1. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #200897 by Galactor on June 28, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Oh and Steve, before you shuffle off your RDnet coil as it were, I think you'd make, judging on your picture, a damned fine cricket umpire. Or butcher. Ta taa!

2. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #200895 by Galactor on June 28, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Bye then.

3. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #200891 by Galactor on June 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Well, just watched our very own Richard Dawkins - planetary displacement expert - on Doctor Who; it was just like the video of Richard on the Stork video - dreadful!

Richard, I'm yer next to biggest fan (I think Robotaholic is the biggest) but keep to the science ejukashun - that's my advice.

4. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200235 by Galactor on June 27, 2008 at 6:28 am

The article "Theory of evolution" on Conservapedia is a blaster. It's laughable. The first paragraph, fifteen lines or so, is full of what I can only describe as irrelevant nonsense. It's very quick to identify "defenders of the theory" as being atheists as though the veracity of the theory depends somehow on anything other than evidence. I think their message is something like "atheists are trying to prop up an illegitimate scientific theory becuase they are in cahoots with Satan".

But you quickly find out the level of intelligence of the author when early enough you come across

there are many who are against the theory of evolution and state there is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution

Of course, this is unfounded assertion - the words "many" and "against" have no meaning at all and are just attempts to persuade you that there is serious contention to the theory. It says nothing about who this multitude is nor the suitability of them having a learned opinion nor the proportion of this number in relation to those who accept the theory (sane people, in other words).

At this stage, I expected to see a list of scientific reasons why the theory has "serious problems" but you get things like (and I paraphrase): "Americans don't believe the theory, the amount of people accepting evolution has declined, Britons also don't believe the theory and they want ID taught in schools". Staggering! The theory has serious problems, not because of any scientific reason but because of popular belief! I must say that I can't fault this - it's true that the theory may be in trouble because of the good work of the religious fundamentals who lie about it.

It goes on in the same disingenuous vein, misquoting and misrepresenting the truth. It mentions Newton for Thor's sake. Take this:

Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution

In other words, "shortly after the theory was proposed, people didn't immediately accept it". What scientific theory jumps from initial exposure to fully fledged acceptance? There is absolutely no relevance in this kind of remark and its aim is to merely say to a stupid audience: "the theory was and still is widely rejected".

Fucking LIARS!

5. A War On Science

Comment #199707 by Galactor on June 26, 2008 at 8:13 am

In response of comment #199688 by rationalE

Welcome to the site, I hope we all learn a little from any exchanges. Just some brief thoughts that I would like to share and in particular this "science is faith" tack.

I have "faith" in the constancy and consistency of nature. I "believe" (accept is a better word) that nature is predictable and reliable and that based upon this, I can make sound conclusions as to my perceptions of the universe. As such, supernatural events and explanations are things which I discard. However, this is not what I would call faith - I think my worldview is justifiable based upon evidence and it would seem that the universe has a degree of consistency that makes my worldview a fair one and religious faith - for which there is no evidence - unsound. I would be swayed in my worldview by evidence - in this sense, I suppose you would call me fundamental but I have yet to hear a good argument as to why this is a shaky position to take.

As regards the use of the word hatred, I think disdain would be more applicable and closer to the mark.

As regards the advice to relax, I think we will do that when those having such a profound effect on mankind based upon ignorance keep their superstitious nonsense to themselves.

6. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197585 by Galactor on June 22, 2008 at 10:55 am

Most of the posts I have read, albeit correct in addressing the points of the DI's article, do not seem to understand what the DI is attempting to achieve. Of course, the content of the article can be summarily dealt with; Richard did so in in a few sentences and to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, the true nature of this organisation can be seen and the fatuousness and inanity of their complaint exposed for what it is. But that's not what it's about.

The message appeals simply to the xenophobia of the American population susceptible to this type of rhetoric. It's saying "look out Americans, our political system is being manipulated by foreigners and strident (I think this is a back-handed compliment, by the way) atheists!" In doing so, they are trying to make Forrest out to be some kind of fifth columnnist.

Again, the content isn't the point. The method is what matters. Of course, Richard is absolutely correct to react in the manner he has and that couldn't be avoided but I think we need to understand the true nature of the beast.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196215 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #196207 by advocatus_diaboli

So, why do witches burn?

They don't. They float. Or sink. I think.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196202 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #196190 by MPhil

this is a thread that has so many off-topic conversations that I don't think anyone will mind if we talk about this :)

(Note to all: If you do, let us know)

You guys are probably cleaning ladies in reality having chats in your spare time about existentialism a la Monty Python.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196197 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Comment #196183 by al-rawandi

Isn't it "Bejeebus"?

Now that is fucking pedantic... I am ashamed.

Al, don't worry, I was looking the other way.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196163 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 11:41 am

You'd think, would you not, that any theist trying their hand at RDnet would take one look at the posts of our resident philosophers and just conclude that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell in achieving anything here?

It certainly scares the bejeesus out of me.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196154 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 11:19 am

One thing that strikes me about some of the remarks of the more scientifically challenged is the propensity to postulate nonsense as if it should be treated with credulity. Things like "what if we found something that was IC!" or "what if an angel appeared before you?"

It's the same type of fallacy as saying "what will you say to God when it turns out he does exist as though this increases the liklihood of him actually existing.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196137 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 10:44 am

Phil Rimmer, now you mention it, my mum used to say that too. I'm serious. She had a few of these valuable sayings like "a fool and his money are soon parted". You know the sort of thing.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196135 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 10:41 am

Phil Rimmer, are you calling me a fool? Are you implying I need to be taken down a peg or two?

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196128 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #196123 by phil rimmer

Aaaah, I love it when a plan comes together!

Great minds think alike.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196121 by Galactor on June 19, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #196102 by tris

Not particularly, no. ID proponents (and their loathsome creationist kine) such as Behe have been putting forward examples of 'irreducibly complex' forms for some time now, only to have each and every one demonstrated to have a natural explanation.

I agree that they have not come up with anything to date. I am also quite happy to agree that the odds of them finding something are becoming increasingly remote. That does not obviate the question though of "what will the scientific response be if they ever *did* actually find something that could be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex"

I think your remark requires alignment, if it might be permitted to do so. There are no odds shortening on someone finding something irreducibly complex. As soon as you understand the paradigm of the scientific method, it is very easy to see how the odds have been zero from the very conception. It is just not possible to ever conclude something as being IC. You will always be left with the nagging feeling that there may be a way that something looks to be IC but we don't know the mechanism (yet) by how something has naturalistically evolved and we may never know. That's the whole problem with ID and IC and the beauty of evolution.

ID is saying 'we don't know, god did it.' It is not an explanation of anything. The only way you could prove ID is to prove the existence of the god (to call a spade a spade) and subsequently demonstrate their specific, deliberate involvement in the creation of that structure.

Again, I agree with you, but ID does not necessarily imply a deity - or even a specific deity (Yaweh for example). The question I ask is what will the consequences of an irreducibly complex structure imply for science as a whole?

I think you have lost sight of what ID is supposed to be. It has nothing whatsover to do with science; it isn't meant to be. It is an attempt to dress creationism up as science so that it can be presented as such in an attempt to gain it a level of credibility. There will never be an IC structure - you might as well ask "what will be the consequences of discovering the flying spaghetti monster for science?" - they are unlikely events.

16. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #192043 by Galactor on June 12, 2008 at 11:23 am

In response to comment #192026 by Shmeezers

My problem is the dogmatic adherence that our mdoern [sic] scientific establishment has to Darwinian evolution, despite its (not scant) shortcomings

Do you also have a problem with the "dogmatic" adherence that our modern scientific establishment has to Newtonian Gravity?

What shortcomings are you talking about? If they're not scant, you should be able to rattle of a list in no time at all.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191565 by Galactor on June 11, 2008 at 8:38 am

Keith, read Morton's demon (if you haven't already) at

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

Of particular relevance to your remark is the final comment made by the (partially reformed) victim himself

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

Cheers, 'lactor

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191543 by Galactor on June 11, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #191537 by The Reverend Dark

I don't particularly like the 'demon' analogy

I was kind of hoping you would and now I'm hurt. Oh well, the universe is pitiless and blind. I'll get over it.

The points you make, not just in your last post but in this and other threads are observations I generally agree with and perhaps there is a good case to continue making them but I think, for the intended recipient - they have no impact whatsoever (for other readers who might believe there is some contention, I would hope there is some good in you all making the points you (and I) do (did)).

Of course there's denial, obfuscation, sophistry - all washed down with lashings of personal incredulity but the whole, erm, intercourse with txpiper brings images to me of a group of inexperienced psychologists arguing with a lunatic who believes he is Napoleon by proposing that he is wrong because Napoleon was getting his leg over Josephine and he doesn't know anyone by that name.

A different tack may be warranted.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191529 by Galactor on June 11, 2008 at 6:24 am

Dear respected RD-internet friends,

I wonder if I might interject in this thread (I've tried raising some points myself but to no avail) but it seems to me that txpiper is suffering from the well known malady described as Morton's demon. Whatever you tell him, whatever evidence you provide - it matters not because there is a demon shutting the gate whenever information that might contradict the views that this demon desires him to hold. The information is not getting through and I contend that no matter how logical it is, no matter how plausible, sensible, comprehensive and undeniable, it never will.

txpiper, it is time that we stop demonstrating to you that you are not Napoleon and that you start exploring that idea that your mind is under the control of a malicious demon (a conceptual one, I hasten to add) that blinds you to accepting what is the scientific consensus.

Check Glenn Morton out - a former creationist who managed to introspectively determine how he was being controlled by the creationist meme.

20. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191428 by Galactor on June 11, 2008 at 12:13 am

Comment #191386 by black wolf.

In Dutch, the sentence is even more abstract:

Als achter vliegen vliegen vliegen, vliegen vliegen vliegen achterna.

(If flies are flying behind flies, then flies are flying behind flies)

21. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189353 by Galactor on June 6, 2008 at 5:30 am

In response of comment #189201 by Titania

I dub thee Dawkin's Terrier

I think Dawkins' galoot would be more appropriate. Certainly nothing that yaps. Dawkin's Labrador perhaps? Something more sedate anyway.

Track them down in their dark and dreary tunnels of twisted logic that lead no where and drag them back up to the sunlight of reason

H'mmm. Very poetic.

A bit corny, Galactor, but you did ask for adulation?

Did I say "adulation"? I meant flaggelation. Sorry about that.

22. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188671 by Galactor on June 4, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #188610 by irate_atheist

I see this is another fucktard infested thread. Ho hum.

No-one's called me a fucktard before. It hurts.

Comment #188617 by AllanW

... but mainly by the urbane and cultured writing of *Galactor*

Keep it comin' Allan baby, keep it comin'! I neeeed the adulation.

Comment #188618 by Steve Zara

Personally, I think there are arguments to be had with theologists

Say what?! Steve, we need a chat. Have you been to bible camp or something?

23. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188607 by Galactor on June 4, 2008 at 8:51 am

In response to djspideyspinster

With regard to

When did I inform this site that I hadn't read The God Delusion? Wasn't that some months ago? Perhaps I'm not the only one who has some catching up to do. Perhaps I could have read the book since then? Or perhaps I could be in the process of reading it right now? Or perhaps I have listened to Mr. Dawkins and his numerous debates? (McGrath, Lennox, etc.)

Whether you have read the book - which I doubt - your profile indicates that you have not and I checked prior to posting that you had not written to the effect that you have since read the book. It is not unfair of me to draw the conclusion. Of course it occurred to me that you may have since read the book but someone who feels it relevant to provide the link you did with the accompanying text, betrays the fact that they have either not read the content or have not understood it. You certainly haven't taken the trouble, given the date of the article, to establish whether Dawkins has met the charge made therein with a suitable response.

With regard to

Your criticism of Mr. Plantinga's argument that "Dawkins doesn't understand theology" reminds me of your argument that goes something like this: "djspideyspinster doesn't agree with Mr. Dawkins and months ago hadn't read The GD, therefore, ignore him

I do not understand how you conclude that these are analagous (if that's what you are driving at). What point are you making? I say nothing about ignoring you nor do I understand the relevance of someone being in disagreement with Dawkins - why should that matter? I do feel it warranted, however, to bring to the attention of those interested enough to read these pages, how disingenuous and ignorant your post is.

With regard to

I believe that the readers of these threads to be intelligent enough to discern who they want to read and respond to and who they don't. Do they require you to give them advice about how to handle those who post? I doubt it.

I agree completely with the first sentence. As regards your question, my answer has no doubt whatsoever - no, they do not require it. What's the point? It's a public forum isn't it? People can take it or leave it. What's the difference between you saying "go and read this" and me saying "don't bother; it's rubbish"? It's just advice and opinions and everyone's entitled to them. If the readers are so intelligent and don't have any respect for Galactor because he's been shown to spout nonsense, then where's the problem?

With regard to

)I don't respond to name-calling. That's called ad homenin argumentation, but I'm quite sure you already knew that.

I presume you are referring to my having classified you as a know-nothing. I am sure there are many things about which you know much and I can categorically state that there are many things about which I know nothing. The issue is that if you really believe that the document you reference is worthy of any merit then I suspect you have a long way to go before you are taken seriously in this forum. It's not about you, it's about the ignorance.

With regard to

I posted the link to provide an alternative point of view on The GD by a respected philosopher. Doesn't studying alternate viewpoints help further understanding? I believe that to be a good thing

I find this disingenuous. Your purpose here is not to provide material for debate. It is to goad and antagonise. In describing Dawkins you use quotes around the word brilliant in your assumptive question about how easy it should be for him to debate D'Souza. What on earth do you mean by that? Do you not think that derogatory? In your ignorance you take a swipe at Dawkins by saying that he should by now be coming to understand why his arguments are little more than proferrings from an undergraduate, picking out a quote from the document to which you link which does nothing other than denigrate Dawkins. You now have the temerity to suggest that you do so in the interests of study and debate. I think you are a liar and a hypocrite.

It is you, who should, after reading a bit more about the vacuity of the idea that theology is a serious subject, be coming to appreciate the true stature of these "respected philosophers" when they start to contend that God is not complex but that he can direct evolution. Pish!

24. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188217 by Galactor on June 3, 2008 at 11:26 am

I had a look at the reference by our goading friend djspideyspinster - it's from Spring 2007 and essentially it's one of those "Dawkins don't know diddly about theology so he's not qualified to talk about it" tracts of nonsense. It preceeds Dawkins' response to this kind of review of the God Delusion which can be found at

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent

and also PZ Myers' "Courtier's Reply" found at

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

It's unfortunate that djspideyspinster beliefs are so outdated - eight months by now. I suggest he does some catching up starting by reading the above references.

He believes that Dawkins should be beginning to understand how fatally flawed his (Dawkins) arguments are. As you can imagine, as Paul Kirby managed to demonstrate and as Dawkins himself has highlighted, detractors of his work clearly have not either read the God Delusion (as indeed djspideyspinster claims not to have - he also manages to state "It [declining debates] communicates a lack of confidence, in my opinion, which is contrary to the good Professor's book, The God Delusion" - but that's an aside) or do they understand it or have the capability to do so.

Well, as I say, I took a peek and after a few paragraphs I had read enough to conclude it unnecessary to read much more - such tripe is it. I'll paraphrase a few of the arguments one of which is essentially this:
" Dawkins makes the assumption that God is complex; he's wrong! Why? Well, a real theologian [presumably one that sophomore students would know] called Thomas Aquinas opined that God is simple. Sorry Dawkins, that's an F- for you!"
There's blistering irony in there too. The author says that Dawkins fails because his understanding of theology is weak. Yet, this giant dares to venture into the realms of science; he embarrasses himself doing so. Take this paragraph (the one about how God isn't complex - he's simple, Thomas said so):

So first, it is far from obvious that God is complex

and then this:

But how could the evidence of evolution reveal a thing like that [the evidence of evolution revealing that evolution is unplanned, unguided, unorchestrated by any intelligent being]? After all, couldn't it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution?

You really can't fit more bollocks in a hot air balloon: God is simple but he's able to direct and oversee evolution! You see the irony? "Dawkins, you're a theological know-nothing and you're not qualified to debunk God. Now, let me tell you all about what Professor Dawkins does know: evolutionary biology." It's laughable.
The very first lines had the bile rising in my throat. The article starts with a quotation of Dawkins' assessment of the God of the Old Testament, you know the one, the loving, caring, wonderful God of the OT? This is met by

Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)

Ooh the arrogance. The veiled threat (let's hope that Dawkins does get it from God, eh, readers?). The unfailing, undebatable and indefatigable inference that well, God exists and that's all there is to it. Do we find a reason why the OT God is such a bastard? I didn't take the time to find out but I expect that no-one has a credible, plausible answer and certainly not this reviewer.
So, my advice to you is this:
djspideyspinster is here to goad; he is a know-nothing; he claims to have not read the God Delusion but feels at liberty to make comments on it and refer us to rebuttals of it

the article is just an old argument already dealt with some time ago by others - read it if you will but don't expect a conversion on the road to Damascus; there's no new information and it's loaded with fallacies when the author ventures into the scientific realm

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187366 by Galactor on June 2, 2008 at 3:59 am

why genes that deliberately cause death and aging would have been added to our genome. My reason for asking about this is that in view of the amazing tenacity of life, this seems like an extremely queer thing for mutations to produce and selection to retain

Posing a question such as this word suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is all about. All organisms that have not been successful in passing on their genes will not have any descendents. If it's left too late to reproduce - death through aging is not the only end game - then there's also a risk for the genetic lineage to not continue. Organisms that don't dip into the gene pool and do some gene blending will ultimately be at a disadvantage.
Where's the selection pressure to keep mankind from growing old when there are far better reasons to reproduce quickly? There is tenacity for all life forms and it is being exhibited. Organisms (including humans) are 3.5 billion years old. That people die after having had the chance to reproduce says nothing whatsover about a lack of tenacity. It says everything about the genetic code having evolved to give itself the best chance of survival.

If you wanted to breed for age, we could do so. We could, probably in the space of ten or so generations, have mankind living to the age of 200. How? Don't allow parents to procreate until they are at least 50, then 60, then 70 and so on years of age. Those that survived to do so would be less susceptible to diseases and decay affecting age.

Of course, this kind of artifical selection is morally repugnant and there may be better alternatives if only the religious would allow us to investigate them.

That you, txpiper, don't know this, boggles my mind. You bring the touch of personal incredulity to me, you really do. I find it personally incredulous that you do not understand these tenets of evolution but that you feel at liberty to have us believe you know anything about it at all and that you are in a position to discard the evidence as though you have some serious training in the area.

26. Fossil reveals oldest live birth

Comment #186326 by Galactor on May 30, 2008 at 6:45 am

The scientists have named it Materpiscis attenboroughi, in honour of the naturalist Sir David Attenborough, who first drew attention to the Gogo fish fossil sites

I feel a better name would be Materpiscis taxdodgis Hovindi given that Kent once tried to push a bill through state law in Arkansas wherein he argued that there were no proven offspring from fossils. Just thought you might like to know.

27. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #186222 by Galactor on May 30, 2008 at 12:28 am

Comment #186205 by morgan06

I think the first response to the questions you raise is that there is no evidence whatsoever that people go to hell and suffer for eternity - i.e., it's unfounded to say so whereas natural processes are founded in observational reality, i.e., they have a basis of truth.

The second point I would make in regard of your observations is that I simply and strongly disagree with them. Of course a child's life - to the child, its friends, its parents and relatives - is massively significant. Of course there is purpose in life, of course there is morality. And so what if love and caring are evolved emotional states - so what? They are the ones you really actually have even though you might believe God gave them to you - he most likely didn't. Does that change how profound these feelings are?

If a child truly understands its place in the universe and its relationships to other creatures, it should hold them in a far higher regard than any child threatened with the fires of hell.

28. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184795 by Galactor on May 26, 2008 at 7:33 am

I've just had a quick look at the website of this authoress. It's quite shocking. On the section "About Us" there are some glaring spelling mistakes. Good gravy! A teacher for the life of Riley. There's a section about science:

I'm often asked about my qualifications to write science books. Though I began as a pharmacy major and completed three years under [sic] the University of Texas at Austin's Science Department, I later realized that my desire was to write and not fill prescriptions, so I switched majors. Thus, my degree from the University of Texas at Austin is in the liberal arts

Can you Adam and Eve it? It makes you want to weep. The section "Encouraging Articles" links to a page with the title "The Evolution Talk". Again, more horrific stuff as this science teacher blinds us with her amazing grasp of evolutionary theory:

One thing that is amazing about the fact that some scientists believe evolution is that there have never ever been any transitional creatures found between man and apes or dinosaurs and birds or fish and mammals. Though millions of fossils have been unearthed, none show a halfway or changing body from one creature into another creature. Yet, for two hundred years, some people have believed in evolution anyway.

Well, there goes Tiktaalik. This kind of nonsense litters the whole page. There's plenty of irony, too:

Scientists who don't believe in God want to believe in evolution. And when someone wants to believe something, it's really hard to change their mind. And once they have fully accepted it, it's hard to convince them otherwise.

Oooh, those scientists wanting to believe in evolution in favour of God and being so intransigent too.

I wonder if anyone out there has the time to send this lady a response to the tripe that can be found on her site. Her email address is available on the site. Maybe we could invite her to the forums and engage her in some gentle, polite debate.

29. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180640 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Diacanu, yes I was aware of this when I told someone it was "duct tape" they should be referring to and not "duck tape". They showed me the box and I tried to retain a level of credibility.

I can think of a really good use for ducktape - covering the mouths of creationists or winding it around their fingers so they don't post utter nonsense on websites such as this. Or would that be a violation of free speech?

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180625 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 12:03 pm

There's another good example of mutation. It is actually

ducttape

but it's morphed to

ducktape

and this is now common usage. Evolution - it's everywhere baby. Mutate - select - time.

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180621 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 11:34 am

Another message for txpiper regarding information addition in mutating genes, this time without using duplication. It's a belter, but check out

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Read it, weep when you finally learn that no intelligent designer is needed, learn to accept the truth and stop lying.

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180534 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 7:07 am

Message to our creationist friend txpiper as a follow-up to the analogy by Dr Benway (or is it Dr Zeuss?) and txpiper's response.

Here's a gene:

cat

Here's a duplication:

catcat

"Aah", says the evilutionist, "there we see some information content being added. More genetic information!" To which our creationist says: "No, no, cat being said twice is no addition my hell-bound friend."

At which point a mutation takes place:

cathat (beginning to get the Dr Zeuss reference?)

The evilutionist gladly points out how we now have the makings of a nursery rhyme.

There is a creationist response to this progression but I can't remember it. Oh well.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180529 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 6:59 am

I have come to the conclusion that the terminology "Lying for Jesus" is somewhat wide of the mark. I think that most religites/creationists actually don't believe they are lying.

In fact, I think a better description would be "Being stupid for Jesus" as this is the trait I generally see in the comments made by our religious "brethren". And you know what it's like with stupid people - they are sometimes so stupid, they don't realise how stupid they are!

Yours intelligently and smugly, Galactor.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180523 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 6:51 am

Comment #180507 by Phillip1978

Which just goes to show that evolution must have happened with all those names in Latin.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180521 by Galactor on May 15, 2008 at 6:44 am

Comment 180424 by txpiper

I mean information that either adds complexity ...

I am afraid this is still devoid of meaning and definition. What is "complexity" in this case? It could be argued that some "simple" organisms are more "complex" than humans but it is meaningless. What is it about genetic mutation having to sometimes deliver more complexity? Before I can debunk you, I need to pin down what you are stating and it is currently very imprecise.

For instance, somewhere along the way, some reptile(s) are supposed to have acquired mammary function. This is not a simple system, particularly since it involves specialization in both parent and offspring.

This says volumes to me, particularly the bit "this is not a simple system" as though this has any relevance. Evolution doesn't do big jumps and saying that mammary glands aren't simple, whilst true when measured against what humans can comprehend, has no bearing on how mammary glands gradually evolved from simplistic beginnings via mutation to fully fledged breast also given the co-evolutionary aspect of offspring. Presumably you believe that the chicken and egg disprove evolution.

Then this:

You guys think that mutations produced all of this incomprehensible sophistication

The answer to your difficulty - one of personal incredulity (incomprehensible? sophistication?) was to be found in a post by one of "us guys", namely Peacebeuponme:

Gene duplication is but one way

It is this mechanism, gene duplication, combined with mutation that makes "increases in complexity" - whatever that means, possible, and like s/he says, it's been observed.

You then ask

Can you describe a logical sequence of DNA replication errors that could [have] produced the system I just mentioned?

to which I freely admit, not really, but then this isn't descriptive of what happens or what is claimed to happen, is it? You perhaps should have read what followed my post:

In other words, mutations are not occurring on a serial basis, but in parallel

Your other statement:

Because the serious and solid evidence is very un-profound

Well, I have just been laughing and laughing at that one. I think I know what you are trying to say - you're at odds with the evidence although my final question of my original post was what I was getting at: on what basis are you able to dispense with the evidence? Are you producing papers and research of your own? Do you have plausible alternatives?

I wonder if you meant something like: "the serious and solid evidence is not religiously and spiritually profound enough (given my upbringing)for me to accept it" but at least you accept it is as being serious and solid. Most creationists I have ever read would never admit such a thing. It seems a bit Freudian in any case but you would agree that it counts not whether something is profound or not in terms of whether it is true or not?

You may care to look up the following link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

This idea about complexity and information is, as you should know, a creationist ploy that tries to hoodwink the layman into concluding that evolution couldn't account for complex things. Serious science has long since laid this notion to rest and most non-technical people here at RD.net accept that evolution is the only plausible way to account for complexity arising from simplicity. Duplication, mutation, selection, time. I would love, as would others, to hear your alternative hypotheses to account for the evidence gathered about the "descent" of species.

There are tons of rebuttals to the creationist "increase in information" canard. Go find 'em cowboy.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179298 by Galactor on May 13, 2008 at 4:52 am

txpiper wrote:

I disagree with the idea that a copying infidelity is going to result in the formation of novel genetic information

Can you please define "information" within the context of genetic mutation? You use the word "novel" but do you mean "increase" or "useful" or "beneficial"?

Can you state why you do not accept that this (the process of copying mistakes and its consequences) is not just an "idea" but actually has serious and solid evidence backing it up?

Can you state why you "disagree" with it? On what basis are you able to do so?

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171285 by Galactor on April 28, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #171083 by DickDawkins

What I don't get is why atheists don't admit that atheism is a religion. You guys have your messiah(Dick Dawkins)

We already have, Dick. See my post on

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page74#167672

Points 7 and 8 cover your observation adequately and we prefer it if you use a capital "M" when talking about the Messiah.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167672 by Galactor on April 24, 2008 at 8:54 am

To all theists and particularly those from the Expelled website, finally on behalf of all atheists, some admissions. We atheists can no longer keep on lying this way. The arguments and views of a few theistic posters in this thread has just meant that we have to come clean - their logic, reasoning and knowledge is astounding and we are no match for it.

1. we accept that evolution is a lie; all other bits of science that don't contradict God are probably OK though;

2. most of us *do* actually know that God exists (and let's be clear about this, we mean the one and only Christian God - Allah, Zeus and the rest are for us just ways of teasing Christians), i.e., we know he exists, but we just don't like him and therefore we have decided to "pretend" he doesn't exist to really piss him off so that when we all die, endless burning torture awaits us; we're strange like that.

3. we also hope to drag more and more people into the fires of hell so as to really upset God;

4. we accept that ID is sound science even though no-one really knows what it is; ID is the best way we have of explaining the complexity of biological organisms although we are so attached to evolution that we just won't consider alternatives; we're so intransigent like that, aren't we?

5. the film "Expelled" has really got us worried. Finally someone has comprehensively managed to expose us for what we are; Nazis. That's right, we now finally admit that Darwin was himself a Nazi and he invented Darwinism to be able to put an antitheistic philosophy into the world so that we could destroy weak people and live out a worldview that pits the fittest against the weakest

6. most atheists I know eat their babies - certainly other people's babies and I know a few who live nearby to me that wouldn't baulk at a limb or two of their own offspring; this just goes to show how ridiculous the theory of evolution actually is and if you ever needed proof, here you have it.

7. As an atheist, I would just like to admit that atheism is indeed a religion; every night, before I go to bed, I pray to the great Void of Nothingness asking for Him to pervert the minds of those who don't believe in His (and it is definitely a male) non-existence;

8. Also, Richard Dawkins is the atheist Messiah soon to proclaim his earthly embodiment;

So there you are, the cat's out of the bag now. You've found us out with your in-depth probing and consumate knowledge. I begrudgingly congratulate you knowing how pleased Jeebs will be with all of you.

39. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165051 by Galactor on April 21, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #164800 by BillG

One wonders upon what basis do you delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory?

I think the question is misplaced. I think you allude - I could be wrong - to the areas in which Darwinism could be applied as being of a social or humanistic nature. I think you miss the point.

Here are some examples of areas where Darwinism could be applied:

development by bacteria of resistance to antibiotics;
prediction of the form of a specific organism in a given geological stratum;
explanation of the diversity in nature and its complexity and apparent design.

Here are some examples of where you might be improperly applying Darwinism:

calculating the amount of fuel needed to send a rocket of a given mass to the moon;
predicting the orbit of a meteor in the solar system;
establishing the load bearing requirements of a new building.

What examples might you wish to present that are properly or improperly applying Darwinism?

40. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165038 by Galactor on April 21, 2008 at 1:10 am

If you could factorise the metrics "room for misunderstanding terminology" with "undesirable effect due to misunderstanding" I would not be surprised if the term "survival of the fittest" came out on top. For anybody reading these threads who has some fear of what "Darwinism" is, I recommend you take time to understand exactly what this terminology means whether it was a phrase coined by Spencer or Hitler's mother.

Nowadays, fitness is a word we attribute to athleticism; it has an aura of perfection or desirability that we likely derive from marketeers. Back then - when Spencer wrote to Darwin, the word fitness meant something more like "suitable" and the judge of this suitability was nature herself. Did an organism "fit" into the environment or was it the square peg in the round hole that would lead to its demise. And it was about *natural* selection - nature doing it's stuff without mankind guiding it.

Mankind (and other species) has *evolved* to incorporate the qualities (good and bad whatever that may mean in your own measure of morality) that religious people seem to believe must have come from outside of nature.

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163239 by Galactor on April 18, 2008 at 5:03 am

In response to comment #162845 by fdi150

I need some help in understanding my origins

This is clearly not your reason for posting; you are attempting to discredit the theory of evolution by drawing attention to - what you feel - are inconsistencies in the theory. This makes you a liar and on a thread concerning "Lies for Jesus", I find the irony amusing. Your observations are long debunked and your addressing them here is contemptible, laughable and derisable.

... concretely know beyond question

Scientists would never contend that anything is absolutely beyond question; the theory of gravity is not beyond question although if we are to observe things falling upwards, we would not likely abandon the theory - we would amend it. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have and if it turns out wrong then we are going to need a new explanation. The "explanation" you have I presume would not be worthy of serious consideration. Do you have an alternative to evolutionary theory? I wonder how you would answer this given how ID darlings like Behe accept the general tenets of evolutionary theory.

what makes science perfect is perfect results

Utter tripe. This is not how science works. There are many unanswered questions in many theories; theories will be abandoned or replaced or refined based upon evidence. The prevailing consensus amongst serious scientists not encumbered by a need to fit evidence into their pathetic needs for maintaining bronze aged myths is that evolution has happended and is happening on a micro and macro scale. What on earth would be their reasons for wanting to conclude otherwise? Their need for an atheist worldview?

Without such perfection, the realm of science fiction opens up and your guess is as good as mine

More nonsense. Science does not need to be perfect to allow us to apply it with staggering results. Quantum theory is not complete but it provides us massive and accurate predictive capabilities. The PC that you have used to place your post is testimony to this: quantum tunneling in the substrate layers of the microchip. Gravitational theory is not complete nor perfect but we can "fly" to the moon and come back. Evolutionary theory is not complete nor perfect but we can see macro evolution in nature. Only an idiot would deny that macro-evolution occurs. It is the usefulness of the applications of science that are of importance and guessing or numbers plays no part.

Why is a theory presented as a law?

Why is the theory of gravity sometimes presented as the law of gravity? Because the evidence supporting the theory suggests that it is so well founded and unlikely to be disproved, after all the efforts to disprove it, that we should accept it to be factual.

When laws, such as thermodynamics, have such a hard time with the theory.

There is no issue whatsoever with the second law of thermodynamics (to which I presume you refer) and evolutionary theory. This is a creationist myth long ago debunked by serious science. It's a shame that Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who did so much good proper science during his time in the 19th century did not know enough to be able to make the conclusion modern scientists now make given further evidence. With the same evidence, Thomson would no doubt have drawn the correct conclusions. Creationists, however, seem unable to move with the times and remain in their backward worlds.

I guess religion is practiced on both sides of the debate because an element of faith ultimately is needed for either to make sense

The above should have already demonstrated how your guess merits no further consideration. There is "faith" from a scientific viewpoint in how nature can be unravelled and the method of how to do so - hypothesis, experimentation, peer review. We accept, having no reason other than evidence, that nature has a degree of consistency and reliability but only because we continually observe this. I wouldn't call this "faith" - that's completely different - that's believing in something without and (presumably in your case) in spite of evidence.

Idiot.

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161192 by Galactor on April 15, 2008 at 2:42 am

Comment #160604 by Pintoman

I should say, Dawkins does believe in God, he just calls God "evolution." Evolution belongs in the same category as God. He can't prove evolution and he can't hand me evolution. Evolution does not exist in the material world. It exists only in Dawkins mind. If you would all quit believing in evolution it would cease to exist.

Apart from the last sentence, this is just uninformed, uneducated tripe. You may find it unpleasant to be the subject of derision but this is what you deserve when you make these kinds of assertions. You are a know-nothing. There is nothing wrong with that until you start asserting your ignorance as being worthy of discussion and meriting serious responses.

If you are interested in debate and discussion or making an impact on the beliefs of those who frequent this site, start asking questions or providing substance to your assertions. Stating something like

Evolution does not exist in the material world

is laughable. It shows you up as a backward ignoramus.

Your last sentence: "if we stop believing in something then it ceases to exist". How do you evaluate your own statement in light of the following observations?

Not having belief or knowledge in something does not affect to the slightest degree the fact that this something may or may not be true.

If we stop believing in gravity then gravity will no longer exist.

Sometime in the future, someone will discover a new fact about the way nature works. That we do not know, yet, what this fact is, does not mean to say that it does not exist.

Do you feel that what you have said is credible?

43. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160595 by Galactor on April 14, 2008 at 8:13 am

He is simply arbitrarily knowledgeable and powerful ... Death needs time for what it kills to grow in. God needs time for what He grows to show Him

You just can't argue with this kind of logic. Arbitrarily? Why? How do you know? Do all theists agree with you? Doesn't it say so in the bible that the big guy is omniscient?

Whatever gets you through the day man.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160577 by Galactor on April 14, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #160534 by Pintoman

Your comments show you up to be a know-nothing. A "Darwinian Society"? What the hell is that? Is that the society of the religious right in the USA where there is no decent medical care for the have-nots and poverty is rife amongst their citizens?

Darwinism - the scientific theory of how natural selection acts upon randomly mutating organisms.
Gravity - the scientific theory of how mass exerts force on other mass

Darwinian society - a term adopted by lunatics who didn't understand the first thing about what Darwin's theory is that is used to describe some sort of life based upon a fight for survival that has no bearing on reality and has absolutely no relevance at all to the theory proposed by Darwin.
Gravitational society - about the same level of drivel that can be found in your comment.

Dawkins is saying that mankind has grown out of the genetic forces and compulsions that drive the rest of the world's species to survive and procreate. He wrote a book back in 1974 - the Selfish Gene - that explains this: gene's are selfish but humans have outgrown this selfishness and have evolved compassion & decency.

What's hypocritical about someone who "studies" the natural law of Darwinism (i.e., not the bullshit about its social mis-application) saying that they don't advocate a Darwinian society - whatever that is?

Twit!

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158453 by Galactor on April 10, 2008 at 2:41 pm

They're either one and the same or some coordinated attempt at trolling, meethinks.

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158450 by Galactor on April 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm

It's the last paragraph I like, all about sarcasm, ad-hominem attacks and *then* hypocrisy would you believe.

The irony of it all.

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158445 by Galactor on April 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Many Christians never think much ...

Yep. That's about the only accurate wording that I could find in this tripe.

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156014 by Galactor on April 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Just had a quick scout for our latest hypocrite:

http://profiles.yahoo.com/sdbranum

Check it out.

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149268 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 11:11 am

Not so much the rules, but the rules of the survival of the fittest. These Darwinists - once they get a hold of you, they shake, tear, snarl and watch as your very essence makes way for the new scientific know-all.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149265 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 am

Steve, it's all too late. Now it's been established that I am cleverer than you, any attempts to backtrack and regain some semblance of respectibility and credibility will serve against you - you know how this crowd are.