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 Brian Jordan » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:27 pm

Thanks Cathy - looks like I'd better make time to fire-up iPlayer!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Today's TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:52 pm

Accelerated Christian Education gets it in the neck on national TV - much deserved.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Nice Titchmarsh geology programme...

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:47 pm

...bound to put him on the hate list with David Attenborough!
I came across this today by accident, it started on Monday: British Isles, a Natural History. BBC2, starting variously from 13:40 ish. Mon-Fri this week, continues next week.
The one I saw would be nice for secondary schools (not designed for A-level Geology though)
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

'Ancient' TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:28 pm

Yes - a full 15 MONTHS after it was shown on ITV (NOT the BBC), CMI - through the rather incompetent Russell Grigg - have churned out a somewhat biased article about 'The Search for Noah's Ark' (see the posts dated 20.12.12 which contained ITV descriptions of the documentary). Apparently it's very recently been shown down under.
http://creation.com/lumley-search-for-ark

According to the CMI homepage, Lumley found "lots of evidence for the Flood". Historical science CMI - NAUGHTY NAUGHTY... Were you there?

Though Grigg's article itself makes clear that Joanna Lumley did herself apparently say towards the end of the film "All the way through this, we find scientific facts backing up this—kind of fairy story if you like." I cannot recall the context of this remark, and would assume that she found evidence from WRITTEN RECORDS (NOT geological evidence) of lots of big local floods in various places, some of which may have been highlighting the same regional event in two or more locations. Not a HILL-COVERING worldwide inundation.

I googled the quote but found nothing.

However, the programme can be watched here ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZTIrn5rKpU

EDIT: she suggested at the very end that there probably was a 'catastrophic' flood. There probably was in the places she went to.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Current TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:15 am

Latest episode of Fossil Wonderlands (BBC Four):

"Professor Richard Fortey travels to northeastern China to see a fossil site known as the 'Dinosaur Pompeii' - a place that has yielded spectacular remains of feathered dinosaurs and rewritten the story of the origins of birds. Among the amazing finds he investigates are the feathered cousin of T-rex, a feathered dinosaur with strong parallels to living pandas and some of the most remarkable flying animals that have ever lived."

All those species that I recall AiG have been in regular denial about in recent years ie they 'weren't' feathery or they 'weren't' dinosaurs get a mention.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:20 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Latest episode of Fossil Wonderlands (BBC Four):

"Professor Richard Fortey travels to northeastern China to see a fossil site known as the 'Dinosaur Pompeii' - a place that has yielded spectacular remains of feathered dinosaurs and rewritten the story of the origins of birds. Among the amazing finds he investigates are the feathered cousin of T-rex, a feathered dinosaur with strong parallels to living pandas and some of the most remarkable flying animals that have ever lived."

All those species that I recall AiG have been in regular denial about in recent years ie they 'weren't' feathery or they 'weren't' dinosaurs get a mention.



Around 39 minutes in Fortey and a Chinese scientist discussed how we can know that Microraptor was a dinosaur and not a bird. Apparently it's due to the bones and to comparisons with other fossils.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Microraptor
"Microraptor is a small feathered dinosaur with a big story to tell. It is one of the 300 fossils found to date that hint at the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. Its fore and hind legs were covered in long feathers designed for flight. These are true flight feathers as seen in modern birds. Less than a metre long and possessing a claw designed for climbing, Microraptor was at home in the forests of China.
Having climbed high into a tree, Microraptor would only have been capable of gliding from tree to tree by spreading its limbs to form two pairs of rudimentary wings. This ability would have helped it pursue prey or escape an enemy. Microraptor didn't have things all its own way, however, as its long feathers would have made it clumsy on the ground and therefore vulnerable to predators."

But if you want to know what AiG insist Microraptor must have been, look no further:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-11102012 (item 1)
"Nothing about this study actually supports the notion that dinosaurs evolved into birds or that the ability to fly had to evolve at all. God created flying creatures on the fifth day of Creation week about 6,000 years ago, and they already were equipped to fly. What the study does do is reveal a possible aerodynamic way that this extinct four-winged bird compensated for what paleontologists think were “small pectoral muscles” to get off the ground. The Microraptor was neither a clumsy evolutionary intermediary nor an evolutionary success story but rather a fully functional flying creature whose unique aerodynamic design reveals another aspect of the variety in God’s amazing designs for flying creatures."



[Glad to see that BCSE community forum gremlin seems to have gone.]
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Wednesday TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:11 am

Film about Noah about 25-26 minutes in. Not about the new movie that much though the movie (released in the UK this week I think) was the reason for the item.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 2_04_2014/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm

Tomorrow's unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio has a discussion between Hugh Ross, Prof Irving Finkel of the British Museum and AiG's Tim Chaffey (Content Manager of the Ark Encounter),

Should be interesting. Hopefully, the chap from the British Museum is well versed on YEC claims:

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/live
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 » Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:20 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Tomorrow's unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio has a discussion between Hugh Ross, Prof Irving Finkel of the British Museum and AiG's Tim Chaffey (Content Manager of the Ark Encounter),

Should be interesting. Hopefully, the chap from the British Museum is well versed on YEC claims:

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/live



Finkel is the bloke who was in the news recently, proposing an 'unbiblical' ark I think (he briefly appeared in that One Show report).

The Noah film might get the Mark Kermode verdict on the BBC News Channel shortly.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Today's TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:29 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... pisode_14/
If you are wondering - as I was - what 'Should We Have More Faith In Science?' was about, it's mostly to do with manmade climate change and this past week's IPCC reports. (Homeopathy came up too.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:22 pm

Well I've finally got round to seeing Ham's least favourite film of 2014, the much critiqued (by creationists) Noah. Has anyone else seen it yet?

What can I say. Well firstly Aronofsky's Noah tale is a lot more sympathetically understandable then Ken Hams. Seems to be set in some kind of dystopian Earth where the baddies are mining things to death and everything is dying. If anyone has seen or read The Road they'll get the idea. Lots of tree stumps and grey grass with few flowers. Filmed in gloom o vision sort of style.

The baddies (led by Ray Winstone aka Tubal Cain) kill animals at will, whereas Noah is a sort of cuddly, kindly veggie botanist who gets very cross when misunderstood, tortured soul style sort of baddie son, Ham picks flowers. Rather like a middle class parent in a nature reserve I felt. 'Leave it there for others to enjoy Ham' he says, thus setting up a conflict that lasts throughout the film and establishes Hams character.

Lots for a creationist to like I felt. Oodles and oodles of references to 'The Creator' and sin. Men are clearly very nasty and clearly destroying the creation. Easier to understand why God would want to wipe them out then the AiG twaddle. Plus lots of shadowy flashbacks to Cains killing Abels and snake and apple images. A creationist wet dream in that resepct.

Oodles of mentions of the wickedness of men and the eating of forbidden fruit - (which looked very much like a braeburn apple with a heartbeat). In general Aronofsky makes it very easy to see that mankind is not very nice, that they are actually, literally destroying the Earth and therefore deserving of a good drowning. Children and all. Ken never really manages that at all.

Course where it does seem to deviate somewhat (well rather a lot) from the Biblical version is in the inclusion of strange rock monsters (rock as in the geological rather than Biffy Clyro sense of the word). Reminiscent of the giant trees in Jacksons Lord of the Rings - but walking stoney rather than walking treelike. Flint stones meets transformers is best description can muster. These strange rocky cgi things are called watchers, @@@@ knows where they came from.

Apparently when Cain kills Abel and is sent away these rocky things look after him and his descendants and help them cope in the new 'sweat of the brow' world. But even they have got p@@@@d off with humans and are now prone to killing them instead. They claim to be fallen angels who are fallen cos they chose to stay behind and help men (women never really get a mention).

Could these be the mysterious early mentioned, only once referred to, sons of God or nephilim that creationist are so prone to ignoring questions about I asked myself. But was forced to say 'probably not', being 15 foot tall and made of rocks would really preclude any sort of meaningful, intimate relations with the daughters of men. And would any offspring have survived anyway, half rock half person. Anyway they were confusing and quite frankly, like Lord of the Rings tree folk a bit naff.

Ray Winstone does a lot of being wicked. Lots of animals come to the ark and we finally find out how Noah managed to control them all during the voyage (another query oft ignored by creationists). He drugs them. Mrs Noah (Jennifer Connelly yet again paired with Russell Crowe in a tortured and not quite sane role, she was his wife in Beautiful Mind) pops some herbs into an incense dish and they go to sleep. The Noah family going round wafting the incense dishes was just like going to a catholic mass.

The other thing that seemed to deviate was the lack of wives. Only Shem has a wife and she is barren. Ila who is Emma Watson playing Hermoine Grainger yet again only weeping and over articulating to Noah rather than Harry Potter. Ham goes off to find one but is thwarted by Noah and third son is too young to care. But Hermoine, sorry Ila, does get pregnant after a meeting with Noah's granddad Methusulah.

I guess that was just a deviation to far. The rock monsters protect the ark from Ray Winstone and rentamob, tho Ray gets on and eats some precious animals (there were no obvious dinosaurs but they could have become extinct cos Ray ate them and the unicorns) Ozzy Osbourne style by biting off their heads whilst still alive. Tries to kill Noah and fails. Noah gets annoyed with Hermoine saying God wants rid of humans and they should be the last. Tries and fails to kill her twin daughters as the boat lands. Gets drunk and you know the rest.

Last bit that would annoy Ken is when Noah recounts the creation story. He says things like that was another day ha ha. Suggestive of long ages if you are offay with creation speak. Plus the flashback to animals looks rather like the Guiness evolution add. Crawly things first then dinosaur things than primate like things - you get the picture. Like the fossil record everything in its place. ha ha

Costuming deserves a mention. Bizarre. Looked like Flintstones meets Gortex. Looks like they shopped at a vintage version of an outdoor shop in the Lake District. Great looking rucksacks and hooded coats but looked like made out of twigs. Noah even turns up in what looks like a denim jacket complete with collar at one point. Guess yet another non biblical thing for Ken to rant about.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:00 am

Ooh and the accents should give the creationists lots of clues as to where to dig to finally get the definitive mixed fossil record.

Tubal Cain is descended from Cain who was banished to the East. This is clearly Stepney!

For the rest I'd guess it is either Australia or Galway (Noah) or Sloane square (Ila)/

Get digging creationists the clues are all there for you.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:52 am

Should still be on the BBC iplayer, Jim Al-Khalili's "Chemistry. A volatile history" makes for excellent viewing.

Although it's a repeat, it's well worth a second look.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Today's TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 04, 2014 10:03 pm

The Big Questions (on BBC iplayer, which I've just watched).

Right near the end - Alister McGrath concerned about religious fundamentalists (and those who misuse science - especially certain 'atheists'):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... pisode_16/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... ad=8453099
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Today's TV

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon May 05, 2014 3:54 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:The Big Questions (on BBC iplayer, which I've just watched).

Right near the end - Alister McGrath concerned about religious fundamentalists (and those who misuse science - especially certain 'atheists'):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... pisode_16/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... ad=8453099
I don't think McGrath said that some atheists misuse science Ashley, I'd interpret him as saying that it does not help science to get involved in the argument. That implies, of course, that "science" is something that can be of itself be polluted or degraded by being used other than for the furtherance of knowledge. He seems to include in such pollution the use of science to extend the boundaries of the known into territory previously known as supernatural - something that's been going on long before the "new atheists" came on the scene. Despite his quoting Huxley, I'm sure Huxley would have had no qualms about taking territory from Soapy Sam. McGrath, I imagine, would be less happy to cede territory to science.
However, he was applauded for suggesting what has been said here: that religious fundamentalism is a driving force towards atheism.
More interestingly, while I was stepping through to find McGrath's bit I heard Fern Elsdon-Baker whom I'd not come across before. My loss, I think, having skipped back to hear the rest of her contributions. She wrote The Selfish Genius: How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin's Legacy as long ago as 2009. It may be possible to find elements of the book on the New Scientist site (titled the "Dawkins Dogma") but I haven't looked for it yet.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron