1. Comment #12095 by Seti on December 10, 2006 at 2:22 pm

It's also on You-Tube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HyKqhvF-6tI

[admin note: I've posted this set of 3 videos HERE. ]

Other Comments by Seti

2. Comment #12099 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 3:20 pm

Okay, I managed twenty minutes or so before my blood pressure started going through the roof. I didn't get to Richard. That creationist nutcase just... had me screaming at the screen.

I might come back when I'm feeling strong again. But hey... does Richard actually engage with these guys? I thought he didn't debate creationists?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

3. Comment #12103 by MartinSGill on December 10, 2006 at 3:29 pm

Only over half way through but Richard is at his very best and the poor idiot from Leeds Uni is being slaughtered.

Richard has him stating on public radio that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I rather hope the guy loses his job as a result.

The museum in the US just makes me sick. If I were a theists i'd call for it to be fire bombed, but I'm an atheist so I just shake my head.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

4. Comment #12105 by aoratos philos on December 10, 2006 at 3:35 pm

@ Seti
The link you posted is for the RTE TV show. The link posted by the webmaster is for Richards appearance on "The Sunday sequence" on Radio Ulster.

Josh, i'm running an mp3 conversion as I type, I'll post it on when finished.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

5. Comment #12107 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Okay, I'm into Richard taking the bozo out now. And my God... this fundie maniac comes from Leeds University? I went to Leeds University. I got a degree in physics and astrophysics there. My tutors and lecturers were great, sound scientists. What the hell has happened to my old Uni that they'd employ lunatics?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

6. Comment #12109 by Eamonn Shute on December 10, 2006 at 3:54 pm

Later in the programme Richard is criticised for not answering the 2nd law question, which is unfair because the chairman moves on before he can do so. I would have loved to see the questioner deal with Richard's answer - I am sure RD could have made his folly even more obvious by explaining why he is wrong.

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

7. Comment #12111 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 4:03 pm

5. Comment #12107 by Jack Rawlinson

Jack,

A couple of years ago, I returned home after living and working in the US, after only a few weeks I had the same thoughts, what the hell has happened to my country?

At least a part of it is so-called 'diversity', politicians will pander to any group who can be conned into voting for them, including fanatical religites. That's why they tout diversity, but we now have diversity gone mad. I see almost nothing that's improved in the UK; out of control greed, badly educated undisciplined young people, 85% of TV programs designed to insult people's intelligence, a leader that allows himself to be bullied by an internationally dangerous idiot...the list goes on.

We are in a bad way my friend.

Other Comments by Yorker

8. Comment #12112 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Damn, he did, didn't he? That Leeds Uni lunatic fell for the old second law bullshit! And this guy is allowed to teach? At my old uni? And the sad thing is that this whole argument will be just so much gobbledygook to a lay audience.

Hell, this is a war. A war for rationality and proper science. What do we do about these trojans who infiltrate our places of learning? How can we stop it?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

9. Comment #12113 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:11 pm

Yorker: I live and work in New York now, and have done for the last five years. I'm shocked and disgusted by the way this... religious insanity seems to have gained a hold in my country. I used to smugly tell my American friends that Britain was functionally atheist. Twenty years ago that was true. And now the pendulum has swung back this far?

Richard's approach is right, I think. We have to be assertive and even, occasionally, aggressive in our atheism and especially in our defence of reason. We live in sad, worrying times.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

10. Comment #12114 by Eamonn Shute on December 10, 2006 at 4:19 pm

Professor Andy McIntosh:-

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/speme/erri/index_people.html

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

11. Comment #12115 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:21 pm

And by the way, professor Dawkins... if you happen to look in on this thread I'd be very interested to read your reactions to this show. It seems like they put you on there as some sort of atheist Aunt Sally up against a shocking shower of unscientific religious people, and didn't give you a fair crack of the whip in terms of letting you take them out. The initial tone of the presentation seemed to be "Richard Dawkins is the big no. 1 scary atheist so we're going to set him up on his own and throw irrational loonies at him." When they actually let you talk you did as marvellously as ever, but they did cut you off at crucial points and they did give the religious views much more time than they gave you. I wonder if that's how it seemed to you?

I'm still in shock that that...maniac is teaching at my old university. I'm beyond disgusted.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

12. Comment #12116 by RascoHeldall on December 10, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Andy MacIntosh: "Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie."

Leeds University has been shamed.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

13. Comment #12117 by MakingBelieve on December 10, 2006 at 4:29 pm

It is very, very sad listening to this. Blathering non-sensical unsubstaniated irrational God-talk only briefly interspersed with an occassional flicker of cogent sane erudition from Richard. I'm disgusted.

MB

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

14. Comment #12118 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Rasco... yes, it has. It grieves me to say it, but it has.

I graduated in 1980. Back then someone like MacIntosh would only have found a place there as a babbling campus crazy. Appalling how quickly things can deteriorate.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

15. Comment #12119 by RascoHeldall on December 10, 2006 at 4:38 pm

Just emailed the bugger (thanks for the link, Eamonn). I wonder if he'll reply?

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

16. Comment #12120 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:42 pm

Rasco, I'm thinking of emailing a couple of my old professors - I went to the Physics/Astrophysics page and I see some names I recognise - and asking them what they think, and if there's some way action can be taken to get this idiot removed. I have no idea if - or how - that might be possible but damn, I feel polluted by his presence at Leeds University even twenty six years after I graduated.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

17. Comment #12121 by Eamonn Shute on December 10, 2006 at 4:54 pm

He has written a book:-
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Today-Relevance-Creation-Evolution/dp/1903087155/sr=8-2/qid=1165798275/ref=sr_1_2/102-1300019-5456924?ie=UTF8&s=books

(Ranked #3,316,159 on Amazon!)

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

18. Comment #12122 by RascoHeldall on December 10, 2006 at 4:56 pm

Go for it, Jack. The stupid thing is, to get to professor level this guy must be an expert in his subject. That he would (ab)use this knowledge to knowingly and deliberately construct such a sophisticated-sounding tissue of lies (especially when he blatantly lies about the 2nd law of thermodynamics - HIS OWN FIELD OF STUDY) really does speak volumes for the dehumanising effect religious conviction can have on people. What pitiful character.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

19. Comment #12123 by mdowe on December 10, 2006 at 5:07 pm

I really think these programs just give a great deal of air-time to creationist nutters. Allowing them to air their views in opposition to a legitimate scientific person just falsely implies they have a credibility where none exists. They belong on a show with flat-earth people and alien abductees ... not on a show opposite legitimate scientists.

That said, I think Dr. Dawkins dropped the ball a bit when he emphasised his distaste and dismay for the sad fact that the Leeds-nutball (Andy McIntosh was it?) somehow still has a professorship rather than just dismissing the crap that he was spouting. Everyone trips up once in a while I suppose =)

Debates and live questions forums are not especially amenable to honest inquiry. Creationists always try to score points by showing that the scientific perspective is 'imperfect', and so is just an alternative (and on equal footing) to their own. The professor from Leads was dishonestly trying to get the audience to call a point a draw, which would be perceived as a default victory for him. He was doing this by putting forwarding an argument the vast majority of listening audience could not judge, and was hoping perhaps to draw Dr. Dawkins out of his field so he would sound ignorant.

As to DNA stability and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, it was nonsense of course. The second law just says entropy in a system always increases. It doesn't say organisation (such as DNA structure) can never occur in a local system. Energy is being used to maintain the organised long chains of DNA over time, and thus entropy is held off in this local system. That energy comes from the Sun, and thus in the larger system entropy is indeed increasing, and the second law is (what a surprise) not being violated. You can't tell me Prof. McIntosh was not fully aware of this fact. Pure dishonesty ...

Other Comments by mdowe

20. Comment #12124 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:09 pm

Well, I've listened to the whole thing now. It's just shocking. This may be one of the most revealing links posted on this site and everyone should listen to it to realise what we're up against. As Rasco says, we're listening to educated, intelligent (or selectively intelligent) people abusing their intellectual abilities to push wild irrationality. Not only that, but to infiltrate our centres of learning in order to do so. It's an outrage. And it's here we need to concentrate our efforts. Crazies setting up creationist museums in the more benighted and ignorant regions of America is bad enough but crazies who attain recognized scientific qualifications and posts in respected universities is a far more dangerous thing.

I'm stunned.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

21. Comment #12125 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 5:14 pm

I found this almost impossible to listen to. This McIntosh fellow is a disgrace to science. Irrespective of professional discipline, anyone holding such nonsensical beliefs, has no business teaching in any capacity.

Leeds University will become a laughing stock -- the place with the nutty professor -- shamed and abhorred world-wide.

What say you, shall we put together a petition to have this disgrace fired from his post ASAP? I am certainly for it. Is the RDF ready yet to start sending materials out? I suggest we flood LU with protests about this. How much would it cost? Would donations be required?

Richard, please let us know.

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #12127 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Yorker: yes, yes. Let's have a petition. Let's shine a light on this.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

23. Comment #12128 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:24 pm

mdowe: unfortunately it's worse than just giving air time to creationist nutters. This particular creationist nutter (MacIntosh) has a post at a large and highly-respected British university. He has a position of influence there. He can "teach". That is an outrage, and it needs to be dealt with.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

24. Comment #12129 by mdowe on December 10, 2006 at 5:42 pm

Comment #12128 by Jack Rawlinson

Jack,

I agree it is a disturbing and embarrassing fact. I was just stating that (IMHO) Dr. Dawkins would have done better to trash this fellow's credibility (under these particular circumstances) strictly by trashing his ridiculous arguments.

Other Comments by mdowe

25. Comment #12131 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 5:45 pm

Professor Dawkins,

Please use whatever influence you may have, to get McIntosh invited as a speaker to next year's Beyond Belief conference. I want to hear him spout his drivel in front of world-class scientists, this disgrace to the word 'professor', needs to be publicly humiliated.

Other Comments by Yorker

26. Comment #12132 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:47 pm

mdowe: absolutely. But I'm also appalled that Dawkins was basically wheeled on and then ignored in the latter part of the program. He wasn't given the opportunity to rebut his critics, or their credibility. The program was allowed to peter out into a mess of crazed bickering between exclusively religious people and religious apologists. They ended up talking about the precise way in which Adam caused human death, for example. Richard was allowed to say his piece, but not defend it against the many subsequent and wholly specious or fallacious attacks. This was a thinly disguised piece of pro-religious propaganda.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

27. Comment #12136 by mdowe on December 10, 2006 at 6:00 pm

Comment #12132 by Jack Rawlinson

Jack,

I agree completely.

Other Comments by mdowe

28. Comment #12138 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 6:07 pm

26. Comment #12132 by Jack Rawlinson

>>This was a thinly disguised piece of pro-religious propaganda.<<

Yes Jack, it was, and it has lowered my already low opinion of the media, especially the Irish media.

When faced with people dishonestly bastardising scientic facts and being vastly outnumbered, I think Richard would do better to engage the audience directly, ask if they understand the science. The answer will probably be no, so then he can ask what the point is in talking above the audience.

Then again, the media is the whore of the Industry of Deception, so what can we expect, even the BBC nowadays, behaves like it needs ratings.

Other Comments by Yorker

29. Comment #12153 by Nardo on December 10, 2006 at 11:16 pm

Hi Guys,

Good discussion so far. I think you're being a bit hard on Crawley, the irrational beliefs of the creationists always make them grab the microphone, must be part of what is wrong with their brains. Also this is Northern Ireland, we've more than our fair share of fundies here.

I posted a message last night, but it didn't appear so I'll try again. I should point out that Richard was in a studio in Dublin and not in the one with the others, that's partly why it's a bit disjointed. McIntosh has certainly lost the plot. If you look at Crawleys Blog and the comments you'll see that Leeds Uni has put out a disclaimer on 29th November. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/

Other Comments by Nardo

30. Comment #12157 by MartinSGill on December 11, 2006 at 1:27 am

I wrote an email to Leeds university. I doubt it will have much impact, but maybe on more email will be enough to break the creationist's back.

I quoted the press release and enquired how the university could justify their claim that his views did not impact on his role as professor of thermodynamics.

I hope it does some good, but I doubt it.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

31. Comment #12158 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:29 am

Nardo, and to others whose messages have disappeared, this may be the login timeout problem that Yorker has discussed in a prior thread: you can use the go back feature on your browser to get back to your original entry window, copy the text, re-login to this site, and paste that text in a new message window.

Other Comments by Logicel

32. Comment #12163 by Jiten on December 11, 2006 at 3:04 am

I'll sign any petition to get that preposterous fool of a professor out.He is an outrage.

Other Comments by Jiten

33. Comment #12174 by RascoHeldall on December 11, 2006 at 4:31 am

McIntosh replied to my email this morning. Just sent this reply, copying in a number of heads of science at Leeds.

Mr McIntosh

Thank you for your reply.

I realise that people with no scientific knowledge maybe bamboozled by the language you use to craft your falsehoods, but anyone with a smattering of education knows that what you are saying is false. Which is why I assert you must KNOW it is false.

You will know, for example, that the various available radioactive dating techniques are mutually complementary and corroborate the age of the earth being billions of years old. You know this to be a fact because you are a professor in a related field. You also know that evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. You know that energy is required to maintain and replicate DNA, and that this ultimately increases the entropy. The reason I know you know this is because you are a professor of, er, thermodynamics.

You then casually toss in the contemptible lie that "Scientifically the 2nd law without intelligence means evolution (strictly here we mean abiogenesis - the formation of life) is impossible." Let's unpack that, shall we?
1. Using the word "scientifically" does not make what you are saying scientific. What? You didn't think I'd notice?
2. Abiogenesis is not evolution. So "strictly" you are not talking about evolution AT ALL, and are merely using doubt over the exact mechanism of abiogenesis (a subject of vigorous study) to try and throw out the entire Darwinian theory. The disingenuity you display is breathtaking.
3. Just because abiogenesis is not yet understood doesn't mean that the ongoing research won't necessarily eventually work out how it happened chemically. You offer no argument as to why the default position should be that this was the work of an intelligence; you merely use scientific-sounding language which means nothing but which scientifically-illiterate people may find impressive (until they do a little bit of research, of course).

Your qualifications are simply incompatible with such falsehoods. Therefore the only plausible conclusion can be that you are knowingly perpetrating them. This is to the detriment of your university, the public understanding of science, and civilisation as a whole. I am copying in a number of your colleagues so that they are aware of the stain you are leaving on this great university.

You are nothing short of a disgrace.


--- Andy McIntosh wrote:

> You are not correct Mr. Hill in your assessment as
> to my position or
> motivation. The earth in some people's view is that
> old, but I do not accept
> this and for genuine reasons which we touched on in
> the program. We are
> moving at last to a genuine debate. There is coded
> information in the DNA,
> and the 2nd law is violated if one tries to pretend
> that the chemical bonds
> could arise without an intelligence behind it. The
> 2nd law otherwise would
> have them dissipate. Scientifically the 2nd law
> without intelligence means
> evolution (strictly here we mean abiogenesis - the
> formation of life) is
> impossible.
>
> I have many emails as I am sure you can imagine. I
> thank you for your
> interest in the debate on the science, and I am sure
> it will continue.
>
> Sincerely - A.C. McIntosh
>
> LEEDS

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

34. Comment #12181 by Richard Dawkins on December 11, 2006 at 5:00 am

Several people have suggested that I would have done better to answer McIntosh's specific question about thermodynamics. But the answer to his question is so well known (energy has to be supplied -- and is supplied -- from outside the system under discussion), it has become almost a cliché, and it is obviously known to McIntosh himself, who was therefore palpably dishonest in even asking it. I thought it FAR more important to draw attention to the fact that here was a professor of THERMODYNAMICS publicly stating that evolution violated the Second Law (NOTHING violates the Second Law: to do so is tantamount to a perpetual motion machine). My choice of tactics was additionally justified given the defence of McIntosh just offered by one of the other panellists, namely that his views on evolution would not interfere with his own teaching of a completely different subject. McIntosh's amazing admission about the Second Law completely gave the lie to that defence. It also gives the lie to the University of Leeds' attempt to use the same defence to soften its public disowning of him (See Comment 12153 by Nardo).

Right at the end of the whole program, I was eventually allowed to answer McIntosh's specific question, but the recording stops abruptly after an hour and three quarters (with the woman teacher in mid sentence) so we can't hear my answer. I said, of course, that the chemical bonds in DNA were maintained by energy supplied via the respiratory processes of the cell. McIntosh furiously shouted that that was no answer because there had to be some 'machinery'. I said OF COURSE there is machinery, the cell is riddled with machinery and it has all evolved by natural selection. McIntosh said the existence of machinery implies a designer (which, of course, begs the whole question of what we are arguing about). Then the chairman brought proceedings to a proper conclusion.

I do not know whether it is just this particular recording that is cut short. I presume the original radio listeners heard it through to the end. Can anyone in Northern Ireland confirm that? And does a complete recording exist somewhere? If so, please send it to Josh, so we can have a complete version posted. Thanks.

As to the general point about whether barmy views like McIntosh's should debar somebody from teaching a subject which is not directly connected to that particular nonsense, it is a difficult question. Would you like your child to be taught, say, chemistry or German, by a teacher who believes in the Flat Earth theory? It doesn't matter, you might say, because chemistry and German would be the same on a flat Earth. But wouldn't you lose CONFIDENCE in that teacher's qualification to teach ANYTHING? Would you entrust your child's education in any subject to a man whose perception of reality was so demonstrably unreal?

Unlike some contributors to this thread, I don't feel that I was hard done by. I thought the chairman, William Crawley, was rather good. It was he who ruthlessly forced McIntosh to stop his cowardly evasion and admit that he believed the world was only 6000 years old. That meant that I didn't have to use up any of my precious time cross-questioning him on it, and could go straight for the jugular. And, while it is true that the nutters were given lots of airtime, they only showed themselves up -- better than I could have shown them up if I had been invited to join in. I mean, think off that surreal argument about Romans 5,11, or whatever it was. I couldn't have produced a better script if I had been writing a satire for the Onion. The main fault of the program was, as almost always on such occasions, that they invited too many people on. They are terrified of running out of talk, but really there is not the smallest risk of that with such a topic, and in any case you can always take questions from the audience (as, indeed William Crawley did).

Congratulations to Rasco Heldall (Comment 12174) on his letter to McIntosh and especially for copying it to Heads of Science at Leeds University.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

35. Comment #12189 by ryanbooker on December 11, 2006 at 5:52 am

That was surreal. Unfortunately, I can see fundie heads nodding in agreement and approval to the "points" made by McIntosh.

I'm glad you got to make a proper point regarding the 2nd law, though I thought the knowing smirk I envisaged and am sure you had during your first rebuttal, was quite adequate.

No matter how often I hear these ideas, they still terrify me. There was an entire section where I kept thinking: "You should read The Blind Watchmaker."

I also found their insistence on teaching "both sides" and "all ideas" to let the children make up their own minds, particularly odd. Make up their mind? It's not a point of view, though the class would be amusing... I can imagine several semesters of geology, biology, physics, etc., followed by a short after lunch period one dreary afternoon, where genesis is read. "Now you make up your own mind".

Other Comments by ryanbooker

36. Comment #12197 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2006 at 7:56 am

Thanks for the update, professor Dawkins. It's good to hear that you did get a chance to go for that outrageous nonsense about the second law, and it would certainly be rather worrying if the curtailed recording we have here is the one that went out on air. I think many of us last night were reacting with anger to the claim later in the program that you had "refused to answer" that point, which was patently false.

It's also just extremely hard to listen to over an hour of the sort of madness MacIntosh et al were spouting without becoming exasperated. I suspect you've had more practice at it than most of us, however - certainly recently!

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

37. Comment #12202 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2006 at 8:24 am

Some interesting - and disturbing - information on McIntosh can be found at the link below. Seems he's been associated with these Vardy faith schools. What a surprise...

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/AndyMcIntosh

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

38. Comment #12203 by tentotheminus9 on December 11, 2006 at 8:33 am

I'm in my final year of a biophysics PhD at Leeds University, and I must say I am utterly depressed, although not all that shocked, by the ramblings of 'Prof' Andy McIdiot or whatever his name is. I have come across quite a few PhD student (biologists!) who literally believe in Adam and Eve. And it's not that they have looked at all the alternatives, they simply refuse to read about Darwin's theory of Evolution. It drives me insane!

Anyway, I plan to email Andy Mc-full-of-tosh and let him know my feelings. I have lost a little bit of respect for my university.

Other Comments by tentotheminus9

39. Comment #12208 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 9:10 am

38. Comment #12203 by tentotheminus9

This is unbelievable! In my student days I never met a single colleague who was religious, madness is upon us!

How can a biologist be ignorant of evolution? The entire science is underpinned by it! AC Grayling writes that university standards have fallen and entry too easy, he's wrong, standards are non-existent, fools are given entry.

Am I to understand that biology exams ask no questions about a student's understanding of evolution? I'm amazed at the level we have sunk to.

Other Comments by Yorker

40. Comment #12210 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 11, 2006 at 9:25 am

HA HA HA HA!

McIntosh thinks the world is 6000 years old!

HA HA HA HA!

Thanks for making my Christmas Professor! Shame I don't believe in the virgin birth! Mind, I love a good Xmas pressie!

I've got The God Delusion coming my way on the 25th! I hope God isn't angry with me! (Not that I care!)

HA HA HA HA! The Professor thinks Dinosaurs were on the Ark! HA HA HA! He thinks they all drowned in the flood! HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA!

Now, I can JUST imagine the T-Rex eating the Stegosaurus, whilst Noah is fighting the Lions off the Giraffe - who are getting their heads wet, because their heads stick out the top of the Ark - mind the Giraffe heads sticking out the top of the Ark were useful - because the Eagles could sit on their heads, whilst eating some poor larks! And of course, the back end of the Ark was useful for the 35,000 species of Arachnids on this planet.

HA HA HA! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! HA HA HA HA!

I've never laughed so hard! The only sensible bit of this documentary was from the great Professor Dawkins.

HA HA HA! What a laugh! I am splitting my sides! UNBELIEVABLE!

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

41. Comment #12213 by Eamonn Shute on December 11, 2006 at 9:33 am

Yorker (39), when I was at school in the 60's I was was taught absolutely nothing about evolution, which I find unbelievable. I don't know if it is in the curriculum today, but if it isn't then it is nothing new.
I was also taught that animals are divided into vertebrates and invertebrates, not that there were numerous phyla and that vertebrates made up just part of one phylum, so you see that the level has never been high!

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

42. Comment #12217 by Pieter on December 11, 2006 at 9:48 am

Hey NoLongerHaveBelef, you're forgetting about the estimated 5-8 million species of beetles that also needed some room on the ark. The task of rescuing the beetles alone would have required several arks. But the problem that really has bugged me about the ark is the Kiwi, a flightless bird that would have made it all the way from central Armenia to New Zealand in a few thousand years without leaving a trace of its travels whatsoever.

Some people in this world... it really makes you wonder.

Other Comments by Pieter

43. Comment #12219 by John Phillips on December 11, 2006 at 9:58 am

For those interested, today I e-mailed Melvyn Bragg (Leeds chancellor) via his university secretary about my dismay at the university employing a so called academic who plays so fast and loose with a field that is apparently his expertise. Who is openly willing to deliberately lie, I can't think of any other word, about the second law in promotion of his beliefs. Either that or he is so deluded that he should be considered certifiable, except of course that religiously based delusion is the one form of delusion that society finds acceptable and largely beyond reproach. As Bragg is someone I have respect for as a thinker it will be interesting to see if I get any real response beyond the usual form letter, assuming he ever gets to see it of course.

Other Comments by John Phillips

44. Comment #12223 by Christine Picton on December 11, 2006 at 10:15 am

I was in the audience at this debate. Not only did McIntosh contradict himself by first agreeing that the dinosaurs were on the ark and then explaining their mass extinction by blaming the flood he also attributed the demise of the trilobites to the flood. As most of you will know trilobites were marine invertebrates and presumably wouldn't have had too much trouble with a little extra water!
He also had a feather as evidence of a designer god. He asked at the start of the program if anyone could show him a keratin scale that could grow into a feather. During a the interval I challenged him re. the dino-bird fossils from China including the fuzzy raptor. By this stage Dawkins had already wiped the floor with him and all he could manage was a tremble of the lower jaw.
In defence of Crawley he certainly looked like he was enjoying Dawkins contribution a lot more than McIntosh's.

Other Comments by Christine Picton

45. Comment #12224 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 11, 2006 at 10:20 am

>>Comment #12217 by Pieter<<

Thanks for that Pieter! Picture the scence... the rains are coming down heavy. Heavier than ever! Noah is about to launch his Ark. His family are already on board. He has packed his provisions... and then the skies open up with God's VENGEANCE!

The young Earth (A La' McIntosh) requires the Dinosaurs to be alive. Apparently, with their tiny brains, they were too thick to climb Mount Everest. So they just roared a lot and carried on as normal... whilst watching the water slowly edging up their massive bodies.

What's that?! A T-Rex is fighting to get on board! Noah is busy BEATING it with a stick! Noah says 'Wife! Where is my beating broom? This stick is no cop!'

But she doesn't reply. Noah turns around and see's the one of her legs sticking out of Sinbar the Lions' mouth! Sinbar! You NAUGHTY lion! You've eaten Noah's missus!

Noah leaves the T-Rex, struggling to get on board and tries, vainly to save his wife. But it's too late! She has been eaten. Noah hears a strange cry from the rear of the Ark. OH NO! The Pteradactyl is fighting with the Buzzards over the body of a Buffalo! Apparently, the Brown Bear and the Polar Bear had a disagreement over who got to scoff the Buffalo! Whilst they were fighting amongst themselves, the crafty old Hyenas were busy munching away! Yum yum!

Still, there'll be some leftovers for the Crocodiles! Of course, the penguins don't know WHAT to do with themselves! They keep slipping all over the Ark! Their feet are cold too!

Noah goes into his cabin - and he has found that the pesky Monkey, Cheetah, has opened his hamper and pinched the Bananas! SHOO! STUPID monkey! That was supposed to last me for weeks! What will I eat now? Bemoans Noah?

Hmmm. Noah COULD eat the Chickens. But every time he goes near them, the Cheetah runs at top speed and takes them out of his hands!

Poor Noah. Mind. The animals managed to somehow keep themselves in good behaviour. And the whole world is repopulated because of his fantastic boatmanship!

HA HA HA HA HA!

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

46. Comment #12228 by Zaphod on December 11, 2006 at 10:51 am

Why do christians believe in their bible at all?

It was written by many different humans.

If the people who wrote it, wrote in it that it was the word of god. Thid doesn't make it the word of god.

I can just easily write something stupid on a piece of paper and write after it, "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD" It doesn't mean it is just because I wrote it is.

Other Comments by Zaphod

47. Comment #12229 by Zaphod on December 11, 2006 at 10:55 am

This http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html debunks the dumbass 2nd Law argument.

Other Comments by Zaphod

48. Comment #12238 by One Eyed Jack on December 11, 2006 at 11:44 am

Zaphod,

"Why do christians believe in their bible at all?"

No great mystery there. Why do children believe in Santa Claus? Because their parents told them. The problem is we have a society that indoctrinates children and perpetuates the belief through adulthood (unlike Santa Claus).

An adult that seriously believes in Santa Claus will be laughed at, but not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. Sad really, since Santa Claus is a far kinder fantasy and better role model than the god of Abraham.

OEJ

Other Comments by One Eyed Jack

49. Comment #12244 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 11, 2006 at 12:18 pm

All true One Eyed Jack.

>>Comment #12219 by John Phillips<<

I'm interested to know if you get a response John. Listening to the Sunday Sequence on here, did you notice the AGRESSION in the voice of McIntosh?

The Religious REALLY CAN BE violent about Religious belief. Yet, Jesus is supposed to have said:

"Turn the other cheek."

Hmmm. I'd like to see a Christian who obeys Christ's laws properly. When challenged, followers of Faith have all their armaments of lies at their disposal.

I spoke to a close relative - and a believer - of mine, recently. "Ahhh.. The Bible is parables."

"Really?" I enquired.

"So, logically, HOW do you know which parts are to be taken as literal truth, and which parts are 'parables'?"

The usual defence of smug piousness and that 'I know God did it' look, followed.

You can't get through to the hardcore how illogical their belief systems are. That character is usually thrown at us - that we're intellectually arrogant or smug. NOTHING could be further removed than this. As an Atheist, all I seek is truth. If it could be demonstrated to me that God exists, fine; I'd readily embrace the concept. It never has, nor will it be.

There's no doubt in my mind, any longer, that we as a species, have no supernatural superior being, conducting our affairs from afar. Why would he be bothered anyway? What would be the point?

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

50. Comment #12245 by Levitas51 on December 11, 2006 at 12:28 pm

Professor McIntosh effectively stating that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics was both incredible and absolutely hilarious. I think RD was absolutely right in his response - he has already dealt with this argument before (see "A Devil's Chaplain" pg. 98). Of far greater importance was to emphasise that a professor of thermodynamics was advocating it as plausable.

The dinosaur part of the programme was just depressing. It reminded me of a great piece of stand-up by Bill Hicks (apologies for the bad language - I did consider editing it out but I felt that wouldn't fully convey Bill's anger against fundamentalist Christians. Besides who am I to edit Bill Hicks?):

Fundamentalist Christianity: fascinating. These people actually believe that the world is 12000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages? 12000 years."
"Well, how fucking scientific, OK. I didn't know you'd gone to so much trouble there. That's good. You believe the world is 12000 years old?"
"That's right."
"OK, I've got one word to ask you, a one-word question, ready?"
"Uh huh."
"DINOSAURS."

You know, the world's 12000 years old and dinosaurs existed, existed in that time, you think it would be mentioned in the fucking bible at some point:

And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."

Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in. He said:

"Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."
"I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude.
You believe that?"
"Uh huh."

Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha." [mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me. Huh ho ho ho."

You know, you die and go to St. Peter:

"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah, there were fossils everywhere. (makes sound of trapdoor opening) Aaaaahhhh!"
"You fucking idiot. Flying lizards, you're a moron. God was fucking with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, ahhhh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!"

This is what they actually believe.

Bill Hicks (Dominion Theatre, London, November 1992).

Other Comments by Levitas51