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 a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:08 pm

And in message 303 lo and behold he's using the expression 'Ad hominem'. Plus ca change...

And slagging off the programme as 'biased'... as if someone MADE Phil behave in such an OTT fashion (of course 'Daypass' REALLY thinks that the programme was selectively edited in order to make Phil look like a slightly paranoid idiot who had concluded that because it was the BBC therefore it must be an anti-creationist 'stitch up').
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:46 pm

As posted on CMI's Facebook page:
"I saw it and have to say that I thought Phil did really well, but I do question the sanity of immature Christians taking part in this kind of thing, it only causes harm and uncertainity. The bias on the part of BBC and Andrew Maxwell was quite obvious. Phil seemed to be the only one who sussed what was going on."


LOL

All of which is arguably more evidence for evolution from ape-like ancestors.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:07 pm

This 'Daypass' seems an unpleasant, dishonest and evasive character. (As well as unable to spell or express himself/herself clearly.) What I called 'fact' in my last post was the new arrival of 'Daypass' on the message board - something he tried to deny. He also waited till seconds before board closure before arguing with me. 'Mary-Anne Parsnip' appears to be new too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... 1#lastpost
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:06 pm

Just realised, after 11 pm, what Ms Parsnip was trying to say at message 387 here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... p113986659
She was not talking about the BBC POV message board AT ALL but the discussion HERE (where, among hundreds of posts, 'Daypass' said he was a Roman Catholic): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:47 pm

I'VE JUST TRIED TO POST THE FOLLOWING AT THE BBC MESSAGE BOARD BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM AND IT HAS COME OUT GARBLED.

THIS IS MY POST AS IT SHOULD HAVE APPEARED:

"THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH EITHER THIS MESSAGE BOARD OR MY COMPUTER OR BOTH. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO POST THIS. I ALSO 'REFRESHED' MY TWO LINKS FROM THE MESSAGE AT THE BCSE COMMUNITY FORUM.

"Mary-Anne Parsnip (and Daypass)
Message 452

Your (first) post which referred, incorrectly, to 'Dayraven' did NOT explain clearly what you were saying - which was complicated. I admit I also was rushing a bit because it was close to message board closure time. But you need to work at explaining yourself much more clearly when posting something so complicated.

Please read my comment HERE, made at 12.06 am today:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3104&start=45

"Just realised, after 11 pm, what Ms Parsnip was trying to say at message 387 here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... p113986659
She was not talking about the BBC POV message board AT ALL but the discussion HERE (where, among hundreds of posts, 'Daypass' said he was a Roman Catholic): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141"

You were saying I was 'mistaken' in saying Daypass was new on the message board because he had posted under the recent BBC News website Fergus Walsh story on ENCODE. With respect, that is NOT part of this message board - and I was correct about Daypass being a new arrival as I have since shown. Yet he pretended otherwise. He should note that in my second post to him, post 374, I used the word 'presumption' not 'presumptions' ie I was not repeating my suggestion that he was a YEC after he had denied being so.

Your comments about what I have actually SAID to Daypass are plain wrong. Please re-read my posts."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:01 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:35 pm

This is my message 539 (without all the nonsense that I never typed) from the BBC POV message board - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... 8&skip=500 - which clearly has MAJOR TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AGAIN.



PS You refer to my post 449: Here it is: "Sorry but you are mistaken or lying. My SECOND post did not state that you are a YEC. What are you?"

My second post in question was post 374 on Thursday where I wrote: "Daypass Unless you have previously been here under a different nickname, you have only just arrived on this message board - in THIS thread. Thus my presumption about you was correct. Fact. You weren't one of the five in the programme, I assume?"
I did not say you were lying when you denied being a YEC.

Yet at post 396 you ignored what I said at 374 and wrongly stated: "Well I reread your comment and you definitely said I must be a "YEC"".

DAYPASS IS NEW ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD AND IS ROMAN CATHOLIC. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOVER IN STATING THAT IE I WAS 50% WRONG ORIGINALLY. I HAVE KNOWN THIS TO BE THE CASE SINCE 0.06 AM ON FRIDAY MORNING: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3104&start=45
"Just realised, after 11 pm, what Ms Parsnip was trying to say at message 387 here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... p113986659 She was not talking about the BBC POV message board AT ALL but the discussion HERE (where, among hundreds of posts, 'Daypass' said he was a Roman Catholic): "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141"

By the way, is Daypass a theistic evolutionist or some other kind of creationist? Is he prepared to clarify where he stands?

I would like to discuss the actual programme instead of having a slanging match with someone who is trying to re-write the history of the thread. I thought the volcanic/hot springs scenery near the end was remarkable.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:54 pm

I think the BBC are evil. They are now telling me that post 539 broke the House Rules in some way.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Krijimbesuesi » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:38 pm

Well, this thread has now become extremely funny.

For a start, at the top of p. 2, Roger unaccountably attributed a quote from AHR as though it were by Tas Walker. Which makes the content totally unbelievable, as the merest glance can reveal (have a look now).

Regardless, Peter, Michael and later AHR all fell for this elementary blunder without a second peep. How're you all feeling now folks?

And whereas a couple of posters have claimed YECs' spelling is deficient, I recall several times when Peter misspelled the name of Steve Chalke, and even referred to Russell Humphreys' "white light cosmology". Say, if a Christian referred to Einstein's "theory of reflectivity", you'd be all over it. More blushes on you.

But now to the serious stuff about the programme. For as it happens, I am now in a position of background knowledge denied to probably all of you - and what I'm about to tell you will REALLY make you wish you hadn't started this thread.

You see, yesterday I found out that Sam from the programme is my pastor's nephew! That being the case, the programme had naturally been discussed among their wider family, and my pastor's wife told me various ways in which the makers had carried out "dirty tricks". Here are two:

(1) At one stage in the tour, Andrew Maxwell attempted to take the guests into a "gay church". It appears that Phil at least objected and so that was abandoned, and the church they were actually taken to (as filmed) wasn't a "gay" one. This significant piece of information fully explains Phil's broadcast wariness about the second church re. the gay issue, and in light of this he does not appear particularly contentious. Indeed he was quite right to be indignant that Maxwell & co. had tried to take them all for a ride by pretending the programme would all be about creation/evolution while intending to get them embroiled in the gay issue.

(2) Still more seriously for the programme's credibility, I am informed that when Dr Prothero first tipped his bucket, the water didn't all run straight! So that he had to repeat the attempt at least once until he got the desired effect, which of course was the only occasion broadcast. In other words, it's almost as though Tas Walker didn't even need to have bothered! But if this is true - and Sam obviously is clear that he saw it with his own eyes - then it argues dishonesty not just by the BBC (no surprise there in view of the current torrent of scandal about Savile) but also by Dr Prothero, who even if he had no hand in the editing/censorship, should never have claimed that "success" at the umpteenth attempt proved his point.

Well there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry to burst your bubble big time.

Oh, and the only one claiming whales were on the Ark was Jerry Coyne! The "fairy tale" he derided is entirely inside his head.
Krijimbesuesi
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:21 pm

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:58 pm

I admit I didn't notice Roger's error. Well done to you for spotting it!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:16 pm

Krijimbesuesi

Please see my post 529 HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... p114012723 (Sadly this thread has now been closed.)

You may have correct information for all I know (Mr Walker appears unaware of it from Robinson though). However, if you named the church in question - and gave your name, that of the pastor and also Sam's surname that would add credibility to your 'shocking' claims. (Jojo mentioned gay rights without obvious prompting from Maxwell or the BBC.)

Phil Robinson did NOT correct Coyne. Though it has been suggested on another discussion site that I visit that Coyne may have pointed out (before the scene that was transmitted) that the mixing of fresh and salt water during Noah's Flood would have had a devastating effect on marine life, so that they would have to be on the ark as well (even if the Bible doesn't say so).

By the way, you are probably not 'Daypass' are you - since you appeared to have joined the BCSE back in 2007.

Ashley

PS Your identity may already be known to the moderator.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:18 pm

PPS The bubble that Young Earth Creationism is pseudo-science remains intact.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:56 pm

Krijimbesuesi wrote:You see, yesterday I found out that Sam from the programme is my pastor's nephew!
I haven't seen the programme. Is Sam the young chap (redhead IIRC) who had his two minutes on "4thought.tv" a while ago?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:18 pm

Krijimbesuesi wrote:But now to the serious stuff about the programme. For as it happens, I am now in a position of background knowledge denied to probably all of you - and what I'm about to tell you will REALLY make you wish you hadn't started this thread.

You see, yesterday I found out that Sam from the programme is my pastor's nephew! That being the case, the programme had naturally been discussed among their wider family, and my pastor's wife told me various ways in which the makers had carried out "dirty tricks". Here are two:

(1) At one stage in the tour, Andrew Maxwell attempted to take the guests into a "gay church". It appears that Phil at least objected and so that was abandoned, and the church they were actually taken to (as filmed) wasn't a "gay" one. This significant piece of information fully explains Phil's broadcast wariness about the second church re. the gay issue, and in light of this he does not appear particularly contentious. Indeed he was quite right to be indignant that Maxwell & co. had tried to take them all for a ride by pretending the programme would all be about creation/evolution while intending to get them embroiled in the gay issue.

(2) Still more seriously for the programme's credibility, I am informed that when Dr Prothero first tipped his bucket, the water didn't all run straight! So that he had to repeat the attempt at least once until he got the desired effect, which of course was the only occasion broadcast. In other words, it's almost as though Tas Walker didn't even need to have bothered! But if this is true - and Sam obviously is clear that he saw it with his own eyes - then it argues dishonesty not just by the BBC (no surprise there in view of the current torrent of scandal about Savile) but also by Dr Prothero, who even if he had no hand in the editing/censorship, should never have claimed that "success" at the umpteenth attempt proved his point.

Well there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry to burst your bubble big time.

Oh, and the only one claiming whales were on the Ark was Jerry Coyne! The "fairy tale" he derided is entirely inside his head.


Shrug. So what if all the water didn't "run straight". The demonstration is easily repeatable by anyone with a bucket and the entire issue of water flow is extremely well understood. If you want to accuse the BBC of lying, write to the BBC. If you think Don Prothero is a liar, write to him. If you think Jerry Coyne is a fool, you can post your opinion on his blog. The issues have nothing whatsoever to do with Jimmy Savile, who, IIRC, was never even an employee of the BBC.

The programme producers were quite within the bounds of programme making of this kind to explore the theological divisions amongst the creationists in the group and demonstrated it well.

You've just about demonstrated nothing at all about "dirty tricks" or "censorship" at the BBC. The vast majority of the film footage for this programme ended up on the cutting room floor as it was filmed (IIRC) over two weeks and only ran for half an hour or so.

It's wishful; thinking to say you have burst anyone's bubble. All you've produced here is some second hand tittle-tattle about a not very interesting programme.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:20 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Krijimbesuesi

I vaguely recall the person from some years back.

He's harmless.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
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 16 guests