| Trevor Phillips then, the daft 'racist'. 19:17 - Mar 9 with 8188 views | Trequartista |
Ingsoc, er sorry Labour, have suspended him for daring to debate islamaphobia. Trevor Phillips! And Corbynistas are doubling down on it. Thoughts? |  |
| |  |
| Trevor Phillips then, the daft 'racist'. on 08:09 - Mar 12 with 426 views | Darth_Koont |
Skwawkbox is definitely up and down with its quality but here's a long and detailed skewering of the Phillips case and the monumental hypocrisy now that it's Islamophobia rather than antisemitism in focus.
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/03/10/trevor-phillips-should-have-been-expelled-well-
Be interesting to hear anyone explain why Phillips should be treated differently and the procedures now ignored. Especially when he's banged to rights as far as grounds for suspension and arguably expulsion given what is documented and in his own words. |  |
| |
| Jenny Formby, made me laugh! on 08:46 - Mar 12 with 401 views | hampstead_blue |
| Jenny Formby, made me laugh! on 20:56 - Mar 10 by WeWereZombies |
May I point out that science is all theory, theory supported by experiment that will subsist until a superior theory debunks the extent of our present knowledge. To state that there was no creator we need to be confident about the big bang theory or alternatives supporting a solid state Universe etc. and then posit what might have happened before these phenomena to bring them about (if we accept time's arrow and that is not beyond question).
Evolution is far more convincing than theories of a prime mover but it must be remembered that evolution is a group of theories, complementary and detailed, still being finessed. There is far more that can be accomplished by explaining them to those yet to be convinced rather than getting on a high horse and being dismissive. |
Interesting point.
Dawkins talks of science as a theory proven by an individual or team which is then peer reviewed.
He discusses your point in much better terms than I in this piece.
It moves then onto how theology proves things. I doesn't. It simply makes a statement and then tells others to believe it. There is no peer review, no challenge, nothing. Just blind belief.
That is the basis on my dismissal.
As for pre-big-bang. Well I'm really excited about that, and the universes ever increasing expansion. I've not the tools to go deep on those but I am awaiting a new discovery.
Evolution is interesting.
Dawkins looks at this as well. Things take time. What was the event which caused creature A to change into creature A.1? These can be answered by moves in the tectonic plates or changes in climate. The meteor in Mexico which did for T-Rex and Co.
Again, I am a bystander and avid reader on this so cannot give chapter and verse of the science. Save to say, I trust Dawkins, Hitchens, and the other two. If there words were utter bunkum then the cries of 'foul play' would have had them drowned many years ago.
As for Mr Phillips? Well, he's done nothing wrong IMHO. I'd just point them to the Four Horsemen and say "I told you so"...... |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Jenny Formby, made me laugh! on 09:00 - Mar 12 with 392 views | Darth_Koont |
| Jenny Formby, made me laugh! on 08:46 - Mar 12 by hampstead_blue |
Interesting point.
Dawkins talks of science as a theory proven by an individual or team which is then peer reviewed.
He discusses your point in much better terms than I in this piece.
It moves then onto how theology proves things. I doesn't. It simply makes a statement and then tells others to believe it. There is no peer review, no challenge, nothing. Just blind belief.
That is the basis on my dismissal.
As for pre-big-bang. Well I'm really excited about that, and the universes ever increasing expansion. I've not the tools to go deep on those but I am awaiting a new discovery.
Evolution is interesting.
Dawkins looks at this as well. Things take time. What was the event which caused creature A to change into creature A.1? These can be answered by moves in the tectonic plates or changes in climate. The meteor in Mexico which did for T-Rex and Co.
Again, I am a bystander and avid reader on this so cannot give chapter and verse of the science. Save to say, I trust Dawkins, Hitchens, and the other two. If there words were utter bunkum then the cries of 'foul play' would have had them drowned many years ago.
As for Mr Phillips? Well, he's done nothing wrong IMHO. I'd just point them to the Four Horsemen and say "I told you so"...... |
"As for Mr Phillips? Well, he's done nothing wrong IMHO. I'd just point them to the Four Horsemen and say "I told you so"......"
Ironic that you end a dreary monologue about scientific reason on a faith-based assertion. And a blind one at that. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
