Creationism - Main - 3401To3450

3401
Dave Oldridge
Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 09:42:00

On 5 Oct 2006 at 12:34, Timothy Chase wrote:

> On 05/10/06, Rudy Vonk <rudy@mores.es> wrote:
> > On 05 oct 2006, at 14:00, Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> > > You need the support of those, uh, "deluded".
> >
> [cut simply for brevity]
>
> > However, the above statement seems questionable to me. If I
> were a
> > General (what the heck, why not Field Marshal), I think I
> would want
> > the forces on my side to be convinced, not deluded. I would
> wonder
> > deeply about the level of commitment of not only the Michael
> Robertses
> > of this world, but many other apparently "inoffensive"
> theists, if the
> > fight demanded (intellectual) action that they might find hard
> to
> > reconcile with their extra-scientific views. I wonder what
> Sunzi would
> > have to say about this dilemma...
>
> SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
>
> VI. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG
>
> 29. Military tactics are like unto water; for water in
> its
> natural course runs away from high places and hastens
> downwards.
> 30. So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to
> strike
> at what is weak.
> 31. Water shapes its course according to the nature of
> the
> ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory
> in
> relation to the foe whom he is facing.
> 32. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so
> in
> warfare there are no constant conditions.
> 33. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his
> opponent
> and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven- born
> captain.
>
> Mikey Brass and Dave Oldridge are both strongly committed and
> have been for quite some time, and I believe that we can rely
> upon them and people like them to speak up when necessary - and
> those who are religious are quite likely to listen to them, and
> even more likely to listen to you on the points that matter
> most.

Don't count on it. Some of the more committed creationists
obviously have no real spiritual rudder. They are quite happy to
undertake a career of libel to support their goals.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ

3402
Mikey Brass
Re: Reminder of the Ground Rules
06/10/2006 10:00:00

Roger Stanyard wrote:

> 4. There is no agreement amongst group members to run BCSE and
> Blackshadow as atheist organisations.

Absolutely not. Furthermore, the fallout from this *will* have been
noticed privately amongst other anti-creationist bodies in the UK. This
is *not* good.

> I will be voting for us being religiously neutral.

Indeed.

> If the vote goes
> my way, I will impose religious neutrality on the Yahoo group.

Thank you.

3403
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 10:03:00

> I guess I am not wanted then, right? I am happy to walk away from those
who do not wish co-operation.

Please Don't.

If there's going to be any chance of this group actually working, your
skills will be needed.

Ian.

3404
oeditor
BCSE Domain Registration - REALLY
06/10/2006 10:08:00

I've just registered bcseweb.org.uk in Roger's name. It's for two
years, so we'd better hang on in there!
Roger will get the welcome email and I'll pass the login details to Ian.

Brian

3405
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 10:17:00

> An even shorter, even clearer version ---------- if they oppose the
teaching of creationism, then they ARE on the same side as us.

The world is not black and white, Lenny.

> And any other gripes you have with them are utterly irrelevant to
that.

Absolute pap.

These dogmatic statements of "this is how it is" are really not helping -
several of the people here have been active in lobbying the UK parliament
for years on many different issues. We understand the political picture
here.

Your advice is welcome, If you actually discuss the situation and help us
reach a consensus, but please - quit it with these "I know best" statements.
I am sure that you understand the situation in the US perfectly. I'm not
convinced that you grasp just how different our political and legal
situation is.

As Mikey has pointed out, there is a potential schism within the Church of
England - a good chunk of the ministers and lay members want to see the
separation of church and state - they want schools which teach children
proper science.

These people, we can work with - the BHA knows this, and works with them on
a regular basis. Here in Scotland, the HSS works along with *some* members
of the Church of Scotland for the same reason.

The ones who do not want separation of church and state, who only want to do
something about the fundamentalists because they fear losing their own
membership, and with it, lose money and political influence, there's a
pretty good chance that we cannot work with.

Ian.

3406
Rudy Vonk
Re: Reminder of the Ground Rules
06/10/2006 10:23:00

On 06 oct 2006, at 08:58, Roger Stanyard wrote:

> It's clear we have a major crisis on our hands this morning.

Relax: Full Moon is tomorrow, and our collective PMS can't last
forever, either :-)

cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]

3407
oeditor
Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 10:35:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> Marc Draco wrote:
>
> > We can't apply American rules here. The British people are
different. We > > don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable.
>
> Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here
are > packed on a Saturday.

Interesting. Roger's already speculated that the North gets the
fundies because of its nonconformist history. Looks as though the pale
weedy nonconformist grapes have withered on the vine more quickly than
the lush, purple, CofE ones.

(er...would that be *Sunday* btw, or are they having farmers' markets
in them? ;-)
Brian

3408
Ian Lowe
RE: Reminder of the Ground Rules
06/10/2006 10:56:00

> 4. There is no agreement amongst group members to run BCSE and
Blackshadow as atheist organisations.

Nor should there be. And I'm saying that as a tooth spitting atheist.

> 5. If it is run as an atheist organistion it will collapse within 24
hours.

No. There is nothing inherently wrong with an Atheist organisation. However,
that's not the issue - an atheist organisation is not right for *this* task.

> Roberts was ...

As loud mouthed as any atheist, and antagonistic to boot. He may be able to
contribute, but he should have been slapped down for speaking way the hell
out of turn.

>If the vote goes my way, I will impose religious neutrality on the Yahoo
group.

Can I suggest that we have a couple of moderators, clearly defined - ie
WRITTEN rules for what is, and is not acceptable, and a "three strikes"
policy.

> I am not prepared to back loosers.

Gravitas, Roger. No need for personal stuff.

>That means we are indifferent to religion - it's not our business. We will
work with anyone, irrespective of their religious opinions, as long
as they oppose creationism...

...and are willing to work to cooperate with other people here without being
antagonistic.

I can't stress this enough - Robert's use of language like "atheistic
Darwinism" is just as much a problem as any comments made by us atheists.

I.

3409
Mikey Brass
Re: Reminder of the Ground Rules
06/10/2006 11:05:00

Ian Lowe wrote:

> Can I suggest that we have a couple of moderators, clearly defined - ie
> WRITTEN rules for what is, and is not acceptable, and a "three strikes"
> policy.

I have a written policy for my Paleoanthro list which I am willing to
send anyone who would like a copy for modification.

3410
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 11:00:00

oeditor wrote:

> (er...would that be *Sunday* btw, or are they having farmers' markets
> in them? ;-)

Saturday and Sunday, with most of the church goers being non-fundie.

3411
Mikey Brass
Revised short piece on human evolution
06/10/2006 12:53:00

I have revised my short piece on the evidence for humans and chimpanzees
sharing a common ancestor. It is at
http://www.antiquityofman.com/ape-human.html . Feel free to use it as is
on the BCSE site; in fact, I would encourage it.

3412
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 13:05:00

> > An even shorter, even clearer version ---------- if they oppose the
> >
> teaching of creationism, then they ARE on the same side as us.
>
> The world is not black and white, Lenny.

It's not "the world" that matters, Ian. It's this fight. Those who
are on your side in this fight, are . . . well . . on your side.

Any other gripes you have with them, don't matter in this fight.

We're not out to change the world. We're out to stop creationists
from getting into schools.

The rest of the world can wait for later.

===================================
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

3413
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 13:03:00

>>
> We can't apply American rules here. The British people are different.
> We don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable.
>

Then, uh, why do you have so many creationists, and why are they
getting any support whatsoever . . . . ?

Time to open your eyes.

===================================
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

3414
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 13:03:00

>
> Let Christians fight on their own front: I don't want to fight
> alongside them.
>

Then leave. You're not doing us any good.

===================================
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

3415
roythearle
Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 13:51:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> Marc Draco wrote:
>
> > We can't apply American rules here. The British people are
different. We
> > don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable.
>
> Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here
are
> packed on a Saturday.

Here too. But why do you correlate attendance at jumble sales,
exhibitions and coffee mornings with a belief in God?

Roy

3416
oeditor
Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 13:52:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
> Then leave. You're not doing us any good.
Er... what exactly are *you* doing for us Lenny, apart from lecturing
us all the time?

Brian

3417
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 13:55:00

roythearle wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>> Marc Draco wrote:
>>
>>> We can't apply American rules here. The British people are
> different. We
>>> don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable.
>> Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here
> are
>> packed on a Saturday.
>
> Here too. But why do you correlate attendance at jumble sales,
> exhibitions and coffee mornings with a belief in God?

I am, of course, referring to church *services*.

--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)

3418
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 13:54:00

>> The world is not black and white, Lenny.
>
> It's not "the world" that matters, Ian. It's this fight.

Okay then.
THIS FIGHT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

> Any other gripes you have with them, don't matter in this fight.

Yes, they do.

Those "gripes" are to do with Education, separation of church and state, and
enforced worship in schools. The things which go right to the heart of this
fight. The absolute CORE of this fight.

The US fight is to stop the infiltration of science classrooms as a FIRST
STEP by the fundamentalists. That's not their end goal - their end goal is
what we already have to live with: state enforced religion in schools.

We don't need allies that want to fight off the fundies, just because it's
bad for their own stranglehold. We need allies that understand that
separation of church and state is better for the state - and better for the
church too.

There are *plenty* of Anglican ministers who feel this way - and *those* are
the ones we need. Supporters of the Status Quo are out for nobody but
themselves.

Ian.

3419
roythearle
Re: New poll for BlackShadow
06/10/2006 14:04:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral and
should be attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of their
religious opinions and beliefs?

That question should be taken out and shot. It asks about both what is
and what should be, thus having two parts with potentially different
answers, includes an inbuilt assumption about creationism/religion and
yet only allows yes/no responses.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of MORI?

Roy

3420
Roger Stanyard
Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 14:48:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Then leave. You're not doing us any good.
> Er... what exactly are *you* doing for us Lenny, apart from
lecturing
> us all the time?
>
> Brian
>

Lenny has given us loads of help and advice.

Let me remind everyone yet again, this group is now very dangerously
close to breaking up over the issue of religion.

The divisions are now very deep and bitter, indeed.

The latest development today has been the departure of Marc Draco
from the group.

The only thing that will save this group is if we stop bitching
about religion.

Roger

3421
Timothy Chase
Re: BCSE Domain Registration - REALLY
06/10/2006 14:51:00

On 06/10/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> I've just registered bcseweb.org.uk in Roger's name. It's for two
> years, so we'd better hang on in there!
> Roger will get the welcome email and I'll pass the login details to Ian.

That is really good news!

Setting aside - our difficulties over the past few days - the
discussion board approach will be ideal, if for no other reason than
the fact that this is an organisation we wish to grow. Beyond a
certain point, the volume should require something along these lines -
just to keep the topics organised so that people can find what they
are most interested in. Have them check the general announcements
area, then go to what is most relevant to them - such as local events
- or whatever.

--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk

3422
Roger Stanyard
Re: New poll for BlackShadow
06/10/2006 14:54:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "roythearle" <rthearle@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> > Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral and
> should be attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of their
> religious opinions and beliefs?
>
> That question should be taken out and shot. It asks about both what is
> and what should be, thus having two parts with potentially different
> answers, includes an inbuilt assumption about creationism/religion and
> yet only allows yes/no responses.
>
> Are you now or have you ever been a member of MORI?
>
> Roy
>
So what the hell should the question be?

3423
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 15:43:00

> The divisions are now very deep and bitter, indeed.

Hold your horses people.

Possible solution, en route.

3424
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Just a thought...
06/10/2006 15:49:00

Ian Lowe wrote:
>> The divisions are now very deep and bitter, indeed.
>
>
> Hold your horses people.
>
> Possible solution, en route.

Agreed. Reckon everyone should hold off for 24/48 hours.

3425
Roger Stanyard
Back to Business
06/10/2006 16:26:00

You can probably guess that I have started receiving emails from
fundies in my private email in box.

I've just had a couple from a Jack Lewis (anybody every heard of him).

To keep you entertained, here is my latest reply:

Dear Mr. Stanyard,
Thank you for your most enlightening reply.
When I read your letter in the 'Times' I decided to write a reply. I
was contacted by the Times because they wanted to run my letter but
needed to ask me a couple of questions first. However because I was
unable to get back to them quick enough they ran out of time and had
to use a similar letter sent in by someone else. So please find below
the letter I sent to them that grabbed their attention.

Dear Sir,
Once again there is vociferous and paranoid outcry against passing on
to schools, constructive scientific criticism of evolution. Roger
Stanyard of The British Centre for Science Education in Tuesday's
letters, appears to be outraged by material sent to all schools
from 'Truth in Science' movement. He does not mention the academic
qualifications of the people behind this movement!
RS: We have mentioned the academic qualifications repeatedly and they
were brought up in the letter (the Times edited it down without us
knowing).

In particular we have repeatdly brought it to the attention of the
public that Dr John Blanchard's PhD is bogus and was purchased from a
diploma mill. Likewise we have repeatedly brought it to the attention
of the world that neither Andy McIntosh nor Stuart Burgess have any
training in biology whatsoever. We are unaware that Willis Metcalfe
has any professional qualifications at all. As far as we are aware
Gerard Chrispin is a lawyer and has no training in science. We are
unaware whether georhe Curry has any science qualifications. David
Harding appears not to have a degree in anything at all. Russell
healy is an an engineer by background. Arther Jines appears to have
never practised as a scientist. Maurice Roberts taught classics!

Impressed I am not.

His main fear appears to be that children may be 'confused'. I would
suggest that the confusion is how can something so fraught with
problems be taught as undeniable fact? Isn't that what education is
all about, teaching children to think for themselves and to develop
inquiring minds?

RS: Not in the case of Truth in Science. Your agenda is religious and
political. It has nothing to do with science. The children cannot see
through that.

How are they going to see through the fact you are promoting
Intelligent Design when none of the liars in Truth in Science believe
in it. They are all young earth creationists. Talk about a recipe for
confusion amongst discerning adults, let alone children.

Teaching students only one world view when there are alternatives,
particularly when one is scientifically critical of the other, is
being disingenuous towards children and students. Those who desire to
promote only one world view (evolution) have two major problems. The
first is, whether they like it or not, evolution is beset by quite
serious and admitted scientific difficulties plus not a small amount
of past faked evidence.

RS: Where, and what is the fake evidence. Would you like to talk
about Piltdown Man or the Paluxy footprints or the Wedge Document.
Feel free to talk about all of them.

And, er, prescisely what is the screntifc theory of creationism that
you intend to teach to children?

The second is, and much more to their point, if they are unable to
answer their critics, what, by implication, would have to replace
evolution? This is where the creationist can offer the student an
answer, albeit philosophical, for his consideration.

RS: But Truth in Science is promoting Intelligent Design, not
creationism!!!!!!

At this point the student merely has to make a choice between which
of these two statements is the more rational: the evolutionary
view 'nothing created everything out of nothing' and the creationist
view 'something created everything out of nothing'. Where is the
confusion in that!

RS: All over the bloody place.

3426
jon_12091
Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 16:56:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> The second is, and much more to their point, if they are unable to
> answer their critics, what, by implication, would have to replace
> evolution? This is where the creationist can offer the student an
> answer, albeit philosophical, for his consideration.
>
> RS: But Truth in Science is promoting Intelligent Design, not
> creationism!!!!!!

Ooo, look he just admitted its a philosophical argument ....

> At this point the student merely has to make a choice between
which
> of these two statements is the more rational: the evolutionary
> view 'nothing created everything out of nothing' and the
creationist
> view 'something created everything out of nothing'. Where is the
> confusion in that!
>
> RS: All over the bloody place.

Again its a philosphocal choice, do I believe in a 'higher power' or
do you believe a world ordered by natural laws and society governed
by rational human thought, WTF has that got to do with teaching
science?

Its staggering, a beautifully vehement argument for the teaching of
creationism in science class while tasitly admitting all along that
its a philosophical argument.... I wonder I if he writes letters on
black paper with white ink....

3427
Roger Stanyard
Another Nutter
06/10/2006 17:37:00

I have come across another nutter, Dr Neville Jones.

Apparently he is a physicist but lives in Caithness (very North of
Scotland - out in the Styx would be an understatement). He is a
geocentrist and also believes that the Apollo missions to the moon
never took place. They were a hoax.

Jones ran a creationist email group unto around April of last year. Mad
as the proverbial hatter!

Jack Lewis admires his scientific logic!!!

3428
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 17:52:00

On 06/10/06, jon_12091 <jon_12091@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ....
> Ooo, look he just admitted its a philosophical argument ....
>
> > At this point the student merely has to make a choice between
> which
> > of these two statements is the more rational: the evolutionary
> > view 'nothing created everything out of nothing' and the
> creationist
> > view 'something created everything out of nothing'. Where is the
> > confusion in that!
> >
> > RS: All over the bloody place.
>
> Again its a philosphocal choice, do I believe in a 'higher power' or
> do you believe a world ordered by natural laws and society governed
> by rational human thought, WTF has that got to do with teaching
> science?
>
> Its staggering, a beautifully vehement argument for the teaching of
> creationism in science class while tasitly admitting all along that
> its a philosophical argument.... I wonder I if he writes letters on
> black paper with white ink....

I was think more along the lines of crayola crayons.

However, Dembski himself has admitted within the past few months that
what they are actually advocating is a "theory of causation" - which
means philosophy, not science. Specifically, metaphysics. I've
dabbled in a little metaphysics myself and its role in establishing a
logical foundation for a theory of knowledge, but it most certainly
isn't science and does not belong in any science class. Of course,
for these fellows it is nothing more than a rationalisation for their
fundamentalist faith and ambitions, a means of indoctrination.

--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk

3429
Rudy Vonk
Re: Another Nutter
06/10/2006 18:08:00

On 06 oct 2006, at 18:37, Roger Stanyard wrote:

> I have come across another nutter, Dr Neville Jones.
>
> Apparently he is a physicist but lives in Caithness (very North of
> Scotland - out in the Styx would be an understatement). He is a
> geocentrist and also believes that the Apollo missions to the moon
> never took place. They were a hoax.

If living in Caithness doesn't mean automatic Seasonal Affective
Disorder, what does? No wonder the guy is a nutter...

cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]

3430
Roger Stanyard
Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 18:41:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> You can probably guess that I have started receiving emails from
> fundies in my private email in box.
>
> I've just had a couple from a Jack Lewis (anybody every heard of him).
>
> To keep you entertained, here is my latest reply:
>
> Dear Mr. Stanyard,

Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist
friends.

Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be
in for some real entertainment?

Roger

3431
oeditor
Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 19:14:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>

> Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist
> friends.
>
> Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be
> in for some real entertainment?
>
What, turn Christian-baiting into a sport? Wouldn't that put you under
moderation? ;-)) One Cowan was enough and it makes me think that
although the "public" part of the new board will be visible to all and
allow cretinists, I think posting should still be by application only.
We just want the cretinists who might be useful - Old Blabbermouth and
that Derbyshire lad - Josh was it? The whole cage of monkeys we don't
want. If we want a zoo/peepshow we should set up a separate playground
altogether for them.

Brian

3432
Ian Lowe
RE: Another Nutter
06/10/2006 20:09:00

Well, if he's a physicist in caithness, that usually means one thing and one
thing only - Douneray. Odd, as they tend to be pretty savvy about the
quality of people they use.

-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 06 October 2006 17:38
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Another Nutter

I have come across another nutter, Dr Neville Jones.

Apparently he is a physicist but lives in Caithness (very North of Scotland
- out in the Styx would be an understatement). He is a geocentrist and also
believes that the Apollo missions to the moon never took place. They were a
hoax.

Jones ran a creationist email group unto around April of last year. Mad as
the proverbial hatter!

Jack Lewis admires his scientific logic!!!

3433
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 20:13:00

You might want to stall these guys Roger - we will have the new forums up
and running in a day or so, and we will have an area they can be invited
into for a ritual kicking :D

Ian.

-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 06 October 2006 18:41
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Back to Business

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> You can probably guess that I have started receiving emails from
> fundies in my private email in box.
>
> I've just had a couple from a Jack Lewis (anybody every heard of him).
>
> To keep you entertained, here is my latest reply:
>
> Dear Mr. Stanyard,

Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist
friends.

Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be in for
some real entertainment?

Roger

Yahoo! Groups Links

3434
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 20:12:00

On 06/10/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist
> > friends.
> >
> > Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be
> > in for some real entertainment?
...
;-)) One Cowan was enough and it makes me think that
> although the "public" part of the new board will be visible to all and
> allow cretinists, I think posting should still be by application only.
> We just want the cretinists who might be useful - Old Blabbermouth and
> that Derbyshire lad - Josh was it? The whole cage of monkeys we don't
> want. If we want a zoo/peepshow we should set up a separate playground
> altogether for them.

Agreed. Having the creationists run rampant on the boards would be an
absolute nightmare. One especially badly-behaved creationist is more
than enough to throw a fair number of normally rational people into a
tizzy. Not that much different from a troll, really, except that a
troll is simply in it for the sport or attention, and is as a result
easier for people to dismiss and ignore.

Likewise, I have seen evos set up message boards open to evo and
creationists, just trying to be warm and fuzzy I suppose, coddling
creationists in the hope that they might mend their ways, and even
granting some moderator privileges. A few too many trips to the
punch-bowl, I think...

But a few by invitation only in regulated areas shouldn't be that much
of a problem. A zoo for sure, but a small zoo.

--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk

3435
oeditor
Re: Another Nutter
06/10/2006 20:34:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well, if he's a physicist in caithness, that usually means one thing
>and one> thing only - Douneray.

Dr. Strangelove, I presume ;-)

Brian

3436
jbs13uk
More letters in the Times
06/10/2006 21:15:00

Apologies for the on-topic post.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html

The Times October 07, 2006

"Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.

To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off
limits even to discuss this (letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to
brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism. All
that Truth in Science wishes to see is an honest opening out of the
origins debate in our schools and universities.

That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the
Mystery of Life, sent to every secondary school in the country, shows
that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious
philosophical consequences.

We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think. To
suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense. The
exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms in living creatures has led to the
growth of the discipline known as biomimetics, copying nature to
advantage in engineering.

I am eager that more students should work at the interface between
life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature.

ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds

Sir, The best place, possibly the only place, for creationism and
other faith-associated issues to be analysed is in the theatre of
science. The earlier this begins the better: in primary school
preferably, secondary school certainly.

For some reason science seems to be in fear of faith and seeks to
distance itself from its religious and philosophical manifestations.
It trivialises them. This is a futile position, for it permits
unreasoned doctrines to prosper and encourages the untenable and
discouraging view that personal belief and faith have no place in science.

The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the
leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate
and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is
totally faith based, with all those working in this field having
notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches
are designed to substantiate their beliefs.

I see no compelling reason to distinguish this "faith" from that felt
in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as
heated, and based on as little "factual" evidence as some religious
confrontations. Many pursue false "gods" and fall by the wayside, but
never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.

It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation
in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The
British Centre for Science Education should embrace this
inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not
for the faint hearted.

DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council

Sir, Truth in Science (report, Sept 29) is seeking to enable school
science students to follow the evidence for and against evolution
wherever it leads.

We are commited to truthfulness and good science, and invite our
critics to identify the alleged "scientific errors" of our website.
Where convinced they occur, we will correct them.

DR RICHARD BUGGS
Scientific panel
Truth in Science
Tonbridge, Kent"

3437
John Germain
Ham, Hovind, Demski - Buy one, get ....
06/10/2006 21:25:00

45 minutes worth - I dunno about you lot, but I needed the laugh.

Enjoy.

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2006/10/daily_show_schmevolution.php

John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands

3438
Roger Stanyard
Re: More letters in the Times
06/10/2006 22:47:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Apologies for the on-topic post.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
>
> The Times October 07, 2006
>
> "Science v faith: they need not fear each other
> Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
> It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
> intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing
control
> of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
> evidence of design.
>

Oh dear, the nutters just walked straight into it.

Putty in our hands...

The biggets wanker in Britain, my bete noire, a welder, has set
himself up for me.

Roger

3439
George Jelliss
Re: New poll for BlackShadow
06/10/2006 22:49:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "roythearle" <rthearle@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> > > Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral
> and
> > should be attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of
> their
> > religious opinions and beliefs?
> >
> > That question should be taken out and shot. It asks about both
> what is
> > and what should be, thus having two parts with potentially
> different
> > answers, includes an inbuilt assumption about
> creationism/religion and
> > yet only allows yes/no responses.
> >
> > Are you now or have you ever been a member of MORI?
> >
> > Roy
> >
> So what the hell should the question be?
>

I've not voted since I find the question confusing.

I think BCSE should be religiously neutral, but that Blackshadow
(i.e. this discussion forum) should allow discussion of religious
and atheistic issues.

For instance I'm most interested in those experts in evolution who
also claim to be religious. I would like to know what their actual
religious views are, and how they are able to make them compatible
with their evolutionary views. There are obviously many religious
views that are not compatible with evolution. Some would claim that
all religious views are incompatible with evolution. Possibly it
depends how you define religion. I would say that there are "quasi-
religious" views that are compatible with evolution, but I have
difficulty in understanding how "christianity" can be thought
compatible.

If we can't discuss these issues intelligently here, how about our
religious members joininmg the RDF forum, in which there is a
section about Faith where such issues could be discussed. It is in
need of some alternative viewpoints to liven it up.

3440
Roger Stanyard
Re: Back to Business
06/10/2006 23:00:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>

>
> But a few by invitation only in regulated areas shouldn't be that much
> of a problem. A zoo for sure, but a small zoo.
>

Ah ha! What about letting the chief nutter in - Andy McIntosh.

Evil Grin a mile high!!

Roger

3441
oeditor
Re: More letters in the Times
06/10/2006 23:52:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@> wrote:
> >
> > Apologies for the on-topic post.
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
> >
> > The Times October 07, 2006
well spotted, since it's not published yet!
> >
> > "Science v faith: they need not fear each other
> > Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
> > It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
> > intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing
> control
> > of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
> > evidence of design.
> >
>
> Oh dear, the nutters just walked straight into it.
>
> Putty in our hands...
>
> The biggets wanker in Britain, my bete noire, a welder, has set
> himself up for me.
Roger, you've poked a hole into the wasp's nest and set them swarming.
Well done. But dismissing McIntosh as a "welder" is counterproductive.
His biological credentials may be non existent but their absence lies
behind a thick cloud of oxy-acetylene fumes. Any attack will have to
be very carefully aimed and if possible foolproof. I doubt that many
Times readers will know what supination and pronation mean - I can
only guess - but they'll know what DVD, Chinese and the Tower of Babel
mean, for example. Hell, he's so embarrassed that he won't even flog
it off his own web site. He's got to be shown up to be a nutter, not
just a nutty professor.

Brian
who would be reaching for his pen if it had been Friday's edition

3442
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc..
06/10/2006 23:53:00

> There are *plenty* of Anglican ministers who feel this way - and
> *those* are the ones we need. Supporters of the Status Quo are out for
> nobody but themselves.
>

Shoot them later, then. Right now, we have more immediate fish to
fry.

===================================
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

3443
oeditor
Re: Back to Business
07/10/2006 00:06:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:

>
> Ah ha! What about letting the chief nutter in - Andy McIntosh.
>
> Evil Grin a mile high!!
>
Well, Lenny would mention floors and the wiping thereof. Remember the
story of the man losing his wheel-nuts outside an asylum. The inmate
solved his problem, and the man was amazed. The inmate explained: "I
might be mad, but I'm not stupid."

McIntosh is not stupid, even if some of his mates are. It's no good
arguing with him, he's got to be shown up for the religious maniac he is.

Brian

3444
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: New poll for BlackShadow
07/10/2006 00:14:00

On 06/10/06, George Jelliss <gpjnow@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I've not voted since I find the question confusing.
>
> I think BCSE should be religiously neutral, but that Blackshadow
> (i.e. this discussion forum) should allow discussion of religious
> and atheistic issues.

The part of the discussion board devoted specifically to BCSE should
be strictly religion-neutral. However, I would suggest that each
organisation have its own section and its own rules. This is actually
the same thing we were recommending with the idea of separate lists,
and I believe it is precisely what Ian has in mind.

> For instance I'm most interested in those experts in evolution who
> also claim to be religious. I would like to know what their actual
> religious views are, and how they are able to make them compatible
> with their evolutionary views. There are obviously many religious
> views that are not compatible with evolution. Some would claim that
> all religious views are incompatible with evolution. Possibly it
> depends how you define religion. I would say that there are "quasi-
> religious" views that are compatible with evolution, but I have
> difficulty in understanding how "christianity" can be thought
> compatible.
>
> If we can't discuss these issues intelligently here, how about our
> religious members joininmg the RDF forum, in which there is a
> section about Faith where such issues could be discussed. It is in
> need of some alternative viewpoints to liven it up.

Lively discussion?

Sounds good - whatever the topic. But not where everyone has to deal
with it. Separate sections, separate subsections. Pluralism in
action. Something for the secularists, something for the religious,
and something for those who don't mind mixing it up a bit. I think it
would be enjoyable. But there should also be a main section where all
of that baggage can be left behind. A place where we can set aside
our differences, organise and share information.

We can't ask people to pretend to be something that they are not. But
that is not what this is about anyway. When we set aside our
differences it doesn't mean that those differences cease to exist. It
doesn't mean that people give up their religious beliefs, and it most
certainly does not mean that people give up their opposition towards
religion. The differences are still there, but they don't dominate
the centre and they don't keep us from being able to work together.

Will there be some rough edges? Undoubtedly.

But we can work through it and we will. Too much is riding on this
for us to let it fail.

--
Helping to Keep Science Scientific
BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk

3445
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: New poll for BlackShadow
07/10/2006 00:26:00

>Separate sections, separate subsections. Pluralism in action. Something
for the secularists, something for the religious, and something for those
who don't mind mixing it up a bit. I think it would be enjoyable. But
there should also be a main section where all of that baggage can be left
behind. A place where we can set aside our differences, organise and share
information.

You are going to love this ;)

Almost ready. Just need to get the userlist from the Yahoo group, create
eveyrone's account, and we should be done.

Ian.

3446
Mikey Brass
Re: More letters in the Times
07/10/2006 07:48:00

Mailed The Times with a response:

Sir, Andy McIntosh is correct in stating science is unable to confirm or
deny theism. However, the assumption this means that theism should be
taught in school science classrooms is inaccurate. Evolution is founded
on tested methodological principles. The scientific biology community is
overwhelmingly against creationism in all its forms, including Truth in
Science's Intelligent Design.

Schools and school children are not the place to impose new ideas; they
are for the teaching of solid, proven methods and models. To this end,
it is noteworthy hardly any biologist supports Intelligent Design and
there are hardly any peer-reviewed journal papers supporting it, or
indeed producing any testable model which other scientists can explore.
To teach creationism in schools is doing a disservice to our children
and distracts from the real debates ongoing within the scientific
communities.

3447
Roger Stanyard
Re: More letters in the Times
07/10/2006 08:40:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Apologies for the on-topic post.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
>
>
Some comments on the three letetsr to the Times:

1. Dr Mike Snow is a completely new name to me amongst the fundies.
Does anyone know who he is? I've done a search and come up with
several "Dr Mike Snows" nad none of them seem to be this person.

2. The hree have given us an open invitation to pull their science to
pieces. Let's do it - we are good at that. We have already made a
start and its all posted up on our web site.

3. Let's also take on the challenge on our terms, not theirs, and
pull to pieces all the other nonsense McIntosh and others have been
pushing. On of us has a review of one of John Blanchard's books which
we could reference. I think Brian has been looking at McIntosh's work
on Chinese floods. How about pointing out that the nutters can't
agree with each other over their creation science. The AiGers in TiS
think the BCSers are "compromisers".

I am going to post a fuller version of this reply on Debunk Creation
and CED. Seems to me that the anti-screationists with a science
background have been offered a glorious opportunity to pull prominent
creationists to pieces - in public and in as much depth as they like.

Are there any other groups we should be approaching.? What about
Panda's Thumb? What about NCSE? I don't see why we shouldn't call on
the entire anti-creationist movement on ths one.

Roger

3448
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: More letters in the Times
07/10/2006 08:45:00

Roger Stanyard wrote:

> 3. Let's also take on the challenge on our terms, not theirs, and
> pull to pieces all the other nonsense McIntosh and others have been
> pushing.

I think the reply should be sent by you,once it has been written. My
letter, if it does get published, deliberately omitted my relationship
with the BCSE.

> Are there any other groups we should be approaching.? What about
> Panda's Thumb? What about NCSE?

I definitely think we should be in touch with the NCSE. E-mail coming
offlist about this.

3449
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: More letters in the Times
07/10/2006 09:13:00

Well, let's get folks moved across to the new forum - it's just waiting for
the user details.

Should be an excellent environment for those discussions.

Ian.

3450
Roger Stanyard
Re: More letters in the Times
07/10/2006 10:18:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Well, let's get folks moved across to the new forum - it's just
waiting for
> the user details.
>
> Should be an excellent environment for those discussions.
>
> Ian.
>
Ian, I am lost on this; what is the user details/user lst? Do you want
a list of the email addresses or IDs or both of all the current Yahoo
blackshadow members?

Big View Attach:Site/PageHeader/softflow.gif
Home Underhand Strategies Latest News Updates UK Schools UK Specific Creationism Primer The BCSE More General Articles BS Group Furl Join the Fight Contact Advanced Search Admin	3401 To 3450 3401 Dave Oldridge Re: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc.. 06/10/2006 09:42:00 On 5 Oct 2006 at 12:34, Timothy Chase wrote: > On 05/10/06, Rudy Vonk <rudy@mores.es> wrote: > > On 05 oct 2006, at 14:00, Lenny Flank wrote: > > > > > You need the support of those, uh, "deluded". > > > [cut simply for brevity] > > > However, the above statement seems questionable to me. If I > were a > > General (what the heck, why not Field Marshal), I think I > would want > > the forces on my side to be convinced, not deluded. I would > wonder > > deeply about the level of commitment of not only the Michael > Robertses > > of this world, but many other apparently "inoffensive" > theists, if the > > fight demanded (intellectual) action that they might find hard > to > > reconcile with their extra-scientific views. I wonder what > Sunzi would > > have to say about this dilemma... > > SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR > > VI. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG > > 29. Military tactics are like unto water; for water in > its > natural course runs away from high places and hastens > downwards. > 30. So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to > strike > at what is weak. > 31. Water shapes its course according to the nature of > the > ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory > in > relation to the foe whom he is facing. > 32. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so > in > warfare there are no constant conditions. > 33. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his > opponent > and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven- born > captain. > > Mikey Brass and Dave Oldridge are both strongly committed and > have been for quite some time, and I believe that we can rely > upon them and people like them to speak up when necessary - and > those who are religious are quite likely to listen to them, and > even more likely to listen to you on the points that matter > most. Don't count on it. Some of the more committed creationists obviously have no real spiritual rudder. They are quite happy to undertake a career of libel to support their goals. -- Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 VA7CZ 3402 Mikey Brass Re: Reminder of the Ground Rules 06/10/2006 10:00:00 Roger Stanyard wrote: > 4. There is no agreement amongst group members to run BCSE and > Blackshadow as atheist organisations. Absolutely not. Furthermore, the fallout from this will have been noticed privately amongst other anti-creationist bodies in the UK. This is not good. > I will be voting for us being religiously neutral. Indeed. > If the vote goes > my way, I will impose religious neutrality on the Yahoo group. Thank you. 3403 Ian Lowe RE: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 10:03:00 > I guess I am not wanted then, right? I am happy to walk away from those who do not wish co-operation. Please Don't. If there's going to be any chance of this group actually working, your skills will be needed. Ian. 3404 oeditor BCSE Domain Registration - REALLY 06/10/2006 10:08:00 I've just registered bcseweb.org.uk in Roger's name. It's for two years, so we'd better hang on in there! Roger will get the welcome email and I'll pass the login details to Ian. Brian 3405 Ian Lowe RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc.. 06/10/2006 10:17:00 > An even shorter, even clearer version ---------- if they oppose the teaching of creationism, then they ARE on the same side as us. The world is not black and white, Lenny. > And any other gripes you have with them are utterly irrelevant to that. Absolute pap. These dogmatic statements of "this is how it is" are really not helping - several of the people here have been active in lobbying the UK parliament for years on many different issues. We understand the political picture here. Your advice is welcome, If you actually discuss the situation and help us reach a consensus, but please - quit it with these "I know best" statements. I am sure that you understand the situation in the US perfectly. I'm not convinced that you grasp just how different our political and legal situation is. As Mikey has pointed out, there is a potential schism within the Church of England - a good chunk of the ministers and lay members want to see the separation of church and state - they want schools which teach children proper science. These people, we can work with - the BHA knows this, and works with them on a regular basis. Here in Scotland, the HSS works along with some members of the Church of Scotland for the same reason. The ones who do not want separation of church and state, who only want to do something about the fundamentalists because they fear losing their own membership, and with it, lose money and political influence, there's a pretty good chance that we cannot work with. Ian. 3406 Rudy Vonk Re: Reminder of the Ground Rules 06/10/2006 10:23:00 On 06 oct 2006, at 08:58, Roger Stanyard wrote: > It's clear we have a major crisis on our hands this morning. Relax: Full Moon is tomorrow, and our collective PMS can't last forever, either :-) cellpadding="2" Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored] 3407 oeditor Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 10:35:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote: > > Marc Draco wrote: > > > We can't apply American rules here. The British people are different. We > > don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable. > > Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here are > packed on a Saturday. Interesting. Roger's already speculated that the North gets the fundies because of its nonconformist history. Looks as though the pale weedy nonconformist grapes have withered on the vine more quickly than the lush, purple, CofE ones. (er...would that be Sunday btw, or are they having farmers' markets in them? ;-) Brian 3408 Ian Lowe RE: Reminder of the Ground Rules 06/10/2006 10:56:00 > 4. There is no agreement amongst group members to run BCSE and Blackshadow as atheist organisations. Nor should there be. And I'm saying that as a tooth spitting atheist. > 5. If it is run as an atheist organistion it will collapse within 24 hours. No. There is nothing inherently wrong with an Atheist organisation. However, that's not the issue - an atheist organisation is not right for this task. > Roberts was ... As loud mouthed as any atheist, and antagonistic to boot. He may be able to contribute, but he should have been slapped down for speaking way the hell out of turn. >If the vote goes my way, I will impose religious neutrality on the Yahoo group. Can I suggest that we have a couple of moderators, clearly defined - ie WRITTEN rules for what is, and is not acceptable, and a "three strikes" policy. > I am not prepared to back loosers. Gravitas, Roger. No need for personal stuff. >That means we are indifferent to religion - it's not our business. We will work with anyone, irrespective of their religious opinions, as long as they oppose creationism... ...and are willing to work to cooperate with other people here without being antagonistic. I can't stress this enough - Robert's use of language like "atheistic Darwinism" is just as much a problem as any comments made by us atheists. I. 3409 Mikey Brass Re: Reminder of the Ground Rules 06/10/2006 11:05:00 Ian Lowe wrote: > Can I suggest that we have a couple of moderators, clearly defined - ie > WRITTEN rules for what is, and is not acceptable, and a "three strikes" > policy. I have a written policy for my Paleoanthro list which I am willing to send anyone who would like a copy for modification. 3410 Mikey Brass Re: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 11:00:00 oeditor wrote: > (er...would that be Sunday btw, or are they having farmers' markets > in them? ;-) Saturday and Sunday, with most of the church goers being non-fundie. 3411 Mikey Brass Revised short piece on human evolution 06/10/2006 12:53:00 I have revised my short piece on the evidence for humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor. It is at http://www.antiquityofman.com/ape-human.html . Feel free to use it as is on the BCSE site; in fact, I would encourage it. 3412 Lenny Flank RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc.. 06/10/2006 13:05:00 > > An even shorter, even clearer version ---------- if they oppose the > > > teaching of creationism, then they ARE on the same side as us. > > The world is not black and white, Lenny. It's not "the world" that matters, Ian. It's this fight. Those who are on your side in this fight, are . . . well . . on your side. Any other gripes you have with them, don't matter in this fight. We're not out to change the world. We're out to stop creationists from getting into schools. The rest of the world can wait for later. =================================== 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 3413 Lenny Flank Re: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 13:03:00 >> > We can't apply American rules here. The British people are different. > We don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable. > Then, uh, why do you have so many creationists, and why are they getting any support whatsoever . . . . ? Time to open your eyes. =================================== 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 3414 Lenny Flank Re: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 13:03:00 > > Let Christians fight on their own front: I don't want to fight > alongside them. > Then leave. You're not doing us any good. =================================== 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 3415 roythearle Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 13:51:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote: > > Marc Draco wrote: > > > We can't apply American rules here. The British people are different. We > > don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable. > > Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here are > packed on a Saturday. Here too. But why do you correlate attendance at jumble sales, exhibitions and coffee mornings with a belief in God? Roy 3416 oeditor Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 13:52:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote: > > > Then leave. You're not doing us any good. Er... what exactly are you doing for us Lenny, apart from lecturing us all the time? Brian 3417 Mikey Brass Re: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 13:55:00 roythearle wrote: > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote: >> Marc Draco wrote: >> >>> We can't apply American rules here. The British people are > different. We >>> don't believe in god - it isn't fashionable. >> Many parts of the country do, including Cambridge. The churches here > are >> packed on a Saturday. > > Here too. But why do you correlate attendance at jumble sales, > exhibitions and coffee mornings with a belief in God? I am, of course, referring to church services. -- Best, Mikey Brass MA in Archaeology degree, University College London "The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored" - !ke e: /xarra //ke ("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002) 3418 Ian Lowe RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc.. 06/10/2006 13:54:00 >> The world is not black and white, Lenny. > > It's not "the world" that matters, Ian. It's this fight. Okay then. THIS FIGHT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. > Any other gripes you have with them, don't matter in this fight. Yes, they do. Those "gripes" are to do with Education, separation of church and state, and enforced worship in schools. The things which go right to the heart of this fight. The absolute CORE of this fight. The US fight is to stop the infiltration of science classrooms as a FIRST STEP by the fundamentalists. That's not their end goal - their end goal is what we already have to live with: state enforced religion in schools. We don't need allies that want to fight off the fundies, just because it's bad for their own stranglehold. We need allies that understand that separation of church and state is better for the state - and better for the church too. There are plenty of Anglican ministers who feel this way - and those are the ones we need. Supporters of the Status Quo are out for nobody but themselves. Ian. 3419 roythearle Re: New poll for BlackShadow 06/10/2006 14:04:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral and should be attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of their religious opinions and beliefs? That question should be taken out and shot. It asks about both what is and what should be, thus having two parts with potentially different answers, includes an inbuilt assumption about creationism/religion and yet only allows yes/no responses. Are you now or have you ever been a member of MORI? Roy 3420 Roger Stanyard Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 14:48:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote: > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote: > > > > > > Then leave. You're not doing us any good. > Er... what exactly are you doing for us Lenny, apart from lecturing > us all the time? > > Brian > Lenny has given us loads of help and advice. Let me remind everyone yet again, this group is now very dangerously close to breaking up over the issue of religion. The divisions are now very deep and bitter, indeed. The latest development today has been the departure of Marc Draco from the group. The only thing that will save this group is if we stop bitching about religion. Roger 3421 Timothy Chase Re: BCSE Domain Registration - REALLY 06/10/2006 14:51:00 On 06/10/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote: > > I've just registered bcseweb.org.uk in Roger's name. It's for two > years, so we'd better hang on in there! > Roger will get the welcome email and I'll pass the login details to Ian. That is really good news! Setting aside - our difficulties over the past few days - the discussion board approach will be ideal, if for no other reason than the fact that this is an organisation we wish to grow. Beyond a certain point, the volume should require something along these lines - just to keep the topics organised so that people can find what they are most interested in. Have them check the general announcements area, then go to what is most relevant to them - such as local events - or whatever. -- Helping to Keep Science Scientific BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk 3422 Roger Stanyard Re: New poll for BlackShadow 06/10/2006 14:54:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "roythearle" <rthearle@...> wrote: > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral and > should be attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of their > religious opinions and beliefs? > > That question should be taken out and shot. It asks about both what is > and what should be, thus having two parts with potentially different > answers, includes an inbuilt assumption about creationism/religion and > yet only allows yes/no responses. > > Are you now or have you ever been a member of MORI? > > Roy > So what the hell should the question be? 3423 Ian Lowe RE: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 15:43:00 > The divisions are now very deep and bitter, indeed. Hold your horses people. Possible solution, en route. 3424 Mikey Brass Re: Re: Just a thought... 06/10/2006 15:49:00 Ian Lowe wrote: >> The divisions are now very deep and bitter, indeed. > > > Hold your horses people. > > Possible solution, en route. Agreed. Reckon everyone should hold off for 24/48 hours. 3425 Roger Stanyard Back to Business 06/10/2006 16:26:00 You can probably guess that I have started receiving emails from fundies in my private email in box. I've just had a couple from a Jack Lewis (anybody every heard of him). To keep you entertained, here is my latest reply: Dear Mr. Stanyard, Thank you for your most enlightening reply. When I read your letter in the 'Times' I decided to write a reply. I was contacted by the Times because they wanted to run my letter but needed to ask me a couple of questions first. However because I was unable to get back to them quick enough they ran out of time and had to use a similar letter sent in by someone else. So please find below the letter I sent to them that grabbed their attention. Dear Sir, Once again there is vociferous and paranoid outcry against passing on to schools, constructive scientific criticism of evolution. Roger Stanyard of The British Centre for Science Education in Tuesday's letters, appears to be outraged by material sent to all schools from 'Truth in Science' movement. He does not mention the academic qualifications of the people behind this movement! RS: We have mentioned the academic qualifications repeatedly and they were brought up in the letter (the Times edited it down without us knowing). In particular we have repeatdly brought it to the attention of the public that Dr John Blanchard's PhD is bogus and was purchased from a diploma mill. Likewise we have repeatedly brought it to the attention of the world that neither Andy McIntosh nor Stuart Burgess have any training in biology whatsoever. We are unaware that Willis Metcalfe has any professional qualifications at all. As far as we are aware Gerard Chrispin is a lawyer and has no training in science. We are unaware whether georhe Curry has any science qualifications. David Harding appears not to have a degree in anything at all. Russell healy is an an engineer by background. Arther Jines appears to have never practised as a scientist. Maurice Roberts taught classics! Impressed I am not. His main fear appears to be that children may be 'confused'. I would suggest that the confusion is how can something so fraught with problems be taught as undeniable fact? Isn't that what education is all about, teaching children to think for themselves and to develop inquiring minds? RS: Not in the case of Truth in Science. Your agenda is religious and political. It has nothing to do with science. The children cannot see through that. How are they going to see through the fact you are promoting Intelligent Design when none of the liars in Truth in Science believe in it. They are all young earth creationists. Talk about a recipe for confusion amongst discerning adults, let alone children. Teaching students only one world view when there are alternatives, particularly when one is scientifically critical of the other, is being disingenuous towards children and students. Those who desire to promote only one world view (evolution) have two major problems. The first is, whether they like it or not, evolution is beset by quite serious and admitted scientific difficulties plus not a small amount of past faked evidence. RS: Where, and what is the fake evidence. Would you like to talk about Piltdown Man or the Paluxy footprints or the Wedge Document. Feel free to talk about all of them. And, er, prescisely what is the screntifc theory of creationism that you intend to teach to children? The second is, and much more to their point, if they are unable to answer their critics, what, by implication, would have to replace evolution? This is where the creationist can offer the student an answer, albeit philosophical, for his consideration. RS: But Truth in Science is promoting Intelligent Design, not creationism!!!!!! At this point the student merely has to make a choice between which of these two statements is the more rational: the evolutionary view 'nothing created everything out of nothing' and the creationist view 'something created everything out of nothing'. Where is the confusion in that! RS: All over the bloody place. 3426 jon_12091 Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 16:56:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > The second is, and much more to their point, if they are unable to > answer their critics, what, by implication, would have to replace > evolution? This is where the creationist can offer the student an > answer, albeit philosophical, for his consideration. > > RS: But Truth in Science is promoting Intelligent Design, not > creationism!!!!!! Ooo, look he just admitted its a philosophical argument .... > At this point the student merely has to make a choice between which > of these two statements is the more rational: the evolutionary > view 'nothing created everything out of nothing' and the creationist > view 'something created everything out of nothing'. Where is the > confusion in that! > > RS: All over the bloody place. Again its a philosphocal choice, do I believe in a 'higher power' or do you believe a world ordered by natural laws and society governed by rational human thought, WTF has that got to do with teaching science? Its staggering, a beautifully vehement argument for the teaching of creationism in science class while tasitly admitting all along that its a philosophical argument.... I wonder I if he writes letters on black paper with white ink.... 3427 Roger Stanyard Another Nutter 06/10/2006 17:37:00 I have come across another nutter, Dr Neville Jones. Apparently he is a physicist but lives in Caithness (very North of Scotland - out in the Styx would be an understatement). He is a geocentrist and also believes that the Apollo missions to the moon never took place. They were a hoax. Jones ran a creationist email group unto around April of last year. Mad as the proverbial hatter! Jack Lewis admires his scientific logic!!! 3428 Timothy Chase Re: Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 17:52:00 On 06/10/06, jon_12091 <jon_12091@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > .... > Ooo, look he just admitted its a philosophical argument .... > > > At this point the student merely has to make a choice between > which > > of these two statements is the more rational: the evolutionary > > view 'nothing created everything out of nothing' and the > creationist > > view 'something created everything out of nothing'. Where is the > > confusion in that! > > > > RS: All over the bloody place. > > Again its a philosphocal choice, do I believe in a 'higher power' or > do you believe a world ordered by natural laws and society governed > by rational human thought, WTF has that got to do with teaching > science? > > Its staggering, a beautifully vehement argument for the teaching of > creationism in science class while tasitly admitting all along that > its a philosophical argument.... I wonder I if he writes letters on > black paper with white ink.... I was think more along the lines of crayola crayons. However, Dembski himself has admitted within the past few months that what they are actually advocating is a "theory of causation" - which means philosophy, not science. Specifically, metaphysics. I've dabbled in a little metaphysics myself and its role in establishing a logical foundation for a theory of knowledge, but it most certainly isn't science and does not belong in any science class. Of course, for these fellows it is nothing more than a rationalisation for their fundamentalist faith and ambitions, a means of indoctrination. -- Helping to Keep Science Scientific BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk 3429 Rudy Vonk Re: Another Nutter 06/10/2006 18:08:00 On 06 oct 2006, at 18:37, Roger Stanyard wrote: > I have come across another nutter, Dr Neville Jones. > > Apparently he is a physicist but lives in Caithness (very North of > Scotland - out in the Styx would be an understatement). He is a > geocentrist and also believes that the Apollo missions to the moon > never took place. They were a hoax. If living in Caithness doesn't mean automatic Seasonal Affective Disorder, what does? No wonder the guy is a nutter... cellpadding="2" Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored] 3430 Roger Stanyard Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 18:41:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > You can probably guess that I have started receiving emails from > fundies in my private email in box. > > I've just had a couple from a Jack Lewis (anybody every heard of him). > > To keep you entertained, here is my latest reply: > > Dear Mr. Stanyard, Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist friends. Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be in for some real entertainment? Roger 3431 oeditor Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 19:14:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist > friends. > > Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be > in for some real entertainment? > What, turn Christian-baiting into a sport? Wouldn't that put you under moderation? ;-)) One Cowan was enough and it makes me think that although the "public" part of the new board will be visible to all and allow cretinists, I think posting should still be by application only. We just want the cretinists who might be useful - Old Blabbermouth and that Derbyshire lad - Josh was it? The whole cage of monkeys we don't want. If we want a zoo/peepshow we should set up a separate playground altogether for them. Brian 3432 Ian Lowe RE: Another Nutter 06/10/2006 20:09:00 Well, if he's a physicist in caithness, that usually means one thing and one thing only - Douneray. Odd, as they tend to be pretty savvy about the quality of people they use. -----Original Message----- From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard Sent: 06 October 2006 17:38 To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com Subject: [BlackShadow] Another Nutter I have come across another nutter, Dr Neville Jones. Apparently he is a physicist but lives in Caithness (very North of Scotland - out in the Styx would be an understatement). He is a geocentrist and also believes that the Apollo missions to the moon never took place. They were a hoax. Jones ran a creationist email group unto around April of last year. Mad as the proverbial hatter! Jack Lewis admires his scientific logic!!! 3433 Ian Lowe RE: Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 20:13:00 You might want to stall these guys Roger - we will have the new forums up and running in a day or so, and we will have an area they can be invited into for a ritual kicking :D Ian. -----Original Message----- From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard Sent: 06 October 2006 18:41 To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Back to Business --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > You can probably guess that I have started receiving emails from > fundies in my private email in box. > > I've just had a couple from a Jack Lewis (anybody every heard of him). > > To keep you entertained, here is my latest reply: > > Dear Mr. Stanyard, Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist friends. Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be in for some real entertainment? Roger Yahoo! Groups Links 3434 Timothy Chase Re: Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 20:12:00 On 06/10/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote: > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > > > > Apparently Jack Lewis is sending my reply to all of his fundamentalist > > friends. > > > > Does anyone get the feeling that if we handle this properly we may be > > in for some real entertainment? ... ;-)) One Cowan was enough and it makes me think that > although the "public" part of the new board will be visible to all and > allow cretinists, I think posting should still be by application only. > We just want the cretinists who might be useful - Old Blabbermouth and > that Derbyshire lad - Josh was it? The whole cage of monkeys we don't > want. If we want a zoo/peepshow we should set up a separate playground > altogether for them. Agreed. Having the creationists run rampant on the boards would be an absolute nightmare. One especially badly-behaved creationist is more than enough to throw a fair number of normally rational people into a tizzy. Not that much different from a troll, really, except that a troll is simply in it for the sport or attention, and is as a result easier for people to dismiss and ignore. Likewise, I have seen evos set up message boards open to evo and creationists, just trying to be warm and fuzzy I suppose, coddling creationists in the hope that they might mend their ways, and even granting some moderator privileges. A few too many trips to the punch-bowl, I think... But a few by invitation only in regulated areas shouldn't be that much of a problem. A zoo for sure, but a small zoo. -- Helping to Keep Science Scientific BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk 3435 oeditor Re: Another Nutter 06/10/2006 20:34:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote: > > > Well, if he's a physicist in caithness, that usually means one thing >and one> thing only - Douneray. Dr. Strangelove, I presume ;-) Brian 3436 jbs13uk More letters in the Times 06/10/2006 21:15:00 Apologies for the on-topic post. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html The Times October 07, 2006 "Science v faith: they need not fear each other Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural. It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows evidence of design. To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off limits even to discuss this (letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism. All that Truth in Science wishes to see is an honest opening out of the origins debate in our schools and universities. That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life, sent to every secondary school in the country, shows that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious philosophical consequences. We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think. To suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense. The exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms in living creatures has led to the growth of the discipline known as biomimetics, copying nature to advantage in engineering. I am eager that more students should work at the interface between life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature. ANDY C. McINTOSH Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory University of Leeds Sir, The best place, possibly the only place, for creationism and other faith-associated issues to be analysed is in the theatre of science. The earlier this begins the better: in primary school preferably, secondary school certainly. For some reason science seems to be in fear of faith and seeks to distance itself from its religious and philosophical manifestations. It trivialises them. This is a futile position, for it permits unreasoned doctrines to prosper and encourages the untenable and discouraging view that personal belief and faith have no place in science. The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is totally faith based, with all those working in this field having notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches are designed to substantiate their beliefs. I see no compelling reason to distinguish this "faith" from that felt in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as heated, and based on as little "factual" evidence as some religious confrontations. Many pursue false "gods" and fall by the wayside, but never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief. It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The British Centre for Science Education should embrace this inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not for the faint hearted. DR MIKE SNOW Former senior research scientist Medical Research Council Sir, Truth in Science (report, Sept 29) is seeking to enable school science students to follow the evidence for and against evolution wherever it leads. We are commited to truthfulness and good science, and invite our critics to identify the alleged "scientific errors" of our website. Where convinced they occur, we will correct them. DR RICHARD BUGGS Scientific panel Truth in Science Tonbridge, Kent" 3437 John Germain Ham, Hovind, Demski - Buy one, get .... 06/10/2006 21:25:00 45 minutes worth - I dunno about you lot, but I needed the laugh. Enjoy. http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2006/10/daily_show_schmevolution.php John Germain Jersey British Channel Islands 3438 Roger Stanyard Re: More letters in the Times 06/10/2006 22:47:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote: > > Apologies for the on-topic post. > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html > > The Times October 07, 2006 > > "Science v faith: they need not fear each other > Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural. > It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires > intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control > of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows > evidence of design. > Oh dear, the nutters just walked straight into it. Putty in our hands... The biggets wanker in Britain, my bete noire, a welder, has set himself up for me. Roger 3439 George Jelliss Re: New poll for BlackShadow 06/10/2006 22:49:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "roythearle" <rthearle@> wrote: > > > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com > wrote: > > > Do you agree that BCSE and Blackshadow are religiously neutral > and > > should be attractive to all anti-creationists irrespective of > their > > religious opinions and beliefs? > > > > That question should be taken out and shot. It asks about both > what is > > and what should be, thus having two parts with potentially > different > > answers, includes an inbuilt assumption about > creationism/religion and > > yet only allows yes/no responses. > > > > Are you now or have you ever been a member of MORI? > > > > Roy > > > So what the hell should the question be? > I've not voted since I find the question confusing. I think BCSE should be religiously neutral, but that Blackshadow (i.e. this discussion forum) should allow discussion of religious and atheistic issues. For instance I'm most interested in those experts in evolution who also claim to be religious. I would like to know what their actual religious views are, and how they are able to make them compatible with their evolutionary views. There are obviously many religious views that are not compatible with evolution. Some would claim that all religious views are incompatible with evolution. Possibly it depends how you define religion. I would say that there are "quasi- religious" views that are compatible with evolution, but I have difficulty in understanding how "christianity" can be thought compatible. If we can't discuss these issues intelligently here, how about our religious members joininmg the RDF forum, in which there is a section about Faith where such issues could be discussed. It is in need of some alternative viewpoints to liven it up. 3440 Roger Stanyard Re: Back to Business 06/10/2006 23:00:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...> wrote: > > > But a few by invitation only in regulated areas shouldn't be that much > of a problem. A zoo for sure, but a small zoo. > Ah ha! What about letting the chief nutter in - Andy McIntosh. Evil Grin a mile high!! Roger 3441 oeditor Re: More letters in the Times 06/10/2006 23:52:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@> wrote: > > > > Apologies for the on-topic post. > > > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html > > > > The Times October 07, 2006 well spotted, since it's not published yet! > > > > "Science v faith: they need not fear each other > > Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural. > > It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires > > intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing > control > > of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows > > evidence of design. > > > > Oh dear, the nutters just walked straight into it. > > Putty in our hands... > > The biggets wanker in Britain, my bete noire, a welder, has set > himself up for me. Roger, you've poked a hole into the wasp's nest and set them swarming. Well done. But dismissing McIntosh as a "welder" is counterproductive. His biological credentials may be non existent but their absence lies behind a thick cloud of oxy-acetylene fumes. Any attack will have to be very carefully aimed and if possible foolproof. I doubt that many Times readers will know what supination and pronation mean - I can only guess - but they'll know what DVD, Chinese and the Tower of Babel mean, for example. Hell, he's so embarrassed that he won't even flog it off his own web site. He's got to be shown up to be a nutter, not just a nutty professor. Brian who would be reaching for his pen if it had been Friday's edition 3442 Lenny Flank RE: Re: Domain stuff, webhosting etc.. 06/10/2006 23:53:00 > There are plenty of Anglican ministers who feel this way - and > those are the ones we need. Supporters of the Status Quo are out for > nobody but themselves. > Shoot them later, then. Right now, we have more immediate fish to fry. =================================== 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 3443 oeditor Re: Back to Business 07/10/2006 00:06:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote: > > Ah ha! What about letting the chief nutter in - Andy McIntosh. > > Evil Grin a mile high!! > Well, Lenny would mention floors and the wiping thereof. Remember the story of the man losing his wheel-nuts outside an asylum. The inmate solved his problem, and the man was amazed. The inmate explained: "I might be mad, but I'm not stupid." McIntosh is not stupid, even if some of his mates are. It's no good arguing with him, he's got to be shown up for the religious maniac he is. Brian 3444 Timothy Chase Re: Re: New poll for BlackShadow 07/10/2006 00:14:00 On 06/10/06, George Jelliss <gpjnow@ntlworld.com> wrote: > I've not voted since I find the question confusing. > > I think BCSE should be religiously neutral, but that Blackshadow > (i.e. this discussion forum) should allow discussion of religious > and atheistic issues. The part of the discussion board devoted specifically to BCSE should be strictly religion-neutral. However, I would suggest that each organisation have its own section and its own rules. This is actually the same thing we were recommending with the idea of separate lists, and I believe it is precisely what Ian has in mind. > For instance I'm most interested in those experts in evolution who > also claim to be religious. I would like to know what their actual > religious views are, and how they are able to make them compatible > with their evolutionary views. There are obviously many religious > views that are not compatible with evolution. Some would claim that > all religious views are incompatible with evolution. Possibly it > depends how you define religion. I would say that there are "quasi- > religious" views that are compatible with evolution, but I have > difficulty in understanding how "christianity" can be thought > compatible. > > If we can't discuss these issues intelligently here, how about our > religious members joininmg the RDF forum, in which there is a > section about Faith where such issues could be discussed. It is in > need of some alternative viewpoints to liven it up. Lively discussion? Sounds good - whatever the topic. But not where everyone has to deal with it. Separate sections, separate subsections. Pluralism in action. Something for the secularists, something for the religious, and something for those who don't mind mixing it up a bit. I think it would be enjoyable. But there should also be a main section where all of that baggage can be left behind. A place where we can set aside our differences, organise and share information. We can't ask people to pretend to be something that they are not. But that is not what this is about anyway. When we set aside our differences it doesn't mean that those differences cease to exist. It doesn't mean that people give up their religious beliefs, and it most certainly does not mean that people give up their opposition towards religion. The differences are still there, but they don't dominate the centre and they don't keep us from being able to work together. Will there be some rough edges? Undoubtedly. But we can work through it and we will. Too much is riding on this for us to let it fail. -- Helping to Keep Science Scientific BCSE - http://www.blackshadow.co.uk 3445 Ian Lowe RE: Re: New poll for BlackShadow 07/10/2006 00:26:00 >Separate sections, separate subsections. Pluralism in action. Something for the secularists, something for the religious, and something for those who don't mind mixing it up a bit. I think it would be enjoyable. But there should also be a main section where all of that baggage can be left behind. A place where we can set aside our differences, organise and share information. You are going to love this ;) Almost ready. Just need to get the userlist from the Yahoo group, create eveyrone's account, and we should be done. Ian. 3446 Mikey Brass Re: More letters in the Times 07/10/2006 07:48:00 Mailed The Times with a response: Sir, Andy McIntosh is correct in stating science is unable to confirm or deny theism. However, the assumption this means that theism should be taught in school science classrooms is inaccurate. Evolution is founded on tested methodological principles. The scientific biology community is overwhelmingly against creationism in all its forms, including Truth in Science's Intelligent Design. Schools and school children are not the place to impose new ideas; they are for the teaching of solid, proven methods and models. To this end, it is noteworthy hardly any biologist supports Intelligent Design and there are hardly any peer-reviewed journal papers supporting it, or indeed producing any testable model which other scientists can explore. To teach creationism in schools is doing a disservice to our children and distracts from the real debates ongoing within the scientific communities. 3447 Roger Stanyard Re: More letters in the Times 07/10/2006 08:40:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote: > > Apologies for the on-topic post. > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html > > Some comments on the three letetsr to the Times: 1. Dr Mike Snow is a completely new name to me amongst the fundies. Does anyone know who he is? I've done a search and come up with several "Dr Mike Snows" nad none of them seem to be this person. 2. The hree have given us an open invitation to pull their science to pieces. Let's do it - we are good at that. We have already made a start and its all posted up on our web site. 3. Let's also take on the challenge on our terms, not theirs, and pull to pieces all the other nonsense McIntosh and others have been pushing. On of us has a review of one of John Blanchard's books which we could reference. I think Brian has been looking at McIntosh's work on Chinese floods. How about pointing out that the nutters can't agree with each other over their creation science. The AiGers in TiS think the BCSers are "compromisers". I am going to post a fuller version of this reply on Debunk Creation and CED. Seems to me that the anti-screationists with a science background have been offered a glorious opportunity to pull prominent creationists to pieces - in public and in as much depth as they like. Are there any other groups we should be approaching.? What about Panda's Thumb? What about NCSE? I don't see why we shouldn't call on the entire anti-creationist movement on ths one. Roger 3448 Mikey Brass Re: Re: More letters in the Times 07/10/2006 08:45:00 Roger Stanyard wrote: > 3. Let's also take on the challenge on our terms, not theirs, and > pull to pieces all the other nonsense McIntosh and others have been > pushing. I think the reply should be sent by you,once it has been written. My letter, if it does get published, deliberately omitted my relationship with the BCSE. > Are there any other groups we should be approaching.? What about > Panda's Thumb? What about NCSE? I definitely think we should be in touch with the NCSE. E-mail coming offlist about this. 3449 Ian Lowe RE: Re: More letters in the Times 07/10/2006 09:13:00 Well, let's get folks moved across to the new forum - it's just waiting for the user details. Should be an excellent environment for those discussions. Ian. 3450 Roger Stanyard Re: More letters in the Times 07/10/2006 10:18:00 --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote: > > Well, let's get folks moved across to the new forum - it's just waiting for > the user details. > > Should be an excellent environment for those discussions. > > Ian. > Ian, I am lost on this; what is the user details/user lst? Do you want a list of the email addresses or IDs or both of all the current Yahoo blackshadow members? Edit Source Backlinks List Group
Creationism – Countering Biblical Irrationalism in Our Schools & Society

3401 To 3450