Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

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: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Michael » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:59 pm

yes
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:50 pm

Michael wrote:yes


Perhaps the fact that he resigned his post over the sdinking of the General Belgrano simply reflects he's very self opinionated and nothing else. From what I can gather he also annoyed a few others on Premier as well, and not just the Atheists.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:00 pm

I could be wrong, Michael. I never bothered following him on Premier. Was he a shit there?


Roger: I've sent you a P.M. re. Dr. Derek.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby cathy » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:44 pm

He seems to be an honorable person (like Marc Surtees) with a kindly disposition which makes it all the sadder that he has got himself mixed up with the utterly dishonest kookery and authoritarianism of creationism.

I'm not sure Marc was honourable really. I tried very hard to see him as such but at the end of the day whenever he looked like he was going to do something good he always reverted to creationist form.

"Man however would have had the ingenuity, resources and intelligence to escape the flood for the longest time, which could be why the human remains'/fossils are found above the dinosaurs and other animals." Even in places where the land is low-lying and virtually flat (and was before the Flood too before you ask)?

Yeah that was what my first creationist encounter told me. The fossil record was dictated by how quickly we could run up hills to escape the waters, which were tsunammi like. But when I asked why we'd brought all our homes, artefacts and indeed dug up our dead and brought them as well he was quite upset with me. Cos I was just a female after all and therefore not in a position to question.

By the way what is theoretical engineering? Is it like theoretical cooking or theoretical surgery?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:05 pm

cathy wrote:By the way what is theoretical engineering? Is it like theoretical cooking or theoretical surgery?
When I were a lad, IIRC the Double Maths A-level was called "Mathematics and Theoretical Mechanics". So as Andy McIntosh was/is a prof of Engineering, his core expertise is in mathematics. No doubt mathematicians would call it a "top down" approach to becoming a Member of the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers. Such is life - do your sums right and you'll get to design weapons.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby cathy » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:42 am

Ah when I did my maths A level it were called pure maths and applied maths and the applied was just mechanics (or pure and applied statistics for the ones who did economics) clearly they'd dropped the theoretical and used to word applied to suggest it wasn't just theoretical. Now its called core C1,2,3,4 and M1,2,3,4 and S1,2,3,4. if you were doing physics the timetable meant you had to do pure and mechanics. So i did as told and calculated cannon balls, loads of pulleys, lorries going up and down hills and various other things exerting forces. But we did just call it mechanics not theoretical mechanics even though we never got to throw a single thing in maths. I've heard of maths for engineers, but never theoretical engineering.

Still Dr Derek seems to live in a theoretical world where theoretical dragons approximate to real dinosaurs, where real 4.5 billion theoretically equals 6000 and where nothing is real so I guess that is fine.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:40 pm

cathy wrote: if you were doing physics the timetable meant you had to do pure and mechanics.
So the standard choices for scientist in my day: chemistry, physics and (single) maths and chemistry physics and biology didn't apply in your day? Or did you have to to do four? IIRC the extra maths was just for the very determined - and brilliant - physicists and mathematicians. Most of us were happy just playing at sink chemistry. :D
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:48 am

I've had enough for today:

http://uk-christians.net/forum/topics/d ... 2#comments

So Peter, what did people believe before Darwin, people laughed at his grandfather Erasmus when he suggested a similar origin to Charles. In fact Darwen’s idea for natural selection was inspired by both his grandfather and Thomas Malthus. However what those pre-Darwinian evolutionists lacked was an understanding of how evolution worked, indeed Darwin was sadly lacking in his understanding by today's standards, he called the 'cell' a 'simple cell' which is incredibly far from the truth. In reality the 'cell' is so complex that many biologists have problems with the idea that it actually evolved.
The fact is that the acceptable theory of evolution only goes back about 200 years, but before that most people did not give the idea much thought and believed what the clerics of their time told them to believe, the six day creation and Adam and Eve as their ultimate ancestors, a view that was held for thousands of years within all three of the Abrahamic races/faiths. The general population had more to consider in their lives than their origins. So no, six-day creationists are not a new breed, and it has never been out of favour, although certain evolutionary types would wish you to believe that its just a new fad. One evolutionist I was speaking to recently claimed that Ken Ham had invented creationism as a pseudo-Christian cult, so we are right back believing what we are told to believe.
Evolution actually comes at the head of a long line of crack-pot hypotheses dating back well over 2000 years, it is just the one that has been generally accepted. The earliest emergence of the idea arose in the period of the ancient Greeks where it was taught that man evolved from fish, and animals evolved from plants; understandably these ideas did not catch on. The reasons that the fish and plant theory did not catch on were not because it was ridiculous but because an alternative theory became popular, Spontaneous Generation. Spontaneous Generation purported that all life sprang spontaneously from mud and slime and was sponsored by such great names as Aristotle in 400 BC. Pope Gregory, one of the earliest emperors of the Holy Roman Empire declared that the theory was as un-biblical and unscientific as evolution and should not be believed, as with evolution, there was no need to believe in God. Spontaneous Generation did take hold and lasted until Louis Pasteur disproved the theory in the nineteenth century. During that time fossils were thought to have been formed by the action of the sun and stars, despite that two thousand years earlier the Greeks recognised them for what they were.


How does someone become like this ?

I dunno :(
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:50 am

Peter Henderson wrote:I've had enough for today:

http://uk-christians.net/forum/topics/d ... 2#comments

Evolution actually comes at the head of a long line of crack-pot hypotheses dating back well over 2000 years, it is just the one that has been generally accepted.


How does someone become like this ?

I dunno :(
That's a new one Peter: the kettle calling the pot cracked!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:05 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:I've had enough for today:

http://uk-christians.net/forum/topics/d ... 2#comments

Evolution actually comes at the head of a long line of crack-pot hypotheses dating back well over 2000 years, it is just the one that has been generally accepted.


How does someone become like this ?

I dunno :(
That's a new one Peter: the kettle calling the pot cracked!


He doesn't seem to know the difference between hypothesis and theory.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:32 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:He doesn't seem to know the difference between hypothesis and theory.
So maybe he's actually a Hypothetical Engineer. :D
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:52 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:He doesn't seem to know the difference between hypothesis and theory.
So maybe he's actually a Hypothetical Engineer. :D


Or a crack pot one more like :D
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Michael » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:16 pm

His stuff is so absurd that it makes Ken Scam seem quite reasonable
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby cathy » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:47 pm

So the standard choices for scientist in my day: chemistry, physics and (single) maths and chemistry physics and biology didn't apply in your day? Or did you have to to do four? IIRC the extra maths was just for the very determined - and brilliant - physicists and mathematicians. Most of us were happy just playing at sink chemistry.
No, one single A level maths was pure and applied, two papers, in my day. Further maths was further pure and further applied and was for the dedicated only - even more pulleys I guess. Don't know anyone that got above a C in that, even the ones going to do maths. No way I could have attempted four - far to skittish. Just the three standard ones plus we were forced to take an contrasting O level as well in the first year.

How does someone become like this ?

Lobotomy? There is no way people can be this thick. The closest I've come to this level of stupidity outside of creationism is my friend who thinks she can be some kind of witch and reads her cards and anyone elses. I used to think her bonkers before I came across creationism. But In comparison shes a veritable Einsteinn.

So what crackpot ideas has this guy accepted in engineering? The crackpot steam engine theory? Maybe he just has a hypothetical brain.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Dr. Derek lying about evolution on UK Christians.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:18 pm

Dr. Derek has "done research" it would seem:

Peter, you really don't get it do you? So I will repeat it again, firstly, and most importantly, the creation/evolution debate is a spiritual one, it is about accepting or rejecting the event that has informed the very core of our faith. If anyone does not accept a perfect creation and subsequent fall, logically, you cannot accept redemption, which makes Jesus' sacrifice of blood totally meaningless. How could Jesus buy back (redeem) what we never had or never existed? Peter, use you own brain to work through that piece of logic, instead of relying on what other very dubious people tell you, the verse comes to mind? 'There's none so blind as those who will not see.'

Just because there is a concusses on something, does not mean that it is right, M.D.s used to believe that smoking was healthy, and the stronger the cigarette the healthier it was believed to be. I remember my father's GP telling him to change his brand of cigarette to a stronger one, as I used to steal the occasional fag from his packet, I have a vivid memory of choking on the new brand. What is accepted today is rejected tomorrow. The recent discovery that 'Junk DNA' not actually being 'junk' is a prime example of this. The forced recalibration of certain radiometric testing procedures in the past few months is another. There are many things that were taught when I was in college that are no longer taught, except as history of the way we used to believe.
From where I stand, I seems as if you are like some other person, who never answers challenges or provides real evidence, but simply makes negative remarks and posts what others (who also know no better) have said. My views are the result of my own research, not the opinion of others, my views often misalign with the general consensus, and I continually challenge the views of mainstream creationism, because I seen the truth, and the starting point for truth is the Bible.
In the words of one of my lectures when I was at Uni, “A billion flies eat poo, but that does not mean I should, or that they are right” [well I have cleaned that quote up a little].


and he's so patronising as well

Wot on earth is a "concusses on something" ?????????????

I presume he means consensus ?????????

Then again, banging your head against a brick wall does eventually give you concussion :mrgreen:
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
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 4 guests

cron