Friday, November 30, 2007
“It just comes down to what glasses you are wearing”…
THE flat young earthers are back, as creationist Stephen Moore explains why he’d like any new Causeway centre to include ‘information’ on its ‘biblical’ origins. He’d also like his theories to be included in the Ulster Museum, to explain how dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. However, last night God came to me in a dream and told me that the Giant’s Causeway was in fact created by a legendary Irish hunter-warrior called Finn MacCool, and I am disappointed that this widely-held and obviously sincere view is merely considered a legend and not as seriously as this ‘volcanic activity’ humbug. Perhaps I should start a petition. Or maybe I have more sense.
Belfast Gonzo @ 03:23 PM
Conspiracy theory alert!
Look, these creationist stories keep turning up on Slugger with suspicious and ridiculous regularity. And we all rise to the bait (if only to see Sam Hanna bate).
So: --
What are Fealty, Gonzo and the others trying to hide?Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:06 AM“it was your ancestors who tried to burn to death any scientist who stood agaisn the latest popular theory of a flat earth.”
Of course it was, Sam.
But since you’re such an advocate of scientific exploration..
As I said previously..
“If you want your preferred conjecture about the geological, or indeed evolutionary, development of this Earth to be taken seriously then produce an hypothesus, test it, provide the results, and allow it to be peer reviewed.”
Otherwise, stop trying to get your beliefs taught as if they were science.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:09 AMWell Gonzo’s got a direct line to God through his dreamtime, so maybe he knows something we don’t
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:10 AMI live in Spain, Sam. You should move here, you could go and march with Jose Maria Aznar and his right-wing chums for God and Spain and to keep the Catholic Church in control of a lot of private education (but with lots of public dosh). With their fervour for the war in Iraq they must be into the Old Testament God, though, I reckon.
Snakebrain, yes that would be Usher. I now see that he is also mentioned a lot on the other Creationist thread.
It would be interesting to know the percentage of creationists in the various bits of Ireland and Britain. Who would top the League of Loonies, I wonder? :-) Night all.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:13 AMPete Baker
Am I missing something here. You are accusing me of trying to suppress scientific exploration when I am advocating that the views of our leading scientists such as Prof Nevin be presented for examination - not just by scientists as many of those are very limited in their specialisation and thinking but all critical thinkers.
I don’t know what “Foreign Correspondent “ is waffling about Anzar in Spain but he cannot give us any justification for why school children should be taught his view of science over another man’s at the public expense. You might want to be careful who you refer to as a “loony” as I strongly suspect their academic credentials would put them ahead of you in every category.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:21 AMCreationism is pure mumbo jumbo. If it wasn`t, articles supporting it would have been filling up major peer reviewed science journals for years by now.
No article promoting creationism have ever appeared in prominent sciince journals like “Science” or “Nature” so it should be dismissed for the nonsense it is.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:44 AM“Creationism is pure mumbo jumbo. If it wasn`t, articles supporting it would have been filling up major peer reviewed science journals for years by now.”
The voice of enlightened reason.......not!
There are many outstanding creation scientists - the leading Ulster Scientis, Prof Nevin is a good example. However, the prevailing orthodoxy is the religion of evolution so naturally it dominates all journals.
One of the things you clearly cannot grasp is that if you define “science” as being outside of any “creation model” then it is easy to exclude it from any examination. It is not hard to heap pejoratives from that artifical but deeply tendentious position.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 02:36 AMSam can you tell me whan snakes lost the power of speech, and where Noah’s ark is moored or where it sank?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 02:43 AM*when*
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 02:44 AM“. However, the prevailing orthodoxy is the religion of evolution so naturally it dominates all journals.”
And why shouldn`t it? Evolution is the only explanation about our origins which has substansive evidence from every relevent field of science to back it up, genetics, geology astronomy etc. Hence it`s domination of the science journals.
The hypothesis of recent creation has none whatsoever to support and the notion that this planet was covered completely in water for a few months 4500 years ago is to silly to even agrue against.
Prof Levin is but one of a few mavericks who let their religious beliefs cloud their judgement.In any profession there are always a few nutters who are mavericks....like David Irving, the historian who doesn`t think the Halocaust actually happened.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 03:02 AMSam
Why does the Bible have to be taken literally? After all, isn’t there always something lost in translation, as well as a certain amount of selectivity about what has been included throughout the ages? Are those Christians who don’t take it all literally going to hell?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 09:40 AMI have been thinking on this whole issue. It is one I generally ignore till forced to address it.
I am a creationist in the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary. This is a faith position. I am sure there is some evidence for creationism I am not actually very interested in it. I am aware there are things which evolution cannot explain but the whole theory is not necessarily a house of cards. Demonstrating one flaw does not end the whole thing. There seems to me to be quite a lot of evidence of evolution, not enough to be utterly overwhelming but in fairness it makes explaining the world possible with less complex leaps of logic than accepting creationism. So why do I not believe in evolution? I have thought about this. I used to accept it long after I bacame a Christian. I have decided that in my case (and very probably in my case alone) I feel God has asked me to believe in creationism. Not to shout it from the roof tops but to quietly get on with beleving it. This may be a cop out but as it does not really affect my life it is one I am happy with.
In terms of a few points raised.
Sam has said that theistic evolution is a nonsense. I do not necessarily agree. Our God is infinitely powerful. Had He decided to do it that way He would have had no problem so doing. He would have given man a soul when seemed best to Him. That requires no more a leap of faith than any other part of creation.
Sam I really admire what you do but I do think bringing Norman Nevin into it all the time is missing the point. His work is not about evolution nor creationism. He is a very respected doctor and medical researcher. That does not make him an expert on biological evolution. I know a number of doctors (admittedly less eminent than Prof Nevin) who believe in creationism. How the world got here has no impact at all on their day to day work. Prof Nevin has no doubt spent a life time immersed in the research literature on his field but not on the field of evolution. He will be good at weighing scientific evidence up to a point but evolution is not his field. Look at Malcolm Redfellow. He is clearly an expert on English Literature. Neither Professor Nevin nor anyone else in medicine or say evolutionary biology will be competently able to debate English Literature with Malcolm because they are different disciplines. Equally Malcolm would not be able to debate genetic diseases with Prof Nevin nor even my field with me. and I am a lot less clever than Prof Nevin or probably Malcolm.
Turning to the snake and speaking. I do not fully understand this. My explanation is that the devil entered into the snake and spoke through it; not that the snake had an inherent power of speech. There may well be other explanations. Incidentally and totally irrelevant this snake story is really cool and has a happy ending. Essentially there I am showing off my new found ability to post links in that cool way. Thanks Nevin (presumably not Norman Nevin?)
In answer to Belfast Gonzo. Of course those who do not take the bible literally are not necessarily going to hell. To say that means that one can do something (believing the literal truth of the bible) to help in or ensure ones own salvation. This offends against Unconditional election, Irrestible grace and Perseverance of the saints and the Arminian equivalents. I would argue that to believe that one has to believe in the literal truth of the bible to be saved is actually heretical.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:49 AMMr Hanna has ceased to be funny, or even diverting.
In the last few hours he has informed me, among a whole list of other chronological and linguistic impossibilities:
that the meaning of πρϖτος (Greek adjective, “first") changes depending on whether it is in agreement with a masculine or a feminine noun.
that, by implication, St John’s Greek is better than St Luke’s (it most definitely isn’t);
that the Great Flood must have happened because it appears as a legend across numerous ancient texts (which presumably also “proves” almost any myth or legend);
that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in a language that would not evolve for several hundred years (very prescient of him);
and, gem of gems, try this one:
If you had truly studied Judaism over the last 2,000 years you would understand that they are even more splinterd in their interpretations of issues like this than Christianity is, hence the latest fad Kabbalism (sic).
I will treasure that: the prospect of living two millennia, the lack of grammatical agreement and punctuation, the confusion of a fringe sect with a mainstream religion (and the religion of Jesus himself, no less), and the assurance that Christianity’s factionalisms (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox, Adventists ...) are less significant than those of Judaism.
My, my.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:51 AMNo God. No hell. No afterlife.
Jesus was just one of a zillion preachers whose followers happened to hit the religions jackpot when Christianity was made the official opium of the Roman empire.
Face it, grumbling Christians, deep deep down you KNOW it´s all mumbojumbo.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:55 AMAppealing to “äuthority” authority , especially when that “authority” is outside of his or her area of expertise is frowned upon (to say the least) in all scientific societies.
Sorry Sam, try again.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 10:56 AMSecular humanism may indeed have contributed much to humanity. But at the level of the individual (including many individuals who would consider themselves not to be religious), the concept of a greater being, to whom they can cry out in times of pain or anguish, seems to be enormously useful, even necessary.
I accept that many thinking people can deal satisfactorily without believing in a divine power, but I am not yet convinced that this would, in the round, be good for the population of the world as a whole (and I say this despite recognising that the worst excesses of religion fly in the face of humanity).
Many people, including the creationists, cling most tenaciously to unlikely beliefs and will tolerate many intellectual leaps to defend them. I’m not sure how some of them would respond if they in the end absorbed the hard truth. It might not however thrust them immediately into the arms of secular humanism!
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 11:03 AMAnd here’s your bishop, Foreign Correspondent, and wouldn’t you know it - he’s a norniron prodiban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher
But of course ol’ Spencer Tracey, playing the character based on the American lawyer Clarence Darrow, in the film Inherit the Wind which was a dramatised account of the Tennessee Monkey Trial, fairly demolished ol’ Ussher. Now where is ol’ Spencer when we need him.
Anyway, this is all becoming a bit tiresome. Can we not get back to the ould sodomy? That’s much more entertaining.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 11:04 AMBugger that.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 11:13 AMjoe,
I should not find that funny. But it is.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 11:16 AMTurgon - I still can’t do those blasted URL to words things. How ? What’s Microsoft Front Page ?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 11:56 AM<i>Evolution is not a testable hypothesis as the conditions it describes cannot be replicated today and its underlying mechanism of natural selection cannot be gainsayed.</ i>
This is a classic display of ignorance from a typical fundamentalist mindset.I have already given Sam the names of the two scientists who carried out a study of the evolutionary process in action, posited tested and proved.
Likewise, Sam has been completely unable to back up with facts his claim that the theory of evolution is been proven false.Why should we give him the time of day when it comes to science if he can’t even get it right about the bible?
Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
What, even the chapters about his own death?
Right, of course he did…
His comments on sodomy just reinforce the fact that he is an ignorant inflexible Christian bigot.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:40 PM<i>Evolution is not a testable hypothesis as the conditions it describes cannot be replicated today and its underlying mechanism of natural selection cannot be gainsayed
Hey Sam
You realize every bit of steak, every egg, every slice of bacon and every sliver of toast was once living proof of just how wrong you are. Human forced evolution are inherant in all of them.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:05 PMSam,
Lets ask Ulster’s pre-eminent and world recognised scientist, Prof Norman Nevin of QUB for an opinion.
Those of us concerned with science are not so interested in his opinions, but the facts and observations which have led him to arrive at his conclusions. I would be particularly interested to hear what led him to select the bible, as opposed to other alternative religious texts. Actually Sam, I’d be interested to hear why you have selected the bible from the range of alternatives. There are thousands of religions in the world. What led you to make your choice ?
I trust you are also consistent enough to defend my right not to have evolution, pro -sodomy foisted on to my kids or is your tolerance one-sided?
What would your reaction be if one of your kids grew up and turned out to be gay ? Imagine you were Paul Berry’s father. Would you throw him out of the house ?
I am advocating that the views of our leading scientists such as Prof Nevin be presented for examination
Views aren’t interesting. Observations are. What are Nevin’s observations ? And how do they stack up to the consensus of origin held by the entire scientific community ?
..he cannot give us any justification for why school children should be taught his view of science over another man’s at the public expense.
Science classes do not teach “a view of science”, they teach science, which is the process of describing and modelling the environment and world around us based on observation. Science teaches that the sky is blue, because you look up and you can see it. It does not teach that the sky is blue because it says so in a book.
Teaching creationism in science class is like teaching the use of leeches, homeopathy, acupuncture or whatever in medical school. The argument about whether they work or not is not the problem, it’s the fact that they aren’t medicine which is the problem. Likewise, creationism is not about observation. Your views are not about observation. You hold them because you read a very old book and convinced yourself, for no readily apparent reason, that it was infallible. The ideal of infallibility of any kind is anathema to science, it is the exact opposite of what science is about. Science stands up and shouts from the rooftops “challenge me”. That is why you can’t be allowed to teach creationism in a science class.
Your ongoing, and apparently deliberate, misunderstanding of the issues here suggests that you aren’t faintly qualified to competently make any actual arguments about the matter at hand here. All you can do is name-drop one or two people who happen to be eminent figures who agree with you, and you seem to think that this absolves you from the requirement to actually defend your case.
The facts about how science is defined and operated do not seem to get through. The fact is that you conduct your everyday life in a scientific way all the time; you react to what you observe around you, and you instinctively try to develop theories through conjecture, and you test and exercise them to solve problems, and you do all of this without actually being aware of it. You do not consult a book. It’s how human beings think. Creationism is about trying to teach people NOT to think. That’s what makes it so damn dangerous.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 01:22 PMhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7122908.stm
Repent quick.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 03:45 PMIt seems I have sparked an avalanche of hate mail.
Turgon
I do think that anyone not taking the Bible literally will go to hell. Personally, I am not sure if you have thought thorugh the implications of some of your remarks in your attempt to do a Dale Carnegie act here. If the Bible is not literal, was Jesus literal? was the Cross literal? Christ said Moses wrote the Pentateuch - you are now saying that those who say He is a liar can be a Christian!
Malcolm - can you explain you point as I am happy to answer your Greek grammar point if you would explain it. The question of the Hebrew language origin has been clearly established as being in the 10th century BC by secular linguists - I don’t know why you are persisting in your outlandish claims.
The Great Flood clearly has huge amounts of historical support. Can you name any historical event from 4,000 years ago that is referred to in 500 different accounts scattered around the globe in very different cultures and languages? It is intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to face the issue just because you don’t like the implications of it.
Clearly you have never studied Judaism or you would not even come up with such rubbish. Having completed a semester in Graduate school on this very subject in the past I am happy to list all of the various rabbinical schools, theories, Messiahs that “Judaism” has produced but it would take a lot of band width.
Prof Nevin
There is clearly very few on this board who have any background in science. Once you enter graduate level work in science, especially in the UK, you specialise in a very esoteric area of science. It doesn’t give you the right to speak authoratively in every area of science. Prof Nevin is a world recognised expert in medical genetics - which is the “engine” of the evolutionary development of man theory. Most other areas of science are incidental to the evolutionary debate, but if the genetics model breaks down then frankly it all falls apart. If Prof Nevin, is sceptical that genetic mutations and recombinations, genetic drift et al lacks the explanatory and evidential power then that is something that needs to be taken very seriously. If some bearded, liberal airhead geologist thinks rocks are billions of years old then his view of evolution is going to be nowhere near as persuasive.
Fools here who direct ad hominen arguments at Prof Nevin simply because he rejects their Darwin Fundamentalism only show their own bigotry and ignorance. He is one of the world’s leading experts in his field and is recognised as such by all leading authorities. His credentials are impeccable. Nevin taught me at QUB many years ago on the very area that is central to all of this discussion, so I know he can speak with authority. He is not some slightly eccentric family doctor who helps treat genetic diseases but has no understanding to the genetic sub-molecular issues.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 05:05 PM
