There he was driving around with a huge truck with the Anglo society Sign on his door.
I was direct with the guy and I would come across Matthew on different occasions in Saint John.
I found him a nice guy and he sure look good for a man in his late 60s.
Today he’s 73 years old and he’s fit as a fiddle.
In the year 2003 < during my protest > I would have come across this man on many occasions and we would debate the Acadian issue in front of many visitors.
He would have a chat and I would shout - HEY BIGOT??? GO HOME!!!
The people around believe they would witness a fist fight but it never happen.
I remember once in 2003, I left my tent and went for a walk. Once I arrive in front of the Legislature, I noticed 20 people staring with their mouth open at
Matthew Gleen!
It was the day that all MLA’S were sworn in after the election. These were all Acadians guests so you can only imagine how upset they were with this bigot?
Matthew was at the other end of the Legislature.
I shouted - HEY BIGOT??? GO HOME!!!
Matthew began walking towards me and I walked towards the bigot.
The audience must have believed that it was a show down like the western days! All we needed was a 38 in the side.
Closer we came and you could hear a pin drop.
Inches apart, I grabbed Matthew Glenn with a hug in one arm and told the people on the steps - Isn’t this great??? A bigot and a Acadien hugging? Only in New
Brunswick!
Every August 15 in the year 2002, 2003 and last year the Anglo Society were present in front of City Hall with a blow horn shouting at the Acadians!
The police were in full force and there were always around 15 to 20 members of the Anglo Society around.
Matthew did tell me that he wishes there were hundreds of people on his side.
For you newcomers? The Anglo Society wants the City of Fredericton to fly their 15 years old Anglo flag.
Myself and Matthew would always argue that our Acadian flag isn’t a flag but a banner.
The minute he would insist that our flag was a banner?
I would call the Union Jack Toilet paper!
The debate would go on and on.
This summer, I haven’t seen Matthew around and I was worried.
I as so concern that I phoned my bigot buddy over his house. His wife died a couple of years ago and he found a new girlfriend so I guess that he mellowed
down a little.
But a couple of weeks ago? There he was protesting in front of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery protesting this sign?
He wants the art gallery to put English first and French second.
He told me that this year protest at City Hall on August 15th will be larger than ever!
He would spend hours and hours protesting while standby asked him what he was all about!
I hope my book about my protest gets printed because he’s all over the book!
There’s some very funny stories that happened to me during my six months protest in front of the Legislature.
Now we come of what happened on August 15th that Matthew Glenn was charge with assault.
I walked by around noon and I was surprised that Matthew was nowhere to be seen.
Usually he parks his truck near City Hall early in the morning.
The Fredericton Police forces put some barricades in the parking space so Matthew couldn’t park his truck near the location were the Acadians could see the
Anglo Flags on his truck!
Later on in the afternoon, I noticed my old bigot buddy and once again shouted - BIGOT GO HOME!!!
Usually he calls me a bigot in return.
I will admit to anyone that I am a bigot because of my dislike of Quebecers!
But this time around he called me a frog!!
Ohh fighting words???..lol…
I noticed two other individuals with him.
One was in his late 70s sitting down on a park bench and the other was Ron Bubar standing there with a video camera.
Ron always stands behind the iron fence and films Matthew every moves.
A few years back there was an angry confrontation between Matthew and a Acadian or Quebecer. The confrontation landed in court so this time around? If something happens? They would have the evidence.
I reminded the protesters that they should turn around and protest the Justice Building for not flying the Union Jack?
One young Acadian walked by and shouted - Vous aimer pas les Acadiens???
Matthew asked me to translate.
Minutes later, Matthew noticed that his Anglo flag poll was gone.
He became concern that the young fella stole his poll!
He was searching all over the place until he realized that maybe he left the bigot flag in his truck?
I followed him to his vehicle and sure enough? It was in his back seat!
I told him that he’s getting old therefore he’s losing it!
Little did anyone knew that maybe this was a little sign from above because that little pole would cause a lot of headache for Matthew.
I left the area and told them that I would see them at 6:00pm!
I went home and put this Acadian sweater on.
My God? It was hot!!!
One block away, I noticed two police officers watching around the area.
Once in front of City Hall, I noticed 5 to 6 police officers around the area.
One had a video camera and they were surprised that a Acadian would be in the centre of the bigot crowd!
I believe they were expecting trouble.
All I wanted for a picture of me and Matthew Glenn.
Just as the one taken with my other bigot buddy Jimmy Webb! He was the founder of the C.O.R. Party!
Hey? These people are getting up there in age and it’s nice to have a souvenir.
Matthew allowed me to have these pictures taken and I noticed a police officer filming the whole episode.
I quickly shouted- Those cops are always harassing me!
Take a look at this picuture? The cop is located against the wall!
They were filming for a reason which I would find out later on.
After I received my pictures taken, I noticed that Matthew Glenn wasn’t his normal bigot self?
He was having a chat with a female police officer. I found out that Matthew was charge with assault!
I asked the bigot- What happen?
He told me that these signs were all in place until a young Acadian decided to grab the signs and began throwing them over the iron fence.
Matthew quickly came to the scene and gave the guy a little hit with his flag pole on the guy’s arm.
I told Matthew that he knew better than that???
If I just touch a person during a confrontation? You can be charge with assault.
You could tell that Matthew was very disturb with this new charge and I felt bad for the guy!
I asked Ron Bubar is he had the episode on film?
He told me that he went behind a tree to use his cell phone therefore he missed the whole episode.
It always seem to work out that way eh?
The poor filmer spend hours and hours waiting for some action to happen and in a slip second it happens and it’s over!
Ron looked disappointed but what can you do? What’s done is done!!!
I noticed a reporter from L’Acadie Nouvelle standing out front of City Hall and he didn’t have a clue what had just happen!
He didn’t believe me! He asked a police officer but not a whisper from City’s Finest.
I told the reporter that I shouldn’t tell him nothing because this is my story!
I suggested that he should asked Matthew Glenn himself and he did.
It was printed in the French paper the morning after.
Matthew told me that he has to appear in court at 9:00am on October 4th!
He didn’t look too happy with the whole situation.
For a minute, I forgot why I was in that area in the first place?
It’s Acadian Day!!!!
I looked around for an Acadian Flag so once Matthew began shouting through his blowhorn?
I would go in front of him with a look that I can’t hear him with a huge Acadian flag in hand!
Hey? Great picture for this blog.
The ceremony began and I noticed that the bigots were awfully quiet!
To my great disappointment, they were gathering their stuff and were leaving.
I quickly marched across the streets asking questions?
I was so curious that I totally forgot the Mayor that was being introduced.
Matthew told me that he was going home.
He added that he likes the Acadian Lieutenant Governor. It was just the City that he despised because they won’t fly the Anglo flag!
They headed toward their vehicles with their heads down and I followed them to say good bye.
I shouted- See ya later Matthew! Hang in there!
I felt bad for my bigot buddy. I took a picture and turned around to attend the Acadian ceremony.
During the past hour, I was a little hyper because of all the actions going around.
I turned around heading to the front of City and guess what who standing right behind me with a video camera in hand!
A police Officer!!!!
He told me in a polite way that I should leave them alone and go join your party!
I reminded the officer that this was Canada and we don’t use violence in this Country!
He didn’t quite believe my story.
I wonder why?
Once at the gathering my favorite priest Father Brien < I have known for 40 years > gave a little prayer,
Andy Scott as usual gave a good Charles De Gaulle speech and also present was Keith Ashfield from the Lord Government.
We had a good time and lets not forget the Mayor who gave a fantastic presentation!
Going back to my bigot buddy?
I phoned over his place the day after and left a message on his answering machine.
I wish that I knew the young Acadian that he supposed to have assaulted?
I would encourage the guy to drop the charge because he shouldn’t have touch these signs in the first place and Matthew should have kept his cool like a good
protester.
I believe he was discourage of the small amount of people who showed up to denounce the raising of the Acadian Flag.
These charge should be drop because it will only bring back in the forefront the issue of the Acadians and the members of the Anglo Society! New Brunswickers
don’t need this!
I hope Matthew’s charges are drop and I believe that he has learned a valuable lesson.
Maybe Matthew should stay away from the Acdian celebration.
If I was the guy? I would concentrate of getting the Justice building to fly the Union Jack!
On that issue, he would surely get the public support from both cultures.
I wish Matthew the very best of luck in the future!
44 comments:
The Anglo Flag has no real historic meaning that I'm aware of. (I stand to be corrected) but I can understand Glenn's beef. The City of Miramichi flies the flag (or at least used to) and I think Saint John flew it at least one year.
The argument that it has no historic meaning wouldn't wash anyway or even that it might offend people. For example, the City of Fredericton flies the gay rainbow flag each year as do many other communities. That offends lots of people, doesn't have much of an historic significance, except to the group that wants it there. Same as the Anglo flag. If a community decides to fly any group's flag besides the Canada Flag, Union Jack, NB Flag and Acadian Flag, they need to open it up to nearly everyone short of another country's flag (except in extreme situations - 9/11 comes to mind as an exception) and they should not fly a Communist or Nazi flag. Fair is fair.
The anglo society banner is a symbol of intolerance. In its intent, it is as foul a symbol as the confederate banner. All represent members of majority groups determined to subjugate minorities.
It is of no value whatsoever, except as a symbol of prejudice and oppression. It was invented by a Mr Astle of Bathurst, and of the few dozen members of Matthew Glenn's NB anglo society, less than 15 years ago.
I smell intellectual dishonesty, Spinks. Surely you've noticed that the rainbow pride banner is more consistent with the Acadian flag than the anglo society banner. The latter, like the confederate flag, rallies bigots and seeks to legitimate their prejudices. The former call on members of oppressed minority groups to have pride and stay strong.
Fair is fair, yes. So all symbols of racism, prejudice and oppression should be rejected, not just the most extreme ones, like the swastika.
No dice my friend. I don't buy that one for an instant. It's playing favourites because it's the flavour of the month and/or politically correct. My preference would be don't fly any flags except the four previously mentioned - Canada, Union Jack, NB and Acadia. That would solve all of the problems. While I am cerian there are racists within the Anglo Society, I am also certain they're are racists in the SAANB. We don't ban their flag. Just because you don't agree with the Anglo Society doesn't mean you completely marginalize them. That is also bigotry whether you wish to admit it or not.
2:32 here.
I confess: I am intolerant of the intolerant. Bigoted against bigots. Prejudiced against the prejudiced.
I make no apologies. The Jesus I know calls me to this. He never sided with the majority over the downtrodden, and always stood up to bullies.
There is a new philosophy evolving. Call it Spinkism, meaning nothing.
For the record, I don't have anything in my heart against any person regardless of their politics. accept when it comes to the Compromising of Our Most tradional Moral and family values. I believe that there is more to the little sparring between the Acadian and Anglo Society. I think that it is more politically motivated than we might want to think. I am of Scottish Royal Blood line which began about the 9 or, 10 hundreds and stretches up through the British Crown, I am very thankful and proud of my Ancesstry and believe that every human being should have appreciation of there herritage. However I do not believe that that herritage should be used to cause a person to not be gainfully employed just because they either do not wish to, or cannot speak french. I personally do not believe that it was not meant in that attitude. Also there many from both sides of this issue who claim to be of the Christian tradition, and something like this can cause immense friction and problems. I would hope that we all can get along and work together for a better Province, instead of the end fighting. However, that is yet to be seen.
4:46pm - Funny you bring intolerance up. I'll admit I'm intolerant of arrogance. Guess that makes us even.
Thanks Michael for being a voice of reason once again. We don't hear from you often enough.
Glad to hear, Spinks, that you are intolerant of arrogance. The way you divvying out advice left and right you are the most arrogant person who posts here. It must be hard to live with yourself. Sorry man, my sympathies.
As I've said many, many, many, many times, unless you're new (hard to tell with the anonymous posts - all of them could be the same person for all anyone knows), I sign my name so you know who it's from. If you don't like my posts, look for my name, don't read it and move along.
I enjoy the thoughtful discussion here when it takes place. It's unfortunate it's so rare. Too bad really. There aren't too many places to discuss NB issues outside of the mainstream media. It's unfortunate what is often talked about on this site is censoring ideas, the same thing which ticks off so many people here about the Irvings. The irony is not lost in this corner.
Do you really think any media will publish your thoughts, as expressed in these posts, locally or nationally because they are so out in the left field. By media I mean newspaper. I will doubt that very seriously.
Right field not left field...LOL..and no they won't because most media has a left leaning bias and chooses to ignore half the country. This happened in the US too and that's why Talk Radio is so popular down there and Fox News is #1 because people wanted some fair and balanced news coverage. For the most part with rare exception Canada falls short in providing un-biased coverage.
Fox News is fair and balanced?!?!?! Ah Spinks.... you never cease to provide me with a good laugh before bed!
Fox News is the most radically right-wing propoganda machine I've ever seen. Check out the documentary "Outfoxed" - biased, to be sure, but raises some questions that should be discussed.
Anyway, thanks again for the chuckle!
J
I got printed close to 500 letters to the ditor in all the Irvings papers. Do you honestly believe that I would write a letter as the same style in this blog? Give me a break!!!!
No question Fox has a right leaning but given that almost all other media is left leaning, then yeah it is fair and balanced because it's balancing the bigger picture. There's nothing close to it in Canada. Fox News also asks questions any journalist should ask without worrying about political correctness. The recent ad against John Roberts comes to mind which was put out by the pro-abortion group. Fox was one of the few media outlets to question the fairness of the ad because the facts stunk. The ad is gone and the group is in damage control because they were being fraudalent and mis-leading. Other media outlets didn't ask those questions. This happens all the time. In Canada we're not getting the full story because of bias. If you have a left leaning and I'm not sure if you do or not, you wouldn't notice. Half the country however does notice. G'night J.
No right leaning news in Canada?! How about the National Post... hell, it's a helluva statement when the Globe and Mail represents the LEFT in this country! LOL
So what your point is that since "every other media outlet" is left then by Fox News being absurdly Right-wing that balances it out?? You may need to tune your logic machine!
I agree though that Canada tends to be lefter-leaning than the US outlets for sure... but I think that's largely because we're a more secular, open-minded and accepting society. That being said, there is no problem finding right-wing views in the media in this country.
I also don't think it's a matter of political correctness governing everything. When media or people don't give certain issues the time that some people think they should, it's easy to blame political correctness as the culprit for why something isn't covered to a certain extent.
For example, I saw someone recently on the news decrying the fact that people were laughing at Kansas School Boards for pushing Creationism in addition to Evolution. They felt that Political Correctness was to blame because people were afraid to admit that Creationism was a solid theory. This isn't political correctness... it's basing your science curriculum on an unprovable and completely evidence-free myth. Yet, political correctness is an easy out.
Anyway, enough time debating this one... it's a free country - believe what you need to and I'll do the same.
No right leaning news in Canada?! How about the National Post... hell, it's a helluva statement when the Globe and Mail represents the LEFT in this country! LOL
So what your point is that since "every other media outlet" is left then by Fox News being absurdly Right-wing that balances it out?? You may need to tune your logic machine!
I agree though that Canada tends to be lefter-leaning than the US outlets for sure... but I think that's largely because we're a more secular, open-minded and accepting society. That being said, there is no problem finding right-wing views in the media in this country.
I also don't think it's a matter of political correctness governing everything. When media or people don't give certain issues the time that some people think they should, it's easy to blame political correctness as the culprit for why something isn't covered to a certain extent.
For example, I saw someone recently on the news decrying the fact that people were laughing at Kansas School Boards for pushing Creationism in addition to Evolution. They felt that Political Correctness was to blame because people were afraid to admit that Creationism was a solid theory. This isn't political correctness... it's basing your science curriculum on an unprovable and completely evidence-free myth. Yet, political correctness is an easy out.
Anyway, enough time debating this one... it's a free country - believe what you need to and I'll do the same.
"You may need to tune your logic machine!"
Spinks' logic machine is a total wreck. It is beyond repair and tuning. Also it is ancient and belongs to logic archives. He has to come out of the time-warp. It must be hard to be stuck in 1700.
Yes the National Post has a slightly right lean. That's why I said almost all media. I don't use absolutes.
Some of the states are getting into offering intelligent design not necessairly religious views of creation. Evolution is a theory so why not intelligent design? There is lots of evidence to back up ID just like evolution. If we want the kids well rounded, give them all of the information which I continue to advocate.
There is a huge amount of PC and left leaning in the media. While there is some right-wing it is rare and usually blown off as crasy instead of viewing it as what it is - another point of view. To say left leaning is open minded, even your own statment proves that to be false. Open minded as long as someone doesn't disagree with it, then the liberal tactic as we so often see employed is to call someone a bigot, racist or homophobe to try and stifle debate. No my friend, the media is greatly biased to the left.
I want to be clear, I do not want to see a right wing biased media either. Neither is good for anyone. I want to see fairness and we don't get it because diversity of ideas contrary to the left thinking is for the most part not tolerated in this country.
"Fairness" from whose point of view. What you may consider fair others may consider biased. As almost all feel on this site that you are biased and someone called you bigot. How do you determine fairness?
Sure, I'm on a site where almost everyone has a left-wing philosophy so I'm not surprised by what I get called. As is often the tactic to stifle debate among liberals, call the other person names until they shut up so I'm not surprised by the comments but let's delve into the issue which orignally brought me to this site and got me interested - bias in the media. I'll be upfront first. Obviously I have a certian philosophy and set of beliefs, however it's important to remember I'm not a journalist who is supposed to fair and unbiased.
Since most people don't follow what goes on in Kansas, let's look at an example of media bias close to home. One person said recently here that they almost never agree with me but I make them think. Let's try and do that again.
Since I often target CBC for it's bias, in the interest of fairness I'll use a recent example from ATV.
Nearly two weeks ago the City of Saint John was the site of a gay pride parade. ATV News covered the story. Here's where they went wrong. The entire story could have been grabbed by any gay rights activist and used as a commercial. This was not journalism. It was an endorsement of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in genaral. There was no dissenting voices - not one in the story.
So what you say? Well let's turn it around. Picture a parade in Saint John for traditional marriage. Does anyone here honestly think for one minute that ATV or any other news organization wouldn't go out of its way to find someone from the gay community to comment on the parade? Of course they would and should. This was another example of bias journalism. I have another great example I'll try and post later today which will send most of you into a tizzy but I'm interestd in the comments on this one first.
This site is becoming a forum to discuss gay and lesbians.
What happened to its objective of ADHD, abuse of prescription drugs, VLTs, and indifference of provincial government. If I want to read essays on gays and lesbians then I will read books or those interested in the topic should have a different blog. This blog is losing its theme and objectives.
Nah - I won't bother commenting nor will I bother refuting your arguments here. First, it's not worth the time, and secondly, why bother. Neither of us are being moved by the others' standpoint.
I guess we have fundamental differences on what constitutes bias, fairness and common sense. I came to that conclusion when I read your defence of "Intelligent Design". We're just too far apart to even bother debating. I'll entertain without laughing the notion of Intelligent Design when someone can post one shred of evidence in support of it. And no, I don't count the Bible as evidence of any kind.
As I said last night - believe what you need to and I'll do the same.
Virtually ALL rational academic discussion involves the scientific method. You establish a hypothesis based on facts available then test the hypothesis. The problem with ID is there is no way to test the hypothesis, obviously it comes from a christian viewpoint so faith is required. Keep in mind that there are varieties of intelligent design, they all require that 'leap of faith' because they attempt to answer 'why'.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses constructed by Darwin, but if you read Darwin you'll know that what we now know about evolution isn't even close to what Darwin thought. His was a set a hypotheses which we have tested and revised as the data becomes more available. Evolution doesn't answer any of the 'why' questions, they are hypotheses stated on data. You will NEVER find an archeologist who speaks in absolute terms. Nobody says "now a million years ago this is a FACT"-such a statement would be absurd. ID states such absolutes all the time and in a world where there are thousands of stories about where the world came from, people are quite right to ridicule the idea that "this is the REAL story". Keep in mind that we are talking public school level so ID isn't really what is taught, essentially the book of Genesis is what is taught.
For the gay parade you 'may' have a point about double standards. However, first we have to establish whether there was in fact a group there opposing the gay parade. If there was a group there then it can be feasibly argued that if not in the same story, then another story should have featured them. The only reason that is true is as the author says, if somebody did have a 'pro family' parade then it's POSSIBLE that there would be groups there opposing it, but it's not a surety, and they would get coverage. However, it would depend what exactly they are parading about since the pro-family group are the ones opposed to equal rights for gays, while the gay paraders certainly aren't saying that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married, or, in many cases, be heterosexuals. Again, the whole theory falls through unless there were a group at the gay parade protesting, otherwise that would be ludicrous. When they talk about agricultural fairs we certainly don't say "for this to be an even handed story you should present the side of urban people who might be opposed to rural people celebrating their rustic way of life". A celebration is a celebration, few of the news stories feature people who argue that it should exist.
Darwin theory, Creation theory? What is new? I feel I am high school student again and someone is giving me lessons. No offence intended but how is this relevant to ADHD, and VLTs.
It's not relevant to ADHD or VLT... I wasn't aware those were the only topics allowed to be discussed here.
Feel free to ask Charlie to put at the top of his blog "only these issues can be debated". And really.. on this site, "debate" is a pretty subjective term!
Debate is good stuff and it has its place but to talk about hypothesis and proving hypothesis, Darwinian stuff or Creation stuff is classroom stuff. Sociology 101 or high school.
I do not know about Charlie but it will be good that discussions are less theory and more practical stuff and discussion on problems like abuse of prescription drugs, VLT and government role.
Do not get it the wrong way but it looks only two are involved in these dicussions or debates. I think you have good site Vivenewbrunsick where you may enjoy each other and have scholistic discussions. It is getting very boring for some of us.
People need to look up 'left' and 'right' in the dictionary. Media have biases, they are biased towards their owners. That's why you almost never hear anything bad about an irving company, although they balance it out by not printing anything bad about ANY company, unless it's McCains.
Global is owned by the Asper family, a jewish, pro-Israeli family from Winnipeg who fired many editors when they bought most of their media companies. Global's interests are the Aspers interests.
The Toronto Star is owned by the Ontario Teachers pension fund, so you rarely hear anything bad about unions or teaching in general, unless the government is against them.
The CBC is run by bureaucrats so you rarely see anything that really challenges the government in power, except for the usual isolated instances. Any party looking to change things will rarely get serious airtime.
CTV and ATV/ASN is owned by Bell Canada, so the only real loyalty there is to the company and big business in general.
NONE of those are the 'independant' press. Charles would be what is called 'left' in my book, when he's doing journalism anyway. The 'left' is the every day folk and their interests, which have SOME chance at the different media, but it depends what their interests are. Environmental stories are difficult to get on anywhere, and stories about other countries political systems seem to get ZERO coverage.
To the poster three threads up, read all the posts all the way down, you won't find a better example of ADD than here!
The same person seems to be always complaining when things are too 'scholastic' and not 'practical', yet never has anything to say apart from complaining. If there is something practical to be said, nobody is stopping you from saying it. If everybody is expected to 'dumb things down' for the benefit of those too lazy to think or research then the point of debate is pretty much moot.
You are right about ADD. LOL.
In these lengthy discussions the real focus of the site kind of got burried under the heap of the debate on homosexuality, CBC,abortion, theories etc.
I suppose if you want to give lectures on grade 10 level then that is your prerogative but not very many grade 10 students log in here. I have seen many comments made by others who are bored too. I am not alone.
In these lectures there is an assumption that rest of us are so dum that we need to be given these lectures and informed about Darwinian theories. Good luck.
I don't address the debate for anybody else, I was arguing against spinks assertions about intelligent design, so the argument wasn't intended for anybody else, therefore no assumptions were made about everybody else-in fact none were made about ANYbody else. If you took Darwinian theory in Grade 10 then you certainly were ahead of my public education. I highly doubt it though, in fact I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you've never even picked up Darwin's book. If you have, give a quick outline and I'll be the first to apologize.
If you're a super genius and happen to know all about everything and there's nothing you can learn, then feel free to skip over the remarks, but we have no intention of changing our styles or stop arguing because one or even a few people don't like it and think that we're too stupid to have anything intelligent to say. There are MILLIONS of websites out there, so just 'turn the channel'.
Half of the comments here are insults, while many of the others are 'you are wrong' and 'no-YOU are' variety, with no new information. Spinks at least keeps the discussions civil and fairly thought provoking (although wrong-and I usually seek to point out why). Don't like it, don't read it, start your own damn blog.
We do go madly off in all directions sometimes, don't we.
On ID, there is lots of science supporting creation. In fact there are a significant number of creation scientists who study it. A Google search will lead you to a few good sites, although I'm happy to provide them as well. They also study that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. If you take the worldwide flood of Noah's Ark into consideration, a lot of that theory makes sense. Granted, if Turkey would allow crews to do an extensive search of Mt. Ararat to look for the Ark that would be one enormous piece of evidence. Although I'm sure many would still not believe it despite a giant ship on top of a mountain.
Now after giving lectures on Darwinian theory you want to give a test to your students. I have not paid my tuition yet, professor, so you will have to wait. Cheque is in the mail.
Um, yeah - it'll take more than a boat on Mt Ararat to convince me the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
I've seen reasonably empirical evidence that suggests it's at least 90 million years old, and more likely the 4.5 or so billion years most scientists peg it at. And no, I'm not referring to the "scientists" graduated from the "academic" halls of Bob Jones "university, Oral Roberts' "university" or that laughing stock Liberty University. Thos experts are better labeled "dogmatic automatons".
As I've said time and time again, there's always a good dose of laughs to be had on this site.
Yeah, that's pretty amusing. There's plenty of evidence that human beings have been around far longer than 10 grand years, for the planet that's just plain laugh out loud wacky talk.
Creationism has an easy job because it deals with questions evolution doesn't even try to answer, namely, why are we here and why do we exist at all. Intelligent design ASSUMES that scientists claim that there is no design, which is just crazy, there are plenty of devoutly religous scientists. The only possible concession christian theologists need make is that Genesis is not 'literal'. Most christians don't take ALL the bible literally anyway.
Plenty of legitimate scientists believe in creation and study the scientific proof behind it just as there are plenty of scientists who study evolution, big bang, etc. You don't have to believe it, but writing off scientists with legitimate credentials as "dogmatic automatons" seems a bit arrogant because they don't conform to your belief.
The worldwide flood of Noah's Ark is obviously a critical piece of evidence to proving the 10,000 year theory. The evidence from the Ice Age theory and fossilisation (sp?) could only be true if a) the world is millions or billions of years old or b) if there was a flood which covered the entire planet to the top of Mt. Everest. Most scientists will tell you a massive worldwide flood would also do the things such as fossils, burying ancient civilizations, etc. However, most usually write off the possibility of such a thing happening, but rarely discount it completly. The possibility exists and there is hard evidence.
PS. How did we get from Anglo Flag to creation/eveolution? LOL
This stuff may sound 'preachy' to others, but clearly without these arguments there seem to be NO comments at this site so I don't feel too bad.
This is getting downright embarassing though, it's one thing to say you believe something, it's another to try to back it up by saying 'most scientists' agree with you.
That the earth is only ten thousand years old isn't held by any credible scientist I've heard of, link the page if you have one. Genesis can be aligned with evolution quite easily, which is done by many scientists, but I know of none who adhere to the 10 grand theory.
That a flood would do the same thing as fossilization is clearly absurd and hardly worth debating, but if you want to give an explanation we can debate it. A flood would not 'bury' a civilization but would DROWN it. Water and earth change all the time, we know that. Plato discusses Atlantis in that way, however, that one civilization disappeared while others didn't shows such an account to be false.
However, the entire argument has no legs since estimates on the earth's age are not done by fossil records or the burial of civilizations.
The age of the earth is estimated primarily by studying isotopes and meteorites, and archaicly, lead. This is why that strain of creationism has been dead scientifically since 1850-it couldn't explain what we knew.
If creationist's need fodder for their debate they can go back to the official scientific debates of 1780-1850 when the 'catastrophist-uniformitarian' debates were held. Of course opponents can go back to those debates and use the unifomitarian arguments, which are the ones which won out.
Even the analysis of coal and diamonds shows an age far different. Keep in mind that even if there were a worldwide flood, they doesn't 'mean' anything about creation. The bible holds many truths, some literal, some philosophical, but just because one thing is true, or SEEMS true, doesn't mean ALL of it is.
For a gung ho creationist here's the perfect argument:
scientist: you see, carbon dating dates dinosaurs back to this period
creationist: yes, God made it that way to test our faith
scientist: well, we know that the earth is part of the solar system which we age in the billions of years
creationist:yes, God made it that way to test our faith.
scientist: look, isotopes and the gradual movement of the earth's crust clear show water and earth in gradual erosion/creation.
creationist: yes, God made it that way to test our faith." etc.
Clearly most scientists don't back creation, that's not what I said. I said many would agree a massive flood that erupted so fast and buried the earth in so much water would do the same thing as time theoretically due to the speed, water pressure, etc. We're not talking the St. John River flooding its banks. Of course I also recognize most scientists then turn around and say such a flood would be impossible. No question, some faith is required. I won't and obviously can;t dispute that, but there is scientific evidence, carbon dating included to back up creation. I'll provide more.
That's where you're wrong, virtually ALL scientists back creation-i't s called the big bang. The only debate is on the specifics of creation, although there are pockets of dissenters on the big bang. The question of what was before the big bang is still a problem.
Water pressure cannot mimic time. Geology shows a slow movement, although many things can cause a flood in different areas, and many civilizations around the world have myths about a great flood, so that's certainly not out of line. Most of the bay of fundy was land at one time, and much of canada was ocean at one time, since oral history was so important to survival, there's no surprise that such stories would be handed down.
Nobody disputes those things, but to say it was only 12,000 years ago is simply ludicrous. At that time the ice that covered the maritimes was receding, and as far as we know natives were living here, but to what extent and who they were we're unsure.
Feel free to disagree with me but "you're wrong" is kind of strong. Neither one of us was there. It's all theory.
You stated "Clearly most scientists don't back creation", which is why I said you're wrong, because with the big bang theory, clearly most scientists DO back creation. I didn't say you were wrong about creation, I said it's absurd to think it was only 12,000 years ago, but I didn't say you were wrong. If God is omnipotent then obviously it very well could have been then, in fact, perhaps yesterday didn't even exist. If god is all powerful then everything you think you know could just be a construction of his, perhaps the world doesn't exist at all, you just think it does. Perhaps I am not actually a person writing this to you, it's all in your head put there by god.
However, we generally move beyond that and try to have discourse. That's the big problem with creationism, it says THIS is how it happened, whereas scientifically all we teach is theories and the facts that go with them. In science we know this can change all the time.
You guys or gals are way too much! You have turned talking about the bigot to God???? Well? I will join in!!! Believe it or not??? There is a God because he's watching over me everyday!!!!
You guys or gals are way too much! You have turned talking about the bigot to God???? Well? I will join in!!! Believe it or not??? There is a God because he's watching over me everyday!!!!
Post a Comment