Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] the rest of the message (change in C)

Expand Messages
  • grant hallman
    ... utterly ... TECHNICAL ... science . The ... It won t work, Laurie. Science is not a popularity contest or a debating contest. It s about finding truth
    Message 1 of 20 , Jul 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      At 03:41 PM 30-06-04 +1000, you wrote:
      >To All,
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: drvr2hrdwr
      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:48 PM
      > Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] the rest of the message (change in C)
      >
      >
      >
      > The TECHNICAL POINTS of YEC are all completely groundless, all being
      utterly
      > preposterous at any level of scientific investigation. There are no
      TECHNICAL
      > MERITS to YEC, none at all. There is no such thing as creation
      "science". The
      > term creation "science" is just a made up nonsense pairing of incompatible
      > words. The term creation "science" is as valid as the term Satanist
      > "Christian".
      >
      > >
      > LA> The following puts a completely DIFFERENT perspective
      > on the above comment;

      It won't work, Laurie. Science is not a popularity contest or a debating
      contest. It's about finding truth about the physical universe. Whether YECs
      manage to win a public debate, or swamp a scientist with endless, mindless
      repetition, or drive them to frothing frustration at being ignored, or
      simply silence them, the facts of science stand for all to see who bother
      to study it. YEC is not about science, it's a religion. When faced with
      scientific truths, YEC beliefs consistently run, hide, obfuscate, or take
      any possible strategy to divert attention from the facts and evidence.

      This list has provided many, many examples of that in the past months. You
      seem technically unqualified to comment on the facts of SN1987A, so u post
      a baseless, fantastical reply and then simply ignore my point-by-point
      critique of your incorrect statements. Harris is suddenly "too busy" for
      weeks, doing something-or-other with light echoes, to comment on the
      evidence. Andrew tells us that YECs don't even /need/ to reply to contrary
      facts or evidence, because according to him, science doesn't really know
      anything and will change its mind next week anyway. (Coincidentally, that
      very science is at this very moment steering a spacecraft through the
      Cassini gap in Saturn's rings, and is doing so using not a single principle
      of Creationism.)

      Not one person has mounted an informed, scientifically credible critique of
      the SN1987A data. On the subject of radioisotope dating, Harris has set
      forth evidence which on re-examination looks to be deliberately deceptive.
      On the subject of transition species, several times, excellent lists have
      been pointed out containing hundreds of examples, yet u and others simply
      ignore the data and continue to state that transition species do not exist.
      Victor constantly repeats his mantra that "everything changes in
      relationship", yet declines every opportunity to explain how that is
      possible, or enlighten us with a single quantitative example.

      The fact is, none of you are persuadable. No amount of contrary fact or
      evidence, no matter how clear or unambiguous or well-established by
      scientific study, makes the slightest impression on any of your beliefs.
      You have a set list of misquotes and diversions, and you cycle them around
      until a saint would lose patience and want to beat your brains out with a
      red herring. It took me seven(!) tries to get Harris to answer a simple,
      key question. I still don't have a remotely plausible reply to the issue of
      SN1987A, from anyone. Whatever this list is for, it isn't seeing real
      dialog, and it isn't seeing much actual discussion.

      Nothing could make it clearer that Creationism is all about religious dogma
      and not at all about science. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect
      to know the truth about Creator's works, and don't expect to propagate your
      beliefs in public classrooms. As a 40+year student of science, i feel truly
      sorry for you, because there are none so blind. Your god is just too small
      for truth.

      sincerely - grant



      > -----------------------
      >
      > 'The impact of the debates can best be gauged by the
      > concern shown by the evolutionists. A letter to the editor
      > of BIOSCIENCE is indicative.'
      >
      > "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
      > winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
      > We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
      > creationist-evolutionist controversies."
      >
      > "We must no longer duck this and other issues
      > related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
      > face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
      > accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
      > the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
      > losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
      > in professional standards.
      >
      > (Dennis Dubay, "Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience,
      > Vol.30, January 1980, pp. 4-5 - Ref, Evolution in Turmoil,
      > p. 117).
      > ========================
      >
      >
      > LA> So much then in those terms for the "completely
      > groundless" comment and so much for the "utterly
      > preposterious" claim as well! Perhaps it is evolution
      > as science where all the faults must lie?
      >
      >
      > L.K. Appleton.
      >
      > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed
      > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
      > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >============================================
      >OriginsTalk email listserv
      >Northwest Creation Network
      >http://nwcreation.net/
      >============================================
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • tinroad66
      Those who reject their own leading scientific authorities must be seen as being UNSCIENTIFIC and their views have no point or substance. ~Laurie Appleton,
      Message 2 of 20 , Jul 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        "Those who reject their own leading scientific authorities must
        be seen as being UNSCIENTIFIC and their views have no point or
        substance." ~Laurie Appleton, after disagreeing with his authorities.


        Tin: First things first. Here is a link to topics that Mr. Appleton
        has fled, after being confronted with facts.

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/8010

        Mr. Appleton still has not explained his peculiar denial of
        speciation in light of the instances of speciation. How very strange.

        On his newest post once again we find Mr. Appleton evading a
        challenges to his many bizzare claims and instead focusing on the
        shallowest aspects of C vs E with the robotic use of quote-opinions
        instead of facts. Most intelligent people seem to realize that the
        most important method of evaluating ideas is to look at the facts.
        Not opinions, not affective responses, not evaluation of debate
        shows -- but the facts. Intelligent, educated people focus on facts
        to evaluate ideas, the very thing Mr. Appleton flees. He refuses to
        address the facts.

        Please take special note of the first sentence below, it becomes
        important later.


        > The TECHNICAL POINTS of YEC are all completely groundless, all
        being utterly
        > preposterous at any level of scientific investigation. There are
        no TECHNICAL
        > MERITS to YEC, none at all. There is no such thing as
        creation "science". The
        > term creation "science" is just a made up nonsense pairing of
        incompatible
        > words. The term creation "science" is as valid as the term
        Satanist
        > "Christian".
        >
        > >
        > LA> The following puts a completely DIFFERENT perspective
        > on the above comment;
        > -----------------------
        >
        > 'The impact of the debates can best be gauged by the
        > concern shown by the evolutionists. A letter to the editor
        > of BIOSCIENCE is indicative.'
        >
        > "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
        > winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
        > We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
        > creationist-evolutionist controversies."
        >
        > "We must no longer duck this and other issues
        > related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
        > face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
        > accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
        > the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
        > losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
        > in professional standards.
        >
        > (Dennis Dubay, "Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience,
        > Vol.30, January 1980, pp. 4-5 - Ref, Evolution in Turmoil,
        > p. 117).
        > ========================
        >
        >
        > LA> So much then in those terms for the "completely
        > groundless" comment and so much for the "utterly
        > preposterious" claim as well! Perhaps it is evolution
        > as science where all the faults must lie?

        Tin: Note that Mr. Appleton pretends to be responding to
        the "technical points of YEC". Yet Mr. Appleton responds to exactly
        zero technical points, but does a goofy victory dance anyway.

        Note also the shallow approach taken by Mr. Appleton. He is only
        intersted in the opinions of the emotions of results of debate
        shows. Not one word on the facts. Is it possible to be more shallow
        than this ? Intelligent people realize that debate shows do not allow
        thorough analysis of scientific facts and tend to focus on charisma,
        one liners and simple-minded, superficial analyses. Furthermore,
        these shows are in front of non-scientific audiences, further
        dummying down the debate. Real scientific debates take place in peer
        reviewed journals where expert scientists can evaluate there merits
        of ideas with FACTS. Not surprisingly creationism ALWAYS loses, they
        have yet to publish their very first legit scientific article.


        "As will be all too evident when we examine the creationist position
        in detail, their arguments are devoid of any real intellectual
        content. Creationists win debates because of their canny stage
        presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of evidence. The
        debates are shows rather than serious considerations of evolution."
        ----Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business p.17

        An evolution vs creationism debate before the scientifically naive is
        comparable to a debate on the merits of eating candy between a
        nutritionist and a candy maker before an audience of children.
        ~ Leon Albert, Professor of Anthropology (Ret.)



        Tin continues: In sum, Mr. Appleton is a failure when it comes to
        presenting scientific facts to make his case.


        >
        >
        > L.K. Appleton.

        Tin: Rather than using facts to support his ideas Mr. Appleton
        relies on the opinion of one crackpot, below. Once again Mr.
        Appleton has total of zero facts.

        >
        > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly
        brainwashed
        > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of
        deliberate
        > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
        > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981)

        "The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was
        called in
        behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally
        critical
        of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic
        consistent
        with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he
        demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis
        of the
        origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs'
        witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the
        earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood
        or that
        the earth was less than one"
      • atfsoccer@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/1/2004 6:09:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, grant hallman Grant writes to Laurie: Nothing could make it clearer that
        Message 3 of 20 , Jul 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/1/2004 6:09:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, grant hallman <unilogic@...>
          Grant writes to Laurie:
          Nothing could make it clearer that Creationism is all about religious dogma
          and not at all about science. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect
          to know the truth about Creator's works, and don't expect to propagate your
          beliefs in public classrooms. As a 40+year student of science, i feel truly
          sorry for you, because there are none so blind. Your god is just too small
          for truth.

          sincerely - grant

          Andrew writes: Grant should not get so frustrated with the YECs and with Creation Science. We too are only interested in truth. The difference is we start with the Bible as the word of God the creator of the universe. We YECs do not have all the answers to explain the seemingly contradictory "facts" that support an old earth. We do trust that science is a changing process and new information is continually being revealed. "We do trust that there is a God and that He is the creator of the universe and we do trust that He explained in quite plainly in His word for all to understand. Lauries's God is the same God that I and all the other YECS and those who trust in the Bible as His word worship. It is not a matter of how big or small God is but are you trusting in the true living God of the Bible or some imaginalry God made up by you or someone else that fits your particular view of what should be.

          Personally I suspect when we have a better understanding of the "big bang" more informatin will fall into place. Evolutonists assume that YEC argue that God created everything looking 14 billion years old. that is not our argument. It may very well be that all the matter in the univierse was created on day 1 about 10,000 years ago and God stretched out time and space from there. This idea of the stretching of the fabric of space and the effects gravity on time is totally sciecntific and consistent with Einsteins relativity theories and the scinec of physics and what we know about time dilation and event horizones etc. There are many YECs that are scientists and well respected researchers in all disciplines. We simply are not so quick to jump on the popular always changing wagon of science and disregard the unchanging word of the creator who was there and made everything.
          andrew
        • grant hallman
          ... hallman ... Creation Science. We too are only interested in truth. The difference is we start with the Bible as the word of God the
          Message 4 of 20 , Jul 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 12:58 PM 02-07-04 -0400, you wrote:
            >In a message dated 7/1/2004 6:09:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, grant
            hallman <unilogic@...>
            >Grant writes to Laurie:
            >Nothing could make it clearer that Creationism is all about religious dogma
            >and not at all about science. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect
            >to know the truth about Creator's works, and don't expect to propagate your
            >beliefs in public classrooms. As a 40+year student of science, i feel truly
            >sorry for you, because there are none so blind. Your god is just too small
            >for truth.
            >
            >sincerely - grant
            >
            >Andrew writes: Grant should not get so frustrated with the YECs and with
            Creation Science. We too are only interested in truth. The difference is
            we start with the Bible as the word of God the creator of the universe. We
            YECs do not have all the answers to explain the seemingly contradictory
            "facts" that support an old earth. We do trust that science is a changing
            process and new information is continually being revealed.

            What you _don't_ do, which is frustrating for any scientist trying to
            dialog with any YEC, is you don't speak to the part of the evidence already
            well-known, which is more than enough to demolish a young cosmos theory.
            Saying it's a "changing process" is just another way of not speaking to the
            evidence.

            >We do trust that there is a God and that He is the creator of the universe
            and we do trust that He explained in quite plainly in His word for all to
            understand.

            Yeah, except that honest persons can disagree about what that "quite
            plainly" actually means. Your views expressed here, for example, contain
            many contradictions with both themselves and actual scripture, which i have
            pointed out at great length and detail in the past. You have largely
            ignored this as you ignore the well-established evidence of science. You
            sure don't look like people who are interested in truth, because u ignore
            contrary evidence.

            >Lauries's God is the same God that I and all the other YECS and those who
            trust in the Bible as His word worship. It is not a matter of how big or
            small God is but are you trusting in the true living God of the Bible or
            some imaginalry God made up by you or someone else that fits your
            particular view of what should be.

            "Your god is too small" is figurative. It means your view of God, of what
            Creator is capable of, in fact what Creator has already done - is
            circumscribed by your narrow traditional dogmas. God is so much bigger than
            that. God paints with broad strokes - galactic structures a billion LYs
            across, and detail down to the smallest atom, and wonders hidden within the
            simplest molecules. Science has been a way for me to appreciate that.

            Telling God that God must have done everything in the last 10,000 years,
            pfui! Tell Michaelangelo he could only work with 1" stones.

            >Personally I suspect when we have a better understanding of the "big bang"
            more informatin will fall into place. Evolutonists assume that YEC argue
            that God created everything looking 14 billion years old. that is not our
            argument.

            In the absence of any sensible reply to things like the evidence of
            SN1987A, it is the only sensible (and completely implausible) position to
            take. If that's not what u mean, give details.

            > It may very well be that all the matter in the univierse was created on
            day 1 about 10,000 years ago and God stretched out time and space from
            there.

            Entirely aside from being implausible, the sentence doesn't make sense as a
            logical statement. It sounds like you're saying God made the universe
            10,000 years ago then somehow stretched time so it looks 10,000,000,000
            years old. But if time "stretched" by a million, exactly how is that
            different from the universe just being 10 Byo?

            >This idea of the stretching of the fabric of space and the effects gravity
            on time is totally sciecntific and consistent with Einsteins relativity
            theories and the scinec of physics and what we know about time dilation and
            event horizones etc.

            See, this is where scientists just want to throw up their hands and walk
            away. You are using terms without knowing what they mean, specifically
            without the slightest apparent understanding of the mathematics underlying
            the theory. It is blind handwaving, what i call the Sneaker Fallacy -
            because it is the logical equivalent of telling someone it's ok to jump out
            of an airplane without a parachute as long as they wear sneakers with shock
            absorbing soles. Because the soles will in fact soften the landing. Except,
            the math doesn't work. It buys you 1% of the effect u need.

            Same with your handwaving about relativity. It's like u look at it and say,
            Oh good, things get weird so we're off the hook - but it doesn't work that
            way. Time dilation follows some very well known and verified mathematics,
            and except for the first few seconds of the BB, its effects can be
            calculated quite precisely, and just don't give u what u need.

            >There are many YECs that are scientists and well respected researchers in
            all disciplines.

            None that are published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
            YEC is nowhere in the same universe as real physics - both literally and
            figuratively.

            >We simply are not so quick to jump on the popular always changing wagon of
            science and disregard the unchanging word of the creator who was there and
            made everything.

            That's not what science does. First, it has nothing to do with being
            popular. Second, while it's always changing, it's not wandering all over
            the map. The various time-dated values of c i posted here show just one
            instance of science getting better and better results. No "always changing
            wagon of science" can put 10 million transistors on a silicon chip, or
            measure the distance to SN1987A, or steer a spacecraft thru the Cassini
            dividion in Saturn's rings after a voyage of years. You fail to give
            science its just due, whether out of ignorance or dogma i don't know.

            Finally, science is /supposed/ to ignore religion. Somehow the "unchanging
            word of the creator" used to mean the Earth was flat and the Sun went
            around it in a perfect circle. It used to mean the moon was a perfect
            sphere, without mountains. Now it means something else. The reason there's
            no point trying to talk to YECs about this, is that you cannot or will not
            distinguish the difference between "unchanging word of the creator" and
            what your personal or religion's current interpretation of it is. But i can
            assure u, they are not the same.

            Which is why i say your god is too small. You keep him in a little box
            called "my religion" and won't let him out to embrace his own, much vaster
            creation. And that's just the theoretical physics part of it. The far worse
            thing you do, is to keep god in that little box from embracing the sinners
            and unbelievers, and showering them with love and understanding and
            absolutely unconditional, freely optional salvation - the "world" and the
            "whosoever" of Jn.3:16 is simply not a part of your worldview as i've seen
            it here.

            Of course God is not constrained by your beliefs or mine, so my statement
            is simply a short form for everything i find unholy in the whole
            Fundamentalist meme.

            cheers - grant
          • Laurie Appleton
            To All, ... From: grant hallman To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:09 PM Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] the rest of the message
            Message 5 of 20 , Jul 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              To All,
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: grant hallman
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:09 PM
              Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] the rest of the message (change in C)


              > >
              > LA> The following puts a completely DIFFERENT perspective
              > on the above comment;

              Grant replies: It won't work, Laurie. Science is not a popularity contest
              or a debating contest. It's about finding truth about the physical universe.
              >

              LA> Since many leading cosmologists admit to playing the
              "GAME" of trying to explain the Universe and all that is in it,
              without bring God into the picture, then the "truth" that they
              seek is really a nonsense statement. Most people will agree
              that there are ONLY the two basic positions of; 1. God created,
              or 2. Nothing done it. Does Grant loiter in some "inbetween"
              unrecognised position, somehow?


              L.K. Appleton.

              "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed
              to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
              creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
              (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex atheist scientist, 1981)




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • grant hallman
              ... universe. ... That s what science is - the mental exercise of explaining the universe by rational means. It s not a confession on their parts, it s a
              Message 6 of 20 , Jul 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:00 AM 05-07-04 +1000, you wrote:
                >To All,
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: grant hallman
                > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:09 PM
                > Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] the rest of the message (change in C)
                >
                >
                > > >
                > > LA> The following puts a completely DIFFERENT perspective
                > > on the above comment;
                >
                > Grant replies: It won't work, Laurie. Science is not a popularity contest
                > or a debating contest. It's about finding truth about the physical
                universe.
                > >
                >
                > LA> Since many leading cosmologists admit to playing the
                > "GAME" of trying to explain the Universe and all that is in it,
                > without bring God into the picture,

                That's what science is - the mental exercise of explaining the universe by
                rational means. It's not a confession on their parts, it's a reflection.
                I've studied science all my life, i still know many things science cannot
                measure.

                > then the "truth" that they
                > seek is really a nonsense statement.

                Unwarranted conclusion. The truth they seek (and find) is extremely
                successful at explaining the universe, quantitatively. You have yet to
                address the many and spectacular successes of science. To hear u, science
                is at the level of alchemy and astrology rather than electron microscopes
                and Cassini probes. The technical term for your position is "denial".

                > Most people will agree
                > that there are ONLY the two basic positions of; 1. God created,
                > or 2. Nothing done it. Does Grant loiter in some "inbetween"
                > unrecognised position, somehow?

                I find the positions compatible. God created and creates, and is present
                everywhere in the universe at all times. Nevertheless at the same time, the
                universe operates exactly as tho it followed strict rules aka "natural
                laws", which we can learn by careful observation and analysis.

                What we can't prove, by strict rational means, is objective evidence of God
                in the universe now. As far as i'm concerned, if God wants it that way for
                God's own reasons, then that's how it is, and it won't diminish my belief a
                bit, nor my curiosity about those natural laws.

                Why God would have had to break creation's natural laws in the past, just
                to make life happen, just seems silly to me. There's no reason God couldn't
                have built life into the periodic table as subtly as attractors are built
                into chaos theory. Your strident demand that God must have acted (as you
                interpret Genesis) in blatant contravention of "natural law", is simply
                unnecessary. Your ongoing failure to respond substantively to questions
                asked, just makes it look like kneejerk religious dogma rather than a
                thought-out position, or for that matter, factual.

                cheers - grant
              • grant hallman
                ... contest ... I d like to just follow up on this with a question. How many YECs know the following science facts? Show of hands won t do, actual email reply
                Message 7 of 20 , Jul 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 09:09 PM 04-07-04 -0400, Grant wrote:
                  >At 10:00 AM 05-07-04 +1000, Laurie wrote:
                  >>To All,
                  >> ----- Original Message -----
                  >> From: grant hallman
                  >> To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  >> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:09 PM
                  >> Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] the rest of the message (change in C)
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> > >
                  >> > LA> The following puts a completely DIFFERENT perspective
                  >> > on the above comment;
                  >>
                  >> Grant replies: It won't work, Laurie. Science is not a popularity
                  contest
                  >> or a debating contest. It's about finding truth about the physical
                  >universe.
                  >> >
                  >>
                  >> LA> Since many leading cosmologists admit to playing the
                  >> "GAME" of trying to explain the Universe and all that is in it,
                  >> without bring God into the picture,
                  >
                  >That's what science is - the mental exercise of explaining the universe by
                  >rational means. It's not a confession on their parts, it's a reflection.
                  >I've studied science all my life, i still know many things science cannot
                  >measure.
                  >
                  >> then the "truth" that they
                  >> seek is really a nonsense statement.
                  >
                  >Unwarranted conclusion. The truth they seek (and find) is extremely
                  >successful at explaining the universe, quantitatively. You have yet to
                  >address the many and spectacular successes of science. To hear u, science
                  >is at the level of alchemy and astrology rather than electron microscopes
                  >and Cassini probes. The technical term for your position is "denial".

                  I'd like to just follow up on this with a question. How many YECs know the
                  following science facts? Show of hands won't do, actual email reply if u
                  please:

                  - planets' orbits can be calculated to 6 decimal places for 100 years,
                  likely 4 dec places for 1000 years.
                  - the same math will put a Cassini probe thru teh rings of Saturn a billion
                  miles away.
                  - individual atoms can be seen with an electron microscope.
                  - there are about 83 stable (non-radioactive) elements, all their spectra
                  are well known and look the same in a lab or as seen from the far side of
                  the universe (allowing for red shift).
                  - both special and general relativity have been carefully tested and are
                  both real and well understood by specialists.
                  - science as a discipline is by far the most successful description of the
                  physical universe humanity has ever had, and altho it keeps refining its
                  edges, it knows a great many things very very well.

                  And now for the harder questions:
                  Notwithstanding Laurie's few fringe crackpots, there is extremely broad
                  concensus among reputable scientists that -
                  - some rocks on the earth date consistently to 3.5 Byo.
                  - the cosmos looks to be about 13.5 Byo, by a variety of independent accounts.
                  - fossil records are by their nature spotty and fragmented, however a large
                  number of transition species are well known.
                  - scientists are not in a vast conspiracy to defraud or deceive the public,
                  and as a group, don't give a lab rat's a$$ what you believe about God, and
                  are no more qualified on the subject than anyone else.

                  Think of this as a poll. Laurie, Andrew, Harris, Victor? Just a simple
                  "agree" or "disagree" will do. This might save us all a lot of time.

                  cheers - grant
                • joshuaschroeder
                  ... The fact is, most of science is in bewteen position 1 and 2. Science is most certainly agnostic with regards to God . Cosmologists don t bring God into
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jul 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@o...>
                    wrote:

                    > LA> Since many leading cosmologists admit to playing the
                    > "GAME" of trying to explain the Universe and all that is in it,
                    > without bring God into the picture, then the "truth" that they
                    > seek is really a nonsense statement. Most people will agree
                    > that there are ONLY the two basic positions of; 1. God created,
                    > or 2. Nothing done it. Does Grant loiter in some "inbetween"
                    > unrecognised position, somehow?

                    The fact is, most of science is in bewteen position 1 and 2. Science
                    is most certainly agnostic with regards to "God". Cosmologists don't
                    bring "God" into the picture because we only deal with observables.
                    The moment there is an empirical way to observe God, then we'll
                    certainly include Her when we look at our models. Until then, I'm
                    afraid empirical observation and faith-based ideas will remain
                    separate.

                    That said, there's no reason you cannot believe in God and still work
                    in empirical observation. In fact, there are a great many scientists
                    who work from just that position. Their work may confirm for them some
                    part of their faith and their faith may help them in their work, but
                    there is no reason that they need to invoke God when observing the
                    natural world since God is recognized by most everyone as being
                    something that is not observed. Aren't you supposed to walk by faith
                    and not by sight anyway, Laurie?
                  • tinroad66
                    ... popularity contest ... physical universe. ... Tin: Speaking of games, how about playing the game of explaining all your apparent errors and bizzare claims
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jul 5, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > LA> The following puts a completely DIFFERENT perspective
                      > > on the above comment;
                      >
                      > Grant replies: It won't work, Laurie. Science is not a
                      popularity contest
                      > or a debating contest. It's about finding truth about the
                      physical universe.
                      > >
                      >
                      > LA> Since many leading cosmologists admit to playing the
                      > "GAME"


                      Tin: Speaking of games, how about playing the game of explaining all
                      your apparent errors and bizzare claims that I have compiled for you.

                      You continue to run from the facts. Why do you need to run ? Is
                      your constant running from the facts an admission that you were
                      wrong ? Stop running and face the facts.

                      This post on speciation you have been running from for many weeks:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/8003


                      This post shows nine topics you have fled from:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/8002


                      Maybe if you were more careful in your original claims, you
                      wouldn't have to run away from all the things you say. Speaking of
                      which;

                      "Those who reject their own leading scientific authorities must
                      be seen as being UNSCIENTIFIC and their views have no point or
                      substance." ~Laurie Appleton, after disagreeing with his authorities.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.