BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:30 AM

That's God, Keith, not you.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:27 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 - 04:18 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,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: 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.

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: 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: 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,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 - 06:27 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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