SPOILERS The Last Continent Discussion **Spoilers**

[Anonymous]

On a further sidenote:

It's also one of the books where you get quite a good bunch of information on some characters' backgrounds (childhood etc). Ponder, Rincewind to a certain degree.
In some bits even info that didn't make it into the Compendium or the discworldwiki (as in -those info was not found important enough by the editors over there so far), such as Ponder's acrophobia and that he, apparently is an excellent swimmer or Rincewind's lamb-plush

 

[MongoGutman]

On creationism...

If one posits the existence of an omnipotent god then the theory that this being created all fossiles and rock strata and so on in one day and gave them the appearance of being more ancient than they acutally are is not a particularly unreasonable theory. There's no way you can prove or disprove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

 

[Tonyblack]

Yes, but that's the argument that Creationists tend to give to all questions - God can do anything, therefore he could make all the fossils and whatever. Their argument is that you have to have 'Faith'.

Rather like the quote earlier on that Pooh posted - they don't ask questions like scientists do. Scientists might be wrong with their answers, but at least they are asking questions. If you just try to explain things by saying: God can do anything, then you make no progress.

 

[The Mad Collector]

I think that it is actually a good idea to read Strata alongside Last Continent. It's nowhere near as well written but you can see where Terry was heading even then with the evolution/creationist 'debate'. Plus it's the first appearance of a Discworld in his writings so is interesting from that aspect as well.

 

[Quatermass]

PS Feel free to destroy this theory in anyway you seem fit.

Nope, I don't think I will as I agree with you

Ditto, as much as it galls me to agree with Pooh.

The central problem with creationism is that you cannot test God, yet science demands that you put everything to the test.

 

[poohcarrot]

Even Q agrees with me?

Wow!

 

[raisindot]

The central problem with creationism is that you cannot test God, yet science demands that you put everything to the test.

I'm no creationist, but at the moment there are some scientific theories that can't be 'physically' tested or observed and possibly may never be, such as string theory. At best then, one can say that one 'believes ' in string theory, just as one says they 'believe' in intelligent design.

 

[Quatermass]

The central problem with creationism is that you cannot test God, yet science demands that you put everything to the test.

I'm no creationist, but at the moment there are some scientific theories that can't be 'physically' tested or observed and possibly may never be, such as string theory. At best then, one can say that one 'believes ' in string theory, just as one says they 'believe' in intelligent design.

The potential to put them to the test, or else dump the theories in favour of ones that actually fit the facts, is still there.

I will admit, many a scientist, unfortunately, has changed facts to suit their views, and not the other way around. I remember this thing about a falsely identified kind of radiation called 'n-rays'. There's a brief summary of that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

 

[raisindot]

The potential to put them to the test, or else dump the theories in favour of ones that actually fit the facts, is still there.

Absolutely true. The problem comes when physical evidence doesn't exist to prove the theory. Math is not enough. Einstein's general theory of relatively never gained acceptance until it was proven by astronomical observation in 1919. It took even longer for his special theory of relatively to be proven.

In the case of the natural selection vs. intelligent design debate, this may never been proven. Both theories accept evolution as fact; what they debate is what processes drove evolution. Even when you see evolution in action today, such as Tony's point about bacterial mutating to resist antibiotics, one could easily argue that an intelligent designer was responsible for the mutation that caused resulted in one lonely bacterium to be able to resist death by penicillin and go on to multiply, while all the other bacterium died out. Natural selection advocates would say that a random mutuation caused that bacterium to be born with that resistance.

 

[Anonymous]

And this is what I love the Discworld-fandom for.
Show me one other fandom on which's boards you can start a discussion about a certain volume/episode/part and have it turn into a discussion about creationism vs Evolution that doesn't turn into a flamewar after three posts
(Not to mention this board also gies advice on interior design )
Love you guys

 

[Cool Middle Name]

I really cannot believe that no religion has claimed a God of Evolution before Pratchettism.

 

[Quatermass]

The potential to put them to the test, or else dump the theories in favour of ones that actually fit the facts, is still there.

Absolutely true. The problem comes when physical evidence doesn't exist to prove the theory. Math is not enough. Einstein's general theory of relatively never gained acceptance until it was proven by astronomical observation in 1919. It took even longer for his special theory of relatively to be proven.

In the case of the natural selection vs. intelligent design debate, this may never been proven. Both theories accept evolution as fact; what they debate is what processes drove evolution. Even when you see evolution in action today, such as Tony's point about bacterial mutating to resist antibiotics, one could easily argue that an intelligent designer was responsible for the mutation that caused resulted in one lonely bacterium to be able to resist death by penicillin and go on to multiply, while all the other bacterium died out. Natural selection advocates would say that a random mutuation caused that bacterium to be born with that resistance.

The fact is, we know the mechanisms involved, and genetic selection has been proven by millennia of animal domestication and breeding. Poor Darwin was beginning to fret about how natural selection truly worked. If only he managed to read Gregor Mendel's work, he would have been less melancholy over the years...

 

[poohcarrot]

The next book TP wrote was Carpe Jugulum.

In CJ a believer in an objectionable religion is eventually revealed to be a nice guy, despite his bizarre beliefs.

(So there's still hope for CaptMeme. )

Maybe TP thought he'd gone too far with LC, so tried to emphasize that just because you do believe in all that creationism bollux, you can still be a nice person.

 

[poohcarrot]

As SW is conspicious by her absence, please allow me. The following can be cut and pasted onto every debate.

Delete where inapplicable

Dear Pooh

(insert forum members' name here) tells me you are quite intelligent, but it is obvious to me that you are (a fool/a buffoon/dead super).

It is perfectly clear that yet again, you (haven't/have) read the book. Your (rant/tirade/incisive dissection) is (offensive/childish/spot on) and is purely and simply (anti-US/insulting my husbanf/masterly).

You really are (a git/the spawn of Satan/a genius).

(Burn in hell/I hope you catch the pox/love and kisses),

SW

 

[Tonyblack]

 

[Tonyblack]

For those who missed them, what Australian references did you spot?

I'm sure everyone got that Rincewind managed to invent Vegemite - or did you?

 

[meerkat]

Yes, that was a real giggle! And the remarks thrown to Skippy, nose twitching, etc.Oh, and the reference to the Sydney Opera House and the Gay Parade at King's Cross (Oz not London).

Just finished LC yet again and, no matter how often I read it, I still laugh out loud.

 

[Quatermass]

For those who missed them, what Australian references did you spot?

I'm sure everyone got that Rincewind managed to invent Vegemite - or did you?

I got something like that. And the Peach Nelly, although I had read about that beforehand. The Mad Max, Skippy, and Priscilla references are a given. Not to mention the fact that Australia is a place where everything is out to get you.

 

[raisindot]

Weren't there a couple Mad Max/Road Warrior references in there somewhere?

 

[pip]

Weren't there a couple Mad Max/Road Warrior references in there somewhere?

Pretty much a whole section of the book involving Mad . One of my favourite bits especially with Rincewinds accidental violence