Up Coming TV

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: Up Coming TV

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:10 am

I wonder if they had a trilogy in mind? This week's edition was about the Hamites' beloved Social Darwinism.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Interesting current TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:27 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _to_Earth/ (episode two of Secrets of Bones, BBC Four)
In the last five minutes or so we learn that european moles and golden moles are genetically unrelated, differ in what other types of animal they are most closely related to (shrews vs elephants essentially, which partly reflects where they live and don't live and what else occurs where they live), and also differ in some of their bones for burrowing. Suggesting convergent evolution.

How does a Biblical creation model of origins - leaving aside how biblical the claimed model that we now know Ken Ham cannot enunciate in a fair open debate setting actually is - explain this? Genesis 1 suggests that "God made the wild animals according to their kinds ... and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds" (NIV). This must mean that what we recognise as moles were created together on day six as part of a much wider volume of creatures - according to their kinds.

Oddly, observable science and evolutionary theory based on what is observed refutes MORE convincingly the young Earth creationist nonsense of Ken Ham etc about 'kinds' of eg moles/mole-like creatures and 'kind boundaries' than it actually does the Bible ITSELF. A YEC creation MODEL should predict that moles worldwide are all closely related because they are all similar kinds of wild animal/creatures moving along or under the ground created in a single act on day six, and whenever there are signs of evolution the creationists invariably tell the world "they are still moles"; also post-flood the Bible as translated into English ONLY records God saying of ark survivors in Genesis 8 that they should "multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it" (not that they should, frequently, rapidly diversify into innumerable different species but still restricted within existing boundaries that separate them from other 'kinds' of animal).

But of course the Bible itself is no use on its own as a weapon against evolutionary science. Hence, if you are fundamentalist and literalistic Christian, young Earth creationism is NECESSARY.

So do I fight against science with a useless Bible or with useful but patently false and nonsensical young Earth creationism? Hmm...

There is another argument. ACCEPT science but argue that God is behind it all and used evolution.

Of course the programme's evolutionary biologist presenter, and the fellow academic he spoke to about the mole skeletons, were simply out to attack Bible-based creationism. That must be it. They were BIASED. Biased against the God of the Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:11 am

PS Just had an exchange with Jonathan Sarfati on his facebook page (where I am posting the link to my post a few minutes ago). He seemed to muddy the waters but for me they are still reasonably CLEAR.


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... omments=10 (thread begun on 18.2.14 where Sarfati described 'Bill Nye the Propagandist Guy'):

Me: "The Bible pre-dates scientific understanding and I suggest that a 'biblical' understanding would be FIXITY OF SPECIES".
Sarfati: "Actually, fixity of species was taught by Charles Lyell. This is why Darwin's Origin of Species kept on refuting this non-biblical position instead of biblical creation. Pre-Darwinian creationists taught what would now be called speciation, based on the biblical teaching that relatively few Ark vertebrates must have been the ancestor of many varieties of vertebrates today".
Me: "Thanks. So on this issue Lyell disagrees with young Earth creationists whilst agreeing with scripture (which says NOTHING about speciation)? By coincidence I've just watched a TV programme which - though it did not set out with such an intention - refuted young Earth creationist 'models' (such as the one Ken Ham struggled to identify in public recently). It showed that different moles on different continents are NOT closely related, contrary to how YECs explain Genesis 1, and their similarities are explained by convergent evolution. Your reply illustrates again that YECs, in order to make the Bible 'address' science, make the Bible say things that it absolutely doesn't say. You appear to be saying that in his 2009 book Dawkins refuted fixity of species but not biblical creation. Well he refuted the Bible as being in any way scientific. And that TV programme tonight well refuted 'biblical creation' without even mentioning such a thing (regrettably you may be unable to watch the episode online at BBC iplayer though CMI colleagues in the UK could do so). As I mentioned in my post [typo since corrected] at the BCSE community forum, Genesis 8 does not suggest speciation merely multiplication ie reproduction and increasing populations recolonising a flooded planet. My post at 12.27 am GMT on 26.2.14: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3104&start=375

When I glanced at the rules for his page they did not say "trolls will be banned" unlike the ridiculous Sorensen and Petersen, so perhaps my comment will be allowed to remain (even if I am thought to be 'trolling').
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:46 am

Actually Ashley, for most of his life Lyell rejected Darwin's theories though he accepted evolution towards the end, as far as I'm aware.

He was certainly no YEC
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:33 am

Peter - yes I read a few minutes ago that Charles Lyell was a Christian (I had assumed otherwise).

More discussion with Sarfati (and two others). I won't flag all my comments here - especially if nothing looks like being removed. But I'm showing my latest one here because it is fairly substantial (and was time-consuming to write):

"As far as I recall I have not ever suggested that 'kinds' for a biblical/young Earth creationist equates to 'species' - but (unless the Hebrew suggests otherwise) the Bible ITSELF could very well be read that way. Kinds sounds rather like 'varieties' (whether varieties of bird or varieties of eg finch. It also does not sound, in the context of Genesis 1, scientifically precise. But you are aware that I have read and reviewed at Amazon.com your 2010 book 'refuting Dawkins on evolution' and you must know that I know that most YECs today do not say that a 'kind' (said to be on the ark apart from sea creatures) is actually a modern species - of which there are a very large number. (As Henry says, pinning down a species is sometimes difficult. And Jonathan's 2010 book admitted that creationists cannot pin down the 'kinds' they believe in either - without conducting hybridisation experiments.) I've just read the Sarfati 2013 article on echolocation that he links to. It links to this: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013 ... n-same-way (I also viewed the underlined link to Nature magazine). I would agree that if it is a common occurrence that a large number of genes independently change in the same ways when a similar ability eg echolocation is seen (involving perhaps mutations to the protein prestin) then if the animals in question are similar (bats and dolphins aren't) then a homoplasy MIGHT explain what was previously thought to be a homology linked to common descent.
But I still do not think that Ken Ham has a viable 'model' of origins if different species of what look very much like moles are so genetically DIFFERENT to each other (and related to very different sorts of animals as explained in the BBC programme I watched). Presumably he would either change the subject or try to suggest that God knew that golden moles are not 'true' moles but that he could not go into that amount of detail when writing Genesis 1 and expected us to find this out for ourselves and then read into Genesis things which are not there?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:31 pm

It's a shame there isn't a book recommendation thread as well as a tv one. Books that might interest bcse people, whether proper serious factual ones or novels.

Only thought of it cos I've just read The Attack of the Unshrinkable Rubber Ducks by Christopher Brookmyre which mentions Reg Vardy and his schools - the first novel I've ever come across that does so ha ha. And nearly every page made me think of all I'd learnt here.

Though it's about a fake psychic (among many) rather than creationism, it does reference lots of creationist stuff, creationist methods and a direct references to teach the controversy.

Interesting plot where the psychic gaining scientific credibility is potentially then going to be used by a religious rich businessman (mirroring Reg Vardy I felt) to push his religious agenda in part to teach the controversy (and I won't give away all of their come uppances in case anyone wants to read it). It is also set in a mythical university in Glasgow - and we all know how popular ID is with certain Scottish PhDs ha ha.

Anyway it's a real good read for any of you that read novels - that, like all good reads, might resonate with reality in certain areas.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:19 pm

The bigots (some of them anyway) cannot resist lying on Facebook. Thus the latest comment from Dr Sarfati: "The BCSE is a group of low-brow atheists ...". https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... omments=10

(EDIT: Technically this belongs in the Sarfati thread within Conversations and if he makes any further untruthful statements that I think should be highlighted I will highlight them there not here.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Re:

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:49 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:The bigots (some of them anyway) cannot resist lying on Facebook. Thus the latest comment from Dr Sarfati: "The BCSE is a group of low-brow atheists ...". https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... omments=10

(EDIT: Technically this belongs in the Sarfati thread within Conversations and if he makes any further untruthful statements that I think should be highlighted I will highlight them there not here.)


LOL!!!!!! Sarfati is thus an intellectual "high brow". As are his pals at CMI! Funny, I could have sworn that CMI are a bunch of crackpots and kooks who can't stand other creationists. The sort of outfit that goes in for exorcising cats. ;-)
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:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:05 pm

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... omments=10
If you read the more recent part of the thread you will see that Bob Sorensen and Remo Wilson have been trying to bait myself and Pete Best*, accusing me of being a liar, and the latter has just excused Sarfati's untruthful statement about the BCSE, mentioned above, as an 'opinion'.

I think that young Earth creationist fundamentalists have decided in advance, because of Romans 3:4 or some such, that anybody who challenges their claims is - inevitably since they stand for the Truth - a LIAR.

Trouble is, people of every other persuasion have sincerely concluded that the people who LIE about science is THEM.
http://biologos.org/blog/ham-on-nye-our-take
"But several times we here at the office groaned in frustration, like when Ken Ham made false scientific arguments ..." (Deb Haarsma.)

*EDIT - just noticed that the Pete Best comments are no longer visible...


PS
This ought to be interesting TV (first shown on 11 March):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03xsfrq
"Episode 1 of 3
Professor Richard Fortey journeys high in the Rocky Mountains to explore a 520-million-year-old fossilised seabed containing bizarre and experimental lifeforms that have revolutionised our understanding about the beginnings of complex life. Among the amazing finds he uncovers are marine creatures with five eyes and a proboscis; filter-feeders shaped like tulips; worm-like scavengers covered in spikes but with no identifiable head or anus; and a metre-long predator resembling a giant shrimp."


PPS
A creationist named Dr Dave Kimber has had a letter published in the latest edition of the Evangelical Alliance IDEA magazine (the 'Church' edition which is not yet available online at the EA website). He is reacting in part to a previous letter. I'll quote salient bits of his letter.

"I doubt if many professional biologists have actually evaluated the evidence for evolution. When they do, they may develop concerns about it but dismiss these on the grounds that everyone else believes it so it must be true. The herd instinct is quite strong in science, and any biologist publicly expressing doubts about evolution would find it difficult to get a job. That means that serious research into alternatives has to be carried out by amateurs or academics in other disciplines.
There are good scientific reasons to doubt evolution, quite apart from what the Bible teaches. The apparently spontaneous creation of information, in flat contradiction to thermodynamics and information theory, is one of them. To get round this most biologists either ignore it or claim that life is not fully subject to the laws of physics (thus agreeing with creationists!)... There can be no conflict between true science and Christian belief."

Kimber does not appear to be involved with Truth in Science.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... nu-82.html

I did a brief online search - no idea whether this is the SAME Dr Kimber:
http://www.part15.us/comment/19957
If it is, his background is not biology. I'm assuming - but am open to correction - that EE stands for Electrical Engineering.

EDIT I think this probably IS the same Dr Kimber. See the dedication at the start of this thesis!
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3/1/Kimber06PhD.pdf
"This work is dedicated to my parents ... It is from them that I received a love of Truth and, by the grace of God, some ability to comprehend certain aspects of it."
This Dr Kimber apparently has been a researcher in 'Evanescent Microwave Spectroscopy for Nanoscale Measurements' at Imperial College in London:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/functionalma ... usprojects
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Re:

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:12 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:There can be no conflict between true science and Christian belief."


That confirms he is a fundamentalist ideologue.
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: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:50 pm

Sorenson, Wilson, and indeed Sarfati want all, Christians to be YECs.

That seems to take priority over what it means to be a Christian
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:35 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:11 pm

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... omments=73
Sarfati is saying we are "not notable for scientific expertise". He bases this on the biased David Anderson accusing the BCSE of 'fraud' and 'deceit' back in 2008 (he listed eight reasons why he considered the BCSE in 2008 to be 'con-men').

Back in 2008 I for one did not know of the BCSE's existence. (I took a short OU 'Exploring Science' course during 2008-09.)

And the only specific names Anderson lists for the membership in 2008 are Roger Stanyard, Michael Brass, Ian Lowe and Brian Jordan (surely there were more?). The membership/participation online is probably rather different today and more numerous even if Anderson's list was complete for 2008.

Sarfati rather vindictively attacks using Anderson's six year old page because he wants all the things that Anderson claimed (some of which MIGHT have been true for all I know but I would accept correction as appropriate) to STILL apply today.

However, there are three active Christians who post here today, and there are people with some science background even if they are not professional scientists or science educators drawing up curricula (one is involved with a school laboratory and another two, possibly more, that I can think of have worked in a scientific field in the past).

Liars don't care for actual detailed facts. What matters to them is propaganda and trying to depict all your opponents as dishonest and uneducated. He has his faults when ridiculing people, but I'm not sure that Dawkins would be quite so cavalier with facts.

It's as though Bob and Remo etc gave up so Sarfati has decided to stir the pot on his Facebook page again (he can have the last word as far as I am concerned - but that is if he posts something fully truthful rather than half-true and deliberately provocative).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Re:

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:16 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=738276582850512&id=223583015475&comment_id=7859552&offset=0&total_comments=73
Sarfati is saying we are "not notable for scientific expertise". He bases this on the biased David Anderson accusing the BCSE of 'fraud' and 'deceit' back in 2008 (he listed eight reasons why he considered the BCSE in 2008 to be 'con-men').

Back in 2008 I for one did not know of the BCSE's existence. (I took a short OU 'Exploring Science' course during 2008-09.)

And the only specific names Anderson lists for the membership in 2008 are Roger Stanyard, Michael Brass, Ian Lowe and Brian Jordan (surely there were more?). The membership/participation online is probably rather different today and more numerous even if Anderson's list was complete for 2008.

Sarfati rather vindictively attacks using Anderson's six year old page because he wants all the things that Anderson claimed (some of which MIGHT have been true for all I know but I would accept correction as appropriate) to STILL apply today.

However, there are three active Christians who post here today, and there are people with some science background even if they are not professional scientists or science educators drawing up curricula (one is involved with a school laboratory and another two, possibly more, that I can think of have worked in a scientific field in the past).

Liars don't care for actual detailed facts. What matters to them is propaganda and trying to depict all your opponents as dishonest and uneducated. He has his faults when ridiculing people, but I'm not sure that Dawkins would be quite so cavalier with facts.

It's as though Bob and Remo etc gave up so Sarfati has decided to stir the pot on his Facebook page again (he can have the last word as far as I am concerned - but that is if he posts something fully truthful rather than half-true and deliberately provocative).


Sarfati and Anderson's approaches are bog standard for creationists.

Neirther of them are practising scientists and none of Anderson's degrees are in science. However, it doesn't take a knowledge of science to rip their creationism apart as it isn't science. Both of them, despite their own self-importance, are utterly irrelevent to science.
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: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:10 pm

I think we have quite a few members well qualified in science now anyway.

In any case, that's far better than being a failed missionary, or a chemist/chess player turned missionary.
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: No registered users and 6 guests