I have been drinking to extents that will, five years hence, get me arrested and re-educated. I have just corrected five typos in that last sentence. And two more in that one, I could go on…
Let’s just say that this snippet from the spambox seems to make sense to me at the moment…
a musical theme. commoner looks stark, so you can be heavy if you are purchasing helmets and carry pads. Too some consumers get tricked into scams via hyperlinks in refutable emails.
So now we know the level we are working at.
In the creationism/evolution argument (which is impossible to resolve so can never end) I have to say that Flaxen Saxon has it right.
Science cannot study religion and religion cannot be science. They are two entirely separate modes of thought. Religion believes in things. Science believes nothing. Religion is based on humanity and ithe meaning of life. Science recognises no such things.
In religion, humanity is special and is here for a reason. In science, humans are an animal classified among the primate group and there is no reason for life, it just happened.
Stewart, the ‘fairies’ thing is a strawman. It does not matter whether someone believes in fairies, whether the friendly butterfly-wings kind or the original Celtic evil spirits who were all nice and sweet and then stole your child while you admired the trinket they gave you. All irrelevant. It was a trap. We scientists do that sort of thing, it’s not personal, we do it to each other all the time.
Flaxen is also right in that if you make a statement, in science, it is your business to prove it right.
To take an old example. I can say “There is a teapot orbiting Betelgeuse. Prove me wrong.” Many have wasted hours on that one but real science would say “No. You claim it, you prove it.”
That is science. It is an entirely different thought process to religion. It accepts nothing without proof in triplicate at least.
There are religious scientists. I know a professor who is deeply Christian but he is a professor of agricultural science. It does not affect his work whether he believes the earth to be six thousand or six billion years old. It would not affect mine either. If I was a geologist or a palaeontoilogist it would be imprtant. To a microbiologist it is not.
As far as I am concerned, the entirety of the universe could have popped into being a second before I was born and it might all exist just to annoy me. So far, my observations entirely support this hypothesis even though it is statistically unlikely to be correct. We will all find out when I die and you can be reassured that I am in no hurry.
The human eye is often cited as proof of intelligent design. It is a crap design. I couild do better after another bottle of whisky. The nerves come out of the front of the retina and all pile down in one spot If they came out of the back of the retina we would have no detached retinas and no blind spot.
Human vision is also crap. I have painted a shed green when I thought it was brown. For me, ‘navy blue’ is another word for black. I have learned to buy paint based on the words on the tin because the colour of the lid or cap is variable. If someone designed my eyes he was drunker than me when he did it
Genetics that can leave one side of the chosen species seeing in almost monochrome (I have only ever met one who really does see in monochrome) while the other side of that species can see more colours than naturally exist is not evidence of intellligent design.
Is there a point to this random babble? No there isn’t and there cannot be. There can be no resolution to this argument, ever. One side believes without question, the other side questions without belief. Which side is right?
Don’t know. Don’t care.
Fight on.
underdogs bite upwards 
Leggeo, Leggeo, wherefore art thou, Leggeo? Still in bed or with an ice-bag balanced on your delicate head?
It matters a lot, because our whole world has, for the past 150 years, been increasingly affected by this bad science. You rightly rail against the fallen scientists in Tobacco Control and Climate Change who take money to ‘prove’ what their paymasters have already decided is the ‘truth’.
“Science cannot study religion and religion cannot be science.”
Creation science takes scripture and uses real scientific methods to back it up. People, far too readily, laugh off Creation science without knowing a thing about it. And as time goes on, the discoveries bear out the truth of scripture more and more.
The Theory of Evolution was a 19th century guess made with observations using rudimentary instruments and based on an 18th century, non-scientific assumption called Uniformitarianism and since then guess upon assumption heaped on false interpretation of evidence has made the whole Theory an out-of-date notion, and quite obviously a fraud, but too much rides on the masses believing in it, like manmade climate change.
Just lately, some scientists are saying that the entire universe expanded from the size of a sub-atomic particle to its present size in under a second.
If the Bible had said that, you’d have thought it was a ridiculous fairy story. To go from nothing to everything in the blinking of an eye? Well, that’s what it says in the Psalms, King David wrote about the Universe expanding to its present size almost instantaneously when he said that the Almighty stretched out the heavens like a curtain.
God spoke the universe into existence, but obviously, the scientists have to give the beginning *some* physical presence, hence smaller than one atom.
And since the invention of the electron microscope and DNA, we can see that living things are vastly more complex than in Darwin’s day and this is what persuades many scientists that the Theory must be wrong.
All mutations are totally random, so for humans to emerge from this process is, I would say, is statistically impossible. But ‘billions of years’ is enough time to fool most people into believing that anything can happen.
“In religion, humanity is special and is here for a reason. In science, humans are an animal classified among the primate group and there is no reason for life, it just happened.”
And that’s why it’s important to the new global system being set up. Socialist/communist (“The goal of socialism is communism”, Lenin) regimes hate religion and need the Theory to try to justify their eugenics and mass murder.
You should be angry about the lie because it’s the mindset that induces thoughts of smokers, drinkers and fat people being lesser human beings than the leanest, fittest people.
“Stewart, the ‘fairies’ thing is a strawman.”
Yes, but it makes the author look like a dork and I don’t like fellow humans coming across that ignorant. Unfortunately, many of them seem to believe it. Russel’s Teapot is just a stupid comparison. Nobody is seriously suggesting that any part of a tea set is orbiting the sun. It is another strawman. A diversion. Sitting in my office, I cannot disprove that there isn’t a crocodile in my bath right now or a flock of flamingos chasing Felicity Kendal round my front garden.
But as a debating technique it doesn’t work because it doesn’t really matter if both, either or neither is true, although maybe I should check the front garden just in case because that would be worth seeing far more than a teapot.
“Flaxen is also right in that if you make a statement, in science, it is your business to prove it right.”
Indeed and because Creation science gets next to zero coverage in the mainstream, you’ve never heard of the wealth of evidence, like the red blood cells found in dinosaur bones, supposedly 70 million years old and the evidence of a global flood and a thousand other things.
It is the evolutionists who have been making it up as they go along, such as finding a couple of bones and getting an artist with a very fertile imagination to create a new ‘hominid’ from them, giving it part ape, part human appearance for acceptance by the gullible who haven’t looked into the story at all.
I also know a professor of agricultural science. He goes to the church I used to go to and he told me he doesn’t believe in evolution theory. One of his jobs was to breed animals to customers’ specification. Not using GM, but traditional methods whereby within just a handful of generations, he had the perfect pig or sheep with the characteristics that the client wanted.
Try waiting for random mutations to do that!!
Your vision might be below par, but the eye is still the most advanced piece of optical equipment ever devised. All due to random mutations?
As for the alleged faults, after the Fall, the DNA of humans and animals started deteriorating. There was no disease before, but now we are seeing an exponential rise in all sorts of disease. It’s known as genetic entropy by some – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028
“Don’t know. Don’t care.”
Well, you oughta, because it’s an important piece of weaponry in the arsenal of the Controllers.
LikeLike
I’m too busy to refute Stewarts’ sincerely held beliefs.
But, for the record, he’s talking out of his arse.
Nice chap, but totally bonkers.
If Stewart had his way, we would all be totally free to do anything that was not forbidden by bigots who wrote some rules a couple of thousand years ago, (or thereabouts). Those rules, by definition, cannot ever be updated to take account of new knowledge.
No, thank you.
LikeLike
You should be angry about the lie because it’s the mindset that induces thoughts of smokers, drinkers and fat people being lesser human beings than the leanest, fittest people….
Yes, of course! A light went on when I read this. I’d been wondering about the deeper meaning to the anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, anti-eating mindset that is being thrust upon us. In my heart I knew it was something to do with globalism, the new world order etc and the coming Anti-Christ (yes, like Stewart I believe the Bible) but I couldn’t quite understand how it fitted in.
It’s like the rise of the Nazis all over again. They were very much into a brave new world, ruled by an ultra elite Aryan race. Bugger the rest of us. The gas chambers await.
LikeLike
There’s a long and complicated explanation as to why I think evolutionary theory is an irrelevance to daily life, and why I think creationism is going after the wrong target. I’ll put it up as a post but be warned – it contains things that will infuriate both sides.
LikeLike
All the evidence I have seen seem to point to an intelligently guided evolution. It’s certainly not implausible that universe contains, or is contained within, a higher intelligence or even multiples layers of higher intelligences. When you consider the odds on us existing right now at the point time when things are happening, as opposed to the near infinite other points in time where things are not happening, it seems more likely that we have always existed and always will, than we are just lucky its our turn now and we’ll be gone forever in a few years. I also believe that any God capable of creating a neutron star is unlikely to be incapable of creating a clearly written book explaining himself in a manner understandable to all.
LikeLike
The thing is, creationism denies evolution solely on the grounds that the earth is only 6000 years old. If they could lose that one bit of dogma (based on a human calculation which relies on Adam not being immortal before he was bounced from Eden) then evolution would be an advantage, not a disadvantage, to them.
It’s easily resolved too. Adam could not have counted years in Eden because there were no seasons, because, as an immortal, he had no need to, and because he had no reason to and no means to do so. He could have been in there for a billion years while dinosaurs came and went outside.
So his age in the Bible can only come from after he was booted out and remember, he had no mathematics training at all and most likely would not have been counting the first few hundred years since he isn’t likely to have thought about it.
The 6000 years thing is easily shot down in flames within the context of religion, before you even think about the science. It is a much-later human construction. It’s not in the book – and there are many books excised from the Bible that we know about. How many are there that we don’t know about? The Bible was produced by someone who set himself up as God’s editor. Damn, now that is cheeky!
Anyway, my riposte is on chapter 2 already ad firing on. I must get back to it.
LikeLike
I’m interested to read your piece when completed. In truth it is hardly worth the ‘intellectual’ effort arguing with the creationists loonies. For me the difference between science and theology is neatly summed up when Bill Nye and Ken Ham were asked the same question.’What would it take to change your mind?’
Ham: ‘Nothing.’
Nye: ‘Evidence.’
LikeLike
One theory about Christianity which is espoused by an American theologian of all people, is that Jesus never actually existed. The entire Christ mythos was based on the life of an earlier Roman emperor, heavily editorialised and with as much mythical bollocks and symbolism thrown in as the authors thought they could get away with. So, we end up with this bloke who is born under really auspicious circumstances and thus ought to have been making headlines all the damn time, but who turns up in a backwoods town then essentially vanishes for thirty years.
Then up he pops again, no previous record (dead suspicious as he ought to have been roaming around inside the heavily bureaucratic Roman Empire, getting up the noses of officialdom) and immediately starts acting up, right out of the blue. Humans don’t do this; most behaviour starts off small and works up slowly, but here’s this guy, a complete unknown, winding up the locals, doing miracles, the whole nine yards and not a whisper beforehand.
There isn’t a single contemporary whisper about Jesus. Not a sausage, not a murmur, not a thing. We know about a lot of criminals executed for annoying provincial authorities; posterity even records the graffiti’d words of a physician having a really good crap in a Pompeiian toilet, but of the son of god, nary a word.
But, our miraculous chappie turns up, does miracles, starts a cult and gets executed then he vanishes without a trace. Not a trace before the miraculous Jesus turns up, not a word during, and a complete vanishing act afterwards. Only a series of gospels written supposedly in antiquity by a few authors, in Latin and Greek.
Seriously suspicious, isn’t it? That American theologian thought so, and reckons that Christianity is solely a “placate the proles” sort of a religion that is designed to appeal to the very group of the population most likely to revolt against leadership and be a general civic pain in the arse. Christianity effectively says “Being poor is good, being rich isn’t so if you’re poor and humble (i.e. not pissing off the elite) you’ve got a ticket to heaven”, ideal prole-subduing stuff.
LikeLike
The one and only thing that irritates me is when someone talks about ‘the Baby Jesus’. Didn’t you read the rest of the book? He grew up!
Whether he was real or not doesn’t bother me, it was 2000 years ago and I don’t care about most of the people alive now.
Still, it does amuse me when both sides in a war claim God is on their side. I like to picture God holding his hands up and saying ‘Whoa, nothing to do with me, lads’.
Most, if not all, religions use the ‘poor is good’ excuse to take all their followers’ money. Catholicism is possibly the most blatant – all that gold in the Vatican, and all they offer the starving are prayers? Not what I’d call a good deal.
LikeLike
Yes, the 6000 years thing come from Archbishop Usher adding up all the ‘begats’ in the Bible and coming up with the answer; being a paddy, he was probably hopelessly pissed at the time, which would explain a lot!
What was it? The evening following the 26th October, 4004 BC, something of that order? You are right about the Creationists, even in their own time, Ushers contemporaries could point to older things from the Bible, Ur, Babylon, Egyptian dynasties…..but it never seemed to register.
LikeLike
It’s the only real sticking point and they are immovable on it, even though it’s a man-made number using an incomplete book that has undergone some serious editing.
Lose that bit of dogma and it comes down to an argument over whether you believe the Big Bang just happened or whether you believe God made it happen. And there the fighting ends because both are based on belief and neither can be proven.
Yes, science can prove that the Big Bang happened – but it can never know why.
LikeLike
Where do I begin to refute this? Perhaps I won’t bother because you have already done the job for me, but not eloquently I might add. I’m making a wild stab in the dark here (you are in the dark, aren’t you Stewart?), but I’m guessing you are not an educator. I’m glad to see you have got your own blog, cos I’m a coming to get ya, you mad old bugger……
LikeLike
LI
Maybe you might have missed this from Skynews this morning, i can imagine their were many righteous choking on their cornflakes and fainting in droves .. read on
Lungs Of Donors Who Smoke ‘Can Save Lives’
A study has found no difference in the one to three year survival rates of patients who have received a transplant from a smoker
http://news.sky.com/story/1208800/lungs-of-donors-who-smoke-can-save-lives
LikeLike
I ranted on this one a few days back. It’s a good reason for smokers to stay away from the NHS. They don’t want to treat you, but they see you as a handy source of spare parts. They therefore have a vested interest in making sure you die in hospital, so they can rip you apart while you’re still warm.
Might as well sleep with the tigers.
LikeLike
This is the best part ..
“After a year the survival rate for patients with smokers’ lungs was almost 91%.
For those with non-smokers’ lungs, the survival rate was lower at almost 78% but after three years the survival rates evened out.”
LikeLike
Leggy, mentioned you in dispatches and linked etc http://fredtheshred.blogspot.co.uk/p/caring-and-cleaner-your-08mm-shredder.html
I assume you’re happy with that. If not then just let me know and I’ll delete/edit/nuke/commit seppuku as required.
LikeLike
It looks good to me. The toothbrush in question is sold as a smoker’s toothbrush. I can only assume it was designed by a non-smoker who believes smokers need to scrape layers of encrusted tar off their teeth. The one time I tried to use it, it hurt like hell – it was as if I’d tried to clean my teeth with a Dremel and a grinding stone.
It does a good job of getting bits out of metal teeth but don’t let it near any human teeth.
LikeLike
Leggy, your drunken babbles are more insightful and idea-provoking than anything I read in the MSM. Keep tanked and carry on.
LikeLike
On the subject of fairies.
An old story of a terrible flood, but it wasn’t caused by a polar vortex over America sending storm after storm across the Atlantic, it wasn’t caused by Climate Change and it wasn’t even caused by the environmentalist policies at the EA, it was caused by long neglect of the flood defences and a very angry mermaid.
The Drowning of the Bottom Hundred
“IN the beginning of the sixth century, Gwyddno Garanhir was King of Ceredigion. The most valuable portion of his dominions was the great plain of the Bottom Hundred, a vast tract of level land, stretching along that part of the sea coast which now belongs to the counties of Merioneth and Cardigan. This district was populous and fertile.
It contained sixteen fortified towns, superior to all the towns and cities of the Cymry excepting Caer Lleon upon Usk. It contained also one of the three privileged ports of the Isle of Britain which was called the Port of Gwyddno, and had been known to the Phoenicians and Carthaginians when they visited the island for metal in the dim dawn of history.
This lowland country was below the level of the sea, and the people of the Bottom Hundred had in very early times built an embankment of massy stone to protect it from the encroachment of that hungry element.
This stony rampart had withstood the shock of the waves for centuries when Gwyddno began his reign. Watch-towers were erected along the embankment, and watchmen were appointed to guard against the first approaches of damage or decay.
The whole of these towers and their companies of guards were ruled by a central castle, which commanded the seaport already mentioned, and wherein dwelt Prince Seithenyn, the son of Seithyn Saidi, who held the office of Lord High Commissioner of the Royal Embankment.
Now, Seithenyn was one of the three immortal drunkards of the Isle of Britain. He left the embankment to his deputies, who left it to their assistants, who left it to itself.
One only was there who did his duty. He was Teithrin, the son of Tathral, who had the charge of a watch-tower where the embankment ended at the point of Mochras, in the high land of Ardudwy. Teithrin kept his portion of the embankment in good condition, and paced with daily care the limits of his charge. One day he happened to stray beyond them, and observed signs of neglect that filled him with dismay….
http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/cantrev.html
LikeLike
Never mind the origin of species,
What about the the origin of rules?
Is it intelligent design? (Is this a rhetorical question?)
Or are rules generated in huge numbers by random mutation, then most get eventually weeded out by protest, riot, disobedience, or revolution?
Are we living through the “Cambrian Explosion” of new rules, and waiting for the next great extinction event?
Bring it on!
LikeLike