AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

[a_haworthroberts]

I've now made the effort to listen to Faulkner on the Janet Mefford Show. He did not (in that interview at least) demand "equal time" for special creation in the Cosmos programmes. Though in fact that Right Wing Watch article - which his blog post dated 25 March does not specifically link to - did not use that specific phrase and instead used the phrases "competing time" or "airtime". The same is true of the three articles that Faulkner DOES link to. Though the Huffington Post article by Bob Cesca uses the phrase "equal airtime".

Having already flagged Faulkner's blog of 25 March, I am now making this further factual point partly to try and STOP people like Cowboy Bob Sorensen falsely alleging on facebook that on the BCSE community forum (he linked to Roger's thread): "We see the predictable result, where bigoted anti-creationists spread the untruths without checking facts, and then add their own uninformed prejudicial conjectures...".

[Roger Stanyard]

Having already flagged Faulkner's blog of 25 March, I am now making this further factual point partly to try and STOP people like Cowboy Bob Sorensen falsely alleging on facebook that on the BCSE community forum (he linked to Roger's thread): "We see the predictable result, where bigoted anti-creationists spread the untruths without checking facts, and then add their own uninformed prejudicial conjectures...".

LOL! Being described as a bigot by a loud mouthed American creationist and fundamentalist is the ultimate in being called ugly by a toad!

[a_haworthroberts]

This has just appeared: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ ... at-matter/

[jon_12091]

Having recently looked up a number of the BBCs recent big ticket natural history shows on Wikipedia I've just discovered how many of them had the obligatory environmental/climate change episode pulled as 'controversial' when shown on US networks. One can only take the view that if creationists make enough noise US networks might start self censoring.

[Roger Stanyard]

Having recently looked up a number of the BBCs recent big ticket natural history shows on Wikipedia I've just discovered how many of them had the obligatory environmental/climate change episode pulled as 'controversial' when shown on US networks. One can only take the view that if creationists make enough noise US networks might start self censoring.

The ideologues can't get their own stuff on mainstream television so they try to stop everyone else seeing views and evidenence that are contrarary to their own ideologies.

[IgnoreThisTest]

Fair and balanced? That means ONE aig type for every 100000 proper scientists

[magnocrat]

I listened carfully. This is propoganda to project certain veiwpoints and ridicule any opposition. Safa Motesharrei mathmatical simmulation of the breakdown of civilisation is a real attempt to bring science to bear on our situation it is not political its mathmatical. I can only dimmly understand the maths but these researchers are genuine.
Abiogenisis has numerous hypothetical explanations it has not been explained. Richard Dawkins admits as much in 'The Blind Watchmaker'. He invokes the laws of chance and tries his levelbest to make a scientific explanation of how replicating molecules first arose. Incidentally in passing he comes to the same conclusion as Professor Brian Cox we are probably alone in the milky way. Once you go outside of science you can do what you like, the supernatural can explain anything thats why is so attractive to many but its not science. The approach of Carl Sagan I found rather sickly and romatic and that was its great appeal. The small blue dot in the vastness of space neglects who we are.
The brain is wider than the sky
For put them side by side
The one the other will include
With ease and you beside.

[Roger Stanyard]

I listened carfully. This is propoganda to project certain veiwpoints and ridicule any opposition. Safa Motesharrei mathmatical simmulation of the breakdown of civilisation is a real attempt to bring science to bear on our situation it is not political its mathmatical. I can only dimmly understand the maths but these researchers are genuine.
Abiogenisis has numerous hypothetical explanations it has not been explained. Richard Dawkins admits as much in 'The Blind Watchmaker'. He invokes the laws of chance and tries his levelbest to make a scientific explanation of how replicating molecules first arose. Incidentally in passing he comes to the same conclusion as Professor Brian Cox we are probably alone in the milky way. Once you go outside of science you can do what you like, the supernatural can explain anything thats why is so attractive to many but its not science. The approach of Carl Sagan I found rather sickly and romatic and that was its great appeal. The small blue dot in the vastness of space neglects who we are.
The brain is wider than the sky
For put them side by side
The one the other will include
With ease and you beside.

What on earth are the "laws of chance". Yet again I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[magnocrat]

I think your kidding me Rodger. Let me say I keep my replies as short as possible to prevent boredom. I'm sure you know the old adage about millions of monkeys typing the works of shakespeare. Well Richard Dawkins is saying given time and billions of environments chance will enable a dublicating molecule to be formed and then we are off with natural selection. He actually works out an estimate hence his agreement with the conclusion of Professor Cox ; life is extremely rare.

[Roger Stanyard]

I think your kidding me Rodger. Let me say I keep my replies as short as possible to prevent boredom. I'm sure you know the old adage about millions of monkeys typing the works of shakespeare. Well Richard Dawkins is saying given time and billions of environments chance will enable a dublicating molecule to be formed and then we are off with natural selection. He actually works out an estimate hence his agreement with the conclusion of Professor Cox ; life is extremely rare.

So?