1151
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
28/06/2006 23:46:00
> Dunno. Being thick I thought an Anglia was brand of Ford car produced
> during the 1960s.
>
That was our revenge for your inflicting British Leyland on us.
My first car was a '73 MG Midget.
I still haven't forgiven you blokes.
;>
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1152
ukantic
Re: Boooo!!
28/06/2006 23:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
< Nick wrote > The evening isn't how you imagine it - there isn't a
formal programme, nor any designated "slots". It's merely the evening
when the school opens its doors between 6 and 8.30pm to prospective
parents and their (mainly year 5) children to wander round and see
what's on offer. Each department puts on a relevant "show" in their
teaching area, including wall displays. There are students - mainly
6th formers in my lab- helping out and chatting to folk. In the
Science corridor there is a display featuring Darwin already, so I
plan to put up some thought-provoking ID material
< Reply Alan > In other words, prospective parents & pupils at Blue
Coat School will be greeted by a display of creationist antiscience
propaganda. On the left we a display teaching evolution & on the right
a display undermining it.
< Reply Alan > I have got to hand it to you Nick, in America
creationists have probably spent millions trying to get antievolution
material into their schools, only to be knocked back by the courts.
Yet people like you can calmly walk into a school in the UK & if you
have got the front, expose impressionable schoolchildren to ideas so
extreme that they have been rejected by the scientific community, the
government & even the established religious groups such as the C of E
& the Vatican.
< Reply Alan > You shouldn't be allowed to misuse your position within
the state educational position to promote your discredited ideas, &
this is clear evidence to me that the law needs tightening up on these
issues. You want to turn our schools into an ideological battleground
& I cannot think of one single reason why this would be desirable.
Furthermore, I find it very difficult to understand why you are being
allowed to get away with doing so. Given the publicity that has been
generated around your admission (yes, journalists are showing an
interest in it) it seems almost inconceivable to me that you are not
being encouraged in this course of action by management who are at the
very least turning a blind eye, or worse still, actively encouraging
your activities.
< Nick wrote > mainly biochemical in nature. I'm very happy to discuss
it briefly with anyone who reads it, but it would of necessity be
informal. I'm issuing an open invite to anyone from BS to come along
because I think it will dispel the myth that children here are TAUGHT
about YEC/ID in some sort of "brainwashing" fashion. They ARE taught
to be sceptical and to consider alternatives to Evolution. Darwinism
isn't a sacred cow and people who question its populist status as a
"fact" are not as empty-headed as Dawkins suggests!
< Reply Alan > One of the myths being peddled by the creationists &
government (who are quietly supporting them) is that any concerns over
the issues can be dispelled by claiming that creationism in the sense
of YE creationism is not being taught to schoolchildren & is not in
the curriculum. The average person who is not aware of the intricacies
of this issue would be happy with that assurance. However the average
person is being grossly misled for the following reasons:
< Reply Alan > Firstly, most creationists have enough sense to
understand that their views are by any standards extreme & likely to
face opposition. This opposition is especially true in America where
there is a strict separation of Church & State within the American
educational system. This has led them to tone down the more
contentious content & instead concentrate their efforts on attacking
evolution. In fact, an informed observer would rightly conclude that
one of the main aims of the creationist movement is to denigrate
evolution & undermine its teaching to children.
< Reply Alan > This hostility to evolution is central to creationism &
is evident in all forms from YEC to ID. In the past, creationists
attempted to get evolution banned in schools; when that failed they
attempted to get creationism taught alongside evolution, which again
failed. The modern, evolved creationist hostility to evolution
manifests itself in the, "teach the controversy" strategy whereby
creationists attempt to denigrate evolution & undermine it in the
minds of children by teaching them, against sound scientific opinion
to the contrary, that evolution is controversial & that (using Nick's
own words) they should be sceptical of it.
< Reply Alan > The American courts have seen through this ruse & it is
about time that people in this country were also made aware of it.
Anyone who teaches that evolution is controversial or that it requires
critically thinking about, is teaching something that only
creationists (& some other religious groups) believe. Such teachings
may make no reference to extreme religious beliefs (although they are
the creationist's prime motivator) & may have a veneer of scientific
plausibility, but they are nevertheless still tenets of creationism.
< Reply Alan > Amongst scientists there absolutely no controversy
about the validity of theory of evolution. To teach otherwise is to
teach a lie – a lie called creationism. Equally, there are no viable
*scientific* alternatives to evolution, & to misrepresent creationist
religious views as such is an act of gross dishonesty.
< Nick wrote > As for my own personal YEC position, I'm very happy to
arrange a debate/presentation in front of an interested audience one
lunchtime, which is what John Mackay and others do when they come
here. Again, to counter some of the paranoia circulating on BS, I
repeat that this does NOT take place in a formal class but in a
voluntary extra-curricular situation,
< Reply Alan > The fact that it doesn't take place in a normal class
doesn't make any difference; it is still within the school & the
target is its pupil's. Even a relatively experienced anticreationist
would have problems countering a creationist Gish Gallop & an average
schoolchild wouldn't stand a chance. Religious fanatics such as Mackay
should not be allowed anywhere near OTHER PEOPLE'S children & it is an
absolute unforgivable disgrace that these indoctrination sessions are
allowed to go on within the grounds of a state financed school.
< Nick wrote > usually under the banner of "Christian Union" which I
help run.
< Reply Alan > The only function of the CU is to promote the Christian
religious viewpoint within the school & to recruit believers (grab em
whilst they're young). The children who go to your school go there to
be educated, not to be predated upon by some elite supremacist
religious group that has special privileges denied to other groups.
There is no place for the CU in the modern state educational system &
the fact that it seems to be so strongly associated with creationism
further strengthens this assertion.
< Nick wrote > Indeed next Thursday 6th July my colleague (Maths.) has
arranged for a YEC speaker friend to come and give such a talk. Again
you are free to attend - Open Evening starts later.
< Reply Alan > So the maths teacher is at as well – looks like we have
hit upon a right festering nest here Nick.
< Nick wrote > It's about time intelligent schoolchildren realised
that controversy exists in the whole area of "origins"
< Reply Alan > Again, there is no scientific controversy surrounding
evolution & to teach otherwise is to teach creationism.
< Nick wrote > and that Exam boards are requiring a knowledge of it.
< Reply Alan > As far as I am aware, one (OCR) added the following on
how, "the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time
(e.g. creationist interpretation)." Given that it is a matter of
historical fact that the prevailing view was once wrongly creationist,
I personally have no problem with children being told so.
< Nick wrote > Sorry if this upsets the atheist and puts the
Darwinist's beak out of joint!
< Reply Alan > As an atheist, I personally care no more about your
personal views (religious or otherwise) than I care about anyone
else's. What concerns me is the concerted efforts you & other
creationists are making to promote your views to children by misusing
the state educational system. Given that this system is paid for &
used by all citizens regardless of their political or religious views
or lack of them, then it should be neutral on religious & political
issues - & the fact that traditionally it has not been, is in my mind,
no excuse for continuing in error.
< Nick wrote > Hope to see you soon - I enjoy a lively debate.
< Reply Alan > We are having the debate here Nick.
Alan.
1153
Andrew
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 00:30:00
Well said, Alan. I couldn't agree more.
1154
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 03:33:00
--- "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > >
>
>
> > Well said, Alan. I couldn't agree more.
> >
Hear, hear! I was just saying something like that out loud before I read your
response Andrew.
Mind you, I would like to see Nick exposed in a public forum - in front of
all the parents, for example. I imagine it would be most gratifying to see
him squirm in front of a few hundred adults who *are* able to tell the
difference between YEC bullshit and properly researched science.
This is why religion has no place in schools. Even RE cannot be taught from a
truly balanced perspective since even an atheist has views.
1155
Nick & Moira Cowan
RE: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 02:49:00
> From: Rudy Vonk [rudy@mores.es]
> Sent: 28 June 2006 16:28
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Boooo!!
>
>
>
> On 28 jun 2006, at 13:31, Wilson Alan wrote
> Unfortunately I am conducting an experiment to
> disprove flat earth
> beliefs that day.
You don't need to - the Bible affirms that the earth
is a sphere - Hebrew (phoenetic): chug - often
mistranslated as "circle" (Isaiah 40v22).
Pretty good science for 8th century B.C. don't you
think?
> Really, Alan, have you never been to Kansas? Or
> Norfolk, since you are
> in the UK? :-)
>
> Well I've been to several American states and to
> Norfolk.
> the Theory of Evolution is probably the greatest and
> soundest scientific
> theory in all of science.
What? Better than the 1st and 2nd Laws of
Thermodynamics? As they used to say in Stoke when I
was a kid: "Pull the other one - it's got bells on!"
> Also the easiest to understand, since the effects
> are clearly visible
> all around us, even to the most reactionary
> fundamentalist moron.
They certainly are - in variation within a kind. Do
you know that scientists even got 2 butterflies
recently to produce a new species of ....er.....
butterfly. I mean, how long before they get a moth?
(sound of crickets chirping and fruit-flies mutating)
> Yes I agree but some people think that bronze age
> Judaist writings are
> more scientifically reliable. Sad really.
No (shrug) - God's words are, by definition,
authoritative. Read 1st comment above again.
Interesting what "bronze" symbolises in Scripture -
(some Bibles say "brass" but we won't argue over it in
case Mikey gets upset).
Nick Nick.
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1156
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 03:08:00
--- Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira
> Cowan
> <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> > John Mackay has never been paid a penny by this
> > school, nor will he be in the future. His visits
> are
> > by invitation and any expenses are his own. The
> > allegation is scurrilous.
> So let me get this clear. John Mackay states that he
> charges for
> doing this and has a publicly available rate card to
> show the costs
> but does not charge Bluecoat and does not intend to
> charge Belevedere?
Correct. Sorry I didn't make this clear before.
There are no plans for John to visit Belvedere at
present.
2+2=5
> So, if John Mackay pays for this all, including the
> flights from
> Australia, ere, where does the money come from?
> Or, is someone else or some other organisation
> paying for his very
> considerable expenses. Mackay is quite clear how
> much it costs per
> day to put him or one of his people in the field.
> Somebody is paying
> for this?
> Or are you saying its manna from heaven?
Sort of. John's UK ministry (through Randall) is
supported by voluntary donations from people like
myself (and I've lost my reward now!) and many others.
> Sorry to put you on the spot about this but Mackay
> does not tour the
> world free of charge. His web site makes it
> absolutely clear that he
> doesn't.
>
> So who is paying? Where does the money come from?
>
> Roger Stanyard
Where does everything ultimately come from?
"Nicked"
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The
Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1157
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 03:24:00
--- midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com wrote:
> --- "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > > Well said, Alan. I couldn't agree more.
> > >
>
> Hear, hear! I was just saying something like that
> out loud before I read your
> response Andrew.
>
> Mind you, I would like to see Nick exposed in a
> public forum - in front of
> all the parents, for example. I imagine it would be
> most gratifying to see
> him squirm in front of a few hundred adults who
> *are* able to tell the
> difference between YEC bullshit and properly
> researched science.
I repeat my long-standing invitation for you or anyone
else to come and debate me in such a public forum.
Well?
> This is why religion has no place in schools. Even
> RE cannot be taught from a
> truly balanced perspective since even an atheist has
> views.
Aha - the REAL agenda! Very interesting.
Atheists have great faith too - most of us poor
born-agains are quite envious.
Nick O'Demus.
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1158
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 04:48:00
--- Peter Hearty <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
> > Homosexual orientation (if this is what you mean
> >by
> > BEING gay) is not a sin nor is "temptation"
> >generally,
> > but any sexual (genital) relationship/practice
> >outside
> > heterosexual marriage is sinful according to both
> >Old
> > and New Testaments (and other religious books too
> > Orthodox Jewish and Muslim teaching would also
> >condemn
> > it).
> That implies that a homosexual person must remain
> celibate for their entire
> lives. Why would your God impose such an intolerable
> burden on someone?
It isn't intolerable, by God's grace.
Again, I would personally find it difficult to worship
a God who hadn't "been there". Jesus Himself remained
celibate for 33 years. There is mercy and
understanding for those who fall in this tough area,
provided they acknowledge their need for help to lead
a godly life.
> > The Christian understanding is that God does not
> "make
> > people gay" - all sin is a consequence of the Fall
>
> Either God foresaw the fall, and all its
> consequences, or he didn't. If if
> he did foresee it then why didn't he just create
> things that wouldn't fall?
> If he didn't then he's not all knowing. Either way,
> it implies defects in your God.
God could have designed people (robots?) with no
choice, but He didn't because He wanted us to
reciprocate His love, and love Him of our own
free-will. A forced response would not qualify as
"love" in the manner we are designed (sorry!) for.
This is currently a big theological debate on this
issue - called the "Openness of God". I don't go as
far as this guy does, but I would recommend Clark
Pinnock's (NB no letter "l" in Pinnock!) book of the
same title.
> This also implies that children are
> responsible for the sins of
> their parents. Which is just plain silly.
It IS silly, but the Bible is clear throughout that
this is not God's way - read Deuteronomy 24v16 and
Ezekiel 18. The verses about "visiting the sins of the
fathers on the children" are more to do with the
consequences of having sinful parents - kids will
inevitably suffer if parents make wrong choices.
> > However People still have to make choices
> > about their behaviour whatever their chemical
> >makeup.
> Agreed, but as I've just pointed out, you seem to be
> suggesting that gay
> people should remain celibate, which seems
> unreasonable to me.
Sometimes I tell God that He is totally unreasonable
and we get into a big argument, which I thankfully
lose!
> > Many evangelicals would argue that
> > this means that orientation change is possible
> I'm sorry Nick, but this is just nonsense. All the
> evidence suggests
> otherwise. And why should someone change to comply
> with the tenets of your
> holy book?
We had a guy from the Wirral in our church about 2
years ago - I think his name was Martin Hallett - who
had done just that. It does appear that others find it
hard, but I think Martin now heads up an organisation
that helps gays who want to change orientation.
No-one is forced to change but we have to accept the
consequences of our choice. (Which man/Man does one
want to love?)
> > However I am not a "literalist"
> > and I don't know anyone who is. Some of the Bible
> is
> > clearly poetry, whilst the wisdom literature uses
> much
> > hyperbole to reinforce its message. The Psalms
> were
> > meant to be sung rather than merely read. Jesus
> used
> > parabolic language and not a little humour! Genre
> and
> > context are vital in proper Bible exegesis.
>
> This is fascinating. Why, if you are prepared to
> accept that some of the
> bible is not literally true, are you so insistent
> that Genesis is? Without
> wishing to sound patronising, you're clearly an
> intelligent man, you must
> realise that the overwhelming weight of scientific
> evidence proves Genesis
> wrong as a literal statement. Many Christians seem
> to manage just fine
> without a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why do
> you feel unable to join
> them?
OK - I did go through a struggle with this in the 2-3
years after becoming a Christian (at 34). In the end
it's about where ultimate authority lies - in God and
His word, or in my created but flawed intellect and
warped conscience. If I say I'm a Christian I should
logically follow Christ, wherever that leads. So if it
says 6 days......(Exodus 20v11)! When I read Genesis
it seems to me that Moses thought he was writing
history not myth/legend/saga. So the odds are that he
did what he set out to do (just as Rowling & Brown
do!)
> If I might speculate for a moment. I suspect that
> you cling to the bible as
> the one immovable rock in a constantly changing and
> confusing world. Allow
> the possibility that your rock might be interpreted
> differently, and it
> means you being cut loose into that maelstron of
> uncertainty. Yet many
> people, including several of us on this group, have
> done just that. You'll
> be surprised how remarkably beautiful the messy old
> world is when you use
> your own conscience rather than rely on the
> conscience of some ancient
> scribe. After all, what do think being made in God's
> image means, other than
> to know right from wrong?
I'm sure you're right on the first point.
But I don't trust my conscience, and it's hard to let
go once you've found God!
> > However I do believe that the whole text itself is
> > inspired by God, and hence inerrant as given in
> > its
> > original languages.
> Including the fact that the *gods* (plural) created
> the earth?
Genesis 1v1 uses the word Elohim which is the Hebrew
plural meaning "three (trinity?!) or more". "One"
would be Eloha and "two" Elohaim. So it is literally
"Gods" as you say, but the next word "created" (Hebrew
"bara") is singular!! In English therefore it doesn't
make grammatical sense, but I see this as part of the
mystery of the godhead which our finite minds can't
really grasp! The UNIverse witnesses to one God - it's
not like the Underground!
> > including Genesis 1-11 (which is clearly not
> written
> > as myth),
> Why are you so sure? Read as a morality tale it
> makes a great deal of sense.
> Certainly far more sense than as a historical
> description.
>
> Incidentally, there is even a sense in which you
> creationists are correct
> (and don't you dare quote me out of context on
> that). The world as we
> understand it did come into being about 6,000 years
> ago. This coincides with
> the invention of writing. By that point,
> urbanisation and agriculture were
> firmly established. I suspect that this is no
> coincidence. The bible is one
> of the few ancient texts which seems to preserve
> ancient tribal stories
> dating this far back in time.
OK - many Christians (especially in the C. of
E.)believe this. It depends on how far one sees
man/woman (homo sapiens) as the primary objective of
God's creation.
> > about Chemistry or even Geology,
> But you do when you come to cosmology. Why? As I've
> pointed out to you
> before, Astronomy 101 contradicts all the timescales
> given in Genesis.
The Bible isn't a "timetable" - Jesus was specific on
this - so I actually don't believe Ussher's exact
calculation (he gets a bad press but I do rather like
the man). Given that the Bible is not a cosmological
treatise however, I don't believe it is contradicted
by astronomy. We still use terms like "sunrise" after
all!
> > there are no proven scientific "mistakes" or
> > "contradictions" in it.
>
> Oh, come on now Nick. You're talking to people who
> actually know the bible
> here quite well. Let's not get diverted into that
> argument.
Sorry Pete, I stand by it, although BS probably isn't
the forum.
> >
> > And yes, it isn't "Christian" to gloat -
> > apologies(although I don't think I'm the worst
> > offender in this Group!).
> Indeed you're not. A bit more civility all round
> would seem to be in order.
I get used to it - teachers in Liverpool need a thick
skin!
> As Dave Allen used to say, may "your" god go with
you.
> Pete
Either there is a God or there isn't. In the end. (My
italics). Must go to bed.
Nick.
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The
Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1159
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 08:20:00
On 28 jun 2006, at 23:34, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Dunno. Being thick I thought an Anglia was brand of Ford car produced
> during the 1960s.
Only slightly better than the immortal Ford Prefect :-)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1160
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 08:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
> I repeat my long-standing invitation for you or anyone
> else to come and debate me in such a public forum.
>
> Well?
>
Well, no.
You already have a debating forum in which we are active. It's called
Blackshadon. Try debunkcreation as well.
Sometimes, I can't believe what I hear. Here is a fundamentalist that
shuffles oof the issue of science at every twist and turn and starts
preaching. And then invites us to a public debate!
Look, if I debate, I choose the debating on my terms, not that of
fundies with regurgiquote handbooks from ICR who's sole objective is
to preach. I couldn't give a stuff about your opinions on religion.
The issue is politics.
Now why don't you start answering all the questions we have put to
you on science instead of preaching.
Roger Stanyard
Jeez, haven;t we all seen this time and time again. The fundie comes
into a group, rubbishes science, refuses to debate it and starts
preaching.
1161
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 09:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>> Sort of. John's UK ministry (through Randall) is
> supported by voluntary donations from people like
> myself (and I've lost my reward now!) and many others.
>
Sorry to be the pedent but I still don't understand where the money
comes from. To raise money for John Mackay's UK tour took a
substantial amount of organising. He brought over three other people
from abroad.
Are you saying that the money was single handedly raised by Randall
Hardy? Or was the fund rasing done amongst your fellow
congregationalists in the Anglican movement in Liverpool or amongst
the Roman Catholic Chrches. Did the diocese help in this matter?
What I am trying to get at is how a tiny number of creationists
managed to fund a very expensive tour given, as you say, that John
Mackay doesn't charge as he claims.
Given that Mackay last year debated with John Polckinghorne,
presumably you have the active support of the Anglican bishop?
Was a wip round organised within Bluecoat?
Roger Stanyard
1162
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 09:27:00
On 29 jun 2006, at 03:49, Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> No (shrug) - God's words are, by definition,
> authoritative. Read 1st comment above again.
I realize this nutter poses a serious threat to the academic success
and even the sanity of some of the pupils he is allowed access to, but
why waste our time debating with him much longer? He is a raving
lunatic, or in the immortal punchline of the "flakey biscuit" joke:
fucking crackers!
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1163
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 09:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
> You don't need to - the Bible affirms that the earth
> is a sphere - Hebrew (phoenetic): chug - often
> mistranslated as "circle" (Isaiah 40v22).
>
> Pretty good science for 8th century B.C. don't you
> think?
>
Nope. Why should I think it is?
> > the Theory of Evolution is probably the greatest and
> > soundest scientific
> > theory in all of science.
>
> What? Better than the 1st and 2nd Laws of
> Thermodynamics? As they used to say in Stoke when I
> was a kid: "Pull the other one - it's got bells on!"
>
Er, I don't understand? Why is physics better than biology given that
you rubbish it as well.
Tell me Nick, how many of your students do you expect to go onto
study biology or genetics at Leeds. Bristol or Leicester Universities?
Roger Stanyard
> They certainly are - in variation within a kind. Do
> you know that scientists even got 2 butterflies
> recently to produce a new species of ....er.....
> butterfly. I mean, how long before they get a moth?
>
What are you drivelling on about?
>
> No (shrug) - God's words are, by definition,
> authoritative. Read 1st comment above again.
>
> Interesting what "bronze" symbolises in Scripture -
> (some Bibles say "brass" but we won't argue over it in
> case Mikey gets upset).
So what are you drivelling about here?
Roger Stanyard
1164
danger_to_shipping
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 10:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > That implies that a homosexual person must remain
> > celibate for their entire
> > lives. Why would your God impose such an intolerable
> > burden on someone?
>
> It isn't intolerable, by God's grace.
>
That's very easy for you to say Nick, but it's not a burden being
imposed on you. It's one that you're happy to recommend to others
though. I hope if you ever have any openly gay pupils you wouldn't be
so cruel as to tell them to suppress it.
> There is mercy and
> understanding for those who fall in this tough area,
> provided they acknowledge their need for help to lead
> a godly life.
You mean provided they follow YOUR holy book and do what YOU think
they should. I have no evidence of your god Nick. To me you sound like
just another prejudiced individual who looks down on gay people and
then conveniently blames that prejudice on his god. (BTW Nick, you'd
better be right about all these things you blame your god for:
according to Jesus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the one
unforgiveable sin.)
> God could have designed people (robots?) with no
> choice,
I'm sorry Nick, but it's really very simple. Either your god can see
everything or he can't. If he can then everything is pre-ordained. He
made some people in the full knowledge that they'd be gay, issued a
"don't be gay" noticed and arranged for them to burn in hell for all
eternity, in his infinite mercy.
The ONLY alternative is that he doesn't know what choices people are
going to make.
> The verses about "visiting the sins of the
> fathers on the children" are more to do with the
> consequences of having sinful parents - kids will
> inevitably suffer if parents make wrong choices.
The doctrine of original sin completely contradicts that.
> > Agreed, but as I've just pointed out, you seem to be
> > suggesting that gay
> > people should remain celibate, which seems
> > unreasonable to me.
>
> Sometimes I tell God that He is totally unreasonable
> and we get into a big argument, which I thankfully
> lose!
Witty response Nick, but fails to address the issue.
> We had a guy from the Wirral in our church about 2
> years ago - I think his name was Martin Hallett - who
> had done just that.
Well good for him. The "I used to be gay but now I'm better" brigade
invariably seem to belong to the religious fringes who've been forced
down that path thanks to the massive guilt trip that their fellow
religionists have sent them on. Just accept the guy for who he is.
> It does appear that others find it
> hard, but I think Martin now heads up an organisation
> that helps gays who want to change orientation.
Nick, with the kind of medieval attitude to morality that you're
displaying, I'm not in the least bit surprised that some people want
to change their sexuality. Of course you could just leave them alone
and stop trying to make them feel guilty about the sexuality they were
born with. But of course your "god" requires you to "help" them,
doesn't he?
> OK - I did go through a struggle with this in the 2-3
> years after becoming a Christian (at 34). In the end
> it's about where ultimate authority lies - in God and
> His word, or in my created but flawed intellect and
> warped conscience.
The trouble is Nick, you only have the bible's word for the fact that
it's divinely inspired. Anyone can write that. And I don't deny that
the bible is a powerful book, written in superbly stylised language:
"I am the LORD, hear my commands and obey me..." - you can almost hear
the thunder crashing in the background. It was written by people who
were superb social manipulators. They knew exactly how to achieve the
effect that they did.
> If I say I'm a Christian I should
> logically follow Christ, wherever that leads. So if it
> says 6 days......(Exodus 20v11)! When I read Genesis
> it seems to me that Moses thought he was writing
> history not myth/legend/saga. So the odds are that he
> did what he set out to do (just as Rowling & Brown
> do!)
But you've already admitted that you don't have to take it literally,
it can be interpreted when evidence contradicts it. Christianity's
been changing it's story on a whole bunch of things over the last
2,000 years: astronomy, usury, dietary laws, the nature of the
trinity. The Catholic church has even managed to convince it's
followers that it's never changed any of its views.
Your god has even changed his mind over the millenia. Pork used to be
verbotten, then St. Peter came along and said, "nope - pork's really
all right after all", and voila, a proscription from Leviticus
dissappears in a puff of divine smoke.
What I'm trying to say is that your religion has always adapted to
prevailing social conditions - even though it always claims it
doesn't. (Did you know that there used to be a Mrs. Yahweh for
instance? The scribes managed to expunge that bit from 2 Kings, but
not from the archaelogoical record).
> I'm sure you're right on the first point.
> But I don't trust my conscience, and it's hard to let
> go once you've found God!
You should trust your conscience - it's what it's there for. It's what
allows us to see that slavery's wrong, even when the bible gives us
instructions on who we're allowed to enslave. It's what allows most of
us to realise that being gay is just being different.
> > Including the fact that the *gods* (plural) created
> > the earth?
>
> Genesis 1v1 uses the word Elohim which is the Hebrew
> plural meaning "three (trinity?!) or more".
LOL! Nick, that made me laugh. "Plural" is now interpreted as three or
more, which implies the trinity. I really hope that was intended to be
a joke and not a reasoned argument.
There's a really obvious explanation for this of course, and that's
that the creation myth originated amongst polytheistic tribes before
it got committed to paper. That'd be the same people who worshipped
Mrs. Yahweh. Can't you see Nick how simple it is to make sense of all
of this when you just open your eyes!
> OK - many Christians (especially in the C. of
> E.)believe this. It depends on how far one sees
> man/woman (homo sapiens) as the primary objective of
> God's creation.
I don't follow that last sentence Nick, but I still don't understand
why you're so determined that Genesis must be interpreted literally
when so many of your fellow Christians don't seem to have a problem
with this. It doesn't seem to affect their faith in their god in any
significant way.
> The Bible isn't a "timetable"
Now hold on a minute, that's exactly what you're saying Genesis is - a
timetable: six days, six thousand years (give or take a millenium).
> I don't believe it is contradicted
> by astronomy.
How can you say that when you steadfastly refuse to discuss astronomy
with me? I raised a whole bunch of contradictions with basic astronomy
last time and you just said you wouldn't talk about them.
>
> Sorry Pete, I stand by it, although BS probably isn't
> the forum.
>
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by BS.
>
> > As Dave Allen used to say, may "your" god go with
> you.
>
> > Pete
>
> Either there is a God or there isn't. In the end. (My
> italics). Must go to bed.
>
Well it's not a simple dichotomy like that. There could be lots of
gods and you've been tricked into worshipping the wrong one. Or maybe
there is only one, but he didn't create this universe. Or maybe he
created it but then got fed up and doesn't pay it any attention any
more. The list of possibilities is endless - and they've all been
written down in one holy book or another over the years.
I hope you're enjoying this little chat as much as I am Nick.
Pete
1165
ukantic
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 11:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "danger_to_shipping" <psh@...>
wrote:
>
>
> But you've already admitted that you don't have to take it literally,
> it can be interpreted when evidence contradicts it. Christianity's
> been changing it's story on a whole bunch of things over the last
> 2,000 years: astronomy, usury, dietary laws, the nature of the
> trinity. The Catholic church has even managed to convince it's
> followers that it's never changed any of its views.
See: http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/Absolutism
Alan
1166
Peter Hearty
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 12:22:00
ukantic wrote:
>--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "danger_to_shipping" <psh@...>
>wrote:
>
>
>>But you've already admitted that you don't have to take it literally,
>>it can be interpreted when evidence contradicts it. Christianity's
>>been changing it's story on a whole bunch of things over the last
>>2,000 years: astronomy, usury, dietary laws, the nature of the
>>trinity. The Catholic church has even managed to convince it's
>>followers that it's never changed any of its views.
>>
>>
>
>See: http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/Absolutism
>
>Alan
>
>
LOL! I've seen this before, but it's still funny :)
Pete
1167
MB
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 12:25:00
>
>
> Again, I would personally find it difficult to worship
> a God who hadn't "been there". Jesus Himself remained
> celibate for 33 years.
So he wasn't really "as we are"? AFAIK there are a number of years in the
life of Jesus that are unreported in the bible. Most of his adult years.
How are we to know what took place in this time?
Regards,
MB
1168
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 12:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Again, I would personally find it difficult to worship
> > a God who hadn't "been there". Jesus Himself remained
> > celibate for 33 years.
>
So did Jesus masterbate to relieve himself of his sexual urges? I'm not
being facetious either. Just interested in how fundamentalists come to
terms with human biology.
1169
Peter Hearty
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 13:54:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
>
>>>Again, I would personally find it difficult to worship
>>>a God who hadn't "been there". Jesus Himself remained
>>>celibate for 33 years.
>>>
>>>
>
>So did Jesus masterbate to relieve himself of his sexual urges? I'm not
>being facetious either. Just interested in how fundamentalists come to
>terms with human biology.
>
>
Obviously he couldn't have done.
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/3e540670
Pete
1170
MB
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 13:04:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Again, I would personally find it difficult to worship
>> > a God who hadn't "been there". Jesus Himself remained
>> > celibate for 33 years.
>>
>
> So did Jesus masterbate to relieve himself of his sexual urges? I'm not
> being facetious either. Just interested in how fundamentalists come to
> terms with human biology.
>
>
Roger, please get your attributions right. I DID NOT SAY THAT. Nick did.
I asked how he knew.
Regards,
MB
1171
Ian Lowe
RE: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 13:07:00
>Jesus Himself remained celibate for 33 years.
Chapter and verse please.
You also formerly indicated that "despite what Dan Brown has said..." Jesus
did not marry.
Again, please provide chapter and verse.
> because He wanted us to reciprocate His love, and love Him of our own
free-will. A forced response would not qualify as "love" in the manner we
are designed (sorry!) for.
Glad you brought that up there Nick.
If I put a knife to a woman's throat, and "asked" her to have sex with me,
otherwise I would kill her, that is not love. It's rape.
Can you explain to me how your god's "kneel before me, or get tortured for
all eternity in hell" is any different?
Isn't your god nothing more than the most brutal rapist of all time? How can
you call a god who would even contemplate the existence of a hell "loving"?
> It IS silly, but the Bible is clear throughout that this is not God's way
Stop romanticising the monster Nick. The Christian god is not worthy in any
way of worship, even if he did exist.
> Sometimes I tell God that He is totally unreasonable and we get into a big
argument, which I thankfully lose!
Well, quite often, Almighty Ra touches me with his warmth, and asks that I
spend a little more time in his company, rather than going to work.
Consider this - there is infinitely more proof for the existence of Ra, the
Sun God, than for Bible God. I know exactly where Ra is and can point at
him, all day. He returns, regularly, on the dot every day. He gives warmth
and light to us. He gives life to everything on the earth, and nobody gets
killed or tortured for not venerating him.
Despite the very obvious proof, we still consider worship of the sun to be
primitive. How much more primitive and illogical is it to worship a god that
doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own head?
> But I don't trust my conscience, and it's hard to let go once you've found
God!
You should.
EX Christians are universally happier people. When you realise that there is
no fantasy god, no bogeyman in the sky, that you are not a pawn of god or
the devil, when you do good things, it's because of YOU, not some god
"working through you", when you do bad things, it's because you did them -
not satan tempting you..
It's incredibly liberating.
I have not sinned in 10 years - when was the last time you sobbingly
confessed some minor transgression to Jesus, asking forgiveness?
It's great to be free of all that misplaced guilt. Think how much better
that poor gay guy's life would be if he could just be himself, as he is, and
not feel all the guilt and shame poured onto him by this horrible religion.
No, you really should trust your own conscience. In the quiet still moments,
you can probably hear it asking you - "what on earth am I *doing*?".
The answer is - throwing away the only life you will ever have, in return
for "pie in the sky when you die".
What truly horrifies me is that you are actively trying to spread this
profoundly evil and wasteful belief to children.
>The UNIverse witnesses to one God - it's not like the Underground!
Indeed. Bow before Ra. He's the only God that I have ever seen any proof of.
I.
1172
Marc Draco
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 13:44:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
>>The UNIverse witnesses to one God - it's not like the
Underground!
>Indeed. Bow before Ra. He's the only God that I have ever seen any
proof of.
Hey, while were at polytheism, let's not forget Nut and Geb (the Sky
and the Earth gods respectively). Or how about the ancient Greek gods
like Poseidon, Zeus and Eros? Or Norse gods like Odin, Freyer and
Thor... I've heard Thor stomping around every time the thunder comes...
What makes Nick's god any more valid than any one of these - and there
are hundreds, perhaps thousands to pick from?
->
1173
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 13:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
Soory MB,
It was a rush job at lunch time.
>
> Roger, please get your attributions right. I DID NOT SAY THAT. Nick
did.
>
> I asked how he knew.
>
> Regards,
> MB
>
1174
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 14:17:00
On 29/06/06, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>The UNIverse witnesses to one God - it's not like the Underground!
>
> >Indeed. Bow before Ra. He's the only God that I have ever seen any proof of.
>
> Hey, while were at polytheism, let's not forget Nut and Geb (the Sky and the
Earth gods respectively). Or how about the ancient Greek gods like Poseidon,
Zeus and Eros? Or Norse gods like Odin, Freyer and Thor... I've heard Thor
stomping around every time the thunder comes...
>
> What makes Nick's god any more valid than any one of these - and there are
hundreds, perhaps thousands to pick from?
>
I don't see them teaching Ra, Nut or Geb anything soon, Marc. Not to
many people believe in them any more.
But I have heard that the food has really improved in the London area,
and so while I have always wanted to visit, nowadays I would find it a
great deal easier to stay. But all of that has kind of come at a
price now, hasn't it? You are a great deal more cosmopolitian. And
as I understand it, while Nick wants to bring God into the classrooms,
or at least teach the Christian version of creation, I kind of doubt
that he would want to teach the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist in, would he?
We have already had some sect of Buddhists aggitating to have their
version of creationism taught out in California as science, and if we
were to teach the Christian version of creationism as science, we
couldn't very well deny that Buddhist sect the same right. And once
that happens, given how cosmopolitan at least some parts of the United
States has become, I am sure there would be at least a Hindu sect or
two -- and then there would undoubtedly be others. After a while
there wouldn't be any room for science in science classes.
You have to keep the separate, if only to be fair. It makes things a
great deal less complicated. That has worked for us for the past two
centuries. Leave religion to churches.
1175
Peter Hearty
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 15:40:00
Timothy Chase wrote:
>I understand it, while Nick wants to bring God into the classrooms,
>or at least teach the Christian version of creation, I kind of doubt
>that he would want to teach the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist in, would he?
>
>
Nick might not, but lots of people do, and so unfortunately do both main
political parties in the UK. After the success of Northern Ireland,
where Catholics and Protestants are separated at birth and go to
different schools for their entire school lives, the government has
decided that lots of separate muslim, sikh and hindu schools could bring
the same enlightened, tolerant mood to the rest of the UK.
<HEAVILY SARCASTIC BIT>
Racism and xenophobia are so rare in Britain that our society can easily
sustain the separation of children on the basis of their parents'
beliefs. People will quite understand that the existence of white only
and asian only schools does not in any way suggest that they are in any
way different. I can hardly wait for the peaceful, easy going society
that will result.
</HEAVILY SARCASTIC BIT>
This insanity is what we call official government policy.
Pete
1176
Andrew
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 14:57:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Draco
> What makes Nick's god any more valid than any one of these
> - and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands to pick from?
Not only that, but the New Testament text usually used to try to justify
fundamentalism (2 Timothy 3.16), which I seem to recall Cowan alluding to)
says all scripture is inspired by God. All scripture. Of course the writer
was unaware of the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Tipitica or whatever,
or the yet to be written Koran, but presumably God knew of these things?
And of course what we now know as the New Testament wasn't included in that
canon of scripture being alluded to by the writer - unless of course God in
his infinite wisdom knew how things would work out, along with the discovery
and creation of the Bhagavad Gita, Koran etc. ;)
But we need to keep sight of the essential thing: it should be clear to any
clear-headed person that Cowan's position is untenable with regard to the
Bible and hopelessly inappropriate in the world we now know through science
and through ecounter with diverse cultures. But the really essential thing
is that his position is inappropriate in a science class.
No wonder he's wary of Lenny's direct questions.
1177
Timothy Chase
Roger, MB -- That Discussion You Liked
29/06/2006 15:16:00
Roger, MB--
That discussion you two liked -- it is finally over.
Nobody had responded to me for nearly twelve hours after I had topped
it off with a kind of artsy finish -- but then some guys came back and
wanted to debate me. I guess the fact that I typically come at things
like a teacher with lessons makes them a little more interested in
debate.
I had already said pretty much everything I wanted to say and didn't
want to ruin a good thing, but since the discussion continued -- well,
I got back into it. The usual long posts -- but in response to this:
"Thank you for your reply (comment #6, 8:15pm 22 Jun 2006) to my question."
"No problem. Incidentally, at some point this is probably going to
have to come to an end, but I am sure that there will be other
discussions. Other times for questions and points to be raised.
"I have noticed that it is not at all possible to say everything you
want to say in a given discussion simply because there isn't enough
time or there are other demands on your life, but what you miss at one
point, you come back to later. A kind of an exploration."
I don't know if the newspaper took that as a hint or not, but they
closed the discussion. Still would have like to see some responses
from the other guys, though. I think I had kind of painted them into
a corner.
Anyway, it is about time for me to get going to work, but I will see
if I can't write some time before lunchtime...
1178
Nick & Moira Cowan
Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 15:19:00
Take a look at this everyone (if you haven't already
seen it). Powerful!
Now stop hassling me to "show your science". There
isn't any true science on either side of this
controversy - and neither can there be, as is clearly
demonstrated. There is a false veneer of scientific
respectability about the evolutionist position, but
its conclusions are, at best, speculative and, at
worst, wildly improbable.
By the way I'm still a YEC! Nick.
--- hut2three <hut2three@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com
> From: "hut2three" <hut2three@yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:51:50 -0000
> Subject: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
>
> Although generally accepted as scientific fact, the
> truth is that
> evolution has also not been proven. No theory of
> creation has been, or
> can be, proven. Using the scientific method, one can
> only establish a
> high probability of particular theory being true. To
> accept a theory
> as fact without establishing it as such is
> unscientific, and reduces
> the credibility of the scientist who postulates this
> position.
> In order to prove a theory of creation, one would
> need to either
> observe creation, or repeat it in the laboratory.
> The principle evidence for creation by higher power
> is the incredible
> complexity of everything, and especially of life. To
> believe that life
> was created randomly is actually a much greater
> excercise in faith
> that to believe that God did it.
> The fact is that no experiment has ever resulted in
> the creation of
> live (or even lifelike) cells. Nor has any
> experiment been able to
> produce all of the processes that may have led to
> the formation of
> life. Life could never have developed randomly.
> To illustrate the probability of a this random
> generation, imagine if
> you will, a tree with the words "Joe Loves Jane"
> written on it. Now,
> in fact, it IS possible for the wind to pick up
> sharp stones, wood
> chards, or some other item, and hurl them at this
> tree in just the
> right way to randomly create this phrase. The
> process could be aided
> by disease, mold, and the actions of birds. It
> could take hundreds of
> years before it looks just right, but it absolutely
> could happen.
> However, if you and I happened upon this tree, and
> saw the perfectly
> inscribed words, we would never assume that they had
> been produced any
> way other than by someone carving them. And, if you
> were informed of
> the scientifically proven random generation of these
> words on the
> tree, you still probably wouldn't believe it. We
> have an internal
> sense of what is really possible.
> When we realize that the inner workings of a single
> simple living cell
> (as we know them to be) are magnitudes of order more
> complex than the
> words on the tree, we can have some inkling of the
> statistical fortune
> that must occur to have all of the elements of the
> simplest life form
> come together in one place and one time by chemical
> coincidence.
> Sometimes, statistical probability alone cannot
> effectively explain
> the possibility of something happening.
>
> Don't waste your time waiting patiently for anyone
> to prove anything
> about creation here. It won't happen. It can't
> happen.
> No one will ever create a living cell from inert
> materials in the lab,
> because only God can do it.
> Likewise, no one will ever show you evidence that
> the Earth is
> created. We understand that the nature of God is to
> desire us to have
> faith in His creation, and I doubt that he left us
> more of a message
> than the awesome extent of that creation.
> --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
> <doldridg@...> wrote:
> > On 28 Jun 2006 at 11:42, dogie_stile wrote:
> > > What does any of this have
> > > to do with the topic
> > > ?
> > You will find quite a bit of off-topic posting
> here as we wait
> > patiently for some creationist to actually present
> the scientific
> > theory of creation (or intelligent design) and
> suggest ways we
> > could test it using the scientific method. It
> seems that, while
> > creationists continually whine about such a theory
> not being
> > taught, they are actually unable to propose one.
> > Consequently there are long periods here when
> there is not much
> > to discuss because the creationists won't (or
> can't) provide
> > anything to debunk.
> > Dave Oldridge
> > ICQ 1800667
> > VA7CZ
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1179
Roger Stanyard
Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 15:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Take a look at this everyone (if you haven't already
> seen it). Powerful!
>
> Now stop hassling me to "show your science". There
> isn't any true science on either side of this
> controversy - and neither can there be, as is clearly
> demonstrated. There is a false veneer of scientific
> respectability about the evolutionist position, but
> its conclusions are, at best, speculative and, at
> worst, wildly improbable.
>
> By the way I'm still a YEC! Nick.
>
Well then, show us the scientific theory of creationism. If ET is
wrong you have an alternative. Show us or I assume that you are
talking out of your backside. You, dear fellow, claim to be a
scientist, so show us your science rather than rubbishing all in
sundry including many in this group.
If you think science is rubbish why are you teaching it?
Or is the real reason to proselytise your religion in schools?
This isn't a forum for preaching.
Roger Stanyard
1180
Peter Hearty
Re: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 16:44:00
I'm sorry Nick, but your fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific
method is quite astonishing for a science teacher. You will never in
your life observe an electron, yet your entire branch of science depends
on them. It is perfectly acceptable to infer a probable cause based on
observation of its consequences.
Similarly, the idea that because scientists can't currently create
living cells, that this implies a supernatural origin, is both poor
science and poor theology. This is the god of all unexplained things.
You are advocating the god of the gaps, which means you believe in an
ever shrinking god.
The whole point of the theory of evolution is to explain complexity and
apparent design on the basis of natural principles. Science, almost by
definition is the investigation of nature and must exclude the
supernatural in order to be viable. If, the next time you heat sulphur
in a test tube, it turns blue, will you assume some contamination, or
will you ascribe it to the action of a supernatural entity? The latter
may well be *possible*, but if it is a probable cause then we may as
well give up doing science.
Pete
Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
>Take a look at this everyone (if you haven't already
>seen it). Powerful!
>
>Now stop hassling me to "show your science". There
>isn't any true science on either side of this
>controversy - and neither can there be, as is clearly
>demonstrated. There is a false veneer of scientific
>respectability about the evolutionist position, but
>its conclusions are, at best, speculative and, at
>worst, wildly improbable.
>
>By the way I'm still a YEC! Nick.
>
>
>--- hut2three <hut2three@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com
>>From: "hut2three" <hut2three@yahoo.com>
>>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:51:50 -0000
>>Subject: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
>>
>>Although generally accepted as scientific fact, the
>>truth is that
>>evolution has also not been proven. No theory of
>>creation has been, or
>>can be, proven. Using the scientific method, one can
>>only establish a
>>high probability of particular theory being true. To
>>accept a theory
>>as fact without establishing it as such is
>>unscientific, and reduces
>>the credibility of the scientist who postulates this
>>position.
>>In order to prove a theory of creation, one would
>>need to either
>>observe creation, or repeat it in the laboratory.
>>The principle evidence for creation by higher power
>>is the incredible
>>complexity of everything, and especially of life. To
>>believe that life
>>was created randomly is actually a much greater
>>excercise in faith
>>that to believe that God did it.
>>The fact is that no experiment has ever resulted in
>>the creation of
>>live (or even lifelike) cells. Nor has any
>>experiment been able to
>>produce all of the processes that may have led to
>>the formation of
>>life. Life could never have developed randomly.
>>To illustrate the probability of a this random
>>generation, imagine if
>>you will, a tree with the words "Joe Loves Jane"
>>written on it. Now,
>>in fact, it IS possible for the wind to pick up
>>sharp stones, wood
>>chards, or some other item, and hurl them at this
>>tree in just the
>>right way to randomly create this phrase. The
>>process could be aided
>>by disease, mold, and the actions of birds. It
>>could take hundreds of
>>years before it looks just right, but it absolutely
>>could happen.
>>However, if you and I happened upon this tree, and
>>saw the perfectly
>>inscribed words, we would never assume that they had
>>been produced any
>>way other than by someone carving them. And, if you
>>were informed of
>>the scientifically proven random generation of these
>>words on the
>>tree, you still probably wouldn't believe it. We
>>have an internal
>>sense of what is really possible.
>>When we realize that the inner workings of a single
>>simple living cell
>>(as we know them to be) are magnitudes of order more
>>complex than the
>>words on the tree, we can have some inkling of the
>>statistical fortune
>>that must occur to have all of the elements of the
>>simplest life form
>>come together in one place and one time by chemical
>>coincidence.
>>Sometimes, statistical probability alone cannot
>>effectively explain
>>the possibility of something happening.
>>
>>Don't waste your time waiting patiently for anyone
>>to prove anything
>>about creation here. It won't happen. It can't
>>happen.
>>No one will ever create a living cell from inert
>>materials in the lab,
>>because only God can do it.
>>Likewise, no one will ever show you evidence that
>>the Earth is
>>created. We understand that the nature of God is to
>>desire us to have
>>faith in His creation, and I doubt that he left us
>>more of a message
>>than the awesome extent of that creation.
>>
>>
>
>
1181
Marc Draco
Re: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 15:42:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Nick blithered:
"Now stop hassling me to "show your science". There
isn't any true science on either side of this
controversy - and neither can there be, as is clearly
demonstrated. There is a false veneer of scientific
respectability about the evolutionist position, but
its conclusions are, at best, speculative and, at
worst, wildly improbable."
Marc chuckled:
"We won't stop hassling you Nick. I won't. I doubt Lenny will and I
suspect no one else will either. Define true science (as you interpret
it) I'm dying to know what it is. You make your position clear. You
believe in something that has been shown repeatedly to be smoke,
mirrors and most often total fabrication. Scientific theories become
honed, polished and occasionally overturned over centuries of learning
and study.
"If you want to be taken seriously. PROVE YOUR POINT. Demonstrate it in
such a way that fits the applied scientific model and falsifies
evolution. If that's too hard, how about debunking the forty+
(radiometric and non-radiometric) methods for dating the age of our
universe.
"Speculative? Speculate on this: even Darwin's finches have been seen
to evolve. Go speculate on that! Don't start giving me lab example of
fruit flies. What pressure is there for a fruit fly in a lab to evolve?
You want proof of evolution: get yourself a dose of HIV and hope the
cure comes before it evolves into something else. Pray that H5N1
doesn't evolve or you have a really good chance of dying early."
You've LOST. You always lose. You always will lose because your ideas
are based in non-science and for a scientist that's worse that lying.
->
1182
Ian Lowe
RE: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 16:12:00
> Powerful!
Nope, just tiresome.
>There isn't any true science on either side of this controversy - and
neither can there be, as is clearly demonstrated.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The YEC position is strengthened if this comes down to a "mine is bigger
than yours" argument, however *this is not the case*
> Although generally accepted as scientific fact, the truth is that
> evolution has also not been proven. No theory of creation has been, or
> can be, proven.
Again, wrong.
Evolution has been demonstrated in the field, however, as we can only study
over short timeframes, only small changes have been seen.
YECers seem to have a mental block that prevents them from simply
extrapolating the changes that we do see logically back through generations.
The difference between Evolution and Special Creation is this -
There is no evidence that supernatural creation happens *ever* - there has
never been a case of a creature spontaneously coming into existence.
Evolution on the other hand is observable and demonstrable - except that the
creationists refuse to accept that the visible and obvious changes that
happen between generations, and which amplify with selection, can continue
to their logical conclusions. They openly accept "micro" evolution, but deny
that this mechanism can make major changes, despite the evidence.
Supporters of evolution are simply extrapolating an existing trend,
creationists are postulating a non observed event.
Consider a chemistry example.
Let's think for a moment about the next Transuranic Element.
A scientist asked to describe the next element to be discovered would
probably extrapolate the characteristics of the transuranic elements we have
already seen and would probably suggest that it would be a dense radioactive
material with a short half life and probably quite toxic.
The "Special Creation" theory is like someone suggesting that the next
transuranic element to be discovered will be pink marshmallow that radiates
peace and love instead, because there is no way that adding more neutrons to
a material could continue to have the same outcome as before.
As for this nonsense:
> No one will ever create a living cell from inert materials in the lab,
> because only God can do it.
These words, my friend, will be eaten. Probably with a tasty side dish of
synthetically grown beef substitute.
Ian.
1183
oeditor
Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 16:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
> Take a look at this everyone (if you haven't already
> seen it). Powerful!
All that's powerful is the stench of bullshit/ pig-ignorance/ wilfull
misrepresentation. Take your pick.
> > Life could never have developed randomly.
> > To illustrate the probability of a this random
> > generation, imagine if
> > you will, a tree with the words "Joe Loves Jane"
> > written on it. Now,
> > in fact, it IS possible for the wind to pick up
> > sharp stones, wood
> > chards, or some other item, and hurl them at this
> > tree in just the
> > right way to randomly create this phrase........
You know perfectly well that evolution does not postulate organisms
appearing fully-formed by random natural processes any more than it
does appearing due to organised supernatural forces.
You know perfectly well that that selection tiny random changes occur
and a tiny number of these are for the better survival of the
organism. You know full well that these improvements are incorporated
into the next generation and the process starts all over again until
an outwardly visible difference has developed. Now you may believe
that there have been only 6-10,00 years and that is not long enough
for eveolution to happen, but please, please, no more strawmen.
Brian
1184
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 16:56:00
On 29/06/06, Peter Hearty <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
>
> Timothy Chase wrote:
>
> >I understand it, while Nick wants to bring God into the classrooms,
> >or at least teach the Christian version of creation, I kind of doubt
> >that he would want to teach the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist in, would he?
>
> Nick might not, but lots of people do, and so unfortunately do both main
> political parties in the UK. After the success of Northern Ireland,
> where Catholics and Protestants are separated at birth and go to
> different schools for their entire school lives, the government has
> decided that lots of separate muslim, sikh and hindu schools could bring
> the same enlightened, tolerant mood to the rest of the UK.
>
> <HEAVILY SARCASTIC BIT>
> Racism and xenophobia are so rare in Britain that our society can easily
> sustain the separation of children on the basis of their parents'
> beliefs. People will quite understand that the existence of white only
> and asian only schools does not in any way suggest that they are in any
> way different. I can hardly wait for the peaceful, easy going society
> that will result.
> </HEAVILY SARCASTIC BIT>
>
> This insanity is what we call official government policy.
Well, the big thing for me is trying to get people to be able to live
together -- even with their differences of belief, and a good place to
teach them to be able to live together is school. If you are growing
up together, you learn that everybody is not that much different from
anybody else. If they grow up separate, they are a great deal more
likely to view things in terms of "us vs. them." Division breeds
distrust.
1185
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 17:06:00
On 29/06/06, Andrew <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net> wrote:
> ...
> And of course what we now know as the New Testament wasn't included in that
> canon of scripture being alluded to by the writer - unless of course God in
> his infinite wisdom knew how things would work out, along with the discovery
> and creation of the Bhagavad Gita, Koran etc. ;)
Too true.
> But we need to keep sight of the essential thing: it should be clear to any
> clear-headed person that Cowan's position is untenable with regard to the
> Bible and hopelessly inappropriate in the world we now know through science
> and through ecounter with diverse cultures. But the really essential thing
> is that his position is inappropriate in a science class.
> No wonder he's wary of Lenny's direct questions.
You gotta point.
I like Lenny's approach sometimes. It is kind of like boxing.
Other times though, it seems a little black-on-black. There are other
colors to choose from, afterall. And if the floor is large enough,
you can even dance. But maybe I just like a good conversation. Then
again, sometimes it will annoy a few people, too. I remember one time
Laurie did this pretty good although admittedly short piece (better
than he usually does) where he accused me of being an english teacher.
I looked at the arguments and the structure, evaluated them and gave
him an A-minus. Sometimes I think we Americans have lost the art of
conversation. I guess this has happened some in Australia, too.
1186
Nick & Moira Cowan
RE: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 17:42:00
--- Ian Lowe <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk>
wrote:
> >Jesus Himself remained celibate for 33 years.
> Chapter and verse please.
> You also formerly indicated that "despite what Dan
> Brown has said..." Jesus
> did not marry.
> Again, please provide chapter and verse.
I never thought I would be ASKED to quote the Bible in
this forum! (Alan - please note that I'm not here to
"preach", which is what I keep getting accused of. But
if I'm asked....?!)
OK Ian - you know from your own time as a Christian
that no such verses exist! None exist to show the
contrary either, so what we have at best therefore is
an "argument from silence". I will try to show that my
(traditional Christian) understanding is more
plausible, but I'm aware it may not satisfy some.
The last verse of 2nd Corinthians 5 states that Jesus
had "no sin", so he could never have had sexual
relations outside (heterosexual) marriage.
Had he married, it would have been too significant not
to have been recorded by the Gospel writers (two of
whom were among the 12 disciples, in answer to someone
on this forum recently who cast aspersions on the
"eye-witness" credibility of the Gospel stories). When
could such a marriage have taken place? Certainly not
AFTER He began His public ministry at age 30. Acts 1
records His ascension, and apart from the appearance
to Saul/Paul (a mystery - was this just a "vision" or
not?), His next appearance on the earth will be at the
Parousia, despite what the Mormons believe about His
visiting the Americas (and what Blake wrote about
"England's green and pleasant land"!)
So what about the 18 silent years between Luke 2 and
4? Peter (the first Pope!) was married during that
time - Jesus later healed his mother-in-law. I can't
believe the Bible would be silent about Jesus' "wife"
if she existed - even if eg. Jesus was a widower. No
orthodox Christian I know believes that Jesus was not
celibate - there's no reputable/scholarly debate about
it. But OK -I can't prove it. I fall back on the
theological reason in my previous post which is
consistent with the teaching on the Bridegroom in John
3, Ephesians 5 and Revelation 18/19.
> > because He wanted us to reciprocate His love, and
> >love Him of our own
> >free-will. A forced response would not qualify as
> >"love" in the manner we
> >are designed (sorry!) for.
> Glad you brought that up there Nick.
You'll get used to my sense of humour!
> If I put a knife to a woman's throat, and "asked"
> her to have sex with me,
> otherwise I would kill her, that is not love. It's
> rape.
> Can you explain to me how your god's "kneel before
> me, or get tortured for
> all eternity in hell" is any different?
> Isn't your god nothing more than the most brutal
> rapist of all time? How can
> you call a god who would even contemplate the
> existence of a hell "loving"?
(i)No. He is wonderful.
(ii)But He isn't just "loving"; He embodies love - it
is fundamental (sorry again!) to His nature/character
(ontology). This is powerful evidence by the way for
the plurality of persons in the Godhead: love
presupposes an object of desire.
Hell is a place (not yet in existence and not designed
for man but for satan - see Matthew 25) of separation
from God. The only human beings who will be there are
those who've wilfully rejected Christ ie. those who've
chosen to be there (you can see I'm no Calvinist!).
God will merely confirm their own decision. In the end
we all either say "Thy will be done.." or "My will be
done...". God in His love allows us to choose. What
more can He do for us?
[This is a big area of debate and I know I haven't
done it justice]
> > It IS silly, but the Bible is clear throughout
> >that this is not God's way
> Stop romanticising the monster Nick. The Christian
> god is not worthy in any
> way of worship, even if he did exist.
Oh, but He is!! It's the only response (and it isn't
forced).
> > Sometimes I tell God that He is totally
> > unreasonable and we get into a big
> > argument, which I thankfully lose!
> Well, quite often, Almighty Ra touches me with his
> warmth, and asks that I
> spend a little more time in his company, rather than
> going to work.
Quite amusing! Some Christians put Yahweh there and do
the same!
> Consider this - there is infinitely more proof for
> the existence of Ra, the
> Sun God, than for Bible God. I know exactly where Ra
> is and can point at
> him, all day. He returns, regularly, on the dot
> every day. He gives warmth
> and light to us. He gives life to everything on the
> earth, and nobody gets
> killed or tortured for not venerating him.
> Despite the very obvious proof, we still consider
> worship of the sun to be
> primitive. How much more primitive and illogical is
> it to worship a god that
> doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own head?
God is transcendent, and no more contained within His
creation than the artist is in his/her picture. The
sun is a created object (Goddidit! And AFTER the earth
too!). Your god is too small.
> > But I don't trust my conscience, and it's hard to
> > let go once you've found God!
> You should.
> EX Christians are universally happier people. When
> you realise that there is
> no fantasy god, no bogeyman in the sky, that you are
> not a pawn of god or
> the devil, when you do good things, it's because of
> YOU, not some god
> "working through you", when you do bad things, it's
> because you did them -
> not satan tempting you..
> It's incredibly liberating.
I simply can't deny what God has done in the last 20
years of my life, even though I haven't always been
happy! How can you write off your own experience(s) of
God when you were a Christian?
[Did you ever get the e-mail I sent on May 23rd? I can
re-send it. Some of it is now relevant.]
> I have not sinned in 10 years - when was the last
> time you sobbingly
> confessed some minor transgression to Jesus, asking
> forgiveness?
Today - but I didn't sob. Sin hardens us, even after
conversion sadly.
> It's great to be free of all that misplaced guilt.
> Think how much better
> that poor gay guy's life would be if he could just
> be himself, as he is, and
> not feel all the guilt and shame poured onto him by
> this horrible religion.
> No, you really should trust your own conscience. In
> the quiet still moments,
> you can probably hear it asking you - "what on earth
> am I *doing*?".
Actually you're right! Sometimes I'm driving back home
after one heaven of a meeting and the thought comes
-"I wonder if there IS a God after all?"
I've learned to doubt the doubts though, not doubt
God!
> The answer is - throwing away the only life you will
> ever have, in return
> for "pie in the sky when you die".
If I'm wrong it's still been brilliant. But... (what
did Pascal say?)
> What truly horrifies me is that you are actively
> trying to spread this
> profoundly evil and wasteful belief to children.
The last words of a person you love are very
important. I don't have a choice really.
> >The UNIverse witnesses to one God - it's not like
> >the Underground!
> Indeed. Bow before Ra. He's the only God that I have
> ever seen any proof of.
Doesn't the wonder of the sun - the cosmos in general
- lead you on to wonder if there might be...
> I.
Now there's your problem!
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1187
Timothy Chase
Re: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 17:41:00
On 29/06/06, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Take a look at this everyone (if you haven't already
> seen it). Powerful!
>
> Now stop hassling me to "show your science". There
> isn't any true science on either side of this
> controversy - and neither can there be, as is clearly
> demonstrated. There is a false veneer of scientific
> respectability about the evolutionist position, but
> its conclusions are, at best, speculative and, at
> worst, wildly improbable.
>
> By the way I'm still a YEC! Nick.
I will check it out a little later today and respond, however,
nowadays we are beginning to make a pretty good case for the origin of
life itself. If you have the protein Q-beta replicase, an enzyme, you
know, and the appropriate neutrients, you will get the spontaneous
formation of a virus -- with its own genome and all. It is still RNA,
but it is a step in the right direction -- and there are others. This
sounds to me like something which could be taught in high school
biology, don't you think?
I am looking forward to figuring out how the whole thing got started,
at least with life on earth.
1188
Timothy Chase
Viruses are Old...
29/06/2006 18:06:00
A decade or so ago, the still thought that viruses were essentially
parasitic and that different families of viruses arose separately.
Now, however, it is beginning to look like disparate families of
viruses are distantly related -- and may have played a very
significant role in the origins of eukaryotes. They also seem to have
played a fairly significant role in the evolution of mammals. I have
been kind of watching this topic for a while. Maybe a little later I
can share some of the stuff I have been found. I figure you guys will
find it quite interesting. More stuff for biology classes, perhaps.
1189
Roger Stanyard
David Tyler''s Connections in Creationism
29/06/2006 18:08:00
I've just posted on my blog a full length article on how the
creationists in the UK deceived the secretary of state for education,
Estelle Morris, over teaching of creaionism in science lessons.
It's a big expose and is based one a much smaller piece of work I did
a week or so back.
In essence, three of the four protestant fundamentalist evengelical
creationist societies in the UK got together to lobbying the
government but failed to disclose this. Instead they hid behind their
members and associates individual names and professional positions in
British universities and elsewhere.
It's about as bent a piece of political lobbying and public relations
as I have ever seen and I've seen many such an exercise in my time.
The article can be seen at http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger.
Feel free to post comments to my blog which is begining to get quite
a few hits.
Roger Stanyard
1190
Peter Hearty
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 18:28:00
> Had he married, it would have been too significant not
> to have been recorded by the Gospel writers (two of
Mark's gospel doesn't even mention the fact that he was born. That's a
pretty momentous event in his life too.
> whom were among the 12 disciples, in answer to someone
> on this forum recently who cast aspersions on the
> "eye-witness" credibility of the Gospel stories). When
How do you know?
> could such a marriage have taken place? Certainly not
> AFTER He began His public ministry at age 30. Acts 1
A young unmarried man in that time and place would've been very unusual.
Indeed, it would have provoked comment, if not scandal. It's being married
that would've gone without a mention.
> records His ascension, and apart from the appearance
Is he still ascending? What happened when he got to outer space? Do you
think he waited for the prohet Mohammed to catch up when ascended from more
or less the same spot 600 years later? (Must be some sort of anti-gravity
device buried under the dome of the rock. No wonder all the religions fight
over it.)
> Peter (the first Pope!)
All the earliest texts say that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.
> But OK -I can't prove it.
Goodness, this is sounding shakier than that unprovable theory about...
> (ii)But He isn't just "loving"; He embodies love - it
Nick, have you ever actually *read* the OT?
> God is transcendent, and no more contained within His
> creation than the artist is in his/her picture. The
> sun is a created object (Goddidit! And AFTER the earth
> too!). Your god is too small.
Now that you're getting into astronomy again Nick are you prepared to
discuss the contradictions it raises with your position as a YEC?
> Actually you're right! Sometimes I'm driving back home
> after one heaven of a meeting and the thought comes
> -"I wonder if there IS a God after all?"
Wow! There's hope for you yet Nick.
> If I'm wrong it's still been brilliant. But... (what
> did Pascal say?)
He said it's safer to pretend to worship god than not to. He didn't say
which one though.
> Doesn't the wonder of the sun - the cosmos in general
> - lead you on to wonder if there might be...
It's FAR more wonderful when you try to understand how it works. Saying
goddidit teaches you precisely nothing.
Pete
1191
Ian Lowe
RE: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 19:20:00
> OK Ian - you know from your own time as a Christian that no such verses
exist!
> None exist to show the contrary either, so what we have at best therefore
is an "argument from silence".
Except, you stated with absolute certainty that Jesus was not married -
because it reflects your cultural baggage, not because of anything that's
actually doctrinal, and this is the problem.
> The last verse of 2nd Corinthians 5 states that Jesus had "no sin",
> so he could never have had sexual relations outside (heterosexual)
marriage.
That's circular logic. That verse only means what you say if you assume that
sex outwith marriage (as opposed to actual adultery) is immoral.
so, where is the chapter and verse which says sex before marriage is a sin?
(oh, and by the way, "sexual immorality" doesn't count - show me the verse
which actually *defines* sexual immorality.
> I can't believe the Bible would be silent about Jesus' "wife" if she
existed
It doesn't mention Yaweh's goddess counterpart either - your bible is a
document created to enforce the social norms of it's age.
> No orthodox Christian I know believes that Jesus was not celibate -
there's no reputable/scholarly debate about it.
Just as no Biologist I know believes that ID or Creationism have any
validity at all. There is no Scientific debate about the veracity of
Evolution, and yet, your buddies in christ insist on pretending that there
is. Why shouldn't we "teach the controversy" about Jesus sexuality and
marriage Nick?
After all, we can invent a controversy, then insist that people make their
own minds up just as easily as you guys can.
> (i)No. He is wonderful.
Do you know that a considerable proportion of women in abusive relationships
continue to express love for their violent and abusive partner, making
excuses for their unacceptable behaviour?
You are defending the indefensible.
> he only human beings who will be there are those who've wilfully rejected
Christ
> those who've chosen to be there (you can see I'm no Calvinist!).
So, I can drop to my knees, and worship the evil dictator, or I can burn in
hell. And that's supposed to be a choice? I would consider anyone who gave
into that sort of demand to be a coward, a traitor. It's better to fight and
die free than become a slave.
>God in His love allows us to choose. What more can He do for us?
As an all powerful god? Well, let's see - for starters he could actually
show himself, removing the need to have faith in an implausible story.
Contrary to what christians say, having faith in the unbelievable is not a
sign of character, but rather a sign of gullibility.
Your god is conspicuous by his absence. The best analysis of this that I
have ever seen is:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god1.htm
It's worth a read.
> God is transcendent, and no more contained within His creation than the
artist is in his/her picture.
> The sun is a created object (Goddidit! And AFTER the earth too!). Your god
is too small.
"la la la, all in your head". God is not transcendent. God is MADE UP.
There's a difference.
>How can you write off your own experience(s) of God when you were a
Christian?
Trivially. In fact, I routinely explain to people that living as a christian
was like some sort of zombie state where you didn't really think, you didn't
feel, you were not really *alive* Christians don't live this life, they
squander it, in favour of a fantasy afterlife. It's sad.
> Actually you're right! Sometimes I'm driving back home after one heaven of
a meeting and the thought comes -"I wonder if there IS a God after all?"
I've learned to doubt the doubts though, not doubt God!
At the risk of sounding like a crappy movie, trust your feelings - deep down
inside is a person who wants to be alive, not a shambling "drone before the
throne".
> If I'm wrong it's still been brilliant. But... (what did Pascal say?)
Well yes, perhaps for you it has - you didn't turn fundie till the age of
34. I lost my life from the age of 13 to 22 - some of the best years of my
life, wasted on my knees. The children you are trying to prosletyze to could
lose their entire lives to the void of christianity, then die having lived
only half-lived lives.
Desperately sad.
> Doesn't the wonder of the sun - the cosmos in general - lead you on to
wonder if there might be...
No, it inspires me to learn more, explore more, to encourage science and to
discover.
Doesn't everything you see, every little gizmo, every bit of nature not make
you want to find out "how does that work?". Christianty robs all of nature
of it's spectacle and awe.
That all of this, this entire wonderful life would be nothing more than the
toy box of a spoilt brat of a creator? How incredibly poor a world that
would be.
I.
1192
oeditor
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 19:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
> God is transcendent, and no more contained within His
> creation than the artist is in his/her picture. The
> sun is a created object (Goddidit! And AFTER the earth
> too!).
That's astronomy dismissed, then - not to mention cosmology!
>
> If I'm wrong it's still been brilliant. But... (what
> did Pascal say?)
Quite the gambling man, old Blaise, picking one god out of the whole
2850! (http://www.godchecker.com/)
>
Brian
1193
oeditor
Re: David Tyler''s Connections in Creationism
29/06/2006 19:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> The article can be seen at http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger.
>
That full stop at the end's got trapped in the url, so it doesn't
work. try http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Brian
1194
Roger Stanyard
Re: David Tyler''s Connections in Creationism
29/06/2006 20:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > The article can be seen at http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger.
> >
> That full stop at the end's got trapped in the url, so it doesn't
> work. try http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
>
> Brian
>
Thnaks Brian and apologies to all.
1195
Timothy Chase
Re: David Tyler''s Connections in Creationism
29/06/2006 21:01:00
On 29/06/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I've just posted on my blog a full length article on how the
> creationists in the UK deceived the secretary of state for education,
> Estelle Morris, over teaching of creaionism in science lessons.
>
> It's a big expose and is based one a much smaller piece of work I did
> a week or so back.
> ...
I didn't comment on the local stuff as of yet. Probably need more
familiarity to do a good job. But I commented with on the article
dealing with the DI's "Skeptical about Darwinism" statement.
Anyway, going to take lunch and feed the crows... They like chips.
1196
oeditor
Institutionalised Religious Intolerance
29/06/2006 23:10:00
"Institutionalised Religious Intolerance" seems to be the latest
crime. I take it that "faith" schools will soon be illegal, then?
Brian
1197
John Germain
RE: Institutionalised Religious Intolerance
29/06/2006 23:23:00
That is to be hoped.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
oeditor
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:10 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Institutionalised Religious Intolerance
"Institutionalised Religious Intolerance" seems to be the latest
crime. I take it that "faith" schools will soon be illegal, then?
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
1198
Lenny Flank
Re: David Tyler''s Connections in Creationism
29/06/2006 23:39:00
> I've just posted on my blog a full length article on how the
> creationists in the UK deceived the secretary of state for education,
> Estelle Morris, over teaching of creaionism in science lessons.
>
> It's a big expose and is based one a much smaller piece of work I did
> a week or so back.
>
> In essence, three of the four protestant fundamentalist evengelical
> creationist societies in the UK got together to lobbying the
> government but failed to disclose this. Instead they hid behind their
> members and associates individual names and professional positions in
> British universities and elsewhere.
>
> It's about as bent a piece of political lobbying and public relations
> as I have ever seen and I've seen many such an exercise in my time.
>
It's fairly typical creationist tactics, though. They prefer not to
let people know, up front, how nutty they really are.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1199
Lenny Flank
Re: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 23:44:00
> I'm sorry Nick, but your fundamental misunderstanding of the
> scientific method is quite astonishing for a science teacher.
But not at all atypical of a fundie. After all, Nick doesn't give a
rat's ass about 'science'. All Nick cares about is getting his
extremist religious opinions into the heads of other people's kids.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1200
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 23:50:00
>
> Not only that, but the New Testament text usually used to try to
> justify fundamentalism (2 Timothy 3.16), which I seem to recall Cowan
> alluding to) says all scripture is inspired by God.
Interesting. Let's take a look at that passage, shall we . .. . ?
16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
Hmmmmm, it seems that Scripture is intended for "instruction in
righteousness". I don't see anything there about "instruction in
nuclear physics" or "instruction in quantum electronics" or
"instruction in organic chemistry" . . . . .
But let's cite another Bible passage for Nick:
2 Corinthians 3:
1] Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some
others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation
from you?
[2] Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all
men:
[3] Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of
Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of
the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the
heart.
[4] And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
[5] Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of
ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
[6] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of
the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit
giveth life.
HEAVENS TO BETSY, NICK . . . . . .. . . .
What the heck is THAT?
The epistle of Christ is written NOT IN INK, NOT ON TABLES OF STONE??
THE LETTER KILLETH ???????????????????
It sure sounds to me like your Holy Bible is telling you NOT to take
the new testament or the epistle of Christ literally, because it's
written in the hearts of men, and not with ink or stone ---- and the
"letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" . . . . .
Explain, please, Nick.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html