1. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #180040 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 6:15 am

dr benway

Example: Someone is heating up hot lead and is about to pour it up my ass

the bastards, so they got you upsidedown too!

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

Comment #180023 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 5:51 am

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.

thats the problem though isnt it, there seems to be a lot of caprice when it comes to what is and isnt true according to the vatican.

The church here is saying its OK to believe in aliens, its the prescription thats ugly, its got nothing to do with possibilities and everything to do with its pathetic relationship with invisble daddy bear.

remember the limbo thing??

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

Comment #180019 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 5:44 am

I suppose being right about atheism is no immunity to being human.

unless the atheist is actually an alien.

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

Comment #180018 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 5:41 am

Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God,

of course it doesnt because when you are talking about the unknowable, all powerful, supernatural entity you can just make up any stuff you want, on the spot at any time.

"Just as we consider earthly creatures as 'a brother,' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation."

wow, some mind expanding insight here.

Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom, he said.

yup, as i said you can say what you want, no problemo, just like that.

Pope John Paul declared in 1992 that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

and thing still arent really any different now, think creation. (although is the vaticans 'official' position that evo did happen?)

Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.

adds some credibility yes??

5. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179324 by phasmagigas on May 13, 2008 at 5:51 am

americans, hmmm.

Im a brit living in the USA and it took my neighbours a while to get over the fact that i'll WALK the pleasant 15-20 minutes into our town (its a bone fide town) and buy some milk or beer, or go the library or post a letter. As im a brit they accept thats 'what a brit does' and im not seen as some total weirdo (what is it with americans? I get the feeling that a guy walking on the street alone must be a paedophile or stalker). initially i was asked if i couldnt drive by one guy (OMG, that would have put me firmly in the freak category, i told him 'oh I can drive alright, and a stick shift too!!')

Of course for a large shop i have to go the nasty strip mall at 3 times the distance in the car. With the increased gas prices do people drive less? do people cut their lawns less frequently? do they sweep instead of using dust/leaf blowers? i think the answer is no.

as for food prices, well i suppose we in the west get a far greater deal than most, i wonder what % of income/work hours is spent on food in the USA compared to say some subsistence farmer in a less developed nation. i bought a huge bag of nuts the other day for about $5 and it had enough calories for a couple of days, that to my mind seems incredibly inexpensive.

and i feel dreadful for those swapping out meat for pasta, as long as they eat beans too they will get the amino acids they need.

6. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178510 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

it makes sense that in an evolved biological world that animals (for eg) have some type of 'behaviour code' they simply have to other wise they would just be randomly buzzing about and that could never seemingly be selected for. A forgaing ant doesnt bite through every grass stem it finds as that would be a waste of time, whirling dervishes of destruction tend not to exist in nature, a captive tarantula doesnt constantly strike at the glass of its tank, it just sits there 'behaving' itself as such, it doesnt need a god to sit quietly and a lack of a god doesnt mean it will bite eveything in its path.

we judge our own behaviour in a biased way, is our good behaviour any different from that of a tarantula sitting quietly in its tank??

7. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178504 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm

So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

if thesre is a prescription it could come from allah or even kali in some peverse way but i personally dont accept either of those explanations.

8. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178500 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm

If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

imagine if an individual thought 'ok, lets see how far i get with the red tooth claw behaviour, as humans are my most direct competitors it makes sense to go around and kill every human i see and i'll have more resources for myself' its quite clear that the consequences of that would be disastrous for the individual, within seconds of the killing spree you would be killed yourself by a mob who realised that you were a danger to them. You see it in nature and our own societies that there is a variety of optimum behaviours that work over different timescales but that aid the fitness of the organisms in that group.

what you also have to realise is that as soon as things get tough things DO become more red in tooth and claw, take a walk through a rough neighbourhood or some failing country and you will immediately see that being a victim is really to be expected. In settled communities we mainly want to behave well as it aids us in those communities but these communities are always on a knife edge, some last a while others will fail, the world right now shows communities developing and those collapsing and those in utter chaos, not the type of thing to expect if there is a loving god (the theist could find a billion justifications though from homosexuality to greed to atheism to looking at other mens wives to testing the faith, the usual hotch potch of made up bullshit) but just the type of thing you'd expect to find if evolution were true.

9. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178354 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 9:42 am

funny then how the vast majority of people who are religious are themselves not 'theologians' so their beliefs are weaker for this??

10. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177697 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

This is very important. Amongst the vast majority of Britain's youth, religion is very uncool.

agreed, the average kid in the UK seeing a mega church in operation with its lame music and childish dancing would find the whole spectacle hysterical, uncool would barely describe it, I agree and find the same spectacle utterly sad, I wonder if those adults clapping for jesus actually had a notion of young adulthood atall and are just catching up.

11. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177455 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2008 at 5:57 am

The article assumes that 'christian' children will 'lose' their faith, whilst 'muslim' and 'hindu' children will retain theirs. In reality, as these immigrant communities become 4th, 5th and 6th generation, I believe that the dropout rate will begin to match that of christianity

right now the whole west vs islam spotlight fuels the rising religiosity, hopefully it will fizzle out somewhat, its amazing to think that the USA engagement in the middle east strengthens islam in the UK and elsewhere.

12. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177453 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2008 at 5:52 am

its all rather expected isnt it.

So long as churchgoing is something that gets you laughed at, so long as there is a social stigma attached to being a churchgoing young person, it will be difficult to reverse the trend." He said that young Muslims operated in a different environment. "Being religious is a way that you show you are different, that you are proud of your heritage. One of the ways young Muslims assert their identity is by being more observant than their parents."

some general musings

the average brit kid of non recent immigrant stock doesnt give a hoot about christianity, you are breaking the rules by not being religious (being religious takes some effort as such, so is rejected) so it suits the modern kids fine, it tallies with breaking all the rules generally which isnt perhaps a good thing but i wouldnt say its 'active atheism' as peter hitchens put it recently, its kids lacking any form of social control at all, teenagers who are active atheists tend to be more intelligent than average, the trouble makers are simply engaging in their default tendencies.

the muslim kids are doing what comes naturally to a group that sees themselves as a minority, they cling to whatever they can to show they are not like the rest of the population, I remember in the 80's muslim kids would seemingly 'westernise' to rebel against their parents but now they seem to want to seperate themselves from the rest of mainstream UK 'culture' and do this by strongly identifying with islam. There is a problem with this of course and its that in using religion as an identifier you are using a mechanism that innately sees the user as superior to those not using it.

I believe that many young muslims in the UK feel very strongly that they have the righteous upper hand over their non muslim peers, and comparing them to many of the kids in the UK they could be right, many reject alcohol and general vulgar behaviour but still many male muslims use drugs and are very misogynistic towards non muslim women.

Its all very interesting, if i walk down a uk street and see a bunch of white/non muslim kids on the corner theres a good chance they will be abusive towards me, a group of non white/muslim kids are less likely to do that, they might look at me as the enemy though and a friendly 'hi lads' directed at them will result in looks of (pleasant) suprise (please nobody suggest a friendly hi to a bunch of teenagers is in any way unwelcome, admittedly a group of thuggish white kids wouldnt appreciate it, they are too far gone, but a friendly gesture towards muslim kids is useful, it shows that im making the effort to at least see them as ordinary people, as an adult it is I who should make the effort and show by example)

we all know religion is a tyrant and forces people to keep in line as does local social norms but in the UK both seem to be disintegrating, I wonder to what degree do many people need cloaking in regulations to give them some perceived structure?

the thing with islam in the UK is that the snowball is rolling downhill quickly, christianity is one that is melting very quickly. note that the growth area in NI probably corresponds with differnt groups asserting their own identity, paralleling that in mainland UK.

its quite amazing to see hoards of people going to mosque, the nearset equivalent i see in non muslim uk is hoards going to football matches, im sure it serves a similar mental 'need'. iM only guessing though as i engage in neither.

13. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177196 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Unique to Australia, the platypus has confounded observers for centuries. Aboriginal legend explained it as the offspring of a duck and an amorous water rat.

sweet jeebus, i hope that the 'academic freedom' crowd are reading this, kids should get full marks for reciting the origins of the platypus, they should like that its almost the crocoduc idea.

14. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177192 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Ironically, the platypus is a creature which creationists in my class claim "could not have arisen from evolution" on the grounds that it is "too weird." This from the same side that demands to see a crocoduck! I think when creationists say a creature "could not have arisen from evolution" they probably just misspoke when they meant to say it "has an incredibly fascinating evolutionary history." I wish.

yet again the creationists show themselves as masters of the argument from personal incredulity and general ignorance. 'Too weird' well just how does someboy define 'too weird' from 'just a bit weird' only through our human coloured spectacles are we not also too weird, crestionists singularly lack imagination out of all humans.

15. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177191 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:09 pm

i read this article this morning and even the title told me the science was going to be a bit off, 'part bird' of course the platypus is no more bird than you or i its just that it retains its egg laying ability as do birds.

16. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #175171 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2008 at 6:04 pm

what strikes me firstly about this programme is that discussing topics with rationalists on this site has made me forget just how utterly naive, gullible and stupid the british audience can be, its not just the USA, the fact that the most ridiculous viewpoints were given anything but ridicule was astounding.

after listening to clearly hammered out reasonable arguments from the posters on this site its pure comedy to hear comments by the most unspohisticated members of society speaking as if they have some credible viewpoint, its like nursery school.

education obviously is failing somewhere.

i can say that at least my skills at reasoned argument have incereased dramatically since joining this site.

17. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175125 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Of course, you could just be a lone consciousness running a simulation of everything you experience. But if that is the case, there is no point even talking about "humans", "cats" or "tables". In fact, there would be no point investigating the world at all.

thats pretty standard fare im sure, in fact some people probably figure thats the case, do crazy shit and then carry on their 'simulation' of a prison cell for a long, long time. real or not, i prefer my simulation to be a little more varied, preferably outside in the sun.

18. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175114 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

'local nonsense' i like that!!

19. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174875 by phasmagigas on May 3, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Mr. Cowan said he tells students: "I'm going to give you the evidence for evolution and the evidence against, and let you decide." For instance, he'll mention Darwin's observation that finches evolve different-shaped beaks to suit different ecosystems. Then he'll add that you don't see a finch changing into another species.

Unfit to teach biol, a disgrace. as has been said before 'your ignorance is not evidence', a pity the student parents arent clued up enough to realise what he said is nonsense, of course we dont 'see' finches changing in to other species, a classic piece of creationist nonsense.

when you consider the totality of a teachers workload which includes NOT passing over misconceptions to the kids, the fact that this ACTIVELY works to do just that is criminal.

20. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174870 by phasmagigas on May 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm

But never the less it is of great concern to me that the only super power should be turning bit by bit into a theocratic country with over half the population rejecting science and reason to blindly adhear to a faith.

you have to remember that the average person in america eats shit, listens to shit, watches shit, i have never met a single person here who knows what evolution is. the are more likey to be interested in oprahs latest diet.

It always pisses me off that somehow a public poll can add weight to this issue, most dont accept evolution through some critical thought processes but because like their inability to see a twinkie bar as the worthless piece of shit it is they have been exposed to evolution only in a religiously based negative sense, they have nothing else to base their answer (no) on. those who dont accept it quite simply have NO IDEA what it is and are scientifically illiterate to begin with, unfortunately schooling compounds this problem and if schooling IS the problem then its going to get worse because this shit could be in the schools. I wonder if americas 'golden years' are over?

21. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174559 by phasmagigas on May 2, 2008 at 4:41 pm

well its all a bit silly isnt it. 'pixie dust' thats a bit like calling sutures 'magic fairy threads' and then saying 'but scientists are really thinking that the holding together of the wound isnt really by faries'.

im not sure i get where the article is coming from, as for bizarros statements, well poor bloody god, why cant some atheist just get off his back eh, poor mite, my heart bleeds for god.

its got nought to do with insecurity, people just like taking the piss.

22. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174107 by phasmagigas on May 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Every once in a while we get a really good interview such as this -- although it did have the same old questions. But it was a good interview because Dawkins answered every question thrown at him perfectly and patiently. I really get the feeling that a lot of listeners learned something from this.

its great that RD is so good at answering these same old questions as apparently these are the things that many, many creationists/theists still just dont get. Its good that he put the caller strainght on behes so called studying the flagellum for 20 years and mentioning argument from personal incredulity as its precisely the type of thing that creationists will constantly throw as arguments, interesting that the some of the callers seemed a little bit crazy.

23. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172960 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:57 am

Perhaps the problem lies in the assumptions that are made prior to physical testing?

people working on dating make assumptions that their techniques (as far as they know) actually give results that somehow tally with time passed. they could never know for sure but its th best they have to go on.

However the biggest assumption i know of regarding dating is that it cannot possible show anything over 6000 years because thats whats the calculated age of the earth is from the bible. as far as i know the YEC are the only people whio regularly contest dating methods, and its only because they are afraid that it might mea that they dont spend eternity with jesus, nothing more.

24. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172945 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

think this is where he seems to be indicating a desire for a link-war instead of personal, intelligent debate. Don't we love talking around people who are listening?

if the links go to articles that can be viewed/reviewed and potentially be retested than what else can somebody go off? its like linking to tiktaalik and somebody saying 'oh thats just a link' well a person can go down to the museum (chicago?) where tikky is and actually see if if they really wanted to, they could even throw in their tetrapod expertise and join in the fun.

there is not yet any evidence that suggests a 6000 year old earth, its that simple.

25. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172941 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:36 am

I remember reading a couple of different articles where near, argon-free lava of known ages from recent eruptions taken from Mt. St. Helens and one other volcano of was presented to a Kâ€"Ar lab and told to expect low argon readings. The results not only missed by millions of years, but were extremely inconsistent in the different samples.

just how many millions of years?? remember with dating we are looking for errors that give ages of billions of years instead of a perceived age of 6000 years. thats quite a difference

dendrochronology for what its worth can get almost double that age. this is just one case whatever the readings said.

26. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172929 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:19 am

al rawandi.

The problem was that he was so egomaniacal and narcissistic that he was prone to regard himself as the ultimate worldly authority, at least in Germany.

somebody like that who didnt believe in god could quite easily do bad things, but they would do them anyway. somebody who felt they were god (and could some dictators have this idea?)would perhaps have no quarms blowing them selves up either as they would assume they were going to exist forever anyway. even if hitler were atheist hed could have used that notion to fuel his own sense of worth, ie hes more important because there is no god but he would likey put himself above all others also.

a bad seed is a bad seen no matter what type of ground it falls on.

27. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172921 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:06 am

When I hear the comment that Stalin or Hitler were atheist I just say, "So?"

hitler was a catholic as far as i know so presumably not atheist.

28. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172920 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:05 am

this is oh so tired.

when somebody can find omebody who says 'i will blow myself up in part BECAUSE im an atheist' then they might have a point, im sure that hasnt ever happened once, unless the person is quite mad. The tamils who blow themselves up dont do it because they dont beleive in god, do they????

29. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172899 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 6:49 am

"It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science."

This is my sole point.

of course, im not sure anybody said it is. the problem is when people start spreading false info about dating methods for the simply reason that they believe the earth is 6000 years old, and for no better reason than that some guy added up some timelines in the bible and said so. that isnt science of course, thats more like a reading comprehension.

30. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172829 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 5:52 am

I thought I'd change it back today, but when I got to the edit avatar screen, somehow I couldn't bring myself to do away with him just yet...

cartomancer, so there was a fiasco? i see a guy on a striped sheet blowing stars from his ass, I see no flag.

31. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172819 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 5:45 am

If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.

youll find that they arent stretched but more stupified, its impossible to actually 'win' a debate when the oppositions ideas include an allpowerful, all knowing, invisible, unknowable entity, as such they can always have the last word and never have to provide any evidence to feel they have a case. as you know seeker, 'god works in mysterious ways', end of story. ah and as has been said before, it isnt science anyway, youi need to realise that. whay do creationists always repeat the same stuff. the word 'theory' comes to mind, its part of their strategy to diseducate.

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171470 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 2:02 pm

You guys all think you're so smart, so enlightened, how in the world do you come up with something as silly as "space aliens created earth"!

im wondering if this line of trolls who have suddenly appeared might be in this together, they keep coming up with the same silly remarks and mistakes, which suggests maybe they arent but who can tell.

Ive not seen expelled and im not sure how his quote was 'mined' but RD probably suggested that the earths life could have been seeded by aliens but they them selves would ultimately have to have originated by the process of evolution on some other planet. Nobody here would seriously suggest that earths life was seeded by an alien, theres no evidence for that so its pointless. Once can speculate though. that is allowed.

interestingly if humans should travel say to mars and terraform it and leave a few samples of earth soil for eg to colonise the new planet then WE will ahve become the said aliens who have seeded a planet so really the idea isnt quite as silly as you think.

most people here accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet once biogenesis occured (however it occured).

33. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #170937 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 6:46 am

I just wonder what unintellgent turns our creationist "friends" will take to "debunk" this new finding?

this was done a few weeks ago on AIG (i dont agree that the word PROVE should be used in this article though incase soem creationist got pedantic) anyway it was something like.....wait for the utter STOOPID writ large:

'soft tissue found in T rex proves that dinos are not millions of years old (how could soft tissue remain for so long??) and that shows the T rex WAS on the ark.'

im sure this 'tissue' is nothing like a bit of dried chicken meat, im guessing its the remains of the actual material in a very modified form but the original composition is determinable.

anyway how the get from soft tissue to ark is beyond me.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170922 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 6:30 am

Where did the first cell come from?

nobody on this planet knows that and probably never will. To start you have to be sure what you mean by cell anyway. The first working 'independent' cell still likey arose from a process akin to evolution and natural selection but playing with groups of lipid layers, mixes of organic chemicals etc sounds very wishy washy but so it would be,(aside from knowing virtually zero about current ideas) these are events from over 3 billion years ago, as you go back in time there is less chance of finding usable evidence today.

what a person cannot say is 'where did the first cell come from?' and as there is no known answer from evidence then follow with 'see, god made it'

its a very commmon fallacy and ive met several creationists who have proudly walked away standing tall behind their unfalsifiable notions whan ive answered that question with 'nobody yet knows and maybe nobody will'

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170910 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 6:16 am

RD says he finds it ironic that his friend was "expelled" from "Expelled". Clearly this was a mistake, maybe it was an idea formed on the backs of crystals, or in some mud, or maybe from an alien.
The real irony here is that once again RD fails to see the Intelligent Design of the expulsion.

its interesting and instructive how a few quote mines regarding potentially possible ideas of how life was seeded to earth/originated on earth are used by the creationists to somehow ridicule people who are otherwise known accepters of evolution.

once again it shows that the creationist has nothing useful to provide, no extra information.

All they can do is cry foul and ridicule. it seems that expelled is aiming at the lowest common denominator. if somebody walks away from expelled and all they can muster is is something like 'ha, see, crystals, mud and aliens, see evolution is nonsense' ha, god did it' the you can see how truly weak their position is, its not really discernible from ideas that might entertain a 5 year old.

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

Comment #170885 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 am

adam. heres something to consider. If man was gods ultimate design and man had a specific, special place in his plan, indeed if man was the sole reason god did aything then there are some things that dont make sense.

when people looked at anatomy in the past they saw that we hav the graetest similarity to chimps than any other living creature. now that of course could be pure 'chance' so to speak but as chimps are not man they would have no more significance than a slime mould or pill bug. when the genome become accessible we also saw that the human/chimp similarity wasnt just superficial but it was also there in the DNA, we are genetically very, very close to chimps, more so than either is to the next most similar animal, the gorilla.

Now heres the crunch. how can that be explained from a creationist viewpoint? surely chimps and gorillas should be closer genetically than chimps to humans, would you not expect man to have a totally seperate and maybe different genome from all other creatures on the planet?? if indeed the human genome was unique in many ways from all others then it would indeed make you think about some specuial position for us, but thats not the case, but we are no more unique genetically than is any creature from its nears living cousins.

the question creationsists have to ask and try to find a good answer for is 'why do humans share more DNA with chimps than either does with gorillas'. Now there a billion possible answers, none of which are actually testable, i'll start with a few (imagine im donning the creationist cap for amoment)

1)god did it to test our faith, to make it look like we dont have a special place when we KNOW we do.

2)chimps were the prototye human but god didnt like the designs so tweaked the DNA (a perfect god made a mistake?)

3)chimps were humans that commited particularly bad sins years ago and god punished them with deformity.

4)evolution did happen but god simply guided it.

5) god works in mysterious ways that we cannot know.

OK, cap off. Adam, you might think im being facetious but im being very serious, you will notice that in affect im parodying the creationist and it sounds like im being a smarmy sod but importantly its the type of thing ive heard, #4 is the most 'reasonable' in that I suppose its the most parsimonious one but again its totally untestable, insert 'the wobbling walnut embryo deity of mango galaxy' instead of god and its on a level playing field. maybe you will agree.

the notion of common descent (chimps and humans from the same ancestor about 5mya)is totally open to falsification and testing, its just that nobody has falsified it yet.

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

Comment #170857 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 5:28 am

truthID

You mentioned the eye. The ID scientist rebutt this with that the cambrian explosion has fossils of all phyla represented today. Which therefore implies that the eyes of humans, octopuses, and others would have to of evolved each separately. The chances?

the eye seems to have evolved many times and each time differently, that actually makes sense from a non design point of view. if the eye appeared in several lineages from non seeing ancestors and they eyes were all exactly the same that would be a far more difficult thing to explain, assuming that they did evolve from a non seeing ancestor independently then the chances of having the SAME eye design would be VERY slim indeed.

it would be a bit like giving 50 groups of kids a huge set of lego each and saying 'ok, kids, we need to make something that looks like a car' what would you expect if there was no guiding intelligence overwatching them all??? youd get 50 cars all very differntly put together. if the 50 groups all produced the same lego car detail by detail you would righly say 'somebody is playing with us here'. (now dont confuse teh kids being the 'intelligence' here, they are analogous to evolution but as they are intelligent they can come up with a 'car' in minutes from scratch, not over billions of years of cumulative change).

seeing is such a massively useful thing for an organism that eyes invariably evolve just like locomotary structures and hard toothy jaws. the eyes are only similar in as much as they have to be, a clear area to allow light in but protect the inside, maybe some focusing device, and then cells to detect the light.

adam, notice that what ive said is from teh top of my head, its nothing ive read but its something that is sat within the framework of evolution as a possible way of understanding eye diversity, the fact that it offers a way of understanding and one that can be tested potentially makes it seem a very useful device to me. notice teh differnce here between what i just said and the creationist saying 'but it just couldnt have happened by chance' what they are saying is 'I cant personally imagine it and i personally dont WANT to imagine it'.

its important to notice that I and other accepters of evolutionary theory dont WANT it to be true, theres no reason for that, it just so happens that nature shows evidence of it happening.

I feel that the biggest misconception from many creationists esp with regard to the whole big science conspiracies is that they simply mirror their want of a designers 'truth' onto those who simply follow evidence and say we WANT evo to be true. thats is a massive fallacy and needs to be addressed at every opportunity.

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

Comment #170841 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 5:04 am

And lungs; I'd love lungs that worked as well as a bird's. Chickens get them, but humans don't - why? Having said that, IDers also like 'the feather' as an example. And birds have more colour receptor types in their IDed eyes. Hey - I've just discovered the First Law of ID: the Designer Really Likes Birds.

I was thinking the same, i was running with my dog the other day and wishing i didnt have blind ended air sacs, i could almost feel how crap they work!! my dogs seem to be better though! still blind ended, the birds flying overhead showed them selves to be of superior 'design'.

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

Comment #170516 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2008 at 7:58 pm

but the complexity and evolution of life just seems so unlikley to of happened by chance.

adam, and of course that because it didnt, only actual mutations and odd events like meteors and trampling on ants are the chance events. natural selection is the non chance component as such, you can show this yourself by mowing your lawn, weeds below blade height or that have flowers held below blade height are selected for, they keep growing or spread seeds, its so very, very simple, in fact its terrifyingly simple!

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

Comment #170510 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2008 at 7:54 pm

if people of 2000 years ago had thought that an object falling down should be any more odd than one falling up then they might have said 'and the apple falleth to earth by gods will' then we might now have 'anti gravitationists' fighting 'newtonism' and all evils!! it just so happened that the life on the planet was so OBVIOUS that it needed an explanation, hence genesis and all that followed.

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

Comment #170501 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Evolutionary Theorists (please correct if I'm wrong with the title) claim that ID proponents strategy is to merely attempt to poke holes and show weaknesses in Evolution. This is absolutely true. We have nothing else.

some of my neighbours are creationists. I dont have a problem with that, if they dont want to accept evolution thats their choice even if they cant give good reasons. However if they try to argue the point I will always show them the flaws of their arguments, I have to, if they say 'there are no fossils' then I can show them they are misinformed by taking them down to the chicago field museum but 30 miles away. If they then dont believe there are fossils i will bid them good day and thats that.

Adam, i think you realise faith is faith and thats all there is to it. Its just that i dont use faith in my life, not at all, its probably strange to you but 'faith' just isnt in my mental toolbox so to speak, maybe its genetic hahah!

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170482 by phasmagigas on April 27, 2008 at 7:30 pm

A man he worked with died suddenly, and it was at his funeral that my Pappaw realized something in his life was missing, and that his last day could be any minute.

I get this feeling about once every 2 days, i can be playing with my dogs, listening to a favourite piece of music, wake from a dream or eating something simple like good bread and cheese or drinking good beer or watching spring vegetation grow and i think 'one day, this will be gone when my mind is somehow terminated' so i always ensure i eat good bread and cheese and play with my dogs. A notion of eternity would postpone my simultaneous delight and angst at cherishing these moments.

the idea of jesus or god just repulses me, an ultimate anathema, if this is what ive got then i wont waste it on such baseless, trivial, unfulfilling boiled tripe. Life can be so, so much better.

43. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168616 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 8:31 am

Try putting yourself in the oven and believe in Jesus really hard, and see if it saves you.

the second law of thermodynamics could save somebody put in the oven, if god could speed up the process a bit!

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168595 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 8:22 am

We seem to have reached a consensus.

i agree, its painful to view never mind participate, good 'from a learning the arguments' I suppose. by consensus though that suggests some kind of conspiracy, a plan, see its true, big science watching and so goddidit.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168593 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 8:19 am

'indoctrination centers'.

what a hapless set of victims we are, poor little us.

46. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168584 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 8:12 am

I agree he should be allowed to wear the shirt and cannot think of any good reason to deny him that right. Is it hate speech, I think that is not a good concept legally.
If a school were to say, no shirts of any kind with slogans because we think it endangers the learning environment I suppose that would be okay.

in principal i agree that the t shirt should not be censored, there are consequences though.

imagine if there was an 'm' anti islamic slogan as i described above, if that was allowed in say a secular french school you could expect severe riots that very day.

47. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168575 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 8:05 am

at the end of the day its hate speech dressed up.

imagine if an anti islamist group (maybe some christians for eg) used the word 'M' to represent mohammed as a symbol. if you wore that on a T shirt at school would that be acceptable? its only a letter m, but the intent is hostile. many religious people simply like to play at nice.

i guess the wicked thing here is that you are attacking a minority who are hardly going to fight back, just how many gays at a school are pushing their lifestyle, most of them are probably terrified of even coming out.

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168570 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 7:59 am

Over the past 2 years, most of the woods around this pond have been cut down for housing tracts and big box stores. One large development is obviously built upon a wetland system. It's got a pump house to keep the swampy creek from getting too high and flooding everyone's back yard

as i was driving this morning i saw so much development (the ground in the US gets more tore up than in the Uk, that was done way back)anyway it got me thinking that people are happy to use science, technology, engineering top tear up the land to build nice houses and pretty lawns and stuff but then ignore the same method (ie practical science) when it comes to ignoring evolution, this is because if its true then it could well mean that they arent going to heaven when they die and jesus isnt their best friend and lover.

so it seems that some people are merely selfish, they like science when it gives them things here and now, but they dont like it when it tells them that the jesus party once you die might just not be happening.

in a nut shell: they arent happy unless they can have it all.

49. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168559 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

somebody needs to kidnap him and take him to the daddy bear bar down in the swamps.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168546 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2008 at 7:40 am

its funny that i used to go to an 'indoctrination centre' aka school.

As ive said before, in the UK you had to by law (if im not mistaken) go through daily prayer. Every morning it was 2 hymns, the lords prayer and then another prayer and i think a prayer before lunch, luckily the same indoctrination centers also taught comparative religion (RE) and we learned about several faiths, we also did basic science, and basic maths and basic cookery, and basic sewing, its funny that we didnt do basic lawn mowing as that seems to be a requirement of modern living, anyway i digress.

interestingly i'd say the majority of individuals at the indoctrnation centre werent really taken by the prayers and RE lesson really are quite boring, drawing hindu gods was easily the best part though, very cool.