BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

There's a bit of creationist theory which always bemuses me. I have to admit know little of it. However if Adam and Eve had sons named Cain Abel and Seth and other sons and daughters in order for the next generation to come along there must have been a bit of incest which is against the teachings of every church I can think off. Do creationists believe we are all descended from incestuous relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:06 PM

"Do creationists believe we are all descended from incestuous relationships"

... welllll.. that might explain Jeremy Clarkson's fan base...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Hi Steve

You will have me shot !!!! LOL

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

Hi Michael

Yes RIGHT up the Gunners....!!!

Seriously though I think they will finish up 2nd in the Premier League this time.

Mind you they still have to come to Old Trafford....!!!!????

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 03:14 PM

"stu, you have a point so far, except that no scientist knows it all either"

You've missed the point pete. Just because no one person knows all there is to know about the theories, processes, physics, chemistry etc etc that means a modern car can be designed, manufactured and assembled by a single human, doesn't mean the car doesn't exist or won't work. It a massive collaborative effort, with thousands of people contributing to the accumulated knowledge over the years that means we can build these cars.

No one scientist knows it all, but when you have hundreds of thousands of scientists working for centuries then eventually we can begin to understand the world and universe we live in. Evolution is a result of THAT accumulated knowledge (as is the car).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 04:32 PM

"New Rule: Stop asking Miss USA contestants if they believe in evolution. It's not their field. It's like asking Stephen Hawking if he believes in hair scrunchies. Here's what they know about: spray tans, fake boobs and baton twirling. Here's what they don't know about: everything else. If I cared about the uninformed opinions of some ditsy beauty queen, I'd join the Tea Party."

Bill Maher

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (in gas pedant mode)
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 07:00 PM

" ... I can carry on responding to the evolution believers ..."

You're confusing 'belief' and 'evidence' again, pete.

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

Give us some titles then, pete. Hit us with some references, 'creation boy'!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM

If it helps, Clarkson said that whilst everybody was complaining about his comments on Mexico, a priest said the comments could influence children and that is dangerous.

Clarkson merrily tweeted links to this priest arguing for creationism to be taught as a science.

Just pulling the tangent round. 😎

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

That criminally barmy loathsome street preacher from Taunton
might fit in quite comfortably here at mudcat...!!!???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-32017649


... actually he's gobby and old enough to be a candidate for hosting Top Gear...
well at least it might keep him off the streets....?????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:42 AM

It looks like ole Jezza might be for the high jump. Shame. What's the world come too when you can't twat your fellow employees and minions with impunity?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

stu, methinks I did not. your car is the result of accumulative knowledge, and a car is the result. it is operative, testable, observable, repeatable science/engineering.
evolutionism is the result of accumulative philosophically driven interpretations of the same evidence and data that all scientists have, whatever their views on origins. and the result of all that Darwin dogma is nothing tangible at all.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:56 AM

"evolutionism is the result of accumulative philosophically driven interpretations of the same evidence and data that all scientists have"

You are utterly, totally wrong and I suspect you know that in your heart of hearts. The principles are exactly the same, both utilise the scientific method and both are still developing. To say otherwise is just not correct and pretty insulting to all of us that are scientists and work with honesty and integrity to discover the nature of things.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:08 AM

You don't need science if you have faith, Stu. You should know that by now. I believe that Pete is an utter knobhead. No need for proof. My faith sustains me...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:14 AM

Pete, you still haven't responded to my query

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

The Beeb dropped Carlson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:17 AM

LOL. Make that Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM

One less wart on the arse of the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM

They dropped Carlson too. Some time in 1937, I believe. He ran a Home Service programme featuring souped-up Model Ts called "Top Double Declutch". Got in trouble for punching the bloke with the red flag.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:19 AM

Raggy, why not that a few extra partners were quietly created, or that genetic diversity was implanted?

Not much of a question.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

You still haven't cited any references, pete.

Let's, though, examine that word "propaganda". In my dictionary it means:

"Information, ideas or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation etc."

So who, exactly, is spreading information, ideas or rumours about evolutionary biology? And how, exactly, do they benefit from this activity? Further, as it is now virtually impossible to untangle evolutionary biology from the rest of modern science, is modern science one gigantic (anti-religious?) conspiracy? If it is, are you seriously suggesting that governments and organisations, throughout the world, routinely spend billions of their currency units on a vast conspiracy? Who would benefit from such madness?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:55 AM

Good save, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 01:40 PM

Clarkson dropped!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:09 PM

Keith, Pete

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that other people were dropped into the equation.

As I have already stated my knowledge is very limited.

But if people believe the Bible to be a TRUE and HONEST account of the development of humankind surely some incest must have taken place?

Over to you ................

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:15 PM

Evolution vs creation from the great film Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

sorry raggy, since posting earlier I have been obligated elsewhere. you are correct that adam and eve had 3 named sons, and elsewhere it reads that they had other sons and daughters. yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed. there was no restriction on near relatives marrying until the law of moses, so I wonder whether the term " incest" with its moral overtones is applicable in the beginning of humanity. bear in mind also, that adam and eve were told to " be fruitful and multiply " . that is gen 1v 28. as v 27 is more generic , ie male and female, not only the first pair. how was the command to multiply be carried out, if the later prohibition was applicable in the beginning. as keith suggested, some suggest some other human creations, but theologically that runs into problems, since the bible teaches universal descent from, and identification with, adam. I hope that, at least explains my reading of scripture . regards pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:48 PM

beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !. as to insulting scientists, I note that there is no problem with that from the usual suspects, if those scientists don't toe the evolutionary line.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:12 PM

and lastly, shimrod. I have read many if not most of the links provided in past discussions. I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins, and it only evidenced natural selection, which is part of the creation model anyway, as I suggested, that is probably more than you have looked at creationist material. as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely, but none the less, I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming. and I reject the notion that evolutionary belief is crucially interconnected to observational science, though it has often hindered it !. care to name any scientific invention that required Darwinist imput ?. rejection of evolutionism does nothing to hinder science...quite the reverse.    as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bandiver (Astray)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:34 PM

So how come if they've sacked him, his is the first face I see when I switch on TV tonight???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

There is little or no benefit in evolutionism. I refer you to this simple article which even you may understand, Pete. Although I doubt it vet much. In case it is too much I draw your attention to the line "In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy."

After you have read and probably dismissed that maybe you can answer a similar question. What is the benefit of religion? Other than an excuse by the religious leaders to control the masses and gain themselves power and riches beyond most peoples dreams?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:02 PM

" ... yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed."

Hhhhmmm?? Very ... sort of ... vaguely ... technical sounding ... but complete and utter bullshit!! What the f***k does it mean??

"I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins ..."

Oh, so you're very well versed in the literature of evolutionary biology then! I should have a go at quantum physics next - I'm sure you'll be able to find a good video on U-tube!

" ... as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely ..."

You mean, you didn't actually know what it meant until I told you? But you thought that it sounded bad so using it might put "evolutionism" in a bad light?

"I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming."

At this point I am struggling to find anything meaningful to say about that load of deranged gibberish. Help! Evolutionists have stolen my wheely bin and cause cancer! Help!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:28 PM

"Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller's Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction. The geneticist John C. Sanford has further expanded on the theory in a more realistic framework from the Biblical worldview, and published the work in a book titled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[2]"

from

http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:41 PM

Sounds like a bloody fun read.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 07:40 PM

LOLOL

Best laugh of the day. Many thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:53 AM

the Mystery of the Genome

Nothing mysterious about us, mate, but you need to learn to spell.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:05 AM

And another thing, pete. You keep banging on about:

"as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past."

And you use it like a drowning man clinging to a life raft.

But, surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible either! If you can, please tell us how ...??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Why limit yourself to the Bible? You can always find ways to accommodate Polynesian religions or scientology in observable facts?

What makes Jesus so bloody special?

Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:21 AM

"Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday."

One of the saddest comments I've ever read. :0(

I think we really do need to dismantle society and start again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:41 AM

Are the comments here serious? Do people really, actually, seriously believe that evolution is not a fact?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:01 AM

"you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !"

Of course you can. Don't be ridiculous. Why would I say otherwise if it were not true?

"beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method."

You are wrong. You obviously have no idea how cross-disciplinary the earth and life sciences are.


"as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him."

And there it is. Fine if you believe that, you might even be right, but stop pretending you know anything about science or it's methods and processes; also you can't assume to know the motivations of those of us who are scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:53 AM

Evolution is certainly a fact (you know me - I'd go even further but I find Snail scary). The theory that attempts to explain it is just that, a scientific attempt (meaning that the evidence used to construct the theory must be obtained by the scientific process). It's a very good one, though, because the evidence makes evolution incontrovertible. Only a fool would deny that. Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Hi

Sorry must have pressed the button twice.

Anyway in reply to all this scientific stuff....

Clarkson is a lout...My wife says so.....and she's ALWAYS Right.    LOL

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:19 AM

"Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science."

Exactly, Steve. But I suspect that that is what really sticks in the craw of religious fundamentalists; their fervent faith has been rendered redundant, meaningless and irrelevant!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:54 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM

Pete doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Pete, again I am confused I do not know of any reference in the Law of Moses to incest. Murder, dishonesty, theft even leprosy but no mention of incest.

So my question then becomes is incest against the law of God or against the law of man, and if the latter who gave them to right to make such a law.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM

Ok.. this is definitely worth a listen

BBC Radio 4 Media Show Wed 26/03/15

including an interview with the bellend who stared the petition

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

Raggy, why are you people so obsessive about challenging a view held by only one poster?
What is the connection between creationism and Clarkson?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:02 PM

was that really you , keith ?. either way. I read raggy as asking, not challenging.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

Ah! There you are, pete!

Just a little reminder:

... surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible ... If you can, please tell us how ...??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

so gnome, what was the wiki article supposed to prove ? it is just an exercise in thinly disguised appeal to authority. try finding some evidence for evolutionism.    benefits of religion ?. that's a big subject, but suffice it to say that as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance, and many have testified to dramatic conversions and transformed lives. many beneficial and charitable institutions were birthed in the church. suppose you list some humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism ?.