Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

Have to say Ro5ey is fast becoming one of my favourite STW people.

There you go … taking things oh so literally.

Yeah mike he’s got a beard and everything

I know, some Italian bloke painted a picture on a ceiling.

He’s a good dancer.

Apparently dinosaurs were put there by god to test our faith

I have my first disciple !!

I’m on my way, Hallelujah

Now where are all those rich hollywood celebs

😆

It’s been fun guys… Peace, outta here

I have my first disciple !!

That’s so important. You are now no longer a lone nut:

Evolution is compatible with intelligent design, since the designer could have just set up the initial conditions and let it happen. No-one knows why there was a big bang after all.

Ah – so God wound it up and let it go, and then evolution took over. And which God was that exactly?

I said ‘designer’ not God.

Intelligent design isn’t the same as religion, which isn’t the same as creationism.

Intelligent design says that some intelligent thing created the universe in some way or other. We could all be the result of some other civilisation’s large hadron collider experiment, or the contents of a really big petri dish. Or we could all be in the Matrix. Those are intelligent design ideas.

Creationism insists that the world was created exactly as it is now by God as per Genesis.

Religion can run anywhere between these ideas, or neither of them.

What does god look like? What colour is it?

Hah.. n00b. What colour is an electron? What does it look like? What’s that, you don’t know? They must not exist then!

Molly you are a scientist I dont know why you do this.

What’s being a scientist got to do with it? The world is full of ideas, some have merit, some do not. A lot of people don’t really give a shit about how the universe was created.

We could all be the result of some other civilisation’s large hadron collider experiment, or the contents of a really big petri dish. Or we could all be in the Matrix. Those are intelligent design ideas.

Nah, they’re way older than that but not incompatable with ID

Intelligent design isn’t the same as religion, which isn’t the same as creationism.

True to an extent, but intelligent design was invented by religious creationists as a back door way of getting religious ideas taught in American schools.

So’s gravity. Do you ever feel like just floating off?

I’ve missed a few posts, but i’m loving this theory of gravity, could someone explain it to me?

Naah man, it’s too much of a downer to talk about.

I’ve missed a few posts, but i’m loving this theory of gravity, could someone explain it to me?

Apparently you could escape Deimos with a bike and a ramp:

Link[/url]

Hah.. n00b. What colour is an electron? What does it look like? What’s that, you don’t know? They must not exist then!

Good point.

Very good, actually. 🙂

Well, that’s 2 noes sofar then

Is the OP claiming as absolute certainty that their evolutionary viewpoint is right?
In practice, evolution is neither fact nor theory.
A theory is a well-supported, but falsifiable, body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power. For instance, gravity has observable “how” effects although there is great divergence in current, eminent, scholarly opinion when it comes to explaining gravity’s “whys”.
Evolution, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation).
Evolutionists fit all evidence into the framework of evolutionary naturalism (the belief that there are no supernatural causes). As a corollary to this, evolution cannot be used to make predictions because all results are filtered through the prior belief in evolution.
Evolution is better referred to as a tenet of naturalistic philosophy or humanism (a belief system).
Most evolutionists presuppose a worldview that demands the removal of any supernatural agents acting in a knowable way (e.g., miracles, special creation). Calling it a theory and/or fact is a disingenuous attempt to hide the underlying beliefs and to discourage debate by ridiculing those who disagree.
QED “Creationist religious nutjob”
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. (C S Lewis)

True to an extent, but intelligent design was invented by religious creationists

Ok, then who invented religous creationists!

The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. (C S Lewis)

But a bit like the wave/particle duality – it can be one or either depending on your viewpoint with neither being the ‘correct’ one

True to an extent, but intelligent design was invented by religious creationists as a back door way of getting religious ideas taught in American schools.

Well not entirely. It also applies to those people who think the world is an alien experiment.

Good point

Thanks, but there’s actually several points in there.

1 – electrons are too small to ‘look’ like anything or have colour. They still exist. Therefore, the ‘can you see it’ argument is not a good one.

2 – You can never perceive them directly, but they still exist. We know this because of secondary evidence that they exist.

3 – Most likely you have not done these experiments yourself anyway, so you are taking other peoples’ word for it.

Now you should be able to see the parallels with the religious arguments there.

9 pages in 7 hours! A new stw record surely

And if I may, 3 ‘undred

What’s being a scientist got to do with it? The world is full of ideas, some have merit, some do not

Do you really have no idea what science would have to do with working out whether creationism is true or has merit 😯

Now you should be able to see the parallels with the religious arguments there.

Ah yes, but “electrons” can be demonstrated to exist by the effects they produce, no? As part of a larger chain of cause and effect that can also be demonstrated. Unlike a “supernatural” being.

I could, I suppose, visit the LHC and do a course in physics to fully understand what people like the lovely Dr Cox are doing there – but it certainly looks and sounds (from what I’ve read and seen/heard) to be a great deal more solid than “god did it” (invented by people who had barely got beyond inventing the wheel)TBH…

Ok, then who invented religous creationists!

They’re an evolutionary backwater:
The duck billed platypuses of the religious world. 😐

However CS Lewis did not have the ability to test DNA as we do now. If we had no fossils at all, evolution is completely proven in the DNA. It’s as solid a theory as any in the scientific sense of the word and no amount of semantics can change that. Evolution is, without doubt, a fact.

Well not entirely. It also applies to those people who think the world is an alien experiment.

But we don’t take those nutters seriously 😉

But we don’t take those nutters seriously

What ever happened to Kaesae?

In practice, evolution is neither fact nor theory.

Wrong. Evolution is a fact and has been observed in a laboratory.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Oops…..I listened to the program on my drive to work and gave no real thought to the thread or how it would pan out, i thought perhaps a few folk on here would listen to the R4 program as i know there is a healthy distrust of religion amongst most of us on this forum but i did not expect the thread to turn into such a behemoth…Oh well….glad i could give you’s all something to discuss t’day. I’d better head back to page 1 to read through the responses and see how the arguments evolved over the course of the day, kind’a like what that darwin chap mentioned in his book 150 odd years ago, you know the one i’m meaning…..something bout’ evolution 😀

To get back to the original discussion I read up on the chappie who was on the radio this morning. While I don’t really care about his wacko views about the creation of the world, since most people will consider him off his rocker, I think he’s really clueless in his pontificating on depression. Apparently its the depressed persons fault based on their pride. Idiot.

Needless to say he thinks that all you have to do is the usual happy flappy clappy stuff to cure yourself.

I am at a loss to understand why he was on the radio though. Should anyone with bizarre views be asked to come on the radio, perhaps fixie owners?

Wow! That filled what promised to be a pretty dull train journey home from London.

Religion is just mankind’s way to communicate with the weather (or god).

Nine pages of debate. I wonder if as many people actually heard the programme?

I did. It was a truly surreal experience. I learned that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the alleged creator of the universe talks to people in cars.

The programme seemed to be about people who believe things regardless of society. The previous ones were informative. This one was not.

He does have form as a self-publicist and received a huge amount of flak for it, especially from Christians: channel 4

I am at a loss to understand why he was on the radio though.

They were on BBC TV the other Sunday morning debating with scientists hosted by Nicky Campbell.Explain him if you believe in evolution.

A lot of this is properly over my head but I’ll throw this into the ring:

Pretty much every world religion (and “no religion”) is represented in my “lifelong friends” (I grew up in Luton, nice and mixed bag, I believe they call it multiculturalism or something) group.

The media only ever report on the tiny, tiny percentage of nutcases who do bad things in the name of religion, and never on the vast majority for whom religion provides a set of pretty decent moral guidelines on how to lead a decent life. There will always be a few wronguns, and if they don’t use religion to justify bad and misguided acts, it’s colour, immigration, politics or something else. A nutcase will latch onto something and use it as a crutch to justify what they do.

You may or may not agree with some geezer on Radio 4 who believes in creationism, but you know what, if his beliefs don’t hurt anyone and help him live a better life and guide him to be a better man, who are we to judge?

as i know there is a healthy distrust of religion amongst most of us on this forum

No…
Never! 😆

If it was the same chap who was on the Nicky Campbell thing, he gives Christians a bad name.

a satanist !!

a satanist !!

worse.

He’s a Pentecostalist.

😉

I think andyrm has just posted the most sensible thing I’ve read on here all day.

molgrips:

Hah.. n00b. What colour is an electron? What does it look like? What’s that, you don’t know? They must not exist then!

I have conducted experiments which provide very strong evidence for the presence of negatively charged sub atomic particles. I will join with convention and call them electrons.

Now, what do you mean by what colour are they? When we refer to the colour of light we mean its wavelength – I’ve measured the wavelength of electrons, it is outside of the wavelength perceptible to the human eye. Also, in the widely accepted understanding of molecular structure, nothing would have colour without electrons absorbing light and transitioning from one state to another.

It would appear others have determined that they are spherical: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453