Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Danno

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

robindch

> Hope you guys don't mind my changing the direction slightly, but
> would anyone care to suggest the question Mr. Ham would least
> like to face on Fri/Sat?

Quite a few:

1. [joke deleted]

2. "Do you have any qualification in any physical science which you did not receive from a diploma mill?"

3. "Will you shave your beard if I give a thousand euro to help you build your creation museum?"

4. "Mr Ham, could you please step out of your car and blow into this bag?"

5. [joke deleted]


> Or, for more of a challenge, the loaded question he could most
> convincingly counter (assuming a neutral observer will be in
> attendance)?

I can't imagine that there will be any neutral people in the audience. My experience of such evangelical events is that they are brimful with heaving christian heathen, each one gasping for some piece of arrant crap to fall from their preacher's glistening lips, to add to the abundant, but unused, fertiliser between their own ears.

That, plus perhaps a few healthy-looking skeptics, trying desperately to blend in. For my own part, I'll be wearing my purple Hawaiian shirt + knobbly-knee-height shorts, and, as I've been growing muttonchops and heavily overeating for the last three weeks (so I look like crap on stilts) I'm expecting to be able to blend in just fine.

- robin.

Carpo

Obni wrote:

Hope you guys don't mind my changing the direction slightly, but would anyone care to suggest the question Mr. Ham would least like to face on Fri/Sat?

Maybe there is already a standard answer to this question (havent really looked) but how do these creationists explain stuff like the presence of the vermiform appendix in humans (or any other vestigal object) if elovlution is rubbish?

In my brief trawl the only answer I came accross was "The idea that the human body had functionless structures left over from evolution was discarded years ago. Scientists now know that almost all* of these 180 structures, including the appendix, have important functions." but doesnt bother stating what those functions might be, or give any sorce or link to the relevant information or explain how a person can function perfectly well without an appendix when it apparently has such an important function or mention just who these 'scientists' are or when the idea of vestigal structures was thrown out.

*(if almost all have a function, then some must not, so how do they explain the presence of these??)

davros

Danno wrote:

LOL!!! I am gonna bring round a few of the lads for a few cans an a read over this! Better laugh in this thread than on an episode of Don't feed the Gondulas!

Thanks for the Missing Link impression. Now, please stop polluting this thread with useless posts.

robindch

> Maybe there is already a standard answer to this question (havent
> really looked) but how do these creationists explain stuff like the
> presence of the vermiform appendix in humans (or any other
> vestigal object) if elovlution is rubbish?

Same way as they explain away everything else -- they either misquote it (see JC's on Darwin's transitional forms above), ignore it (see JC's non-existant commentaries on my links) or misdirect (usually by changing the topic; see JC's arguments from personal incredulity above).

When you already know THE TRUTH (Hallelujah, Praise the Lord!), you don't need to go looking for mucky, unimportant stuff like supporting evidence, or explain things that don't fit, because everything actually *does* fit if your prime mover can click its celestial fingers and an appendix appear, even if only to confuse and perplex those horrible Godless scientists and their damned rabble.

- robin.

Obni

robindch wrote:

My experience of such evangelical events is that they are brimful with heaving christian heathen, each one gasping for some piece of arrant crap to fall from their preacher's glistening lips, to add to the abundant, but unused, fertiliser between their own ears.

Come on Robin, get off the fence. What do you really think about those attending?

Myksyk

One of the issues here is that the theory of evolution is not assessed on its own merits or its consistency with the collected evidence but rather on its consistency with fundamentalist Christian theology. So assessed, it can never be accepted. It really does not matter what amount or type of evidence has been or will be collected in support of this theory. It will never be accepted because it simply cannot be accepted. Creationists cannot tell us what amount or type of evidence will suffice to demonstrate the viability of the theory of evolution because no such evidence exists in their minds. Evolutionists on the other hand know very well what evidence would clearly put the theory in doubt and force a change of direction. The fundamental difference is that creationists enter the debate with tightly closed minds. The truth has been found and it does not include evolution - no matter what evidence is proffered. Scientists in general are open-minded and will eventually go wherever the accumulated reliable evidence points them.

Danno

Myksyk wrote:

Scientists in general are open-minded and will eventually go wherever the accumulated reliable evidence points them.

Are they lost?

Seriously though... If evolutionists are soooo ready to "go" wherever the accumulated reliable evidence points them, then why are they so hell bent on discrediting creation?

For me, the evidence for creation far outweighs the evolution evidence.

Firstly, the Bible. The first sentence... "in the beginning God created..."
Secondly, all the prophecy in the Bible that has come true... this puts forward the Bible as reliable, consistent, truthful, honesty... etc...

On the other hand... evolution... The concept that we all came from a big bang that originated from a speck smaller than the tip of a needle...
Hmmm, right... who was on drugs when they thought of that one!!!

Secondly, cells magically appeared, the earth just happened to be in the right place... EVOLUTION just won the COSMIC LOTTERY... what flute escaped from the mental hospital to dream that one up? :rolleyes:

Seriously, scientists are great people all the same, they are great when they do what they do best... finding cures, advancing crops, discovering space...

But, if the resources that were put into stupid projects like evolution and SETI were put in to finding a cure for cancer, wouldn't the world be far better off?

Myksyk

Danno wrote:

For me, the evidence for creation far outweighs the evolution evidence.

Firstly, the Bible. The first sentence... "in the beginning God created..."
Secondly, all the prophecy in the Bible that has come true... this puts forward the Bible as reliable, consistent, truthful, honesty... etc...

Obviously the standards of evidence you expect from evolutionary theory and from creation stories are mindbendingly, staggeringly different. Evolution is wrong because the vast amounts of accumulated evidence from all facets of the scientific enterprise are not enough in your mind but creation is right because the first line of the Bible says so???? Furthermore, we will have absolutely no problem in pointing out the wealth of inconsistent and contradictory material you can find in the Bible.

Danno wrote:

On the other hand... evolution... The concept that we all came from a big bang that originated from a speck smaller than the tip of a needle...
Hmmm, right... who was on drugs when they thought of that one!!!

Secondly, cells magically appeared, the earth just happened to be in the right place... EVOLUTION just won the COSMIC LOTTERY... what flute escaped from the mental hospital to dream that one up? :rolleyes:

Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

robindch

> For me, the evidence for creation far outweighs the
> evolution evidence. Firstly, the Bible. The first
> sentence... "in the beginning God created..."

Ah, the scales have fallen from my eyes! I understand it all now!! It says it in a book and I know that The Book is TRUE because a man who collects a lot of money from me tells me that it is true!!! And look!!!! I've found my exclimashun buttin!!!! And me CAPSLOCK pedal!!!! Praise de LORD , nuthin' at all at all will stop me telling DE TRUTE now. An anny-wey, g'way now an' hide 'ndur a rock, ye pansy-livered book-larnin' EVILushinists who all live in fancy-shmancy cities and don't udnerstadn uz wizer cuntry folcke!!!!!!!!! God, i fayle grate now n'all!!!!!!!!!!!!

- robin.

Myksyk

Here are a few hundred of those inconsistences, and here's another shedload. What is your stand on these and their implications for the consistency of the Bible?

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

What is your stand on these and their implications for the consistency of the Bible?

I think his stand is that he is trolling :rolleyes:

Turley

robindch wrote:

1. "Hi, I'm Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour (and would have been posting as 'JC' on the Irish Skeptics Board recently, but somebody stole my initials last week). Would you prefer to admit to me, or to this lot, that you've been lying through your teeth for years about evolution?"...My experience of such evangelical events is that they are brimful with heaving christian heathen, each one gasping for some piece of arrant crap to fall from their preacher's glistening lips, to add to the abundant, but unused, fertiliser between their own ears.
- robin.

I believe in God. I am a Catholic.

I am offended by Robin's comments above. It is a display of religious bigotry.
Intolerance and hatred is especially directed at Christians in this forum. Bigotry is almost universally considered wrong because it violates the rights of others through discrimination and persecution. In the 1930's at another forum hatred and intolerance of Jews was popular. Judaism, Shintoism, and Islam share beliefs in God, but here, hate is directed toward Christians. Religious bigotry recently caused death and suffering in Bosnia. Historically the Irish have been the victims of religious bigotry.

Muslim believers in God are now popular targets in some places. Perhaps Robin would excel in a job as a prison guard with the Americans torturing believers in God at Abu Gharib or Guantanamo. On another thread "The holocaust and revisionists," Robin suggested all of the evoution deniers should be locked up in prison.

> What's next, lock up all of the evolution deniers?

Why not? It would save my fingers a lot of pointless typing for a start!

Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism generally seek enlightenment of the soul and the well being of man. Not all men practice one common teaching of these religions, that is, be kind to your fellow man.

I think most Atheists would also agree that we should be kind to our fellow man. We should avoid variations of the holocaust, Crusades and Jihad.

Hate crimes result when we do not refute those who spread hate.

"Bigotry of any kind seems to stem from the same source. Sociologists early in the 20th century developed the theory of the authoritarian personality. An authoritarian personality has strong feelings of inadequacy, dependency, and hostility, particularly toward those in authority, even though they may be in a position of authority. Because of these feelings of worthlessness, they tend to displace this anger and hate towards themselves onto another group. The bigot is simply transferring their own sense of low self esteem and their own self hatred to another racial, cultural, or religious group. The bigot will stereotype, lie, about and persecute that group no matter what the truth. They will even go so far as to accuse the persecuted of being the persecutor or fabricate instances of persecution." - from Religioustolerance.org

sliabh

Turley wrote:

I am offended by Robin's comments above. It is a display of religious bigotry.Intolerance and hatred is especially directed at Christians in this forum.

This is a skeptical forum where any position or statement is up for discussion. We don't cherish and respect all views, we challenge them.

Also the boards.ie convention is that you attack the post and not the poster. Robindich is perfectly entitled to say he feels religion is daft as long as he does not start mocking you directly.

So if you can't stand the heat then I would get out of the kitchen

Myksyk

Intolerance and hatred is especially directed at Christians in this forum.

I think Robindch's venting was actually toward unspecified fundamentalists outside this forum and certainly not at Christians en masse. And it is certainly not the case that there is intolerance and hatred directed at Christians in this forum. Rather, there are strong counter-arguments made against some of the claims of some fundamentalist Christians who deny evolution and engage in almost wilful obfuscation and misrepresentation. In this context his frustration is entirely understandable in my opinion.

I can tell you for certain that the Irish Skeptics Society's membership includes Christians. In fact, one of our recent public lectures was given by a bioethicist who is a committed Christian and an article in our upcoming newsletter is by that same speaker on our very topic of creation and evolution (I don't agree with him but he's worth listening to ).

Turley

sliabh wrote:

This is a skeptical forum where any position or statement is up for discussion. We don't cherish and respect all views, we challenge them.

Also the boards.ie convention is that you attack the post and not the poster. Robindich is perfectly entitled to say he feels religion is daft as long as he does not start mocking you directly.

So if you can't stand the heat then I would get out of the kitchen

Are you saying that it is acceptable in this forum to attack Jews or Christians as long as the attacks are directed against these groups and not any individual Jew or Christian?

robindch

> Robin suggested all of the evoution deniers should be
> locked up in prison

Touché! But I was actually joking when I suggested that I couldn't see any reason why they shouldn't be -- should have put an ironic smiley at the end

> > [...] My experience of such evangelical events [...]
> It is a display of religious bigotry. Intolerance and hatred

I disagree. As I said, this is what my *experience* is and I'm afraid that I stand by it, and my assessment of it. Before anybody asks, yes I have visited various charismatic, evangelical and randomly religious jamborees over the years and have been, on occasion, deeply shocked by the frenzied behaviour on display. This behaviour has included, amongst other things, and in the more extreme meetings (yes, here in Ireland), the simplest drumbeat music + religious sentiment ('jesus good, satan bad') extended past fifteen minutes of incessant unmusical thumping; unending, unhumerous, lunatic mass-laughter ('toronto blessing'); random syllabic shouting ('speaking in tongues'); fearful and rigid screaming; and bodies flailing + writhing on the ground in apparent agony. In the one worst and most unpleasant instance, I'm afraid that I had the bejesus thoroughly scared out of me and I ended up sprinting out of the hall (containing around 1,500 people, almost all frenzied), disgracefully leaving my girlfriend of the time behind to pick her way out by stepping over the many bodies heaving on the aisle to the door. I don't expect Ham to be anything as dramatic as this, but he's a good example of what happens a few steps further down the road being travelled by Ireland's more traditional religious offerings.

In any case, I'm afraid that I have no time for institutions of whatever kind, be they religious, political, etc, which require their adherents to abandon reason in favour of blind loyalty, emotion and uncritical support, because the end result of *those* is the warring and murder which you are so absolutely right to fear.

- robin.

Myksyk

I think this is a misrepresentation of what Sliabh is saying although he can comment himself. I think he is saying that it is accepatble to attack THE IDEAS of Jews and Christians and not the individuals within those groups. For example, you can say that you think the Christianity is a farce without thinking that people who believe in it are stupid. I presume you are free to say that you think I am misguided, that my ideas are wrong, that my opinions have no basis in fact etc etc without attacking me as a person. In fairness, Robindch's post did contain some generalised ad hominem remarks that added little to the debate and could have been done without.

Myksyk

Might I add that since Robindch has added so much to the debate we can forgive a frustrated slip into an emotional vent - I've done it myself many times!!

bus77

sliabh wrote:

This is a skeptical forum where any position or statement is up for discussion. We don't cherish and respect all views, we challenge them.

There seems to be some divergance here from (party)policy

Taken from, http://www.irishskeptics.net/..

"Are Skeptics Anti-Religious?

No. People are sometimes concerned that skeptics are, by definition, anti-religious. This is not the case.

There are many skeptics who have religious beliefs and who distinguish clearly between questions concerning the material world (the realm of science), and a non-material world in which they believe and for which there is no physical evidence. Such belief is a matter of choice or faith and the majority of skeptics accept and respect this."

sliabh wrote:

Also the boards.ie convention is that you attack the post and not the poster. Robindich is perfectly entitled to say he feels religion is daft as long as he does not start mocking you directly.

I dont know if your reading the same thread but it goes much further than "religion is daft". I don't need a charter to tell me, that if you attack someones cultural/national/religious identity you are undermining their character in public,
Undermining their character while simutainiously undermining their views.

sliabh wrote:

So if you can't stand the heat then I would get out of the kitchen

Replace heat with fire.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

I think Robindch's venting was actually toward unspecified fundamentalists outside this forum and certainly not at Christians en masse. And it is certainly not the case that there is intolerance and hatred directed at Christians in this forum.

I am sorry my previous statement could be understood to mean that intolerance was directed at Christians in this forum when I meant, within this forum intolerance was directed at Christians.

Ridiculing Jesus Christ is offensive to more than unspecified fundamentalists. Ridiculing Christ, Yahweh, or Allah and mocking preachers, Rabbis, and Clerics does not insult fundamentalists alone. Atheists can also be virtuous.

Myksyk

Sorry Turley. I think I was a little unclear in my second last post which was written in haste as I left work. My only point there was to say that one can attack ideas without attacking the person.

In relation to religion and the ISS, Bus77 has helped me clarify my thoughts. I think it is acceptable to challenge the CLAIMS made by people on religious grounds but belief in God is not an empirical question and is not usually usefully addressed. Making comments on the characteristics of people with whom you disagree is not acceptable. The ISS is not interested in attacking belief in God but it is interested in challenging testable claims made on behalf of any ideological camp, be it religion, science, philosophiy, politics, etc.

On the other hand, I would be slow to enter the intellectually and emotionally restrictive territory of stifling political correctness. A recent pundit here in The Irish Times made the comment that he felt the right to offend is more important in a democratic society than the right not to be offended. In defense of free speech it seems a better idea to allow expression of any and all views no matter how provocative and instead meet the challenge of providing cogent arguments against bigoted or racist creeds which may prevent thier general aceptance.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Before anybody asks, yes I have visited various charismatic, evangelical and randomly religious jamborees over the years and have been, on occasion, deeply shocked by the frenzied behaviour on display.

I am not surprised by what you have seen. Returning to H.L. Mencken, he said,
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car."

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

A recent pundit here in The Irish Times made the comment that he felt the right to offend is more important in a democratic society than the right not to be offended. In defense of free speech it seems a better idea to allow expression of any and all views no matter how provocative and instead meet the challenge of providing cogent arguments against bigoted or racist creeds which may prevent thier general aceptance.

I agree. I would not deny a person their right to express bigoted views. I do not want to silence free speech.

sliabh

Turley wrote:

Are you saying that it is acceptable in this forum to attack Jews or Christians as long as the attacks are directed against these groups and not any individual Jew or Christian?

Considering the context of the forum what is attacked is the specifics o fwhat they believe in and not the people themselves.

It would be okay to criticise the concept of kosher products or fatima miracles. But I don't think anyone would condone attacking Jews or Christians just for being Jewish or Christian.

davros

Turley wrote:

I believe in God. I am a Catholic.

I am offended by Robin's comments above. It is a display of religious bigotry.
Intolerance and hatred is especially directed at Christians in this forum.

I hope that's not true and I honestly don't think so. Different people can read the same lines in different ways though and some language on this thread has been unnecessarily inflammatory.

The issue is not with Christians but with those who seek to impose their beliefs on others in harmful ways. Like demanding the teaching of unscientific concepts in schools.

So, if the infidels would kindly refrain from blasphemy (which, remember, is still prohibited by the Irish Constitution ) we can continue our polite dialogue on the merits of Mr. Ham's imminent visit.

Zombrex

I don't think anyone here is attacking religion or even Christians. What they are attacking the is the efforts of Creationists to distort evidence and fact in a vain effort to prove their points, exactly like JC is trying to do.

While the original comments were probably OTT, I don't think the poster meant to insult Christians, only to point out the ridiculous idea of creationists attacking evolution for being weak in facts when the idea of God the creator has absolutly no evidence behind it what so ever.

robindch

Hi all -

Briefly -- coz it's late and I'm just back from another long drive -- I have to stress that I have nothing against christians. My gripe is with specifically with (a) the *religions* themselves (b) frequently, their propagators, and most particularly (c) the behaviour of large numbers of people, all claming a common religious belief, who tend, very frequently, to behave in a reason-free manner, as almost all religions that I'm aware of require, and as I've described yesterday. I simply find it to be desperately dishonest and almost always in inverse proportion to the stridency of each group's constantly-asserted 'higher' morality based upon such belief.

In the context of this thread, these people *happen* to be creationist christians, or, at least, as Turley quite rightly pointed out, people who *claim* to be christians, but it could be any other ingroup, either political, trades' union, social class, polity, etc, etc, and I would say much the same thing about their behaviour. Anyhow, since each group claiming to be 'christian' will usually reject similar claims from other groups, since each group is self-selecting, and according to their own self-selected criteria, and I therefore think that the group-name of 'christian' hovers about the meaningless. Think here of the two sides in the North and their own respective claims to authority.

So christians here shouldn't worry that they are being referred to -- I'm specifically talking about the daws going along to see what they can gather from Ham's cure.

'night.

- robin.

J C

Hi All
You challenged me to come up with a valid scientific hypothesis that disproves the Gradual Evolution of life “from Muck to Man”. You assured me that if such a scientifically valid hypothesis were to exist that you would abandon your BELIEF in Evolution.
You also took it upon yourselves to assure me that ALL scientists, being the objective creatures that they are, would equally take such a valid hypothesis “ on board” and also abandon Evolution.

I took up your challenge and provided you with a valid scientific hypothesis that disproves the Gradual Evolution of life “from Muck to Man”.

My hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility” is a valid scientific hypothesis because:-
1. It is PRECISELY defined.
2. It is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
3. Observed phenomena are in accordance with its premises.
To recap
Its precise definition is obvious. Critical amino acid sequences and the number of electrons in the Universe are phenomena that can be repeatably observed . My mathematical calculations are correct.
What I got in reply was a tirade of “mouth in gear - brain in neutral” off-topic sectarian ranting about “creationists” and other assorted minorities, culminating in the following downright sinister remark
Quote
"Mr Ham, sorry to disturb you as you walk alone down this dark alley, but me and my twelve large, dangerous-looking friends are from the Continuity Skeptics. Can you confirm to us that you're a creationist?"
I also got orders from you to visit various internet sites – which I visited but didn’t find any rebuttals of my scientific hypothesis, only more gratuitous insults to “creationists”. I concluded from all of this that whatever these creationists are doing must really be “hitting the target” to cause such irrational, emotional outbursts!!!
Your only serious attempt at a rebuttal of my scientific hypothesis was a “one liner” about a “coin-tosser flipping coins into a sorting device which discards all heads”. This gleefully ignored the fact that such a putative device would be be a complex structure, which in observed living matter, would require proteins (with critical amino acid sequences) which my hypothesis proves cannot be randomly produced in the first place.
It also conveniently ignores the fact that the so-called “coin” that we are “tossing” here has 10 to the power of 130 “sides” to it!! A feat that my hypothesis shows would defeat the jointly harnessed abilities of EVERY ELECTRON in the known UNIVERSE!!!
Could I now have on-topic reasoned argument on my valid scientific hypothesis – without reference to endless internet sites or mindless sectarian comments?

davros

You are, in effect, arguing: Evolution doesn't exist because evolution doesn't exist.

You insist that a particular amino acid sequence cannot spring, fully formed, into the world thanks to a single random event assembling that sequence from constituent atoms. We all agree.

You say that disproves the theory of evolution because there is no other way that such a sequence can arise in Nature.

Others here say that evolution provides the mechanism for such a sequence to arise. It looks complicated today but that is because it has been honed and enhanced very gradually over many millions of years. Each random event in that process introduced a small change that has a far more reasonable likelihood of occurrence.

You might as well argue that cars don't exist because the chance of one spontaneously assembling from a heap of scrap is nil.