Saturday, 12 July 2014

The Theory of Evolution

Big Chas, in Repose

The theory of evolution first put forward by Charles Darwin in his seminal book of 1859 ‘The Origin of the Species’ is the best explanation of how species change through time. Although biologists may argue/debate about subtle aspects of the theory, few serious minded biologists dispute its relevance to modern scientific thought. However, there are those who, driven by religious dogma, think otherwise. There is a strain/stain in religion which would deny cogent scientific theory and replace it with something called, ‘Creation Science.’ Now by placing the word ‘science’ after another word, don’t make it so. Don’t be fooled, don’t be beguiled, this is not science. 

Science is a process. First you have a hypothesis. The hypothesis is an initial postulation of why something is. This is followed by gathering of data (by experimentation, hopefully). If the data supports the hypothesis, and after much peer review, the hypothesis may become theory. Science demands that theories are constantly challenged, by new data. Once an established theory becomes untenable due to the inevitable march of scientific knowledge, it may become discarded and replaced by a new, better theory. But mostly the old theory just requires tweaking. Most good science moves forward by slow, imperceptible progress.

If a generation is lucky they experience a paradigm shift in knowledge. But this is unusual. For every Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Darwin and Feynman, there are a thousand, solid scientists doing good work.  Now let us contrast this with the process of ‘Creation Science’.  The whole hypothesis can be summed up by: ‘God did it’. That’s it. An invisible, unknowable supernatural entity causes things to happen by means unknown. This is not a process, at least in the rational sense. And religious adherents are asked to believe and not to question. This is dogmatic religious belief not science.

We are all born ignorant, but it takes religion to make us stupid.


  1. "We are all born ignorant, but it takes religion to make us stupid."

    And this piece of 'wisdom' is attributed to whom?

    What religion are you then? You dogmatically follow the beliefs of others, like Darwin. What makes you think that, because you have denied the Creator, that your thoughts are correct and mine as a Creationist are wrong? Our brains work by the same chemical processes, don't they?

    Anyway, your short piece is full of errors and omissions.

    "However, there are those who, driven by religious dogma, think otherwise."

    Not necessarily. There are millions of non-religious people who believe in 'Intelligent Design' because MODERN discoveries (post-Darwin) have revealed life to be so astoundingly complex that people who think about this seriously come to the natural conclusion that random genetic mutations could not possibly produce the microscopic worlds that Darwin never knew existed when he studied and wrote and he did write some truths, but was wildly wrong on other matters.

    "Now by placing the word ‘science’ after another word, don’t make it so."

    True. Like placing it after 'evolution', 'climate' or 'secondhand smoke'. You know from reading the same blogs as I do how much modern 'science' is outright fraud. You have just to discover that the Theory of Evolution is part of it.

    "Once an established theory becomes untenable due to the inevitable march of scientific knowledge, it may become discarded and replaced by a new, better theory. But mostly the old theory just requires tweaking."

    There's a big but and it is best summed up by leading genetics professor, Richard Lewontin who wrote,

    'Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    'It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

    You hear what he is saying? The commitment MUST be to materialism, just like a Creationist's commitment is that 'God did it'.

    And 'Creation science' certainly is not an oxymoron. There are very many eminent scientists in all fields who believe in Creationism because that's what the evidence demonstrates.

    It is therefore a battle of worldviews. Two religions. Here's what leading anti-Creationist, Michael Ruse (professor of philosophy and zoology: strange mix) said:

    'Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

    ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.'

  2. Continued...

    You might have noticed how Dawkins harps on about how 'good' atheists are and has a charity so that atheists can show off that they can be good, but why is this important to an atheist? If we are just evolved pond slime and 'survival of the fittest' is what matters most then atheists should just come out and be honest and stop giving money to the weak. If they believe in evolutionary theory they should be keeping their money to better their own chances while letting the weak die as nature intended.

    Should they not?

    Or has the fact that God gave them a conscience made them thoughtful of others?

    The "established theory" HAS become "untenable" but the high priests of evolution theory refuse to budge from their 18th/19th century myths/mistakes/frauds/philosophy.

    "The whole hypothesis [of Creation science] can be summed up by: ‘God did it’."

    And ditto for evolution theory. Everything in the universe appeared out of nowhere in a 'Big Bang'.

    What's the difference? The Christian explanation is more scientific as there is a cause: God did it.

    What caused the 'Big Bang'?

    "And religious adherents are asked to believe and not to question. This is dogmatic religious belief not science."

    You've done a Dawkins there and bracketed 5 billion 'religious' people into one group to try to get away with an error via generalisation. Dawkins is very good at that.

    You see, I believed in evolution theory until nine years ago (aged 41) and then I decided to STUDY IT. It is the Theory of Evolution that people are told not to question.

    In fact, the aforementioned Michael Ruse seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ bill in 1981/2 (i.e. of creation and evolution in schools). At the trial, he and the other anti-creationists never mentioned that evolution is itself a religion, like I said, as Ruse admitted to on a separate occasion.

    And as for religion making people 'stupid', the list of influential scientists who were Christians, like Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Kepler (and far, far too many to mention) proves that statement is as ill-informed as just about everything else you wrote!

  3. Bugger Stewart. Anyway, welcome to the mad house. Your retort is much longer than my post. I certainly seemed to hit the spot. You have provided much food for thought and I will chew and digest and eventually extrude wisdom. My reply will be at your house. Don't want you to feel lonely. By the way though, evolution is not a religion.

  4. Stewart, I don’t really know where to begin to tackle your reply. First off, I would like to say, evolution is something I know about. I’m a professional biologist (geneticist) who has taken postgraduate courses in evolutionary theory. There are many religious folk who attack evolution without having any appreciation of what the theory is about. I suspect you are not one of those, and that you have taken the time and effort to find out what the theory actually says.

    The theory of evolution has stood the test of time and has been around for over 160 years. Although it has undergone subtle modifications over time, its basic tenets remain secure. Indeed, the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming and is not just confined to the field of biology. I honestly think religious people do themselves much intellectual harm when they deny the theory outright. Interestingly attacks on evolution are often not about evolution itself, but on supposed ‘negative’ associations. Thus adherents are often labelled, atheists, communists or nihilists. Whilst none of these philosophies are incompatible with a belief in evolution it does not necessary follow that evolutionary thought should be coupled with these concepts. Few arguments are actually aimed at the science itself. Intellectually, for the present time, evolutionary theory remains unassailable. Of course this may change. Good science should not be dogmatic. However, if evolution is to fall it must be replaced by something which explains the natural world better and is consistent with the facts. This neatly brings me to theological thought.

    Whilst denying the theory, religion replaces it with nothing. The god hypothesis remains just a hypothesis. Without data and evidence it cannot progress, conceptually. Saying that ‘god did it’ simply won’t do. This is tantamount to magic and wand waving and totally repugnant to the modern, scientific mind. A mechanism is required and a causal process demanded. Furthermore, the objection to the theory is based on theology, not science. Unlike theology, and if it is to be good science, scientists embark on a journey unknown. They must follow the facts regardless of prejudices and preconceptions. Theology of course knows the answer already and will provide whatever ‘facts’ which conveniently agree with the stated dogma. Inconvenient facts are simply brushed under the ecclesiastical carpet.

    As for evolutionary theory being a ‘religion’; this is something I vehemently disagree with. Whilst it is true that strident, vocal and militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins are embarked on a crusade, I think that stretching the ‘religion idea’ to encompass evolution is a concept, too far. I am not of the militant frame of mind and do not proselytise, at least in my personal life. The internet, of course, is something different. It allows me to espouse my views, swap opinions, and converse with interesting people such as yourself, Stewart.

  5. I would like to bracket 5 billion religious people (are there that many people on the Earth right now if you take out the infants who think nothing because they're not old enough) into one category.

    That category is 'deluded superstitious fuckwits'.

  6. Flaxen,
    you think you're a scientist, but your words prove you're not. You are a religious fundamentalist. Your religion is Materialism, but it would have been Islam or Christianity if that's what you were programmed with.

    "Stewart, I don’t really know where to begin to tackle your reply."

    Right there you prove you do not have the mind of a scientist. A scientist would have taken Stewarts points one by one and answered them. Instead you launch into a religious diatribe: You 'just know' it's true - you're a 'professional'.

    You failed to answer in substance any of Stewarts points, just as you failed to answer any of mine on the Tap blog. Was it just too difficult for you?

    You make these extremist religious assertions (simply replace 'evolutionary theory' with 'Allah' or 'The Koran'):
    - the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming
    - evolutionary theory remains unassailable

    Your assertions are not true. If you were a scientist, you 'd have done the research yourself already - and realised that the science far from 'unassailable'. Your assertion is so far from the truth, and said with such certainty, that you prove your extreme religiosity.

    This one:
    - Furthermore, the objection to the theory is based on theology, not science
    Not true, many people object to the science itself. So again you make an incorrect assertion that just demonstrates your own prejudice.

    You say:
    - Saying that ‘god did it’ simply won’t do. This is tantamount to magic.
    'Magic': Big bang, 'Inflation', Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Creation of life by chance.

    - As for evolutionary theory being a ‘religion’; this is something I vehemently disagree with.

    Of course you do. If it were correct you'd have to make an effort to figure things out for yourself. And that might be hard work, eh. Much easier to just parrot what you've been told.

    Your god is government. Your priests are scientists. Your holy spirit is money. Your temple is the mall.

  7. Veritopian, Flaxen is far to polite to call you a cunt, so I'll do it for him. We live in a secular country in the UK which whilst not perfect is a bloody site better than some fundamentalist shit hole where they worship some mythical sky fairy. Or even better, where they kill each other for being the wrong type of sky fairy worshipper.

    Your entitled to believe what you want. I know what I believe and you can call me a cunt back if you like because you're entitled to your opinion and I am and Flaxen is too. And frankly if you deny evolution, then you definitely are a cunt. No argument there...

    1. Hi Dioclese, thanks for caring enough to call me a cunt. :)

      In the UK, and in materialism, the "mythical sky fairy" is 'democratic government'. That's it's 'god'. Gods make laws, that's what they do. Think about it.

      Note you cannot criticise 'democracy' in this society any more than you can critcise Allah in Iran, or Kim Jong Il in N Korea. It's completely taboo. So in practical terms these things are the same.

      The UK regularly invades other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) because they don't worship the correct "mythical sky fairy", usually they have a 'dictatorship' god, instead of the right god of 'democracy'.

      The 'western allies' have waged many wars to bring 'democracy' to the 'heathens'. This is exactly the same as the crusades bringing 'Christianity' to the 'heathens'... A slightly different system, but no practical difference. The people are still enslaved to the elites by the elaborate frauds they've woven.

      As for evolution: I'm not denying that natural selection may play a part in the diversity of the natural world, what I'm saying is the science is not settled. There are many extreme anomalies in genetics & our reality in general which strongly suggest other factors *other than* natural selection play large parts.

  8. Veritopian, I didn’t address any of Stewarts ‘point’s specifically as frankly he has not put forward any cogent or coherent arguments. Stuart expresses his opinion without substantiation and simply rants.
    With regard to science being religion: I have come across this view before and do not find it convincing. First off, science is a process involving induction. Religion is a belief in a deity of some sort. Usually the deity is supernatural in nature and considered to be sentient. Scientists have no similar belief in science. This does not necessary mean that all scientists are atheists. But science and religion are not same. Belief in religion is a belief in an unproved authority and often contrary to evidence. A belief in science is based on evidence which is verifiable. Scientists can’t verify personally all science, as we are not immortal. We rely on other scientists doing good work. If their work is sound other scientists, in the field, can repeat their work. If the data remains consistent then the science may be come knowledge. If on the other hand the work cannot be reproduced it will not enter into established knowledge. That is science. Religion is of course a belief, in an invisible, unverifiable and unknowable being whose existence is taken as given; because a high priest or a holy book says so. This is not knowledge in any sense of the word. If evidence is produced to refute a belief in supernatural entities, it is simply ignored by it’s adherents – this is not a scientific process, it is not a rational process. On this basis you can believe in anything.
    I do not state that science ie scientific knowledge is unassailable; this is patently not the case. Science may advance due to the replacement of one theory by another due to the data being best explained by the new model. I do believe however, that the scientific process is unassailable.
    “Your religion is materialism”. I think you are making a lot of assumptions here, all unfounded. In a way we are all materialistic as we live in the real substantial world. Religion is otherworldy and esoteric. I don’t think I have to raise arguments to refute religion/belief in gods. On the contrary, the onus of proof/argument is with the believer in supernatural beings. I don’t believe in unicorns or fairies either- if you do so, then again, the onus of proof lies with you. Believers must argue their point, not unbelievers. I believe in science and will argue for science. And of course there is an implication that materialism is somehow a dirty word. But try and live only on supernatural concepts and prana alone (breatharians excepted) and see how far that gets you. Name how religion has advanced man, in any regard, that could not have been achieved by a non believer. Religion holds no superior position with regard to morals or ethics. You don’t have to be religious to know that killing and stealing is wrong. In fact I contend that secular morals are superior as they are not based on supposed rewards and punishments in an afterlife, but based on the doing the right thing in the here and now.

    1. Flaxen, either you're badly misinformed, or you just made this up yourself:
      - "Religion is a belief in a deity of some sort. Usually the deity is supernatural in nature and considered to be sentient."
      - "Belief in religion is a belief in an unproved authority and often contrary to evidence."
      - "Religion is otherworldy and esoteric."
      - "Religion is of course a belief, in an invisible, unverifiable and unknowable being whose existence is taken as given"

      This is the source of your misunderstanding.... You have an incorrect understanding of the word / concept of 'religion'.

      The real meaning of the word 'Religion' does not include God, it means 'to bind', and it refers to any habitual behaviour or belief. Note that the religion of Buddhism has no concept of God, yet it's still a 'religion'.

      So right there you've undermined your entire argument because you don't understand the words you're using. You have a lot of study & thinking to do.

      You say: "Belief in religion is a belief in an unproved authority and often contrary to evidence."

      But you 100% believe in Darwinism, which is *exactly* a "an unproved authority and often contrary to evidence.". That's hypocrisy. I'm saying this to help you realise that life's a lot more interesting than you currently think it is. There's much more to learn. You have been brought up in a cult, and you need to de-program yourself...

  9. Vertropean, I think you do me a disservice. I’ll be kind and assume you misinterpret what I say rather than misrepresent. I stick to my concept of religion being associated with a deity. If no deity is involved, without worship, then it just becomes a way of life. I do not consider Buddhism a religion; more a discipline and philosophy for life. I suspect your definition of religion is an etymological one. You know that meanings of words change with time. Your usage is archaic and rather pedantic. Here is the OED definition, and I think most people, these days, would consider an accurate one: “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”
    With regard to evolution: I do not believe 100% in evolution. Empirical knowledge is never a 100% sure, unlike mathematic proofs and logic. I do believe 100% in the scientific method as a way of obtaining knowledge. I am willing to concede my belief in evolution, if something better supplants it. If the best data supports a new paradigm, then I will change my world viewpoint. Of course, religion does not work like this. Religious followers (name your sect) will continue to believe in their particular god, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This illustrates the fundamental difference between religion and science.
    Again you are making assumptions. It may surprise you to know that I have read widely on topics of religion, philosophy and supernaturalism. I used to believe in a supernatural realm however, as my studies progressed I discarded such notions as foolish and unsupported by the evidence, from a variety of sources. My intellectual journey has been long, and if you excuse the strained allusion, an evolutionary one.
    These days, I have no time for mysticism in all it’s guises- it represents muddled, irrational thinking at it’s worst. Whether promulgated by the simpering priest or the eastern, ascetic sage, it matters little: ‘Tis all bollocks.’

    1. Flaxen,
      For us to have a scientific debate, you must accept you might be wrong.

      Even if we accept the definition you prefer, you're still 'religious' under that definition too...

      "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:"

      You clearly believe in 'the scientific community'. That is exactly a "superhuman controlling power". It controls superhuman amounts of information, and directs the activities of millions of people.

      You probably believe in 'government', do you not? Which is exactly a "superhuman controlling power".

      You probably would argue you don't worship these entities, but you probably do. I think you have demonstrated your worship of science very clearly with your great admiration for it, and your devotion to defending it:

      Worship: "Great admiration or devotion shown towards a person or principle:"

      Both 'government' and 'scientific community' are 'gods'.

      God: "a superhuman being (or spirit) worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes".

      That exactly describes government and the 'scientific community'.

      Surely you can now see that by any reasonable definition, you are religious. You have a religious faith in 'science' and/or 'government'.

    2. Vertropean , I thought I made it clear that I’m willing to be wrong. I am more than prepared to change my stance, on anything, given empirical evidence. I must categorically refute your assertion that I’m religious in any way. You say I believe in the ‘scientific community’. Frankly I don’t know what the scientific community is. For me it is a phrase used by journalists and exists in the public mind as a vague abstract concept. It has no basis in reality. You could argue that scientists within individual disciplines are part of a collegial fraternity as they often belong to a professional organisation. Scientists within a discipline will attend meetings together and associate. To stretch this to a highly organised scientific community is elasticism (not sure this is real word- if not, it should be) stretched to breaking point. To say that a bunch of geneticists is a ‘super human power’ is an exercise in insanity. Although it is true some of colleagues believe they are GOD. Anyway, as an aside, the collective noun for geneticists is a ‘wank’.
      I don’t ‘worship’ science. As a professional scientist I have a passion for my subject and apply it’s principles as part of my everyday working life- it’s my job after all. Devotion does conjure up religious imagery, it is true. But I contend I am not devoted to science. I have deep respect for its tenets and principles.
      I think we may be getting distracted by ‘word play’ and semantics here- one mans’ passion is one man’s devotion, but in the context of the current debate, it is irrelevant. Fundamental issues are at stake here: Is the scientific method a valid means of obtaining knowledge? Are religious processes (faith and revelation) valid means of obtaining knowledge? I say yea to the first proposition and nay to the second. Furthermore I’m prepared to argue my case, vehemently. What say ye?

    3. I say: 'tis a fallacious argument ye make, my confused friend...

      So your latest definitions, crafted specifically to support your own case, are: "Is the scientific method a valid means of obtaining knowledge? Are religious processes (faith and revelation) valid means of obtaining knowledge? I say yea to the first proposition and nay to the second."

      Well really. How many more re-definitions do you want to make? It's clear you're just defending your religion, just as any religious person would. There's no truth or logic in what you just said.

      You are missing the truth because you're not seeing the spirit (intent) of the thing... Presumably because you don't want to.

      In their truest form, and also in their fraudulent forms, science and religion are the same thing.

      In their true form, both are intended for gaining knowledge of reality. In the false form, they are both intended to provide a false narrative to keep people from the truth.

      You don't want to admit just how much of your scientific 'knowledge' is in fact religious faith. You trust 'science' to give you the truth. You assume scientists use the scientific method to derive their results. It's all faith and trust.

      It's a fact, and you cannot deny it: You don't personally know evolution happened, you believe in it because **other people told you to**. Just like an Islamic extremist believes in Allah. Absolutely no difference.

      BTW I have a BSc in Biology. I overcame the cult-programming in the end though. ;)

    4. Forgive the delay in responding to your comments. But sometimes real life intrudes and gets in the way. Also my access to the internet has been limited over the past few days.

      You mention that my reasoning is fallacious but then fail to mention why. Again I'm going to have to disagree with the religious thing for all the reasons previously stated. Science is not religion and vice versa. If you want to posit such an arrangement then I ask you to clearly define why, otherwise your contention is just empty words. I agree that religion is false and is designed to keep people from the truth. But to place science within the same category is rather an odd means of classification and one which I would dispute. Science is simply a process. The results of scientific endeavour whether used for ill or for good is not what science is about. Knowledge of particle physics and quantum mechanics can be used to provide energy or make nuclear weapons. The reasons why we choose to make reactors or weapons is essentially a ' human' question not a scientific one. You say, 'I trust science to give the truth.' I would say I believe the science method a valid means to obtain knowledge. I would not say 'truth'. Truth is too elastic a term to be used as part of scientific discourse. I would also dispute that I have faith in science. This is absolutely not the case. I say this because faith is not an epistemological process. Faith is not a means of discovering knowledge, of any kind, it is simply believing in something because you want to. There is no room for faith in science. If you think that faith is part of the scientific process then the onus is on you to say why and how. Otherwise your contention is totally unsupported and not to be taken seriously.

      I do know how evolution works. Just because I haven't observed the process itself, doesn't mean I have no knowledge of the mechanism of evolution. The evidence for evolution is vast and encompasses many disciplines. Biology makes no sense if evolution is not taken into account. Evolution elegantly explains how organisms change with time. Until a better theory comes along I will continue to believe in the evolutionary process on the sound basis of knowledge and not faith.

      If you want to move the debate along, then you must start to support your views with some reasoning. If you don't, then what you have to say is mere opinion.

    5. I explained why your reasoning is wrong.

      You've ignored all of the points I made, and defend your faith with assertions and weasel words. Just like I said from the beginning, you're a religious extremist. Totally closed to another point of view.

      You *constantly* seek to redefine terms to suit your own purpose. This alone, if you had any self-awareness, would make you realise that you are acting irrationally, and therefore are wrong. You have no intention of discussion, you're merely closed-mindedly defending your beliefs.

  10. Sir, you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. You offer nothing cogent or coherent. I have made my position crystal clear. Let me be specific and pin you down to answer my questions. I will reiterate my question and would appreciate your well considered opinion: 'Is faith a valid process for discerning knowledge?' C'mon it is time for you to shine and impress the Flaxen haired one with your accrued wisdom. Don't ferret out on me Mr V. Ferrets are, after all, a type of weasel.

  11. "you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. You offer nothing cogent or coherent. "

    And like every good religious extremist you're a hypocrite.

    I've proven to you by any reasonable definition of the words that you have a religious belief in science. You offered no substantial refutation, just assertions and evasion. And you've proved it yourself by how you've responded.

    'Is faith a valid process for discerning knowledge?'

    No it isn't. Your faith in science being a very good example - it's why you are unable to discern the truth.

    The fact that you asked this dumb question means one or more of:
    a) You haven't read anything I've written.
    b) You didn't understand anything I've written.
    c) You just wanted a strawman argument you could attack, to deflect from the real issue.

    Either way, it's not looking good.

    I suggest you re-read the entire conversation, but this time, instead of filtering it through your ego-based delusion that 'you're right and I'm wrong', read it like a scientist would, and reply like one FFS.

    If your just going to continue to defend your religious faith with more bullshit, I reserve the right to not reply.

    1. Indeed Mr D. You can't debate with such folk.

    2. Mr V, there is little point in continuing this discussion as you seem unable to move on from your 'faith in science' mantra. I am always willing to listen to well thought out arguments and am more than happy to change my mind if someone has a convincing argument.As a matter of courtesy, I have re-read your comments to see if I missed some 'pearl' of wisdom, but I can see no coherent argument for your position. Ranting is not a form of discourse which will aid this discussion. I did notice you called me a hypocrite on three occasions. I am willing to admit I could be wrong. But nothing you have said is persuasive. My viewpoint is consistent and non contradictory, I may well be wrong but there is no hypocrisy in my comments. Anyway, you seem unable to address simple specifics and therefore I will leave you to dwell, unhindered by reason, under your carapace of self imposed ignorance and dogma.

  12. By the way, Mr V, you are not Welsh, are you? Might be an excuse for your muddle headed thinking.

    1. Could be a Chartered Accountant. They go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and.........

  13. Ok, I'll leave you ladies to pat each other on the back then...

    1. See, Flaxen. You'll never get the last word...

    2. Tis true Mr D. I should have called him a cunt first off. But frankly, I'm a sucker for debate. Unfortunately most of the folk I initially debate with me have the IQ of a syphilitic rat and debating skills of a 2 year old. But being of an optimistic frame of mind, I live in eternal hope,,,,,,