51. No credit for creationism

Comment #233182 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

Jesus96 "ID, at least in its best form, IS a testable model. It even has putative evidence to support it."

Oh! Do, do tell us all in your own words then what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is and how can it be tested with the scientific method.

Do do, go on to tell us who or what this agent or agents was/were who changed the gentic code.

Let us know how they did it.

And in what species they did it.

Tell us when they did it.

And finally where can we see this process in operation today.

I'm all ears!

52. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233179 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 8:49 am

Comment by Vaal: "I don't know if Richard reads these threads but I think he missed an opportunity when the Cretinists allege that evolution has never been observed."

It's not like that at all. The Creationists (i.e the ones that known "creation science" believe in what they call micro-evolution as distinct from macro-evolution.

Their "argument" is that the Bible specifices the size of Noah's Ark in cubits and therefore only 17,000 or so animals could be accomodated aboard.

That we have many more species today is "accounted for" by rapid evolution since Noah's flood.

However, the 17,000 onboard wre not species as such but "kinds" (none of the nutters haas ever defined what a kind is).

However fundamentalists are usually down each other's throats so you would not be surprised to learn that they disagree on this as well with one group beleibing in recolonisation (look it up on Google).

I am not making this all up.

The second point you need to remember is that most rank and filecreationists are so damn pig ignorant that they don't know their own creationist arguments and believe that all evolution never happened.

This is at the same time they are cutting and pasting from Answers in Genesis's web site and claiming that they are authoritative!

53. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233067 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 4:55 am

Methinks getting Mackay and Cowan on the programme was a wise choice as neither can ever be taken seriously.

Cowan appears to be a buddy of Mackay and has raised finance for him to come to th UK. oth appear to be hell bent on using state eduation in the K to push their religious position and undermine teaching of science.

However, Cowan appears to have been demoted from his position as head of chemsitry = presumaly because he was giving Blue Coat school in Liverpool an exceedingly bad reputation.

How the school lets Mackay in is a mystery. The man has been excommunicated from his church for lying - accusing (for years) Magaret Buchanan of necrophilia with her dead husband.

Buchanan was at the time the personal scretay of Ken Ham, now head of Answers in genesis. She went on to marry the now head of Communications Ministry which has been at loggerheads with Answers in Genesis over power and money.

However ken Scam is now buddy-buddy with Mackay because Mackay has backed him in the money struggle with Creation Ministries.

These are not, it appears, people of any personal integrity.

It's standard ppractice though. Fundamentalists always end up falling out with each other.

It reminds me of a tale I was told recently of a Trotsyite group splitting up and folding becasue they couldn't agree whether Trotsky was murdered with an ice pick or a pick-axe.

They are all the same at heart - ideologues creaching to the same tune.

If you think that the whole lot of them are nuts, you would be quite right.

54. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230828 by Roger Stanyard on August 15, 2008 at 8:25 am

What is it about creationists that make them so utterly idiotic the minute they open their mouths. I've seen them claim that men are genetically pre-disposed to white women in high heeled red shoes (I'm not making this up), that the water from the Noachian flood escaped through "wholes in the ozone layer" (I jest not)....

Well this one is yet another example of them showing themselves to be utterly idiotic (its from Prince zephyr):

Richard Dawkins, a most ardent supporter of Darwinism, has long accounted for the perfect creation of the universe in terms of the theory of evolution, which has lately suffered a global collapse. In his recent writings and interviews, however, Dawkins has started to express that "life cannot form by chance." It is an absence of sense and reason to support evolution on one hand and to state that life cannot come about by chance on the other. That is due to the fact that according to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins supports, the existence of life is based on entirely random coincidences. "

Um, the theory of evolution is not the theory of evolution by random chance. It is the theory of evolution by natural selection, a process which is far from random or by chance.

Moreover abiogenesis is a different subject matter altogether,

The rest of your idiotic statement is complete and utter bullshit.

Do keep on posting to demonstrate to the world your own utter ignorance and how stupid and idiotic creationists and.

55. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230636 by Roger Stanyard on August 15, 2008 at 2:03 am

Raping children is one of the most serious criminal offences there can possibly be.

So why has no Muslim been prosecuted in the UK for marrying and raping children?

Are the police incapable of dealing with this or are they frightened to do so because of potential allegations of being "anti-Muslim" or racist? Who is protecting their backs for the lack of action? Or forcing them into lack of action?

56. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229137 by Roger Stanyard on August 13, 2008 at 6:14 am

The UC affair has a bizarre equivalent in Northern Ireland where the fundamentalists put together a petition to get equal marks in science exams for both scientific and creationist "answers". The petition called for such equal marks not only in school examinations but also in the province's universities.

Given the fact that the power brokers in the Democratic Unionist Party (including Mervyn Storey) and essentially creationists, I suspect that this demon will raise its ugly head again.

No wonder creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis can't keep away from the province.

If anyone thinks thatthe matter involves just a handful of nutters, belief in creationism is rampant in Northern Ireland amongst Presbyterians and other Calvinistic religious denominations.

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education.

57. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229128 by Roger Stanyard on August 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

Tyler - 2Strange, they never seem to go after Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - "well, that's only a theory" - possibly because they don't actually understand it."

The creationists have been attacking the theory of relativity for years and years. They have no option because they can't explain why much of the universe is millions of light years away.

The hocus pocus they have come up with is truely astobnishing. One of the best known nutters in this sector is Barry Setterfield, a 1st year university drop out, who claims and still claims that he has proven that the speed of light has fallen in recent centuries.

His measurements were incompetent but he, and his equally as daft wife, are still pushing the nonsense as is the Genesis Expo creation "museum" in Portsmouth.

Setterfield also claims that modern measurements of the speed of light now show it has stopped falling. How convenient!

Never underestimate just how stupid creationists are.

58. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #226440 by Roger Stanyard on August 8, 2008 at 4:43 am

Lamentz comments: "There is a difference Cartomancer in the beliefs of the regualar Presbyterians and the Free Presbyterians, thought you are right in what you say, none of the churchs you mention would teach creationism as literal truth."

Hang fire a moment. Creationism is rife amongst mainstream Presbyterians in Northern Ireland and the main Presbyterian church is the largest Protestant denomination in Ireland.

Like it on not a lot of Protestants in NI cling to creationism because they think it is part and parcel of "proper" religion rather than that practiced by Catholics. It's a prop.

Take a look at the web site of the DUP. It is openly an exercise in Protestant triumphalism (which is what much of creationism and fundamentalism is about). The web site screams Protestant triumphalism at you.

The creationists are flocking to the province to push their idiocy - Don Batton, Philip Bell, Ken Ham and others are amongst recent or soon to be expected visitors to the provinces. None of them have the slightest background in politics but they are up to their necks in taking a partisan position in NI's deep, ancient, enmities.

As I keep saying, creationism is a political issue, not a debate between science and religion.

Have a look again at Storey's background. He's up to his neck in the Caleb Foundation and the Orange Order. The connection with creationism is not incidental. If you think there is no cultural or social connection between the Caleb Foundation/orange movement and the main presbyterian church, think again.

Moreover, like Storey, the Caleb Foundation wants to take NI back to the 17th Century.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

59. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225703 by Roger Stanyard on August 7, 2008 at 9:03 am

Some more details on Storey taken from his DUP bio:

Member of the Independent Orange Order; Apprentice Boys & Knights of Malta.
Vice Chairman of Caleb Foundation.
Committee Member of Ballymoney Free Presbyterian Church.

The thing to watch here is the Caleb Foundation. This is an untra-fundamentalist and secretive movement, Richard Dawkins, IIRC, had a run on on BBC NI with its head who apparently is so well informed about science that he could not pronounce the word "Neanderthal" Richard had to ask him several times what he meant.

As for Storey's science background, he is the product of a secondary school education and has no degree in any subject.

As I have said, creationism in Northern Ireleand is now a well organised political movement. It is not going to go away. For starters, it is another fundamentalist tool to get at the "taigs".

Storey needs watching like a hawk. Any info on his past statements on creationism would be highly welcome and very useful. As would any info on the secretive Caleb Foundation.

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education

60. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225693 by Roger Stanyard on August 7, 2008 at 8:12 am

Comment by Steve Zara "I doubt that Storey has any idea about what science is about, which is a bit troubling for the chair of an Education Committee."

Well, wev'e been following his antics for quite some while. Any doubts that he doesn't understand science should be dispelled. Not only is he utterly cluelesss about science, he doesn't even understand the basics of creation science that he is putting forward! He's clueless.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.

61. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225584 by Roger Stanyard on August 7, 2008 at 3:28 am

The BCSE has undertaken a fair amount of research on creationism in NI and the position is deeply worrying. Storey is not an odd ball - he appears to be part of a well organised movement to get creationism into the science lesson and is at the core of teh power block inside the DUP. As far as we can make out this bloke itself wants creationism taught in scienc lessons.

Worse still, belief in creationism is rampany amongst protestants in the province. Storey really does reflect a big element of public opinion there.

Underneath this all we have organisations such as teh Caleb Foundation pulling together fundamentalist Protestantism (and creationism) - with its connectsions to heaven knows in the Orange orders.

The main creationist organisations, notable Answers in Genesis, are highly active in the province and have bragged about their contacts with NI politicians.

Worse still the DUP appears to be pressurising business in Northern Ireland not to support next year's 150/200 Darwin anniversary.

Northern Ireland is the problem of creationism in Britain! The Vardy schools have recruited staff from the province to push fundamentalism in its schools; a vast amount of effort is being put into ther province by mainland and Ameriocan creationists. It looks to us that the province is a springboard to get creationism into the mainland of the UK.

Storey is not yet a Westminster MP but our beeting is that he will stand for election to Westminster - and will lobby there on behalf of the creationist movement,

62. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224127 by Roger Stanyard on August 4, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment by Steve Zara - "So what is the opposite of religion? That is hard to describe. Religion has the foundation of theism (or at least supernaturalism) to build upon. Atheism provides no such foundation, as it is the absence of belief. It is the absence of a scaffold."

Why shouldthere be any "opposite" of religion(s). I don't get the point. It seems that the idea is about as useful as understanding the opposite of engineering, or porridge, or custard or computers.

63. Breeding for God

Comment #223394 by Roger Stanyard on August 2, 2008 at 7:19 am

Hang dire veryone - "If immigration continues as is we will have approx 16% muslims in europe in 2050."

Well, not really. My understand in the UK is that acceptance of Islam amongst nominally muslim people born in the UK is falling fast - at the same rate as belief in christianity, If a nominally muslim chield is brought up by muslim parents there is only a 50% chance that they accept Islam in adulthood. In other words, with no more immigration, Islam will largely die out.

It doesn't seem to me that Islam in Europe has much of a future if it is dependent on immigration to sustain itself.

American evangelicals have found out the hard away that they can't import their own brand of christianity into Europe. yet if you believe some of their rhetoric, we are all just about to become fundamentalists.

Religion in Europe is dying.!

64. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223392 by Roger Stanyard on August 2, 2008 at 7:06 am

"The prominent scientist Richard Dawkins has been denounced as a "secularist bigot" by a philosopher who was himself once renowned for being an atheist."

Pot to Kettle - You're black.

Seems to me that Flew has well and truely got himself mixed up with a a bunch of religious bigots in the form of the Discovery Institute and Biola University,

I'm afraid to say that senior academics (or ex-academics) don't suddenly switch from liberalism to ideological fundamentalism late in life unless there is something seriously wrong.

65. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218371 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 10:23 am

WFR: I still don't understand. My limited knowledge of seperation of church and state in the USA is that it derives from the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore it is a constitutional arrangement deeply embedded in US law.

You seem to suggest the whole matter is an exercise in fiction and that organisations such as Americans United are deeply deluded.

66. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218324 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 8:42 am

Comment by WFR on Seperation of Church ansd State: "In fact, there is no legal basis for it at all."

I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that there was no legal basis for the defendents taking action in the Dover case, or numerous other US court cases, and that Judge Jones was hopelessly mistaken in his decision?

67. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218271 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 6:26 am

WFR: At about 00:31 in the interview with PZ, Professor Dawkins expresses an interest in the American "constitutional separation of church and state."

There is no such thing.

The famous phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church in the state of Connecticut, fourteen years after the Constitution was adopted. The story of this letter, and of Jefferson's reasons for writing it, are fascinating.

The Constitution itself guarantees freedom of religion. Nothing else on that topic.

REPLY: I don't understand this statement at all. If there is no seperation of church and state in the USA, why do creationists keep losing in the courts (Dover etc.)

If there is no seperation of church and state then the head of state is head of the church - as is the case in the UK.

How do you explain freedom of religion and lack of seperation of church and state. The two are mutually incompatible.

Moreover, freedom of religion means just that - to hold and practice any religious position including atheism. That means freedom from religion as well.

It is irrelevent if 99.9999% of the population want the state to promote religion. That is still incompatible with the very idea of freedom of (and from belief) and the basic rules of democracy.

The alternative is theocracy - like Iran - or the mess of Northern Ireland.

Do you really think that religion should and can be politicised given that there are some 33,000 different Christian denominations and sects and some 400 different religions world-wide. Whose religious opinions take priority?

So please explain yourself and do tell us which religion the state should not be seperate from. Please also tell us which religions it should therefore be seperate from and why.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

68. The Return of Religion

Comment #212344 by Roger Stanyard on July 17, 2008 at 3:41 am

Srutton is a serious odd ball. He used the write for the Saturday edition of ther Financial Times before the nespaper fired him. His articles were excutiating to read.

Anyway, his comment "In the eyes of the evangelical atheists, however, this promise was not fulfilled. In their view of things, neither Judaism nor Christianity absorbed the Enlightenment even if, in a certain measure, they inspired it", is way off mark.

It is exceedingly common for US evangelicals to describe the Age of Enlightenment as the "Age of Endarkenment". There are huge swaths of religion (Christian, Jewich, Islamic) that far from inspiring the Age of Enlightenment even to this day openly reject it.

Still Scrutton sees it all as black and white - Christians against atheists. So who is the fundamentalist there, then?

69. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #208871 by Roger Stanyard on July 11, 2008 at 10:32 am

Oh Dear,

I don't know where to begin on this. Unfortunately creationists do believe that human language is only 6,000 and it proves evolution can't happen because it displays irreducible complexity. I've also seen them argue that it proves that information in genes muct fall over time because language itself gets less complex - thus (sigh) proving that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics supports creationism.

Still the creationists also believe that we have many languages as God enforced the multipliocity because of Adam's sin. (I'm not making this up).

70. The BBC announces a major season marking the life and work of Charles Darwin

Comment #207684 by Roger Stanyard on July 10, 2008 at 5:36 am

What's the betting that the creationists and the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland will be pressuring the BBC on this? Either to pull it or include disclaimers or transmit a creationist programme at the same time.

I dunno if everyone is aware but the DUP is pressurising local science firms in the province not to support celebrations of Darwin's 200/150 anniversary.

Expect also Truth in Science, if it is still in existance by then, to foam at the mouth about it.

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

Comment #207681 by Roger Stanyard on July 10, 2008 at 5:31 am

I've come across "Joe Moreale" posting elsewhere - or so it seems. I've seen the style including the repeated use of cap locks, the failure to reply to any questions and the repeated screaming opinion that he is absoutelt right and everything.

However, the poster did not use the same name. Nevertheless he was an extremely opinionated jerk then and is now.

Methinks you have a serial troll here.

72. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204484 by Roger Stanyard on July 5, 2008 at 3:56 am

Methinks a lot of people have missed the point. Focus on the Family is an openly political and extreme right wing organisation. The material it distributed in NZ is almost certainly the same that the UK's Truth in Science distributed to UK schools nearly 2 years back. IIRC Focus on the Family is actually the official distributor of the CDS and pushed them onto Australian schools as well.

Focus on the Family are a bunch of wingnuts. Incidentally IIRC it is headquartered in Colorado Springs where that nice gentleman Ted Haggard ran a church before he got caught putting the willies up people.

73. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202233 by Roger Stanyard on July 1, 2008 at 4:53 am

Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

The Americans have answered this for us all. They shot Lincoln.

:-)

74. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202223 by Roger Stanyard on July 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

Steve,

So which theological viewpoint does he want to impose on science - given that there are 400 main religions in the world?

I've seen this argument time and time again. Science doesn't give a stuff what his religious opinions are, or mine, or yours or Richard Dawkins.

I haven't seen this bloke's arguments but if past nonsense from creationists is anything to go bay, it will be the same ld tired stuff of 20-30 years ago which, if you taake to its conclusions means that science is utterly subjective and depends on which religious sect or cult you belong to.

75. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201134 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:54 am

One of the key issues that is widely lost in the "debates" over science and religion is that fundamentalism (as distinct from religion in general) is a serious political issue - between what is essentially a call for a theocratic state and what can broadly be described as the modern liberal democracy. The fundamentalists (YECers/IDers are nearly all fundemntalists_ are driven by a hard line ideology and they want to be in control.

Organisations such as the Christiann Coaltion, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, the National Association of Evangelicals, Truth in Science and the Discovery Institute are deeply political organisations.

There is no debate between YERers/IDers and science. Science has won. The YECers and IDers have contribute absolutely nothing to science in the last 50 years.

76. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201131 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:40 am

Rod the Farmer,

The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds.

No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They all hate each others guts as well - what do you expect with extreme ideologues?

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

Remember, there is such a thing as Poe's Law. No matter how much you parody them, they will somewhere believe what you are parodying.

Most of them are so stupid that no only do they not understand even basic science but they don't understand the creationist position. Yet they all think they are "right".

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

77. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199311 by Roger Stanyard on June 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm

The Mormon position is dead easy to pull to pieces.

Marriage is not a christian institution, never has been and never will be. It is, as far as I am aware, a universal institution common to all societies, whether they be christian or not.

It is not the business of Mormons or any other religious group to impose their view of marriage on people who don't subscribe to their religious views. If they don't like it that way, then tough luck to them. Tell 'em to go shove it.

Roger Stanyard

78. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124316 by Roger Stanyard on February 9, 2008 at 5:02 am

Sleep of Reason: "Hi Steve.

I've noticed that you don't like the Daily Mail!

But although I agree with your sentiment that they are right wing, that in itself does not mean the story in incorrect."

It probably does! The extreme right is pathologically dishonest; have a look at the Religious Right in the USA. The Mail has no credibility whatsover as a newspaper of accurate reporting.

Then there is the little matter that the Government's chief scientists who has basically stated that teh Daily Mail's campaign on MMR has killed between 50 and 100 children.

79. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124313 by Roger Stanyard on February 9, 2008 at 4:56 am

Krisking - "Is this a quote from Dawkin's writings? If so, I find it astounding that he can make such a statement, given that he himself was brought up in christian church-going family, and claims to have had a personal religious conversion/experience as a teenager. How difficult was it for him to shake off his inculcated beliefs? "

he was brought up within the Anglican movement and is essentially English. Therefore no problem at all.

80. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117997 by Roger Stanyard on January 30, 2008 at 7:14 am

I seem to recall that the Italian fascists were in bed with the Roman Catholic Church and handed over a religious monpoly to it.

I also recall that Franco killed 300,000 of the republican movement when he gained contyrol of spain. Strange isn't it that this fascist was also in bed with the Catholic Church nad handed power over to it on a massive scale.

Well, then there is Father Tiso. He was an ordained minister who was the puppet dictator of Slovakia in the 1940s.

Any of these people exommunicated for their involvement in violent fascist politics. Um no.

Likewise with the Nazis who ran and ruined Germany. Not one of them was excommunicated for their violent political activities.

The only one that got excommunicated was for marrying a Protestant.

Seems like Oakes has an exceedingly short memory.

The history of dictatorship and authoritarianism in Europe over the last two centuries was critically dependent on the active support of, er, not atheists, but the religious.

81. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114894 by Roger Stanyard on January 23, 2008 at 6:19 am

AllanW,

Whatever anyone comes up with, it has to be totally legal. No throwing rotten fruit, no abuse, no blocking of people or cars...

The aim is get maximum publicity for our cause.

82. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114837 by Roger Stanyard on January 23, 2008 at 2:34 am

Al-Rawandi,

The UK has done pretty well without a written constitution.

83. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114836 by Roger Stanyard on January 23, 2008 at 2:31 am

Welcoming committees for Ken Ham are a very good idea indeed. I'll be putting the matter to BCSE members shortly. With a bit iof luck I can make Oxford; I tried Leicester last time he was there but got stuck in a thirty mile traffic jam which meant I missed it.

My own view of Ham is that he is the Prince of Darkness and bloody dangerous as well. He's running Answers in Genesis as a business and doing damn well at it, sad to say.

Paul Taylor of AiG is also appearing at Skeptics in the Pub in London on 19th February where, touch wood, I'll also be attending. He's as mad as a hatter.

BTW all, I got a plug for BCSE on an international 24 news channel last week. The channel is Press TV and you can watch the programme online at BCSE at http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=39562

If that doesn't work go to this URL where you can click into the programme (Nexus):
http://www.presstv.com/prg_detail.aspx?SectionID=3510513

I appear pretty late into it (about 20 minutes, I guess).

84. Florida in the process of approving new science standards

Comment #114360 by Roger Stanyard on January 22, 2008 at 4:22 am

LorienRyan:

"Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion..."

What the heck are you talking about? Even Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind it, admits that it is not even a theory or a hypothesis - just a set of ideas.

If it is a theory, why didn't the Dover School Board put together a curiculum for it? Answer: they couldn't. All they could use was the scam "teach the controversy".

Guess what? They lost the Dover trial, big time, specacularly and completely because the Judge found ID wasn't science but creatonism.

Ha ha! You lost completly.

Bet you can't tell us what the scientific theory of intelligent design is and how it can be tested by the scientific method. Just like every other IDiot.

85. The Group Delusion

Comment #113563 by Roger Stanyard on January 20, 2008 at 3:47 am

Presumably the gibberish written by Selfishmind is, in fact, written by Wooter under another name?

Same style, same incoherent dross.

86. The Group Delusion

Comment #112818 by Roger Stanyard on January 18, 2008 at 6:21 am

Nice to the participants Wotterbaitering.

Wooter, yet again, demonstrates to the world that he is a typical creationist:

1. he never listens.
2. He never answers any questions.
3. He repeates himself endlessly.
4. Provides links to URLs that he doesn't understand.

Now, here is Birmingham Palace?

87. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110447 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 7:19 am

"And for the record, are we to understand that you are actually referring to the subset of original thoughts that are actually valid when tested empirically and peer-reviewed?"

1. basically yes and
2. The subset makes for most of original thoughts.

However, I don't confine original thoughts to science or applied science.

88. Blind Faiths

Comment #110444 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 7:14 am

Al-Ranadi: "If I limit myself to the 20th century I could think of a couple of enormous exceptions. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Rwanda, Serbia, Purges in Russia."

Well pointed out but you don't have to limit yourself to the 20th century.

In proportion to the size of the population, the Thirty Years War was horendous and probably until WW2 the largest war in history in absolute casuality terms. Current estimates suggest 7.5 m people died as a result of it. But it's worse than that becaue many historians believe that both WW1 and WW2 were the final battles of the Thirty Years War.

Nobody doubts that religion was a prime cause of the Thirty Years War. And it was purely Christian against Christian.

89. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110436 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 6:49 am

ADH: "OK Roger, I'll hold you to that."

Hold me to what? All I have stated is what a half decent first degree teaches.

I've said this before and got loads of stick for it but I'll repeat it again. In the modern world, cery very few people are capable of having a single original thought in their lives without at least a Master's Degree and probably a PhD and even then they are likely to come up with no more than one.

You can include me in not having a single original thought.

90. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110430 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 6:38 am

ADH: "I have no access to scientific studies so I can only express my considered opinion. Do you have studies and statistics for every assertion that you make?"

There's a vast amount of scientific info readily available on the net.

As any half decent journalist would point out, opinion is cheap, facts are valuable.

For just about everything I don in my professional life, I am exceedingly heavily reliant on "studies" and "statistics".

Likewise, when coming to a position on just about any subject outside of my profession, I am almost totally dependent on others in my understanding. That's how the world works. If I take a position on history, I am wholly dependent on the collective works of hundreds of thousands of scholars, researchers and whatever over the generations. Likewise, with geology, sociology, economics or any other subject I can think of.

I feel confident of my position only after I have taken a significant look at wat others have produced on it. Without that I know I am a baby in arms, a ranka amateur ignoramus.

It's th main reason why I nearly always shrug my shoulders and say "so what" when people who think their opinions are as good as everyone else's keep telling me them. They rarely are.

It's one of the reasons why I am so hard on fundamentalists. They are always dead keen to let their opinions on religion and science be known but few of them know anything about science, or their own "creation science" or religion. They cover up the utter banality and ignorance of their own opinions by calling them beliefs and hiding behind "faith". It's a thoroughly dishonest scam.

91. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110342 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 2:39 am

ADH "Roger, you will notice that I said "A HABIT OF MASTURBATION"

So what the heck is the difference between masturbating and being in the habit of masturbating given that all adults have a life time's experience of it?

92. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110326 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 1:54 am

ADH: "AfraidToDie, I'm not going to pontificate about masturbation. I believe that a habit of masturbation can induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated with it, which can thereby become obsessive and interfere with normal interaction with other people. This kind of dependence is obviously unhealthy, from a psychological, social and emotional point of view. The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation per se, but it has a lot to say about self-centred indulgence, about directing our minds and our energies towards the well-being of the "other". Masturbation is wrong in so far as it inclines us against this thought pattern."

Another set of sexual hangups. Good grief, from what you are saying everyone in this forum is a psychologically disturbed pervert with severely impaired social skills and are deeply emotionally disturbed.

Alternatively you might apply some common sense and recognise that masturbation is a normal healthy activity even for couples.

Hum, from what ADH is saying I should have joined the boy scouts and tied a knot in it.

93. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110000 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 9:10 am

"Epeeist, are you Wooterbaiting in a public place?"

Wooterbaiting? Who could possible do a wicked thing like that to our esteemed and authoritative expert on science?

Perish the thought!

94. Creation 'Museum' honored

Comment #109996 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 9:05 am

The fundies are so dim that they don't realise that the museum is an own goal which advertises to the vast majority of Americans how bonkers they are.

Whatever the opinion pools claim, most Americans are simply not youg earth creationists and don't know much about it; that's why the Discovery Institute thought it could the wool over their eyes by spending a fortune on PR puffery and sod all on science.

AiG's "museum" removes the smokescreen and shows just how staggeringly idiotic fundies are.

Touch wood, but it looks as if the fundies in the USA are increasingly up the proverbial creek ithout a paddle. The public are turning against them and have been doing so since the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Court. The Religious Right look set to be blasted out of the water and abandoned by the Republicans, most of whom think they are all nuts anyway.

Amyway, closer to home, the UK cretinists got hit by a torpedo today. The Independent has reported today that the Brown government has abandoned the policy of more faith-based schools.

95. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109990 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 8:52 am

"Can chimeras bombinating in a vacuum nourish second intentions?"

Now, now, Epeeist. You know perfectly well that he will use the question to prove your science wrong by downloading a load of Answers in Genesis crapola that he doesn't understand.

96. Blind Faiths

Comment #109970 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 7:39 am

Kimpatsu: "I think this is a misunderstanding of at the very least the nature of the British Empire. Its missionaries saw the empire as the greatest expression of god's approval, for they read into it connotations of manifest destiny. Further, they were spreading the Word in the name of the established Church of England, so there were no missionaries who preached that the empire was bad. In that, they were as much a part of the empire, and complicit in its spread, as the East India trading company or the colonists in Africa."

Nah, the British Empire was never anything like that. It was a money making exercise. The "moraility" behind it was a Victorian invention created long after India was taken over.

Moeover, a vast number of the missionaries were not Anglican. My own distant family was full of 'em and they were all Methodists.

The East India Company was a profit making joint stock company. Clive of India was so greedy in India that he was later impeached. Rhodesia was founded by mercenaries and was owned by another joint stock compamy until 1923. The Boer Wars were largely an exercise in who controlled the gold and diamonds. Our involvement in Mesopotamia was about oil supplies for the Royal Navy (my grandad was killed there in 1921 fighting for the British Army).

The very basis of the British Empire was a deliberate trade (business) carve up after 1688 where the Dutch got the spices from Indonesia and the English the textiles from India. (The Dutch pulled the short straw.)

Australia was formed as a prison colony and, indeed, the USA was a major prison colony up until 1776. The people who were shipped there were hardly Anglican missionaries.

Finally, the one feature of the British Empire that people forget was that its development was highly decentralised; the Anglican church had very little say or involvement in it. It was ignored, largely as it was in Ireland.

97. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109955 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 6:39 am

Epeeist: "And the word of the day is "sophomoric""

How about inventing a new word for the nutters: "sophomoronic"?

PS: Good manners suggest that you should never use the "n", "f" of "c" words in dealing with them.

(Alas by habit I continue to do so (n=nutter, f=fundie, c=cretinist. It's difficult not to given how utterly stupid they are.)

98. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109953 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 6:34 am

Incredulous: "How does the trolled person know he has been trolled? if you see what I mean. Do the website administrators email him or something to let him know? "

What on earth makes you think the average cretinist would understand the term trolled or what has happended?

I'm a member of a science forum where one of them was put on moderation becaue he refused to stick to science. None of his posts then appeared in the forum but he continued to merrily post away for weeks without apparently ever noticing. (Last time I checked he still was posting.)

It speaks volumes about creationists never listening to what people say. They are too dim even to notice that their own posts are missing.

99. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109939 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 5:35 am

Epeeist: " was just making my self a cup of tea when I thought to myself "Isn't about the time that wooter usually deluges the site", and low and behold there he is.

But have a look at http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/12/common-objections-to-intelligent-design.html..."

It's all dimwitted standard fundie boilerplate based on their belief that there are only two types of people in this world - Christian fundies and atheists. All scientists must, by their definition, be atheists if they are not fundies.

Of coure, all the fundies are down each others throats about their religious opinions but they don't tell you that. They can't because they know even less about religion than they do their own "creation science" or mainstream science.

100. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109928 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 4:28 am

Wooter: "Since mutations are the only "tool" evolution has to "work" with, and since evolutionists have yet to show how new information could be added to a genome without design, mutations cannot account for the origin of these protein-transport pathways."

Alas Wooter, yur cut and past technique won't wash because you are too dim to understand what you are cutting and pasting.

Do, though, tell us in your own words what you think information is. Are you taking about raw data, meaning, Shannon information theory....?

Tell us in your own words whether you think polyploidy results in an increase in information; and why.

You should be able to do this because you keep telling us that the vast majority of scientists are wrong.

(Twiddles thumbs for ever knowing that Wooter is incapable of answering my questions.)

BTW, Wooter the billions of organisms that live in your body outnumber its cells by 10:1. Moreover, they can reproduce in minutes rather than six months. So why didn't Adam explode?

Or are you too thick to realise that bacteria are evrywhere in and on your body and that's the reason you smell if you don't wash?