Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Quetzalcoatl


451. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176366 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 8:00 am

Irate-

don't threaten me with your wife! She will be no match for the power of my Divine Wind (a power that could be interpreted several ways- pick the favourable one).

Philip-

thank you for defending me. Those subbies were a dreadful mistake. I still haven't finished clearing away all the asteroids they left floating about, and as for the sun spots.....

Seeker-

I know an answer when I see it. I also know bullshit when I see it. Your posts are full of it.

452. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176344 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 7:42 am

Seeker-

so you're not going to answer Irate's questions 1 and 2, then?

453. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176319 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 7:06 am

Seeker-

your inability to give a straight answer to the questions is telling.

454. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176315 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 6:59 am

Seeker-

you didn't answer 1 and 2.

455. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176310 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Not ice, not fire, not planetary collisions, not a shortage of oxygen, etc... but a flood


No stories about PLANETARY COLLISIONS? There's a shock! And no stories about the shortage of oxygen either. How strange, given that ancient cultures all knew what oxygen is and how it fuels the body.

456. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176306 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 6:47 am

Irate-

his answer will be: you tell me.

457. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176240 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 1:31 am

_riverrun_

Really? I think that claim has been proved repeatedly wrong in this thread


You don't think that people in this discussion are getting defensive about their ideas? I wasn't pointing exclusively at you, by the way, so apologies if that was what you thought since I only quoted you.

Why don't you review the litany on the other side? Just read the thread. Al-Rawandi has erected a straw man, I've named it "Chomsky Doll".


I have been reading the thread, thank you. I freely admit that I know very little about Chomsky, in fact I had never heard of him before joining this site. And since both sides are backing up their claims with quotes from Chomsky or about him, it's hard for an outsider like me to tell who is or isn't making straw men. What I do know is that if both sides are slinging about words like "gimp" and "catamite", it's hardly going to make the debate very productive. And that was my point.

458. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176232 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 1:08 am

I have to wonder whether statements like this are really going to add anything of value to the debate.

Perhaps this is down to your current electrifying and passionate love/hate relationship with your blow up "Chomsky doll". You know, the one you found when you were at your last NASCAR


I read a blog post yesterday, which discussed how sometimes a person can criticise not only another person's idea, but also that person for holding the idea in the first place. And that in turn can lead to defensiveness. There seems to be a lot of that here.

If you think the other person is being dishonest, fine, but some of the comments made are approaching vitriolic, and don't really add anything to the discussion.

Just my thoughts.

459. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176030 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 11:56 am

Tezcatlipoca-

Anybody that lived past 1950?


Ah. Past 1950, you start getting names like Michael Behe and William Dembski. Probably best not to go on.

460. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176004 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 10:43 am

Re Wadsworth's suggestion:

Punitive raids are a dicey proposition. The only way that they could be carried out without causing a lot of new recruitment is if they're targeted.

If the intelligence is good enough, hit them in their base camps and hide-outs. Target their supply routes and staging areas. Certainly hit anyone on your side of the border who is helping them in some way.

If the intel isn't that good, then the raids are likely to do more harm than good.

461. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175998 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 10:35 am

The Reverend Dark-

What it does not explain is why you are still trying to use it on fossil samples that are outside even the theoretical limit of the technique


Seeker uses supernova remnants as a way to assess the age of the Universe. Should we really be surprised?

462. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175941 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 9:00 am

Seeker-

Let's hurry and muddy the waters because I sense a challenge to my long held paradigm coming


Seeker, it's already been demonstrated that your "challenges" are anything but. And long held? I haven't been around long enough to have held ANY idea for that long.

If you want to change my mind, provide some evidence. Why not start with that link to the 4,000 year old dinosaur?

463. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175929 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 8:53 am

Everyone-

it seems that Seeker has learned a valuable lesson. In the "Supernova" discussion he provided links. When we looked at those links, we discovered that they completely undermined the point he was trying to make. He has obviously decided not to make the same mistake twice.

464. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175913 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 8:31 am

Seeker-

seriously. Are you going to provide a link, or not? If you don't, I think it's reasonable that your point be dismissed.

465. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175894 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 7:58 am

Seeker-

Obviously, testing data such as this will be coming from a source which some on this site might consider "______________." Fill-in-th-blank with degrading adjectives of choice. However, disparaging remarks will not make any test results go away


Give us the link and let us judge for ourselves.

466. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175888 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 7:52 am

Seeker-

can you provide us a link to an article about this dinosaur fossil that was dated at 4,000 years old?

467. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175787 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 3:18 am

Keith-

you're right, my mistake.
you're right, my mistake.
you're right, my mistake.

(It's easier to repeat myself in one post).

468. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175782 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 3:04 am

_riverrun_

Was there some reason you felt that you had to post the same comment twice- 230 & 237?

469. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175771 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 2:25 am

Good for her. It's good to see this woman turning what has happened to her into a positive by being able to help others going through the same thing.

470. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #175762 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 2:02 am

LeeC-

I would love to here the fundie explanation of life on Mars. Was God just practicing?


They'd still be around if they hadn't rejected the Martian Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. He was thrown from the top of Olympus Mons for their sins, you know.

471. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174728 by Quetzalcoatl on May 3, 2008 at 11:11 am

When they mentioned the fact that none of the children suffered from any recorded physical disabilities, it reminded me of the joke from the Simpsons about the Tiger-repelling rock.

Paine- yes, it's the same guy.

472. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174623 by Quetzalcoatl on May 3, 2008 at 2:41 am

Eagles12-

Not one scientific fact supports evolution


I'm going to treat your comment with the respect it deserves.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- gasps for breath -HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hee hee.

473. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174382 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 10:45 am

Seeker-

I scanned all links provided and didn't find direct refutation of my evidence


Why would we bother directly refuting evidence that is of no use to the purpose for which you are attempting to use it?

If I provided evidence regarding the spawning patterns of carp as evidence against the existence of God, would you "directly refute" it, or would you say that it was irrelevant? Exactly.

Now, I'm off to play some more Bible Fight.

474. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174370 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 10:25 am

Seeker-

When on my break, I asked my wife [a psychologist] exactly what purpose ridicule serves in the individual who perpetuates it and society as a whole. She told me that each of us deals with internal conflict in varies ways, which tend to depend on two factors; the level of conflict and our ability to cope with it in a productive manner. Ridicule is a form of humor which is usually reserved for internal conflicts on the mid-to-high end of the scale, which also lack healthy and productive coping mechanisms


Do you ever have a normal conversation with your wife? Almost every day there's a post from you along the lines of "I asked my wife the psychologist" blah blah blah.

475. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174297 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 3:16 am

Billy-

I have to put my hand over the picture to read the posts, otherwise I start to get a headache. Seriously.

476. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174288 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 2:21 am

Rian-

funny how it was "revealed" that Jesus was white.

477. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174284 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 2:10 am

Epeeist-

Of course they don't count. They don't show pictures of Jesus


Technically, neither do any of the churches, cathedrals or religious books.

They have pictures of some guy, but it ain't Jesus.

478. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174038 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Tezcatlipoca-

I should have guessed, she always did have a mischievous sense of humour.

479. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174036 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Seeker-

My introduction on this topic was evidence laden. All clear now?


Evidence that I showed was useless for dating the age of the Universe, using your own article! Denying it doesn't make it not so.

480. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174020 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Seeker-

alright. Why does your statement that "it doesn't qualify as evidence" contradict with your first statement where you said that SNR was your "main dilemma" with the age of the Universe?

481. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174016 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Seeker-

748 still.

482. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174008 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Seeker-

748.

483. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173987 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Seeker-

What?

Exactly my point, it wasn't. It was tit for tat


Then why would you say this:

I will now present my main dilemma with buying into the idea that the universe is billions of years old. I also plan to address this deity issue that seems so pressing to many here in relation to the topics of science and history


And this:

To age the universe into the billions of years by view of SNR's, I see the need to observe transitions from phase two to three at an approximate rate of the inception of new SNR's, decrease the frequency of the occurrence of SNR's, and/or discovering some on the millions of SNR's theorized to be in the third phase


in this comment:

33. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:13 am


Your dishonesty is astonishing.

484. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173967 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 11:54 am

Seeker-

I'll simply answer in kind, with... yes it is. How do you like that evidence?


How? How is it evidence for the age of the Universe?

485. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173948 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

Seeker-

also see my comment 702.

486. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173916 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 11:00 am

In fairness to Seeker, I left for an hour to go home and have dinner. We shall see what happens when/if he returns.

487. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173897 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 10:29 am

And I'm back. Since nothing seems to have changed, I'll just restate my comment 663 in the hope that Seeker will answer this time.

Seeker-

Here we have evidence against a billions of years universe so, for this reason alone, it becomes invalid? This might also be called a preconception of biblical proportion. If evidence is elevated to what it appears by most of us on this site, why not address it instead of topical diversions?


You just don't seem to get it. SNRs are not evidence against a universe that is billions of years old. Nor are they evidence for it. The SNRs that we can see cannot be applied to the question of the age of the Universe, no more than the spawning patterns of Alaskan salmon can.

You seem to believe that I am not addressing your evidence. But your evidence is not something that can confirm or deny the age of the Universe as >15byrs. I am addressing your evidence, by telling you that it is not appropriate for the question that you are attempting to use it to answer.

488. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173838 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

Seeker-

I have to go now, but I'll be back in about an hour.

489. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173831 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 9:26 am

Seeker_of_truth-

Here we have evidence against a billions of years universe so, for this reason alone, it becomes invalid? This might also be called a preconception of biblical proportion. If evidence is elevated to what it appears by most of us on this site, why not address it instead of topical diversions?


You just don't seem to get it. SNRs are not evidence against a universe that is billions of years old. Nor are they evidence for it. The SNRs that we can see cannot be applied to the question of the age of the Universe, no more than the spawning patterns of Alaskan salmon can.

You seem to believe that I am not addressing your evidence. But your evidence is not something that can confirm or deny the age of the Universe as >15byrs. I am addressing your evidence, by telling you that it is not appropriate for the question that you are attempting to use it to answer.

490. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173803 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

Seeker-

from the article that you have cited. I have highlighted the salient points.

There are ways to date older supernova remnants (ages > 10,000 years), however they are not very accurate. These methods involve X-ray observations which measure the temperature of these supernova remnants. From the temperature, one can estimate the speed of the shock wave, from the speed of the shock wave one can estimate the age. Using these methods, we observe supernova remnants up to abound 100,000 years old, when they fade into the interstellar medium.

Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years. The universe is much older than that, which we know from the oldest stars (on the order of 10,000,000,000 years old). In addition, we observe distant objects that are billions of light years away.

The most solid evidence for the Earth being old are the products from long half-life radioactive decay found in meteorites and rocks on the Earth. For example: Potassium 40 (40K) decays into the gas Argon 40 (40Ar) with a 1/2 life of 1.3 billion years. As long as a rock remains a rock, this 40 Ar remains trapped. If the rock melts, the Argon escapes. So, by measuring the amount of 40K and 40Ar in a rock, geologists can measure its age.

Common elements used for this are Potassium 40 (1/2 life = 1,300,000,000 years), Uranium 238 (1/2 life = 4,500,000,000 years), Rubidium 87 (1/2 life = 47,000,000,000 years).

These studies clearly show that the Earth is at least 3.9 Billion years old, because that is the age of the oldest rocks. The oldest meteorites are about 5 Billion years old


So, as I said, SNRs are not a valid way of assessing the age of the Universe, both for the reasons mentioned in the quote AND the ones that I have said before. Your evidence is not appropriate for the purposes you are attempting to put it to.

491. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173783 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 8:40 am

Seeker-

You have responded, in length mind you, to none of the evidence that I presented


Huh? I disputed your assertion that counting SNRs is a valid way of assessing the age of the Universe. Did you miss my point about population III stars? There was also a long period of time between the Big Bang and the formation of the first PIII stars. SNR-counting would give you no insight into that.

492. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173767 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 8:26 am

Seeker-

Pretty simple concept really- a thermonuclear explosion which eventually cools and fades away. We have observed approximately 5 SNR's in the first phase and about 200 in phase two. If SNR's occur every 25 years as estimated, the simple math puts the age of our universe under ten-thousand years. If we get creative with halving and doubling, we can extend that age into the millions of years. Nowhere though, can I stretch this in to the billions of years


If I'm understanding you correctly, you're using supernovas as a way of making a judgement on the age of the Universe? This is a bizarre way to go about it.

In fact, it's not bizarre, it's downright wrong. Firstly, the stars that supernova go through billions of years of fusion prior to that, the accumulated "waste elements" at their core being what initiates the expansion and subsequent supernova to begin with. By studying supernovas and stars that are not far off doing so, we can work out how long those stars have been around.

Secondly, don't forget the time it took for the stars to form in the first place. In addition, the types of stars we see when we look out into the Universe now are not the first stars to have formed.

The first stars are called Population III stars (I'll check that), they were very large and burned for a shorter period of time. Then there was a gap before the Population II and I stars first ignited.

In addition, light from countless supernovas will have already passed the Earth by long before humanity even evolved, let alone started studying the skies. The whole basis is flawed.

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

Comment #173747 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:54 am

MaxD-

it looks a little like that. The discussion thread between them on FCOS has died.

494. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173735 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:30 am

Hello Severalspeciesof!

(See, it's catching on!)

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

Comment #173733 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:29 am

Anna-

Also, he wanted to promote his "new" persona and all that accompanies it


Perhaps someone should point out that promoting his "new persona" via a succession of ad hominems, blanket assertions and veiled insults is unlikely to speak positively to the positive influence of the love of Christ.

I would not feel sorry for him, he made his choice freely.

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

Comment #173725 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:17 am

Anna-

I have noticed that sometimes posts made there appear in tandem with an immediate refutation, as if the moderators do not want the first one to be read alone without a rebuttal. Combined with moderation, it is a very stilted, uneven way of doing things. But I suspect that might suit RM right now.

497. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173719 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:02 am

Brian-

By the way, Hello Quetz!


Hello to you!

(See, who says that our posts don't add to the overall discussion?)

498. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173711 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 6:41 am

ReverendDark-

it will do no good. In his next "post" he will simply complain about your "bad language" and totally ignore the subject. Your persistence is admirable, but if you go into your garden you may be able to find a woodlouse that is more likely to be able to absorb the information that you have provided.

Brian-

not every comment. When you say "hello" to people, it's fine.

499. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173693 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 6:04 am

Rian-

Pal is a word he figured out. No offense :-)


Offense taken. Be silent, big-hat. :-)

500. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173688 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 5:58 am

Anna-

ain't it always?

Clearmind-

don't call me pal.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next