On 13/01/2021 13:29, TimS wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher 
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2021 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>   On 2021-01-12, TimS  wrote:
>>>
>>>>   On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher

>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     That nicely takes care of creation science...
>>>>>
>>>>>   Well no.
>>>>>
>>>>>   In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
>>>>>   you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
>>>>>   which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
>>>>>   supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
>>>>>   it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
>>>>>   figure is.
>>>>
>>>>   If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started  in
4004 BC,
>>>>   then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds
ago, no
>>>>   I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
>>
>> Perhaps it did. As I am trying to point out, its purely a question of
>> which *narrative* you *choose to believe*. And the consequences of that
>> particular belief.
>>
>> The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
>> interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
>> One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion
>> inspired by the devil
>
> So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't believe
> in and for which I've never seen any evidence.
>
Faced with a proposition odf a One True Perfect God and the manifest
imperfection of the world, the devil simply embodies all the chaitic
destructive forces - if you have Yang, you need a yin. If you have
matter, you need antimatter...


> And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one.

That's the one they took to America.

Remember the pilgrim fathers were religious bigots.

Too stuffy even for protestant England.

  My SWMBO, who did some
> theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been copied
and
> translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with greater or
lesser
> degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed knowledge of the languages
> they were translating from, that you're bound to have transcription errors.
> Second, you can pretty much always find a Bible passage to support and
another
> to oppose any particular PoV.
>
she is completely correct.

> So it's interesting as any other history book but shouldn't be taken as the
> firm unalterable direct and final Word of God. To do so is to make the same
> error that the Islamists make.
>
I am saying that to them, that is the One True Word. Every metaphysic
has to start *somewhere*, with some assumption, even yours....



--
     “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

     ― Leo Tolstoy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05