151. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107708 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 3:05 am

"Terrorists have no honor? sure they do. They are humans the same as the rest of us. Except usually of darker complexion..."

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. To Americans, the Founding Fathers, the Minutemen and whatever in the American Revolution were freedom fighters. This side of the pond they look to have been more like terrorists running a tax evasion scam and illegal land grab scheme at the expense of native Americans.

Still, history has a tendency to be written by the winners.

152. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107703 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 2:51 am

"As I understand it, over time every species undergoes gradual changes due to selection criteria imposed by environment and sexual selection. If they have been isolated, they would evolve into separate species simultaneously (due to different selection criteria), but that shouldn't change the fact that generations of descendants change ever so slightly from their ancestors, eventually producing offspring that could no longer mate with ancient ancestors (and hence new species)."

I'm not a scientist so others in this group might want to correct me on this but I don't think that is a clear picture of how we understand slection works.

Where geographic isolation occurs, evolution can act more quickly because the gene pool is smaller. If there is a critical set of alelles, the frequency of those alelles may be higher in proportion to the size of the population, in the isolated group. Therefore the small group is more likely to result in a new species than the larger group that has not been isolated. Technically with geographic isolated, the original species may survive but selection results in a second additional species. Likewise with the main unisolated group.

My understanding is that in these circumstances, even no change in the physical environment (eco-system if you like) allows new species to emerge just because of differences in the frequencies of alelles.

As far as I undersand evolution and extinction of species is not inevitable over time. Sucessful species, particularly at the single cell level, can survive for extremely long periods of time. Moreover, most species, I guess, don't actually mate or need to mate to produce offsrings. That process tends to apply to the "higher" species. Even then, species such as salamanders don't mate.

I'll leave it to others to provide a better explanation.

153. A War On Science

Comment #107697 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 2:29 am

PlagioClase: "How long will evolutionists keep putting up examples of natural selection and say this proves the creationists are wrong?"

All the time. It's dead easy because cretinists haven't a bloody clue about science. Science has won the battle with cretinism outright and completly because there is no science in cretinism. It's a religious not a scientific position. That's why you lost Dover and every other court case you have fought.

"Creationists accept natural selection."

No they don't. They twist it out of all recognition to meet their religous agenda. For starters they reject "macro-evolution".

154. A War On Science

Comment #107694 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 2:20 am

PlagioClase: "But natural selection will not change bacteria into bus drivers?"

Groan. You are getting seriously desperate.

No one ever said it did. One species evolves from another. Species don't change into other species.

I've seen this ludicrous crap time and time again. It commonly takes the form of "if man is descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

155. A War On Science

Comment #107691 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 2:10 am

"Because the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are going the wrong way--downhill, not uphill."

Standard fundie boilerplate. Once you get into this argument with them the first thing that comes up is that they don't know what information is. They can't distinguish between informtion and meaning. The chief creationist in this game in the UK is Andy McIntosh. Richard Dawkins has pulled McIntosh to pieces on this and has questioned whether McIntosh understands the second law of thermodynamics. McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics at Leeds University.

156. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107689 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 2:00 am

Tommcc: "i love reading this site and comments. but, why do so many clever people have to waste time over creationists???"

To show them up as out and out dangerous frauds and phoneys.

The ultimate issue is not one about science versus creationism. It's a political issue. The fundies want to impose their view of the world on everyone else (see US Presidential campaigns and Truth in Science.)

You are dead right if you assume that anyone "debating" in this forum with them will change their minds.

I'll state my personal position here to make it clear to everyone. I'm not in the business of bashing religion. My target is solely fundies and I also have big issues with them about dispensationalism and dominionism. However, most religious people are neither creationists, dispensationalists or dominionists.

The fundies are basically dangerous ideologues on a par with Maoists, Trotskyists, fascists, Marxist-Leninists, fanatical nationalists... The Christian fundies are exactly the same as Muslim fundamentalists. Underneath they are all birds of a feather who screech to the same tune.

There is nothing new at all about my position. The National Center for Science Education worked out way back in the 1980s that creationism wasn't a scientific issue but a political issue.

I basically worked it out some four or more years ago when I first came across dispensationalism.

That's why the fundies are targeting schools. It's an exercise in imposing their ideology on the rest of the world. See the Wedge document for evidence of what they really want. That's why the fundies in the USA are also known as the Religious Right. They are utterly politicised. If you don't think it can happen in Britain, see what is happening in Northern Ireland under Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party. (Paisley is a cretinist.)

Like ideologues everywhere, they have no respect for debate or the democratic system. They will lie, deceive, cheat and manipulate to get their own way because they believe they are absolutely right and can't be wrong because they are biblical literalists. They treat the Bible like the Nazi's used Mein Kampf or the Chinese used Mao's Little Red Book - beyond criticism, beyond reason.

Read Chris Hedges book, American Fascists, to get the point.

157. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107685 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 1:33 am

PlagioClase claims "Interestingly, Asimov's three laws of robotics are consistent with the events described in Genesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics"

Um, dead right. They are both utter fiction.

158. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107683 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 1:31 am

Goldy: "Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the biblical creation model. Critics doubt that all of today's species could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.8 Darwin's finches show that it need not take very long for new species to arise."

It's standard fundie boilerplate. Trouble is they can't tell anyone what the scientific definition of a "kind" is. It seems it is somewhere around the level of "family" of species but they can't back their position up with science (as is always the case).

Of course, PlagioClase will avoid the following questions: Why are there over 400 alelles at some gentic loci in the human genome and why, as a result, was mandkind not wiped out after leaving the Ark?

159. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107681 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 1:23 am

PlagioClase: "The biblical worldview explains why there are imperfections in this world: they are due to the Fall--i.e. the willful rejection by the first two humans of the Creator's authority over their lives. Sound familiar?"

Yep. It's an intersting piece of allegory that originated in non-jewish history in Mesopotamia. Pity for you that most Christians don't take genesis literally. In fact most Christians take the literal approach to be heresy.

So your're not a Christian then? Or are other Christians deluded?

160. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107678 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 1:12 am

Goldy comments: "Made me wonder how anyone can believe anything they write.
The references cited tell their own story (I particularly liked

8 J.D. Sarfati, How Did all the Animals Fit on Noah's Ark? Creation 19(2):16–19, March–May 1997;"

That of course is the very same Jonathan Sarfati who spends vasts amount of his time down other cretinists throats because he thinks they as "compromisers". Do a bit of a search on old earth cretionist Hugh Ross to get the point. Cretinists cannot stand criticism or debate from their own. It's bad for business (i.e. Ken Scam's crapola museum and all the sales of magazines, DVDs, donations, etc..)

161. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107675 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 1:04 am

re PalgioClase: "Vestigial organs are nowhere near as common as you would expect from evolution. http://www.creationontheweb.com/vestigial

http://www.creationontheweb.com/vestigialorgans


I apologize to those people who are not keen on reading material from a creationist source, but if you do check the articles you will find they are usually fully referenced."

Why apologize? You've given me enough to blow your credibility straight out of the water.

So what that they are referenced? Referencing doesn't make them valid arguments.

And nothing has been subject to peer review.


Well, your dead wrong about us not being keen to read the crapola on Creation Ministries web site. It's been damn interesting over the last year or so.

It's were we all learned without doubt that cretinists are all nuts.

You know - those stories of necrophilia (I jest not) and witchcraft directed against Margaret Buchanan, Ken Ham's former personal secretary and now the wife of the head of Creation Ministries. It's where we learned how leading creationist John Mackay was excommunicated from his church because he breached the ninth commandment. It's where we learned about how God talks to him and that he chases demons from cats and dogs. It's where we learned that the cretinists all hate each others guts, are in it for the money and have been slagging each other off for years. It's where we lerned Mackay is anasty piece of work. It's where we learned all about Answers in Genesis's dubiuous business practices and the lack of accountability of Ken Ham.

It's where we learned that Ken Ham has suddenly become pally pally with Mackay again so he can put Creation Ministries out of business. It's where we learned, yet again, that the cretinist movement is led by self appointed autocrats.

It staggers me how PlagioClase could be so utterly dumb to use Creation Ministries web site to put his case forward. Talk about shooting himself in the foot.

It never fails to amaze me that every cretinist I have ever seen who has walked into a forum like this has no idea that they make themselves look utter idiots almost immediately. No idea whatsoever.

But then, how many cretinist have any marbles about them?

162. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107667 by Roger Stanyard on January 5, 2008 at 12:36 am

"British Museum of Natural History but it is wrong. It is not the creationist view at all."

There is no such place as the British Museum of Natural History.

163. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107285 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 11:01 am

Quill: "I'm just going to repeat myself: if UK agents apprehended bin-Laden somewhere in America without going through the poper channels, "

It's out and out illegal and a serious offence.

Let me give you an undersanding of the law. If Americans turned up to apprehend a terriorist in the UK, what laws would they be operating under given that they have no legal authority to do so? How could they detain that person without breaking the law? What would happen if they carried guns?

This is not about the finer niceities of the law; it is about the fundamental and basic question - who runs the UK. You or us?

I can guarantee the politicians in the UK would go apeshit it you ever tried it. So would British security agencies and the police. They are in the business of that side of running Britain. America isn't. Not a zilch.

164. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107266 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 10:44 am

Quill; "Sending counterterrorist operatives into another country to apprehend a fugitive at large is not an act of aggression against that country, but merely one of self-defense, and that does make a difference."

Yu must be bloody joking! US law does not extend to my country and what you are suggesting is utterly and completly illegal. The laws of the UK are set by the UK, not Washington DC. Quite frankly if the Americans tried that one on and entered the UK, they would be shot dead. It would be nothing more than an act of war against the UK.

The USA has no legal right whatsoever to undertake counter-terrorim measures of that nature in the UK or, indeed, Pakistan or anywhere else.

165. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107195 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

Professor Dawkins writes: "Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on scripture and deny the evidence."

To which I conclude that Kurt Wise is ot only not a scientist but has wholly rejected all science and has no valid claim to be a "creation scientist" either.

It seems to me that he simply cannot use the scientific method. He cannot formulate a hypothesis because he has an a priori assumption that any evidence that contradicts his position must be bogus - planted there by God to give the illusion of the old age of the earth or planted by Satan as ploy to trap him into being an "evilutionist" or whatever.

The only evidence he can accept is that which cannot disprove his personal opinions.

Thus, it seems, if God turned up and told him the Bible was wrong, he couldn't accept it becaue the Bible is inerrant and his religous opinions fall to pieces if if isn't. He would call even God a fraud to have to sustain his position.

Yep, Wise is well and truely a sad case.

166. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107140 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

PlagioClase: "Atheists tend to be impervious to design arguments."

Nope. Scientists do not invoke the supernatural as explanatons. It's exactly the same whether the scientist is religious or not. Atheism has nothing to do with it because science doesn't give a stuff about atheism.

The only pillochs that accept cretinism are fundies and they are not typical Christians. Indeed, most of what they practice and preach is heresy to most Christians.

Or are you so gullible to believe your Christianity represents the views of all other Christians. Spell it out in as much detail as you like.

167. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107132 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 6:59 am

"Antony Flew said he is no longer an atheist because he followed where the scientific evidence led. How objectively scientific is it to deny a designer because of one's prior beliefs about God?"

Antony flew is a very old man whose mental faculties are exceedingly impaired. (He's gagga basically.) He has been used by the Intelligent Designers in a manner that is disgusting. The IDers have done so because they are so utterly desperate for PR puffery. They have no damn science whatsoever and have admiited it; they lost Dover hopelessly and the media has long turned against them.

The Flew affair shows them up to be utterly unscruplous, dishonest and immoral gouls.

Strange, isn't it that the cretinists have no hesitation in ignoring the ninth commandment when it suits them.

168. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107130 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 6:47 am

Al-Rawandi - I'll explain to you what goes on amongst the creationist nutters. The bright ones at the top of the movement don't post in forums like this because they know they will be pulled apart. The rank and file pillochs do because they are so stupid that they don't know they will be pulled apart and don't recognise when they are.

Still, that's not the real reason why they are here. It's to preach and save souls. They are all so utterly stupid that none of them realise that science doesn't give a stuff about their religious opinions, or mine, or yours. They all live under an illusion that the world is divided into cretinists and atheists.

.

169. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107128 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 6:42 am

Plagio: "Then there's cosmic evolution, geologic evolution, biological evolution and human evolution."

No there isn't. You just made that crap up.

"What evidence would you accept as evidence that there could be an intelligent designer? A biological wheel? A biological motor?"

The IDers have already shot their load on this and failed. They tried it on at Dover where Behe was an expert witness and failed, completly, utterly and miserably to show that the bacterial flagellum, with its motor, was evidence of intelligent design. It was wholly a religious position with no foundation in science at all. Irreducible complexity is nothing more than a front that, after 20 years , has had its day.

You might want to start with asking why Steve or me would abandon the theory of evolution by natural selection in the face of evidence.

Here is an example: A fossil rabbit in Cambrian strata. Unfortunately that does not support the fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible and creationism. It, indeed, shows it to be wrong, instead showing rabits existed over 500 million years ago, not just from some time after Noah's Ark. Indeed, it would show the creationist crapola to be what it is, crap, as C14 dating would utterly fail to show it is less than 5,000 years old (seeing that the cretinists claim C14 works on samples to 5,000 years old).

"Forensic investigation and archeology are sciences that both have criteria for detecting intelligent design. So does the SETI project. They are not based on proof,"

So what? No science is based on proof; leave that to the mathematicians and whisky distillers. All science is tentative.

"Or will you hide behind the fact that it is impossible to prove that something had to be designed, that it could not have formed by chance?"

O"r will you hide behind the fact that it is impossible to prove that something had to be designed, that it could not have formed by chance?"

Evolution is not caused by chance. That's why it is called the theory of evolution by natural slection. Ultimately evolution is a product of the rules of physics nd chemistry and because those were in place, then probably inevitable.

Still, its worse than that for you because most Christians accept that God was behind the big bang or the etablishment of the laws of physics but don't accept that there was an intelligent designer somehow interfering with genes at unspecified times, for unspecified reasons in unspecified ways by a process than cannot be observed in operation today.

Mind you, if you think you have a case, why don't you tell us all what is the theory of intelligent design and how can it be tested by the scientific method?

I bet you can't.

170. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107092 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 4:02 am

Hihino: "from my own perception, i believe earth created 5 billion years ago, but in the same time i also believe that was created by God 6000 years ago."

It's a form of old earth cretionism. Most of the fundies detest it and spend a vast amount of time down the troats of thse that propose it. See the work of Jonathan Sarfati.

"The greatest mystery of universe and live will be answered when science and religion has come together."

Not according to the fundies. They reject all science that disagrees with their personal opinion about Sola Scriptura. They perpetually slag off scientists such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins who are both scientists and religious.

Moreover, it is not a battle between science and religion. It's a political battle for power. As you can see in the USA right now in the campaigns to become President. The cretinists want a theocracy and science, reason and the age of enlightenment are in the way.

See the Wedge document.

171. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107085 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 3:46 am

Wooter reverts to banalities: "Neither my commonsense nor my logic can handle with you."

Um, Wooter, professional people like scientists don't use the term commonsense because what it really means is horse sense. Unfortunately most people who think that have commonsense are not even aware that what they have is only horse sense.

Claing "commonsense" is the mark of an utter rank amateur.

Thanks for telling us what you are.

172. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107077 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 3:30 am

Wooter, what kind of incoherent drivel is this "If you think About many cells's varying and mutation in different places and times, skipping how they do that without any genes' passing information differently for different creatures, exact number of the chromosomes, our world will be, hypothetically, full of monsterts like creations. (Please watch evolution movie). God created eachj living thing sepearately knowing their needs, what kind of environment they need etc. A single creator makes us understand the creation rather than getting lost Frankestein analogies."

Wooter demonstrats again to the world that he simpy can't string a coherent argument together i his own words yet he is claiming that he works by "logic".

This person is a teacher?

173. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107073 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 am

Wooter: "Darwin could not provide a counterargument to the question of blending inheritance during his lifetime. At first glance, blending seems to be a good theory. Many human children certainly appear to look like both their mother and their father. Blending, however, would have grave implications for any evolutionary novelty or variation. Descendants would merely become increasingly homogenized with each passing generation."

So what. Mendel provided the counter argument it. Guess what, Wooter? Mendel was a practising Christian.

174. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107071 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

Wooetr responds yet again with a huge cut and past 'cause he knows bugger all about about what he is talking about. This time its from "Larry Vardiman, Ph.D."

Does everyone want to know Vardiman's "scientific credentials"?

Well, he's Chief Operating Officer of the Institute for Creation Research, the cretinist organisation whose only idea of scienic is to go through papers of proper scientists trying to find "holes".

It's contrbution to science? Um, sod all.

The peer reviewed research it has produced over the last 30 years? Sod all.

Vardiman's peer reviewed "creation scince" papers~ Sod all.

yet again in Wooter we see another cretinist who is incapable of using his own words even to argue his own position.

Wooter, why are you trying to deceive everyone in this forum that you know what you are talking about?

All you are managing to do is prove you are a hopeless nutjob.

As a have told everyone in this forum, cretinists are incapable do anything but regurgitating 30 year old fundamentalist boilerplate.

Here's my question for today, Wooter:

If Noah's Ark is "true" how come there are more than 400 alleles at some genetic loci in the uman body?

Go one, show to the world again that you are a priz idiot by answer my question again.

Oh, and a reminded. Where is the answer to my question "what is the scientifc theory fo creationism and how can we test it using the scientific method."

Fundies never answer this question because they can't. Yet they claim that creationism is justified solely on scientific evidence.

175. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107065 by Roger Stanyard on January 4, 2008 at 3:01 am

Yet again Wooter demonstrates to the world that he is even more idiotic that the average cretinist by posting claims that Answers in Genesis has long said cretinists should not be used.

Yet again Wooter proves my point that cretinists don't even understand their own "creation science".

Wooter, are you so dim you don't understand that other cretinists think Carl Baugh is a complete nutter?

You walked straight into my trap again.

And this was your comment: "Please, no distortion, slandering, twisting about this page. as you tried to do for my previous web pages as they clearly refute evolution idea. Just say " I don't believe it." It is better."

The fundies did my work for me! All on their very own!

I don't have to show your are a pilloch. The cretinists have done it for me.

176. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106820 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Alsa the Guiness we get in England is a second rate version of the real thing. It's chilled whereas the real thing, as you get in Ireland is at room temperature. It's a great drink but when chilled, I find it undrinkable.

Mybe it's just an English biasedness but it always seem to me daft to force a customer to drink chilled beer when they have just come off the street on a cold, chilling, damp English winter's day.

Guiness is also seriously over-priced in the UK to be anything but a specialised beer whereas in Ireland it's tradionally been a working man's session beer.

Alas, I can't remember the last time I saw porter (i.e. the real stuff, warm and pumped up with a beer engine) in a pub. I haven't even seen mild beer for years.

177. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106807 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 1:53 pm

galactor, Ill explain what Redneckfrom Idaho means to your question "Can you explain to me what is meant by


most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption
as I am at present unable"

Fundamentalists think the world is divided into two sorts of people - fundies and evilutionists. Most of them are either too arrogant or too dense to realise that most religious believers accept science and that many think creationism is heresy and a deeply immoral outlook.

What the fundies are are a group of Protestant zealots who take seriously flaky theology in the form of Sola Scriptura to an extreme and think it applies to all Christianity. Most of them look down their noses at Cristians that don't accept their crapola but they never tell you this.

None of them recognise that their extremism brings the whole of religion into disrepute. There's nothing new about this. In 404 AD St Augustine wrote that a literal interprestation of the Bible, when it comes to science, would make Christians a laughing stock. Plus ca change when it comes to fundies. However, St Augustine was a Catholic and the fundies spit venom at Catholicism.

RedneckfromIdaho is a particularly extreme version of cretinist who trolls out the materialistic crapola.

178. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106764 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Artful Dodger - "There is NOTHING in the Bible that could be remotely construed as providing a mandate or even a pretext for child abuse or any other kind of abuse."

So what was Noah's Flood then? All organised by God.

PS, I assume you are not a fundamentalist and read it as a metaphor or whatever.

179. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106750 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 11:52 am

Redneckfrom Idaho: "I find Kurt Wise far more honest and rational than the average evolutionist. Wise is forthcoming about his assumptions regarding the nature of truth. The evolutionist often pretends he has come to his conclusions based purely on the evidence at hand and fails to acknowledge his own presuppositions. For example, most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption. When Wise says that he will hold to what he believes is the truth regardless of evidence to the contrary, he is no different than dozens of atheists I have heard (or read) who make similar statements when faced with the mounting evidence against evolution ("These findings propose something of a puzzle at the moment, but we are confident that we will resolve the apparent contradictions with further research.") The difference: Wise admits he acts on faith; the evolutionist pretends he does not."

Well if Kurt Wise is claiming that creation science is valid, let him show it. So far he has not produced one single peer reviewed scientific paper on creationism.

Methinks you are lying. Everything I have ever read about Wise, including his own words, suggests that scientists believe he is acting on faith. He certainly ain't on acting on sound science.

So where is this mounting evidencne against evolution? Common, cough up - where is the scientific theory of creationism and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

Um. where are the creation science peer reviewed papers?

Or are you just another fundamentalist bullshitter?

Just in the biologcal amd medical scinces over the last two decades, there has been some 1 million peer reviewed papers. The number of creation science peer reviewed papers is exactly zero.

Strewth, the cretinists haven't said anything new for thirty years. All they can do is pick holes and endless repeat tired and long debunked crap from the likes of Answers in Genesis's web site.

"The evolutionist often pretends he has come to his conclusions based purely on the evidence at hand and fails to acknowledge his own presuppositions."

What is this utter drivel. The scientists who provide the evidence that damns creationism are from a whole range of displines - geology, paleontology, biology, archeology, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, physics, meterology....Most of them are not evolutionary biologists. Or aren't you aware that the term evolutionist is not used in science? That's because science has no need for it as creation science is hot air and fraud.





cosmology.

180. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106738 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 11:33 am

PlagioClase: "I'm tired of evolutionists accusing creationists of being dishonest."

Then quit lying. The creatonists have told the courts time and time again that creation science is justified by scince alone. Under srutiny the claim proves to be fraudulent. That's why, time and time again you lose in the courts and never win.

What the heck are we supposed to believe when Judge Jones opnly stated that the creationist defence during Dover "lied" (his word) under oath.

How the heck do you explain that after the 1987 Supreme court decision that stated creationism was religion and not scinece that the term "creationism" in Of Pandas and People was replaced 186 times with Intelligent Design.

What the heck are we supposed to believe following the disclosure of the Wedge document?

What the heck are we supposed to believe after Wooter has posted up a pack of creationist lies about the Coelacanth in this forum?

What the heck are we supposed to believe when creationists always refuse to answer the questions we put to them.

I'll ask again: What is the scientific theory of creationism and how to we test it using the scientific method?

If you have an alternative scientific explanation of the differences between species, show it or stop telling porkies that creation science stacks up.

Message to the rest of the group: This one is just pushing the standard creationist bleating. Its the standard martyrdom and persecution complex. They've spent year lying to the world that scientists are deluded atheists running a scam and deceiving everyone for nefarious purposes.

181. Changing my Mind

Comment #106560 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 6:30 am

Here is my two penny worth on using the term atheist or atheism.

I doubt whether anyone in this group fails to have a clear understanding of what it means and most would have little hesitation in using the term.

However, in dealing with the fundamentalists and cretinists it has another meaning altogether. It's their shorthand for everyone who is not a "bible believing" literalist, whatever their opinions are about religion and whether or not they believe in a deity. It is also used to describe all mainstream scientists and geologists.

The very meaning of the word is thus being twisted by the fundamentalists. Does that surprise anyone given that the whole creationist movement lies, out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly? (It's the only way they can sustain their position.)

Of course, one way to fight back is to mention the ninth commandment. All too often, you have to point out to them what it says and means given that the average cretinist is none too bright.

You can also try and take the p**s out of their ignorance by saying that it is also the eigth commandment.

182. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #106530 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 5:06 am

Wooter: "I answered your questions first reasonable and scientifically. If you still do not get it, I can't help you out more. Second I stick with my logic and reason that tells me the entire universe needs a creator who created everything systematically, orderly and amazingly from an atom to solar system both of which has got the similar design. When you insult me, or offend me, actually you are insulting the reason and logic and that is why the logic&reason fight back and win. Why? Because they defend themselves without insulting because they need to."

So when are you going to demonstrate any logic or reason? All you can do is cut and past discredited creationist crapola and ignore what is posted i reply.

So tell us again, all about the Coelacanths and demonstrate you utter inability to check your facts? Or why a horse'shoof is not a toe nail?

Or are you going to yet again ignore everything that is said and keep on regurgitating crapl from Answers in Genesis?

Let's ask you some more questions. And I'll keep on asking them just to show to the rest of this group how stupid and arrogant you are when it comes to science:

Today's question

1. Why are dinosaur bones never found alongside human remains or archeological evidence of human activity?

183. A War On Science

Comment #106476 by Roger Stanyard on January 3, 2008 at 2:45 am

Eno: "Dear Roger Stanyard at the BCSE - thank goodness there are people like you and your Centre in the UK looking out for us. Thank you, Sir. You have my full support."

Thanks Eno!

Roger

184. Monkey, Business

Comment #106151 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Al-Rawandi:

What's your view on Al Jazera? It's a channel I know quite well and my business has, in the past, had close contacts with it. We interviewed its Chief executive. A lot of Americans hated it but it seems to me at the time that it was an exceedingly slick, professional and informative operation that gave a very valuable insight into thinking in the Arabic speaking world.

Yep, it didn't toe the American line. But why should it? Any and all TV channels reflect the society and culture in which they are based. There is no other way. Generally speaking, though, Al Jazera was very impartial and widely respected in the Arabic-speaking world. It seems to me that at the time had its English language version been transmitting, it hould have been a must watch (for English speakers) to understand what was going on in the region. IIRC the English language version has now been running for some time and is available in the UK through Sky Television. It would be interestig to know if it is available in the USA. Many foreign/foreign language TV services are available off of satellite but not the normal Echostar(Dish) and DirecTv platforms.

The Economist is a prety decent publication but the version we get in the UK (it's a British publication) is not, as far as I am aware, the same as the US version. Ours carried much more British news which the Americans would not be interested in.

BTW, if you are in London, let us (BCSE) know and we will direct you to the more affordable pubs (no flea pits, I promise). The Chandos, just north of Trafalgar Square is one we use and IIRC it costs about £1.40 (say $2.80) for a good pint of real ale (Marston's or Sam Smith's I think).

Anyway, that's it for tonight. I'm off down the pub for a pint (Ringwood Best, aka Ringworm.)

Roger

185. Monkey, Business

Comment #106072 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 10:24 am

Melanie Phillips has no credibility whatsoever. She is utterly scientifically illiterate (her only degree is in English) but has waged a war against the MMR vacine. The government's chief scientist has said in public that her campaign (read her) has been responsible for the deaths of between 50 and 100 children. BTW her position on MMR is just wrong and has been pulled to pieces.

Moreover Phillips backs the teaching of creationism in the school classroom.

Worse still, her political views seem more to do wth who pays her than any personal conviction. For years she was pushing let wing views on the Guardian but these all suddenly changed to extreme right wing views when she joined the Daily Mail.

The Mail backed Hitler and fascism for years during the 1930s and it is still owned and controlled by the same family. Phillips is Jewish. What the heck she is doing mixed up in the Mail anyway is beyond me unless it is for the money.

I simply don't believe a word that Phillips ever says. And never will until she apologises for the deaths of all those children.

186. Monkey, Business

Comment #106065 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 10:11 am

Al Rawandi,

London has always ben a city of mass immigration. However, the vast majority of people there are Brits. It's also an exceedingly interesting place - very outward looking, cosmopolitan and exciting. I lived there for a good few years and even today I make sure I am within easy travelling distance.

Yep, there are rough parts London but there always has been. Nevertheless most of it isn't rough. Last year I was at a do in Leicester Square, right in the heart of London, on a Saturday evening. It's where Londoners go for a night out and there must have been 50,000 people in the vicinity- and not a single policeman to be seen anywhere. The place was clean, tidy and somewhere for Londoners to be really proud of. There's a lot of London like that.

I happen to take the view that London is one of the world's great cities.

BTW, one of the areas that the UK is exceedingly good at is pharmaceuticals. It has one of the biggest such industries in the world and pours billions into R&D. The reason why it is so strong is the National Health Service. It's a monopoly (strictly speaking, monopsony) buyer that allows economies of scale to be exploited by the pharmaceutical companies but keeps the prices down. Lower prices = more output = better healthcare.

The Daily mail is a quasi-fascist newspaper on a par with Fox News. Nobody with any brains believes anything it says. Even Sky Television staffers loath it with avengence and Sky Televisio is owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News.

187. Monkey, Business

Comment #106037 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 9:44 am

Al rawanda: "Has the UK system found a cure for the long lines?

I was reading about some woman who was sitting around having more babies and was just cashing in on NHS."

The NHS does not pay anyone to have babies. It is not a welfare agency. Yep, for minor ailments, the NHS system does involve rationing of resources by waiting lists. the alternative, used in the USA, is rationing by money. All health care free at the point of use involves waiting lists. But if you collapse in the middle of the street, I guarantee that the NHS will be there.

BTW, most Americans who have ever used the NHS are pleaantly surprised how good it is. And its free! I've used it a good few times. It isn't perfect but it works well and delivers better healthcare than the American system.

Dunno what everyone else thinks but methinks the richest country in the world leaving 47 million of its own people without health care coverage is disgusting. It's a 19th century attitude.

188. Monkey, Business

Comment #106025 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 9:35 am

Al rawanda - "In the colonies everyone becamse an entrepreneur."

That's your view of the British Empire. Others like myself conclude that it was a giant money making scam based utterly on theft and with a massive amount of coercion.

"Wealth was earned in every instance and it remained so for a long time."

Not by Black people in the USA. They had everything taken away from them, even their own personal freedom and dignity. Wealth was openly stolen on a vast scale from native Americans and when they protested, genocide was employed against them.

Britain controlled and ran India (which included what is now Pakistan, Bangaldesh, Burma and Sri Lanka) by a joint stock commercial company, the East India Company. Rhodesia was "founded" by an army of mercenaries and was also run as a private company until 1923.

You can see the consequences of the greed of Empire and Colonies in Kenya this week.

189. Monkey, Business

Comment #106008 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 9:19 am

Annabanana,

It always amazes me why the USA is nowhere near getting its healthcare sorted out. It costs you some 14% of GDP which is about the highest in the developed world but should be about the lowest because you have about the highest standard of living.

If the UK ran its healthcare system the same way, we would be spending 20% of GDP on it. At present it is less than half that, around 9.5%, but by every major measure of performance it is better than the USA and everyone has access to it.

Quite frankly, the USA is in a position to abolish all private healthcare and depend soley on what is currently coming out of public funds and still have a system better than it currently is and available to everyone. I can't remember the source but it was fairly recent, but it showed that the amount of US health care being paid out of taxpaper's money for public employees, medicare and medicaid (I think that's what you call it) is equal,in proportion to the size of the two countries, to the cost of the British National Health Service.

It seems to me that healthcare is one of the great American failures. The British system is far from perfect but it is lightyears ahead of the American system.

BTW, the cost of perscription medicine, whatever it is, in the UK, is just over £6 - at purchasing power parity, that's about US$6. If you can't afford it, it's free. Yep, we pay higher taxes but we have no medical insurance bills and nor do employers have a de facto pay-roll tax to pay for it.

To give some idea of how inefficient the American system is, in the 1980s the then government under Margaret Thatcher looked at abolishing the National Health Service in favour of the American system. It found that it would have resulted in a 20% reduction in the amount of funds actually used for health care, the 20% going to pay for the cost of collection of funding through private health insurance and cover. Thatcher dropped the idea as quickly as she could. The Conservatives would have committed political suicide to have touched it.

190. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105985 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

re Wooter,

I forgot to add my other two predictions about cretinists:

Despite claiming that creation science stands on science alone and without any reliance on religion, cretinists always:

1. End up telling you what their religious views are and

2. Start preaching.

Wooter - science doesn't give a stuff about your religious opinions, nor, I must add, anyone else's icluding mine. That means the same rules for everyone in this group whether they be Hindus, fundies like yourself, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, Druids, Anglicans, believers in the legendary orbital teapot, followers of Zeus, Mithras, Apollo, Thor, the Flying Spagheti Monster...

Just like it doesn't give a stuff about who you vote for, which football team you support, what music you like...

Just like the creationist Discovery Institute keeps telling us and, under oath, the courts. Or where the creationists just lying again?

Tell us Wooter, what's it like to be part of a creationist movement that lies out of necessity, systematically, repeatedly and habitually? How does that stack up with what most religious, and non-religious, people believe? Or are you holier than the rest as well as being an utter pilloch?

Offended? Well, show everyone I am wrong by telling us what the scientific theory of creationism is and how it can be tested using the scientific method? Remember, you guys went to the Supreme Court in the USA and said that creationism was science and not religion. That's what you told the judge, again, in the Dover trial.

(No wonder you lost.)

191. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105925 by Roger Stanyard on January 2, 2008 at 6:56 am

Wooter

"Roger your comment is killing me softly. Okay today in my class I mentioned evolution theory and asked the kids whether you believe it or not. Nobody bought the story that life came from a pond, amino acids-proteins, Cell, worm, fish, reptiles, dinosaurs – that became birds while trying to catch bugs on the tree so suddenly they got the wings) etc. I swear I did not have any influence on them. They just thought of it by all themselves."

So now we know that your knowledge and understanding of science is on a par with other children. It shows in everything you have said.

How old are you, junior?

192. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105680 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Thanks for the comments Mark. I'm not quite sure what the position is. Evangelicalism looks to be a fairly archaic, little used, term and as far as I know, not used in the States. I've got a distinct feeling that there may be some generally pretty sloppy use ot the terms, sloppy applying to my use as well.

193. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105674 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Phil Rimmer: you should be so lucky. I found the remains of the fridge in last night's champagne.

194. A War On Science

Comment #105651 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Surdude: "Ugh, those Truth (sic) in Science bastards bring out a truly visceral reaction in me. Disingenuous, lying scumbags. They wouldn't recognise scientific truth if it kicked them in the nuts."

"This sort of crap has got to be nipped in the bud right now. "

We at the British Centre for Science Education have been seriously monitoring the group for well over 18th months and we were instrumental in getting an early day motion tabled in Parliament in response to their activities. Truth in Science told us recently that they have a new escapade planned but wouldn't give any details. As far as I am concerned, Truth in Science is a front for the main creationist movement in the UK, It's a sort of tiny version of the Discovery Institute. The whole shooting match is run by creationists even though it has tried to fob off Intelligent Design instead as proper science.

What is perhaps of greater concern is that in January 2004 it openly advertised in a nationally distributed newspaper that one of its main objectives is to expose as "charlatans" scientists it disagreed with. It strikes me that this is the strategy and tactics of the Scientology movement. Any who disagrees with it "gets it". It's worse than that though because some of the people involved in it are academics so, presumably their colleagues, if not their students, are also targets to be exposed as "charlatans" They've tried to play this all down and, indeed, to some extent look to have "gone undercover", shying away from the media.

It's worse than that, though, because Andy McIntosh, who looks to be its de facto head, is on record as saying that no-one can be a Christian unless they accept his personal creationist opinions. It sounds rather odd to me that a full professor in engineering at a leading liberal university feels fit to decide who and who is not a proper Christian. The university has openly distanced itself from his creationist/ID opinions.

Stuart Burgess of Truth in Science is on record as having told the BBC that he frightens children into not believing the theory of science in case they use it as an excuse on judgement day. Now this man is also a full tenured Professor at a British university and in charge of educating young people at their and the taxpayers expense. I'm told that a lot of the academics at his university (Bristol) are livid about his behaviour. I wonder what will happen one day if one of the young people who he has frightened into rejecting the theory of evolution fails to get into the university because he/she doesn't as a consequence understand it (or worse still, gets in and flunks the university's exams as a result). I've a distinct feeling all hell will be let lose. Burgess is in the business of educating people, not getting them to fail exams for religious reasons.

Both Burgess and McIntosh appear to be trying to promote a new academic discipline, Nature and Design; Burgess has changed his professorial title from Mechanical Engineering to Nature and Design and both are involved in an academic journal on the same subject, published by Wessex Institute of Technology. It's quite right that professors should be given academic freedom of expression but I wonder if it is being used to promote not their core disciplines or academic excellence but their own fundamentalist religious opinions at the expense of sound science and engineering.

If they are pushing science and not religion, pray, why is Truth in Science full of fundamentalist pastors with no background in science? It does not stack up at all.

Strange isn't it that the Intelligent Design movement has told the world that ID stands on its own scientific merit and is not religion and they have said this under oath in a court of law. Yet Truth in Science has distributed this material to schools after the Dover trial when the IDers had been shown to by lying through their back teeth. Even the judge stated that the defence witnesses committed perjury. One wonders just who the term "charlatan" should be applied to.

BCSE has spent 18 months bringing all this to the attention of the media and the public, politicians and, where we can, the educational establishment.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education (www.bcseweb.org.uk)

195. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105630 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 9:57 am

It's great to see to good Professor Dawkins apply his mind using economics.

I've been wondering for years how Thorsten Veblen, a stupendously ugly chap who was also a dangerous lefty with insecure job prospects, an economist, evilutionist and a European to boot, managed to become a world-class womaniser.

Clearly we now have a biological explanation and given that I share many of Veblen's shortcomings, there is clearly hope for me yet in having a colourful time passing on my genes.. ;-)

196. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105626 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 9:39 am

Evilgenius: nice to see that you think you are on a par with Columbus and Galileo.

As I say, your a wackjob and have just demonstrated it brilliantly. All I have to do is add paranoid to the term and we have a complete picture of you.

"The biggest conspiracy theory is the official reports on what happened. However, I like the term wackjob as that means I have a greater chance of being proven correct as many of the wackjobs in the past were who defied the mainstream and began proving that gods are not real and showing that science can prove what the religious dogmas can't. I am not certain the term wackjob was used to describe Columbus or Galilieo, but certainly people thought they were crazy... "

197. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105595 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 6:50 am

Oh No!


First we have the wackjob creationists all over the forum. Now we have the wackjob conspiracy theorists in the form of Evilgenius.

198. A War On Science

Comment #105594 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 6:32 am

Paula "Yes, I agree it could help, Double Bass Atheist, and the good news is that on one of the other threads on this site I read that RD is making a programme about evolution for Channel 4. And I'm sure Channel 4 will try very hard indeed to get it shown on US TV too - though whether they succeed or not is another matter! Let's hope they do."

I suspect it is the programme that Truth in Science is kicking up a fuss about it and openly claiming that it will be biased. See Truth in Science whinging at http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/ about how hard done to it is. it looks as if Truth in Science has deliberately demanded impossible conditions that the producers couldn't possibly meet because it knows it will be eaten alive.

"You're so right: too many people don't understand what the theory of evolution actually is, and then dismiss it as untenable because the distorted version they've got in their heads is - quite literally - incredible."

I'm not sure that any tactic will work to undo that ignorance. In the UK everyone should, according to the NC, be taught the theory of evolution but it hasn't stopped acceptance of creationism being rampant in Northern Ireland. I went t a bog standard grammar school and was taught it twice over (geology and zoology) but, if memory serves me well, was familiar with it long before that (junior school level). It was in the books in the public library and in the children's encyclopaedias. Moreover, the old age of the earth is one of the basic tenets of physical geography. So there is a lot of exposure to it, right down to Charles Darwin being on a £10 note.

The problem appears to be in the USA where teachers are all too frequently scared to teach it. About a third of children are thus not taught it. Its worse than that, though, because evolution was almost entirely absent from the biology textbooks between the end of the Scopes trial and the 1960s. Effectively, two whole generations of Americans are ignorant of it. Few Americans over the age of 60 or so have been taught it. Indeed, it is even worse than that because geography is only sporadically taught in American schools. America's problem, therefore, is that it has mass ignorance of the theory of evolution.

I dunno how that can be tackled and I am not convinced that TV programmes are likely to have much influence. Typically, American households will subscribe to some 40 or so cable TV channels but somewhere between 2 and 5 of these will be religious channels and nearly all of those are controlled by evangelicals and almost always heavily push creationist mumbo-jumboism.

199. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105572 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 4:35 am

Nice to see Wooter iodiotically trolling out the Pltdown Man affair as evidence that creationism is good science. This creationist crapola stuff has been around for years and all of them are too dim to see it has been pulled to pieces time and time again.

Tell us all, then Wooter, who was behind the fraud, who uncovered that it was a fraud and what technique did they use to show, well beyond reasobable doubt, that it was a fraud. What was the contribution of creationists in unmasking it as a fraud?

And how does all this "prove" the sciemtific theory of creationism?

Or are you, as we all know, a scientifically clueless nutjob who'se only knowledge of science is through reading fundamntalist biblical tracts?

200. A War On Science

Comment #105563 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 2:28 am

Rasdeq: "Happy New Year to you as well. The ivy league are a group of colleges & universities here in the USA that are held to be prestigious -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. So named because of their ivy covered buildings."

I've somewhere inthe long past heard this explanation as well but checked it out some time ago and was told that the "Ivy" referred to the Roman numeral IV, there being at one stage four top universities in the USA.

It's a sort of American equivalent of the term "Oxbridge" or the "Four Ancient Scottish Universities" but nowdays includes other top American universities rather than just the original four.