51. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144780 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Hi phasmagigas,

you make some fair points and you are well aware of the teaching situation with a PGCE.

Thanks, but I'm actually not that aware anymore, it was many years ago and I never went into teaching "for real" and even felt the need to leave the country for a warmer climate :)

I was never happy that I, a physicist with no biology qualifications, was teaching biology - it was/is wrong, but that is another story.

the head of science in question could have ripped the creationist literature a new asshole

And THAT would have been a great lesson - I would have paid to see it

but she simply threw it away, it wasnt supposed to be in the school in the first place, it had no place there and was rightly put in the recycle.

You are winning me over a little, but still want to know how a child is to learn how to read this type of literature if it is not taught to them at school. This is my only point really.

It would be great if the creationist idea could be mentioned (as it was) but then have it ripped apart bit by bit but unless a consistently effective teaching method was used it could prove counter productive.

Not sure how it could be counter productive if the purpose of the lesson is critical thinking/reading. Unless of course it was a priest or something who was taking the lesson do you mean?

Its not even something that could be realistically implemented except with upper ability kids, its difficult enough as it is to get the basics of heredity and evo to the lower/middle kids.

Oh that is true... the happy days of "baby sitting" children under the heading of a science class.

Though, all I am "pushing" here is critical reading even the less enabled kids could join in the fun on that... maybe only the "smart kids" tackle the evolution/creation debate but just think of the fun the kids could have ripping at the "science" used in the latest blockbuster movie.

Anyway... I'm getting WAY off-topic.

Cheers

Lee

52. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144766 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Hi phasmagigas,

I missed some of your post it seems.

Thanks for the link to the pdf... very interesting - liked most of it, about from this little bit in the introduction…

"An important professional challenge for science teachers is the need to develop a sensitivity to the many belief systems which will permeate a group of learners and to ensure that, should questions of belief arise, they are well prepared to offer an appropriate level of engagement which retains a focus on science and what constitutes a viable scientific theory, whilst respecting the personal belief systems of individual learners."

I understand what they are saying with "respect", but if those beliefs are unscientific the child needs to be told. The child should not expect to get a pass if they write in an exam that the Earth is 10,000 years old for example.

Cheers

Lee

53. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144752 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 5:21 pm

RE: Comment #144719

Hi phasmagigas,

im not sure, even mentioning it is a bad idea unless you are very good teacher who knows evolution very well.

You said this person was "head of science" didn't you?

I'm sorry, but I think they should have enough knowledge of evolution to rip this literature apart. (If not, I want to know how they got the position)

Not all science or even biol teachers know evo that well (one could argue that they should!) its like making an omlette, its very easy to do but also easy to get wrong.

I know what you mean, to a point - I got myself on a PGCE course many years back, and with only a physics degree to protect me - I was teaching Biology to 15 year old kids... scary.

However, I am more talking about critical reading - the lesson is more for an English class than science but it could (and probably should) still be done in a science class in case technical questions are raised. (Cross curriculum actives I think they use to call it)

You most have read a few of these creationist books in your time; they are more about misquoting scientists and evolution than giving anything new that needs to be challenge. The premise of the lesson would be to question what is provided.

The follow-up lesson could then be evolution (and in the RE class they can talk about other creation myths)

I personally think it would be fun to teach (and this normally makes it a good lesson)

A teacher not experienced in creationist arguments might find themselves in a compromised position if they are asked an anti evolution question they cannot answer well.

A teacher prepares for the class - they read the creationist book first and have answers to each point in the book "in hand" ready for any such question. This is what a good teacher does before every lesson - prepare.

They are teaching students at a school with kids between 11-16, if a teacher does not know how to handle a "tough question" then they will not be lasting long teaching science I would have thought.

The notion of special critical thinking components to lessons is almost impossible in the average UK school and it is dangerous to include creation ideas there as its contentious anyway and bullshit to begin with. why not something like the history of the knowledge of the earths interior as an alternative.

I remember as an under-grad being set a homework from a lecture which involved me having to read a chapter from "a journey to the centre of the Earth" and point out what was physically wrong with the story - it was fun - but challenging books of fiction and challenging the creationist writing is a little different (OK still fiction, but sold as non-fiction which is the point).

If the science teacher is not prepared to challenge the creationist literature in lessons, who will? Would you prefer it goes unchallenged and the student to work it out for themselves later in life?

I personally think the teacher should be up to the challenge, but "easier" topics could be tackled as you suggest. Maybe the teacher could "warm up" on an easier target like alien landings or something.

Lee

54. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144704 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 4:12 pm

RE Comment #144699 by phasmagigas

a few years ago i was talking to a head of science of a UK school, she had received some creationist material through the mail and went ballistic, she made sure it was used in the best possible way......via the recycle bin.

I disagree... the best "possible way" would be to use the material in class as a critical reading exercise. Students need to be taught how to read this stuff with a smile :)

55. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144703 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm

RE: Comment #144694 by mattTR

It seems this Answers in Genesis group is touring the UK over the nxt few months - anyone fancy going to the events & asking awkward questions? Or standing outside flyering people as they go in & out?

There's no use decrying the slow creep of creationism if we atheists arent willing to go out n challenge it

I would love to do that - handout leaflets, then go in and watch the show/lecture for a laugh... but I live in the wrong country now (and no longer a student so feel I am getting too old for such things).

You will need to think of what you put on the flyers... erm, any tips?

Lee

56. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144698 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Isn't the problem to all this creationist nonsense easily resolved?

Just teach it in the schools (not in the science class of course, that is for science)

Kids should be "forced" to learn this stuff in their religious classes. That will put a stop to it. The religious nutters get what they want - no problem.

Of course, all the creation theories have to be taught, not just a single bible cult - all the major creation theories have to be taught, without bias, with just the facts - at the end of the term the students will be given an exam and asked "Which creation theory is right and why?"

Should be a laugh...

Lee

57. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143233 by LeeC on March 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Hi mesomodel,

RE: 38. Comment #142904 by mesomodel

comment #22 LeeC
Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.

In this case, I think we can. It's pretty clear in his letter to Jesus that he's figured out that religion (and Christianity in particular) is a sham. He's just unable to take the final step to recognizing he's an atheist. Instead, his mind has meltdown trying to reconcile his indoctrination (aka parental child abuse) and reality.

I actually agree with you mesomodel - my sarcasm was just set "way high", sorry I wasn't clear ? - I was merely mocking the religious (or "neutral") response.

This kid thought there was something wrong with him, and this was brought on by his religious upbringing.

However, it is an extreme case, that was more my point.

If you read some of the additional links, you'll notice various clergy stating that this is how the devil works. It's the devil's fault. And, when you realize that this kid was brought up in this environment, it's pretty clear to me that if he accepts the reality of atheism, he's basically evil. The emotional baggage was too much and he went postal.

I didn't have time to read the additional links, but I'm not surprised with your summary.

This seems then to be the problem of allowing religious indoctrination - yet where do you stop (or even start?) Ban the right for parents to teach their child their religion? Force them to teach all religions? Ban churches? What about banning guns?

It is not a simple solution - my dollar is on teaching all religions and not allow the teaching of just one religion - yet kids going "crazy" will happen, maybe if they only had a sling-shot it will not be as messy?

So, is it right to solely blame religion? Probably not, but in this case it was more than likely the major cause.

Lee

58. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142600 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Hi mesomodel,

Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.

Edit: in-line link doesn't seem to want to work. Try http://tinyurl.com/3depq6

WOW... thanks for the news story - scared the crap out of me, but thanks.

Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.

Lee

59. Fleabytes

Comment #142568 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Responding to comment #142253
Responding to comment #142258
(How many pages back?)

Hi Mike,

I have been interested in this thread from beat one.

It moves far too quickly for me, so many posts over night - how do you keep up?

I have been banging on about the evidence call for some time now. You're right, it does tend to to close the debate. But is that the aim? Is the aim to win that particular argument? Or maybe it's way bigger than that. Do you feel that argument is already won?

So many questions, but so few answers...

I'm in the debate to try and learn something first.

I admit in the past I use to throw the argument "Show me the evidence" rather quickly into a debate and it kills open discussion fast - shields up and all that.

So I try and discuss around this point and ask what evidence is valid and what is not. Why God cannot be measured or why his interactions cannot be investigated using the scientific method (but can still be known by the theist?)

The theist clearly accepts evidence (of one form or another) I merely want to understand why one type of evidence and not another... it seems to keep the debate open for a while.

"Do you feel that argument is already won?"

Do you mean the argument in the debate I am in with the theist? Clearly not, or they would not be arguing against me.

If you are asking me personally about the "Big argument" (whatever that is?) I cannot see any valid argument for the theistic God, but I am asking FOR such an argument and would be happy to hear it.

How about you?

If ya do, then i'm afraid i agree with Richard M who put it beautifully a few threads back at 4471

I need to go back and re-read it...

Richard M wrote:

I find that repetitions of "Show us the evidence!" rather tiresome, given that NOBODY is expecting any convincing evidence. Not from DR or from any other theist.
I find that in view of that, constantly demanding evidence seems rather childish and, well, undignified.
EVERYBODY knows that the message is:
"Go on, show us your evidence, if you can, because we all know you haven't got any. But we're going to pretend to expect an answer, in order to make you appear all the more stupid."
Yes, as rationalists, we are open to new data which will modify our point of view.
But asking a dry well to give you water...

I've already touched on this… my battle cry is no more "Show us the evidence!" more "explain the evidence you accept and why you reject the evidence that others accept"

Not as catchy though...

The point for me, is to engage in discussion, so that we might eventually weed out the oppression of religion

Agreed

So that people like David can Believe his story quietly,

How do you point out to "people like David" that they view and hold dear might not be "right" and that others might be more "right"?

whilst knocking loudly on the door, along with atheists, of those that use it as an excuse to mentally and physically abuse and torture their fellow human beings.

Where does "bad brainwashing in religion" stop and "good brainwashing in religion" start?

Is there any such thing as good (or bad) indoctrination in a single religion?

Where do you draw the line?

'Hey guys, there's a merry-go-round over on fleabytes, let's push it faster!!'

WEEEEeeeee around and around we go.

You are right, this thread moves too fast - it is difficult to have a discussion on it.

Lee

60. Fleabytes

Comment #142145 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 4:22 am

Richard Morgan quoted DR(?)

Without absolute proof of something for which you believe there can be no absolute proof, you will not listen to anything that any theist says. All our points are invalid until we prove to you the impossible « the Big one". But what if our proof was a cumulation of the smaller points? Ironically that is how you became an atheist…

I would have to disagree with this on the whole - who asked for absolute proof? Anyone? You boy, at the back… was it you?

I think I understand what is being said here in this quote, but a little filtering has to be done first i.e. remove the straw man argument of absolute proof of course, then remove the personal attack that I am not open to listening, and the false statement that the theist needs to prove the impossible first before the atheist will start to believe.

The last bit however, I could agree with:-

"But what if our proof was a cumulation of the smaller points"

What if indeed… it could be possible that the pieces of the puzzle point to a god… if so, is so wrong to ask to be told about these pointers? To challenge them to see if they "hold water"?

If they are valid, and many small points add up to a larger point, then great - no problem… this could present an argument that God is likely. I could be happy with that if it were true.

For over a year now I've been wandering on blogs and forums like this and asking for these little pieces of the puzzle �quot; it is not my fault is it that they do not add up to anything more than wishful thinking is it?

Mikejswalker wrote:

we have to do a fuck of a lot better than "show us the evidence'. Hold back those rockets, let's talk about it over a beer.

Coming very late to the debate, I have noticed that the "show me the evidence" response it out of season some what.

It is true this normally ends any debate pretty quick since the classic response from the theist is "…but you do not accept our type of evidence". The stalemate is reached.

I am interested then in the agreed best method to move a debate forward? Ignore the lack of evidence and talk logic? Agree to disagree? What?

Why is the demand for evidence before making a conclusion so wrong?

Cheers

Lee

61. Fleabytes

Comment #142136 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 3:51 am

Tyler Durden asked:

I don't have The Blind Watchmaker on me, but Google have returned a partial quote: "What if all of the evidence pointed towards directed panspermia - we found the spacecraft, copies of the human genome..."

Anyone got the full quote from Blind Watchmaker?

Sorry no help, I lost my copy a long time ago, but the quote you gave from the theist site is "pure evil" in the misquoting and lies department (nothing new then?).

Panspermia merely moves the creation of life away from Earth to "somewhere else" â€" it doesn't invalidate evolution in anyway since evolution does not get involved in how life started.

So I've no idea what they are talking about - maybe they just need a little more straw.

Hope you find the quote you are looking for.

Seems you got yourself into an "interesting" debate.

Lee

62. Fleabytes

Comment #142127 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 3:37 am

Billy Sands responded to Muddledthinker:

Tell us again why you thing only god can make the universe. I need a laugh from a poor quality history grad talking about cosmology

Now we are talking... time to learn something. I've come to the right thread then?

Erm... which god though?

Lee

63. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141651 by LeeC on March 11, 2008 at 2:44 am

Good grief, a comment from LeeC. You haven't been on this site in ages!

Hi Quetz,

Well, it has been a while but after my travels on other blogs I thought it would be good to come back to where it all started for me over a year ago.

PJG wrote:

Can someone explain to me what "respect" means when referring to long dead remains?

I meant it in the sense that it would not be disrespectful and start throwing the bones around for the dog to chase in the backyard.

The bones were once a person, they should be shown a little "respect"… maybe this seems odd, but for me it is more to do with remembering the person they once were.

Yes I know the bones are just bones, but we do not need to be like animals around them.

Each to their own… I would still test them, no problem with that.

Lee

64. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141615 by LeeC on March 10, 2008 at 10:07 pm

What's the problem... so long as the body is treated with as much respect as possible during the testing?

65. Fleabytes

Comment #131032 by LeeC on February 21, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Paula Kirby wrote in original post on TDD
"This is a truly despicable book and a criminal waste of paper, ink and time."

Having just read this book - I could not agree more.

Thanks for doing the reviews... a handy place to "cut and paste" from.

Lee

66. Chasers war on everything: Evangelicals

Comment #106483 by LeeC on January 3, 2008 at 3:00 am

Chaser... one of the few funny Oz programs on the TV. (The rest have been axed)

Lee

67. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81705 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 4:04 am

I am an atheist because I have not seen any evidence FOR God – For example, the bible speaks of miracles yet there is NO independent evidence for any of them actually happening (and there should be many if the bible was true).

I can also test my beliefs, and I know what evidence would change my views and beliefs.

Science provides a better solution than any religion or belief in God, and any science theory can be proven false (and they tell you how you can do it as well)

How can I prove God false?

Now can you see the difference between my belief in science and the theist faith in God?

I do not have faith because I can test my theories (one way or another). I will also trust my theories (I believe the aeroplane will not fall out of the sky because of my belief in physics – NOT my faith in physics)

In conclusion?

No evidence for God, and no way of proving God false.
(It is a very good meme indeed.)

Lee

68. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81696 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 3:50 am

Why is the universe so poorly design from the point of view of man? (The list is HUGE)

OK - we can live nicely here on Earth for a period of time - but if Earth was like Mars or Venus we would not be here asking the questions (the anthropic principle).

That's it... "rare Earth" – but not designed Earth.

Look outside Earth and you see a universe either out to kill us or too far away to be of any interest apart from to Astrophysicist.

The sun is trying it's best to kill us, and will in time. This is not good design, so again... where is the evidence of good design?

Lee

69. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #81691 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 3:37 am

Science answers the "how" questions – I am glad we can all agree on this, but who said the universe should have a "why" answer?

However, let not fall into the trap with the theist with this type of question on "why" - since religion does not answer either "how" or "why".

Answering a "how" question with only an unknown is an empty and meaningless answer. Unless God can be first explained, any answer involving "God did it" is useless, and creates more questions than answers. (Who made God? What was there before God? What is God? What are the limits of God? etc etc)

And if a theist claims religion answers the "why" questions, then try these:-

Why did God create the universe?
Why did God create such a large universe?
Why did God create man?
Why did God create evil?
Why does God allow suffering?
Why does God require worship?
etc etc

The best you might hear is "It is God's will" or "Who am I to explain the mind of God" and any other such rubbish.

Oh, and lets not forget my favourite:-

Why is there no evidence for any miracles described in any holy book attributed to God?

So, religion can only answer "how" questions with an even greater unknown (i.e. God) and cannot answer even simple "why" questions relating to God and the universe.

Stick with science… it works, and if you do not believe me – test it yourself.

Lee

70. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78834 by LeeC on October 15, 2007 at 3:29 am

Oh hum… I don't know what else to do now on the RD site? I've been debating faith and religion for 6 months now here on thread – it like the day after graduation – it's over, and now I have to find something constructive to do with my life – I'm at a lost again.

"Buy the BIG ISSUE - help the homeless!"

Lee

71. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78833 by LeeC on October 15, 2007 at 3:27 am

Hi Corky,

Gadzooks, Lee, how in the world do you find anything on that huge forum?

I'm don't know – it's not so bad… if you know where to look. It's true they have hundreds of little different topical forums, but I ignore all but 2 of them as I said with the links given. (The others are really for the Christians so no debate for an atheist like me)

The creation and evolution is fun – it widens to any science vs. bible debate really.
(but the Christians can take offence if you mock their God too much there)

The General Apologetics is were most fun can be had, so long as you frame your statement in a good argument, almost anything goes it would appear.

I read enough threads over there to scare me. I didn't realize that christians were as ignorant as what I saw.

Oh there are some REAL nutters at the forum – I've already said my favourite "debate" was with some theist who believes (nay – he knows) the Earth is the centre of the universe and does not move… WOW, that is some faith. The thing is, the guy really researches his answers, he posts even with diagrams!! – each and every point of his can be shot down with ease– yet after weeks, he still holds his belief – after all, the bible has to be correct, right? I got bored and left him to it - he's still debating it the fool.

Lee

72. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78632 by LeeC on October 14, 2007 at 1:21 am

Hi Corky,

Well - good-bye Mark.

Does anyone here have a suggestion about another thread with some fundie loons in it?

Perhaps a nice long one about Noah's great flood?

Not sure on this web-site – but I found a whole forum full of them.

None as good as Mark… and I was only using the site as a "quick fix" while this debate was quiet, looks like I will be spending more time over there now.

It's a "Christian forum", but Atheists are welcome – nothing too deep, plenty of YEC to have a laugh at (and one at the moment who "knows" the Earth is at the centre of the solar system, and does not move – you have to love it!)

Of course, they normally run away when you hit them hard with an argument. So it is not as fun... it is good if you feel like a quick strike at a theist though.

I'm normally in "General Apologetics"
http://foru.ms/f13

Or "Creation & Evolution" at
http://foru.ms/f70

Anyway – I'm still called LeeC over on this forum as well – so drop me a PM there if you find any interesting debates.

See ya

Lee

73. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78469 by LeeC on October 13, 2007 at 3:16 am

There, that's it. I'm done. Finished. I will say no more on the topic of Tyre here on this thread. In fact, it's the last I will say here on any topic.

Oh…

Well, it had to happen at some point.

I've enjoyed our little discussions here – I will miss them.

Thanks for all the time you and everyone has put in.

I am sorry though for the reasons of your leaving – that some comments might have got a little too personally, I was all for attacking the argument, but the debate did change a little over the less few weeks. This was sad in the end..

To Lee: My genuine apologies; I never did finish the response I promised you in our ongoing discussion, and it won't be forthcoming now. But keep reading the Bible, as you were willing to consider some of the passages I talked about.

No worries – I've read all your replies so I have an idea.

Of course I will keep reading the bible – you can be sure on that.

Good luck – see you around.

Lee

74. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78212 by LeeC on October 12, 2007 at 7:10 am

Hi JC

Lee, glad you're getting your "fix" discussing science with some Bible-believers.

You know me – always happy to shout physics at anyone who might read it.
(Doubt I am making a difference, but it keeps me thinking.)

Not much call for me here though at the moment when the debate is about the translation or understanding of the usage of word A or B.

However I love reading yours and others comments.

I do not "do" words very well. I read only what is on the page – in black and white… I do not go for the "Yes, but the writer really means this!"

LeeC: "Excuse me teacher, sir, but if the writer meant what you just said, erm, why didn't he write what you just said rather than this vague dribble? And how do you know what the writer meant at the time anyway - what is your evidence?"

So I cannot get involved in the debate any more than I did months ago when I read the passage in question from the bible myself – I didn't understand it, I read what was there – and I certainly did NOT see what Mark is talking about.

It seems that Mark is trying to fit the evidence to the theory.

This is NOT how I work…. This is NOT how science works.

Hi Veronique

May I point out that this Christadelphian flyer was scanned and posted on this site on November 19th 2006.

That's 11 months ago. 1687 comments later and Taunton is still tied up in the knots of his own making. .

And? The bible was written 2,000 years ago and people are still debating it. We have a LONG way to go yet.

I'm here because I find it interesting – I am learning so MUCH about the bible, science, history and ancient language.

However, it does make me wonder… why would God write a book that could be debated at all - let alone 2,000 years? Why do we have a debate, or non-believers after all this time?

Hi Philip

I think, in my own daft opinion, that God just complicates things too much.

No daft at all. You have summarised very nicely my own view – (The Tea is strong in you!)
Why insert God into an equation when it is NOT required?

For example, the pagan religions seem to all have a different reason WHY the sun comes up each morning (Chariots pulling it, beetles pushing it, etc etc) yet if you discover from experiments that the Earth is rotating and orbiting around the sun, and this rotation can explain the cause for the day and night – do you really need a beetle or chariot god to explain why the sun comes up in the morning?

It does not help with the equation/solution, and only adds new questions. (How the HELL can a beetle push a sun and where does it go at night for a kebab?)

It is the same for ALL gods… they only add to the problems. So without evidence for a god, why should I believe in any god?

Mark wrote post 1689.

actually the number is rather higher than 1687. Between 150 and 200 comments were lost from this thread, in the Great Glitch that evidently hit this web-site's servers, a few weeks ago.

Glitch? How do you know it was not Quetzalcoatl, our god, working in his "mysterious ways" to remove ALL mention of coffee drinking on this thread?

Mark wrote 1693.

As to 'knots tied', it appears to me that you keep trying to explain your belief structure by relying on your belief structure and utilising arguments from that same belief structure to explain and verify your belief structure.

How is that not equally true of you and your belief structure? What am I missing?

Steve99 beat me to it with:-

Because we are prepared to say how our belief structure could be shown to be false. You seem not to be.

Well done Steve – I would have wasted half a page of dribble to say just what you did in one sentence. Thanks.

Hi Billy,

We can actually see changes in patterning of animals today - peppered moths being one example, but more spectacularly with pigeons. Some populations are developing a white rump (we have observed the frequency change). This id due to selection by falcons. White rumped pigeons evade attack much more often than normal ones. Perhaps once the white rump becomes fixed, we may see further fine tuning as a result of the falcons evolving counter measures of their own.

Comments?

Just one comment… how are the laser armed fruit flies and army of mutate crabs coming on that Quetzalcoatl order a few months ago? If we are going to win this war we NEED more weapons.

On a more serious note, isn't a lot of medicine based on the understanding on how certain "viruses" develop and (importantly) evolve? (Remember my biology is still very weak so please forgive me my poor terminology)

So the understanding on evolution has helped a lot in the development of medicine? Proving that the theory is both correct and useful?

Mark's question though is along the lines of "I cannot explain A, so it must be B" - can anyone else see the issue with this type of argument Or is it just me?

Have to go...

Lee

75. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77924 by LeeC on October 11, 2007 at 5:59 am

My personal conclusion is that you are a self-confessed wilfully ignorant half-wit. All the evidence on this thread points in that direction.

Now, now... can we please all play nice?

No need for that type of talk. Remember what your mother said, if you cannot say anything nice?

Lee

76. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77922 by LeeC on October 11, 2007 at 5:54 am

Mark,

It is late now, and I should be going.

Because in the face of all the evidence that atheistic evolutionists throw at me day by day, and especially on this web site, I continue to stick with my (to you) peculiar beliefs. I believe that in fact this world was created, complete with complex lifeforms, by God, not over billions of years but in six days, and that only a few thousand years ago.

Amazing… truly amazing. I cannot say I am surprised by your confession, but it is not something I personally would be proud of.

Imagine if you heard a grown man make the following claim:-

"I'm so glad I believe in Father Christmas, even though I'm nearly 60 years old now. I know my parents told me that it was them who put the presents under the tree every year, but I know in my heart they were just testing me… Father Christmas is real; I know he is – How else do the presents get under the tree? And so I am so happy that I taught my children to believe in Father Christmas too, and now better still my grandchildren can be raised knowing the love that Father Christmas brings"

I'm sorry, would you feel happiness or sadness for such a person?

If no amount of reason or evidence can change a person's ideas – then that person only has blind faith.

I must go…

Lee

77. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77919 by LeeC on October 11, 2007 at 5:42 am

Hi JC

Thanks for the posts… great as always

Gah!! I can't....stop....somebody...help!!!

There is NO escape… Billy tried that, but they ALL come back in the end!!! (Well – none of the theist's have returned, only Mark has stopped – which I am grateful, I just want to move onto new topics!)

Oh well… at least I now can get my fix on another forum. I've "debating" with someone who believes that Gen 1 is confirmed by science! You have to laugh – my fav is the person's comparison to the liquid water mentioned in the bible to a super hot dense plasma ball at the start of the universe. Excellent stuff. (Mark would disagree of course - No Big Bang in the bible)

Anyway… I will return – I know my weakness. Where else can I learn so much about the bible?

Lee

78. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76510 by LeeC on October 6, 2007 at 3:11 am

Hi _J_

I think your time out playing on a Christian thread has very nicely refocused you on the main issue! I totally agree with your post, which is a list of signposts towards the point that the bible is rubbish evidence.

Thanks - not only that… there should be evidence outside the bible – I've asked for this, Mark is trying to provide it, it's just not, well, very convincingly (sorry Mark – but if we are talking about God's evidence, it should not be up to a debate, it should be clear) and therefore the bible provides more questions than answers – unless of course, it was man-made, then there is no surprise.

Cheers, LeeC. I think you were hitting the nail on the head, there.

Cheers! I was interested in your interesting reply to what I thought was an interesting topic

ARGH!!! It's catching... the interesting virus!

Unclean... Unclean!

Thanks Philip! More tea vicar?

Hi epeeist,

And why can't he keep his bloody diary up to date. I mean, he had a hard week (well, 6 days) at the start of creation. But nearly 2000 years between entries is a bit much.

Yeah – God has been rather quiet at late… what does God do with His time?

Hi Billy,

I do find it absurd that a putative creator of the universe would be interested in one species on this pale blue dot.

God went to a lot of trouble creating a universe that we have only now just become seeing – and of course, no way in visiting.

It is a bit of a tease – create a HUGE and wonderful universe and we can only now just start to look at some of it (and a very small amount at that) and of course, the bible writers knew NOTHING about any of it. They did not even know about the other planets (God forgot to tell any of the writers about the other planets? Must have slipped His mind – it was a busy week. But then why didn't Jesus tell us all about Saturn – it is the most beautiful planet to look at in the solar system – why did God make it, and not tell anyone?)

Hi JC,

What other website is there!? ;) Seriously, which one have you been haunting Christians on lately?

I've sent you a PM (I think) – not sure if I should be posting other forums on the RD site.

It is just a bit of fun – some REAL nutcases… I'm in one "debate" at the moment with someone who still believes in the geocentric model of the solar system (Really!) and that the Earth does not move – well, it says so in the bible so he believes it. The chap is having a bit of a problem explaining stellar parallax at the moment though – poor child.

The standard Christian answer is that God does care about the whole world. That's why Jesus died on the cross, so they say. There's even a verse (among the most popular) that I'm sure you've heard of that they will say suggests this very thing:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Well – they would say that wouldn't they. It is easy to say – harder to prove.

I don't know about Australia, but the Mormons believe a resurrected Jesus did, in fact, visit North America. In fact, their whole theology is predicated on the idea that North America was settled first by ancient Jews who crossed the sea (the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, called Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites), and at the resurrection Jesus came and spoke to his "other sheep" (in America, apparently) that he spoke of in John 10:16.

So the Mormons argue, anyway.

Of course you know a few problems with that.

One (as J has pointed out), even if the book of Mormon was true – what about the rest of the world? South America, Australia, China, India?

2nd – well, except for the Mormons, every other faith think this is a load of rubbish, even Mark has said so in the past I believe. So it cannot be very convincing, NOT even to other Christians.

3rd – It does not explain why when the Spanish turned up in 1492 onwards – meeting new people who never had seen a European – the Spanish did not meet ANY follows of Jesus and God. No churches, no crosses, no pictures or writing? Why is that?

4th – Well, I will just quote Billy

I think the mormons were taking a wizz when religions were being handed out :-)

Must go…or I might cause the debate to move in a different direction.

Onward to another Christian forum…

Lee

79. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76240 by LeeC on October 5, 2007 at 7:26 am

Hi all,

This thread is moving quick again – a few weeks of nothing, then days of intense posting – fantastic.

I've been causing trouble on another "Christian" forum where the writing style is a little different. (So my apologies if this post is a little "different" – it has been a while) Debates there can be short and the Christian faith is a moving target – it is much more "intellectual", in-depth and focused here. (I like it)

However, now I might bring this thread down a level or two (to my level)?

The one thing I have notice debating "on the other side/site" is how "small minded" the bible actually is.

This is just a passing comment – I do not wish to re-direct Mark from the current debate (or the reply Mark is writing to my earlier comments).

I am just wondering if anyone else (other than Mark) has noticed similar within the bible?

If God created the universe, Earth, life and man and all that – why is the bible so focused on a little tribe from Israel? Why does God care about the Earth at all? (The universe is rather BIG)

It is almost like God has a favourite football team or something?
Why isn't God concerned with the WHOLE world if Earth is so important?
Why is God worried about His fans (The Jews/Christians) following other football teams (sorry gods)?
And why does God need His fans (man) to spread God's message?

If God was so great, how come the God of the bible was NOT known in America or Australia for example until the Christians (the fans) got there first?

Something about this God of the bible doesn't seem right – the bible is looking man-made to me? Sorry – the wine is talking, the mother-in-law has left the building tonight (hooray - after 3 weeks!!!) and I can finally come back to the thread.

Cheers

Lee

80. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75902 by LeeC on October 4, 2007 at 2:38 am

Typical of this thread - I've been away from it for a little while, and 15+ new posts come along.

Hi Mark,

Lee:
Just to let you know, I've not forgotten where we'd got to on the Tyre prophecy analysis. Every time I come to this page, your comment is right there at the top, reminding me! I've got some way through a response, but what with being waylaid on other questions of late, I've not quite finished it yet. I do hope to do so before too long.

No problem - take your time. (I have to admit though, I have forgot where we were – I've been "debating" on another site while you have been away, but I will catch up again - Alex The Great wasn't it?)

Oh well... time to get reading the backlog.

Lee

81. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #72667 by LeeC on September 22, 2007 at 6:50 am

Why are we on post number 1505?

Is it just me or has 100 posts have just disappeared?

Too much wine I guess?

Lee

82. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70848 by LeeC on September 17, 2007 at 4:18 am

Hi Corky

Being an ex-Christadelphian myself, I was attracted to this rather lengthy discussion. Let me just say that you all are wasting your time with the Christadelphians. They are the hard-core of the hard-core fundamentalist. They are the epitome of fundie-ism.

Well I'm not out to convert anyone – so the time I am wasting is merely typing the rubbish I do – but I enjoy it.

However, you say you are an "ex-Christadelphian" so it is possible to leave it behind then. May I ask what made you leave the church? If that is not too personal a question.

Cheers

Lee

83. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70844 by LeeC on September 17, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hi Mark,

Still have to be brief… you are probably not surprised to hear that I am not convinced yet. However I give you it is interesting and I am grateful for your time in responding but many of my questions are still unanswered. Neither one is important in itself – but if there are more questions than answers in a "prophecy" then I may think someone was just cherry picking the bits they like.

…But actually in terms of Ezekiel's language here, he is using a very common form of expression in the Bible for death
…
…Again a common Biblical way of speaking – Ezekiel uses this sort of description in other places too, speaking of the end of various foreign powers. It comes particularly in contexts of poetic judgement against kings destined to lose their throne and die ignominiously.
…

Now when is something "prophetic" in the bible, and when is it "poetic"? A lot is written in this chapter, but much of it has been ignored and brushed under the "poetic" mat. Why?

As I have said though in my last post, my problems now with your responses are that this prophecy has now been broken into 2 because reality does not match the single description.

One half for the mainland… and 270 years later for the island.

Why doesn't the prophecy mention this "gap" you would have thought it was important?

Anyway, I will repeat just a few of the points you did not have chance to respond to the first time … (I will post more of them later, but I do not want to overwhelm you again.)

2Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste

What is this offence that Tyrus said against Jerusalem and has Tyrus already done this offence at the time of the writing?

If the offence was SO BAD… why did it take at least 2 attacks (one on the mainland, and one island) over the course of 270 years?

The verse does only mention one offence, so why did God take 270 years to get His "vengeance"?

3Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

Many nations? Why couldn't God name the nations (or even the man you claim who did the second attack i.e. Alexander the Great?)

7For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Why does the prophecy name Nebuchadrezzar, but NOT Alexander the Great… why does the prophecy have a gap of a few hundred years?

You say Nebuchadrezzar started it, and Alexander finished it… but where are you getting the information from the prophecy itself? It seems like the prophecy FAILED, but with "luck" a few hundred years later some other chap came along and it "fitted" a little bit of other waffle… it is wishful thinking unless you can show me where in the prophecy it clearly states these events because I do not see it.

My limit research also suggests that Nebuchadrezzar was fighting in the area at the time the prophecy was supposedly written, so it is more likely talking about events that were to come very soon, and not 270 years later.

16Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.

Now Mark, you claim the prophecy was describing Alexander the Great – can you name any princes of the sea this is referring to and where Alexander The great was ever named as a "prince of the sea"?

I could go on… I still have many questions – but I will leave it at that for now. You are very busy.

Thanks

Lee

84. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70519 by LeeC on September 15, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Hi Walk,

Admittedly, I haven't read every word of this thread, but it seems Mark goes on and on about the more esoteric questions, but totally avoids the simple, hard ones.

Too many words to read... so do not read them all.

It is only natural to respond to the easy ones first - but we do not forget, and I have since created summary posts so we can come back to them. (We all ask Mark so many questions, it is hard to keep track of all of them)

Some summaries can be found on page 31, post 1502 onwards if you are interested on the topics we have touched on.

Or follow this link...

Lee

85. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70518 by LeeC on September 15, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response (post 1641). I've read it and will be replying in detail when I can. (I had to pick the mother-in-law up from the airport last night and now have 3 weeks where I have to be on my best behaviour - and so will have to be "brief" on the computer)

So, just quickly now...

My original response to this prophecy was detailed back in post 1186.

As you know I broke down the whole chapter and raised many questions, which I hoped you could address – maybe in time you will be able to go into more detail later on the remaining ones – I know you will not be ignoring my points, just that I made SO many of them.

To summarise a couple of keys points I made:

Why wasn't Alex mentioned by name (or period?) didn't God know?

Why are we jumping around between the island and the mainland city to explain the prophecy?

Why is much of the detail in the prophecy being ignored (or at least, you have not provided evidence for it - please re-read my original post for the break down, although I am happy to repeat myself when I have more time.)

Must go…

Lee

86. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69651 by LeeC on September 12, 2007 at 3:38 am

Thanks Billy,

Wow… God is better than I thought, he can make the universe look 13.7 billion years old, yet only be 6,000 years plus change the ratio of the circumference of a circle and its diameter… What a guy?

This verse is being added to my list.

Hi Philip,

Glad to see your interest in Physics is taking hold… like it.

Now this is based on stuff from the 5% of the Everything that Lee was talking about earlier, yes?

WOW, am I making a difference? Physics is fun.

This has all been worked out, a sort of best guess we have now until a better one arrives that is more workable, by what was OBSERVABLE already. By putting observable in capitals, I am talking about that 5% stuff I mentioned earlier.

I will add as well, but you are doing very well on your own that "we" also think the 25% dark matter of the universe had a big help with the formation of galaxies… (It certainly holds them together and so it can be inferred by its interactions via gravity on light and matter) - sod knows about the dark energy stuff, but this has only started to make an influence "recently" on the universe and not on the galaxy scales.

Right, so how on Earth does God get top billing for all this?

Maybe "Earth" is a clue – God is a man-made invention to help "explain" the unknown, give purpose to life and create order in the community. Why doesn't the bible discuss the wonder of the universe – it seems pretty poor to lump all the amazing sights seen via the Hubble space telescope under "and the heavens"

Don't you think that the story about the Earth stopping in its diurnal course just so some humans can smack the crap out the enemy is a bit like having a huge bird lay an egg in space to create the universe?

All makes sense to me - I think I like the egg creation story better though… just as much evidence for it remember (i.e. none) and of course the same evidence against it (science)- so they are equal.

Egg creation WINS!!! Just because it sounds better…


Must go..

Lee

87. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69392 by LeeC on September 11, 2007 at 4:57 am

Hi Billy,

Something struck me recently. Is it possible for god to make square circles or make 2+2=71 while keeping the values the same? Therefore, there are somethings he cant do.

Could God tell us the last digit for Pi?
The best I've found is
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

Better still God could make Pi equal just 3?

It would make Maths a lot easier... (erm, probably mess up a lot of physics, but it would be fun)

And thanks for the bible quote... I'm adding it to my list.

I guess it is a bit like Superman and his kryptonite... our hero has to have their limits otherwise there will be no cliffhanger story.

For God it appears to be Iron?

Lee

88. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69225 by LeeC on September 10, 2007 at 4:10 am

Hi Billy,

Yep - I to hope Theo comes back soon, for one it will help Mark out a little, plus Theo was more into the debate on life forming and all that. (Although Theo says we have to wait until February – it is getting as bad as waiting for Jesus himself returning!)

As for the Noah Flood - I think I remember Mark saying that the animals were vegetarian; this is why the lion did not make the zebra extinct after a midnight snack...

It does cause a bit of a problem though… even if the lion was a veggie. What plants can they eat? Under 3 or 4 miles of water for 6 months all plant life will be dead.

The bible stories just cause problem after problem for the theist to explain. Which was the main point of my last post (and post 1562). "Religion creates more questions than answers."

Another example of the question raising bible is one verse I posted before… it is another of my favourites (I have a lot now due to all this reading of the bible and this thread)

Can anyone else spot the physical issues if God actually did this?

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Joshua 10:13
(New International Version)

I can list a few… but of course a true theist would tell me God could do whatever He likes, and this would be true… however a theist cannot explain why nobody else in the WHOLE world noticed it and through to write it done.

A brief list of issues and I see them?
Stopping the Earth spinning – (Not easy to stop a planet spinning at around 1000 mph, just try hitting your breaks while driving at 70mph and "feel" what happens)
Toastie burnt Earth one side… cold Earth the other.
This also will have a great affect on the weather – it is the temp difference that causes all those nice strong winds!!!

However, even if God "fixed it" so all was good on the Earth – why didn't the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese or whoever NOT notice the Sun and the Moon were not moving for a WHOLE 24 hours and write it down?

Maybe I just don't understand the passage.

Mark, can you help briefly on this one when you have time? (Not that important)
Have I just misunderstood this passage as I normally do by reading it out of context?

Cheers

Lee

89. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69221 by LeeC on September 10, 2007 at 3:32 am

Hi Mark,

I'm sorry, I shouldn't really have put the (f) in front of that last part of the paragraph in which I asked the questions, since it did not have the form of a question and wasn't intended as one, just as an observation. So you spent a lot of time working on something you needn't have, all because I typed 3 characters without thinking carefully enough about them. Again, sorry!

No problems – I had time on my hands then at work and I enjoy thinking and writing about astrophysics, so it was a pleasure really – even if a waste of time.

if tomorrow the distant stars (not the sun) and starlight, as observed on earth or in its vicinity, were simply to disappear, normal human life and activity, in practical terms, would be almost totally unaffected – life could continue pretty much as it does today.

Not so sure – I think I would be signing up to which ever religion predicted it… this would be a miracle worth writing about. So there will be a lot less atheists in the world.

Of course, a certain frenzy amongst astronomers and those connected with that subject, rapidly spreading to the rest of the population, would soon engulf our global society - how could such a thing happen? - what does it mean?!

The return of Jesus! That what it could mean!!! As signs go – this would be a BIG ONE!!!

Where do I signed up? A family ticket to heaven please!

the stars, day-to-day, matter much more to our minds than to any physical aspect of our activities as human beings.

I agreed to that in my first reply… if for whatever reason we could not see the stars (a dense dust cloud somehow surrounding us a lightyear away (erm?) then the animals (including man) would have used a different method to navigate at night.

However, the stars ARE required for our existence (if you follow my science based logic) and so stars will always be seen when advanced lifeforms lookup into night sky (could bore you with the details of winds from supernovas and stars if you like?)

So, the stars are present, and life on Earth can find a rather good use for them.

I pointed out though in my first reply that the observations we see in the universe puts more questions on religion than it does science.

So many WHY questions created BY religion that are unanswered – unless of course you believe in God and do not question His reasons.

Lets not dwell on it now as you say… so many posts. Lets try and finish this "Tyre prophecy"

Cheers

Lee

90. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68870 by LeeC on September 9, 2007 at 1:44 am

Hi Mark,

Regarding post 1601

I'm amazed at how many responses you are able to do - and I'm grateful for it. I've learnt a lot from this thread - and now can even quote stuff from the bible when I get caught in a debate (it happens).

Just this morning I was talking to my father about the bible - funny eh? (Don't think though you would have agreed to what I said, but I was still talking about the bible and I told my father to read it as well.)

So thank you for the time you put in here.

Lee

91. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68867 by LeeC on September 9, 2007 at 1:33 am

Hi Theo,

its been a long time (i almost forgot my password). I am currently sleep deprived and virtually drowning in work. It seems as though i will not be able to debate until February (if I'm still alive!)so you guys take care and hopefully if by that time this thread is still alive, i will charge into it.

February!!!! Oh well, we will probably still be here - plenty of prophecies to keep us going.

Take care.

Lee

92. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68658 by LeeC on September 8, 2007 at 3:01 am

Hi JC,

Please don't be sorry. I rather enjoy your posts, and don't consider them rubbish at all. It just takes awhile to read them. ;)

Keep up the good work!

Thanks... I will try then – I still prefer reading others than writing them – it is hard work to write and I do not learn anything. When I read others I learn something new...

However next I start on a new project at work so will not have as much time on my hands, the last few weeks I've be doing rather little (just trying to look busy) - hence the long posts here.

This should mean I will be more focused on my replies - and there will be less of them. They will still probably be long though…

Cheers

All praise Quetzalcoatl

Lee

93. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68652 by LeeC on September 8, 2007 at 2:34 am

sounds like a marketing ploy to me rather than a religious act

Well, it is difficult to sell your new religion to the Roman's etc if you tell them that they need to cut the top off your willy first to join the club - It does not take a marketing genius to think, maybe we should change this a little bit - God won't mind.

Summarised here in Lego:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/the_great_penis_debate/ac15_01.html

Funny how Jesus didn't say anything about this – merely men debating whether to cut the top off their willies.

Lee

94. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68646 by LeeC on September 8, 2007 at 2:19 am

Thanks Epeeist.

It's a problem when you believe in something so strongly; you have to bend to facts to fit the theory. Far better to write the theory to match the observations I think.

Thanks for the link, it could come in very handy.

I found this link on my travels:-
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm

Loads of articles against the biblical global flood. It is written by a Christian chap (proving you do not have to be an atheist to think the flood described in the bible is "wrong").

Lee

95. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #68609 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Hi,

This thread is almost dead - but the subject is still interesting to me.

I've been looking around the internet to try and find out "what could this mean"

I found a science blogger with some views

http://www.starstryder.com/2007/08/23/mostly-empty-space/

Nothing is certain yet - but still very interesting.

Lee

96. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68578 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Hi epeeist,

Mark - please don't tell me you are going to claim that the flood was literally true. We have already been through this with devolved.

Yep… read it for yourself in this summary.

Post 1393.
Question: How can Noah and the flood be understood to have happened as described in the bible?

97. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68474 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 8:26 am

Hi epeeist,

epeeist wrote : Post 1565. Comment #68398

And the word that you should look up to go along with this is "consilience". Do the dating methods agree with one another or not?

Erm... thanks. Words was never my strong point... so time to hit the 'net.

The word consilience was apparently coined by William Whewell, in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1840. In this synthesis Whewell explained that, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." The Scientific method has become almost universally accepted as the exclusive method for testing the status of any scientific hypothesis or theory. "Inductions" which arise out of applications of the scientific method are, by definition, the only accepted indicators of consilience.
Wikipedia

Well - every dating method I know agrees the universe is older than 6,000 years. So they all agree to that.

With some methods it is hard to give a "date" but millions and billions is the number they all agree on.

I have clearly missed your point – sorry, I'm tired and the wine tonight has been fine.

One dating method for the universe is using the cosmic background radiation giving one date, the measurement of the Hubble "constant" giving another - both around 13-14 billion years - the "agreed" date at the moment is 13.7 billion years.
Another is using the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram technique for globular clusters... we are getting some at 12 billion years for these objects, and they of course should be younger than the universe, so far so good.

So erm... I think this is shows the dating methods are agreeing with one another. We have not found ANYTHING in the universe older than the universe and everything pointer is showing older than 10,000 years.

I'm no wordsmith, and the wine tastes so fine right now - so please help me... how does "consilience" help me out or break my argument?

Cheers

Lee

98. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68395 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 4:07 am

Hi Philip,

I am no science know-it-all but I am under the impression dating requires not just one test but several before people will authenticate it!

There are many ways of dating the Earth and the universe... Everyone shows a much older Earth and Universe than 10,000 years. Even if one of them proved wrong - there are many more out there.

If you want to know some of the physics behind it, just ask (I will see what I can make up).
However, the logic, reasoning and evidence has not worked against a creationist that I know of yet. (mind closed to new ideas maybe?)

You could take a look at our little "age" debate on this very thread if you like at to see more of the ideas of the threaders here (Another plug the summary once again - plus more importantly, it saves me writing out more rubbish)

1395/1396
Question: How old is the Earth and the Universe? Is the Earth 4.5 Billion years old or only 6,000 years?

Have to go…

Lee

99. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68392 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 4:03 am

Hi JC

Great comments as always, I'll add them to my summary post next time - glad you are back BTW, I got worried you found God or something (Just kidding)

As usual, the thread goes silent for awhile and suddenly there are 50-100 posts to catch up on. :)

Erm... probably 50% those posts (and about 75% of the rubbish written) is from me... sorry.

I can summarise my stuff for you.

"It is just Lee having a rant... long boring rant" - I'm trying to quit.

There are many specific claims that Christians make with respect to the alleged design of the universe, and more than a few can be looked at scientifically. Victor Stenger does a fine (albeit imperfect) job of this in God: The Failed Hypothesis, which treats the "God hypothesis" most frequently offered by adherents to the Abrahamic faiths as a scientifically testable proposition.

This book is on its way to me now... cannot wait.

Lee

100. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68386 by LeeC on September 7, 2007 at 3:55 am

Hi Quetzalcoatl,

I was going to comment about the stars, but the others have beaten me to it.

No going to stop me… I wrote this rubbish today, and so I will post it.

Mark asked:-

But have you never asked yourself - given your standpoint (I presume) that evolution by natural selection is the reason why living things have the properties they do - why:
...
(f) and all that despite the fact that, apart from casting tiny amounts of light on us at night, the stars do not interact with us in any meaningful way, at the level of our day-to-day lives?

I chose the last one because Billy and others have tackled the biology side to the earlier points. Have to admit thought; I'm not sure what point is being made this last one?

This is my 2nd attempt at writing this, my first "response" was (a rather lengthy one of course) but I realised that I am answering the wrong question.

"Of course" I can answer How the stars were formed, and How they have been useful for man (calendar/seasons/navigation etc) and that other life forms could use them for similar reasons.

So Mark, are you saying that that stars have no use? (Just a little light in the night sky?)

You would be wrong on two levels if you did.

Firstly, the stars are a requirement for our existence - not just for life, but planet Earth as well (OK - some believe God did it all with a click of His Mighty fingers) however the whole scientific community are in agreement. (I've gone into this already a little - if anyone wants another lesson on stellar evolution please ask. My last rant on it I think was post 1470.)


Secondly, in our "day to day" lives stars have been very useful (I use past tense because man's technology has reduced the need for stars for such things today.)

The 1st point is a requirement - we have no choice in this, if it did not work this way, if we did not have stars going supernova then we do not have planets and life in the universe.
(Unless of course you believe in the unproven "Magic Man" theory - no explanation to who made this Magic Man or if he actually did any of the "magic tricks" attributed to him. Without ANY evidence, I doubt the Magic Man even exists - although, this could be his greatest trick!!! Prove me wrong)

The 2nd point seems to be a by-product. Life can make use the stars from this distance, but that is not their reason or purpose, if they were not there, life would have done it a different way (or not at all)

However, this is not as important as to answer why?

So I have just answered the wrong question... D'oh
(At least I edited down a lot from my first attempt. I have just answered this question/point of yours Mark the wrong way round. (In my opinion)

I do not have to explain WHY the stars are there, or WHY they are useful. I can explain the "How" scientifically on both points. (Just did briefly)

It is religion that is suppose to answer the WHY questions (so I am told)... so these why questions are the "amazing" facts I do not have to explain - the one that you Mark have seemly re-directed us away while answering Newatheist.

(The "why"" the universe is so old, so large - just "falls out" of the equations - it is as it is, because Physics is as it is, we observe it this way because we need physics this way to be asking the questions... erm the anthropic principle I think it is called.

So for the religious out there...

WHY did God created all these stars... Why did God create billion of stars thousands, millions, billions of light years away?
Why, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, did God create such a HUGE universe at all? How can starlight from these great distances be explained in the 6,000-year-old model of the Earth?

Mark, you are able to ask your question to Newatheist - but you do not ask the same type of questions to yourself?
Try it... explain why the universe "looks" the way it does - why so large... why it "appears" so old... Why is the sun a PopulationI star i.e. more than one star needed to live, evolve and go supernova before the sun could form? (Details "Summarised" in my post 1470) (This formed part of the summary post 1502 on the previous page)

Science answers the HOW rather well (not complete - not even close I admit on some points) far better than any religious answer I have heard.

Yet religions make two claims - not only can they answer the How, they can answer the WHY?

Go for it... answer any physical object in greater detail than physics can. I will taken an example, lets try something close to home:

The Sun.
Explain: How the Sun came into existence ?
Religious Answer?: God did it!
How: Magic...
Explain: Why the Sun appears the way it does?
Religious Answer?: Because - we cannot question the reasons of God.
Why: Isn't the Sun "pure", "perfect", a first generation star of only Hydrogen and Helium. Why did more than 2 stars have to go supernova before our Sun was formed? Why did God need to create and exploded many stars before our own could form?
Religious Answer?: God's will.

Conclusion: Religion is very poor explaining the HOW, and it creates more WHY questions.

Just an opinion…

Lee