97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:03 pm
spendius wrote:
Steve-

I offered this yesterday-

Quote:
I would love to make a programme which delved comprehensively into how much the Dawkins programmes cost and have all the invoices spread out to see where it went and hear the justifications for each questionable item.I think that would be a worthwhile documentary with Rory Bremner fronting it aided by an Inspector from the Inland Revenue..It is our money isn't it?

Gee!I'd watch that.


Do you think there's any chance of the BBC putting that out?


Not BBC, Channel 4
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:04 pm
Woops you said that.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:08 pm
no I think I said chanel 4, which was a bit of an embarrassment.

Nice to see you around McTag, you still basking in the inner warmth from India? Or is that last nights meal from the Sumrat? Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:11 pm
Yep.I originally got it wrong off a toper on the bar.

I had wondered earlier today why AA Gill hadn't mentioned the programme.He's not the man he was isn't AA.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:15 pm
Steve-

You have confused me by speaking of embarrassment.I don't wish to start a theory going in the bath on the basic fact being wrong.

It was Ch 4 wasn't it?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:16 pm
Thats not AA as in Automobile Association or Alchoholics Anonymous is it?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:17 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
no I think I said chanel 4, which was a bit of an embarrassment.

Nice to see you around McTag, you still basking in the inner warmth from India? Or is that last nights meal from the Sumrat? Smile


No more rubies for me, matey. The waist is thickening fast, after the Indian fast.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:18 pm
spendius wrote:
Steve-

You have confused me by speaking of embarrassment.I don't wish to start a theory going in the bath on the basic fact being wrong.

It was Ch 4 wasn't it?


I thought I had cleared that up.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:23 pm
Let's forget it.We are putting the Yanks off.

I'll look it up tomorrow and do the theory then.I'll be able to get one whichever it is.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:26 pm
Sorry Mac.

No-it's probably Archie Angus or something Scottish.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:26 pm
spendius wrote:
Let's forget it.We are putting the Yanks off.


Actually, I enjoyed it, spendi. (several pages of england a2k members talking about british television) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:32 pm
spendius wrote:
Steve-

You have confused me by speaking of embarrassment.I don't wish to start a theory going in the bath on the basic fact being wrong.

It was Ch 4 wasn't it?
only meant sloppy spelling of Channel
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:36 pm
You heard the one about AA Gill meeting Richard Dawkins and Spendius in a pub in west London?

No I havent either, but I'm working on it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 02:48 pm
wande-

Yeah-interesting subject actually is our television.It has fascinated me for years.It isn't just money driven as I suspect your's is.I suppose that makes your's purer but I also suspect not as good.Your's is like methylated spirits to our well matured Highland Whiskies.On the whole I prefer ours I think.It really is very good seen in the lump and that other thing, which Alan Clark designated as "The Honours System old boy" when the Spanish Ambassador asked him how we did it,makes it very interesting.Honours are a bit like the golden key which unlocks other doors.Invitations should we say.

Hey-and c.i. says I need improve my English.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 03:51 pm
spendius wrote:
wande wrote-

Quote:
(dawkins is a highly respected professor in England)


... I'll bet money he never gets a mention in the Honours Lists ...


Don't bet the farm; Dawkins is a Fellow of the Royal Society; that's about as significant an honorific Blighty can bestow on a person of science. Additionally, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, of New College and of Balliol College. Becoming a Fellow of a prestigious academic society is a signal honor, and few can claim more than one such fellowship. Another repeated honorific bestowed on Dawkins is his numerous consecutive appearances at or near the top of Prospect Magazine's annual list of The Top 100 Intellectuals (of course, that's merely a populist honorific, not academic, but it carries some weight as a credential in one's CV). Chairing the Oxford Charles Simonyi Professorship must as well be considered an significant academic honor. Then there are the Cosmos Prize for 1997, the Kistler Prize for 2001, and the Shakespeare Prize for 2005 ... academic honors all, from varied academic disciplines, and this list of Dr. Dawkins' awards, titles, and honors hardly is comprehensive of his achievements. By count alone, Dawkins' ranks among the very most honored academicians of our times.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 04:14 pm
spendius wrote:
Sorry Mac.

No-it's probably Archie Angus or something Scottish.


I googled it, and Wikipedia gave AA Gill as Adrian Anthony

Not many Scots called Adrian, btw
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 04:27 pm
Thanks Mac.It isn't called Ask An Expert for nothing.

But I meant Queen thing by honours.Academic institutions are not quite that.They have various interests.Foundation stuff.Tickets.TV appearences to provide expert commentary on whatever is in the News.(£200 I should say plus taxi and hospitality and put in a good word for a mate).

Have you read CP Snow.And that's miles out of date.Light years probably.They had to invent mobile phones to keep up.Necessity is the mother etc.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 06:41 pm
Law of Conservation of Energy

This law states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It can then be stated that 'creation of the universe' is in violation of this law therefore a god could not have created this universe. The Big Bang as viewed as a series of expansion and contraction of the universe does not violate this law but to theorize that the Universe was created by a Big Bang violates it.

The universe according to this law means the universe always existed.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 06:44 pm
I've already told them that talk but I don't mind your reminding them.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jan, 2006 06:46 pm
ring around the rosy


I'm getting dizzy

Taking time out. Love you all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 01:00:42