Skip to comments.Creationism argument ended in death
Posted on 12/15/2007 8:15:26 AM PST by Sherman Logan
A FRUIT picking trip to NSW ended in the death of a Scottish backpacker over a row about creationism and evolution. English backpacker Alexander Christian York, 33, was today sentenced to a maximum of five years jail for the manslaughter of Scotsman Rudi Boa in January last year. Mr Boa, 28, died on January 27 after being stabbed by York at the Blowering Holiday Park, near Tumut. ... The Scottish couple and York, neighbours at the caravan park, were becoming friends and spent the night of January 27 drinking at the Star Hotel in Tumut. However, towards the end of the night, an argument between York and the pair about creationism versus evolution escalated into a shouting match at the pub. The couple, both biomedical scientists, had been arguing the case of evolution, while York had taken a more biblical view of history. ...Although the altercation had been defused by the time the Scottish tourists left the hotel, it became inflamed again at the caravan park when all three were quite drunk. According to Ms Brown, York was making dinner when he attacked the couple outside his tent, stabbing Mr Boa with a kitchen knife as the argument escalated. ...Justice Adams said he had given York a sentence at the lower end of the scale, partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing. I do not believe that he took aim but rather thrust out, Justice Adams said. I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this. The offender is a person of good character and the offence is a complete aberration. York, unshaven and dressed in prison greens, sat impassively as Justice Adams read out the sentence....
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
BTW, is this one sentence per paragraph style an Australian thing?
Goodness, he needed to focus more on the the New Testament teachings. Just wow.
I do not believe that he took aim but rather thrust out,
Another reason you need really thick skin if your going to get involved in a “Crevo” debate.
Both testaments are valid. His mistake wasn't creationism, it was getting drunk.
We will put you in the category of nice safe Stalinists. Don't worry you can be part of whatever group you most closely resemble.
I think that I shall continue to contain whatever thoughts or comments that I have concerning the debate confined to my FR.com posts.
I didn’t say one was not valid, I simply implied that he was missing the teachings of Jesus.
What a bunch of absolute whooee. A more rediculous, liberal way of thinking could not be found and has not got a murderer (drunk or not), who killed over such a small thing as this, on a path to be free again within a very short time.
Especially drunk Australian FReeper Creationists, if we've got any.
I think the one-sentence paragraphs occur when articles are put online.
If you read the article, it appears he was cooking dinner and chopping vegetables with a knife when the other guy attacked him. Under such circumstances a semi-accidental stabbing is not beyond the realm of possibility.
If I read wrong and the other individual attacked him and he defended himself and in the process the other guy was, in essence, accidently killed, then I withdraw my former comments.
I should have stated that the perp claimed this is what happened. Not enough detail in the article to really say one way or another. But the perp apparently had no record, which makes it more likely that this was a semi-accident fueled by excessive consumption of adult beverages.
When knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives.
“Scotsman Rudi Boa”
There’s an ancient Scottish name for you.
That is the Judge speaking. Since he has no ax to grind in this case and saw all of the evidence I would tend to go along with his decision.
If the Scotsman was wearing a kilt, could he have seen his Rudi Boa?
My firewall prevents accidental knife-stabbings during all evolution-creation discussions.
Complain, complain, complain ... at least they put spaces in between the words. They even have periods at the end of sentences. I suppose next you'll want cohesive thoughts!
Generally, I prefer coherent thoughts. But I’ll settle for the cohesive version if that’s all that’s available.
If a Darwinian wants to propagate his genes he shouldn't argue with drunk creationists? Drunk creationists are better adapted than drunk Darwinians? Wow, Is biology complicated or what?
It depends on the copy-paste method. FR's HTML auto-detect is very handy for a quick note. But if you introduce single tag, the system treats the whole post as HTML. So if you tap return twice to separate paragraphs, that will be ignored.
For example, I have a paragraph tag at the beginning of each paragraph in this post. I have to, because I italicized the quote above. If the post had any kind of stray <X> in it, that could muck up the whole deal.
But their periods spin counter-clockwise.
Since Noah was the first recorded drunk, I think drunk Creationists probably have an edge in the gene-propagation contest ...
Yes, that happens to me, too! However, the article at the source link is formatted with each sentence as a new paragraph. This seems pretty common, and I assume it has to do with the way that website is set up.
Like this one?
Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
I'm not at all a "creationist," but to be fair that statement should be amended to say:
Somebody keep the knives away from any Freeper creationists who happen to be roaring drunk.
I guess I missed th rest of that one, it must say, “and stab those who disagree with your interpretation of scripture...”
Suspect that the Macroevolutionists were more than a trifle insulting, however they shouldn't have been murdered.
Maybe it was a little Anglo-Scottish bad blood in the rough-and-tumble land of Oz?
That is a huge leap and one not supported by my comments. Get real.
When started reading, sort of had a similar idea to yours: wow. Australians are tough. Turns out they were Europeans.
Sorry. I read too much into it. Please accept my apologies.
I wonder how much time the judge would have given someone who killed someone in a vehicular accident while driving drunk? The English backpacker’s offense seems to be roughly equivalent. The main difference is that drunk drivers don’t know what their victims’ views on evolution might be.
Jesus was just putting “doormat theology” to bed with that one.
They weren’t planning to use the swords to trim their beards.
If you had to pick between the murderer, the victim's partner, or some other guy with access to lots of information on the case (the judge, here), which would you pick to make a balanced position?
What would you say about this?
Are you SURE? I can just see NOah reeling into a bar (of his own construction) slamming his mug (or horn, or cup, or whatever) onto the counter and saying, “I’m fitter’n anyone in the place! Anyone here wanna shay I’m not the fittesh? Shurvival my BUTT. I can do WAY more than jus shurvive!”
LOL! Sure, make a joke out of it. :)
I really thought we would have evolved beyond this.
"That is the Judge speaking." So because a judge says it, it must be valid.
Note I am referring to ONE specific judge. You extended the comment to "a Judge", any Judge. That is the first leap you made.
you have decided solely because he is a judge that he has no ax to grind
-- No. I decided because he is THE judge of this case, not just a random Judge.
I would tend to go along with his decision. -- Note the use of the word "tend", meaning hearing no evidence or objections against his opinion, I would lean towards believing he made the right decision.
you have decided ... that he saw all the evidence in the case,-- Well since he was the Judge in this case it stands to reason that he saw all the evidence doesn't it?
I note also the following:
1) He was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.
2) The article does not mention any dispute over the sentence handed down or the lowered charge (vs. murder).
3) THE Judge refers to this as an "accident", that wording is not mentioned as being in question.
Unless you have any evidence to support anything else I will stand by my statement, which you have misinterpreted.
Yes, I caught the part that the creationist with the knife was actually British on the second reading. Probably living in Australia without a valid work permit, in addition to being drunk!
Well, that would probably get him killed, especially if he tried it in Australia ... but he'd already propagated his genes before the Flood!
No apology needed. I was just trying to make a sort of ironic statement, and I think I failed. You have a great day (I hope you’re not stuck in the ice and stuff). :)
So, explain to me what they were going to use them for. Are you suggesting that he was telling them to go out and stab those who didn’t agree with them?