Just reading some stuff on Quora.

Was Lyn Margulis a creationist? At least one person thinks she was, although TATE doesn’t go so far.

It seems there are at least two outright creationists in Canadian universities though (Jack Trevors and David Abel).

Is that right, or is the writer misrepresenting them?

https://www.quora.com/If-evolution-is-real-can-you-give-an-example-of-one-kind-of-animal-changing-into-other-kind

I’d never heard of Lynn Margulis (not really surprising) and have just read the wiki page on her. I learnt that there’s something called a neo-Darwinist, I’d never heard of that before (not really surprising).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Was Lyn Margulis a creationist?

No.

>Was Lyn Margulis a creationist?

She was a silly billy but probably not a creationist.

She wasn’t an atheist either.

Lyn Margulis a creationist?

Had that been the case…i would have liked to have the filming rights to Sagan family dinner-table discussions.

‘ Indonesian rescue diver dies while searching for victims of Lion Air jet crash near Jakarta’ – ABC News

A dangerous profession. I’ve known some divers, even done an introductory SCUBA course and a few dives.

Age 48 is old to be doing it in such circumstances – he must have loved it. He died with his boots on.

Aaaaand the wrong thread. Again.

Peak Warming Man said:

She wasn’t an atheist either.

The link doesn’t suggest she was.

Or should we list all the things she wasn’t?

https://www.quora.com/If-evolution-is-real-can-you-give-an-example-of-one-kind-of-animal-changing-into-other-kind

dear God

there’s some strident crap in that

transition said:

https://www.quora.com/If-evolution-is-real-can-you-give-an-example-of-one-kind-of-animal-changing-into-other-kind

dear God

there’s some strident crap in that

loony capitalizations and exclamation marks

transition said:

transition said:

https://www.quora.com/If-evolution-is-real-can-you-give-an-example-of-one-kind-of-animal-changing-into-other-kind

dear God

there’s some strident crap in that

loony capitalizations and exclamation marks

I stopped reading almost immediately

TATE on Margulis:

She was a religious agnostic, and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis.

I didn’t know that.

I also didn’t know that she was once married to Carl Sagan.

Given that she was a “staunch evolutionist” it seems a little disingenuous to quote her in arguments in favour of creationism.

As for agnostic vs. atheist, I suspect it depends how you define atheist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

TATE on Margulis:

She was a religious agnostic, and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis.

I didn’t know that.

I also didn’t know that she was once married to Carl Sagan.

Given that she was a “staunch evolutionist” it seems a little disingenuous to quote her in arguments in favour of creationism.

As for agnostic vs. atheist, I suspect it depends how you define atheist.

No agnostic would accept being defined as an atheist.

ah the definitions game again

SCIENCE said:

ah the definitions game again

It helped get Joh off the perjury charge.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

TATE on Margulis:

She was a religious agnostic, and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis.

I didn’t know that.

I also didn’t know that she was once married to Carl Sagan.

Given that she was a “staunch evolutionist” it seems a little disingenuous to quote her in arguments in favour of creationism.

As for agnostic vs. atheist, I suspect it depends how you define atheist.

No agnostic would accept being defined as an atheist.

Well according to many atheism is a subgroup of agnosticism, and according to others atheism has a large overlap with agnosticism, so in fact there are very many atheists who would say they are also agnostics, and hence there are very many agnostics who would say they are also atheists.

There are of course many agnostics who would say they are not atheists.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

TATE on Margulis:

She was a religious agnostic, and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis.

I didn’t know that.

I also didn’t know that she was once married to Carl Sagan.

Given that she was a “staunch evolutionist” it seems a little disingenuous to quote her in arguments in favour of creationism.

As for agnostic vs. atheist, I suspect it depends how you define atheist.

No agnostic would accept being defined as an atheist.

Well according to many atheism is a subgroup of agnosticism, and according to others atheism has a large overlap with agnosticism, so in fact there are very many atheists who would say they are also agnostics, and hence there are very many agnostics who would say they are also atheists.

There are of course many agnostics who would say they are not atheists.

Have it your way then. I simply don’t care about god, god botherers and people who bother to announce they believe in not believing. I just don’t care.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

No agnostic would accept being defined as an atheist.

Well according to many atheism is a subgroup of agnosticism, and according to others atheism has a large overlap with agnosticism, so in fact there are very many atheists who would say they are also agnostics, and hence there are very many agnostics who would say they are also atheists.

There are of course many agnostics who would say they are not atheists.

Have it your way then. I simply don’t care about god, god botherers and people who bother to announce they believe in not believing. I just don’t care.

I neither said nor implied anything about your particular position on this question.

I do observe however that you appear to get quite agitated about something you just don’t care about.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well according to many atheism is a subgroup of agnosticism, and according to others atheism has a large overlap with agnosticism, so in fact there are very many atheists who would say they are also agnostics, and hence there are very many agnostics who would say they are also atheists.

There are of course many agnostics who would say they are not atheists.

Have it your way then. I simply don’t care about god, god botherers and people who bother to announce they believe in not believing. I just don’t care.

I neither said nor implied anything about your particular position on this question.

I do observe however that you appear to get quite agitated about something you just don’t care about.

:) you haven’t seen me agitated. You simply believe that I am.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Have it your way then. I simply don’t care about god, god botherers and people who bother to announce they believe in not believing. I just don’t care.

I neither said nor implied anything about your particular position on this question.

I do observe however that you appear to get quite agitated about something you just don’t care about.

:) you haven’t seen me agitated. You simply believe that I am.

:)

Can’t argue with that.

>I do observe however that you appear to get quite agitated about something you just don’t care about.

probably finds the heathen intrigue involved in nuancing dis/belief, categories that way conflicting, like a sledgehammer to the head, when effective indifference might well do, if you can manage it.

perhaps rb doesn’t want to be bent over and it driven home forcefully, as comparison, today.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I neither said nor implied anything about your particular position on this question.

I do observe however that you appear to get quite agitated about something you just don’t care about.

:) you haven’t seen me agitated. You simply believe that I am.

:)

Can’t argue with that.

Basically what I was originally trying to say is that atheism is still a form of theism. Same as agnostic is still being gnostic.

I belong to the who gives a rat’s arse group.

transition said:

>I do observe however that you appear to get quite agitated about something you just don’t care about.

probably finds the heathen intrigue involved in nuancing dis/belief, categories that way conflicting, like a sledgehammer to the head, when effective indifference might well do, if you can manage it.

perhaps rb doesn’t want to be bent over and it driven home forcefully, as comparison, today.

:)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/04/virgin-australia-honours-veterans-on-flights

facepalm

roughbarked said:

Basically what I was originally trying to say is that atheism is still a form of theism. Same as agnostic is still being gnostic.

I belong to the who gives a rat’s arse group.

I disagree with the first bit.

I’ll take your word for the second.

roughbarked said:

Basically what I was originally trying to say is that atheism is still a form of theism

That makes zero sense. Theism is belief in a god, atheism is no belief in a god. You might as well say up is a form of down.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Basically what I was originally trying to say is that atheism is still a form of theism. Same as agnostic is still being gnostic.

I belong to the who gives a rat’s arse group.

I disagree with the first bit.

I’ll take your word for the second.

By simply existing, atheism acknowledges the presence of theism. If no energy is given to something, it begins to fade from existence.

sibeen said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/04/virgin-australia-honours-veterans-on-flights

facepalm

“It also plans to offer priority boarding but has stopped short of offering discount fares.”

Fair enough too.

Discount fares would just be going too far.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Basically what I was originally trying to say is that atheism is still a form of theism

That makes zero sense. Theism is belief in a god, atheism is no belief in a god. You might as well say up is a form of down.

What goes up has to come down. ;)

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Basically what I was originally trying to say is that atheism is still a form of theism. Same as agnostic is still being gnostic.

I belong to the who gives a rat’s arse group.

I disagree with the first bit.

I’ll take your word for the second.

By simply existing, atheism acknowledges the presence of theism. If no energy is given to something, it begins to fade from existence.

Why would we refuse to acknowledge something that we know exists?

roughbarked said:

If no energy is given to something, it begins to fade from existence.

On the other hand if a group of people ignore another group, that gets all the energy it needs from elsewhere, it does not begin to fade.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By simply existing, atheism acknowledges the presence of theism. If no energy is given to something, it begins to fade from existence.

Why would we refuse to acknowledge something that we know exists?

roughbarked said:

If no energy is given to something, it begins to fade from existence.

On the other hand if a group of people ignore another group, that gets all the energy it needs from elsewhere, it does not begin to fade.

All true for those who believe it.

>You might as well say up is a form of down.

I could argue that

transition said:

>You might as well say up is a form of down.

I could argue that

We flat earthers would argue that you round earthers do argue that all the time.

Oh, I used the W word, sorry.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>You might as well say up is a form of down.

I could argue that

We flat earthers would argue that you round earthers do argue that all the time.

Oh, I used the W word, sorry.

it’s ok, we know what you mean.