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 cathy » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:28 pm

Nevertheless, I doubt any truly God-fearing person would wish to take up legal assistance over someone who disagreed with them over a trivial matter

They don't resort to legal assistance Luke, they tend to favour more underhand means. In the courts you have to prove a case and have your ideas held up to public scrutiny so I wouldn't worry.

The first thing that went when I first came accross creationism was my notion that God fearin people were nice-closely followed my notion that there was a God. There is a lot of very nasty stuff behind creationism that was totally alien to my experience of how Christians were supposed to behave, and totally alien to anything in the NT. I assume once you start to base a lot of your faith on notions like fall and evil people rather than love thy neighbout it follows. And there are a lot of very unpleasant creationist people like David Anderson-who is the reason I've never let my full name be used on this website and is the reason I won't contribute to any religious or creationist forums where you have to leave your e mail address. So I only really come into contact with creationists now on things like the 4thought tv thing where I've had several discussions with your dad last week (I was Kate).

There are many, many creationists who aren't nasty by any stretch of the imagination and I've met at least one who is lovely-tho he did state firmly that it really wasn't important at all what you believed about creation as long as you believe God did it somehow, sometime. I'm not sure how of much that was motivated by me becoming an atheist and removing my second child (followed by some of her friends) from his creationist church and their youth club. I've met a others who are perfectly pleasant people as long as you make faith a taboo topic. But, they are all characterised by a huge reluctance to criticise anything their less pleasant peers do, instead finding all sorts of excuses for it. And in the case of groups like TiS, quite often are happy to drag some of those less pleasant people in to do their dirty work.

Marc is very pleasant and I'd trust him not to attempt to harm anyone in any way at all, even if I can't agree with a single thing he's ever come out with. But I've tried to get him to admit that some of what Anderson has done and some of the tactics employed by CMI et al are underhand, definitely unchristian and often morally bankrupt. He defended CMI on specific incidents and he has never said a word about Andersons actions. I'm scared of Anderson btw. And that was long before I knew some of his actions, that was based solely on getting a psychologist friend to look at his bcse hating website.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Steve Jones, direct

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:01 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


I must admit that I like Steve Jones article and his style or writing. A biologist that can communicate in the public, popular, arena. It matters. I've always though Steve not to be an intellectual; he's a product of empiricism and observation.
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 Luke Tyler » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:29 pm

That article was well written, but it still made me start to hurt. For some reason, any precise description of pain will hurt me.

And by the way, who is "dickboy"?
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:11 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:That article was well written, but it still made me start to hurt. For some reason, any precise description of pain will hurt me.

And by the way, who is "dickboy"?


If you start debating with creationists you'll come across such boneheads who don't know or understanding anything, not even creation science or their own religion. Their style is to endlessly repeat themselves with banalities. Examples are our friend Robert Byers. Others I've come across are "Laurie Appleton, a Banana Bender dubbed "The Stupidest Creationist on the Internet", Gabor Hovath (another Canadian) and a really nasty piece of work, Ed Garrett (American) who, IIRC, claimed he would enjoy mowing down "evolutionists" with a machine gun and threatened to shoot one of our members with .45mm NATO issue ammunition.

"Dickboy" is a regular on the Premier Radio forum where he goes by the name of Ploughboy. His real name is Martin and he apparently lives in South London. He is the classic "know nothing" creationist bigot, an extreme example of the arrogance of ignorance. He's ignored by just about everyone on the Premier forum.

He's not the worst; there was a creationist, going by the name Gabriol, in the DebunkCreation forum who goaded a mentally ill person in their early 20s to kill himself. The poor fellow did just that, after which Gabriol then gloated to his mother about what he'd done.

Pastor David Anderson, who your father almost certainly knows, bragged some time back on his blog that he was thinking of showing his toddler children live animals having their heads hacked off - to stop his children enjoying Beatrice Potter tales. Had he been living in the UK at the time, I suspect the social services would have taken a strong interest in how he was treating his toddlers.
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 Luke Tyler » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:42 pm

Ermmm...

I haven't heard most of those. I've definitely heard of David Anderson. I'm not to familiar with any of this, and we meet loads of creationists! Only ours are usually members of the BCS. And none of them are bad people at all. One of them is an excellent pianist, although I can't remember who.
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 3:46 pm

and he apparently lives in South London.


Was under the impression he lived in Bexhill East Sussex Roger, for some reason.

He simply repeats what he's read on YEC websites Luke, and then pretends he knows all about science despite having no science qualifications.

A bit like Ham debating Steve Jones.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:57 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
and he apparently lives in South London.


Was under the impression he lived in Bexhill East Sussex Roger, for some reason.



Well I was nearly right - a seedy place inhabited by deadbeats. ;-)
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 Luke Tyler » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:23 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:He simply repeats what he's read on YEC websites Luke, and then pretends he knows all about science despite having no science qualifications.

A bit like Ham debating Steve Jones.


I often wonder... what does Ham do for a living? He isn't an academic, is he?
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:04 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:I often wonder... what does Ham do for a living? He isn't an academic, is he?
No, he's a salesman.
"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 5:18 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Luke Tyler wrote:I often wonder... what does Ham do for a living? He isn't an academic, is he?
No, he's a salesman.


I'm not going to lie: that made me chuckle.

I didn't know!
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:03 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Luke Tyler wrote:I often wonder... what does Ham do for a living? He isn't an academic, is he?
No, he's a salesman.


With a specialisation: snake oil.
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 Moon Fire » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:29 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:That Rousas Rushdoony bloke had the right idea - stone them!


Is this the wrong time to fess to having some Welsh and Irish ancestry?? ;)
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Moon Fire » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:51 am

Natman wrote:However, we have the advantage in that cirriculum topics are not decided by elected officials with a religious vote-base to appease, but rather educational experts who listen to scientists.


Thats not quite how teachers view them, and the extent to which they listen to scientists might be questionable.....but it's a fair enough assessment. Reading that made me chuckle a bit, some of the last changes in the NC relating to the teaching of science have made me wonder what they're playing at. But as you rightly said they don't have to appease any religious people that voted them in, which is pleasing :)
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Moon Fire » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:04 am

Luke Tyler wrote: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.


But that's not how the appendix works any more in humans! It's a vestigal organ in our species, it no longer has the function of breaking down cellulose cell walls in us, I understand it does still serve a function but it doesn't serve that function any more.
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:05 pm

The vermiform appendix? I thought it was something to do with protecting us from worms. :twisted:
More seriously,
As the human appendix no longer houses a significant amount of these bacteria, and humans are no longer capable of digesting more than a minimal amount of cellulose per day,[5] the human appendix is considered a vestigial structure. This interpretation would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.[6] See the sections below for possible functions of the appendix that may have evolved more recently after the appendix lost its original function.
My emphsis, because it's common for IDCreationists to claim that it is not vestigial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests

cron