By-Tor.com

Devil's Advocate wrote:What we're looking for here, to have a valid comparison to YECism, is a scientist (or small group of them) who held to an old theory while their peers endorsed a new one.

And of course we want this example to turn out to have the old theory eventually found to be right.

And to further increase the similarity to YECism, let's have the new theory supported by all the evidence, and the old theory by none of it.

So this is where you've been hanging out these past two years. Nice to see you're still fighting the fight for rationality and empiricism.

Four centuries ago, practitioners of science risked torture and death for challenging and refuting religious notions.

One crucial difference in science is that science is self correcting, and will embrace new ideas, despite their initial novelty, once the evidence accumulates. Two good examples of this would be the Big Bang Theory and plate tectonics. Those who opposed the theories eventually must admit that they were mistaken.

Literalist religious views of the natural world are unchanging, because it is the goal of their adherents to preserve the orthodoxy for all time regardless of new data.

===

I am glad that the H5N1 virus hasn't jumped the species barrier. But to characterize the concerns of the WHO and others regarding the risk of this event as a "hoax" is foolish in the extreme. Sensationalist reports and bad made-for-TV movies are a distraction from the reality that this viral family is known to jump species.

Three years ago, my home city of Toronto experienced an outbreak of SARS because a handful of people staying in the same hotel in Hong Kong were infected and got on a plane. With modern air travel, a mutated H5N1 would spread just as quickly as SARS, but would be considerably more deadly.

We aren't out of the woods until the virus is eradicated as a potential source of human illness.

Nunavuter wrote: So this is where you've been hanging out these past two years. Nice to see you're still fighting the fight for rationality and empiricism.

Here, and a couple of other places.

Greetings Nunavuter of the great white north!

Howdy and who are you? Who who, who who?

Walkinghairball wrote:Howdy and who are you? Who who, who who?

Nuna's one of the Counterparts old-timers. He's been there since (roughly) forever.

Apologies from Siggy....I though Nuna was a newbie and I PM'd...

Welcome ANYWAY Nuna!

Anybody seen Soupy?

Hi.

I'm a refugee from Counterparts. I was a moderator of that site and creator of its science, film and Canadian politics forums until three weeks ago. Then, the whole site was pulled out from beneath its admins and members unanounced ...

The tragedy explained in brief: http://www.rushmessageboard.com/index.html

Now I just wander the web aimlessly.

Hi Nuna,

Sorry things went south (no pun intended) where you were....

No need to wander aimlessly anymore though...good folks here

Welcome, Nunavater! Always nice to have someone else to play with about By-tor. I hope you venture out into other areas of the board and have a little za or a drink or two with us as well as a bit of discussion here.

Regarding:

Nunavuter wrote:
One crucial difference in science is that science is self correcting, and will embrace new ideas, despite their initial novelty, once the evidence accumulates. Two good examples of this would be the Big Bang Theory and plate tectonics. Those who opposed the theories eventually must admit that they were mistaken.

Literalist religious views of the natural world are unchanging, because it is the goal of their adherents to preserve the orthodoxy for all time regardless of new data.

So the church never decided that the world was round? The church does change.

I suppose that you could claim that those people weren't literalists, but...what were they then?

Also, I think you are a bit mistaken in the goal of many literalists. Ask many a literalist and discussions like this are fine and dandy, but making you or someone else believe in a young earth or preserving orthodoxy is not anywhere close to their mission. In fact, it is an interesting discussion and no more. The real goal is to know Christ and to help others to know him. Those who are interested.

You are welcome to your Christian beliefs.

But when religion attempts to speak on matters of naturalism (the whole focus of 'Creation Science"), I will dismiss it for the mistaken paradigm that it is.

As for rejecting geocentrism, bully for the religious sorts who recognized reality. They aren't going to get an applause from me. If only Creationists could move beyond the 17th Century, we'd be getting somewhere.

Good to see you again Nuna. Dan has been posting a lot in the politics and religion sections and making life miserable for some guys in the other sites he goes to.

Um...how does one post a pic in one's sig?

I have tried various methods using my photobcket account. No dice.

Figured it out. I have to use HTML code, and it is not retroactive.

nevermind.

Nunavuter wrote: If only Creationists could move beyond the 17th Century, we'd be getting somewhere.

17th Centrury?

*looks about her house, at her clothing, at her computer....*