1. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263629 by Greyman on October 12, 2008 at 4:06 am

"There's a flaw in your theory, thus my theory must be the correct one, so there!"

2. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261979 by Greyman on October 7, 2008 at 5:54 pm

To be fair, ~manic-depressive, most of the typos do not appear in the original PDF file.  They appear to be OCR artifacts.

3. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261552 by Greyman on October 7, 2008 at 3:11 am

God usually achieves his purposes indirectly, through human agency. Particular people in the Bible or Christian history are normally the agents of miracles, whether Moses parting of the Red Sea, Jesus raising the dead, or Christian saints performing healings. Christian theology says that God is both beyond this world (transcendent) and yet also operates within this world (immanent).

Dawkins again shows his ignorance of Christian theology by taking an over-literalistic reading of the texts. He fails to see that in Christian theology there is a clear interpretative criterion for reading the Old Testament, and that is that we read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ.

The central clue the Bible gives us to the character of God is in Jesus. That is the place we should look first and we should interpret everything else in the light of him. The character of Jesus reflects the core character of the God of the Old Testament - patiently kind, endlessly loving, achingly compassionate, angry at evil, fiercely loyal. God desires us to worship him not because he is some insecure despot who demands that we cravenly bow down before him, but because for us to worship a God who is in himself love is in fact the best thing we can do. We worship God not because he needs it but because it is good for us.

So we are supposed to take Mosses as a demonstration of how god works through man to perform miracles, while simultaneously considering the Old Testemant to require interpretative reading.

Also, apparently, we are not to interpret the kind of things these old miracles might say about the character of god.  Let's not consider what kind of act that, say, seven plagues culminating in the slaughter of innocents, might be because Jesus reveals that god is patiently kind, endlessly loving, and achingly compassionate.

4. Dying of the Light

Comment #260732 by Greyman on October 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

5. Comment #260729 by sunbeamforjesus on October 6, 2008 at 1:00 am

Just sounds like another case of wishful thinking,get over it.This life is what we have,just make the most of it!

5. Mathematics and faith explain altruism

Comment #255914 by Greyman on September 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm

54. Comment #255496 by Silvia on September 27, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Their explanation of the Prisoner's Dilemma is completely wrong (the prisoners won't cooperate in the single shot game, because they have always the stimulus to cheat) and there is no novelty in this approach. The Prisoner's dilemma explanation for altruism is decades old and is used by several atheists. And how does it favors a Christian Agenda?

I think the argument goes something like this: "The bible says we should be altruistic.  Mathematics proves altruism is beneficial.  Therefore the bible is true!  QED."

6. Pope: Religion has a place in politics

Comment #254556 by Greyman on September 25, 2008 at 10:48 pm

35. Comment #254465 by alexmzk on September 25, 2008 at 5:41 pm

I get the idea that when Mr Ratzinger calls for religion and politics to be more open to each other, he's not calling for a politcal incursion into religion.

Nope.  Nor is he exactly calling for more Buddhist influence on politics.  Nor Shinto.  Nor Islamic.  Nor Hindu.  Nor, really, even more Church of England, Greek Orthodox, or …

7. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254399 by Greyman on September 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm

99. Comment #254384 by mordacious1 on September 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm

"That growth represents one of the largest trends in American religion today, according to a poll released earlier this year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life."

So, erm, becoming an atheist is a trend in american religion? Even when you escape the BS, they consider that a trend of religion. Good gravy.

Well, a tendency towards decline is a trend, mordacious1.  As is a migration away from something.

8. Primordial Fish Had Rudimentary Fingers

Comment #253838 by Greyman on September 25, 2008 at 12:53 am

3. Comment #253298 by wonderist on September 24, 2008 at 9:24 am

"They are the forerunners of all birds, mammals, crustaceans, and batrachians."

Crustaceans??? I think not. Strange that such a glaring error made it past the editors.

It's possible that the editor was distracted by looking up batrachian and discovering it meant amphibian.  But how did the author use "crustaceans" in place of "reptiles" in the first place?

9. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253810 by Greyman on September 24, 2008 at 11:52 pm

262. Comment #253772 by Laurie Fraser on September 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Yeah, I knew that, Fanusi. Funny, huh? Of course, in the modern sense, the Hippocratic oath is assumed to be a simple measure which ensures the doctor's complete devotion to the patient's needs. Interesting point, though; has the Hippocratic oath been amended to strike the "abortive remedy" clause?

10. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253787 by Greyman on September 24, 2008 at 11:24 pm

251. Comment #253760 by zecat on September 24, 2008 at 10:45 pm
When are they going to understand the concept of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?! Damn catholics, take care of your souls and leave the people take care of themselves! The laws of your God have nothing to do with the laws of men.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

11. Secular schools of thought tainted

Comment #252139 by Greyman on September 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Good for you Laurie!

Here in Queensland, there was a move a few years back to allow secular humanism to be taught as an alternative during the Religious Instruction period.  It’s never been passed by the government because secular philosophy does not involve a belief in the supernatural.  Legally, it’s not a religion and so cannot be taught during that time.

Despite this, it very nearly happened.  Exactly the type of outrage mentioned in Jane Caro’s article did happen, actually.  A progressive act was almost passed, when the Christian lobby acted, using fear tactics about the “secular agenda creeping into the classrooms”, and spreading misinformation over how the act would allow satanism and wiccan beliefs to be taught.

(In point of fact, the then and current act would allow this if parents were to insist, since they are covered by the legal definition of religion.)

12. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249233 by Greyman on September 17, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Not exactly so, InfuriatedSciTeacher.  Apparently there is some evidence that some epigenetic changes to the expression of phenotypes can be transgenerational; modifications to epigenetic code (as distinct from the genetic code) have been observed to pass to the germline and persist for several generations.

Its a quite fascinating field of molecular biology, but just not quite what Magnus Linklater is making it out to be.

13. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249197 by Greyman on September 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm

24. Comment #249186 by Andrew Stich    on September 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm

How does the fact that environments effect gene expression at all refute the notion that the fundamental unit of natural selection is the gene and that genes which succeed in propagating themselves are more common than genes which fail to do so?

It does not.  Moreover, nor does the epigenetic increase in MS show that gene replicators are not selfish.

Although it is an exciting area of biological research, the author does not seem to have a firm grasp of the concepts.

Basically: Richard Dawkins is a professor of biology who has published polular books on evolutionary biology and atheism aimed.  There is ’new” research into environmental influence on genetic inheritance.  So let’s publish an article eluding to the idea that the professor is wrong and throw in some religious terms, like ‘heresy’ and ‘high priest’.

14. Talk at today's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

Comment #246023 by Greyman on September 11, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Well, a login session may time out if the poster takes too long to edit a long comment directly on the web page.  You should try editing with notepad first, then login in, pasting the comment in, and submitting in one swift sequence.  This also ensures that you don’t loose what you’ve written if the submission fails.

15. Bizarre Anti-Spore Website Takes Issue WIth Stance On Creationism

Comment #244847 by Greyman on September 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Why is this not really a surprise?  Bizarre but expected.

Which kind of makes me wonder if it is genuine.  It is hard to tell the difference betwixt genuine fundie thought and spoof.

16. Devolution in Education

Comment #244502 by Greyman on September 9, 2008 at 1:03 am

So how do you propose to test unrepeatable events that happened in the past?

Life and iteligence are evidence for a God. They are not proof.

They are not even evidence since they do not require a god to explain them.

Scientific Naturalism (the branch of science that wants to eliminate all discussion of non-natural processes) relies entirely on claims about what happened in the past.

Uhm, you’re talking about methodological naturalism, the basis of the scientific method used by all science.

You cannot construct scientific experiments within operational science to answer these issues so dogmatic insistence on the inclusion of one paradigm and the exclusion of another is not warranted on scientific grounds.

No, what you cannot construct is experiments that include the supernatural since it is beyond measurement by natural means, by definition.

Abiogenesis is an example of the 'Science of the Gaps', dilemma. Darwin wrote about the 'Origin of the Species'. Today modern evolutionists now distance themselves from the question of origins. The gap appears to be growing not diminishing.

No, evolutionary biologists do not study abiogenisis because it lies outside the scope of the theory of ‘reproduction with variation and selection’.  Instead, biochemists and molecular biologists do, because it lies within their field of research.  And through their investigation, that gap is diminishing.

17. Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

Comment #244501 by Greyman on September 9, 2008 at 12:23 am

Ah, the old legal definition of religion rears its head again.  It was one of the main reasons cited for blocking moves to allow Secular Humanism to be taught on religious education classes.  After all, Secular Humanism doesn’t involve a belief in supernatural beings, so it cannot be presented as an alternative.

Though technically in this case the legal definition should work on Way Out's side.

For legal purposes the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle; second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion...

18. Devolution in Education

Comment #244498 by Greyman on September 9, 2008 at 12:02 am

62. Comment #244490 by secondsoprano   on September 8, 2008 at 10:21 pm

61. Comment #244486 by Daniella   on September 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I went to a Public School in Australia and the students were given a choice if they wanted to participate or not.

Huh? Do you mean a choice whether to attend evolution lessons in science class?

I went to school in Australia [public school for all of primary, private Christian school - under protest! - first four years of high school, then public school again for the last two years]. In all that time I never heard of any student skipping any part of class for religious reasons.

It's my impression that evolution is a no-brainer in most of the Australian education system, with the exception of a few wacky fundie schools. If you seriously tried to argue creationism in public school you'd be laughed out of class.

It would indeed be the exception rather than the rule, at least here in Queensland.

Although some of our more prominent religious politicians have on occasion expressed the opinion that creationism could be taught along side evolution in schools, there doesn’t seem to have been any effort to push the agenda.  It would be more or less political suicide to try.

Which isn’t to say that Australia doesn’t have it’s share of creationist advocates.  But so far they’ve been kept safely out of mainstream politics and the science curriculum.

19. Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

Comment #243942 by Greyman on September 8, 2008 at 1:48 am

60. Comment #243932 by Heretic on September 8, 2008 at 1:04 am

As a matter of interest, has anybody ever met a homophobe who is entirely non-religious?

Well, would they admit it?  The flip side is, just how many simply claim a religious basis in order to excuse their homophobia?  After all, the old “it’s not me, it’s the book that says it’s wrong,” card at once removes personal responibility and lends a semblance of moral authority to their prejudice.

20. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241584 by Greyman on September 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm

212. Comment #241574 by robotaholic on September 2, 2008 at 3:45 pm

why do atheists care about life so much more than religious fanatics?

Because it’s all we have?  Just one life to live.  Just living for today…

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #237508 by Greyman on August 26, 2008 at 3:44 pm

9332. Comment #235744 by apeman2 on August 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I feel so sorry for Richard Dawkins, a man as brilliant as he claims to be, would allow himself to be "tricked" into an interview with Ben Stein.

Richard made an absolute fool of himself. He said what he believed, and now we all know!

I wonder when the next Alien ship will come and visit their Public Relations man "Richard Dawkins"

This again?  When Doctor Behe suggested that Intelligent Design included the possibility that aliens might be the creators of life in the Dover Trial, it was his best defense that it was not Creationism.  Yet when Professor Dawkins raised panspermia as ID's most plausible hypothesis, it is suddenly a ridiculous assertion?

Well, at least Expelled dispelled the pretence that ID is not a religious wedge.

22. No credit for creationism

Comment #233412 by Greyman on August 19, 2008 at 10:18 pm

PS: Big Bang Theory also predicts things like: distant object will appear brighter than they would if space were not curved.   This is not observed, causing cosmologists to rexamine the theory, and some to propose alternative models.   (How very dogmatic of them.)

That's the thing about theories of origins, you can make predictions of the way things would look if it happened that way, and compare it with what is actually observed.   Then evaluate and adjust the theory based on this.

This is not possible with ID as it predicts nothing.

23. No credit for creationism

Comment #233407 by Greyman on August 19, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Predictions of the Big Bang Theory include: the existance Cosmic Background Radiation (found in 1990) and, from that, abundancy of light elements (based on the ration of photons to baryons calculated from CBM measurements, and found to be reasonably accurate).

24. New Ribosomal Research Offers Fresh Evidence, Understanding of Evolution

Comment #233372 by Greyman on August 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Nice link Shaden.  Quite informative and interesting.

25. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232227 by Greyman on August 17, 2008 at 9:08 pm

86. Comment #232183 by spacepenguin on August 17, 2008 at 7:44 pm

I'm not sure how a particle can be said to have free will though. For me the term free will implies a concious choice of some kind.

It's not that the 1-spin particals have Free Will, but that the 1-0-1 rule demonstrates that their state cannot possibly be predetermined.  Hence, if the universe is not Deterministic, then Free Will exists.

26. Unintelligent Design

Comment #232194 by Greyman on August 17, 2008 at 8:15 pm

First you would have to be able to demonstrate that such a thing were actually irreducable complex, as opposed to simply reducible by yet unknown means. How would you determine this?

27. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230589 by Greyman on August 14, 2008 at 11:11 pm

It's kinda of pointless as a poll when you consider that the only current voters are probably directed from this site. But... just how many of us are there?

28. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230586 by Greyman on August 14, 2008 at 11:07 pm

1. Comment #230142 by 43alley on August 14, 2008 at 11:05 am

"NO" is winning 91% to 9%.

And yet it currently reads 'Yes' at 54% vs. 'No' at 46% of 251636 responses.

29. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230492 by Greyman on August 14, 2008 at 6:14 pm

40. Comment #230385 by J Mac on August 14, 2008 at 3:41 pm

The court eventually dissolved the marriage – and awarded compensation to her husband in apology

COMPENSATION?!  What fucking court compensates a rapist for not being able to get his rocks off before his victim runs away?

I also wonder how long that "eventually" took.  It's a small step that little girls who escape to the court can get a divorce, but they still had to think about it?

At first she was ashamed.  "But I passed through that," she said recently.  "All I want now is to finish my education.  I want to be a lawyer… I want to defend oppressed people.  I want to be an example for all the other girls."  After saying this, she ran off to play hide-and-seek.

I really hope she realises that dream.

30. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #230486 by Greyman on August 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Nice to know. I wonder how will this affect "Academic Freedom?"

31. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225574 by Greyman on August 7, 2008 at 3:02 am

I wouldn't call it exactly 'great'. More, like 'depressing'.

32. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225563 by Greyman on August 7, 2008 at 2:27 am

154. Comment #225512 by thewhitepearl on August 6, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Of course this didn't work so god banished Lucifer and a third of the angels from heaven and gave him dominion over the earth. And that's how Lucifer became Satan and the angels became demons

Not exactly a record or perfection, is it?  First he creates rebelious angels, then corruptable humans.

33. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #222909 by Greyman on August 1, 2008 at 5:18 am

66. Comment #222703 by GermanMike on July 31, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Another question: I might have missed the introduction of a new meaning to the word "flea" (and Merriam-Webster and all other dictionaries I consulted as well) what do you mean by calling a book a flea?

It's a parasite that feeds off of another book's popularity.  Thus flea books often have similar titles and covers to the works they derive advertising nurishment.  They cannot exist on their own merits.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #210157 by Greyman on July 14, 2008 at 3:12 am

Meanwhile, in related news (July 10, 2008): news.ninemsn.com.au: Evidence of water on moon found.

Also: www.sciencedaily.com: Evidence Of Water Found Deep Within The Moon: Dampens Moon-formation Theory

35. Biologist Teaches the Nation's Judges About Genetics

Comment #202583 by Greyman on July 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm

3. Comment #202399 by Forti on July 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm

In America, JUDGES don't know what DNA is? Holy shit. Here I am sitting in a backwards Catholic-ruled Republic of Poland and we have genetics taught in middle school. I can't imagine anyone having trouble with DNA.

It's not so much that they don't know what DNA is, it's that they worry about how to judge the reliability of DNA evidence presented in their courtroom.  It's more a question of 'what is the state of the art in forensic testing'.

Hey, the good thing about this is, they're admitting ignorance about the feild, and doing something about it.  Getting hands-on practical experience.  That's brilliant!

36. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196487 by Greyman on June 20, 2008 at 3:21 am

No.  Thinking and learning are the proper terms.

The bacteria have the collective ability to solve a problem and react with learned behaviour.  The solving and learning just does not take place on an individual level and they store the information in gene regulation networks rather than networks of neurons.

Using the Tower of Generate and Test definitions, riemann provided above, individual bacterium are first tier, or "Darwinian", creatures but over generations a population acts effectively like a single second tier, or "Skinnerian", creature.

37. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196402 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

It's about how the regulatory mechanisms controling the activation of other genes, and thus the cell's metabolic processes, behave as though they are anticiplating changes in their environment.

They have a network of trigger and responses so that the bacteria can respond to changes in one condition just in time to take best advantage of the opportunity presented by an another changing condition before it happens.

"Oh, it's getting hotter.  I better switch over to aerobic respiration so I'll be ready for the oxygen when it gets here."

More remarkable, these algorithyms change over generations.  The population learns to recognise when rising temperatures means they should switch to aerobic respiration, and when it means they should switch to anaerobic.

"Oh, it's getting hotter.  I'd better switch over to anerobic respiration so I'll be ready for when the oxygen level drops."

The process of selection is optiming the response triggers patterns over generations, enabling the bacteria population to learn.  The simulation they used demonstrates how this is possible without a designer reprogramming the cells.  The networks of trigger and responses evolve into working algorithyms; but the code they develop displays a lot of useless kruft.

Design without a designer.

38. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196047 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 8:44 am

I was going to say this was sickening and made no sense at all.  Then I read Border Collie's post and it made all too much sense... and is still sickening.

Remind me again, what century are we living in?

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195972 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 6:24 am

Several of you have been banging on about evidence.  My argument is that, for example, some scientists propose it is plausible that there is intelligent life somewhere else in deep space.  There's no supporting evidence that is accessible to us at this time, and maybe we wouldn't recognise such life even if we did come across it, so there could be cases where evidence will forever be inaccessible.

But the absence of evidence doesn't make the idea ridiculous. We can say that since we exist we must be possible, and if we are possible, others may be possible, even if completely different and beyond our perception horizon.

Well, yes this is so.  And yet not.  The operating principle is not to make assumptions unless they are nescessary.

We can't observe many things directly, but we can make indirect observations, propose hypothesis, make and test predictions based on this, and refine things until we have a model —a theory— that explains what might be happening.

The process involves inference and assumptions, so we can't definatively prove anything.  But, by eliminating models that are falsified –that don't work– we can develop useful theories.

8223. Comment #195959 by Jethro on June 19, 2008 at 6:02 am

"How many of these people state - categorically - that there is intelligent life? ...Please feel to look at the work done at CERN, or Los Alamos etc etc." (How do you get the quotes boxed into the response?)

They don't state categorically that there isn't, and one way of seeking evidence is to behave as if there is, and have the hypothesis falsified or not.

Precisely so, but to be good science the hypothesis must be at least potentially falsifiable.

"there is no need for us to infer - and no good reason to believe in - any creator or theistic or deistic gods."

Agreed. No need, no obligation, but not ridiculous to go look at other insights.

A priori assumptions have to be made; a posteri knowledge must start somewhere, after all.  But the best practice is to make as few, and as simple assumptions as possible.  If working theories cannot be found on a foundation of the most parsimonious of assumptions, then consider something more eosoteric.

40. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195912 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 3:06 am

To summarise:

1. Life cannot come from unlife.  DNA needed to be formed millions of times to get enough variations.  RNA and DNA needed to form at the exact same time for cells to work.  Neucleic Acids not found outside cells.
2. Lack of transitional fossils.  No documented gradual change.  Refutes Archaeopteryx and Platypus as not having half-features but being fully formed.

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195304 by Greyman on June 18, 2008 at 3:37 am

Maybe either automated or animated?

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194542 by Greyman on June 16, 2008 at 11:34 pm

ReceivedTheGift, they are asking what exactly it is that indicates that life was designed?  It does not matter how ridiculous you find having no explanation to be, you need to indicate why your theory is viable.

A non-testable theory is no more useful than no theory at all (in fact, it is not a theory at all).

So what observation leads to the formation of the theory of design?  What experiments can be performed to support or refute it?  How can it be potentially falsified?

43. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193154 by Greyman on June 14, 2008 at 9:23 pm

15. Comment #192941 by qomak on June 14, 2008 at 9:52 am

One question, ruling out the "Goddidit idea", this organize material must have been made somewhere. Does anyone know why it is hard for uracil and xanthine to have been formed in the primordial sea?

Well, for one thing, current models of planetary formation indicate that the Earth was originally too hot to have a primordial sea at first; or much of an atmosphere for that matter.  The veneer of water and air are speculated to have been added, from cometary and meteoric impacts, and interplanetary dust, after the planet cooled down a bit.  The young solar system was a lot less tidy and much more prone to traffic accidents back then.

So while the compounds might have formed after the fact, it looks like they could have already been in the primordial sea right on formation.

44. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #192831 by Greyman on June 14, 2008 at 2:49 am

The answer is probably in those percentages.  We know how much carbon isotopes can curretly be found in terestrial biological matterial.  So if by comparison the metorite matterial contains a statistically different percentage, local contamination can be excluded as a source.

PS: mordacious1, space borne carbon is continually being irradiated, forming heavier isotopes.  But once that carbon arrived and was protected from cosmic raditation, the less stable isotopes would have since decayed.  However, the chemistry of replication is not dependant on the isotopes of carbon involved.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192392 by Greyman on June 13, 2008 at 1:14 am

6981. Comment #192381 by Diacanu on June 12, 2008 at 11:47 pm

...wait, I skimmed by quick, did the idiot just wave junk DNA away as fake, and oil as synthesized?

Did I just see that?
I'm not hallucinating?
He said oil is fake?

Not exactly.  He evidently believes that all oil deposits were formed rapidly following a massive natural catastropy.  (No guesses as to what.)  He will no doubt hold up the presence of porphyrins in petroleum as evidence that the deposits were so rapid that no oxygen could destroy them.

Porphyrins can be produced from chlorophyl in a few hours, but break down rapidly in the presence of either oxygen or heat.

He's holding the synthetic oil process up as a theory as to how it might be possible to synthesise the oil found in sedementary deposits.  Apparently those sedimentary rocks were exposed to 42 kg/cm² and 260°C for up to 15 to 60 minutes.

Uhm, but not any longer, because porophins start to break down when exposed to 210°C for a few hours.

So there you have it. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, killing off all the plants and animals and burring them under 30 million cubic miles of sediment from... uh...  Anyway, sometime durring, or after, this then all of that sediment was very breifly heated and squeezed under extreme presure and temperature to providentially cook oil.  At the same time, the sediment was buckled and folded to produce layers while still wet; though somehow showing no sign of being heated to such a degree and with fossils distributed in… uhm.

Origin of Oil from, guess where.

Oh, and on Junk DNA.  Remember, txpiper has latched onto Neo-Lamarckian evolution (such as Ted Steele's mechanism of endogenous retroviral transcription) as an explaination for purpose of all that 'non-coding DNA'.  It's there to provide all the information a kind needs to adapt to changing conditions, don't you see.  Mutation can't provide new information, so that's evidence of design.

The reason why onions have five times as much more of this than humans is obviously that they are going to need to adapt a heck of a lot after the antichrist comes.

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191978 by Greyman on June 12, 2008 at 8:16 am

6951. Comment #191862 by Tyler Durden on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #191806 by txpiper:

I'm not really avoiding it but I'll be honest and say I dread it. It isn't about lack of decent arguments or reasonable questions. It's that decent arguments don't count.

LOL

Maybe in your world decent arguments don't count, txpiper, maybe in your world.

(Seriously, did you think that made any sense whatsoever when you typed it first? Do you think it makes any sense now?)

Well... To be fair I think txpiper was trying to say that he has those decent arguments but fully expects they'll just be dismissed out of hand.

Though I don't see why he should dread that.

47. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191512 by Greyman on June 11, 2008 at 5:21 am

Nice, Hunargianelephant.  However, you missed a little one:

… The simple fact is that even if humans were so perfectly formed, if food, water, sunlight or any one of a host of details necessary for life to exist were somehow missing, human life would have lasted on this planet for a maximum of a few days.  [Presumtion of purpose.  The fact that human life exists in conditions needed to support it does not prove that those conditions were created in order to support human life.]

48. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191465 by Greyman on June 11, 2008 at 2:51 am

304. Comment #191452 by Carole on June 11, 2008 at 2:12 am

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but I don't see that this link proves your point at all. It does say:

"Many people worldwide believe. In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001."
and
"Yet many scientists ‘40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer’ believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, "

(Sorry I don't know how to do these fancy quote boxes)

Indeed.  The quote is pretty much pointing out that while the percentage of atheism is small but rising in the general population, the percentage was already significantly higher among scientists in 1997 (60%, then, but what is it now?).

PS: Just put the text in between <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags, and let the site’s CSS file do the rest.

49. New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells

Comment #190427 by Greyman on June 9, 2008 at 4:48 am

9. Comment #190336 by mmurray on June 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Interesting. I had a quick look at the actual paper as my work has Nature. It's not my area but it looks like they haven't actually built a cell like in the picture just tested the constituent parts. Can anyone who knows this kind of stuff clarify

They built it.  They got the lipids to form micelles, developed activated neucleotides, injected them into the protocell, and watched to see if the material could draw nutrients through the membrane and replicate itself.  It could!

Of course, since the replicated neucleotides remained inside the protocell, it's a long way from developing a fully Von Neuman cell, but it is a strong indicator of how early cells might have developed.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190396 by Greyman on June 9, 2008 at 2:35 am

6802. Comment #190177 by txpiper on June 8, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Of course it has been measured. I quoted what has been measured. That it happens is not the issue. What I want to understand is how you think natural processes produced such things. I don't understand why I should have to point out that there is something more than chemical processes going on. If an acid comes in contact with a base, there is a reaction. This continues until equilibrium is reached, and the reaction stops.

What happens with replication enzymes is completely different. There are starts and stops. There is some kind of deliberation occurring. If a nucleotide pairing is incorrect, it is recognized as incorrect. It is removed and replaced. That, unlike the acid/base reaction, is reversing course to get a sublime result.

Place, evaluate, approve or disapprove, delete as required, reinstall correct components as necessary. Every step in this process indicates purpose and something approximating intellect. It is not realistic to think that a random assembly of amino acids just happened to form so as to function the way enzymes do. They act as catalysts to make things happen and they stop when it does.

There are thousands of enzymes acting in concert in even the simplest cell. Do you have a reasonable explanation for how they formed and why they do what they do?

It begins with Carbon's position on the periodic table of elements.  The tetrahedral geometry of it's valence bonds and their stability, grant it the ability to form stable molecular chains with itself, Hydrogen, and other elements, notably Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Sulphur.  Organic chemistry is not just more complex because of the number of possible arrangements, and configurations, the sheer size and shape of these molecules adds a dimension to their reactions not found in inorganic chemistry.

A simple example can be found in certain chains which are water soluable at one end, but immisable at the other.  Placed in an aqueous solution, lipids naturally form into micelles; hydrophilic heads on the outside, hydrophobic tails on the inside.  A mechanical interaction isolating a non-aqueous environment inside an ambient aqueous one, produced by their chemistry.

A slightly more complex example is how deformation in shape in response to chemical signals can act as on-off triggers for enzymes, activating or deactivating their catalytic properties.

An even more complex example is how neucleic acids form complex chains which may fit together in zipper like arangements that, when unzipped, can assemble copies using ambient material to replace the gap.  If only there were a way to gather such neucleotides in a non-aqueous environment where they could do so.

The partly mechanical, wholey chemical, process of transcription, and protien synthesis is extremely complex but completely automated.

Exactly how such a self replicating system was formed is under investigation, but that the components could be formed from natural chemical reactions has been shown to be feasible.  Once formed, then time and competition for resources will optimise performance to develop a more complex one.  It's a very simple algorithm.