BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

nice to see steve referring to the gospel writers as historians

I didn't.

.....of course, it contradicts his earlier assertion that the bible writings were not to be believed

I made no such assertion.

I know you are trying to have it both ways

Have what both ways?

so steve what are these laws of nature ?

Did you do physics and chemistry at school? Ever heard of Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Einstein? Ever wondered why your tea goes cold? Why things fall when you drop them? How the moon stays up there? How your brakes work? How your voice makes a noise? Why the sun feels warm? The key to the question is, have you ever wondered?

and how do they fit your evolution beliefs

I haven't got any.

you claim your belief is true,

What beliefs?

some like bill attempted to do so, but could not demonstrate how the data contradicted the bible, creation/flood model

Absolute rubbish. Everything in nature contradicts your silly "model", for which there is not the slightest scrap of evidence.

so go on steve....show us some evolution !....credit hostile witness snail here.

He's no witness, as I'm sure he'd agree. You may think he's hostile to me, but, by Christ, you can take it from me that he is most emphatically not on your side.

and I am glad that you recognize the " who made God " question as " that most childish of questions ". so try something more grown up.

If it's so childish, you should have no difficulty answering it. Come along, I'm waiting.

uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God. a scientist like you, shimrod, dawkins or hitchens et al ought to be able grasp this concept.

It is not a concept at all. It is a wacky, unsupportable claim emanating from deluded eejits. If the cap fits...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:05 PM

And I see it's a "Darwinist cult" now. Christ on a bike. "Pete seems to understand more than any of us," said Akenaton. Cor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:13 PM

"You say you do not know history that well so you get your information from historians. Yet you say no-one tells you what to believe."

There is a difference between reading various historians then forming one's opinions and being told what to believe.

I don't think anyone 'believes' in historians in the same way Christians or Jews believe in The Bible, which is just another word for The Book. Historians for the most part ask us to read their works and see if they make sense or fit facts as we have received them. The Bible is a mishmash of writers whose works were discovered and seen to be parts of a group of writings, what some would call history.

See the Nag Hammadi for work referring to the same time(s) which calls some of the biblical beliefs into question. Then look at the influence of the Catholic Church on The Bible and its layout. The Bible requires belief because it is disjointed and has too many footnotes. Of par

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:20 PM

Sorry. I clicked something before I was finished.

Then look at the influence of the Catholic Church on The Bible and its layout. The Bible requires belief because it is disjointed and has too many footnotes. Of particular note is the New Testament. What inevitably gets left out of these discussions are mentions/prophesies of the Messiah in the OT which are duplicated by Jesus and his followers either because he really was the Messiah or it was necessary for an elaborate piece of theater to take place that duplicated the prophesies. (Time will tell about that.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:35 PM

No, pete, - he said patiently, for the umpteenth time - it is not about BELIEF but about EVIDENCE and credibility. Based on the accumulated EVIDENCE of (at least) the last 150 years, it is not even remotely credible that some big beardy bloke in the sky (whose existence we are not even supposed to question ... f**k that!) created everything 4000 years ago plus all the crap about Adam & Eve and Noah cramming all of the animals (what about the plants?) that ever existed (how many species of ant are there, pete? Look it up [if you can spell ANT, that is])into a big boat - must have been a f**king big boat just to get all the insects and other invertebrates in! Only a brainwashed idiot could believe all that rubbish.

And, again, I refuse to play the game in which I present you with evidence and you say you don't believe it. The evidence (truck ... no arkloads) of it is out there for you to discover for yourself - but it's not what you want to hear, is it, pete?

And what is it with you and 'concensus'?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married.

It is not an argument at all. It is a question. What's more, it's a perfectly good question, and you chucking in ludicrous false questions which you wrongly claim to somehow be equivalents does not change that one jot. God is your invention. You deliberately try to put him beyond science (in your attempt to make him invulnerable to reasoned investigation). Well we're not keen on that, so we want to know more about your God notion. The first question any reasonable and thinking person would want to ask is where does he come from? If you can't answer that, then your God notion is at best inchoate and at worst seriously ill-conceived. Terribly in need of a big rethink.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM

See Keith's assertions that that the older historians can no longer be believed because new evidence has been found.

Silly Dave.
It is the historians who have rejected SOME of the previous generation.
New evidence has shown that SOME were wrong, and now there is a consensus on those issues.

Are you saying that, because I am a Christian, it is incompatible for me to believe the historians' verdict on WW1 over that of Musket and Jim?
Really Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

I think we are saying that we find it odd that you won't apply the same standard to biblical evidence as you do to secular historical evidence. One can only conclude either that you haven't thought it through or that you are, in the case of your Christianity, adhering to some "greater truth" that has fatally blunted your critical faculties.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:08 AM

What biblical evidence Steve?
There is none.

Historians spend their lives researching evidence from original sources.
They have independently all come to the same conclusions on those views I put forward.
Why would anyone refuse to believe them?
Why would anyone believe Jim and Musket over them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:10 AM

Sorry, should read,

What biblical evidence Steve?
There is none.

Historians spend their lives researching evidence from original sources.
On WW1 they have independently all come to the same conclusions on those views I put forward.
Why would anyone refuse to believe them?
Why would anyone choose to believe Jim and Musket over them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:15 AM

"yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science."

No you're not. This statement represents either a total lack of understanding, a delusion or an outright lie. You have no idea what you're talking about, it would be laughable but I'm concerned you actually believe your own waffle. Stick to the ephemeral goddy stuff and forget science if I were you Pete. You're just making an arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:28 AM

Are you saying that, because I am a Christian, it is incompatible for me to believe the historians' verdict on WW1 over that of Musket and Jim?

Nothing of the sort as you well know. I am saying that on one hand you say no-one tells you what to believe and on the other say that you believe what you do about WW1 because it is what some historians have told you. But I know there is no point in continuing as you will carry on twisting and turning until no-one has a clue what you are on about. Doesn't matter now, everyone can see what you have said regardless of how you try to get out of it. The words dishonest, cheat and despicable seem to spring to mind once again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 07:58 AM

Dave, no-one tells me to believe the historians on the history of WW1.
I choose to.
You may ridicule me for that, and choose to believe that Musket and Jim know more about it than the historians do.

We both make our choices, but no-one tells me what to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

ALL historians Keith?

Interesting assertion. Politically convenient too. Even amongst your cherry picked list of newspaper hacks and minor academics, there is no consensus over and above the numbers killed to the nearest few thousand and the inept political and military blunders that exacerbated the tragedy.

You know, talking of consensus. 150 years shot, there was a scientific consensus that ether explained gaps between objects. It was ether that allowed waves to travel in vacuum etc. Overnight, the consensus collapsed.

As Bible nonsense hasn't collapsed overnight as the fantasy aspects are blown away, it is the metaphor rational people with no mind disorder recognise it as.

By the way, it would appear that some of the actual historical characters in the Bible, mainly Romans but some others too, lived in different times to each other. Not surprising really, but just makes seeing it as anything but an interesting collection of tales rather pathetic really.

I recently picked up a bible and opened it at random. It is a wonderful example of how people may have thought a couple of thousand years ago, coupled with examples of how the medieval writers who re wrote it were thinking and most of all, the way we wrote in the times of King James.

It's those who look too deeply into it who are missing out if you ask me. Imagine not being able to enjoy Tolkien or Michael Moorcock because you don't just see abstract stories to enjoy? Granted, the Bible stories aren't exactly gripping reading and I doubt I will pick up a copy again, but I accept it is of interest to historians, not as history but as an indicator of how people used to entertain each other before Corrie and Knobenders.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM

You believe that the troops in WW1 were well led? Yes? You have often said you are no historian so, if no-one told you what to believe, how did you come to that conclusion?

I don't believe Musket and Jim know more than historians. I do believe that they will not be fooled into believing that any war is a good thing, no matter how well led. Nor will I.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:11 AM

All the historians Musket.
All the ones any of us on the WW1 threads over two and a half years could find.

Historians do not tell people to believe them Dave.
They give their findings and conclusions and how they came to make them.
When they all independently reach the same conclusions, I felt moved to believe them on those issues.

You did ridicule me for that Dave.
Mercilessly.
Musket denied what the historians found.
"They should know better" he said.

You never so much as questioned him or Jim over any of their assertions, but you attacked everything I said.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM

Of course I ridiculed you Keith. But not for what you say. I ridiculed you because you are an idiot. Does that make me a bad person? Possibly. Could I give a shit? Nah...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:36 AM

Dave, you should retire and apologise, that was one of the lamest responses that I have ever read on this forum.

Like a child in the street.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:38 AM

Are you prepared to sacrifice what's left of your credibility for the bullies?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM

Yep - Like a child rather than a manipulative, conniving sociopath. Quite proud of that, thanks. Quite happy with my credibility as well thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:03 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me .....not even if you ask them nicely.
"I think I'm a Musket too"

You're a Trade Unionist......that's worse than they think we are. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

It's nice to have credibility... I'm happy with mine too.

Just think, you can be credible to normal people who matter and count, or you can be credible to bigots, idiots and little men.

Looks like some of us tossed the right coin...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM

Dave,
I do believe that they will not be fooled into believing that any war is a good thing, no matter how well led. Nor will I.

And nor will I.
And nor will anyone else.
What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:13 AM

What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

Well, apart from the phraseology of that being idiotic, what is stupid and pointless about being anti-war?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me

I may be childish is some respects but I grew out of gangs when I was about 11. There are a number of people who post on here who do not believe that gay people should be treated as second class citizens or war should be glorified. If that is what you mean by gang, however, I am proud to be part of it.

And if you think I have been horrid, you have led a very sheltered life. As the song says, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:06 PM

That's the problem with the self righteous with nothing to be righteous about. They are so far up their own arse, insults get rather muffled. So when they do hear clearly, they don't understand how they got to such a reputation.

Normality is a gang eh? Being a normal well adjusted person with moderate objective takes on society is a conspiracy?

No wonder mental health services in Scotland are at breaking point. Just had a look at the CCG commissioning for Hertfordshire. That is 21% underfunded too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM

What's to say?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 01:57 PM

Dave, no-one thinks a war is "a good thing."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:43 PM

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?. I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ? ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.
we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.                  
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:58 PM

Pete. There is no evidence for god apart from very circumstantial, hearsay and appeals to authority. And that authority is thousands of years old and cannot be trusted. You believe? Fine. No one has any problems with that. But for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats as it is fact and stop trying to make sure that my grandchildren are told the same pack of lies that you were. You want people to stop using your name as a swearword? Then stop acting like an arse.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM

if I am playing a game [ which I don't see it as ] , shimrod, I reckon I might be doing better than you, the scientist, who cannot cite any science to support what he claims is true !. oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it, and you don't get it, that that is not an argument. all it proves is that more people agree , than not. and is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ? ........ it will probably work !.

and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM

is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ?

No, it genuinely isn't from me. It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom. Means you will be first in line with your season ticket at the pearly gates. You you should be thanking us.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:23 PM

I still can't see quite how we got here

BLOODY AGAIN!!!

from Clarkson.

Still -- Play Your Games, dears.

Bedtime for Pussikatz'n'Lions...

Ho-hum

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:21 PM

Dave, he wants me to stop saying "Jaysus", "by Christ" and "Christ on a bloody bike". Jesus wept, what a cheeky monkey! This delicate fellow, who uses the name of Charles Darwin in the most insulting and offensive contexts! You couldn't make it up.

So.

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?.

Correct.

I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ?

Presume no longer. Evolution is here. It happens. It cannot be contradicted. By any measure, it's true. The theory of evolution is a different matter. The theory attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution. Theories in themselves are not the truth. In fact, there are plenty of gaps to be filled and tweaks to be made to the theory as our knowledge increases. Science is a wonderful endeavour that tries to get to the heart of things. You wouldn't understand that. Your God gave you a mighty brain that you don't use. You couldn't be more disrespectful to your God if you tried. See you in Hades.

ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence

Gibberish.

. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.

You ignore evidence and appear to understand nothing. And there's nothing I can tell you that would change that.

we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.

Go fetch him then. At least he says challenging things at times that I can get my teeth into, unlike your good self.
               
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Denied. If that's the worst swearing you've heard, then, bejaysus, you really are a poor, sheltered thing, aren't you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

Find me one religion that hasn't lied for its god and I'll maybe begin to have some belief. Until then, it's all bullshit, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:55 PM

It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom.

You have become a despicably intolerant person Dave.
Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:20 PM

Excuse me from butting in but as a little diversion ... here is a link to a Guardian article about a reformed Clarkson published about 24 hours ago Former Top Gear presenter says being sacked by the BBC was a 'wake-up call' as he joins host of celebrities backing climate change campaign  
Sorry, about 24 hours late spotting this.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:32 PM

April fool!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:33 PM

April Fool? Really !!?
Would the Guardian play such a trick?

You'll be telling me next the island of San Seriffe sank before it reached Sri Lanka.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:51 PM

btw It's a bit complicated in parts but if you weren't about in 1977 you'll find a good copy of the Guardian article if you google
... able to study the San Serriffe phenomenon in a comparative way and his diary for 1796, now at the Geographical Society at Kensington Gore, contains the first description of the extraordinary scouring and deposition pattern which continually shapes and reshapes the island group.
Worth a read.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:14 AM

Just for the record, pete, I have no "evolutionary beliefs" either! And that's because (for the umpty millionth time) science is NOT about belief!! Science is a system for examining the nature of reality through observation, the gathering of evidence and experiment. The evidence gathered so far supports an evolutionary model - it does not, in any conceivable way, support a load of fairy tales in an old book!

"oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it ..."

Of course I appeal to concensus - you idiot! An important aspect of modern science is peer review i.e. a scientist's work must be accepted as valid by his peers before it can be published - a form of concensus. And all of the religious waffle you set so much store by is also based on concensus among members of your silly holy cult.

Finally, as someone with a scientific background, I can think of no conceivable reason why I should not question the nature and origin of your God. You (spuriously) dismiss such questions as "childish" - but, remember, children sometimes ask the most pertinent questions!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM

I remember it well, Freddy. Having been a Grauniad reader for 40 years or more, I'm on the alert every April 1 for the latest jape, and the paper never lets us down. I remember one year when it was very subtle, the BMW badge in the car ad the wrong way round or something like that. The Clarkson one yesterday had Mrs Steve fooled, but don't tell her I told you!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM

Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Yes, but not close in philosophy. Also, they were very acceptant of my choices and did not try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else. And FWIW I have always had a very low tolerance of fools who believe that theirs is the only 'truth'.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:28 AM

Dave,
try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else.
for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats

So we can have views but must never express them?
You really are very intolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.

Now today you accuse me of foisting my beliefs on you!!

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:49 AM

Nowt so much wrong with 'expressing'..

but evangelizing / proselytizing / indictrinating / brainwashing / etc..

let's just say these forms of 'expression' are somewhat problematic to say the least...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:22 AM

None of that here PFR.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM

(Except from the atheists trying to convince believers that they are deluded)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 11:49 AM

Pete, this:

"and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !"

. . . follows on from a previous post containing this:

"and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old."

That me old mucker, is a statement that is simply wrong. I've engaged you over the years and quite comprehensively, but still you regurgitate dross like this.

Mind it was nice of God to sort all those fossils into a carefully stratified, logical order that allows us to construct a tree of life to disprove creationist mumbo-jumbo. Imagine if they were all mixed up, like they must have been in the swirling tempest of the flood? He must have made them settle sequentially on the seabed, from simple to complex. Now why the heck would he do that?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.


Proof please, Keith. I have never demanded anything nor been petulant. Either in upper or lower case. Why do you keep lying? Or if not lying, twisting peoples words. You really do have some some personality issues don't you.