Up Coming TV

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:24 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:I've attempted to email the link to this thread to Professor Donald Prothero, Occidental College, and the Skeptics Society.


I take it Prothero is the geology professor mentioned in the article Ashley ?

To be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin with Walker's claims. I suspect most of those who commented wouldn't understand them either.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:02 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I've attempted to email the link to this thread to Professor Donald Prothero, Occidental College, and the Skeptics Society.


I take it Prothero is the geology professor mentioned in the article Ashley ?

To be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin with Walker's claims. I suspect most of those who commented wouldn't understand them either.



Yes, he is. As confirmed by Walker and also by somebody at Prothero's website.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:21 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Email exchange with Tas Walker late this evening:


Tas Walker claims: "The gushing comments from your closed-minded, unscientific, readers
(one of whom has just mentioned the BBC programme - which clearly
showed that a catastrophic flood would not create such a massive
meander) of course failed to ask you this obvious question.
If Jesus wants me to lie for him about science he can take a running
jump."


Humm, as far as I am aware, virtually all the members of this forum have a degree in science (I'm an exception) and there are several hundred of them.



My only qualification (other than a BA in French and German Studies) is passing the OU's 'Exploring Science' course in 2009.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:41 pm

Michael wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
psiloiordinary wrote:He was on Sunday Morning Live, being aggressive and interrupting people.


I suspect he is his own worst enemy having seen both that programme and the one yesterday. He had one girl in tears as she refused to accept all he believed.

No doubt his bullying is why he is not a full time creationist. Many people avoid or walk away from that sort of thing.



Surely bullying is a prime requirement for a creationist job


I thought the requirement was playing a victim of bullying.

Robinson appeared as a guest on a BBC TV Sunday morning programme presented (previously) by Susanna Reid: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... ad=7894334
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:45 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:
cathy wrote:It has to be. Nobody with half a brain really would want or deliberately choose to reject all known science unless extreme pressure was put upon them. Subtle or otherwise. And some people do desperately need to feel like they belong whatever the cost to their reason.

Which is why it's good that we don't have to reject all science :!:


I beg to differ:

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.



However, they have decided that the technology of the World Wide Web does not contradict the Scriptural record ;)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Michael » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:38 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Email exchange with Tas Walker late this evening:


Tas Walker claims: "The gushing comments from your closed-minded, unscientific, readers
(one of whom has just mentioned the BBC programme - which clearly
showed that a catastrophic flood would not create such a massive
meander) of course failed to ask you this obvious question.
If Jesus wants me to lie for him about science he can take a running
jump."


Humm, as far as I am aware, virtually all the members of this forum have a degree in science (I'm an exception) and there are several hundred of them.



My only qualification (other than a BA in French and German Studies) is passing the OU's 'Exploring Science' course in 2009.


You seem to know your science anyway.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:03 pm

You seem to know your science anyway


Indeed Michael, Ashley's posts are excellent he shows a good grasp of creationist claims when it comes to science.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:09 pm

God bless you abundantly,

Clearly Tas isn't blessed with an abundance of geological talent.

Why the Grand Canyon isn't catastrophic -
The very presence of the butts and meanders
The river fits the canyon, unlike the streams now flowing through the Mt St Helen's 'canyons' so beloved of creationists
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Michael » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:14 am

jon_12091 wrote:
God bless you abundantly,

Clearly Tas isn't blessed with an abundance of geological talent.

Why the Grand Canyon isn't catastrophic -
The very presence of the butts and meanders
The river fits the canyon, unlike the streams now flowing through the Mt St Helen's 'canyons' so beloved of creationists



Stop giving hevidence :D
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:31 am

Watched the programme at last and the people on it were like a microcosm of creationists.

I've found that they prey on the vulnerable for starters. People who come to belief after a trauma and are therefore more dependent on it and prey to whatever bullshit they're fed and whatever conditions are placed upon their attendance and acceptance.

Lo and behold - two of the people in that programme had come to religion when vulnerable - the woman when she had cancer and the one with junkie/alooholic parents. They were the sorts of people I reckon that would have been just as happy with the Collins style explanations when they wandered into churches and unsurprisingly they were the most open minded. Read Marc's pastors blog, the vulnerable are his speciality. He's even said he doesn't want people there who disagree with him.

They are the ones I feel the most for - the reluctant creationists constantly in turmoil over it. The one girl even said, in the face of the evidence she didn't want to appear narrow minded but by the same token that meant the rest was crap! My guess is when she goes back her church will wheel out a Marc to re-indoctrinate rather than point to the alternative. Or she'll walk away eventually. What she really needed was someone like Michael. What religion needs is more religious leaders like Michael.

The other vulnerable one ended up saying god could have used evolution!! Yeeeeees

Phil was the classic archetypal creationist bully boy. Not used to being challenged he responds with aggression and displacement. So he was childish and arrogant and when the challenging of creationism got to much he changed it to accusations of being brought to a gay church, accusations that by letting the woman express her lack of homophobia they were changing the goalposts (how/why), accusations of bullying by he producer etc. He could not stand to not be top dog at all. Typical bully.

And finishing it off by the childish and rude act of being deliberately late just made him look like a truculent teen. He was a prize moron but he was a prize creationist - an important member of their hierachy it would seem and a media spokesperson for them.

Sam looked vulnerable like the other two and often looked uncomfortable when the scientists were talking. But Phil worked his bullying magic on him. Seemed to single him out as at risk and join up and crush dissent before it had a chance. He was less successful with the women. His approach was all wrong for women. Thats why they have the Marc style creationists I guess.

The muslim guy tho a creationist, was easily the nicest male. Still narrow minded and wilfully ignorant but pleasant.

All in all the creationists are a type and they were all represented there.
Last edited by cathy on Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:51 pm

Which is why it's good that we don't have to reject all science Marc

But you do reject all science Marc. The science underpinning things like evolution and the age of the earth is the same science that is pertinent to most of the rest of science.

I do not think of you as remotely scientific. I just see you as someone that understands some scientiifc definitions and passed a few exams. You could be scientific and a good christian. You opted to be a creationist instead.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Michael » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:05 pm

cathy wrote:
Which is why it's good that we don't have to reject all science Marc

But you do reject all science Marc. The science underpinning things like evolution and the age of the earth is the same science that is pertinent to most of the rest of science.

I do not think of you as remotely scientific. I just see you as someone that understands some scientiifc definitions and passed a few exams. You could be scientific and a good christian. You opted to be a creationist instead.



A bad scientist and a bad christian?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:31 pm

A bad scientist and a bad christian?

Well in my personal opinion not a scientist at all (good bad or indifferent - bad scientists at least accept science) despite qualifications. After all I have o level geography but without shops to guide me would easily lose my self forever if left in a field with just a map. Even it it were a field surrounded by major roads in sight of a common indentifying landmarks- like say London. Qualifications are not the whole story at all.

It is impossible to be a creationist and a scientist.

And in my personal opinion it is impossible to be a creationist and a good christian. The very nature and basis of creationism precludes goodness.

And Marcs church backs it up. They now seem to be running some course about he primacy of men and the evil nature of children and necessity to 'spank' them. Child rearing and marriage based on the fall, a course that actually states the problem with women wanting to lead (read not be submissive) lies in genesis 3.16 and that children should be treated as evil due to the fall.

And this is in what appears to be a disadvantaged area where I suspect domestic abuse may be an very, very, real issue. The sort of area where any responsible and caring person would be trying to empower women to speak out not preaching on the primacy of males and how beating your children is good as the fall made them evil :evil: :evil: I cannot believe some of the things I read there. But this dangerous crap seems to be based almost solely on genesis and is about as far from caring christianity (and womens equality) as it is poss to get! More victorian than christian I'd say.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:43 pm

cathy wrote:Watched the programme at last and the people on it were like a microcosm of creationists.

I've found that they prey on the vulnerable for starters. People who come to belief after a trauma and are therefore more dependent on it and prey to whatever bullshit they're fed and whatever conditions are placed upon their attendance and acceptance.

Lo and behold - two of the people in that programme had come to religion when vulnerable - the woman when she had cancer and the one with junkie/alooholic parents. They were the sorts of people I reckon that would have been just as happy with the Collins style explanations when they wandered into churches and unsurprisingly they were the most open minded. Read Marc's pastors blog, the vulnerable are his speciality. He's even said he doesn't want people there who disagree with him.

They are the ones I feel the most for - the reluctant creationists constantly in turmoil over it. The one girl even said, in the face of the evidence she didn't want to appear narrow minded but by the same token that meant the rest was crap! My guess is when she goes back her church will wheel out a Marc to re-indoctrinate rather than point to the alternative. Or she'll walk away eventually. What she really needed was someone like Michael. What religion needs is more religious leaders like Michael.

The other vulnerable one ended up saying god could have used evolution!! Yeeeeees

Phil was the classic archetypal creationist bully boy. Not used to being challenged he responds with aggression and displacement. So he was childish and arrogant and when the challenging of creationism got to much he changed it to accusations of being brought to a gay church, accusations that by letting the woman express her lack of homophobia they were changing the goalposts (how/why), accusations of bullying by he producer etc. He could not stand to not be top dog at all. Typical bully.

And finishing it off by the childish and rude act of being deliberately late just made him look like a truculent teen. He was a prize moron but he was a prize creationist - an important member of their hierachy it would seem and a media spokesperson for them.

Sam looked vulnerable like the other two and often looked uncomfortable when the scientists were talking. But Phil worked his bullying magic on him. Seemed to single him out as at risk and join up and crush dissent before it had a chance. He was less successful with the women. His approach was all wrong for women. Thats why they have the Marc style creationists I guess.

The muslim guy tho a creationist, was easily the nicest male. Still narrow minded and wilfully ignorant but pleasant.

All in all the creationists are a type and they were all represented there.



I've seen YECs saying that the programme was 'biased' because the four YEC Christians and the anti-evolution Muslim were a bit silly and clueless eg thinking that Genesis suggests that whales needed to be on the ark...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:05 pm

Message 297 in this thread is particularly OTT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... 8&skip=250

And confirmation that most YECs cannot spell correctly if their life depended upon it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron