1251
Roger Stanyard
Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
03/07/2006 09:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>> particle. A living cell is an irreducibly complex unit
> that has the appearance of "design".
So show us, in your own words, that s single cell is irredicibly
complex.
Given that you have a science degree from Cambridge.
>
> 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
>
1252
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 09:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> 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"
And what the hell is a fundie atheist?
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email
address from your Internet provider.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
1253
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 10:31:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
>> 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.
BULLSHIT!
Evo biology is a proper branch of science. You are the one making
claims about other non-sciences and scientific claims in areas which
you are not qualified to talk.
>> 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!
WRONG! AGAIN!
Red blood cells DON'T contain DNA you fool - if you had any grasp of
biology you would know that. (Everyone else, I'm sorry my language is
slipping this morning but this guy is proving what an idiot he is in
spades.)
> 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
>> 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!
BZZZT! Busted again. What's few months in a final year? Do that math
stoopid and stop avoiding direct questions. If someone never actually
gave an answer, no amount of time would ever make them give one, now
would it?
>> 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!)
Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of behaviour I would expect
from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these debates posted to the
parents of the children you teach.
>> 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)
Mainly? Nah. The NT was written during that period, the OT wasn't.
>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!
1.5 million species are catalogued today, Nick. Woodmorappe (the guy
most vaunted for working out the Ark story in modern terms) got his
maths wrong. He works on 8000 kinds (16000 animals if we disallow for
the clean/unclean ones). The AiG publishes a long tract on this using
Woodmorappe's work which I have just taken great pleasure in debunking.
>> 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.
I read that, but we only have the relatively modern translations for
that guidance. How did Noah lead the carnivores Nick?
Oh, Nick, it "e.g." not "eg" - it's an abbreviation from Latin. I also
suspect you meant "i.e." meaning "that is", not for example.
Finally you admit the Bible isn't a biology book; it's a story book.
Even the AiG has difficulty in explaining how the vast diversity of
life we see today came about from 8000 originals.
>> 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.
No? OK. Gen 7:8
"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not
clean, and of fowls, and of every
thing that creepeth upon the earth"
Well I'll be blowed... Nick's taking the bible literally again... Pity
about that. See the bible just doesn't bear up to close examination.
The problem with billions of gallons of (no longer present) fresh water
that fell on the Earth to cause the flood as described would have
poisoned just about every living thing in the sea within hours. HOURS.
Not days, not weeks, not months, but hours.
I've covered this error in detail in my debunking of Noah, but if you
need to see this happen Nick, go down your pet store and buy a false
percula clownfish (like Nemo from the film Finding Nemo) or if you
can't afford one, just about any marine dweller will do. Hell, nip down
and see if you can catch a few hermit crabs from a local beach.
Now, carefully match the temperature of some tapwater (or DI/RO water
if you prefer) and force some air through - we wouldn't want our
creatures to suffocate. Add your collected sample (if you can be that
cruel) and time how long it survives.
BUSTED. This affect is due to a chemical reaction - which is your
speciality, after all.
> >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:
Woodmorappe? Good, I'm glad you brought that name up. I've debunked
Woodmorappe's assertions from the AiG peice in a recent article - you
should read it. Woodmorappe boilerplate is typical of your sort, what
doesn't fit the theory (and there's lots of it) is ignored. Woodmorappe
(or the AiG author) doesn't even know the difference between the mean
and the median measure in stats.
>> I could go on, but hey, I'm not an
expert.
>Amen! Your theology is about the same level as my
>palaeontology!
I rather doubt that, but since you bring the subject up, how can you
claim to know anything about historical origins if you don't even
understand the scientific theories that give rise to them?
>> 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).
No I am not. Nor is anyone else for that matter.
I'm asking you to take a theological assertion - which YOU claim is
scientifically justified - and explain it scientifically. There's a
huge difference and the only Catch 22 here is the fact that you can't.
>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.
That's just asinine Nick. I've not read anywhere that specifically
suggests that chromosome 22 WAS 98% alike in humans and chimps. Perhaps
you would care to enlighten us?
And please tell me
that the monkey note was an attempt at humor. I really don't want to
think you're that ignorant.
1254
Rudy Vonk
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 10:48:00
On 03 jul 2006, at 11:31, Marc Draco wrote:
> >Yes, just under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite YEC
> >enough for me!)
>
> Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of behaviour I would expect
> from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these debates posted to the
> parents of the children you teach.
I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll. What
is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m. his local time
on a Monday morning?
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1255
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:09:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Na. It's probably just Yahoo regurgitating stuff at funny hours.
Nick isn't a troll, just an idiot.
Rudy Vonk wrote:
->On 03 jul 2006, at 11:31, Marc Draco wrote:
-->>Yes, just
under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite YEC
>enough for me!)
Are you taking the
piss? Hardly the sort of behaviour I would expect from a respected
teacher. I'd love to see these debates posted to the parents of the
children you teach.
I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll. What
is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m. his local
time on a Monday morning?
1256
Andrew
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:15:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudy Vonk
> I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll.
> What is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m.
> his local time on a Monday morning?
When he originally posted I wondered whether someone this staggeringly
stupid and with such an immature attitude could really be a school teacher,
even a fundamentalist one, or whether it was someone trying to make Nick
Cowan look especially stupid.
1257
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:25:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
I've wondered the same, but the evidence suggests otherwise - unless it
REALLY IS someone who knows Nick Cowan particularly well and is just
trying to make him look (If they are, they're certainly making a good
job of it!)
What someone else needs to do, presumably, is ask him a direct question
that only he could possibly know the answer to. The only way we can
safely do that, is to snail-mail a letter to Nick c/o Bluecoat with
code word that we can verify: rather like the way PGP has a private key.
Andrew wrote:
->
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudy Vonk
> I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll.
> What is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m.
> his local time on a Monday morning?
When he originally posted I wondered whether someone this staggeringly
stupid and with such an immature attitude could really be a school
teacher,
even a fundamentalist one, or whether it was someone trying to make
Nick
Cowan look especially stupid.
1258
oeditor
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
> 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.
How do your geology and biology colleagues react to your undermining
of their teachings?
Brian
1259
Andrew
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:51:00
----- Original Message -----
From: oeditor
> How do your geology and biology colleagues react to your undermining
> of their teachings?
He also said something similar about physics in one of his original posts.
He's basically rubbished the disciplines of a number of his colleagues, now.
1260
Andrew
Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 12:30:00
I've just looked at the description of the chemistry department at Liverpool
Bluecoat School. It begins:
"The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students a
sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
physical universe."
http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
1261
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 12:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> I've wondered the same, but the evidence suggests otherwise - unless
it
> REALLY IS someone who knows Nick Cowan particularly well and is just
> trying to make him look (If they are, they're certainly making a
good
> job of it!)
>
I've checked him and his wife out and they are for real.
1262
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 12:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: oeditor
>
> > How do your geology and biology colleagues react to your undermining
> > of their teachings?
>
> He also said something similar about physics in one of his original
posts.
> He's basically rubbished the disciplines of a number of his
colleagues, now.
>
You can add the geography teachers to that list as well.
1263
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 12:52:00
> > [Answers to the "science" questions coming soon - a
> few million years or so!]
That of course is exactly what I expect of creation 'scientists'.
They do love to preach and preach and preach. But ask them some
SCIENCE, and they all of a sudden shut up and get very very quiet.
===================================
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
1264
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 12:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> I've just looked at the description of the chemistry department at
Liverpool
> Bluecoat School. It begins:
>
> "The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students
a
> sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
> physical universe."
>
> http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
>
1265
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 12:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > > [Answers to the "science" questions coming soon - a
> > few million years or so!]
>
>
> That of course is exactly what I expect of creation 'scientists'.
>
> They do love to preach and preach and preach. But ask them some
> SCIENCE, and they all of a sudden shut up and get very very quiet.
>
In this case, yet again.
Roger Stanyard
>
>
1266
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 12:58:00
>
> --- 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.
I'm not an atheist, Nick. (shrug)
Now answer my questions. What makes YOUR religious opinions any more
authoritative than anyone ELSE's? And why do YOUR religious opinions
belong in a science classroom?
Oh, and since you've now dragged in the tired old "evolution is
atheist" bullshit, that brings up another question. (I do of course
realize that you won't answer it, but you see, Nick, all of my
questions makes their point whether you answer or not --- I don't
need your cooperation).
What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “atheistic” than, say,
weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be
as specific as possible.
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster
mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at
all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting
is atheistic?
I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accident
investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We
can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must
have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say
that “this crash has no godless causes — it must have been the Will
of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation
is atheistic?
How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
abandon his “godless biases” and to investigate possible
“supernatural” or “non-atheistic” causes for your disease? Or do you
ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by
using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
naturalistic materialistic germs?
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident
investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as
utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent
“atheistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just
evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why
aren’t you and your fellow creationists out there fighting the good
fight against godless atheistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or
medicine, or accident investigation?
===================================
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
1267
Andrew
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 12:59:00
So basically we've caught him lying about what's he's said, he's shown
himself to be unable to justify his questionable assertions, and he's
rubbished several other disciplines represented by departments in the school
in which he teaches.
1268
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 13:01:00
> >
> I don't mind answering proper SCIENCE (eg Chemistry)
> questions if I'm able
And yet you haven't answered a single one.
Wonder why not?
BTW, Nick, I keep hearing the "evolution violates the laws of
thermodynamics" crap from creationists. Since evolution is just a
change from one sequence of CTAG's to another, and since YOU are a
bigtime chemist and all that, this question is right up your alley:
Which step, sepcifically, in evolution do you feel violates the laws
of thermodynamics. The change from which particular sequence of
CGAT's to which different sequence of CGAT's violates the laws of
thermodynamics, and how does it do so. Please show your math.
Or, you can run away from all the science questions (again) and just
keep preaching your silly religious opinions.
===================================
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
1269
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 13:04:00
>
>
> Sorted!! (A lot easier than hydrological sorting)
>
(handwaving snipped)
Thanks for your religious opinions, Nick. Why should anyone else
give a flying fuck about them? What makes your religious opinions
any more authoritative than anyone else's?
Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible infallible, but YOUR
INTERPRETATIONS of it are also infallible?
Sorry Nick, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible.
Would you mind explaining why I *should* think you 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
1270
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 12:51:00
>
I am staggered at the degree of
> deception and dishonesty by the fundamentalists in the UK.
>
They have no choice. They know as well as we do that nobody supports
them or their political agenda. They simply cannot win through
democratic methods. So they have no choice but to resort to NON-
democratic methods.
===================================
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
1271
Andrew
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 13:24:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stanyard
> Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
> Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
> words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
> Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
It looks so innocent, too, until you realise what's implied in it.
1272
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 13:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Stanyard
>
> > Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
> > Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
> > words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
>
> > Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
>
> It looks so innocent, too, until you realise what's implied in it.
>
I've looked at it again, and I don't read it as an impication. It's a
statement of the fundamentalist position of the department.
As you know, I am working on the politics of creationism in the UK at
the moment and take great heed of George Orwell about the use of the
English language and politics.
For what it is worth, his second wife had been librarian at the
university where I did my first degree (indeed, he actually died in
part of the university). It was the exhibitions of his memorabilia,
apparently donated or lent by her, which got me interested.
Roger
1273
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 14:44:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Well, for me, it taps into "the forces of light vs. the forces of
darkness," but I figure that's a large part of the motivation involved
for each of us. Has been for quite a while for some. It was also
part of what I tapped into when doing philosophy or "investigating"
cults -- although the last of these was amateurish, for the most part.
As for their dishonesty, it runs very deep. When you consider what
they are after -- indoctrinating students in science classes with a
religio-political ideology intended to establish a theocracy, or at
least in the United States among some groups, washing the streets in
the blood of any who are not with them all in preparation for the
return of Christ -- well, I don't know what other word to use, I can
only describe it as evil.
> 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.
I think you and Lenny have been living lives a bit more exciting than
my own. And this, at least what I am doing, is a great deal easier --
as I can do it from the "comfort" of my own living room (we don't have
an airconditioner), and it isn't all that different from hunting down
tech articles.
> It's bent!
>
> Nicolo Machiavelli would have been proud of them.
>
> And these are people screaming that they are our moral superiors!
We really shouldn't expect anything less -- and remember,
totalitarians always appear to a sense of idealism. It is part of the
job description: the "ultimate good" by any means necessary.
> Roger Stanyard
>
> PS: I've always viewed The Prince as a somewhat grovelling failed job
> application.
Heh. I will have to share that with my wife: she went through the
Great Books program at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
1274
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:02:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've just looked at the description of the chemistry department at
> Liverpool
> > Bluecoat School. It begins:
> >
> > "The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students
> a
> > sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
> > physical universe."
> >
> > http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
>
> Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
> Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
> words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
Well, the word "physical" doesn't belong there either, not in a
chemistry class. Then how about the word "complex"? Given its
placement, it is modifying the word "wonder." For humans there is
nothing simpler than our sense of wonder. However, I guess this
changes for fundies studying science, for them it gets a great deal
more complicated.
> Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
1275
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:15:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I've looked at it again, and I don't read it as an impication. It's a
> statement of the fundamentalist position of the department.
>
> As you know, I am working on the politics of creationism in the UK at
> the moment and take great heed of George Orwell about the use of the
> English language and politics.
Given the situtation, this is quite likely the most important service
that one individual can offer Great Britain, and it should have
rippling effect that will extend well beyond her borders.
> For what it is worth, his second wife had been librarian at the
> university where I did my first degree (indeed, he actually died in
> part of the university). It was the exhibitions of his memorabilia,
> apparently donated or lent by her, which got me interested.
George Orwell means a great deal to Moira and I as well. I suspect I
have some dim sense of what you felt.
1276
MB
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:15:00
>> >
>> > "The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students
>> a
>> > sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
>> > physical universe."
>> >
>> > http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
>
> Well, the word "physical" doesn't belong there either, not in a
> chemistry class. Then how about the word "complex"? Given its
> placement, it is modifying the word "wonder." For humans there is
> nothing simpler than our sense of wonder. However, I guess this
> changes for fundies studying science, for them it gets a great deal
> more complicated.
>
Maybe it's a reference to the Irreducibly Complex bit that is on the
agenda with the Creation bit.
Regards,
MB
1277
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:32:00
On 03/07/06, MB <mbb386@main.nc.us> wrote:
>
> > Well, the word "physical" doesn't belong there either, not in a
> > chemistry class. Then how about the word "complex"? Given its
> > placement, it is modifying the word "wonder." For humans there is
> > nothing simpler than our sense of wonder. However, I guess this
> > changes for fundies studying science, for them it gets a great deal
> > more complicated.
> Maybe it's a reference to the Irreducibly Complex bit that is on the
> agenda with the Creation bit.
That was the intention, but as it stands, It is what my wife would
call a Freudian slip.
1278
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 15:41:00
On 03 jul 2006, at 13:58, Lenny Flank wrote:
> How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
> abandon his “godless biases” and to investigate possible
> “supernatural” or “non-atheistic” causes for your disease? Or do you
> ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by
> using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
> naturalistic materialistic germs?
Check out yesterday's "Doonesbury":
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?
uc_full_date=20060702
1279
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 17:42:00
On 02/07/06, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Huh. I wrote something about that not too long ago. Now where did I
put it? Oh yes, here:
"Observational" and "Historical" Sciences
May 26, 2006, 3:06 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/93200
May 26, 2006, 4:51 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/93205
> > 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!
Actually, TalkOrigin had a nice overview of the thing. It included this bit:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed.
Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a
chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes
where the bone cells would have rested.
"But she said she had been unable to retrieve DNA that could be
identified as originating in a dinosaur. She and her colleagues had
better luck in looking for heme, the oxygen carrying part of the
hemoglobin molecule of the blood. [Wade 1997]"
Dino-blood and the Young Earth
by Gary S. Hurd, Ph. D., 2004
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
Cells? Unfortanately not. DNA? We wish. Heme? Well, one out of
three. Unfortunately you forgot to mention this one.
> > 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)
Well, as far as your preaching goes, I personally find it mildly
amusing, but then I am sometimes easily entertained. I like watching
the antics of our cats, I have sat listening to my mother-in-law's
hanans, and stood watching two slugs suspended in air wrapped in
each-other's... well, you get the idea.
...
> 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.
Radically different?
This doesn't seem quite accurate. Approximately a third of the genes
are identical, and the average is approximately two or three amino
acid substitutions. Incidently, I was looking at your unnamed source,
and he had some ideas which seemed, well, odd. For example, he seemed
worried about the heterochromatin, but it is only when heterochromatin
is decondensed into euchromatin that it will become visible to natural
selection. Likewise, the majority of indels appear in the
microsatellites, specifically in the tandem repeats, which is exactly
where one would expect due to hypermutations as the result of
slippage. Less than twenty genes were affected by the indels, and
with the majority of them, only the introns -- which aren't really
coding sequences now, are they?
As for intrachromosomal rearrangements, they were somewhat more
significant than we expected, but for anyone tracking the work on
cross-species comparisons being done with mammals, it really shouldn't
have come as that big of a surprise -- particularly given how common
rearrangements even today: roughly one-tenth of one percent of all
humans born have such rearrangements in the very same places where
chromosomes suffered breaks and were re-integrated during the
evolution of mammals. Likewise, many types of cancer involve
rearrangements in the very same places. Something about hairpin
structures due to inverse palindromic sequences which sometimes result
from the triple helix Z-DNA and H-DNA arrangements, putting stress on
the the chromosomes -- if I remember correctly. The idea that the
mutations would nearly all be SNPs always seemed rather quaint to me.
As for your source, I believe he should a course in biology -- and you
would do better to look for the primary sources. You should also
seriously consider looking into the role of opioids in the evolution
of the human brain -- I believe you might have been short-changed.
Please do try and take care of yourself.
1280
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 19:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> As for your source, I believe he should a course in biology -- and you
> would do better to look for the primary sources. You should also
> seriously consider looking into the role of opioids in the evolution
> of the human brain -- I believe you might have been short-changed.
>
> Please do try and take care of yourself.
LOL!!!!!!
1281
oeditor
Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 20:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 03 jul 2006, at 13:58, Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
> > abandon his �godless biases� and to investigate possible
> > �supernatural� or �non-atheistic� causes for your disease? Or do
you
> > ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by
> > using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
> > naturalistic materialistic germs?
>
> Check out yesterday's "Doonesbury":
>
ROFL! Brilliant. The url split, though. Try http://tinyurl.com/jt5um
Brian
1282
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 20:17:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
>
> wrote:
> >
> > As for your source, I believe he should a course in biology -- and you
> > would do better to look for the primary sources. You should also
> > seriously consider looking into the role of opioids in the evolution
> > of the human brain -- I believe you might have been short-changed.
> >
> > Please do try and take care of yourself.
>
>
> LOL!!!!!!
Missing perhaps three or so common words, but it was off the top of my
head while at work, first draft...
1283
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 04:16:00
--- Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >Creationism isn't
> >science either but it is equivalent to any other
> >theory of origins.
> BULLSHIT!
> Evo biology is a proper branch of science. You are
> the one making claims
> about other non-sciences and scientific claims in
> areas which you are
> not qualified to talk.
You can invent your own definition of science to suit
yourself if you wish. But mine includes observability:
(sound of fruit-flies mutating......but no new genetic
information yet. Oh well. Let's give it a few more
millennia)
...and repeatability
(Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
...and falsifiability
(it's creationism that can be falsified - all you folk
need to do is change one kind of living creature into
another. I can't imagine what experiment could
disprove evolution - but I'm not surprised because
it's as much a faith position/religion as mine)
I don't have to be a Biologist to state this: it's the
historic position of Bacon/Grosseteste/Popper e.t.c.
(or should it be et.c.)
> > 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!
> WRONG! AGAIN!
> Red blood cells DON'T contain DNA you fool - if you
> had any grasp of
> biology you would know that. (Everyone else, I'm
> sorry my language is
> slipping this morning but this guy is proving what
> an idiot he is in
> spades.)
Hang on - where's the word "red" in my post? I'm void
of both (midnight)diamonds and hearts, but that
doesn't mean I'm an idiot in spades.
Seven No-Trumps redoubled!
> > 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.
> >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!
>
> BZZZT! Busted again. What's few months in a final
> year? Do that math
> stoopid and stop avoiding direct questions. If
> someone never actually
> gave an answer, no amount of time would ever make
> them give one, now
> would it?
You can't be sure of when the last remaining carbon-14
nucleus in a sample will decay either! And some of
your supposed "ages" from carbon-dating are really
reliable of course! Like all radiometric dating it's
full of assumptions. Or mavbe I'm just an old fossil
who's retiring soon.
> >> 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!)
>
> Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of
> behaviour I would expect
> from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these
> debates posted to the
> parents of the children you teach.
I have a sense of humour, as the little goats I teach
(and their parents) will verify. Unfortunately it's
largely lost on the generally humourless members of
this forum. Still, you'll get used to it. I can laugh
at myself so I don't get wound-up if you join in. God
has a sense of humour too (or is that "preaching"!?)
> >> 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)
> Mainly? Nah. The NT was written during that period,
> the OT wasn't.
Our former Head boy here at Blue Coat is in his 2nd
year at Oxford reading Theology (he's the guy who got
Philip Bell from AiG into the university for a meeting
in January - great news eh?) He seems to think I'm
right on this one viz:
NT written between ca.45AD (James) and ca.95AD
(Revelation).
OT written between ca.1400BC (the Pentateuch/Torah
though Job may be earlier) and ca.400BC (Malachi).
Liberal theologians generally date things later. What
dates do you suggest?
> >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!
>
> 1.5 million species are catalogued today, Nick.
OK - but "billions" is OTT.
> Woodmorappe (the guy
> most vaunted for working out the Ark story in modern
> terms) got his
> maths wrong. He works on 8000 kinds (16000 animals
> if we disallow for
> the clean/unclean ones). The AiG publishes a long
> tract on this using
> Woodmorappe's work which I have just taken great
> pleasure in debunking.
For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
don't, so you're not being impartial when you use
"science" to dismiss his carefully presented study.
> >> 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.
> I read that, but we only have the relatively modern
> translations for
> that guidance. How did Noah lead the carnivores
> Nick?
Maybe they weren't carnivores (like man wasn't) till
after the flood - compare Genesis 1 v28/29 with 9 v3.
> Oh, Nick, it "e.g." not "eg" - it's an abbreviation
> from Latin. I also
> suspect you meant "i.e." meaning "that is", not for
> example.
OK (yawn)
> Finally you admit the Bible isn't a biology book;
> it's a story book.
> Even the AiG has difficulty in explaining how the
> vast diversity of life
> we see today came about from 8000 originals.
>
> >> 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.
>
> No? OK. Gen 7:8
>
> "Of /clean beasts/, and of beasts that are not
> clean, /and of fowls/,
> and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth"
Yes, I should have added verse 9 as well. Sorry (but I
bet you read it anyway).
> Well I'll be blowed... Nick's taking the bible
> literally again... Pity
> about that. See the bible just doesn't bear up to
> close examination. The
> problem with billions of gallons of (no longer
> present) fresh water that
> fell on the Earth to cause the flood as described
> would have poisoned
> just about every living thing in the sea within
> hours. HOURS. Not days,
> not weeks, not months, but hours.
You can't be certain. Things may have been totally
different then - they were in other ways. The whole
fresh/salt water thing may not apply.
By the way the water from the flood is still with us!
It's not too hard to estimate how far BELOW sea-level
we'd be if the land was all equidistant from the
centre of the earth!
> I've covered this error in detail in my debunking of
> Noah, but if you
> need to see this happen Nick, go down your pet store
> and buy a false
> percula clownfish (like Nemo from the film Finding
> Nemo) or if you can't
> afford one, just about any marine dweller will do.
> Hell, nip down and
..you don't come out! In heaven you wouldn't want to!
> see if you can catch a few hermit crabs from a local
> beach.
> Now, carefully match the temperature of some
> tapwater (or DI/RO water if
> you prefer) and force some air through - we wouldn't
> want our creatures
> to suffocate. Add your collected sample (if you can
> be that cruel) and
> time how long it survives.
> BUSTED. This affect is due to a chemical reaction -
> which is your
> speciality, after all.
Clownfish - good name. Are they OK with chips?
> > >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:
>
> Woodmorappe? Good, I'm glad you brought that name
> up. I've debunked
> Woodmorappe's assertions from the AiG peice in a
> recent article - you
> should read it. Woodmorappe boilerplate is typical
> of your sort, what
> doesn't fit the theory (and there's lots of it) is
> ignored. Woodmorappe
> (or the AiG author) doesn't even know the difference
> between the mean
> and the median measure in stats.
OK there's a difference of definition, but in many
distribution curves mean and median (and mode too for
good measure) are numerically equal.
> > > I could go on, but hey, I'm not an expert.
>
> >Amen! Your theology is about the same level as my
> >palaeontology!
>
> I rather doubt that, but since you bring the subject
> up, how can you
> claim to know anything about historical origins if
> you don't even
> understand the scientific theories that give rise to
> them?
I don't believe SCIENCE can ever "give rise to"
(cause) anything. To attribute purpose to a "blind"
process is to make "science" your "god".
> > > 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).
> No I am not. Nor is anyone else for that matter.
This one's measurable: go over all the BlackShadow
posts since I joined and count them for yourself.
> I'm asking you to take a theological assertion -
> which YOU claim is
> scientifically justified - and explain it
> scientifically. There's a huge
> difference and the only Catch 22 here is the fact
> that you can't.
Is ANY "theological" or religious assertion capable of
scientific justification?
> >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.
> That's just asinine Nick. I've not read anywhere
> that specifically
> suggests that chromosome 22 WAS 98% alike in humans
> and chimps. Perhaps
> you would care to enlighten us?
Evolutionists were quick to report that 98% figure -
it was widely quoted in the press at the time (3 years
ago?) but it was for the whole genome (or at least the
part that had been mapped.). Chromosome 22 is more
recent (2005 I think). Check it out.
> And please tell me that the monkey note was an
> attempt at humor. I
> really don't want to think you're that ignorant.
It was humour, or "humor" as the Americans mis-spell
it (Sorry Marc if you're American! I guess I'll have
Flank the Yank on my back again!)
Nick Cowan II
___________________________________________________________
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
1284
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 10:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
> Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
> we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
>
What's a "kind" Nick? Or do we have fr ever and a day for creationist
scientists to come up with an answer?
>
> Our former Head boy here at Blue Coat is in his 2nd
> year at Oxford reading Theology (he's the guy who got
> Philip Bell from AiG into the university for a meeting
> in January - great news eh?) He seems to think I'm
> right on this one viz:
>
Oh, the very same Philip Bell that's going around the country saying
that people are being abducted by aliens in UFOs. And that Dinosaurs
roamed the EBritish countryside in Tudor times. Er, that level of
intellect.
What the hell is being taught at Bluecoat?
> For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
>
> For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
> don't, so you're not being impartial when you use
> "science" to dismiss his carefully presented study.
Nope, dead wrong. The creationist scientists say their science stands
up without religion. Time and time again, right back to 1961 and
Henry Morris. You know, the guy that has said it is OK to lie for
God. Why don't you ask one of your local Anglican clergyman about
this one Nick? His name is the Rev Michael Roberts.
Also, wrong again. Don't need science to dismiss Woodmorappe's wacko
rubbish. Just a grasp of basic engineering - naval architecture. It's
a branch of engineering if you didn't know.
Here is a detailed list of Woodmorappe's professional expertise in
engineering and naval archirecture:
(long, isn't it?)
Why is it in the real world I look to professionals to give me an
understanding of engineering but the fundies rely on a school teacher
with a background in geology?
I don't get this Nick because what I do for a living really does
involve rocket science. Members of my family are world class when it
comes to engineering - you know, a director of Rolls Royce, a builder
of nuclear powered submarines. Many a long hour I've discussed ships
with them.
(For the rest of this group, the really interesting historical stuff
I have is on the Queen Mary - technically an obsolete pile of poo the
minute it ran down the slipway in Glasgow. Rivited construction,
built with obsolete parts set to BoT standards, bottom heavy,
unstable in heavy weather and a leathal memance to its passengers and
crew. It had to have massive midifications.)
And here is this idiot Woodmorappe who thinks he knows better.
Give us a bio on Woodmorappe, his real name and his professional
qualifications, Nick.
>
> Yes, I should have added verse 9 as well. Sorry (but I
> bet you read it anyway).
>
Well, clearly Nick, we are all uneducated morons.
> By the way the water from the flood is still with us!
> It's not too hard to estimate how far BELOW sea-level
> we'd be if the land was all equidistant from the
> centre of the earth!
>
And preciely how ever said it was or where there no oceans or seas
before the flood? No hills, no mountains?
> ..you don't come out! In heaven you wouldn't want to!
>
What are you talking about?
>
> Clownfish - good name. Are they OK with chips?
>
Well clearly the man is wrong because of the name of the fish?. I
suppose that was made up by some kind of immoral, atheistic
evilutionist who isn't an evangelical protestant fundamentalist.
So, let me ask again - what the hell is a fundie atheist?
> I don't believe SCIENCE can ever "give rise to"
> (cause) anything. To attribute purpose to a "blind"
> process is to make "science" your "god".
>
Why? I don't understand this statement at all.
>
> Evolutionists were quick to report that 98% figure -
> it was widely quoted in the press at the time (3 years
> ago?) but it was for the whole genome (or at least the
> part that had been mapped.). Chromosome 22 is more
> recent (2005 I think). Check it out.
>
So what. That's what is happening in the biological sciences - new
research is poouring out on genetics. So what has been the
contribution of creation science to science?
Um, sod all.
> It was humour, or "humor" as the Americans mis-spell
> it (Sorry Marc if you're American! I guess I'll have
> Flank the Yank on my back again!)
>
With a bit of luck
1285
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 11:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
>
> --- Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> > >Creationism isn't
> > >science either but it is equivalent to any other
> > >theory of origins.
>
> > BULLSHIT!
> > Evo biology is a proper branch of science. You are
> > the one making claims
> > about other non-sciences and scientific claims in
> > areas which you are
> > not qualified to talk.
>
> You can invent your own definition of science to suit
> yourself if you wish. But mine includes observability:
So does mine. Perhaps you would enlighted us as to when Biology ceased
to be a science?
> (sound of fruit-flies mutating......but no new genetic
> information yet. Oh well. Let's give it a few more
> millennia)
>
Two words stoopid. Environmental pressure.
I've covered this before (but I'll do so again). Evolution requires a
change in the environment for their to be a change in the organism.
Changes WILL still occur, but unless they have some advantage, they
will not survive. Lab environments are static and unchanging.
What you've unwittingly done (apart from expose your incredible
ignorance to all) is actually prove evolution.
> ...and repeatability
> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
> Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
> we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
D'uh! See about.
>
> ...and falsifiability
>
> (it's creationism that can be falsified - all you folk
> need to do is change one kind of living creature into
> another. I can't imagine what experiment could
> disprove evolution - but I'm not surprised because
> it's as much a faith position/religion as mine)
Here's one: mate a couple of cats and see if a dog comes out. If it
does, then evolution is blown to shit. Proof again that you don't have
clue what you're talking about.
> I don't have to be a Biologist to state this: it's the
> historic position of Bacon/Grosseteste/Popper e.t.c.
> (or should it be et.c.)
No. It's etc. That's a abbreviation of etcetera (also latin if memory
serves). Like you Nick, I'm flying without a dictionary.
>
> > > 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!
>
> > WRONG! AGAIN!
> > Red blood cells DON'T contain DNA you fool - if you
> > had any grasp of
> > biology you would know that. (Everyone else, I'm
> > sorry my language is
> > slipping this morning but this guy is proving what
> > an idiot he is in
> > spades.)
>
>
> Hang on - where's the word "red" in my post? I'm void
> of both (midnight)diamonds and hearts, but that
> doesn't mean I'm an idiot in spades.
Ah so, you know the difference then. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten
us which type of blood cells were found? Perhaps this little quote
from one of your supporters will jog that grey matter.
"Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red
blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony
against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It
speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation."
RED blood cells Nick (never mind the unfossilised bit). Red ones.
Erythrocytes. Not leucocytes (which would contain DNA).
> Seven No-Trumps redoubled!
>
> > > 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.
>
> > >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!
> >
> > BZZZT! Busted again. What's few months in a final
> > year? Do that math
> > stoopid and stop avoiding direct questions. If
> > someone never actually
> > gave an answer, no amount of time would ever make
> > them give one, now
> > would it?
>
> You can't be sure of when the last remaining carbon-14
> nucleus in a sample will decay either! And some of
> your supposed "ages" from carbon-dating are really
> reliable of course! Like all radiometric dating it's
> full of assumptions. Or mavbe I'm just an old fossil
> who's retiring soon.
I rather wish you would: retire that is. Carbon dating is ONE method
for dating things, Nick. ONE. There are over 40 more.
> > >> 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!)
> >
> > Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of
> > behaviour I would expect
> > from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these
> > debates posted to the
> > parents of the children you teach.
>
> I have a sense of humour, as the little goats I teach
> (and their parents) will verify. Unfortunately it's
> largely lost on the generally humourless members of
> this forum. Still, you'll get used to it. I can laugh
> at myself so I don't get wound-up if you join in. God
> has a sense of humour too (or is that "preaching"!?)
I don't know. No one here finds your admission to promotion of
creationism and anti-science here very funny Nick.
> > >> 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)
>
> > Mainly? Nah. The NT was written during that period,
> > the OT wasn't.
>
> Our former Head boy here at Blue Coat is in his 2nd
> year at Oxford reading Theology (he's the guy who got
> Philip Bell from AiG into the university for a meeting
> in January - great news eh?) He seems to think I'm
> right on this one viz:
>
> NT written between ca.45AD (James) and ca.95AD
> (Revelation).
> OT written between ca.1400BC (the Pentateuch/Torah
> though Job may be earlier) and ca.400BC (Malachi).
>
> Liberal theologians generally date things later. What
> dates do you suggest?
Similar time period, if you read what I said. The bit we're debating
is the OT not the NT. Over 1400 BC puts the OT over 2000 years old;
3400 or thereabouts. Or is my math out?
> > >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!
> >
> > 1.5 million species are catalogued today, Nick.
>
> OK - but "billions" is OTT.
Sure. That's the email. Read the article I wrote which is researched
not dragged off the top of my head in anger.
> > Woodmorappe (the guy
> > most vaunted for working out the Ark story in modern
> > terms) got his
> > maths wrong. He works on 8000 kinds (16000 animals
> > if we disallow for
> > the clean/unclean ones). The AiG publishes a long
> > tract on this using
> > Woodmorappe's work which I have just taken great
> > pleasure in debunking.
>
> For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
And for scientific reasons, Woodmorappe is STILL WRONG!
> For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
> don't, so you're not being impartial when you use
> "science" to dismiss his carefully presented study.
Carefully presented bullshit. I didn't just use science Nick. I used
Maths (Woodmorappe's maths) and I used chemistry and biology too.
> > >> all over the planet. So much so, that a small
> > few of