Mischaracterisation and “punching down” of Ulster Protestants is an eery echo of the past 

Back in the 19C, the vituperation in the English press had to be seen to be believed. Around the time of the 150th anniversary of the Irish famine, I had to some research for a short presentation for the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum Punch.

I discovered a huge row going on between the editorial pages of the Belfast News Letter and the Times of London in which the former was taking the latter to task for its ongoing calumny against the character of the people “in the south and west of this country” as being authors of their own misery.

The easy characterisation of the Irish as an uncivilised and simian mob in the pages of Punch is now, thankfully a thing of the long distant past. But May Foster agreement demonstrates that there is still one Irish ‘out group’ that’s still capable of triggering similarly rank caricatures.

Chris McGimpsey in the Bel Tel notes:

To be sure, the cartoonists are no longer as blunt as Punch magazine of a century ago wherein we were always depicted with simian features, shillelaghs and bizarre clothing. Nevertheless, we have received a jolly good thrashing at the hands of the cartoonists.

Inevitably Ulster Protestant males are depicted as evil Orangemen. In one cartoon, four Orangemen – one of them sitting on a large bag marked ‘SWAG’, another one of them a horse – are interrogating a young boy as to his religion.

In a terraced street the Prime Minister is giving bags of money to a large Orangeman in front a mural which includes a Red Hand of Ulster with a £50 price tag. In a car nearby sits a smiling skinhead in a sweatshirt with tattooed arms. Money floats in the air.

All the images stress blackmail money for the over-dressed an overfed Orangemen. One image shows Arlene Foster leaving Downing Street with a large smile and an even larger wheelbarrow filled with money. Theresa May is tied up in Orange collarettes, gagged and with a ball and chain on her leg.

He goes on…

In an open society with a free Press, politicians need to expect criticism, some of it unfair, and the cartoonists play their part in this. But many of these renditions have crossed the line.

The portrayals are vicious and they are not simply of a politician, but of Ulster Protestants in their entirety. This form of art is depressing. And panders to the baser instincts of the readers.

The Belfast bar scene where Guinness is now free forever and the DUP are all lying on the floor in a catatonic state, suggests a lack of knowledge of the average Ulster Protestant, DUP member or supporter. But then everyone knows that we all drink far too much on this island.

Those News Letter editorials came from a time when there was much more of a fellow feeling between the various parts of our island and in the face of unspeakable government callousness of the Russell administration towards an unspeakable human tragedy.

Of course, there’s satire. And it has to live and breathe and get its dig into the egos of politicians who think they are above the rest of us. In this regard, Mark Steel rarely misses and as someone who’s spent actually some time in Ireland, he didn’t this time either:

 

But this ongoing mischaracterisation and “punching down” of Ulster Protestants has an eery echo to it.

  • chrisjones2

    Hes not a dog ….just a representative of a racist murder gang who claims to trampoline naked with a dog and never to have been in the IRA

  • chrisjones2

    The failure of who’s will.

    At the peak of the famine the British State donated £35000 (£3m today) to the Irish Catholic Church. What did it spend it on?

    Famine relief? Food? Medicine?

    Refurbishing Maynooth college?

  • JOHN TURLEY

    Mrs May will pay much more than money for this squalid deal to remain in No 10.
    She would have much more respect from her own crowd if she stood on her own.
    Now both wings of her party are waiting in the long grass.

  • Tochais Siorai

    ‘Paisley didn’t kill anyone..’

    He had plenty to do his dirty work for him.

  • Tochais Siorai

    If those who do it described themselves as Irish then it would be.

    But they don’t. And they’re quite vehement about that.

  • David Crookes

    Many thanks, Chris!

    (REVERE THE WALKING DEAD.)

    If the DUP are ‘toxic’, to use that detestable zombie-word, HMG should not expect nice cuddly SF to sit in coalition with poisonous partners.

    I still think that a refusal to accept the fact of the European referendum lies behind a lot of the snarling that we hear.

    Some of us thought that on balance we ought to remain, and voted accordingly, but when those who thought differently turned out to be in the majority, we accepted the result, and began to live blithely with the new reality.

    De Valera, the well-known canary-smuggler, once said that the electorate did not have the right to be wrong. To say such a thing is to deify oneself, and therefore to be insane.

    A professing democrat who accepts only the democratic votes of which he approves is not far away from being a fascist.

    Enoch Powell used to say, ‘Scratch a liberal, and you find a dictator.’

    It’s funny. The WE WERE ROBBED yelpfest is still audible on both sides of the Atlantic, and in spite of their different accents the yelpers have a great deal in common.

  • David Crookes

    Reminds me of a book by someone with a name like Richard von Pemmican, perhaps an alien cousin of Buffalo Bill.

  • Nevin

    “Those News Letter editorials came from a time when there was much more of a fellow feeling between the various parts of our island”

    Feelings ebb and flow but, as in the case of the Save the Dal campaign, a common foe can unite political/religious opponents.

    For example, Daniel O’Connell’s Catholic Emancipation and Repeal campaigns helped foster Presbyterian emancipation and unity as well as a measure of political unity of the Protestant sects.

    A more nuanced approach can sometimes yield perspectives that differ from the binary Catholic/Protestant, Unionist/Nationalist and British/Irish ones.

  • Bobby

    So, Mick, just what are your views on the DUP’s position on gay marriage, creationism etc – you know when you’re done telling us what poor misunderstood things they are?

  • Bobby

    Hmm…

  • Backbencher

    and your point is?

  • Backbencher

    You are obviously not a scientist coming out with commentary such as that. Science can not prove or disprove anything that happened in the past – you probably don’t realise that, but even the scientists that are evolutionists don’t make such a claim.

    You need to consider the difference between ‘facts’ and the ‘interpretation of facts’

    I’ll ask you one question, if evolution is true, where are all the intermediary fossils? (that is fossils of animals that are at various stages between one animal kind and another)

    With regards to evidence for a young earth there is any amount if you care to consider it
    https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

  • grumpy oul man

    Oh dear, your obviously not a scientist so im at no disadvantage there.
    Evolutionary scientist’s do indeed make such claims.a wide range of disciplines make these claims.
    If evolution didnt happen where did all the rabbits go when the dinosaur fossels were laid down, surely on or two would have been found.
    Where are the intermediary follels?
    Take a trip to any good museum, there will be some there.
    Read some science stuff.

  • grumpy oul man

    Oh dear, your obviously not a scientist so im at no disadvantage there.
    Evolutionary scientist’s do indeed make such claims.a wide range of disciplines make these claims.
    If evolution didnt happen where did all the rabbits go when the dinosaur fossels were laid down, surely on or two would have been found.
    Where are the intermediary follels?
    Take a trip to any good museum, there will be some there.
    Read some science stuff.

  • David Crookes

    Many thanks for that fascinating link, Backbencher.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    “Only one of the two Independent board members was present in 2013 and 2014.

    Treasury best practice stipulates that Ministers chair meetings of their Departmental Boards but Ministers aren’t even present so that they could be advised and challenged by Independent members. The Ministers do receive regular briefings from their Permanent Secretaries but this falls far short of best practice. Also, I can find no minutes of such briefings or of those by the Departmental Executive teams [Permanent Secretary and senior colleagues].”

    You will really have to further explain to me just how any of this excuses the minister from personal responsibility for knowing what goes on in her department.

  • Get The Grade Get The Grade

    Attitudes towards women, old sport…just because the DUP has a female leader it doesn’t necessarily make them enlightened champions of women’s rights.

  • Backbencher

    Tyres shouldn’t be there, but if they weren’t there the anti-unionist brigade would be complaining about something else. Last year Paul Givan lit a bonfire in Co-Tyrone, no tyres, no flags just wood, and the Irish News hounded him for months. Cultural respect appears to be a one way street with many in this Country.

  • Backbencher

    and just because you say you are liberal does not make you liberal.

    On your point, no women has the right to take another life. To describe this as women’s rights is deceitful use of language.

  • Backbencher

    Sorry GOM but you are wrong, Scientists do not claim they can prove what happened in the past. What they do claim is that evidence points to something happen, but that is a totally different claim.
    For a wider take on this issue, consider the attached link
    http://creation.com/its-not-science

    Dinosaurs and rabbits didn’t tend to share the same habitat hence they would not have died together therefore their fossilised remains would not be together. Have a read at the attached link, which effectively answers the same question
    https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/

    Regarding intermediary fossils, I’ll leave this one with you
    http://creation.com/those-fossils-are-a-problem
    Maybe you could help Dr Patterson out.

  • grumpy oul man

    But if dinosaurs existed at the same time as rabbits then how come there are no rabbit fissels found in the same sediment layers far apart.
    And i am interested in how you know that rabbits didnt share the same enviorments as the dinosours did. Grasslands, temperate, wide range of edible plants! Sounds ideal for rabbits to me, but i assume you should have some proof of that claim.as a matter of fact why no rabbits, Fox’s, as a matter of fact no mammels larger than a mouse found.
    And birds they get around why no birds ( but a feathered dinosaur).
    Now evoulation has been proved conclusively that evolution is the process that resulted in the diversity of life on earth.
    Take Dairy cattle, modern dairy cattle produce much more milk much more efficiently than those of 100 years age, this is result of selective breeding human manipulation of the evolutionary processm.
    I could also cite any other field of agriculture as a example from cereal devolpment to sheep dog breeding.
    As for your links the first agrues the point that the bible says its wrong and thats it.
    The second is one scientist among many who a quick google search produces no peer reviewed papers by him on his claims.
    Now why you pick up some books written by scientists instead of theologians puting a idea out there.

  • grumpy oul man

    Wasn’t that the bonfire that the week before was PICTURED in the irish news covered in Tricolours and secterian slogans, who could have a problem with a MLAbeing associated with that sort of thing.

  • Nevin

    Do you suppose the RHI inquiry will uncover such glaring deficits in our governance?

  • SeaanUiNeill

    That is a much larger project, and one which your own chipping away at such things recognisably contributes to. But I am at a loss to see how ‘exonerating” the culpability of Arlene even begins to add to any project to open up this habitual disfunctionality within our ministries. The on certainty is that RHI inquiry will almost certainly never begin to address such issues while Arlene remains first minister. No-one wants to tip over even our shaky apple cart and spoil the pyramids of fruit each political camp has built.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Mick, I’ve noted this particular encoded default in the opinions of many English people (especially those wielding power) for nearly fifty years now, since my uncle’s warning that “we are all ‘Paddy’ to them the moment we walk of the Liverpool boat” was brought home to me by personal experience working in the media. It’s nothing at all new, having, as you say deep roots in the Victorian “Saxon and Celt” trope (manly, clear headed, “scientific” Saxon and effeminate, muddled and emotional “arty” Celt). Of course this is a very, very broad generalisation, and one encounters innumerable sane and open people also over the water who do not easily indulge in such silly nonsense, but really, even they can become worried about what they find out about the DUP now the media spotlight is fully on them. Luckily such people will tend to sift what they hear rather than simply apply it promiscuously over us all, or I’d be loosing long term friends in droves.

  • Nevin

    Seaan, the work my friends and I did on the Rathlin ferry contract fiasco from 2008 onwards was largely ignored by the MSM, with the honourable exception of the Newsletter’s Sam McBride.

    When the NI Water one came along we had a head start on the rest of the field; we sought out and drew in whistleblowers to the Slugger conversation. Some of the material we unearthed was removed from this conversation, not a smart move for those who want to see transparent and accountable governance.

    After a whole range of minor and major governance bungles involving central and local government and ministers from a range of parties I decided to take a closer look and the outcome was that Belfast Deficit blog. Such looseness in governance IMO could allow the culpable, including ministers, to escape scot-free.

    We don’t nominate or elect public representatives for their competence in governance and it seems neither do we do we chose or promote civil servants or select independent departmental board directors for theirs.

    To opt for ‘exonerate’ is to intentionally misrepresent my narrative.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    “To opt for ‘exonerate’ is to intentionally misrepresent my narrative.”

    I’m afraid you are a victim here of your own pithy cryptic comments Nevin “Why point the finger at one party in government when you have such a wide range to choose from?” I’m afraid that I’d read this, and I imagine most others reading the thread had followed me in this as “leave the ‘Norn Iron Lady’ alone.” Especially after your apparent advocacy of Arlene when she came into office.

    If you want to entirely reform the whole system, please share this in some detail with us all, it helps to avoid confusion. It’s why I tr and exhaustively explain my own points, and even there ann at times very misinterpreted. But where a major miscalculation of almost half a billion such as the RHI business happens, the ministerial responsibility is always going to be the natural starting position for anyone concerned to begin to unravel the mess. While we clearly “don’t nominate or elect public representatives for their competence in governance” any move to reverse this trend begins with demanding responsible behaviour from them. First steps, and all that jazz.

  • Nevin

    “Especially after your apparent advocacy of Arlene when she came into office.”

    Filling in a few pieces that prejudiced bloggers and commenters leave out isn’t advocacy.

    “If you want to entirely reform the whole system, please share this in some detail with us all, it helps to avoid confusion”

    Perhaps you should read that 2012 Belfast Deficit blog that I’ve linked and referred to on Slugger on this and numerous occasions. It wasn’t a reformation of the whole system, merely a proposal that Stormont should follow Treasury recommended best practice.

    “the ministerial responsibility is always going to be the natural starting position for anyone concerned to begin to unravel the mess.”

    Only if you’re uninformed about the nature of Stormont and Northern Ireland governance. The BBC Spotlight RHI ‘investigation’ merely created an even bigger mess and IMO led to the collapsing of the Executive.

  • Deplorable Ulsterman

    Yes, the usual bullshit “ism” labels of anarchy designed to prevent a healthy society from defending itself against any aggressor or degeneracy.

  • Abucs

    ‘Homophobic’ is a recently invented word for a recently invented religion, both of which are not very intellectually coherent.

  • Backbencher

    No it wasn’t, no tyres, no flags, just wood. Amusing you should suggest it was pictured the week before covered in flags by the IrishNews. I am reliable informed that it was built from scratch on private land on the 11th day. Your comment emphasises the manipulative nature of the Irishnews on this story, they used photographs of other bonfires in an attempt to besmirch Givan.
    If you what a honest take on the news I suggest you buy a different paper, or alternatively if you what to reinforce your prejudice continue your normal practice with the Irishnews.

  • Backbencher

    I don’t think you have quite grasped the point GOM, Facts are facts and no one disputes the facts, but when it comes to anything happening in the past (or the future) it is a matter of opinion or conjecture. Scientists change their opinion all the time. When I was at school ‘science’ was teaching we were heading for another Ice Age, now we are told the reverse.
    Maybe the point is best made by way of an example, radiometric dating is used as the great proof for an old earth. Now, the facts are that at a point in time (today), a particular rock has a measurable amount of a radioactive isotope and a measurable amount of the isotope’s decay products, and a measurable decay rate. These are the facts no one disputes these.
    However to translate this into an age for the rock, conjecture, opinion and assumptions come into play. Assumptions have to be made that it is a closed system i.e. no parent or daughter isotopes have leached into or out of the system, the decay rate has stayed the same over millions of years. None of which can be proved.
    Scientists who believe in an old earth happily make these assumptions and present their results. Unsuspecting individuals like your good self take this as ‘gospel’ and repeat it as fact without understanding the unverified assumptions which have been used to arrive at the figure.
    Trust that is clear.

  • Backbencher

    Many other animals are found with dinosaur fossils http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/modern-fossils-with-dinos/

    http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossil-wasnt-supposed-be-there/

    The reference above to selective breeding of cattle to produce more milk is not evidence of evolution (it is laughable that you suggest such). Selective breeding is taking an animal with traits (information/DNA) that already exists and breeding with another similar animal to maximise that trait, however you will not create any new information. In the example you quote,you can selectively breed cows for as long as you wish, and you may produce more milk (maximising the trait) but you won’t get them to produce any other liquid or you you won’t breed a horse i.e. no new information.

    The same applies to cereal farming or dog breeding, you can selectively breed to your hearts content but you will still have cereal and a dog, you can play about with the information but you can’t create new information.

    Selective breeding to maximise traits is not evolution, indeed it is actual the reverse. Pure breed dogs (selective breeding) are generally less healthy.

  • grumpy oul man

    It would help if the links you present could be verified elsewhere.
    As for Cattle breeding, chickens etc not being evidence of evoulition , well that is evidence that animals can be changed quite drastically by the demands of the enviorment,
    In the case of all the animals and plants we have changed by selective breeding.
    In this case it is not a changing enviorment or eco system causing the changes but the requirements of the farmers or breeders for greater efficiency in a certain animal.
    Now your fisrt link tell us that a 33 million year old fossilised rabbit was found but no actual hard data such as where, when, how was it dated and who dated it.
    You need this info to prove a point ! A claim must be proved.
    The second one claims that since a land dinosour was found in a layer of marine dinosours id proof that evolution didnt take place, after all it is unimaginable that a land animal would fall into water and drown.
    You started off this debate by telling me i wasnt a scientist and you then present as proof stuff that either is unproven or inrelevent.
    Could i suggest that before you claim that the science is wrong you could look at what evidence actally is.
    It must be checkable,
    It must be relevent,
    So sorry you still having proven anything,
    So the carbon dating results on the rabbit please,
    The dig it came from,
    The name of the team or team leader who discovered it.
    And where is it now.
    And we can move on from there.

  • grumpy oul man

    Im afaird your infis wrong. Check out the irish news
    I think we can ignore the rest of the post since its all built around that innacuracy.

  • grumpy oul man

    Right lets start at the facts,
    you were told in school that we where heading for another ice age, that would have been before the effect of man made greenhouse gas on the atmosphere was known.
    Scientists do indeed change their minds, the discovery of new fact and the proving of theories (the word theory means to a scientist something that has been proved and apply s to the total field that in incorporates, for example Einstein’s theory of relativity) they then look at this new data and if if disproves previous beliefs then a new hypothesis is formed and tested, if it pass’s these tests it becomes a theory.
    a example of this is Galileo’s disproving the belief that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, his belief that the sun was at the center of the Universe was later disproved by new evidence supplied by astronomers.
    Now as to the leaching thing, for it to be relevant the degree of leaching would have to be exactly the same the world over as the proportion of mother isotopes to decay isotopes is the same the world over, this to say the least is highly unlikely.
    As for the rate on Nuclear decay varying over time, there has never been any proof for a variation in the rate of nuclear decay observed and since the rate of decay is a constant that most of particle physics and nuclear physics depends on, there is a noble prize waiting for the person who can prove a variation in the rate of decay Scientists have spent a lot of time looking for any evidence of a variation.
    A side product of Nuclear decay is heat ( most of the heat in the Earth’s core is a result of nuclear decay) now if the rate of decay was much faster than it is now (it would have to in the magnitude of millions of times faster to suit the rapid decay theory) then a enormous amount of heat would have been released and the fact that the planet wasn’t vaporized is a very strong argument against it.
    Scientists do not make unverified assumption’s they observe thing,measure things,collect facts and then from this data they they come up with a hypothesis and test it (for a theory to be proven a method of disproving it must be found and then tested for, for example the theory of relativity was merely a hypothesis until the bending of light predicted by Einstein was confirmed by measurements taken during a solar eclipse.
    What you have done is the opposite,
    you have started with the belief (and that is all it is) that the earth is 6000 years old and tried to find things to suit your belief, things like leaching and variation are ideas made up to explain things the disprove your belief, however since no proof is forwarded they remain only ideas.
    And yes you where very clear.

  • grumpy oul man

    well would you not be interested in how little green men evolved! imagine a whole new ecosystem and biological processes to study.
    and Zorgians are yellow and asexual , those gametes just refuse to fuse.
    I would love to see Zorgians of whatever color or gender (or lack thereof) appear, Imagine the fun watching Christian fundamentalists explain that with a quote from Genesis !

  • Backbencher

    Was there a comment deleted from here, I thought I viewed a response here yesterday, came in tonight to reply and it is gone. Is my mind playing tricks on me?

  • Backbencher

    All the Irish News articles are on line, therefore it would be helpful if you could link the article which says the Co Tyrone bonfire was covered in tricolours and secterian slogans as you suggest.
    I am not surprised that readers arrived at this false conclusion because of the deceptive and manipulative reporting by the Irish News, nevertheless I am surprised that someone of your ability has been so easily hoodwinked.

  • Backbencher

    GOM thank you for the extensive answer. Your entire discourse makes a great attempt at demonstrating my point.

    ‘you were told in school that we where heading for another ice age, that would have been before the effect of man made greenhouse gas on the atmosphere was known.’
    Exactly – What was presented as fact in the 1980s (but was merely opinion), was later believed to be totally erroneous, indeed the total reverse was now believed to be the case.

    ‘Galileo’s disproving the belief that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, his belief that the sun was at the center of the Universe was later disproved by new evidence supplied by astronomers.’
    Again what was presented as fact was merely opinion and was later discredited.

    Decay rates – If scientists believed it was a constant why have then spent so much time (as you suggest) looking for a variation? Obviously they believe it is not impossible. The assumption that it is a constant is exactly that – an assumption! The entire radio metric dating process is built around such assumptions. Granted, the constant decay rate is the prevailing view but it is still only an assumption.

    With reference to your paragraph ‘Scientists do not make unverified assumption’s’
    You are being a tad clever with your words here. I agree with the process you outline, i.e. hypothesis becomes theory, but your implication that this somehow becomes ‘gospel’ is wrong. It is merely the idea that best fits the facts, in the opinion of the majority. There is every likelihood the theory will change at some point in the future when more facts become known, e.g. Galileo’s theory that the sun was at the center of the Universe.

    I reiterate my previous comments, you are taking the ‘authority’ of facts (observable measurable things which are undisputed) and applying it to the interpretation (theory). The facts are the facts the rest is merely conjecture/opinion.

    Your last paragraph is a classic – you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of i.e. fitting the facts around your own world view. The amusing point here is that you can’t acknowledge that, and blindly believe that your theory is fact (whilst it is merely the majority interpretation).

    ‘however since no proof is forwarded they remain only ideas’ – touche

  • grumpy oul man

    “- What was presented as fact in the 1980s (but was merely opinion), was later believed to be totally erroneous, indeed the total reverse was now believed to be the case.”
    Ye this is what happens when you get new and or more accurate data that shows your previous information was wrong or incomplete.
    you should be very thankful for this if you need any medical treatment ever!
    Science is a search for how the universe works and as new facts are discovered or observed then of course if they point to a hypothesis being incorrect that hypothesis is changed.
    when both you and i were at school meteorology was a very different thing from the science it is now.
    Before satellites and sensor buoys data was very limited, the roles of the atmospheric layers was still not properly understood neither was the Gulf Stream,Jet Stream or El Nino understood nor how they distributed heat throughout the planet.
    The same thing happened to Galileo,
    Before the invention of the telescope there was no way to know that the earth orbited the sun, once this became obvious Astronomy was born, pretty soon better telescopes got better and then we discovered the sun was just another star in a galaxy of 200 billion stars.
    Now the rate of nuclear decay is central to several process, from reactors to radiotherapy and bombs,the ability to vary that would be very useful indeed, that is one of the reasons why it has been searched for.
    Another reason is that if you remember i said that a theory only becomes a theory when it is tested for failure and pass’s that test,
    well a basic principle of our present theory’s (quantum theory and relativity) is a steady rate of decay, and proof of even the slightest variation in decay rate would annul both theory’s
    that is why scientists have spent so much time looking for a variation in this theory. disprove either or both of those theory’s and you become the most important scientist since Newton.
    of course any person presented with new data which shows that your belief (which was based on incomplete data) was wrong then your look for the correct answer.
    hardly Touche, i have supplied evidence that can be understood be any A level science student.
    You however have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever, you have invented laws of nature as support for your reasoning.
    I fit no facts around my worldview (this is called theology) i fit my worldview around the facts (this is called Science)
    If a fact contradicts your worldview you ignore it. If a fact contradicts my world view i change my worldview.
    Like i say science is a wonderful voyage of discovery and new knowledge changes belief.
    the theory of gravity.
    Germ Theory,
    Relativity,
    the theory of evolution,
    All have been proved, all have been destruction tested all passed,
    present me with some evidence (something i can check out as regard source and proof of existence) however since you obviously don’t understand scientific process’s and how concepts are developed, supporting data gathered and presented to peers for testing before becoming one of the few theory’s so perhaps instead of arguing over something you dont understand perhaps you could present the evidence for your belief and we will look at it.

  • Backbencher

    I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely can’t see the glaring contradiction within your response.

    To highlight your contradiction –

    Can you tell me why all the scientific theories of the past were merely temporary (you make a good case for this above) yet it would appear from your dogmatic insistence on evolution that current scientific theories are absolute fact?

    Do you think the theory of evolution is fact or is it possible it will be discarded in the future for some other theory?

    You say you provided evidence – I must have missed that bit, please highlight again.

    You say ‘If a fact contradicts my world view i change my worldview’, I very much doubt it – you will rather come up with a hypothesis that fits the new fact within your current world view. But lets test it.
    If evidence was presented that indicated that dinosaurs were alive more recently than the million of years suggested by the theory of evolution, would you change your world view?

  • grumpy oul man

    Show what theories have been rebuked.
    The ice age thing from school was not a theory (or it would have had the words theory or law before it)
    So what you are taking about is outworking or predictions based on information available at the time.
    Did you miss the part where i mentioned massive amounts of new accurate information from sattilites etc.
    You seem to be unaware of what science is and could i suggest that you get more accurate data.
    There are several excellent sites that can do this .
    One ehich is very good for beginner’s is Future Learn.
    It has short internet course on a wide range of disciplines.
    Including some on what science really is.
    I feel you would benifit from this.

  • grumpy oul man

    Of course i would change my worldview, do you have such evidence!

  • Backbencher

    GOM – Any comment on this from today’s Irish Times?
    https://t.co/9zuw9JHvMZ

  • Backbencher
  • Backbencher

    GOM, you really are hard work.
    You continually erect a straw man argument. I fully understand the hypothesis stage progressing to theory stage, however progressing to theory does not make it a fact (and that is where we disagree).

    You say ‘Show what theories have been rebuked.’
    How many do you want? Try a few of these
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
    http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4047500/Was-Einstein-WRONG-gravity-Controversial-new-theory-rewrite-physics-passes-test.html

    Interesting you mentioned previously ‘for a theory to be proven a method of disproving it must be found and then tested for’. With regard to the theory of evolution,can you please outline what was the method of disproving it? and how was it tested? (Note I want the test for disproving it)

    I would also be keen on an answer to my previous questions,
    Do you think the theory of evolution is fact or is it possible it will be discarded in the future for some other theory?
    If evidence was presented that indicated that dinosaurs were alive more recently than the million of years suggested by the theory of evolution, would you change your world view?

    Regarding evidence, I take you back to my opening comments, you can’t conclusively prove or disprove the past (or the future). Hence evidence, either for or against evolution/creation, will always be informed by assumptions/interpretation. I can present evidence for a young earth e.g. Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
    https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/

    You, no doubt, will come up with a different interpretation i.e. you will take the same facts, make different assumptions and arrive at different conclusions.

    You continually take observable measurable data (in the present), add assumptions and pass your conclusions of as fact. The data are the facts (but in itself it does not prove anything about the past), the rest of the process is conjecture/opinion