Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Don't condemn Cameron's claim to Christianity


Apparently, No10 had no intention of releasing a transcript of the Prime Minister's speech to Christian leaders last week: unlike other faith gatherings, it was an impromptu declamation, spoken spontaneously from the heart, and some there felt that the content didn't merit courtly promulgation, not least because it wasn't honed, crafted or filtered by aides to extinguish any hint of offence.

But His Grace agitated and agitated, and the oration was made public. And it was seen that the Prime Minister spoke intimately of the loss of his son, Ivan; and of his recent pilgrimage to the Holy Land; and of his quiet times in church; and of the need for Christians to do more "evangelism". He is a politician; not a theologian: his words were those of a layman, but no less sincere for that.  

And then he released an article in the Church Times - My Faith in the Church of England - in which he demanded the right to speak about his faith "in this ever more secular age". And he dared to refer to the United Kingdom as a "Christian country", and again called for Christians to be "more evangelical about a faith that compels us to get out there and make a difference to people's lives".

And all hell broke loose.

Some 50 self-important secular-humanising bigwigs wrote to the Telegraph, accusing the Prime Minister of "fostering division" by daring to invoke Christianity: "Apart from in the narrow constitutional sense that we continue to have an established Church, Britain is not a 'Christian country'," they declared.

Fostering division? As Bishop Nick Baines has eloquently observed, that is the very nature of politics:
First, if politicians were to refrain from saying anything ‘divisive’, they would be silent. Any stated viewpoint or priority is by definition ‘divisive’ as there will always be people who strongly disagree. The use of potential ‘divisiveness’ as a charge against anything inconvenient is ridiculous. Presumably, the divisiveness caused by publishing this letter is to be excused?
And Jesus Himself said:
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
But the liberal enlightened media set aside such reasoned christological inquiry: who is Bishop Nick Baines? And who, indeed, is Jesus?

In candid disinterested neutrality, Sky News wheeled out the ubiquitous anti-Tory atheist Owen Jones to debate with the equally anti-Tory Christian Vicky Beeching to weigh up the Christian claims of a Conservative prime minister, and in unison they both railed against the "cuts" and the "bedroom tax", neither of which (apparently) Jesus would support. Was there no Christian Tory available, or were they simply not telegenic and pretty enough for the TV studio?

And then on Channel 4, Vicky Beeching (..again..) stressed "as a theologian", that she looks at David Cameron's policies and looks at his claims and, for her, they "don't add up". 

Well, "as a theologian", His Grace would exhort his readers and communicants to weigh very carefully indeed the utterances of any theologian who prefaces a partisan pontification with "as a theologian", for their theology is invariably cajoled to pander to their politics. In the Christian mind, the Bible precedes all matters of polity and questions of policy, and any assessment or judgment is offered in humility. The fact that the welfare reforms are designed and being implemented by one of the most devout Christians in Government appears to escape Miss Beeching. But then she speaks "as a theologian": what could Iain Duncan Smith possibly know?

Alastair Campbell famously didn't "do God", or, rather, didn't allow Tony Blair to "do God" while he was in office. Like Owen Jones and Vicky Beeching, he is persuaded that the Prime Minister's "religious ramblings" are "insincere".

And you may very well agree with that: after all, an election looms, and Ukip is biting at Tory heels.

But is it not possible that David Cameron's faith is maturing? Is it not conceivable that he is moving from a faith of watery milk to red meat? Is it not imaginable that the death of his son caused such a crisis in his spiritual life that he is journeying to that place where God leads, and in that presence the melancholy façade of religiosity is giving way to authentic renewal and regeneration?

You may agree with Alastair Campbell and the socialist-atheists and the secular-humanists and the liberal-lefty Christians that David Cameron is a PR-obsessed political fraud. But doesn't St Paul exhort us to welcome even the half-way conversion from neo-platonic spiritualism toward Christianity? Shouldn't we rejoice over the sinner who moves from infidelity to orthodoxy? Isn't it an act of Christian love and humility to (at least) consider that David Cameron has subconsciously incubated the seeds of faith, and that now he finds new strength and boldness to declare the gospel of salvation?

You may quibble that he hasn't used the word 'repent'; you may mutter that he doesn't have a clue what 'evangelical' means. You may deride the motive or question the timing. But David Cameron has received grace and gained assurance. And now he seeks to bring about a moral change, which his opponents condemn as "divisive".

You may side with spin-meister Alastair Campbell, atheist Owen Jones and theologian Vicky Beeching and judge the sincerity of the Prime Minister's faith. But His Grace will look to Scripture: "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters" (Rom 14:1). His conscience may not be overly sensitive, but it is not to be condemned. We are exhorted and encouraged to accept other Christians wherever they are in their pilgrimage of faith; however imperfect their learning; however flawed their understanding.

And that includes a Tory prime minister.

122 Comments:

Blogger Gnostic said...

Even I, a fully fledged agnostic, was bemused by this ridiculous attack. The laws of this country are embedded in Christian values (despite morons and useful idiots trying to sneak shariah through the back door) which means that, oh the horror!, the UK is a Christian country. And if those so called, decidedly divisive, humanists aren't happy with that then they'll just have to lump it and the lame mule they stumbled in on because they sure as hell don't speak for me.

22 April 2014 at 09:47  
Blogger Martin said...

As i have already pointed out, there is an election in the offing & like the politician he is Cameron is trying to repair the bridges.

22 April 2014 at 10:21  
Blogger Martin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 April 2014 at 10:22  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Well argued and beautifully put, Your Grace. I particularly enjoyed:

... for their theology is invariably cajoled to pander to their politics.

One certainly hopes that David Cameron's faith is maturing - not least for his sake - and it is clearly an undeniable good that has has gained succour from Christians and Christianity after the heart-breaking death of his son. Long may he keep that door open in his personal life and his politics!

22 April 2014 at 10:24  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

Ed Miliband stated during his recent visit to Israel that Britain was a Christian country.

I suppose the letter of complaint from the "Fifty" about Mr.Miliband's statement was lost in the post?

22 April 2014 at 10:31  
Blogger bluedog said...

A sound defence Your Grace, and for this communicant, the question, 'But is it not possible that David Cameron's faith is maturing?' sums it up. Cameron's article in the Church Times does indeed have the ring of truth. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.

But one also hears unfamiliar sounds, strange scratching noises as lines are drawn in the sand, creaking sounds as band-wagons lurch into motion. First we had a declaration from Eric the Great, then David Cameron, and now Jack Straw of all people. Another sermon from Tony Blair seems both imminent and inevitable. In the other camp, one notes that Stephen Fry failed to sign in protest with the Famous Fifty-Five. Clearly a few stranglers have been left behind as a new political circus gets under way - the redefinition of British values as Christian, something missing from previous iterations. And let us be in no doubt that politics is a matter of faith and values, as His Grace's blog attests.

22 April 2014 at 10:32  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, well said; everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least once. Now, let's see Mr Cameron's actions match his words. Perhaps more difficult to do when one's deputy is an unbeliever.

22 April 2014 at 10:46  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

Cameron is either saved or he isn't. Unfortunately the CofE doesn't put that much emphasis on personal salvation, so it is entirely possible that Cameron has got the wrong end of the stick.

I pray that his eyes would be open and he receives Jesus Christ as his saviour. His desperate situation might be the catalyst.

22 April 2014 at 11:09  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

These fifty are truly tedious and I find it rather objectionable that the only thing which appears to give their views credibility to be published is not their theological scholarship, nor NT Greek, nor pastoral experience, nor great scholarship, but just fame (and possibly money).

While the parish clergy enjoy a few days rest after a gruelling time of many services, sermons, reflections about the deepest of matters, going through the harrowing details of the trial and passion day after day, and pastoral visiting to many bed-bound who wish to receive communion, their better paid more famous, more ignorant, one-time possible co-undergraduates of similar universities, (but those who didn't spend time in bible study, chapel or church and thus less learned,) have the nerve and the pomposity to pontificate. And kick the work of our parish clergy in the teeth.

They claim to know all the statistics, but are they statisticians? Do they even know how to frame a question so as not to influence the answer?

One is a Bishop's grandson which makes me nauseous, for I would hope people had some respect for the lifetime's work of an ancestor, when spent in a good way. He should at least have gone through Christian belief with great thoroughness to know thoroughly whether it was worthy of allegiance or not and not come up with this dissociation from ignorance, and at Easter of all times. My 1st cousin twice removed (up the generations) was also a Bishop and I have great respect for his work. And will not be ashamed to meet him in the next life.

22 April 2014 at 11:14  
Blogger Len said...

Well... a quick scan down the illustrious names on this nefarious list notes that quite a few have passed through our' Churches of Atheism' (education system)at an exalted level..

'Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools'(Romans 1:22)

There is yet hope for Cameron as he has does not appear to have closed the door of his mind (or to have it closed for him as those who are baying for his blood like a pack of ravenous wolves)

I bet every one on this list claims to be a 'liberal'.


22 April 2014 at 11:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Of all the ills that beset this nation it is still the safest in the world to be a dissenter - the prominence given to these stories and fly-by-nights is laughable.

22 April 2014 at 11:15  
Blogger Len said...

One notable name missing . Prof Dawkins.
Has he converted?

22 April 2014 at 11:19  
Blogger Joshua Harrison said...

Martin Luther King had many flaws, but nobody doubted that he was a christian. The only people that did wore a sheet on their head.

22 April 2014 at 11:27  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Len said...

One notable name missing . Prof Dawkins.
Has he converted?


Stranger things have happened...

22 April 2014 at 11:29  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Len

Possibly. Or maybe he thought it was ungracious. If you look up his debates with Prof John Lennox, Prof of Maths at Oxford, brilliant mathematician and strong believer you will see many will have been praying for him.

Don't let anyone convince you that Oxford is lacking in powerful Christian witness and scholarship. There are some very strong believers, strong churches, chapels, christian unions, theological colleges, and the Christian centre for apologetics which the Professor was representing. When he debated Christopher Hichens, Hichens suggested a vote before and after the encounter, and was embarrassed, but impressed that his opponent had had far more sway. But had done it graciously, bless him; more graciousness than some of us, myself included, could have mustered.

22 April 2014 at 11:36  
Blogger Philip said...



It appears the BBC was among those who were upset by Mr Cameron saying positive things about Christians. As could have been expected, they made much of the atheists’ letter. Their rolling news last night concluded their item on this by saying the letter (as if the letter was the authoritative thing in the affair) showed that Christian truth is less well regarded these days, but more as something “positively dangerous” . Yes, “positively dangerous” were the words actually used!

I presume they mean the Christian truth of redemption and hope of eternal life through the cross and resurrection of Christ, Jesus’ moral teachings as shown in the Bible, and the impacts of Christian teaching on social reform such as the abolition of the slave trade, are what is “dangerous”.

22 April 2014 at 11:57  
Blogger Philip said...

As for Mr Cameron, yes I was wondering whether his faith has moved on from being a typical “CofE comes and goes faith like FM in the Chilterns” or whatever he once said his faith was like. At least we have a Prime Minister prepared to stick his head above the parapet and say something positive about the place of Christianity in this nation. The atheist/secularist brigade could be expected to be upset – what are they afraid of? - it seems such people who cannot abide any thought that there's a God, are instead quite insistent they, instead, know what's best for us and cannot tolerate any disagreement with their views. They are not liberal at all. Of course their views, nor presumably other religions, cannot possibly be divisive, only Christianity is.

Let’s hope Mr Cameron remains emboldened to continue his public support for Christianity, and will not be cowed into silence on the matter.

But perhaps I could be forgiven for naturally hoping that Mr Cameron’s faith will continue to move on, to influence policy more, e.g. in the area of marriage etc. And perhaps he could demonstrate his support for Christianity by intervening in the case of a Christian nursery nurse sacked for merely telling a homosexual colleague her Christian beliefs on homosexuality. http://news.sky.com/story/1245924/nurse-lost-her-job-over-christian-beliefs

22 April 2014 at 11:58  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Philip

Well maybe we will think the BBC is "positively dangerous" other than a very few well-liked decent people, and turn off their prejudiced trash output, which is quite a hefty %. I watch less and less anyway and more and more of the kind of people you meet in everyday life on the internet, who are married and fathers or mothers, and speak in a normal way, and don't show vast amounts of inappropriate flesh, talk too much about bottoms and lust in a gross way, nor call everything and anything "sexy" and leer at the camera nor wear jackets over bras (really unclassy), and know of what they are talking.

I would think the BBC had the sense not to call others "positively dangerous". I have a video at the back of the garage entitled "Stranger Danger" which my children watched when young, hosted by Jimmy Saville. BBC, that was "positively dangerous" and we trusted you. How unwise of us. Have you sat in sackcloth and ashes, and scoured your "talent for paedophilia. No. You have continued to nurture knowingly some of these vipers in your breast.

"Positively dangerous" BBC. Look in the mirror.

22 April 2014 at 12:19  
Blogger Len said...

It could possibly be that moves made by Atheists such as this condemnation of Cameron could be the the very nudge to wake up some sleeping Christians as to how ground they once stood on is being stolen from them.
'Use it or lose it' seems to be an appropriate expression regarding our Christian heritage and freedoms.
The Japanese committed their biggest mistake when they attacked Pearl Harbour and awoke the 'sleeping American giant'.
There is a Christian Nation which is sleeping whilst its enemies take over.

22 April 2014 at 12:23  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

I admit I was encouraged by the PM's boldness in publicy declaring his faith. Such a declaration was bound to draw flak from the rabid atheists who clearly oppose pluralism and free speech. Indded, I am glad that the whole Christianity debate has gone more public.

I wonder whether he would have been condemend as divisive if like Clegg, he had declared himself an atheist? All this shows the true face of atheism. It is about intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and suppression of free conscience

22 April 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

@ Philip 11:57

Yes, I had the displeasure of seeing BBC News 24 yesterday and the obnoxious Tatchell being courted on this matter.

The names of these fifty should be filed under 'enemies of Britain'.

22 April 2014 at 12:54  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The letter to the Telegraph says, at the end, that “most British people [. . .] do not want religions or religious identities to be actively prioritised by their elected government.”

As a statement of fact, that is probably no more than the plain truth. Most British people probably don’t want that. But is that what Cameron has done with his recent public statements and in his Church Times article? Has the government “actively prioritised” a religion or a religious identity? No, I don’t think it has. And the people who signed the letter evidently don’t think so either. After all, they don’t actually come out with it, in their letter, and claim that Cameron has done that.

What would the government have to have done, for it to be true that it had “actively prioritised” a religion or a religious identity? That’s a question that may not even have occurred to those people who signed the silly letter. What a bunch of singularly incurious people.

22 April 2014 at 13:00  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I am continually bemused by your soft acceptance of the PM's Christian beliefs.

The 'fifty' letter to the Telegraph is a nonsense side issue. I take no interest in the ramblings of the uneducated, by which I mean those who do not know God and are therefore ignorant of the ways of God and his creation.

I am pleased that Cameron claims to be supportive of Christianity and as we said before, we are all understanding of those who have lost a child but that does not give him the right, as the PM, to pontificate on matters of the heart that he has so little understanding of. It will be of no surprise if he changes the definition of Christianity to something that everyone can subscribe to.

Eric Pickles also spoke out about Britain being a Christian Country. Another less convincing man I could not think of. The Bishop of Chelmsford said that he doubted it was; the statistics of attendance don't support the claim. Yes our laws and society were built on Christian principles but now, they are just ignored and bypassed.

Len said; There is a Christian Nation which is sleeping whilst its enemies take over.
Indeed, the sleeping giant was awoken by Dave's SSM Bill and many other anti Christian actions by the Government and institutions.

Your Grace, I understand that we should be accepting of the novice, but salvation happens at one moment. You either are or you are not. You grow in GRACE but in salvation.

Call me cynical if you wish but Cameron is a Politician first and foremost and his little speech was no doubt to woo back the Christian Tory Right.

I am sorry but I am not convinced of his little speech, as genuine as it was to him, he needs to come under the conviction of the Gospel so he might realise the errors of his ways.

Dave; actions speak more than words and repentance over what he has done to society, not only with SSM but to allow so many issues that you read about at 'Christian Concern' or The Christian Institute'

So Your Grace, I will no longer visit your site unless you get to grip with the value of the true gospel that challenges the hearer to conviction.

22 April 2014 at 13:24  
Blogger Andrew Mitchell said...

Lucy at 12.19

We gave up TV for Lent (well, my wife did, and so I was bound to follow suit....). We didn't miss it, and only watched a bit yesterday - (Rev) - and I suspect we will continue to avoid the dross pumped out financed by that poll tax called the TV licnce fee

22 April 2014 at 13:31  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Integrity,

Who do you think you are to come here and blackmail His Grace with conditional promises of your gracious visitations provided only that his preaching might be confined and conform to the truths you find palatable?

If he has not by now, in your superior theological judgment, "got to grip" with the "true gospel", please feel free to depart this congregation and eschew His Grace's heretical pulpit of laodicean lukewarmness.

Goodbye.



22 April 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

It isn't up to me to judge the integrity of a person's faith, and that includes the faith of the PM. But we are at least entitled to question the timing of his 'coming out'. I would like to see the PM debating Christianity with the Archbishop of Canterbury, especially those areas most vexing to all (gay marriage and poverty, etc). That would be a good debate.

What most interested me about the letter from the fifty God-bashers is just how little airtime it got. Yes, the BBC featured it and so did other channels and outlets, but it seemed to me that the enthusiasm for an anti-Christian Easter story was much less so than in previous years.

Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby have done a great deal to promote real Christianity, disarming the narrow and hate-filled fantasies of the atheists. Legitimate fear of Islam is also, I think, causing many in this country to reassess their Christian heritage, seeing in it the strength and guidance that may well be needed as the 'religion of peace' steps out from behind it naïve liberal supporters and begins to assert its true nature. 'Englishness' characterised by the CofE may well experience its own renaissance.

But perhaps most importantly we may be seeing atheism (as a doctrinal alternative to faith) run its course, with its most devoted advocates edging towards old age. People are also perhaps sick of the sight of Dawkins, Grayling and Fry, wanting something else, something life affirming and (to them) new. The isms and ologies of the twentieth century enjoyed a credible shelf-life not much longer than their founders. Atheism, it seems, is going the same way.

Today's young seem far more inclined to look favourably upon religion than their parents were trained to. They seem to realise that personal freedom and materialism are illusory gains, and are not so easily duped into following the dictates of those who 'know better'. Many more of them are turning to God, away from materialistic atheism and towards something more meaningful.

22 April 2014 at 14:05  
Blogger IanCad said...

It was wonderful to listen (Yesterday BBC Radio4)to an intolerant humanist and an open-minded Jewish gentleman debate DC's speech.

Of course, the former huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation and the latter asking "What's the problem"?

22 April 2014 at 14:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace: Some four days ago, or so, I read that a Spanish jellyfish was attacked by the pretend-prime-minister of the British. I want to know why there isn't a big, emotional, hue and cry about the whereabouts, welfare, and rights, of the poor animal. It is, after all, a minority.

22 April 2014 at 14:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Mr Cameron may be muddled, but I do not see any reason to doubt his sincerity. I too have thought that the experience of losing his son will have been formative in terms of Mr Cameron's faith. How it not be? Those who question his sincerity should question their own empathy and humanity (or lack thereof). I don't see that the PM gains much politically by this, either.

Vicky Beeching (..again..) stressed "as a theologian"

I've never heard of her. No disrespect to her, but what's her claim to be a theologian? I don't think the NT necessarily supports a big state as Vicky seems to - in fact, I'd ask for any evidence in support of that claim.

I think it is a pity when Christians criticise politicians for talking about their faith. We should encourage them - we can be sure that others will punish them.

22 April 2014 at 14:35  
Blogger graham wood said...

Notwithstanding Crannie's censure of Mr Integrity, I wholly agree with the latter.
Cameron would I think only make such a statement as an expression of political opportunism - in order to try and recover the vote of countless Christians who have abandoned his party due directly to his SSM policy, and his unending endorsement of the homosexual ideology, masked as it is under the cloak of concern for "equality"

Fortunately Christians do not need to forever engage in the futile guessing game as to whether a person is, or is not a Christian.
Of course only The Lord reads the heart, but we are enjoined to read the actions and deeds of those who profess the Christian gospel, for Christ himself sets for us the criteria - "By their fruits you shall know them"
No ambiguity there with regard to Cameron and his disgraced "culture" Secretary.
If he wishes to demonstrate the reality of a real Christian confession, then all he is required to do is to repent of his anti- Christian homosexual ideological stance - thus making evident that any repentance is real. I.e "Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance" as John the Baptist made clear was so vital.
Of necessity one cannot be a Christian and proclaim two mutually exclusive courses of action, that is Christianity and the abomination of homosexuality at one and the same time.
True repentance and political opportunism do not flow out of the same well.
Graham Wood

22 April 2014 at 14:35  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

Of course, the former huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation and the latter asking "What's the problem"?

As I pointed out yesterday, those who signed the letter represented a remarkably narrow sector of society.

22 April 2014 at 14:37  
Blogger WindsorBloke said...

@Len asks, has Professor Dawkins been converted?

Yes, we took him to Twickenham and kicked him over the crossbar.

22 April 2014 at 14:38  
Blogger non mouse said...

...cont'd

However you show that - even before the jellyfish encounter - said member of the political species allowed himself to be painted as at least a semi-vertebrate. And, as Your Grace intimates, ours is not to judge the depth of his conviction/image-making: that is between him and his God.

Unfortunately, though, we have to decide whether or not to vote for chubby-chops; we also have to put up with his posturing and pontificating from what used to be the Mynster in/of the West.



22 April 2014 at 14:40  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Integrity, Happy Jack says herein lies your issue: " ... salvation happens at one moment. You either are or you are not. You grow in GRACE but (not?)in salvation."

Jack believes because of God's foreknowledge it is true we are or are not saved. Even from your perspective, how do you know when and how the grace that brings true faith is actually fully received in a man's soul? Is it sudden and immediate or can it come gradually, dawning on someone over time? Rebirths can have long labours. There's a short saying by Jesus. It's about a man seeking a pearl of great value. Who's to say when each of us find it?

David Cameron, in losing his child, faced a moment of personal trial. Maybe he encountered the Cross and understood the suffering of Christ and of His Father? Perhaps that is why he chose Easter to speak about his Christianity. We should pray for him.

22 April 2014 at 14:49  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

WinsorBloke, that made Happy Jack laugh out loud.

22 April 2014 at 14:57  
Blogger Nath said...

If David Cameron so valued the faith and wisdom of his local parish priest then I wonder why he showed less interest in the warnings and witness of more notable Christian public figures when "debating" the SSM bill? Where was his faith when the British state was taking Christians to the European court for merely wishing to be exempt from working with certain clients?

This seems to be protestantism writ large, each has become the absolute authority on matters of personal faith. Salvation has become individualistic, personal journeys ones of solitude and theology reduced to personal experience.

Perhaps this is what is to be expected when previous archbishops and bishops have been more interested in opening spaces for dialogue rather than leading Christ's flock out to pasture, will not each go looking for its own little patch of grass?

Does not the shepherd know which pastures will be lush, which will be dry and which will be worn? Does the shepherd not know what happens when sheep are left to wander? Is it not the shperherds' responsibility to protect the flock from wolves and thieves?

It is the opinion of the little sheep that if our sherherds spent more time feeding the flock than worrying about the emptiness of the sheep pen, then individual sheep wouldn't have to go looking for sustainance elsewhere and the pen would by virtue have less space.

22 April 2014 at 15:04  
Blogger WindsorBloke said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 April 2014 at 15:08  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The first Cranmer had the same issues of conflict. Should he stand by his convictions or appease the new Queen Mary.

I always thought that people were free to come and free to go on this site. No blackmail YG just an expression regarding those Blogs that I will read and those that I will not.
My presence amongst your Blog commentators is of no consequence to you, but I can't bear to read such tosh as I have never read on your site over the years.

I trust that you will have much success in obtaining a Tory nomination. You deserve it as a result of your about turn on SSM and cosying up to Cameron.

Your new site in the style of Conservative Home will rest easy at Tory Central Office.

Bless you and I hope that I am wrong and that you don't have to recant too many times.

22 April 2014 at 15:08  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Ars Hendrik said...

[. . .] Today's young seem far more inclined to look favourably upon religion than their parents were trained to. [. . .] Many more of them are turning to God, away from materialistic atheism and towards something more meaningful.

22 April 2014 14:05


Not only in Britain, Ars. You may have seen this news from China in the Telegraph a few days ago.

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution. [. . .] China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China. [. . .] Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

22 April 2014 at 15:11  
Blogger WindsorBloke said...

Happy Jack, we aim to please.

On a more serious note, on The World at One yesterday (Radio 4, 21/04/14 @ 1pm), Raymond Tallis, one of the signatories of the Telegraph letter, tried to justify its assertions and was forcefully rebutted by Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle.

Very well done Stephen. If you want to listen to it, the discussion is 13 minutes into the recording.

22 April 2014 at 15:12  
Blogger Len said...

A good dose of Communism seems to be the best medicine to turn the Nation back to Christianity...as is happening in China.
Would any sane person want to live in North Korea when a Christian alternative was possible?.

22 April 2014 at 15:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Windsorbloke,

Thank you for pointing out the debate between Tallis and Pollard. Tallis looked foolish, over-sensitive and intolerant. I wonder if it went the way the BBC hoped!

22 April 2014 at 15:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

2 news items on the same ds

-55 'academics, writers and scientists' attack the idea of a Christian Britain

-a leakedcreportcshowscthe Birmingham Trojan Horse plot to Islamicise schools wasc(A) worse than previously reported and 'B' being covered up by dhimmis in high places

Do the math.



22 April 2014 at 15:51  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

Cranmer says:
"But is it not possible that David Cameron's faith is maturing? Is it not conceivable that he is moving from a faith of watery milk to red meat? Is it not imaginable that the death of his son caused such a crisis in his spiritual life that he is journeying to that place where God leads, and in that presence the melancholy façade of religiosity is giving way to authentic renewal and regeneration?"

Anything is possible. The only difficulty is that this is a politician speaking, and speaking in very general terms. he has not offered any example of what he means by Christianity or described how Christianity looks.

Yes, anything is possible. I just don't believe that Cameron is doing anything but trying to sound nice to the over 60's voter.

22 April 2014 at 15:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Integrity,

You're back? Already?

And with such ungracious comment?

People are indeed "free to come and free to go on this site", and always have been. But you clearly stated: "I will no longer visit your site unless you get to grip with the value of the true gospel that challenges the hearer to conviction."

That is clearly a condition of your remaining in fellowship, to which His Grace was (and is) inclined to say "Goodbye".

And then you come straight back with snide comments and false allegations (isn't there something in the Bible about that?) concerning same-sex marriage and seeking a Tory nomination.

His Grace's view on same-sex marriage has never changed - not one jot. That you assert that it has is a lie. But doubtless your perfect theological understanding renders those who disagree to be in undoubted error.

And as for seeking "Tory nomination", well, you might in time come to see how puerile such spiteful mocking really is. But doubtless that, too, springs from the purity of your heart and is unquestionable in holy motive.

If you don't wish to read these blogposts ("such tosh"), please don't visit; even more, don't comment. You have free will, and are at liberty to find yourself a blog more conducive to your conception of "the value of the true gospel that challenges the hearer to conviction".

His Grace wishes you well.

Goodbye.

22 April 2014 at 16:05  
Blogger dimwoo said...

10,600 of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the UK have died within 6 weeks of having their benefits cut after being judged 'fit to work' by the flawed and farcical Work Capability Assessment programme. (Govt's own statitics, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223050/incap_decd_recips_0712.pdf)

What sort of christian can David Cameron *possibly* be?

22 April 2014 at 16:15  
Blogger Richie R said...

"The fact that the welfare reforms are designed and being implemented by one of the most devout Christians in Government appears to escape Miss Beeching. But then she speaks "as a theologian": what could Iain Duncan Smith possibly know?"

I should imagine that Matthew 25:41-46 sums up IDS perfectly - if it's "fruit" of his work you're after then dimwoo sums him up perfectly. Vicky Beeching is worth 100 of IDS.

22 April 2014 at 16:38  
Blogger Preacher said...

With regard to Mr Cameron's claim. I have no comment, as it is not my place to judge another's beliefs.
I would however say that there are many in various Churches that are working hard to make God acceptable to sinful man by peddling a candy floss imitation of the gospel, that has no place for repentance, the final judgement of sin by a righteous God & the subsequent end of the unrepentant that Christ died to give an opportunity of redemption to.
I guess Judas looked, spoke & acted like the other Disciples. But his true colours were finally exposed.

Is Christianity dangerous? - thank God Yes! Always was, Always will be to those that oppose God.
As C.S Lewis showed in his books. There's no such thing as a safe Lion.

22 April 2014 at 16:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Dimwoo,

10,600 of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the UK have died within 6 weeks of having their benefits cut after being judged 'fit to work' by the flawed and farcical Work Capability Assessment programme

The inference that there is a causal connection surely needs challenging. Firstly, this report was published in 2012. If people were dying in such numbers as a result of the Government's policies, I think we would have heard more about it. Secondly, we would need to know the reason the benefit was stopped. You say it was because their benefits were cut, but I can't see that in the report - rather the reverse, the majority seem to have moved to some kind of group which gave unlimited support. I think the report is oddly unclear.

22 April 2014 at 17:53  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

So 56 eminent people who all have strong voices in the media and politics feel that Christians shouldn't and the PM's insipid proclamation of Christianity is divisive.

They call the Church at 4.1 million members a minority when their own organisation has around 0.1 million.
We clearly need a new word that describes a minority that is much smaller than a minority!

How about a myopicrity?

(I suggest it might be pronounced "myo"-"pick"-"rity")

22 April 2014 at 18:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Well I was pleasantly floored when I read the article that Cameron had actually come out and said we are a Christian country. In this current multi culti climate to only get fifty five secular muppets signing a letter of complaint to a national newspaper bodes well. I thought there would at least be some rantings to the contrary from the “religion of peace”. But then again they are too busy infiltrating our schools

22 April 2014 at 19:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

Let us not delude ourselves.
Christianity in this country is, in general, viewed with disdain.

Our politicians are venal, corrupt and avaricious. Maybe a few exceptions.

I think DC is a lousy leader who is bequeathing to us a Labour administration.

But!! I say; Good for him! Maybe a little late, perhaps not forthright enough for some. How refreshing though, and he can claim the promise.

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."
Matthew 10:32

22 April 2014 at 19:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Grumpy,

They call the Church at 4.1 million members a minority when their own organisation has around 0.1 million.

Or contrast the number of people in church each week with the membership of political parties (which, like the NSS does not really require anything).

I'm just looking at the figures of religious belief for the EU. Most people believe in God. The next largest group are those who believe in some kind of spirit or life force - put those two together and you end up with 79% of the population having some kind of religious outlook. Across the EU only 18% do not believe in any god, spirit or life force. Even in France, the most unbelieving of all EU nations, the largest religious group is still those who believe in God, and only a third do not believe in anything. Contrary to what Owen Jones thinks, in fact, 78% of Brits either believe in God or some kind of spirit (contrast 20% who don't).

I think it's time these secularists were recognized as the minority that they are. Viewed democratically, they push far above their weight.

Interestingly, the figures show that the more one thinks about moral issues and the meaning of life, the more likely it is that one believes in God.

22 April 2014 at 19:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Brother Ivo's take on the subject is rather interesting.

http://brotherivo.com/blog/2014/04/21/the-ecology-of-political-institutions/

22 April 2014 at 19:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack has been nosing around on Vicky Beeching's blogs.

As a 'non-theologian;, Jack says her support for same sex marriage and for women bishops puts her in no position to criticise David Cameron - "as a theologian".

Ms Beeching has a BA and MA in Theology from Oxford University and has written a few Christian songs that rake in money in royalties. She is a Visiting Research Fellow in Internet ethics at Durham University and is also enrolled in a part-time PhD.

("As a theologian") she has recently written, "I interpret the Bible passages on sexuality differently to those with a ‘traditional’ paradigm."

22 April 2014 at 19:55  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

A few points :

1. I don't have a problem with anyone, let alone the PM calling the UK a 'Christian Country', for the same reasons that Stephen Pollard noted in the Radio 4 show (and which others have mentioned here). The letter was from the usual atheist and secular suspects (less Richard Dawkins- I believe the Telegraph blogs think his is a deep cover Evangelist?) so can be taken in that light as nothing particularly special.

2. I don't have a problem with Cameron being a Christian or saying Christians need to be bolder and Evangelise (providing they accept they'll get a critical response). Only 2 people know Cameron's true beliefs - himself and the Almighty. We'll leave it to the 2 of them to work this out together.

3. Given that Cameron spearheaded Same Sex Marriage and his government is at some controversy with his own Church over food banks, people will wonder how all of this stacks against his Christian beliefs. Sure people of faith on the political left will emphasise the 'social' aspect of faith, look after the poor etc and people of faith on the political right with emphasise the other 'social' -that is social conservatism, but Cameron seems to have emphasised neither and has therefore opened himself up to an enormous amount of crticism when people try and compare his actions with the belief people think he should hold.

4. Whatever Cameron's beliefs, his people (i.e. advisers and cronies) are clearly inept and should be sacked. I mean for a former PR/spin doctor, man he isn't playing this very well.No sooner had Cameron started to talk about his faith, a story breaks about his constituency office calling the police and preventing the Bishop of Oxford and others from personally giving Cameron a petition on food banks (which the office apparently knew of in advance). I don't know about anyone else, but if the Rabbi comes to your house, then you don't call the police, in fact you welcome him as a guest. Cameron couldn't even play the game of polite politics. It would have taken nothing to receive the petition with good grace and politeness. This sort of thing does make him look insincere in his religion conviction & (unfairly or not) reinforces the attacks from the left.

22 April 2014 at 20:08  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

My God, he really HAS been warned that gay marriage has cracked the Christian vote the Conservatives have always taken for granted. And with good reason too – UKIP is the Christian party in the fore now, because it is the party for traditionalists. Fashions change and society just gets worse through it, but we traditionalists are steadfast, and for traditionalists read small c and big C conservative. It’s the ‘as was’ factor of the latter he’s doing his best to deal with now.

So he lays it on thick. Very thick. He becomes an ‘out’ Christian, not because of a deep conviction that he kept under wraps from the electorate all these years, but through desperation in the realisation that if his support collapses next election, he, and he alone will be to blame. It is so glaringly obvious, this surface illusion he’s currently projecting. There is no foundation to it that can be detected. There wasn’t any foundation in the public eye before – why then are we to think there is now ? And what does it tell us of the man’s character for even attempting to hoodwink us all like this.

One wonders if His Grace chose a stained glass image of Cameron with mischief in mind. Well done sir if you did. Though it must be said that we don’t need his likeness in stained glass to see through him, do we ?

22 April 2014 at 20:20  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Philip

Yes, “positively dangerous” were the words actually used!


That must the most flattering thing anyone has said about Dave in the four years that he has been PM. Farage must be envious.

22 April 2014 at 20:27  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

That must be ...

22 April 2014 at 20:27  
Blogger Ps John Waller said...

Whenever any politician makes a statement that is in any way positive about a given religion there is only one question to ask: to whom was he speaking when he said it?

He is a politician. He is not going to speak to a group of Christians and be rude about Christianity. Next week he will speak to some Muslims and say nice things about Islam. The week after that it will be Hindus etc.

Only if the nice things are said without being prompted by an address to a religious gathering, or in an official statement marking a religious holiday, does his statement become noteworthy.

Otherwise it is just a politician being a politician.

Why do we not see this?

22 April 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

PS I knew Raymond Tallis as a junior hospital doctor. He was very pleased with himself as a great intellectual then and I see it has grown on him.

The BBC introduced this lot as 'scholars, academics, writers and scientists'. In fact they are the usual pack of snarling atheists who cannot come to terms with the failure of Christianity to implode under their great, great insights and superior wisdom. And then they very softly interviewed, or rather gave a platform to, the great Peter Tatchell, introducing him as a 'human rights campaigner'

And still the BBC denies that it has a bias.

Go protest at a mosque in Luton the lot of yer.

22 April 2014 at 21:46  
Blogger dimwoo said...

Hi Albert,

The inference that there is a causal connection surely needs challenging. Firstly, this report was published in 2012. If people were dying in such numbers as a result of the Government's policies, I think we would have heard more about it. Secondly, we would need to know the reason the benefit was stopped. You say it was because their benefits were cut, but I can't see that in the report - rather the reverse, the majority seem to have moved to some kind of group which gave unlimited support. I think the report is oddly unclear.

You're right - we should have heard more about it. But we haven't because the DWP have either stopped collecting the figures or have refused to release them (they don't make that clear either). You're right, we can't be certain what the causal connection is between the stopping of benefits and death, but there certainly is a correlation. And the DWP's refusal to either capture or release any more such statistics speaks volumes, as does Ian Duncan Smith's failure to appear before the Work and Pensions Select Committee for questioning on his persistent misuse of statistics in relation to welfare.

The DWP report on the period 2010/2011 does unequivocally say "In total, between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end."

22 April 2014 at 22:11  
Blogger dimwoo said...

One might expect that if there is some doubt about the effect of benefits being stopped or reduced on the long-term sick then devout christian David Cameron would have left no stone unturned in his quest for the truth...

22 April 2014 at 22:13  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

@ RSA

The fact that the BBC is happy to give a platform to the rampant Marxist, draft-dodging, paedo-enabler says it all really. This man claims he is an atheist, but is happy to disrupt an Easter cathedral service. He is the worst kind of exhibitionist.

As for a mosque protest, Tatchell and the rest of the militant gay rights crowd don't have any interest in the hereafter, which is where they would quickly end up.

On this pseudo-protest I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC generated it in the name of 'balance'.

22 April 2014 at 22:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Dimwoo,

Interestingly, after I wrote that post I did a bit more research, and it does look more sinister than I first thought. The oddest thing seemed to be (from my cursory search) that although it was easy enough to find the odd MP making the point you made, I could find no explanation or defence of the figures (e.g. a Government official saying "What you've got to understand is that, when someone goes into hospital, that shows up as their benefits being cut because they are not living at home" or some such explanation, which would more than account for the number).

22 April 2014 at 22:28  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ David Kavanagh

A very good post putting a lot into perspective; thanks.

22 April 2014 at 22:38  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Stirling post, that seed !

Dimwoo. People die all the time, yet when the BBC get hold of an imagined angle, someone has to be culpable. It can’t be God’s will for his world. He doesn't exist as they see it...

22 April 2014 at 22:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Ps John Waller, yes Cameron is a politician and yes, he never does anything that he thinks will damage his political prospects. But his coming out as a Christian is an irrevocable ‘Here I stand’ moment. He can no longer pretend to be fading in or fading out, he has said he receives the message loud and clear. If Cameron is faking, it’s fatal.

In all this resurgent Christian piety the odd man out is Clegg. In a world in which ‘British’ is being incrementally redefined as Christian and Euro-sceptic, what price an atheist Europhile? No long trendy, but passé.

22 April 2014 at 22:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

Good to see you back, Mr Inspector. One feared you may have expired from over exertion while celebrating Easter...

22 April 2014 at 22:47  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Greetings my old blue canine friend. One is having problems with his PC. Lost email for 72 hours. What a laugh that was. When back on, internet provider notified a charge of £5 for exceeding download limit. There are times when a fellow wonders if it’s all worth it, this techno whatever...

22 April 2014 at 23:20  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

By the way, old hound, one does agree, yet does not put it past Cameron to play down his ‘Christianity;’ as and when it suits.

22 April 2014 at 23:25  
Blogger Dr Robert Warde said...

those who wanted Same sex marriage were a small minority even with in the transgender group. I know one or two, and they are dismayed at what has been done by a small but nosy few. so you can expect that they will be listened too, while the majority can put up with it on the grounds that it is PC

23 April 2014 at 09:31  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I enjoyed that Inspector, pretty much on target.

I suppose my issue is that Cameron's Christianity doesn't appear to be of much influence on his tenure in office. It's a bit like discussing his political philosophy - I don't want to defame the man by saying he doesn't possess any, it's just he doesn't appear to possess any conviction in it.

That was how it felt reading his "divisive intervention". If only it had been divisive! Instead every praise for Christianity was relativised, every strength attributed to all and sundry, and every opportunity to declare allegiance to the Risen Saviour left as one in which he could have just as easily praised Buddha, Mohammed or the quirks of a random universe.

So I don't doubt that he quite likes Jesus, I just question whether he knows Him, because there appears neither the fruit nor the conviction that the Gospel exhorts us to look for.

Unfortunately, this isn't a straight up case of bear up with a Christian novice, because movice though he may be, he is also our worldly leader right now. It's more a case of pointing out that Solomon has been raising temples to other gods to hedge his bets.

23 April 2014 at 10:46  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Incidentally, Your Grace, whilst I broadly share your appraisal of Vicky Beeching's "as a theologian", there is a small amount of the same going on with the idea that Ian Duncan Smith is one of the most devout members of the government. I've never been in any doubt of that, and I'm sure (like Cameron actually) that he wakes up only wanting to improve the lot of those he governs, but that doesn't make his policies necessarily wise or kind if he is unaware of their consequences.

I actually share many of Owen Jones and Vicky Beeching's concerns with the present policies (though virtually none of their counterproposals), and say that from the front line, so to speak (since we're all throwing around contextual authority).

23 April 2014 at 10:54  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Apparently Dan Snow became an atheist as a result of 9/11 which took place, whoever you think was responsible, through the acts of people who were anti-God. How on earth caould any rational person think that love for neighbour was uppermost in these people's minds, whichever party it turns out to be. Hatred for people and a desire to main, terrify and kill were uppermost. Since when did this have anything remotely to do with Christianity which they now attack? It is, whichever group was responsible, enemies of Christ which perpetrated this outrage, so why should Christians suffer this kind of reprisal?

And what about doing some proper historical research into the whole thing, including how Jane Standley came to pre-announce the falling of the third tower live on air with it standing there intact in the background; something which has never been adequately explained, as have also the eyewitness accounts speaking of explosions before the aeroplanes hit, and the discovery of thermite, and the extraordinary simultaneous crumpling of a building into its own footprint, no side gaining in speed over another, nor the strange, statistical blip financial dealings whereby some gained rather a lot of money on the whole thing happening.

Whoever did it, it was undeniably an evil human conspiracy by the enemies of Chrisitanity. The logical reaction would be to become more determined to support Christianity and work for honesty, not to attack Christianity further, which would only delight those who set this ghastly happening in motion.

23 April 2014 at 13:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Apparently Dan Snow became an atheist as a result of 9/11

I find it hard to believe that someone who has studied modern history at Oxford would make such a bad move.

23 April 2014 at 13:55  
Blogger Len said...

'Apparently Dan Snow became an atheist as a result of 9/11'.

One does not have to be a historian to perceive that the' god 'behind 9/11 was not the God of the bible

Instead of running away from the God of the Bible it surely makes more sense to join Him and use ones celebrity position to expose the evil running rampant in our society.

23 April 2014 at 14:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Well quite, Len. If 9/11 makes one an atheist, what do the gulags do?

23 April 2014 at 16:48  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says: and what about the Crucifixion? What sort of God permits this?

23 April 2014 at 22:02  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

What a surprise-the letter to the Telegraph was organised by the British Humanist Organisation and EVERY SIGNATORY was one of their people.

The full list of names is here.http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/anti-christian-signatories-signed-atheists/

As Stephen Green of Christian Voice says, the interesting thing is that the BHA did not acknowledge their responsibility for the letter and the BBC particularly has not reported that it was a purely BHA effort, portraying the group as independent 'Nobel Prize winning scientists, authors, jolly clever people, BBC men and women (oops, they didn't mention that last it...)

As an activist group, they had the right to write, but why aren't these things reported honestly?

No, don't bother answering...

24 April 2014 at 13:45  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Albert, to answer your (much) earlier query, Vicky Beeching is someone who came to prominence as a worship leader (her best known worship song is probably "Yesterday, Today and Forever") but she has studied (and may well still be studying) theology at least to degree standard (she was at Durham recently, again may still be) and, due to her quite striking looks, her theological studies and her sort-of-celebrity status she makes it on quite regularly to Sky and other channels under the label of "theologian".

24 April 2014 at 20:28  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

"Some 50 self-important secular-humanising bigwigs wrote to the Telegraph, accusing the Prime Minister of "fostering division" by daring to invoke Christianity"

Ad hominem. I refer you to the unholy mix of religion and politics in US, where "doing God" is a prerequisite for having a hope of achieving high office. It should also be noted that less than half the population there accept
scientific facts such as the age of the Earth and Universe, or biological evolution. This is what those highly educated and intelligent signatories were thinking of when they heard the term "Christian nation", the rallying cry of the religious Right.

If you want to see how Christianity fosters division, I refer you to 40 years (and more) sectarian upset in N.Ireland. Yes, it's not just religious, but it is a major contributing factor.

"Shouldn't we rejoice over the sinner who moves from infidelity to orthodoxy?"

No, the abandonment of reason appalls me. Faith is not a virtue.

25 April 2014 at 11:29  
Blogger Len said...

'Faith is not a virtue.'
We all place our faith in something whether this be the ability of man to solve all his problems by 'science'(good luck with that one the Nazis were probably one of the most advanced scientific nations going for their time) but science without morality is a dangerous (some might say 'fatal' combination.)
I am a born again Christian and' reason' was one of the means I came to faith.
IMO atheist-ism is a faith based 'religion' which requires one to abandon reason.

25 April 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Colin Morrison is right to say that faith is not a virtue per se.

Depends what you put your faith in. Faith in the hopeless Christ denying philosophy of materialism, for example, cannot be recommended.

25 April 2014 at 17:16  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

I note the usual straw men of atheism as a religion, and hopelessness of materialism. These have been explained and debunked many, many times. Please educate yourselves on this.

I believe things in proportion to their evidence. Faith, specifically, is belief disproportionate to the evidence.

The lack of an afterlife makes this life precious. Use it wisely.

25 April 2014 at 17:59  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

Disregarding your baseless slur, why not? The Universe as we find it is exactly as we might expect if it lacked a divine guiding hand.

I welcome any reasons why materialism can't be recommended. I'll be happy to then explain why you are wrong.

25 April 2014 at 18:03  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Colin Morrison.

No, you're wrong.

Because arguing with atheists is necessary but tedious I have put some arguments on my web site at www.questiondarwin.com

Kind regards.

25 April 2014 at 19:43  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Sorry I misspoke, I said arguing with atheists. I meant to say responding to and correcting.

The fact that Jesus was proved to be the Son of God through the Resurrection and will be our judge means we should use this life very wisely indeed.

25 April 2014 at 19:54  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

I got as far as "evolution is a pack of lies" and stopped reading. I know what I'll find, I've seen it all before.

By all means argue over matters of faith, I acknowledge I could be wrong (agnostic), but to deny 150 years of rock solid science is pure fantasy.

25 April 2014 at 20:10  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

I know of no such proof.

25 April 2014 at 20:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oh dear Lord.

A new village idiot..Err, I mean atheist has meandered onto the blessed blog.

Did we have a vacancy? Has Tingey retired without giving his notice of intent?

Welcome, Colin lad. Always a delight to hear the minimalist machinery clunking and clanging away in that noggin as the atheist gets into their ascent of Baxters primordial soup stride.

Ernst takes it as a given that you are an ardent admirer of old Joseph Meert, that atheist/agnostic, so rock sure about 150 year old 'rock solid science'..hmm?
'I know of no such proof.' Ernst neither fella!

However a more honest COLIN has stated "Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, :

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it.."

Rock solid eh?

World famous evolutionist Paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History states:

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."

John Woodmorappe, geologist:

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order. ...it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."

and

C. Martin in American Scientist:

" The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably PATHOLOGICAL and the few remaining ones are HIGHLY SUSPECT."

Bit like your commenting, Colin my boy?

E S Blofeld

ps

lets give the last word, to your more famous first namesake, yeah?

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. The following quote was taken from a speech given by Dr. Patterson:

Last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on Evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with Evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.

Please come back when you have something resembling intelligent thought on the questions at hand, perhaps in your case, about 4.6 billion years?!!

26 April 2014 at 00:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

pps

Colin seems to be under the delusion that the six terms of Evolution have been witnessed and are verifiable.

1. Cosmic Evolution (Origin of Time, Space and Matter)
2. Chemical Evolution (Origin of Higher Elements from Hydrogen)
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution (Origin of Stars and Planets)
4. Organic Evolution (Origin of Life)
5. Macro Evolution (Changing from one Kind into another Kind)
6. Micro Evolution (Variations WITHIN Kinds BUT with LIMITS - a CHIHUAHUA CANNOT EVER PRODUCE A GREAT DANE!!)

Five of the above are religious in belief to Atheists or adherents to theistic evolution and only ONE has been observed...Guess which one it is?

Basically, I think the poor fellow is suffering from delusions of Amateur!*chuckles*

26 April 2014 at 00:56  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

It's good that you got your insults out of the way first up.

In response, I will say that creationists are, without a single exception dishonest and ignorant. You are no exception.

The quote mine of Colin Patterson is documented on the Talk Origins site, which catalogues many oft-repeated creationist lies.

The C. P. Martin quote dates from the 70's, I think, the distant dawn of genetics. We have vastly more information on mutations now, in the field of molecular phylogeny - a field that provides enough evidence on its own for evolution had we never found a fossil.

Woodmorappe is the pen name of a school teacher (geologist only by qualification to M.A. level, not by work or research), who is a noted, dishonest, creationist.

As for the silence - it is a well known tactic used by Ben Stein, Ray Comfort and other creationists to ambush scientists and either misrepresent what they said or interpret the silence, as the scientist realises they've been deceived, as evidence of ignorance.

I found that your uncited quotes carried no substance in 15 minutes using a phone. And I'm apparently the imbecile?

I was under the impression His Grace was a learned and sophisticated blogger, who while I certainly don't agree with on everything, has much to contribute.

I cannot say the same for some of his frothing, one-eyed, science-denialist followers.

26 April 2014 at 01:24  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

Allow me to translate these into terms a scientist would use:

1. Cosmology.
2. Nucleosynthesis.
3. Stellar life cycle and accretion disk theory.
4-6. Evolution.

All have evidence of their occurance.

I could cite the discovery of B-mode gravitational waves by the BICEP2 observatory which may strongly confirm cosmic inflation.

I could cite spectroscopic analysis of supernova revealing absorption spectra of elements heavier than iron.

I could cite observations of protostars and accretion disks, T Tauri, main sequence, and post-sequence stars, nova and supernova.

I could cite actual observed instances of evolution such as Italian wall lizards on the Croation island of Pod Mrcaru, antibacterial resistance in bacteria, the changing colour of peppered moths due to the Industrial revolution, or the presence of ring species, where we could create two distinct species by killing the subspecies in the middle.

But why would I bother? Would you read them? Would you understand them?

26 April 2014 at 01:44  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack doesn't know enough to dispute science but says at the end of the day it reaches a question mark at the 'big bang'. Behind and before it, so far as we know, there's no time, no space and no matter. And we can never know.

All the wonder and randomness in the physical world and our existence does not rule out a Creator. All the Universe from nothing. The more we learn, the greater the wonder. If anything, the advances in science have increased Jack's faith.

Jack says atheists just look at the question mark in a different way to Christians.

26 April 2014 at 02:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Tingey Replicant

"I was under the impression His Grace was a learned and sophisticated blogger, who while I certainly don't agree with on everything, has much to contribute.

I cannot say the same for some of his frothing, one-eyed, science-denialist followers."

Well said that frothing, one-eyed, Creator-denialist follower of fashion. *Giggles*

The "quote mine of Colin Patterson is documented on the Talk Origins site, which catalogues many oft-repeated creationist lies."

Ah, the Talk Origins web site, your 'bible' online, eh?
Evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism, delivered infra heinously to the easily inducktrinated?

"I found that your uncited quotes carried no substance in 15 minutes using a phone. And I'm apparently the imbecile?" Thought Ernst said Village {Coughs} Atheist?

Let Ernst be clear, in simple scientific terms {Allow me to translate these into terms a scientist would use, to assist your confusion here}:

It seems that an idiot ('a natural fool from birth'- 'unable to guard themselves against physical danger') was one who could not communicate and needed help with everything? (First glance at your quality of commenting, this presumed position seemed au naturel)whereas

an Imbecile ('mental age of an infant' - 'incapable of managing themselves or their affairs') was able to communicate and look after themselves a bit (Do you feel this is your good self instead?).

A moron was one with the disability brought on by old age, which might be why some are mentioned noted as ('from birth' - 'needing care or control for the protection of themselves or others') on their certificates or incarceration at Bedlam, so it was obvious it wasn't due to old age (Only you and your psychiatrist could answer that one).

ps - moron was added later, just to clarify the condition of the elderly inmates or the recently retired with time on their hands and a pc and wi fi easily within reach.

However, lunatic - to mean 'a person of unsound mind or a regular visitor to Talk Origins' is the preferred nom de plume of such as come here, gibba jabbing!!

You plead "But why would I bother? (Ta for trying but gibba jabbing, young man!!) Would you read them? (Just did!) Would you understand them? (Well you obviously did not understand my 6 statements for supposed Evolution, now did you, by your citations?)

But Colon, “Doesn’t evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot possibly come from disorder, now can it.??”

E S Blofeld

26 April 2014 at 03:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps "antibacterial resistance in bacteria," ;

AntiBIOTIC resistance in bacteria is NOT proof of evolution!

Some germs already had the resistance. If out of a million bacteria, five already have a feature which makes them resistant (however that arose) to, say, penicillin, then soaking them in penicillin will kill all of them except for the five. Now the body’s natural defenses will often ‘mop up’ such a small population before it can multiply and cause harm, so resistance will not become a problem. However, if that doesn’t happen, then those five germs can multiply, and their offspring will obviously also be resistant. So within a short time, there will be millions of germs resistant to penicillin. Notice, Colin, that:

(1) This is why multiple resistance to major antibiotics is more common in hospitals which treat more serious conditions—these are the hospitals which will frequently be using the sophisticated, expensive ‘heavy artillery’ antibiotics, so this sort of ‘natural selection’ will happen more often.

(2) In this kind of instance, the information to resist the antibiotic was already there in the bacterial population—it did not arise by itself, or in response to the antibiotic. That some germs were already resistant to man-made antibiotics before these were invented is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages where modern antibiotics had never been used show that some of the germs are already resistant to drugs like methicillin which have never existed in nature.
Bacteria revived from the frozen intestines of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried resistance to several modern antibiotics, which had not been invented when the explorers died.

Some germs directly transfer their resistance to others. In an amazing process, the closest thing to sex in bacteria, one germ inserts a tiny tube into another, and a little loop of DNA called a ‘plasmid’ transfers from one to another. This sort of gene transfer, which can obviously pass on information for resistance to a drug, can even happen between different species of bacteria.

Notice, again, that the information for the resistance must already exist in nature before it can be passed on. There is no evidence of anything totally new arising which was not there before. This is information transfer, not information creation.

Some germs become resistant through mutation. Interestingly, where this happens, there is no clear cut evidence of information arising. All such mutations appear to be losses of information, degenerative changes. For example, loss of a control gene may enhance resistance to penicillin.

Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner.

However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison. Once again, we see that information has been lost/corrupted, not gained.

Your Supergerms are actually defective in other ways, as explained. Therefore, when they are forced to compete with the ordinary bacteria which normally thrive on our skin, they do not have a chance. They thrive in hospital because all the antibiotics and antiseptics being used there keep wiping out the ordinary bacteria which would normally out compete, wipe out and otherwise keep in check these ‘superbugs’

Nighty night, young man.

26 April 2014 at 03:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

pps

"Woodmorappe is the pen name of a school teacher (geologist only by qualification to M.A. level, not by work or research), who is a noted, dishonest, creationist."

But this level or lack of 'knowledge has never stopped Richard Dawkins pontificating on subjects outside his biologist remit...Has the blessed Dickie Dawkins got a humble Masters Degrees in Theology & Religious Studies?. He shows that he is a noted, dishonest, atheist (In The God Delusion, for example, Dawkins says that it is ‘possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all’ and appeals to the work of G. A. Wells even though the Christ myth is not endorsed by a SINGLE reputable historian.
The leading proponent of the Christ myth over the past century—G. A. Wells, whom Dawkins mentions—is not a historian, but a professor of German (Someone talking about a subject without even a humble MA to their name in that subject!!). (G. A. Wells has wisely recanted his position on the Christ myth!!!).

26 April 2014 at 04:20  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I find it unspeakably tragic that otherwise apparently mentally clear and educated people can cite the minor, limited genetic shuffling involved in antibiotic resistance and peppered moths as rock sold evidence for the 'fact' of molecules to man evolution. And who then use extreme personal abuse against anyone who dares question Darwin-in the name of science and reason.

Engaging with Dawkinists overcthe last decade or so has turned me into a Calvinist, for how can such proud, invincible ignorance be overcome but by irresistable grace?

My friend Dr Vij Sodera has recently updated his magisterial work rebutting the pretended evidence for molecules to man evolution, 'One Small Speck to Man:The Evolution Myth'. Not a mention of God or Scripture in the whole book, just well researched and clearly presented science.

For courageous truth seekers.

26 April 2014 at 08:28  
Blogger Len said...

'Darwinism' is beginning to be recognized as an impossible theory by scientists.
I suppose eventually science will catch up with the Bible?.

26 April 2014 at 09:57  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

I note the various commenters have chosen not to address the meat of my argument, which is the well-founded concern that religion and politics do not mix.

Instead, they betray ignorance that would embarrass a GCSE biology student, and indulge in puerile attacks.

What point of comments if they serve only as an echo chamber?

26 April 2014 at 10:48  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

Thank you for being the sole respondant to remain polite and considerate. Ignoring the pointless science-denialism going on elsewhere, please consider the points I made concerning religion and politics.

It is my contention the concerns of the letter signatories are well founded based on the events I cited.

26 April 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

I think you'll find the abuse was directed my way. That creationists are dishonest, ignorant and fanatical is simply a statement of observation. As the Kitzmiller v Dover trial revealed, the agenda is not, evet , scientific, but religious in nature.

As for the flaws in my education - you may wish to take that up with the two universities of which I am an alumni, who awarded me degrees in biology. Science has reached a consensus. It has done so using evidence.

If Dr Sodera wishes to be taken seriously, he should submit his research for peer review.

All of this creationist hoopla completely ignores the original point I was making - religion has a toxic affect on politics. The signatories were justified.

26 April 2014 at 15:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Colin Morrison ‏@colmo_ni 10h

@CEMB_forum I raised some points in comments, and was accosted by 3 creationists. @His_Grace has science deniers as followers.


Archbishop Cranmer ‏@His_Grace 10h

@colmo_ni Do you want them censored or banned or something? @CEMB_forum


3:01 AM - 26 Apr 2014 · Details
Colin Morrison ‏@colmo_ni 3h

@His_Grace @CEMB_forum Of course not. Pointing out the unscientific and untheological basis of their beliefs would be an excellent start."

Running off to tell His Grace you have been harshly treated, eh? Boo Hoo *rubbing eyes*

Creationists have to take much worse than the ribbing old Ernst has given you fella, from your enlightened cabal on the web.!!!

Colin, my lad, you stated this;

"It should also be noted that less than half the population there accept
scientific facts such as the age of the Earth and Universe, or biological evolution. This is what those highly educated and intelligent signatories were thinking of when they heard the term "Christian nation", the rallying cry of the religious Right."

FACTS? We are evolutionist deniers NOT science deniers...There is a world of difference!

What is the exact age of the earth, universe (Try to be precise now) and where is your observable evidence of biological evolution from the sterile recently formed universe to the origin of the first form of life in the supposed archean age to the miraculous living slime from a rock and on upwards and through to mankind. In a sterile environment life/bacteria has to be introduced into it, it cannot come from a sterile state.

In 1950's, Miller and Urey failed to show this and the experiment has been tried many times and ALWAYS fails (Therefore, it is a complete mystery how life originated and has not been proved or observed, it is merely 'believed'! This is called a religious statement, is it not, Lad?). So show me it, Colin.

The first living cells emerged 3.8 - 4 billion years ago but there is no record of the event!

However self replicating life forms must have originated by unobservable evolution or it would be necessary to believe in a Creator..As Haeckel stated during the University of Jena trials in 1875 to his fraudulent doctoring of evidence of a set of 24 drawings which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, and then repeated in 1874 in his more popular Anthropogenie which was discredit by his immediate peers but fully in 1997 by embryologist Dr. Michael Richardson, a lecturer and an embryologist at St. Georgeʼs Hospital Medical School in London, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology and in interview;

Article: "An embryonic liar." By Nigel Hawkes. London Times, August 11, 1997. Page 14:

Dr Michael Richardson, has shown that even this, Haeckel's last bequest to science, is deeply flawed.

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry." …

… "What he did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. There is only one word for this, and Dr Richardson doesn't flinch from using it. "These are fakes. In the paper, we call them 'misleading and inaccurate', but that is just polite scientific language."

You state "That creationists are dishonest, ignorant and fanatical is simply a statement of observation. As the Kitzmiller v Dover trial revealed, the agenda is not, evet , scientific, but religious in nature.".

See Haeckel's trial in 1875 for a display of dishonest, religious fanaticism at work, for your belief system called Evolutionism. DITTO then?


E S Blofeld, that big girls blouse.

26 April 2014 at 22:37  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

"Running off to tell His Grace you have been harshly treated, eh? Boo Hoo *rubbing eyes*"

You misunderstand - I don't give the tiniest jot what a mendacious ignoramus blowhard such as yourself thinks - His Grace may be judged by the company he keeps; science deniers and fantasists don't look good as the mainstay of a fan base.

As for the rest...scientific fraudsters are usually found out by other scientists. Creationists don't require the same level of qualification to debunk as loons and conspiracy theorists. And liars, always with the lying. Why do you feel it acceptable to break the 9th?

27 April 2014 at 00:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"You misunderstand - I don't give the tiniest jot what a mendacious ignoramus blowhard such as yourself thinks " Obviously you do hence the running to the Boss here on the blog and whinging about your brilliant opening gambit here and our lack of comprehension of such empirical wisdom.

"His Grace may be judged by the company he keeps; science deniers and fantasists don't look good as the mainstay of a fan base."

That he believes in the 'Christ myth' surely makes him a loon and figure for ridicule from such highly educated and intelligent signatories in the letter and yourself anyway. If he has to rely on such as your ilk for bona fide secular approval, all is truly lost.

"science deniers and fantasists don't look good as the mainstay of a fan base." Colin, you will be encouraged to know that some here suffer from part of your mental dis-ease, that the earth is gazillions of years old and that they can trace their ancestral relatives all the way back to a glop of scotch broth, just south of the Hebrides. So take heart that the indoctrination and sneering arrogacet but groundless condescension appears to be rendering results among the feeble minded!

"Why do you feel it acceptable to break the 9th?" I do not, merely pointing out that what you accuse creationists of, evolutionists do with verve and shameless enthusiasm and have people like you spreading that message evangelically by whatever means possible.

By the way, the 9th Commandment is a double edged sword.
There is a twofold in 'bearing false witness':
1. There is bearing false witness for another.(You do this by perpetuating something on behalf of someone or something that cannot be proven by the facts either through willing ignorance or to uphold a point by self deceit)
2. Bearing false witness against another (You accuse others of lying yet show NO detailed evidence of what you purport whereas Ernst had the evidence to prove it to you. The disgusting lies/fraud perpetuated by Haeckel and his atheistic followers since, by keeping it in the textbooks as verified truth, shows the level or depths that evolutionists are prepared to stoop to, to force their lies on others).

His lies were discovered by Professor His, shortly after his drawings came back from the printers but he blamed a draughtsman for the errors whereas HE was the draughtsman. Of course the rest is history of the damage done to science by lying to justify a position that the plain truth would deny...Damage done!

In Australia there is a once molten basalt layer that is 13 ft thick and there is wood roots from a forest in silstone entombed in the bottom base ash, chared and intact, 69 ft down below the layer

Potassium argon dating of basalt layer was given as 45 million years old but the wood was aged via carbon dating as a mere 45 thousand years old.

Did a creationist sneak it below the basalt layer and partially embed it up into the basalt layer by several ft just to deny your empirical assumption? EXPLAIN?????

Or are Mans methods based on fallible, unprovable assumptions concerning the past, despite the bleedingly obvious you stumble across when dating, as detailed above for you?

You blindlessly 'believe', irrespective of evidence to the contrary, just as you claim we do!!!

E S Blofeld

27 April 2014 at 03:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

'mendacious'? Where, you 9th Commandment breaker, you.

27 April 2014 at 03:48  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Absolutely epic stuff Mr Morrison!

You label me a liar and a 'frothing one eyed science denialist' and then when accused of using personal abuse say 'I think you'll find the abuse was directed my way.'

You really are a credit to your mentor Richard Dawkins.

I am away at the Christian Medical Fellowship conference right now responding on my mobile, when I get back to my desktop I intend to copy this exchange and add it to my web site as an example of how enraged atheists like to 'reason'.

You disdained to even read the evidence against evolution and for Christ I directed you to on my questiondarwin site but blithely assume that the evoutionist controlled establishment would print Vij Sodera's material falsifying evolution if asked. Are you aware of the Richard Sternberg affair, where the editor of a peer review science journal was forced out of his office for allowing the publication of a scientific paper criticising evolution? Its called zero tolerance.

Bye bye.

PS how did Krebs cycle evolve?



PS as you can see from my portrait, I have two eyes. You accuse me of only having one. So you can't even count up to to.



27 April 2014 at 07:01  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Correction- count up to two.

27 April 2014 at 07:03  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

On being accused of 'science denial', if I had a bit more self respect I could get a bit upset about that as a lover of science who teaches skin cancer diagnosis to doctors throughout the UK. But then I remind myself of our Lord's words to his disciples about what to expect.

'If they hate you, it is because they hated Me first.'

Evolutionism really is all about getting rid of the Creator, for with no Creator there is no Lawgiver or Judge, so no need of a Saviour.

As we read in John 1 'Through Him all things were made, and without Him was not anything made that was made......He was in the world and the world was made through Him..

See also Colossians on Christ the cosmic Creator and Romans 5 on the first Adam.

Dawkins and his disciples understand that undermining creation weakens the foundations of Christianity. I wish more Christians would get this..

27 April 2014 at 07:26  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

The lie of the "fossilised wood" is explained in this video by an actual geologist, who explains how Andrew Snelling, creationist, uses inappropriate dating methods to obtain spurious results.

Coffee with Claire for February 9, 2014, about 7 mins 30 seconds in: http://youtu.be/uPyK0g5hQ2U

Creationism is dishonest to the core.

27 April 2014 at 11:09  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

I'll grant you that you did not abuse me. I maintain that you are dishonest and fanatical; by all means quote me thus:

"Creationists are always dishonest and/or ignorant. It is required to maintain their science denial, which they maintain because they think it undermines their religion. Thus, it is a religious, not scientific, position. Why else is the phenomena of atheist/agnostic creationists vitually unknown?"

27 April 2014 at 11:16  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

Kreb's? I don't know, I haven't researched the genetics of it. Given the mitochondria likely were capable of a precursor of it, predating evolution of the eukaryotic cell, it would be a heavily conserved set of genes. Good for molecular phylogenetic analysis between distantly related species in different phyla or perhaps kingdoms.

27 April 2014 at 11:30  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

Your application of religious terms to the nonreligious is an excellent example of "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I had another look through your laughable website, and while I find the usual attempts to undermine evolution using very old examples, it doesn't cite any modern science (that I could find). As I've said, the field of molecular phylogenetics alone can demonstrate the organisation and degree of relatedness for any genome. Be sure to quote me on that.

You see, even if evolution could be disproved (good luck with that), it doesn't lend any credence to your absurd alternative.

It disturbs me that a doctor could deny the foundation of his very field - to understand cancer, you must understand DNA, mutation and the role of regulatory sequences. To understand those, you need to understand evolution. You apparently don't, which would lead me to question your professional competence.

I don't hate you - I don't even know you, but I think your science denialism is harmful and needs to be opposed.

So, why exactly are we discussing your denial of science on a topic about secularism?

27 April 2014 at 11:45  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

The Haeckel affair is explained in full here:
13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: http://youtu.be/myfifz3C0mI

Perhaps you'd care to mention where Andrew Snelling published his fraudulent misuse of dating methods for peer-review?

I've already posted a link to a video explaining the dishonesty behind that.

27 April 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

“Perhaps you'd care to mention where Andrew Snelling published his fraudulent misuse of dating methods for peer-review? I've already posted a link to a video explaining the dishonesty behind that.”

See below. The dishonesty is all YOURS!!

Claire looks like a REAL authority because???

Claire looks like she likes her coffee bitter, like most atheists when their religious beliefs are in question.

SHE REALLY IS ONLY OFFERING DREGS TO SUPPORT HER NONSENSE.

Why not detail the whole of the dispute, instead of her funsize soundbites??

Well, that would be counter productive to her aim of discrediting by an out of context rambling approach for y’all to gulp down, with mug in hand.

I've never seen a real mug holding a mug, have you?

To get a full understanding of a case of law, we ATTEND to hear the full evidence presented.

We do not take as gospel the ramblings of someone who attended one day of a four week trial to get the the whole truth of what occurred...unless you are an atheist with someone to smear!

This was answered in full by CRI in June 2000 (http://creation.com/dating-dilemma-deepens-moore-on-ancient-radiocarbon) by the original organisation submitting the sample, the dispute by a letter submitted by another (that charming anti-creationist, Jim Moore,) with an axe to grind on behalf of your cabal and a response from the dating organisation (Geochron Laboratory) answered by an employee that worked in another lab and NOT the lab that did the dating (Dick Reesman did not manage Geochron’s 14C lab, nor was he involved in analysing the wood sample. He managed their K-Ar lab!).

She delights in promoting some tw*t that rambled whilst detailing a creationist point of view but he seems no one of scientific significance to the arguments at hand, does he..the poor souls?

However Ernst provides for the amusement of those that enjoy a good giggle the wafflings of a 'god' to your's and cemb forum's mindset, that shows creationism thankfully, does not hold all the jokers (We are talking about a clown prince of fools here) when a public performance of calm, logical knowledgeable reassurance is required, to show their trust/faith in their leaders are empirically justified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8 for someone acting like a complete numpty when answering the most basic of questions from a key source for atheists.

No sainthood being pushed for by this new atheism high pope..hmmm!

What a TW*T!!!

E S Blofeld,

Ps

I loved Claire’s assertion about zircon but this was refuted yonks ago when Joey Meert raised the issue..see http://creation.com/russ-humphreys-refutes-joe-meerts-false-claims-about-helium-diffusion.

Keep on trucking Colin lad, you're making Ernst’s year.

pps

"The Haeckel affair is explained in full here:
13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: http://youtu.be/myfifz3C0mI"

Ta Colin but I can find the truth about Haeckel and the trial from unbiased sources.

Bless you for trying to assist in enlightening old Ernst but since when has the embryologist Professor Dr. Michael Richardson, a lecturer and an embryologist at St. Georgeʼs Hospital Medical School in London, who wrote an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology been a creationist?

27 April 2014 at 23:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

" Why else is the phenomena of atheist/agnostic creationists vitually unknown?"

I nearly peed meself with laughter when I read this. What about a fanatical bible believer who denies there is a God?

Is that a sense of humour mutating in that noggin there or is it just random, mindless irony at work?

*chortles*

27 April 2014 at 23:43  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

So, no citation to a peer reviewed journal then. And no, Journal of Creation doesn't count.

28 April 2014 at 01:47  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

So you don't even pretend creationism has scientific merit - if it did, some scientists would support it irrespective of religion, just as evolution, the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe and other facts in modern science enjoy widespread support, regardless of religion. e.g. Ken Miller and Francis Collins have no problem cleaving to both their faith and modern science. Georges Lamaitre had no problem with an ancient Universe and his priestly calling.

I'm please that you've been royally entertained. I'm also pleased to say this thread has enjoyed an audience from those similar to.my perspective (the one grounded in evidence). Even they were astonished at the extremity of lunacy on display. I consider my job done here. Observers to this thread will be left in little doubt as to the relative arguments.

It is a shame that the original topic was completely ignored. However, I would not want you to lose bladder control completely on my behalf were we to continue this pointless conversation.

I consider your information sources invalid and deliberately deceitful, and you likewise mine. The difference being, of course, that mine is demonstrable, repeatable and verifiable - the Haeckel fraud is very much the exception in science, and it's good it was uncovered and rectified. Creationism, on the other hand, is entirely fraudulent - it is neither demonstrable, repeatable nor verifiable. It is pseudoscience, and its followers tick most of the boxes as conspiracy theorists.

Goodbye, farewell and do start reading some actual science. I am told by theistic friends that it enhances, not hurts, their faith.

28 April 2014 at 02:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"So you don't even pretend creationism has scientific merit - if it did, some scientists would support it irrespective of religion, just as evolution, the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe and other facts in modern science enjoy widespread support," There are plenty of scientists skeptical about the claims of factual evolution that are atheists..it is only the alternative that sticks in the craw!and I have looked at the links you have suggested but only out of morbid curiosity.

If arrogant stupidity were a crime, he'd be #1 on the Most Wanted list.

Hilarious is the assumption that 'scientists' are rational objective beings who cannot lie or are unbiased by their worldview, as can be seen from the unscientific explanation in his letter from Dick Reesman of Geochron Laboratory...

You are living proof that manure can sprout arms and blog and your disdainful and sneering commenting reveals a mind mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence and impervious to brain damage..!

Your constant harping of the doctrines of Scientism shows you understand English as well as any parrot could but without its usefulness to provide a source of comfort or amusement. "Colin is a cracker, Colin is a cracker".

You have displayed for the whole blog to see that you have all the intellectual rigour of an monkey wrench.

Unlike Ernst and some here who drink from the fountain of knowledge, you just gargled and my sincere hope is that God might still use you for miracle practice.

I'd like to say I am happy you’re here on this blog. I’d like to.

You remind me of when I was much younger and didn't know as much as I do now and any connection between my reality and yours is purely coincidental (Don't ya just love metaphysics?).

I'm off now Colin,I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.

Thanks for proving the point that should a subject seem idiot-proof, somewhere down the line a human being will infallibly give birth to a better class of idiot.

Ernst will forever cherish the initial misconceptions he had about you.

Adieu *sniggers*

E S Blofeld

28 April 2014 at 03:41  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Colin Morrison wrote in answer to my question about Krebs cycle

'Kreb's? I don't know. I haven't researched the genetics of it. Given the mitochondria likely were capable of a precursor of it, predating evolution of the eukaryotic cell, it would be a heavily conserved set of genes. Good for molecular phylogenetic analysis between distantly related species in different phyla or perhaps kingdoms.'

guess what. That is precisely the answer I expected. Effectively a denial that there is a problem and an appeal to Darwin of the gaps.

'heavily conserved' set of genes? MFHA. I didn't ask how Krebs cycle was CONSERVED, I asked how it EVOLVED. And you dare to throw numerous insults at others for being science deniers and failing to address your questions?

Meanwhile, back in in the real world of measurable science, Krebs cycle is profoundly and unavoidably essential to every known living cell, is fantastically complicated, and has no known OR THEORETICAL precursors, thus utterly satisfying Darwin's test of falsification.

Job done. And then you gotta add all other known essential metabolic processes.


So, creationism makes accurate predictions. That a brainwashed, fanatical Darwinist will always have an excuse for their utter inability to actually demonstrate a single science fact to supporting the blend of pagan myth and atheist philosophy that the dare to call science. And that they will piss down their opponent's back while declaring with great condescension that it is raining.

Judgment's coming sir, repent.

1 May 2014 at 22:07  
Blogger Colin Morrison said...

Oh look, a reply.

Kerb's cycle is not present in every living cell - it exists only in aerobes. Oxygen breathers, to save you googling.

The evolution of aerobic respiration is interesting and complicated, but presents no problems to evolution.

Argument from design is wholly fallacious and demonstrates that yes, you are indeed a dishonest/ignorant creationist just like the rest.

"Judgment's coming sir, repent."

I love the smell of Pascal's Wager in the morning.

17 May 2014 at 12:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older