Sylvia Baker and me in debate

[cathy]

Just re-listened to the debate. Sylv really is the most skilled, duplicitious liar I've heard yet - not a single quiver in her voice to betray any sign of a conscience. A morally bankrupt walking ego is the kindest opinion I can come up with.

Roger did a really, really good job. The french guy suffered from having a very french accent so you stopped listening too hard, and Wolpert strayed into the wider issue of belief which was a bit of a mistake.

The presenter should have asked her to get to the point more often than he actually did - but I think he only cottoned on to her waffle away from any calls for evidence and play the martyr card when pushed for detail strategies relatively late.

[Roger Stanyard]

Just re-listened to the debate. Sylv really is the most skilled, duplicitious liar I've heard yet - not a single quiver in her voice to betray any sign of a conscience. A morally bankrupt walking ego is the kindest opinion I can come up with.

Whatever she said, it was just bog standard, well rehearsed cretinism. I went into the event with the basic attitude of not debating on the terms of the creationists. I suspect that many fail to do so and fail in the debating as a result.

I think that's why she got so irritable with me. I can't argue with either the science or the religious nonsense she presents so I have no option but to debate on other grounds.

[cathy]

Whatever she said, it was just bog standard, well rehearsed cretinism.

Yep. Same old stuff and same old hefty doses of paranoia.

She even started her talk for the Edinburgh creation group with the Sussex university story. Irrelevant given it happened absolutely years ago.

[Roger Stanyard]

Whatever she said, it was just bog standard, well rehearsed cretinism.

Yep. Same old stuff and same old hefty doses of paranoia.

She even started her talk for the Edinburgh creation group with the Sussex university story. Irrelevant given it happened absolutely years ago.

Yer, it's boring. We all reject (or accept) ideas, concepts, outlooks, views, theories, models or whatever in our formative years.

Why does this woman 40 years after the event keep having to tell everyone she went to Sussex University? It hardly distinguishes her from other graduates of the era.

[cathy]

Why does this woman 40 years after the event keep having to tell everyone she went to Sussex University? It hardly distinguishes her from other graduates of the era.

It proves that many, many years ago she once did biology and is therefore more of an expert on current biological research and why it is wrong than anyone working in the field of course!! She IS the world famous creationist (at least 253 people have heard of her) Sylvia Baker after all!!!!

She also went to university therefore is an expert on any subject she chooses to be, unlike those who also went and had the temerity to study them, keep their minds open and keep up to date (oh and not ditch 90% of their brain cells by endlessly repeating the word s pardigm, worldview and Dawkins)!! She done a book you know and a PhD about how great a job she's doing running creationist loon schools!

Oh and cos 30% of the readers taking part in some survey in some christian publication or other - probably done by 20% of its readers who in turn are probably 26% of christians - (I'm just guessing figures and sources here cos Sylv didn't elaborate) who in turn do not represent the British public - are creationists it is science and therefore should be taught in schools as such! Who needs evidence when you have the collective wisdom of world famous creationist Sylvia Baker to advise?

I once did home economics (cookery) at school (food technology for anyone under 30), therefore I often feel the need to advise Jamie Oliver that he's wrong. I've penned my recipe for nutritious cheese and crisp sandwiches on the back of a galaxy wrapper and taken in to our food tech dept. Strangely they don't seem to be taking me seriously! It's cos of their paradigm/worldviews I guess. But I think its nice, as do a select few of my goumet pals. A survey showed 2% of the people in my house last Thursday thought it better than the five a day fruit obsessed paradigm - so why aren't schools taking notice?

[marcsurtees]

If I admit my sin and trust in Jesus alone, I will be rescued from the consequences of my sin and enjoy life with God as His adopted child.

However, that again highlights the problem I have with young Earth creationism.

Young Earth creationism requires much, much, more than trusting in Jesus alone.

That is not true. Creationism is not a salvation issue.
Yes we believe that theistic evolutionists are wrong.
We believe that the evidence for evolution (universal common descent) is flawed and that the creationist interpretation is supported by much of the scientific evidence.
But many Christians disagree and they are entitled to their opinion and that does not make them second class Christians.
We are all sinners saved by grace, not by adhering to a set of doctrinal statements (that is religion).

[Roger Stanyard]

If I admit my sin and trust in Jesus alone, I will be rescued from the consequences of my sin and enjoy life with God as His adopted child.

However, that again highlights the problem I have with young Earth creationism.

Young Earth creationism requires much, much, more than trusting in Jesus alone.

That is not true. Creationism is not a salvation issue.
Yes we believe that theistic evolutionists are wrong.
We believe that the evidence for evolution (universal common descent) is flawed and that the creationist interpretation is supported by much of the scientific evidence.
But many Christians disagree and they are entitled to their opinion and that does not make them second class Christians.
We are all sinners saved by grace, not by adhering to a set of doctrinal statements (that is religion).

If creationism is irrelevant to Christianity, why are you and your pals pushing it so hard?

For the love of science?

[marcsurtees]

So are you saying that Dawkins has arrived at the wrong conclusion?

As for Dawkins opinion on that conclusion - I don't agree. We are more than the sum of our parts - like most things.

Where is the scientific evidence for that?

And Dawkins is neither pittiless nor indifferent.

Correct, Dawkins is an inconsistent darwinist, and has said that we have to resist our selfish genes (or words to that effect), which when you think about it is very odd thing for an atheist materialist to say.

He is in fact a functional theist!

[marcsurtees]

If creationism is irrelevant to Christianity, why are you and your pals pushing it so hard?
For the love of science?

I didn't say it was irrelevant.
And we are "pushing it" for the love of truth.

[Dagsannr]

Correct, Dawkins is an inconsistent darwinist, and has said that we have to resist our selfish genes (or words to that effect), which when you think about it is very odd thing for an atheist materialist to say.

He is in fact a functional theist!

WTF is a darwinist?

Don't you know that evolutionary theory left the ideas of Darwin a long time ago? Hell, the dude didn't even know about genes.

[Roger Stanyard]

So are you saying that Dawkins has arrived at the wrong conclusion?

As for Dawkins opinion on that conclusion - I don't agree. We are more than the sum of our parts - like most things.

Where is the scientific evidence for that?

And Dawkins is neither pittiless nor indifferent.

Correct, Dawkins is an inconsistent darwinist, and has said that we have to resist our selfish genes (or words to that effect), which when you think about it is very odd thing for an atheist materialist to say.

He is in fact a functional theist!

Why?

Most people are against sin irrespective of their religious opinions.

Or is it your opinion that only Christians do and everyone else throughout history is/was totally devoid of morality?

[Roger Stanyard]

If creationism is irrelevant to Christianity, why are you and your pals pushing it so hard?
For the love of science?

I didn't say it was irrelevant.
And we are "pushing it" for the love of truth.

That's not what Stuart Burgess told the BBC in 2004.

On the contrary: he openly stated that his purpose was to stop people using evolution as an excuse on the day of judgement.

Nothing whatsoever about "the love of truth" ever mentioned to the BBC.

But, then, most people have a love of truth irrespective of their religious opinions. That's what universities are about, btw.

[cathy]

That is not true. Creationism is not a salvation issue.

Given that even the most ardent peddler of creationism (like you and your peers) should be capable of recognising it as a divisive and rather toxic issue for christianity - why the hell do you all push it so $%^&(*%$ hard then??????????

If it isn't an issue why waste your time?

Even the creationist acquantaintance mum I know has started saying it doesn't matter what anyone believes about that. She does buy the creationist crap but no longer pushes it at all - beyond that statement. Even she manages to recognise it turns people off the WHOLE thing.

And her son has recently become an atheist because of it - in light his previous experiences of creationism and conflicts with reality - including messing up his gcses cos of wasting revision time on AiG.

And even her creationist church stated that they have creationists and evolutionists sitting side by side and that didn't matter at all - just over two years after they attempted to push it a bit harder and suddenly found divisions and arguments in their ranks and the fact it became a battle ground.

But not you Marc, nor your pals. So to repeat Roger's question - why are you pushing it so hard?

We believe that the evidence for evolution (universal common descent) is flawed and that the creationist interpretation is supported by much of the scientific evidence.

So why can you not give us the evidence for UCD that is flawed and why can't you explain how the creationist interpretation is supported by evidence.
You've been asked often enough after all.

Your statement is nonsense Marc and you know it!!!!!!!!!! Not one of you has produced a single compelling argument or fact anywhere, or piece of evidence anytime. And you know that cos you're not stupid!!The only debate you've managed to ignite is whether you're all stupid or dishonest - I plump for the latter.

I didn't say it was irrelevant.
And we are "pushing it" for the love of truth.

If you can find me a creationist who is even remotely aware of the meaning of the word truth I'll go to church. To put it bluntly you are all skilled liars, so skilled you're even lying to yourselves. Check yourself out on you tube and find me something you've said that could reasonably considered remotely honest by anyone!!! You even seemed to have earned the nickname Dr False Dichotomy from some debunker there.

That is not true. Creationism is not a salvation issue.

...............

I didn't say it was irrelevant.

You say in one breath it is not a salvation issue, therefore I'd guess largely irrelevant in the greater scheme, than you say it is relevant in another - make up your mind. If it is relevant and the 'truth' than it is a salvation issue. If it isn't, it isn't relevant enough to push it so hard when you know it just makes the whole thing ridiculous. Push it and you do put people off! You believe in all that salvation stuff - its your conscience.

Stop pretending there is anything true or good about what you do. There is not - and you know it. It is a money maker nothing more.

As for your use of the words love of truth! At xmas my second childs carol concerts were in a church, my friend did a carol concert in a church and I went to midnight mass as I always used to. And I did wonder if I'd get some belief or faith back back - it being christmas and all that.

But the utter bullshit you come out with made it really impossible. All I could really think about was the utter stupidity of adolescent sheep sized dinos going on to the ark and how cross I feel when you pretend what you're doing is worthwhile and honest!! Or the anger at the lies you all tell to the vulnerable and the fact you want to brainwash children with your nonsense. And the fact if you say something the opposite is probably the truth.

Get real Marc, creationism is a dishonest cult. It's rubbish.

[cathy]

Correct, Dawkins is an inconsistent darwinist, and has said that we have to resist our selfish genes (or words to that effect), which when you think about it is very odd thing for an atheist materialist to say.

What is a darwinist. In what way is it an odd statement?.

He is in fact a functional theist!

If I'm understanding you correctly, and if I'm on to your argument here - that makes you and your pals (esp Anderson) functional evolutionists!

[marcsurtees]

Correct, Dawkins is an inconsistent darwinist, and has said that we have to resist our selfish genes (or words to that effect), which when you think about it is very odd thing for an atheist materialist to say.

He is in fact a functional theist!

WTF is a darwinist?

Don't you know that evolutionary theory left the ideas of Darwin a long time ago? Hell, the dude didn't even know about genes.

Try Wikipedia for a definiton.
I use the term loosely for someone who believes in evolution by the process of random mutations and natural selection. Its much shorter