1201
Lenny Flank
Re: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
29/06/2006 23:43:00
>
> Now stop hassling me to "show your science".
Tranlsation: Nick doesn't have any science to talk about, and just
wants to preach.
Typical fundie. (shrug)
Answer my goddamn questions, Nick.
Forget them already? No problem. I'll just ask again. And again.
And again and again and again and again, every time you psot anything
to this list, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or
run away.
*ahem*
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...>
wrote:
> > > > Well hello there everybody - have you missed me? > > > Yes. >
>
> Now answer my questions. > > You claim that the dinosaurs were
> fossilized separately from the > humasn because the dinosaurs were
all
> engulfed in mudslides, while > the humans were all swept away by
waves
> and drowned.
>
> I've never claimed such a thing, either directly or implicitly.
Sure about that, Nick . . . . ?
> Please check back through my posts. Do I detect a "straw man" being
> set up here?
>
No, but *I* detect a goddamn liar here:
Message Number 847, Friday May 26, 2006, 11:11 am:
My question:
1. How old do you think the earth is? How do you think fossils
> formed? Where do you think the humans were while dinosaurs and
> trilobites were being fossilized, and where do you think both
> dinosaurs and humans were while the trilobites were beign
fossilized?
Your answer:
(I could quote 3 words Ken Ham here but I'll resist!)
No-one knows for certain from science alone: the evidence is
contradictory. For theological reasons I believe it is just less than
6,000 years.
Fossils are clear evidence for catastrophism and against
uniformitarianism. Most were formed shortly after the Flood. I'm not
a paleontologist but I guess trilobites would fossilise separately as
they were sea-dwellers. The land dinosaurs would largely have been
buried in the mud-flows, and the humans mostly drowned and decomposed
(hence the relative lack of human fossils). I'm open to learning more
on this!
Is there some other Nick Cowan posting under your name, Nick? Or are
you just a goddamn liar?
> > A few questions:
> >
> > (1) How do you know that to be so?
>
> I don't KNOW it - I wasn't there.
How do you know the Roman empire existed, Nick. You weren't there
for THAT either, were you?
How do YOU know for sure what
> happened? I would suggest that during the 40 days of rain from
above
> (balanced out thermodynamically by the water from below, so there's
no
> energy/temperature problem as has been naively suggested)
BWA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one, Nick.
And you even spelled "thermodynamically" correctly.
Alas, Nick, when water vapor turns to liquid, heat is released.
And it doesn't matter a rat's ass how much liquid water is already
there.
Explain please.
the more
> intelligent humans moved to higher ground and mostly drowned
What about the dead ancestors of those humans, Nick. Did the fleeing
humans stop long enough to dig up the buried corpses of all their
ancestors before they headed to the high ground?
Oh, and Nick, if the humans headed for the high ground, then why is
it we find fossil WILLOW TREES along with these fossil humans?
Willow trees live in lowland areas near water, Nick.
How did the willow trees get to the high ground along with the
humans, Nick? Did they run for the high ground, too?
: the
> dinosaurs were mostly buried. It's plausible, although I'm not
> claiming any palaeontological expertise here.
No kidding.
>
>
> > (2) what about the aquatic marine reptiles --- how the heck were
> THEY
> > swept away by a mudslide?
>
> Maybe most weren't, although some may have been caught.
Then, uh, why are they separated form all the other aquatic marine
animals, like, say whales or trilobites, Nick.
>
> >
> > (3) how is it that EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR ON EARTH, every single
> > solitary one without excpetion, was so selectively hit by these
> > mudslides, while EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON EARTH, every single one of
> > them, was selectively hit by waves --- and NOT A SINGLE ONE was
> > caught by its opposite. How the heck did that happen?
>
> Some dinosaurs may have drowned and there are, I believe, some
human
> fossils which may have been hit by mudslides, so I don't regard
this
> as a "black and white" issue.
That's nice.
And why, again, do we never find human fossils together with dinosaur
fossils . . . .?
At best we can both speculate from our
> different philosophical/worldview positions.
No, Nick, YOU can speculate from your Biblical literalist position.
I have fossils. I dont' need to speculate.
I could of course make a
> faith claim here, and say that I believe that human and dinosaur
> fossils will one day be found together.
What about humans and trilobites, Nick.
Humans and Pikaia?
Humans and cotylosaurs?
Humans and paraeosaurs?
And on and on and on . . . ?
>
> >
> > (4) what about all the dinosaurs and humans that died BEFORE THE
> > FLOOD. How the heck did THEY get separated by these flood waters?
>
> As I understand it, there are few human fossils. Maybe the dead
were
> cremated for the most part.
What about the buildings they lived in, Nick. Did the buildings run
for the high ground too?
Oh, and Nick, when you learn some beginner's archaeology, you'll
realize that archaeologists can find remnants of human villages even
if they are utterly completely burnt to the ground.
Wait -- let me guess ----- you, uh, don't have any expertise in
archaeology either, right?
Just what the hell DO you have any expertise in, Nick? Why the hell
are you teaching science to children if you don't know a damn thing
about it?
How can we tell whether a dinosaur fossil
> was pre-deluge or not? This is speculation not testable science!
You mean your creationist geologists can't tell which layers are
water-deposited and which layers aren't?
Gee, no WONDER oil companies don't hire creationist geologists.
Sounds like they're utter incompetents.
I'm
> glad I'm a Chemist!
>
If you're a chemist, then maybe you should, you know, shut up about
evolution and biology.
===================================
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
1202
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
29/06/2006 23:53:00
>
> 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.
>
Well, there was that "John the beloved disciple" thingie . . . . . .
.
And that whole Mary Magdalene thingie sounds awfully suspicious . . .
.
After all, any normal person who could go 33 years without any
nookie, has some serious head problems.
Heck, even GOD got a piece of that virgin Mary . . . . . . .
===================================
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
1203
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 23:55:00
>
>
> I repeat my long-standing invitation for you or anyone
> else to come and debate me in such a public forum.
>
I would be very happy to take up your offer, provided that you
publicly answer my simple science questions.
And no preaching allowed.
===================================
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
1204
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 23:56:00
>
> 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.
>
That's nice.
And why, again, does John's UK ministry belong in a science classroom
. . . ?
===================================
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
1205
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 23:57:00
>
> You don't need to - the Bible affirms that the earth
> is a sphere - Hebrew (phoenetic): chug - often
> mistranslated as "circle" (Isaiah 40v22).
>
Glad to hear it.
So creationism is just Bible apologetics, right? And all those
creationists who testified in American courts that it's not, were
just lyign to us, under oath. Got it. Thanks ofr clearing that up.
What happens to Christians who lie under oath, Nick?
And why on earth should your Bible apologetics be included in a
science classroom?
===================================
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
1206
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 23:58:00
>
> > 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. After all, the Greeks not only already knew that the earth was
a sphere, but came within 1% of its correct size. (shrug)
===================================
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
1207
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
30/06/2006 00:02:00
> >
> 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.
What's the surprise there? It's all the fundies care about. They
don't give a flying fig about "science". They don't give a flying
fig about "education". All they want is the ability to preach their
extremist religious opinions to a captive audience of schoolkids who
don't know enough about the world to recognize that it's all hateful
bullshit.
Note also that it's not THEIR kids that the fundies want to
indoctrinate, since they already have ample opportunity to do that at
home.
It's YOUR kids they want.
Right, Nick?
Perhaps Nick would be so kind as to explain why on earth his
religious opinions should be taught in school classrooms, instead of
in, ya know, churches.
Nick, are you yet another one of those pinko communists who want to
take control of religious education **away from the church and the
parents***, and give it to the government school employees instead?
Sounds rather Leninistic to me, 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
1208
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
30/06/2006 00:05:00
>
> So did Jesus masterbate to relieve himself of his sexual urges?
Come on . . . he was a representative of the Church.
He went looking for altar boys.
:>
I want to know if Jesus ever took a shit. Ever fart? Or is all that
"biology" stuff beneath the dignity of a god on earth . . . ?
===================================
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
1209
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
29/06/2006 23:59:00
>
> >
> Sorry to be the pedent but I still don't understand where the money
> comes from.
A land across the sea . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scratch a creationist anywhere in the world, and you'll find an
American group behind him.
===================================
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
1210
John Germain
RE: Nick - is being gay a sin?
30/06/2006 00:09:00
Check the hierarchy, Lenny: Where did the babble say that Miriam the Virgin had
SEX with
Dog?
One of the suits was sent downstairs to tell her it was off, and she'd better
toe the
line....
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Lenny
Flank
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:54 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Nick - is being gay a sin?
>
> 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.
>
Well, there was that "John the beloved disciple" thingie . . . . . .
.
And that whole Mary Magdalene thingie sounds awfully suspicious . . .
.
After all, any normal person who could go 33 years without any
nookie, has some serious head problems.
Heck, even GOD got a piece of that virgin Mary . . . . . . .
===================================
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
1211
John Germain
RE: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
30/06/2006 00:38:00
MR Flank:
Our Ted was PURE, PURE, I say..
Did you ever see him do a No.1 or 2?
So There.
Mrs Neely
(PP)
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Lenny
Flank
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:06 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
>
> So did Jesus masterbate to relieve himself of his sexual urges?
Come on . . . he was a representative of the Church.
He went looking for altar boys.
:>
I want to know if Jesus ever took a shit. Ever fart? Or is all that
"biology" stuff beneath the dignity of a god on earth . . . ?
===================================
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
1212
Marc Draco
Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
30/06/2006 01:19:00
I wish that Nick would actually stop procrastinating and answer science
questions and I respectfully suggest that we all stop engaging in
pointless tattle with him until he does. This exercise is getting us
precisely nowhere.
Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of Lenny's questions or are
they too hard for you? You want to defend your position, we're here to
listen, but so far you've been patronising, evasive and downright silly
at times. All I ask is that you respect this forum and do as you are
asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS - DIRECTLY.
We answer your questions, so how about you stop making empty promises
and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the scripture, we're all tired
of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible and a fair number of us
can see it for what it is.
Would you pass a student who procrastinated about answer but never
actually gave one?
Anyway, your main claim Nick, is that the Earth (and presumably the
universe) is 6000 years old, give or take a couple of millennia.
You base this on the claims of a book written over 2000 years ago by
semi-nomadic tribe who were only just beginning to form what we would
recognise as society. Somehow they were aware of the billions of species
all over the planet. So much so, that a small few of their number were
able to collect examples of every single living thing we can see today:
they must have done since evolution doesn't occur in the bible.
They must have scoured rain-forest, ice-field, Savannah, desert,
field... everything (not forgetting ocean floors to miles deep - depths
that we cannot reach even today). Boy that's some feat. Better still,
they managed to fit the whole job lot into a boat that wouldn't even
fill a very small zoo. Better than that, they managed to keep every last
one of them alive (without help from the big guy upstairs). This last
bit we do know for sure: everything god did is recorded in great detail
in the bible; right down to "his" words and sure as I'm not a chemistry
teacher, that was one busy dude.
I could go on, but hey, I'm not an expert.
Nick. Explain this. You're the expert: fill me in. I'm all ears. Just
remember this is a science forum - not somewhere to preach scripture. I
want you to explain this hugely important event upon which a lot of your
assumptions are based.
1213
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
30/06/2006 01:48:00
> I wish that Nick would actually stop procrastinating and answer
> science questions
He won't.
He can't.
Creationism doesn't HAVE any science to present.
It's fundamentalist apologetics.
Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
And Nick knows it just as well as I do.
===================================
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
1214
Roger Stanyard
Truth in Science - Official, We''re All Charlatans!
30/06/2006 12:43:00
Has anyone come across a creationist organisation called Truth in
Science?
It appears to have been set up in the UK a couple of years or so back
and includes business people and the usual list of fundamentalist
academics including Andy McIntosh, Stuart Burgess and David Tyler.
Note that it includes business people. There is a direct connect to
the Vardy schools because Steve Layfield is involved.
That sounds really dangerous because it shows that the fundies may
have a lot of money behind them. One wonders whether this bloke in
the Midlands who is trying to set up fundie academies is involved.
Truth in Science appears to be a very secretative organisation but I
have detailed as much as I know today on my blog at
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Any further details would be more than appreciated.
Roger Stanyard
PS: Truth in Science has bragged that it believes that anyone who
disgrees with it are charlatans.
1215
Lenny Flank
Re: Truth in Science - Official, We''re All Charlatans!
30/06/2006 13:13:00
> Has anyone come across a creationist organisation called Truth in
> Science?
>
> It appears to have been set up in the UK a couple of years or so back
> and includes business people and the usual list of fundamentalist
> academics including Andy McIntosh, Stuart Burgess and David Tyler.
>
> Note that it includes business people. There is a direct connect to
> the Vardy schools because Steve Layfield is involved.
>
> That sounds really dangerous because it shows that the fundies may
> have a lot of money behind them. One wonders whether this bloke in the
> Midlands who is trying to set up fundie academies is involved.
>
> Truth in Science appears to be a very secretative organisation but I
> have detailed as much as I know today on my blog at
> http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
>
> Any further details would be more than appreciated.
It sounds like a typical DI-style fundie front, right down to the
Howard Ahmanson clones.
Look for them to start making all sorts of noise about their "non-
religious pro-good-science viewpoint".
As with all fundie fronts, the truth can be uncovered simply by
following the money.
===================================
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
1216
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science - Official, We''re All Charlatans!
30/06/2006 23:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone come across a creationist organisation called Truth in
> Science?
>
The term seems to have been hijacked from legitimate Philosophy of
Science circles. It's appeared recently in a Nevada bill proposed by
cretinists - which fortunately has failed, according to the NCSE:
http://tinyurl.com/obveh
Keep up the good work, Roger!
Brian
1217
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
30/06/2006 23:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
Er, columns of preaching and patronising. Same old game, fundies end
up preaching. Not one inch of orginality at all.
> 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!
>
Seen the argument, experienced life, got the medal and still trying
to figure out what the scientific theory of creationism is. Without
your help as you have so ably demonstated your scientific
shortcomings.
So why do fundies keep ending up patronising people including
Christians? Except when they can't get their own way and turn to
lying.
Er, Nick, do you want me to show you how fundies lie - including your
electrician pal Randall Hardy. And the idiots from AiG. And how they
lied to the public and the government who are paying your salary?
Nah, your more interested in patronising us and proselytising your
evangelical fundamentalist protestant religion. All the way from a
non-denominational school in that most Catholic of cities, Liverpool.
Thanks a bunch for patronising people who disagree with with
something you manifestly can't explain.
Roger Stanyard
Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
teachers?
1218
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
30/06/2006 23:40:00
On 30/06/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
....
> Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
> teachers?
In response to the second question, I suspect for the same reason that
they tend to run for local city councils and offices. In response to
the first, I suspect at least part of the answer is contained within
your second question...
1219
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Truth in Science - Official, We''re All Charlatans!
01/07/2006 02:49:00
On 30/06/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone come across a creationist organisation called Truth in
> > Science?
> >
>
> The term seems to have been hijacked from legitimate Philosophy of
> Science circles. It's appeared recently in a Nevada bill proposed by
> cretinists - which fortunately has failed, according to the NCSE:
> http://tinyurl.com/obveh
Huh. I put the phrase into Google, and the webpage that showed up at
the top was:
Truth in Science
http://www.textetc.com/theory/truth-in-science.html
Overview of some issues in the philosophy of science. Criticism of
Karl Popper's Principle of Falsifiability. Kuhn et al. Left out
Quine and more importantly (Pierre) Duhem's Thesis -- major hole on
the latter. Endorsed (in a kind of generalized way) a correspondence
theory of scientific truth. Anti-deconstructionist, at least in the
strong form, although it does acknowledge the theory-laden nature of
human knowledge. Overall, not bad.
1220
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 08:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 30/06/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> wrote:
> ....
> > Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
> > teachers?
>
> In response to the second question, I suspect for the same reason that
> they tend to run for local city councils and offices. In response to
> the first, I suspect at least part of the answer is contained within
> your second question...
>
I suspect one reason is that they are put into an authoritarian
environment, in charge of young people, at the start of their career.
The authoritarian streak never disappears. They are used to telling
people what they should know.
I thinkt that there is an old addage that you can never take to
classroom out of a teacher.
Looing back at Nick Cowan's postings, it seems that he has no
comprehension that people answer back and contradict him. Because
that's not what happens in the classroom.
It gives me the distinct impression that his attitude towards us was
that we are a bunch of wayward children who needed to be taught by him,
the master in charge.
Still, his resort to preaching was standard fundie practice.
Roger Stanyard
1221
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 10:57:00
On 01 jul 2006, at 00:13, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
> teachers?
Or engineers...
____________________________
Rudy Vonk
Oviedo, Spain
<rudy@mores.es>
+34 607 354100
You can't always want what you get
____________________________
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1222
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 11:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 01 jul 2006, at 00:13, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
> > teachers?
>
> Or engineers...
I have thoght about this a bit and I would guess that it is because
engineering is a much more rational "clean subject". The engineer isn't
subject to the messyness of biology or geology which are basically
about incremental changes over time. I would guess, too, that this
accounts for the lack of historians amongst fundies. History, too, is a
messy subject - one damn thing after another.
Roger Stanyard
> ____________________________
> Rudy Vonk
> Oviedo, Spain
> <rudy@...>
> +34 607 354100
>
> You can't always want what you get
> ____________________________
>
1223
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 19:05:00
On 01/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
> wrote:
> > On 30/06/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> wrote:
> > ....
> > > Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
> > > teachers?
> > In response to the second question, I suspect for the same reason that
> > they tend to run for local city councils and offices. In response to
> > the first, I suspect at least part of the answer is contained within
> > your second question...
> I suspect one reason is that they are put into an authoritarian
> environment, in charge of young people, at the start of their career.
> The authoritarian streak never disappears. They are used to telling
> people what they should know.
You are right of course -- this would be a source of a great deal of
their personal satisfaction with taking and keeping the position in
the first place. The occupation of teaching provides the teacher with
certain opportunities -- some of which are quite benevolent --
preparing them to understand anything within the expanding range of
their capabilities, setting young minds free to soar under the power
of their own strongly independent thought. Alternatively, one may
play the part an authoritative god who forges the links of their
chains, then teaches them how to forge their own links and chain
themselves in the name of "morality."
My own focus was on the ability that it gives creationist teachers the
ability to begin transforming society at a grassroots level, much like
positions in local government, so that they may work up gradually to
higher levels. But this is a matter of self-conscious practical
strategy. It wouldn't be worth much if the individuals involved
didn't find any personal satisfaction in their day-to-day lives,
especially as it takes a good number of days to add up into an
indeterminate number of years needed to achieve their long-term goal.
> I thinkt that there is an old addage that you can never take to
> classroom out of a teacher.
In one sense or another, this is quite true. The function of a
teacher is primarily to teach students to become their own teachers --
and they will tend to become the same sort of teachers as those who
taught them.
> Looing back at Nick Cowan's postings, it seems that he has no
> comprehension that people answer back and contradict him. Because
> that's not what happens in the classroom.
> It gives me the distinct impression that his attitude towards us was
> that we are a bunch of wayward children who needed to be taught by him,
> the master in charge.
I got the same impression.
> Still, his resort to preaching was standard fundie practice.
Agreed.
1224
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 19:56:00
On 01/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 01 jul 2006, at 00:13, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> >
> > > Jeez, where do these jerks come from? Why are most of them school
> > > teachers?
> >
> > Or engineers...
>
> I have thoght about this a bit and I would guess that it is because
> engineering is a much more rational "clean subject". The engineer isn't
> subject to the messyness of biology or geology which are basically
> about incremental changes over time. I would guess, too, that this
> accounts for the lack of historians amongst fundies. History, too, is a
> messy subject - one damn thing after another.
I guess a part of how I viewed this was in terms of the distinction
between practical and theoretical disciplines. The aim of an engineer
is to impose a design from the top down upon the object of his design.
He plays the role of a creator -- from this perspective, and may be
inclined to view things in the world at large in much the same terms.
With the historical sciences one principally plays the role of active
observer who seeks to understand the world around him, but does not
and largely cannot impose one's designs on it. When one understands
the world through the historical sciences, almost inevitably what is
found is a form of bottom-up self-organisation -- which inclines one
towards a naturalistic view, and which one find attractive only if
already inclined towards such a view. For me, though, the role of the
engineer isn't as different as it might first appear as the engineer
is simply actualizing a potential which was already there in the world
around him.
Looking back, I can now see that it is much the same thought, although
perhaps from a somewhat different perspective.
1225
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 21:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
Stunningly well put Tim.
Thanks
> I guess a part of how I viewed this was in terms of the distinction
> between practical and theoretical disciplines. The aim of an
engineer
> is to impose a design from the top down upon the object of his
design.
> He plays the role of a creator -- from this perspective, and may be
> inclined to view things in the world at large in much the same
terms.
>
> With the historical sciences one principally plays the role of
active
> observer who seeks to understand the world around him, but does not
> and largely cannot impose one's designs on it. When one understands
> the world through the historical sciences, almost inevitably what is
> found is a form of bottom-up self-organisation -- which inclines one
> towards a naturalistic view, and which one find attractive only if
> already inclined towards such a view. For me, though, the role of
the
> engineer isn't as different as it might first appear as the engineer
> is simply actualizing a potential which was already there in the
world
> around him.
>
> Looking back, I can now see that it is much the same thought,
although
> perhaps from a somewhat different perspective.
>
1226
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
01/07/2006 22:20:00
On 01/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
> <timothychase@...> wrote:
> >
>
> Stunningly well put Tim.
>
> Thanks
When someone speaks, it is an opportunity for meditation.
1227
Joe Cooper
the white feather
02/07/2006 01:42:00
Prum, R.O. (2005) The evolution of feather diversity and function:
Exaptation, functional redundancy and historical contingency. In:
Briggs, D.E.G. (ed.) Evolving Form and Function: Fossils and
Development. p.245-256.
ABSTRACT: "Because of the lack of primitive feather morphologies, for
most of the last 150 years, studies of feather evolution had to
extrapolate backwards from modern feathers to their unknown
morphological antecedents. Most traditional studies adopted functional
hypotheses for the evolution of feathers and then hypothesized series of
logical functional intermediates. The most popular functional hypothesis
was that feathers evolved for flight, but many others were also
proposed. During most of the 20th century, research on feather evolution
did not focus on development, resulting in many evolutionary theories
that were developmentally implausible. The developmental theory of the
evolution of feathers hypothesized that feathers evolved through a
series of developmental novelties and that stages could be reconstructed
from the hierarchical relationships among events in feather development.
Since 1998, fossil discoveries from the early Cretaceous Yixian
Formation of Liaoning, China, confirm key predictions of the
developmental theory, including the hypotheses that that plumulaceous
feathers are primitive to pennaceous feathers, and that feathers evolved
in a terrestrial context before the evolution of flight. The
phylogenetic distribution of fossil feathers in theropods confirms that
complex, pennaceous feathers, having evolved for other reasons, were
co-opted for use in flight. Thus, feathers are a premier example of
exaptation: the evolution of a derived function for a plesiomorphic
structure. Feather evolution may have involved periods when a diversity
of functionally redundant structures was maintained before the origin of
subsequent novelties. Thus, episodes of weak selection on feather
variants were likely important in fostering evolutionary exploration of
the potential feather morphospace that later gave rise to subsequent
novelties."
1228
Roger Stanyard
Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 10:21:00
Open Letter and Call for Help to This Group
The Times Higher Education Supplement of the 23rd June claimed that
it had identified 14 academics in universities that are creationists
(as distinct from IDers) but only named one of them, Jonathan
Swingler. I am trying to recreate that list, complete with evidence
that confirms they are creationists.
Sadly, I have only 10 names as follows: Andy McIntosh, Stuart
Burgess, David Tyler, David Back, Stephen Taylor, Derek Linkens,
Jonathan Swingler, Terry Hamblin, David Watts, Graham Everest
The of 27 signatories to the 2002 letter to Estelle Morris contains
other names but on careful analysis it is clear that this includes a
lot of padding, mostly with names associated with the Biblical
Creation Society. Moreover, a number of academics on the list were
retired so they would not be amongst the 14 names on the Times' list,
or mine.
Does anyone have any other names of creationists in academia in the
UK and some confirmation that they are?
I've come across a name associated with the Truth in Science group,
John Perfect. Does anyone know who he is. There is a professor John
Perfect at Greenwich University but I don't think that they are one
and the same person.
In particular I am trying to find information on seven signatories to
the 2002 Estelle Morris letter and confirmation, or otherwise, that
they are creationists. They are:
Dr Ian Fuller, described there as Lecturer in Physical Geography,
Northumbria University.
Nick Fuller BSc, PhD , Post-doctoral research (Molecular Biology),
University of Warwick.
Nigel Robinson BSc, PhD, Post-doctoral research, University of
Leicester (then teaching Chemistry).
David Walton BSc, PhD, Visiting Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science,
University of Durham, Information Systems Consultant.
Tim Wells BSc, PhD, Lecturer in Neuroscience, University of Cardiff.
Colin Garner BTech, BEng, PhD, CEng, MIMechE, MSAE Reader (Applied
Thermodynamics), University of Loughborough.
Garner is believed to be an Elim Pentecostal but that's all I know
about his religious beliefs.
One of the people on the list, Arthur Jones BSc, MEd, PhD, CBiol,
MIBiol, is described as a "Science Education Consultant". Does anyone
know more about this person, who he is consulting to and
what "science" is involved?
Any and all information on these people, their current academic
positions and their involvement (if any) in creationism, would be
really appreciated.
Please feel free to respond off site or directly to this group.
Roger Stanyard
Footnote: It does seem that until a few years ago academia included a
number of creationists who basically kept quite about their views.
I've got a list of such academics who have retired. However, in the
current climate, there appears to be a new generation who are vocal
activists. It is that group I am trying to focus on.
1229
Roger Stanyard
Fundamentalists in British Academia
02/07/2006 12:47:00
I've just posted my latest article on fundamentalism in British
Universities. This one is about Andy McIntosh and Leeds University.
It's hard hitting as usual.
You can see it at http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
These articles are basically background research and any further
information would be highly appreciated. As would comments, critical
or otherwise.
Roughly speaking, I think that I have now mostly completed the work
on the most activist of the fundamentalists in academia including
McIntosh, Burgess and Tyler although I have further work to do on
Stephen Taylor. That should be posted within a week.
The other university which has fundamentalists amongst its academic
staff is Southampton. There looks to be two there. Again, any help
would be appreciated.
Roger Stanyard
1230
Timothy Chase
Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 16:23:00
Off the list that you are interested in, I have a positive
"creationist id" on your Ian Fuller, Nigel Robinson, Colin Garner,
although it probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law. And I
believe it will be of some interest to you that Colin Garner is
associated with Elim Church Centre.
I have an Arthur Jones showing up as creationist biologist, but I am
not sure that it is the same Arthur Jones.
Information below.
On 02/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Open Letter and Call for Help to This Group
...
> Does anyone have any other names of creationists in academia in the
> UK and some confirmation that they are?
>
> I've come across a name associated with the Truth in Science group,
> John Perfect. Does anyone know who he is. There is a professor John
> Perfect at Greenwich University but I don't think that they are one
> and the same person.
....
> In particular I am trying to find information on seven signatories to
> the 2002 Estelle Morris letter and confirmation, or otherwise, that
> they are creationists. They are:
I have a positive "creationist id" on Ian Fuller, Nigel Robinson, Colin Garner.
I have an Arthur Jones showing up as creationist biologist, but I am
not sure that it is the same Arthur Jones.
> Dr Ian Fuller, described there as Lecturer in Physical Geography,
> Northumbria University.
I have an Ian Fuller associated with Northumbria University showing up
on a creationist webpage with some details on him.
Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers,
Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
Ian Fuller, BSc, Ph.D., PGCUTL *** Not in Gale
Geographer. Lecturer, Geography Programme, College of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Massey University (2003 – present); Lecturer in
Physical Geography, Division of Geography and Environmental
Management, Northumbria University, 1996 – 2003. Ian Fuller graduated
in 1992 from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, having studied for
a BSc in Geography. He stayed on at Aberystwyth to study for a Ph.D.
completing the thesis, "Alluvial response to environmental change:
luminescence dating of Late Quaternary sediment systems" in 1995.
Faculty webpage, Geography Programme, College of Humanities & Social
Sciences, Massey University,
http://geography.massey.ac.nz/staff/Fuller/. "My wife and I are
committed Christians."
Faculty webpage, Northumbria University.
http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/ss/gem/pages/icf.html
> Nick Fuller BSc, PhD , Post-doctoral research (Molecular Biology),
> University of Warwick.
No Information Yet
> Nigel Robinson BSc, PhD, Post-doctoral research, University of
> Leicester (then teaching Chemistry).
I have Nigel Robinson showing up on a creationist webpage with some
details on him:
Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers,
Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
Nigel Robinson, BSc, Ph.D.
(Born 1960). English molecular genetics educator, researcher.
Post-doctoral research, University of Leicester (Chemistry); Professor
molecular genetics, University Newcastle (England) Medical School,
1995; Royal Society University Research Fellow, 1987 - 1995,
Universities of Durham and Newcastle; Postdoctoral Research Fellow,
Genetics Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, USA,
1984-1987.
Member: American Society for Plant Physiology, Society for
Experimental Biology (cell biology Committee 1994, President's medal
for work on metallo-proteins and metal-interactions with plant and
microbial cells 1993), Biochemical Society
Contributor 26 articles to professional journals., 10 chapters to books.
Faculty webpage, Cell & Molecular Biosciences, University of Newcastle
upon Tyne. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/camb/staff/profile/n.j.robinson or
http://spade96.ncl.ac.uk/camb/staff/profile/n.j.robinson
> David Walton BSc, PhD, Visiting Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science,
> University of Durham, Information Systems Consultant.
No Information Yet
> Tim Wells BSc, PhD, Lecturer in Neuroscience, University of Cardiff.
No Information Yet
> Colin Garner BTech, BEng, PhD, CEng, MIMechE, MSAE Reader (Applied
> Thermodynamics), University of Loughborough.
>
> Garner is believed to be an Elim Pentecostal but that's all I know
> about his religious beliefs.
I have Colin Garner of Loughborough showing up on the same creationist webpage:
Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers,
Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
Colin Garner, BTech, BEng, Ph.D., CEng, MIMechE, MSAE
(Not oncologist Ronald Colin Garner)
Engineer. Perkins/ Royal Academy of Engineering Professor of Applied
Thermodynamics in the Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, Loughborough University, UK, 2002–present. Previously:
Reader (1998-2002), Senior Lecturer (1997-1998), Lecturer (1989-1997)
and Research Associate (1986-1989) in Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Loughborough University. Industrial training: Sponsored
by London Regional Transport. Employed in a wide variety of rail and
bus engineering departments including engine development (1979-1986).
University education: Loughborough University, Bachelor of Technology
and Bachelor of Engineering, both First Class Honours Degrees in
Mechanical Engineering (1979-1984).
Faculty webpage, The Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/mm/staff/garner.html
Elim Church Centre, http://www.elimchurchloughborough.org.uk/Students.html
> One of the people on the list, Arthur Jones BSc, MEd, PhD, CBiol,
> MIBiol, is described as a "Science Education Consultant". Does anyone
> know more about this person, who he is consulting to and
> what "science" is involved?
There is an Arthur Jones in biology who has shown up in the book,
"In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation'"
edited by John F., Ph.D. Ashton
> Any and all information on these people, their current academic
> positions and their involvement (if any) in creationism, would be
> really appreciated.
> Please feel free to respond off site or directly to this group.
I am responding to the group because I want to brag, but moreover, it
indicates how I found the information which might be of some help.
I hope this helps.
> Roger Stanyard
>
> Footnote: It does seem that until a few years ago academia included a
> number of creationists who basically kept quite about their views.
> I've got a list of such academics who have retired. However, in the
> current climate, there appears to be a new generation who are vocal
> activists. It is that group I am trying to focus on.
1231
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 17:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
Tim,
I've got some details on Arthur Jones and have posted my latest short
article below. It is beyond reasonabe doubt that Jones is a YECer
because his testimony is on AiG's web site and he details two
cretionist papers he has authored (and repeteadly describes himself
as a creationist).
My general view is that if I have two independent sources or URLs or
references that show these people to be YECers, that's enough. It's
likely to stand up in court.
So, mucho thanks for the info you have provided. I'll be following it
all up very quickly.
I'm getting to the point where I have a profile, in some form or
other, for all of the 27 names on that letter.
This is my latest article:
Another interesting connection appears to becoming clearer in my
investigations as to the connections of the 27 people who signed the
2002 letter to Estelle Morris. One is Arthur Jones, described on the
AiG website at www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/jones.asp as a
Science Education Consultant. It says that he currently works as the
research consultant on curriculum development for the Christian
Schools Trust (he still is according to the Trust's web site). A
quick visit to its web sight at www.christianschoolstrust.co.uk
immediately shows a photograph of Sylvia Baker who was one of the 27
signatories as well and one of the 15 names associated with the
Biblical Creation Society. At the time of writing she was head
teacher of an independent Christian school in Stalybridge.
The Christian Schools Trust represents, according to its web site,
some 50 independent schools with some 3,000 pupils in total – and
average of 60 btw.
The Trust states that it wants Christian schools to be distinctively
Christ-centred and radical in discipling (I'm not sure if that is a
typo on their behalf) the next generation and that parents and church
leaders to take up their God-given responsibility to train their
children in God's ways.
Chillingly it also wants "the education system of our nation to
acknowledge God's wisdom in the nurturing of children."
Strange, isn't it, that neither Sylvia Baker nor Arthur Jones
mentioned this in the letter to Estelle Morris. Stranger still in
that CST represents private schools, not state schools and neither
Baker or Jones were involved in state schools at the time (or now).
All I can say is that even cursory research on the signatories to
that letter to the Secretary of State for Education keeps, time and
time again, confirming that its signatories deceived Estelle Morris
and the public as to who they were and how they were organised.
It was not an ad hoc group of individuals. It was the core of
the "senior" members of the fundamentalist creationist movement in
the UK. The letter stinks.
Let me remind the reader of just one sentence in that letter: "We
write as a group of individuals and consequently the views expressed
do not necessarily represent the view of those organisations with
which we are associated."
They, er, wholly represent the views of the organisations with which
they were associated – the Biblical Creation Society, Answers in
Genesis and CSM and, now, it appears the Christian Schools Trust.
Strewth!
Here is another gem from the letter "We find it most inappropriate
that some well-meaning scientists have given the impression that
there can only be one scientific view concerning origins."
Talk about patronising. And some of the 27, including Andy McIntosh
who is associated with Sylvia Baker through the BCS, went on to get
involved in Truth in Science which describes these "well meaning"
people as "charlatans".
Patronising to you face, deceitful behind you back and obnoxious in
private.
1232
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 17:43:00
Your paper is looking good. Incidentally, the following looks more
than simply damning -- quite possibly something along the lines of a
lead of some importance:
David Walton
Member of the Council of The Christian Institute
"The Christian Institute is a registered charity whose main object is
the furtherance and promotion of the Christian Religion in the United
Kingdom"
Dr. David Walton is listed with Revd David Holloway and Rvd George
Curry as the three members of the Council
Chairman of The Christian Institute is John Burn
See "Demolishing Arguments"
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/AR2002-2003.pdf
On 02/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
> <timothychase@...> wrote:
> >
> Tim,
>
> I've got some details on Arthur Jones and have posted my latest short
> article below. It is beyond reasonabe doubt that Jones is a YECer
> because his testimony is on AiG's web site and he details two
> cretionist papers he has authored (and repeteadly describes himself
> as a creationist).
>
> My general view is that if I have two independent sources or URLs or
> references that show these people to be YECers, that's enough. It's
> likely to stand up in court.
>
> So, mucho thanks for the info you have provided. I'll be following it
> all up very quickly.
>
> I'm getting to the point where I have a profile, in some form or
> other, for all of the 27 names on that letter.
>
> This is my latest article:
>
> Another interesting connection appears to becoming clearer in my
> investigations as to the connections of the 27 people who signed the
> 2002 letter to Estelle Morris. One is Arthur Jones, described on the
> AiG website at www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/jones.asp as a
> Science Education Consultant. It says that he currently works as the
> research consultant on curriculum development for the Christian
> Schools Trust (he still is according to the Trust's web site). A
> quick visit to its web sight at www.christianschoolstrust.co.uk
> immediately shows a photograph of Sylvia Baker who was one of the 27
> signatories as well and one of the 15 names associated with the
> Biblical Creation Society. At the time of writing she was head
> teacher of an independent Christian school in Stalybridge.
>
> The Christian Schools Trust represents, according to its web site,
> some 50 independent schools with some 3,000 pupils in total – and
> average of 60 btw.
>
> The Trust states that it wants Christian schools to be distinctively
> Christ-centred and radical in discipling (I'm not sure if that is a
> typo on their behalf) the next generation and that parents and church
> leaders to take up their God-given responsibility to train their
> children in God's ways.
>
> Chillingly it also wants "the education system of our nation to
> acknowledge God's wisdom in the nurturing of children."
>
> Strange, isn't it, that neither Sylvia Baker nor Arthur Jones
> mentioned this in the letter to Estelle Morris. Stranger still in
> that CST represents private schools, not state schools and neither
> Baker or Jones were involved in state schools at the time (or now).
>
> All I can say is that even cursory research on the signatories to
> that letter to the Secretary of State for Education keeps, time and
> time again, confirming that its signatories deceived Estelle Morris
> and the public as to who they were and how they were organised.
>
> It was not an ad hoc group of individuals. It was the core of
> the "senior" members of the fundamentalist creationist movement in
> the UK. The letter stinks.
>
> Let me remind the reader of just one sentence in that letter: "We
> write as a group of individuals and consequently the views expressed
> do not necessarily represent the view of those organisations with
> which we are associated."
>
> They, er, wholly represent the views of the organisations with which
> they were associated – the Biblical Creation Society, Answers in
> Genesis and CSM and, now, it appears the Christian Schools Trust.
>
> Strewth!
>
> Here is another gem from the letter "We find it most inappropriate
> that some well-meaning scientists have given the impression that
> there can only be one scientific view concerning origins."
>
> Talk about patronising. And some of the 27, including Andy McIntosh
> who is associated with Sylvia Baker through the BCS, went on to get
> involved in Truth in Science which describes these "well meaning"
> people as "charlatans".
>
> Patronising to you face, deceitful behind you back and obnoxious in
> private.
>
>
--
Evolving Perspectives
http://evolvingperspectives.blogspot.com
1233
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 18:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> Your paper is looking good. Incidentally, the following looks more
> than simply damning -- quite possibly something along the lines of a
> lead of some importance:
>
> David Walton
> Member of the Council of The Christian Institute
> "The Christian Institute is a registered charity whose main object
is
> the furtherance and promotion of the Christian Religion in the
United
> Kingdom"
Thanks Tim, now that is an extremely important lead! It's the first
real break I have had in trying to get a link between the 27 and the
Vardy schools. You can be sure I am now going to be focusing on this
bloke very hard, indeed.
The other link that is missing is with John Mackay's Creation
Research UK. I think we may find that in Liverpool or, possibly, in
Yately in Hampshire.
What's emerging is a group of well organised and interconnected
fundamentalists in relatively senior positions.
As an aside, the anecdotal evidence does not suggest that it has been
growing in size. I'm not finding that many new names within the group
that have emerged over the last four years.
I hope, at least, that I am now getting close to a framework from
which we can begin to understand how they are organised. There's
still lots missing but we appear to have a large number of the
relevant names and the names of the organisations win which they are
involved.
And , of course, the damning information that they decieved the
Secretary of State for Education and the public in 2002.
I'm also guessing that Walton is not close to the Vardy schools -
that's why his name got on the letter. Had he been close, that would
have blown their cover.
Roger Stanyard
1234
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 20:56:00
On 02/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
> <timothychase@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > Your paper is looking good. Incidentally, the following looks more
> > than simply damning -- quite possibly something along the lines of a
> > lead of some importance:
> >
> > David Walton
> > Member of the Council of The Christian Institute
> > "The Christian Institute is a registered charity whose main object
> is
> > the furtherance and promotion of the Christian Religion in the
> United
> > Kingdom"
>
>
> Thanks Tim, now that is an extremely important lead! It's the first
> real break I have had in trying to get a link between the 27 and the
> Vardy schools. You can be sure I am now going to be focusing on this
> bloke very hard, indeed....
Anything that I can do to help. I will try and research this some
more in the following days. Incidentally, "The Christian Institute"
is very political -- they expended considerable effort against gays --
and this has appeared to be their primary focus in the past. Not
exactly the group that you would look for guidance to when it comes to
"truth in science."
1235
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
02/07/2006 23:20:00
On 02/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
> <timothychase@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > Your paper is looking good. Incidentally, the following looks more
> > than simply damning -- quite possibly something along the lines of a
> > lead of some importance:
> >
> > David Walton
> > Member of the Council of The Christian Institute
> > "The Christian Institute is a registered charity whose main object
> is
> > the furtherance and promotion of the Christian Religion in the
> United
> > Kingdom"
>
>
> Thanks Tim, now that is an extremely important lead! It's the first
> real break I have had in trying to get a link between the 27 and the
> Vardy schools. You can be sure I am now going to be focusing on this
> bloke very hard, indeed.
>
> The other link that is missing is with John Mackay's Creation
> Research UK. I think we may find that in Liverpool or, possibly, in
> Yately in Hampshire.
The good Reverend Professor John Mackay has spoken at "The Christian
Institute" events at least two years in a row. Once in September
2000, and once in 2001. The website is down at the moment, but I have
access to a kind of html backup of the two pdfs through Google, so no
real matter -- they are on my HD -- I can email them when you want.
And they have been nice enough to enclose some financial information!
I think that is really sweet, but I think you will be in a better
position to assess its importance.
Incidently, this is kind of fun. Like when I tried to bust some virus
authors a couple of years ago. (Unfortunately, the FBI wasn't
terribly cooperative.)
1236
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 01:28:00
PS In either pdf or html-version, I believe I have the the annual
reviews (including finances) since 1999-2000, up to 2005. Two years
are in pdf form, the rest in html. The html comes to about 324 KB
zipped, the pdf for 2003-2004 about 4 MB, 2002-2003 about 1.27 MB, the
last two of which haven't been zipped.
Their website is still down (shut down, perhaps? -- or is that just
paranoia?), but that was just a minor inconvenience.
1237
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New file uploaded to BlackShadow
03/07/2006 02:27:00
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the BlackShadow
group.
File : /Christian Institute.zip
Uploaded by : rob_o_roso <timothychase@gmail.com>
Description : Christian Institute (annual reviews, zip html)
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://files/Christian%20Institute.zip
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
rob_o_roso <timothychase@gmail.com>
1238
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New file uploaded to BlackShadow
03/07/2006 02:30:00
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the BlackShadow
group.
File : /AR1999-2000_backup_web.pdf
Uploaded by : rob_o_roso <timothychase@gmail.com>
Description : Christian Institute 1999-2000 Annual Review
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://files/AR1999-2000_backup_web.pdf
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
rob_o_roso <timothychase@gmail.com>
1239
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New file uploaded to BlackShadow
03/07/2006 02:31:00
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the BlackShadow
group.
File : /AR2002-2003.pdf
Uploaded by : rob_o_roso <timothychase@gmail.com>
Description : Christian Institute Annual Review 2002-2003
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://files/AR2002-2003.pdf
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
rob_o_roso <timothychase@gmail.com>
1240
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 02:41:00
--- Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I wish that Nick would actually stop procrastinating
> and answer science
> questions and I respectfully suggest that we all
> stop engaging in
> pointless tattle with him until he does. This
> exercise is getting us
> precisely nowhere.
I don't mind answering proper SCIENCE (eg Chemistry)
questions if I'm able, but I'm being repeatedly asked
(yawn) about pseudo-science like historical (origins)
Geology and evolutionary Biology. Since the
faith-based (eg in the non-existence of a
Designer/Creator)conclusions drawn are not empirically
testable or falsifiable, they don't fall within the
remit of the scientific method. Creationism isn't
science either but it is equivalent to any other
theory of origins.
> Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of
> Lenny's questions or are
> they too hard for you? You want to defend your
> position, we're here to
> listen, but so far you've been patronising, evasive
> and downright silly
> at times. All I ask is that you respect this forum
> and do as you are
> asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS -
> DIRECTLY.
I may attempt answers to Lenny's questions soon but
I've no expertise in the field - I need to do some
digging! Hey - I might just find human & dinosaur
bones together! I hear that a recent find of the
latter has unearthed intact blood cells (hence DNA) -
a bit tricky for a 65 million-year-old fossil!
> We answer your questions, so how about you stop
> making empty promises
> and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the
> scripture, we're all tired
> of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible and a
> fair number of us
> can see it for what it is.
Really? (see below)
> Would you pass a student who procrastinated about
> answer but never
> actually gave one?
I'd give them time - what's a few months anyway to you
5 billion year folk!
> Anyway, your main claim Nick, is that the Earth (and
> presumably the
> universe) is 6000 years old, give or take a couple
> of millennia.
Yes, just under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite YEC
enough for me!)
> You base this on the claims of a book written over
> 2000 years ago by
> semi-nomadic tribe who were only just beginning to
> form what we would
> recognise as society. Somehow they were aware of the
> billions of species
The Bible was written over a period of at least 1500
years by a variety of authors (including at least one
Gentile - Luke), under the inspiration of Yahweh,
mainly after the "semi-nomadic" period (Exodus) and
certainly within a recognised society (Israel/Judah).
By the way, are there "billions" of species - sounds
like an exaggeration to me? Good job there were only
enough "kinds" to fit on the Ark!
> all over the planet. So much so, that a small few of
> their number were
> able to collect examples of every single living
> thing we can see today:
> they must have done since evolution doesn't occur in
> the bible.
The Bible says that God sent them to Noah - he didn't
have to collect them, just lead them aboard! Some -
maybe many - we don't see today because they've become
extinct eg dinosaurs. You won't find evolution in the
Bible because it isn't a Biology book.
> They must have scoured rain-forest, ice-field,
> Savannah, desert,
> field... everything (not forgetting ocean floors to
> miles deep - depths
> that we cannot reach even today).
Er, no - read Genesis 7 verse 8.
> Boy that's some
> feat. Better still,
> they managed to fit the whole job lot into a boat
> that wouldn't even
> fill a very small zoo. Better than that, they
> managed to keep every last
> one of them alive (without help from the big guy
> upstairs). This last
> bit we do know for sure: everything god did is
> recorded in great detail
> in the bible; right down to "his" words and sure as
> I'm not a chemistry
> teacher, that was one busy dude.
There have been some excellent studies on these
questions, mainly by John Woodmorappe, whose 2 books
give a complete feasibility study. For a short précis
of his work see:
www.berachahbiblechurch.org/life/Gen%2055%2014.pdf
> I could go on, but hey, I'm not an expert.
Amen! Your theology is about the same level as my
palaeontology!
> Nick. Explain this. You're the expert: fill me in.
> I'm all ears. Just
> remember this is a science forum - not somewhere to
> preach scripture. I
> want you to explain this hugely important event upon
> which a lot of your
> assumptions are based.
Hang on - you're asking me (as do many in this forum)
theological questions then telling me not to "preach
scripture"!! If I answer I'm preaching; if I don't I'm
being evasive. The classic Catch-22 (shrug).
Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically different
in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
What would the "common ancestor" make of that?! A
monkey of all of us, for sure.
Nick.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing.
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
1241
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 02:51:00
--- Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
> I want to know if Jesus ever took a shit. Ever
> fart? Or is all that
> "biology" stuff beneath the dignity of a god on
> earth . . . ?
Of course he did - He was 100% man as well as 100%
God. He probably said the traditional Jewish prayer
afterwards, thanking Father that His bowels were
functioning normally. The Bible is earthier than you
think. Maybe that's the ground you should dig into...
[Answers to the "science" questions coming soon - a
few million years or so!]
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
>
>
___________________________________________________________
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
1242
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 03:09:00
--- Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
> Note also that it's not THEIR kids that the fundies
> want to
> indoctrinate, since they already have ample
> opportunity to do that at
> home.
> It's YOUR kids they want.
> Right, Nick?
> Perhaps Nick would be so kind as to explain why on
> earth his
> religious opinions should be taught in school
> classrooms, instead of
> in, ya know, churches.
Same reason that you want your godless belief system
taught in science classes. Any veto on using the word
"God" is - in effect - to bring religion (belief in
His non-existence) into the classroom.
> Nick, are you yet another one of those pinko
> communists who want to
> take control of religious education **away from the
> church and the
> parents***, and give it to the government school
> employees instead?
>
> Sounds rather Leninistic to me, Nick. . . . .
In Liverpool this means John not Vladimir! Hey - did
you know that Vlad was a baptised Russian Orthodox?
OK kids, repeat after teacher: Gotta get you (Jesus)
into my life!
> ===================================
> 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
>
>
___________________________________________________________
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
1243
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 03:17:00
--- Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> 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. After all, the Greeks not only already knew
> that the earth was
> a sphere, but came within 1% of its correct size.
> (shrug)
Er - in 700BC? Greek culture wasn't too advanced at
that point. Eratosthenes was born around 276BC. Still,
what's a few hundred years out compared to over 14
billion? (shrug).
___________________________________________________________
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
1244
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 03:55:00
--- Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
> > 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.
I've never quoted the Bible reference on this site.
But it's good to see you folk doing so!!!
> 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" . . . . .
The Bible isn't a science book but "righteousness"
includes all that is right (true) in God's sight,
which includes proper science like C.......y.
> 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?
Dunno - it's an archaic version of the Bible! Suggest
you get a modern translation like the NIV or NASB!
> 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.
OK - you asked about the Bible so I'm answering not
"preaching". I love answering your questions!
Firstly the passage can't mean what you suggest for
reasons of logic viz: "The Bible says [literally] not
to take the Bible literally!!" Bit like "All
statements I make are false including this one" or
"Roger Stanyard, the fundie atheist, thinks all
fundies are liars"
Secondly it's not emphasising personal spiritual
revelation/conscience over the written word, which
here means the Mosaic Law (Hebrew: Torah) "Table(t)s
of stone" in verse 3 refers to the 10 commandments.
All the law does is show us that we are in God's
sinners/lawbreakers. It even provokes us to sin
(Romans 7), and hence leads to death - both
spiritually (now) and physically (future). The Holy
Spirit is given to believers, whose Christian
conversion is likened to going from death to life
(hence "born again"). The Spirit sharpens the
conscience once hardened by sin, to make us sensitive
to what pleases or displeases God. This is the "new
deal" (covenant/testament) between God and man after
Christ's atoning death and resurrection.
Sorted!! (A lot easier than hydrological sorting)
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your
Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1245
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
03/07/2006 04:26:00
--- Peter Hearty <psh@hearty.plus.com> wrote:
> 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.
Hi Pete - it's a bit late for a long response. I will
reply to your other questions at greater length
tomorrow. Your electron analogy isn't relevant I
believe, mainly because it appears (in 2006) to be a
foundational (nearly said "fundamental" - naughty!)
particle. A living cell is an irreducibly complex unit
that has the appearance of "design". No current
scientist is claiming to have got near to creating a
cell, and even if it did happen, the scientist would
then be the "designer"!! Likewise the first cell. You
may not like "Goddidit" but it's more plausible than
"Noonedidit"! This is a "gap" only God can bridge!
> 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.
The laws of "nature" are God's laws, and their
constancy is evidence of God's orderliness and
immutability. But to limit God to the laws He himself
framed is absurd (Deism is philosophically bankrupt).
I accept that "miracle" is necessarily outside of
scientific study, but it is uncommon. We mustn't make
science our "god" - that is Scientism. It's a good
servant but a bad master.
Regards, Nick
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New
Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1246
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 08:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> PS In either pdf or html-version, I believe I have the the annual
> reviews (including finances) since 1999-2000, up to 2005. Two years
> are in pdf form, the rest in html. The html comes to about 324 KB
> zipped, the pdf for 2003-2004 about 4 MB, 2002-2003 about 1.27 MB, the
> last two of which haven't been zipped.
>
Thanks Tim,
There's lots to look at here. Fundamentalists don't lie? Wll why is the
Christian Institute calling Jogn Mackay the Rev Prof John Mackay?
Here is the name of the university that has appointed him a professor:
Um, doesn't exist)
Here are the number of years he has spend as an academic in a
university:
(None)
Here are his theological qualifications:
(Er, long list isn't it)
Here is the list of university professors that I am aware of who only
have a first degree:
(Just about the same length)
Here is the name of a real professor who is part of an organisation
that has publicly stated that everyone who does not agreee with his
religious opinions are charlatans:
Andy McIntosh
So who is a charlatan - "Professor" John Mackay or us?
Roger Stanyard
1247
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 08:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> Incidently, this is kind of fun. Like when I tried to bust some virus
> authors a couple of years ago. (Unfortunately, the FBI wasn't
> terribly cooperative.)
Couldn't agree with you more. I am staggered at the degree of deception
and dishonesty by the fundamentalists in the UK.
I've done loads of this sort of work before in the corporate sector;
worked with gum shoes, had to have had my offices checked for bugs,
have listed to people talk about murdering criminals; I have had
Worldcom and Enron as customers (and, indeed, the outfit that embezzled
and ruined Ferranti), been threatended by Robert Maxwell, seen the
curruption in the City, exposed government lying on spy satellites,
been named in Parliament twice as a result, known big time criminals
(one made himself £200m out of his dubious activities) and I have never
seen anything like this.
It's bent!
Nicolo Machiavelli would have been proud of them.
And these are people screaming that they are our moral superiors!
Roger Stanyard
PS: I've always viewed The Prince as a somewhat grovelling failed job
application.
>
1248
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 09:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
>
> --- Lenny Flank <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>> [Answers to the "science" questions coming soon - a
> few million years or so!]
> Nick.
So, um, why is it that we can answer science issues quickly and you
can't?
Or is this yet again another example of the fundie shuffle?
1249
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 09:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>> Same reason that you want your godless belief system
> taught in science classes. Any veto on using the word
> "God" is - in effect - to bring religion (belief in
> His non-existence) into the classroom.
>
Can you make this a bit clearer, Nick. You want you religious beliefs
taught in science lsssons?
And you are actively involved in Creation resarch (UK)?
> > Nick, are you yet another one of those pinko
> > communists who want to
> > take control of religious education **away from the
> > church and the
> > parents***, and give it to the government school
> > employees instead?
> >
> > Sounds rather Leninistic to me, Nick. . . . .
>
> In Liverpool this means John not Vladimir! Hey - did
> you know that Vlad was a baptised Russian Orthodox?
> OK kids, repeat after teacher: Gotta get you (Jesus)
> into my life!
>
Waffle
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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
>
1250
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 09:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>> The Bible isn't a science book but "righteousness"
> includes all that is right (true) in God's sight,
> which includes proper science like C.......y.
>
So you are saying that biology, geology, cosmology, physics,
astronomy, genetics, physical geography, biochemistry are not proper
sciences.
Are your advising your puplis this or are you going to evade my
questions, yet again?
Has John mackay told your pupils this?
Or are you going to evade my question?
> > 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?
>
> Dunno - it's an archaic version of the Bible! Suggest
> you get a modern translation like the NIV or NASB!
Why?
>
> > 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.
>
> OK - you asked about the Bible so I'm answering not
> "preaching". I love answering your questions!
>
> Firstly the passage can't mean what you suggest for
> reasons of logic viz: "The Bible says [literally] not
> to take the Bible literally!!" Bit like "All
> statements I make are false including this one" or
> "Roger Stanyard, the fundie atheist, thinks all
> fundies are liars"
>
> Secondly it's not emphasising personal spiritual
> revelation/conscience over the written word, which
> here means the Mosaic Law (Hebrew: Torah) "Table(t)s
> of stone" in verse 3 refers to the 10 commandments.
> All the law does is show us that we are in God's
> sinners/lawbreakers. It even provokes us to sin
> (Romans 7), and hence leads to death - both
> spiritually (now) and physically (future). The Holy
> Spirit is given to believers, whose Christian
> conversion is likened to going from death to life
> (hence "born again"). The Spirit sharpens the
> conscience once hardened by sin, to make us sensitive
> to what pleases or displeases God. This is the "new
> deal" (covenant/testament) between God and man after
> Christ's atoning death and resurrection.
>
> Sorted!! (A lot easier than hydrological sorting)
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email
address from your Internet provider.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>