@Shockadelic "Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes)."

Jimmy Jones "Fascinating. So you're willing to speculate, as long as any speculation is predicated on the existence of the Christian god and a literal interpretation of an ancient myth."

Did the phrase "I'm not a Christian" not compute?
Christians are not the only people with a Man-was-once-perfect-but-degenerated story.

"But please don't fool yourself into thinking fairy tales and legends are as useful for understanding the real world as the scientific method is. That would be tragic."

Is that a straw man or a red herring?
Nobody is proposing the cessation of science classes.

"I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to?

"Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in...."

how to "win" debates with pathetic sarcasm?

You still haven't explained how you could comprehend "Joan of Arc" without *any* knowledge of Christianity.

Dan Dare "@Shockadelic You said “Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint""

"Ok, provide some evidence that leads to that conclusion."

It's the same evidence you use to "prove" evolution.

A series of fossils does not "prove" one evolved from the other.
The fossil record is haphazard.
You may see the "appearance" of a form in a certain "period" only because any prior fossils have not yet been found, or have been destroyed by time and the earth's changes.

"Explain the contrary evidence that shows all life on Earth is deeply genetically related."

Again, that proves the "blueprint" theory.
Common structures would be common, if an Intelligence (a.k.a. "God") was 'working out' his pet project.
He wouldn't start with the completed model, would he?

"@Shockadelic You said “And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.”

"And so what? Some things change and other things are at the top of their nieche with no pressure to change"

How could there be "no pressure to change" considering all the Earth changes that have occurred?
In a world where nothing stays the same forever, and one where evolution happens by *random* mutation, *no* animal should still be the same after millions of years. None!

"@Shockadelic You said “If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.”

No there is enormous deviation. Its all over the map."

Lifeforms are all over the map.
The deviation *within* related lifeforms is not.
There are no feathered dogs or flying starfish.

"@Shockadelic You said “But maybe "God" designed it that way.”

"There is no evidence to suggest that"

You are not REFUTING anything I've said.
You are just parroting "Standard Response #382".

"If the antarctic and iceland melt that will raise water level by about 80 meters. Catastrophic but not enough for a global flood."

Is the story truly "global"?
To most ancient peoples "the world" was the known region in which they lived.

"And over 6,000 years there has been very little change in land mass position or height."

Did I say 6000 years?

>> "I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to? <<

Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 2:03:54 AM

Medicine is more than medicinal drugs, so you can't denigrate the whole [the medical discipline] by attacking a part [medical drugs].

Evolution was validated by the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s when a few put together the concepts of

*genetics elucidated by Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel
*the role of chromosomes, and
* Darwin's and Wallace's theories of evolution.

The subsequent discover of the nature of DNA and they way it works sealed the concept as fact.

It's all on the 'Net.

Of course the fossil record is haphazard, particularly for the period before skeletons had developed and evolved. Look how much early European artifacts in Australia have been buried in 200 years.

Just trying to understand your position a little better, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Cain killed Abel in the field. No one saw him do it but Abel is still dead nevertheless. And so what? Your point concerning Mary Nichols was not clear to me.<<

The statement of yours that I queried was this one:

>>No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.<<

You seemed to be offering this as evidence that it could not, therefore, have happened. I simply pointed out that the absence of direct evidence of Jack the Ripper's involvement in the death of Mary Nichols did not invalidate the theory that he did, in fact, do the deed.

Your introduction of two fictional characters, Cain and Abel, is an irrelevance. Here's a picture of them, as imagined by a nineteenth-century illustrator.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Cain_and_Abel.jpg

I expect they were differently imagined by Islamic artists.

http://www.simplyislam.com/images/products/54273.jpg

There is no connection between the mythology of these two brothers from a Bible story, and the documentation available from the files of the City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police, Scotland Yard and the FBI.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/jack_the_ripper.html

Clearer now?

Dug

That Noah's Ark story is a beauty isn't it?

I've always wondered about the plants. No mention of bags of seeds, cuttings, bulbs or nary a pot-plant. The average gardener knows what a flood does to terrestrial plants - especially dry climate ones such as olive trees. Where did that dove find that olive branch?

And diseases, pre-flood people got colds, post-flood we still do - guess old Noah kept petrie-dishes full of ebola, measles, influenza...

And fresh water fish - how did they manage when all the salty oceans flooded into one another? And tropical salt-water fish versus cold seas fish? I suppose Noah and his magic ark kept a tank full of goldfish - and one of the best equipped labs ever seen on this planet.

I find it easier to believe in the Tardis than Noah's Ark. And it would be hilarious, but the people who believe this nonsense want it taught in all seriousness to our children and our expense (tax).

You seem to be getting into a lather about nothing, Shockadelic.

>>Pericles... You're the ones wriggling. Wriggling out of "opt in". Nobody has to attend...<<

No problem with that.

>>Wriggling out of multi-faith...<<

No problem with that either.

>>Wriggling out of parental responsibility...<<

Definitely supportive of that. I even made that exact point myself.

>>Wriggling out of the fact that NOTHING children are taught can ever be "proved" with 100% certainty...<<

Oh, please, that's just silly. Are you a fully paid-up Existentialist, or what? Surely you must accept that there is a substantial difference between logical deduction and feel-good fairy stories.

>>Wriggling out of the lack of choice in other school subjects, which are all compulsory...<<

There has to be some baseline for general education, surely? All we are discussing here is whether religious evangelism forms part of that baseline.

>>Wriggling out of the cost of many subjects that are hardly essential...<<

You present a fascinating set of examples of "hardly essential" subjects. Not sure how they compare, value-wise, with religious indoctrination, though.

>>Wriggling out of the fact that the vast majority of the public are religious<<

That is their right, of course, and I would be the last person to suggest they should be prevented from being so. It is obviously a source of great comfort to them in helping them make sense of the world.

Nor, as I said before, do I see much harm in Bible stories. It only concerns me when the line is crossed into suggesting that these might be literally true. That can be confusing for a young mind that lacks the balance of sensible parental input.

>>"A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry" And that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.<<

Not really. The context was the suggestion that religious counsellors should be allowed to do so.

Given their "mission", I find that creepy.