1201. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43649 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 7:26 am

quote ""of course this should not reflect on the majority of those practitioners of that faith". This is hand wringing political correctness of the WORST kind - OF COURSE it should reflect upon the practitioners of that faith!!!!" unquote

it would only be slightly more silly for the reporter to have said "of course this should not reflect on the majority of homo sapiens"

those comments are put in place to appease those who might otherwise suggest that this was only reported to give islam a bad name (irrespective of 'islams' involvement or not)

1202. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43641 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 7:02 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

heres a snippet from what is possibly the in print version of fox news (it has the moral majority mentality but would appear pathetically liberal to some in the USA, besides I cant trust any newspaper that has special astrology sections in it). Anyway its looks at the BBC's apparent bias and most of it seems rooted in religion, multiculturalism and anti Americanism.

1203. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43616 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 5:52 am

seems Hitchens and co. find them selves between a rock and a hard place, the right will attack them for being critical of their religion, the left will (perhaps less often) attack them for being critical of all religions.

1204. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43610 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 5:36 am

blueollie. I see your point re the wrestling match. The programme in their (viewers) eyes would be improved only by having hannity/colmes wear a blue mask and a shield and hitchens would have a red cloak and a pitch fork. I suppose the problem is when people watch this and think it IS the news.

1205. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43590 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 4:44 am

pewkatchoo.

My mistake, i should have said the BBC news rather than the BBC period. Lets just say that the overtly biased and attacking stance from the interviewer (and remember fox interviewers were calling shirley phelps an abomination upon her interview)is way rarer in the UK TV news. Now unless ive simply been agreeing with all the bias interviewers previously but ive never seen anything like hannity and co on BBc news, have you?

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

there paxy with RD funnily enough, maybe he agrees with RD on most stuff? but come on, this is a different kettle of fish that hannity, admittedly its not quite equivalent but there you go.

1206. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43584 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 4:27 am

after watching that news shot I just thank my lucky stars i was raised in the UK, at the very least I didnt have to have my intelligence insulted with ever flick of a channel (and we only had 4 until recently!) That mindnumbing, self congratulatory, self interested, prozac smiled delivery sells every product under the sun, luckily im not buying.

1207. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43581 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 4:19 am

ive said it before but i still cannot believe how interviews on US TV operate, the interviewers bias totally dictating the direction of the interview, Im just glad somebody as thick skinned and brash as hitchens was sat in that studuo. This interviewing style is something just not seen on BBC Tv for example. The way politics and religion permeates the news waves like this is incredible. I'm just sorry for any kids sat watching that channel with their parents and getting sucked into its void.

1208. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43354 by phasmagigas on May 21, 2007 at 6:56 am

norman doering:

quote:6) Logical error. Harris claims religious moderates are responsible for the actions of religious extremists. But no individual can possibly be held responsible for the actions of another individual over whom he has no authority or influence and has never even met. unquote.

ive not got the book at hand but im not sure that sam meant this literally, he suggests they are more bystanders and let things happen that maybe they shouldnt. Would a person be responsible for a childs death if they saw her crossing the road and didnt bother to run out and grab them before the car hit?? same idea perhaps.

oh and the sex on, i think all sam is suggesting that condom use if a good idea.

1209. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43320 by phasmagigas on May 21, 2007 at 5:47 am

Quote: A cute little quatrain. But it does have the defect of putting God in time as though He were just another schmuck like the rest of us. In the classic formulation, "omniscience" and "omnipotence" characterize a being outside of time, unchanging, unchanged. Thus, he has no "future" mind, but only a present mind, in which all Time is present to Him as if in simultaneity. The god presented us by atheists seems awfully anthropomorphic and fundamentalist. The eternalness of the mind and will of God, in the Judeo-Christian view, does not forbid his creation from taking a wild, unpredictable, highly contingent adventure through history. It holds that the Creator's relation to his creation is not at all what Dawkins and Hitchens project. Unquote.

so the author is saying 'no matter what argument you have or what evidence you have for a non created universe, it appears that way because god made it so' ??????? again, that is just way to easy.

1210. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43311 by phasmagigas on May 21, 2007 at 5:11 am

quote:
But suppose God is not like the Hitchens model. Suppose that God is not a Rationalist, a Logician, a straight-line Geometer-of-the-skies. Suppose that the Creator God deliberately made a world of probabilities and failures, of waste and profusion, of suffering and hardships and frustrations. unquote.

pathetic reasoning.
a beautiful sunset:god
speed of light:god
child starves down a well:god
earthquake:god
lost my wedding ring:god
parasite upon a parasite:god
fell under a truck:god
all my seedlings died:god
no rain for weeks:god
flooding:god.


a 4 year old child would be an expert at these explanations.

1211. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42515 by phasmagigas on May 18, 2007 at 10:19 am

There is a possible way that non believers reduced their reproductive success. An individual who seemed unable to follow the group codes many well have been killed or kicked out way before he or she had a chance to breed, so belief genes (or maybe 'just go along with the crowd genes') propogated. I'm not sure that would be the case though, youd have to be a very strong headed individual and given the distant times im not sure that anything against belief would have even been a thought, never mind an option. Then again, imagine being an open atheist in say Iran, that would likely curtail your options.

1212. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42334 by phasmagigas on May 18, 2007 at 4:53 am

If religious peole are healthier than non religious (and lets assume that belief is the cause and that its not that being genetically (more)susceptible to belief is somehow connected to less susceptibility to strokes!) then i wonder if its more to do with social acceptance and its benefits, the continual 'you are one of us' and pats on the back will no doubt reduce stress on an individual. Theres the other thought that non believers tend to be more skeptical anyway generally and as a skeptic is faced with the ridiculous daily this imparts extra stress on that individual through frustration perhaps.

1213. Ask Richard!

Comment #41811 by phasmagigas on May 17, 2007 at 5:33 am

Mark R.

the trials of life is excellent, and yes there are some tough scenes to watch but thats good as it does 'raise conciousness'. I remember very firmly watching the chimps hunting and learnt so many things on so many levels although I feel there are children who i wouldnt like to see the colubus kill, well not until they are a bit older.

1214. Ask Richard!

Comment #41808 by phasmagigas on May 17, 2007 at 5:23 am

ImNotAlone.

Ive not read the DD but i have read the selfish gene, you dont need to be a scientist to read the selfish gene, i suggest you read the first few pages, see if it grabs you. I can guarantee that if you read that book it will make you think about many things a little (or a lot) differently. As to the DD clouding your mind, well thats not going to happen, the more you read the less clouded your mind will be as if something is nonesense (im not saying that about the DD as ive never read it) you should be able to see it as such and discard it mentally anyway.

1215. Ask Richard!

Comment #41735 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I way prefer to listen to RD talking genes and evolution as questions on the GD tend to be attacking and hes on the defensive whereas with his core subject he can enthuse and illuminate freely as questions are going to be less aggressive (if atall). Questions on evo tend be on the whole less ridiculous as you have to know something to ask a half decent question (any old nonesense can pose as a question relating to god)unless you start talking about bananas and peanut butter of course

1216. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41730 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Dianelos, it would be interesting to see what lifestyle/modes atheist and religious people make.

As one is dealing with roughly 1:9 its probably a difficult one to investigate. It would be interesting to see the various engagement in say vegetarianism (or veganism) coupled with animal welfare, recycling, home water use, house size, time spent volunteering and what type of volunteering, even aesthetic ventures like musical preference (I'll admit right now though that ive never heard any christian rock music that I could ever listen to) and i actually sung hymns each and every morning in school in the UK, including 'who made everything? with the words 'who made rats and cats and bats' (well i think they were the words, nice to include rats!)

re your other point Im not sure that technically atheist regimes decide to kill people because they dont believe in god, whereas many killings are direcly motivated and certainly justified by a belief in a god. I cannot imagine many humans beheading somebody and thinking 'this is because there is no god'

1217. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41724 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 5:28 pm

KRKBAB, power to the lawnmover pusher!! Do i have a push mower? NO, but I do cut the grass less frequently than the neighbours and I totally encourage wildlife with native plants. One wonders how much CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere if those massive lawns around malls, industry and general amenities were managed less intensively, more like a grassland and cut twice a year instead of once a week. Not to mention the increase in wildlife diversity.

1218. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41491 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 7:27 am

re the flat world. Appreciating nature with an acceptance of evolution is far more rewarding than that without (that doesnt occlude god of course, its a rejection of evolution not an acceptance of god that I find most disturbing).

Walking through a flower meadow in May the creationist can admire all the pretty flowers and butterflies (they may even see the newly hatched grasshoppers if they look carefully enough) but they will miss the opportunity to imagine the generational changes that have preceeded each and every individual phenotype in front of them, the mental tree of life that you can imagine connecting those grasshoppers to the butterflies and then to meadow plants themselves, the development of each and every strategy and behaviour presented before yourself in that incredible 'tangled bank' just meters from your home (if you are lucky enough). A creationist would reject all those thoughts or more likely not have thought about them atall but then the most common question people pose to me when i admire an insect is 'what use are wasps?'. I love that question.

1219. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41468 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 6:49 am

KRKBAB. I know 'feelings' are subjective but when I drive (I do try to walk when its practical and i am seen as very odd when i walk somewhere!)past one of those huge cookie cutter home complexes with swathes of herbicide and fertiliser drenched lawns and an almost total lack of wildlife (and god forbid a dandelion!!) I get this very empty lost feeling in my stomach (mind). Now religion has nothing to do with it but its amazing how we have come to accept what is the supposed ultimate mode of existence. Its almost like being in the twilight zone, you are lucky to hear a cricket sing in August in such an environment. I just wonder how much prozac is swallowed behind those seasonal plastic wreath adorned doors?.

1220. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41428 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 5:41 am

just what is it that religious people have or do that atheists dont?

Being new to the states ive made a few general observations that may be totally biased or incorrect. If 9 of 10 people are religious then statistical chance suggests (well at least in this area) that they also live in a house way bigger than they need, use more water than they need (partly to maintain a nice lawn), eat more food than they need, buy (lots of) stuff that they dont need, spray insecticide all over the place, watch poor quality TV productions (on a HUGE tv) and then maybe go to church on sunday. We are all guilty of some of the above but I see honest to goodness gluttony and misuse of resources at large, it makes me wonder what lessons religion has taught them. Im not sure that being religious is anything more than having this simple thought in your head saying 'i believe in god' and thats it and its no more unique or widereaching than knowing that 'i eat sugary cereal for breakfast' or 'I cut the lawn when the grass is too long' or 'I believe what oprah says' or 'we carve pumpkins in october'.

Of course for some people the religious beliefs push further with consequences but for the majority of people im not sure it does anything atall.

1221. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41224 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 4:40 pm

was i hearing things or did the interviewer at the end squeeze in 'god does exist'. That is so alien to me, if that happened on the BBC the interviewer would be reprimanded. then again i remember seeing Fox interviewers telling shirley phelps she was an abomination, some interview, some debate!!

If hitchens had to get the last word in he would (probably) at least say 'i believe god doesnt exist' and not look in in the camera and say 'god doesnt exist'.

1222. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41220 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Why is it that in the US the tv interviewers seem to debate from the believer viewpoint as seen her rather than ask the interviewee questions from a neutral standing point?? I'm not sure that EVER happens in the UK. And just how many fallicies did the interviewer bring up in five minutes including attacking the man.

1223. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41201 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 3:57 pm

"An aide to the Rev. Jerry Falwell says he has died. 'CPR efforts were unsuccessful,' said Ron Godwin, the executive vice president for Falwell's Liberty University."

why use a scientifically accepted method of resusitation instead of prayer, hmm, why oh why??????

1224. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41145 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I wonder if westboro baptists will be at the sending off? the fact the jerry apologised for his comments re 9/11 and its causes make it a possibility.

1225. Statement of Concern about Impact of AIG's Creation 'Museum'

Comment #41140 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Whos to visit this place?

the choir of course, a few passing customers, some more moderate christians who wont be aware that such nonesense exists. I get the feeling a lot of people are going to go in there and think 'man, this is really weird' and get the hell out and a lot of them will be christians. I have never actually met anybody who believes T rex walked alongside man. Luckily common knowlege does put dinos way in the past, save birds of course.

1226. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41115 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 2:00 pm

As an atheist you could at the moment of death say well maybe there is another place for me (just for the sake of it) but i also wonder if believers just at the moment prior to death think (and maybe they do sometimes think) 'is this it, maybe those atheists were right' and maybe they depart full of fear which would be just desserts in my book (as fear is a commonly used tool of the faithful as we know). I await jerrys voice from the sky.

1227. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40484 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 10:43 am

CDG:

As you know my post wasnt quite serious, in fact i was being overly accomodating in even asking for a list. Theoretically the list would be infinite, it would be a list of impossible things like ressurection and weeping statues or spontaneously regrowing a leg (although invertebrates are quite good at this!) And a world created would be more akin to those nausea inducing paintings you see on jehovas witness handouts with the lion and the cow lying together. Now if cows had a zipper design on the neck about the main vessels and lay down so i could unzip it to bleed and thus feed i'd start to wonder....but of course they dont.

1228. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40469 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 10:18 am

OK, ive not even seen the video but one look at that still at the top of this article had me understanding some comments i'd heard about it, and the comments here do prove that atheist or not all men are a product of natural selection and are rather easily distracted from the topic at hand. I'm suprised that kirk and co. didnt drop the banana and start talking about other things that were intelligently designed!

1229. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40455 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

fundamentalist or not?

Prof. Dawkins, any chance of a small list of things that would persuade you to belive there is a god? ie a list of things you would consider evidence for god.

I suppose the problem with such a list is that it will consist of things that are just plain never going to happen, perhaps believers will see that such a list is therefore futile but as they are the ones who believe in miracles they have to see this list as fully reasonable.

I can think of many such things, but one would be (as an example from the top of my head) if i melted down one of my old toys into a pool of charred plastic and it suddenly reformed back into its original form right before my eyes, that might not prove god but it would show me as a lesson that something that i thought was an absolute impossibility could come to pass, it could of course be the 'trick' of some advanced (hidden)alien technology and thats probably how i'd explain it as that is the most likey explanation but I would also have to say it COULD be 'god'.

Thats before i dismissed the idea that i'd imagined it, i fully understand how easy it is to fool ourselves. The other day i was tricked into visualising for a split second a Pholcus sp.(daddy long leg spider) walking up a wall, it was actually a bit of web and dust but it was wobbling in the air current just as a Pholcus wobbles as it walks, but for that incredible split second I got this mental glimpse of the Pholcus, luckily my 'delusion' lasted just a split second. Yup, that brain can be fooled.

I would be interested to read a list of happenings that would persuade believers against a belief in God.

1230. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40346 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 6:43 am

re the atheist test. not the banana again, oh the pain of it!!

I read the first few questions to determine (once again) if this was a parody. I then closed it down as I cannot bear to imagine the smug self centered individual who wrote it all down, he or she should be eternally grateful they weren't born a Maori in New Zealand 500 yeas ago as they would have been roasting in hell as we speak.

1231. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40338 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Offer this thought experiment to creationists to see if you even want to continue a conversation with them:

via a time machine we go back in time and witness first hand the history of the earth. I tell the creationist that if i witness the earth formed about 6000 years back and suddenly see all species appear at the same time and even witness the biblical flood, then i tell them that i will admit ive been wrong about evolution. If instead we go back and witness that evolution did happen then ask the creationist would they be prepared to admit they had it wrong about the development of life on this planet (it doesnt say much about god of course, just the biblical account). See how many creationists will admit that they were wrong. Some will wriggle away, some will say it would all be a visual trick and only the truly faithful will 'pass the test' many will laugh and say its only a thought experiment.

I predict that all evolutionists would accept the evidence and say they were wrong and that it just looked like evo happened and that the majority of creationists will not accept they were wrong. Of course it will tell you more about peoples minds than it will about lifes origins but there you go.

Try it, the response will tell you to walk away or stay and talk.

1232. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39867 by phasmagigas on May 12, 2007 at 6:36 am

As this article opens with Bush's presumed desire for ID to be taught equally with evolution (surely not in science classes though) I would like to propose that science teachers across the USA ask the president a question, and it is this:

'Evolution either happend or it didnt. Tell me president, when I teach students evolutionary theory, do you believe I am lying to them?'

demand a yes or no answer.

1233. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #39841 by phasmagigas on May 12, 2007 at 5:02 am

Munsey used his (false) special pleading (was this special pleading??) and cause and effect argument involving his daughter as a means to generate audience conviction through sympathy on his side, it probably worked too.

He is another person who is so used to having people believe his every word that he cannot function when under a sophisticated attack. It was a breath of fresh air to hear Hitchens reply to him regarding his daughter.That would have been a shock as this type of tale would normally have generated tears of sympathy and unqualified agreement in that charateristically hideous American way of wooing the audience with a solidarity of painful emotions (think oprah)

1234. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39028 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2007 at 7:34 pm

I feel part of the the reason this happens is quite simple: 'I am an angry young man, I use my religion to justify all my actions and i can get away with it living in a moderate and tolerant society'.

angry young men in times gone by would listen to punk, or metal or take speed. There is an important difference from previous countercultures (and i suggest that islam is used as a counterculture by many)in that it is heavily sanctioned by its own elders and the government. the trouble with these angry young men is that they are angry at just about everybody, and they probably wont 'grow out of it'.

1235. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38148 by phasmagigas on May 7, 2007 at 5:58 am

i like the simple breakdown of dawkins wanting truth as his form of supposed fanaticism.

To oppose accusations of atheist fanaticism I like to use the example of a fanatical zealous surgeon who will not accept crystal healing as suggested by a patients sister in law to remove a brain tumor. Dawkins is 'fanatical' in the same way as the surgeon and anybody who really wants to live as long as possible is going to listen to the surgeon and not the sister in law.

Dawkins is also fanatical in the same way that we all are when we dont walk into the path of a truck on a road because our brain processing the sensory inputs says 'dont walk'. Another type of fanatic could ignore the inputs and say the truck will be guided around me this morning because I prayed for longer than normal. As we know one is a fanatic and one shows a totally normal adaptive response.

1236. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37786 by phasmagigas on May 5, 2007 at 5:20 pm

this murder is ironically the type of behaviour that believers would expect athiests to engage in, ie they are darwinists so feel nature is red in tooth and claw, they have no moral code so anything goes.

I will also say that its a fact that many UK (i include this as im from the UK and the article was published in a UK paper) muslim men will view this and see it as totally acceptable even if only privately. Most will be repelled by it but a minority WILL accept it.

I was brought up amongst a large muslim comunity in the UK and whilst misogyny is common in men in general I witnessed it more strongly in young muslim men I talked to and correlated particularly with their attitude towards non muslim women, often non muslim woman are seen as sexually immoral but the reaction of the men can be aggressive and sexual (and I strongly believe rationalised with religion) as a form of address to that perceived immorality.

Personally i feel that those aggressive tendancies are simply due to highly repressed sexual requirements that religion imposes upon a male primate. Anyone who feels this post is biased or unfair can freely integrate themselves amongst the large muslim populations in many towns in the UK and accept or refute my observations.

1237. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37528 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm

re: katiecars post. with many hot topics (abortion, the war, stem cell research) being for or against is a matter of (informed)opinion but evolution is one which is a matter of almost certain fact, it has noting to do with opinions as it came before us and will continue after us. When i talk to people I pretty much ignore their stance on god but their stance on evolution tells me far, far more about them (well, i assume it does)

1238. Author of the Year Ad

Comment #37525 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2007 at 6:10 pm

talking the photo, its a good natural shot, can you imagine the grotesque alternative, a big perfectly toothed smile, correction make-up, eyes at the camera and a really bad hairstyle. Sorry but being new in the USA I just cringe when i see promotion photos of people (esp. real estate sellers), they tend to be really really awful.

1239. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37520 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2007 at 6:01 pm

re the 3 no's to evolution. A nice follow up question would have been something like "So for the benefit of those who dont know about evolution briefly explain what it is and why you dont 'believe' in it".

I predict that they wouldnt have a clue what it was (they'd mention monkeys or slime or random perhaps, or maybe even that really dirty word...eye!)and then their reasons for not believing would involve a few 'distracting change the topic cos i dont know it' jokes about not believing in god 'and we all believe in god dont we!'

1240. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37186 by phasmagigas on May 3, 2007 at 3:51 pm

heres two.

demon haunted world-sagan. Thats the one that really made me sort the wheat from the chaff thats thrown at us daily.

ancestors tale-dawkins. aside from its usefulness in saying 'when did such split from such' I spent a lot of time thinking 'oh my god, thats totally unbelievable!!' fantastic examples of multilayered nature!!!!!!!!

1241. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #37154 by phasmagigas on May 3, 2007 at 1:42 pm

talking unintelligent design, as far as i know only humans have large butt muscles that stick out from the anus (due to our upright stance). Im now guessing that we are one of the few mammals (im sure that some selectively bred ones are quite messy too) that needs to realistically wipe the anus after defacating. I need say no more!!!!

1242. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #37131 by phasmagigas on May 3, 2007 at 12:50 pm

i wish that people like this would at least be consisient and ignore science across the board. they are of course not going to ignore antibiotics when infected, weedkiller on their lawns, efficient fuel burning in their cars, asprin for a headache. I have this peverse wish that there should be some sort of 'payment' for this type of lunacy. At least when a jehova refuses a blood transfusion they are putting the foot where the mouth is, although i wonder how many really do put their foot there.

1243. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35685 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2007 at 9:58 am

ksskidude.

regarding talking creation/evo (i avoid god altogether as im not a great arguer but i know the basics of evo fairly well but as god discussons can become philosophical i stay clear, at least evo is more a set of facts rather than what ifs)) if the subject comes up i remain silent unless the question is fired at me, once a believer knows you are an evolutionist they think 'cool lets see how he (or she) can answer this one and im then presented with an oft silly question like 'shouldnt there be half creatures?' then i'll give an answer, hopefully one that they can understand.

So the point im making: i keep shut unless somebody asks and i NEVER ask them questions as remember a creationst can anwser with any old claptrap so it just isnt worth it.

actually thats a point, its funny how a creationst would want to ask questions, i'd never want to ask a creationist anything as nothing they could say would be of any relevance, well unless of course they told me that indeed a human skull had been found in what are known to be cambrian strata (of course i can bet that isnt going to happen so i can be smug about it).

1244. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35653 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2007 at 5:49 am

I suspect that evo is one of the most weakly taught parts of the UK science curriculum.

Unless a teacher really understands evolution themselves there are many ways it could be incorrectly presented (there is a big difference between understanding evo and say labelling a diagram of the digestive system which could earn equal points in an exam)

This booklet at least provides an overview of many ideas that would normally never be present in the classroom but that aid the understanding for a more able student.

1245. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35650 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2007 at 5:36 am

imagineAZ, the national curriculum in most of the UK only requires a brief knowledge of evolution, eg that fossils are evidence for evolution (well at least they are taught that!), the booklet gives way more detail than is required for the GCSE exam (16 year olds) im not sure of the detail of the A level material (18 year olds).

1246. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35536 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2007 at 2:11 pm

I'll agree the theology bit shouldnt be there, why the comments from religious viewpoints. In Car engineering manuals we dont see the mormon point of view that they prefer horse and carts.

1247. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35499 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2007 at 11:34 am

ive not read ever word but overall that looks to cover a lot of material and could provide useful and revealing material esp for the 16-18 year olds doing GCSE's and A levels. I'll go as far as to say that covers way more than i was expecting and very succinctly.

1248. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35442 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2007 at 7:00 am

linda re slavery in mississippi, ive no idea. The video shows very strongly the mob mentality and that if im not mistaken often incorporates religion (or support of a football team), it shows what youd expect in the more extreme parts of the middle east and for precisely the same reason. Imagine having that much confidence in yourself and your narrow worldwiew that you felt it justifiable to actually hunt down other people like (other) animals!! incredible.

1249. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35435 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2007 at 6:34 am

linda, that video is very telling. It is so very easy to attract the wrath of the religious. Assuming this isnt all a send up. Indeed that is just how it must have been for black people (maybe in some places it still is).

1250. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35429 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2007 at 6:10 am

I imagine BM would be rather gutted to find that the link to this site has resulted in a lot of ad hominem (lordsuhn made a good point). He is for the most part a rationalist and a breath of fresh air in the USA. The problem with the youtube clips is that its a dreadful interview, akin to the dawkins/o reilley one. A pity it couldnt go a bit more like this, albeit with RD......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr-9N9fEgNA