General Biblical Debate (trying to prove the Earth is an "upright circle")

[thefab444]

[Mod note: I have split out the debate on University into its own thread, and copied posts relevant to both issues - Mike395]

I might add that I gave up all science at school at the earliest opportunity through sheer boredom - where I have needed to know anything science-based in later life I have been able to pick it up easily. It is such a fallacy to say all children need to be taught science because they will need it later!

A bit like religious education then.

 

[thefab444]

Science gives you a broader understanding of almost anything to do with life, except a certain part which I completely disagree with and that really annoyed me when I was being taught it!

I'm guessing that it was the Big Bang/origins of the universe that annoyed you?

 

[LE Greys]

I'm guessing that it was the Big Bang/origins of the universe that annoyed you?

The vast majority of modern physics research seems to be utterly pointless, until you realise that research into subatomic physics seemed utterly pointless because everyone thought the atom was indivisible - except physicists. Then it suddenly became extremely relevant in World War 2 with the development of nuclear weapons, and remains so to this day with nuclear reactors. Starting from a point where the general public had not heard of a neutron and did not really care what it was and going on to a point where it was relevant to the point where it seemed a real threat to their lives rather changes the picture.

Currently, the picture is roughly similar with (say) the Higgs boson. Most people think they know what happened at the Big Bang. Something caused it (God farting or whatever) and POW!, there was the Universe. It often seems that we do not need to know any more than that, what are the practical applications? I'm at a loss myself, but I'm sure something will come up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope you know the famous differential equation that came out of animal population dynamics. Every Mathematics undergraduate gets taught that somewhere down the line.

I had to look up what a differential equation was, partly through being a bit rusty, partly through the fact that it disappeared under the weight of all the other theories and models. I think it's something to do with logarithmic population growth, which is a function of available resources and reproduction rate. Then that's just me thinking practically about real animals rather than theoretical constructs. You can't have 0.85 of a fish. In fact, unless you have 2 (which have to be of opposite sex) the population is functionally extinct. Animals work in integers only. Still, if you ramp up the reproduction rate enough, you get a cyclical population, and that's when it gets interesting, because it affects other species.

 

[All Line Rover]

I'm guessing that it was the Big Bang/origins of the universe that annoyed you?

I'm particularly bothered about "origin of the universe" theories - to be honest, although many scientists thing (or like to think) that they know everything, a lot of speculation is involved.

More the origin of life theories. An example...

• Me: "So you're telling me that apes have evolved from a single-celled microorganism?"
• Teacher: "Yes."
• Me: "OK, so where can I see some evidence of that - for example, in the fossil record?"
• Teacher: "[ALR], you're going much too deep there! "
• Me: "Too deep?! You're always going on about it as if it's fact! Also, if you're telling me that the first life form was a single-celled microorganism, where did that come from?"
• Teacher: "Well, we don't really know."
• Me: ":roll:."

Now I don't want to go into a whole debate about this! But it really drove me mad that we were just supposed to "accept" such things.

 

[thefab444]

But it really drove me mad that we were just supposed to "accept" such things.

It's considerably more believable than religions telling us just to accept the existance of a paternal God figure without any factual evidence to back it up.

 

[Pumbaa]

• Me: "So you're telling me that apes have evolved from a single-celled microorganism?"
• Teacher: "Yes."
• Me: "OK, so where can I see some evidence of that - for example, in the fossil record?"
• Teacher: "[ALR], you're going much too deep there! "
• Me: "Too deep?! You're always going on about it as if it's fact! Also, if you're telling me that the first life form was a single-celled microorganism, where did that come from?"
• Teacher: "Well, we don't really know."
• Me: ":roll:."

We have fossil evidence of what we think is the earliest 'life form' - it's not conclusive proof but it's our best guess, that's all science is. It's only 'scientific proof' until we come up with a better idea.

 

[All Line Rover]

It's considerably more believable than religions telling us just to accept the existance of a paternal God figure without any factual evidence to back it up.

Well I don't really fancy going into a debate about religion, either!

 

[Pumbaa]

For the benefit of ALR and your science teacher(!) I've attached a shot of a Stromatolite, approx 3.5Bya old found in Australia this one, but the oldest Prokaryotes are up to 3.8Bya found in Greenland. Very simple singled celled organisms, didn't release oxygen, and didn't have nuclei. (That's what their name means). Stromatolites are made up of cyanobacteria, one of the Prokaryotes.

 

[All Line Rover]

We have fossil evidence of what we think is the earliest 'life form' - it's not conclusive proof but it's our best guess, that's all science is. It's only 'scientific proof' until we come up with a better idea.

Yes but then you have big-headed people such as Richard Dawkins who says something like: "Evolution is a much a fact as the heat of the sun. Anyone who does not believe in evolution is obviously an idiot."

To me, an idiot is someone who blindly believes in something without being given any impartial evidence for it. From my discussions with people, most people seem to be exactly like that with evolution - they just "accept" it.

And then you have people such as Richard Attenborough, who on one of this "pro-evolution" programmes quoted Genesis 1:28...

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (NIV)

...and then went on to say, and I quote: "That made it clear that according to the Bible, humanity could exploit the natural world as they wished.”

! ? He failed to mention Genesis 2:15 (just a few verses later)...

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (NIV)

...which slightly contradicts his uninformed comment!

For the record I'm getting these quotes off the "Bible Gateway" website.

Anyway, as I said I won't discuss/argue this any further - I'm just saying that this is the only bit of science I didn't like as the teachers refused to (or couldn't) answer any of my (in my opinion reasonable) questions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For the benefit of ALR and your science teacher(!) I've attached a shot of a Stromatolite, approx 3.5Bya old found in Australia this one, but the oldest Prokaryotes are up to 3.8Bya found in Greenland. Very simple singled celled organisms, didn't release oxygen, and didn't have nuclei. (That's what their name means). Stromatolites are made up of cyanobacteria, one of the Prokaryotes.
View attachment 6890

I am no longer in contact with my science teacher.

And I'm not saying that single-celled microorganisms don't exist - but where did it come from? Scientists find that a hard question to answer, and any theory needs to rest on a foundation.

 

[Pumbaa]

And I'm not saying that single-celled microorganisms don't exist - but where did it come from? Scientists find that a hard question to answer, and any theory needs to rest on a foundation.

The foundation is called evolution. The present is the key to the past; we can see so much in the rock record, and we're fairly confident in the evidence we have.

A rough outline of the events that lead to the development of single-celled organisms:

> Formation of Earth led to the formation of the of the oldest rocks (they're not mutually exclusive) between 4.6Bya and 3.8Bya; we have no record during this time, as the formation of 'Earth' destroyed and wiped the record clean (we call it resetting the geological clock). The zonation of Earth occurred during this time, establishing a core, mantle and crust fairly quickly as Earth grew in size and mass. On the crust, inorganic chemicals precipitated from space/debris flying around/inside the mantle, formed the earliest sediments after reacting with acid rain (from the acid rich atmosphere) while the earliest water bodies precipitated also.

> Energy from the sun/UV light etc reacted with inorganic minerals to form simple organic compounds eg amino acids, which after concentration and polymerisation led to the development of organic macromolecules.

> Segregation, organisation and replication followed, enhanced by energy and the development of carbon and oxygen in the atmosphere as atmospheric cycles began to develop. This led to the emergence of protocells and eventually simple life.

This is over a period of 0.8Bya, but arguably one of the most important steps baby Earth took. We have record of the Earth 3.8Bya, with these simple life forms, and we also have record of 'proto-material', the fragments of space that fell into Earth during it's development late on, and as such remain intact but not in situ. From this, we have a record of what was here in the first place and what happened in the preceding 0.8Bya. It's like reverse engineering a recipe, you have the finished cake, and a load of sugar, eggs, flour and butter to start with, you just put in order and try and establish what happened to it!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Dawkins isn't big headed, he is one of the cleverest men of all time.

With science, at least we have extensive research and evidence. With religion, all you have is a book that could have been written by anyone and a bunch of idiots who believe it.

Futher to thefab444, I would rather have politics taught in schools than RE.

 

[Pumbaa]

With science, at least we have extensive research and evidence. With religion, all you have is a book that could have been written by anyone and a bunch of idiots who believe it.

Futher to thefab444, I would rather have politics taught in schools than RE.

We also have extensive research into the origins of religion, and obviously it's far easier with newer religions. It just happens that they don't like the findings And it's unfair to call them 'idiots' too; you'd be surprised at how much thought really committed religious people put into their faith. One of my colleagues is highly religious, yet she works researching fossils and the origin of life; she accepts evolution but does her work to develop her own understanding and answer her own questions.

I'd have both taught; if you haven't looked at both sides of the argument you can't come to a reasoned conclusion. People should be able to make their own informed decisions; a necessary part of that is education.

 

[All Line Rover]

As I said, I don't want to argue, but people must consider both sides of the argument (like I've done) before they consider one of them to be "stupid", "idiotic", etc..

You are welcome to have your opinion, Matt.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

As I said, I don't want to argue, but people must consider both sides of the argument (like I've done) before they consider one of them to be "stupid", "idiotic", etc..

You are welcome to have your opinion, Matt.

Oh I have studiesd both sides, don't worry. I have come to the conclusion that religious 'ravers' are indeed idiots.

 

[Nick W]

T Energy from the sun/UV light etc reacted with inorganic minerals to form simple organic compounds eg amino acids, which after concentration and polymerisation led to the development of organic macromolecules.

What came first? The DNA/RNA that coded for the proteins that operate on RNA/DNA, or the proteins that operate on RNA/DNA.

 

[Barrett M95]

XC Driver, it's good that you're a train driver and not a brain surgeon or nuclear physicist then! The university of life has served you well. Uni isn't the answer to everything, especially with the exorbitant fees in place now. If, however, a specific type of job like these is someone's aim, I don't see any other option unless there's a hospital somewhere offering an apprenticeship for budding open-heart surgery professors...

On the side topic that's appeared, I personally find it confusing how many people struggle to comprehend evolution which has evidence, but will follow a religion which has none. The bible is not evidence to me. It is a collection of moralistic stories. Many of which may have a basis of historical truth, but then so does the story of Santa Claus. It has a moral (good children get rewarded, and everyone deserves love and care), it has a basis of historical truth (Saint Nicholas) and pretty much every kid believes it is true when told, despite no evidence to prove it beyond faith in their parents telling the story. Faith, therefore is undeniably real and incredibly important to humanity, but I think that is a different thing from religion itself.

 

[Pumbaa]

What came first? The DNA/RNA that coded for the proteins that operate on RNA/DNA, or the proteins that operate on RNA/DNA.

It is arguable that basic 'life' had no ordered character, the scramble of basic peptides and residues that happened to come together would later lead to the organised development and "coding" of acidic compounds. It was that ordering that spawned nuclei.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Four quite separate points:-

1. One factor to consider when putting a University Education onto the balance is this: who stands to benefit most from a University education? The answer may be: The Universities.
In some cities, the Universities are the biggest growth industry, and they are thriving on that growth, in much the same way that the Real Estate and Financial Services sectors were until 2007. They are building and need people to fill those buildings. Their interests are not as benevolent and student-focussed as some might wish.

2. I would recommend a University education to anyone who has a passion for learning and knowledge. I would not be confident in making such a recommendation to anyone who hopes it will lead to better paid employment (that is simply a gamble, which could be expensive and could fail). I would not recommend it to anyone who reckons its better than nothing / that it sounds fun / that it would be a way of making friends / that they'll work out what they want to do in the next year or two. All of these can be achieved by more direct means (and may be cheaper and may benefit the person in other ways).

3. On the side topic of Evolution and Religious Faith, can I add that these are not two mutually exhaustive theories? Personally, I find problems both with Creationism and with Darwinianism. There may well be a third, fourth or even countless other theories which map our path to appearance on earth (or even elsewhere). Its just a fact that we don't have many theories to go on at present, and those two have gained a lot of support - but lets not fall into the trap of assuming that if one is flawed then the other is somehow automatically 'proved'. It is not.

4. Science and Scientists have been charged with 'believing' and 'proving' things on here, and even with expecting 'us' to accept their beliefs. Sadly, Science is unable to prove anything, it can only disprove.
(See K Popper, R Feynman, T Khun)
We shouldn't blame ordinary folk for expecting this of science, because it is we ordinary folk who keep asking for the explanations, but an analysis of science over time shows that it is a process of revisionism: it comes up with one set of theories, many are disproved leaving one remaining, then other theories are devised to join it, many are again disproved, and one remains. Science is a very dynamic set of propositions and few remain popular for long.

Hope this helps.

 

[Pumbaa]

an analysis of science over time shows that it is a process of revisionism: it comes up with one set of theories, many are disproved leaving one remaining, then other theories are devised to join it, many are again disproved, and one remains. Science is a very dynamic set of propositions and few remain popular for long.

I endorse this, and echoed it in my earlier post; it's a game of best guessing. I can't count how many ideas/theories/explanations have been disproved in the last year, let alone the last ten. Science is dynamic, but I usually get told off for using that word when discussing it, too pretentious apparently...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . Science is dynamic, but I usually get told off for using that word when discussing it, too pretentious apparently...

Don't be discouraged!
You could always study Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" very carefully and then abandon science and take up philosophy. That's a discipline which students are not flocking to study in large numbers - more's the pity.
(and its an excellent background to some disciplines including law and politics and useful in many other spheres such as history, literature, administration and computing). The friend of mine who studied Logic to degree level at Cambridge and then took up a career in the refuse disposal department of a Hampshire Council is not a good example!)

 

[All Line Rover]

Four quite separate points:-

1. One factor to consider when putting a University Education onto the balance is this: who stands to benefit most from a University education? The answer may be: The Universities.
In some cities, the Universities are the biggest growth industry, and they are thriving on that growth, in much the same way that the Real Estate and Financial Services sectors were until 2007. They are building and need people to fill those buildings. Their interests are not as benevolent and student-focussed as some might wish.

2. I would recommend a University education to anyone who has a passion for learning and knowledge. I would not be confident in making such a recommendation to anyone who hopes it will lead to better paid employment (that is simply a gamble, which could be expensive and could fail). I would not recommend it to anyone who reckons its better than nothing / that it sounds fun / that it would be a way of making friends / that they'll work out what they want to do in the next year or two. All of these can be achieved by more direct means (and may be cheaper and may benefit the person in other ways).

3. On the side topic of Evolution and Religious Faith, can I add that these are not two mutually exhaustive theories? Personally, I find problems both with Creationism and with Darwinianism. There may well be a third, fourth or even countless other theories which map our path to appearance on earth (or even elsewhere). Its just a fact that we don't have many theories to go on at present, and those two have gained a lot of support - but lets not fall into the trap of assuming that if one is flawed then the other is somehow automatically 'proved'. It is not.

4. Science and Scientists have been charged with 'believing' and 'proving' things on here, and even with expecting 'us' to accept their beliefs. Sadly, Science is unable to prove anything, it can only disprove.
(See K Popper, R Feynman, T Khun)
We shouldn't blame ordinary folk for expecting this of science, because it is we ordinary folk who keep asking for the explanations, but an analysis of science over time shows that it is a process of revisionism: it comes up with one set of theories, many are disproved leaving one remaining, then other theories are devised to join it, many are again disproved, and one remains. Science is a very dynamic set of propositions and few remain popular for long.

Hope this helps.

I agree with you there, Dave. You are definitely a thinking person!

On the matter of university, I will not be going to university. College, yes, university, no. I would rather have a JOB (preferably with Virgin, although I am keeping my horizons open) instead of being landed in around £100k of debt (there are more costs to university than simply the education!) after having earned nothing (cash-wise) for three (or more) years, and being forced to find a very specific job which I may not get.

Furthermore, the types of career that I want do not involve going to university. I would prefer to "work my way up the ladder" as it were (although no matter how good the pay is I will never go for a stressful job that involves being on call 24/7 - I prefer good health to money).

On the matter of evolution and creation, few people seem to know a great deal about either subject, and yet feel able to praise/criticize either one.

Furthermore, there are many differing views about evolution and creation - some views contain a "mixture" of both! - and these many different "views" could be considered to be different "theories" in their own right.

I would also add, if people don't mind, that the following types of people - a. staunch evolutionists who try and disprove creation by saying that it claims everything was created in six 24 hour days (!), and b. staunch creationists who claim that everything was created in six 24 hour days (!) - can both be quickly disproved by a brief look at Genesis 2:4 (in the Bible!) and a little research into what the Hebrew word "day" actually means.

I wonder if you have examined this, Dave, taking into account your clearly extensive knowledge of literary works?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Please don't go round quoting the Bible ALR, it's one of the most inconsitent books of all time...

As for the Seven Days thing, one the Seventh Day God didn't rest. He listened to Black Sabbath!

 

[90019]

Science vs. Religion - The standard practice of Religion, where there is something that is not currently explained, is to come up with some explanation for it, whether through a different interpretation, ropey logic or just making it up.
On the other hand, the standard practice of Science for something unexplained is that hypotheses can be made, but until something can be proved, the answer is; "We don't know".

The majority of Science is extremely interesting - at least up until GCSE level! I would never do Science A-Levels as that's getting a bit "technical" and I don't want to take it that far.

Higher Chemistry was fun, but then we did spend a lot of time setting things on fire, blowing stuff up and just generally damaging the brand new labs

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . if people don't mind, that the following types of people - a. staunch evolutionists who try and disprove creation by saying that it claims everything was created in six 24 hour days (!), and b. staunch creationists who claim that everything was created in six 24 hour days (!) - can both be quickly disproved by a brief look at Genesis 2:4 (in the Bible!) and a little research into what the Hebrew word "day" actually means.

I shall not be drawn into that dichotomy for the reason expressed in my point #3 above (ie 2 opposing 'descriptions' need not be mutually exclusive).

Also, I can say that I'm confident that the St James version of the Christian Bible can also be subjected to a similar analysis of revisionism as can scienticic theories. In fact, a study of the Bible's changes through transcriptions, editing, political influence, dynastic pressures and of course translation uncertainties, renders any attempt to consider the text as 'authoratitive' as a challenge.
The Talmud has escaped almost all of those challenges.

However, there are only two conclusions that I would want to suggest might be drawn from this:
a) textual editing, for all its critics, is the most robust tool we have for understanding what is meant from anything that is written, crucially including its cultural context and not the editor's belief system, nor that of his/her culture and time.
b) anyone interested in understanding what is known, what is knowable, and what may be known would do well to abandon belief and to study philosophy. Very hard. For a long time.

 

[LE Greys]

University is for those who wish to study a particular field, which they intend to develope into a career, or for people who want extra party time!

I have close experience with two views of university education:

1. I haven't been to uni, but the missus has. She is a Registered Nurse (in Australia) and while studying at uni worked in hospitals part time as a nurse's aid and in kitchens. The working experience was of as great value as the university education, which makes her a better nurse than one who studied the bare minimum. Uni is compulsory (and aught to be), but other experience is more important than is understood by those who set the parameters of educational requirements.

2. I'm sure that if I'd gone to uni and studied advanced subjects in my chosen field I'd understand more about my work (I drive freight trains in Australia), but I'm working it all out for myself...slowly! Uni graduates are sent away from interviews at my work for being "over qualified"! Yet an engineering, physics or mathematics graduate could bring some very interesting concepts to my industry, especially with the size of trains we pull...things start going exponential very quickly with trains a mile long and over 6000 tons, fans of Albert Einstein will recognise the theory I'm referring to here!

That's an interesting point of view. Physics isn't really my area, but I often find myself seeing biology everywhere, from what causes drains to block up to why food should be heated to a certain temperature. I suppose a railway application might be a question of what can grow safely on an embankment and what will undermine it. Wider experience is certainly very helpful. There was a major difference between students from cities and those from the country. City students tended to get the theoretical side very well, but were not quite so good as the country students with practical work.

Amazing how education threads always degenerate into arguments over evolution! Even Darwin, who's theory it is, only ever claimed it was a theory...let's face it, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

M

Because we are apes. Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Benobos share a common ancestor with us. Orangutans and Gibbons also, but further back in time. If you look at the standard phylogenetic system, it is very Homanid-biased. Primates represent a tiny portion of the Mammal class (one third of all Mammal species are Rodents) yet they are incredibly subdivided. There are only four species of African ape, yet each one has a separate genus, and they are divided into two families. An alien zoologist would probably classify all African apes as one family, with Homo sapiens in a separate genus from the others.

The apes we see today simply weren't around when Homanids first appeared. The average length of time a species appears in the fossil record is actually quite short, about two-million years IIRC. Some have survived remarkably long periods of time, but modern apes haven't. Fossil Chimps have been found, but the oldest dates to around the same period as Homo habalis.

 

[Grantham]

Because we are apes. Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Benobos share a common ancestor with us. Orangutans and Gibbons also, but further back in time. If you look at the standard phylogenetic system, it is very Homanid-biased. Primates represent a tiny portion of the Mammal class (one third of all Mammal species are Rodents) yet they are incredibly subdivided. There are only four species of African ape, yet each one has a separate genus, and they are divided into two families. An alien zoologist would probably classify all African apes as one family, with Homo sapiens in a separate genus from the others.

The apes we see today simply weren't around when Homanids first appeared. The average length of time a species appears in the fossil record is actually quite short, about two-million years IIRC. Some have survived remarkably long periods of time, but modern apes haven't. Fossil Chimps have been found, but the oldest dates to around the same period as Homo habalis.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but it's a theory with no evidence. I don't want you to attempt to prove it, because I actually don't care one little bit. I couldn't care less whether evolution or Genesis are correct, or a combination of both.

Anyone who wants to prove Darwin's theory of evolution here is on a flogging to nothing, as most of us are here to chat about trains. Ditto for fundie Old Testament types, they obviously don't understand Hebrew very well.

The same can't be said for the theory of relativity (E=MCsquared), as it has many railway applications and gets used every day by people who understand it.

M

 

[Barrett M95]

If you don't care one way or the other then why post at all?

People aren't in this particular thread to talk about trains. That is the whole point in "general discussion".

I have been engineering rail vehicles for many years and I have never used that famous equation or seen it used in any way related to railway engineering. What railway applications do you know of it being used for?

 

[All Line Rover]

Please don't go round quoting the Bible ALR, it's one of the most inconsitent books of all time...

All I'm saying is that if people want to criticize "creation" (which most people base on the Bible's account), you have to understand it first, and it's quite hard to do that without quoting from the Bible!

As I said earlier, certain people who feel more than able to criticize the Bible (aka David Attenborough) have evidently read very little of it - chapter one but not chapter two!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, I can say that I'm confident that the St James version of the Christian Bible can also be subjected to a similar analysis of revisionism as can scienticic theories. In fact, a study of the Bible's changes through transcriptions, editing, political influence, dynastic pressures and of course translation uncertainties, renders any attempt to consider the text as 'authoratitive' as a challenge.
The Talmud has escaped almost all of those challenges.

Who can be claimed for changing the Bible? THE CHURCH!

At least people today can now read it and can find any oddities for themselves!

 

[Pyreneenguy]

I didn't go to Uni full-time, I preferred having a job and continued study via day-release. Tough going, with only one full day and two evenings a week to reach a similar standard as those who studied full-time. There were however, many advantages: financially, I was relatively well-off and like most other people on the course, knew exactly why we were studying and more importantly, already had more than a foot on the ladder in our chosen careers. Employers too ( in my humble opinion) looked more favourably on staff who obtained their qualifications in this manner. After all, they were partly financing it through day-release and had a vested interest in their employees success.

There are many other alternatives to three/four years of study to obtain, what might in the end be a worthless yet expensive piece of paper !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As a foot-note :

I have absolutely no time for religion whatsoever. If some people find comfort in their beliefs, so be it , but there is one aspect of religion that I find totally abhorant and that is WORSHIP. It's strange, but some of the nastiest wastes of human-skin I have ever come across were regular church-goers ! I suppose one mustn't generalise but........................

PS If I was God and had created such a marvelous thing as the Universe, I certainly wouldn't be impressed by a silly group of people singing/clapping/praying to me, just to obtain my favour ?

 

[t o m]

I think for the sake of exams you just had to take some things in science for what they are. At school one of my science teachers used to be a vicar as well, strange combination. Here's an article about another of my science teachers...
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...p_placed_on_sex_offenders_programme_1_2772177