BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:44 PM

Neither. Get a grip, Wackerackerdoodah ompompush! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:31 PM

"A false accusation, Wackerjackeroo."

Is this a lie? or is your memory as bad as your logic Mr pshaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:42 PM

The accusation being leveled at you is about your speculations about his insanity.

A false accusation, Wackerjackeroo. He was a brilliant scientist who still managed to harbour wacky notions and he should have known better. He was supposed to be a leader to enlightenment yet he supported magic. Many a great scientist believes in God, fer chrissake! Musket supports Sheffield Wednesday!

Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be pissing off to have a novel ghost-written for you or something (pity your poor bloody proofreader). When shall it be?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

The link takes you directly to the post.

No it doesn't, Mr Tedious. Were I a Christian (God forbid), I'd be petitioning for sainthood for being so patient with you. At least I find you amusing if nothing else.


Er, and nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:08 AM

Nice to see you back on form Steve. Haven't got the time or energy to take what you've said apart point by point. While you were off for five days trying to find the on switch on your laptop you may have missed this post of mine -
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1012#3608503
Would you be so kind as to give it a look? The link takes you directly to the post.

P.S. Fascinated to discover that you think insulting people makes you look a twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:07 AM

Steve Shaw: Laugh of the day: Brought to you by mule headedness. Mule Headedness making men seem dumber since the last words of StevSha the cave man "A proper cave bear would never be hibernating when the sun is this high in the sky. "

>>>Steve, you have said that you cannot excuse Newton for his work on alchemy despite the fact that that was mainstream thinking at the time.

I care not a jot what was mainstream thinking at the time. In parts of the US in the 60s black people were not allowed to sit on white people's bus seats. That was mainstream thinking at the time too.<<<

The issue is not whether Newton believed in Alchemy, He obviously did. He wrote "scientific papers" about it. The accusation being leveled at you is about your speculations about his insanity.

Tell us Steve, Did Jefferson and Washington have "Berlin walls in their brains?" about slavery? Did virtually every politician in the UK have a similar mental edifice of the mind about Gay rights until recently? Did your ancestors? If you can prove this there is certainly a Nobel Prize in medicine in your future. It will be called the Shaw Wall no doubt.

Rofl rofl R O F L!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

This is a folklore site. Surely it means pregnant goldfish? ;-)

I don't mind swearing where it improves on the accuracy of the observation. Of all my descriptions of one mischievous poster here, thick cunt was on the button.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:59 AM

As for you, Wackers, your metamorphosis into a ranting swearer from an imbecilic, parrot-like finger-jabbing rule-chanter is both amusing and pathetic to behold. To call it "an improvement" would be something that I could agree with Musket about, though there wasn't much of a starting point to improve from to be honest. Keep on swearing. I don't do Fs and Cs online meself, and I'm not going to start now because it would be infra dig to join in with you. I'll stick to the ever-useful "twat" I think. Great word, something to do with sheeps' fannies originally I believe. Good one for you, as you don't half fanny around a lot of the time and you're a bit of a follower really. Plenty of woolly thinking, too. Next... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:48 AM

I think it was Billy Connolly who pointed out that you never read a line in a book with "fuck off, he hinted " in it.

Indeed it was. I saw him live at the Palladium in 1977, making that very point! (I was lucky to get out of that gig alive, having laughed myself uncontrollably almost to death for three hours).

Steve, you have said that you cannot excuse Newton for his work on alchemy despite the fact that that was mainstream thinking at the time.

I care not a jot what was mainstream thinking at the time. In parts of the US in the 60s black people were not allowed to sit on white people's bus seats. That was mainstream thinking at the time too.

You have argued on another thread that Popper was wrong.

No I haven't. You attempted to apply his thinking to an area of this conversation in which it was not relevant. 'Twas you who was wrong to bring him in in the first place. "Evolution is true" is not a statement of science (which is not the same as saying that it's unscientific). The science comes in the explanation, the theory.   

The comment about Einstein was a joke and might better be directed at Musket (see below).

Can't be arsed to make the effort to find out what you're burbling on about here.

As far as I can recall, I have never commented on Dawkins' abilities as an evolutionary biologist.

Possibly not, but I can make my own mind up about him.

I am sure he is brilliant.

But you've commented now. "I'm sure" in this context means that you take me at my word and haven't really looked it up. Yet you appear to be some kind of expert on evolution. I'd contend that it would be difficult to be such a thing in any rounded sense unless you had at least some passing knowledge of Dawkins' advocacy. We've moved on since the 1859 First Edition, you know.

Do you take my disagreements with you faith based [sic] attitude to evolution as criticism of Dawkins?

If that's supposed to be some kind of insult, which of course it is, it simply makes you look like an even bigger twat. Evolution is true and that is not a faith-based statement. It's self-evident. Sane people who apply just a smidgeon of reason to their ruminations think that evolution-deniers such as pete and his sorry ilk are barking. Nay, they know it! The theory is not the truth of it: it's the explanation, damn good but still incomplete, of a phenomenon that cannot be gainsaid. Not falsifiable any more. Gosh, why do you find this so hard?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM

It has to be said, fuck off isn't an insult. I agree with that much Jack.

After all, nothing mealy mouthed, ambiguous or two faced about it. You know where you stand when someone tells you to fuck off.

I think it was Billy Connolly who pointed out that you never read a line in a book with "fuck off, he hinted " in it.

In fact, back to the cartoon. Fuck off has been my stock reply to God botherers knocking on my door in recent times.

And that for once puts me in tune with the thread. No drift on this boy.

Ok.

I'll fuck off now.

Tatty bye

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 01:32 AM

Your forgot Mr. Shaw that no one gives a fuck what you say because you are too fucking stupid to realize that "Fuck Off" is not an insult.

Its pretty fucking stupid to tell us all how stupid you are and then to start hurling insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 09:03 PM

Hello everybody.

I am not dead or anything, but, twattishly in the extreme, I accidentally turned off the wireless switch (which I did not know existed) on my ancient Vaio laptop while I was fumbling around near the SD card slot. It has taken me five days and a lot of cul-de-sac investigations to find out what was up but I made it in the end. Now as I have just got in from the pub session and lots of beer, I shall wait until we have bad weather to respond to some of the stuff that this thread contains. I do note the following, however, and I hope that the perpetrators like it up 'em: Wacko has ditched rules and gone all insultiferous on us. I think he may be about fourteen. Snailieboy has taken to lying (he always did relish misrepresenting, so no surprise there). Perhaps this useless pair of pillocks would care to revise their posts before I get back. I can be not quite nice (like undies worn twice), you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:01 PM

"Fuck off Musket."

You know, that's better. You live longer by saying what you are thinking.

It's just as cathartic here on the washing line.

Reaping and sowing... 'Twas ever thus.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 01:43 PM

I couldn't agree more, 'frogprince' - well said! They all need to to f**k off and grow-up or grow-up and f**k off - I'll leave the choice up to them. Alternatively, they could find a space to meet in the 'real world' and beat each other to death with their massive egoes (is that how you spell the plural of ego?)!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 01:02 PM

Fuck off Musket. I posted the cartoon because in light of some of the debates here, I found it funny.

Please note I have spent quite a few posts asking at least one of the cats to untangle his own bloody tail and walk away.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 12:04 PM

So... Name me a thread that has substance?

If not, I'll start a thread where we can discuss the glory of Sheffield Wednesday. That'll do nicely.

Out of interest, the thread was started provocatively in order to draw out childish debate. I don't think Jack really wanted to discuss a cartoon, he just likes tying two cats tails together, hanging them over a washing line and watching them fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

I'm struggling to believe that we have a group of people here who would like to be thought of as intelligent adults, but have started out discussing a cartoon and shifted to going on, and on, and on, and on, exchanging a garble of accusations and insulting names and arguing on, and on, and on over whether this or that of the accusations or insults is defensible. Has it for one moment occurred to any one of the combatants that he is making himself look like an irate four-year-old, or that most of the posts on this for day after day after day now have been totally worthless?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 08:03 AM

I claim 1000 actually. You are both wrong.

The link says "reply" which makes number one the zeroth post. Hence 10001 is the thousandth reply.

I thought you liked to be accurate Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:04 AM

1000!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:56 AM

"Blight" thread (descending order)
See the extent of Musket's lying.
thread.cfm?threadid=150911&messages=81&page=1&desc=yes

1000 is my gift!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:52 AM

All that stuff about me is made up.
Look at the "blight" thread and see the truth.
Defend hate?
Never.

You can not challenge anything I have really said, so you have to make up shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:36 AM

I thought you liked to be accurate Keith? I reckon at least every third post of mine on health issues I preface with pointing out I am not a health professional. I have come into healthcare to give a perspective that the Secretary of State (going back to Milburn) thought was lacking. That does not make me a healthcare professional.

I am fucking important. I am certainly not important. (The distinction, or lack of understanding of the distinction on Keith's part forms part of the thick cunt diagnosis.)

Disgrace is a word I hear a lot of both Radio 4 and whilst watching Question Time. Seems your hearing is as faulty as your reading Keith. Most of the time disgrace is used, it is in the direction of Nigel Farage or other right wing lunatics. A pity you can't hear it really....

At the end of the day, Keith likes dealing it out but moans when he gets it back. He says he likes accuracy but defends hate, even when the evidence the hate is based on contradicts what he has put. He screams that statistics are definitive but when Jim gives him Irish famine statistics, he says his pet historians "take it into consideration." When I say public health bodies take statistics into consideration, he says you can't, because they are true, definitive and are acted on at face value. I am glad he knows my role better than I do. I will have to ask him to participate in a 270 deg. Review of my work.

I take a view on his approach, attitude and inconsistency with a purpose. Which in polite terms would be that I feel it beneath contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:56 AM

I have said what is disgraceful about Musket's attitude as a health professional.
It is not gratuitous name calling like "thick cunt, and putting "fucking" in front does not make it so.

Musket does not just describe himself as "important," he says he is "fucking important."
That is why I put things to him in the same form.
That is how he likes it.
No offence is intended.

Dave, would you equate the terms "a disgrace" and "thick cunt" in normal discourse?
Which would you expect to hear on reasoned intelligent discussions such as BBC1 Question Time and R4 Any Questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,actual
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:39 AM

Pete- you really have no clue what you yourself are saying

"though of course evolutionism has to keep changing its storyline as more data necessitates it. that's the wonderful thing about it !.
you can change it around to make new data fit."

That is precisely how science works and why YEC is not science

"was,nt it popper who said it cannot be falsified?"

It gets changed around precisely because certain propositions are falsified!

"and is it therefore science ?"

Precisely YES


"is it not rather a religious position ?."

Precisely NO!

With your snarky attempt at derision, you cut yourself off at the knees and prove your utter ignorance of science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:06 PM

Calling someone "a disgrace" is not gratuitous naming calling.
Calling someone "a thick cunt" is.

One of my pet peeves I'm afraid. Calling someone a thick cunt may well be gratuitous name calling but it is quite obvious the callee is not a particularly dense version of female genitalia. The term is therefore nonsense for all to see and can be discounted. Calling someone a disgrace IS ALSO name calling, gratuitous or otherwise, but it gives an air of respectability. The term may, therefore be treated as a serious slur on the character of the callee.

I find that the 'respectable' name calling, that you advocate as OK, is in fact more damaging, is a sneaky way of trying to besmirch someone and is, in fact, the type of name calling that should not be tolerated.

So there, you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:36 PM

Three little fishes and the momma fish too, swim said the momma fishie, swim if you can and they swam and the swam right over the dam.

Poop poop diddum doddum wannup poo and by JOVE, MORE POO

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 02:31 PM

"I do not lie Troubadour.
Calling someone "a disgrace" is not gratuitous naming calling.
Calling someone "a thick cunt" is."

I agree!

But calling someone a fucking disgrace certainly IS!

So, once again with feeling: LIAR!

Or to put it another way fucking devious liar!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 05:10 AM

My post crossed with Keith's.

Calling someone a thick cunt can be, as in this case, an objective observation.

Calling someone a disgrace is to form a considered opinion.

Calling someone a disgrace for rumbling your politically inspired agenda is a hell of compliment.

Thanks Keith. I'll get on with being a disgrace if it's all the same to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:35 AM

Hey Troubadour, thanks for that. Mind you, I doubt anyone needs to see how Keith's party piece of lies and false assumptions works.

Me? I like to remain accurate..   So.

I apologise for stating above that Keith had been reminded that he was a cunt.

I originally said thick cunt.

The qualification is important as stating the obvious isn't my style.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:29 AM

I do not lie Troubadour.
Calling someone "a disgrace" is not gratuitous naming calling.
Calling someone "a thick cunt" is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM

"shimrod....apart from my admitting that I had made a mistake as to whether there were only two beetles surviving the flood, I did not say that there is no speciation. I also wonder [but do not know] if there were only 2 beetles, whether, given the immense numbers ,over numerous locations, that the numerous species might not arise since the flood anyway. not that I need that to stay biblical."

pete, this is close to gibberish and gives the impression of you blindfolded and blundering around in a darkened room. You don't know what you're talking about, do you? I should remind you that, in your rejection of evolutionary theory, you have continually demanded that supporters of evolution show evidence of one species changing into another - that's called SPECIATION, pete! The theory of evolution suggests that speciation happens via processes of natural selection acting over immense periods of time. You're now saying that speciation happens, via some sort of 'hand-waving' mechanism, over (geologically) short periods of time - lamer and lamer!

And who says that you don't have to stay "biblical". Do you fundamentalists have a choice? Or are you some sort of heretic who has wilfully decided to stray 'off piste'? I hope that your Church Elders don't hear about this! It could be the stake for you matey!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:23 AM

"From: GUEST,Troubadour - PM
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:53 PM

"Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced" JtS

In your attempts to get people to obey the rules, by what criteria do you decide that calling somebody a "stupid fool" merits comment, while calling somebody a "fucking disgrace" does not?"

"In your attempts to get people to obey the rules,"
I'm not doing that any more. Why?

""Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced"

Pay attention you fracking idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:23 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:41 AM

Musket, I do not call people abusive names.
(The day is young and you have called me "cunt" already.)

Instead I do sometimes point out where I have been proved right and someone else wrong.
I only ever do it where the fact is unequivocal.
That is why the assertion has never once been challenged.

It is also why (confident prediction coming up) you will not produce one single example.

So, am I right, or wrong?"

You claim that you NEVER lie, so let's examine that claim. You made a positive statement in your first sentence, so in the light of that fact, would you like to read the final line of the following, before attempting to answer your own question above?    LIAR!

"Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:08 AM

Musket, you are a disgrace.
An over-paid NHS mandarin who has some responsibility for all this, shown up by a couple of interested amateurs with things you do not know but should.

You were shown to be completely out of touch with the trends and their direction.
You underestimate the issues to the extent that when the true figures are put in front of you, you call it scaremongering.
If only it would scare you out of your complacency.

If someone in your position is scared of and disbelieves the truth, there is no hope.
You did not even understand that you are dealing with an epidemic!

Some of the blame for those thousands of easily preventable deaths and ruined lives falls squarely on YOU.
Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace.

I think we can now safely ignore your future claims!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:57 PM

"Think back to those two beetles on the Ark, pete. According to you they gave rise to every other species of beetle on the Earth."

And according to entomologists, there are more individual species of beetle on this planet, than individual human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:53 PM

"Manners = unilateral disarmament if the rules are not enforced" JtS

In your attempts to get people to obey the rules, by what criteria do you decide that calling somebody a "stupid fool" merits comment, while calling somebody a "fucking disgrace" does not?

I ask out of a genuine curiosity as to whether you believe that the identity of the poster defines whether the rule has been broken, or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:09 PM

Ok. Two things.

Keith. I didn't call you a cunt. I reminded you that you are a cunt. Different thing entirely.

Regarding Darwin's Witnesses... The university that is strange enough to occasionally let me loose on students recently hosted a debate, complete with vote, as follows;

"This house asserts that the bible reflects historical accuracy."

The motion lost it appeared, by quite a few votes. (It was mischievously put up in the first place obviously.)

That said, the people have spoken, so not much point in arguing otherwise pete. Sorry and all that but perhaps people who are comfortable in a faith setting don't have to be embarrassed by ignorance any more? All this from a red brick too. No dreaming spires here, just students dreaming till early afternoon.

I didn't go. I just heard about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:35 PM

happy holidaying, dmcg.
Thank you. Because of that, though, this will be my last post for some weeks. I assume the thread will probably have faded into oblivion by then, or at least gone quite a different way.


on the A or B, I have always said that I am presupposing that creation is right, and that evolutionists presuppose evolutionism is

Actually, no! There's two problems with that. Firstly: The question, if you recall, was whether A or B gave a better explanation, so you can't really say "I haven't looked at either argument, but I've decided A is better." That's not really a defensible stand.

Secondly, you say that's exactly what evolutionists do. But if you look back, one of the first questions I asked was "How many beetles on the Ark?"   Look carefully. Our mutual friend Shaw would probably say that that's a nonsense question because there never was an Ark. But what I did was to assume creationism was right and ask the questions from that perspective. And it has been the same for every question I have asked you. Since we started this most recent discussion, anyway, I have been careful never to say creationism is wrong. What I have always said, in essence, is: Let us assume it is correct. What questions does that raise and can it answer them?

So I repeat, we cannot decide to choose between two arguments A and B, say we are presuming one is right before we even look, and claim we are being rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:07 PM

pete, listen up:

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 01:47 PM

dmcg on your first two points, I think we have agreement. in fact I think we are still running in tamden with creationism.
on the A or B, I have always said that I am presupposing that creation is right, and that evolutionists presuppose evolutionism is, and that both have the same evidence. it is the interpretation of that evidence which differs, due to the non negotiable bottom lines of each, which shimrod and stu religiously deny affects their interpretation.
happy holidaying, dmcg.

shimrod....apart from my admitting that I had made a mistake as to whether there were only two beetles surviving the flood, I did not say that there is no speciation. I also wonder [but do not know] if there were only 2 beetles, whether, given the immense numbers ,over numerous locations, that the numerous species might not arise since the flood anyway. not that I need that to stay biblical.

well snail, I assume that you have no fixed position. but as I can think of no 3rd scenario , except maybe ID, and I doubt you entertain that or creation, you will have to forgive me for assuming you prefer evolutionary ideas. clarification is welcome, but it is your prerogative to remain unclear.
but I welcome your challenge to the evolutionist believers to show you some.....!as I say....interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

In my observation, the two of you tend to find each other's mistakes on silly and arcane points, only tangentially related to the topic at hand and count coup on each other. It would be interesting to see a "like button" on mudcat so that you could see if anyone else enjoys this.

I have also observed that this thread has dissolved to the point where it has outlived its usefulness. What say we go on to the next topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:41 AM

Musket, I do not call people abusive names.
(The day is young and you have called me "cunt" already.)

Instead I do sometimes point out where I have been proved right and someone else wrong.
I only ever do it where the fact is unequivocal.
That is why the assertion has never once been challenged.

It is also why (confident prediction coming up) you will not produce one single example.

So, am I right, or wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:51 AM

Perhaps not.

But our fathers went to war to dissuade people from judging whole sections of society as second class. Bigotry flourishes when you are nice to it.

Peace in our time.

You didn't pick up on the underlying part of my sentence there, did you?

Anyway, being nice is fine when reciprocated. In the meantime, I will happily take my shoes off and feel the soft wet grass under foot that awaits us all here in a high moral place. The sun shines too, and in the distance I can hear the sound of leather against willow.

Yeah, it's great to be right. Keith gave me the idea in fact. He keeps saying to others that he is right and they are wrong. I found that if you take it a stage further and actually be right rather than just say so, the meadows open up and life is good.

Say hello to the peasants for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 12:44 PM

"Jack. Keeping a lid on it is OK in the real world but without eye contact, you have to say what you really mean in these threads. As you are finding out."

There was nothing noble or right in the way I am now behaving. I was told I have to fight my own battles. I am doing the the best I can. I would much rather everyone was civil. As I have said before there are plenty of places to blow off steam on the Internet. None of the them with the intelligence and wit that this place can have when the conversation is allowed to be civil and friendly.

If you want to fight bigotry on the Internet, if want to actually be the brave crusader you paint yourself to be, I can find you a skinhead or KKK forum to join, I am sure.

Why don't you pick up an AK47 and head on off to Ukraine. You and Ake and Keith pissing on each other's corn flakes isn't going to change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 08:03 AM

all in a few thousand years

Actually, it is worse than that. We have no reason to believe that rapid speciation was happening since recorded history. So actually the time available is not much over one thousand years. And there is a second problem, which doesn't really arise in the evolutionary theory but does in the creationist 'equivalent': there is a built-in 'tick of the clock' since inheritance can only happen when the child reaches maturity. In the case of beetles, that's quite a short time, but in the case of say red kangaroos, that's round about three years. Either we assume the creationist form of evolution ran differently in Australia to Europe, which is yet another thing to be explained, or in the case of the marsupials it all happened in something like 250-500 generations. Every one of which must be a viable creature in its own right. Moreover, each must find a mate that is sufficiently similar that they are capable of interbreeding and the offspring inherits the relevant adaption. That isn't a problem for scientific theory because the number of generations is extremely large and the changes each step are correspondingly tiny. Limiting to around 500 steps is a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 05:38 AM

"interesting also that no one is showing him or me what can be demonstrated as evolution."

Pete, I've pointed you to papers on this and other threads that show the mechanisms of evolution have been observed and tested.


Aren't you not supposed to bear false witness? Is that naughty devil whispering in your ear again? Conned you have been.


",presupposing biblical creation is no more intractable than presupposing the general theory of evolution."

No it isn't, but then what you seem not to understand is that's not what happens with the scientists studying evolution; the objective facts allow us to form hypotheses and theories on all manner of subjects, not just evolution.

For you however, there are no objective facts but blind, unquestioning faith. Which is fine, but don't suggest it has anything to do with science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:52 AM

" ... presupposing biblical creation is no more intractable than presupposing the general theory of evolution."

Oh no? Think back to those two beetles on the Ark, pete. According to you they gave rise to every other species of beetle on the Earth. That means that they must have speciated (i.e. changed into other species of beetle - something that you claim is impossible!)- and all in a few thousand years. So those two beetles, of an unknown species, gave rise to (non-interbreeding) Ladybirds, Dung beetles, Stag beetles, Rove beetles, Devil's coach horses, Whirligig beetles, Ground beetles, Tiger beetles etc., etc., etc. The word "intractable" doesn't even come close! Three other words do spring to mind, though: "perverse", "inconsistent" and "ignorant"!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:39 AM

Perhaps Pete's church can have a whip round and fund taking The BBC to court for lying and misleading comments on The Sky at Night? I am sure if what they said about pulsars is accurate, the bible has to be fiction.

So... Why don't they? If religion is truth rather than metaphor, why don't they shut up the boutique followers, atheists and rational people who point and laugh at them by shutting reality up?

Seems they thrive on people taking the piss. I notice some Arab countries have banned the new Noah movie. Those with the unfortunate title Islamists do their creed no favours but at least they don't pick and choose in the spirit of hypocrisy.



Jack. Keeping a lid on it is OK in the real world but without eye contact, you have to say what you really mean in these threads. As you are finding out.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:52 AM

One more thing I need from you, pete. Do you agree that if we want to decide whether theory A is better than theory B, we must start without the preconception that A is right and B is wrong, or vice versa. It must be judged entirely on whether the case A makes is simpler and more complete than B, or vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 10:49 PM

Ding dong...
"Good morning, we're from the Jehovah's Witnesses."
(Wearily)"Ok, what's He done this time, then?..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 07:00 PM

" ... though of course evolutionism has to keep changing its storyline as more data necessitates it. that's the wonderful thing about it !.
you can change it around to make new data fit."

Because it's SCIENCE, based on evidence, pete! It's not absolute, unchanging, unchangeable dogma based on something irrational called FAITH!