BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:20 AM

"ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?"

This isn't even a sentence. Were I to go into the endless detail about how multiple scientific disciplines arrive at their conclusions you'd still come up with some claptrap and ignore that wot I wrote.

So I'll save myself the bother and get on with the science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:50 PM

Really? Lessee:

[Teribus]: "I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't."

"I doesn't"? And you think MY skills are lacking? Heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:43 PM

Shaw - your basic English comprehension skills need polishing.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:09 PM

Good to see you distancing yourself from sentient human beings. Saves us doing it. Surely only the faintly mad visit threads they find so tedious. Might I recommend abstinence therefrom?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:03 PM

" Jesus H-come-dancing-Christ" this thread is so trivial and boring - basically who gives a fuck. I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:27 PM

Repeatable applies to experimentation. It does not apply to a good deal of what we might call observational evidence and evidence obtained by interpretation, reasoning and fair extrapolation. If I find a dinosaur femur in the cliff over the beach, it may be subjected to dating methods, interpretation of the context of its site, comparative anatomy and its context within the geographical area (etcetera - I'm no Stu). I may never find another specimen, so it's not "repeatable", but it is evidence and, given correct application of the scientific process to it, it's perfectly good scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:13 PM

"I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, ..."

But you (spuriously) critise evolutionary biologists for not being able to do "repeatable science" on the past. What's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:30 PM

Coming back after a day or two, I find we are back with that old bloody evolution·v·whevs bit again.

Yawwwwnnnnn!

Relevance?

How did that happen?

Out of interest -- where has Clarkson got to?


≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

I am not proud of my atheism. It's simply where I've got to. In fact, I have plenty of doubts, as it happens. And I do not think that people of religion are stupid. I do think that they carry certain delusions in that aspect of their lives, but I have those too (I support Liverpool, fer chrissake, and I won't hear a word said against Carly Simon). Musket's even worse as he supports Sheffield Wednesday. I haven't a clue as to what you do or don't believe unless you tell me. But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution, even if they say they do, because the two are entirely incompatible. Evolution can't work with someone guiding it or starting it off. The theory, which you'll agree is a very good explanation of evolution, shows us that the process can have no goals or underlying driving force bar natural selection. There are boundless mistakes, over-production of offspring, blind endings and bad moves which do not compute with the God notion, unless you want to give God a major refit. You praised me for being forthright yet not abrasive in the other thread. Perhaps you'll give me cause to return the compliment, but it won't be as a result of this post of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:45 PM

Steve Shaw, your pontificating on Christian belief is more than a little misplaced. It is true that there are fundamentalist Christians who meet with the sort of levels of belief that you describe but there are many more who do not. We know what the church requires of us but we do not necessarily accept it blindly.   Yeah, I know, pic-n-mix Christian blah, blah, blah.   The thing is, an awful lot of Christians draw guidance from much of the teachings of Jesus without needing the Old Testament, which is an interesting series of myth, dubious history and fable. I have no trouble accepting evolution, I have trouble with people who don't. There are those who would tell me that I am no kind of Christian, well, they can go and copulate with themselves. I define what I am, not any fundamentalist Christian, not Steve Shaw and not any number of other posters who pride themselves on their atheism. I respect your views and I don't expect you to respect mine, because you know that I am stupid, right? But the fact is my life has meaning for me. I am fascinated by science even though my understanding is limited. I love music, theatre and many other things I cannot be bothered to list. I suppose what I am saying you don't know who or what I am. You only know who you are. So please, stop pontificating about what I think or believe or don't believe, because you don't know shit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:46 PM

Evolution is most decidedly not an attack on the Bible. Science can't concern itself with religion as its whole basis is incompatible with religion's predication on faith.The fact of evolution negates Genesis tangentially, not because Darwin et al. set out to attack religion. They were doing science, and there is no scientific way of attacking religion. There's reason, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:27 PM

ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?. I don't remember nye being able answer that, so maybe you can help him out !. have you got a time machine ?!.    steve as usual making assertions based on consensus without the benefit of any other reasoned argument. go on steve, show us some evolution !.
point taken #, but in fact atheists are increasingly organizing themselves, and even doing conferences. and I don't think organizing charitable concerns are high on the agenda, though granted individuals may well be involved in such. regards to you too.
greg...yes there is, and you are a classic case of one its adherents.
steve does at least have it right ,that evolutionism is an attack on the bible, but he wilfully refuses to examine the evidence ,or even offer evidence for his own belief, other than assertions and appeal to consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:01 PM

having answered your question, shimrod, how's about you tell us what creationist material you have read. judging by how you are not even able to defend your evolution beliefs, probably nothing. I reckon it is you, not me, clinging on to a sinking raft. I just like to hold your feet to the fire, as they say. and I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, however it works a whole lot better with observable science than Darwinist notions.
raggy, Leviticus 20 deals with prohibited sexual unions. I would think that secular law against incest derived from biblical laws originally, at least in the christianized societies.
that's right, Thompson, I don't believe it a fact, and if you do, do you know why, other than blind acceptance ?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

Hi, Pete. Trust things are good with you.

When you said "humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism", it seemed to me you presuppose that atheism is organized when in fact it's not on any grand scale. For this discussion I'd prefer to see it stated "humanitarian efforts atheists contribute to". YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

So, pete from the seven stars, or seeing as we are into abbreviating names, ars.

as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance

Are those the ones that were burned by the christian faith? Or the kids that were buggered by christian priests? Or the millions who have been killed in Christian wars?

Tell you what, ars. To save you trying to think, which you are obviously incapable of, I will tell you who has found personal peace and assurance. Me. I was brought up Russian Orthodox and then Roman catholic. As soon as I ditched my imaginary friend things became a lot clearer. Now, fuck off and stop bothering normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.

Er, not exactly. Evolution negates the whole story of Genesis. If you believe in a creator of everything, you can't be accepting evolutionary theory. In my experience, those valiant Christians who try to embrace evolution still want God to have kick-started the process and to have some kind of oversight of it. If you don't agree that evolution has no trajectory, no end points, no goals, plenty of blind endings and no-one kicking it off, you don't accept the theory. It's a big ask and a stiff test and it requires a degree of honesty from people of religious conviction that you seldom see. It also requires a proper understanding of the theory. The prime anti-evolution mover on this forum wilfully refuses to educate himself. He has nothing serious to say and never has had.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:38 PM

.. isn't it interesting that science and technology are evolving
whereas religion and Jeremy Clarkson are ... ermmmm... wellll... ummmm....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:28 PM

evolutionism

There is no such thing, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

so gnome, what was the wiki article supposed to prove ? it is just an exercise in thinly disguised appeal to authority. try finding some evidence for evolutionism.    benefits of religion ?. that's a big subject, but suffice it to say that as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance, and many have testified to dramatic conversions and transformed lives. many beneficial and charitable institutions were birthed in the church. suppose you list some humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism ?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

Ah! There you are, pete!

Just a little reminder:

... surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible ... If you can, please tell us how ...??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:02 PM

was that really you , keith ?. either way. I read raggy as asking, not challenging.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

Raggy, why are you people so obsessive about challenging a view held by only one poster?
What is the connection between creationism and Clarkson?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM

Ok.. this is definitely worth a listen

BBC Radio 4 Media Show Wed 26/03/15

including an interview with the bellend who stared the petition

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Pete, again I am confused I do not know of any reference in the Law of Moses to incest. Murder, dishonesty, theft even leprosy but no mention of incest.

So my question then becomes is incest against the law of God or against the law of man, and if the latter who gave them to right to make such a law.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM

Pete doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:54 AM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:19 AM

"Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science."

Exactly, Steve. But I suspect that that is what really sticks in the craw of religious fundamentalists; their fervent faith has been rendered redundant, meaningless and irrelevant!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Hi

Sorry must have pressed the button twice.

Anyway in reply to all this scientific stuff....

Clarkson is a lout...My wife says so.....and she's ALWAYS Right.    LOL

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:53 AM

Evolution is certainly a fact (you know me - I'd go even further but I find Snail scary). The theory that attempts to explain it is just that, a scientific attempt (meaning that the evidence used to construct the theory must be obtained by the scientific process). It's a very good one, though, because the evidence makes evolution incontrovertible. Only a fool would deny that. Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:01 AM

"you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !"

Of course you can. Don't be ridiculous. Why would I say otherwise if it were not true?

"beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method."

You are wrong. You obviously have no idea how cross-disciplinary the earth and life sciences are.


"as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him."

And there it is. Fine if you believe that, you might even be right, but stop pretending you know anything about science or it's methods and processes; also you can't assume to know the motivations of those of us who are scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:41 AM

Are the comments here serious? Do people really, actually, seriously believe that evolution is not a fact?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:21 AM

"Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday."

One of the saddest comments I've ever read. :0(

I think we really do need to dismantle society and start again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Why limit yourself to the Bible? You can always find ways to accommodate Polynesian religions or scientology in observable facts?

What makes Jesus so bloody special?

Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:05 AM

And another thing, pete. You keep banging on about:

"as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past."

And you use it like a drowning man clinging to a life raft.

But, surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible either! If you can, please tell us how ...??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:53 AM

the Mystery of the Genome

Nothing mysterious about us, mate, but you need to learn to spell.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 07:40 PM

LOLOL

Best laugh of the day. Many thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:41 PM

Sounds like a bloody fun read.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:28 PM

"Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller's Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction. The geneticist John C. Sanford has further expanded on the theory in a more realistic framework from the Biblical worldview, and published the work in a book titled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[2]"

from

http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:02 PM

" ... yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed."

Hhhhmmm?? Very ... sort of ... vaguely ... technical sounding ... but complete and utter bullshit!! What the f***k does it mean??

"I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins ..."

Oh, so you're very well versed in the literature of evolutionary biology then! I should have a go at quantum physics next - I'm sure you'll be able to find a good video on U-tube!

" ... as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely ..."

You mean, you didn't actually know what it meant until I told you? But you thought that it sounded bad so using it might put "evolutionism" in a bad light?

"I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming."

At this point I am struggling to find anything meaningful to say about that load of deranged gibberish. Help! Evolutionists have stolen my wheely bin and cause cancer! Help!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

There is little or no benefit in evolutionism. I refer you to this simple article which even you may understand, Pete. Although I doubt it vet much. In case it is too much I draw your attention to the line "In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy."

After you have read and probably dismissed that maybe you can answer a similar question. What is the benefit of religion? Other than an excuse by the religious leaders to control the masses and gain themselves power and riches beyond most peoples dreams?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bandiver (Astray)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:34 PM

So how come if they've sacked him, his is the first face I see when I switch on TV tonight???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:12 PM

and lastly, shimrod. I have read many if not most of the links provided in past discussions. I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins, and it only evidenced natural selection, which is part of the creation model anyway, as I suggested, that is probably more than you have looked at creationist material. as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely, but none the less, I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming. and I reject the notion that evolutionary belief is crucially interconnected to observational science, though it has often hindered it !. care to name any scientific invention that required Darwinist imput ?. rejection of evolutionism does nothing to hinder science...quite the reverse.    as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:48 PM

beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !. as to insulting scientists, I note that there is no problem with that from the usual suspects, if those scientists don't toe the evolutionary line.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

sorry raggy, since posting earlier I have been obligated elsewhere. you are correct that adam and eve had 3 named sons, and elsewhere it reads that they had other sons and daughters. yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed. there was no restriction on near relatives marrying until the law of moses, so I wonder whether the term " incest" with its moral overtones is applicable in the beginning of humanity. bear in mind also, that adam and eve were told to " be fruitful and multiply " . that is gen 1v 28. as v 27 is more generic , ie male and female, not only the first pair. how was the command to multiply be carried out, if the later prohibition was applicable in the beginning. as keith suggested, some suggest some other human creations, but theologically that runs into problems, since the bible teaches universal descent from, and identification with, adam. I hope that, at least explains my reading of scripture . regards pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:15 PM

Evolution vs creation from the great film Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:09 PM

Keith, Pete

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that other people were dropped into the equation.

As I have already stated my knowledge is very limited.

But if people believe the Bible to be a TRUE and HONEST account of the development of humankind surely some incest must have taken place?

Over to you ................

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 01:40 PM

Clarkson dropped!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:55 AM

Good save, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

You still haven't cited any references, pete.

Let's, though, examine that word "propaganda". In my dictionary it means:

"Information, ideas or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation etc."

So who, exactly, is spreading information, ideas or rumours about evolutionary biology? And how, exactly, do they benefit from this activity? Further, as it is now virtually impossible to untangle evolutionary biology from the rest of modern science, is modern science one gigantic (anti-religious?) conspiracy? If it is, are you seriously suggesting that governments and organisations, throughout the world, routinely spend billions of their currency units on a vast conspiracy? Who would benefit from such madness?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:19 AM

Raggy, why not that a few extra partners were quietly created, or that genetic diversity was implanted?

Not much of a question.