Comments by Roger Stanyard

Comment #266149 by Roger Stanyard on October 18, 2008 at 4:52 am

I've read Lennox's latest book (published last year) and found it full of holes (and I am neither a mathematician nor a scientist).

To put it blunty, I found Lennox to be a religious fundamentalist. It's not surprising - he is a member of a fundamentalist sect, the Plymouth Brethren, and comes from the British home of religious extremism, Northern Ireland.

602. Faith Attack

Comment #266146 by Roger Stanyard on October 18, 2008 at 4:39 am

Interesting to note Goldstein's background. He appears to be a Seventh Day Adventist - basically the same lot that gave the world Waco and David Koresh.

As we all know Koresh was into having sex with underage girls and making them pregnant. Golstein ought to think twice before lecturing to the rest of the world.

Oh, btw the SDAs officially are in favour of creationism, another major reason why so many are turned off by religion.

603. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #266132 by Roger Stanyard on October 18, 2008 at 2:31 am

Yaba Dabba Do - you've been caught lying! The rest of your comments prove the point that you are niether religious nor honest.

Thanks for the threats. It sums you up.

604. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265687 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 7:49 am

Vaal - the very same Jerry Coyne.

What I love about Yaba Daba Doo's presence here is that he is so unutterably stupid and incompetent that he is almost certainly unaware that he is a systematic liar and phoney.

He is creationism epitomised.

I've seen this game time and time again with fundies. They are simply unaware of the ninth commandment and have no idea when the breach it. It leaves the rest of us with a lot of fun and games to play with them.

605. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265682 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 7:43 am

re Derek Agar - I thought I had come across that name before. He was a ferevent "evolutionist" - evidence again that Yaba Daba Do (aka Daabbah) is a lying bastard.

606. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265677 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 7:37 am

Daabbah - how about occasionally using your tiny litte mind "Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea)"

He's dead as well. You mean "was" the former president of...

What Dabbah has got hold of is a fundie quote book. They are notoroius for mis-representation and just about anyone who uses them is too stupid either to understand what the person was actually saying of has any idea what the person's actual position is.

The most notoroius of the regurgitate nutters is the Australian chicken farmer Laurie Appleton. He's been repeateing himself for years on the net. Just google "stupidest creationist on the Internet" to get the point.

Methinks we have a really contended in Daabbah for the stupidest cretinist on the Internet.

607. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265673 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 7:29 am

Daabbah shows yet again he is a lying bastard "Jerry Coyne is of the Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department:

We concludeâ€"unexpectedlyâ€"that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak..."

Except yesterday Jerry Coyne emailed me stating that he supports evolution and is a friend of Richard Dawkins.

Daabbah, you are a monumental pilloch, fraud and phoney.

608. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265671 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 7:24 am

Daabbah - yet again you show yourself to be a lying little bastard. Colin Patterson was not a creationist and fully supported the theory of evolution. He spent years fighting off people like you who misued quoted and misued what he had said. Moreover, he thought people like you are raging bonkers.

You're not even truthful enough to recognise that he is dead.

So why are you lying that Patterson supports your viewpoint?

609. The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

Comment #265581 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 3:51 am

Shonny - thanks for correcting me. So does the rag have bums and tits on page 3?

610. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265579 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 3:46 am

Daabbah claims "Very funny logic. The important thing is that all the members of those religions believe that they are created by GOD."

Daabbah - why don't you stop bull shiting and lying your way through this forum? Most religious people accept the theory of evolution. Why are you lying by suggesting otherwise?

In the USA and Europe nearly all creationists belong to evangelical Calivinistic sects, not the main denominations sich as Lutherism, Anglicanism, Methodism or Catholicism (or even the Orthodox Church). The creationists are a minority amongst the religious.

I've long come to the conclusion that creationists are so stupid they don't even recognise who their own enemies or allies are.

I assume that Daabbah orginates in the Muslim world - the US Christian right wing fundamentalists and creationists basically hate Islam (see the current hustings and claims against Obama) yet Daabbah appears to think they are on his side.

Perhaps he might want to use his tiny little brain and look up just what many of the US creationists/fundamentalists actually think what is going to happen to the Middle East and what they are doing to ensure it does happen.

Dig around a bit on End Timers, Dispensationalists and the Rook of Revelation. It's a death cult and, according to its bizarre crapola, it's Muslims who they expect to see dead.

I can't see Daabbah, though, showing any personal integrity here. All he wants to do is preach and lie in the process to get his idiotic message over. That's par for the course with creationists because, to sustain their position, they have to lie out of ncessity, habitually and repeatedly.

So, do tell us all, Daabbah, how you reconcile you religious opinions with the fact that you are a systematic, devious little liar?

611. The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

Comment #265571 by Roger Stanyard on October 17, 2008 at 2:53 am

Interesting isn't it that the author of the report works for the Weekly Standard - a neo-con propaganda rag. Isn't that the very same polital rag that was owned by that bastion of religiousity and morality, Conrad Black?

612. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #265101 by Roger Stanyard on October 16, 2008 at 2:58 am

Re StevenB40 - just another patronising nutter preaching.

613. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #264647 by Roger Stanyard on October 15, 2008 at 2:38 am

DP claims "Only a couple of those have anything to actually do with the financial crisis and one of those is NINJA loans. The rest don't. You have to ask yourself why these banks gave risky people these loans. A bank would normally not give these people loans because they know there is a big possibility that they won't be paid back. So why did they? Well because fannie mae and freddie mac said "go ahead and do it and we will buy all those mortgages off you so you will be in the clear if they default"."

The reason why banks and mortgage companies lent so recklessly was that they thought the rest of the financial markets would underwrite the risks. For the most part Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were simply not players in the whole chirade. Their writ only extends to the USA and this is an international financial crisis. Moreover a huge amount of the "risk" of US debt has been underwritten outside of the USA.

The problem now is that unrestrained financial markets don't work. Without taxpayer bail outs, the system looks as if it would have utterly collapsed over the last two months. The financial markets are no longer seen as capable of running their own affairs and the consequences will run for at least the next one or two generations.

It's a fact of life now that huge swaths of the financial industries are being nationalised. There is no return to the "free markets solve everything" ideology. The trouble with the right wing in politics is that this has not even begun to sink in.

Moreover, the the case of the USA, it's hand are now being forced. It has no option because, at the end of the day, ithas been con suming 70% of the world's savings and squandering the whole lot on war, tax cuts and over-valued proprty rather than investing it in productive assets.

The lending nations now have the USA by the short and curlies and, sooner or later, want their money back. The only way the USA can deliver is big increases in taxation and big cut backs in public expenditure. Any US politician saying otherwise is lying.

614. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263841 by Roger Stanyard on October 13, 2008 at 2:43 am

"Like many Christians, Angela Tilby is happy to let evolutionary theory run alongside her Christian beliefs. Does it really matter whether a Christian is a creationist or evolutionist? Very much so. All Christian doctrine has its foundations in Genesis. If we reject the Genesis account, we have only half a gospel and this is why the church is so weak. If Jesus Himself took the Genesis account as historical fact, then why doesn't His church? Because it has compromised and listened to the wisdom of fallible man rather than the Word of the infallible God. If the creation account in Genesis is no more than a campfire tale, then when does the Bible start telling the truth? How did original sin come in if it didn't come through Adam? Throw Genesis out and we'd just as well throw the whole Bible away. Without Genesis, the Christian faith makes no sense and without it Christians have a very weak witness. The whole debate has far-reaching implications for society since our moral values can be shaped according to whether we believe we are made in the image of God and are accountable to Him or whether we believe we are no more than a high form of pond scum. Evolution has no place in the Christian faith."

Well, some more thoughtful Christians would take this viewpoint very differently in that it is not Christian at all. It's sometimes called bibliolatry - to put it another way, proper Christians worship God - Bible believing creationists and fundamentalists worship a book (the Bible) instead.

Nevertheless, yet again BBC Thought for the Day, though, brings out the utter banality of some elements of religion.

615. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #263625 by Roger Stanyard on October 12, 2008 at 3:46 am

Mark Ireland states "The earth is only a good place for us to live because life has grown into it, NOT the other way around."

Well, no. The evidence strongly shows that ife itself made the planet more suitable for life, such as the formation and levels of atmospheric oxygen. Life itself has an impact on the environment.

616. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #263622 by Roger Stanyard on October 12, 2008 at 3:41 am

L-Young - hang on a minute, the condistions on earth some 3.5 billion years ago when life first merged were exceedingly hostile. Moreover, oxygen was far from necessary for the production of life. It appears that all the oxygen in the atmosphere has been prodced by life, not the other way round. Life preceeded oxygen.

Moreover, the environment remaind exceedingly hotsile for billions of years as life slowly "developed". It wasn't until well after the Cambrian (IIRC) that any life at all emerged on land.

The best I can say is that in the last 3.5 billion years of life on this planet, the first 3 billion years were execeedingly hostile. Moreover, the evidence of life today also suggests that life emerged in conditions that until recently we thought impossible to support life such as deep see volcanic vents - areas lacking oxygen, under immense pressure, without sunlight, without atmosphere and at high temperatures - all factor not seen on surface land today.

It seems to suggest that the goldilocks principle is flawed.

617. Surviving Waco

Comment #262807 by Roger Stanyard on October 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Thomas jefferson, a case of one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. From this side of the pond, he's viewed differently from in the USA.

No, I don't even think taking the law into one's one hands without violence is acceptable behaviour in a democracy.

I also have to point out that some of Koresh's pals at Waco were convicted to voluntary manslaughter. Under British law they would have been charged with murder.

I have no sympathy whatsover with Koresh, his pals of his apologists. Koresh was a child molester who got 12 and 13 year old children pregnant. His same reckless and totally immoral behaviour was the reason why so many died at Waco. He was the boss there and he was responsible for their safety.

618. Surviving Waco

Comment #262776 by Roger Stanyard on October 9, 2008 at 12:13 pm

The Oklahoma City Bombing was a direct result of Waco and the anti-government undemocratic "hate" manifested there.

The "government" may be inept at times but that does not warrent taking the law into one's one hands. Are you saying that the public should be taking the law into its own hands over the inepyitute of Wall Street or when other big businesses fail?

I hardly think the case of Ruby Ridge, just one event, way in the past, in a country of 300 million is either reason for "hating" the government or indicative of just how evil government is alleged to be.

Alas I also have to say, countries get the politicians they deserve.

619. Surviving Waco

Comment #262713 by Roger Stanyard on October 9, 2008 at 10:30 am

"I look at the US "Federal" Government the way many Britons seem to view the EU. Potentially useful but typically inept, corrupt, and overly bureaucratic."

A lot of Britons including myself do not view either the EC or the EU in that way.

620. Surviving Waco

Comment #262712 by Roger Stanyard on October 9, 2008 at 10:27 am

"Now, it's been a while since I've seen the documentary, but when the case was being reviewed, tons of the evidence simply "disappeared." The door that the ATF claimed the BD "fired through" disappeared, making ballistics tests impossible to determine who shot first."

As far as I am aware there have been several documentaries about Waco but two of them appear not only to have been based on conspiracy theories but have largely been dismissed as wrong. IIRC one of the two deals with the light reflection off the helicopter.

There have been numersous attempts to try and whitewash David Koresh and his associates as innocent, law abiding citizens. All of them, as far as I can make out, appear to have failed miserablly.

I vividly remeber Koresh and his pals using what I can only asssume to have been machine guns on the federal agents. They killed several of them. However one argues, that is not the way to resolve disputes with law enforecement agents in a democracy. The method is to use the courts/legal system and, in the longer term, lobbying to get legislation changed.

In a democracy, if you don't agree with the law, taking it into your own hands is utterly undemocratic, no matter how bad the law is. I rest my case here with naming Timothy McVeigh and the numeorus private "militias" that blossomed in the USA in the 1st half of the 1990s.

621. Surviving Waco

Comment #262667 by Roger Stanyard on October 9, 2008 at 7:57 am

"There is a documentary on Google that was responsible for reopening Congressional hearings on the events in Waco. There is a lot of evidence that suggests the ATF effectively slaughtered men, women, and children inside that compound."

Where and where has it been substantiated?

622. Surviving Waco

Comment #262305 by Roger Stanyard on October 8, 2008 at 9:52 am

Is there some kind of Darwin Award that we can give Fagan for being the stupidest fundamentalist in Britain?

I mean - he has lost his mother and wife and spent 14 years in jail and still believes the crap of David Koresh?

623. Surviving Waco

Comment #262183 by Roger Stanyard on October 8, 2008 at 4:49 am

Methinks Fagan is none too bright. I would like to ask him a few questions such as:

1. Did David Koresh have sex or intefere with his children?

2. Did Koresh force him to divorce his wife and if is, did koresh have sex with her?

3. Does he condone David Koresh for having sex with children?

4.Does he think David Koresh morally justified in making 12 and 13 year old girls pregnant?

5. Does this stil happen within his movement?

624. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261743 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 9:43 am

God Freaing Atheist - Please accept my apologies but the reach appears to have been fragmented across our wiki - see http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WhoIsWho

What I can do though is provide some published details by email. If anyone wants it, email me at stanyardroger@yahoo.co.uk.

I would ask that it not be placed on the Internet as it is a bit dated now. Moreover, I am still inclined to try and get it published.

625. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261712 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:54 am

God Fearing Atheist - I had no such budget to do that sort of poll research, which, in any case, could not identify by name all of the creationist/IDers as such polling is a sampling method.

What I did do, though, was write to every known advocate of ID in the UK to confirm their position (I only got 2 replies, IIRC). The bulk of my evidence was taken from the know public position of "scientists" who were openly in favour of creationism or ID. In that sense, my research covered all scientists in the UK.

It is possibe that there are other scientists who beleive in ID or creationism. It's just that I can't identify them and suspect that there is no means of doing so.

Amongst the techniques I used for identifying the "creationist/ID" scientists in the UK was working through the public available list provided by the Institute for Creation research, a list provided by a US creationists called John Baumerger (or something like that) and the list of scientists who "rejected" evolution published by the Discovery Institute.

I also went through the publications of the Bibical Creation Society and the Creation Science Movement to identify names, membership of Truth in Science and other creationist organisations and a general trawl of other sources including Internet. Finally, I asked my numerous contacts at the time for "known names". IIRC, it took about 3-4 man months to put it together.

For what it is worth, the vast majority of "scientists" I identified where not working in biology or geology and a large number that the creationists claimed to be scientists were simply not. They were engineers (common), in medical sciences, philosophers, theological academics, sociologists or whatever.

They had no more claim to be "authoritative" on evolution or the old age of the earth than the average person in teh street.

Incidentally, the research is on the BCSE's wiki at www.bcseweb.org.uk. It's a couple of years out of date.

626. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261696 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:26 am

God Fearing Atheist - I wish I knew. Presumably all of them.

Interesting isn't it that I have not come across a single creationist geologists working in the mineral exploartion/extraction industry. One might think that the odd creationist geologists here and there might occasionally put their money where their mouths are and set up in business to explore for minerals using their radically different interpretations.

Even the old fraud Andrew Snelling used the old age of the earth when selling his expertise to the Australian minerals industry whilst at the same telling telling the rest of the world that the information was crap and the world only 6,000 years old. "Man speak with forked tounge."

But then, I've long come to the conclusion that creationists lie out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly. Moreover, none of them seem to have ever heard of the ninth commandement.

627. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261689 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:15 am

Steve,

Thanks for the comment. I certainly want to keep away from the Sarah Palin thread.

One of the reasosn why I was unhappy about the way things were going was the way you were treated by some of the people in the forum.

Roger

628. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261684 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:08 am

Thinksalot thinks that "so if evolution is a still to be proven THEORY that alot of P.H.Ds think is faulty at best..."

Really? I've done research on this in the UK and found that in the key discplines of biology and geology, the number of practising PhD scientists that reject the theory of evolution in favour of creationism/ID is exactly one.

Not an argument that can be used in favour of ID.

It's worse that that though because Intelligent Design is not an explanation of the differences between species - i.e a theory.

We have this on the word of Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind the Discovery Institute who has openly admitted that it is not only not a theory but not even a hypothesis. It is, in his words, just some "ideas".

Given that the people behind ID don't believe that it is an explanation of the differences between species, how can anyone else believe it to be so?

No wonder the rest of the world thinks the Intelligent Design community and its apologists to be a bunch of frauds and charlatans.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

629. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261673 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 7:54 am

Thninksalot - Methinks you need to get some very basic understanding of simple science. Evolution is both a fact (it's been observed repeatedly in the form of speciuation and ring species) and an explanation of why species differ from each other. In science such an explanation is known as a theory and does not mean the same as what the typical layman thinks. It is simpler and much more precise that the commonly used "laymans" understanding.

Nor does the theory of evolution have anything to do with the cosmology behind the big band. It stands whatever we think was the "cause" of the big bang or, indeed, whether the big bang ever took place.

Thirdly, most Christians accept the theory of evolution so it is therefore not "anti-religious" or denies religion. It is only in the USA where there are a significant number of Christians, nearly all unrepresentative of Christianity at large, who reject evolutionary theory.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.

630. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261657 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 7:41 am

It's strange isn't in that as soon as a fundamentalist gets his or her chance, they have to tell the world how much people who disagree with them just "hate" god. Tell us, Thinksalot the following:

1. Which gods are you referring to?

2. Why anyone who doesn't accept there is a god can also hate god at the same time?

3. Which gods science should invoke as explanations?

4. Which gods should it not invoke?

5. When should science invoke gods?

6. Which religions should scientists "favour?

7. Which religions should science ignore?

8. Which of the 35,000 Christian sects and denominatiosn should science accept?

9. Which of the 35,000 Christian sects and denominations should science reject?

10. Please also answer "Why" to all these questions.

631. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260956 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2008 at 8:18 am

Al rawandi

"simple minded bigot".

Interesting. I've seen this group get nastier and nastier of the last few weeks.

Seems to me that it has turned into a forum for ideological fundamentalists anmd I want nothing more to do with it.

Bye all.

632. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260935 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2008 at 7:47 am

Al Rawandi,

You really are a nasty piece of work.

633. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260912 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2008 at 7:10 am

DarwinsPitbull asks us "Why are the greatest universities in america private universities?"

Oh, what you mean like the Bob Jones University, Regent University, Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, Pacific International University, Bryan University, BIOLA, heavens now how many fundamentalist "seminaries" and whatever masquerading as universities....

They sure are turning out a lot of Nobel Prize winners tehse days!

634. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #260289 by Roger Stanyard on October 5, 2008 at 6:30 am

It doesn't surprise me that Nigel Paterson utters a banality such as theology once being the queen of sciences. He is a former middle school teacher and now at a university that does not teach science at all. He actualy teaches English there, not science.

His church, the Pentecoastal Immanuel Church, was out on the streets in Winchester on Saturday trying to recruit. It's a regular occurance and the church uses children in its efforts.

PS: There are a lot of other subjects that have been claimed to be the "Queen of Sciences" including (notably), maths, physics, psychology, philosophy metaphysics, industrial maths, geography and, no doubt, many more.

635. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #260073 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Shaunfletcher,

To call themselves a university and award their own degrees would require a Royal Charter. It is possible for them to award degrees from other universities but that would still not give them to right to call themselves a university.

Paterson's paper does not appear to address the problem how his proposed universities would obtain a Royal Charter, given that he wants them to use the Bible as a reference source in every subject.

My guess is that a scam could be set up to establish the "univessities" as branches of US fundamentalist US universities accredited by a religious body there. I've not, though, seen this done in the UK yet.

The nearest I guess is the Seventh Day Adventist college in Bracknell but it does not call itself a university.

636. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #260067 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

D'Arcy - I may be wrong on this but the three (not four as I stated) Scottish banks that issue their own bank notes are not licensed to do so by the Bank of England. They are regulated, instead by Act of Parliament. The 19th Century legislation involved was introduced specifically to by-pass the Bank of England's power in such matters.

I've no idea what the position is in Northern Ireland.

637. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #260027 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm

"If banks, officially recognised, can create money, then why can't other officially recognised corporations do the same?"

They do. GE Finance is a good example. It is basically GE's in-house bank and, indeed, makes the majority of its profits.

638. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #260026 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

"And of course banks can't simply create money, or they would be creating boat loads now in order to bail themselves out."

Well, actually banks can and do create money. They print and issue their own bank notes. The British bank notes are issued by five seperate banks (four in Scotland and one in England and Wales). Only one is a state-owned central bank. In the past it has been a cause of inflation.

IIRC in the 19th Century it was very common for US commercial banks to print and issue their own bank notes. There were a lot of dodgy practices involved.

639. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #260001 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 11:37 am

I am one of the Godless Scum of Gower Street and am thus well versed in the history of religious control of university education in England. As most will know, it was a requirement of both Oxford and Cambridge universities until well into the 19th century that students were required to be members of the Church of England. Everyone else was denied entrance. It was worse than that though because until University College, London was established in 1826, they were the only universities in England. Quite frankly until major reforms were forced on Oxbridge in the 2nd half of the 19th century, they were not even good universities. Much of the brainpower for the British Empire came out of Scotland as a result. What many regard as the English (and Scottish) Enlightenment was simply not a product of Oxbridge. Whole disciplines were developed without any significant impact from either �" economics, geology, most of engineering, for example. Even the Renaissance in Italy was centred on rejection of the then universities of the time which were viewed as reactionary, riddled with religion and backward.

What Paterson is proposing is a throw-back to the 18th century, if not the mediaeval world, not a university at all. He openly admits that the core reference book in every subject will be the Bible.

I also suspect that there is a hidden agenda in keeping science out of his proposed "university". It simply could not attract any research funding if the core reference work was the Bible. Let all be aware that the dozens of fundamentalist universities in the USA have not produced one iota of "science" based on creationism. It's not that the creationists don't have the funding to do so. Answers in genesis raised US$27 million for its crapola museum opened last year. The Discovery Institute reputedly has an income of US$7 million a year (mostly, -it appears spent on PR puffery), the Institute for Creation Research (which awards degrees and PhDs) has an income of US$4 million a year. This is, of course, in addition to the vast funds generated by the likes of the Bob Jones University, Oral Roberts University, Regent University, Liberty University, Patrick Henry University, the SDA universities and colleges and heaven knows now many other fundamentalist institutions that claim to be universities. They don't do science at research level because they know that they will be caught out and have no credibility whatsoever. Even the Discovery Institute has tried to keep its ludicrous Biologic Institute secret. What do you expect from a scientific research institute that appears to have a scientific staff totalling two in number and attempting to overthrow the whole of mainstream science?

640. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259900 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 6:07 am

On reflection from my last post, the thought has crossed my mind that what Paterson is actually looking at is conversion of the University of Winchester into a fundamentalist university.

One minor point is that Paterson's PhD is not in science.

641. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259894 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 5:34 am

Hayseed University

I've been digging around a bit this morning on Paterson and his proposal for a Hayseed University in the UK. I live in Winchester where Paterson works. I'm alarmed. What he appears to be proposing is a "fundamentalist" university.

I understand that Paterson is an elder in Immanuel Church in Winchester. This is a small Pentecostal church affiliated with Cornerstone Church. The alarm bells should now start ringing.

Cornerstone is the church of John Hagee �" he "endorsed" John MaCain and got McCain into a lot of hot water. Hagee is immensely rich �" his church preaches the prosperity gospel. Worse still he is generally regarded as a fundamentalist extremist �" a Christian Zionist and dispensationalist, loathes Catholics and gays and is politically well to the right even by US standards. As far as I can make out he also backs Intelligent Design. I'm not yet sure of his position on YEC. He also sits on the board of Oral Roberts University. He does not believe in global warming.

Paterson's church has no proper web site at present although Google shows it to be located in the centre of Winchester. I checked that out this morning and there was a notice on the premises that it had moved to the University of Winchester.

Paterson is on the academic staff of the University of Winchester which a few years back was upgraded from a college of higher education to full university status. It's origins are as an Anglican teacher training college and it has a strong Christian ethos �" apparently, though, not strong enough for Paterson. The university does not teach any of the natural sciences.

I therefore conclude that what Paterson is calling for is another hayseed university along the lines of the Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Liberty and Regent universities �" sinks of ignorance and bigotry. In this case, though, a death cult appears to be behind the proposal.

I'll be digging around further in the next few days amongst my contacts in Winchester.

642. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #259460 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 11:46 am

Mitchel Gilks - I thing you mis-read what I said which was specifically about the following "Some vague idea of a universal supernatural force in the world is sufficient in my mind to qualify something as religion."

All I am refering to is the fact that very few organised religions would accept this.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't actually care either way.

643. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #259404 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 10:23 am

I wonder just what bile and hate and calls for censorship are going to emerge from the fundamentalists over this film?

644. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #259378 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 9:54 am

Most-Truth

Richard Dawkins has debated with creationists in the past and won. As he has subsequently said repeatedly, he doesn't now do so because it would be used by creationist nutters to claim that scientists "accept" them and make out that they are respected and respectable.

Why should anyone debate with Ha Ha? He is a convicted criminal?

Now, about these allegations that Ha Ha is a blackmailer? Please do tell the world more or are are you gonna run away from the issues!

645. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #259370 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 9:46 am

"Living specimens are identical in appearance to the model."

No they are not. They don't have huge steel hooks sticking out of their backsides.

646. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #259321 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 8:56 am

Riley, there are a lot of prblems with your suggestion "I just disagree with your point that religion must have dogma. Some vague idea of a universal supernatural force in the world is sufficient in my mind to qualify something as religion."

I doubt whether more than a handfull of then tens of thousands of organised religions/sects/denominations in the world would accept this.

Some time back I suggested to a liberal Christian cleric that the only valid definition of being a Christian was to believe in Christianity. He responded that the minimum requirement was to accept the Nicene Creed - in other words a formal set of written down rules and beliefs.

Organised religion basically requires rules of membership and that means accepting a large body of belief. The option to vaguely accept some kind of supernatural intelligence or whatever, is simply not acceptable to organised religion or to the religious in general.

At worse, it's seen as blasphemy, apostacy or whatever.

Mind you, knowing the Church of England, you might just get away with it there. I've met two Muslims who also claim to be Anglicans at the same time. (The mind boggles at this.)

647. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #259193 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 3:51 am

FrederickK - And millions have no doubt seen just how much of a fraud Ha Ha is. So what?

648. Coming soon: 'In God We Trust' tags

Comment #259188 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 3:44 am

Thinksalot - you do talk a load of old bollox. You are in here to preach, nothing more, nothing less. I've seen it time and time again with fundamentalists.

Why don't you push off and try and save souls elsewhere?

649. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258969 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 3:32 pm

"Paines track record is probably not public because he never had access to the media when he was 13 years old."

So? What on earth has that got to do with it.

650. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258947 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Payne comments "Based on what? Looking at this article, I see a guy who took TWENTY YEARS to figure out that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And he's supposedly had an education. I dont see anything worthy o respect."

Because he looked at the evidence, changed his mind, had the courage to admit that he was wrong and then fight his corner.

And your public track record on such matters is precisely what?