BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:28 PM

evolutionism

There is no such thing, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:38 PM

.. isn't it interesting that science and technology are evolving
whereas religion and Jeremy Clarkson are ... ermmmm... wellll... ummmm....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.

Er, not exactly. Evolution negates the whole story of Genesis. If you believe in a creator of everything, you can't be accepting evolutionary theory. In my experience, those valiant Christians who try to embrace evolution still want God to have kick-started the process and to have some kind of oversight of it. If you don't agree that evolution has no trajectory, no end points, no goals, plenty of blind endings and no-one kicking it off, you don't accept the theory. It's a big ask and a stiff test and it requires a degree of honesty from people of religious conviction that you seldom see. It also requires a proper understanding of the theory. The prime anti-evolution mover on this forum wilfully refuses to educate himself. He has nothing serious to say and never has had.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

So, pete from the seven stars, or seeing as we are into abbreviating names, ars.

as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance

Are those the ones that were burned by the christian faith? Or the kids that were buggered by christian priests? Or the millions who have been killed in Christian wars?

Tell you what, ars. To save you trying to think, which you are obviously incapable of, I will tell you who has found personal peace and assurance. Me. I was brought up Russian Orthodox and then Roman catholic. As soon as I ditched my imaginary friend things became a lot clearer. Now, fuck off and stop bothering normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

Hi, Pete. Trust things are good with you.

When you said "humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism", it seemed to me you presuppose that atheism is organized when in fact it's not on any grand scale. For this discussion I'd prefer to see it stated "humanitarian efforts atheists contribute to". YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:01 PM

having answered your question, shimrod, how's about you tell us what creationist material you have read. judging by how you are not even able to defend your evolution beliefs, probably nothing. I reckon it is you, not me, clinging on to a sinking raft. I just like to hold your feet to the fire, as they say. and I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, however it works a whole lot better with observable science than Darwinist notions.
raggy, Leviticus 20 deals with prohibited sexual unions. I would think that secular law against incest derived from biblical laws originally, at least in the christianized societies.
that's right, Thompson, I don't believe it a fact, and if you do, do you know why, other than blind acceptance ?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:27 PM

ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?. I don't remember nye being able answer that, so maybe you can help him out !. have you got a time machine ?!.    steve as usual making assertions based on consensus without the benefit of any other reasoned argument. go on steve, show us some evolution !.
point taken #, but in fact atheists are increasingly organizing themselves, and even doing conferences. and I don't think organizing charitable concerns are high on the agenda, though granted individuals may well be involved in such. regards to you too.
greg...yes there is, and you are a classic case of one its adherents.
steve does at least have it right ,that evolutionism is an attack on the bible, but he wilfully refuses to examine the evidence ,or even offer evidence for his own belief, other than assertions and appeal to consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:46 PM

Evolution is most decidedly not an attack on the Bible. Science can't concern itself with religion as its whole basis is incompatible with religion's predication on faith.The fact of evolution negates Genesis tangentially, not because Darwin et al. set out to attack religion. They were doing science, and there is no scientific way of attacking religion. There's reason, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:45 PM

Steve Shaw, your pontificating on Christian belief is more than a little misplaced. It is true that there are fundamentalist Christians who meet with the sort of levels of belief that you describe but there are many more who do not. We know what the church requires of us but we do not necessarily accept it blindly.   Yeah, I know, pic-n-mix Christian blah, blah, blah.   The thing is, an awful lot of Christians draw guidance from much of the teachings of Jesus without needing the Old Testament, which is an interesting series of myth, dubious history and fable. I have no trouble accepting evolution, I have trouble with people who don't. There are those who would tell me that I am no kind of Christian, well, they can go and copulate with themselves. I define what I am, not any fundamentalist Christian, not Steve Shaw and not any number of other posters who pride themselves on their atheism. I respect your views and I don't expect you to respect mine, because you know that I am stupid, right? But the fact is my life has meaning for me. I am fascinated by science even though my understanding is limited. I love music, theatre and many other things I cannot be bothered to list. I suppose what I am saying you don't know who or what I am. You only know who you are. So please, stop pontificating about what I think or believe or don't believe, because you don't know shit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

I am not proud of my atheism. It's simply where I've got to. In fact, I have plenty of doubts, as it happens. And I do not think that people of religion are stupid. I do think that they carry certain delusions in that aspect of their lives, but I have those too (I support Liverpool, fer chrissake, and I won't hear a word said against Carly Simon). Musket's even worse as he supports Sheffield Wednesday. I haven't a clue as to what you do or don't believe unless you tell me. But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution, even if they say they do, because the two are entirely incompatible. Evolution can't work with someone guiding it or starting it off. The theory, which you'll agree is a very good explanation of evolution, shows us that the process can have no goals or underlying driving force bar natural selection. There are boundless mistakes, over-production of offspring, blind endings and bad moves which do not compute with the God notion, unless you want to give God a major refit. You praised me for being forthright yet not abrasive in the other thread. Perhaps you'll give me cause to return the compliment, but it won't be as a result of this post of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:30 PM

Coming back after a day or two, I find we are back with that old bloody evolution·v·whevs bit again.

Yawwwwnnnnn!

Relevance?

How did that happen?

Out of interest -- where has Clarkson got to?


≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:13 PM

"I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, ..."

But you (spuriously) critise evolutionary biologists for not being able to do "repeatable science" on the past. What's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:27 PM

Repeatable applies to experimentation. It does not apply to a good deal of what we might call observational evidence and evidence obtained by interpretation, reasoning and fair extrapolation. If I find a dinosaur femur in the cliff over the beach, it may be subjected to dating methods, interpretation of the context of its site, comparative anatomy and its context within the geographical area (etcetera - I'm no Stu). I may never find another specimen, so it's not "repeatable", but it is evidence and, given correct application of the scientific process to it, it's perfectly good scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:03 PM

" Jesus H-come-dancing-Christ" this thread is so trivial and boring - basically who gives a fuck. I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't.

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

Good to see you distancing yourself from sentient human beings. Saves us doing it. Surely only the faintly mad visit threads they find so tedious. Might I recommend abstinence therefrom?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:43 PM

Shaw - your basic English comprehension skills need polishing.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:50 PM

Really? Lessee:

[Teribus]: "I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't."

"I doesn't"? And you think MY skills are lacking? Heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:20 AM

"ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?"

This isn't even a sentence. Were I to go into the endless detail about how multiple scientific disciplines arrive at their conclusions you'd still come up with some claptrap and ignore that wot I wrote.

So I'll save myself the bother and get on with the science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:34 AM

But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution,

But we do Steve.
You show your ignorance.
Do you not know any Christians?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:48 AM

I know a christian - my brother in law...

He's an evangelical minister.

He's a very intelligent, decent, witty, keenly sarcastic bloke,
good company on the odd occasions we meet at family gatherings..

yet he believes and preaches we were all created about 4000 years ago..

oh well...

Dunno what he thinks about Jeremy Clarkson though...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

If I take "Christian" literally, a follower of Christ, then I suppose it's possible to be a Christian who does not believe in a creator of everything. In my experience, Christians in general do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. This is completely incompatible with evolution. No living organism has ever been created in the religious sense of the term. If you don't get that, Keith, I'm afraid that your understanding of evolutionary theory is just as poor as your understanding of history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:16 AM

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.

Is this most Christians that are alive, eminent, not politically inclined and have been published? Or just most Christians in Hertford?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:18 AM

"You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices"

Exquisitely ironic!.....congratulations Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:57 AM

"It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God."
.,,.

It is a fact that, in this particular, most Christians are excellent personifications of a creation of one of their most distinguished writers, John Bunyan: Mr Face-Both-Ways.

I still don't see by what infractuous ways we got here from a supposed discussion of the egregious Clarkson! Are we ever going to get back to the putative topic of this thread?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

Michael - To some, Clarkson IS god!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

And they are just as deluded as the Christians being berated here! 👍😄

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:58 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

This post is just a pile of unsupported assertions. At least I did you the honour of explaining my point of view. Now, Keith, it's perfectly clear that whatever understanding you have of evolution is shaky. If you're telling me that your creator God created inanimate matter but has had nothing to do with the origin and evolution of life on Earth, that would be one thing, but it would sound a little as though you were rewriting God. The thing is, you can't even say that God put the stuff in place then let evolution get on with it. The concept of an intelligent driving force involved anywhere in the process is completely at odds with the crucial notions that evolution has no planned trajectory, no goals, no endpoint and no striving (for perfection or otherwise). Tangentially, I suspect that God wouldn't be too happy about the mistakes, the flaws, the evolutionary dead ends and the vast over-production of offspring with its concomitant mass death and disease, essential to evolution. Now you can rewrite God if you like to keep him out of it (please yourself, I'm not bothered), or you can rewrite evolutionary theory (careful now...). But you can't have it both ways. I actually applaud Christians who do want it both ways, because at least they're not brainless fundamentalists like pete, but, sadly, their argument is, er, fundamentally flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:11 AM

"...concept of an intelligent driving force" --- esp as it's peculiarly unintelligent. They once, not long since, remember?, tried to con us with the idea of calling their deity by some such cognomen as "Intelligent Designer". Bloody Unintelligent Designer, I always reckoned him/it/whevs. What intelligent designer would have organised the horrors of childbirth the way it is? Always been happy to be exempt from that bit of design --- ppphhheeewww! & as to the boring & often peculiarly inconvenient necessity to keep on having to interrupt whatever one is busy with to piss or shit! If ever I employed someone supposedly to design something for me who couldn't manage better design than those examples, then his bill would go in the bin as soon as he submitted it & he could whistle [or fart!] for his payment!

≈M≈

Still don't know what all this to do with ole Jeremy Wotzit, mind... But liked your suggestion even so, DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

And, worse than that, Michael, God put the recreational area right next to the bloody sewage works!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Funnily enough, errrmm.. according to certain internet sites..

A large proportion of young American hetero sexual males now seem to lust after that
as the primary recreational area...???

strange old world....??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:47 AM

This thread is taking more twists and turns than some of the contributors arguments :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM

Yes, many posts back silly pete burst on to this thread spouting some claptrap about 'science' (of which he obviously has no understanding whatsoever). His interjections are like the proverbial 'red-rag-to-a-bull' to those of us with a scientific background. I suppose that we should really ignore the ignorant fool but then, perhaps, we have a duty to counter unreason whenever the opportunity presents itself (?) We should really stick to the thread topic though - go away and boil your silly head, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Indeed, Steve ---

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

W B Yeats: Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Well, the thread topic is yesterday's news now, Shimrod. Let's just have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:43 PM

The guy to whom Clarkson gave a knuckle-sandwich has said that he doesn't wish to press for charges.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

Oisin Tymon is one of the producers on the show, and has been for some years. Clarkson apparently (according to newspaper reports) screamed at him for quite a while because his hot dinner wasn't on the table when he arrived back very late, and then punched him.
Tymon did nothing about it; he turned away and went to the A&E (ER in American) and got himself checked out, as you always should in case of concussion if you have a blow in the face.
Clarkson then tried many times to contact him and apologise, and then went and reported what he had done to his bosses.
He was on his last warning, and so was suspended while there were discussions, and then his contract was terminated.
Oisin Tymon behaved perfectly, doing nothing to make the situation worse, making no report of the assault; he is now refusing to press charges.
It says something about Clarkson's fan base that Tymon is now getting death threats and being mocked on Twitter.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

Shimrod, I see evades the challenges by inferring that I introduced the evolution topic. He is mistaken, but I plead guilty to rising to the challenge when the usual suspects can't help themselves itching for a fight !.   Stu also evading the challenge of how he proposes to do repeatable science on the long gone past by claiming to be above debating me. Bye for now then , stu ?. At least Steve gets that part of it. All he needs to do now is evidence his evolutionary claims, after admitting these are not subject to the scientific method, as just discussed.    Punkfolkrocker, I suspect you mean 6000 yr ago, but glad you speak highly of a brother Christian. Give him my thumbs up if you think about it ,next time you speak.       Shimrod".....repeatable science on bible....evolutionary....what's the difference..."      The difference, shimrod is that you and stu insisted it could be done on the latter !   But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, and your scientific background don't help you defend your beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM

But ars, most christians do not believe the bible. It must be true because Keith said so and he is a christian and therefore cannot lie.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

In three lines, pete, tell us what you understand by "the scientific method".

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

I told you that most Christians understand that evolution is a fact.
The Old Testament is an oral tradition thousands of years old.
Of course it is not factual, but it holds many truths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:03 PM

So you're telling me that most Christians don't believe that God created everything. Fine!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:04 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:16 PM

Then you are not addressing what I've told you. Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all. You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM

"But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, "

What utter bollocks!! The Bible is just another religious text among hundreds of such texts. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Why single out that particular text? I can only think that it's on the basis of concensus among certain members of a once popular - but declining - religious sect. Oh, but I forgot, for some unaccountable reason, 'concensus' is a dirty word for you, isn't it, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

I think I have the gist of it, Steve. You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth. But it is not all the truth so someone has to tell them which bits are true and which bits are not. Since it is about things that happened in the past I suppose it is classed as a history book so it must be the historians who tell people what to believe :-)Trouble is, it was written by people who are now dead and their truths have now been superseded by other truths that have come to light because the government now let people have access to more facts. Things like education and science.

What I still don't really get is that if it is now accepted that some bits are not true then, presumably, it cannot have come from god because god cannot inspire people to lie, surely? If it does not come from god it must, therefore, come from men. In the word of someone who's name escapes me, it is made up shit. Now,that makes me think that it would be a good idea to make up a new, better religion but if I remember rightly when someone tried that before some christians went ape-shit and said it was mockery and ridicule. So, if one made up religion is mockery and ridicule why is another one adhered to? Easy. The first one has established itself by force. So, what any new religion needs to do is follow the example of the old one and kill, maim and torture people into submission.

We have a lot of work to do, mate...

What has this got to do with Clarkson? I dunno!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:51 AM

Most of the bible is metaphor.

Some people are unable to understand metaphor.

Sometimes the truth requires much thought (Ake....2015)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all.

Evolution is a process that requires no intelligent control.
That would be artificial selection, which we do.

You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth.

You don't see Dave.
Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:49 AM

It's going around on FB that the new favourite for the vacant 'Top Gear' job is Guy Martin, who is anything but a posh-boy.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:06 AM

In my neck of the woods (the American south and southwest, aka The Bible Belt) there are plenty of folk who will assure you that the bible is a historical, factual document.