Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

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: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:38 am

Michael wrote:They are like Ned Kelly with his suit of armour :lol:


I dunno. They seem more like shyster lawyers or the parrot salesman in Monty Python.
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: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:33 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:"Out of interest, Ashley, have you encountered any YEC forum which doesn't ban people who aren't adherents?"

As far as I remember, Luke, no.

Though I did post on Breeden's site - about the Creation Letter - over a year ago without getting banned (he brought the online discussion - solely with him - to a rather abrupt end saying that I "wasn't listening" http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/an ... ment-2194; we then exchanged several emails and Tony briefly visited THIS forum, which caused Roger to get the popcorn out - see his comment here on 5.11.10 viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2436&p=23695&hilit=popcorn#p23695).

I also managed a couple of posts at Tas Walker's Biblical Geology in 2011, without being formally banned at least.

The long thread of comments here was quite interesting: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/ ... lly-shows/



There's a warm welcome that awaits if one seeks to post questioning or critical comments at the Tony Breeden/Sirius Knotts YEC blog. See here: http://www.siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2 ... ally-shows
THIS is my attempted further comment (which I assume is only visible to me):
"Tony

I have just discovered that you made a lengthy response to my post of 28 January (which only appeared sometime after 10 February) on 20 February - I did NOT receive the normal automatic email notification although I'm pretty certain I requested such back in January.

Other people have addressed your points made in 2008. But my comments did NOT ignore yours about fossils and sudden burial. See my penultimate paragraph.

I see you are ranting about me allegedly being 'wilfully ignorant' and worse without explaining how. A standard YEC technique.

You appear to assume that the 'fountains of the great deep' were all/almost all under the sea for some reason. Job 38: 29-30 refer to frozen water so YECs clutch at straws and postulate a 'rapid Ice Age' (because they MUST explain all the geological feautures caused by repeated Ice Ages probably triggered by Earth's orbital changes in the past). Did you hear about the wintry weather in the Near East - early in 2012? At the same time the eastern USA was virtually snow-free this same winter. North Polar ice continues to shrink.

Your claim that I was and am ignorant that YECs postulate one single post-Flood Ice Age, and WHY they do this (lack of time!) is 100% FALSE.

"You also offer us the standard canard that one should expect to find human and dinosaur fossils together, but no creationist has ever stated this." Why not? What you call a 'canard' is mere common sense. (Unlike your lion and kangaroo example.) And it's YECs who claim that Job observed dinosaur-like creatures (behemoth and leviathan). Not me, I hasten to add.

My point about pseudoscience was clear. YECs put conclusion FIRST. Mainstream scientists do not. By the way you allege "no evolutionist would interpret or accept an interpretation of the data which was inconsistent with evolution being true". I would point out that 'evolutionists' published a Nature paper in January 2010 suggesting that Tiktaalik was around earlier than previously thought so may not have been a transitional species between fish and tetrapods.

On marine creatures that we find fossilised eg plesiosaurs not all of them live in shallow water where they might be 'suddenly buried by sediment'.

You also - I suspect wilfully (unless you just 'skimmed' my comments) - misunderstand my comments as stating that the Genesis flood only lasted 40 days. I HAVE read the early chapters of Genesis - AND discussed them on the BCSE Community Forum. I suggest you check there if you don't believe me. I DO know that the rain was meant to have stopped after 40 days but the floodwaters lasted for months according to Genesis. Here are my words again: "as it developed over the 40 days in particular...".

Apart from your comments about scripture and human fossils I think your arguments are all DESPERATE. Why? Because the evidence is not on the side of YECs. So you - like others - resort to unsustained allegations that I lack 'intellectual integrity' or do not understand properly what I am criticising.

Perhaps you have encountered such people in the past. It is unwise to stereotype your critics if that is what you are doing.

Ashley".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:33 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:"Out of interest, Ashley, have you encountered any YEC forum which doesn't ban people who aren't adherents?"

As far as I remember, Luke, no.

Though I did post on Breeden's site - about the Creation Letter - over a year ago without getting banned (he brought the online discussion - solely with him - to a rather abrupt end saying that I "wasn't listening" http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/an ... ment-2194; we then exchanged several emails and Tony briefly visited THIS forum, which caused Roger to get the popcorn out - see his comment here on 5.11.10 viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2436&p=23695&hilit=popcorn#p23695).

I also managed a couple of posts at Tas Walker's Biblical Geology in 2011, without being formally banned at least.

The long thread of comments here was quite interesting: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/ ... lly-shows/



There's a warm welcome that awaits if one seeks to post questioning or critical comments at the Tony Breeden/Sirius Knotts YEC blog. See here: http://www.siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2 ... ally-shows
THIS is my attempted further comment (which I assume is only visible to me):
"Tony

I have just discovered that you made a lengthy response to my post of 28 January (which only appeared sometime after 10 February) on 20 February - I did NOT receive the normal automatic email notification although I'm pretty certain I requested such back in January.

Other people have addressed your points made in 2008. But my comments did NOT ignore yours about fossils and sudden burial. See my penultimate paragraph.

I see you are ranting about me allegedly being 'wilfully ignorant' and worse without explaining how. A standard YEC technique.

You appear to assume that the 'fountains of the great deep' were all/almost all under the sea for some reason. Job 38: 29-30 refer to frozen water so YECs clutch at straws and postulate a 'rapid Ice Age' (because they MUST explain all the geological feautures caused by repeated Ice Ages probably triggered by Earth's orbital changes in the past). Did you hear about the wintry weather in the Near East - early in 2012? At the same time the eastern USA was virtually snow-free this same winter. North Polar ice continues to shrink.

Your claim that I was and am ignorant that YECs postulate one single post-Flood Ice Age, and WHY they do this (lack of time!) is 100% FALSE.

"You also offer us the standard canard that one should expect to find human and dinosaur fossils together, but no creationist has ever stated this." Why not? What you call a 'canard' is mere common sense. (Unlike your lion and kangaroo example.) And it's YECs who claim that Job observed dinosaur-like creatures (behemoth and leviathan). Not me, I hasten to add.

My point about pseudoscience was clear. YECs put conclusion FIRST. Mainstream scientists do not. By the way you allege "no evolutionist would interpret or accept an interpretation of the data which was inconsistent with evolution being true". I would point out that 'evolutionists' published a Nature paper in January 2010 suggesting that Tiktaalik was around earlier than previously thought so may not have been a transitional species between fish and tetrapods.

On marine creatures that we find fossilised eg plesiosaurs not all of them live in shallow water where they might be 'suddenly buried by sediment'.

You also - I suspect wilfully (unless you just 'skimmed' my comments) - misunderstand my comments as stating that the Genesis flood only lasted 40 days. I HAVE read the early chapters of Genesis - AND discussed them on the BCSE Community Forum. I suggest you check there if you don't believe me. I DO know that the rain was meant to have stopped after 40 days but the floodwaters lasted for months according to Genesis. Here are my words again: "as it developed over the 40 days in particular...".

Apart from your comments about scripture and human fossils I think your arguments are all DESPERATE. Why? Because the evidence is not on the side of YECs. So you - like others - resort to unsustained allegations that I lack 'intellectual integrity' or do not understand properly what I am criticising.

Perhaps you have encountered such people in the past. It is unwise to stereotype your critics if that is what you are doing.

Ashley".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:45 pm

I have to log off now but I see that I have now been BANNED by Mr Breeden from posting on his website. I will read his 'reasons' later and comment again to him by email as appropriate.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby cathy » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:04 pm

have to log off now but I see that I have now been BANNED by Mr Breeden from posting on his website. I will read his 'reasons' later and comment again to him by email as appropriate.


Banned Ashley? I think I know why - persistent use of facts on creationist territory despite repeated warnings that such things were forbidden. Facts on creationist sites are like smoking or fighting in pubs - not allowed. What would happen should an innocent gullible creationist in the brainwashing process get to see. Making them think could do untold damage to the indoctrination process. :)

Tsk tsk
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Banned by Sirius Knotts

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:46 pm

You mean a case of Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Banned by Sirius Knotts

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:49 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:You mean a case of Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed?

In the civilised world getting banned from posting on a website is bad thing, however getting banned from a creationist website usually means they lost or are about to loose an argument. Its a wonderful example of their hypocrisy when it comes to carping on about the censorship of creation science, they like slinging mud at science and scientists, but really, really can't cope with the free exchange of ideas themselves.
'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: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:27 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:I have to log off now but I see that I have now been BANNED by Mr Breeden from posting on his website.


That's something to be a bit proud of, Ashley.

Why don't you go and kick the s%%t out of David Anderson on his blog?

Wait a minute..............he runs away when anyone answers back to him because he's "only interested in the truth".
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: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:45 pm

Here's my response, by email, to Breeden (who seems to be monitoring this site - good luck to him):




I see. I've not been banned for anything that I've ever said on your website. But because I have flagged some of our exchanges - largely about scientific matters - on the British Centre for Science Education community forum! Clearly you don't want people who go to the BCSE website seeing your responses to those like myself who you regard as 'troublesome'. Clearly you don't want those creationists who go to your website then taking a look at the BCSE community forum either.

"Your arguments consistently demonstrate a criminal lack of comprehension of the actual creationist viewpoint, though you seem well-acquainted with various straw man arguments". Why are you lying? I suggest that if I had been acting as you claim you would have been able to refute me and deal with me adequately on your website. Without deciding that I needed to be banned - without prior warning.

"I actually responded your charge that Biblical Creationists have no Biblical citation for a single Ice Age". And I actually responded to your response (there are several Old Testament scriptures which mention frost and snow by the way). I said "Job 38: 29-30 refer to frozen water so YECs clutch at straws and postulate a ‘rapid Ice Age’ (because they MUST explain all the geological feautures caused by repeated Ice Ages probably triggered by Earth’s orbital changes in the past)". Why are you lying?

"Unless you can demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs would have co-existed in the same habitat, there is no reason why anyone would expect to find their fossils together. You are making a rather bad straw man argument because you have not bothered to hear what creationists have to say on the subject because you have already made up your mind." Nonsense. I am well aware that YECs make various excuses for why human and dinosaur fossils are not found together or nearby within the same rock layers in any known localities, even though I find it a bit surprising that that has never happened if they co-existed. You course should be aware that some dinosaurs were herbivorous and presumably not dangerous (might not humans have hunted the small dinosaurs possibly, assuming they found such creatures). I also pointed out to you that many YECs claim that the writer of Job was referring to extinct creatures such as dinosaurs, that he had seen himself, when he described behemoth and leviathan.

"As pointed out already, Bodie Hodge addressed some of your concerns in the self-same article you cited but did not bother to read fully…" Please tell me exactly what you are referring to and I will have a look at it. Please elaborate on your non-specific claim at the end of your reply that I have been "dreadfully lazy as to cite an article" that I partly skimmed and which you claim "answers some of the very objections" that I raised, and how that was a bad tactic on my part. (You seem to imply that if I had read Hodge more fully my argument against YEC theories could have been stronger not weaker - is that what you meant to say? Or are you merely alleging that I was raising with you some points that Hodge had already 'dealt' with - but perhaps I took issue with his answers?)

Shouting once more that I am 'WILFULLY IGNORANT' is a poor substitute for demonstrating this claim.

I referred to Tiktaalik to show that mainstream science corrects itself when necessary and is not 'blinded' by 'evolutionism'. I would agree though that the finding reported in Nature does not undermine evolutionary theory (on which I am, as a non-biologist, somewhat agnostic by the way).

"I think all of your arguments are borrowed and bleating." Another YEC once accused me (in his first ever reply to me) of having 'no argument'. At least you concede that I do have arguments.

"If you meant to state that you knew the Bible claims that the Flood lasted more than 40 days then you failed miserably." No I didn't. I wrote "I’m a bit confused about the nature of the Flood according to YEC-ism as it developed over the 40 days in particular!". But either you have a comprehension problem, or you decided to misconstrue my words because you wish to sustain the narrative that I am 'wilfully ignorant'. It should have been obvious to a blogger who is 'Defending Genesis' that I was referring specifically to the 40 days of reported rainfall (which started with waters also rising from the deep). I know full well from Genesis 7 that the flooding was said to have last 150 days if not around a year - and nothing at all in my comment should have suggested to you any ignorance on my part about the Genesis account as it has been translated into English. I did not say that the flood lasted only 40 days. I did not suggest that on day 41, once the rain had stopped, all the waters suddenly disappeared. Your allegation earlier that this was my - mistaken - understanding smacks of desperation and insecurity. You wrote: "Your final comments reveal the utter superficiality of your knowledge of the Bible. No wonder you object to the Flood account if you are under the misapprehension that it lasted a mere 40 days rather than covering the earth for a period of one year and ten days, as the Bible records!" If you still really think that I was revealing 'ignorance' please check out my contributions in late Aug and early Sept 2011 within this BCSE thread: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... hilit=dove (see around page 8).

"If I’m the desperate one, why do you argue so poorly?" That rather petty response well confirms to me YOUR desperation. As does your sudden banning of myself from your blog (in a thread where others seem to have stopped posting).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:45 pm

Here's my response, by email, to Breeden (who seems to be monitoring this site - good luck to him):




I see. I've not been banned for anything that I've ever said on your website. But because I have flagged some of our exchanges - largely about scientific matters - on the British Centre for Science Education community forum! Clearly you don't want people who go to the BCSE website seeing your responses to those like myself who you regard as 'troublesome'. Clearly you don't want those creationists who go to your website then taking a look at the BCSE community forum either.

"Your arguments consistently demonstrate a criminal lack of comprehension of the actual creationist viewpoint, though you seem well-acquainted with various straw man arguments". Why are you lying? I suggest that if I had been acting as you claim you would have been able to refute me and deal with me adequately on your website. Without deciding that I needed to be banned - without prior warning.

"I actually responded your charge that Biblical Creationists have no Biblical citation for a single Ice Age". And I actually responded to your response (there are several Old Testament scriptures which mention frost and snow by the way). I said "Job 38: 29-30 refer to frozen water so YECs clutch at straws and postulate a ‘rapid Ice Age’ (because they MUST explain all the geological feautures caused by repeated Ice Ages probably triggered by Earth’s orbital changes in the past)". Why are you lying?

"Unless you can demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs would have co-existed in the same habitat, there is no reason why anyone would expect to find their fossils together. You are making a rather bad straw man argument because you have not bothered to hear what creationists have to say on the subject because you have already made up your mind." Nonsense. I am well aware that YECs make various excuses for why human and dinosaur fossils are not found together or nearby within the same rock layers in any known localities, even though I find it a bit surprising that that has never happened if they co-existed. You course should be aware that some dinosaurs were herbivorous and presumably not dangerous (might not humans have hunted the small dinosaurs possibly, assuming they found such creatures). I also pointed out to you that many YECs claim that the writer of Job was referring to extinct creatures such as dinosaurs, that he had seen himself, when he described behemoth and leviathan.

"As pointed out already, Bodie Hodge addressed some of your concerns in the self-same article you cited but did not bother to read fully…" Please tell me exactly what you are referring to and I will have a look at it. Please elaborate on your non-specific claim at the end of your reply that I have been "dreadfully lazy as to cite an article" that I partly skimmed and which you claim "answers some of the very objections" that I raised, and how that was a bad tactic on my part. (You seem to imply that if I had read Hodge more fully my argument against YEC theories could have been stronger not weaker - is that what you meant to say? Or are you merely alleging that I was raising with you some points that Hodge had already 'dealt' with - but perhaps I took issue with his answers?)

Shouting once more that I am 'WILFULLY IGNORANT' is a poor substitute for demonstrating this claim.

I referred to Tiktaalik to show that mainstream science corrects itself when necessary and is not 'blinded' by 'evolutionism'. I would agree though that the finding reported in Nature does not undermine evolutionary theory (on which I am, as a non-biologist, somewhat agnostic by the way).

"I think all of your arguments are borrowed and bleating." Another YEC once accused me (in his first ever reply to me) of having 'no argument'. At least you concede that I do have arguments.

"If you meant to state that you knew the Bible claims that the Flood lasted more than 40 days then you failed miserably." No I didn't. I wrote "I’m a bit confused about the nature of the Flood according to YEC-ism as it developed over the 40 days in particular!". But either you have a comprehension problem, or you decided to misconstrue my words because you wish to sustain the narrative that I am 'wilfully ignorant'. It should have been obvious to a blogger who is 'Defending Genesis' that I was referring specifically to the 40 days of reported rainfall (which started with waters also rising from the deep). I know full well from Genesis 7 that the flooding was said to have last 150 days if not around a year - and nothing at all in my comment should have suggested to you any ignorance on my part about the Genesis account as it has been translated into English. I did not say that the flood lasted only 40 days. I did not suggest that on day 41, once the rain had stopped, all the waters suddenly disappeared. Your allegation earlier that this was my - mistaken - understanding smacks of desperation and insecurity. You wrote: "Your final comments reveal the utter superficiality of your knowledge of the Bible. No wonder you object to the Flood account if you are under the misapprehension that it lasted a mere 40 days rather than covering the earth for a period of one year and ten days, as the Bible records!" If you still really think that I was revealing 'ignorance' please check out my contributions in late Aug and early Sept 2011 within this BCSE thread: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... hilit=dove (see around page 8).

"If I’m the desperate one, why do you argue so poorly?" That rather petty response well confirms to me YOUR desperation. As does your sudden banning of myself from your blog (in a thread where others seem to have stopped posting).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:46 pm

The smiley face is a poor rendering of 'page 8' followed by ')'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 17, 2013 9:34 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183
I take it that Eurosceptic in the Pub has no links to 'Sceptics/Skeptics in the Pub'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8388
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron