Monday, 5 January 2015

Scopes Monkey Case & Islam in the 21st century

There's a link in the comments to the post below (H/T Cascadian) to a speech by Egypt's Al Sisi calling for an Islamic enlightenment. Well worth following.

And with reference to the Scopes Monkey case, when time allows I will be looking in detail at HMI's report on the Birmingham 'madrassas' to see what place creationism had in the schools' curricula.

This matter is so vital - as important as the Cold War - that we need a rebirth of both VOA and the BBC Arabic Service to broadcast reformed Islam deep into the heart of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the whole middle east. The message must be skilled and relentless. 

Tonight will also see the latest PEGIDA mass public witness events - with freezing weather and liberal lefty fury in opposition I will be keen to see the attendance figures.     

I'm away again for a few days - if I can have patience with the tablet, and there's something interesting worth posting, I shall. 


Anonymous said...

"we need a rebirth of both VOA and the BBC Arabic Service to broadcast reformed Islam deep into the heart of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the whole middle east. The message must be skilled and relentless. "

I couldn't agree with you more Radders, Mohammedism, is a purblind creed, and cult that needs down to its 'bolts and washers' - a reformation.

Asking the BBC to 'hang' with that and using the world service is somewhat of a problem me old son.
It's akin, to asking Al Jazerra to broadcast evensong, or Matins or, a Sunday morning Tridentine Mass - full Roman rite - from the Vatican.
BBC went full blown apologist for the fundo's yonks ago, and Sky are as bad.

G. Tingey said...

Why blame JUST islam?
Christianity is just as bad, in many, many places - large swathes of the USA still don't/won't accept what they call "evil-ution".
And you have utter tossers like Maurice Mills an elected British christian politician, who is plainly a totally uneducated primitive fuckwit ... etc. ad nauseam
Can anyone actually point out any serious difference between these dangerous nutters?

Anonymous said...

When I've had American religious nutters call at my house, they've tended to want to convert me by (weak) force of argument, not to hack my head off. While in science a Theory means more than in common parlance, all of science is 'work in progress' and those with fixed beliefs imagine that this is lack of conviction, and take the development of ideas as an inadequacy in the science in contrast to their 'certainty'.
Add that to the many times that predictions have been proved wrong, and you have set the religious fuqwit's ideas in concrete!

Budgie said...

I think you are right Raedwald, but can see no political will in the UK to do it. Islamicist terrorism has our establishment in its thrall.

Budgie said...

G Tingey, No, fundamentalist Christianity is nowhere near as "bad" as fundamentalist Islam: random beheading and slavery are not practiced by any Christian state or group. Belief in Creationism is not an equivalent. Indeed any of the Earth based flavours of evolution theory have so many holes that Creationism is more watertight. Panspermia is more believable than Darwinism.

Anonymous said...

Darwinism has some merit but the gaping 'holes'; discrepancies and vagaries in said supposition are like space - monumentally vast, it helps explain but not by much.

Not least, the biggest gap, explaining how "some carbon atoms combined with Hydrogen and Oxygen" somehow became 'intelligent' and then metamorphosed into nucleic double helix molecules and next into Stromatolites - that's some fucking jump, in fact it's science bloody fiction....Even St bloody Brian Cox thinks were unique and from there it ain't much of a leap to advocate divine manufacture because if one realizes the uniqueness of our bounteous blue planet.

After that, the infinitesimal and mathematically perfect alignment of sun, moon and heliocentric orbit and how the sun's magnetic influence generated from its inner core protects and defends the earth from the deadly irradiation of other exploding stars in the Galaxy - it's fucking miracle were still here.

Only religion can account for it and Brian Cox has arrived at that accommodation - to admit it to yourself though, that's another thing.

Religion yes. But not Islam, which is first and foremost a political creed devoted to the worship of a bloke who lived circa 600 Anno Domini - it explains fuck all about the mysteries of life, the Universe and concerning mankind.

G. Tingey said...

NOT CURRENTLY, agreed ...
But they used to, quite frequently.
The US south used the bible as a justification for slavery, remember?
Thomas Aikenhead was (effectively) murdered by the Scots' Church Gernarla Assembly in 1697, & the last unfortunate womenwho were murdered by the religious in Britain were in 1727.

As for you spouting on evolution theory, I want to know what you are smoking?
Either that or you are seriously deluded or lying, hopefully the former.
Or of course, profoundly ignorant, with no scientific education at all, which is all too possible, I suppose.
Evolution is a FACT - start from the DNA double-spiral & work outwards from there - evolution "drops out" of the consequences, quite naturally.

Another undeducated fuckwit!
Straining at gnat's whiskers via the anthropic principle will get you nowhere.
Now - GET AN EDUCATION or shut up?

Quiet_Man said...

What as in Islam allows you to enslave, beat your wife, extort from none believers, murder and/or rape any captives etc whilst Christianity simply doesn't? Mind you, most of us judge Islam in the here and now, whilst some assume what Christianity did in the past (and not now) to be far more important. There's a word for them however and that word is idiot.

G. Tingey said...

christianity endorses slavery in the bible, doesn't it?
The message of both religions is identical - OBEY the priests & allow yourself to be blackmailed ...
Meanwhile, the RC church's treatment of women is only marginally better than that of islam.

I realised, after posting, that you are spouting an even bigger load of cobblers than I thought: the clue is in the word: "panspermia".
You're talking about the origin of life, are you not?
Evolution says nothing at all about that, & never has. It "merely" explains the vast diversity of existing life.
The best one is ever likely to get as to "origin of life" (as opposed to species) are very educated guesses.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I see that PEGIDA is now being labelled as "far-right" by the MSM and the political class in Germany.

One has to wonder what their definition is.

Well no, actually, one doesn't - it's just a smear word of general usage. What it means, if anything, is "people we can't argue with but wish to denigrate".

Findia Group said...

Thanks for sharing!

Budgie said...

G Tingey, No, the whole point about "Creationism" is that it explains how (and from who) life originated.

And, despite you being a professed believer in "evolution", you can't even get that right. Whilst Darwin stated that his theory did not account for the origins of life, modern evolutionary theory insists, absurdly, that life originated on Earth (and, even more absurdly, by chance).

Cascadian said...

PEGIDA is interesting, national governments just cannot get a handle on these groups who insist that government should primarily work for the life-long contributors to their social welfare systems. These groups are arising everywhere throughout socialist Europe much to the discomfort of the luvvies and politicians.

What to do? Well obviously since most governments would have very little to do if they vacated the do-gooding welfare systems they must lie and denigrate the upstarts.

Read PEGIDA's agenda in the post below-I would say it is beyond tolerant of reasonable need by refugees and immigrants. However it does sensibly point out Islam's major issues with integration, sensible people have recognized that, people like camoron and prince chuckles continue to deny the evidence.

Raedwalds 1960's solution of using BBC world service and VoA will not work in a texting and internet world, indeed it has to be said that the nutters have a far more sophisticated propaganda machine than the combined appeasement governments. Anyway the message has to be directed at the insurgents within yUK and EU.

I see there are another 12 dead in Paris-attritional casualties-hey ho, that's acceptable. camoron gets to chair his Boys Own cobra meeting and will no doubt tell us this is barbaric or some-such. NOTHING will be done, the appeasement will continue.

Cascadian said...

Attritional casualties:

England-Woolwich, London, capital city.
Canada-Ottawa, capital city
Australia-Sydney, major city, not capital city.
France-Paris, capital city.

Nothing to worry about chaps, just some random events there is nothing to be learned therefrom, leave it to the "professionals".

camoron has it all under control, he has moved the unarmed ceremonial guards inside the secure perimeter at the royal palaces all the better to show that the streets are not safe.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

I find myself agreeing vehemently with Cascadian.

One of our neighbours, a very keen Anglican who comes across as Dr. Heinz Kiosk cross-bred with the Rev. Dr. Spacely-Trellis, opined to me just this afternoon that he couldn't understand "this dreadful business in Paris" because Islam is the 'religion of peace'. I advised him to try reading a) the Koran and b) Reliance of the Traveller. It's all in there, and it ain't moderate.

This is what truly amazes me; the Muzzies don't even try to hide it and the idiot left is doing the 3 monkeys act even as the bullets are flying. I think I now understand how the Moriori people disappeared.

Anonymous said...

Watching these guys in Paris, killing a Gendarme, gunning him down in cold blood and then watching them casually pouring fire down the street.
A few thoughts occurred, these assassins were no London kids on a jolly in the Levant cooking for the jihadists, these killers were calm and used to street fighting and assured and cool with it. That assurance is from experience and training, either these are Frogs who have been in the Army or have some considerable experience gleaned in foreign wars - Syria and maybe further afield than that.
If, this had been a scene in London and SO19-SWAT [whatever they're called these days] had turned up, it would have been a slaughter. UK plod, they'd have been looking at major casualties. Meaning, the only way to bring this type of murdering bugger to heel is counter them with seasoned professional troops:

i. How many are fully equipped able to be deployed troops - have we got?

ii. Where are they stationed?

iii. In hte event of a Mumbai style attack, and if London patently ain't up to the job, then God help Manchester, Brum, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Bristol....all points Britain.

haddock said...

who was training the armies in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Those with experience of street fighting in NI, that's who. Training muslims to kill more effectively was never going to end well.

Cascadian said...

Anon 21:01 to your questions.

i. not nearly enough, and not trained or properly equipped for urban warfare.

ii. see i, it does not matter.

iii. God help you all, your only chance is personal preparation.

I will add another question,

iv. if you cannot run the NHS, if the "armed" services are a pathetic joke, if the transportation services are beyond pathetic, if you cannot determine who is roaming the country, if mosques and schools are proven terrorist training grounds, why do you need a government? What do they actually do except create major problems and spend tax revenue foolishly.

Perhaps somebody could ask the Prime Minister during the election campaign.

As the Boy Scouts used to say-be prepared!

Anonymous said...

"who was training the armies in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Those with experience of street fighting in NI, that's who. Training muslims to kill more effectively was never going to end well."


That plain fact, eventually turns out to on the ground Army manoeuvres with your [s]friends[/strike] enemies.

Plus, think back to the madness of training those Saudi Mujahadin on Afghanistan - later to be called al-Qaeda. Where the CIA trained and armed Bin Laden among others to fight the Russkies, which came back to bite the USA and us in the arse.

Look further back and to Vietnam, where the CIA in their infinite wisdom sought out and originally had contacts and gave some assymetric warfare tips to Ho Chi Minh - see how that turned out.

Anonymous said...

tingey you hidebound blind twat, how about a bit of science for you......

H/T Dave.

"The probabilities involved in the Darwinian Myth are staggering. So much so, that any objective analysis would lead the unbiased researcher to conclude that chance is not the arbiter of life and evolution. Rather, that they are manifestations of PURPOSEFUL DESIGN. In philosophy such a standpoint is called teleological: in theology it is Creationism.

For example, the probability of the emergence of an organic cell, one of the smallest enzymes, from an inorganic soup of amino acids and nucleotides of primeval seas is astronomical. In mathematical terms this is represented as 10^130, that is, ten followed by one hundred and thirty zeroes. The scenario gets more nightmarish for the Darwinists when more complex cells are considered. For instance, a cell containing one large nucleic acid molecule with 3 to 4 million base pairs arranged consecutively in a double-stranded helical structure offers the gene complement of this cell 10^2,000,000 alternatives. Such numbers are INCOMPREHENSIBLE even in terms of astronomy: by comparison, the total number of hydrogen atoms in the observable universe is only calculated to be in the order of 10^80.

The observable universe contains about 100 billion galaxies, each containing on average close to a trillion stars. That is a total of about 10^23 stars. A typical star is like our sun. The Sun has a mass of about 2×10^30 kg, which equates to 10^57 atoms of hydrogen per star. A total of 10^23 stars containing 10^57 atoms each gives us a total number of atoms of 10^80

The great British astrophysicist Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001) was an advocate of the steady state theory of cosmology and described processes of nucleosynthesis inside stars. Hoyle knew his subject well just as he well knew that the argument that chance was the architect of life was ridiculous. Hoyle said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the SIMPLEST CELL coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado crashing through a junk yard of aeroplane parts and leaving an assembled and working 747 Jumbo Jet in its wake.

A small protein molecule contains one hundred amino acid residues and for these to be selected by pure chance from 10^130 alternative choices before correct assembly beggars belief. For, the probability of such occurrence is infinitesimally small and in the posited time scale it is rendered virtually zero. That is, it cannot possibly happen ... logically ... mathematically ... common commonsensically ...

The probabilities involved in the chance mutation of more complex structures are virtually incalculable due to their impossibility within such a mathematical system. That is, it cannot possibly happen ... logically ... mathematically.

Even the deluded Charles Darwin (1809-82) who was no great mathematician admitted to a shudder when he contemplated the origin of the eye using his "method."


Anonymous said...


In the face of the mathematical evidence the Darwinists retreat into blind faith and piously spout the mantra that the choice of the genetic code was arbitrarily arrived at and was enriched throughout the aeons of history by a series of random events. This is not a scientific explanation of the phenomenon but a metaphysical treatment of the worst kind.

The Darwinists ask us to believe with them that life emerged spontaneously three billion years ago even though the chances of this occurring were exceedingly small indeed. In fact, that it was a logical and mathematic impossibility. Moreover, that the atmosphere somehow "evolved" itself due to the feedback mechanisms initiated by this new arrangement involving living organisms. And, by implication, that the transition from non-living to living matter occurred only once and could only occur once. The posited Darwinian Myth is therefore an almost mystic transition: from Stella Nebula to barren Earth, from inorganic matter to life, to monkeys and thence to humans.

Yet, the odds of this happening are not just formidable they are simply staggering. So much so, that any ethical treatment of the subject should humble the researcher who then should give thanks to God rather than seek to remove Him from the equation by slight of hand. Yet this is exactly what the Darwinists do ... remove the Creator from His creation."

Darwin talked bollocks of the first order - he would no doubt be a lowly politician these days and besides Darwin plagiarized Wallace's ideas for his evolution theory - therefore Darwin be: a double fuqwit.

Got it? Now, change the habit of a lifetime, read, mark and for the first time: think on.

G. Tingey said...

IF, as you say, "creationism" supposedly claims to explain how life originated (By producing an undetectable BigSkyFairy) then it is lying, straight out.
The whole body of evolutionary biology explains the diversity & variation in existing life, once you have just one single-celled form onwards.
And is correct & proven (as far as any such thing can be proven - like Gravity & QM are proven f'rinstance ....
Actually, modern evolutionary studies are ASSUMING that life originated here, as the simplest explanation that currently fits the available facts.

Stop being insulting, or I shall reply in kind.
Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer, but he failed to see the cumulative effects over time, coupled with what I might call "Molecular memory" that cumulatively gives results in evolution.
This very simple point is one that all the opponents of evolution never get.
What are your academic & professional scientific qualifications?
Because, if you haven't got past GCSE, then you can fuck off ...
the Darwinists retreat into blind faith
There is no such thing or body as: "the Darwinists" - that sentence is a give-away that you are ignorant & gullible & probably stupid.
IF evolutionary theory & practice, used by every single professional botanist, zoologist & life-sciences practitioner on the planet is wrong - where's your EVIDENCE?
And what alternative, TESTABLE explanation do you have?
Put up, or fuck off.


On the OTHER topic, PAris.
Will Private Eye & all the newspapers now carry cartoons mocking islam for the next month, & if not why not?
Don't hold your breath.

There was some (muslim) twat on the radio this AM, going on about "respect" & "offence".
Obviously needed to be told to go & suck a Pig's cock.

Budgie said...

G Tingey, No, the various flavours of modern evolutionary theory actually do insist that life originated on Earth as part of "evolution". Only the precise mechanisms are still somewhat hazy, or so evolutionists claim.

Evolution is, of course, wrong as Anon above has demonstrated. Remember the turtles story from Hoyle that I included in the previous post? It was a knock on Panspermia, which is at least much more likely than current, Earth-centric, evolutionary theory.

Do try not to fall for the propaganda put out in the BBC's Everyman's Guide to (fashionable) Science for Dummies, there's a good chap.

G. Tingey said...

Try Here:
and here too:

If you can convince me that these thousands of professional competent scientists are wrong & your BigSkyFairy version is correct - good luck!
As it is, you're a (scientifically) uneducated fuckwit.
Now, take your deluded lies elsewhere, please ...

We have more important things to discuss right now, like murderous religious nutters, emulating the christians of the 16th & 17th centuries.

Bloke In Italy said...

I wouldn't normally be agreeing with Tingey but in this case I do. What anon has to remember is that infinity is an awful long time. We can never know how many times the universe has gone through its big bang / big crunch scenario, but if is has existed for ever as seems likely then the probability of an exceedingly unlikely thing happening tends towards 1 - ie if it can happen without infringing the laws of physics, then it will.

For us to exist it is sufficient that it happen once. In fact in an infinite period of time it has happened an infinity of times.

As far as I can see creationism is a load of crap. I mean, who do you think created god?

Do us a favour.

And can all of us please stop swearing and shouting.

Anonymous said...

Infinity does explain not much, but it's a useful notion, "blame it all on infinity".

Einstein, thought that there was such a thing [entity], a divine force, as God.

Philosophy, elliptic argument and recondite waffle explains nothing, and at the base of it - human beings will never be able to explain everything in terms of mathematics - simple. Religion, or should I say Christianity: is the emollient for the inflamed mind.
Doing good works unseen and unheard, helping your fellow man, in sickness and for altruistic reasons only - is Godlike and gives the soul great solace but you don't score brownie points for it and at the end of your days, there is only you and God - no matter what we have done or how much you can't take with you - ashes is all we are, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and a few trace elements.

Christianity, assuages the yearning in mankind - a need, who knows if it is right? On this earth: we'll never know.

But the precepts; of love, honesty, hard work and respect are the nearest things, instruments and concepts - man can be adhere to be nearer to his/her God.

Budgie said...

Bloke In Italy, Kindly don't include me in "all": swearing and shouting (and insults) are G Tingey's speciality.

Whilst some scientists (Hoyle amongst them) advocated an expanding and contracting universe, the "big bang" theory (actually named by Hoyle), which is now generally accepted, posits the emergence of the universe from a singularity. Both space and time were the result of the "expansion".

Currently the age of the universe is considered to be just under 14 billion years, certainly not the "infinity" you claim. Consequently Anon's maths (taken from Hoyle) are correct, there has simply not been enough time, even if life could originate by chance (unproven), since design is not allowed by yours and G Tingey's hypothesis.

Bloke In Italy said...

Hi Budgie

Recent cosmological speculation posits that it is by no means certain that time began with the big bang, and that there are equally valid solutions in which the event we know as the big bang was simply one of a series of events and that it may even be possible, by for example analysing gravitational waves find echoes of pre-big bang conditions. This also gets round the inconvenient need for the rather implausible inflation theory.

If these theories are correct then infinity does come into play.

All rather fascinating and not a truth, revealed or otherwise, in sight.

You prefer to believe in the dusty aramaic scripts and God. Personally I don't and I find cosmology more fascinating intellectually and less improbable.

But I don't know and neither do you (or maybe you do "know" and that makes you as bad as the mad ragheads).

The joy of living in a pluralistic society is that we can agree to differ on such matters.

G. Tingey said...

Einstein was a spinozan - in his view "god" was the universe & its'laws.

Budgie .....
but 14*10^9 years is a very long time.
This planet is approx 4.5*10^9 years old & life of some form or another has been around for over 3* (usual multiplier) of those years.
Multicellular life is approx 1 "billion years old, but "soft" fossils are hard to find .....

Hoyle forgot or misinterpreted the "blind chance" argument - he ignored or didn't accept the "Sorting" process that occurs.
PLEASE start by reading the "Scientific American "article I linked to.
It's a very succinct & clear start for all the utter bollocks that's being spouted here by ignorant people, gulled by lying priests.

Bloke In Italy said...

@ Tingey - the passion with which you air your views on priests make you sound like a deranged nutter.

Even though on this matter I tend to agree with you.

Anonymous said...

"The joy of living in a pluralistic society is that we can agree to differ on such matters."

Each to his own, agreed may we all keep an open mind and remain true to our/yourselves.

"to thine own self be true"

Because, trying to be something you are not, blaming your inadequacies, dissociating and making them the fault of others causes the most unhappiness - the nutters who fight in Isis are the prime example, they don't fight for a God - they fight because they hate everything and nothing.

Freedom of thought and expression - is not the way of the creed of Mohammedism.

Alas, and back our society [if you could name it thus] so we travel - regressing back to before the Renaissance. Informative that the left ally themselves to the adherents of the religion of subjugation.

Budgie said...

Bloke In Italy, There is no mechanism to transmit life itself through "one of a series of events" like the big bang. Life would have to start afresh each time, and the same problem of the maths of chance for the complexity of life arises. In the 19th C, of course, they did not realise how complex even the simplest life is, so Darwinism appeared plausible.

Anonymous said...

Apols to Tingey, I was a little bit impolite to which I aver - sorry, really.

G. Tingey said...

I'm an ESCAPED christian - I came within millimetres of being "got" by an evangelical preacher at the age of 14, having been brought up in a church.
Which is why I loathe them so much ....
I know, up close & personal, just how persuasive & evil these people are, christian or muslim.