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 cathy » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:23 pm

So your opinion is that death at the age of 70 or 80 after a (sometimes prolonged) period of decrepitude is "very good".

Hey Marc, in your opinion the drowning of every man and woman for unspecified crimes is the action of a merciful, forgiving God. Merciful and forgiving by whose standards? Pol Pot?

In your opinion the drowning of innocent children and animals is the action of kind and loving individual.

In mine it is the act of a genocidal maniac and an egotistical bully. But hey I don't have a direct line to Gods opinions like you do.

Opinion is opinion, are you claiming you know what your Gods actually is?

By the way I'm not a troll. I'm not sure what they are other than smelly, nasty things that hang around under bridges gobbling up goat siblings or in Harry Potter. So I think I'm offended.
Last edited by cathy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:28 pm

marcsurtees wrote:If there was death when God finished His creation then it could not by any stretch of the imagination be very good.

So we know the mind of God do we know? And please stop inventing Christian mythology to support your POV.

As for evolution pushed by environmental change, the slight problem for creationism, is you don't have any. You have Flood, pretty much everything dead, followed by 'recolonisation' and basically you have to restore a functioning environment probably faster than animals are breeding, and an ice age that was over and done in around 100 years. You'd have about two generations if that to get from elephant 'kind' to mammoth before it was all over. If your running with the idea of a limited number of kinds disembarking from the ark where is the pressure on them to diversify? They would probably just fill their niches for good few hundred generations before influences like population pressure begin to kick in. And what about all thhose animals in really tough environmental niches that really shouldn't be there. Why would they go there when they an empty Earth to fill up first? That argument rates about highly as 'evolution is conspiracy perpetrated by satan and the Free Masons'.
'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 Dagsannr » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:01 pm

cathy wrote:By the way I'm not a troll. I'm not sure what they are other than smelly, nasty things that hang around under bridges gobbling up goat siblings or in Harry Potter. So I think I'm offended.


A troll in internet terminology is someone who posts deliberately antagonistic messages to incite a (usually negative) responded.

Marc's behaviour is oftimes trollish as he knows his personal opinions are scientifically and theologically unfounded but insists otherwise, knowing we'll bite and give him the seeming legimacy he craves.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby cathy » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:28 pm

A troll in internet terminology is someone who posts deliberately antagonistic messages to incite a (usually negative) responded.

My questions are not deliberately antagonistic. They are valid responses to what I'm reading and to what Marc says. Admittedly my frustration and irritation at not having a single query[u] ever [/u]properly answered is starting to show. That doesn't mean they're there to incite anything other than a @@&^%$ answer to them. It's just none are ever forthcoming.

I didn't read Genesis until after hearing all the claims made by Marc and his pals. I couldn't find any of them - nor could I find a way to read it as a literal account. They refuse to acknowledge that so I just have to keep asking. Same as they refuse to give any positive evidence for any of their scientific claims.

I cannot help it if in my 'opinion' Marc and his pals didn't bother to read the book of Genesis before jumping on the creationist bandwagon!!! My opinion is informed by his claims and his lack of answers. If my 'opinion' is wrong than Marc can demonstrate how its wrong by answering those questions with direct quotes from Genesis to back up his claims. Cos just as Marc wasn't there in the beginning to see what Gods opinion was - I wasn't there when he became a creationist to see where he got his opinions from. I cannot see how he could have read anything properly.

But I am not being a troll.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby marcsurtees » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:50 pm

cathy wrote:
So your opinion is that death at the age of 70 or 80 after a (sometimes prolonged) period of decrepitude is "very good".

Hey Marc, in your opinion the drowning of every man and woman for unspecified crimes is the action of a merciful, forgiving God. Merciful and forgiving by whose standards? Pol Pot?

Unless you specify the crimes it is difficult to give an answer...

cathy wrote:In your opinion the drowning of innocent children and animals is the action of kind and loving individual.

These things are awful tragic events and anyone who does this to innocent people is unjust.

cathy wrote:Opinion is opinion, are you claiming you know what your Gods actually is?

You can read His book just like I can...
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Michael » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:04 pm

It is better not to read it than to misread it.

As a person who values the bible greatly and sees it as authoratative for the Christian faith I find Marc's perversion of it quite offensive.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby cathy » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:37 pm

These things are awful tragic events and anyone who does this to innocent people is unjust.

Marc you waste inordinate amounts of your life proving your God did just this. So you are saying your God is unjust. On that we are agreed cos there will have been children and babies drowning as well.

You can read His book just like I can...
Yep am trying. Nowhere does it say any of the things you claim it does. Where did you get your ideas from?

And it says God thought it very good. Not God concurred with Marc Surtees about what was very good. In my opinion billions of people sitting atop billions of frogs (every blob of frogspawn a wanted, happy frog rather than bird food, producing more frogspawn), mice, rats, rabbits (and others who produce in large numbers)all bloated with e coli is not very good plannig. Recipe for misery in my opinion. Nor do I think the talking snake is a 'very good' addition. And if humans deserve drowning a few years later - not sure that is 'very good' either?

So Marc prove you've read it and prove to me that your God has told you that your opinion of 'very good' is the correct one not anyone elses. And stop being a giant troll!!!! Cos now I know what they are - you fit the bill exactly.

Unless you specify the crimes it is difficult to give an answer...
There are many hideous crimes where the perpetrator deserves to be drowned or ripped to pieces slowly and painfully. However no civilised society or person could countenance giving those sorts of crime the punishments they deserve in cold blood. To do so is barbaric! Even death row in the US tries to kill humanely rather than by drowning. So why a flood when targetted heart attacks would have worked. And why aren't the crimes specified.

So I'm really not sure what to make of your reply at all - other than to say our opinions of merciful and good are different. You really do make it very unappealing.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby cathy » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:47 pm

As a person who values the bible greatly and sees it as authoratative for the Christian faith I find Marc's perversion of it quite offensive.
I think It is offensive if you believe. If I still believed I'd be horrified by how he is mangling it cos all the creationists make it sound really silly and banal.

I find his reading of it bizarre. Genesis does not work as literal at all, its impossible to read it as factual, chronological events - even for an atheist who doesn't care. It does however work really well as metaphor. And that is from an atheist with a C in Eng lit got by some kind of magic or divine intervention or brodies notes - cos beyond Miss Haversham being mad and Macbeth being ambitious my understanding was shallow to say the least.

But if Marc is what you first see of christianity - then you wouldn't hang round for more. Other than for a laugh.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:52 pm

marcsurtees wrote:Unless you specify the crimes it is difficult to give an answer...


Genesis ch 6 v 5-7 (KJV)

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


There's the crime, makes perfect sense to destroy all living things because man is wicked in his heart.

Of course, given the list of things god finds evil according to the bible (eating pork, shaving the sides of your head, homosexuality, wearing fabric of mixed fibers...) I'm left wondering if god just changed his mind... but wait... isn't he omniscient and omnipotent? Why didn't he a) see this coming and b) just destroy the evil people and not the whole planet?
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Michael » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:23 pm

Cathy

I failed Eng lit and Latin :) and gave up history at 14.............
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:50 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Unless you specify the crimes it is difficult to give an answer...



Bullshit. It's exceedingly easy to answer this.

What crimes committed by babies deserves their mass execution?

Your "worldview" seems indistinguisable from hard line Nazis in the 30s and 40s.
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 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:06 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:
I thought that should be fairly clear. As selection pressure eases off, the rate of speciation declines. Basic evolution biology dear chap!


Basic redneck biology indeed. The "kinds" on the Ark "evolved into today's species over several thousand years without anyone ever noticing.

Jeez, your just a world class bullshitter.

Another scholarly contribution from the spokesperson of BCSE. :roll:

Maybe you should read more widely :wink:
See:
Lande, R. 2009. Adaptation to an extraordinary environment by evolution of phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 1435-1446.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/adapta ... milation/#
The abstract suggests that under extreme environmental pressure evolutionary change can be very rapid.
See also:
Scheiner, S.M. 2002. Selection experiments and the study of phenotypic plasticity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15: 889-898.



I've read clearer Abstracts...

So Marc is an evolutionist after all (or did God only invent evolution after the Flood)?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:12 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Michael wrote:What you cannot get away from Marc is
1. Nowhere does it define what good/verygood is. It does not say there was no death. That is your interpereation which is not shared by most christians and has never been the orthodox opinion.

2.You ignore what kind of literature the Bible and specailly Genesis

You are simply trapped in your personal private opinion PPO of the meaning of very good and then presume you can reject all science

So your opinion is that death at the age of 70 or 80 after a (sometimes prolonged) period of decrepitude is "very good".


Apart from a certain interpretation of the bible Marc, do you have any scientific evidence that human lifespans were 900 years plus 6,000 years ago ?

Are there not a number of literary explanations for these grosslly exaggerated biblical ages ?
Last edited by Peter Henderson on Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:17 pm

Unless you specify the crimes it is difficult to give an answer...


I think Natman is talking about God sending a global flood and killing every man, woman, and child whether or not they were guily of sin Marc. How can very young children or babies be guilty of sin ?

These things are awful tragic events and anyone who does this to innocent people is unjust
.

Was God unjust fror sending a global flood which killed the innocent as well as the guilty, including young chidren and babies ? Surely young children and babies are innocent ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Skeptics in the pub and Andy McIntosh ?

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:28 pm

What crimes committed by babies deserves their mass execution ?


If a baby or very young child dies Marc, what happens to their soul ? Likewise, those children or adults with severe special needs who cannot possibly understand the gospel ? Or even aborted fetuses ?

Your friend ploughboy over on Premier thinks no one is without sin, even those who fall into the catagories mentioned abovea nd all are subject to (and deserving of) God's wrath, even those incapable of understanding the gospel and what it means to be saved.

I find this view appalling.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
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: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests

cron