³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I used to be PTL, but that name is too short for the registration, so the computer suggested this new name. I'll run with it and see what it looks like.

Another Blueprint attempt to introduce evolution, Will? The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is really obsessed with pushing this heretical, misguided, scientifically-challenged, ethically-bankrupt philosophical system onto the rest of us. I feel sorry for the children who are exposed to this lie. I am glad to hear about the Expelled film: at last, a film that is fighting back and exposing the smallmindedness of the scientific pseudo-elites like Dawkins.

It'll be interesting to see what screen names people choose when they register; will we still recognise them? Amenhotep, for example, will probably NOT already be taken. PB may be too short to be accepted? I was lucky to find mine scathed only by an adjoining underscore. Well.... here we go, time to see if this works.........

.........and........

I did notice that I had been prevented from posting and that I had to re-register etc. but hopefully things will now be much improved.

Previously I was never quite sure if I'd been successful or not. Sometimes the posts didn't appear at all whiile on other occassions they seemed to be entered twice.

My user name is also slightly different, due to the registyration rules.

Working fine now.

However, why is the thread on Expelled closed to new comments ?????

They're going hammer and tongs at it over on the Panda's thunb with a new thread appearing every few hours (it's quite hard to keep track).

It certainly appears to have touched a raw nerve in the US. I'd imagine it probably won't be on general release in NI but certain churches may hold private/public screenings if they get their hands on it. Virtually all evangelical denominations in the province are YEC now.

just testing if links work here

Peter- All posts before this one are dead for comments. But I agree with what you say about Expelled. My response to Rush Limbaugh's comments are .

well done whoever fixed it

Amenhotep bloody *was* taken! GRRRRR! So were most of my Ancient Egyptian buddies, so I opted for the slightly more cerebral "Heliopolitan" (which I admit sounds like an Egyptian layered ice cream).

And yes, it did suggest "jovialAmenhotep" and such like...

Anyway - substantive comment time. Will, loved Blueprint (except the elks, of course). One minor quibble - each episode included at least 10 of the following sorts of constructs:

"All over Ireland, tadpoles started sprouting legs. Tails started withering, and the resultant creatures began to move out onto the land. The Plague of Frogs [pause] had begun."

Dum de dum [pause] had begun.
etc etc.

Darned good stuff.

-A - I mean -H!

Ah, a brave new world world on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ blogs.

The Expelled! circus is giving rise to some more laughs. After PZ Myers 'Freedom to question Newtonism', RichardDawkins.net now has an even better satire:



'Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed tells of how Sex Theory has thrived unchallenged in the ivory towers of academia, as the explanation for how new babies are created. Proponents of Stork Theory claim that "Big Sex" has been suppressing their claim that babies are delivered by storks. Furthermore, Stork Theory proponents warn of the serious moral dangers posed by teaching children that sex has a function. They point out that evil dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao all believed in Sex Theory, and they may have even had sex themselves.

There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.

Unlike the original Stork Theory, the modern, sophisticated "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) merely points out that there are gaps in the orthodox Sex Theory, and that current sonogram imaging is unreliable. Moreover ATT does not specify that babies are necessarily brought by storks but by "large birds unspecified" (although many individual ATT theorists PRIVATELY believe it is a stork). '

Differences?

The grey background seems a good idea, probably easier to read the comments.

Similarities?

The concepts of evolution and creationism have appeared immediately, so it probably doesn't matter that previous threads are closed! It seems that everybody except Amenhotep, sorry, I mean the citizen of the city of the ice-cream god(!), has been able to pick up where they left off.

Sorry Heliopolitan, I couldn't resist.

I suppose I should brace myself for more of the... yes, pick a number, 6 or 60 billion discussions, as Answers in Genesis are coming to the Waterfront in May.

AiG website gives the following information:

"09-May-2008 to 10-May-2008
Ken Ham at the Waterfront Centre
Dr. David Menton, Dr. Monty White, Ken Ham, Professor Stuart Burgess"

No one fixed it, it just evolved.

Will I hope you will cover the visit of Ken Ham to Belfast. He is one of the leading scholars of creation science in the world today and it is important that you give him a fair and balanced crack of the whip.

PTL wrote

'Will I hope you will cover the visit of Ken Ham to Belfast. He is one of the leading scholars of creation science in the world today and it is important that you give him a fair and balanced crack of the whip.'

That's a telling statement. Ham doesn't have a PhD in any relevant (or irrelevant) field, or even a Masters. His most important academic credentials are honorary degrees from (surprise, surprise) Liberty University. His career consists for a good deal of public speaking, not research. Yet this is the person YECs hold up as one of their 'leading scholars'.

I agree with you Peter. William's interview with Ham last time was excellent (best I've heard). Ham was confused on a number of occasions and didn't come out of it well at all.

According to Paul Taylor there's going to be an interview by the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ this time as well. Taylor was really talking the event up last Tuesday on Revelation TV and hoping for more Lisburn City Coouncil situations to arise as a result. I just hope the interview isn't by a journalist trying to present a balanced argument.

According to Ham's blog, David Dunsieth interviewed him last time as well. Ham claims Davy got up and walked out half way through, very suddenly. From my recollection no interview by David was ever broadcast on Radio Ulster.

If you do get the chance William, don't be soft on him (or the others as well i.e. Menton, White, and Burgess)

Glad to see new posts on the blog are working well.
Really enjoyed the Blueprint series Will well done to you and your team.
I to hope you will interview Ken Ham when he comes to Belfast I heard him the last time he was here and was not impressed

The interview is still there, at the bottom of the page on the Wikipedia entry on Ham. Just click on "³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Radio interview":



The excellent "creation wars" episode of Sunday Sequence is also still available on RichardDawkins.Net:

I have listened back to that interview between Crawley and Dr Ham and I think Ken Ham comes out on top. He responds to every one of the questions carefully, and this is one of the most difficult interviews i am sure Dr Ham has had to submit to. Yet he ends up proving his case.

I too listened to that interview. Ham was severely tenderised, but sadly not Cured

I would beg to differ jovialPTL.

I thought Ham was confused on several occasions and tied up in knots as well. William asked some excellent questions and exposed the scientific shortcomings of YECism . i.e. the science of 200 years ago....we have come a long way since the early 18th century !

And the theological problems as well. Potential Christians should not be expected to ditch all science over the last 200 years in order to come to faith in Christ.

As a Christian, I have very serious problems with YECism. Cetainly had I encountered this (YECism) before I accepted Christ as my saviour i would have said thanks but no thanks. I would most likely now be an agnostic. Fortunately YECism wasn't around in the early seventies to the extent that it is now. I also had a very good geology teacher in school and that's influenced my thinking a lot. Contrary to what Ham claims, Atheism was never mentioned in any science class, including geology.

The Open University courses were the same. only the facts were taught, not religion. In fact, in one of the courses that I did (S 281 astronomy and planetary science) one of the videos was done by our very own Jocelyn Bell. She gives an excellent explanation on why a star colapses at the end of it's life. Jocelyn Bell is an excellent example of a Christian who is not a YEC.

I would urge anyone who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old to have a go at an OU course (particularly in either astronomy or geology). Then come back and see if you think the same.

I find Ham both arrogant and dogmatic. If I listened to him for long enough I would begin to doubt my faith !

I also listened to the Ham interview, in my case for the first time, partly because, as a Christian, I find 'single issue' Christian organisations a bit frustrating. The trouble is that often they seem to insist that their particular interpretation of the bible must be adhered to otherwise everything collapses. It concerned me a little that Ken Ham insisted that unless the 6 days of creation were six 24 hour days then somehow that meant there was no scriptural authority and no confidence in Jesus. At least that is what he seemed to be saying.

What some people appear to miss is that the bible is a multifaceted book with a range of genre written in a particular historical context. It therefore requires interpretation. Poetry, for example, should not be read as science. This however does not mean that the bible is meaningless, nor does it do away with the supernatural.

What bothers me is that too often faith and reason are set in opposition to one another as of they were enemies, when they are not.

Maybe we need to think a little more clearly about what the bible actually can tell us and what it was never intended to tell us.

I picked up on the scriptural authority thing as well Peter. When William asks him "what if we could prove evolution. I know we can't but what if we could. What hangs on this". His answer that all scripture would subsequently have no meaning horrified me.

I think Christian leaders should be very wary of Ham. He's leading the church into a very dangerous precipice from which there may be no way out. Unfortunately most evangelical church leaders don't seem to realise this.

petermorrow and peterJhenderson, now that the bloggers dinner thread is closed for comments, I'm shamelessly hijacking this thread to lobby a bit. Reading the last few posts in this thread, it sounds like the two of you would be great additions to the bloggers dinner. :) Care to join?

PeterKlaver

Thankyou for the invitation to dinner. Unfortunately I can't make it on this occasion, maybe another time.

Enjoy the evening.

PeterKlaver,

Why are Peter Morrow and Peter Henderson "worthy" of a specific invitation?

Is it because they are taken to be enlightened as they may not be 6-day creationists?

David

David,

The invite was open to *ALL*-believer and unbeliever and all shades thereof(that includes you btw).

Even 6 day creationists!(we were going to get a special pop-up menu for them).

Dylan_Dog

I have never been included in "all shades thereof" before.Any who know me would probably laugh.

I assume that is not what you want me to read into the comments,however it brought a wry smile to my face!

Hello davidjagnew,

The reason for only mentioning the two Peters was that I fired that off that post in a hurry and only read back up the thread as far as them. As mentioned in the original thread, the invitation is open to all. You're welcome to come too. Bring heretical, PTL, and whoever else on the blog here along with you if you can persuade them. :)

davidjagnew

You say

"I have never been included in "all shades thereof" before. Any who know me would probably laugh."

Do you mean to say that you are sort of extreme?

Which is it? Jet black or lily white?

Hi David,

Goodness-what "shade" are you!?

The invite is open to *ALL*! if yiu have the time/inclination you are more than welcome!

Peter Morrow and Dylan_Dog

That depends on what type of philosophical eye-glasses that one wears!

David

davidjagnew

Do you mean something like,
eye-think therefore eye-am glasses?

Peter,

Descartes would have been proud of you!

David