BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 07:27 PM

Well, Shimrod, I think we ought to know what theology pete knows and where he got it from. This is a very interesting topic, as I understand that atheists can be theologians too. We may find that our friend's scholarship in the field of theology is just as shaky as is his scholarship in science. We've heard a good deal of what sounds like serious bullshit from this fellow. So let's get him to show his credentials. So, pete, what theology do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 AM

Well, pete, I had a bit of a read up on Louis Pasteur and here's a passage about him from an essay entitled "Louis Pasteur: A Religious Man?" by Brendon Barnett (2011):

"More than anything Pasteur believed in experimental science. As he said himself, "Experimental science is essentially positivist in the sense that in its conceptions it never conerns itself with the essence of things, the origin of the world or its final destiny." Pasteur of course was a product of 19th century Europe and unmistakeably was effected by the beliefs of the Enlightenment. However, unlike many others, Pasteur asserted the preeminence of hypotheses over religious or metaphysical prejudices and always seemed willing to abandon theories that were outdated or useless in practicality. Pasteur often saw religion as a hinderance to scientific progress. In 1874, presiding over the award ceremony at the Collège of Arbois, he clearly stated his position:

"I know that the word free thinker is written somewhere within our walls as a challenge and an affront. Do you know what most of the free thinkers want? Some want the freedom not to think at all and to be fettered by ignorance; others want the freedom to think badly; and others still, the freedom to be dominated by what is suggested to them by instinct and to despise all authority and all tradition. Freedom of thought in the Cartesian sense, freedom to work hard, freedom to pursue research, the right to arrive at such truth as is accessible to evidence and to conform one's conduct to these exigencies--oh! let us vow a cult to this freedom; for this is what has created modern society in its highest and most fruitful aspects."

Pasteur had great respect for the unknown and the infinite, but did not allow himself to become a victim of superstition and fanatical religious explanations."

Now I know that you're going to dwell exclusively on Pasteur's thoughts on experimentation and tell us for the umpteenth time that you can't perform experiments on evolution, blah, blah, blah ... But, of course, you know that, in reality, you're being selective because experimentation is not the only tool in the scientist's toolbox. But the bits that you should really focus on, and reflect on, are Pasteur's view that religion can be a hinderance to scientific progress and that last sentence. You, of course, are a "victim of superstition and fanatical religious explanations" and Pasteur would probably not have approved of you!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:33 AM

I feel honoured. Apparently serious study into the demise of superstition are things I made up!

I wonder how much money I got selling my lied to ONS, The BBC, national newspapers, The Secular Society, Church of England and all the others using the data I referred to.

Meanwhile, this just in. Churches, mosques, temples etc don't need to be sold for development after all. Keith has just found 55,000,000 more God botherers than we thought exist!

Delusion is fascinating. Reminds me of a throwaway line from a Monty Python sketch. "Dinsdale was a loony. But he was a happy loony. Lucky bugger."

Enjoy your hobby Keith. Just don't make false claims for it eh? It's alright. Nobody is saying you can't believe in it. You don't have to assert bollocks. Just enjoy it while it lasts.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM

Just don't make false claims for it eh?
BELIEVERS, NON BELIEVERS AND CAN'T- MAKE-UP-THEIR-MINDERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:31 AM

Musket, you stated,

"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That was completely untrue.
You did make it up.
Sorry to point that out.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:35 AM

And here's another quote about 'belief' from the latest edition of 'New Scientist' (this time from the editorial):

"Religious faith has long been considered a special category of belief ... But the more we learn about how beliefs work, the less exceptional religion looks It turns out that almost all of our beliefs are built on intuition, biases and gut instinct: yet another facet of our mental lives over which we possess less conscious control than we like to think.

Science is not exempt. The scientific method is based on verifiable evidence, and is thus NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM [my emphasis], despite frequent claims to the contrary. But scientists, as humans, are influenced by their own beliefs about what is important, what they might find and what their findings mean. YET IT IS STILL THE BEST WAY TO DISTINGUISH WHAT WE BELIEVE FROM WHAT WE KNOW (my emphasis)."

But you don't want to know any of that, do you pete? So you'll probably ignore it!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM

Jim's link.
15% women and 30% men are atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM

Another extract from the same article:

"At the other end of the spectrum, 15 per cent of women said they were sure of the existence of a deity and compared with only nine per cent of men"

Everyone can play with figures. These would suggest that fewer people are convinced of the existence of a god that those who are convinced there is not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:02 AM

Raggy, I count myself a Christian, but there are no certainties.
We all experience doubt.
Beware any who say they do not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM

I do not think anyone has a problem with you being a committed Christian Professor, that's entirely your choice.

The problem lies in the inference that we are:

1. a Christian country

and

2. the influence that religion has on the day to day functioning of our country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM

I have made no claims about any of that Raggy.
I merely refute Musket's assertion that atheists are now a majority anywhere.
And that I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:47 AM

Not a scintilla of doubt is present in the Lord's Prayer, Keith, nor in most other prayers, hymns or liturgies. We may well all harbour doubt, but the teachings of religions are predicated on certainties, and in some cases we are to accept those certainties under pain of repercussion. That, and the brainwashing of children, are my biggest issues with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM

So, Keith

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Who are 'you people', Keith? Am I included in that? If so, what assertions am I making that you have proved wrong? Or is it just a question of when you know you are wrong you just use the shotgun approach and hope that no-one will notice? Is saving face really that important to you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:58 AM

As for the numbers game that seems to have taken over, I'd just say that, were I the only atheist left on the planet, living among oceans of believers, it would not undermine one jot my opinion that every single one of them was harbouring a delusion. If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing, let's give it up for everyone in that crowd who voted Barabbas. They were in the majority so they must have been right. And kindly don't give me any hindsight Christian bullshit on that one!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

"15% women and 30% men are atheist."
The figures are based on beliefs of there being "something there after death" - ie a superstition.
This arises largely from the fact that religion has been taught in schools as a fact up to relatively recently - that this is no longer the case will obviously contribute to a continuing decline, and the behaviour of certain churches will accelerate that, as it has in the Catholic Church, which, certainly in 'Holy Ireland' is in somewhat of a crisis.
Those who believe in or adhere to a specific religion are in the minority and the number of people who actually practice any religion in any form is minuscule.
The most devout of any religion in Britain is Muslim - the mainline religions are in the minority.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:01 AM

If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing,

I do not and have not.
I merely refute Musket's assertion that atheists are now a majority anywhere.

That I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM

If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing,

None of you accused Musket of that when he claimed atheists were the majority!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:31 AM

Ah ........ poor little Keith, folk picking on him again. Run off and tell Mummy about the nasty people on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:52 AM

On the basis of small surveys stated atheists are not a majority but they are a far larger number that practicing believers in ithe ainstream religions.
For those of us who were compulsarilly taught religion, atheism carried a stigma, making our atheism a no-go area in 'polite company'.
On this basis, random head-counting is meaningless.
One thing is certain - preachers are increasingly preaching to all-but-empty churches.
That fact can only accelerate - unless some religious nutter causes a war, of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:13 AM

No argument with any of that, but Musket was wrong to claim that atheists are a majority.
Right?

He was trying "to play the strength-by-numbers thing."
I was not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:40 AM

"No argument with any of that, but Musket was wrong to claim that atheists are a majority.
Right?"
Wrong
I repeat - most of us grew up in an education system where religion was a compulsory subject taught as fact
To declare oneself a non-believer could incur anything from ridicule from your schoolmates to a beating from the teacher (been there, done that).
I didn't go to a Catholic School, but may parents and many of my relatives did - to them "A fear of God" was something quite tangible.
People who grew up under such conditions are not a reliable source on which to judge the levels of belief in people - if you want to judge the level of belief, count the people who attend church - head counting is a pointless excercise and would probably produce similar figures if you asked if they threw salt over their right shoulder or walked under ladders.
An interesting change I've noticed since we moved here.
I can remember being asked for my religion on numerous occasions back home by doctors and officials - when I replied "none" it was, more often than not - entered as "Church of England" (nearest thing to "none" apparently).
Over here, they type in "not revealed"
If you are notr playing the numbers game, why are you playing the numbers game, I wonder?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:56 AM

I was born an atheist as were we all and an atheist I will die.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:03 AM

No argument with any of that either Jim, but Musket was wrong to claim that atheists are a majority.
Right?

He was trying "to play the strength-by-numbers thing."
I was not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:07 AM

"To you, I'm an atheist.
To God, I'm the loyal opposition."

Woody Allen

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:24 AM

"I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up."

George Carlin

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:58 AM

" And yes I have produced evidence that evolution is impossible, or rather scientists have. As far back as Louis Pasteur it has been demonstrated that life only comes from life, so darwins evolution could never get started.......I believe that is called a law of nature !."

So a law of nature is life only comes from life? Just out of interest, how do you define 'life'? When is something alive? Is a virus alive? A prion?

Thing is pete, the onus is on you to confront science on it's own terms (otherwise it isn't science). Put your money where your mouth is. If you've got all this proof, I suggest you narrow down the focus on what interests you most and go for it. Seeing as you seem to think all fossils were deposited during and after the flood but are in fact ordered and occur in distinctive and unique assemblages, write up how this happened and the mechanism that caused this to occur. Point out the reasons hundreds of years of palaeontology, the collective efforts of hundreds of thousands of people, is wrong and you're right.

I dares ya!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 10:50 AM

Keith. Posting a link to a website giving information from polls conducted by regulated polling companies is not "making it up"

I accept that you rely on people not bothering to click on links so take your word against mine but all that does is compound your dishonesty.

You prove daily that you do not have the mental capacity to debate and your calling people liars for pointing out your infantile attempts at spreading bullshit to defend irrational stances gets tiresome.

If you insist that polls don't exist then stop using them to say, wrongly, that normal people are in a minority. This is debate. Not some sad loser stood on a street corner with a sandwich board encouraging people to share his mental state.

No. Believers in a god idea are no longer in the majority. No. People who are comfortable being labelled Christians do not necessarily believe there is a god.

Find a street corner if you must share your irrational passion. Some of us studied science and had teachers not hamstring by fantasy. Sorry if you didn't. You might be happier talking to fellow believers, it can't be easy hearing what the majority of people think of religion and the hatred, terror and abuse it represents.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 11:31 AM

Right, pete, you've got two challenges now!

1. Write up the 'evidence' you've got which 'proves' that "evolution is impossible" and get it published (in a reputable scientific journal - not some creationist 'rag').

2. Tell us all you know about theology.

Those two things should keep you busy - you'd better get cracking!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 12:13 PM

Musket, YOU posted the link!
Here is the page, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12799801

You claimed this about it,
"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That does not appear in it Musket.
You did make it up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 12:16 PM

Musket,
Some of us studied science and had teachers not hamstring (sic) by fantasy.

For forty years, I was such a Science teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 12:37 PM

"For forty years, I was such a Science teacher."
Do you mean they let you near kids?
Explains what's happening in the world today.
You are still trying to score points with meaningless surveys, despite your claims otherwise.
Like folk music, most people son't give god a second thought - that, in my book, makes them non-believers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:24 PM

Presumably explained the science behind the miracles....

No Keith. I posted two links at different times and you know it. One link was to the BBC story and the other was to a humanist website that gave a round up of recent polls. The paragraph you are avoiding like the plague is ;

"However, in a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question 'What is your religion?', 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked 'No religion'. When the same sample was asked the follow-up question 'Are you religious?', only 29% of the same people said 'Yes' while 65% said 'No', meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious."

The Daily Torygraph has an interesting article too, telling the reality. This for instance;


"Thirty years ago more than two thirds of the population associated with one religion or another.

While 40 per cent classed themselves as Anglican a generation ago, now only 20 per cent do so."


Any more myth busting you want to take into account? Just bear in mind, it isn't that religion is a dying hobby, as much as that is to be welcomed, it's that the truth about religiosity is different to what you want us to believe.

God or Clapton help 40 years of pupils. Which text book did you use for astrophysics, "Worlds in Collision"?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:27 PM

The National Census is not a "meaningless survey" Jim, and neither are polls conducted by the likes of YouGov.

I am not trying to score points.
Musket claimed that Atheists are the majority here.
I merely corrected that false assertion by referring to the evidence that proves him wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:35 PM

Musket,here is a link to the page you just quoted.
It is also what your BBC link was about.
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

You claimed this about it,
"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That does not appear in it Musket.
You did make it up.

Atheists are a minority here as in all countries.
You were wrong to claim otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:54 PM

Are you a christian = what is your religion

Do you believe in god = are you religious

Different words, that's all. Bit like vulgar and fraudulent.

Why is it that when you change the words of a published work it is OK but if someone else does it isn't? I fully understood Muskets point as I am sure many others did.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM

seems somewhat hypocritical, shimrod to require answer to your challenges , when you have answered precisely nothing. I cannot recall any argument from you, other than appeals to authority. but as to theology I don't claim any great scholarship, and as to that being irrelevant to science.......no more than your own scientific achievements and interests, and that by your own admission.   well, as I say, evolutionism isn't good for anything science except evolutionism itself. and if you think science has moved on from pasteurs demolishing of Darwin, I suggest you tell us how. and about that vast scientific mountain, you still have not dug any of it out to evidence evolutionism. and of course, I have written up some of the evidence against it HERE, but as to peer reviewed journals, run by evolutionary believers, even fully qualified scientists that don't toe the party line don't get published , though I have heard that occasionally some articles get through if the reviewers don't realize the Darwinist story is challenged in some area.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:49 PM

last I read, stu. a virus is not strictly life, but as you are the scientist, what do you think ? you ask me to narrow it down, and I did......you did not answer or refer to those points.   your allusion to the fossil grading is probably your strongest argument. however, creationists have addressed this issue, and I earlier mentioned that under such biblically based model, it would be expected that seafloor life would be buried first, but also be found on high ground and mountains as dramatic uplift occurred. the more intelligent and mobile would be expected to be consumed last as they found higher ground. the intervening levels are , I understand, not so finely graded as you might have been led to believe. evolutionists have had to move fossils around the column to preserve the idea. btw, stu, do you know anywhere there is a complete column ?. mammal fossils have been found in dino strata, but being of less interest are rarely displayed with dinos. and aren't mammels supposed to have evolved after dinos ?........just like the birds found in dino stomachs !.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM

Well, I've read some tosh here in my time but that last post of Pete's really takes the biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM

Do you believe in god = are you religious

Absolutely not!
I do not regard myself as "religious" and would answer no to it.

I see "religious" people as the sort who always go on about God and Jesus, bringing religion into every conversation and being prudish about sex, drinking and language.

Most of us are nothing like that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:18 PM

I `ad that Jeremy Clarkson in my cab the other night. (Did you know `is mum made a killing with stuffed Paddington bears?). Anyway, Clarkson`s all in disguise, you`d `ardly recognise `im. It was `is smirk that gave `im away.
I said, " Morning champ. What`s all this then? You `iding from the press or something?"
`e said, "Nah, them camel bashers `ave put a fatwa out on me. I don`t want to end up without my `ead."
I said, "What`s up then? You made some joke about Mohammed and all `is virgins?"
`e said, " Nah. We made a programme for the the Middle East and `appened to mention the seats in this flash motor were very comfy and made of the finest pigskin. Christ, did that bring the pains on!!!"


Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:20 PM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM

Well, I've read some tosh here in my time but that last post of Keith's really takes the biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM

Professor you stated "Atheists are a minority here as in all countries"

You may be correct, care to back this up with any evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:33 PM

Ahhh, so you do see my posts. Just choose to ignore the ones that you are embarrassed to answer :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:22 PM

Keith supplies a link to where I got my information that has verbatim what I just quoted and he still said I'm a liar.

At the risk of losing the post..

Thick cunt.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:27 PM

Oops, that last post of mine was supposed to be a one-liner.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:30 PM

"I have written up some of the evidence against it HERE, but as to peer reviewed journals, run by evolutionary believers, even fully qualified scientists that don't toe the party line don't get published , ..."

You have 'presented' NO evidence 'HERE'! You have merely demonstrated your lack of understanding of science ... And now, it would appear, you don't understand theology either!

OK, let's have an example of a "fully qualified scientist" who has not "toed the party line" and, as a result, has not been published. In addition, who are these "evolutionary believers" who insist that their scientific peers "toe the party line"? This suggests that you believe there exists some sort of enormous conspiracy. Who is behind this conspiracy, and what do they hope to gain by it?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:20 PM

By the way pete, mammals in "dinosaur strata" are fine. "Birds in dinosaur stomachs" are also fine. Dunno why you see a problem with either of those.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 10:05 PM

ok shimrod, lets put this simply. anything that is not hard has always been expected to decompose. lots of stuff called soft tissue has been found in dead animals that evolutionists say are millions of years old. if they were millions of years old, there would not be stuff that could decompose still there. this is evidence against evolution. when a tree is found that has the bottom in one layer that is supposed to be millions of years old and the top is in a higher layer not so supposedly millions of years old. this too is evidence against the evolution story. that is because the top would have rotted long before the next million years. it has never been demonstrated that life can come from non life. all experimental evidence confirms that life only comes from life. this is evidence against evolution also. and until you address your challenges, I am under no obligation to address any more of yours.
yes steve, no problem, evolutionism is so pliable it can stretch to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:32 AM

Before I start on your latest incoherent mish-mash, pete, can I point out that mammals DID co-exist with dinosaurs - just as mammals co-exist with birds and reptiles today; no clandestine, conspiritorial re-arrangement of strata necessary!

As for all this gibberish about decomposition, this is not 'your' 'evidence', is it? This is (probably) data selectively extracted from the legitimate scientific literature by religious fundamentalists - who, laughingly, characterise themselves as 'scientists'(LOL!) - and who are desperate to discredit evolutionary biology because it undermines their silly religious certainties. I can assure you that no real scientist, on finding material which appears to be anomalous, would shout: "Aha!! This means that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong and the myths and legends of some bronze-age, middle eastern goat herders must be right!

"all experimental evidence confirms that life only comes from life. this is evidence against evolution also."

Experimental evidence is not the only evidence available.

"and until you address your challenges, I am under no obligation to address any more of yours."

May I point out that I am not the one who is 'challenged'. And, I agree, you are under no "obligation" to do anything. Only your credibility is at stake; but as that credibility barely exists, anyway - no harm done!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 03:16 AM

Reading posts from pete and Keith and reading about how religions are manipulated for wicked ends, I tend to be drawn to two conclusions ;

Religion is a powerful drug. Both posters are capable of typing words into sentences, both appear to be able to read and understand the challenges to their fairy stories in terms of being compared to reality yet both seem to genuinely think they are in the right. It is sadly the same religious fervour that allows terrible crimes to be committed too. The Voltaire quote that those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities is bang on.

Of course our two aren't being told to do bad things, except perpetuate delusion I suppose, but both show that once you are hooked, you will justify the absurd all day.

The other point is more hopeful. Anybody thinking that a decent sized minority of lemmings can't be wrong might read some of pete's diatribe and realise that delusion isn't for them.

Not really.

Reality may not have a comfort blanket to suck on but at least you keep your intellectual credibility.