, I can only shrug. I have my reasons for my skepticism, as you have yours for your suspicions/belief.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM

hi bill-i note your comments re mutations.as you say changes in characteristics do occur but i dont think that there is any proven path through life forms from what i call micro to macro change,though i concede that from a materialistic view with deep time thrown into the equasion it must seem plausible.but then again with such great complexity in even the simplest of life,- such change still seems extremely fanciful however much time is envisaged.
regards pete


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM

""The simplest explanation of ancient flood stories on different continents is different floods. or even just that big floods make for memorable stories.""

The simplest explanation, surely, would be a super tsunami which was sufficiently huge to travel right round the globe.

We know that scientists are expecting the La Palma landslip to produce something of the kind and have evidence of previous events (e.g.the most likely cause of the disappearance of a whole Mediterranean civilisation).

I have no problem with either Creationism or Evolution as concepts, but I have the strongest possible objection to teaching Creationism as science, and would have an equally strong objection to any suggestion of teaching science as a faith.

They are intrinsically different.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM

With regard to Tarot, I think the Christian objection is to fortune-telling (which is not how I use the cards) The general view is that only God knows what lies ahead. But this is only my understanding of the Christian (in my case C of E) standpoint. Some branches of Christianity are much stricter about this. I only brought up the Tarot example to show how legends, myths, folktales etc can lead to a deeper understanding of ones predicament or situation, as can looking at a lovely view in nature, or listening to music. I see all these as aids to meditation, and one could view the Old Testament Genesis accounts in the same way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:30 PM

pete... you say "...i dont think that there is any proven path through life forms from what i call micro to macro change..."

You'll have to define what you admit as "proven". When evaluating scientific theories, one can always say "it is only a theory", but some theories explain what we observe a lot better than others. You wouldn't 'doubt' that you inherit the color of your eyes from your parent thru a complex system of biological reactions. Eye color is not usually a theological dispute.

Then, if you DO doubt some theory, it is up to you to either explain a better one or to show *exactly* why we need a better one. Scientific theories must be countered with other scientific theories, not simply ignored because one worries they conflict with some 'belief' or opinion. For the last 150 years or so, paleontology and anthropology has been amassing more & more hard evidence that says that what you call "micro to macro change" IS operating... time is the key, and it is hard to comprehend just how much change can happen in many millions of years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:49 AM

Thanks for that clarification Eliza. Our nautical friend got on his high horse, but I knew what you meant.

If some people interpret their Christian belief as disdaining fortune telling, Harry Potter, women, Gays or other religions, then all it says to me is that they are afraid of being exposed as "jam tomorrow" merchants themselves. It appears to me that the many people who are most comfortable with their religion are those who don't want it to dominate others, or pick and choose the bits they like. A mate of mine is a devout Muslim, won't touch alcohol or pork, can never get hold of him on a Friday and wastes away during Ramadan. That said, he prefers the interest rates for his mortgage at the building society to the Islamic alternatives. Fair play to him. Do what You feel comfortable with, not what those who get a kick out of controlling others want you to do.

Theology is an interesting subject. Insulting people's intelligence by claiming metaphysical fairy stories to be true isn't an interesting subject, it's a potentially dangerous one. A bit like the prat who say that as I was christened as a baby, I am a Christian like it or lump it. (A bit difficult to form the next sentence without using crude words such as bollocks)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 05:38 AM

The children do not get the chance to make up their own minds. At School they are marked on compliance with the set text.

Remember the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 05:41 AM

List of many flood folk histories

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html


That many separate ones is the simplest explanation? C'mon!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 06:17 AM

It appears to me that the many people who are most comfortable with their "lack of religion" are those who don't want it to dominate others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:10 AM

Touche


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:39 AM

'Remember the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man".'

I agree. Try also Proverbs 22: 6. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."


Public education has never been about teaching critical thinking skills. It has been and continues to be about keeping the masses (lotsa people, not church services) in line. Why would any government be so stupid as to have its populace learn critical thinking as a life skill? Where would it find people willing to die for rich folks' investments? It might have people wondering why university educations as so damned expensive, so expensive in fact that for most poorer people they are unattainable. Wouldn't want the children of poor people asking uncomfortable questions like "Why are there so many poor people?"

The line quoted by Richard Bridge is often attributed to Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus. However, the sentiment existed long before him. Today, it is part of the fabric of early schooling. School teaches us to be on time, do as we're told, follow rules, vote for political parties that are cosmetically different but substantially similar, obey laws mostly made by rich people and give our money to them at income tax time.

We have grown little intellectually since witch doctor days. We have organizations like the [insert name of country] Medical Association which protects doctors, not patients, and now doctors have become the new shamans--those who hold the keys to life and death.

"The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals swearing to practice medicine ethically." Yeah, right. From what I've seen over sixty years their first allegiances are to their insurance companies and their investment portfolios. However, schools glorify them and we follow suit. (Before the usuals go all nutso because they personally know a doctor who IS ethical, I've met three or four in my life, too. No doubt someone will mention Albert Schweitzer. Yes, he was a great man. And someone else will talk about Doctors Without Borders, and they are right to do so. But show me those doctors where YOU live. And where have they been since YOU were a kid?)

The legal profession: Well, at risk of being sued or threatened with a suit, I agree with Shakespeare. The exception is my friend Richard Bridge, although after his remarks about singer-songwriters I ain't so sure about that.   

Creationism: I'll bite. Tell me about it. It seems to be an all or nothing thing with some folks. So, let's make it all. If God created everything, then why did he stop creating? The whole world could be put right in the blink of an eye. No more famine, no more war, no more evil, etc. What's God waiting for? Blink already!

Science: It has given us much of which to be proud. And much of which to be ashamed. The science advisers to the American president have always belonged to one of the two main political parties. (I don't know that for fact, but I got ten bucks says it's so.) Why is that? Pray tell, where is the openness and transparency, the science for the sake of science that was so loved of this objective community? Hell, if a scientist did find a cure for one of the major diseases, he'd be shut up real fast--or at least until the pharmaceutical industry was able to get a patent on the drug and charge people a hundred times what it cost to keep some fu#king stock holders happy.

Religionists: y'either walk the walk (I'm thinking of the Joe Offers of the world, a man who gives of his time to a women's shelter, and with no offense meant, at his age time is precious) or ya talk the talk, which is substantially less meaningful.

Anyway, I suppose I've pissed off everyone, so with that, have a good day and lang may yer lum reek. If it smokes too much, call the fire department. They won't care about any of the above or how you (or they) feel about it. Best wishes to all of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:46 AM

Amen, Bruce, Amen. - all too effing true.

Especially:Why would any government be so stupid as to have its populace learn critical thinking as a life skill?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:07 AM

999.

87% * of UK doctors don't have any income from insurance portfolios and investments. Allegience to the Hippocratic oath is something I have admired, as I "deal" with different doctors most days and have done for many years. Ok, in such a late group, you have your odd criminal, pockets of incompetence and sadly, many instances of pride overtaking good decision making.

but the hippocratic oath is a good subject to bring up. It crosses ethnic and religious boundaries yet is deep seated in altruism and putting the considerations of others first.

The failings of the USA healthcare system are what they are, but try not to demonise doctors in general eh? It is difficult enough separating the balls from the substance in a religion thread without reading utter crap on more temporal subjects.


(* Source - British Medical Journal article on NHS pension reform circa October 2011.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM

Hang on, it posted before I qualified a part of it. The investment bit does not take into account GP share of practice assets. As practice assets are subject to NHS contracts, they grow and shrink with the rest of The NHS.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM

Richard, Read the first ten or fifteen accounts you posted. If you still think there was just one flood get back to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:44 AM

OK, Ian. I take back everything I said about doctors as it doesn't pertain to British doctors.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:02 PM

To be fair 999, nobody should be put on a pedestal, but for all the problems I have with many doctors, (professional arrogance, infuriating need to understand obligations to the nth degree before accepting, thinking rules don't apply to them, their mobile phones are safe to use when others aren't, being married to one...)

I do find the actual dedication to their role in society to be of a very high standard. I spent some time studying USA systems, namely Evercare and Kaiser Permanante. Whilst the business delivery models were "interesting" to say the least, I did find something that you may hopefully see yourself over time. The younger the doctor, the more they feel part of a healthcare team rather than the one who knows best. This principle is helping our NHS improve too. (Interestingly, we were sent to understand Kaiser and they ended up implementing more of our systems than we did of theirs. At the risk of sounding smug, we felt rather good about that.)

So that's why I bit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:55 PM

999 sez about Joe Offer: at his age time is precious


Gees, talk about making a guy feel old....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:04 AM

Joe,















Joe, I've seen your face book picture. It that doesn't make you feel old...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 08:41 PM

I don't teach my children religious doctrine, I just assigned a different random religion to each one and told them it was their starting point and were free to change mix, match or dismiss their religion at will.

Ahmed was given Judaism, Nathan was a Protestant, Mary was Zoroastrian and Shelly was Amish.
Shelly was so mad she could not use electricity, phones, computers or even ride in the car, she was the first to become a secular humanist. The rest soon followed suit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:50 PM

Ian, you are right.

When I was about seven or eight years old, I had a very wicked ear infection--so bad I banged my head against the wall because it felt better than it did without banging my head against the wall. I don't know how, but my mum called a doctor who came to where we lived and gave me a shot of penicillin, some pills to take, and having seen the circumstances in which we lived charged us $5.00. He was, imo, a saint.

I know doctors from my youth who were like that. I did and do admire them. I find few to do that with today. I do NOT expect free medical treatment. I wouldn't ask a plumber to plumb for free. People have to make a living. But these days, even with a NHP, doctors seem to be 'quite above it all'. I don't know why, because doing a good job at open heart surgery isn't really all that different from doing a good job plumbing. I've held testes that were close to severed, pieces of legs that were held on by thin strips of muscle, heads that could take just the tiniest of moves to render the patient unable to walk or move his arms ever again. Rescue personnel do that daily. But then to have some arrogant shite do a three hour op and charge tens of thousands for what twenty men and women delivered for less than $500, sometimes risking their lives, makes me wonder where the hell our priorities are and what's out of kilt with our world.

I have always liked your wit on this forum, and I apologize if I offended you.

BM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM

Just as a matter of interest, my wife & I have Kaiser Permanente here, and it has been our experience that they do a remarkable job of making patients/members interests foremost. They DO intend to make a profit, but we have none of the horror stories we hear about other HMOs.

They don't have all the best doctors, but they have decent ones, and some excellent ones. If medicine has to be a business, they do a pretty good job of being fair about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 03:03 AM

A belief in "goodness" over "evil", is no more idiotic than a belief that a political system which demands that we rob, enslave and butcher one another in its name, can sustain humanity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 04:42 AM

Jack, did it ever occur to you that localised experiences of one large flood would differ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 10:57 AM

Richard, there isn't enough water on the planet for one flood to effect everyone. Never was, never will be. Not unless aliens come and flatten all the mountains. Go to Dover when it is raining and watch where the water goes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 11:51 AM

Hey BM, I never get offended, (after all, this is the internet, not reality...) Thanks for acknowledging though. I do get a bit precious when and if I feel people are being demonised unfairly with no right of reply, regardless of if I agree with all they stand for.

Just one thing about Kaiser Permante as others have mention them. We did like their primary care models and they did prove that care with profit can be a good experience for those requiring care. After all, the main difference between state provision and private is where the bottom line sits. If private can bridge that gap with increased efficiency, I don't have idealogical objections to the object of the exercise; providing high quality health care.

Tell you what though, in the real world, I don't half defend The NHS....

Anyway, back to young earth creationism. Are you guys still here?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 02:11 PM

jack-not enough water if you assume a tranquil flood, but if a violent flood from above and breaking out of the earth also as the text of genesis says ,with the subsequent reforming of the strata leading to higher mountains and deeper oceans than pre flood,- then its a perfectly reasonable.
from a creationist perpective the flood stories from many and unconnected parts of the world support a global flood.many are in detail fanciful as in the cube shaped ark [which would turn over] from the gilgamesh epic.by contrast the biblical dimensions suggest extremely good stability.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:59 PM

I have one question and one only for creationists. How old is the planet Earth?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 08:51 PM

*******

Count:

40 days before the flood receded. The world is 40000km round at the equator. The flood was higher than Mount Ararat (3.2 miles high). So a wall of water, 3 miles high, travelled round the world at 25 miles per hour?

Actually, the flood was around for more like 150 days, if you count up the time hanging around described by Jenny Sis. So we have something more like a 7mph tsunami. Which gives Noah's ark a little more credibility in terms of surviving the wave front, but rather increases the logistical problems of feeding half a million species of animals, without wondering what happened to the plants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 08:54 PM

pete ...Genesis can't tell you HOW there can be a "violent flood from above and breaking out of the earth" is possible. That just doesn't happen-- there IS only so much water...and if your answer is "God can do anything he wants", then your reasoning is circular. You are assuming impossible things to validate your belief that God can do them. If you reason this way, you always 'win', because you build in your own proofs, but you prove nothing about EITHER God or floods.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

"with the subsequent reforming of the strata leading to higher mountains and deeper oceans than pre flood,- then its a perfectly reasonable"

Huh? How does that work exactly? Please explain the sequence of events and processes that would enable this re-working of the planet's crust to happen (in simple terms if possible).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:54 AM

"with the subsequent reforming of the strata leading to higher mountains and deeper oceans than pre flood,- then its a perfectly reasonable"
I don't think it is reasonable, but even if it were, it would contradict the Genesis account. Unless you can show me the part where it says "the lands sank and the sea rose for 40 days, then it all sprang back like memory foam."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:09 PM

""the lands sank and the sea rose for 40 days, then it all sprang back like memory foam."

Isostatic rebound!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 05:11 PM

i suggested how the flood could be global but ask me to explain the tecnicalities of how it happened and i shall have to admit defeat.
to say that it does not happen is a fair comment-the past is gone.
however you yourself believe in something that does not happen.most of evolutionary theory IMO,but abiogenesis will do for a start.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 06:22 PM

No you did not suggest how it could have been global. Not in a way that is consistent with that pesky scientific evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 02:28 AM

"Young Earth Creationism Eureka!"

Is that the newest vacuum????

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 03:16 AM

Water level was at least 10 feet lower during the last ice age.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 04:25 AM

"i suggested how the flood could be global but ask me to explain the tecnicalities of how it happened and i shall have to admit defeat."

Try reading something other than the Bible and creationist 'literature', pete, and then you might find that you won't be defeated so often by the "tecnicalities" (or even the spelling!).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 08:06 AM

Reading this thread reminded me of the following cartoon!

Beliefs
KP


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 08:12 AM

Correction: 120 feet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 10:12 AM

" but ask me to explain the tecnicalities of how it happened and i shall have to admit defeat."

There are experts who CAN explain how it cold NOT have happened.... yet you seem determined to believe it anyway. Why not defer to those who DO understand such things?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 12:42 AM

I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution.

I'm eager to hear your replies. *smile*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:37 AM

I can't even give you evidence that I am typing this right now.

That doesn't mean a book of discredited fairy stories defying rational observation and experience has any place in discovering the how's and whys.
.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:53 AM

Tell me what you think evolution is, and I'll give you buckets full.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 03:53 AM

Surely the point is, that no one has to prove their spiritual beliefs?
If I choose to believe in a supreme being, the tooth fairy,the natural life force, or Santa clause, what has it to do with you?

People who feel a need to prove or disprove such things, are intellectually "challenged"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 04:50 AM

Take that smug grin off your face, Iona, and read a book called 'The beak of the finch by Jonathan Weiner (Vintage Books, 1995) in summary:

"The Beak of the Finch tells the story of two Princeton University scientists - evolutionary biologists - engaged in an extraordinary investigation. They are watching, and recording, evolution as it is occurring - now - among the very species of Galapagos finches that inspired Darwin's early musings on the origin of species. They are studying the evolutionary process not through the cryptic medium of fossils but in real time, in the wild, in the flesh. The finches that Darwin took from Galapagos at the time of his voyage on the Beagle led to his first veiled hints about his revolutionary theory."

Also evolutionary processes happen all the time e.g. when bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics i.e. those bacterial strains, which are most resistant to ABs, sutvive and propagate themselves whilst those with least resistance are eliminated from the population.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 04:59 AM

"Surely the point is, that no one has to prove their spiritual beliefs?
If I choose to believe in a supreme being, the tooth fairy,the natural life force, or Santa clause, what has it to do with you?"

Yep! You are free to believe anything you like and if you keep your silly notions to yourself you're not required to prove anything.

But if you want other people to respect your 'beliefs' and to afford them special status within society THEN you have to offer some proof.

And if you insist on 'evangelising' and requiring other people in society to live by your beliefs and seek to influence the political process such that other people in society have no choice but to live by your beliefs THEN you have to offer some proof ... but first you can f**k off!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 05:05 AM

Iona et al,

All adherents of the church of the wholly deluded have the same ultimate 'argument' - god made everything to do whatever happens or develops, so any doubters or protagonists can never win the money


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM

"I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution."

Darwin's finches.

The development of resistance of some pathogens to antibiotics.

The mutation rate of the common cold virus.

Polymorphism in Capaea sp. shell colour.

The evolution of the Polar Bear from the Brown Bear.

I could go on but I suspect you're not interested in evidence anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:13 AM

Nor grammar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

Having thought for a moment (not a practice I recommend to the religious) it seems to me that when "religious beliefs" are harmful to society at large and the processes of education and learning in particular, yes, they do need to be justifiable, and should be discouraged if they are not objectively justifiable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:31 AM

Ive just been reading about this very subject (I can't ski every day, glass back, so take lots of books with me) and the reference to the finches is a very pertinent one in Hitchens's withering yet fascinating book on medieval superstitions that are still with us, God is not great.

However, before (too late?) everybody gets hot under the collar about this, Hitchens mentions something I hadn't really thought about. He postulates when religion became irrelevant, bearing in mind all superstitious dogma seems to put time and date to their revelations..

It was when observing religion became optional.

So, other than the constant fly swatting of those who want to abuse children by teaching them bollocks as truth, and the endless chore of pretending to respect god botherers who certainly don't respect you back, we can all go home and ponder how evolution has, in my mind, a certain flaw.

It is a couple of thousand years since many superstitions we know today had their origin, and what with flying to the moon, beer and mobile phones, you would have thought our brains were evolving to adapt to our situation?

So why the constant push to hate gays, women and fun? Why do many many people, some of whom can count beyond 10 without taking their socks off still want to bring their imaginary friend to the party of life?

What's more, why do so many people who agree that it is all bollocks still think saying so is somehow disrespectful?

Buggered if I know, ( although that seems to be a right of passage in certain adherence quarters.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 08:03 AM

GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie

'What's more, why do so many people who agree that it is all bollocks still think saying so is somehow disrespectful? '

??

Possibly a typo [or a Freudian] but you've spelt 'god' with a capital G, above


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:09 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:16 AM

Sorry ~ don't know what happened there. Maybe God didn't want me to post this!

Arguable point, Mr Happy, ~ perhaps in this context it may be regarded as a proper noun, as being the name of the putative entity even if non-existent: as one would write Zeus rather than zeus, even tho he be not the object of one's own veneration. Surely God, rather than Yahweh or Jehovah or any such alternative, is the actual nomenclature of the deity of the Christians; hence the capital correct?

Let me stress that i have no belief in the entity's existence either. My point in this post is purely semantic and concerned with correctness of usage, not with theological speculation of any kind.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:21 AM

Oh DRAT! Here I am agreeing with Mither and Myer - at the same time on the same thread. I must be mellowing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM

I think Mr Mather spelled the name of the 'Invisible All-seeing, All-knowing Tooth Fairy in the Sky' with a capital 'G' because he was quoting a book title - which begins with a capital 'G'.

I suspect that we offer the Great Tooth Fairy believers a certain modicum of respect because if we don't we could:

(a) Motivate them to be even more fanatical by activating their 'martyrdom' complexes.

(b) Fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.

(c) Goad them into the sort of murderous rages which their kind have indulged in throughout recorded history and, of course, are still indulging in, in many parts of the world today.

I'm sort of inclined to take those risks, though!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:23 AM

Interesting that both sides actually inclined to discuss this topic had tacitly agreed to let it die, then some nameless troll climbs out of the woodwork seventeen days later and.........HERE WE GO AGAIN!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:29 AM

GUEST,Shimrod,

Perh. a typo then - no quotation marks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:25 PM

I was guest...possibly "nameless troll"....but if spiritual belief is ALL bollocks, why do you all spend so much time pontificating about it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM

i'm still me!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM

'god' is a generic name for any number of imaginary deities, whereas Zeus, Apollo etc are proper names of individual fabled entities


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:44 PM

Iona, let me put it to you this way:

Your vision of God is too simple. As is that of fundamentalists and Biblical literalists.

God is not some kind of "Super-Gandalf." He doesn't do the things He does, like create the sun, the earth, and the stars, and Man, and all the beasts of the earth by muttering some incantation and waving a Magic Wand.

Evolution is the way He does it. He flips the switch and the process takes care of itself.

A God who is only able to create things AS Is is too--Harry Potter--if you get my meaning.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM

well, nameless troll, there are many of us who assert that 'belief' which is unfounded (which is why it is called belief) can lead to multiple opinions which people are willing to fight over and even start wars over.

There is an **important** philosophic principle which states: "From false premises, anything follows!" Note... that does not prove that anything in particular IS false, but merely that IF you find many, many contradictory claims following from a couple of premises, those premises should be suspect!

Thus:

1)God exists
2)God is concerned and issues rules about our lives & behavior.

what follows? Hundreds of different, and many contradictory, opinions as to what a god might want or control...etc. Since we have no direct, testable proof of either of those two assertions, many sincere, honest, sensible people have serious doubts about whether either or both beliefs are true.

THAT'S why we 'pontificate' when others 'proselytize' and tell us we should believe 'X'...or 'Y'.. or any set of letters. It is not just that they personally choose to believe, but that there are strong forces trying to USE those beliefs to control lives and entire governments.

If personal belief were just kept that way... personal... it wouldn't be so complicated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM

"So why the constant push to hate gays, women and fun?"

That statement shows a remarkable lack of understanding. I know many people who would define themselves as Christian, go to church occasionally and live a decent lifestyle. Most are involved in community projects,and give their time generously to help addicts, the homeless etc.

They never push their beliefs on to others and hatred is not in their nature....in fact they are most tolerant and sympathetic towards those who suffer problems of any kind.

In fact, i have never meet anyone who hates "gays, women or fun", the only hatred I see is towards a group who has the common sense to see that humanity requires a small roadmap, on the journey from the cradle to the grave.

The statement is also an insult to the many good people on this forum who have any form of spiritual belief, whether through organised religion or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:17 PM

You really should see a doctor about it ake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:17 PM

Most of us have our secret gods Bill.

On the Mudcat haters, I am minded to repeat a cartoon I read several years ago.

A couple of christians waiting outside the Golden Gates to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven.....on their left is a huge queue snaking over the hills to a glowing manhole, where two little devils are gleefully forking the atheists, agnostics etc into a fiery hell.

One christian turns to the other and says......."Dont look so bloody smug now....do they?"

It works on many levels.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM

"... i have never meet anyone who hates "gays, women or fun","

You haven't? I have...(well, some just have an 'unusual' idea of 'fun'.)
I lived for 30 years in the Bible Belt of the USA, and heard almost every fundamentalist, hateful idea expressed or implied. If you do an internet search you can find them by the carload!
It is possible to 'mostly' insulate oneself from those sorts, but they are out there, and they are serious. (You don't know about the church in Topeka, Kansas, which sends people to street corners and to the funerals of veterans to scream that "God hates fags!"?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM

Actually paul, I am an atheist who believes in telepathy and spirituality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:36 PM

"I am an atheist who believes in telepathy and spirituality."

telepathy is at least potentially able to be tested. I would LOVE to find that it is really possible and replicable, rather than just anecdotal.

Spirituality? That idea can mean many things to many people. It can mean simply an...umm.. 'inner feeling' about relationships...basically a linguistic way to express personal attitudes-- or it can mean some metaphysical belief in the reality of 'powers & entities & realms' which might be 'accessed' in certain ways.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:45 PM

Atheism doesn't inoculate you against prejudice. As I said, see a good doctor, craniotomy is a sure cure, but has implications about quality of life. But here's a doctor with a lot of experience in both telepathy and spiritual matters: Dr Susan Blackmore.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:48 PM

I have experienced telepathy two or three times Bill.
With another very dear family member....witnessed by Mrs Akenaton.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 04:36 PM

I'm all for telepathy. It would help to alleviate all that incessant TEXTING!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 05:35 PM

"... alleviate all that incessant TEXTING!!"

And cure 78.431% of all thumb complaints!

Ake... your report is, of course, what I mean by 'anecdotal'. I know several people who assert they have had .. ummm.. 'experiences' that they attribute to 'tuning in' to another's thoughts or emotions. Maybe they did...maybe they didn't.
What is NOT possible, so far, (and not even claimed) is testable, *replicable* tranfer of specific information - that is, on demand and in detail. Whether we can discover the facts behind the various claims is hard to say.

I am a 'skeptic', which is not the same as a 'denyer' on the matter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:44 PM

If it is of any interest Bill, my ummm "experiences" were related to periods of extreme stress in one of the participants; in one instance involving the horrific death of another family member.

At the time, I told my wife what thought had happened and within hours we were awakened by someone bearing the news.
I have had these ummm "experiences" on several occasions, always involving very stressful circumstances and always with someone very emotionally close to me.
I think there is are perhaps many "senses", which may have been available on demand in an early stage in our evolution, but which may have been lost or become faint like our sense of smell or hearing.

Sorry about the drift.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM

(yes... the reports *I* have been told about were also mostly stress instances. Perhaps brains do something extra at those times. *shrug*.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 12:34 AM

Take that smug grin off your face, Iona, and read a book called 'The beak of the finch by Jonathan Weiner (Vintage Books, 1995) in summary:

"The Beak of the Finch tells the story of two Princeton University scientists - evolutionary biologists - engaged in an extraordinary investigation. They are watching, and recording, evolution as it is occurring - now - among the very species of Galapagos finches that inspired Darwin's early musings on the origin of species. They are studying the evolutionary process not through the cryptic medium of fossils but in real time, in the wild, in the flesh. The finches that Darwin took from Galapagos at the time of his voyage on the Beagle led to his first veiled hints about his revolutionary theory."

Also evolutionary processes happen all the time e.g.
when bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics i.e. those bacterial strains, which are most resistant to ABs,
sutvive and propagate themselves whilst those with least resistance are eliminated from the population.

Shimrod


__________________________________________________
I don't want to be smug, Shimrod, and I beg your pardon if I came off that way. However, the facts that you present, Darwin's finches, are simply exhibiting microevolution , otherwise known as adaption. We don't see lizards changing into birds, and we never have seen that, even in the fossil record. We don't see species changing into another species, but we do see adaption. Adaption is the ability of the creature to change to fit better in it's environment, which changes are already programmed into the creature's genetic code by the Creator. Evolution says that monkeys can change into humans, that fish can change into reptiles, that reptiles can change into birds. What evidence do you have for that? What fossils have we found to support this claim? I see an awful lot of adaption being promoted as 'Evolution', but I have yet to see one species change into another.

______________________________________
Iona, let me put it to you this way:

Your vision of God is too simple. As is that of fundamentalists and Biblical literalists.

God is not some kind of "Super-Gandalf." He doesn't do the things He does, like create the sun, the earth, and the stars, and Man, and all the beasts of the earth by muttering some incantation and waving a Magic Wand.

Evolution is the way He does it. He flips the switch and the process takes care of itself.

A God who is only able to create things AS Is is too--Harry Potter--if you get my meaning.

Don Firth

_____________________________________________________
I haven't seen Harry Potter or read much of the books, so I'm afraid I can't completely understand what you're trying to say. However, how can you say that my "vision of God is too simple"? I haven't said anything about my belief in God until now. I'm simply asking for evidence for evolution.

______________________________________________________
Shugarfoot Jack said:
"I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution."

Darwin's finches.

The development of resistance of some pathogens to antibiotics.

The mutation rate of the common cold virus.

Polymorphism in Capaea sp. shell colour.

The evolution of the Polar Bear from the Brown Bear.

I could go on but I suspect you're not interested in evidence anyway.

_________________________________________
Adaption!
Adaption!
Adaption!
We don't see polar bears turn into cats. We see dogs and varieties of dogs, we see cats and varieties of cats, but there are no cogs and no dats! We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another. It just doesn't happen. There is overwhelming evidence for Creation and the worldwide flood of the Bible, but there is no evidence for millions of years or beneficial mutations. Evolutionists, at their very base of theory, believe that everything came from nothing. They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up.

"I could go on but I suspect you're not interested in evidence anyway.

On the contrary, I'm very interested in evidence. However, all that I've seen presented so far is simply adaption. I haven't yet seen evidence for evolution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 12:43 AM

"'god' is a generic name for any number of imaginary deities, whereas Zeus, Apollo etc are proper names of individual fabled entities"
.,,.,.

Mr Happy ~ Sorry; you are just plain WRONG. The 4th word of the AV of The Bible, & all other versions I have come across, give 'God', thus printed, as the actual PROPER NAME of the deity thus referred to on every occasion of his mention throughout the entire 68 Books. That just happens to be what he is CALLED by the adherents of the two religions whose holy book this is. I agree that all the other deities, 'Zeus, Apollo etc', are referred to as 'gods'; but God with a cap G is an actual referential proper name, just like theirs; so grammatically requires a capital letter ~

~ for God's sake!

〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:43 AM

Evolution and typos.

This ruddy iPad types what it thinks you mean and the submit and preview buttons are too close together.

Anyway, you don't have to be superstitious to observe correct grammar and written English. I have no issue with upper case for either the metaphor or the man made comfort blanket. I was quoting exactly the book as it appears on my Kindle.

I do note that if you express a view on a subject that isn't welcomed, you are referred to as a troll. Surely you mean heretic?

On other matters,

Keep taking the tablets Bridge, they seem to be working!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:47 AM

Only adaption? Now we're getting to it, this is why I asked you to tell us what you mean by evolution. What do you mean by evolution, and what do you mean by adaption? What evidence do you need to tell the difference?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:47 AM

Oh, and Akenaton. Your well publicised homophobia does lump you with the god botherers.

A person who hates on the basis of a lifestyle that doesn't concern them is a homophobic person, regardless of how they spend their Sundays.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:51 AM

Living creatures do not change from one species into another overnight. A new species appears as a result of an accumulation of adaptations over a period of time and through many generations.

The closest living relative of the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the common chicken. This took millions of years and happened over thousands of generations. (Bit of a come-down, eh?)

No, you don't see polar bears turn into cats. But you see wolves turn into Yorkshire terriers. Through many generations.

God and evolution are not incompatible. As I said above, that's how God did it.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:16 AM

Paul Burke:
When I say 'Evolution' I'm referring to the belief that man evolved from different creatures like algae, and then further down the 'line', monkeys. Like what's taught in public schools.

Adaption is simply variations of animals within the same kind.

Don Firth: Of course Evolutionists don't believe that species can mutate into another species overnight. But adaption and variation is completely different from evolution. Evolution says that a cat can turn into a dog, given the right genetic mistakes and mutations. We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world.

No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them?

Wolves can turn into Yorkshire Terriers simply because they are both part of the dog kind. But the Yorkshire Terrier, if you keep breeding and breeding and breeding, will not create a bigger, better dog--the gene pool gets weaker and weaker as the generations progress. That's the direct opposite of evolution, which requires thousands of beneficiall mutations and genetic mistakes.

"God and evolution are not incompatible. As I said above, that's how God did it."
Then what do you call Genesis?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:17 AM

That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs."

Not from our "interested" GUEST, but from the Institute of Creation Research website.

They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up.

Obviously so interested that he/ she hasn't read anything about biology that wasn't on the ICR site or Answers in Genesis.

Not even a troll. A religious propagandist, and an incompetent one at that.

Don't strain our tolerance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:59 AM

Don, when you state that evolution and God are not incompatible, are you stating God as a metaphor for "How did it all happen then?" or the interventional jealous dude who told people to sacrifice their sons etc.

I can warm to the former but can be no more than dismissive of the latter. Although, that's just my view, and the view out of the hotel window leads me to put the iPad down and enjoy a run down the slopes for a couple of hours.

Now... Some people we were speaking to in the bar during après ski the other day looked out of the window seeing the sun set behind the mountains and declared (to everybody in general) that God was most certainly in his heaven.

It would have been churlish of me to rattle on about turning earth, tectonic plates causing our bit of the Alps and pollution coming from Northern Italy helping make the sky so red.

I was far more comfortable with agreeing that God was most certainly in his heaven. Far more to the point, pertinent, succinct and about as relevant to this holiday as the movement of the plates.

So, God as a metaphor can be quite useful. Problem is, it can inadvertently give credence to dangerous nonsense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 03:56 AM

"Adaption!
Adaption!
Adaption!"


Er, one of the mechanisms of evolution is descent with modification, examples of which I gave you. Screaming "adaption" is not really much of an argument.

"We don't see polar bears turn into cats."

An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears.

"We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another."

If you can see microevolution then you are actually watching evolution. You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course (see examples given earlier).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 04:02 AM

Iona, you state that lizards don't change into birds. True, but...

Dinosaurs have been recognised as being distinct from lizards and other reptiles. Dinosaur fossils have been found with feathers. Bird fossils have been found with dinosaur characteristics. (And yes, claims have been made, and refuted, that Archaeopteryx was a fake, and one piece from China was a fake. The rest are not.)

Get a grip on Deep Time. Changes take a very long time, a very long time indeed.

You point out that small terriers no longer have the genetic material to revert to wolves. That is pertinent to the inability for dogs to change to cats. Time is like a pair of trousers, and once a creature has moved off down one leg, it can't reproduce with a relation which moved down the other. Neither canines nor felines any longer have the material whice resembles their common ancestor. And on the related question of missing links, they are being found all the time - but each link produces two more gaps...

Evidence for the relationships between kinds of animals does not only lie in the fossil record, but in the genomes of all creatures (perhaps a word I should not use). Why, if we are all separate creations, is there so much material in our DNA in common?

You suggest that no-one has found any beneficial mutation. In New Scientist this week was an article about one which had hitherto been thought to be the opposite. Up until recently, this gene in children had been associated with bad behaviour, but work in Israel showed the opposite. In an experiment where a very young child and an experimenter opened a pack of snacks, and the experimenter had only four, while the child had 24, a few children offered to share evenly. These were children with the same mutation which in others led to bad behaviour and selfishness. It appears that the gene actually helps the child to adapt to behaviour in its environment. Those with the bad behaviour all came from disadvantaged families. The sharers came from families who behaved like that. The distribution of the gene shows that it has been selected for, so has been an advantage to its bearers - it actually makes the bearers more human. (I summarise - do read the actual article.) It was a mutation. The article also suggests that the mutation(s) producing the gene or genes leading to ADHD was/were advantageous in leading to the spread of humanity out of Africa and across the world.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 05:25 AM

Penny,

'Those with the bad behaviour all came from disadvantaged families.


The sharers came from families who behaved like that'



Surely that's a matter of nurture, rather than nature, not a good example IMO

*********
MtheGM

'The 4th word of the AV of The Bible, & all other versions I have come across, give 'God', thus printed, as the actual PROPER NAME of the deity...'

You'll agree, I presume, that the bible is a translation into English from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew & other languages & therefore what's printed in a book published by confirmed adherents of the philosophy will contain errors, assumptions & above all, dogma & therefore should not be taken as gospel.

Further examples of this dogmatic approach to grammar can be found freely sprinkled throughout the tome in such cases as; He, His, Him, the Lord etc, occuring mid sentence.

However, Jahweh,Jehovah & Allah as the proper names of the deity in question are proper nouns & should be capitalised


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 05:41 AM

"We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world."

No, not 'thousands' but 'billions' over many millions of years. Brute probability says that a certain percentage of these mutations will be beneficial, given the right circumstances. Evolution, like everything else in nature, is a statistical phenomenon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM

With all due respect we do see dog breeds getting larger, if so bred.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:48 AM

Iona,
You say "No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them?"

Are you identical to your parents?

If you have children are they identical to you?

You are the missing link between them.

This picture should help:

click

http://i.stack.imgur.com/RtfaM.jpg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:49 AM

That was me above

click


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM

Evolution says that a cat can turn into a dog, given the right genetic mistakes and mutations

As mentioned above, we need a definition of species from you to work with, because without that you could even say a hypothetical cat-to-dog change where we knew every single parent and child would simply be 'adaption, adaption, adaption'. Of course, rather more than 3 adaptions would be required! And by definition of course, we mean something that can work with a completely unknown animal (etc) we might discover for the first time tomorrow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM

"MtheGM - You'll agree, I presume, that the bible is a translation into English from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew"?
.,,.,..,
Of course I will, Happy. Happily. And I would point out that the Old Testament's Hebrew & New Testament's Aramaic יהוה, & the New Testament's Greek Θεóς {which literally means "God"}, are both translated in the work in question by "God". This work happens to be the English version of the Bible; so that these words are translated into the English PROPER NAME "God" throughout. Hence the necessity for the capital letter.

If you still pretend not to get it ~~ tough: you will merely be demonstrating your own denseness, or obstinacy, or both.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 09:31 AM

Eh?

So you're now resorting to name calling?

'are both translated in the work in question by "God".'

So the deity's a creative translator, as well?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 09:44 AM

"Allah",which you adduce, belonging to a different tradition is not in question; tho I am of course happy to conced its Prper-Nominal sraus.

The translators' somewhat eccentric policy of capitalising pronouns referring to the deity "God", presumably to emphasise their respect for him {not for 'it'} is a separate matter, it seems to me.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 09:45 AM

"concede its proper-nominal status"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 12:55 PM

What do I call Genesis?

A Creation story. One of many. Myth. Metaphor.

Joseph Campbell made the very much to the point statement that where religions tend to go off the rails is when their followers mistake myth and metaphor for literal historical fact.

Iona, define God.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM

I wonder in what sense g/God is a "he". X and Y chromosomes? Naah, he can't have those, in any case in at least one of h/His cameo appearances h/He ought to have been genetically female (unless the miracle was h/He was actually a bird pretending to be a human- might explain the ascension). Barring a miracle of course. The appropriate equipment? again, g/God is omnipotent so h/He can do anything h/He wants, but it strikes one as a little inappropriate, especially when the local tradition insists that there aren't any nice g/Godesses to use it on. And playing with angels is just abuse. So is gender for g/Gods a matter of lifestyle choice? Or have I missed some deeper, more theologically subtle, meaning of the word "he"?

Oh, as for our Answers in Genesis t6roll, I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, and has found all the old worn-out creationist sites, yet hasn't found a single one of the many scientific sites that give the answers to every point in detail.

A waste of time, or in other words, religion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM

You guys gonna debate a Holocaust denier & confront them with facts next? You'd have about the same amount of luck.

I guess masochists come in all forms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM

By the way, there IS no "missing link." The process of evolution was (is) sufficiently gradual that it would be impossible to point out one individual or group of individuals and say, "There it is!" That's why one will never find "the missing link" and why the "missing link" is actually a red herring in the evolution vs Creation argument.

And when did proponents if evolution ever sat that "a cat can turn into a dog" under ANY circunstances? The only people I've ever heard make statements like that are those who are rabidly ANTI-evolution on the grounds of their own limited religious concepts.

In logic, this is called the "straw man" fallacy.

A "straw man" is a fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting IT, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Unacceptable.

By the way, when I say "their own limited religious concepts," I am not referring to the concepts of a particular religion itself, but to the limited concepts of many of the individuals who practice that religion, and who all too often, get all bound up in unimportant detail. I can give you dozens of examples of this if you wish.

They get wrapped up in minutia and miss the whole point of what their religion is all about.

Don Firth

P. S.   By the way, Iona, don't make the mistaken assumption that I am an atheist or anti-religious on the basis of my position on this matter. I am a member of Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, and I know a great deal about the Bible. Not just about its contents, but about how it came to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:29 PM

"I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, ..."

Of course, 'Iona' isn't investigating anything. She/he (?) knows the Answer already - 'it was God wot dun it' and all you need to know is in the Bible. What she/he and her/his fellow creationists are trying to do is to discredit that branch of biology which deals with evolution. It's a sort of anti-science. There's no such thing as 'creation science' - only 'creation anti-science'. No true scientist would ever start from the Answer and then look for information to support the Answer and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM

Mr Happy, in condensing a long article, I may have left out some vital details. There were two populations compared. One was a group including sharers and non-sharers, neither set previously identified with behavioural problems, indeed being too young for much of this to show. In this well behaved group with similar backgrounds, the ones who suggested sharing had a particular gene which the ones which did not suggest sharing lacked. The other group compared children with bad behaviour and found a relationship between that same gene and bad behaviour. The scientists studying the sharing behaviour were surprised by the connection they found because of this previously recognised association.
Yes, nurture was involved - the argument was that the gene enabled a more pronounced response to environmental input, rather than instigating a particular style of behaviour. It was a response not observed in children lacking the gene.


Article - needs signing in to see whole

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:48 PM

And, Iona, I think the word you wanted was "adaptation" - just in case I was missing something, I did check, and your version, missing the linking @, is not familiar to Google, though it will fish up definitions if forced. And then, at the bottom of page three, after definitions, and various commercial uses, it finds an "intelligent design" page using it in a new specific way.

There's no reason to use a less used version when they mean the same.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 03:18 PM

Further, Iona, regarding 'missing links'...it is the case that not ALL the minute changes in the evolutionary record were conveniently preserved in some stream, landslide, tar pit, lake bottom...etc. Of course we don't have examples from all the millions of generations, laid out in order so we can study the tiny variations! If we did, there would not be enough museums in the world to display & study them.

But.... in a building at the Univ. of Kansas there ARE thousands of generations of mouse skins, all carefully documented and labeled as to geneology...with some very interesting variations, even in a study of only a few decades.

When you assert that the "is no evidence" for evolution, YOU are showing a very limited, shallow understanding of both the concept of evolution and the parameters of what actually counts as evidence.

When you begin with a personal view, usually shaped by a set of religious convictions, that **THIS** is how it works, you must then do some awkward mental reasoning to make all of science & all other reasoning fit into your pre-digested scheme.

Read about Galileo, Copernicus and the Catholic church and see how s-l-o-w-l-y we came around to simply admitting that the Sun does NOT go around the Earth...which is not flat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 04:39 PM

Beyond mere ignorance, what may be keeping this kind of science vs religion debate going is that Man started out being the center of the universe. Everything revolved around the earth, which God created as the home of Man.

But some ancient Greek (way pre-Christ) had already figured out that the earth was round, not flat, and had even come up with a remarkably accurate figure for its circumference.

Then Copernicus comes up with the outrageous notion that perhaps the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Then along comes Galileo with his handy-dandy Tom Swift telescope and proves it! The Church had a wall-eyed fit about this and threatened to fry his tookus unless he recanted. Galileo did, partly to save his life and largely because he knew that, what with all kinds of astronomers getting telescopes in their cereal boxes, the word would swiftly get around, and since he proved it first, he'd get the credit.

Then, as astronomy moves forth apace, we learn that, rather than some 6,000 years old, the Cosmos is more like 13 billion years old, the solar system, including the earth (along with the Garden of Eden, someplace in the Mid-East, presumably) has been here for some 4.5 billion years, and not only is the earth not the center of the Cosmos, the Cosmos doesn't even have a center, as such!

If God really did create the heavens and the earth—and Man—it would appear that Man is not really anywhere near as important as he thought he was. Even to God!

What a blow to Man's ego! Some folks are really miffed about this!

Hence, all the convoluted efforts to deny the obvious.

Don Firth

P. S.   Here's a thought to play with:   Just suppose that the Cosmos were a Petri dish, the entity that we think of as God is actually just one of many, say, biology students or lab technicians in a biology laboratory in some Super-Cosmos, and we--are merely a bacteria culture on that Petri dish.......

P. P. S.   By the way:    42


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 06:27 PM

right on iona;though i understand that some mutations can be beneficial in some circumstances but involve loss of information.eg fish in hudson river adapting to polluted water-but would not survive in clean water.as i understand it mutations exhibit no information gain that is required for goo to you evolution.

as to the fossil record or evolutionism generally ;some of it's own academics have confessed the absense of evidence.call it quote mining if you like but i call it honesty.
pete.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 06:43 PM

Oh for goodness sake go and look at the statistical distribution of heritable characteristics. I know that ignorance is said to be bliss, but please go away and play with the other children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 06:50 PM

Ah, pete! I thought you'd show up at some point!

You keep telling us that you don't understand things and that you don't know much - but you keep popping up in these discussions. I wonder why?

Perhaps if you're a 'creationist' who believes that God created everything yesterday and that all truth is contained in an ancient text of dubious provenance then you don't need to know or understand anything more.

Have you read any texts other than the Bible or 'creationist literature' since we last exchanged thoughts? ... No? Thought not! Who knows you might broaden your mind ... but we can't have that, can we?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:03 PM

Sancta simplicitas, that's all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:11 PM

"...some of it's own academics have confessed the absense of evidence."

DO tell us which ones, pete. (*and 'confessed' is a loaded word, designed to suggest they KNOW)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:50 PM

Ar least "academics" will say "I don't know" if they don't know.

It's been one helluva long time since I've heard an advocate of Creationism say that they don't know when they obviously don't know.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 12:00 AM

That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs."

Not from our "interested" GUEST, but from the Institute of Creation Research website.

They believe that nothing existed and then *BANG!* the world and all it's glorious programming showed up.

Obviously so interested that he/ she hasn't read anything about biology that wasn't on the ICR site or Answers in Genesis.

Not even a troll. A religious propagandist, and an incompetent one at that.

Don't strain our tolerance.

Don Firth


To be honest with you, Don, I have never been to the ICR website until today, when you mentioned it. It's true, I've heard a number of lectures by them (that's where I heard "Cogs" and "dats"), but for cryin' out loud, I certainly don't base my beliefs upon what they say. The Bible supports creationism, ICR and AIG simply show the evidence as it is--created by God.
So, if the world didn't show up all of a sudden (with or without a bang), how did it happen?

And if I'm a religious propagandist, you are one too. You are just as 'religious' in your belief of evolution as I am in a Creator God. And I think our definitions of 'tolerance' differ. I define tolerance as "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". You define tolerance as "You can believe what you want, just don't say anything about it to anybody". Why shouldn't I speak up and defend my worldview? You are!

"Adaption!
Adaption!
Adaption!"

Er, one of the mechanisms of evolution is descent with modification, examples of which I gave you. Screaming "adaption" is not really much of an argument.

"We don't see polar bears turn into cats."

An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears.

"We see plenty of microevolution, but I have yet to see any macroevolution--one species turning into another."

If you can see microevolution then you are actually watching evolution. You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course (see examples given earlier).

ShugarfootJack


"An ridiculous example, and we might see genetically isolated populations of polar bears become a new species over time, as a population of their ancestors (Brown Bears) did to become Polar Bears."
But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats). There is no evidence, in the fossil record or otherwise, of a half-and-half creature. You say that "You'd have to stay around a mighty long time to watch one species turn into another, although we can see that happening of course".
But the fossil record has an awful lot of animals, supposedly laid down over millions of years. Where are the mutating animals? All I'm seeing are fully formed creatures and varieties. Some have gone extinct, but that's still going on today (the Tasmanian wolves, etc)
_________________________________________________________

"We have yet to discover a beneficial mutation; and yet for Evolution to be true, there has to have been thousands of them in the past to create all of the amazing creatures we see in our world."

No, not 'thousands' but 'billions' over many millions of years. Brute probability says that a certain percentage of these mutations will be beneficial, given the right circumstances. Evolution, like everything else in nature, is a statistical phenomenon.

Shimrod

For an evolutionist, time is the solver of all problems. "Given millions of years and millions of mutations, anything can happen". I have yet to see evidence for millions of years, or any fossil evidence for mutations-turning-one-species into another.
You believe that everything came from nothing! That's one reason I'm not an athiest--I just don't have that much faith.
____________________________________________________

Iona,
You say "No one has found a 'missing link', but there must be thousands of them if creatures truly do evolve like Evolution says. Why is it that we find all these creatures in the fossil record, but no one can find the 'links' between them?"

Are you identical to your parents?

If you have children are they identical to you?

You are the missing link between them.

Tia


Every person is different, and every snowflake is different, and every fingerprint is different. This is not evidence for evolution, but rather evidence for an all-knowing Creator. Hw could random chance accidents create all the complexity we see in our world? There is no missing link in the fossil record. To call DNA changes "Evolution" is incorrect—the changes we see do not lead to greater complexity or add new and advanced information (as is required by Evolution). Neither mutations or DNA shuffling has produced the ability to generate any new and useful genetic information. Mutations in the gene pool and DNA has not ever produced new and beneficial organs, let alone whole organisms. But we have seen is that mutations serve to corrupt or rearrange already existent information.


What do I call Genesis?

A Creation story. One of many. Myth. Metaphor.

Joseph Campbell made the very much to the point statement that where religions tend to go off the rails is when their followers mistake myth and metaphor for literal historical fact.

Iona, define God.

Don Firth


I define God as the Bible defines Him—the all-knowing Creator of the universe, consisting in three Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I reject any definitions of God that the Bible does not supply, and am ready and willing to join forces in refuting all other beliefs.


If you believe that the Creation Account in Genesis is fiction, then you have no basis to believe in the Crucifixion. You have no basis to believe the Bible is of any value other than a few little fairy tales. If there was no Creation, then the world has been around forever, and death is not a result of sin, as the Bible says it is. If death is normal and instituted by God, then we have no need for a Savior.

By the way, there IS no "missing link." The process of evolution was (is) sufficiently gradual that it would be impossible to point out one individual or group of individuals and say, "There it is!" That's why one will never find "the missing link" and why the "missing link" is actually a red herring in the evolution vs Creation argument.


Then at least we ought to find creatures in the fossil record, preserved in corresponding layers, that show a progression from simple to complex. But we don't! We haven't found any simple life forms turning into complex creatures like bats, porcupines, frogs, etc. Instead all we find in the fossil record are fully formed animals with unique and detailed attributes.

And when did proponents if evolution ever sat that "a cat can turn into a dog" under ANY circunstances? The only people I've ever heard make statements like that are those who are rabidly ANTI-evolution on the grounds of their own limited religious concepts.

Under evolutionary theory, a cat ought to be able to turn into a dog, given enough beneficial mutations and enough time. No, it doesn't happen. Neither can a frog turn into a bird, or a monkey turn into a human. Evolutionists say that similar attributes point to a similar ancestor. Then how do you explain the platypus? It has a bill like a duck, fur like a beaver, spines on it's legs like a spiny anteater, and the list goes on. How in the world do you fit that into a category? I propose that common traits simply point to a common Creator—not a common ancestor.

P. S.   By the way, Iona, don't make the mistaken assumption that I am an atheist or anti-religious on the basis of my position on this matter. I am a member of Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity in Seattle, and I know a great deal about the Bible. Not just about its contents, but about how it came to be.

The Holy Trinity? How can you believe in the Trinity? How do you know it's not just a metaphor? A myth? One story out of many different theories of God? If you undermine the Creation Account in Genesis as a metaphor, then you must also doubt the death and Resurrection of Christ as accounted in the Gospels. You must doubt the miracles of Jesus and the apostles. You must doubt that Jesus ever existed, because, after all, perhaps he's just another one of those pesky metaphors we find in the Bible!


"I don't know why people are trying to explain science to someone who pretends to be eagerly investigating, ..."

Of course, 'Iona' isn't investigating anything. She/he (?) knows the Answer already - 'it was God wot dun it' and all you need to know is in the Bible. What she/he and her/his fellow creationists are trying to do is to discredit that branch of biology which deals with evolution. It's a sort of anti-science. There's no such thing as 'creation science' - only 'creation anti-science'. No true scientist would ever start from the Answer and then look for information to support the Answer and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer!

Shimrod


"No true scientist would ever start with the answer".
That's not true. We all have presuppositions. My presupposition is that God created the world. Your presupposition is that Evolution created it all. You believe that matter created itself out of nothing, or else you believe that matter is eternal and knows no beginning. I say that it makes much more sense to believe in a God who created it all just as He says He did in Genesis.
And there are real scientists that believe as I do. They aren't out to discredit science, they're out to glorify our Creator by disclosing the magnificence of His creation.

" and seek to discredit any information that failed to support the Answer! "

I don't discredit any information, I just see it with a Biblical worldview. There is no true fact that doesn't fit with the historical account of Genesis.
Of course I believe that God did it. God and His word is the ultimate authority. But that doesn't mean I discredit science. I believe that all science is in harmony with the Bible, and there's plenty of evidence for it. For instance, Evolutionists say that the Grand Canyon was laid down in millions of years. But there is a similar canyon near Mount St.Hellens, which has layers very similar to Grand Canyon. However, these layers in Washington state were laid down in the course of one afternoon. Why couldn't the same thing have happened in the Grand Canyon?

Even atheists borrow from Christianity for their worldview. For instance, you all abide by traffic signs (at least some of you do). You stop at red lights, etc. Why? Why would you let those people who put up that light impose their worldview on you? After all, the stoplight imposes that human life is of value (Thou shalt not kill), and that we ought not to damage other people's property (thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself). If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics. If we are all just aquatic sludge, humans are no different than earthworms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM

Nurse!
P


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM

And just who in the hell is "Guest who is misquoting, misrepresenting, and generally screwing aroung with what I said?

He, she, or it is making unwarrented assumptions about my beiiefs.

Cowardly!!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:41 AM

The great long one is mine, sorry, forgot to sign it.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:15 AM

"My presupposition is that God created the world. Your presupposition is that Evolution created it all. You believe that matter created itself out of nothing, or else you believe that matter is eternal and knows no beginning. I say that it makes much more sense to believe in a God who created it all just as He says He did in Genesis."

So where did God get the matter from? And how do you know that Genesis is the word of God? None of that makes any sense to me.

"For instance, you all abide by traffic signs (at least some of you do). You stop at red lights, etc. Why? Why would you let those people who put up that light impose their worldview on you? After all, the stoplight imposes that human life is of value (Thou shalt not kill), and that we ought not to damage other people's property (thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself). If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics."

I can testify that Thai people, whose culture is largely based on Buddhism, and Indonesian people, who are mostly Muslims, stop at red lights too. They don't need the Bible to tell them how to behave. I am an agnostic and I stop at red lights because I believe that it's in society's best interests to obey and abide by commonly agreed laws and rules. I also have empathy for my fellow human beings and do not wish to cause them harm - I don't believe that that empathy comes exclusively from the Bible. Let's face it, the Old Testament is packed full of stories of fratricide, genocide and child-sacrifice, hardly a great model of how to behave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:24 AM

So much for a mere seeker for evidence. He she is a clear liar, and needs reminding that liars go to hell. A mind as tight shut as a nuclear silo. And one would be content to leave it there, were it not for the fact that these Taliban are trying to introduce religious dogma to school curricula in several US states and have made several attempts in the UK and elsewhere.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:19 AM

Bill...You may "shrug", but there is no way of proving the existance of mental telepathy and I am one among many who firmly believe in its existance.

Is my belief so far removed from a belief in god, spirituality, or creationism?

I any event, people with sincerely held beliefs should not be subjected to ridicule or hatred as we have seen on this and other threads.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:30 AM

Luke 10:27 - 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'


Iona, to me, does pretty well under the heart, soul and strength criteria. But I don't think the insistance on using your mind let's you get away with understanding science to less than your full capability. We are all limited, of course, but surely the commandment requires those who accept it to try as hard as they are capable of. If there is a conflict between what the Bible says, and what the world says, it's concievable the world is wrong. Or that the Bible is wrong - it could be an inaccurate translation, at the least. Or, most likely of all, that I/you as a believer are simply not understanding one or both properly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:39 AM

GUEST,pete from seven stars link



'......mutations exhibit no information gain that is required for goo to you evolution.' ??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:57 AM

.........& 'goo!' to you as well 8-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 08:44 AM

mutations exhibit no information gain

Information, passl? Do you know what the word means, or are you just regurgitating what somebody told you? Anyway, as a statement, it's provably wrong without even experiment.

Very simply, DNA consists of sequences of 'bases', and there are only four of these in nearly all naturally occurring organisms*. They have not-very-long names, but they are almost always referred to as C, G, A and T. One form of mutation is when one base is substituted by another, for example a T instead of a G. This may do nothing (especially if it's in non- coding DNA), or it may subtly change the product of the gene (a protein, say), and that change may be more-or-less neutral, or deleterious (the vast majority of mutations come into these classes), or beneficial - the organism does better because of it. The rare case of an improvement is clearly an increase of information by both technical and non- technical usages of the word.

Lets assume it results in a slight disadvantage, and we therefore class it as a loss of information. But then the reverse mutation is also possible- this time the T is replaced by a G. If the first mutation is a loss of information, the second one is clearly a gain. So increase of information by random mutation is possible, however you choose to look at it.

*RNA also has four bases, C,G,A and U. In many organisms, some of the bases are somewhat modified. And last year some genetic scientists successfully modified a gene to incorporate a fifth base not normally found in either DNA or RNA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 09:01 AM

Sorry, twas I with crumbled cookie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 09:23 AM

"there is no way of proving the existance of mental telepathy"

Yes there is, and it's been tried many times, without success. It's truer to say that there is no way of proving the NON-existence of mental telepathy. But whenever self- proclaimed telepathics are tested under circumstances where they can't cheat or fool themselves, and the conductors of the experiment can't do that either, their power vanishes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suga foot Jack in the electron cloud
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM

But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats).

Of course they're not - why would they? A bear turning into a cat would magic, not evolution. As for half-creatures etc, this is a creationist straw an argument. Every living thing is at some evolutionary point, there are not quantifiable fractions.

Methinks you're on a windup here Iona.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 11:25 AM

"I any event, people with sincerely held beliefs should not be subjected to ridicule or hatred as we have seen on this and other threads."

If you 'sincerely' believe in silly things then you run the risk of ridicule. If, on the other hand, you insist on imposing your 'sincerely' held beliefs on others - or insisting that they hold them too - then you risk opposition. If you persist in your attempts at imposition don't be surprised if that opposition turns to hatred!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM

"My presupposition is that God created the world. Your presupposition is that Evolution created it all. You believe that matter created itself out of nothing, or else you believe that matter is eternal and knows no beginning. I say that it makes much more sense to believe in a God who created it all just as He says He did in Genesis."

So where did God get the matter from? And how do you know that Genesis is the word of God? None of that makes any sense to me.


"All things were made by him[God]; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)
God spoke, and the world was. He created it out of nothing by speaking.
I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents. Over and over, scientists (even evolutionary ones!) have used the Bible as a base for understanding different archaeological discoveries. Places and cultures that scientists scoffed at in the Bible because there was no evidence for them were uncovered and shown to be just as the Bible said.
I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and they claim to be divine rather than human in origin. The Bible is the ultimate authority: if I judge the Bible by something else (human reason, etc), then it is not the Bible that is the ultimate authority, it is that thing that I judged the Bible by.
Evolutionists must base all of their knowledge by human reason. I look at the same evidence as you do, but I look at it with a different perspective, and we come out with two different interpretations. But only one of them can be right. And I propose that it's much more reasonable to believe in an eternal God who created everything than it is to believe in eternal matter that created everything by sheer mistake.

"For instance, you all abide by traffic signs (at least some of you do). You stop at red lights, etc. Why? Why would you let those people who put up that light impose their worldview on you? After all, the stoplight imposes that human life is of value (Thou shalt not kill), and that we ought not to damage other people's property (thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself). If you reject the Bible, you must reject all the worldview that you hold because of Biblical ethics."

I can testify that Thai people, whose culture is largely based on Buddhism, and Indonesian people, who are mostly Muslims, stop at red lights too. They don't need the Bible to tell them how to behave.

"Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.." (Romans 2:15a) Everyone knows in their innermost being that it is wrong to kill, even if they don't realize that consciously. The Law of God is imprinted upon the hearts of men, and they can't escape it.

I am an agnostic and I stop at red lights because I believe that it's in society's best interests to obey and abide by commonly agreed laws and rules. I also have empathy for my fellow human beings and do not wish to cause them harm - I don't believe that that empathy comes exclusively from the Bible.
Do you believe in a God?
Clarify for me what an agnostic is.

Let's face it, the Old Testament is packed full of stories of fratricide, genocide and child-sacrifice, hardly a great model of how to behave.
Yes, the Bible has instances of the Israelites exterminating pagan cultures. Sometimes God told them to do that, and He was perfectly holy in doing so. If we as God's creation call Him corrupt for putting to death people who hated Him, then we are the corrupt ones. We all deserve death (both physical and spiritual) because we have sinned against God; we have broken His law (the Ten Commandments).
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "the Old Testament is packed full of stories of fratricide.......and child-sacrifice, hardly a great model of how to behave." The Bible says "thou shalt not murder". Murder is the killing of a person with no lawful cause for doing so. (a lawful cause would be either self defense or else punishment for a crime, which the latter can only be administered by a civil magistrate.) Cain killed Abel--fratricide. Murder. Not a model for how we ought to live our lives, and God did not condone what Cain did.
Child-sacrifice--this happened quite a bit in the Bible, but never by a God-fearing people. The Israelites committed it when they turned away from God and began worshiping the idols of other nations. "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind:"(Jeremiah 19:5).


So much for a mere seeker for evidence. He she is a clear liar, and needs reminding that liars go to hell. A mind as tight shut as a nuclear silo. And one would be content to leave it there, were it not for the fact that these Taliban are trying to introduce religious dogma to school curricula in several US states and have made several attempts in the UK and elsewhere.
Paul Burke


What am I lying about? Because I won't believe the theory of Evolution?


But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats).

Of course they're not - why would they? A bear turning into a cat would magic, not evolution. As for half-creatures etc, this is a creationist straw an argument. Every living thing is at some evolutionary point, there are not quantifiable fractions.

Methinks you're on a windup here Iona.
ShugafootJack


I'm simply stating that we see no animals, in the fossil record or without, that support the claim that one creature can turn into another. It's perfectly rational to say that one variation of the bear species can turn into another variation of the bear species. But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought.

Iona


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:19 PM

To follow Sugarfoot Jack:
"But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats)."

To even USE that as a dis-proof of evolution is to misunderstand the very concept. Of course bears don't "turn into" totally different species. Bears came from a 'line' of creatures which have followed a totally different evolutionary path for multi-millions of years. Now, IF you go back several HUNDRED million years to single celled entities, then it is true that there are common ancestors.....but the splits occurred so long ago that we can't directly trace them. Whatever bears are, they have such distinctive DNA that they will always just be 'slightly different' bears!

Most religious concerns revolve around NOT wanting to accept that we evolved from or are related to, apes, monkeys...etc. Well... we are NOT evolved from apes....however...
We humans and some other primates, like chimps, had a **common ancestor** somewhere between 4-10 million years ago, depending on how we trace the details. Even today, we have more than 95% the same DNA as chimps...but that 3-5% is enough to make us VERY different, even as we see the obvious similarities.

Iona... I could write 20 paragraphs describing the fallacious reasoning you are using to defend your religious stand. (though the funny thing about humans is that they can just stamp their feet and declare "I don't accept your definition of 'reasoning'"...which is almost like 'deciding' that pi=3, instead of 3.14159...)

but the point is, it (your religious stand) does not NEED to be 'defended'. You can believe in the Bible and no one can 'prove' that it is not "the word of God"...but we **CAN** prove certain things about ourselves and our history that the Bible simply does not and can not deal with! We are what we are...and we evolved how we evolved, and IF you don't see all that described in the Bible, is is because those humans who wrote, translated, edited and **interpreted** the Bible had no access to the data that we have today.

When you...or anyone else... demands that evolution would require "bears turning into...etc." before our eyes, that is simply, as someone mentioned before, a "straw man"... which means an obviously incorrect premise which was not claimed. Knocking down something that your opponents didn't assert is not good argument.

Inventing terms like micro-evolution ...just to have a word that 'sounds' like a distinction does not change anything.

Now... if you care to see & explore some amazing data and genuine, real, touchable evidence of evolutionary paths that didn't survive....Google "Burgess shale". and...ummm...be VERY glad we are not related to the organisms in THAT sample of this Earths history


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM

you no doubt shimrod; note that creationists think evolutionism is a non sensible dogma lacking any evidence that cannot be otherwise interpreted [as even darwin conceded].
difference is;creationists here dont indulge in throwing insults.
ever ask yourself why?
i'll tell you anyway
our faith informs our behaviour.
we dont dispute to score points
we believe evolutionism keeps people from God
our wish would be to win people not an argument for it's own sake.

having said that;i note that we do have some civil posters and dont want to tar all with the same brush


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:38 PM

*sigh*...while I was typing, another long one, beginning:

"..I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents. "

THAT is the highly debatable point. There are SO many versions of the Bible, and many 'books' that were left out, that even 'reputable' scholars lament.
Add to that the translation problems and the many THOUSANDS of different interpretations and "reliable collection of historical documents." becomes quite an issue.

The Bible, in its many forms, has 'certain' historical value, and no doubt many people & events mentioned were quite real.... which proves nothing about their 'metaphysical' status! Humans have only been using written language for 7-10 thousand years, and clear, original texts from those early times are almost non-existent.

also..." But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought."\

One more time: That is NOT what evolution does...or would.. claim! If you continue to assert something that is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution, you will simply be like a mother stating "I KNOW MY son would never do something so terrible, no matter how much evidence you have!"

Believe in a god... and draw comfort & inspiration from the wisdom and parables and content of your Bible... but IF you believe God created everything out of nothing, you are not so far from what cosmologists assert today. You are simply naming that first big 'creation' differently...which is fine. What happened AFTER that we can study, and as I said... it is what it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 03:52 PM

ah, pete...

"...we believe evolutionism keeps people from God"

Do you know what that sounds like? "My mind is made up...don't confuse me with facts."

If God is as you believe, nothing can 'keep' you from Him.... just as prayers don't need to be vocal and inflicted on everyone to be heard.

If you persist in taking most disagreement and debate as 'insulting', you know that there are places where everyone will just nod in agreement. If, as you believe, God gave us reason and the ability to learn, would he not expect us to use it to explore the important issues of out existence?
Is it not an insult to honest, enquiring minds to suggest that we quit thinking and accept ONE version of a story written by other humans 2000+ years ago? (as interpreted by generations of theologians with vested interest in the answers THEY produce?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:40 PM

we believe evolutionism keeps people from God...
...i note that we do have some civil posters and dont want to tar all with the same brush


It is not civil to claim that "evolutionism" (your term) keeps people from God. It is not civil to lie, and it is not civil to smear in that way. For starters, quite a lot of believers accept the fact of evolution. You haven't even got all your own misguided compatriots onside, pete. The only reason for your saying that is that you're actually scared that the searing truth of evolutionary theory will prick your creationist bubble. "Evolutionism" is a piece of science, not dogma, and it does not concern itself with you and your God. It concerns itself, as does all science, with looking at evidence and seeking the truth. Your God is way beyond the remit of evolutionary science. He's there only because you carefully put him there. If he really did exist he'd be absolutely mad with you for refusing to use the mighty, enquiring brain he endowed you with. But don't worry. You're perfectly safe and won't be hearing from him anytime soon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM

well bill-i was not referring to you as being insulting.i dont know what you think of the punctuated branch of evolutionary thought[sometimes unkindly called "evolution by jerks"]but maybe thats goulds reasoning?
"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches...its ancesters;it appears all at once and fully formed"
creation.com/pattquote-which discusses criticism of a patterson quote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:49 PM

long time no hear steve-hope you are well.pete


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:51 PM

Buford Wappler was unable to work outside because it was raining something terrible, so he stayed inside and listened to his favorite religious program on the radio. Suddenly, it was interrupted by a news bulletin. Due to the rain up north, the river was flooding and at certain points, it was overtopping the levees. The authorities were ordering an evacuation of the area.

Buford looked out the front door and it was raining very heavily. But instead of getting into his truck and driving toward the hills, he got down on his knees and began to pray. He prayed that God rescue him from the flood.

He looked outside again, and water was pouring into the area. A neighbor drove by and stopped in front of his house. The neighbor had packed his family and as many possessions as possible into his pickup truck, but he stopped and called Buford to come out and join them as they drove to higher ground. Buford thanked him kindly, but said, "I'm not worried. I prayed to God, and He will rescue me from the flood." The neighbor tried to persuade him to join them, but he refused.

Soon the water had risen to the top step of his front porch. He went up into the attic of his one-story house, opened a hatch, and climbed out on the roof. As he sat there holding on to the chimney, the rushing waters rose several more feet until they began lapping at the eaves.

Once again he prayed to God to rescue him from the flood.

He heard the sound of an engine coming toward him. It was a man in a boat with an outboard motor attached. He pulled over to the edge of the roof and said, "Get aboard, man, quick!"

"No," said Buford, "I prayed to God, and He will rescue me!" The man was insistent, but once again, Buford refused.

The waters continued to rise. Now, Buford was straddling the peak of the roof, and the water was lapping at his shoes. Once again, he prayed.

He heard a loud sound coming closer, and a helicopter appeared overhead and hovered over him. A man leaned out the open door, began dropping a rope ladder, and shouted, "We're from the National Guard! Get on board!"

"Thank you," said Buford, "but I prayed to God, and God will rescue me!"

"Don't be an idiot!" shouted the national guardsmen. "Get on board! NOW!"

"No!" yelled Buford. "I have faith in God! He will rescue me!"

In exasperation, the national guardsman yelled something unintelligible, and the helicopter veered off and headed down-river.

A few minutes later, the force of the rushing water swept Buford off the roof. Not being a strong swimmer, he struggled and splashed in the waters, then sank from sight.
==========
A very soggy, muddy Buford appeared before the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter took one look at him, gazed upward, and rolled his eyes.

"I want to see God right away!" Buford demanded. "Where do I find Him?"

Saint Peter pointed down the Golden Avenue and said, "All the way to the end and through the Golden Door."

Buford strode briskly down the Golden Avenue and when he arrived at the Golden Door, he pushed his way in unceremoniously. There, down the long aisle, he saw a large, muscular man with a full white beard and a magnificent mane of white hair, dressed in something like a toga and sandals, and seated on a golden throne, listening to a chorus of beautiful angels playing celestial music on harps. As Buford walked angrily down the aisle, God looked up.

"Oh!" said God in a deep rumbling voice, "It's YOU!"

"I had FAITH in you!" yelled Buford, angrily. "I prayed to you to rescue me from the flood! And you DIDN'T!!"

"What do you mean, I didn't?" responded the deep, rumbling voice. "I sent you a warning on the radio about the flood well ahead of time. Then I sent one of your neighbors in a pickup truck. Then, the man in the motorboat. And finally, a National Guard helicopter!"

Then, as God glowered at Buford, the skies darkened, lightning flashed, and thunder rumbled in the distance. And God, Himself, thundered:

"What the hell you WANT from me!!???"

####

Moral of the story:    God gave us brains. I think He intends that we USE them.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:54 PM

I'm very well thank you pete. I see that you never took my advice to read Origin. You will find that Darwin addresses beautifully the issue of transitional forms. Wrestles with it even. I do recommend it to you, though with the caveat that it has some long words in it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:31 PM

"Clarify for me what an agnostic is."

An agnostic is a person who understands the fact that, logically speaking, one cannot 'prove a negative'. Therefore, I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. So, although it seems unlikely to me, there remains a possibility that God does exist. All I would need in order to BELIEVE is some proof.

By the way, a few stories and statements in an ancient text of dubious provenance does not constitute any sort of proof that a scientist (or, I suspect, a lawyer) would recognise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:44 PM

".."the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches...its ancesters;it appears all at once and fully formed"

Pete... that is NOT a reasonable comment. "rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" is an inconvenience, not a criticism! Did you read my comment earlier that if we DID have all those "transitional forms" there would not be enough space on Earth to study and catalogue them? Those forms are 'rare', not totally missing. The rare ones can be dated...and the dates show a gradual transition(in most species!) from one form to another. They do NOT "ave data only at the tips and nodes of their branches."...they do NOT "appear all at once and fully formed".
Once again, you choose only comments and analyses from sources you already agree with. The "punctuated branch of evolutionary thought" advanced by Gould is ONE attempt to explain what we see in the fossil record and relate it to the geologic record. Many changes in the Earth required adaptation...or rather, allowed 'lucky' organisms to survive & adapt because they already HAD some features that fit the new situation. Big changes in geology didn't happen very often...crocodiles, which live & breed in water, can remain nearly the same for millions of years. 'Jerks' happen to animals which get shocked by continents shifting, weather changes, meteors landing,...etc. But even 'jerks' as they are called are not overnight changes....they may take thousands of years themselves to play out....and sometimes entire lines of beings disappear when they weren't adapted. Read more about the Burgess shale I mentioned.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:58 PM

"proof"is i think somewhat elusive to define inasmuch as what would contain the acceptable constituents.however many looking at the evidence have arrived at faith including at least one lawyer examining the accounts of the ressurection-frank morrison-who moved the stone?
and quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator.
so i suspect that the definition of an agnostic is;- one that demands proof and rejects or ignores or mocks the evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM

So then, pete, to sum up, you don't have any evidence for the existence of God. Although some lawyer who moved a stone might have ... possibly?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:27 PM

CLICKY.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 08:50 PM

Thanks for the clicky, Don... but I'm afraid the humor of it is only evident to folk like me.


Pete: "-frank morrison-who moved the stone?" is a PRIME example of a classic logical error in which the needed conclusion is contained within the premises. I read about Morrison's theory here.

In it, they conclude that under the circumstances, no one man or reasonable collection OF men could have moved a multi-ton stone from Jesus' tomb. But...in order to make that relevant they had to **assume** that the accounts of the burial, guards, seal...etc. were factual to begin with! We have no evidence of all that except written references, and no clear idea of how such a stone could be constructed and put in place in the first place, if it was so hard to move. We are told that "Joseph moved the stone into place by holding it in place by a wedge, and set in a groove that sloped down. Once the wedge was removed, the circular rock rolled into place." No one explains how Joseph GOT such a stone, or how he got it into place in order to use a wedge.

You see? Everything depends on 'trusting' interpretations of translations of stories...then taking all those assumptions and concluding that some 'higher power' must have intervened. You don't (well, *I* don't) take as evidence something which has not been established to 'sort of' argue for something which could also be explained in other ways. (If it took 40 men to move a huge stone, then maybe someone HAD 40 men, if in fact any such stone was in any such place in any such circumstances to begin with.)

You simply do not make convincing arguments for something if the conclusions and the assumption all depend on each other... that is called variously, circular reasoning and begging the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(In case you refuse to look there, here are examples

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
-------------------------------------------------------------
If I told you a certain bridge was built and guarded by elves, you might well ask me "Where are they?"
"Oh, they are invisible when people are watching"
"How do you know they are there, then?"
"Because all bridges of that type are built by elves!"
How do you know THAT?"
"Because I read a book by an expert on elves!"
...
You would not be likely to accept my... ummm... reasoned explanation.



What may be harder to understand is why I bother doing all this typing... and possibly, why God lets me get away with it...
Well, even though I really have little hope of making the point to pete and Iona, I just like to clarify certain argument forms for possible folks who read all this at some time in the future...keeps my brain exercised.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 03:34 AM

Pete from somewherein the stars differentiates between those he sees ad disrespectable and those who aren't. We are all still non believers mate, and we obviously will burn in your Hell. Now, doesnt that make you feel better?

I'm not sure Iona is worth arguing with, as actually reading the diatribe and illogical waffle, it seems irrational and it is not fun, maybe even cruel to bait people with problems that I suspect none of us are qualified to deal with.

You know, relative to this kick about fun, it is fairly recently that it hit me what "contemplate the navel" is referring to.

The bible by the way, is referred to a lot here. Which one? What was originally written and at what time was the collection of writings over a few centuries compiled and "God" told us to read it? And in which language?

Piffle and waffle. What is worse s the time and effort by supposedly educated people in twisting it in all directions to suit their version of oppression.

It has many verses that many take comfort from, and that is the issue. Society will never shed the repressive claptrap of religion whilst decent people need it as a crutch.

So we're all buggered, even the non Catholic ex alter boys.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 03:57 AM

Bill...i notice you have not addressed my last post regarding the similarity between my belief in telepathy and others belief in "god".

Mental telepathy seems impossible, yet I "know" that it happened; I suppose for some, an experience of "god"turns them into lifelong believers; and who are we who have never had such an experience, to tell them that they are wrong.

Because of my telepathic experiences, I think it is important that others take the phenomenon seriously.....most people do not.
I suppose committed spiritual people(god botherers in Mudcat) feel the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 04:11 AM

Re-reading your previous rant, pete, I couldn't help being amused by the following quote:

"so i suspect that the definition of an agnostic is;- one that demands proof and rejects or ignores or mocks the evidence."

Substitute 'agnostic' for 'creationist' and we might be a bit closer to the truth!

An agnostic, by the way, is a sceptic. All scientists are (or should be) sceptics - good quality, preferably repeatable, evidence is everything. The Bible just does not provide, anywhere near, a good enough standard of evidence in support of a creationist model of the world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 05:28 AM

What am I lying about? Because I won't believe the theory of Evolution?
I'd like to hear somebody give me one--only one evidence for evolution.

I'm eager to hear your replies. *smile*


Pretending to be interested in evidence when you're not is lying. You'll go to hell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:46 AM

Ake ~ Telepathy seems to me a different discourse entirely. I have some experience myself which makes me believe that a certain transference of thought from one person to another may occur in certain individuals so sensitised; which I am perfectly content to call 'telepathy' The fact that science has not yet explained the phenomenon doesn't mean it is permanently inexplicable.

But the existence of this putative identifiable 'creator-God' entity, his role in our existence so positively asserted, and his constant presence monitoring how the 'humanity' he has 'created' is progressing, as urged upon us by the various 'faiths' & their adherents, seems to me a form of idiocy; not of an as-yet unidentified but postulable phenomenon, like telepathy.


I can't make out where you perceive any similarity between two such theoretical entities as lying.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 09:25 AM

No-one can say that telepathy or God don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof. The people responsible for providing that proof are those advancing the hypotheses. Provide that proof, in sufficiently rigorous and convincing form, and I (and hopefully the scientific world) may start to take those hypotheses seriously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 09:51 AM

No-one can say that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof.

No-one can say that x or y don't exist.

They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof.


**********

Insert what you will as unknowns


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 11:20 AM

Ake... I do see certain 'logical' similarities in both types of belief, but as MtheGM notes, there are also differences.

Similar: Acceptance of an idea or system whose data is NOT experienced or agreed to by others. Science and universal acceptance require more than anecdotes..even many anecdotes.
Note that many people have 'reported' that they saw angels, the Virgin Mary, or talked to God. Why wouldn't those anecdotes be as reliable as your report of telepathy?

why? because:

Different: In that we know we can detect the electrical activity in brains, and must take seriously (enough to test) the possibility that other brains 'might' be able to 'feel' these.(which is still FAR from clearly identifying the source and making predictions based on the experience... and doing it on demand and with regularity)

So.. brain activity IS something measurable, metaphysical experience leading to a religious conviction about the origin of **everything**, implying a 'god',is not measurable...in any way we know.

The real similarity lies in the personal predilection toward 'belief' in ideas and theories which are not (easily) testable. People 'believe' in astrology, alien abductions, past lives, reincarnation, palmistry, psychic surgery, 'luck' involving rabbits feet, possession by evil 'spirits' ....and even Santa Claus . I'm never sure why, but it IS true that beliefs are an easy, shortcut way to explain things that puzzle them, or to comfort them when they contemplate the mysteries of life & death.
It is easy to understand why humans would develop such beliefs, and not TOO hard to see why they (some) would hold to various theories when no one can totally DISprove them....but the principles of logic, scientific method and basic common sense are still there, whether ignored or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 11:34 AM

Exactly, Mr Happy - and do you have a problem with that? What, exactly, is your point?

If someone told me that the Tooth Fairy exists I would nod and smile politely and await proof.

If someone told me that the Tooth Fairy exists and that I should:

- accept the existence of said TF without proof.

- chastise myself and feel shame for demanding such proof.

- automatically respect the believer.

- afford the believer, and his/her fellow believers, a special, unassailable place in society.

- live my life and change my behaviour in accordance with the putative commandments of the TF.

I would tell that TF believer to f**k off!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 12:49 PM

Punctuated Evolution is a theory which is about the timing and speed of evolution under particular circumstances. It is not in the vaguest way a refutation of standard evolutionary science.

To see how it came that Darwin and scientists for some time after stressed slow drift rather than sudden change, you have to read up on the history of the development of evolution before (Charles) Darwin. Read about "catastrophism". Darwin stressed a slow uniform process because he wanted to show that evolution can occur without periodic catastrophes completely renewing the world. And it is as certain as any other scientific principle (like the law of conservation of matter) that his model is true. It is also true that there HAVE been major extinctions in the past, and it's fairly intuitive that when ecosystems are not full, there is likely to be rapid change as species diversify to take advantage of the opportunities*.

Similarly, the tendency of species established in ecological slots is to reject change - there is merely the pressure of the constant arms race between predator and prey, so changes tend to be refinements rather than redesigns.

By the way, scientists DO recognise that organisms are designed- but they are designed by the other organisms with which they interact, and with the physical environment, rather than by an external party.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 01:18 PM

""I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.""

If you truly believe that the old testament is a truthful and accurate collection of facts, then you have obviously never heard of, let alone played, the childhood game of Chinese whispers. It is not known at what point it became a written, as opposed to verbally transmitted, entity and there is no reason to suppose that there were no alterations due to the personal bias, prejudice, or intentions of the many scribes who must in 6000 years have been involved in its transmission.

As to the New Testament, being based on the gospels which were written a hundred years or more after the death of Jesus, and exposed once more (as was the Old Testament too) to the machinations of generations of MEN with widely divergent ideals and interpretations of meaning.

To regard it as the definitive word of "GOD" is at the very least naive, and at worst self deluding dishonesty.

Assuming that there were a God, omnipresent and omnipotent, he would surely find a better broadcasting medium than several thousand years of mere men with a generous helping of bigotted control freaks, zealots, and genocidal murderers, wouldn't you think?

I believe in a deity, and I believe that he found a much better and more direct method, which is IMO why Atheists and Agnostics, Muslims and Christians, can all exhibit the highest moral and ethical compass without needing to subscribe to the bible, the Torah, or the Koran.

Don T.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM

I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses...

And there you have it - a completely delusional individual and "true believer" with no knowledge whatsoever about how the book known as "The Bible" came to be. No point in proceeding further.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 02:53 PM

""'luck' involving rabbits feet,""

Now that is one into which I always enjoyed sticking a pin, just for the sheer joy of watching it deflate.

My response: "Why do you believe that having a rabbit's foot will bring good fortune? The poor bloody rabbit had four of 'em, and look what they did for him".

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 04:19 PM

very fairminded of you to provide the christian link bill;even though you dismiss their conclusions.
my point however was to counter shimrods assertion that lawyers and scientists would not accept bible as evidence.the link in fact cited four [i think]legals previously unbelievers' examining the text and ending up believers.presumably with their training they would have considered the objection you present also.thanks pete


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM

For Pete, or Iona: I asked these in a discussion awhile back, but got no reply:

If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM

" ... my point however was to counter shimrods assertion that lawyers and scientists would not accept bible as evidence.the link in fact cited four [i think]legals previously unbelievers' examining the text and ending up believers.presumably with their training they would have considered the objection ..."

I sincerely hope that I never get any of those "legals" on my case!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM

pete... you can get a FEW of any profession to agree with something that 98% disagree with.

Reminds me of a saying..."The exception proves the rule, consequently, the more exceptions, the better the rule."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:45 PM

An agnostic is a person who understands the fact that, logically speaking, one cannot 'prove a negative'. Therefore, I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. So, although it seems unlikely to me, there remains a possibility that God does exist. All I would need in order to BELIEVE is some proof.

Tsk. By that measure there would be no atheists. The person who can prove that God does not exist has not yet been born. But that is not the point. The point is that religion has deliberately put "God" into a place where his non-existence can never be proven. I can come up with all sorts of imaginative notions that you could never ever disprove. Seven-legged green men inhabit the rings of a Saturn-like planet somewhere in Canis Major. You, er, know that this is really not the case, but you can't prove it isn't, But that shouldn't stop you from taking a bold position about it (if you can be arsed, of course). If you say you're agnostic about it, you're playing their game, falling into a cowardly trap. You give them the initiative in being able to say that you've admitted you can't prove it's not true, when, in fact, you ought to be saying don't be so bloody ridiculous and stop wasting my time! The chances of its being true are vanishingly small, well below the credibility level of even the most credulous. If you think that about the probable non-existence of God, you're a good atheist. If you claim to be "agnostic," either you can't be arsed even to engage with the issue (an honourable and sensible position), or else you simply lack courage and are soliciting death-bed insurance!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM

Damn. I missed out a phrase from the end of a sentence, which should have read: "...of even the most credulous seeker of evidence."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 06:54 PM

Pete: and quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator.

Yep. And quite a few architects design absolutely shite buildings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:07 PM

No-one can say that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof.

No-one can say that x or y don't exist.

They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof.


They are not hypotheses. It's very tempting to characterise vague or fanciful notions as hypotheses, but if the term hypothesis is to mean anything at all then it must meet certain criteria. A hypothesis is a proposition which attempts to explain an observed phenomenon, and it must be able to submit to scientific testing. Generally, we are talking about issues that have been observed but which cannot yet be satisfactorily explained by current theories without further investigation. Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are fabrications (don't tell my kids, even though they're both over 30) which are not based on actual bona fide observations. As a confounded atheist, I'd put the existence of God in the same category.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:24 PM

Sorry for the cut'n'paste, but it says it better than anything I could write:

Colloquial Use

To use math expressions, the general use of these words goes in order of importance as: Fact > Law > Theory > Hypothesis.

"Fact" in Everyday Language: A "fact" is something that is true. Whether you like it or not, "facts are stubborn things" (thank you, John Adams … or, "facts are stupid things" courtesy of Ronald Reagan). In general use, a "fact" is the strongest thing that can be said about, well, anything.

"Law" in Everyday Language: In everyday language, a "law" is generally on the same level as a fact. A law is something that is true, that generally explains or answers lots of different things. However, outside of politics, "law" is rarely used unless actually referring to something scientific.

"Theory" in Everyday Language: This is where the supposed insult to scientists comes in when you call something "just a theory." Outside of scientific circles, a "theory" is more of a supposition. "I have a theory that my cat will meow when it hears someone at the door." It may or may not be "true," but it's a supposition I have that is probably supported by at least some sort of observation. But it's really "just a theory" and is just as likely to be shown wrong at any given time as it is to be shown right.

"Hypothesis" in Everyday Language: A "hypothesis" is sort of on the same level as a "theory," if slightly below. To most people, they can be used interchangeably, though most will just resort to "theory" because "hypothesis" is an extra syllable longer and makes you sound like a nerd.
Scientific Use

In science, the order of importance of these is almost reversed: Theory > Law > Hypothesis > Facts. In addition, each term has a specific, well-defined use.

"Fact" in Science: It may surprise you to know that a "fact" is generally used the same way – it is an observation – but it is very specific. For example, if I drop a ball while holding it in the air above a surface, it is a fact that it will fall to the surface. This term is usually not used, however — we resort to "observations." For example, I observe that when the wind blows, a flag will flutter.

"Hypothesis" in Science: This is an "idea" that is formulated to explain observations (or our "facts"). In the above to examples, I might hypothesize that there is a force that pulls on the ball, counteracted when I'm holding it. Or that the wind exerts a force on the flag that causes it to flutter. The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains "just a hypothesis." At present, String "Theory" is really just a hypothesis.

"Law" in Science: Laws are a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. For example, Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are (1) Planets travel in ellipses with one focus being the Sun, (2) planets sweep out equal area in equal time, and (3) a planet's period-squared is proportional to its semi-major-axis-cubed. Laws are generally made from many facts/observations and are effectively an "elevated" level from a hypothesis. Another example are the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because a Law is just a description of how something behaves and it does not explain why it behaves that way, it is usually considered to be below the level of a theory.

"Theory" in Science: A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a "theory" has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution.

I should note that theories are usually conglomerations of several different hypotheses, laws, facts, inferences, and observations. For example, while the Theory of Evolution is a theory, various mechanisms for it are generally still hypotheses, such as Natural Selection (though some may quibble with me over that).

Another good example of a Theory is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. This describes how fundamental particles and forces interact. It is based upon countless experiments and observations and it rests on solid mathematical framework. It has many different laws in its make-up (such as how particles behave, or how forces interact) as well as many observations (such as the mass of the proton, or the energy of a tau neutrino).

A third example was partially mentioned above – Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Tycho Brahe and Johannas Kepler made many detailed observations of planetary positions over the course of many years. Kepler formed a hypothesis about how planets moved based upon the data. From the hypothesis, he made predictions on where planets would be later on. When these were confirmed, his hypotheses were elevated to laws. Later, Isaac Newton came along and with his Theory of Gravity was able to provide a physics-based framework for why and how those laws worked.

Finally, it should also be noted that nothing in science is "forever." It is always subject to further tests and observations. In many cases, people really do try to do this since that's how you make a name for yourself. If you're the scientist who has verified for the 123,194th time that a ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum, so what? But, if you're the scientist that has found evidence that gravity itself is not a force emitted by an object but rather a bending of the fabric of space itself, then, well, you'd be Einstein – a household name.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:34 PM

Excuse me if I've got it wrong, Paul, but I think you just posted precisely the same explanation of hypotheses as I did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 03:58 AM

Mthe GM and Bill...thank you for your responses.

It seems to mee that most people look on the power of mental telepathy in much the same way as you view belief in god.

However it has been proved to me that telepathy does exist and I am a committed believer,though we are far from any scientific proof on the subject; just as many with religious faith have had the existance of "god" revealed to them personally.

I also think that the whole issue is being over-simplified in the thread....there are many definitions of "god" and the whole subject is enveloped in metaphor.....even creationism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:07 AM

It seems to mee that most people look on the power of mental telepathy in much the same way as you view belief in god.····

.,,.
Even if so Ake [& I should be interested in your statistical basis for this assertion], I can't see that this would make them in any way equivalent concepts - either in general, or specifically in relation to the viability of scientific evidence.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:14 AM

akenaton,

'However it has been proved to me that telepathy does exist..'

Could you explain more, please?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:30 AM

Well, Steve you make a good case for being an atheist rather than an agnostic and, if I'm honest, I tend to be near the atheist end of the spectrum myself. But, based on the description of a hypothesis posted/pasted above:

"[A hypothesis] is an "idea" that is formulated to explain observations ... The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains "just a hypothesis.""

It seems to me that creationists hypothesize that God created all living things, which are unchangeable, and that He created them in a very short time out of nothing. This hypothesis is, of course, unlikely to be testable and creationists dishonestly get round this little problem by claiming that God is omnipotent and His mind is unknowable. Nevertheless, they are the ones who are advancing such an absurd hypothesis and the onus is on them to produce the supporting data; in this sense I am agnostic. I wouldn't normally bother with such foolisness as creationism - but, unfortunately, such idiots wield considerable power in 'The Land of the Free etc.' and they must be opposed.

Scientists, on the other hand, have produced (and are still producing) abundant data in support of the Theory of Evolution (no longer a hypothesis). But the best of those scientists are open-minded and non-dogmatic (Science wouldn't advance if they weren't) and agnosticism seems to me to be a more open-minded stance than atheism - and hence more scientific. I can categorically claim that I don't see my agnosticism in terms of 'hedging my bets'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

"I'm simply stating that we see no animals, in the fossil record or without, that support the claim that one creature can turn into another. It's perfectly rational to say that one variation of the bear species can turn into another variation of the bear species. But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought. "

As Bill D has already pointed out, you're either wilfully misunderstanding what evolution is or you're having a pop. Either way, this isn't a debate if you can't recognise the difference between evolution and magic and insist on using the two concepts interchangeably.

As for punctuated equilibrium verses gradualism, I suspect both of these act as agents in speciation and the degree of influence of each on the evolutionary is a product of a number of variables, for instance environment, genetic isolation etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:30 AM

It seems to me that creationists hypothesize that God created all living things, which are unchangeable, and that He created them in a very short time out of nothing.

This fails the hypothesis test on two counts: it is not based on an observed phenomenon (no matter how much its proponents may protest that it is - it's no more than a huge non-sequitur), and it can't submit to scientific testing. State the position as the null hypothesis (equally bogus), and the thing still can't get off the ground: "Observations of life on earth, in all its diversity and beauty, as well as consideration of the universe as a whole, cannot be explained by the existence of a non-observable super-being who trumps all the known laws of that life and of that universe." Why, that looks so rational, but it too can't be explored by science. I'm sticking with "fanciful notion."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM

"But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats)."

To even USE that as a dis-proof of evolution is to misunderstand the very concept. Of course bears don't "turn into" totally different species. Bears came from a 'line' of creatures which have followed a totally different evolutionary path for multi-millions of years. Now, IF you go back several HUNDRED million years to single celled entities, then it is true that there are common ancestors.....but the splits occurred so long ago that we can't directly trace them. Whatever bears are, they have such distinctive DNA that they will always just be 'slightly different' bears!


I'm not saying that we ought to be able to watch a bear turn into a seal/cat/etc. I'm just saying that we see tons of adaptions and no evidence that a bear has come from a different creature . I can go to any museum and see tons of variations of species, but no transitional forms in fossils--just drawings and speculations. How do you know that evolution happened? What is your evidence that over millions of years a single cell organism became all the life we see today? If evolution were true, we ought to see in the fossil record simple organism and then as we work up, more and more complex creatures. But we don't. We only see fully formed creatures in fossil layers, and even then they are out of the supposed 'order' that they ought to be if evolution were true.

but the point is, it (your religious stand) does not NEED to be 'defended'. You can believe in the Bible and no one can 'prove' that it is not "the word of God"...but we **CAN** prove certain things about ourselves and our history that the Bible simply does not and can not deal with! We are what we are...and we evolved how we evolved, and IF you don't see all that described in the Bible, is is because those humans who wrote, translated, edited and **interpreted** the Bible had no access to the data that we have today.

You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect, the human mind. What do you mean "The Bible simply does not and can not deal with proving things about ourselves"......what do you want proven/dealt with? The Bible applies to every area of life, even if it doesn't mention it directly. Give me a situation, and the Bible has an answer for you. No, speeding tickets are not mentioned in the Bible. But there are doctrines in God's Word that can be applied to speeding--or anything else.
Everything has a cause. You can trace anything back to a cause, but where did the causes start? Are causes eternal? What set them in motion? What is the original cause? The very scientific method is based upon the law of causality; that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. We are inevitably led to the question "What is the cause of causes?" What started the causal universe? was it an infinite chain of primary causes? or was it an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything)?

When you...or anyone else... demands that evolution would require "bears turning into...etc." before our eyes, that is simply, as someone mentioned before, a "straw man"... which means an obviously incorrect premise which was not claimed.

I was using bears as an illustration. I wasn't saying that we ought to see a bear turning into a salamander (or whatever) in a lifetime. I was saying that if evolution is true, bears ought to be able to change into a different creature other than a bear. Evolution teaches that, given enough time and mistakes, a creature can turn from a monkey-like creature to a human. We don't have proof for this, we don't have fossil records, we don't have evidence--just speculation.

Inventing terms like micro-evolution ...just to have a word that 'sounds' like a distinction does not change anything.
I didn't invent the term, it's in the dictionary. It's also on Wikkipedia: Microevolution and Macroevolution. Adaption vs. the ability of a creature to turn from one species into another.

Now... if you care to see & explore some amazing data and genuine, real, touchable evidence of evolutionary paths that didn't survive....Google "Burgess shale". and...ummm...be VERY glad we are not related to the organisms in THAT sample of this Earths history
I'm familiar with the Burgess shale. It is an amazing collection of marine invertebrates fossilized in a layer of shale, discovered in Canada in 1940. There is a huge diversity of creatures there, even ones previously undiscovered, but nothing simple or primitive that would indicate them being an ancestor to any other creature--instead we see an amazing variety of sea creatures, intricately designed and unique. Simply because some of them are extinct is not evidence for evolution, it's just what happens- it happened to the dinosaurs, it happens to other creatures like the mammoth, the american lion, etc. etc.


There are SO many versions of the Bible, and many 'books' that were left out, that even 'reputable' scholars lament.
Add to that the translation problems and the many THOUSANDS of different interpretations and "reliable collection of historical documents." becomes quite an issue.


"So many versions of the Bible" But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is!

also..." But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought."

One more time: That is NOT what evolution does...or would.. claim! If you continue to assert something that is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution, you will simply be like a mother stating "I KNOW MY son would never do something so terrible, no matter how much evidence you have!"


Please show me, what *do* you say? That a bear is the pinnacle of evolution, and even though it is a descendant of a different species (as obviously bears haven't been around since the big bang), it can't evolve into something new? Show me the 'transitional forms' in the fossil record that prove that the bear has evolved. The platypus too, while you're at it. *good natured grin*

Believe in a god... and draw comfort & inspiration from the wisdom and parables and content of your Bible... but IF you believe God created everything out of nothing, you are not so far from what cosmologists assert today. You are simply naming that first big 'creation' differently...which is fine. What happened AFTER that we can study, and as I said... it is what it is.

I don't believe in any 'god', I believe in the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself. I believe that the world was created, in six literal days. There is evidence for that. Evolutionists believe in eternal matter, while I believe in an eternal Creator. Evolutionists believe that nothing created everything. Christians believe that God created everything. I quite agree with you "What happened AFTER [the world came into existence] we can study, and.......it is what it is. And it's my contention that the evidence fits much better with the Creation/Flood model, not the evolutionary model.
And if we are both on the same page and just name our 'first big creation' differently, then why do you even bother to debate me on this? It's just 'different strokes for different folks', right? Ah, no. There are complications to both of our worldviews. And that's why you--and I-- find it worthwhile to discuss this!
Remember, there is only one truth. The blind men may feel different parts of the elephant and call it what they will.......but it's still an elephant.

The Bible just does not provide, anywhere near, a good enough standard of evidence in support of a creationist model of the world.

The fossil evidence all points to a catastrophic water burial. Fossilization does not take millions of years. In Texas we've found fossilized fence posts, and a man who was murdered (in the 1950s or 60's) and buried was found later, with his leg petrified inside his leather cowboy boot, proving that it does not take millions of years to fossilize an item, it just takes the right conditions.
This fits perfectly with the Biblical account of Genesis, that all the animals except two/seven of each kind (meaning two of the dog kind, not two of every dog variety, two of every cat kind, etc), drowned in a catastrophic flood, which would have produced conditions perfect for fossilization. If the Genesis account is true, we would have to find millions of fossils showing evidence of a water burial. We should find millions of clams and other sea creatures buried alongside of flying animals and dinosaurs.
What do you know? This is exactly what we find.
Evolutionists attribute all this water-evidence to slow and calm seas over millions of years, or small floods, or rivers. But if this were the case, the fossils ought to show evidence of exposure to the elements. We ought to be able to see wear and tear on them, of wind and rain and millions of years of gradual fossilization. But we don't. The evidence points to a quick and catastrophic burial--every time.

Pretending to be interested in evidence when you're not is lying. You'll go to @#!*% .

I am interested in hearing what the evolutionists call evidence for their belief. So far all I've seen is a lot of adaption, served up with a generous helping of insults insinuating that I'm an idiot who can't seem to open her eyes and see the facts. When I look around the world, all I see is a ton of evidence for a worldwide flood and a creator who designed every creature intricate from the start. I don't see any evidence of millions of years or random acts of chance that created everything. Plus, I just don't have enough faith to believe that!


By the way, scientists DO recognise that organisms are designed- but they are designed by the other organisms with which they interact, and with the physical environment, rather than by an external party.

And what was the original 'designer' of these organisms? Here again is the causal argument. Are causes eternal? Or was there an original uncaused Cause? The "Physical environment" didn't just *bang* come to be out of nothing--did it? Is "Nothing" the cause of everything?

If you truly believe that the old testament is a truthful and accurate collection of facts, then you have obviously never heard of, let alone played, the childhood game of Chinese whispers. It is not known at what point it became a written, as opposed to verbally transmitted, entity and there is no reason to suppose that there were no alterations due to the personal bias, prejudice, or intentions of the many scribes who must in 6000 years have been involved in its transmission.

We call it 'Providential Preservation". While we do not have the original penned-by-Paul (or whoever the author of a book may be) documents, we do have accurate copies of them. God gave man His words to write down, and He has also seen to it that His word is preserved in its perfection. Now, translations of those original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are (as I've said before) only the word of God insofar as they are literal to the original languages. Of course to an atheist, this is no argument at all because God 'doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that it's false, it just means that they don't have the foundation that a Christian does.

As to the New Testament, being based on the gospels which were written a hundred years or more after the death of Jesus, and exposed once more (as was the Old Testament too) to the machinations of generations of MEN with widely divergent ideals and interpretations of meaning.

To regard it as the definitive word of "GOD" is at the very least naive, and at worst self deluding dishonesty.


It's a funny thing. The manuscripts that we have access to today of the New Testaments can take us back to A.D. 120 or 150--and people say that 'to be sure they are corrupt out of men's different opinions (surely they can't be word-perfect copies!). After all, that's an awful long time after the originals.'
Really?
How about Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars (Commentarii de Bello Gallico)"? The manuscripts we have are 900 years after the original. People don't seem to be up in arms about that!
Aristotle's "Poetics", the oldest age of the manuscripts that we can put our hands on is about 13 or 14 hundred years.
Homer? the oldest one we have is about 21 hundred years.
The New Testament? a hundred and twenty to a hundred and fifty Within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
'but of course we can't trust them, because they report supernatural events. We all know that the supernatural is impossible'
Well, they *are* called 'supernatural'. Beyond what you normally see in the orderly world. Miracles aren't contrary to nature, they're just contrary to what we know about nature. God made the rules, He can breach the laws of nature whenever He pleases to--if you call it a breaching of laws. really, it's just a breach of what we see as laws of nature. An athiest of course isn't going to accept that argument, because it can only be understood if one has a Christian worldview.

When Jesus was crucified, He quoted Psalm 22. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?"
Psalm 22 is a perfect description of the crucifixion of Christ. The odd thing?
Crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet when David wrote the Psalms. I know that because the Romans invented crucifixion a thousand years later. So here's David, writing a description of a death that he never witnessed in his life, but that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That's just one of many prophesies that were fulfilled in Holy Scriptures.
Assuming that there were a God, omnipresent and omnipotent, he would surely find a better broadcasting medium than several thousand years of mere men with a generous helping of bigotted control freaks, zealots, and genocidal murderers, wouldn't you think?
"you can't trust the Bible because it was written by men!"
God used men to write the Bible. Isn't that amazing? That He would transform perfectly wicked murderers like Moses, Paul and King David into regenerate followers of Christ, that's astounding, and it proves that if we repent, even the most wicked of us can be saved from our just punishment because of what Christ did.
But if you say that we can't believe the Bible because it was written by men, you'd better burn all the books that you own. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that they were written by men too. The difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and the Bible is that the Bible, while it was put pen-to-paper by men, it was inspired by God--He put the words in the men's mouths, the very words that they were to write down. And the fact that God used sinful men to execute His purpose is just a case in point--That God saves, even the most heathen of sinners. It's not an argument against the Scriptures, it's an argument for it.

I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses...

And there you have it - a completely delusional individual and "true believer" with no knowledge whatsoever about how the book known as "The Bible" came to be.


You want scientific evidence for the Bible? okay. But of course you know about the scientific method. In order for something to be proven scientifically, something has to be observable, repeatable, and measurable. Unfortunately, historical events can't be observed, measured or repeated in a lab. You can't use the scientific method to prove that George Washington was our first President. If you have a problem that we can't prove the Bible by the scientific method, then you have a problem with history.
If something is written, the only way you can question it is if you don't have corroboration or there's internal inconsistency. We can't find any internal inconsistency, and we've got multiple corroboration. We have three languages, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we have three continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. We have over fourty authors, most of whom never met one another, because they wrote over the period of some sixteen hundred years. According to your dictionary, that would be the very defintion of corroboration. So unless you have anything that would negate what we find in the bible, you have to accept the fact, based on the evidentiary method and not the scientific method that he Bible is a reliable collecion of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.,,,,,


If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?
I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations.

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?

See my response above.


quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator.

Yep. And quite a few architects design absolutely @#!*% buildings
.

I think you are quite mistaken, unless you call some of the world's greatest scientists bungleheads. For instance, Johann Kepler (scientist in the fields of Physical Astronomy and Celestrial Mechanics) said:"...and thou my soul, praise the Lord thy Creator, as long as I shall be: for out of Him and through Him and in Him are all things….To Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen."—J. Kepler, Harmonies of the World, 137

Isaac Newton was a strong Christian and a great scientist (known best as the man who discovered gravity, he worked with calculus and dynamics):
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."—I. Newton

Robert Boyle (Chemistry and gas dynamics),: "The last service that, I hope…is to induce men to pay their admiration, their praises, and their thanks, directly to God himself; who is the true and only creator of the sun, moon, earth, and those other creatures, that men call the works of nature."—R. Boyle, 1725

"When man thus perceives, that in respect to all these vital operations he is more helpless than the infant, and that his boasted reason can neither give them order nor protection, is not his insensibility to the Giver of these secret endowments worse than ingratitude?"—C. Bell, 1852 (Bell worked with Surgery and Anatomy)

"In no part of creation are the POWER, WISDOM, and GOODNESS of its beneficent and almighty Author more signally conspicuous than in the various animals that inhabit and enliven our globe."—W. Kirby, 1835 (worked with Entomology)

"The consciousness of the presence of God is the only guarantee of true self-knowledge. Everything else is mere fiction, fancy portraiture—done to please one's friends or self, or to exhibit one's moral discrimination at the expense of character."—J. C. Maxwell, 1858 (Electrodynamics and statistical thermodynamics)

"I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the Infinite in the world; through it the supernatural is at the bottom of every heart."—Louis Pasteur (Microbiology, Bacteriology, Biogenesis Law, Pasteurization, Vaccination And Immunization)

"If I know the answer, you can have it for the price of a postage stamp. The Lord charges nothing for knowledge, and I will charge you the same."—G. W. Carver (Modern Agriculture)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM

You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn.

Give it up, folks - you're dealing with a nutter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:14 PM

"Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect" ···
.,,.,.,.

and a plague rat; a vampire bat; a malarial mosquito; a rabid dog; a dear old friend with Alzheimers or dementia...

Thanks, Iona ~~ you can stuff your Creator where he won't see too much of his 'Creation'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM

Please show me, what *do* you say? That a bear is the pinnacle of evolution, and even though it is a descendant of a different species (as obviously bears haven't been around since the big bang), it can't evolve into something new?
It is hardly worth the effort, but that is precisely the opposite of what evolutionists believe. Bears, along with every other species with genetic diversity, is currently in the process of evolving into other species that fit their environment even better. You want to see transitional forms?   They are all around you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:28 PM

Well, at least I got an answer: I find it absolutely mind-boggling, but it's an answer.

"If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?
I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations.

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?

See my response above."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM

Refusal to look at evidence in now way disproves the existence of that evidence, nor does it justify asserting the evidence does not exist.

When you see "no evidnece" it is because you are staring into your own denial.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM

To the Creationist, every transitional fossil discovered creates two new missing links. Can't win - ain't worth it. Iona's ignorance is impregnable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:23 PM

I've had this same argument with self-appointed missionaries far too many times to waste much time with it now.

A pastor friend of mine once commented, "Some hard-charging evangelists have their minds so set on getting themselves, and everybody they can harass into Heaven that they, themselves, are no earthly good for anything."

This particular pastor's method of evangelizing was to keep his mouth shut (except for sermons in his own church) and show by example.

Iona, Pete, look up Matthew, 25:35-40.

Read it carefully.

Study it.

Then, go live it.

And stop pestering people until you learn to live as Jesus says you should live (see above Scripture).

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:10 PM

For example, here is the complete transition from a dog-like (actually more pig-like) ancestor to modern cetaceans in 11 small steps. Iona will surely point out that his means there are 10 missing links.

http://evolutionfun.com/images/whales/caldogram.gif

click


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:14 PM

iona-great to have someone more accomplished and prolific than myself on the same side ;-ie that of Christ;creator and saviour.seems that little of substance is offered in answer yet.
i suppose there might be some fossils that might be claimed as transitional[and some were once but since shelved]but if darwin was right we surely ought to have plenty.as i quoted on 28th s j gould acknowledged the scacity of transistional forms.nothing like a hostile witness to truth!
citing the terrible things that happen in nature is an argument;albeit mostly of an emotional nature.it is i think most effective against theistic evolutionists since they dont believe the bibles account of the fall.

on a minor note iona;i think i read or heard somewhere that the romans "perfected" crucifixion from existing persian practise rather than completely inventing it-just to clarify.
but a great post which i enjoyed reading. pete


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM

Pete,
Which of the fossils in my link above are not transitional?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:42 PM

Well, since its been raised again I went to the the trouble of discovering whether psalm 22 is a perfect description of a crucifixion of anybody years before crucifixion had been invented: the answer is no, in my view. There is nothing at all to suggest crucifixion - just a much more general torture that applies to crucifixion plus dozens of other imaginative schemes to inflict pain on some victim. There is only phrase that suggests crucifixion, namely the reference to pierced hands and feet. But the (Christian) sites I have visited say that the literal translation seems to be 'lion' rather than 'pierced' but since the literal translation doesn't make sense 'pierced' has been used as a sort of approximation. Hardly the sign of someone who insists on the literal translation of the original, I would say, and not a good demonstration that the original psalm referenced crucifixion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 06:04 PM

well tia-certainly an impressive link of line drawings but just entering 3 of the names in creation search engine revealed that one with supposed legs was finns and a few bits of bone somehow gives the evolutionist a clear outline of the animal!

dmcg-i think you have a point though there are a number of prophecies that could be cited but i aticipate ionas comments on it
goodight from me on this side of the pond.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 06:05 PM

Iona... I have just read your long reply, and the several replies TO you.

Because I began as a Methodist,(then to a Unitarian, then to a philosopher with 130 university hours) and know many religious people of many faiths, I have some idea of how important their faith is to them. Therefore, I do not insult you with words like 'nutter'..... but I must say that, because of the following, I feel I can no longer continue this debate with you.
   Your counters to my (and others) specific points are classic examples of fallacious reasoning and linguistic confusion. I mentioned before 'circular reasoning', and when you defend the Bible by USING your acceptance of the Bible as proof, you are committing one of the basic errors of circular reasoning. 55 years ago, I was presented with the argument:

"God is by definition the most perfect being possible.
The most perfect being must have existence as one of its attribute.
Therefore, God exists."

Your statement: " But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is!

IS a perfect example of that circular reasoning where your 'proof' is assumed by your very statement! You are defending your **belief** in the Bible by assuming that you can't be wrong...because the Bible can't be wrong.--- and round & round we go.

\ then:
"You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect, the human mind.

Oh my... I can't even begin to explain briefly WHY that does NOT necessarily 'scream' conscious "Creator"! It IS possible to accept 'what is' without assuming 'intelligent design'... I do it every day!

then...

"...but where did the causes start? Are causes eternal? What set them in motion? What is the original cause? "

I studied 'causation' and how to understand it for 12 years in various classes - and nowhere is there a requirement to assume anything in particular about an 'original cause'-- that is merely an abstract concept. We DO NOT KNOW where or how "causes start", and deciding that something must be named "God" is simply a personal opinion...or, many personal opinions, which means nothing. If 50 million people told you elves built bridges, and you never saw one, why would you accept it?

You simply continue to **mis-state** what evolution 'should' be able to show, and use your own misunderstanding to repeat other things.

I cannot discuss it all with you if you will not or cannot get my basic premises, and obviously YOU can't convince ME of anything if *I* will not accept, God, Jesus and the Bible as ultimate authorities.

It's a funny thing about humans that they are able to not only 'reason', but to reason imperfectly when it suits them... *wry smile*

(I may read here, but I will not directly reply to 'you', as I don't wish to fall into insults similar to others. You have your faith...enjoy.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 06:08 PM

Well, Iona, careful who you choose to befriend. Pete pounces in triumphant accord on snippets of your daft post but let me tell you he doesn't know what he's on about. He refuses to read Origin yet he jumps in bed with you on the "transitional forms" nonsense. To be honest, your crackpot notions simply reveal that there is insufficient between you and anyone who has even the faintest regard for science to have a constructive conversation. I once saw a drawing of a bear that was the exact intermediate between Yogi and Boo-boo, so that proves you're wrong. That's about the highest intellectual level you could manage, I suppose. Let's drop God and talk Jellystone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM

I think a few graphics will help clarify things.

The Evolution of Man:
CLICKY #1

Into civilization and modern technology:
CLICKY #2.

Evolution of physical fitness in modern America:
CLICKY #3.

The Fundamentalist, anti-evolution, young-earther's response to his or her own forebears:
CLICKY #4.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:54 PM

Don...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:01 PM

Forebears, Don? Yogi, Boo-boo... who are the other two ? The missing intermediate forms I hope...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:06 PM

Oh, yeah.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:10 PM

"Look and the birdie, kids. Smile, now!"

CLICK.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:15 PM

Creation search engine? PLEASE tell me you're fuckin' kidding. PLEASE!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:18 PM

This just in! Science has found the missing link between primitive apes and civilized mankind!


It's....ummm.... us.












(yes, very old joke)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 11:51 PM

Akenaton, the big difference between telepathy and religion is that most of the claims made by religion are obviously impossible. They break the physical laws of the universe. Telepathy, on the other hand, doesn't, at least as far as we know. It could be an as-yet unidentified ability of the human brain. I can conceive of a scientist 100 years from now proving it's existence and figuring out how it works. Unlike religion, we don't have any direct evidence that telepathy is impossible. But virgin birth? Raising the dead? Son of God? Turning water into wine? Splitting the Red Sea? Creating the earth in seven days? Creating the earth at all?? The list goes on and on.

If I had to choose, I'd take telepathy any day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM

John P,

Every one of those things are as easy to fake as telepathy. That makes them just as easy to prove.

You haven't read enough Science Fiction.

But virgin birth? (Medical trick)
Insemination with something thin enough not to break the Hymen,


Raising the dead? (Medical trick)

Doctors do that NOW, thousands of times a day.

Son of God?

Assuming there is a God, the Son ain't much of a leap.

Turning water into wine? (chemistry trick)

A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago.

Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick)

Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind.

Creating the earth in seven days?

Define day


Creating the earth at all?? The earth exists. it was created, we are just arguing about how.

The list goes on and on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM

Well, sure, you can fake anything you want, including telepathy. But we have no conclusive evidence that unfaked telepathy is impossible, unlike many religious claims.

The earth exists. it was created

We'd have to define "create", but it seems to me that it implies a conscious act. By that definition, we have no evidence that the world was created. I'll agree that the world exists.

I've probably read a few thousand science fiction books, by the way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 02:05 AM

"We'd have to define "create", but it seems to me that it implies a conscious act."

It's certainly taken that way by proponents of the blind watchmaker argument, and this linguistic problem makes self- organising systems very difficult to explain to those with a purposive cast of mind. In particular, it's very difficult to talk about how evolution happens- evolutionary strategies, ecological opportunities etc.- without using language that suggests some kind of conscious planning. I'm sure this deficit is part of the cause of confusion among those who haven't grasped how it can happen by itself.

It's a bit like those calculations of the minute odds of human life existing at all- you know the one, how many stars like the Sun, how many planets, how many habitable, etc. etc. all ending up with some fabulously small probability of humans existing at all. Ignoring the fact that it didn't have to be us, here. The calculatio of something, somewhere gives rather shorter odds.

Toss a coin 120 times, and record the results. The probability of getting that sequence is exactly one in two to the power of 120. Impossible, but you just did it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 02:56 AM

I would have to believe in The News of the World if the test was written by eye witnesses in the time of other eye witnesses. Except The News of the World is dead.

Neitze anyone?

So, Peter the starman is happy that he and Iona are on the same side in this discussion. Except everyone else is trying to appeal to whatever reason they may have or, like me, having a good laugh at them. (Wrong to mock, I know, but appeasing just encourages the buggers.)

Occams razor, itself a medieval faith tool, seems to apply here. You're outnumbered, the pair of you. In the meantime, you are doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on. Sorry that reality isn't good enough for you, but you know, one of you can be laughed at, a few of you can be tolerated but an international commune?

Bugger off, and thanks for leaving the sins alone, more fun available for the rest of us who don't have hang ups and repressed backgrounds.

There, I've got as far as pity, despite trying not to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM

Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place. Find the fossil of a horse in Cretaceous deposits; find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale, find a monkey in the Solnhofen limestone, find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs. Find the bones and silence the doubters. Find body fossils that prove you are right.

You'll be the most famous person in the history of science; you will have shown Darwin was wrong by presenting hard evidence. If you're right, these fossils should be everywhere and not too difficult to find. Think of the fame, and the glory you could reflect in, the boost it would bring in bringing the word of God to the ignorant masses. You'd have reason on your side and solid, reproducible evidence (because this must have happened lots of times, right?).

Go for it! The knowledge you need is easy to pick up, no-one lives too far from a fossil locality and it should be simple to review the biota and find the fossils that don't fit.

It's that simple. Really.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM

Iona,

How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM

"on a minor note iona;i think i read or heard somewhere ..."

pete, do you ever check your facts when you post here - or do you just rely on your imperfect memory?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:30 AM

dmcg-i think you have a point [Thank you!] though there are a number of prophecies that could be cited

Other prophecies, or whether this is a prophecy of Christ's death in general rather than by crucifixion in particular is not the point. IF ... and that should be a huge IF ... there was an accurate prediction of something specific a thousand years before it was known then there's a very limited set of logical possibilities, and both athiests and agnostics would agree. This is probably not exclusive, but the list consists of things like:

(a) it is genuinely an indicator God exists
(b) it indicates time travel in some form is possible
(c) it is a pure co-incidence, or one created by good intuition
(d) someone constructed the future event to match the prophecy
(e) someone altered the prophecy, or its interpretation, to match the event

I'm sure there are more. And the probabilities of each is rather different. But the starting point has be to test that 'IF'. And, as I say, it fails, in my view.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:07 AM

As one of the most rabid atheists hereabout ;-) I'd have to opine that telepathy is only very slightly more likely to exist than God. We would have to detect some kind of transmitter and receiver in the human brain that, as yet, we know nothing about, and some kind of energy that could travel between brains that we appear, as yet, also to know nothing about. As with God, we could never say it's impossible, but it's slightly odd that we are at precisely the same point (i.e., point zilch) in comprehending the nature of either. In the case of telepathy, working on the assumption that it isn't pure magic (in which case I give up), you'd think we'd be somewhere with it by now. We need evidence, not anecdotes alone. I am certain that I once saw ball lightning over Epping Forest. But it was in the early hours of the morning and, try as I might, I couldn't find any other witnesses. I don't see much point in sitting here asserting that I know for certain that ball lightning exists, because I simply don't have evidence, just the anecdote. I wouldn't force that on anyone, despite what I know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM

Steve,

Had you had these witnessless visions in the middle ages, you could've been a venerated saint by now!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:27 AM

Steve, I'll agree that we have no hard evidence for telepathy, but note that our understanding of the interior workings of our bodies and brains is currently at the kindergarten stage. We know there's a lot we don't know. I certainly don't believe in telepathy (in the sense that I don't believe anything that's presently unknowable), but it doesn't actually break any currently known laws of the universe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:35 AM

I am as much of an atheist as anyone on this forum; but I have more-than-anecdotal experience of my own suggesting existence of what I can only describe as a form of telepathy. Of course, if I related the experience to you, you might well dismiss it as merely 'anecdotal' because it happened to me not to you ~ like your ball-lightning but v-v. There were other witnesses, but I don't expect I could locate any of them at this time of day ~~ it was back in mid-late 50s.

But anyhow; my point in replying to Ake on this matter is that the 'telepathy' question is different in kind from the 'God' one, and more likely to be a confuser than an enlightener as part of this thread.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 11:26 AM

"Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place."

Of course, Sugarfoot, palaeontologists find such fossils all the time - but hastily re-bury them or hide them in museum cupboards. It's all part of a vast conspiracy against creationism. Oh, those wicked palaeontologists!

Still, it's amazing how few palaeotological whistleblowers there have been over the years. It's an extraordinarily well organised conspiracy. Although, of course, in reality professional scientists have very little to do as everything they really need to know is in the Bible ... errr ... does this make any sense? No, thought not!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

Steve, I'll agree that we have no hard evidence for telepathy, but note that our understanding of the interior workings of our bodies and brains is currently at the kindergarten stage. We know there's a lot we don't know. I certainly don't believe in telepathy (in the sense that I don't believe anything that's presently unknowable), but it doesn't actually break any currently known laws of the universe.

We have no evidence of any kind (bar anecdotes, which shouldn't really count as evidence, eh? At least, not on their own!) Your final statement sounds suspiciously akin to the claim of those believers who say that we can't prove that God breaks the laws of nature, because we don't know all the laws of nature... I think, actually, that telepathy, as usually characterised, does break the laws of nature we know about. Depends somewhat on how confident we are that we'll find some new laws of nature that, er, break the laws of nature...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:40 PM

Jack Horner presented the idea at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists annual meeting last year. The easiest and best way to prove us all wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:41 PM

I am as much of an atheist as anyone on this forum; but I have more-than-anecdotal experience of my own suggesting existence of what I can only describe as a form of telepathy. Of course, if I related the experience to you, you might well dismiss it as merely 'anecdotal' because it happened to me not to you ~ like your ball-lightning but v-v. There were other witnesses, but I don't expect I could locate any of them at this time of day ~~ it was back in mid-late 50s.

Well if it's more than anecdotal it's good evidence!

I didn't know there were degrees of atheism. I kind of thought that being an atheist meant I was firmly wedged at the far end of the spectrum. An inch to the left and I'd be one of them pinko, agnostic chappies!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM

I wasn't going to, but I can't let this pass.

"Evolutionists attribute all this water-evidence to slow and calm seas over millions of years, or small floods, or rivers. But if this were the case, the fossils ought to show evidence of exposure to the elements. We ought to be able to see wear and tear on them, of wind and rain and millions of years of gradual fossilization. But we don't. The evidence points to a quick and catastrophic burial--every time."

Firstly, consider the Chalk. I know there are sites which claim that it formed from algal blooms in the Flood water, but hundreds of metres thick?

Interestingly, the chalk is remarkably pure, and had to be laid down in very, very clean seas. It is so clean that in places, thin wisps of volcanis ash can be seen, like cigarette smoke. This, in the south of England, can be traced to volcanoes in Germany. Which would have been above the water. There are more metres of chalk above these traces.

At various horizons, there are what the old quarrymen called hardgrounds. Here it is clear that the ocean floor was not having chalk deposited on it at the time it was formed, and it contains traces of living things which burrowed in it, crawled upon it, and grew in it before the burial continued.

In the Chalk can be found fossilised heart urchins. Known as micraster species, these can be seen to change in type from those at the lowest levels to those at the top. They gradually adapted to their life crawling through the slurry on the seabottom, with the shape developing to one which found the movement easier, and mouth and anus changing position. The older forms are not found at the top. The younger forms are not found at the bottom. There is a clear sequence of change.

As for not finding eroded and damaged fossils, try looking in various descriptions of derived fossils- I'm trying to find one not behind a paywall, but it's clear from various abstracts that fossils which have formed, been eroded out of their source rocks, and then been redeposited into a new rock are pretty common. Also search reworked and redeposited fossils.

Though I see that a creation site claims that scientists descriptions of such fossils are specious, such interpretations depend not only on the locations of the fossils in younger layers, but also the nature of the paleoenvironment which is revealed by the strata. So such fossils would be found in deposits which look like river or beach structures, or volcanic ash fall deposits, which show their history in the grain size, sorting, and shape of the deposits.

My garden lies on top of the Chalk, but consists of a layer called Clay-with-flints. (It's difficult to work.) It has been formed by the erosion of the limestone component of an overlying rock - a lot of it, leaving a layer of clay containing flint which forms during the formation of the Chalk from silica deposited from sponges. All flint is thus fossil material, and some of it has actually replaced the mooulds of living things which were in the Chalk. I therefore have derived fossils in my garden.

In the nearby chalk pits now occupied by Bluewater shopping centre, the rock walls show the path of an old river cut down into the chalk. This will contain fossils first eroded in the formation of the Clay-with-flints, and then washed into the river to be deposited again. They will show the wear caused by the movement of the water.

Those fossils you claim to be absent exist. You just have to look in the right place. Go out and do it yourself. Use a fossil book to identify them. Map exactly where you find them, and look for their context - that is the type of rock they were found in and what lies above, below, and around them. Work it out for yourself. Don't rely on books and websites.

And the word used by most people is adaptation.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 01:27 PM

There's plenty of evidence of wear and tear on fossils, and plenty have been eroded out of one age of sediment and redeposited; the are called 'reworked' fossils. There is one case where we think a Jurassic ammonite was fossilised, weathered out and was then eaten by a dinosaur for use as a gastrolith, and after the dinosaur died or coughed it back up it was reburied in the later sediments. Wonderful!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM

There is nothing about telepathy to rebut atheism. It might militate against hard-core materialism, as well it should, but it does not say much about theology without a long bow being stretched.
PEople in high connection with each other experience "coordinated thinking" all the time, and sometimes it actually seems telepathic rather than just similar. And the rebuttal on the grounds of anecdote is, in my opinion, a bit small-minded when dealing with subjective communication events which simply do not lend themselves to replicability of the rigorous physical sort any way.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 03:46 PM

Excuse me, but I didn't rebut anecdotal "evidence" out of hand. I said
...bar anecdotes, which shouldn't really count as evidence, eh? At least, not on their own!

I certainly agree about co-ordinated thinking. It happens all the time with me and the missus, but there's a perfectly simple explanation for it: we go back a long way with our similar experiences, and this, combined with the fact that we experience broadly similar events during the day, means that our thought processes will inevitably collide on occasion. "On occasion" is crucial: even though we marvel at having thought the same thought at the same time, ninety-nine point-I-don't-know-how-many-nines percent of the time we are not thinking the same thoughts. Which is the more remarkable?

It's also worth dwelling a little more on Paul's excellent point: Toss a coin 120 times, and record the results. The probability of getting that sequence is exactly one in two to the power of 120. Impossible, but you just did it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 03:48 PM

Sorry. My italics ran away with me there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 04:28 PM

Anecdotal "evidence"...........Isn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 05:28 PM

Agreed, which is why I put it in quotes, but we do love anecdotes. As long as there's real evidence as well. Which, in the case of God or telepathy, there isn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 06:01 PM

If I were to post my telepathic experiences, would I not be relating an "anecdote"?

It is strange,but I feel distinctly uneasy about passing on the details of these experiences......almost like betraying a trust.
Although I dont believe in a "supreme being" I have a sense of something spiritual having happened.

My evidence, is that I passed on the "communications" to Mrs Akenaton and within a couple of hours we had news of an unexpected death in horrific circumstances.
To my way of thinking,that goes against any scientific explanation, in the same way as religious experience.

I have not YET had any such religious experiences.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM

Ake, serious question:   Did you have no hint or indication of any kind that something like that might happen?

I think that, without schlepping into the supernatural, there may very well be mechanisms by which telepathy can occur. I certainly wouldn't write it off. I know a few people who are solid, down-to-earth, and not given to flights of fancy who have told me of weird experiences they've had.

Ever read any of physicist Michio Kaku's writings? He's a rock-solid scientist, but he has some very intriguing speculations along this line. He makes no claims, he just raises some interesting lines of inquiry.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 08:02 PM

I'll have a look Don, but personally, I think the phenomenon is natural, but to most people it smacks of magic and illusion...just like some folks view belief in god.
I used to be rather dismissive of people "of faith" these days I am much more tolerant.

To answer your question, neither my wife or I had any reason to expect the death, which was the result of an accident.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:44 PM

"Which, in the case of God or telepathy, there isn't."

I knew you were gonna say that!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 01:21 AM

Oh, so we have got sidetracked into the telepathy bit, which I still say is a different discourse. But FWIW, my experiences of the phenomenon were not to do with foreseeing soon-forthcoming events, or knowing of things that had happened before confirmation, as Ake's seem to have been; but more in the nature of many instances of precise thought-transference by the same person with whom I lived in close proximity over a period. If anyone wants an account of it all, say so & I will furnish it

~M~ ~

though I still do not regard it as really germane to the topic of this thread; tho another on people's telepathic experience might be worthwhile if anyone would like to start one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 02:10 AM

"though I still do not regard it as really germane to the topic of this thread; tho another on people's telepathic experience might be worthwhile if anyone would like to start one?"

And I knew YOU were gonna say that!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 03:19 AM

Prove it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 05:01 AM

I wonder how much the putative phenomenon of telepathy is really something which comes out of the nature of randomness? I suppose that human intuition would tend to suggest that things in a randomised sample should be evenly spread. But, in reality, randomised samples tend to exhibit 'clumpiness'. In other words if you take 100 numbered, but otherwise identical, objects and shuffle them you will tend to see 'runs' of adjacent numbers (e.g. 48, 7, 56, (24,25,26), 92, 5 etc. I've put the 'run' of adjacent numbers in brackets. When gamblers encounter such runs they tend to believe (wrongly) that their 'luck has come in'.

I usually read in bed in the morning with the radio on in the background and fairly frequently I hear an announcer say a word at the same time as I'm reading it. I think that this is a statistical phenomenon, related to randomness - not a, previously unknown/unrecognised natural phenomenon. I think that it's highly likely that something similar happens with respect to peoples' thoughts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 06:02 AM

That's right. Put alongside the number of times you're reading a word and the radio announcer does not say the same word, the "coincidence" suddenly doesn't seem so remarkable. Thousands upon thousands of times a day, there are "opportunities" for such collisions that just don't come to anything. Coincidence is a very intriguing subject which should be studied by anyone given to believing in telepathy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 06:07 AM

Are we likely to be drifting into Deja Vue next, or has that been done before? 8-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM

Are we likely to be drifting into Deja Vue next, or has that been done before? 8-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 07:31 AM

From the Office of the Official Legendary Pedant

"Déjà vu"

please.


~M~ OLP


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 08:30 AM

I don't think we have to write 'loanwords' in their original language


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM

Isn't "deja vue" the uncomfortable feeling that you've been to Belle Vue before even though you haven't?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM

Thanks for that tale, Sugarfoot Jack. Can you give me references? I don't have any, because it was part of a geology lecture, but I did hear of a meteorite which was found with the gastroliths of a dead dinosaur. These things are fun to think about, aren't they?

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 12:24 PM

*I* have had weird experiences of reaching for the phone to call someone, and had the phone ring and found them calling ME. scary? No, because many, many times I have missed calls or caught those I was calling not at home.

Coincidence can make us tend to find causation where there is really no 'good' reason to assume any. Having 'intense' mental experiences can do similar things. I have had dreams which shook me.... but really found no reason to suspect they were other than the semi-conscious brain making connections from memories and re-assembling them in patterns to reflect stresses of life.

I 'think' many religious 'visions' happen the same way...especially in people who already believe certain ways. Telepathy may...or may not... follow similar patterns.

We are only a few decades into an understanding of just how complex and powerful the brain/mind is.... and I think it is judicious to avoid too many conclusions about what it can or can't do until much more is known.

I KNOW the temptation to 'explain' strange experiences and correlate them with others, but history is full of examples of faulty tries....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM

Heh heh in the funnies the other day someone finds a voodoo doll, so they call someone over to test it. Sticking a pin in, the finders asks, do you feel anything? The subject says, only a very strong feeling that I've done this before. Ah, said the finder, must be a deja voodoo doll.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 02:01 PM

I'd be far more interested in Dejah Thoris.....

No, wait! That's not earth, that's Mars!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 02:35 PM

Deja Vu is an establishment a few miles from us where guys go to study up on comparative gynocology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 02:40 PM

Isn't Deja Fu the uneasy feeling that you've been kicked in the nuts once before by a martial arts practitioner?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 02:50 PM

To my buddy, Don Firth. I'm with you 100%.

Done by one of my favourite artists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM

"I'm simply stating that we see no animals, in the fossil record or without, that support the claim that one creature can turn into another. It's perfectly rational to say that one variation of the bear species can turn into another variation of the bear species. But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought. "

As Bill D has already pointed out, you're either willfully misunderstanding what evolution is or you're having a pop. Either way, this isn't a debate if you can't recognize the difference between evolution and magic and insist on using the two concepts interchangeably.


Then define to me evolution! The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary says this:

"B. a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory"

Berkeley College gives this statement :

"large-scale evolution [is] the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations."
The ability of one creature (the evolutionary 'ancestor of all beings') to turn into another. That's what I'm talking about. Evolution. The ability of a monkey-like creature to gradually generate descendants that are humans *and* monkeys. The theory that enough mistakes in the genetic code can produce the remarkable and intricate human body that we see today. But that theory has no evidence in the fossil record! We see stasis in the fossil record, and we don't see any transitional forms. We ought to be able to go through the fossil record and say "These are the geological layers, all in order, these are the fossils, all in order, that prove that we have evolved."
But we can't even come close to saying that! Instead we see evidence of fully formed creatures (many of whom are still existent today), and no primitive ancestors.We see the same, fully-formed animals in all the layers. Clams, clams, ocean fossils, more clams..... If Evolution were true then we ought to find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, all in corresponding layers. But we don't. Here's an illustration of the impossibility of the millions of years theory: A find in the Krukowski Quarry near Mosinee, Wisconsin. What was the find? Fossilized jellyfish.
Excuse me? Fossilized Jellyfish?
    Yeah. What's that all about? A jellyfish is compromised of about 95-98% of water. When a jellyfish is washed ashore, the water disappears and the body flattens.
Most fossils we find today are from hard-boned creatures, because bones fossilize easily. But jellyfish are so very soft that it's nearly impossible to fossilize one. Darwin once said "no organism wholly soft can be preserved". The Krukowski jellyfish prove him wrong.
Evolutionists say that the Krukowski jellyfish are part of the 'Cambrian layer', a time period they claim occurred about 510 million years ago. They say that the hordes of jellyfish we find in the quarry swam into the sandy shores of ancient Wisconsin as they migrated, hunted, and reproduced. Then they claim that strong tides (perhaps from storms) could have washed the jellyfish up on the shore, and, because no predators had evolved yet, the waves gradually buried them with coarse sand and they fossilized.
Creationists like myself propose something different.
Taking the evolutionary scenario, even if there weren't predators to eat the jellyfish as they lay on the shore, why didn't the jellyfish deflate in the sun and decay--instead of fossilizing?
Second, when a jellyfish washes up on land, it will pump its bell in an attempt to get back to the water, leaving little rings in the sand. There are no rings around the fossils in Mosinee.
Again, if the jellyfish were washed up onto sand (exposed to air), they would have lost their 90-odd percentage of water and shrunk. There is no fossil evidence of the jellyfish changing size.
This proves that the jellyfish were fossilized very rapidly, not over millions of years. How about Noah's flood?
Another thing that throws a wrench in the evolutionist's theory is that the fossils of the jellyfish are in rippled sand.
Waves create ripples as they come into shore. But when the waves go back out, they erase the ripples. The only place that the ripples aren't erased is underwater. Also, the only way the impression of a ripple can be fossilized is by another layer of fine silt coming to rest on top of it. This also can only happen rapidly.....underwater.
It's almost impossible for a jellyfish to fossilized. The evolutionary theory is given one final blow when we point out that the jellyfish were preserved in coarse sand--which would have allowed more time for sun and air exposure (thus causing further decay). The jellyfish are found in multiple different layers, thus causing the evolutionists to say that they must have been fossilized in different tropical storms over thousands of years. They're saying that the impossible happened seven times to create seven layers of jellyfish?? It's just that, impossible! It must be under exactly the right conditions: rapidly and underwater. Because of these factors, to say these jellyfish might have fossilized several times is unreasonable. The evolutionary model just doesn't fit the facts. But it does perfectly support the creation model--that they were all buried in a catastrophic, worldwide flood that quickly laid down the layers of sediment and fossilized the jellyfish underwater.
(as a side note, it's interesting how jellyfish don't seem to have changed much over 500-odd million years....while it seems that humans evolved from primitive to more sophisticated during that time.)

________________________________________________________

"Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect" ···

and a plague rat; a vampire bat; a malarial mosquito; a rabid dog; a dear old friend with Alzheimers or dementia...

Thanks, Iona ~~ you can stuff your Creator where he won't see too much of his 'Creation'!



"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12)
When Adam sinned against God, the world became a corrupt place, and man has been 'degenerating' since then. We are all suffering because of the fall of man. When God created the world, it was "Very good". But it's not that way any more. There is still beauty, but everything is now tainted by sin, nothing escaped. God gave the commandment to Adam and Eve that they would "surely die" if they ate the forbidden fruit. When they listened to the devil and chose to ignore God's command, He followed through with His punishment, and the world continues to die, both spiritually and physically. This is a curse, but it is also a blessing, in that death also brought God's chosen people into redemption by the death atonement of Christ on the cross. If an individual is regenerate by the ransom of Christ's blood, then death for them is the final enemy, and they are delivered up to the merciful reward of the Lord, in Heaven.
But I know that the 'problem of evil' is going to be brought up when I post this, so let me address it proactively.
The 'problem of evil' is this:
"If God exists, why does He allow His creation to suffer physical and moral evil? He either must not be powerful enough to deal with evil, or else He does not care enough to deal with it."
This 'problem' was first phrased by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century. But it's not a new question. Almost all humans ask it at one point or another: "How could a good and loving God allow evil in the world? Is He not powerful enough to eradicate it? Or is he not good at all?" They wonder how Christians can believe in a God who is all-good but also all-powerful, and yet there still be evil in the world.
This argument boils down to three points.
1. God is completely good.
2. God is completely powerful.
3. Evil exists/happens.

Premises 1 and 2 are not contradictory to each other until we combine them with premise 3. It is crucial to the athiest/unbeliever's case against Christianity to assert that there is evil in the world and to be able to point to something and have the right to evaluate it as an instance of evil. But first, you must define evil. Define good!
So, what do you define as good? What is good? Majority opinion? Majority benefit? What is your foundation for believing in goodness--or in evil? What is evil, anyway, from an atheistic viewpoint?
I can answer the problem of evil, but for the atheist there is no such thing, because there is no evil, and there is no good. The fact that you are even in this argument proves my point. I will elaborate more on that later, after I get a few responses.
________________________________________________________

A pastor friend of mine once commented, "Some hard-charging evangelists have their minds so set on getting themselves, and everybody they can harass into Heaven that they, themselves, are no earthly good for anything."

Iona, Pete, look up Matthew, 25:35-40.

Read it carefully.

Study it.

Then, go live it.

And stop pestering people until you learn to live as Jesus says you should live (see above Scripture).

Don Firth


Don, you are so right. One of the things that I absolutely abhor about the so-called "Christian" culture in America (and in other places) is that so many people call the name....and then live lives that clearly state that they don't care. They preach, but don't act. They don't live out the faith they claim to have. This is a tragedy, it is heresy, and they are misrepresenting Christ by calling themselves by His name and yet not obeying His commandments. The Bible says "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has lost it's savor....it shall be good for nothing but to be trodden under the foot of men". (Matthew 5:15). If Christians do not live out their profession and obey the commands of Scripture, they are good for nothing. They give Christianity a dirty name and a horrible reputation. Most people who call themselves Christians aren't Christians at all. (See explanation here )


But I disagree when you propose that a true Christian will not take a stand for what they believe. You say that I ought to read Matthew 25 carefully and then live it. I agree with that.
But the Bible also says to be "Ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you" (1 Peter 13:5). A Christian will live out their faith, and that includes being able and ready to answer the claims of opposing worldviews such as evolution. It would not be right for a Christian to go about whamming people over issues like evolution, and yet not live out the love of Christ, but it *would* be acceptable for a Christian, who ministers to their fellow men with kindness and a servant's heart, to stand up and make a testimony that the Bible is exactly as it says it is, and that the world was created just as the Bible says, in six literal days, created by the word of the Lord.
I'm not trying to harass anybody into heaven. I can't get anyone into heaven, period. Only God can do that. I can only give testimony to Him and His word, and He must do the rest. Your eternal destiny is ultimately between you and the Almighty, but that doesn't mean that Christians ought to be silent about the gospel, in fact they are commanded *not* to be.
___________________________________________________

For example, here is the complete transition from a dog-like (actually more pig-like) ancestor to modern cetaceans in 11 small steps. Iona will surely point out that his means there are 10 missing links.

http://evolutionfun.com/images/whales/caldogram.gif



This is a drawing. Are there fossils to support these drawings? I'd love to see pictures of them. You see, Evolutionists often will draw pictures of what evolution *should* look like, but they're just pictures--artist's reproductions of what ought to be found in the fossil record, but aren't. If there were, our museums would be have them on huge displays with neon lights flashing above them. But they haven't found any. And it's my contention that there's a reason for that.
When we look into the average high school textbook, we see drawings like Haeckle's embryo drawings. But the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was dreamed up by Haeckle before modern technology like ultrasound, and now we know that his theory is completely bogus. But they still publish it in textbooks! And the concept that humans aren't really humans until such-and-such a stage has lead to many horrific things that devalue human life.
________________________________________________________

Well, since its been raised again I went to the the trouble of discovering whether psalm 22 is a perfect description of a crucifixion of anybody years before crucifixion had been invented: the answer is no, in my view. There is nothing at all to suggest crucifixion - just a much more general torture that applies to crucifixion plus dozens of other imaginative schemes to inflict pain on some victim......Hardly the sign of someone who insists on the literal translation of the original, I would say, and not a good demonstration that the original psalm referenced crucifixion.

I didn't reference that part of the chapter. I was talking about the whole chapter. Let me compare the gospels to Psalm 22.
   
All who see me mock me;they hurl insults,
shaking their heads: "He trusts in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him." (Psalm 22:7-8)

"And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads,
and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple,
and buildest it in three days, Save thyself,
and come down from the cross. (Mark 15:29-30)

And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also
with them derided him, saying, He saved others;
let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. (Luke 23 :35)
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Dogs have surrounded me; [Roman Soldiers, perhaps?]
a band of evil men has encircled me,[two thieves crucified with
Jesus; one on the right hand, one on the left] (Psalm 22:16a)
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
And he was numbered with the transgressors."(Mark 15:28)

I can count all my bones; [bones are broken during crucifixion, typically] (Psalm 22:17)

They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing. (Psalm 22:18)
And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments,
casting lots upon them, what every man should take.(Mark 15:24)

That's simply comparing a few verses of Psalm 22 with the gospels--and I left out the 'they pierced my hands and feet' because I don't have the time at the moment to go look up the original Greek. Seems to me that there are a few too many 'coincidences' here to not be fulfillment of prophesy--and that's only one of dozens of fulfilled prophesy in Scripture.

________________________________________________________

Your statement: " But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is!

IS a perfect example of that circular reasoning where your 'proof' is assumed by your very statement! You are defending your **belief** in the Bible by assuming that you can't be wrong...because the Bible can't be wrong.--- and round & round we go.


So there are no absolutes, is that what you are saying? If there are absolutes, then there must be an ultimate authority to validate them. I have one--the God of the Bible. He is the ultimate authority.
BUT, evolutionists don't have an ultimate, that I know of. The human mind, maybe? Humanists/evolutionists/athiests have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to even have a foundation for reasoning. Without borrowing Christian presuppositions, you have no basis for argument. After all, how do you know that there is truth? What is eternal? How can you trust your mind? How do you know that the future will be like the past?

I don't understand in order to believe: I believe in order to understand. Yes, I have faith, I have belief--but it's a reasonable faith.Without my faith, I could not understand anything, I could not carry on a conversation, I could not experiment with science.
A person will interpret evidence by what their presuppositions are. I look at a fossil site and see evidence for the flood--evolutionists look at the same fossil site and see evidence for evolution. "A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life, etc. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs." (Greg Bahnsen)
One of the biggest proofs of the Christian faith is that if Christianity isn't true, you can't prove anything at all. To put that in more philosophical terms "Christianity is the transcendental precondition of intelligibility".

Materialistic Atheists don't believe in God, don't believe that man has a soul, and don't believe in an afterlife. If those premises are true, then you couldn't know that it was true. You couldn't prove anything at all. Let me be clear:
All science rests on inductive inference. I mean all science--biology, math, astronomy, physiology, everything! Inductive inference could also be phrased "the future will be like the past". You get up in the middle of the night and walk around. You stub your toe. You feel pain. So tonight when you get up to walk around, you will take care not to stub your toe because you believe that it will hurt again like it did last night. That's an inductive inference. You make speculations on the future because of occurrences in the past. But for an atheist, you can't know that if you stub your toe tonight it will hurt! You have no way of knowing that. You have the past, but you can't rely on the past because an atheist says that we live in a random universe. Just because the observable past has produced pain when you stubbed your toe does not mean that tonight it will hurt--in the future a stubbed toe may produce the thrill of a lifetime. You can't know! An atheist has no foundation to conduct science, to reason, or to speculate, because they have absolutely no assurance that A will proceed B tomorrow. A might proceed B today, but tomorrow A might proceed G8zy. I repeat: You have no foundation of your own to believe that the future will be like the past. You have no foundation to understand our world. You have no foundation to go to the science lab today and conduct scientific experiments, because past knowledge is useless to the future, and the future is completely unpredictable. Only when you borrow from the Christian worldview of the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past) can you make any progress in anything.
________________________________________________________

It IS possible to accept 'what is' without assuming 'intelligent design'... I do it every day!

See my last response. Yes, you can accept 'what is', but you do so only on borrowed terms. You have no foundation of your own. You have no reason to rely on inductive inference, because you have no basis for it!

_________________________________________________________

nowhere is there a requirement to assume anything in particular about an 'original cause'-- that is merely an abstract concept. We DO NOT KNOW where or how "causes start", and deciding that something must be named "God" is simply a personal opinion...

So you have no basis of faith, that's what you're saying. You're basically saying "There is no proof that there was no cause, but I refuse to believe that the God of the Bible was the uncaused cause. Instead I'd rather believe in an unknown cause"

"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too {l} superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:22-24)

___________________________________________________________

Well, Iona, careful who you choose to befriend. Pete pounces in triumphant accord on snippets of your daft post but let me tell you he doesn't know what he's on about. He refuses to read Origin yet he jumps in with you on the "transitional forms" nonsense. To be honest, your crackpot notions simply reveal that there is insufficient between you and anyone who has even the faintest regard for science to have a constructive conversation. I once saw a drawing of a bear that was the exact intermediate between Yogi and Boo-boo, so that proves you're wrong. That's about the highest intellectual level you could manage, I suppose. Let's drop God and talk Jellystone.

I haven't said anything to Pete or about Pete. I haven't even acknowledged his presence until now, because what good would it do? I'm not out to 'join forces' and gang up on anybody. I'm just here to give an explanation for what I believe and why I believe it. Pete can do the same if he wishes, and if he chooses to use some of my writings as a springboard, that's his business.
But I wish you would stop the stream of insults (that are not taken) and actually discuss the evidence with me. Let's drop the slurs and talk epistemology. Your resorting to trying to make me mad with all your name calling and insults suggests that you don't have any way to answer my arguments!

___________________________________________________________

Unlike religion, we don't have any direct evidence that telepathy is impossible. But virgin birth? Raising the dead? Son of God? Turning water into wine? Splitting the Red Sea? Creating the earth in seven days? Creating the earth at all?? The list goes on and on.

Precisely why they are called 'miracles'. Supernatural. Of course it's impossible--humanly speaking. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37)

_____________________________________________________________

Raising the dead? (Medical trick)

Doctors do that NOW, thousands of times a day.

Son of God?

Assuming there is a God, the Son ain't much of a leap.

Turning water into wine? (chemistry trick)

A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago.

Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick)

Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind.

Creating the earth in seven days?

Define day.

"Rasing the dead? Doctors do that now, thousands of times a day".
By definition (in the Bible), death occurs when the soul departs the body. These everyday 'raisings' are not miracles like what we see in Scripture. In Scripture we're talking souls that were already in heaven or @#!*% (we don't know what the spiritual state of many of the biblical subjects were), being brought back into the bodies. What we see today is just appearance of death, and then being revived. We don't see (as we do in the Bible) men being in the grave and dead for four days, then being called forth and actively walking out of the grave.

"Turning water into wine? Chemistry trick. A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago."
But the Bible (John 2) gives no indication that Jesus ever even laid hands on the jars. He simply told the servants (who were present the entire time) to fill the containers with water and to carry them out to the wedding feast. Plus, He didn't exactly have about twelve cases of Vodka at his disposal (and Kool Aid didn't even exist yet) to slyly empty into the water. The Scripture says that "They have no wine". There was no alcohol present at the time of the miracle.


"Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick) Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind."
Do you really mean to say that a nice little wind could part the Red sea and provide dry ground for the Israelites to walk on, as the Bible says happened?

"Creating the earth in seven days? Define 'day'"
'day' in Hebrew is the word 'Yom'. It can mean a literal 24 hour day, or it can mean a period of time. But in Genesis, whenever the word 'yom' is used along with the words "evening and morning" or 'third day', etc. it always means a literal twenty four hour day. Anything else would have been destructive to the life that God had just created. Just think, if the 'days' of Creation Week had been long periods of time, then there would have been long periods of darkness. Once the plants were created, they would have quickly died because of lack of photosynthesis for food! Only a literal 24 hour day fits into the creation account.

But you as an atheist have no basis for calling anything impossible. For since we live in a random universe, you can't know that tomorrow is going to be like today. For all you know, the miracles of the Bible were just random acts of the universe. They shouldn't even be a problem for you!
_________________________________________________________________


Well, at least I got an answer: I find it absolutely mind-boggling, but it's an answer.

"If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?
I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations.

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?

See my response above."

Yes, that is my answer. Well, It's a very simplified version of my answer. Taking the child-killing scenario, it's a 99% chance that the 'word from God' was not a word from God at all. Lots of people get counseled today by their 'pastors' to have an abortion, and there have been many times when a 'pastor' has told a mother that 'God told him' that she ought to kill her baby. Now that is an obvious breach of the Bible, because it's very clear that "Thou shalt not murder"(Deuteronomy 5:17). So I'd very very VERY likely find that 'word from God' to be not a 'word of God' at all. For instance, Jephthah in Judges 11:30-36 told God that he would sacrifice whatever or whoever first came to meet him if God would give him victory over the Ammonites. God did, and who came to meet Jephthah? His only child. But instead of obeying God's law of 'thou shalt not murder', he chose to keep his word. He held his promise in more importance than the law of God. And that was sin. I don't condone what he did.
_____________________________________________________________________

You're outnumbered, the pair of you. In the meantime, you are doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on. Sorry that reality isn't good enough for you, but you know, one of you can be laughed at, a few of you can be tolerated but an international commune?

I don't think you have much of an argument here. Again, your resorting to insults suggests that you can't do any other!
My being outnumbered is not a problem to my argument. After all, there was a point in time when the majority believed that the planets all revolved around the earth, and that didn't make it true.
"You're doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on."
Oh? Barring the fact that I have yet to meet a true Christian who calls God a metaphor, how is my defending the truth of the Scriptures a disservice to Christianity? You seem to be implying that I can believe what I want, but I should keep my trap shut and let people criticize it and try to tear it down. If that's the case, then why don't you do the same? Why do you find it worthwhile to type on this forum? I have a reason to believe what I do. But you don't. you don't even have a reason to believe--anything! For the atheist, there is no such thing as reason unless you borrow from the Christian worldview.....but I shall address that in another post. Tell me, are there absolutes? Is there such a thing as good and bad, and if so, how do you define them?

_________________________________________________________

Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place. Find the fossil of a horse in Cretaceous deposits; find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale, find a monkey in the Solnhofen limestone, find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs. Find the bones and silence the doubters. Find body fossils that prove you are right.

Scientists have found so much evidence for Creation that I couldn't fit it all in this forum. Look at the jellyfish, up there towards the top of my post. That's one.

There have been trees found in multiple layers of sediment, that is, one tree going through several different layers, each one supposedly having been laid down over millions of years. How does that work?

"Find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs".

How about people? Would you accept creationism if we had evidence that men lived alongside of dinosaurs? Forget something as trivial as a rhino with the dinosaurs, I think we ought to go straight to the evolutionary impossible--that of coexistence between humans and giant sauropods.

Aha, but we do have evidence of just such a thing.

The word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until 1842, coined by Sir Richard Owen. It means "terrible reptile" in Latin. The Chinese do not have a word like 'dinosaur', but they do have a word "kong long" which means 'terrible dragon'. They'd been using this word for years before people dug up a dinosaur bone in Europe. We read a lot of old stories in many cultures about terrible dragons--could it be that 'dragons' and 'dinosaurs' are really the same thing?

Ancient legends about dragons and men's encounters with them are found all over the world. So have images of creatures resembling dinosaurs/dragons. For instance, there are images of dragons have been found on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, in Egyptian hieroglyphs, Ethiopian sketches, on Viking ships, in Aztec temples, on cliffs above the Mississippi river, and on bones carved by the native Inuit peoples of Alaska. The Welsh flag still bears the bold design of a dragon. China is very well known for it's use of dragons in its cultural art. So it's not just a local theory that dragons existed, it's a widespread history. The book of Job in the Bible talks of several different kinds of 'dragons', both on land (Behemoth) and in the sea (Leviathan).

A few things to look up and see for yourself are the the Natural Bridges Monument in Utah (underneath one of the rock bridges is a drawing that appears to be a dinosaur, drawn most likely by natives between 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.), Hava supai Canyon in Arizona (where there is a picture of an animal standing on its hind legs--resembling a dinosaur), San Rafael Reef in Utah (where there is a large carving of something that resembles a Pterosaur. About 200 miles away from that canyon, fossil tracks that may have been made by a Pterosaur, have been discovered), and some figurines from Acambaro, Mexico. Over 33 thousand ceramic figures were found there, and many look like what today we would call dinosaurs.

Just because we don't find dinosaurs fossilized in the same locality as humans doesn't prove anything. If you lived at the same time as dinosaurs, would you want to live in the same neighborhood? If we're going to take Beowulf's word for it, no. And neither did people before and after the flood. Just because humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time doesn't mean that they lived close to each other. Evolutionary scientists date geologic layers in which we find dinosaur bones by the time period in which that dinosaur supposedly lived (well, that's what many scientists say--and then they turn around and say that we can tell the age of the bones by the rocks in which they are found. Rather circular if you ask me). And then they date other layers differently just because we find human fossils (like 'Neanderthal' ). I say that it's not that they lived millions of years apart, they just lived in different parts of the world when the flood occurred.
__________________________________________________________________________

How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil?

"Fossil: mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms." --Wikipedia glossary of geological terms
Fossilization is when something is buried quickly by lots of mud and water with just the right cementing agent. Over a little time, the minerals in the mud substance will replace the minerals in the decaying bone. Eventually only rock, in the perfect shape of the bones, will be left.
Generally when we speak of 'fossils' today, we think 'old'--whether 'old' is thousands of years or millions of years. But fossilization is simply the occurrence of petrification.

____________________________________________________________________________

There's plenty of evidence of wear and tear on fossils, and plenty have been eroded out of one age of sediment and redeposited; the are called 'reworked' fossils. There is one case where we think a Jurassic ammonite was fossilised, weathered out and was then eaten by a dinosaur for use as a gastrolith, and after the dinosaur died or coughed it back up it was reburied in the later sediments. Wonderful!
While I haven't studied that particular case, I do know that seeing a little wear and tear on a few fossil wouldn't completely destroy my worldview. The flood was a long and very chaotic event--Noah and his family were in the ark for over a year, so that gives a lot of time for the fossil bones to have been tossed about, shifted and replaced into a different layer of sediment. It could have happened after the flood, for that matter. No problem for the Creationist worldview.


♣Iona


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:00 AM

Iona,

Thanks for your reply to my query.

How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil?

"Fossil: mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms." --Wikipedia glossary of geological terms
Fossilization is when something is buried quickly by lots of mud and water with just the right cementing agent. Over a little time, the minerals in the mud substance will replace the minerals in the decaying bone. Eventually only rock, in the perfect shape of the bones, will be left.
Generally when we speak of 'fossils' today, we think 'old'--whether 'old' is thousands of years or millions of years. But fossilization is simply the occurrence of petrification.
************


However your extract from WikiP doesn't give the full picture, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil


'Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past.'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 AM

I didn't reference that part of the chapter. I was talking about the whole chapter. Let me compare the gospels to Psalm 22.

Maybe that's what you thought you were doing, Iona, but what you actually said was 'Psalm 22 is a perfect description of the crucifixion of Christ. The odd thing?
Crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet when David wrote the Psalms. I know that because the Romans invented crucifixion a thousand years later. So here's David, writing a description of a death that he never witnessed in his life, but that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.'

So I focussed on the crucifixion claim, and specifically said that was something testable, which the rest of the psalm isn't for various reasons I won't bore you with. And I concluded there is no evidence that the psalm deals with crucifixion rather than any other kind of death, in my opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:08 AM

Iona, I don't resort to insults because I don't have an argument. I insult you because pity is more insulting than taking the piss.

All of what you say relies on the bible as being more than a set of translations of translations of stories. (A bit like Gunther unt Heidi, as translated from Topsy & Tim.)

As the bible is no more than an interesting portal into a superstitious past, your arguments wither away with the credibility of it. It being a man made convenient set of population control measures. Jam tomorrow and all that.

I prefer jam today. And clotted cream. And beer. And pork. And prior to getting married, sex with girlfriends.

Oh, and getting married in a hotel is much much better than a church. They aren't drafty and they have a bar. You see, I have no problem with your Sunday club, as I have no problem with the buffs, the masons or the local flower arranging group. Live & let live. Just don't assume we all want to grunt at each other / use secret hand shakes / put petunias alongside darker carnations.

The Bishop dude in York said the other day that government shouldn't contradict the bible. Sorry mate, but your and your club get more irrelevant each day and loose cannons like him just make disestablishment nearer and nearer. And that would be a shame, because if your wonderful old buildings had to rely on what practicing Christians can raise, (less than 1% of the UK population) it would have to be St Pauls Offices to rent, Westminster Abbey branch of Starbucks. And I for one like the tradition if not the dangerous claptrap lurking behind it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:23 AM

But I wish you would stop the stream of insults (that are not taken) and actually discuss the evidence with me.

You insult thousands of hard-working scientists constantly with your blindfolded attempts to refute the truth of evolution. I could spend a lifetime discussing my evidence with you, but not a single second discussing yours, because you simply haven't got any. You have hearsay, tradition, brainwashing, fear of demurral, incomplete and frequently suspect ancient documents, many of those containing myths and stories, and, at times, some very questionable interpretation of them, not to speak of that tendentious branch of extrapolation fondly known as theology. You rely on belief in an impossible supernatural being and strings of miracles that defy the laws of nature. But what you don't have is evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:24 AM

Sorry, for the second time I screwed up my italics. Grrr...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:28 AM

Still and all, Iona ~~ has to be

α++

for effort.

no assessment currently available for achievement, due to lack of motivation actually to read it all in detail


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:36 AM

Mr Happy is quite right about fossils. Mineralisation is but one method of fossilisation. Some creatures, such as shelled molluscs, already have mineralised parts, and all they need is protection from crushing and weathering. There are imprint fossils such as dinosaur footprints and imprints of shells and leaves. Actual tissue such as wood, seeds, leaves, spores and pollen grains can be preserved in peat. Just off the coast where I live in Cornwall there a submerged forest about 8,000 years old, inundated by the sea when sea levels rose. Insects can be preserved in resin (amber) which oozed from tree bark. Mammoths have been preserved in ice. It's a wonderful world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:24 AM

Right, Iona, let's go back over, what we Brits call, 'the bleeding obvious' again.

- There are gaps in our scientific knowledge and no scientist would claim otherwise. But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence. Gleefully jumping on gaps in our knowledge and exclaiming: "aha! That means that God must have done it!", is a response which infantile, illogical and stupid (let's not beat about the bush).

- All of your 'arguments' are based on myths and anecdotes contained in an ancient text of dubious provenance. Just try telling a Tibetan Buddhist or an Amazonian Shaman that the Bible represents absolute truth. For that matter, just in the last few years, astronomers have discovered around 700 exo-planets outside of our Solar System. It's not outside the bounds of possibility that, in the near future, an intelligent species might be detected living on an exo-planet; it's highly unlikely that the Bible will mean much to such a species.

- Attributing life on Earth to God just begs the question: Who, or what is God - and where and how did He originate?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:27 AM

"Most fossils we find today are from hard-boned creatures, because bones fossilize easily. But jellyfish are so very soft that it's nearly impossible to fossilize one."

Soft tissue preservation is not uncommon in the fossil record but the Krukowski Quarry jellyfish are not body fossils, but ichnofossils or trace fossils and they represent the impressions of stranded jellyfish, not the animals themselves. As for the depositional conditions the time of burial of these impressions they could have been buried very quickly but that's got bog all to do with a mythical flood, and lots to do with any number of events from the neocatastrophic to the mundane.

"Waves create ripples as they come into shore. But when the waves go back out, they erase the ripples."

Now she's a sedimentologist. You've never walked on a beach then? Ripples everywhere on the sand after the tide has gone out. This statement is one of the most ignorant I've ever read from a creationist, and that is saying something.


"Aha, but we do have evidence of just such a thing."

Not one jot of the 'evidence' you've posted is evidence; it's based on the subjective interpretation of ancient petroglyphs for which you have zero cultural reference and even the local tribes have no ability to interpret. I saw petroglyphs in situ in Utah and Nevada last October (looking for dinosaur footprints with the SVP) and there is no consensus of opinion on their meaning, but plenty of speculation. The Welsh flag as evidence of dinosaurs and man living together? Twll dy din di (one of my Great-Grandmothers favourite sayings). That's no more than pretty ill-informed speculation and luckily, the history of the dragon in Welsh culture is far more fascinating than any meaning imposed by non-native religion.

"Just because we don't find dinosaurs fossilized in the same locality as humans doesn't prove anything. If you lived at the same time as dinosaurs, would you want to live in the same neighbourhood?"

The old 'absence of evidence' argument? A tired old creationist tactic that simply doesn't hold any water. Give us a break and let's concentrate on solid evidence and not hearsay, the re-interpretation of ancient myths and cod-archaeology. By the way, it's worth noting that we do live in the same neighbourhood as dinosaurs, as birds are dinosaurs. In the meantime, get looking for those fossils - put up or shut up and stop ducking the argument.

Iona presents her arguments in an articulate and entertaining (and verbose) manner but there's little substance to them, and they're often error-ridden and play fast and loose with the facts by making tenuous connections and misrepresenting evidence to fit her arguments. She is also ignorant of her subject and this makes it not worth arguing any more. I'll keep an eye on the scientific literature so when she finds a whale or a bony fish in the Edicarian biota and turns the world of palaeontology on its head I can email her congratulations, as it would be pretty bloody exciting. Until then, it's safe to assume that like most creationists she is talking the talk but not walking the walk by getting out there and offering solid, testable and reproducible evidence to back up her inane, superstitious creationist claptrap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM

Oh, and by the way since you say "I left out the 'they pierced my hands and feet' because I don't have the time at the moment to go look up the original Greek" - by which of course, we know you meant Hebrew, not Greek - here's a link to Wiki on the subject to save you time;
They have pierced....

I have looked at other sites, not just Wiki, but the first paragraph summarises pretty well what the Hebrew text says, and how people have knowingly used other interpretations in the attempt of making sense of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM

Shimrod

But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

Indeed so. Could you explain that to Steve Shaw who stiil comes out with lines like "the truth of evolution".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:28 AM

Can humans "devolve" as well as "evolve"? I think I must be devolving.....I've started agreeing with Snail.....:0(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:39 AM

"I'd love to see pictures of them."

You have just sinned in telling a lie.
No you wouldn't.
If you would really love to see pictures of them, you could have found them already.
The pictures are widely available.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 10:19 AM

Thanks, Snail. Up to now I've avoided getting into argumenrs with SS because I don't think that it's helpful for us (more or less) rationalists to start splitting along sectarian lines!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 10:33 AM

Sorry Shimrod, But I disagree. Arguing with the likes of Iona is completely pointless. She isn't actually thinking, just regurgitating garbage from creationist websites. She really isn't of the slightest importance.

On the other hand, people with a scientific education talking the way SS does open up science to being described as just another belief system alongside religion.

(Don't worry Ake, there is still plenty we will never agree on.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:32 AM

" Arguing with the likes of Iona is completely pointless."

Like *I* said before.... surrender, guys.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:16 PM

". . . a true Christian will not take a stand for what they believe. "

Iona, I did NOT say that!

Doesn't misrepresenting what I say constitude "false witness?"

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:32 PM

As she said, evidence will not change her world view.

So I won't mention the Coal Measures (successions of buried soils and fully grown trees with their roots), or William Smith (who discovered the layers of rock and their contained fossils which she states do not exist and laid the foundations of geology).

I will, however, warn her that if she does leave the computer to go out and look at geology in situ, she should bear in mind that burial can occur quite quickly, even in the absence of Flood, and she should check on tides, avoid the bases of cliffs, and be careful to keep away from places where there might be flash floods or mud slides.

But I don't think she will. It's as likely as her making any converts on this board.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:35 PM

I'm just wondering whether there are sites which search for references to this issue so their advocates can turn up and start preaching. I exclude Pete, because he is a singer who has other reasons to be here.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM

Dear Lord, save and protect me from your mindless followers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:32 PM

Amen!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM

"Taking the child-killing scenario, it's a 99% chance that the 'word from God' was not a word from God at all. Lots of people get counseled today by their 'pastors' to have an abortion, and there have been many times when a 'pastor' has told a mother that 'God told him' that she ought to kill her baby. Now that is an obvious breach of the Bible, because it's very clear that "Thou shalt not murder"(Deuteronomy 5:17). So I'd very very VERY likely find that 'word from God' to be not a 'word of God' at all."

And I would say that it is, to say the least, a 99% chance that God did not instruct Abraham to kill Isaac as a sacrifice. Of course the story plays out with God letting Abraham off the hook, and providing an animal substitute. But Abraham is lauded and rewarded because he would have butchered his child if God had stuck to the demand, and he has been generally lauded by the church since it's inception as a superlative example of faith in God. As a believer in the literal truth of the Bible, how do you react to that. And what do you think God's reaction would have been if Abraham has simply said, "God, I'm not going to do that; it would be totally evil, and you are a #%&*@ for telling me to do it."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:47 PM

That post by Iona (GUEST,Iona - PM Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM ) really must be some kind of record for a post - more especially one that isn't pretty well wholly made up of cut and pasted material. Quite fun really - but...

I find it really weird that anyone should think that this creationist stuff is significant either to being a Christian or not being a Christian.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 04:06 PM

It isn't, really, but a lot of Biblical literalists make a big deal out of it.

If they really think they need to take the Bible literally, I can recommend a number of verses that would give them pause to think again!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM

This, for starters.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio advice guru. Some time back, she took a shot at homosexuality, using the Bible as the absolute authority, and received the following response:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

James
The pastor of the church my wife and I attend once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is NOT the Boy Scout Manual. Rather than answers to everything, this book contains QUESTIONS!"

Don Firth

P. S. And it certainly does not contain answers to scientific questions. Those who dwell on discrepancies such as this are missing the point entirely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM

Evolution is true. Indeed it is. I didn't say the contradictory "the theory of evolution is true." It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs. Unless you're barking, of course. Hello, Snail, by the way,. Here we go again, eh, with your contrarian stance on everything I say. Get a life, why don't you. Or evolve into something more intelligent than a gastropod.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM

I heard a good analogy for the gaps-in-the-fossil-record idea -

There has been a robbery. On the surveillance tape you see someone go into the door with an empty bag and out with a full one at the time the robbery occurred.

Gap! Cries the defense. You don't see the actual robbery so these frames are of no use as evidence. You need the missing link in your evidence chain. Seeing you coming in and going out is not evidence that you were inside at all.

So you go to the indoor camera that shows the perpetrator breaking into the vault with the empty bag and coming out with a full one.

More gaps! Says the defense. Now there are more holes in your story - you don't show my client between the door and the vault nor between the vault and the door - maybe these are two different people (in identical clothes and bag is not mentioned, of course).

And so on. I think you get the picture. But I liked the analogy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:49 PM

"Arguing with the likes of Iona is completely pointless. She isn't actually thinking, just regurgitating garbage from creationist websites."

I'm not sure that arguing with Iona is pointless, Snail. I wouldn't normally bother with people like her but she and her kind apparently have quite a bit of political 'clout' in the US - and I believe that that fact puts us all in danger - and I feel duty bound to say something.

On the other hand I can't resist pointing out that arguing with you seems to be a pretty futile exercise ...


I liked your last post, Don, it made me smile. The creationist mind-set seems to be very 'selectivist' (if that's a real word!). Select the bits of the Bible that you like - ignore the rest. Nit pick the literature on Evolution, blow any apparent anomalies or contentious issues out of proportion, and loudly claim that such points PROVE that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong ... and attribute all creation to God ... eerrr ... so how did God do it? Well, He just did - it says so in the Bible!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:59 PM

I am working on another one of my mile-long answers, but I still think that you all ought to answer me:

Define good.

Define evil.

You see, without your borrowing from a Christian worldview, you can't define those things. So Don, really you have no argument. By your worldview, anything goes and you have no basis for reason.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:04 PM

One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM

Hardly any surprise that Steve Shaw responds with personal abuse.

It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs.

I would certainly not deny that evolution occurs but, as Iona demonstrates, it is perfectly possible to do so if you are sufficiently obsessed with your own world view. Someone might just as well say the Moon does not exist but they won't get taken very seriously.

Evolution is true. A meaningless statement and a completely unscientific one. You might just as well say "The Moon is true."

Trying to debate with the likes of Iona is pointless. What matters is presenting a clear description of how science works and what the scientific method is and what it can achieve. As Shimrod said, it is not about 'absolute truth'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM

"Define good."

Aristotle

Kant

John Stuart Mill


etc....


Oh...I'm sorry... you want a 'simplistic' one


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM

""Just off the coast where I live in Cornwall there a submerged forest about 8,000 years old, inundated by the sea when sea levels rose.""

Oh don't tell her that Steve, you'll destroy her illusory belief in a universe created 6,000 years ago in six days.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:38 PM

Shimrod

I'm not sure that arguing with Iona is pointless, Snail. I wouldn't normally bother with people like her but she and her kind apparently have quite a bit of political 'clout' in the US - and I believe that that fact puts us all in danger - and I feel duty bound to say something.

Point taken but do you think that you are going to win her over? She stopped actually thinking a long time ago. Her arguments are an incoherent mess. She started off asking about evidence for evolution and now she's talking about Good and Evil. The target audience for rationalists are those who might be won over by her arguments. They need to be shown how science works as I said in my last post. They need to know that it is not just an alternative belief system.

On the other hand I can't resist pointing out that arguing with you seems to be a pretty futile exercise ...

Well, only because you can't admit I'm right. Tell me this, do you think Steve Shaw is right when he says "Evolution is true." If so, what does that mean? No fence sitting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:40 PM

""I am working on another one of my mile-long answers, but I still think that you all ought to answer me:

Define good.

Define evil.
""

I have no intention of pandering to your attempts to claim that only Christians know the difference.

Don Firth's recent offering does a pretty good job of showing the evil that lurks in that book you so revere.

The average atheist would never be so amoral as to accept it as the word of any moral or ethical authority.

Fundamentalists, such as yourself, are apparently just that amoral. You give genuine Christians a bad name.

Don T.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM

Iona:    "You see, without your borrowing from a Christian worldview, you can't define those things. So Don, really you have no argument. By your worldview, anything goes and you have no basis for reason."

I do NOT have to borrow from the Christian "worldview" to define good and evil. Thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Siddhârtha Gautama Buddha, and many, MANY religious figures who existed LONG before Jesus, not to mention MOSES, I might add—have given answers to the question of Good and Evil. These answers are remarkably similar, and they pre-date the birth of Jesus by centuries.

And here is something YOU don't seem capable of understanding. And that is that one can figure out the nature of Good and Evil on one's own. Without having to turn to some religious figure.

That which promotes and enriches life is GOOD.

That which is inimical to life is EVIL.

I don't need the Boy Scout Manual. Nor, for that matter, Jesus, to tell me the nature of Good and Evil.

Perhaps, however, YOU do.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:24 PM

And, Iona, don't fall into the error of thinking those are simplistic answers. They are far more complex than you may think.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM

Evolution is true. A meaningless statement and a completely unscientific one. You might just as well say "The Moon is true."

You are trolling. However.

The above assertion is utter rubbish. Evolution is a concept. The moon is a solid object. Your "might just as well" connection is useless. Why don't you think before you post? And by saying that evolution is true I was not even attempting to make "a scientific statement," whatever that's supposed to be. I'm saying it as it is. That evolution happens is no longer deniable. I do not say that the theory of evolution is true. The general thrust is true, but there are still plenty of tweaks to be made and plenty of gaps in knowledge to fill. That does not alter the fact that we have more than enough information by now to declare that evolution certainly happens. So evolution is true.

This bloke, or woman, or mollusc, whatever it/he/she is, appears to get perverse pleasure in contradicting everything I say. The threadbare nature of Snail's approach is betrayed by the above quoted statement. Thoughtless, useless and more than tinged with bile. So my post gets filled with bile too. A classic example, then, of why we shouldn't feed trolls. There's a song thrush in my garden that delights in cracking snail shells and consuming the titbit therein. This specimen would give my thrush serious indigestion, I reckon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:44 AM

I have no intention of pandering to your attempts to claim that only Christians know the difference.

Don Firth's recent offering does a pretty good job of showing the evil that lurks in that book you so revere.

The average atheist would never be so amoral as to accept it as the word of any moral or ethical authority.

Fundamentalists, such as yourself, are apparently just that amoral. You give genuine Christians a bad name.


I'm pleased to see you so indignant over evil. That proves my point, which is this:
Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good. Everything is relative without a Christian worldview. I have a basis for defining evil. But atheists don't. So the only way that you can call some of the laws in the Bible "Evil" is by standing on the very presuppositions that the Bible provides--that there are such things as moral absolutes.
Until you are able to establish a foundation of your own without borrowing from the Christian worldview, you have no basis for judging me or anything else. For you, there is no good and there is no evil. And yet you sit here accusing me of being "amoral", "Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"--you say that the Bible contains "evil", and you state that there are morals and ethics. Splendid! Now, please stop borrowing those terms from my worldview. In an athiestic worldview, there is no good, no evil, no morals and no ethics. For instance, I'm assuming you would call child abuse wrong. Am I correct?
I'll assume you would. All right, by what standard is it wrong? Because you disapprove of it? Because it causes discomfort to your mind? Because it causes discomfort to the child?

__________________________________________________________________

One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil."

Again, I'm glad to see that you are indignant over the evil that exists in the world. To be sure, the fact that you call some things 'evil' proves the point that you aren't as good of an atheist as you say you are. How can you call anything evil? Isn't it 'different strokes for different folks'? How can you call what "Christian Worldview" has produced "evil"? What is evil?
I have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong--but you don't.
___________________________________________________________________

Trying to debate with the likes of Iona is pointless. What matters is presenting a clear description of how science works and what the scientific method is and what it can achieve. As Shimrod said, it is not about 'absolute truth'.

But you must have absolute truth if you're going to debate rationally. After all, if there are no absolutes, if 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me' . I could pull a gun and shoot you in order to win my argument. Why shouldn't I? Would you protest if I pulled a gun on you during our discussion? If you say "Yes, you shouldn't shoot me," then you obviously believe that there is good and evil. But if you say "No, it's all relative", then I am completely reasonable to pull the trigger.
By the way, when you say that trying to debate with me is pointless, you are completely right. After all, it's not exactly an equal discussion is it, since you have to borrow my worldview in order to even come to this thread! You bring assumptions with you that aren't even yours to assume, you borrow them from my worldview.
You assume that,
1. There is absolute truth. you prove that you believe this by choosing to debate with me. If you didn't believe in absolute truth, then you wouldn't care what I said.

2. There is absolute right and wrong. All over the place I'm getting called, either indirectly and directly, 'immoral', 'evil', 'unnethical', etc.

That's only the beginning of things that you must borrow from Christianity in order to try to refute Christianity.

___________________________________________________________________

I do NOT have to borrow from the Christian "worldview" to define good and evil. Thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Siddhârtha Gautama Buddha, and many, MANY religious figures who existed LONG before Jesus, not to mention MOSES, I might add—have given answers to the question of Good and Evil. These answers are remarkably similar, and they pre-date the birth of Jesus by centuries.
And here is something YOU don't seem capable of understanding. And that is that one can figure out the nature of Good and Evil on one's own. Without having to turn to some religious figure.

YES! I'm so happy that you brought this up. The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".
You get upset when someone does something that you deem 'immoral'. but if you adhere faithfully to your worldview, then it is only immoral to you and to others who agree with you. To the person who is doing the 'immoral' thing, obviously it's not immoral to them. Their morals are different than yours, that's all. Who are you to judge?
But on my worldview, when I see someone doing something 'immoral', I can tell you why I call it immoral. I have a basis for my belief. And the fact that all the individuals you mentioned propose a fundamental belief in good and evil only proves my point--that deep in their hearts they know the God of the Bible, and they "supress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18)

______________________________________________________________________

That which promotes and enriches life is GOOD.

That which is inimical to life is EVIL.

Promotes and enriches whose life? Yours? The general public? But why in the world should you care what makes other people happy? Obviously Hitler had different ethical standards than you do, because he thought that he was doing good by killing all the Jews and gypsies and the mentally handicapped. He obviously didn't adhere to your standards of good and evil, and who are you to judge him? He was doing what he thought was good!

"That which is inimical to life is evil"
Let's see, then. So self defense is evil, abortion is evil, etc. etc.... but wait, whose life are you talking about? Life in general, or your life, or.....? And why do you call it evil? Because it causes unhappiness? But what if killing someone gives a person pleasure? Then it's enriching their life---it's therefore good! Well, it's inimical to the life of the victim, so it's evil. A paradox! Good and evil at the same time. How confusing!
_______________________________________

To be continued.......
Iona
______________________________________________________________________


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM

Snail, as I said before I may not agree with everything that Steve Shaw says but I know that we both sit on the same side of the fence i.e. the opposite side from the creationists. Perhaps you should be with us on our side?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM

One thing's for certain - there's been plenty of evil down the ages that has derived from a Christian world view, no matter how you "define evil."

Again, I'm glad to see that you are indignant over the evil that exists in the world. To be sure, the fact that you call some things 'evil' proves the point that you aren't as good of an atheist as you say you are. How can you call anything evil? Isn't it 'different strokes for different folks'? How can you call what "Christian Worldview" has produced "evil"? What is evil?
I have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong--but you don't.


Hello? What on earth has the fact that I recognise evil got to do with the fact that I'm an atheist? My atheism is totally predicated on one simple point: that the probability of the existence of a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of nature and for whom there is no evidence, is vanishingly small. Nothing else! Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents (and most of those pretty casual adherents)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM

What get me is the "to be continued.." bit at the end.

Eternal optimism or what?

Also pissing myself about her "Christians have a reason for believing in absolute right and wrong." Just looked in the mirror, seems I'm the Antichrist after all! Well, nice to have turned out with a career, I say...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 06:26 AM

"Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"

Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?' rather than 'everything this person says is an incoherent and logical mess and so I can't trust a word they say, including anything about Christ'? If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 12:38 PM

interesting analogy mrzzy-but as i earlier mentioned even evolutionists have admitted the lack of transistional forms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 12:48 PM

Pete, will you for Pete's sake read the bloody Origin of Species! All your concerns are beautifully and elegantly addressed therein, "transitional forms" included, and it's all eminently readable. Go on -expose yourself to sin for a change!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in trying to engage Steve Shaw in intelligent debate. Even ignoring the puerile abuse in his post, his arguments were too inconsistent to get a grip on.

So, Shimrod, I think we may have built our fences in different places. On the far side of my fence, along with creationism are pseudo-science, intelligent design, bad science and belief in some central "truth". I think you are well aware that a lot of what SS says comes under bad science but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't think you can ever defeat creationism with bad science, in fact, you've already lost.

DmcG's question "When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?'" can easily be adapted to the view from the other side. How is a non-creationist Christian or waverer going to react to Steve's repetition of "Evolution is true" with very little explanation of what he means? They might well say "If that's the best science has to offer, I'll stick with the Bible."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

""The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".""

How can all men believe in the God of the Bible when most of the world's population, during most of the history of humanity, had no knowledge of the bible.

Particularly those ancient Greek philosophers mentioned above, who didn't have a clue that any monotheistic culture existed.

Your arguments are illogical to the point of imbecility, and serve only to show your abysmal ignorance of anything other than what is spouted by Fundamentalists and Creationists, and particularly your ignorance of the Jewish/Hebrew faith which is the source of the Old Testament.

You don't even have sufficient knowledge of Christianity to know what it is about.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 02:24 PM

All have a knowledge of good and evil? maybe so, but it shows your appalling ignorance of history and anthropology (to match that of science) that you don't know that what is good in one society or in one age is evil in another.

I can't think of a crime which has not been highly praised, if not compulsory, in other societies. Incest? Compulsory for pharaohs. Child murder? Phoenicians (and probably Abraham's neighbours too, if he ever existed). Murder? Read Huckleberry Finn or vistit the Mayan relics. Rape? It has been the normal courtship rite in many societies. Slavery? only stopped being acceptable the day before yesterday- US ex-slaves were living well into our lifetimes. The list goes on.

And things that are normal now were heinous crimes in the past. Usury was a deadly sin in the Middle Ages. Religious tolerance was a mark of lack of commitment (some contributors probably agree with that one). People were transported for their love of democracy only two hundred years ago.

So, if we have an inbuilt sense of morality, no one can agree on the details.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:02 PM

Iona, the complexities of Good and Evil were thoroughly discussed in great detail by philosophers centuries before the birth of Christ.

One does not need to be a Christian to know matters of Good and Evil and analyze the complexities of any given situation. You ask me a lot of questions about specific situations. I suggest that you learn these matters the same way I did:   study philosophy. Especially pre-Christian philosophers. Like I have.

Compared to Plato, matters of ethics and morality as spelled out in the Bible are arbitrary, capricious, and very fuzzy at best. And some, as indicated in the "letter to Dr. Laura" posted above, are seriously immoral and unethical.

And I remind you that I am a regular church-goer, and have served on the church council for six years. I have been a council representative to the state synod meetings several times. I also have what has been called "an extraordinary grasp" of the Bible, its contents, and its history. In addition to Bible study classes in connection with church, I have taken a course at the university in "The Bible as Literature," in which we studied and discussed the Bible AS LITERATURE, reading whole sections, not just isolated verse by isolated verse. This gives one a good grasp of what is REALLY meant by a whole section of the Bible, rather than "cherry-picking" the verses you want, taking them out of context, and putting them back together to make them say what YOU want them to say rather than what they REALLY say.

So you can't fault me on that score.

I have met your type before. Young, gung-ho evangelist out to Save the World. All enthusiasm, a little knowledge of the Bible, but of very little else.

And convinced that you Doing God's Work, are filled to the eyebrows with the Sin of Pride.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 05:00 PM

pete...."...even evolutionists have admitted the lack of transistional forms.

ONE MORE TIME! Not lack... there ARE transitional forms.... just not ALL the transitions. You can't expect one example of every change to fall in the right burial spot!

You keep using that weak argument....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 06:07 PM

Interestingly, the origins of morality may be in evolution.

Pinker (for example).

Try also Rutherford, Greene, Moll, Wrangham...get your own dang links (I know you won't).

No Christianity required (unless you will claim that bonobos are Christian).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:15 PM

Excellent article, TIA. Thanks for the link.

On any given moral issue, if the Bible says one thing, the Koran says something different, and the Bhagavad Gita offers yet a third alternative, how, then, is one to decide which of the three is right? Other than nothing more authoritive than the flip of a coin? And DEFEND that choice, except by invoking one's faith?

And despite the strength of your faith, Iona, the correct moral choice might be the Koran. Or the Bhagavad Gita. The only defense for your choice would be your faith that the Bible is right.

Your faith, like it or not, is far less authoritative and knowledgeable than that of an anthropologist's understanding of the priciples that drive evolution. You're guessing. The anthopologist is operating from evidence which is verifiable by any and all.

If they well take their blinders off and look.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:26 PM

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in trying to engage Steve Shaw in intelligent debate. Even ignoring the puerile abuse in his post, his arguments were too inconsistent to get a grip on.

So, Shimrod, I think we may have built our fences in different places. On the far side of my fence, along with creationism are pseudo-science, intelligent design, bad science and belief in some central "truth". I think you are well aware that a lot of what SS says comes under bad science but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't think you can ever defeat creationism with bad science, in fact, you've already lost.

DmcG's question "When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?'" can easily be adapted to the view from the other side. How is a non-creationist Christian or waverer going to react to Steve's repetition of "Evolution is true" with very little explanation of what he means? They might well say "If that's the best science has to offer, I'll stick with the Bible."


What a load of tosh. Evolution is indeed true, and, if you don't think it is, I should like to hear your detailed reasoning concluding that it isn't true. Not sniping, reasoning. Very little explanation my arse. I told you exactly what I meant, so take it or leave it. You suppose yourself to be some kind of scientist (I doubt your credentials severely, actually - you sound a bit like that woman in the news today who fooled everyone into thinking she had a science degree in order to get a teaching job and mark "A" levels!) Your comments quoted above are full of shit, and, if I know Shimrod even vaguely well enough, I can tell you you're wasting your time. Just shut your gob and let him speak for himself, eh? Why don't you find something useful to do? Don't snails mate at this time of the year?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:28 PM

Damn. The italics should have started at the beginning of that. Grrrr.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,LB
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 09:18 PM

One major problem Iona: The concept of both GOOD and EVIL has been around much much longer than Christianity. So your argument is absolutely and completely baseless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 12:20 AM

Iona has no interest in "the truth".
And no actual curiousity.

I encounter this type constantly in my work.
They find comfort in simplicity and pre-packaged arguments.
A complicated world is far too frightening and overwhelming.
Sorry, it's not elitism.
It's actually sad...and frightening when they vote.

Being a social conservative and evangelical does not mean you are ignorant, but the ignorant are far more likely to be social conservatives and evangelical.

Sorry Iona; if you misunderstand that point, you prove it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM

I think that "comfort" is probably too weak a word, even if taken back to its roots in giving strength. It isn't just a cosy protection against complicated things, but a need for something much stronger which drives this sort of discourse. And the desire for things to be simple, a word often used in this sort of context, actually leads too more and more unsupportable complexity, and a deity which is itself far from simple, comforting, or indeed the God revealed in Jesus. (Surrounded by Hellenistic thinkers and ideas, natural philosophy was something he did not feel it necessary to deal with.)

Last night, while sorting my slides and digitising them, I came across photographs of an unconformity (conveniently beside a rather pleasant hotel in Cumbria). I wonder how the erosion of previously deposited and lithified rocks and the formation of further rocks above them is simply attributed to huge masses of wet slurry rolling about for a year.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 08:31 AM

Steve, listen carefully. I am not saying evolution isn't true; I am saying that the statement "Evolution is true" is meaningless. You seem fairly confused about what it means yourself. In a recent post you said "Evolution is a concept." and "That evolution happens is no longer deniable." within a few sentences. Make up your mind. Which? Is it a "concept" i.e. an idea, a human construct, or is it something that "happens" i.e. part of the natural world? In the same post you said "And by saying that evolution is true I was not even attempting to make "a scientific statement," ". So what were you attempting to do? It sounds rather like a statement of belief to be set alongside "The Bible is true.". (At least that is a meaningful statement even if I don't agree with it.)

I'm not a scientist, just someone who has studied science (including evolution) extensively. Come up and see me sometime; I'll show you my certificates. As for letting Shimrod speak for himself, I suggest you take a look at his posts over the last few days.

(And keep your speculations about my sex life to yourself.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:18 PM

Okay, so I'm going to not do the mile-long answers this time (just *half* a mile long!) , because a lot of the most important points I'm trying to make are getting looked over because my post was so long. So I'm going to do just a few at a time, as I get time to answer them.
____________________________________________________________________

Hello? What on earth has the fact that I recognize evil got to do with the fact that I'm an atheist? My atheism is totally predicated on one simple point: that the probability of the existence of a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of nature and for whom there is no evidence, is vanishingly small. Nothing else! Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents (and most of those pretty casual adherents)?
I already explained a little how atheists can't call anything evil, but I am going into more detail at the bottom of this post. So read on if you want my answer.
"Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to assume that we get all our moral codes and boundaries from Christianity, which has a only small minority of the world's population as adherents?"
No, I don't. Are you a moral relativist? If not, then surely you don't believe that there is more than one truth. It is not arrogant to believe that Christianity is the only truth, in fact I go so far as to say that without Christianity there can be no such thing as truth at all. Define for me truth.Unless you borrow from my worldview, you can't.
Further explanations below.

____________________________________________________________________


"The fact that all men believe somewhere in their mind that there is good and evil, that there are absolutes, etc, is proof that they really know in their heart of hearts that the God of the Bible exists. As Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".""

How can all men believe in the God of the Bible when most of the world's population, during most of the history of humanity, had no knowledge of the bible.


The Bible is a divinely compiled collection of documents that were written over the course of earth history. So even though men didn't have the Bible as we do today, they still had the law of God as given to Adam, and to Abraham, and to Moses, etc, etc. That's also what the prophets were for in Bible times--to exhort and apply the law of God to people who perhaps didn't have access to the actual written word. But all that aside, like the Bible says--all men know that there is a Creator, and they know that that Creator holds them accountable for all of their actions. They may not consciously know it, but that knowledge is ingrained in the 'tablets of their hearts'.
_______________________________________________________________________
'Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past.'

Sure, you can also define it that way. I'm talking about 'fossilization'---the process of a substance being 'fossilized'/petrified. Something turning into a rock in the perfect shape of the original specimen. Most people (even scientists) use the term loosely to refer to the mineralization process, but also of old specimens. The argument between us is how old is old?
"fossil, coming from the Latin fossalis, dug up. Fossa and fossil ultimately stem from the Latin verb fodera, to dig." (from the Anatomy Almanac)
My point was simply that it doesn't take millions of years to preserve an object by fossilization/petrification. If you want to be perfectly accurate with your wording, say petrification.
_____________________________________________________________________


All of what you say relies on the bible as being more than a set of translations of translations of stories.

And without my relying on the Bible as being the transcendental, infallible word of God, I would have no basis for believing anything at all! I would have no basis for science, or reason, or knowledge.
Let me explain. I've already slightly touched on inductive inference in a previous post. Inductive inference is, in other words, 'the future will be like the past'. For an atheist/evolutionist, who believes that we live in a random universe, it is impossible to know that the future will be like the past. Just because I drop a pencil today and it falls to the floor does not mean that the same thing will happen tomorrow when I drop the pencil. For all you know, it could float upwards. Perhaps it will turn into a dove! We have no way of knowing what the future will be like in an atheistic universe. Thus, there is no point to conduct scientific experiments. Just because in the past an experiment has produced a certain result, does not mean that it will the same result in the future. For all you know, an experiment you have done in the past and which resulted in one thing, could blow the whole laboratory to pieces tomorrow. You have no way of knowing.Just because in the past, the future has been like the past does not mean that that in the future the future will be like the past. You have no way of knowing.

I.e.: Between points T1 and T2, things have always turned out the same, between T2 and T3, between T3 and T4 they have always been the same as in the past, so I'm assuming that between T4 and T5 I will get the same result. But that's assuming in the uniformity of nature, that the future will be like the past. If you don't assume that, then all of the probabilities from the past are just wasted information. Because if we live in a random universe, you can't know that the future will be like the past, and so the fact that the points between T1 and T4 have all been the same is useless data--you can't carry that into the future and try to apply them to T4 and T6. It's utterly worthless info because it is from the past!

The only way that you can conduct intelligent experiments is if you assume that we live in an orderly universe, in the uniformity of nature, and in inductive inference. I have a basis for those things. Christianity is the basis for inductive inference. "Christianity is the transcendental precondition for intelligibility"--without the Christian worldview, you can't know anything at all. But the whole history of science is based upon the assumption that the world is a regular, uniform place, where we can conduct experiments and make judgements on how they will turn out; you can make weather judgements, experimental predictions, you can discover mysteries and decode puzzles. All of those things are based upon the simple assumption that the world is NOT random and accidental, that there is an absolute truth, that there is such a thing as inductive inference. But again, let me be clear: in an atheistic universe, there is no basis for believing in the uniformity of nature. Therefore you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason.
___________________________________________________________________

"Giving 'genuine Christians' [whatever those are!] a bad name"

Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think 'Yes, this person makes a good argument, I need to think more about this Christianity stuff?' rather than 'everything this person says is an incoherent and logical mess and so I can't trust a word they say, including anything about Christ'? If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do.


When an atheist reads my words is it my responsibility to make them think that I have a good argument and that they ought to think more deeply?
Yes and no. Yes, since I do have a responsibility to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15), and I have a responsibility to demonstrate that creationists actually point to observable facts when they make their arguments (see my jellyfish example in a previous post, and I am planning more examples in future posts).
No in the sense that it is not my job to convince people that Christianity is true. I can't. Only God can change a person's heart. I can give evidence upon evidence, rationality upon rationality, philosophical argument upon philosophical argument, and it all fall on deaf ears if the Holy Spirit does not shed light on that person's heart and reveal the truth unto him.

"If don't take any responsibility for it, or you are happy that what you say forces them to think the latter, to my mind you are harming the promotion of Christ's message. Which is not what a 'genuine Christian' should be trying to do."
How am I being illogical? Please be specific. I am seeing a lot of generalizations branding me all sorts of names, but I don't quite see why you all are calling me these things. Be specific, so I can see where I'm being inconsistent or not.

I think that this whole discussion is too general. We are all sitting here talking about how much evidence we have, and yet we don't actually get down and say 'here's a specific situation or problem. Let's dig into this one and leave alone the rest for a time'. Shall we? I think it would be a lot more constructive if we did so. How about those jellyfish? :D

________________________________________________________________________

Again, the problem of good and evil.

The problem of evil is this. How could a loving, all-knowing God allow evil in the world? Obviously if he's all good, He would want to stop evil. If He's all-powerful, then He would be able to. So He's either not all good, or He's not all-powerful.

I'm going to repeat what I've said already about this problem, but expound some more.

Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good. Everything is relative without a Christian worldview. I have a basis for defining evil. But atheists don't. So the only way that you can call some of the laws in the Bible "Evil" is by standing on the very presuppositions that the Bible provides--that there are such things as moral absolutes.
Until you are able to establish a foundation of your own without borrowing from the Christian worldview, you have no basis for judging me or anything else. For you, there is no good and there is no evil. And yet you sit here accusing me of being "amoral", you say that the Bible contains "evil", and you state that there are morals and ethics. Splendid! Now, please stop borrowing those terms from my worldview. In an atheistic worldview, there is no good, no evil, no morals and no ethics. For instance, I'm assuming you would call child abuse wrong. Am I correct?
I'll assume you would. All right, by what standard is it wrong? Because you disapprove of it? Because it causes discomfort to your mind? Because it causes discomfort to the child? What defines good? Majority happiness? What promotes life? What gives you pleasure?
But what about the next guy? While you may call 'good' 'what promotes life', Joe Smith over there might define 'good' 'what gives pleasure to most people". Sally Jones might define it "What evokes public approval". But these three definitions are personal opinions. Three opinions that lead to three whole 'cans of worms'. Take Joe Smith's definition. If "good' is what gives pleasure to most people, then extermination of Aborigines in Australia by white men back in the late 1800's and early 1900's (because they were supposed 'missing links') was good, because there were more white men in England/America who were deriving pleasure from getting rid of the 'primitives' for the benefit of their land and studying their bodies.

Take Sally Jone's definition. If 'good' is 'what evokes public approval', then 'good' varies from people group to people group. What is 'good' for Englishmen is different than what's 'good' for East Indians. Because in the Hindu religion, widow burning evokes public approval.

If what has been said here (I think it was Don Firth who said it) is true, that 'Good is what promotes life', then you're assuming that life is good. But lots of people disagree with that. People who commit suicide obviously don't think that life is good. Therefore, good is relative.

Is there absolute right and wrong?

After all, if there are no absolutes, if 'what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me' . I could pull a gun and shoot you in order to win my argument. Why shouldn't I? Would you protest if I pulled a gun on you during our discussion? If you say "Yes, you shouldn't shoot me," then you obviously believe that there is absolute good and evil (plus, I then win the debate). But if you say "No, it's all relative", then I am completely reasonable to pull the trigger (and hey, I win the debate that way too!).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:30 PM

bill one moe time!
i believe i had quoted the words of an evolutionist .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM

Then think of it this way. When an atheist or a waverer reads your words, is it your responsibility to try to make them think ...

When an atheist reads my words is it my responsibility to make them think that I have a good argument and that they ought to think more deeply?
Yes and no. Yes, since I do have a responsibility ...No in the sense that it is not my job to convince people that Christianity is true. I can't. Only God can change a person's heart.


Can I point out a subtle turn of phrase that slipped past you? I said 'responsibility TO TRY TO make them think, which you read as 'responsibility to make them think'. There was a reason I used that formulation: the recipient is responsible for what they think, but you are responsible for how you phrase it, and so forth. That's a very important difference, and the point was how one goes about meeting 1 Peter 3:15, not whether one does.


As for "How am I being illogical? Please be specific" - again, you miss the point that in a discussion, the writer/speaker decides what to say, but it is the reader/listener who decides whether it makes sense. And, whether you like it or not most of your readers have decided that what you write is logically inconsistant, confused or simplistic. And again, in the interests of avoiding confusion, that's not the same thing as wrong [though of course its quite easy to be both]. So rather than add more examples to the growing pile, why not just deal with the logical inconistancies that have been raised so far. If you need help, there are many sites on the web to help distinguish between valid and invalid logical arguments.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 02:29 PM

So, Iona, I'm new to this thread, and I'm a bit lost in all the verbiage. Could you take the time to give us a simple glossary of your terms, like truth, good, evil, Christianity, moral relativism, and knowing?

It seems to me that all of these terms should have a more-or-less absolute meaning, but your understanding of these terms appears to be quite "relativist" - depending on your far-south-of-mainstream brand of Christianity instead of on something more definitive. Certainly, if they are not "relative," then truth, good, and evil must exist of themselves. If so, they must be independent to the ability of anyone to ascertain truth and good and evil.

Could it be that you are a relativist yourself, relating all to your particular shade of Christianity?

Please define your terms.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM

I already explained a little how atheists can't call anything evil

All religion is DEMONSTRABLY the invention of humanity; therefore, all the moral codes and Good & Evil are Atheist by default. Such an instinctive morality underwrites our familial / societal / tribal codes and relationships in terms of altruism and empathy; they are innate as language and music, and might be found in the Humanist Teachings of Jesus as the simple universal absolute of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is something we struggle with for sure - after all the Good / Evil duality is encoded as deep as the Nature / Nurture debate - but it is something we also FEEL pretty deeply too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:12 PM

I would like to know how Iona can make the claim, "Without Christianity, there can be no evil, no good,"

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others taught—and wrote—monumental tomes on Ethics, Virtue, and the nature of Good and Evil three to four centuries BEFORE Christ. Before there WAS a Christian religion!

If anything, Christian ethics and morality is derived from a slumgullion of Greek and Judaic moral systems, complete with a lot of disorganized "local options." In addition, some 150 years after the death of Jesus, some 82 self-appointed "bishops," all claiming to be descendants of the original apostles, were arguing fiercely over doctrinal minutia and "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center. It was not until the Roman Emperor Constantine, 300 years after Jesus, converted to Christianity (at the time, little more than a small but widespread and noisy cult), declared himself the head of the Christian Church, called the conference of Nicea to stop the incessant bickering by banging a few heads together and come forth with a cohesive Creed. Constantine, having established himself as The Boss, made the statement, "Dogma is what I say it is!" thereby lending secular (and arbitrary) power to this small, Mid-East cult, and consolidating his own political power. The rest is history

Much of which has damned little to do with what Jesus actually said!

Which, as far as I am concerned, is what Christianity is all about.

But three hundred years before the birth of Jesus, Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in taking the Virtues to be central to a well-lived life. More here:   CLICKY.

A couple of samples of Aristotle's writing on the subject of Good and Evil:
I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.
And
At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
Iona, read Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

And you might also take a look at the writings of Rev. Barbara Rossing, who deals a lot with modern corruptions of Christian belief.

Further. The many theological writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong, especially Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, (1991).

Educate yourself. God gave you a brain. Use it.

Don Firth

P. S. (Why do I bother. . . ?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:33 PM

Mr Snail (I tend to think of you more as a slug, actually), your post is a load of unfocussed waffle. You want to pick me up on every little statement but you tie yourself in knots every time. It is patently obvious that you're no scientist, not by a long chalk, and I'm pleased you've outed yourself on that score at least.

Steve, listen carefully. I am not saying evolution isn't true; I am saying that the statement "Evolution is true" is meaningless.

You don't really know what you're saying do you? Go and find someone else to bother.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:41 PM

600 years before Christ and half a world away, Gautama Buddha promulgated a moral and ethical code which became Buddhism. It developed and expanded to the point, 265 years before the birth of Christ, when it led to the establishment by the king of the world's first major Buddhist state, of free hospitals and free education and also the first recognition of human rights.

These people had never heard of Hebrews, or the Old Testament, and were a quarter of a millennium ahead of Jesus in suggesting that one should respect the rights of others and indeed respect all life.

Iona, please explain how that relies in any way at all on your world view, on Christianity, or on the Bible.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 08:18 PM

So, Shimrod, what do you think? Which side of which fence do you think you are on?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:19 AM

How am I being illogical? Please be specific
Ok, I can't resist. I think the ultimate problem lies in that word 'illogical'. So I'll go back to the foundations. I apologise in advance if this sounds patronising: it is certainly not my intention. Please bear with me.

The first step is to understand that English doesn't distinguish very well between an argument that does not attempt to use logic and one that does but gets it wrong - it might be fairer if we called the first non-logical, and the second illogical, but we don't, and we are rather stuck with it. And the second step is to realise that 'logic' is itself a bit of an umbrella word. As a mathematician by training, I tend to use the word to mean a particular method of argument that was only fully formalised around 200 years ago. That was based on a scientific understanding of logic that is very similar, but several hundred of years older, and both of those are based on a philosophical version of logic that is a few millenia old. But whichever formulation we use, the fact remains that almost every argument we hear in daily life is non-logical in that is does not conform to these rules. For example, I doubt very much if many advertisements do, since they tend to appeal to things like 'peer pressure' and 'sense of status', which are things that are very much outside of logic. And again, it is important to understand that the conclusions of non-logical arguments can be true. In fact, when you drive the second-by-second conclusions you are drawing on are essential to keeping you alive but are not really logically based. In common parliance many people use the word 'logical' just to denote that something is not self-contradictory, but that's far too imprecise and vastly different from how any one with formal training in philosophy or science would understand the term.

So if we are surrounded by non-logical arguments, use them constantly in our lives and find that pretty often they give the right answer, why do we get so worked up about logical arguments and take offense if someone suggests our argument is illogical? The answer is certainty. We have no real way of deciding whether the conclusion of a non-logical argument is right, but with a logical argument IF the starting assumptions