BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM

The ONLY person who has made ANY claim regarding historians is Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995 but he still maintains he partially believes in a book that was written up to 3,500 years ago.

Illogical to say the least.

And we still don't know which bits he regards as truth and which bits as fairy stories .............. or perchance untruths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM

Steve, it was YOU who resurrected the history debate, 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:16 AM

Musket, those are not my views.
Steve, it was not me who "resurrected" the history debate.
I just responded.
Of course you people are sick of the historians.
They all refute the claims you people made about WW1.
You were wrong to ridicule me for just repeating what they are all saying.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:45 AM

In all the time I've been on here, I've never seen anyone victoriou or vanquished. The arguments just go on and on until one of us decides to go for a bike ride.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:11 AM

I must have missed that one.

I'll see if Musket was on duty that day.

What was the subject worm? Fascist pin up models?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:32 AM

"Why are people so mean to Keith"......the people who are mean to Keith, have just been comprehensively defeated in debate on another thread by Keith, Teribus and Lighter.....among others.
They have simply fallen back to their default position.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:27 AM

Nobody mocks his views

His assurance that everybody else is wrong and his mocking of any view. Or his frantic googling in order to find some obscure crap that makes views of others look suspect.

If you read his posts you will see his childish behaviour on view.

No. His actual views. Hospitals and schools are legitimate targets for Israeli militants. British Muslims of Pakistani origin are potential rapists as it is hardwired into them. Sending waves of men over the top into machine gunfire was good leadership and the men understood this and supported the tactic. Only UKIP have their finger on the immigration pulse. That he never met someone who met him so that person is a liar rather than his memory failed him.

They are just views sunshine.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

Why are people being so personally mean to Keith? His views are different from mine, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be personally mocked for them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

What is "smug" as opposed to smug? Anyone any idea what it is on about?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (The Gas Pedant)
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:48 AM

pete, re your numbered points... following my numbered points ... errr

1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !...

But my 'preference' (i.e. the explanation which I find to be the most credible) is based on evidence gathered by many, many talented scientists over many decades. Your preference, on the other hand, is based on a concensus (Oooh! Dirty word!), among you and your fellow cultists, that the myths and parables in an old book are an expression of absolute truth.

2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth...

"it is inferred by his description" in the Bible, you mean? But few people, except you and your fellow cultists, believe that the Bible represents absolute truth. And, apart from some words in the Bible, there would appear to be no evidence that your God even exists. Of course, words in an old religious text don't count as evidence.

3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,

Whatever! I made this point just to emphasise your general ignorance about modern science.

4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.

Again, what you choose to believe, or not to believe, is irrelevant! Only evidence counts!

5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at ...

But, pete, someone who does/did not not know the elementary scientific fact that gas is a form of matter, should not really be attempting to enter into a scientific debate. In scientific terms you're a bit like someone who doesn't know that B follows A in the alphabet! You're a bit like someone who can't spell CAT trying to lecture us on feline taxonomy!

If you want to enter into a debate about science, pete, please go away and do some homework! Although I suspect that you'll be away for a very long time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:22 AM

Meanwhile over in Dumbfuckistan, this just in.

The state of Indiana has just enacted a religious freedom and protection act.

Apparently it's not exactly freedom and protection as such but the freedom for Christians to discriminate against people they don't like, even in business.

By the people, for the people
That was Lincoln's vow
But what the hell would Abraham Lincoln say
If he could see America now?

(Dick Gaughan)

Some people say that Clarkson is too ironic for his own good. Looking at the world around us, he seems to have a lot of material to be going on with.

Poor Keith. He really is having problems coming to terms with being out of step with reality. Can't tell the difference between a discovery that clicks into a scientific jigsaw and an opinion that gives a version of interpreting facts, or historian commentary as it's known. It really troubles him that some of us can interpret facts for ourselves. Judging by past form. It isn't Keith you should be asking re which parts of the Bible he believes Dave. Ask his vicar. He prefers to repeat views of others rather than have a mind of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:09 PM

Keith, with all the respect I can muster, and I speak for myself though I may get support, I'm sick to the back teeth of you and your historians. You have used a joke I first made months ago to resurrect the damn thing, so round and round and round we go. You know that you will not get anyone additional to agree, so give up why don't you. The thing is dead. The horse will no longer whinny. The tank is empty. I look deep into the topic's eyes but there's no-one driving. Most important, the sword of truth is not in your scabbard. Do those goths still hang around the canal bank in Hertford?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:01 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Well, a couple of things. As I've said many times before, I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. I hate to tell you this, but neither do you. The difference between us is that I seek out all the evidence I can to try and make a judgement whereas you rely entirely on faith. By evidence, I mean stuff that can be corroborated and that emanates from the laws of nature. I can't find anything in any description of God that fits that bill. What I don't accept as evidence is myth, ancient stories written down and/or made up by scribes who had an agenda, tradition, ceremony, edicts coming from holy men and witness. The case against is, in my mind, further strengthened by claims made about God that he is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal. Everything that you can think of that goes against the laws of nature, in fact. The explanation of everything in the universe, including all life on earth, is that God created it all. Yet the greatest theologians of all time can't answer that most childish of questions, who made God then?

The universe is vast and complex, and, in my view, the only way to explain it is by resorting to our scientific endeavour. That is not empty words. It means ruthless pursuit of knowledge by means of gathering real evidence. It means not falling back on silly notions about "greater truths" and the like, words that are just that, words. You can't explain something as complex and diverse as the universe by inventing an explanation that is not only infinitely more complex than the thing it attempts to explain but which for itself there is neither explanation nor evidence. So I'm on the fence, but both arms, both legs and my big arse are all on one side, while on the other you might just glimpse the tips of my fingernails.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 PM

They have a lot to be "smug" about!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:42 PM

Just watched the BBC drama, 'The Ark'. Funnily enough it was all those who did not believe in god that drowned. What a bastard he must have been. Oh look. I have cocked it up. Best kill this lot off and replace them with yes men. Nowt down for us, lads. Sorry. Still, at least we won't have to put up with Keith and Pete being insufferably smug...

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Raggy, it is not me who "dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995."
It is the current generation of historians.

Then there was no consensus on those issues.
Now there is.

You people think the current historians are all deluded fools.
Why would anyone think that?
I am no historian.
I get my views on history from reading the historians whose life's work it is.
You people think you know better than those historians.
Fine.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:33 PM

Dave, You are correct to a point ........... however the Professor dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995 even the one's who took part and/or witnessed events for themselves.

They, according to his infinite wisdom, are unreliable and we should discount anything they have contributed.

HOWEVER, the bible, parts of which were written three and half thousand years ago, should be accepted as gospel as it were.

Neither you or I know which bits of course, that's secret, but then why should mere lessor mortals such as you and I be party to such knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Steve, I quoted all the current historians writing on WW1.
They are all heads or senior professors of university history departments except Hasting who writes books.

Name one who is "tawdry."
None were misquoted. I quoted them with links so the quote could be seen in its intended context.

You people could not find one historian who had written anything in the last twenty years that disagreed.

Name one of "Keith's historians" who you think should be dismissed Steve.

Do you agree with Musket that, "those historians should know better?"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 PM

his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago

Sorry, Raggy, but he has got you on that one. He does not believe all of it, only part. What parts he does and does not believe is secret and we can only guess as to what they are. If anyone does guess he can, of course, then say 'no, that is wrong' and no-one will be any the wiser. You've got to hand it to the lad. Got it all covered.

I have learned from a master so I will give it a go myself. Things said about Keith
1. He is a liar.
2. He is a cheat.
3. He is thoroughly despicable.
4. He is from Hertford.
5. He has 2 willies.
6. He pisses champagne.
7. He is a complete tosser.
8. His mother is a hamster.
9. His father smells of elderberries.
10. He can twist the words of anyone to mean anything at will.

Of course, I only believe some of those things, but as my beliefs are deeply founded and personal I cannot possibly let you know which ones...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:38 PM

"water... or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else ?"

errrmmm.......wine".. Jesus the miraculous party dude...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:29 PM

ok dave, hopefully we are more or less clear on that one !.

shimrod, re your numbered points..
1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !. and it is perfectly logical, and accords with experience and observation, to say that creation has a creator. granted, that in itself is not proof. your preference has yet to demonstrate logicality, and is contrary to experience and observation.
2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth.   i think we are agreed that time had a beginning. but God was at the beginning, and began it.
3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,
4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.
5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at. indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ? or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else, let alone life, and the information to sustain it ?.
the irony is, that the bible describes water as being Gods starting material in creation.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:08 PM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Your twisting and turning on this is risible. I'm inclined to retort that it's my joke and I get to decide what the butt of it is, but I won't. Suffice to say that there is a world of difference between proper historians as a body of personages and Keith's historians as a body of personages. The former represent an august and respectable cadre, the latter a tawdry, hand picked, misrepresented and misquoted unfortunate bunch indeed. Something even mythological about them, really. Gosh, I feel sorry for Geoffrey Wheatcroft. If I have any more jokes I'll likely run them by you first, Keith, in order to get your preliminary take. If there's one thing I can't be doing with it's having to explain jokes. The moment all too quickly passes. Usually.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:55 PM

Still no response from Professor KAOH re his ignoring a myriad of books written by people who actually took part in WW1 who he has dismissed and his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago.

How strange ..............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM

.. thinking a bit more...

so if Hitler repented at the last minute, reserving a place on the waiting list for heaven,
then he goes and blows his chances by committing suicide.... ooops !!!

Careful with the fast driving & smoking Clarkson,
there might be a lesson to be learnt there...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

What sort of a daft question is that and how come you only use a capital letter when referring to god rather than at the beginning of sentences?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM

.. in which case there might still be hope yet for Jeremy Clarkson in the afterlife...
if he quickly prays every time before getting in a fast car
or smoking a cigarette...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

.. so providing Hitler managed to squeeze out a quick prayer in his last few minutes
he might actually now be sitting in the lounge bar of Heaven
next to my dear old grandmother
who probably never did a really bad deed in her entire life...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:53 AM

yes steve, repentance and faith are available to all, even late in life. that might be the obviously outwardly sinful, or the prideful, not so obvious impenitent. in theology this is known as saving grace on the part of God. do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:28 AM

Ever he the old joke about the lady carrying the pig and the drunk sitting near the gutter?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

It was a quote.
I showed it to you proving it was a quote from a UKIP site.
I am not and never have been UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Musket, you chose Hastings, the only one of the historians I quoted who is not a senior professor in a university History Faculty.

Have you yet found a single historian who has written anything in the last twenty years supporting your views?

No.
They should know better, right Musket?
They need to grow up, right Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

Quotes? But Keith always puts "" when quoting, doesn't he?

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

Looks like the poor bugger couldn't even get on the UKIP candidate panel....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Here's the confounded joke again:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Now here's what Keith thinks my joke said:

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

"They should grow up I said". Well no, I didn't say that or anything like it, did I, Keith? There it is in black and white. Nothing in the joke about telling historians they should grow up, eh, Keith. And you wonder why people vilify you for being inaccurate, unreliable and untruthful. Blimey, I think I feel one of those Guardian misquote moments coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:24 AM

"You people"

A bit desperate if you don't mind me saying so.

The historians you refer to are expressing views based on their take of the known facts. I and anyone else for that matter can read those facts and form different conclusions. It isn't difficult. The main difference between Max Hastings and me is that I was a professional investigator who has a postgraduate qualification in investigative practice and assessing evidence, and a track record in prosecuting successfully.

But if you have a different view given the facts, that's fine.

You don't say that though do you Keith? You say that clever people conclude something so none of us by have the right to contradict them. You mock people for displaying Intelligence and independent opinions.

No wonder you are impressed by dog collars and gilded statues....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

Musket said, "those historians should know better."

The views I put forward are a consensus of the current generation of historians.
In two years none of you were able to find a single one who was not one of "keith's historians."

You people mocked and ridiculed their findings and imagine you know better than them.

You mock Pete for not believing the scientists on science, but you people refuse to believe the historians on history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

OK, let's --

Our Big Bang which art in ∞ville...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:13 AM

Let's just enjoy the quest, Michael, and luxuriate in the thought that science, at least, tries not to indulge in the intellectual copouts that are the bedrock of all religion. What on earth would God think of our refusing to use the mighty brains he endowed us with?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:32 AM

I have just solved a couple of mysteries. Once upon a time an all powerful being got so full of shit he went bang and the universe was created! So there WAS a creator. Shame he couldn't stick around.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:23 AM

Will this do

B A N G

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I promise that I wouldn't dream of saying "it didn't happen", Steve.

Whatever "it" may have been...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM

I find it astonishing that Keith is prepared to rubbish every WW1 Historian who wrote prior to 1995 but is quite happy to believe a book written up to 3,500 years ago.

Even the most recent of the New Testaments are almost 2,000 years old and were written decades, if not a century, after the demise of all the people who were supposed to be the "main players"

As for his comment that "no-one is told to believe in him" I have seldom heard such tosh. Yet another example of sheer ignorance and lack of basic understanding

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:50 AM

He's certainly yanking something...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 AM

If I recall accurately, the joke Keith is referring to went something like:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Do note "Keith's" there. The joke was entirely on you, Keith, no-one else. Keith is so bad at getting jokes that I sometimes think he must be a yank. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:33 AM

I did indeed, Keith, and on that thread you deserved everything you got. You are now going the same way on this thread by twisting and distorting what people say. I am not asking you to lay bare your deepest anything. I am asking you which bits of the bible you believe are true and which bits are made up shit. A couple of examples will be fine. Yes, the teachings of the Anglican church are as you say. But your beliefs are 'broadly in line with' so they do not concur exactly. How are we to know which bits you chose to follow and which bits you disagree with unless you tell us?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:20 AM

Dave, a few weeks ago you acknowledged that you only came on to a thread to mock and ridicule me, and told me to "live with it."

You now ask me to lay bare to you my deepest faith and beliefs.
I choose to decline, respectfully.

The teachings of the Anglican Church are available for scrutiny.
On these issues they do not differ from Catholicism, Methodism and most others.
My beliefs are broadly in line with the teachings of the Anglican Church of which I am a member.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

No.
On History, I believe the historians if there is a consensus.
Their findings are based on research subjected to the scrutiny of rivals.

On the history of WW1 I expressed views on which there is a consensus of historians, and has been for about twenty years.
Reading their work is how I came to hold those views.

You and a few others ridiculed me for that.
You Steve even made a little joke about the historians needing to "grow up."
You imagined that you knew more about that history than the historians whose life work it is.
Such arrogance and hubris!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:00 AM

Then it's very much like your take on history, Keith. The problem with not knowing which bits are true is that you can't trust a single word of any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith?

There is no way of knowing silly.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

" ... as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, ..."

Oh dear!

1. The word "logical" DOES NOT mean "pete's preferred explanation"!

2. Where in the Bible (apparently your only reference book) does it say that God is "outside of that space/time/matter creation"?

3. You're conflating scientific theories concerned with the development of life on this planet (the "general theory of evolution") with scientific theories concerned with the origin of the Universe.

4. I've asked you this a million trillion times (and I've told you not to exaggerate!) but where did God come from (bearing in mind that you've probably made up the bit about Him being "outside of that space/time/matter creation") and where did he get his materials from?

5. And you STILL haven't learned that gas IS a form of matter, have you, pete!!!! Extraordinary!!! You, a complete scientific ignoramus, could boil some ordinary tap water to make steam (a gas), condense the steam to turn it back into water (a liquid) and freeze that water to make ice (a solid): gases, liquids and solids - all forms of matter! If God created you, he really missed quite a few bits off, didn't he, pete?