701
Mikey Brass
Re: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 13:56:00
Paul Rooney wrote:
> The problem with that is Lenny will just ban him from DC straight away, pity
> cos I'd love to see Lenny & gang rip this guy to shreds publicly for all to
> see!!
Lenny will give him space and time, guaranteed.
702
Ian Lowe
RE: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 14:14:00
Any chance of a link to DebunkCreation? Is it a forum? Mailing list?
Personally, as an ex born again Christian (dead again? Heh ;) ), I'd love to
lock horns with our erstwhile mind abuser.
Ian.
703
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: Now this is just annoying
16/05/2006 14:12:00
On a minor point of pedantry - four year degrees in older Scottish Universities don't give you a Masters. The first year is to make up for the teaching missed (compared to 'A' levels) because Scottish 'Highers' are broader rather than deeper, and can be completed by the age of 17.
In fact if you have 'good' English A levels you are allowed to skip the first year ( I know - I did)
- you still get a good old BSc at the end though.
As for Oxbridge it looks like they are guilty of 'grade inflation' - tell that to the Daily Mail!!
As for Nick Cowan - he seems to be creationist weasel - proving again our links to the rest of the animal kingdom...
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 15 May 2006 08:02
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Now this is just annoying
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco"
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Nick Cowan sees fit to write to me off list - I don't appreciate his
> pedantry, so here is his letter and my reply for all to examine.
>
Well put, Marc.
For what it is worth, both Oxford and Cambridge first degrees are
basically called Master's degrees even though they are not.
Essentially when you leave you get a Bachelor's degree which is
pretty well automatically upgraded to a Master's if you pay your bar
bills, etc. Yu certain;y do not to to study or pass exams for it.
A lot of people who have actually had to work for their Master's
degrees get really pissed off with the Oxbridge MAs, particuarly as a
first degree at Oxbridge only takes three years.
The matter came up on Radio 4 about 20 years ago and one caller
pointed out that an Oxbridge MA isn't even recognised as a first
degree in Germany. The BBC checked it out and found she was right.
Oxbridge replied that it was awarding such degrees because it had
always done so!!
The position in Scotland is slightly different in that the four
ancient Universities (St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen)
all require four years of study for a first degee which is than
counted as a Master's. However, I think this is partly to do with the
higher Scottish School leaving certificate which is more akin to a
Bac generalist qualifation that A levels. In a sense the first year
at the ancient universities is catching up with the specialisations
that would be taught at A level standard in England.
However, I'm not sure of the position of other Scottish universities.
Imperial College, London offers four-year first degrees with a
Master's title at the end. It developed the four year degree to
compete with universities on the mainland of Europe. Strictly
speaking Imperial is the only university in England that offers a
first degree that is recognised in much of Europe.
However, before everybody goes apeshit about their degrees, my
understanding is that the basic reason why UK first degrees are only
for three years is that we specialise at 16 with A levels. The rest
of Europe has the Bac system which is less (but still partly)
specialised.
The position in France is more complex because university degrees as
such are not very highly rated there. The status lies with the
qualifications of the Haute Ecoles such as Po-Sciences, X and ENA.
If anything,, the weakness of the British sysem is the over-
specialisation between 16 and 18. It doesn't make for a broad view of
life.
Roger Stanyard
> --- "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> > Dear Marc,
> > Your own posts (665 and 669) on this thread contain a
> > number of grammatical inaccuracies (it is not normally part of my
> > vocabulary, but I would suspect that "crap" is singular): it
> > therefore ill behoves you to criticise the poor writing of
others. I
> > doubt therefore that you would be appointed to a teaching position
> > in this state grammar school if you were to apply. What are your
own
> > qualifications by the way, since you seem so dismissive of John
> > Mackay's? The latter is, incidentally, a regular guest speaker
here
> > at Blue Coat School, Liverpool.
> > Yours sincerely, Nick Cowan M.A.
> >
> > [Head of Chemistry (1978-2006) and Young Earth Creationist.]
> >
>
> Even as a professional writer for over 20 years I am not above
making
> the odd grammatical error - especially typing on the fly without
> benefit of a spelling checker, grammar checker or time to re-read
> before hitting send. I have eight books and countless articles to my
> credit; all written under a string of pseudonyms.
>
> Was I criticising you in this post? Cross swords with me and I will,
> make no mistake. Ask the moderator for advice if you want to make an
> enemy of me. I critiqued the appalling state of some of Scholastic's
> output - particularly errors that should not appear in print. If you
> inferred use of English, then you were mistaken.
>
> As for my qualifications, they are irrelevant in this context, yours
> are not. You claim an M.A. and while I'm not 100% up to speed on
these
> things, isn't an M.A. a degree in a non-science discipline (arts and
> theology for instance)? Perhaps you could fill the group in on the
> details?
>
> I would have thought that at least BSc would have been more
> appropriate for one to actually teach chemistry which, unlike YEC,
is
> a proper scientific discipline. All of my teachers were qualified to
> that level - one was a PhD as I recall (and that was long before a
> real degree was required).
>
> Would I apply for a position at a school that teaches creation as a
> science or even encourages people like MacKay? Young Earth
> Creationism, as you well know, teaches ideas that fly in the face of
> accepted, peer-reviewed geological science; so either Mr MacKay is a
> liar or his qualification must be in dispute since he obviously does
> not believe what he used to obtain them.
>
> Creationism flies in the face of science and as a believer in
science,
> you'll forgive me for thinking that the YEC position is worse than
> idiotic. Not one single claim ever made for YEC has ever been
> supported by properly peer-reviewed evidence. Quite the contrary -
> ever single theory has been widely exposed as fraud.
>
> Believe all you want, but teaching anything other that what real
> scientists can prove is disingenuous and dishonest.
>
> Mr Cowan, do not contact to me off list again. I won't ask you
twice.
>
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2308 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
704
Mikey Brass
Re: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 14:21:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> Any chance of a link to DebunkCreation? Is it a forum? Mailing list?
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/debunkcreation
705
Roger Stanyard
Re: Now this is just annoying
16/05/2006 15:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> On a minor point of pedantry - four year degrees in older Scottish
> Universities don't give you a Masters. The first year is to make up
for the
> teaching missed (compared to 'A' levels) because Scottish 'Highers'
are
> broader rather than deeper, and can be completed by the age of 17.
Wikipedia paints a more complex picture of where and when a master's
title is given for a 1st degree in Scotland. It seems to depend on
whether you take an arts or a science degree. I quote from Wikipedia
as follows (two paragraphs):
"A Master of Arts in Scotland is an undergraduate academic degree in
humanities and social sciences awarded by the four ancient
universities of Scotland and the University of Dundee. Although the
degree is named Master of Arts, it is considered generally equivalent
to the BA (Bachelor of Arts) awarded elsewhere by most universities.
The degree course usually lasts four years, while the Bachelor of
Arts course in England usually lasts three years - the Scottish MA
generally consists of two years of honours-level courses as opposed
to the one year of honours studied as part of the BA, although there
exist three-year MA (Pass)/(General) degrees with a different layout."
"The undergraduate MA only applies to fine art, humanities, social
sciences and theology within these universities. The Honours degree
of Bachelor of Science (BSc) is awarded for four years of study in
the field of science and the honours Bachelor of Laws (LLB) is the
four year legal degree (again with an ordinary available after three
years). Newer undergraduate degrees are either undergraduate
Bachelors or undergraduate Masters in the advanced undergraduate
degree scheme as above."
A pal of my has a degree in economics from Dundee and he says he only
has a Bachelors' title. Another (subject I forget) has a 1st degree
from St Andrews and he says it is a Masters.
I also forgot to add that the first degree from Trinity College
Dublin is a Masters but I am not sure if the award is arranged in the
same way as Oxbrige - i.e. keep your nose clean and its yours, free,
after two years from graduating.
Roger
>
706
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: Now this is just annoying
16/05/2006 16:12:00
Not sure about Theology - but yes Fine Arts is a Masters - although it is a five year degree - effectively students have to complete an History of Art Degree, as well as a 'practical art' degree - write a thesis and give a 'final show' of artwork. Unlike other students they often work 9-7 and don't have wednesday afternoons off for recreation. A bit more of a requirement than simply paying your bar bill and quite deserving of a Masters ( I know - my girlfriend at the time did one)
As for 'humanities' and 'social sciences'? - I suppose you could have a Masters in flower arranging but I wouldn't be impressed :)
Incidentally anyone who wants to watch the latest 'Simpsons' (Series 17 episode 21) where Lisa ends up in court for teaching evolution can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/qqr9e
It's a cracker as they say!
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 16 May 2006 15:17
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Now this is just annoying
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> On a minor point of pedantry - four year degrees in older Scottish
> Universities don't give you a Masters. The first year is to make up
for the
> teaching missed (compared to 'A' levels) because Scottish 'Highers'
are
> broader rather than deeper, and can be completed by the age of 17.
Wikipedia paints a more complex picture of where and when a master's
title is given for a 1st degree in Scotland. It seems to depend on
whether you take an arts or a science degree. I quote from Wikipedia
as follows (two paragraphs):
"A Master of Arts in Scotland is an undergraduate academic degree in
humanities and social sciences awarded by the four ancient
universities of Scotland and the University of Dundee. Although the
degree is named Master of Arts, it is considered generally equivalent
to the BA (Bachelor of Arts) awarded elsewhere by most universities.
The degree course usually lasts four years, while the Bachelor of
Arts course in England usually lasts three years - the Scottish MA
generally consists of two years of honours-level courses as opposed
to the one year of honours studied as part of the BA, although there
exist three-year MA (Pass)/(General) degrees with a different layout."
"The undergraduate MA only applies to fine art, humanities, social
sciences and theology within these universities. The Honours degree
of Bachelor of Science (BSc) is awarded for four years of study in
the field of science and the honours Bachelor of Laws (LLB) is the
four year legal degree (again with an ordinary available after three
years). Newer undergraduate degrees are either undergraduate
Bachelors or undergraduate Masters in the advanced undergraduate
degree scheme as above."
A pal of my has a degree in economics from Dundee and he says he only
has a Bachelors' title. Another (subject I forget) has a 1st degree
from St Andrews and he says it is a Masters.
I also forgot to add that the first degree from Trinity College
Dublin is a Masters but I am not sure if the award is arranged in the
same way as Oxbrige - i.e. keep your nose clean and its yours, free,
after two years from graduating.
Roger
>
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2308 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
707
Roger Stanyard
Fundamentalism and the Pentecostal Movement - A Case Study
16/05/2006 18:21:00
Hello All,
I've just posted another essay to my blog. This is part of a series
providing background material on the rise in creationist belief
The essay is a case study of the largest of the Australian Pentecostal
churchs, Hillsong and shows that politically and theologically it is
fundamentalist - particuarly over evolutionary theory.
Moreover, the case study shows that the church is unstable because of
lack of financial accountability.
It should make for very uneasy and disquieting reading.
You can find it at http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Roger Stanyard
708
Marc Draco
Re: Oh dear, Oh Dear...
16/05/2006 19:39:00
Mikey Brass wrote:
> Degrees in a subject are an indicator that a person has obtained a
> certain level of expertise. An undergraduate degree in the UK is not an
> indicator of high knowledge, but merely an indicator of supposed
> competence; it is intended not as the outcome but as a stepping stone to
> more advanced research. Is it foolproof? Absolutely not. I know some
> Ph.D. students who, quite frankly, lack the required critical facilities
> and whose critical faculties do not match those of some farmers in the
> hinterland of South Africa with regards to archaeology.
>
> In the end what matters is knowledge and competence. Degrees are a
> guideline.
>
Well put Mike! I'd rather hire someone who can do the job rather than
someone whose paperwork says they can. I think we put far too much store
in the absolute value of academic qualifications.
709
Marc Draco
Re: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 19:59:00
Mikey Brass wrote:
> Paul Rooney wrote:
>
> > The problem with that is Lenny will just ban him from DC straight
> away, pity
> > cos I'd love to see Lenny & gang rip this guy to shreds publicly for
> all to
> > see!!
>
> Lenny will give him space and time, guaranteed.
Cowan hasn't got the balls, I'll guarantee you that.
710
ukantic
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 20:17:00
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
Channel Four's commissioned piece by Rod Liddle and Juniper TV created
a bit of a stir within and beyond our three schools, with huge numbers
of people writing in to the Channel and to Emmanuel, The King's and
Trinity complaining about bias.
"The New Fundamentalists?" (Monday 6th March 2006) gave Mr Liddle a
free hand to present his personal view on a variety of Christian
people and organisations in a way which appears to many to have been
sadly pre-determined and therefore fundamentally flawed.
http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/Channel%20Four.htm
711
Marc Draco
Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 20:37:00
ukantic wrote:
> FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
>
> Channel Four's commissioned piece by Rod Liddle and Juniper TV created
> a bit of a stir within and beyond our three schools, with huge numbers
> of people writing in to the Channel and to Emmanuel, The King's and
> Trinity complaining about bias.
>
> "The New Fundamentalists?" (Monday 6th March 2006) gave Mr Liddle a
> free hand to present his personal view on a variety of Christian
> people and organisations in a way which appears to many to have been
> sadly pre-determined and therefore fundamentally flawed.
>
> http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/Channel%20Four.htm
Ofcom already cleared Liddle and CH4 of bias, so here they are making a
lot of protestations about getting caught with their pants down.
Methinks the foundation doth protest too much. We all saw the head of
the place (Vardy) and his enforcer (McQuoid) state what they felt.
Tough. You got pasted, and it's about time.
Couple of notes (I couldn't stomach it all)
* They don't have government support: they have Blair's support and his
support is dwindling.
* Every bloody school in Middlesbrough is oversubscribed! That's hardly
a statistic worth quoting - except for spin.
We HAVE to complain to the government and keep on doing it until they
listen. I don't want a bloody Christian school on my bloody doorstep and
the only school in the area. As an alternative, that's fine, but not if
they get 23Mil and my secular state school gets sweet FA!
712
Mikey Brass
Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 20:43:00
"It is important to note that this Christian ethic is not that of a new,
eccentric movement but is simply the continuing presentation of
traditional Biblical Christianity which has been at the heart of our
nation for centuries and of our education system for most of the last
100 years."
This sentence frightens me more than the others. These heretics actually
firmly believe they are they only true interpreters of a religious text.
I am frightened and dismayed by such mentality.
713
Mikey Brass
Re: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 20:43:00
Marc Draco wrote:
>> Lenny will give him space and time, guaranteed.
>
> Cowan hasn't got the balls, I'll guarantee you that.
Of course not. He is an egotistical, bullying coward.
714
Marc Draco
Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 20:52:00
Mikey Brass wrote:
> "It is important to note that this Christian ethic is not that of a new,
> eccentric movement but is simply the continuing presentation of
> traditional Biblical Christianity which has been at the heart of our
> nation for centuries and of our education system for most of the last
> 100 years."
>
> This sentence frightens me more than the others. These heretics actually
> firmly believe they are they only true interpreters of a religious text.
> I am frightened and dismayed by such mentality.
Hey Mike - if you're frightened, imagine how I feel. I live just down
the road from Kings! I've met the enforcer McQuoid (whom is easily as
slimy as seen in the film and probably wrote that). Worse, my kids are
normally supposed to go to that school. As you can imagine, they don't!
If you've ever wondered why I get so rilled by Creationists and fundies
- and why I left DC - this is your answer.
715
Mikey Brass
Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 21:14:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> Hey Mike - if you're frightened, imagine how I feel. I live just down
> the road from Kings!
Good grief. Haven't you ever felt the need to own a gun then?
--
Cheers,
Mike
716
ukantic
Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
16/05/2006 21:23:00
One of the world's foremost religious theorists has revealed to an
audience in Lancashire how he formed his controversial views on
creation.
http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1503333
Creationist John Mackay told an audience at the Leyland Pentecostal
Fellowship it was reading a book written by an atheist which
converted him.
The Australian, a former science teacher, spoke of his beliefs that
the Bible's version of creation, that God created all living things,
was true and that the planet is only thousands of years old, not
millions, as is commonly accepted.
He said: "The book was poking fun at God and the Bible saying God
did not exist, but that was an absolute negative which common sense
tells us you can never establish.
"So, that got me thinking, if he is this far out in one chapter,
what about the rest? It really challenged my beliefs and suddenly I
found God who I was accountable to.
"I got to the New Testament which says you can know the creator of
all these things the Bible talks about.
"From that day onwards, I have been a Christian because I believe
Christ is real."
Since discovering the theory, Mr Mackay has formed his own research
company, Creation Research, which travels the world to seek
evidence, in the form of fossils and living creatures, as part of
its investigation to try to prove the consequences of the biblical
version of creation.
The one-time geologist was joined by Dr Diane Eager at the debate
following an invitation from the Leyland fellowship, which has a
large number of believers in the creation theory among its members.
Hear John Mackay talk about his controversial views on creationism
(Windows Media).
15 May 2006
717
ukantic
Johnson seeks to dismiss academy myths
16/05/2006 21:26:00
Publisher: Keith Hall Published: 14/05/2006
Alan Johnson
Children at Tony Blair's city academies are not taught Creationism or
forced to dress up as "McDonalds burgers", Education Secretary Alan
Johnson has said.
Mr Johnson dismissed the "myths" which had built up around the academy
scheme.
http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=48&newsID=5706
718
Mikey Brass
Re: Johnson seeks to dismiss academy myths
16/05/2006 21:32:00
Johnson doesn't get it.
"That just cannot happen. These are schools who are teaching in
accordance with the national curriculum."
They are teaching creationism alongside the national curriculum !
Attempted brainwashing while teaching their pupils how to rote
regurgitate in the exams.
719
Mikey Brass
Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
16/05/2006 21:34:00
If he had lived a century and a half ago, he would probably have
supported those Christian fundamentalists who burned down the library of
Alexandra.
720
Marc Draco
Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 21:45:00
Mikey Brass wrote:
> Marc Draco wrote:
>
> > Hey Mike - if you're frightened, imagine how I feel. I live just down
> > the road from Kings!
>
> Good grief. Haven't you ever felt the need to own a gun then?
>
Frequently! My wife gets quite stressed with my rants, but she's not
from a science background, and like most parents round here, would
rather dig her head in the sand and ignore the issue. I get mighty
peeved with the spin these buggers continue to roll out every time
someone exposes them, but we all know it's smokescreen. Affirmative
action is what's required.
721
Marc Draco
Re: Johnson seeks to dismiss academy myths
16/05/2006 21:46:00
ukantic wrote:
> Publisher: Keith Hall Published: 14/05/2006
>
> Alan Johnson
> Children at Tony Blair's city academies are not taught Creationism or
> forced to dress up as "McDonalds burgers", Education Secretary Alan
> Johnson has said.
>
> Mr Johnson dismissed the "myths" which had built up around the academy
> scheme.
Christ... another Blair mouthpiece. Blair KNOWS that they teach
creationism! He's actually quoted as saying that he has no problem with it.
722
Robert Kilner
Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
16/05/2006 22:14:00
ukantic wrote:
> "One of the world's foremost religious theorists..."
==================================
Lancashire Post actually opens it's article with THIS?
Does Mackay own
this paper, or is the editor some kind of
fundamentalist insurgent?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
723
Roger Stanyard
Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
16/05/2006 23:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kilner <rmkyargo@...> wrote:
>
> ukantic wrote:
>
> > "One of the world's foremost religious theorists..."
>
> ==================================
>
So what the fuck is a religious theorist? What is religious theory?
Roger Stanyard
724
ukantic
Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
16/05/2006 23:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
>
> "The New Fundamentalists?" (Monday 6th March 2006) gave Mr Liddle
a
> free hand to present his personal view on a variety of Christian
> people and organisations in a way which appears to many to have
been
> sadly pre-determined and therefore fundamentally flawed.
>
> http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/Channel%20Four.htm
>
"The same imbalance was evident in terms of both parental and
student input where the time and emphasis given to the `malcontents'
was strikingly greater than to the children and parents who wished
to speak up for the schools."
What a way to describe the children & parents complaining about the
way they have been treated by the school. Can you imagine any other
state financed school behaving in such a reprehensible manner?
Let's see how this works in other areas.
Hospital "Most of the patients were happy with the treatment they
received but we had a couple of malcontents complaining about the
long wait."
Train "They could have sought the opinion of the 300 passengers
who were perfectly happy with the seating arrangements, rather than
listening to the malcontents stood in the corridors."
BT "All the attention given to these malcontents obscures the fact
that over 90% of our customers are perfectly happy."
Tescos "We get the odd malcontent complaining about the service."
Alan.
725
ukantic
Re: Johnson seeks to dismiss academy myths
16/05/2006 23:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Publisher: Keith Hall Published: 14/05/2006
>
> Alan Johnson
> Children at Tony Blair's city academies are not taught Creationism
or
> forced to dress up as "McDonalds burgers", Education Secretary
Alan
> Johnson has said.
>
> Mr Johnson dismissed the "myths" which had built up around the
academy
> scheme.
>
> http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?
navID=48&newsID=5706
>
That's all we need, yet another dead-head who doesn't know what he
is talking about.
726
Andrew
Re: Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
16/05/2006 23:52:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stanyard
> So what the fuck is a religious theorist? What is religious theory?
Yes, exactly. :D
If I'd been asked cold, without this context, I'd have said a religious
theorist is someone with theories about the nature and function of
religion - i.e. someone involved in philosophy of religion. That, at least,
is what the term implies to me as someone who's been involved in inter-faith
dialogue and so forth.
But the context seems to be suggesting that a religious theorist is simply a
religious person with theories. That sounds to me like the same muddled
thinking that can't distinguish a scientific theory from a hunch, or worse
still, an agenda.
It might be interesting to know what the person who authored this bizarre
statement about John Mackay intended by it. I'd certainly like to know how
someone who's become notorious solely on the basis of being a dangerous
crackpot with wild unsupported ideas can be considered "One of the world's
foremost religious theorists..." If that's all it takes to become a world
leader, religion really is in a bad way. :D
727
Roger Stanyard
Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
16/05/2006 23:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Stanyard
>
> > So what the fuck is a religious theorist? What is religious
theory?
>
> Yes, exactly. :D
>
> If I'd been asked cold, without this context, I'd have said a
religious
> theorist is someone with theories about the nature and function of
> religion - i.e. someone involved in philosophy of religion.
Well that rules out John Mackay. His only qualification appears to be
a first degree in geology.
Roger Stanyard
728
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
17/05/2006 04:05:00
--- "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Roger Stanyard
> > >
> > > > So what the fuck is a religious theorist? What is religious
> > theory?
> > >
Religous theory = bullshit.
Religous theorist = bullshitter.
729
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Shock horror: famous biologist supports evolution
17/05/2006 04:23:00
This isn't a great site, but it's alive with some superb articles from of a
truely gifted marine biologist, Dr Ron Shimek.
Scroll down for his views on the cretins!
http://www.ronshimek.com/
and then have a read through his stuff. The ammunition (for non-biologist who
need a good slant) on this site is quite staggering.
http://www.ronshimek.com/Online%20Articles%201.htm
For instance - starfish and their relations are thought to live pretty much
forever (or certainly for a VERY long time) or that octopuses don't have a
blind spot - their eyesight is better than a human's - go stick that in your
bible and tell me that man got here first!
;-)
Have fun!
730
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Controversial creationist in debate (with audio)
17/05/2006 04:24:00
--- Robert Kilner <rmkyargo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > ukantic wrote:
> >
> > > "One of the world's foremost religious theorists..."
> >
> > ==================================
> >
> > Lancashire Post actually opens it's article with THIS?
> > Does Mackay own
> > this paper, or is the editor some kind of
> > fundamentalist insurgent?
Just copying from the press release. You don't expect these people to think,
do you? ;-)
731
ukantic
Creationist visit off
17/05/2006 11:20:00
Creationist visit off
By Nikki Masters
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.751210.0
.creationist_visit_off.php
http://tinyurl.com/pt488
A creationist who caused a rumpus by refusing to name the school he
was due to visit says he's not disappointed' the visit has been
cancelled.
John Mackay, a geologist who supports a theory that the world was
divinely created in six days was due to speak to Key Stage Three
pupils at Thornton's Millfield High School this month as part of a
spirituality week'.
The planned visit to the Belvedere Road school, as reported in the
Citizen on April 6, provoked uproar among local and national
opponents, and attracted national press coverage.
Millfield head teacher, Alan Harvey, said the visit had been
cancelled because of concerns over fundamentalism' and a lack of
lesson plans.
But Mr Mackay, speaking from a Creation Research family conference
in Powys, Wales, said: "The school has always been open and
friendly. I'm not disappointed."
But he called the lack of lesson plans a superficial reason' for the
cancellation, and feared the possibility of demonstrations by
opponents from across the UK might have changed the school's mind.
The view of the RE department head was that he was extremely
fundamentalist and really it wasn't a broad enough approach, which
is what we would have preferred.
Head teacher Alan Harvey
"I have been visiting schools in this country for 19 years.
"We never take the political approach of saying we have got a good
product, you have to have our product'.
"If you try and politicise schools it doesn't work. You have got to
think of kids and parents."
Creation Research also issued a statement saying it was trying to
shield the school' from intense press attention, but added: "In the
wake of all this coverage we have been informed by the school that
they have decided to cancel the visit.
"We can only hope that others will recognise that real debate about
what is taught in schools is not between science and religion', but
between one particular belief system, atheism, and other faiths."
Mr Harvey, Millfield's head, confirmed: "John Mackay visited us last
year as part of our RE course. We do get visiting speakers some
times and he was one that we invited."
But he added: "The view of the RE department head was that he was
extremely fundamentalist and really it wasn't a broad enough
approach, which is what we would have preferred."
Rather than pull the plug' on future visits, the school asked Mr
Mackay to submit lesson plans before the visit was fully confirmed.
"We never got the lesson plans. We thought it was probably best not
to go ahead. It would just be as the previous time," Mr Harvey said.
He added: "I wouldn't ever say we wouldn't invite anyone else in to
talk about their specialism providing it's not a fundamentalist
approach.
"We are here to provide a broad and balanced learning experience for
our youngsters."
Visits to churches in St Annes, Blackpool and Thornton-Cleveleys
next week are still scheduled to go ahead.
9:29am Friday 5th May 2006
732
MB
Re: Shock horror: famous biologist supports evolution
17/05/2006 12:18:00
> This isn't a great site, but it's alive with some superb articles from of
> a
> truely gifted marine biologist, Dr Ron Shimek.
>
> Scroll down for his views on the cretins!
>
> http://www.ronshimek.com/
>
Thanks for posting this URL and the one for the online essays. He has a
lot of interesting things to say indeed! I spent last evening reading and
have *way* more to work through. :)
Regards,
MB
733
Marc Draco
Re: Re: FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?
17/05/2006 12:24:00
ukantic wrote:
>
> Let's see how this works in other areas.
>
> Hospital "Most of the patients were happy with the treatment they
> received but we had a couple of malcontents complaining about the
> long wait."
>
> Train "They could have sought the opinion of the 300 passengers
> who were perfectly happy with the seating arrangements, rather than
> listening to the malcontents stood in the corridors."
>
> BT "All the attention given to these malcontents obscures the fact
> that over 90% of our customers are perfectly happy."
>
> Tescos "We get the odd malcontent complaining about the service."
>
> Alan.
>
Nice Alan, the same applies to Watchdog presumably - perhaps they should
investigate (mind you, that's the BBC)!
I've snapped a copy of that just in case it gets edited later and for
possible critical analysis.
Also, I wonder if they have permission to use that picture of Liddle? ;-)
Since I can't stomach reading it again, did I note somewhere where it
mentioned they are registered as a some kind of faith school? It would
be interesting it they are, because they've always claimed the opposite.
734
Marc Draco
Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 16:28:00
We've discussed a lot on Nick Cowan's behavior - and he's about to find
out he may have pissed in the wrong nest.
I think it's about time we wrote (officially) to the board of governors
about this behavior which is likely to bring Blue Coat into disrepute.
Anyone want to volunteer to draft the letter? I'm sure Nick would love
the chance to see what we're going to say about him - takes transparency
to a whole new level! Here's some research material for you all.
The list of governors is here:
http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=208
and the school's motto (you're gonna love this!):
Non sibi sed omnibus - Not for oneself but for all.
Surely the furthering of a personal (controversial) religious agenda is
hardly "for all".
The latest Ofsted report is here:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/104/104704.pdf
and for an oversubscribed grammar, it's good but hardly perfect!
No doubt Nick will want us to see this: "In the sixth form, results are
well above national averages in most subjects with mathematics and
chemistry consistently achieving high standards with large numbers of
candidates in recent years."
Yet let's not forget that he's only one cog on a wheel; we're not taking
anything away from the other teachers who might be very good at their
jobs and actually stick within the realms of science. Yes Nick, science
- remember that? The self-correcting study of truth and understanding.
Religion is faith, does not self-correct and seeks to silence those who
question it.
Marc
735
Roger Stanyard
Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 16:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> We've discussed a lot on Nick Cowan's behavior - and he's about to
find
> out he may have pissed in the wrong nest.
>
> I think it's about time we wrote (officially) to the board of
governors
> about this behavior which is likely to bring Blue Coat into
disrepute.
>
Mark,
Have you seen my notes on this? There's half of Liverpool to write
to. Have a look at my info on David Alton:
"Even more surprising is that Cowan issued these emails (albeit
privately and not to Bellis's email web site) given the record of the
school's old boys.
One of the most notable of these is the Member of Parliament, Evan
Harris. He is a member of the Liberal Democratic party (known as
LibDem) who is also active in the National Secular Society and is
publicly opposed to teaching religion in schools, let alone science
lessons.
The National Secular Society is a highly vocal and influential
lobbying group that wants religion taken out of schools.
Worse still, the LibDems have another influential figure who is a
Bluecoat old boy - Chris Rennard, the highly successful chief
executive of the LibDems and now a peer.
Rennard, early in his career, was also agent for former Liverpool
LibDem MP David Alton, now Lord Alton of Liverpool. Alton is a
staunch Catholic and appears to have no time for creationism
whatsoever. It's against his religious beliefs. He retains a high
profile in Liverpool.
Well, as luck would have it, Alton is a foundation governor of the
Liverpool Bluecoat school where Nick Cowan is head of chemistry."
736
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 17:58:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
>
> Well, as luck would have it, Alton is a foundation governor of the
> Liverpool Bluecoat school where Nick Cowan is head of chemistry."
>
Actually I'd missed that, Roger [thanks for the head's up]. However
having been a school governor (Vice Chair, in fact) I find that these
things are best approached through the normal chain. I'd happily take
out an open letter in the Liverpool press, but since I don't have money
to fund such a thing and it's doubtful the LP press would print it
anyway, I think a gentile approach is called for.
Clearly, although we all think Cowan is a fucking idiot (and I'd go as
far as to say someone who should be figuratively nailed into a pulpit
and left to rot) he probably does have something to offer to chemistry
students (it's only rote).
Mike, I know you have some ideas, you too Roger. How about airing a few
to include in the draft?
737
oeditor
Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 19:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
> Clearly, although we all think Cowan is a fucking idiot (and I'd go as
> far as to say someone who should be figuratively nailed into a pulpit
> and left to rot) he probably does have something to offer to chemistry
> students (it's only rote).
>
It wasn't when I did chemistry A-level! It would be best to lay-off
Cowan as chemistry teacher anyway: he claims some pretty impressive
competition results for one of his classes and I wouldn't have thought
there was any reason to disbelieve him about something easily checked.
Brian
738
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 21:11:00
oeditor wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Clearly, although we all think Cowan is a fucking idiot (and I'd go as
> > far as to say someone who should be figuratively nailed into a pulpit
> > and left to rot) he probably does have something to offer to chemistry
> > students (it's only rote).
> >
> It wasn't when I did chemistry A-level! It would be best to lay-off
> Cowan as chemistry teacher anyway: he claims some pretty impressive
> competition results for one of his classes and I wouldn't have thought
> there was any reason to disbelieve him about something easily checked.
>
> Brian
>
Missed a word out there - I meant to say "EVEN" if it's only rote.
I dunno about you, but from what I hear when I did Chemistry A level, 25
years ago or thereabouts, it was quite tricky and the teacher was
frankly disinterested in people like me... (I came from the wrong side
of the tracks, for want of a better explanation). Worse, we did
inorganic chem at A level and organic a O from a different base. That's
ancient history.
Seems that if the current grade trends over the last few years are to be
believed either kids are getting a helluva lot smarter, teachers are
getting a whole lot better or the exams are getting watered down. There
are just too many A and A+ grades flying around. Little wonder the Unis
are reporting troubles; IIRC, some candidates cannot do basic maths or
spelling; yet fly through complex science exams. Makes you think.
That however, is not the problem. Cowan is egotistical ass and to my
mind has thrown away any right to scientific respect as soon as he
started preaching that centuries of scientific research (not just
biology) by thousands of brilliant scientists can be thrown away in
preference for a 1-2000 year old text that was created and edited
largely for political gain.
Take a pretty simple example: 2H + O = H2O.
In the world of Nick Cowan, H2O wasn't the product of hydrogen combining
with oxygen. It just winked into existence (along with everything else -
and in the right places). Are you listening Nick - do you realise how
bloody silly you sound?
I don't need any qualifications in chemistry to "do" that experiment.
I've been doing the reverse (water into component gasses) since I was a
7 year old playing with a 9v battery and some water; and I made O3 years
before that...
Speaking of H2O - what about that little known fact (in YEC circles at
any rate) that there isn't nearly enough water in the world (glaciers,
clouds, seas, rivers, etc.) to flood thewhole planet up to the level of
Everest. Yet there they are, waffling on about Noah and his band of
merry 800+ year old men, sailing the high sea - salty sea, shits and
giggles to the poor freshwater life!
I could go on ... and on...
Belief is one thing, but believing in this defies logic; and teaching it
as fact is indescribable.
739
oeditor
Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 22:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> I dunno about you, but from what I hear when I did Chemistry A
level, 25 > years ago or thereabouts, it was quite tricky and the
teacher was > frankly disinterested in people like me... (I came from
the wrong side > of the tracks, for want of a better explanation).
I was lucky, I had a really good chemistry teacher.
>Worse, we did
> inorganic chem at A level and organic a O from a different base.
That sound really messy.
> Seems that if the current grade trends over the last few years are
to be
> believed either kids are getting a helluva lot smarter, teachers are
> getting a whole lot better or the exams are getting watered down.
There > are just too many A and A+ grades flying around. Little wonder
the Unis > are reporting troubles; IIRC, some candidates cannot do
basic maths or > spelling; yet fly through complex science exams.
>Makes you think.
Apparently there's no practical exam for A-level chemistry these days.
The mind boggles!
>
>
> Take a pretty simple example: 2H + O = H2O.
>
> In the world of Nick Cowan, H2O wasn't the product of hydrogen
combining > with oxygen. It just winked into existence (along with
everything else - > and in the right places). Are you listening Nick -
>do you realise how > bloody silly you sound?
You know Marc, I bet he doesn't even see it as a problem. He probably
thinks: "here is the water the Lord made, and these are its
properties". He'll be in denial about the eons of stellar evolution
needed to make the oxygen in the first place. Let alone the early life
required to fill the atmosphere with it.
> Speaking of H2O - what about that little known fact (in YEC circles
at > any rate) that there isn't nearly enough water in the world
(glaciers, > clouds, seas, rivers, etc.) to flood thewhole planet up
to the level of > Everest.
All other considerations apart, where did all the water come from? It
can't have been there in the first place, or the planet would have
been flooded to start with. I haven't done the sums, but it would have
needed a hell of a lot of cloud to hold it all. Probably enough to
cause global freezing rather than flooding. Moreover [can't be
starting a sentence with 'And' now, can we] even if a god poured it
out from a celestial bucket, where the hell did it all go when the
flood subsided? I'm sure Nick's physics colleagues could tell him how
long it would take for all those water molecules to escape from
through the atmosphere and into space. A lot more than 10,000 years!
Brian
740
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 23:00:00
oeditor wrote:
> Apparently there's no practical exam for A-level chemistry these days.
> The mind boggles!
Doesn't it just!
It's probably H&S worrying themselves sick that some sap goes and blows
up the school or releases HS into the air or some such nutty idea.
You know, kids in primary aren't even allowed to grow tomatoes these
days!! "The leaves are toxic," they bleat, "Well don't eat them stoopid!"
Good grief, it's a bloody miracle we all survived the 1960s let alone
the wars!
> > Take a pretty simple example: 2H + O = H2O.
> >
> > In the world of Nick Cowan, H2O wasn't the product of hydrogen
> combining > with oxygen. It just winked into existence (along with
> everything else - > and in the right places). Are you listening Nick -
> >do you realise how > bloody silly you sound?
>
> You know Marc, I bet he doesn't even see it as a problem. He probably
> thinks: "here is the water the Lord made, and these are its
> properties". He'll be in denial about the eons of stellar evolution
> needed to make the oxygen in the first place. Let alone the early life
> required to fill the atmosphere with it.
Most certainly Brian, most certainly! I have suddenly have an image of
an ostrich...
741
Marc Draco
Scientific Perverts
17/05/2006 23:07:00
Actually, perverts of science. (That's what people like MacKay, Ham,
Cowan and their ilk are. The title was just to drawn you in....)
But there was an earlier bunch: here's an extract from their first outing:
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
Wait on chaps, I hate to sound all pedantic like Nick Cowan here (even
if he keeps his snide remarks in private emails) but you've made a
teensy, weensy little error there.
We'll take it as read that "god" doesn't need oxygen or light to
survive, but you can't say anything in a vacuum! An 11 year old kid
should be able to tell you that.
....
and from there on in the mistakes keep coming faster and faster!
742
Robert Kilner
Re: Scientific Perverts
17/05/2006 23:23:00
Marc Draco wrote:
>
> We'll take it as read that "god" doesn't need oxygen
or light to
> survive, but you can't say anything in a vacuum! An
11 year old kid
> should be able to tell you that.
>
> ....
>
> and from there on in the mistakes keep coming faster
and faster!
>
>
======================================
Wouldn't that god simply 'think it', and it's there in
your own head
like you heard it...
Every problem can have a solution made to fit. When
you are not subject
to the demands of demonstrability and evidence then
there are no limits
to what can be invented - exactly why the this game
cannot ever be part
of science, and why young minds should not be led to
think that it could be.
Rbt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
743
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan
17/05/2006 23:44:00
> Apparently there's no practical exam for A-level chemistry these days.
What? That's fucking absurd!
744
oeditor
Re: Cowardly Cowan
18/05/2006 00:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> > Apparently there's no practical exam for A-level chemistry these days.
>
> What? That's fucking absurd!
>
It is. I'm now pretty sure I've been misinformed :-( A quick Google
suggests there are practical exams. It's just a bit difficult skimming
the surface to distinguish between coursework and real exams. Anyway,
Nick can no doubt put me right. Are you listening, Nick? An off-list
email will do, I can post it here for you.
Brian
745
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Scientific Perverts
18/05/2006 02:13:00
--- Robert Kilner <rmkyargo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > ======================================
> > Wouldn't that god simply 'think it', and it's there in
> > your own head
> > like you heard it...
> >
Ah, but the gotcha there is it says, quite clearly, that "god said". ;-)
> > Every problem can have a solution made to fit. When
> > you are not subject
> > to the demands of demonstrability and evidence then
> > there are no limits
> > to what can be invented - exactly why the this game
> > cannot ever be part
> > of science, and why young minds should not be led to
> > think that it could be.
I couldn't agree more, Robert.
I believe that God is a china teapot orbitting our Sun, come on asshole (you
know who you are) - prove me wrong!
746
Paul Rooney
Lenny giving it a good go...
18/05/2006 11:27:00
>From: "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...>
>
> He can go and visit Kent Hovinds museum.
>No, Hovind has the theme park. Baugh has the museum. AiG is also
>working on a museum.
>Maybe our friendly neighborhood creationist chemist can tell us all
>about it.
>But alas, the cat seems to have gotten his tongue . . . . . . . .
Heh heh heh. I'm just getting caught up on posts over at DC and snickering
away to myself at Lenny's attempt to get our Mr Cowan to share his
creationist wisdom, no go so far.
Maybe he should try making chicken noises next??? :o)
747
Roger Stanyard
yourlying13: Warning to Everyone
18/05/2006 14:53:00
Hello All,
Be careful in responding to yourlying13,
Apart from lying, this character has taken to emailing me off site and
preaching.
His name, yourlying13, is appropriate.
Message to Yourlying13: Keep out of my mailbox. It's the height of bad
manners to do what you are doing.
Roger Stanyard
748
Mikey Brass
Re: yourlying13: Warning to Everyone
18/05/2006 17:00:00
I have not received any message from this character in my inbox, either
privately or from any list ?
749
Roger Stanyard
Re: yourlying13: Warning to Everyone
18/05/2006 17:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> I have not received any message from this character in my inbox,
either
> privately or from any list ?
>
I'm trying to find out who it is; I may have got groups mixed up but I
know that this person has also been posting under another name.
Roger Stanyard
750
Ian Lowe
Well, what do you know...
19/05/2006 23:15:00
It seems that Capt Cowan might be a little shaky in his faith after all...
I contacted him directly - he mailed me offlist like a few others, and as
soon as I replied he went dead. Funny that. There's something about someone
who was a dyed in the blood, born again, spirit filled christian that
figured out it was all a crock of shit and walked away (that's me btw)
that's downright kryptonite to fundies.
Here's what I posted. Anyone want to hazard a guess why he wasn't keen to
speak to me? Possibly because the simple arguments that lead me away from
the faith to a more rational position might work on him too?
Heh.
My post:
Hi Nick.
First things first, I suppose - what's your experience? Are you born again?
Were you brought up within a Christian church and just slid into it, or did
you have a specific conversion?
As that's a fairly personal question, I'll start. I was brought up as a
Methodist "Sundays only" churchgoer. I attended a Baptist church for a few
months with friends as a teenager and invited Christ into my life in 1982.
I spent the next 12 or so years as a believer, gradually becoming involved
in more isolationist Pentecostal churches (I was part of the Church of
Christ the King in Shotts if that means anything to you).
My own process of leaving the Christian faith was a gradual one. As with
testimonies, most anti-testimonies fall into two camps - the "anti Damascus"
experiences where people simply realise that it's nonsense, or a more
gradual experience, where the believer first rejects an aspect of the faith
which is morally repugnant to them, and this causes them to gradually
question more and more until the faηade collapses.
Let me make one little thing abundantly clear - I have heard the attack "you
were never *really* a Christian" more times that I care to mention. If you
feel the urge to take that tack, consider just how shaky your own position
becomes at that point.
If someone can be a born again believer, baptised and blessed with the holy
spirit, can lead others to Christ and feel his presence (or rather, believe
that they do) and at the same time, not "really" be... then nobody can have
the peace of salvation.
So, over to you - how did you find yourself ensnared in the church?
Ian.
