51. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225605 by PJG on August 7, 2008 at 5:27 am

List of Biblical contradictions:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#introduction

Skeptics Annotated Bible:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

52. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225537 by PJG on August 7, 2008 at 1:09 am

Anyone who thinks that creationism is not being taught in British schools:

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeTfW8-dCNE&feature=related

from 6 minutes in

53. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225437 by PJG on August 6, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Right behind you, Border Collie.

54. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225429 by PJG on August 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I was in a really good mood today until I read this article... yet again, I get the feeling that the lunatics have taken over.

There's another day spoilt!!

Then again, I could always just laugh at it...

* sound of hysterical laughter and a head being beaten against a very solid wall*

55. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #224902 by PJG on August 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

If the Universe is finely tuned for life, it is even more finely tuned for death and non-life. If you look at all the organisms that die before they live independently of the parent, let alone every potential organism that never has life ("Every sperm is sacred") , plus the vast areas of the universe, and even this planet where life is restricted/on a knife edge, you see how ridiculous the "fine-tuned" argument is.

56. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224563 by PJG on August 5, 2008 at 6:11 am

Quetzalcoatl

just like he did with planting dinosaurs

For a moment I didn't understand what you meant, and had this sudden image of half a Stegosaurus protruding from the ground with God standing nearby saying "Yep, that dinosaur's growing nicely".

57. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224443 by PJG on August 5, 2008 at 1:43 am

Steve,

Surely you understand that your point is only valid if the maths is "Human Maths". Don't you realise that God, our omnipotent creator, makes the maths different from normal trig in order to test our faith, just like he did with planting dinosaurs? You really must start putting on your Biblical Glasses.

58. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #222826 by PJG on August 1, 2008 at 1:11 am

I think the vicar's wife should have a say in this... maybe she could suggest that if Jesus is her husband's TRUE life partner, then maybe He should be doing the shopping, housework or anything else she currently does in HER role as his partner. It reminds me of the old joke about the vicar looking into the man's garden and saying what wonders the Lord creates, to which the man replies that the vicar should have seen the mess it was when he left it to God.

If, on the other hand, the vicar prefers his wife after all, then maybe he could send Jesus round to my place - an omnipotent housekeeper could be really useful! :o)

59. Faith is not the answer

Comment #222076 by PJG on July 30, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Of course a loving, stable, consistent family is the ideal but years ago when divorce was difficult or impossible, many children were brought up in homes that were anything but.

Taking children out of the situation, people were condemned to live together "till death us do part".

My mum's parents were married for 62 years. I suspect my grandmother stopped loving my grandfather after about two. When my mother and her sister were at university they told my gran that they wouldn't mind if she left him (there was no abuse, incidentally, not physical and probably not (deliberate) mental abuse) they were just a very mismatched couple who could each, potentially, have had much better, happier and more fulfilled lives with someone else. My gran stayed... for another 40 years... until death.

I am sure my mother was a better, happier and more stable person because they were a family when she was young but I wouldn't wish 60 years of a loveless marriage on anyone, and to have 40 years of it after the children had left home, when the effect on the children would be minimal, seems little short of cruel, even if the marriage was one without fear, betrayal or violence.

What a waste of two lives.

Of course, I am quite pleased they met, married and had my mum... but that is a different story! :o)

60. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220739 by PJG on July 29, 2008 at 1:41 am

It really is laughable isn't it?

We've got this going on within the Catholic Church, the Islamic fanatics blowing people up in the name of their "peaceful religion" and the C of E arguing whether the modern church (an oxymoron if ever there was one) should go against what the Bible (the infallible word of God, just to remind you) says about homosexuality. Alongside all this they STILL expect people to take them seriously when they spout on about "moral values", "love thy neighbour" (unless they are female, gay or happen to believe different fairy stories), tolerance and peace.

I wouldn't mind, except that they are given my money (via taxes) and have laws that stop me from risking offending them - when they invite ridicule every time they open their mouths or dress up in their silly uniforms.

61. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220032 by PJG on July 28, 2008 at 1:49 am

Like Cluebot, I find this disturbing but not surprising.

I recently went to listen to a talk about Sharia Law - it turned out to be nothing of the sort - simply demented preaching by an Islamic fundamentalist who wanted Sharia Law to apply to Britain because it lead to a "better society with fewer crimes and greater respect for women" (yes, honestly - it would have been funny if he hadn't been serious!)

The audience consisted of about 50% radical young followers of his (yes, British Muslims, mostly men with a few niqab wearing women who remained entirely silent during the entire evening) and 50% secular.

When one of the (secular) audience asked what the speaker felt about those of the British population who did not wish to live under Sharia Law, the man stated that we would be free to go to live in a country that did not impose Sharia Law. I pointed out that we already did but he didn't seem to think that was of any import.

Anyone who thinks this is a minor problem - which seems to included most of our politicians - is as blind to the problems of this type of religious mania as they are about the infiltration of our science education system by YECs.

There will be many, many changes to our societies in the next twenty years if religious belief continues to go unchallenged and is given legal protection lest someone takes offence.

62. Escape or betrayal.

Comment #218165 by PJG on July 25, 2008 at 1:32 am

I find it amusing how people who aren't in a religion think they know it all.

63. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214858 by PJG on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 am

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

64. Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

Comment #213765 by PJG on July 18, 2008 at 9:33 pm

I think this is great.

I'm anticipating lawsuits by Muslims who insist that they "teach the controversy" and am already thinking of titles for the film... "No intelligence taught".

65. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #205329 by PJG on July 7, 2008 at 5:27 am

Wasn't the rapture supposed to happen in the lifetimes of the disciples? Or have I got the wrong myth?

It really is bonkers isn't it? Sad, but bonkers.

66. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190964 by PJG on June 10, 2008 at 2:19 am

I think this is great.

I really think the best way to counter the idiocy of religion is to use ridicule. On a one-to-one basis, it may be rude, but en masse, it might just make one or two people THINK about what they believe.... or then again, maybe not.....

Ah well, I still think it is good, even if it is only atheists who will be laughing at it.

67. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190366 by PJG on June 9, 2008 at 1:16 am

How to change attitudes to prayer in one week....

All scientists stop working towards ways of "feeding the world" in response to the attitude that prayer will provide.

It would be interesting to see what the church would think of scientists then. No doubt they would say scientists are inhumane.

68. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189648 by PJG on June 6, 2008 at 10:17 pm

A beacon in the darkness.

69. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189296 by PJG on June 6, 2008 at 1:35 am

One questioner asked Myers whether that meant Brown University biologist Ken Miller, who has often said his passionate defense of evolution doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs, was being a wishy-washy scientist?

"No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."

70. A New Step In Evolution

Comment #188059 by PJG on June 3, 2008 at 7:26 am

Sadly, those who deny that populations evolve are unlikely to read this - or, even if they do, will say, "it's still a bacteria".

71. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #187900 by PJG on June 3, 2008 at 2:16 am

thewhitepearl

Point taken... sorry.

On a lighter note, I knew a chap who was allergic to latex ... so he couldn't use condoms. He told a friend about his allergy and explained that it caused swelling to which the friend had replied, "why is that a problem?"

:o)

72. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #187759 by PJG on June 2, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Re. Mr. Coyne's comment that ridicule is a good weapon against creationists... this might help!

http://www.alltruism.co.uk/HovindScale.html

Enjoy.

:o)

73. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187601 by PJG on June 2, 2008 at 10:50 am

So the parents' right to chose over-rides the children's right to an honest education and the government is going to cover up for them too.

I just hope that, one day, there is a class action (no pun intended) taken by these deceived children against the parents and schools that knowingly misinformed them.

I am a lady so I won't say it.... Oh, OK.... fucktards!!!

74. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #187320 by PJG on June 1, 2008 at 11:52 pm

The full Ray Comfort "banana episode"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

In fairness to Ray Comfort, he HAS conceded that the banana is one for "our side" as it is the result of artificial selection.

75. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187319 by PJG on June 1, 2008 at 11:39 pm

rod-the-farmer is right. This is remarkable if these changes happened in just 35 generations - or even doubling it to 70 generations - from just five pairs. There is something about this article that makes me feel uneasy. I feel there is more to this than meets the eye - or the article itself is misrepresentative of the research.

Has anyone seen the actual paper?

Abstract:

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Anthony Herrel*,,, Katleen Huyghe, Bieke Vanhooydonck, Thierry Backeljau,, Karin Breugelmans, Irena Grbac¶, Raoul Van Damme, and Duncan J. Irschick||

*Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium; Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium; ¶Department of Zoology, Croatian Natural History Museum, Demetrova 1, HR-1000, Zagreb, Croatia; and ||Department of Biology and Organismic Evolutionary Program, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 221 Morrill Science Center, Amherst, MA 01003

Edited by Gordon H. Orians, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved January 31, 2008 (received for review December 19, 2007)

Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.

76. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #187213 by PJG on June 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm

What I have a hard time understanding is at what point in time did an allergy become a serious "disability".

77. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #186970 by PJG on June 1, 2008 at 1:50 am

40% Is something that I can't accept. There were next to no reports on any creo activity in britain just a few years ago. Don't tell me that almost half of the population was swayed by this crap in less then a decade.

They want permission not to come to those lectures and sit those exam questions," Fine. Fail them.

78. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186250 by PJG on May 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

elephant

What you say is true, but part of the "psychological injury" can be explained by (or exacerbated by) "secondary benefits".

I have seen people with terrible "disabilities" who, normally within the first hour, tell me how wonderful their partner/family/pastor/neighbour/friends are to them, how "helpful and kind". They go on to explain how they "don't know how they would manage without them".

If someone fears being alone or they don't feel special to themselves or anyone else and they want to gain attention and/or get lots of help (i.e. they want to be looked after like a child) then physical disability is a good one.

We all like to get our own way. It is the extent to which someone will go to get it that marks them as mentally ill!

79. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186195 by PJG on May 29, 2008 at 10:13 pm

More scientific study would be a good idea but, like others here, I doubt if a few "sensitive" people should warrant getting Wi-Fi banned.

However, I can't dismiss their claims out of hand. I know I can "feel" electricity at a level that other people have not been able to detect - by touch, I hasten to say. I was told I was imagining it too! When I have insisted there is something wrong, there has turned out to be an electrical fault. This has happened four or five times.

For this reason, I can't dismiss these claims completely - some people are just more sensitive than others!! :o)

80. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185571 by PJG on May 28, 2008 at 5:07 am

Peter Vardy is a creationist who has sponsored two or three "faith" academies here in the UK. He too is a used-car salesman. Considering the reputation of used-car salesmen for being crooks, it just goes to show how gullible people are if they take any notice of them when they start pushing religion!

81. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185503 by PJG on May 28, 2008 at 12:55 am

Ah... ANOTHER reason not to buy a Ford!

82. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185500 by PJG on May 28, 2008 at 12:49 am

I've said it before... I think Britain and the USA should do a swap:

America can have all our creationists, if we can have all their atheist scientists.

I think that is fair... and it might make these idiots think for a moment.

83. In God's Name

Comment #183576 by PJG on May 22, 2008 at 9:49 am

Nice letter, you might have copied in Ed Balls as well.

84. In God's Name

Comment #183566 by PJG on May 22, 2008 at 9:23 am

Letter winging its way to Gordon Brown et al.


The Rt Hon Gordon Brown. MP.,
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA

21st May 2008


Dear Prime Minister,

I have just watched the Channel Four Dispatches programme "In God's Name" aired on Monday 19th May 2008.

As you may be aware, the programme featured a piece about the Carmel School in Bristol, a "faith school", which was reported to be Government registered and Ofsted inspected. The report stated that it was one of forty-five British schools which were teaching a curriculum imported from the United States.

The film included a "Science" test which was taken by a six year old. The questions visible during the piece were as follows: (capitalised words are the answers given by the child)

Jesus LIVES in God
God called the dark time NIGHT
Long ago there was no WORLD
God made the SKY and clouds on day five
God made the world in SIX days
God called the sky HEAVEN
God made the light on day ONE
God made the clouds to HOLD water
God called the light time DAY
God made the LAND and plants on day three

At the senior level, a science textbook being used by a 14 year old student at the school included a page which stated:

"It was very exciting when the first men walked on the moon in 1969. When scientists eagerly studied the moon soil and moon rocks, they found out that the moon appeared to be between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. This was not surprising to scientists who were Christians because the Bible indicates that Earth is also somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. We know that our moon and Earth are about the same age since God created Earth on the third day and the moon on the fourth day of creation".

This statement is untrue. The scientists who studied the moon dust and rocks did not find out that the moon appeared to be between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.


A recent Ofsted report on this school scored it as "satisfactory". How is it possible for scientific distortions of this magnitude to be deemed "satisfactory"?

In a country in which universal education is mandatory, is there no mechanism in place to ensure that all children are ensured an honest education which reflects, as far as possible, our current scientific understanding?

Yours faithfully,





P. J. XXXXXXXXXXX(Mrs.)


cc.
Andy Reed MP
Guardian Newspaper:
Polly Curtis, Education Editor
Ian Sample, Science Correspondent
Patrick Wintour, Political Editor
Ofsted
British Centre for Science Education (by email)

85. In God's Name

Comment #183382 by PJG on May 22, 2008 at 2:32 am

The headmaster excuses the teaching of the 6,000 year old universe in his school by stating that he is not a scientist. Does that mean he can allow any nonsense to be taught if he personally doesn't know the answer?

What would the reaction be if he said, "I am not a linguist. I don't speak French, so I am not going to teach what French experts tell me is French, I am going to teach gobbledegook instead."

I agreed with RD on the "indoctrination of children is child abuse" so far as stories of Hellfire, scapegoats and human sacrifices were concerned. My "child abuse radar" is becoming more and more sensitive. THIS is child abuse.

On a completely different point.... maybe we heathens need to stop having interesting and varied sex. It is quite clear that all this oral and anal sex, mutual masturbation and other "wasteful" sexual activities are going against us - we are being out bred! :o)

86. In God's Name

Comment #182833 by PJG on May 21, 2008 at 2:56 am

I caught the last 20 minutes of this when it was on TV on Monday night. I was kicking myself for missing most of it and delighted to get the chance to watch it this morning.

Now, having only watched the first ten minutes, I feel physically sick to the point that I can't bear to watch it all in one go.

What can we do about this? Almost as importantly, how can we stop our (tax) money being used to support these faith schools? If that headteacher was as deluded about anything else, or allowing the children to be taught anything else that was so far from our accepted understanding (scientific/historical or anything else) he would be removed from the post. It is as bad as teaching children that William Shakespeare was a Womble and he lived in a cave in 1920.

I could cry for those poor children.

My only hope is that these people stay on the edge... something that would appear to be so in light of the embryology and abortion bill decisions taken over the last couple of days.

At least this programme may have opened a few people's eyes to the threat posed by these deluded, sick people. Thank God (pun intended!) for the freedom of the press and thank you Dispatches.

87. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #182800 by PJG on May 21, 2008 at 1:51 am

Is this the same carbon dating that some theists think is completely wrong because it dates the Earth at more than 10,000 years? Will these people be elated if it dates the shroud at 2000 years?

88. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182754 by PJG on May 21, 2008 at 12:10 am

I know this may sound really stupid.... but... is there any chance that the policeman who thought the word "cult" was offensive is actually illiterate - or dyslexic?

Stranger things have happened. I mean, the police would then want to "cover up" for his stupidity. Maybe they will just let the lad off with a "caution"!

89. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182733 by PJG on May 20, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Summary of what is happening in Britain:

The ABofC says the introduction of some aspects of Sharia law is "inevitable" (though he clearly says that in order to try to protect some of the C of E's privileges).

The evangelicals come in from the US informing us that the universe is 6,000 years old and that any science that contradicts the Bible is wrong and shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Young British Muslims call for those who insult their prophet to be beheaded.

A young man is arrested for calling a cult a cult.

Is there any chance that these things will bring about a common sense approach and the masses will realise that it is all BOLLOCKS?

This is a rhetorical question - I don't need to be made any more depressed about this than I already am.

90. Face to faith

Comment #182023 by PJG on May 19, 2008 at 6:03 am

I have now converted him and he is a practising pastaferian

91. Face to faith

Comment #181699 by PJG on May 18, 2008 at 1:45 am

huzonfurst et al - calm down! I'm sorry I even mentioned the difference between amoral and immoral! Shheeeesh!

Humanism doesn't "derive from Christianity" any more than it "derives" from Epicurean philosophy - maybe it derives from both - what does it matter? Henri wasn't wrong - just maybe not 100% right. Now we don't mind that here do we? :o)

But atheism IS amoral - that is correct - and I think huzonfurst now agrees. No need to get knickers in a twist over it.

92. Gimme that Old-Time Irreligion

Comment #181686 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 11:43 pm

I've read it. I would agree, largely, with the comments above.

However, it is quite good if you want a few simple examples of why using probability in order to "prove" that things that have already happened "cannot happen" is ridiculous.

It is a short book and very easy to read. I quite enjoyed it.

93. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181568 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 2:00 pm

phil rimmer

Heh heh!

Being caught on CCTV doesn't result in eternal torment... most of the time it doesn't even result in a slapped wrist. Let's face it, Hell fire and damnation, if you believe in it, is likely to deter bad behaviour more effectively than an ASBO - seen in some quarters as a badge of honour!

Of course, the tale of hell-fire is useless once you've sinned - I mean, it can't get WORSE can it? Maybe this is why lapsed Catholics have such a bad reputation - once you are going to Hell for touching your own naughty bits in the dead of night, you may as well go to Hell for touching lots of other people's naughty bits in the dead of night! Hanged....sheep..lamb springs to mind.

:o)

94. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181553 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 12:31 pm

godless1

I think some people would behave atrociously to others if they didn't fear punishment (by God) or seek reward (from God). Indeed, they say it themselves. The very fact that they can't understand how anyone can be moral without a belief in God speaks volumes about their own behaviour (projection!)

They are admitting that they are like small children whose behaviour deteriorates without supervision.

You have to be fairly grown-up before you have self control, empathy and acceptance of personal responsibility and accountability... don't you think?

If anyone needs to be watched to make sure they behave well, then "not being watched" doesn't suddenly turn them into mature, empathic, rational and altruistic people. If religious people say they need God to watch them and make them behave in an acceptable manner, then maybe we do need religion - sadly.

95. The amazing intelligence of crows

Comment #181511 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 10:29 am

My family and I watched a group of about 15 pied crows playing in a thermal above a small cliff in The Gambia one afternoon a few years ago.

The wind was quite (relatively) strong (they are fairly big birds) and they had a piece of palm leaf. One would fly up above the others and then drop it. Another would catch it, on the wing, by flipping sideways and it would then fly high and drop it for the next one to catch. The game went on for about twenty minutes and a thoroughly good time was had by all... especially the group of human spectators. Fascinating.

My only regret is that we were so enchanted that none of us thought to video it until too late.

96. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181498 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 10:02 am

Hmmm - the guy wrote a reply to the letter by Chris Sanlan posted at 9 above:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/faithbook/may08/queens-college-letter.htm

I had to laugh at this bit though:

And it's good to have confirmed that it's not just religious types that have a monopoly on misrepresenting the truth.

97. Face to faith

Comment #181493 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 9:52 am

I know what 'amoral' means, but I also know that probably a majority of people, especially religious people, equate it with 'immoral'

98. Face to faith

Comment #181446 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 8:38 am

"Humanism derives from Christianity" and "atheism is amoral" are two of the most asinine statements I've ever seen here!

99. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181438 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 8:29 am

Solution: Rename & alter, 'Religious Studies' to 'Elementary Philosophy & Religion'.

It is important, I believe, that children know about religion so that they can realise how absurd it is. Knowledge is power.

100. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181354 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 2:37 am

For example, Stephen Colbert interviewing Congressman Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia.