751
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Well, what do you know...
20/05/2006 09:12:00
I suspect one (or both) of two things are true:
1) He might have realised from the arguments that he's bitten off a bit more
than he can chew by taking us on. I really loved the bit about "my"
qualifications in his letter to me. I fight for biology and evolution even
though I only studied it in an academic institute to classical A level.
Others on list are much better qualified in that respect. However, I didn't
mean I turned my brain off for the last 26 odd years!
2) Cowan is a classic bully type, that I like to refer to as the "hit and
run" bully. In this context, he fires off some email attacking the recipient
offlist and then ignores the answer (or refuses to be further engaged). Hit
and run bullies don't want to hear the answer: to them, stating their side fo
the argument is sufficient for them to feel that they won. It's totally
delusional, of course, but so is creation science/creationism!
I've suggested before that some physchological studies were done on the
faithful - particularly, the truly deluded. Problem is, since these people
don't think they have a problem, you won't be able to examine them (directly)
in sufficient numbers.
I allude to Cowan as deluded because in spite of impressive scientfic
training, he choses a path of anti-science. Even the established churches
view creation literalism as, well, dumb. So you have us on one side - the
established preachers on the other and the creationists as some kind of
bastard child that we, er, "created" by going head on with each other.
Marc
--- "Ian Lowe" <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > It seems that Capt Cowan might be a little shaky in his faith after
all...> BR>
>
> > I contacted him directly - he mailed me offlist like a few others, and
as> R>
> 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.
> >
752
Roger Stanyard
Re: Well, what do you know...
20/05/2006 10:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, midnight.diamond@... wrote:
>
> I suspect one (or both) of two things are true:
>
> 1) He might have realised from the arguments that he's bitten off a
bit more
> than he can chew by taking us on.
One wonders whether the school has told him to button his lip. Whilst
he replied to us off-site, all but one of his e amsils were posted
and refernced in at least three yahoo groups and on my blog.
That means about 1,000 plus people with a serious interest in the
matter have seen what he says. I would guess that nearly all of those
1,000 or so are basically professional and managerial people.
Cowan's position is now well and truely out in the open and it is a
seriously bad advertisement for Bluecoat.
Moreover, if he had gone public by fighting his case on
Debunkcreation or in here or the NSS newsline he would have been
acting out his position in front of the entire school. Imagine the
consequences when his ideas would have been pulled to pieces in
debunkcreation - "in as much detail" as he liked, one by one and all
for free!
Roger Stanyard
753
Andrew
Re: Re: Well, what do you know...
20/05/2006 12:07:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stanyard
> One wonders whether the school has told him to button his lip.....
> Moreover, if he had gone public by fighting his case on
> Debunkcreation or in here or the NSS newsline he would have been
> acting out his position in front of the entire school. Imagine the
> consequences when his ideas would have been pulled to pieces in
> debunkcreation - "in as much detail" as he liked, one by one and all
> for free!
Exactly. :D And if his views can't stand scrutiny he shouldn't be teaching
them in a school. I suspect he'll try to play the martyr to his class and
immediate associates and claim he's being unfairly silenced. That's the
usual fundamentalist attitude, anyway.
If he'd been shown to be teaching misleading ideas that would have been
better, but I can well understand why a school would be wary of having this
publicly demonstrated. It would have been more objective and of more use to
Mr Cowan's unfortunate pupils, though, to have his views publicly examined.
754
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Well, what do you know...
20/05/2006 12:35:00
>
> Moreover, if he had gone public by fighting his case on
> Debunkcreation or in here or the NSS newsline he would have been
> acting out his position in front of the entire school. Imagine the
> consequences when his ideas would have been pulled to pieces in
> debunkcreation - "in as much detail" as he liked, one by one and all
> for free!
>
> Roger Stanyard
Where's your blog, Roger?
755
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Well, what do you know...
20/05/2006 12:39:00
> One wonders whether the school has told him to button his lip. Whilst
> he replied to us off-site, all but one of his e amsils were posted
> and refernced in at least three yahoo groups and on my blog.
>
> That means about 1,000 plus people with a serious interest in the
> matter have seen what he says. I would guess that nearly all of those
> 1,000 or so are basically professional and managerial people.
>
> Cowan's position is now well and truely out in the open and it is a
> seriously bad advertisement for Bluecoat.
Like I said, the idiot is pissing in the wrong nest! It's one thing to
have a crack at some poor 11-18 year old, taking on over 1000 widely and
differently skilled folk is quite a different matter. I still think the
Blue Coat governors should get a letter from us: he deserves all the
credit he gets for this; and it's likely to stop MacKay coming back in
the short term too.
756
Roger Stanyard
Re: Well, what do you know...
20/05/2006 12:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
>
Hi Marc,
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Some of my work is also on John Stear's No Answers in Genesis web site.
Best Regards
Roger Stanyard
> > Moreover, if he had gone public by fighting his case on
> > Debunkcreation or in here or the NSS newsline he would have been
> > acting out his position in front of the entire school. Imagine the
> > consequences when his ideas would have been pulled to pieces in
> > debunkcreation - "in as much detail" as he liked, one by one and all
> > for free!
> >
> > Roger Stanyard
> Where's your blog, Roger?
>
757
ukantic
New member signs up
21/05/2006 11:12:00
New member signs up
I thought the group would be interested in our latest member;
Comment from user:
Nick Cowan, born 1951, born-again 1986. Head of Chemistry & teacher i/c
Christian Union - Blue Coat School, Liverpool. YEC & Darwinist
debunker.
Seemingly someone of interest to the Group.
This might be a good point to note that although swearing is not
banned on this forum, it should nevertheless be kept to a minimum.
Thanks, Alan.
758
oeditor
Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 11:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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 :-(
Nick Cowan replies. He says (indirectly)I was wrong, and I'm very glad
to hear it!
"Dear Brian,
Thanks for your offer to post this for me. Odd that people
are so pedantic about being e-mailed by me "off-list" before my
application to join this "list" (10 minutes ago) has been approved!
Odder still that every message has a "reply" invitation next to it.
Still, I'm used to dealing with the irrational. A child in my class
the other day said (in effect): "I don't believe in God; I believe
that there was nothing there in the beginning. Then it exploded" I
had to tell him that he was forbidden to make non-science (rhymes
with "conscience") faith statements in my science classes.
Well, I've been busy since last Tuesday. It's quite time-
consuming being a teacher, especially when you've got to prepare
some new and original "intellectual abuse" for the children. I'm
surprised you people seem so impatient to hear from me - what's a
few days in 5 billion years after all? Do you know - I was actually
overseeing the AS Chemistry Practical Exam (AQA) all day Thursday:
we had 109 candidates! Tiring stuff when you've got charismatic
Christian meetings to attend every evening too, but - much as I love
Chemistry - these are where the really pressing questions of life
are addressed, such as "What happens to folk who wager that there is
no God, and find they are wrong? Do they end up ablaze?"
So more from me in due course. There will be time to
prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet - but how long will
your face be?
Best (what?), "Old Nick""
759
oeditor
Re: New member signs up
21/05/2006 11:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Comment from user:
> "teacher i/c Christian Union - Blue Coat School"
Ah, the plot thickens! (Or should that be, the fog thins?)
Brian
760
Mikey Brass
Re: New member signs up
21/05/2006 12:02:00
I thought he was already a member, or is the list archive open for
public viewing?
761
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 12:06:00
> "Dear Brian,
> Thanks for your offer to post this for me. Odd that people
> are so pedantic about being e-mailed by me "off-list" before my
> application to join this "list" (10 minutes ago) has been approved!
Under the assumption that the message archive was private.
> Odder still that every message has a "reply" invitation next to it.
Er that is a feature of Yahoogroups.
> Still, I'm used to dealing with the irrational. A child in my class
> the other day said (in effect): "I don't believe in God; I believe
> that there was nothing there in the beginning. Then it exploded" I
> had to tell him that he was forbidden to make non-science (rhymes
> with "conscience") faith statements in my science classes.
Hypocrite, Cowan, when you have stated you speak of creationism in those
same classes. The student was speaking from a perspective of cosmology,
you speak from the basis of a religious text.
> - I was actually
> overseeing the AS Chemistry Practical Exam (AQA) all day Thursday:
So what. I work, conduct archaeological research, attend conferences, am
writing papers, et al. If you are attempting to impress us with your
workload, it fails miserably.
762
Andrew
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 12:32:00
> A child in my class
> the other day said (in effect): "I don't believe in God; I believe
> that there was nothing there in the beginning. Then it exploded" I
> had to tell him that he was forbidden to make non-science (rhymes
> with "conscience") faith statements in my science classes.
> Tiring stuff when you've got charismatic
> Christian meetings to attend every evening too, but - much as I love
> Chemistry - these are where the really pressing questions of life
> are addressed, such as "What happens to folk who wager that there is
> no God, and find they are wrong? Do they end up ablaze?"
Despite the fact that we know Nick Cowan is a creationist I'm still
dumbfounded by this. Is this really Nick Cowan or someone trying to make
him look as stupid as possible?
BTW I wonder what the physics teacher at The Bluecoat School would have to
say about Cowan's first comment quoted above?
763
ukantic
Re: New member signs up
21/05/2006 12:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> I thought he was already a member, or is the list archive open for
> public viewing?
>
Hi Mike,
Like Debunk Creation, the group messages are open to public viewing.
However, the membership details are kept private.
Alan.
764
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: New member signs up
21/05/2006 12:46:00
Hey, Cowan the Science Guy, if you message me privately again you are
not just going into my twit filter but being reported to your ISP. Got
it? Good.
Have you brought a bunch of students in with you; I hope so...couldn't
have them thinking you were a coward now could we.
Now...
---------------
(Note: This is an abbreviated and much condensed form of information
contained with The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene
records explored publication.)
Recent reviews of the available anatomical (Shoshani et al. 1996) and
genetic evidence (Ruvolo 1995, 1997; Wise et al. 1997) have convincingly
re-affirmed yet again the theory that apes and anatomically modern
humans share a common ancestry. Geneticists have analysed the
differences in the amino acid sequences of protein and in the base
sequences of DNA from apes and humans. The results have yielded a
divergence time-frame of 5-8 million years ago.
The anatomical differences and similarities can be summarised as follows:
- Apes have larger and more sexually dimorphic canines. The spacing
layout is also different.
- Human jaws are less robust and forward projecting.
- The foramen magnum is more centrally orientated at the skull base in
modern humans than in apes.
- Humans have a larger brain capacity with regards to endocranial
volume:body mass
- The human cranial base is wider and shorter. Apes and humans share a
transversely broad thoracic cage, a vertebral column inside the rib
cage, a dorsally-placed scapula and laterally-facing shoulder joints.
- The human thorax is relatively uniform in width, whereas the ape
thorax widens towards the base. These differences are due to their
different gut shapes.
- Upper human limbs are less robust because they no longer server as
weight-bearers. A side-effect is that they now have a greater ability
for motion.
- The human mobile shoulder joint is an indicator of our arboreal
ancestry and has undergone only comparatively minor alterations.
- Human limbs are shorter in proportion to body size than in apes.
However, this discrepancy occurs in the length of our lower limbs.
- "In African apes and humans, the humeral shaft twists from the humeral
head, which faces medially, down to the coronally oriented elbow joint."
(Wood & Richmond 2000: 12)
- The human and ape elbow structures have very few distinctions.
- The human wrist has more dexterity, for greater tool manipulation.
This is closely linked to the precision grip, the first hominin
occurrences of which are in Homo habilis and some of the australopiths.
- Apes have longer and more curved phalanges, which are related to their
greater arboreal lifestyle. Australopiths display intermediary lengths.
- Lower limb morphology differs to a larger degree than upper limb
morphology between humans and apes: "The substantial differences between
the lower limbs of modern humans and apes are largely attributable to
the bipedal locomotion of the former. The most striking difference is
the greater absolute and relative length of modern human lower limbs
that increases stride length and thus the speed of bipedal walking
(Jungers 1982). Because the lower limbs support the body during bipedal
gait, the acetabulum, femoral head and other lower limb joints are
relatively larger in humans (Jungers 1988). Modern human femora are
distinctive in that they show the valgus condition (i.e. they converge
towards the knee), thus helping to position the feet closer to the
midline (Walmsley 1933; Tardieu & Trinkaus 1994)." (Wood & Richmond 2000)
- Bipedalism is evident right back with Ardipthecus ramidus at least 4.4
million years ago. The Laetoli footprints were made by a hominin with a
divergent big toe and are attributable to Australopithecus afarensis,
whose remains have been found in the same stratigraphic layers in the
same time-frame at Laetoli.
Wood & Richmond (2000: 23) state it clearly when they say that "the
presumption is that the common ancestor and the members of the Pan
lineage would have had a locomotor system that is adapted for orthograde
arboreality and climbing, and probably knuckle-walking as well (Washburn
1967; Pilbeam 1996; Richmond & Strait 1999). This would have been
combined with projecting faces accomodating elongated jaws bearing
relatively small chewing teeth, and large, sexually-dimorphic, canine
teeth with a honing system. Early hominins, on the other hand, would
have been distinguished by at least some skeletal and other adaptations
for a locomotor strategy and other adaptations for a locomotor strategy
that includes substantial bouts of bipedalism (Rose 1991), linked with a
masticatory apparatus that combines relatively larger chewing teeth, and
more modest-sized canines that do not project as far above the occlusal
plane."
These predictions are based upon detailed anatomical evidence. This
stands in stark contrast to creationists who take their religious text
as their starting point and attempt to force-fit the data into their
religious paradigm; this results in much amusing contorted effects.
Those who back such religious works thereby display a profound ignorance
of basic 1st year scientific methods, which places a huge question mark
over the reliability of their own published and presented works.
Creationist works, and those who support such efforts, have no basis
whatsoever in any scientific procedure and basic plain scientific reality.
References
Jungers, W.L. 1988. Relative joint size and hominoid locomotor
adaptations with implications for the evolution of hominid bipedalism.
In, Strasser, E. & Dagosto, M. (eds.) The Primate Postcranial skeleton:
Studies in Adaptation and Evolution, pp. 247-265. London: Academic Press
Pilbeam, D. 1996. Genetic and morphological records of the Hominoidea
and hominid origins: a synthesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
5: 155-168
Richmond, B. & Strait, D. 1999. Knuckle-walking traits retained in the
wrists of early hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
Suppl. 28: 232
Shoshani, J. et al. 1996. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs molecular
results. Molecular Phylogenetic Evolution 5: 101-153
Tardieu, C. & Trinkaus, E. 1994. Early ontogeny of the human femoral
bicondylar angle. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 95: 183-195
Walmsley, T. 1933. The vertical axes of the femur and their relations. A
contribution to the study of erect posture. Journal of Anatomy 67: 284-300
Washburn, S.L. 1967. Behaviour and the origin of Man. Proceedings of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 3: 21-27
Wise, C. et al. 1997. Comparative Nuclear and Mitochrondrial Genome
Diversity in Humans and Chimpanzees. Molecular Biology Evolution 14(7):
707-716
Wood, B. & Richmond, B. 2000. Human evolution: taxonomy and
paleobiology. Journal of Anatomy 196: 19-60
765
Mikey Brass
For Cowan
21/05/2006 13:02:00
To our creationist, which of these sites contains the Flood layer:
Klasies River, Blombos Cave, Nabta Playa, Uan Tabu.
I have the site reports for all four sites. Be specific in identifying
the Flood layer...
766
Roger Stanyard
Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 13:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
> > Tiring stuff when you've got charismatic
> > Christian meetings to attend every evening too...
Some Background for you all:
Charismatic usually means neo-Pentecostal; that's the movement that,
amongst other things, believes in talking with tongues (which I view
as a form of Shamanism) and, from what I can make out, faith healing
(common, but I'm not sure if universal). There is also the Word Faith
and Latter Rain bits that you may wish to think about.
Nick Cowan has suggested that he is CofE - there is a charismatic
movement within the Church.
The CofE is also not entirely benign when it comes to teaching
creationism in schools. David Holloway and the Christian Institute
were heavily involved in setting up the Vardy Schools.
The CofE bishops and the hierarchy don't have much control, it
appears, over the rank and file clergy.
The Penetcostals don't automatically accept literal creationism, btw,
but it is generally regarded as a deeply anti-intellectual movement.
I'm told that you don't need any theological qualifications to be a
Pentecostal pastor.
It is also worth bearing in mind that Assemblies of God, the largest
of the many Pentecostal groups, is well known for running front
organisations such as Youth With A Mission, claiming they are non-
denominational. In Australia AoG has its own right-wing political
party (it has denied the connection but subsequently admiited that
there is one). Aog also has a front organisation targeting people in
business and is widely believed to have deeply infiltrated the US
military.
I could be wrong but Battlecry/Teen Mania, the US Ron Luce group that
looks to be near-criminal, is connected with the Pentecostal movement.
As far as I can make out, the Catholics are strongly opposed to
Pentecostalism. Liverpool is, of course, a very Catholic city by UK
standards and one is also reminded that David Alton, foundation
governor of Bluecoat, is a practising Catholic.
Roger Stanyard
767
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 13:26:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> It is also worth bearing in mind that Assemblies of God,
I have been to one of their meetings in London and regard them overall
as dangerous lunatics.
768
Roger Stanyard
Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 13:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > It is also worth bearing in mind that Assemblies of God,
>
> I have been to one of their meetings in London and regard them
overall
> as dangerous lunatics.
Hello Mikey,
Couldn't agree with you more. I have also established beyond doubt that
they control three TV channels in the UK - GoD TV, God UK and
Revelation TV.
Indeed, some of them are far worse than dangerous lunatics. I'd use the
term criminally minded exploiters.
Roger Stanyard
769
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 14:18:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Indeed, some of them are far worse than dangerous lunatics. I'd use the
> term criminally minded exploiters.
Once they have got their hooks into you, it is very very hard to sever
the ties.
770
Andrew
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 14:45:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stanyard
> The Penetcostals don't automatically accept literal creationism, btw,
> but it is generally regarded as a deeply anti-intellectual movement.
When I briefly became involved with the AOG Pentecostals back in the 1970s
belief in creationism was certainly encouraged, as was fundamentalism
generally.
I'd agree 100% about it being anti-intellectual. Anti-thinking would be
more accurate, in fact.
> I'm told that you don't need any theological qualifications to be a
> Pentecostal pastor.
There used to be a Bible College at Mattersey (in Yorkshire I think) but
thatw as their own establishment and it supported the AOG party-line.
> ...claiming they are non-denominational.
The usual attitude is to make no claim other than that of being Christian.
Most fndamentalists use the same ploy - and it *is* a ploy because it
carrieds with it the implication that people who hold other kinds of
Christian belief aren't Christians at all.
That's given Christianity such a bad name that I recall a case where a
mainstream church had internal problems because they were opening a
completely legitimate drop-in centre for shoppers in the town. Some church
members warned that using te term `Christian' would put people off because
fundamentalists have used drop-in centres as ways to get people into a
stuation where they can be preached to, and no-one who's had that experience
and objects to it will go anywhere near a `Christian' drop-in centre.
Others in the church felt that not using the term `Christian' would be
wrong. That's a perfect example of the unnecessary problems caused by the
fundamentalist determination to hijack the term `Christian' and exploit
divisions within the churches.
> As far as I can make out, the Catholics are strongly opposed to
> Pentecostalism.
So they should be. I was taught that Catholicism is an abberation and `not
really Christian.' Some fundamentalists believe the Pope is the Antichrist,
but I don't remember that being taught in AOG when I was there. AOG
certainly used to view most mainstream churches with suspicion or outright
hostility, though.
771
Andrew
Re: Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 15:15:00
Posted (indirectly :D) by Nick Cowan:
> Odder still that every message has a "reply" invitation next to it.
That totally puzzled me until I looked at the group's site and saw there's a
small `Send email' tab below the large `Reply' tab. Presumably that's
what's meant? If it is, it hardly excuses private emailing to several
members of a group with no use at all being made of the main reply facility,
though. The tab in question is for private mailing to other members of a
group to which one has had membership approved, as should be clear to any
reasonable person.
772
MB
Re: Using the term "christian" was Re: Cowardly Cowan - I was wrong
21/05/2006 15:48:00
>> ...claiming they are non-denominational.
My kids became involved in a Christian non-denominational group in school.
It certainly was against our family, as they came home and told me that I
was going to hell, since I wasn't "one of them". I ignored them (but
never forgot) and fortunately they grew away from the group. Whew! But
that group is still running along. I recently got a newsletter from the
school and the group has a prominent article - about the hurricane
cleanup, but still, that group. With a big picture of the members from the
school, not at the cleanup. I was dismayed, as when *my* kids were
involved the group was not under the wing of the school - which claims to
be non-denominational and certainly was about 15 years ago. Bummer. :(
>
> That's given Christianity such a bad name that I recall a case where a
> mainstream church had internal problems because they were opening a
> completely legitimate drop-in centre for shoppers in the town. Some
> church
> members warned that using te term `Christian' would put people off because
> fundamentalists have used drop-in centres as ways to get people into a
> stuation where they can be preached to, and no-one who's had that
> experience
> and objects to it will go anywhere near a `Christian' drop-in centre.
> Others in the church felt that not using the term `Christian' would be
> wrong. That's a perfect example of the unnecessary problems caused by the
> fundamentalist determination to hijack the term `Christian' and exploit
> divisions within the churches.
>
I can readily understand this difficulty. I used to have no problem
thinking of myself as "christian" but now it has a connotation that is
opposite to what I mean. I was brought up in a mainstream church, but a
charismatic group has a very strong voice in our local church so I've been
gone for many years. I no longer see the organisation as a spiritual
thing, but more a money and power thing. :( Now I prefer to think of my
self a "none" when it comes to religious affiliation.
Regards,
MB
773
oeditor
Vatican speaks - will Nick reply?
22/05/2006 11:11:00
"Vatican astronomer says creationism is superstition -22/05/06
The belief that God created the universe in six days is an unfounded
superstition that both discredits religious faith and demeans science,
the Vatican astronomer Guy J. Consolmagno SJ has declared.
Consolmagno, a Jesuit priest who in his scientific work has pioneered
the field of gravitoelectrodynamics, described creationism, which
proponents want taught in schools alongside or in place of evolution,
as a “kind of paganism�.
Far from being a Christian viewpoint, it harks back to primitive
beliefs in “nature gods� who were held responsible for natural events,
he commented. "
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060522creationism.sht\
\
ml
=
http://tinyurl.com/rfl25
Brian
774
Mikey Brass
Re: Vatican speaks - will Nick reply?
22/05/2006 13:33:00
Except, to most YECs, the Roman Catholic Church does not have moral
authority. I doubt it has to Nick either; after all, he tries to lecture
people on the compatibility between science and the Bible (based on
heretical views).
775
Mikey Brass
Online archaeology courses
22/05/2006 13:38:00
Dear all,
I am going to be offering two online archaeology courses for anyone
interested. The first course details the whole timespan of human
evolution and the second examine the archaeology of Ancient Egypt:
1. Human evolution
It is an eight week course, starting on 28 May. Details on the content
of this course and its cost are available at
http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_worldarchaeology.html .
2. Ancient Egyptian archaeology
It takes place over 6 weeks, also from 28 May. The cost and details are
available at http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_AE_general.html .
Please feel free to contact me offline for any queries.
--
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)
776
Roger Stanyard
Re: Vatican speaks - will Nick reply?
22/05/2006 17:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Except, to most YECs, the Roman Catholic Church does not have moral
> authority. I doubt it has to Nick either; after all, he tries to
lecture
> people on the compatibility between science and the Bible (based on
> heretical views).
True, but what about the parents of the children at Bluecoat? Liverpool
is half Irish and therefore half Catholic. I therefore assume that a
very high proportion of Bluecoat children are Catholic or nominally
Catholic.
Roger Stanyard
>
777
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Vatican speaks - will Nick reply?
22/05/2006 19:11:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> True, but what about the parents of the children at Bluecoat? Liverpool
> is half Irish and therefore half Catholic. I therefore assume that a
> very high proportion of Bluecoat children are Catholic or nominally
> Catholic.
Good point. I am sure that some of those parents would not enjoy having
a blasphemous, biological-illiterate heretic preacher in their midst.
778
ukantic
Question for Nick.
22/05/2006 21:16:00
Well Nick,
We're all waiting, what are you going to do, spray us all with holy
water or something!
Of all the forums you could have picked, you have probably landed up
in one of the worst. We've some clever people here & we have some
angry ones (Say hello to Marc, who is now forced to drive his kids
miles through town to keep them away from the fundies who took over
his local school). However, the one thing they all have in common is
that they don't like creationists. Rather you than me Nick!
In your recent e-mail to Brian, you indicated that you do not
believe in the Big Bang theory. Given that it:
(1) Is consistent with the observational evidence in the form of
a global red shift, first recorded by Hubble.
(2) Was given a theoretical footing by general relativity.
(3) Was found to explain the relative abundance of the light
elements; for example helium at around ¼ of the mass of the universe.
(4) Predicted the background microwave radiation.
What is your problem with it?
Is it that you believe it not to be science because it is something
you cannot put it in a test tube & watch change colour?
Or is it simply that you do not believe that the universe could be
so old because the Bible says so, which reduces all your objections
to Big Bang cosmology to mere rationalisations of your extreme
religious views?
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us.
Alan.
779
ukantic
Another one bites the dust!
22/05/2006 22:49:00
BHA: OCR says 'intelligent design', creation not on the curriculum
Friday, 19 May 2006 08:14
The exam board at the centre of a storm surrounding the teaching of
creationism has committed to re-visit its guidance to avoid the threat
to science teaching that many feared, and to issue strict guidance to
trainee teachers on their exam programme.
The 'Gateway Science' specification had caused controversy because
teachers were asked to 'explain that the fossil record has been
interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)'.
http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/education/schools/schools/bha-
ocr-says-intelligent-design-creation-not-on-curriculum-$440272.htm
http://tinyurl.com/ljgvf
780
Mikey Brass
Re: Question for Nick.
22/05/2006 23:00:00
ukantic wrote:
> We're all waiting, what are you going to do, spray us all with holy
> water or something!
"Are you going to hose me down with Holy Water if I get too hot?" (sings
Meatloaf)
> Is it that you believe it not to be science because it is something
> you cannot put it in a test tube & watch change colour?
We can't have predictive hypotheses now, can we.
Such people are part and parcel of cultural evolution.
781
Andrew
Re: Question for Nick.
22/05/2006 22:31:00
In addition, perhaps Nick Cowan would like to explain why he didn't
encourage the scientific interest of one of his pupils. If Cowan's account
is correct, the pupil in question was aware of the Big Bang model but had
one detail wrong - he believed there was `nothing' before the bang. If I
understand the theory correctly, it doesn't posit that there was initially
`nothing.' Oddly enough, fundamentalists seem to keep claiming that it
does, and I wonder where this pupil derived that part of his understanding
from.
But at the very least it's the job of a teacher to respond positively to
interest shown by his pupils and guide them from his greater knowledge. So
far the pupil comes out better than the teacher in this issue.
782
Mikey Brass
Re: Another one bites the dust!
22/05/2006 23:54:00
Brilliant news:-)
783
oeditor
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 00:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> In addition, perhaps Nick Cowan would like to explain why he didn't
> encourage the scientific interest of one of his pupils. If Cowan's
account > is correct, the pupil in question was aware of the Big Bang
model but had > one detail wrong - he believed there was `nothing'
>before the bang.
Let's just revisit this one. Nick wrote to me:
'A child in my class the other day said (in effect): "I don't believe
in God; I believe that there was nothing there in the beginning. Then
it exploded" I had to tell him that he was forbidden to make
non-science (rhymes with "conscience") faith statements in my science
classes."'
I think that Nick, ever the literalist, was homing in on the word
"belief". Doesn't matter what the pupil meant by it, NIck was equating
the child's understanding of cosmology with his own deluded faith.
Funny, isn't it, that he's such a grammatical nit-picker with us
adults, but manages to misunderstand a child's use of a common
ambiguous word? Or - no, it couldn't be - perhaps that "in effect"
indicates that he was putting words into the s/t/r/a/w/c/h/i/l/d/'/s/
mouth?
Brian
784
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 01:55:00
--- "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > In addition, perhaps Nick Cowan would like to explain why he didn't
> > encourage the scientific interest of one of his pupils. If Cowan's
account
> > is correct, the pupil in question was aware of the Big Bang model but had
> > one detail wrong - he believed there was `nothing' before the bang. If I
> > understand the theory correctly, it doesn't posit that there was
initially
> > `nothing.' Oddly enough, fundamentalists seem to keep claiming that it
> > does, and I wonder where this pupil derived that part of his
understanding
> > from.
From what I recall in a Brief History of Time, Professor Hawkins suggests
that to ask what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the
North Pole. I think Lenny Flank uses the same explanation when this comes up
in Debunk Creation.
I'm uncomfortable with such a simple explanation, but I don't have a better
one! ;-)
Course the difference between scientists and creationist is that scientists
don't claim to have all the answers. Fear of this unknown (and we never have
this answer) is, of course, the root of the problem.
Marc Draco
785
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 03:56:00
Dear Alan,
Thanks for your hot reception - sorry, warm
welcome - to this forum. I suppose that it is out of
the play-pen into the lions' den, but I feel I should
respond to the challenges thrown at me (with some
force it seems!). I hope to ussher(sic) into
BlackShadow a new understanding of ID/Creationism.
Please excuse the relative slowness and
paucity of my responses: it is just nearing the end
now of my busiest period of the year (A2 Chemistry
Practical on Thursday then a break!). I promise to
become more prolific through the summer - you might
have already gathered (from my lack of experience of
protocol) that this and DebunkCreation will be the
first Groups I have ever contributed to. Also my
typing skills are of the "one-finger" variety......!
...and talking of which, it is difficult for
me to recommend this discussion forum to my students
yet, because of the immoderate (and unwarranted)
invective used against me already, and the prospect of
it getting worse! I do appreciate your efforts to keep
things as calm as possible, but no teacher - Christian
or atheist - is deliberately going to expose his or
her pupils to obscenity.
Let's at least be civil, and try to detach
dislike for a person's views from personal animosity.
(Hello to Marc - you are free to control what your own
children are exposed to, but should you be angry when
others exercise the same right?). So let's have have a
decent debate, without talk of censorship.
I won't try to "convert" anyone and I WILL
stick to science not the Bible, although one of my
main theses will be that we all filter knowledge and
experience through our own world-view/faith position,
whether Christian - I really don't like the word
"religion" (Latin: religare = bind. Enough said) - or
Atheist (can anyone DISprove God's existence?). You
may like to reflect that I myself am an atheist
regarding any "god" except the One who reveals Himself
in the (Judaeo-)Christian scriptures. We dwell in a
universe not a "multiverse"!
Apparently some members of this forum are
Christians. Can I suggest that you must, ipso facto,
be creationists to some extent. We would therefore
only differ on the extent and timing of divine
intervention in the natural world - not enough to fall
out about in my opinion (though not necessarily, I
appreciate, in yours). So am I free to embrace the
"Young Earth" position and be a Chemistry teacher?
This may surprise you, but I actually DON'T
regard Creationism as science on a par with Chemistry
(and Physics) ie. based on empirical enquiry. However
(apologies MB but please read on) I do regard it as
equivalent to the "historical sciences"
(non-observable, non-repeatable) of evolutionary
Biology and the "origins" aspects of Geology and
Paleontology. Hence when my Chemistry syllabuses raise
issues of potential conflict, I feel it is fair game
to highlight the problems.
It is not "religion" if I show, for
example, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires
that the universe cannot be infinitely old. Further,
to use the term "Big Bang" doesn't contradict "In the
beginning God created..." but does it infer/require a
First Cause/Prime Mover? This is a valid philosophical
question deriving from A-level science, and requiring
the sort of Critical Thinking skills that 6th formers
should, according to the DFES, be acquiring. Our RE
staff here do not feel this is part of their remit,
but one for the science-trained. If you read my
previous post I was not denying the Big Bang, merely
asserting the absurdity of a dogmatically naturalistic
"explanation" of it. If group members want to believe
it.....congratulations on your faith!
Similarly it is utterly reasonable for me
to look at the thermodynamics of the formation of eg.
glycine or a single nucleotide (and en passant to
critique Miller's work which was over-hastily billed
as "life in a test-tube"). I look at protein synthesis
as an example of an irreducibly complex system. (Can
anyone by the way provide a plausible mechanism for
the naturalistic/non-theistic biogenesis of complex
macromolecules without doing violence to the 2nd
Law?). Often all I am doing is affirming fundamental -
oops! I mean basic - biochemical principles eg "life
begets life".
[Here I must apologise - I have tended in the past to
use "Darwinism" as a blanket term to cover the whole
process from molecules to man. I will desist.]
Also I do not utterly reject evolution - no
problem with finches breeding after their own kind and
adapting to their environment. But - and sorry if this
puts your beak out of joint - I see no observable
evidence for speciation. Nor can I find any plausible
explanation for the creation of new genetic
information without an "Intelligent Designer".
But why am I a YEC? (something that rarely
comes up in my teaching now that radiometric dating
has disappeared from GCSE and radioactivity generally
from A-level). I'm no geologist but fossils speak of
catastrophe not uniformitarianism, and are entirely
consistent with a world-wide flood (Lyell was hardly
impartial - he is on record as having written to a
friend that it was desirable to "rid science of
Moses". Now you may agree with him but it is a
statement of religion not science.) Dr Russell
Humphreys has written on this extensively and
convincingly - I'm sure you know where to find his
material (and don't accuse me of trotting out
unoriginal AiG stuff - I'm a teacher not a researcher
- when I find numerous references to TalkOrigins in
BS/DC posts!). I'm particularly impressed by the
chemical stuff - lack of sufficient He in atmosphere,
low levels of salts in oceans. Gentry's Po radiohaloes
are still not replicable despite alternative theories
about their origin (which don't DISprove Gentry of
course). Again, it depends on your worldview who you
believe.
OK, all this fits my fundamentalist (I'm
not a "literalist") Christian worldview but I'm not
ashamed of that. We all have our feet on a rock (no
pun intended) of some sort, and a faith that it will
support us. I don't abuse or brainwash kids, merely
teach them to be "Sceptical Chemists" (Boyle was a
Christian and, given his era, arguably a YEC!). I'd
actually like to redeem the word "fundamental" - I use
it of sub-atomic particles (interesting that there are
3; same as the number of nucleotides in a
codon.......stop, I'm getting to write my sermon for
Trinity Sunday!).
Here's an invitation: any of you is free to
come to Blue Coat School here in Liverpool (ring me on
0151-733-1407 or e-mail me directly) and I can arrange
for you eg. to sit in on my lessons/talk to the kids I
teach/talk to my colleagues in Physics, Biology,
Geography, RE - anything you want really. You've been
giving me abuse/ridicule based solely on your
perceptions and prejudices, not on OBSERVABLE
evidence. Are you scientists? Then come and check me
out. Otherwise accept that the BlackShadow forum is,
in fact, the best available evidence for the
contemporaneous existence of dinosaurs and man.
Nick Cowan. m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk
PS.(To Roger) Blue Coat is not a church school - we
are non-denominational, although founded by Anglicans.
There are several excellent RC schools locally where
parents who wish their children to receive formal
Catholic education can send them. Here we are not
bound by any Papal bull/dogma, on faith or science.
(NB. Would you have supported the RC church against
Galileo?)
PPS.(To Mike B.) I confess to being totally ignorant
of the 4 geological sites you mention. I presume from
your aggressively polemical manner in this and earlier
posts that you find NO evidence for a Flood layer in
those places. However you do now find yourself in a
difficult philosophical position viz: You either DO
know of a Flood layer elsewhere in the world (which I
doubt you'd admit), or - if you say that there is no
Flood layer anywhere (a non-falsifiable faith
position) - you therefore cannot know for certain what
such a layer would look like if it DID exist!
Interesting that Grosseteste was a bishop!
--- ukantic <ukantic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
---------------------------------
Well Nick,
We're all waiting, what are you going to do, spray us
all with holy
water or something!
Of all the forums you could have picked, you have
probably landed up
in one of the worst. We've some clever people here &
we have some
angry ones (Say hello to Marc, who is now forced to
drive his kids
miles through town to keep them away from the fundies
who took over
his local school). However, the one thing they all
have in common is
that they don't like creationists. Rather you than me
Nick!
In your recent e-mail to Brian, you indicated that you
do not
believe in the Big Bang theory. Given that it:
(1) Is consistent with the observational evidence
in the form of
a global red shift, first recorded by Hubble.
(2) Was given a theoretical footing by general
relativity.
(3) Was found to explain the relative abundance
of the light
elements; for example helium at around ¼ of the mass
of the universe.
(4) Predicted the background microwave radiation.
What is your problem with it?
Is it that you believe it not to be science because it
is something
you cannot put it in a test tube & watch change
colour?
Or is it simply that you do not believe that the
universe could be
so old because the Bible says so, which reduces all
your objections
to Big Bang cosmology to mere rationalisations of your
extreme
religious views?
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us.
Alan.
SPONSORED LINKS
Database creation
Evolution Creation
Intelligent design
Different religions beliefs
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "BlackShadow" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BlackShadow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
786
Peter Hearty
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 05:39:00
> Atheist (can anyone DISprove God's existence?).
No they can't. Can YOU disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti
monster?
> You may like to reflect that I myself am an atheist
> regarding any "god" except the One who reveals Himself
> in the (Judaeo-)Christian scriptures.
Why? Which of the others have you read about and why did you decide not to
believe in them?
> If you read my
> previous post I was not denying the Big Bang, merely
> asserting the absurdity of a dogmatically naturalistic
> "explanation" of it.
Yet you dogmatically insist that goddidit.
> (Can anyone by the way provide a plausible mechanism for
> the naturalistic/non-theistic biogenesis of complex
> macromolecules without doing violence to the 2nd
> Law?).
So why does the impossibility of making a 100% efficient fridge or heat
engine make macromolecules impossible? If I can't explain macromolecules
does that mean goddidit?
> Also I do not utterly reject evolution - no
> problem with finches breeding after their own kind and
> adapting to their environment. But - and sorry if this
> puts your beak out of joint - I see no observable
> evidence for speciation.
So you accept what YECs call "micro-evolution". What actually is the
mechanism that prevents such evolutionary changes being cumulative?
> But why am I a YEC? (something that rarely
> comes up in my teaching now that radiometric dating
> has disappeared from GCSE and radioactivity generally
> from A-level).
So glad you raised that Nick. Care to explain why radiometric dating is
unreliable?
> I'm no geologist but fossils speak of
> catastrophe not uniformitarianism, and are entirely
> consistent with a world-wide flood
This would be the same flood that buried the whole earth to the height of
the highest mountain, about 8km, for the best part of a year, and ended when
a dove found a live olive branch that had somehow survived. You're keen on
thermodynamics Nick, have you done the calculations for the energy deposited
by an 8km column of water? Where did the water come from? Where did it go?
While we're on the flood Nick, there's a problem that has been nagging at me
for some time: are Koala bears clean or unclean? I've done a search on the
bible for this and it doesn't say anywhere, so how did Noah know whether to
take two or seven on board? Similar question for penguins, sloths,
ant-eaters... And what about viruses and bacteria? Did Noah take two
staphylococcus aureus on board?
> I'm particularly impressed by the
> chemical stuff - lack of sufficient He in atmosphere,
> low levels of salts in oceans. Gentry's Po radiohaloes
> are still not replicable despite alternative theories
> about their origin (which don't DISprove Gentry of
> course).
Ah, here we go, the YEC gallop: trot out as many unexplained phenomena as
you can in 30 seconds; state without evidence that they suggest the world is
only 6,000 years old; ergo paleontology, archaeology, geophysics, basic
physics, astronomy, cosmology are all wrong, it was all done by the flood,
goddidit.
When I was still foolish enough to believe that there was some intellectual
honesty in the YEC position, I actually spent quite a bit of time looking
into one of these "there isn't enough / there's too much" claims, namely the
one about the earth's magnetic field decaying too fast. What I found was a
tissue of half-truths, downright lies and truly appalling science. I haven't
bothered with similar claims since.
> (Boyle was a Christian and, given his era, arguably a YEC!).
Must be right then. Notice the clue though Nick: "given the era". You might
also be surprised to know that YEC was not as widespread as you might think
pre-Darwin. St. Augustine, for example cautioned against a literal
interpretation of Genesis.
> actually like to redeem the word "fundamental" - I use
> it of sub-atomic particles (interesting that there are
> 3;
Oooo - little bit of a clue there from the almighty. Although maybe the fact
that there are 6 quarks, 6 leptons, and 12 to 14 bosons means that your god
really has 26 persons. I wonder if this is what the Torah means when it
speaks of gods (plural) creating the earth? Isn't theology fun?
> Otherwise accept that the BlackShadow forum is,
> in fact, the best available evidence for the
> contemporaneous existence of dinosaurs and man.
Oh dear, and you were doing so well up to now. I guess your tolerant,
reasonable Christian facade couldn't help slipping just a bit.
Despite my flippant tone, I really do admire you having the courage to come
here and put your point of view. Before I sign off for now though, I'd like
to ask your opinion on stars - that's right, just stars: how they form, when
they form, how far away they are. I'm sure you see the point of my question.
Pete
787
Mikey Brass
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 07:35:00
Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> Dear Alan,
> Thanks for your hot reception - sorry, warm
> welcome - to this forum. I suppose that it is out of
> the play-pen into the lions' den,
Welcome into the real world of debate which cannot be staged-managed.
> Also my
> typing skills are of the "one-finger" variety......!
Same as mine.
> ...and talking of which, it is difficult for
> me to recommend this discussion forum to my students
Trust me, calling you a biologically illiterate heretic is the least of
your problems. But I can understand your wish for your students not to
see your arguments pulled apart in detail by those who don't don't bow
to your teacher attitude out of the school. Your pupils are big boys and
girls.
> I won't try to "convert" anyone and I WILL
> stick to science not the Bible,
Right then:
What is the scientific theory of creationis,?
> Apparently some members of this forum are
> Christians. Can I suggest that you must, ipso facto,
> be creationists to some extent.
Ever heard of theistic evolution?
> I do regard it as
> equivalent to the "historical sciences"
> (non-observable, non-repeatable)
Oh, so because we cannot observe the collapse of the Roman Empire today
it couldn't have existed.
> Paleontology.
There are so many things wrong with calling Paleontology a "historical
science" that I simply do not know where to begin.
Lets see, in your message you have displayed ignorance of:
The structure and nature of scientific disciplines
The 2nd Law
The Big Bang
Confusing evolution with abiogenesis and cosmology
"Kinds" (there is no such thing)
Geology
> PPS.(To Mike B.) I confess to being totally ignorant
> of the 4 geological sites you mention.
Indeed you are ignorant of them: they are archaeological sites. If there
was a worldwide flood, there would be a heavy alluvial layer in each and
every one; there isn't, not even in one, not even in the desert site. no
amount of word play will get around this fact.
I really pity your students. If I was a parent of a child at your
school, I would print your e-mail out and shown it to the bard of
governors as Exhibit 1 of your scientific incompetence and intellectual
abuse of students.
--
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)
788
Roger Stanyard
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 10:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> PS.(To Roger) Blue Coat is not a church school - we
> are non-denominational, although founded by Anglicans.
> There are several excellent RC schools locally where
> parents who wish their children to receive formal
> Catholic education can send them. Here we are not
> bound by any Papal bull/dogma, on faith or science.
> (NB. Would you have supported the RC church against
> Galileo?)
>
So why are you teaching a version of christianity that is abohrent to
many christians as well as being described as "pagan" by the Roman
Catholic church, as well as being in breach of what Rowan Williams
has said about teaching in schools (including you school, Bluecoat),
in breach of what Andrew Adonis has now stated as rules of state
schools.....
Do you have the agreement of the parents of Bluecoast to teach
creationism in science lessons?
Have you told the parents this is what you are doing?.
Does non-denomination mean you can and do teach non-Christian
religious views in science?
Does non-denominational mean you can teach whatever religion you like?
Does, as you imply, this mean you are free to conspire with others to
teach creationism at will across Liverpool schools?
Does that movement offically include the CofE as you imply? Is you
local bishop ware of it? Has it been cleared by Lambeth Palace?
How much of the school's budget is paid for by the CoE, including
income from endowments gifted by Anglicans?
How much of the school's budget is paid for by the taxpayer?
Roger Stanyard
789
Roger Stanyard
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 10:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> I'm particularly impressed by the
> chemical stuff - lack of sufficient He in atmosphere,
> low levels of salts in oceans. Gentry's Po radiohaloes
> are still not replicable despite alternative theories
> about their origin (which don't DISprove Gentry of
> course). Again, it depends on your worldview who you
> believe.
OK, question on chemistry: post Chicxulub, there is a major Iridium
anomoly. How did that occur duing a catastrophic flood which the YECs
claim explain the tsumani-created features immdediately below it?
If you are a YECer, state how many days after the start of the flood
the Iridium anomoly was laid down, how long it took to lay down and
variations in its geographic thickness relating to distance from
Puerto Chicxulub.
Explain, according to the bible, why the size of the tsunami fatures
are also in inverse proportion to their distance from Puerto
Chicxulub. Why is there a positive correlation between the tsunami
created features and the thickness of the Iridium layer?
This is popular science stuff, btw.
Why is there no chalk lying above the Iridium anomoly?
How does you scientific explanation contradict both those of you
geology and physical geography teachers and the national curiculum?
Roger Stanyard
790
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 11:15:00
Very good questions, Roger. As with all YECs, Cowan (a) has an abysmal
understanding of the natural sciences, and (b) needs to realise there is
no conflict between the Bible (after all, it is merely a religious text
and one should not worship a book) and science.
791
Andrew
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 11:43:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick & Moira Cowan
> ...and talking of which, it is difficult for
> me to recommend this discussion forum to my students
> yet, because of the immoderate (and unwarranted)
> invective used against me already, and the prospect of
> it getting worse! I do appreciate your efforts to keep
> things as calm as possible, but no teacher - Christian
> or atheist - is deliberately going to expose his or
> her pupils to obscenity.
That is simply beyond belief. The negative comments about you were in
response to your behaviour towards members of the group, as well as your
astounding attitude to the pupils you're supposed to be teaching. You
invite and incite hostility and then claim you can't allow your pupils to
see what's happening here because of that? That really stinks.
Your attitude to the pupil who you slapped down for his interest in modern
physics was appalling. And now you pose as someone protecting your pupils
because people are naturally disgusted by that attitude. It's obvious
you're simply protecting your own back, but the hypocrisy and logic-chopping
involved is pretty disgusting.
I haven't seen any obscenity, though. That's a false implication.
Oh and by the way, the world is not divisible into `Christian or atheist.'
You seem to have conveniently forgotten Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists
(some varieties of complexity in this issue for them, but that's by the by),
Neo-Pagans, believers who fall outside any of the mainstream religions, and
probably a whole host of people I've not included in this list. I'm doing
you the credit of assuming you didn't mean people of any of those belief
systems would deliberately expose their pupils to obscenity.
But you have rather a lot of serious questions to answer. Your false
implications need to be exposed along the way, hence the above. Like
everyone else on this list I'm interested to see how you reply. But don't
expect to get away with false implications and insinuations.
792
Mikey Brass
[Fwd: InTouch - Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 13 no. 1 (March 2006)]
23/05/2006 11:52:00
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: InTouch - Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 13
no. 1 (March 2006)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 11:40:31 +0100 (BST)
From: IngentaConnect InTouch <intouch@ingentaconnect.com>
To: Michael Brass <mike@antiquityofman.com>
You have previously asked us to let you know about
newly-posted content for the following journal or
search terms.
Record 1.
TI: Self-Citation in Archaeology: Age, Gender, Prestige, and the Self
AU: Hutson, Scott
JN: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
PD: March 2006
VO: 13
NO: 1
PG: 1-18(18)
PB: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
IS: 1072-5369
URL:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://klu/jarm/2006/0000001\
3/00000001/00009001
Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the
publication.
Record 2.
TI: What Explains the Carcass Field Processing and Transport Decisions
of Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers? Measures of Economic Anatomy and
Zooarchaeological Skeletal Part Representation
AU: Lupo, Karen
JN: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
PD: March 2006
VO: 13
NO: 1
PG: 19-66(48)
PB: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
IS: 1072-5369
URL:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://klu/jarm/2006/0000001\
3/00000001/00009000
Click on the URL to access the article or to link to other issues of the
publication.
Profile number/username: mikeybrass
Please quote this reference when contacting us
Search millions of articles, access thousands of full-text scholarly and
professional publications, and find answers to your specific research needs
at www.ingentaconnect.com.
We have rebranded our alerting services as
IngentaConnect InTouch. If you or your institution
have an existing licence to receive alerts, you
will continue to have unrestricted use of the new
service. Personal users without access to a
licence are restricted to 5 free new issue alerts;
if you wish to purchase a licence in order to
receive additional alerts, simply log in to
IngentaConnect and click on "New Issue Alerts"
copyright 2006 ingenta
793
oeditor
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 12:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
> (Hello to Marc - you are free to control what your own
> Can
> anyone by the way provide a plausible mechanism for
> the naturalistic/non-theistic biogenesis of complex
> macromolecules without doing violence to the 2nd
> Law?).
Well, they're only co-polymers, when all is said and done. Making your
average plastic bottle is ok by the 2nd law - just needs a heat input
(and some poymerisations don't even need that). Like the bug
synthesising RNA - we've all got to eat.
> Nor can I find any plausible
> explanation for the creation of new genetic
> information without an "Intelligent Designer".
This sounds like Mackay talking - he's keen on "information".
Wikipedia: "Information as a concept bears a diversity of meanings,
from everyday usage to technical settings. Generally speaking, the
concept of information is closely related to notions of communication,
constraint, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning,
mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation." Another
word which can mean almost anything you like. Unless you deny
mutation, you must accept that genetic material can change. Unless you
deny the existence of Down's Syndrome, you must admit that the amount
of human genetic material can increase. I'll leave it to the
geneticists to come up with a more technical answer.
> (Lyell was hardly
> impartial - he is on record as having written to a
> friend that it was desirable to "rid science of
> Moses". Now you may agree with him but it is a
> statement of religion not science.)
No. It would be a statement of religion to want to rid Christianity of
science. To want to free science of pre-existing, untested,
unscientific concepts is quite the opposite.
Enough - I need to energise some copolymerisation.
Brian
794
oeditor
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 12:46:00
[Yahoo chopped my message. This should have been at the top of my
previous post]
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
I really don't like the word
> "religion" (Latin: religare = bind. Enough said)
Enough indeed - I'll do without the binding, myself.
- or
I myself am an atheist
> regarding any "god" except the One who reveals Himself
> in the (Judaeo-)Christian scriptures.
Wow, quoting Dawkins, no less
> We dwell in a
> universe not a "multiverse"!
And Patchett ;-)
> We would therefore
> only differ on the extent and timing of divine
> intervention in the natural world
Just a little matter, the difference between ascribing a divine cause
to the big band, and postulating a supernatural fraud who made a
10,000 year old earth to *appear* to be billions of years old.
> Further,
> to use the term "Big Bang" doesn't contradict "In the
> beginning God created..." but does it infer/require a
> First Cause/Prime Mover? This is a valid philosophical
> question deriving from A-level science, and requiring
> the sort of Critical Thinking skills that 6th formers
> should, according to the DFES, be acquiring.
The DFES who have now clarified that pro-con evolution is NOT an
appropriate subject for mind-sharpening in science classes. I can't
just think of a scientific controversy, but in biology an appropriate
discussion might focus on whether the "hobbits" were an early version
of humans or deformed modern ones.
> Our RE
> staff here do not feel this is part of their remit,
> but one for the science-trained.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!
...continued previusly!
Brian
795
oeditor
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 13:54:00
Oh dear, typos abound! However, with a few more co-polymers to assist,
I can correct them.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> > We dwell in a
> > universe not a "multiverse"!
> And Patchett ;-)
Pratchett
>
>the big band,
Nice thought, but it's big bang, of course
>I can't > just think of a scientific controversy, but in biology an
>appropriate > discussion might focus on whether the "hobbits" were an
>early version > of humans or deformed modern ones.
Read that as "chemical controversy"
Perhaps two-finger typing would be best!
Brian
796
Roger Stanyard
Background Info on Liverpool
23/05/2006 14:25:00
FYI here is a report I found on the National Secular Society's web
page. I believe it is dated February 2005. Make of it what you will:
REVOLT AGAINST CHURCH SCHOOLS BEGINS
Governors at one of Liverpool's most prestigious schools have voted
unanimously to reject a suggestion it should become a Church of
England school. The Blue Coat School in Wavertree is determined to
maintain its non-denominational status despite an approach from the
Anglican diocese.
Despite this the Anglican Diocese is expected to press ahead with its
claim on the Blue Coat through the Department for Education and
Skills (DfES) or even through the courts.
The Church's interest in the school was sparked by the discovery of a
document dating back to 1708 indicating that the school had
originally been founded by the Church of England. Doubtless
emboldened by the wider Anglican school expansionism, the Anglican
Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, has said that he wants the
status 'formalised' presumably so that his Church can take it over
despite opposition.
Headmaster Sandy Tittershill said: "The words may well exist, but
over the centuries we have never operated within the Church of
England. [This is] Certainly not since we re-opened in 1949 as
Voluntary Aided (controlled by the Governors, rather than the local
authority). We have been nothing but non-denominational". He added
that there are already three CofE schools in the city operating
restrictive admissions procedures - 85 per cent Anglican and 15 per
cent selected by entrance exam.
Bishop Jones maintains that the trustees are not applying the terms
of the trust by not handing the school over to the Church. He said
the document stated that the school was for "religious instruction in
accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England.
Chris Hallows, chair of Bluecoat's governors described the Church's
actions as "theft" and pointed out that not a single parent governor
or trustee wanted the school to become denominational. The school is
seeking legal advice and the issue will be decided by Ruth Kelly, the
education secretary, a Roman Catholic.
An DfES spokesman said that a school's character was usually decided
in accordance with its wishes*, and certainly the Church of England
said that it would "proceed with consent" when it first proposed its
massive expansion into education. The Government, too, has issued
repeated assurances that new faith schools would only be created
where they were wanted by the local community. Neither of these
promises have been adhered to.
Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said: "Despite
local protests in many places in this country, Mr Blair's religious
school project continues like a steam roller, apparently unstoppable.
Local consultations are hidden and brief - by the time people find
out that another Church school is heading their way, the consultation
is over. And even if local parents do get to know about the proposals
before they are a fait accompli, they find manipulative questions
like 'Do you want a better standard of education in your local
schools?' When they answer 'yes' this is counted as support for faith
schools."
Mr Wood said that opinion polls constantly show that the "religious
schools" policy is extremely unpopular. "Most parents have an
understandable suspicion of it and don't want their children
separated from their peers down religious lines," he said. "It is a
cynical exercise in imposing religious schools on to an unwilling
population. We don't hold out much hope of Bluecoat School remaining
non-denominational for much longer."
* Ed. writes: Given that in most cases there will be no contention,
the suggestion that cases are usually decided in accordance with
school's wishes is meaningless.
A few years ago legislation called for all schools to be classified
into those with a religious character and those without one. Our
information is that when the determination was made, which was done
centrally by the DfES's predecessor, it came as a complete surprise
to quite a few schools that they were deemed to have a religious
character, and, of these, few if any of managed to resist the
religious determination.
797
Marc Draco
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 12:24:00
Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> Dear Alan,
> Thanks for your hot reception - sorry, warm
> welcome - to this forum. I suppose that it is out of
> the play-pen into the lions' den, but I feel I should
> respond to the challenges thrown at me (with some
> force it seems!). I hope to ussher(sic) into
> BlackShadow a new understanding of ID/Creationism.
Oh save us! "ussher(sic)" This from a man who picks me up for bad grammar.
Ussher is a proper noun, Nick, as well you know and "sic" in this
context is normally written with square brackets not parentheses and you
should have capitalised the U and put a space before the "(". I'll
forgive you the italics because Yahoo doesn't support HTML.
Here's what he's ironically alluding to everyone:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
The guy who dates the Earth at 6010 years (give or take) as of this
writing and is arguably the father of all the Creationist dogma that
we're so pissed off with.
798
Roger Stanyard
Background Info on Liverpool
23/05/2006 14:36:00
More background info:
As you are all aware, Anglicans and Catholics have long tried to work
together in Liverpool because of fear of a Northern Ireland sectarian
overspill.
The cooperation appears to be quite radical to this day. There is a
new city academy in Liverpool that its jointly run by the Anglicans
and the Catholics.
It's called the St Francis of Assisi Academy. My suggestion is that
teaching of creationism in Anglican-backed schools is likely to do
harm to the working relationship given the RC's view on creationism.
The local Anglican Bishop, James Jones, is described as a liberal
evangelist but I don't know what his view is on teaching creationism.
His attitude towards ordination of gay bishops seems to be cautious
but basically liberal. That, in turn, indicates that he does
not/cannot believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and
therefore creationism.
Roger Stanyard
799
Peter Hearty
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 15:51:00
Marc Draco wrote:
>
> Here's what he's ironically alluding to everyone:
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
> <http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/ussher.htm>
>
> The guy who dates the Earth at 6010 years (give or take) as of this
> writing and is arguably the father of all the Creationist dogma that
> we're so pissed off with.
>
From the above: "the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on
a Wednesday'", but it doesn't say whether this is according to the
Julian or Gregorian calendars.
Interestingly, this is bang in the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.
The Egyptians don't seem to have noticed the worldwide flood. Either
that or they didn't think it was worth mentioning.
800
m_cowan32
Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 22:12:00
Dear Andrew,
I appear to have annoyed you.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nick & Moira Cowan
>
> > ...and talking of which, it is difficult for
> > me to recommend this discussion forum to my students
> > yet, because of the immoderate (and unwarranted)
> > invective used against me already, and the prospect of
> > it getting worse! I do appreciate your efforts to keep
> > things as calm as possible, but no teacher - Christian
> > or atheist - is deliberately going to expose his or
> > her pupils to obscenity.
>
> That is simply beyond belief. The negative comments about you
were in
> response to your behaviour towards members of the group, as well
as your
> astounding attitude to the pupils you're supposed to be teaching.
You
> invite and incite hostility and then claim you can't allow your
pupils to
> see what's happening here because of that? That really stinks.
How can you possibly infer anything meaningful about my attitude to
my pupils when you haven't seen me teach, nor spoken to them? But I
deserve to be abused, don't I, because I dare to teach Chemistry and
hold YEC beliefs? This is intel
