BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:12 AM

" ... evolutionism (sic) is so pliable it can stretch to anything."

Again, pete, you are confusing 'belief' and 'evidence' - a misapprehension that you are determined to labour under. May I remind you of that quote from a recent 'New Scientist' editorial, which I quoted above and which you so studiously ignored:

"The scientific method is based on verifiable evidence, and is thus NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM [my emphasis], despite frequent claims to the contrary."

New evidence may lead to existing models being modified - it happens all the time. Only fanatical religious fundamentalists, like you, are bothered by this. That is because you have convinced yourself, and are determined to believe, that you are in possession of absolute truth. You are also determined to see science as a competing belief system - which it is NOT - see above.What really bugs you and your co-religionists, though, is that science completely undermines your belief system and renders it irrelevant.

Louis Pasteur knew the difference between belief and evidence way back in the 19th century (you're way, way, way behind the times, pete!).

Another quote which you also wilfully ignored:

"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of hypotheses over religious or metaphysical prejudices and always seemed willing to abandon theories that were outdated or useless in practicality.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."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:18 AM

Musket, neither of those pages say what you claim they say.

"Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That is made up.
It does not appear.
You have been caught out and all you can do is bluster.

Steve, calling my post "tosh" does not explain what you disagree with.
Do you disagree that you can believe in God without being religious?
Well you can, and most do.
The poll made it two different question so they clearly do not equate the two as Dave did.
You are both wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:27 AM

The poll made it two different question so they clearly do not equate the two as Dave did.
You are both wrong about that.

Quite possibly, but if we were wrong other people could be and may have answered the questions incorrectly. The whole point is that the claim that x% of people being religious or believing in god takes no account of misinterpretation, superstition, habit and downright lying. Such surveys just cannot be relied on particularly, as someone pointed out, when thy have leading questions. If we were to believe everything on the census how do you account for the number of people who said they were jedi?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM

Such surveys ARE relied on.
They are used by government and commerce for strategic planning.
The independent surveys all make the same findings on the number of believers and the number of atheists, confirming their reliability.
Atheists are a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM

Such surveys ARE relied on.

Well, bugger me. There really must be 300,000 or so jedis.

They are used by government and commerce for strategic planning.

Yes, and proper statisticians know that there is a skew factor in all of them so adjust their plans accordingly. They do not use the figures to 'prove' anything.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:52 AM

Well, pete, evolution doesn't need to do any stretching. The fact is that birds, mammals and dinosaurs coexisted. No-one has tried to wriggle and squirm to make that fact fit the theory. You see this as a problem because you haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works. You also don't appear to understand that you need micro-organisms in order for decomposition to take place. Deny them the conditions they need and decomposition will be put on hold. It happens in peat bogs, in deep waterlogged sediments, in amber and in your freezer. You see this as a problem because you haven't the faintest idea of how living organisms operate. Finally, if you don't agree that life came from non-life, kindly tell me what God created life from. Did he use a magic wand, and do you really think that's a better explanation than mine? Incidentally, there really isn't anything magical or sacred about life. Like everything else in nature, it's wonderful. Like everything else in nature, it obeys all the laws of nature and can be explained using them. Explaining life requires us to take it off its mystical pedestal first.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:58 AM

The figures on belief and atheism are unequivocal, and they all independently find the same.
Atheists are a minority.
Musket was wrong.

The only confusion comes from the one poll that was commissioned by an atheists organisation.
They asked the question "Are you religious?" without clarifying what they meant by it.

Most believers would not describe themselves as religious, so there was a strong negative response.
That was then used to support the atheist agenda.

The National Census and the independent surveys all find that atheists are a minority.
That is hard evidence.
What evidence supports Musket's assertion?
NONE!
(or do you have some now?)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:25 AM

"and aren't mammals supposed to have evolved after dinos ?........just like the birds found in dino stomachs !."

Wow, this sort of sentence shows you actually know nothing. I mean, seriously? This is BASIC stuff most 10 year olds know. This makes you look stupid pete, at least introduce some refinement to your arguments.


"btw, stu, do you know anywhere there is a complete column ?"

Nope, there isn't one. But that is irrelevant, at least in the manner you mean it (oh that there was - joy!). Thing is, if the flood only occurred a few thousand years ago you'd expect to find uninterrupted stratigrahic columns everywhere, but bits are missing, lots and lots of them. You talk about dramatic uplift but that implies tectonic activity, something you deny exists because it is an agent that affects evolution. It's difficult to know how to answer this, as without going through the fundamentals of geology any discussion is meaningless.


"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 realise the Darwinist story is challenged in some area."

Utter, complete rubbish. So it's all a big conspiracy then? You give the people that study this, give their time freely and gladly in peer reviewing papers very little credit of you think they're all out to propagate some non-existent agenda. That's a total fantasy on your part, and a baseless accusation.


"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"

No! No! No! You arrogance is showing again pete. Firstly, don't presume that we have reached the sum of our knowledge, as we haven't by a massively long shot, whether by scientific enquiry or divine revelation. Secondly, the mechanisms of preservation are becoming understood because we're looking for them now. A hundred years ago we had no idea of the levels of preservation or how certain proteins and other organic molecules and markers survive the diagenetic process. Also, there's a lot more on this to come as I've seen some preliminary results and they are impressive to say the least, but they need to be tested and then go through peer review and so are under embargo (standard practice in science to make sure released research is as accurate as possible ).

I know several people involved in this field and they are finding some very interesting results and are changing the way we excavate our specimens. Exciting stuff!

So pete, you need to do what the rest of us do when reporting our research or commenting on other people's: collate your data, draw your conclusions, make your arguments and write it all up, get it peer reviewed and present it. If you're right about the flood, then you'll change numerous scientific disciplines at a stroke and if your data and analysis was sound, then that's great.

But you won't, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:39 AM

Out of interest to all but Pete I expect. List of known floods across the ages.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:54 AM

Ok, Keith. Black is white, bears don't shit in the woods, one-legged ducks swim in straight lines and the Pope's the Dalai Lama's uncle. Now that we've agreed all that, can you stop wittering on about your facts and figures for a minute? Read my lips, Keith. It is not the important thing. It is a sideshow. Relax and enjoy life a little more. Feel the spring sunshine on your skin. Go and have a pint or seven in the Old Barge. Do you still get all those goths smoking pot on the towpath?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:16 AM

Floods is jt? Check this out:

Revealing God's Treasure : The Anchor Stones of Noah's Ark

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM

"Musket was wrong."
Yup "You win again" as Hank Williams used to sing and you never get tired of telling us.
Prove it
Do you have to book in advance for a seat in your church?.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:56 AM

The census and the polls do prove it Jim.
I make no claim about church attendance.
Musket made the false claim that atheists are a majority, and was called on it.
He was wrong.

He also claimed a survey said, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."
That was not true.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:29 AM

If there's a God, let him come down now and help us to be rid of this Hertfordian statistical nut (and if he blazes down to Bude in a chariot of fire, I'll believe in him for evermore. Deal, God?)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:30 AM

That's God, Keith, not you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM

" ... kindly tell me what God created life from. Did he use a magic wand, ..."

Now Steve! Come on! You know (because pete told you - so it must be true) that God is unknowable and it's "childish" to ask such questions!

In addition, if you attribute everything to God, and God is unknowable, you don't have to know anything or do any thinking ... does that remind you of someone?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,big al whittle
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 12:59 PM

how did od create life...,,

I expect one day he farted, followed through..looked behind him and there it was....the garden of eden, all freshly manured.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:52 PM

Steve,
Being aware of the findings of the National Census and of the various polls and surveys does not make anyone a "statistical nut."

It makes them well informed, and able to spot and expose ignorant false claims and assertions.

Musket made the false claim that atheists are a majority, and was called on it.
He was wrong.

He also claimed a survey said, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."
That was not true.

Ignorance compounded by dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM

It does when you go on and on and on and on and bloody on about it. Which you do. As ever. With everything. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:00 PM

Not true.

I only repeat when there is a denial.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

I know it's not true. It just seems to be true. Allow me a cri de coeur occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:11 PM

Suggestion for everyone on this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:39 AM

In one sentence Keith went from saying there was no poll to saying it was by an atheist organisation so doesn't count. Didn't retract from calling me a liar of course but you can't educate pork.

He gets better. Who needs Top Gear anyway? Keith gives far better value for money in the light entertainment stakes.

The poll by the way was by one of the accredited polling companies and therefore feeds into ONS data.

Even The Daily Torygraph say half the population have no religion. Factor in the many who put a religion on forms but don't believe in imaginary friends and you start to look at the reality society reflects.

Talking of God. He is possibly called Tim Cooke and the Jesus character is called Jonny Ives. They have just given me a wafer and wine. Or put another way, I have just pre ordered my Apple Watch. No need for it, no situation I couldn't deal with without it and I crave it.

Fuck me, I must be religious!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

Professor, your quote:

" Not true. I only repeat when there is a denial"

On a recent thread about historians you used the term "you lose" over 45 times to my knowledge (I was bored one day and counted them)

You repeat constantly, you lie constantly, you are deceitful and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence. It is tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as no-one takes you seriously in the first place.

A lot of people like winding you up just to see which inanity you come out with next, it can be quite amusing on a rainy day.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bizibod
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:06 AM

And...........Back to Jeremy Clarkson!
Have I Got News For You will not see JC as host later this month.
That would have been quite some programme with Hislop and Merton mercilessly extracting the urine...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:11 AM

Even The Daily Torygraph say half the population have no religion.

And I am sure they are right.
I made no claims about people having religion, only about people with belief, and atheists.

You Musket claimed that atheists are a majority.
No single poll supports that.
It was a completely unsupported assertion.

The National Census and all the polls show atheists to be a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM

2011 YouGov poll commissioned by the Humanist Association.
(The one Musket keeps on about.)

What is your religion?

No religion 39%
Christian 53%

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:33 AM

"On a recent thread about historians you used the term "you lose" over 45 times to my knowledge (I was bored one day and counted them)

You repeat constantly, you lie constantly, you are deceitful and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence. It is tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as no-one takes you seriously in the first place." - Raggytash

1: "Your repeat constantly"

And? The one thing about the truth and the one thing about facts is they rarely, if ever, alter and on such occasions that they do it is usually due to new information coming to light. Facts supported by the fullest and latest information tend to be constant and verifiable, unlike some of the assertions made by the likes of yourself, Dave the Gnome, the Musktwats, Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll on that self same thread "about historians"

2: "you lie constantly"

Really?? Only in your fevered imagination, but there again perhaps you could provide some examples of these lies then we could compare them with the ones told by the likes of yourself, Dave the Gnome, the Musktwats, Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll on that self same thread "about historians"

3: "deceitful

Where? when? C'mon Raggy you've made the observation and felt compelled to comment so now substantiate it - or have the decency to STFU.

4: "and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence"

Well from what I have seen on this Forum you appear to condemn people you see on one side of the argument for faults that you let pass when exhibited by those you regard as supporting your views - that Raggy ol'son is being two faced. As to the "lack of intelligence" jibe - well in that particular thread Keith ran circles round all of you, purely because his knowledge of the events was based on a balance of what historians of the time and of those down throughout the century that has passed have written about it - unlike those arguing against it who relied on the out of date and discredited writings of those with a particular axe to grind, a few poets, left-wing luvvies with their own unconnected agenda and comedy script writers.

5: As to Keith A's contributions on that particular thread being - "tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever" - well they would be to you wouldn't they, his views first challenged, then completely blew apart all those myths and smug assumptions your lazy approach to the topic held dear, and instead of being open to debate and actually learning something you preferred to wallow in ignorance - the purpose by the way was to inform and to go some way towards righting a tremendous wrong that had been done to people who could not defend themselves.

6: "as no-one takes you seriously in the first place."

If that is true Raggy then more fool you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:40 AM

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:23 AM

But all true though Raggy

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

Of course, I stand by everything I wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:33 AM

Put the follow up question Keith. I stated that in the survey, two questions were asked to ascertain whether people identify as Christian through social conditioning and use the word in the same way they might use star sign or blood group.

How many of the 53% turned out to believe in God? Come on, I'll let you tell the boys and girls. I'll just mention your dishonesty when you said all Christians believe in God.

Dishonest fool. Real Christians must wince when they see you and your intellect fighting their good fight as they unfortunately call it...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 02:01 PM

How many of the 53% turned out to believe in God?

All of them, but that question was not asked Musket.
You lied when you said that many who answered as Christian said they did not believe in God.

I now call it a lie because I have pointed out several times that it is not true.
You still try to deceive the forum.
You were wrong to claim that atheists are a majority, and you lie to try and hide your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:20 PM

Read the fucking link.

Stop assuming nobody bothered to look.

I am not a liar. You however are typing them even though anyone can read up and see them. The people who answered Christian were then asked if they believe in God. How many Keith eh? Why did you proclaim the survey you are talking about didn't exist and I lied when I mentioned it? Eh fuckwit?

Your medicine man must be proud of you.

God or Clapton help the poor kids who had to learn from your idea of reality and reason. Education is a wonderful thing but relies on sane teachers.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:30 PM

"Experimental evidence is not the only evidence available". Agreed shimrod, but we all got the same data, we all got the evidence. It is whether it can be interpreted in more than one way. And if experimental evidence is available it must trump theories and interpretations that run counter to known laws , until such time as experimental evidence overthrows such laws.    And your suggestion that creationists cannot be real scientists is just sticking your head in the sand   Take Pasteur , as you found quotes about him, which you think helps your case. The fact that his faith did not hinder his science seems rather to hinder your contention. And as usual there is the equivocation !. Did I say the scientific method was the same as belief ?.   No argument with that quote from new scientist. After all, you have yet to demonstrate that evolutionism is validated by the scientific method !.                                                                                  I may be missing something here , Steve, or you may be grossly exaggerating the time that soft tissue and other degradable items can last.   But did anyone think that such preservation over myo was possible before the data conflicted with the theory ?.   What do you think the conditions were that prohibited micro organisms doing their bit. I would suggest rapid burial, such as would be consistent with a catastrophic flood.    And yes I do believe God created from nothing. After all he is God !. Your option that there is no creator is more problematic.....unless you believe the general theory of evolution is god.........judging by the religious fervour exhibited by the atheists here......?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

All true my arse, Billyboy. Please show me where I lied on the historians thread, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:40 PM

You certainly are missing something here, pete. You're missing your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:59 PM

Musket, here is the link to the Humanist Assoc page.
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

There is absolutely nothing there about Christians not believing in God.
If I am lying, cut and paste it.
If you are lying, make some pathetic excuse.
Which will it be?!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:03 PM

Stu, please tell me where I dismissed tectonic movements. It may be part of the evolutionist model, presumably slowly crashing together and causing uplift, but it is part of the flood model also, minus the sloooooooooow !.   And please explain why the flood model only thousands of yr ago should produce an uninterrupted total column rather than the slow and gradual (and occasional catastrophe ) model.          So, stu you are privy to groundbreaking research that will validate your contentions and claims, and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to. I wonder if that will outlast the former proofs of evolution. If you are right , I shall have to retire from that argument......but your excitement might be a little early don't you think?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:45 PM

What former proofs of evolution? Take your time now...

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

Always happy to oblige fuckwit.

Using your link, just in case you changed it from the original as you did once with a link Jim supplied on a different subject ;

"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."

Yeah, all Christians believe in God eh?
😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM

"but it is part of the flood model also, minus the sloooooooooow !"

Except . . . this would have had to happen in times we have written records for, and as far as I am aware these make no mention of the Himalayas, the Rockies or the Andes (to name but a few) rising in the last few thousand years. Surely this event didn't go unnoticed? Your flood is mentioned in texts older than Christian, your lot merely appropriated them for their own use (a typically Christian habit, it appears), so why no mention of the of the Alpine orogeny?

Also, why do you discount erosion and weathering? Did God speed these processes up after the deposits were thrust to high elevation. We can observe these processes now and understand the speeds they occur and their mechanisms of action. Were these changed supernaturally, then slowed at some point? At what point were they slowed? What would be the purpose of this?


"So, stu you are privy to groundbreaking research that will validate your contentions and claims, and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to"

No! No! NO! Listen man! I saw new data presented at a conference (along with hundreds of others) on the survival of soft tissue in a dinosaur that's not been reported before. The findings were preliminary and might not be borne out, hence the embargo. It's another piece of the jigsaw rather than a definitive answer, that's how science progresses. I really don't understand your issue with soft tissue survival. Did you think we'd discovered the sum total knowledge of palaeontology when Cope and Marsh were battling for Brontosaurus?


"why the flood model only thousands of yr ago should produce an uninterrupted total column "

Surely if all the sedimentary layers we see were laid down in a single event, which happened mere thousands of years ago, then they haven't had time to arrange themselves as we see today? See comments above. Provide explanation.


" Take Pasteur , as you found quotes about him, which you think helps your case. The fact that his faith did not hinder his science seems rather to hinder your contention"

Faith doesn't hinder science, we've discussed this at length on other threads pete. Plenty of scientists have faith, but you're an extremist. What hinders science is ignorance, a lack of curiosity and the desire to conform. Also things have moved on since Pasteur's day, as you might notice if you actually understood anything about science.


"and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to"

That is such poorly constructed entrance it's almost poetry. I actually quite like it! Nice one.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 07:54 AM

"39% ticked 'No religion'."

Having no religion is not the same as not believing god exists. Further, participating in a religion is not proof one believes in god.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 09:17 AM

Correct but Rt Rev Field Marshall Acheson VD&bar stated that all Christians believe in God.

Then said this survey didn't exist.

Then said it wasn't valid because those commissioning it were rational.

Then said the second bit didn't exist.

Then went thankfully quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

Musket, your survey said some Christians do not consider themselves religious.
No surprise.
I do not consider myself a religious person and would have answered no to it.

I do not believe that anyone who calls them self a Christian would answer no to believing in God and nothing in the surveys suggest that.

Musket, you stated as a fact, ""Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That was a blatant, deliberate lie.
No survey or any Census says any such thing.
You are exposed as a liar and a fraud, again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 01:22 PM

I'm not a Christian but I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. Not a single Christian, nor anyone else on this planet, knows whether there's a God or not. I don't understand why any rational person allows belief to enter into it. We should all be placing ourselves on a spectrum according to the weight we put on each piece of evidence for or against. Dawkins's spectrum goes from 1 (100% certain that God exists - an irrational position) to 7 (100% certain that God does not exist - equally irrational). Dawkins and I both put ourselves at 6.9. Atheists are atheists because of the sheer lack of evidence that God exists. But we have to leave that tiny margin of 0.1 because, well, you never know when evidence might crop up. We atheists are completely open to new evidence about God. It is vital to understand that lack of evidence is not the same as non-belief. Vital, but seldom understood by God-adherents. I sometimes call the latter believers, because they call themselves that. But that's just irrational. In future, I think I may ask them where they are on that scale.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:38 PM

One minute Keith says all Christians are religious the next minute he isn't.

I'm happy him calling me a liar. He seems to be deranged.

Or saying anything to justify his religion, for which up to the last post, said he is religious.

I suppose if you believe in fairies, the humpty dumpy clause can easily apply.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:50 PM

One minute Keith says all Christians are religious

No.
Keith has never said that.
You are making up shit again.

You previously stated, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

You made that up too!

You stated that atheists are a majority.

More made up shit!

You have made yourself even more laughable than usual over this.
Do keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:22 PM

Stu, as far as written records are concerned , there is one, and I would not expect many more, seeing as the judgment of God swept all except 8 away in judgment. There are however flood stories from around the world, including the Gilgamesh epic. But there are aural traditions from diverse locations,often with similarities to the biblical record.       Why would you expect mountain ranges that only sprung up in the flood yr to be recorded, certainly not by name.          As to erosion and weathering, it is hard to generalise, esp as I am not a geologist. However, I think that often what " you lot " put down to slow processes , creationist geologists put down to catastrophic phenomenon , and produce observational evidence to support that interpretation of the data.      I have reread you're your former post and can see now how I misunderstood it.......ie you were claiming nothing, but rather expressing a hope that the problem will be ironed out,   Presumably validating your preference that soft tissue can be preserved multimillion yrs.   sorry you don't understand the problem with soft tissue preservation. I would have thought a " ten year old " would comprehend the problem. It is my understanding that observational science had always regarded such preservation as impossible, and it was only the confirming of said phenomenon that caused evolutionists to search for some mechanism that will validate their deep time belief. But presumably we can at least agree that such mechanism has not been found, and that the under wraps new dino find is unlikely to alter that.   I don't know what the declassification of brontosaurus has to do with it !.       Sedimentary layers were laid down in the flood year. And I don't think I see what you are asking. I had formerly discussed how I understood how the geologic column , if we grant that there is such, was laid down. Ie, that there is a general order, but which is rearranged from time to time as the need arises to maintain the paradigm.   I am glad to see you don't see faith as a problem to being scientific, but if the creationist model is extremist, that don't mean it is wrong. You are merely expressing an opinion until you can demonstrate otherwise. And as to conforming ,you can hardly accuse creationists of that !. Rather it is the evolutionist that is following the herd.                      And yes I did write poetry, before going on to songwriting. Glad you like it !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:31 PM

Are you sure I said atheists are in the majority Keith?

Are you making things up again?

Naughty naughty.

I don't recognise the term atheist as meaning rational person who doesn't believe in imaginary friends for starters.

I said the majority don't believe in God or whatever. I am not any atheist. I don't reject theism on the basis it isn't my delusion either way.

Just like most people. fool.