1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181536 by MaxD on May 17, 2008 at 11:27 am

Txpiper,
Its no fence. I know you need desperately for the whole of science to be wrong. I also know that from your arm chair you in all your wisdom have figured out how every single branch of it wrong. But this point about abiogenesis is an important and requires distinctions.

We are still not sure about what happened in the early formation of cell precursors. We have good research evidence that suggests that the problem isn't insurmountable. For instance from raw nonbiotic precursors self-replicating RNA can be spontaneously generated. However we still do not have a complete picture of the formation of life (which wouldn't necessarily fit the modern description as we don't describe things like viruses as life).

Darwin himself was not concerned with the formaion of life as you will not know or remember. He was concerned with the maintainence and development of biological diversity and adaptation. You will want to look up the "There is grandeur in this view of life..." quote.

Txpiper you are not well placed it doesn't seem to make the strange pronouncments that you do.
You have been pointed to to studies that show your statement:

However, most mutations are deleterious, and cause many of the genetic diseases that we are discovering today."

to be something of a creationist canard. Or in a more generous light a simple mistake or misunderstanding.

Big alterations are almost always deleterious. But smaller moves tend not to be. I suggest you look at the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, or work on adaptation in Guppy camoflauge. You will find your faith that evolution is impossible or that genetic mutation is incapable of producing the necessary changes severly shaken.

I am tempted ot suggest that you are immune from logic and reason though because I've seen that you are also in possession an avid escatological mind. And what always impresses me about such minds is the tenacity to which they resist contrary evidence. That is all that impresses me about such minds by the way.

2. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #181526 by MaxD on May 17, 2008 at 10:55 am

It is good to see the way church based morality helped keep this Christian on the straignt and narrow. I mean with out religion, God and the bible what could possible influence someone to behave lawfully and morally?
Its obvious isn't it?

3. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181397 by MaxD on May 17, 2008 at 6:22 am

ASmargues,
What a gross misrepresentation of the Shermer's chapter on Holocaust denial in Why People Believe Strange things. He has pegged your argument thus far down perfectly. "No holes, no Holocaust." You seem to be neglecting the fact that there are vast amounts of other evidence that points to a more or less systematic attempt to eradict European Jewry.

Shermer does not engage in any ad homs against the deniers, though he is curious about the groups that do it. It is deeply curious that most have an anti-semitic ax to grind. While the rest of the historic community, the part that is more or less secular and neutral on Jews finds the evidence compelling in favor of a Holocaust that not only targeted Jews, but homosexuals, gypsies and slavic folk.

I'm not a historian, but from what I understand it works much like any other historical science. And since the Holocaust is widely accepted as a historical fact by the establishment after as many years as have passed lends some credibility to the view that it happened. Proving otherwise is going to be hard work. And you cannot adopt a conspiracy theorist's approach of only taking the data that supports your own thesis while ignoring the rest.

4. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181394 by MaxD on May 17, 2008 at 6:08 am

Bucketchemist,

Secondly there is rational in the adaptive, social, cultural sense, in which it is understood as behaviour which ensures genetic survival (religion is what the rest of my social group practice so my practicing of it is rational). It seems to me that one of the tasks of scientific enlightenment is to bring these two understandings more into alignment.

I see where you are going, and I am not sure I disagree but just to be pushing the definition here goes. Is rational the right word for what likely amounts to an instinctive urge to go along with the social order in which you find yourself? I think it may matter what exactly is driving the behavior in these situations.
Is it the more calculating regions? Or is driven by other less consciouss aspects of the brain?

5. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181326 by MaxD on May 17, 2008 at 12:22 am

BucketChemist,

I think you are right, but I think the other posters here are using the term to describe the thinking at an earlier tier in the reasoning chain. Certainly, if I am a believing Muslim say (not the focus of this tale of woe) and I have come to faith in the Koran, and Hadith then it may indeed be rational to slaughter my children. However is the belief rational given the evidence? In the case of my example, or any other religious example of which you can think, the answer will likely be no. I of course cannot speak for everyone but if I were going to say religious practice X is totally irrational, I am really talking about their first principles.

I think you make an excellent point though.

6. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181319 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Bonzai,
I happily will.
For the record though I am not trying to defend Dershowitz. I am simply suggesting that the charges Lastgreekstanding made against Sam Harris, were silly. Dershowitz could be a card caring member of the neocons but it wouldn't make Harris one. I happen to have Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and We the Living on my shelf right now on my book shelf. I would recommend the first and the last to anyone (why the fuck anyone recommends Atlas Shrugged is beyond me)are you ready to toss me into the class with the Randians? (Bonzai, I know you aren't I am just refering to LastGreeksCharge.)

Keith,
I thought that bit about pulling out and magic peace would break out was one of the more unenlightened assessments of the region that I have heard.

7. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181247 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Lastgreekstanding,
I have not read the book the case for Israel. You are quite correct. But I have heard Dershowitz speak on number of issues-secular ones-and it seems that on the main point he is on the side of the rationalists and not as it happens a simple neocon.

If you say he is guilty of fabrication and plagarism you will have to provide some evidence of this instead of just making the bald charge. Produce some of evidence. And it still goes no where in proving your case that Sam Harris is a neocon.

8. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181051 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 11:07 am

I was told you south American gods had a reputation to keep up as tough non shit takers!

9. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #181047 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 10:59 am

Rickshaw,
An excellent point and one I think I am going to use in the Stupidity of Dignity thread.

10. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #181043 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 10:49 am

Bobby G said:

[Pinker]The concept of dignity remains a mess. It has features that undermine the possibility of using it as a foundation for bioethics.

[Bobby G]Sorry, but saying that the concept of dignity is a mess is clearly a stronger claim than the position you attribute to him. Similarly, to say that it can't be used as a foundation for bioethics is similarly strong.

Bobby G it is a mess and in your post about something you pulled out Kant's behind (to be fair he seems to have pulled it out first), that is Innate Dignity you proved better it than any of us could (but see my comment above for my take on that).

The problem with relying on many of the ancient's conceptions of virtue is that conceptually many of them are a mess. This stems largely, I think from the fact that they (older to ancient philosphers) didn't have a robust understanding of human psychology. The modern conversation regarding the germaness of virtues is further hindered by the fact that everybody has slightly different ideas of what things like dignity mean. If you think the concept is not a mess, and a good place to form a robust bioethics, you are going to have to deal with a concept that can contain offense at eating in public to rape depending on the person discussing it. Is it un-dignified that a woman show more than her ankles in public? What about the thong? Is that undignified? It depends entirely on who you ask. But the actual decision to go thong or ankle ought to lie with the person putting on the clothes and not be too wed to my tastes or your tastes or Leon Kass's tastes. If we respect a person's autonomy.

11. The amazing intelligence of crows

Comment #181037 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

Schmeer,
Already happened, see Animal Farm by Orwell.
Oh wait that is fiction.

12. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181034 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 10:32 am

I think Al has hit upon a sentiment in the conversion story that I don't understand even in ths slightest.
"God loved us first."
I mean doesn't the immense inconsistency of the Genesis tale, emboddied in that four word phrase, just kind of sit there glaring at anyone willing to take a closer look? This reading of the bible with moral blinders on never really makes sense to me. Why is it that simply because it is the creator of the Universe, in other words a very powerful being, his instructions to murder, his own divine acts of "retribution" are all okay? Insert any other name into the biblical accounts and people become more or less appalled. Zeus, Quetz, Ra, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, would not be so lauded (except by true believers I suppose) doing the same or at least similar things.
Saying God knows best buys you no leeway, no conceptual room to move either. Especially if you are one of those people who think of such a being as all powerful, all knowing, and all good.
The cognitive partitioning that must occur on this matter in the mind of the religious is truly a strange thing to behold.

I think Diacanu, Sharon and Keith are right though, what ever happened on that day in April was not enough, if it were he would have kept to his word and not returned here "anytime soon."

Richard Morgan if you are lurking and reading all these posts about you, maybe you could explain why you deleted the vast majority of your posts. I submit it was because you didn't want your knew friends to see what you have said, or your old friends to use them as tools in an argument. I think it was a more than mild act of cowardess. They are your posts of course and you may do with them what you will, but I don't think you should, if you are going to come back and chat us up (and you are also most welcome to do that!) that you should explain those actions.

13. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #180880 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 2:40 am

ASMarques,
Shermer has a much more extensive book on the subject called Denying History. You may want to check it out.

Also saying that Shermer is profoundly ignorant of the subject is not the same as actually proving it. I for one would love to see you demonstrate where Shermer is ignorant on the point.

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

Comment #180850 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 am

grillem,
Does the human race really have goals? I know some societies do. But does the race? Does nature have any goals for us?

15. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #180849 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 12:51 am

Bobby G. said:

First, let me have another go at defining dignity. As Kant defined it, if a person has innate dignity, this means that she has a "worth beyond any price"; in other words, because people have innate dignity, there are certain things you just cannot do to them. It is because we have innate dignity that there are deontic constraints.

Okay apply it, and prove that it is a more useful concept than personal autonomy as a basis for ethics. If a person has "worth beyond any price" what does that mean exactly? What if the woman who was raped in your overwrought story became with child from the assault? Say she was a month in a half into the pregnancy before she knew it. Decided she didn't want it. Does the foeteus have dignity yet? Or does it have partial dignity? It certainly isn't human in any of its thinking patterns yet. When does this commodity of "innate dignitity" apply? Pick a period in history and you find a different application of the concept. Whose dignity trumps whose? I smell a mess.

However, if you violate deontic constraints--if, for example, you rape someone--then you go against her innate dignity.

If I rape her I go against her worth beyond any price? Doesn't that sound just a bit goofy? And not terribly important. How are you defining worth? And how does this worth business become more important than the fact that the assailant has caused someone, pain, anguish, likely doomed whatever relationship they were in, and perhaps burdened them with a baby. In short what seems more important is the fact that their autonomy was violated for no good reason. This is a thing nobody likes, or approves of unless the most dire necessity demands it.

This does not mean that her innate dignity is gone, or even damaged; rather, you are treating her in a way contrary to how you should treat her given that she has innate dignity.

Whoa. This seems almost circular. Insert the words "worth greater than anything" in for innate dignity and I think it still makes no sense.

How is this worth established? Wouldn't someone damaged by, say, rape be less worthy than they were before? Wouldn't their worth be diminshed I mean? (Her mate will try hard not to think of it that way, he will try hard not to hold the rape against her but many times he will, and it will be come a sticking point that ruins the relationship. I bring this up because it suggests a problem with thinking in terms of worth and worthiness. Its not necessarily a commonly shared conception.)

Clearly thinking empathically is a way out of this trap of "innate dignity" and the concept of worth you want to attribute to it. Simply understanding I despise it when my own autonomy is violated, and when pain is inflicted on me and that other people are no different gets us closer to a more robust ethics.

Because of this violation, you lose acquired dignity--i.e., you're not acting 'up to' your innate dignity because you're violating the deontic constraints to which innate dignity gives rise.

The perpetrator of the rape is not acting up to his "worth greater than anything?"
By aquired dignity you mean what exactly?
My Oxford English Dictionary suggests, for dignity:
"the state of being worthy of respect."
Clearly you don't mean the second definition, "A calm and serene manner."
I suppose you could lump the third: "Pride in one's self.
Was the woman being raped thinking about, her "worth more than anything?" (And isn't this a kind of meaningless string of words that fill a gap in your knowledge about human psychology?) I am going to bet she didn't think about her dignity. I bet she thought more about her sense of betrayal, fear, what her mate will think, will she have a disease, a baby were she able to think of much of anything at all. These are all personal autonomy kinds of issues and capapble of being handled by our sense of empathy much better than our sense of worth.

As for the rationality comparison, I brought up it only to illustrate the following point: people constantly use 'rational' in an equivocal way; sometimes they use 'rational' to describe the kind of being something is ("man is a rational animal" or "I'm not sure I'd describe my six-month old baby as rational"); other times they use 'rational' to describe a belief ("theism is irrational"), an action ("smoking is irrational"), or a person's conduct on the whole ("it's just not rational spend your life pursuing money") or her entire network of beliefs ("The more I talk to him, the more I'm beginning to think he's really out there, just irrational"). Just because people do this, though, doesn't mean that the term 'rational' is "stupid" or "close to useless"; at worst, it means that people are sometimes or often less than careful about how they use the term, and that they should be clearer about the sense in which they're using it. So too with 'dignity'.

Here you are essentially echoing Pinker who thought the word dignity represented a real concept. What he positied though was that it was too maleable, and relative a concept on which to form a cogent and robust bioethics.

So far you've not demonstrated him to be wrong.

16. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180826 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 pm

I think a fun activies stop would be,
"Make your own Crown of thorns! Come for the day, but try to make the scars last a life time! After all the emotional ones our religion will last a life time too!"

Or how about this one....edutainment at its finest. See who is right, Biblical writers or Da Vinci. Nail actual cadavers to crosses! You pick the spot and solve Christianity's most boring riddle!

17. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180823 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Wow. I didn't think much of Starbucks but that they aren't changing their logo for some whiny assholes bumps them up a bit in my estimation.

18. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180820 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:26 pm

I tell you I think in the freshman year of every highschool in the US (and many other places besides) they ought to have a critical thinking course, and at least one of the texts they have to read ought to be Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World.

I think that might be a good start toward turning this shitty mess around.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180800 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Frankus,
I go with Caudimordax here.
A very conscise gut check. Nicely done.

However it will prove just as futile I think. Imagine Txpiper reading Williams, Adaptation and Natual Selection with out a creationist cliff's notes quotemine primer. Or something as effecient and lean as The Selfish Gene.

But since we don't mind pushing boulders up hills here Txpiper are my two cents. Were I giving it my advice might be to start with Matt Ridley's excellent text book Evolution followed by John Alcock's Animal Behavior.

An excellent introductory text on the whole of biology is the textbook by Raven and Johnson, Biology. These will give you the basic and intermediate concepts, and point you toward the primary sources.

20. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180773 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Teratornis,
You said:

Most of us are rational enough to understand prayer is a waste of time - but is ignoring the oil problem any smarter? Is jabbering about things like the Expelled movie any smarter than praying for cheap fuel? I'm serious here. If your house is burning down, what is your highest priority at that moment? Perhaps everything else can wait. After we solve the energy problem - if we can solve it - there will be plenty of time to worry about creationism, religion, God, etc. again. Before we call the religious stupid one more time, let's show some ability to be smart about energy.

I do always get skeptical about end of the world preaching. I am reminded sometimes of sweaty-faced preachers as they hold forth on things like revelations when you really get your grove on.

But this thread really is an appropriate place for you to post on the issue about which you are most passionate, so I am actually reading your posts on this thread. What I have to take issue with is your insistance that these other issues aren't important. As it turns out they are important skirmishes in the general campaign of unreason. If you think it would be a good idea to let things like expelled, ID in the schools get a foothold then not only are you a one issue trick pony, but you would not be very bright either.

Do we just let the forces of unreason march into our schools? Our governments? Part of the reason we get no traction on issues of dramatic ecological importance is because we've let unreason go unchecked for so long. We've let the virulent strain of American anti-intellectualism spread.

No, it is important to have these other discussions because it helps people understand how science works. On your advice we would only focus our attentions on this one issue and let everything else go. Do you not see why this would be catastrophically bad? Not everyone is an expert on this question, but they are expert on other questions. It is good that people apply their expertise where it is most needed.

Now I must get back to reading your tomes.

21. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180744 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:48 pm

What about Revelation Horror House!

Or abortionist hell!

Those would be super rides. Maybe instead of whack-the-mole they would have hit-the-male-children-and-all-the-non-virgin-women!

That would keep them coming back for more.

22. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180741 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Goldy,
If you want you may go
Comment #180675 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Comment #180653 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Comment #180629 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Comment #180530 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:05 am
You will see that I have actually succumbed to the beast! Not the one RM fell to, but the coarse language beast!

EDIT
Dammit! How do I make these things link up? Goldy just go to my comments there are some examples of my recent swear fits

23. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180736 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm

As guy who grew up Catholic,
It is a mixed bag here too. Not homogeneous, but tending more and more rightward as time goes on. that is an anecdotal reporting on my part. I wonder if that would be the kind of thing we could study.....
I bet it is.

24. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180733 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Caudimordax!
Perhaps you've hit the nail on the head.

Diacanu,
Did you read it. Have you recovered? Thoughts?
Please hold nothing back.

25. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180728 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:26 pm

I understood it was a goof on Al, I just was unsure exactly how it was all related to what was being said.

It [the grammar/punctuation thing]was never meant to be a sticking point. I just thought your meanings might be made more clear. I had said my piece and was content to have it accepted or ignored. I thought that much was obvious. However it clearly was not.
I mean did I ever point out punctuation or grammar errors after I made my post?
No.

I think you have unnecessarily continued to badger me on the point. I have said all I think needs to be said on the subject. It is all water under the creakey bridge as far as I am concerned.
I'll read your posts, if they aren't clear to me I will ask you to be clearer.
If you keep up with the negative tone I will be insulting and generally unpleasant toward you. Now you may not be intending to be negative but it is hard to interpret,
"When I want your opinion I will ask Anna." and some of the other things you have said in anyway other than insulting.
Anyway that about covers it for me.

You were saying something about Haditha I believe. Continue.

26. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180702 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

No I am fine. I appreciate your helpfulness.

27. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180700 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 3:14 pm

There are plenty of people here who I don't agree with but I am not bothered by that. I like that there are actual real difference of opinion and interpretation here. I don't mind the coarse language, though I of course would never stoop to its usage.

I am a little shocked at RM's strange act of prudishness. It was he after all who put up that flashing picture of the brazlian butt girl (the avatar that occilated from brazilian flag to tanned, thonged ass), and who managed to get a little too forward with some of our female members.

28. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180696 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 3:08 pm

And this was something I didn't really follow. Though it could just be me.

Wow you really are a tuff guy
you know slang for as tough as volcanic rock

Not sure what you trying to go for here. Joke gone awry?

And here I am unsure what you mean.

Max
If you cant make your way thru that I was completely wrong. I am so sorry

Are you saying you are sorry that I am unable to make my way thru the fact that I was completely wrong? Or are you saying sorry because I am missing the fact that you are saying it was you who was completely wrong. And you just want us all to get along?

On the camaraderie point, I should have said, from which you, maybe, felt excluded. That would have kept my mind reader status more under wraps.

29. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180685 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Here is one.
By the way TUFF guy

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
tuff1 Audio Help [tuhf] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"adjective Slang.
tough (def. 13).
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

And I just grunted out 9 reps with 50lbs so beat that
ass clown?

30. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180684 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Darwin's Badger,
I suspect you are quite correct and was one of his major problems, and was responsible for alot of his more overheated pronouncments.

31. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180681 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Goldy!
Be sure you want to spend that five minutes doing what you just asked. Do you really want to read it? Are you sure you've the stomach for the contents? Its kind of like watching a car wreck. Its something you cannot look away from but something you feel guilty for watching.

Best of luck!

32. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180677 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Here, here Darwin's Badger.

However, I think the likelihood of a retraction is somewhat unlikely given that he never ever retracted he and Lewontin's crappy, crappy treatment of E.O. Wilson. Or much of anything he ever said about sociobiology in general.

33. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180675 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Vergil,
You said,

I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly. When creationists criticize proponents of natural selection for believing that an eye just came about randomly, they are attacking a claim that the proponents of natural selection do not, in fact, make. They are misrepresenting the claims of natural selection. And when atheists criticize the Roman Catholic Church for asserting that evolution did not occur, they are attacking a claim that catholics do not, in fact, make.

I suspected that you meant something like this. However there are Catholics that do believe in things like a more or less literal interpretations of Genesis (they do tend not to be the preponderance of members of Cathol).
It certainly isn't one of my main points of critique when addressing the mass of their sillyness (lets face it, simply saying "Oh yeah evolution up to this point, but ensoulment here and a sketchier take on the bible isn't much better than biblical literalism, is it?) I don't think it is the main thrust of Catholic criticism here either. It may be and I've just missed it.

Allow me to correct a meaning of my own. I said:

Is it okay to believe in aliens in absence of evidence? I suppose, intellectually, it certainly would be. I think we can say, well, given the fact that there are 100 billion billion stars in the observable universe and the stuff of organic chemistry seems pretty abundant it would shocking if there were no life elsewhere at the moment we don't know.

What I meant to say was, Is it okay to believe in aliens in absence of evidence? No. I suppose, intellectually it would be okay to speculate on the probablities.......And I am all for things like funding the search and all.
I don't think what I was trying to say was clear enough in the above post.

34. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180661 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Al,
I'm not sure why folk say such things.

35. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180659 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Quetz,
Clearly.

36. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180656 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Awww come on SharonMcT, I could've swore I saw a bit of brilliant hand wringing in there. Amid the anguish I mean.

37. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180653 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Jayalenik,
Tosswad was in response to your tone, which wasn't very nice and just the tiniest bit smarmy. Negative tone can produce reprisals. You got a gentle one with tosswad.

Ah..and you are a mind reader too. You have me figured out. Clearly I just wanted to impress Annabanana. It couldn't possibly be that I was just thinking the same thing and decided to state it. Nope. Nothing that simple.

Clearly you say you don't give a fuck what other members think of you grammar or you bench press. I have my doubts. When several of us were joking around about excersize are you sure you weren't jealous of camaraderie from which you were excluded? Maybe you gave enough of a fuck to feebly attempt throwing of cold water on our fun with your worthless insults?

I was nice. But you had to go and inject all that negativity into the tone thus....tosswad, fucktard douchebag, oh and that funny diaper bit. About me minding my own business I'm unsure how that gets done on such a forum as this. Its not like I am butting in on a private conversation. We all seem to be talking to each other. Anywho I said all I really wanted to say about the punctuation thing in my first post. As I said you are the one who keeps crying about it. I even made a pretty bad error myself earlier, you pointed it out, I read through too hastily posted, and blamo had to eat my words. Happens. Who gives a shit? I'm not crying about it over and over and over. Like you.

EDIT: I corrected my mispelling of excersize. Any errors that remain are completely those of my editors.

38. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180641 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Lastgreekstanding I was going to respond to this thing addressed to Keith

Keith, you also wondered if...

"Now, if I understand this correctly you are saying that if the Yanks and the Brits pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan then there will be no more killings, is that right? I can't see any other way of reading it. Please let me know, on re-reading what you have written, if this is still your seriously considered opinion."

That's a 10-4, Keith. Over and out. :)

I think Muhammed Ali said it best when he said to a white college student (who had suggested that Ali not spend money because it had white faces on it)"Now, now, now you just talkin' crazy."
EDIT: I forgot the L in talkin'.

39. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180637 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Lastgreekstanding,

MaxD,

I didn't sign off as RT. lol That's RT's ending of his letter to the WJ. (See explanation in first paragraph above).

Sorry about the mistake. I don't think it was clear but I will certainly acknowledge my part in the error.

As for SH not being a rabid necon, what's that old saying? "Show me the books you read [or recommend] and I'll tell you who you are." Dershowitz? Bernard Lewis? Fuck! How neocon can you get!

Two books. I notice he has on his list more books by Dawkins, Dennet, and Diamond. All of whom are deeply liberal. Oh look Eienstien. Kind of liberal. Turned down office in Israel. And Marc Hauser strikes me as kind of liberal. None of which matters by the way.
I've read books and watched commentary by William F. Buckley. Found them interesting, not fully correct but challenging for all of that. Recommending a book isn't the same thing as agreeing with it completely.
Besides whatever Dershowitz may be I don't think you could call him a strict neocon.

And one more thing. Regarding RT, his areas of studies are evolutionary biology AND SOCIOBIOLOGY. He was more than ampy qualified to give the speech at Harvard. Why the censonship? Why the fuss?

Not sure what you are talking about here. I wouldn't have advocated censoring him, nor did I.

40. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180629 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Vergil,

It seems a bit hypocritical for posters to complain about creationists bringing up the old "chance" arguement because they misunderstand the Theory of Evolution, and then make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for believing in literal interpretations of the Bible.

Why does it seem hypocritical? If someone brings up the old "there is no way we can have come about by pure random chance" argument don't we have kind of an obligation to correct that error?

And if someone holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis I think it is probably okay to make fun of that. I'm not sure where this hypocrisy part you charge the entirity of the RD.net users with goes.

You also state:

There are plenty of things with which to make fun of The Church without creating straw men. Know thine enemy!

Yes there are. No straw men are being manufactured that I can see. We kind of do know the enemy, though I'd prefer we just call them the deluded.

That the "official church astronomer" thinks that it's okay to believe in aliens is, to me, a good thing. What scares me (among other things) is the current Pope's apparent step backward in promoting ID, as opposed to John Paul II's apparent acceptance of Natural Selection

My problem is that the whole fatuous enterprise hinges on this belief in absence of evidence bullshit.
"Its okay to believe in aliens," says Father Assbob. Well to hell with Father Assbob anyway. Does the evidence favor a belief in proposition X? I'd like to hear Vatican astronomer Father Assbob speak to that question. He won't because he doesn't like the word evidence or the conceptual rails it often nails one to.

Is it okay to believe in aliens in absence of evidence? I suppose, intellectually, it certainly would be. I think we can say, well, given the fact that there are 100 billion billion stars in the observable universe and the stuff of organic chemistry seems pretty abundant it would shocking if there were no life elsewhere at the moment we don't know.

The vatican astronomer might want to put his scientific training to use and speak like a fucking scientist.

As to Benedict's new, direction for mother church. It isn't really that new. John Paul II while feeling a bit magnanimous toward the sciences on the evolution point still inserted wildly unsupported and unsupportable dogma into his address on his "truth cannot contradict truth" crusade (in itself one of the dumbest phrases uttered by a Pope in quite a long time). This is just an example of the Catholic Church's long history of just making shit up to stay current, fashionable and acceptable.

41. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #180622 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 11:38 am

What a wonderful book this Irrational Atheist seems like it will be......
Uh...not.

42. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180616 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 am

Diacanu,
Take the plunge. You don't know what you are missing!

43. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180613 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:42 am

Quetz,
ugh.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180590 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 9:00 am

Txpiper enjoys just stating things as facts when he says stuff like:

Once again, the odds are stacked enormously against evolutionary ideas about mutations changing fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles and reptiles to birds and mammals.

I assume your extensive knowledge of anatomy, the geological record, and your understanding of molecular genetics makes you eminently qualified to make such pronouncements. Don't you ever scratche your head and ask yourself, hmmmmm why is it that the vast majority of ID/creationsist folk are religious? Why is it no researcher in their field is troubled by the creationist meanderings and strawmanderings?

The evidence favors Evolutionary theory. Sorry to say.
You dislike the use of some of these small organisms? Too bad. They are ideal for a number of reasons, short generation time and thoroughly understood genetics being only two.

To make that pitiful notion more so, only one out of millions of candidates are going to actually be involved in reproduction.

This is just rank ignorance. Many will mate, some will just mate more, or leave more successful offspring and thus do gene frequencies change. This is elementary population genetics. That you don't understand it suggests that you need to pull away from the creationist sites and look up some real science.

To think that the mutants would consistently be the lucky ones often enough to define something like the ten layers in the retina of the human eye is again, beneath ridiculous

Not when you take into account what I said above. Nor when you think that most animal, except for long lived big animals, tend to produce larger broods provideing plenty of experimental tweaking for natural selection.
Sad to say it but....
Txpiper, you're wrong again!

45. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180576 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:29 am

Sorry Quezt!
I'll call off the good professor.

46. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180571 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:16 am

Quetz,
Why are you enslaving mutant kind. I am directing a certain headmaster of a certain school for gifted youngsters your way and since he had no problem mopping the floor with the Shadow King, I think you ought to let his mutant people go.
Remember,
(Professor) X marks the spot!

47. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180569 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:12 am

quetzalcoatl,
Go ahead shoot one my way.

48. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180568 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:10 am

This is almost as bad as post-modernist speak. But at least we are only joking.

But Phillip1978 under any other circumstances yuiopqwert! would be completely out of line. But note Annabanna found it to be generally the case. This stems from her understanding of yomiqwerbnobs//$* which simply states, #rruertc?ferkFwarkoneunommmxz//.>
This is all elementary.
Al,
I do hope, avmnr03934g you buddy! wasn't directed at me. If so asdcxzqwe iujhnb!

49. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180563 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 am

Artful Dodger,

Quetzalcoatl, I'm sorry but you need to read Dawkins' words more carefully. He says on the one hand that "nature is pitifully indifferent".

This simply means there is no pattern of concern in nature for humans. Bad things happen, good things happen more or less randomly. It also means that the processes of evolution only maximizes the number of successful genes from one generation to the next. Actual human faculties of emotion, or the goal of having a long life are of no concern to mindless nature.

Is everything included in his definition of "nature"? If so, then there can be nothing IN nature that he can possibly invoke do give us either the inclination to "overreach" our selfish genes or the wherewithal.

Our "selfish genes" have gained an enourmous boost in replication by building organisms with a sense of themselves and importantly a sense of empathy. That is we understand that other people, indeed other organism aren't simply meat-puppets that fail to experience the same sensations and emotions. Recognizing this simple fact paves the way for all moral reasoning.

If his definition of "nature" does not encompass everything, then we are appealling to some quality or property that transcends nature, which is clearly dualistic and even mystical.

Here you are just reaching, or being deliberately dense. Nature has created system of empathy and intiutive psychology in people because it helped those who possesed it lever more of their genes into the future. That is all nature, as it is described in biology is "concerned" with. Of course it isn't concerned with anything. Dawkins has said else where, and I paraphrase, nature is simply about the survival of the stable.
In any event, what we have is the idea is that all people feel the same kinds of thing, everyone can be made to suffer, or be happy, or to love. We all realize that we don't like our feelings denied or trampled on so we often extend that courtesy to others of our family, and tribe etc.

It is mystical and mystifying because it appeals to an unexplained, unexamined "upper storey" which is exempted from the pitilessness and indifference that define nature. When he says that human being are unique, in what sense does he mean this? Well he says so quite explicitly. We are unique in the sense of having more highly evolved brains. But on what grounds does this allow us to no longer be dictated to by our genes, which are our "natural" legacy.

The main reason is that our genes built a system that was excellent for maximizing reproductive success in bands of about 100 individuals or more. Our genes built a brain with greater flexibility, while also giving us a nuanced record keeping system. We are unique in simply having a flexible mind that seems more attuned to building allainces, even in abscence of family ties than most of the other animals on earth. We are just fortunate to have a suite of adaptations that enable us to see larger pictures of the world and ourselves.

We don't think about reproductive goals as we build allainces, help friends or even strangers, or have sex (though in this activity we often think, man I hope this doesn't make a baby). It is just something we do because it feels good. Its lucky for us that all we have is the imperitive and not some goals attached to it. That allows our focus to remain on the things that effect human emotional states.

A bird could similarly ask, how is it that we dinosaurs so came to dominate the air? (Only a corvid would ever ask such a question.) The answer is somewhat simple and somewhat complex. The simple part is luck. Dinosaurs just happened to have a lot of characteristics that made the transition from land animal to sky master an easier one than it was for any other group. Pneumatiscized bone, probably they were warm-blooded, feathers. The complex part is the evolutionary and behavioral pressures/tendencies that actually led them to the air.

Are we thus moving into a territory where "nature red in tooth and claw" no longer prevails. What is that territory? Where is it, if it is not part of the natural realm, which is pitiless and indifferent?

I don't think so. Nature is indeed pitiless and indifferent, but it has created a few species that are not wholly so. We are one of them.

50. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180544 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:24 am

Tezcatlipoca,
Uh...that doesn't seem to wimpy. Meanie.