This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.

A young family moved into a house next door to a vacant building plot. One
day Willie Brunsden and a gang of building workers turned up to start
building a house on the empty plot. The young family's 5-year-old daughter
naturally took an interest in all the activity going on next-door and
started talking with the workers.
She hung around and eventually the big hairy builders (but all with hearts
of gold) more or less adopted the little girl as a sort of project mascot.
They chatted with her, let her sit with them while they had tea and lunch
breaks, and gave her little jobs to do here and there to make her feel
important.

At the end of the first week they even presented her with a pay envelope
containing two Pounds in 10p coins. The little girl took her 'pay' home to
her mother who suggested that they take the money she had received to the
bank the next day to start a savings account.

When they got to the bank the cashier was tickled pink listening to the
little girl telling her about her 'work' on the building site and the fact
she had a 'pay packet'.
"You must have worked very hard to earn all this" said the bank cashier.
The little girl proudly replied, "I worked all last week with the men
building a big house."
"My goodness gracious," said the cashier, "Will you be working on the house
again this week, as well?" ....


The little girl thought for a moment....


....and said, "I think so. Provided those w*nkers at Travis Perkins deliver
the f*cking bricks on time."

"nrh" wrote in
news
This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang
of building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to
believe in the goodness of people and that there is hope for the human
race.

A young family moved into a house next door to a vacant building plot.
One

)
--
Jim

Tyneside - North East of England
To email me directly omit the X from my address

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:54:12 GMT Nrh wrote :
The young family's 5-year-old daughter
naturally took an interest in all the activity going on next-door
and started talking with the workers.
She hung around and eventually the big hairy builders (but all
with hearts of gold) more or less adopted the little girl as a
sort of project mascot.

Of course in the 2006 version of the story a Sun reporter finds out
about this and printed the story under the headline "Builders get
their hands into hardcore while little girl looks on". That night
the under-construction house is torched by a marauding mob.
Unfortunately it spreads to the adjoining house and the little girl
is burned to death. The father is now in custody having admitted to
replacing a kitchen power socket in contravention of Part P.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:05:17 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:54:12 GMT Nrh wrote :
The young family's 5-year-old daughter
naturally took an interest in all the activity going on next-door
and started talking with the workers.
She hung around and eventually the big hairy builders (but all
with hearts of gold) more or less adopted the little girl as a
sort of project mascot.

Of course in the 2006 version of the story a Sun reporter finds out
about this and printed the story under the headline "Builders get
their hands into hardcore while little girl looks on". That night
the under-construction house is torched by a marauding mob.
Unfortunately it spreads to the adjoining house and the little girl
is burned to death. The father is now in custody having admitted to
replacing a kitchen power socket in contravention of Part P.


Very good :-)


--

..andy

This story actually appears as 'true' as recalled to Bill Bryson in
'Down Under', told to him by a friend.

Seems to qualify as a Dead Granny.

Paul.

nrh wrote:
This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.

A young family moved into a house next door to a vacant building plot. One
day Willie Brunsden and a gang of building workers turned up to start
building a house on the empty plot. The young family's 5-year-old daughter
naturally took an interest in all the activity going on next-door and
started talking with the workers.
She hung around and eventually the big hairy builders (but all with hearts
of gold) more or less adopted the little girl as a sort of project mascot.
They chatted with her, let her sit with them while they had tea and lunch
breaks, and gave her little jobs to do here and there to make her feel
important.

At the end of the first week they even presented her with a pay envelope
containing two Pounds in 10p coins. The little girl took her 'pay' home to
her mother who suggested that they take the money she had received to the
bank the next day to start a savings account.

When they got to the bank the cashier was tickled pink listening to the
little girl telling her about her 'work' on the building site and the fact
she had a 'pay packet'.
"You must have worked very hard to earn all this" said the bank cashier.
The little girl proudly replied, "I worked all last week with the men
building a big house."
"My goodness gracious," said the cashier, "Will you be working on the house
again this week, as well?" ....


The little girl thought for a moment....


...and said, "I think so. Provided those w*nkers at Travis Perkins deliver
the f*cking bricks on time."


A classic. Theres a similar one about aviation...
http://www.whocutthecheez.com/Pix/Cheezy_Pix/flight.jpg
allegedly traced and true


NT

"nrh" wrote in message
news
This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang
of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe
in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.

LOL

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:54:12 GMT, "nrh" wrote:

This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.


Odd - when I last heard this story (on this very forum I believe, a
fair while back) I'm sure it was a little boy and Jewsons rather than
Travis.

--
Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side.

In ,
Geoffrey scribed:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:54:12 GMT, "nrh" wrote:

This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe in
the goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.


Odd - when I last heard this story (on this very forum I believe, a
fair while back) I'm sure it was a little boy and Jewsons rather than
Travis.

And what claim are you trying to refute?

N.

In k,
Ophelia scribed:
"nrh" wrote in message
news
This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang
of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe
in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.

LOL


Punchline is at the end. :-p

N.

"nrh" wrote in message
...
In k,
Ophelia scribed:
"nrh" wrote in message
news
This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a
gang
of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe
in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.

LOL


Punchline is at the end. :-p

yers but I get told off if I do it wrong G

Here is one about Engineers

Three engineers are sitting at a bar eating popcorn and drinking beer.

Out of the blue, the mechanical engineer speaks up and says, "You know,
I
think God was a mechanical engineer."

The other two look at him and laugh, "Why do you think that?"

He says, "Well, look at how the body is constructed: the whole skeletal
system, all the articulation, the tendons and ligaments. Beautiful and
perfect. God must have been a mechanical engineer."

The other two sit in silence as they think about this.

Then the electrical engineer speaks up and says, "Good points, but I
think
God was an electrical engineer."

The other two say "Why do you think that?"

He says, "Well, look at the nervous system, look at the functioning of
the
synapses and the complex construction of the ultimate computer: our
brain.
God must have been an electrical engineer."

The other two kind of nod and think about it for a while.

Finally the last engineer, a civil engineer, starts laughing. He says,
"You
two have got it all wrong. God wasn't a mechanical or an electrical
engineer. He was a civil engineer."

The other two stifle a couple of laughs and say, "How can you think
that?"

The civil engineer says, "Who else would put a major sewer line right
through the middle of a recreational area?!"

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:23:51 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


|Here is one about Engineers

|I
|think God was a mechanical engineer."

I think we were not designed, but happened as a result of evolution.
Why else would the ?design? of my knees and back back be such a shambles.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Please quote, with quote
character, previous post sniped to only the bit you are replying to.
Threads often contain 100s of posts dozens layers deep. Other people
use different newsreaders, they do not see or do what you see and do.

In k,
Ophelia scribed:

yers but I get told off if I do it wrong G

Here is one about Engineers

Three engineers are sitting at a bar eating popcorn and drinking beer.

snipped (or snippage or 8 ) :-)

The civil engineer says, "Who else would put a major sewer line right
through the middle of a recreational area?!"

ROFL !!

;-)

Nigel.

In message , Dave Fawthrop
writes
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:23:51 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


|Here is one about Engineers

|I
|think God was a mechanical engineer."

I think we were not designed, but happened as a result of evolution.
Why else would the ?design? of my knees and back back be such a shambles.

Aha, so you're not watching Horizon at the moment then

--
geoff

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:38:08 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:54:12 GMT, "nrh" wrote:

This is a story about the bond formed between a little girl and a gang of
building workers. It's allegedly true, and makes you want to believe in the
goodness of people and that there is hope for the human race.


Odd - when I last heard this story (on this very forum I believe, a
fair while back) I'm sure it was a little boy and Jewsons rather than
Travis.


Always better to have a little girl. Adds to the sugar factor of the
build-up.



--

..andy

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:34:52 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:23:51 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


|Here is one about Engineers

|I
|think God was a mechanical engineer."

I think we were not designed, but happened as a result of evolution.
Why else would the ?design? of my knees and back back be such a shambles.

The lowest bidder got the contract.




--

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:23:51 GMT, "Ophelia" wrote:


|Here is one about Engineers

|I
|think God was a mechanical engineer."

I think we were not designed, but happened as a result of evolution.
Why else would the ?design? of my knees and back back be such a shambles.

I do hope you all watched Horizon tonight. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:23:51 GMT, "Ophelia"
wrote:


|Here is one about Engineers

|I
|think God was a mechanical engineer."

I think we were not designed, but happened as a result of evolution.
Why else would the ?design? of my knees and back back be such a
shambles.

I do hope you all watched Horizon tonight. ;-)

I didn't see it. Do tell?

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:23:51 GMT, "Ophelia"
wrote:


|Here is one about Engineers

|I
|think God was a mechanical engineer."

I think we were not designed, but happened as a result of evolution.
Why else would the ?design? of my knees and back back be such a
shambles.

I do hope you all watched Horizon tonight. ;-)

I didn't see it. Do tell?

Sir David Attenborough calling irrelevant the comments of those who, in
effect, mark the whole of his life a lie. Richard Dawkins telling it as it is
- but with less patience. And the best comments from a Jesuit astronomer. All
successfully demolishing the ideas of so-called 'Intelligent Design' which
nevertheless manages to take over the mind of many of the non-thinking of the
USA (including the President of that country).

ie about Creationism and those who attempt to take Genesis literally (which is
OK even if impossible) and claiming their ideas are science (which is clearly
not OK). The Jesuit astronomer put it best - "their ideas may destroy science
and they will also destroy religion.

NB I know some of those promoting 'Intelligent Design' are not stupid. They
also know that there is much power and much money in getting the gullible to
accept the views they promote.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

snip welcome explanation

NB I know some of those promoting 'Intelligent Design' are not stupid.
They
also know that there is much power and much money in getting the
gullible to
accept the views they promote.

Thanks John. This is very true!!

John Cartmell wrote:

Sir David Attenborough calling irrelevant the comments of those who, in
effect, mark the whole of his life a lie.

He lies like snot pouring out of an elephant with cattarrh. Every
second line of his narrations are loaded with pointless aphorisms about
evolution.

I have seen too many botched up jobs by DIYers to give any credence to
a series of accidents producing, from limited resources, in limited
time frames, an eulogy to masterpieces everywhere that is both
breath-taking and unique. Woven by a technician so profound his
abilities are beyond awesome -and all hung upon nothing.

Has anyone here ever heard Richard Attenbrough offer so much as a
description of "species" among his dubious and unscientific clap trap?

In oups.com,
Weatherlawyer scribed:
John Cartmell wrote:

Sir David Attenborough calling irrelevant the comments of those who, in
effect, mark the whole of his life a lie.

He lies
snipped

Strong stuff, and he is not even here to defend himself. Not a good start.

Why in that case would he want to 'lie' so publicly, so persistently and,
(if deliberately intended) expect to get away with it for so long? For the
money? Remember, he turned down the job of D.G. of the Beeb, when
head-hunted for it, citing his love for the work.

If I may preempt your reply here, doesn't calling someone a liar presuppose
that you know the truth? If so, what is it?

Nigel

In article .com,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

Sir David Attenborough calling irrelevant the comments of those who, in
effect, mark the whole of his life a lie.

He lies like snot pouring out of an elephant with cattarrh. Every
second line of his narrations are loaded with pointless aphorisms about
evolution.

I have seen too many botched up jobs by DIYers to give any credence to
a series of accidents producing, from limited resources, in limited
time frames, an eulogy to masterpieces everywhere that is both
breath-taking and unique. Woven by a technician so profound his
abilities are beyond awesome -and all hung upon nothing.

Has anyone here ever heard Richard Attenbrough offer so much as a
description of "species" among his dubious and unscientific clap trap?

My comment:
"NB I know some of those promoting 'Intelligent Design' are not stupid."
was not intended to apply to you.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Has anyone here ever heard Richard Attenbrough offer so much as a
description of "species" among his dubious and unscientific clap trap?

The film director & luvvie?

nrh wrote:

Strong stuff, and he is not even here to defend himself. Not a good start.

This is a public forum and moreover it is one he can respond to at any
time. He is a priest of DIY is he not?

If I may pre-empt your reply here, doesn't calling someone a liar presuppose that you know
the truth? If so, what is it?

I know the truth of a theory is produced in scientifically controlled
experiment. With the maths and the repeated reproduction of the
results, working from the same beginnings still waiting to be seen, I
am not yet required to show my evidence am I?

If someone makes an unqualified unproven statement, anyone is perfectly
entitled to tell him to put up or shut up. Without offering
indisputable proof, he is just an empty headed priest of a modern
religion. Or do you think that if he can hypnotise enough people with
his bull ****, he must be correct?

Just saying very, very little all too often, is not very scientific is
it?

As for the producers of the programme: Horizon; they are as duplicitous
as they come.

In article . com,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

nrh wrote:

Strong stuff, and he is not even here to defend himself. Not a good start.

This is a public forum and moreover it is one he can respond to at any
time. He is a priest of DIY is he not?

If I may pre-empt your reply here, doesn't calling someone a liar
presuppose that you know the truth? If so, what is it?

I know the truth of a theory is produced in scientifically controlled
experiment. With the maths and the repeated reproduction of the results,
working from the same beginnings still waiting to be seen, I am not yet
required to show my evidence am I?

If someone makes an unqualified unproven statement, anyone is perfectly
entitled to tell him to put up or shut up. Without offering indisputable
proof, he is just an empty headed priest of a modern religion. Or do you
think that if he can hypnotise enough people with his bull ****, he must be
correct?

Just saying very, very little all too often, is not very scientific is it?

You are not fit to lick his boots - and that's after one of his forays into
unmentionable material underfoot. And your 'explanation' is as
incomprehensible as the ideas in your head.

As for the producers of the programme: Horizon; they are as duplicitous as
they come.

They certainly made some critical errors in the program - at times dumbing
down the problem so that it sounded as if ideas of evolution started and
stopped with Charles Darwin. The concept had been well put earlier by Lamarck
and Darwin's own grandfather but Darwin's role was to identify the correct
process by which it works. Others (eg Wallace) came to a similar soluton
(though later) and Darwin's major contribution was painstaking and lifelong
testing of his ideas. He missed the vehicle by which evolution worked but this
was supplied (and ironically written up and sitting in Darwin's library) by
Mendel. Whilst there isn't the slightest shred of doubt about the fact of
evolution (any more than there is doubt of the fact of gravity) there is
constant discussion of details of the process and understanding of the
interactions between genotype, phenotype, individual/group and species.

The Jesuit had it right: the ignorant ideas of creationists are a menace to
both science and religion. Whether the damage to religion bothers you or not
depends on your belief; the damage to science and education is a menace to us
all.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In ups.com,
Weatherlawyer scribed:
snipped

If someone makes an unqualified unproven statement, anyone is perfectly
entitled to tell him to put up or shut up.

But that is not the same thing as to call him a 'liar'. You have therefore
lost credibility too, IMO.

N.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Weatherlawyer"
saying something like:

I have seen too many botched up jobs by DIYers to give any credence to
a series of accidents producing, from limited resources, in limited
time frames, an eulogy to masterpieces everywhere that is both
breath-taking and unique. Woven by a technician so profound his
abilities are beyond awesome -and all hung upon nothing.

LOL!

Say hello from me to the fairies at the bottom of your garden, will you?

--

Dave

John Cartmell wrote:
They certainly made some critical errors in the program - at times dumbing
I would say they made soem errors! The biggest one was the complete
lack of objectivity. The opening 15 minutes were a load of dire
warnings about this new "dangerous" idea. Then we had a summary of the
beliefs of Intelligent Design, which were then dismissed with a
metaphorical wave of the hand but very little scientific backing. Then
a further 10 minutes of dire warnings about how this idea would bring
the end to scientific accomplishment as we know it if it became more
widely believed.

Which is of course, all bo**ocks. Because science has never been
hindered by people questioning its beliefs. Indeed, we learn the truth
by challenging each theory and honing them over time as our ability to
observe and interpret the evidence improves.

I thought the rebuttal of ID given in the programme was extremely poor,
and, if one were to edit out the interviews with the various
scientists, the programme might have actually been quite a good
promotion of ID.

Any programme which claims it is balanced, but interviews four times as
many opponents as proposers to an arguement is at best dishonest.

I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by ID, but it would at least
be nice to have a balanced, rational perspective on it rather than
another of Dawkins' infamous tirades against religion.

To my mind, this is not about religion. It's about science. There are
massive problems with Darwinian evolution by natural selection, at
least on a macro-scale. Surely the sooner we can recognise this and
start looking elsewhere, the better. Science should never bury its head
in the sand!

The Jesuit had it right: the ignorant ideas of creationists are a menace to
Creationism Intelligent Design!

In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by ID, but it would at least
be nice to have a balanced, rational perspective on it rather than
another of Dawkins' infamous tirades against religion.

A balanced perspective on ID would have been far more damning of the whole
idea and its supporters. Horizon was far too kind and took the whole idea
seriously. The whole thing is a fraud that threatens us all. It's a fraud just
like builders using sub-standard materials on a job in your house and putting
your health and safety at risk. It's a fraud like people selling sub-standard
power tools that can break or explode under normal use. Except that the fraud
perpetuated by ID can seriously damage the health and safety of millions of
people. They are dangerous nutters with lots of money and the support of the
President of the USA.

And before anyone dismisses me as a nutter let anyone supporting ID tell you
what experiment or observation might falsify their beliefs. That's the
requirement of any scientific theory and they are pretending that ID is
science.

NB Whilst Dawkins rejects religion you don't need to reject religion in order
to reject ID as science - indeed anyone with a care for religious ideas would
take care to reject the ID claims. Just like the Jesuit on Horizon. Just like
good scientists will publicly reject bad science and bad scientists. Just like
good tradesmen will reject cowboys and dangerous work done by them.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Tournifreak"
saying something like:

To my mind, this is not about religion. It's about science. There are
massive problems with Darwinian evolution by natural selection, at
least on a macro-scale. Surely the sooner we can recognise this and
start looking elsewhere, the better. Science should never bury its head
in the sand!

Better than burying its head up its arse.
--

Dave

John Cartmell wrote:

people. They are dangerous nutters with lots of money and the support of the
President of the USA.
This sounds to me like the typical paranoid, anti-American claptrap we
hear from the tabloids. The proponents of ID are not "dangerous
nutters". Al-Quaida are dangerous nutters with guns. PolPot was a
dangerous nutter. As was Hitler. These are scientists with scientific
views that happen to go against the flow of popular opinion. So let's
get some perspective on it eh?! But their new science does answer some
of the problems of mainstream science. I maintain that science has
never been harmed by people questionning it, since that is the
scientific method.

And before anyone dismisses me as a nutter let anyone supporting ID tell you
what experiment or observation might falsify their beliefs. That's the
requirement of any scientific theory and they are pretending that ID is
science.
The most famous example of irreducible complexity is the flagella of
various bacteria (as I'm sure you're aware). Now, recent scientific
advancements have suggested that the flagella could be broken into a
smaller sub-system. So let's say there are 30 pieces working together
that are irreducably complex rather than 40. To falsify ID, you would
have to show that the flagella (or at least one of its subsystems)
could have gradually evolved to its present state. Each previous
incarnation would have to perform a useful function, and each change
would have to be beneficial. If that can be shown, then this example of
ID would be shown to be false. Now I don't know how to do that
experimentally (not my field!), but just because you can't think of an
experiment to disprove something doesn't make it non-science.
I could level the same question back at you. What experiment or
observation could be done that would falsify evolution by natural
selection? Very difficult to observe, and very difficult to experiment
in.

And I think there is a case for arguing that if a pretty unprovable
theory (such as evolution) is held as unquestionable truth, that
qualifies as faith.

Regards,
Jon.

In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
This sounds to me like the typical paranoid, anti-American claptrap we
hear from the tabloids. The proponents of ID are not "dangerous
nutters".

Any group that manages to significantly reduce the educational options of a
nation is a group of dangerous nutters. Any group that manages to influence
the government of the richest nation to divert its support for saving lives is
a group of dangerous nutters. Any group that gets the same government to
believe that evolution doesn't exist just when we are faced with a possible
pandemic that can be tackled only by putting lots of money into action
directed by understanding of the evolution of the flu virus is a group of
dangerous nutters.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
The most famous example of irreducible complexity is the flagella of
various bacteria (as I'm sure you're aware). Now, recent scientific
advancements have suggested that the flagella could be broken into a
smaller sub-system. So let's say there are 30 pieces working together
that are irreducably complex rather than 40. To falsify ID, you would
have to show that the flagella (or at least one of its subsystems)
could have gradually evolved to its present state. Each previous
incarnation would have to perform a useful function, and each change
would have to be beneficial. If that can be shown, then this example of
ID would be shown to be false. Now I don't know how to do that
experimentally (not my field!), but just because you can't think of an
experiment to disprove something doesn't make it non-science.

It's dead easy to set up straw man arguments. except that you are (again) on a
loser. Your creationist friends always used to quote the eye as the example -
until scientists pointed out that every stage along the way to an eye as
complex as the mammalian or squid eye could serve a useful purpose and
examples of every stage could be found in animals alive today. You are quoting
the example of the flagella only because one of your friends found it after
much searching as a complex system with no apparent possible sub-division -
just as the eye was once thought to exemplify. The reason he found this
example was that scientists hadn't done much work in the area and the
scientific literature was sparse. You are now betting all on scientists not
doing that research before Creationists get their feet into more schools and
damage more learning. Except that you aren't betting all. Once research has
shown that the flagella example is just as empty for you as the eye exemplar
you will move on to something else. If you watched the Horizon program you'll
have seen that it is already in tatters so your friends need to find another
backwater that hasn't yet received funding for modern scientific research.

I could level the same question back at you. What experiment or
observation could be done that would falsify evolution by natural
selection? Very difficult to observe, and very difficult to experiment
in.

That really is a lie. Evolution is happening all around us. I mentioned the
flu virus above. Another common example that we should all know about and
that's related to the problem of anti-biotics. There never has been any
question about evolution - Darwin put it very clearly after much
experimentation and observation that evolution under domesticity (have you
never wondered about all those pigeons!?) was well understood and his
contribution was to natural selection. Once you appreciate that parents of the
next generation are a very small percentage of the potential then natural
selection is obvious, evolution can be observed happening now - and you can
see evidence for it in the past literally 'in the rocks'.

And I think there is a case for arguing that if a pretty unprovable
theory (such as evolution) is held as unquestionable truth, that
qualifies as faith.

If it were then it would be. It isn't in the slightest unprovable. It can be
done and has been done for millennia - which is why we have pigs, cattle,
sheep, pigeons, goldfish, dogs, wheat, flowers, &c far different from their
ancestors and - in some cases - different species. It can be seen happening
today (but best in living things with short generation times of course), and
it can be seen to have happened in the past. I'll accept that you don't like
the idea and you can go and believe what you want. just don't force your nutty
ideas on other people and demand equal time for pseudo-scientific quackery
that literally could be the death of us.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
This sounds to me like the typical paranoid, anti-American claptrap we
hear from the tabloids. The proponents of ID are not "dangerous
nutters".

Any group that manages to significantly reduce the educational options of a
nation is a group of dangerous nutters.
Where creationists (as opposed to ID's) have tried to have creationism
taught is schools, and not evolution then I agree this is foolish and
potentially dangerous. In the most recent case of the Dover School
Board, they wanted to introduce ID alongside traditional evolution. I
don't see how teaching the strengths and weaknesses of two differing
theories results in a "reduction of educational options". Kids need to
learn that there are controversies in life, that things are not always
cut-and-dried.

Scientific fact should be taught as fact, and theory should be taught
as theory.

Any group that manages to influence
the government of the richest nation to divert its support for saving lives is
a group of dangerous nutters.
Note sure what you're referring to here. Has the US government stopped
supporting research into flu vaccines? That would be ludicrous if true.

Any group that gets the same government to
believe that evolution doesn't exist just when we are faced with a possible
No! This is where you've got it wrong. ID doesn't deny all forms of
evolution, it simply states that evolution does not explain everything.
ID says that evolution by natural selection does not have all the
answers. There are too many holes in the observable evidence, there are
too many holes in the fossil record. There are too many things that (at
least appear) to make evolution impossible in some cases. ID does not
deny evolutuion, it builds on it.
The sooner some scientists start to look outside of their blinkered
view of things, the sooner we will all learn the truth.

Regards,
Jon.

On 28 Jan 2006 03:34:19 -0800, "Tournifreak"
wrote:



Scientific fact should be taught as fact, and theory should be taught
as theory.



Really all of it is theory. The question is the degree of credibility
at a point in time.

Science provides the best explanation (or sometimes alternative
explanations) for the observed phenomena.

For example, the common understanding used to be that the Earth was at
the centre as opposed to the Sun. Then better information became
available. It used to be believed that Pluto was the final planet
in the solar system - probably no longer the case.

There are only a limited number of things that can be described as
facts, and even those are on the basis that there is no currently
credible information to the contrary. One can never completely rule
out that such information might be discovered in the future.

It's also the case that material is presented for education according
to the educator's perception of the ability of the student to absorb
and understand it.

For example, most children ar dealing with arithmetic in primary
school but probably not Calculus.
Equally, as far as I am aware, the correlations between particles and
waves are a university subject and before that are treated separately.


--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by ID, but it would at least
be nice to have a balanced, rational perspective on it rather than
another of Dawkins' infamous tirades against religion.

A balanced perspective on ID would have been far more damning of the whole
idea and its supporters. Horizon was far too kind and took the whole idea
seriously. The whole thing is a fraud that threatens us all. It's a fraud just
like builders using sub-standard materials on a job in your house and putting
your health and safety at risk. It's a fraud like people selling sub-standard
power tools that can break or explode under normal use. Except that the fraud
perpetuated by ID can seriously damage the health and safety of millions of
people. They are dangerous nutters with lots of money and the support of the
President of the USA.

And before anyone dismisses me as a nutter let anyone supporting ID tell you
what experiment or observation might falsify their beliefs. That's the
requirement of any scientific theory and they are pretending that ID is
science.

NB Whilst Dawkins rejects religion you don't need to reject religion in order
to reject ID as science - indeed anyone with a care for religious ideas would
take care to reject the ID claims. Just like the Jesuit on Horizon. Just like
good scientists will publicly reject bad science and bad scientists. Just like
good tradesmen will reject cowboys and dangerous work done by them.


It strikes me that as false science and dangers go, this one is a long
way down the list. We live with plenty of popularisation of
pseudoscience, and there are always casualties.


NT

In article .com
Tournifreak wrote:
snip
Which is of course, all bo**ocks. Because science has never been
hindered by people questioning its beliefs. Indeed, we learn the truth
by challenging each theory and honing them over time as our ability to
observe and interpret the evidence improves.

ITYF that being tried for heresy can be something of a hindrance ...

Rob Morley wrote:
In article .com
Tournifreak wrote:
snip
Which is of course, all bo**ocks. Because science has never been
hindered by people questioning its beliefs. Indeed, we learn the truth
by challenging each theory and honing them over time as our ability to
observe and interpret the evidence improves.

ITYF that being tried for heresy can be something of a hindrance ...

....and religion probably has been hindered by lack of questionning I
would think. Now, back to science...

In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
This sounds to me like the typical paranoid, anti-American claptrap we
hear from the tabloids. The proponents of ID are not "dangerous
nutters".

Any group that manages to significantly reduce the educational options of
a nation is a group of dangerous nutters.
Where creationists (as opposed to ID's) have tried to have creationism
taught is schools, and not evolution then I agree this is foolish and
potentially dangerous. In the most recent case of the Dover School Board,
they wanted to introduce ID alongside traditional evolution.

ID is Creationism. They have just changed the name.

I don't see how teaching the strengths and weaknesses of two differing
theories results in a "reduction of educational options".

Te;ling them they are two different scientific theories is a lie. Any teacher
that taught that would be a crap teacher. Any employer who pressurised a
science teacher to teach that would be what I termed 'a dangerous nutter'.

Kids need to learn that there are controversies in life, that things are
not always cut-and-dried.

Pretending that ID is a scientific alternative is a lie - not an alternative
explanation. Pretending that ID is an alternative of any kind to evolution is
a lie.

Scientific fact should be taught as fact, and theory should be taught as
theory.

Good. Evolution is a fact just as certain as gravity is a fact and the planets
moving around the Sun is a fact. Natural Selection is a fact just as certain
as the Peridic Table describes the relationships of the Elements. Details of
exactly how natural selection works in particular species is debated and
tested just like any scientific work.

Any group that manages to influence the government of the richest nation
to divert its support for saving lives is a group of dangerous nutters.
Note sure what you're referring to here. Has the US government stopped
supporting research into flu vaccines? That would be ludicrous if true.

If it hasn't then I wonder why not. The whole thing is based on the assumption
that evolution is working there and the research would be irrelevant
otherwise. Perhaps the fact that practically every scientist (except those
planted by the Creationists) rejects the stupidity of their President and 50%
of their fellow citizens.

Any group that gets the same government to believe that evolution doesn't
exist just when we are faced with a possible
No! This is where you've got it wrong. ID doesn't deny all forms of
evolution, it simply states that evolution does not explain everything.

Having lost the first argument completely they have changed their tactics -
though withut any additional 'evidence'. They're still working on the same set
of 4,000+ year old myths for their 'science'.

ID says that evolution by natural selection does not have all the answers.

Not quite true if you read their literature. exactly what they believe depends
upon who they are arguing with. They seem to give the old story to their less
capable supporters and trot out the new version when they have to argue the
case with someone capable. They're still wrong because none of their ideas are
based on science. Whilst it may (in real scientific circles) be argued that
there is room for a Lamarckian style of evolution in certain circumstance I
doubt that would satisfy the Creationist (or ID) zealots.

There are too many holes in the observable evidence, there are too many
holes in the fossil record.

There will always be holes in the fossil record. Do you really appreciate just
how unlikely it is that anything is ever fossilised? Despite that there really
is no doubt about the facts of evolution - but there is plenty of detail to be
filled in. sadly for your case none of the details come within a million miles
of permitting room for a non-evolutionary explanation for the range of life on
this planet.

There are too many things that (at least appear) to make evolution
impossible in some cases.

No. There is nowhere where evolution is impossible. There are many links that
have not (yet) been entirely explained - but no-one would suggest that every
link has to be there. These days you can follow someones path through a city
on CCTV - but, if there was a 5-minute gap where you couldn't see them, you
wouldn't then suggest that was good evidence for them using a Tardis to jump
from one spot to another. That effectively is what you are suggesting. There
are gaps in the fossil record just where you would expect it - in areas where
the population is low and the terrain is unsuitable for fossils to form.

In any case your argument depends on evolution not working. It does.

ID does not deny evolutuion, it builds on it.

Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it. ID denies (or curtails the
effect) of evolution. It has no basis in evidence and brings nothing to the
debate. It's a dead end that was dead hundreds of years ago and it's only been
brought up again because it's possible to make money and have power over the
gullible by giving them simple stories and telling them they understand
science as well as religion. ID is religion. Go away and discuss it with you
fellow believers and stop pretending that it's something it isn't.

The sooner some scientists start to look outside of their blinkered view of
things, the sooner we will all learn the truth.

Crap. Scientists would be far better off spending their time trying to
understand all these ideas better rather than waste the time arguing an idea
that died centuries ago.

Unlike Dawkins I can see the use and the need for religion and religious
ideas. That does not mean that I should welcome the destruction of scientific
progress just because someone falsely purports to be able to 'do science'
without any of the fundamental tests of the scientific method.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing