The elephant in the room.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:57 pm

Michael wrote:
Luke Tyler wrote:You can't sue for libel if the accusations are demonstrably true!



Luke,

You have opened an enormous can of worms !!!!


What? Has someone taken offence at this? I don't think I'll be taken to court for a joking remark... will I?
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:46 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:
Michael wrote:
Luke Tyler wrote:You can't sue for libel if the accusations are demonstrably true!



Luke,

You have opened an enormous can of worms !!!!


What? Has someone taken offence at this? I don't think I'll be taken to court for a joking remark... will I?


I think most here will have laughed as few have had a humour by-pass (as do many evangelicals)!!!!!


Fortunately not many here are always carrying a fence :lol: :lol: Note the barbs I give and recieve! However by saying this it is a can of worms and a very serious and a much needed one to open.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:02 pm

I was once a tad upset when Marc accused me of doing the work of Satan, but once he'd pointed out I wasn't doing so deliberately and he wasn't accusing me of having made a pact with the devil, sacrificed goats and run round the garden naked or whatever it is satanists do, I calmed down a bit. Or is that what naturists do?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:42 pm

Michael wrote:Fortunately not many here are always carrying a fence :lol: :lol: Note the barbs I give and recieve! However by saying this it is a can of worms and a very serious and a much needed one to open.


Well, the point is that if someone tries to sue me for something I said, they won't have a case if what I said was found by the court to be true.
And by the way, being only 16, am I old enough for people to sue me for something I said on the internet?

Cathy, I am a Christian. And I do not want you to run around naked in your garden. I hope you feel comforted by this.
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:21 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:At first looking not terribly on-topic is the news that the government is concerned that 40 Islamic schools are teaching 5000 pupils according the the Saudi Arabian National Curriculum. Their concern is about anti-semitism but a search relating that curriculum to evolution brings up a couple of mentions of its claiming that evolution is a Jewish invention - that, specifically, Darwin was Jewish! It sounds as though the Saudis regard that fantasy as reason enough to banish evolution from the curriculum (or that evolution is reason enough to call Darwin Jewish?), but apart from that one connection to the curriculum I can find nothing else. Nor anything much else about the curriculum at all. Any ideas where such might be seen in English?
In the 11th grade, pupils learn about the Jewish contribution to secularism (and the attack on religion): “The main Theories that Secular thought was built on; and which had a role in legitimizing it:
1. The Theory of the Jew (Darwin) of Evolution.
http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/874-saudi-arabia-remains-a-primary-force-for-anti-semitism-in-the-world
But perhaps the most bizarre accusation of all is that Jews are to blame for the theory of evolution, on account of the false claim that Charles Darwin was Jewish.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-j-wilson/where-was-the-mention-of-_b_980065.html

Yes, there's some rather nasty stuff coming out the middle east, particularly Saudi - IIRC Palestinian schools are awash with the stuff and it isn't all 'occupied territory grown' and there is plenty of indication this stuff is turning up in UK mosques and madrases. The protocols is taken as gospel in a lot of the Middle East. But that is just moronic - against that the Lady Hope story looks credible!

[/quote]I can't help thinking that as well. I'm suspicious about how religious some radical Islam is and how political and I can't help thinking the latter. Particularly when you see previously non burha wearing groups suddenly opting for it. Given muslim students have never really had any issues previously as far as I'm aware. Oldest childs biology teacher is a muslim and is very hot on evolution.[/quote]

Cathy, I think the above confirms that evolution is targeted because it is perceived as an icon of secular western culture.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:58 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:
Michael wrote:Fortunately not many here are always carrying a fence :lol: :lol: Note the barbs I give and recieve! However by saying this it is a can of worms and a very serious and a much needed one to open.


Well, the point is that if someone tries to sue me for something I said, they won't have a case if what I said was found by the court to be true.
And by the way, being only 16, am I old enough for people to sue me for something I said on the internet?

I believe so but don't forget that the problem isn't libel but malicious libel.

I once was threatened with libel action by a big fat ugly crook called Robert Maxwell. Called him "as crafty as a barrowload of monkeys". Fortunately the old fart couldn't swim so that was the end of that.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:06 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Luke Tyler wrote:
Michael wrote:Fortunately not many here are always carrying a fence :lol: :lol: Note the barbs I give and recieve! However by saying this it is a can of worms and a very serious and a much needed one to open.


Well, the point is that if someone tries to sue me for something I said, they won't have a case if what I said was found by the court to be true.
And by the way, being only 16, am I old enough for people to sue me for something I said on the internet?

I believe so but don't forget that the problem isn't libel but malicious libel.

I once was threatened with libel action by a big fat ugly crook called Robert Maxwell. Called him "as crafty as a barrowload of monkeys". Fortunately the old fart couldn't swim so that was the end of that.


That was not fair on monkeys

I remeber my father shredding Maxwell to my family for shoddy business in 1960. It gave me a lifelong suspicion of him -confimed after he failed his swimming test
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:51 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:I once was threatened with libel action by a big fat ugly crook called Robert Maxwell. Called him "as crafty as a barrowload of monkeys". Fortunately the old fart couldn't swim so that was the end of that.


This is very funny! I can probably imagine what this guy would have been like at school...

Nevertheless, I doubt any truly God-fearing person would wish to take up legal assistance over someone who disagreed with them over a trivial a matter as this. As you pointed out, it's the crooks and the dishonest ones we ought to worry about. And I'll bet one or two of them can swim.
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:06 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:I once was threatened with libel action by a big fat ugly crook called Robert Maxwell. Called him "as crafty as a barrowload of monkeys". Fortunately the old fart couldn't swim so that was the end of that.


This is very funny! I can probably imagine what this guy would have been like at school...

Nevertheless, I doubt any truly God-fearing person would wish to take up legal assistance over someone who disagreed with them over a trivial a matter as this. As you pointed out, it's the crooks and the dishonest ones we ought to worry about. And I'll bet one or two of them can swim.


Luke

There are many nasty things about the creationist movement in ALL parts of the world. Some stems from their inability to tell it straight and the refusal to listen to any correction from Christians or not.

I object when a fellow Anglican Clergyman asks me in a letter (never having met me) whether I am an athesitic evolutionist.
It was Stephen Bazlington of Biblical Creation ministries - associated I think with the Biblcal creation soceity
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:15 pm

I think a lot of people have a problem with the idea that people are entitled to free speech. Some people can't cope with the idea that not everyone thinks the same as them. I mean, I probably disagree with a lot of people here (I believe in God), but I don't wish for a moment to prevent them from disagreeing. The most I think I should be allowed is to politely talk with them about this issue, and try and convince them I am right. I don't think people should write letters to other Christians trying to pidgeonhole them into certain positions.
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:25 pm

Luke Tyler wrote: I don't think people should write letters to other Christians trying to pidgeonhole them into certain positions.
It sounds as though the chap who wrote to Michael was trying to do a lot more more than pigeonhole him. Seeing as how he didn't appear to even regard him as another Christian.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Steve Jones, direct

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:19 am

Steve Jones tells the story in his own words, in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8931518/Islam-Charles-Darwin-and-the-denial-of-science.html
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:52 am

Reading that made me hurt.

I'm always hesitant over complaining that a certain feature is an "imperfection". A lot of the time, we end up finding uses for them. It seems to me like a bit of a lack of faith in science, assuming that something has no function. People often say that the appendix is useless, but when you live in a wild area where as part of your diet you have to ingest fibrous plant matter (like Borneo, The Congo or Scotland), you'll be very thankful for your appendix.

Anyway, as Dr Jordan might say, "it's the weekend!" and thus no time for discussion of this.

And I think this might be my 100th post :)
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:57 am

It was Stephen Bazlington of Biblical Creation ministries - associated I think with the Biblcal creation soceity


I thought they were one and the same ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Steve Jones, direct

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:15 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Steve Jones tells the story in his own words, in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8931518/Islam-Charles-Darwin-and-the-denial-of-science.html



Steve Jones debatung Ken Ham on BBC's newsnight a few years ago.

Howard Condor frequently makes the claim Ham won the argument:

http://holysmoke.org/kansas22.htm

[Ken Ham 'Executive Director Answers in Genesis']

Ken Ham: I certainly believe the Bible's acount of history as presented in the historical narrative of Genesis, that's true.

Host: So, uh, were there dinosaurs on Noah's ark?

KH: You know, the Bible says that every kind of land animal that god created; kinds are different than species of course--- lots of species within a kind, but every kind was represented on Noah's Ark. Certainly I believe that the dinosaur kinds were represented on Noah's Ark, yes.

Host: And going back to the subject of the film there, do you believe that uh Kansas is right to drop evolution from science teaching standard tests?

KH: Well actually, what Kansas really did, you know, as biological evolution is still in the cirriculum; I don't know how many, if you've read the science standards, I've read them, and biological evolution is still there. Uh, they were deleting, uh macroevolution from being tested and that's the belief aspect of evolution--- I mean...

Host: So that's, so that's the big picture; that's what people understand by evolution theory starting the world--- microevolution isn't really the point here, is it, and that's what's being deleted--- macroevolution, so are you in favor of that having gone?

KH: Macroevolution is the belief[sic] concept of molecules to man; microevolution involves natural selection, mutation, the scientific things we observe; I think that students should be allowed to hear, you know, the belief[sic] aspects of evolution and they are going to be allowed that, because it is in the cirriculum.



Host: People are scared of science in this country, aren't they. There's a poll here which says 86% of people think clergymen tell the truth and government scientists are believed by only 38% of people, so you're losing to Mr. Ham.

KH: You're not losing to me, you're losing to the Bible maybe. I'd like to ask the scientists a question though. The question I'd like to ask is this: I hear talking in generalities all the time; the fossil record and so on, and of course observing the solar system is very different to observing origins when we weren't there, that's a very different matter, I mean what, I mean if I convinced the public that evolution was true, instead of just generalizing; the fossil record, generalizing you know, just various things. What's something that you think is absolutely convincing that evolution's true? What would you say?

Host: Well let's have that quickly...

SJ: Here's a nice example that's come up in the last ten years: there are two species of salmon in American lakes, one of which goes to the sea and one doesn't, one of which is big and one small. What's happened is that salmon have been moved into new lakes and within the last twenty years they've split into two forms: one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime.

KH: That's speciation, but that is not evolution in the molecules to man sense; they're still salmon.

SJ: What is evolution if it is not spe, wha what was Darwin's book called? It was called The Origin of Species.

KH: Evolution is an increase in information. Matter generating information. Give me an example of new information being formed, not information that's already there


Host: Just going back to your theory of how the world began, Mr. Ham, and how the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, at what point do they become extinct?

KH: Well you know, lots of animals become extinct every day; what, one to three species of animals become extinct, that's why we have endangered species programs. Personally I believe they've become extinct in the last hundreds of years since the time of the flood, but uh certainly not millions of years ago.

Host: In the last, what, four thousand years?

KH: Absolutely.

Host: But there's no fossil evidence for that at all, is there?

KH: Well, again, you gotta, what do you mean by fossil evidence? When you find fossils...

Host: You say, three thousand years old?

KH: Well, you don't dig up fossils with little labels that say 'I'm three thousand years old', you dig up fossils and you use dating methods based upon assumptions that date rocks and there are all sorts of problems with those dates in that you cannot exclusively prove how old those fossils are or not.

Host: Professor Blakemore do you think science can dismiss the supernatural?

CB: I think what scientists can't dismiss is people's willingness to believe in the supernatural and that's an extremely interesting phenomenon; I think that religious belief, or at least some kind of spiritual belief is so deep in people, so widespread, so universal in all humans groups, it must represent something which is built into us, I think by the evolutionary process. We have to ask ourselves, what is the selective value of what I believie to be rather curious ones like Mr. Ham's.

KH: Well its built in because we're made in the image of god, who says the knowledge of god is within us and we're crying out for who we are and he's revealed to us in the Bible and at that time we started believing in him.

Host: You could see how he could claim that that what he's saying there is largely supposition, guesswork, faith, whatever and that evolution is is not yet totally proven, so why not put them side by side; I mean, can you follow that, that you should give people a choice...

RS: I certainly follow that, but philosophers of science point out that in a sense, science never proves anything; uh, this goes back to Karl Popper, the philosopher...

Host: That's almost the ulitimate concession...

RS: Except except that the weight of the evidence can be so absolutely overwhelming that it becomes intellectually dishonest to accept an alternative.

Host: And the irony in a discussion like this, its the man with the least evidence who comes over with the most conviction in a sense.

SJ: That's his greatest weakness... The greatest weakness of his argument, that is that there is no concievable evidence from the world of science that would cause this gentleman [pointing to Ken Ham] to change his mind. Now, I would be very depressed if I were suddenly forced to believe that evolution hadn't happened, but I am willing to believe the possibility; he isn't.

Host: Thank you all very much indeed. Its fascinating, thank you.


Gosh, how many times have we heard that crap repeated by dickboy on Premier ?

and I'll repeat this over and over again, As a Christian, why do I find Ham's arguments here complete and utter rubbish ? Why ?

Why do more Christians (and particularly church leaders) in evangelical churches not object to this ? Why do I find myself increasingly isolated ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests