doldridg

Creationists love to pretend that their lies about science stand on the same ground as the science itself. The fact is, there is zero evidence supporting special creation. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution (literal mountains). People like Pat Robertson are sleazy heretics, trying to sneak your teachings into school science classes by legislative fiat in contravention to the U.S. Constitution, which they hate. So-called "intelligent design theory" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to sneak the standard creationist lies about evolution into the school curriculum. Proposing to impose lies on children is evil. Lying itself is a sin. Teaching people to sin, implying that they must do so in order to be saved is heresy, by definitions older than the church herself. These people are neither Christian nor conservative. They are radical rebels, conspiring to undermine the democratic institutions that have protected us from events like the 30 years war. And their religion is heterodox not orthodox. The state is under no obligation to support or promote it. In fact, in most Western constitutions, the state is specifically prohibited from promoting it. This state is also, of course, also usually prohibited from supporting or promoting any orthodox denominations as well (but not always). Creationism has allied itself with certain pseudo-conservative politics, notably those of the far right wing, which, while criticizing the overspending of left of center politics, conducts vast overspending of its own. It is damaged goods, from start to finish. It is time, in America, and in any other nation infected with this heresy, to talk of common sense and plain honesty.

This is a strong point. Creationism theory cannot be a science. "For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be: -consistent (internally and externally) -parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) -useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena) -empirically testable and falsifiable -based upon controlled, repeatable experiments -correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data) -progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more) -tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)", but: a)Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. b)Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. c) Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science. d)Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain. e)Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. " On the other half, evolution theory it's a science and it's rational. It helps its main purposes.It put things in order, from small to big, from simple to complex, everyone has his branch in the evolutionary tree. It also tries to explain how did it happen. It's logical and apprehensible. But it has some flaws: "a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species. d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step. f) Evolution violates the second law of thermodinamics g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution" So my point of view is that evolution theory should not be used as an atheic theory. Humans, in all their history, were searching for the ultimate answers for the essential questions like our origin, and i think we are still far from that. Everyone has his choice that satisfies his way of understanding the universe, no matter if one's choice is Darwin's theory, or a catastrophic theory, or an external interference or an omnipotent creator You reiterated here certain false claims that are popular with creationist apologists. 1. You state there are no transitional fossils. This is false. Very false, in fact, since every fossil not at the end of an extinct lineage is, in some sense, transitional. What is missing in the fossil record is a lot of rich, gradual transitions between species. Above the species level it is difficult to find a non-transitional fossil. 2. You say the fosssil record does not show that species evolve, yet the hominin record is replete with a set of our very own ancestors and several extinct collateral branches. 3. You claim that species are immutable, yet experimental evidence shows that new genetic information arises in every generation. Dobzhansky bred two incipient species of drosophila from a single monoclonal pair--in just 20 generations!. We have protocols for producing new genera in flowering plants. 4. You claim that the odds against are astronomical. We don't actually have any way of knowing this--yet. The odds against nature producing any particular organism as a random synthesis are huge indeed. But what are the odds against the random synthesis, on an entire planet, of a single, successful 200-atom replicator? 5. The mandelbrodt set and its cognates demonstrate that infinite complexity can result from simple iterative processes. 6. You claim evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is also false. Entropy is additive, If the evolution of man from microbe entails a negative entropy change, then it follows that at least one, single, necessary event in that evolution must entail a negative entropy change. When I make this point to creationist apologists they either change the subject or attempt a grand handwave. What they have never done is produce the required evidence. I conclude, therefore, that this argument, when repeated by anyone claiming scientific credentials is a deliberate lie intended to deceive people lacking the scientific education to see what is wrong with it, 7. The fossil record is most emphatically not sorted in anything resembling hydraulic order. On the contrary, it is very obviously sorted in phylogenetic order. This, when told by an apologist claiming expertise in geology or paleontology also qualifies as a deliberate lie. The real solution to this conflict is for the churches that care about truth to stop giving pulpit space to the deceivers and for honest Christians to abandon churches that support a false witness as part of their requirement for communion.

You're missing the point. Morris (whose ideas are mostly cribbed from Nova Scotia SDA apologist George McReady Price's defence of some of Ellen G. White's claims) never in his entire life presented any scientific theory of creation. Nor has any creationist done so. In point of fact, to anyone with a knowledge of geology--even a basic one--it is evident that Morris was heavily into concocting cunning lies, clearly designed to deceive the ignorant. The Church has a very old and precise word for this kind of so-called "ministry." That word is HERESY, meaning that the teachings being uttered are heterodox and should not be considered Christian doctrine. You are, of course entitled to your heretical beliefs and teachings, but you have neither the legal nor the moral right to force them into my church through the back door of the public school system. Creationism and its intelligent design disguise are nothing more than deceptive attempts to do just that. Evolution isn't "just a theory," unless you want to include universal gravitation, general relativity and quantum electrodynamics, to name three, under that same label. Would you have us give equal time to flat-earth geography, to astrology, to ceremonial magick and alchemy? Because all of those have at least as much corroborating evidence as latter-day creationism. I repeat. Darwin and Wallace did not discover evolution. They simply came up with the first natural explanation for it. The theories that explain evolution are changed and refined as evidence accumulates. The fact of evolution doesn't go away and lies about geology, about paleontology, about nuclear physics and about theology won't change that fact.

Yep, I read that review and quite agree that, as presented, the system needs more work, especially in the areas of undefined asking sequences and preemptive openings. Mind you, I think the author more or less expects you to fill in the blanks from SAYC or 2/1 or whatever you're familiar with.

Is anyone else studying this system? I have a good part of the BBO convention card built now.

There is not a single scientific theory that can be proven. That doesn't make it any less science. And it doesn't make creationism any more science. But it also doesn't make evolution any more plausible than 'Intelligent Design' so why shouldn't both theories be taught in school? The problem with creationism in most of its political forms today is that it is spiritual fraud. For example, stating that evolution is an "unproved theory" is skirting the edge of false witness unless you also point out that it is an observed fact. The body of theories attempting to explain that fact will always be subject to revision. Darwin didn't invent evolution. It was already well-known to exist in his grandfather's day. What Darwin did was propose a natural explanation for it. The historic churches both of east and west have far less trouble with this science than do some of the more vitriolic Protestant communions. I think that's because our authority derives from a continuous living tradition stretching directly back to the apostles and not from some reading of scripture. We don't reject scripture, but we are the tradition that preserved and wrote it and we reserve the interpretation of it (at least for our own communions) to our own councils, to which it is also subject for content. We do not subscribe to sola scriptura because it is not taught in scripture and was rejected early in our tradition. As a doctrine it fails its own test of authenticity. That doesn't mean we reject scripture, just that we reject the superstitious notion that, if reality (God's creation) disagrees with scripture (as interpreted) then it must be reality that is wrong. At no point does scripture actually claim that Genesis 1 or 2 were intended as a literal, scientific history, so those claiming that they must be taken that way, despite contradictions between them and between them and physical reality are proposing a private interpretation. They certainly have a right to do so in their churches, homes and even private schools. But I reject their claim to having the right to sneak their heresy (by my lights) into the back door of my church by falsely calling it science and by indulging in no small amount of untruth about science and politically forcing school teachers to spout their canned lies for them at government expense. And, as a priest of God (not Roman Catholic--my branch of the tradition objects to the idea of any single man other than Jesus Chist being infallible under any circumstance), it is my sad duty to warn some of the purveyors of the lies that they are literally risking hellfire in so doing. And for the record, there is no scientific theory of intelligent design. The proponents even admit this themselves. What they are peddling in the echoes I read is warmed-over Morrisite anti-evolution propaganda, much of it dating back to the 1960's. Don't get me wrong. My own creed states that God the Father Amighty is creator of all things, seen or unseen. My problem with anti-evolution propagandists is that I see evolution all around me and therefore conclude that God created it. I don't subscribe to the theological idea that God's sovreignty is magically repelled by words like random. Faith in God is best demonstrated by learning to pray effectively, discerning God's actual will and then praying for His help in doing it, not by tilting at windmills. Sorry if this is getting to be long. I do sometimes preach. But this is a mesage that needs to be preached. Genesis provides us, in allegorical form, with some very important insights into our relationship with God. But as a source of literal natural history, it's a complete bust.

Hi all ;) I'm looking for a regular partner for BBO. I'm open to any reasonable bidding system and want to play in ACBL tournaments. The person I'm looking for should speak English and be an ACBL member or willing to join. I've been away from the game for nearly 40 years, so I'm pretty rusty, but I'm a fairly quick study. If my partner is in the USA or Canada, we can talk by phone, as I have unlimited long distance for Canada/USA. Or otherwise we could use Skype. (I'm in Chilliwack, BC)