501. Fear of Barbara Forrest

Comment #92358 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:42 am

can you imagine it:

1) give a detailed explanation of the processes that led to the diversity of life on planet earth.

Gawd did it.

A+, well done johnny!!

502. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92348 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:26 am

What they really need to do is to find out how many people correctly understand evolution.

I would be willing to bet that 100% of those that don't "believe" in evolution don't have a correct understanding of it.

thats an understatement, most of them wont have a clue over and above something like 'its that thing that says we come from slime, and that means we's all act like monkeys' and unfortunately thats about as far as youd get from maybe 90% of those that dont 'believe' it, which offers some hope as of course we dont all act like monkeys, but we do act as apes.

when somebody bring it up as an argument i will ask them something like 'so, irrespective of your acceptence of it or not, just what do scientists mean by evolution?'

Its a good starting point as immediately you will get an idea of what you are dealing with and it also makes them realise that they know very little.

Ive found the best way to deal with creationists is to let them ask questions(and they will have a lot, remember they usually know sweet FA), i dont ask them questions if possible.

they will ask things like 'how come theres no half creatures' and 'how come theres monkeys still' what i then do to the best of my ability is literally draw out quick family trees and say 'this is what the theory shows, and evidence includes....' i never get into a shouting match, theres no need, and as for me not asking questions, well what would i ask 'so how did god decide upon where to put which kind', 'why did god give spiders 8 legs and insects 6' , the best question i will throw is 'i wonder why god gave us and chimps such a lot of shared dna? there must be a good reason'

503. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92335 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:07 am

the ebay seller of the mohammed bear is putting themselves at risk, and of course that is the problem and thats in part why this website exists.

504. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92301 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 8:54 am

albacore, i dont use the word believe for evo, i use the word 'accept'. heres a useful link:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm

505. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92298 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 8:51 am

i wonder where that puts the US in terms of a superstition leaugue table, on par with Haiti perhaps? its funny how an technologically advanced environment doesnt necessarily correspond with an equivalent leap in rationalism or progressive thought.

506. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92266 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 6:50 am

I don't think Gillian Gibbons will be in danger when she gets back to the UK. The good thing about the issue is that many leading Mohammedans here have said publicly how ridiculous the whole thing is. Indeed, I think a group went/are going to Khartoum in her support.

I wouldnt be to sure. of course there are a good proportion (and i would hope the vast majority)of UK muslims who will see this as grotesque as anybody but there will be stirrings within young males who will now be suggesting that she should be killed, fear of reprisal keeps most from causing harm but of course we all know that they only answer to one authority. All i can hope is that Gibbons gets out of sudan as soon as possible.

507. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92251 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 6:22 am

as soon as i read about the teddy bear story i foresaw the consequences, i knew that many would want this lady killed, and i was right.

The problem is even once she gets back to the UK she is going to come under threat from islamic people there, as there WILL be muslims in the UK who will want her dead. This whole fiasco is almost the perfect example of why books like TGD and GING were written.

It perfectly demonstrates the type of behaviour that religion can trigger. Its notions of unquestioned authority, what is right/wrong and its ability to move a violent mob, as hitchens says 'religion poisons everything'.

I wonder if these marches will erupt into some local civil breakdown? i wonder what the body count will be at the end of all this? if this cannot demonstrate the malign affect that religious beliefs can have on people (after the naming of a toy) then nothing will.

Its nothing more than an excuse for men behaving badly, we see it worldwide (lynchings, football hooliganism, inquisition all of which have religious underpinnings, football fanatacism is I suspect a type of secular religion)

508. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92240 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 5:58 am

a sad story. the boy chose to die apparently because he believed some lies, a great shame he was told them in the first place.

seems a bit odd though that a 14 year old (and as an individual he seemed to be in a highly compromised situation)is deemed old enough to decide to die but not old enough to choose to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

509. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91443 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2007 at 10:26 am

its this type of thing that prompts books like TGD to be written in the first place.

Im starting to feel that religious beliefs are a bit like a cage an animal finds itself in and doesnt even realise its not supposed to be there.

510. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91343 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2007 at 5:18 am

young muslim men in the UK do what many young men in the west do, the rebel against something.

For a non muslim male this might last a few years and centers around rejecting authority it may be violent or simply means he uses drugs for a few years or just wears clothes different to his parents. Either way when he looks back he might consider those behavious a bit juvenile and foolish.

The difference with muslim males is that they are reacting against authority and the general populace who do not share their religion, and as it is religion that defines most of them (and i challenge you to ask a muslim male 'who are you?' and not have 'muslim' mentioned very quickly) with its innate unquestioned authority and its acceptence by peers and importantly the older section of a community and you have an extended rebellion that has no aspect of wrongness attached to it, somehow its connection to divinity makes it absolutely justified.

An american family member of mine spent time in the UK and spent time daily within a large muslim community area and I was actually afraid for that person, i advised them to not advertise their nationaily to loudly and I felt quite sure i wasnt being overly cautious.

511. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91172 by phasmagigas on November 27, 2007 at 1:07 pm

so could this be the the millenium generations 'texas chainsaw massacre' or 'cannibal holocaust', basically the film your parents really didnt want you to see. If christian parents tell their kids that they are 'not going to see this movie because {insert various reason}' i wonder just what the outcome will be??

Anyway, not quite equivalent as there was good reason for kids not to watch cannibal holocaust, im not sure compass will leave any 8 year olds traumatised for a week, could damn their souls though.

512. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90897 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Creationists believe that the created kind possessed at creation all genetic information for rapid speciation to take place. The global flood created an 'empty' world where rapid speciation could take place as isolated communities lost genetic information, lost the ability to breed with other members of their kinds and developed into new species. Further creationists point to operational science to support their views as rapid speciation is observable. This is natural selection

this is quite interesting:

http://jeffthefish.com/2007/11/16/noahs-ark-vs-math/

so creationists now actually admit that evolution happens, well thats a start, all the ones ive spoken to said evolution didnt happen and that it was a complete lie!!

and i thought that i read that microevolution happens but macro doesnt, so how do we get from the initial 2 say stick insect 'kinds' and then within 4000 years get this:

http://www.biol.pmf.hr/e-skola/odgovori/odg-slike/odg327.jpg

or http://www.galapagos.dk/pic/dyr_extatosoma_2.JPG

without 'macro' evolution or even in the ape family, this:

http://www.uen.org/utahlink/activities/uploads/3817_a_orangut.jpg

or this:

http://www.uglybabycontest.com/images/photos/ugly-baby-gabriel.jpg

513. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90890 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I wonder how well you understand the creationist position

which one? i didnt realise there was 'the' creationist position.

514. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90888 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm

devolved

If you are unable to provide examples of increases in genetic information then the entire evolutionary argument falls over.

if you cant get your car started in the morning then the argument that it can normally move falls over, however if it were shown that people and monkeys shared no more DNA with each other than either does with dandelions and dragonflies then the evolution argument wouldnt fall over, it would be totally trounced (unless we got the taxonomy REALLY wrong).

Antibiotic resistance is an example of a trait resulting from the loss of genetic information. The accidental duplication of genes doesn't help either. The accidental duplication of genes doesn't help either. Get the point?

maybe you get the point now
maybe you get tje point now

515. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90685 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 6:00 am

in terms of psychology i wonder if this is less to do with wanting truth and more to do with belonging to a specific group.

Its a bit like supporting your local football team for no better reason than everybody around you does so irrespective of the teams performance or character of its players. some football fans are passionate or indeed fanatical to the point of obsession and i wonder if there is a similarity.

its easy to observe belonging and ritual all tied together, i see it at UK football matches, droves of families in 'colours' heading to the stadium, muslim men in droves and traditional dress walking to mosque, I see it here in the states, a local jehova church has people in their what i assume are best clothes (a uniform as such) heading for their sessions, in all cases theres a kind of strange solidarity that i simply do not connect with. i wonder if the same happens with these flood geologists, once the notion has entered their minds (presumably in childhood) they fixate on it and join their group only to fuel their beliefs.

516. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90534 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:38 pm

You made an honest mistake, and changed your mind, and said so. That is a decent way to behave.

:) funnily enough when i first read the article I was going to reply with a simple 'and...' as it seemed to say so little other than science is faith, and just how many times have we heard that without any type of elaboration, little more than your BS is no better than my BS.

when i read a couple of posts i saw the name davies and then thought 'the scientist?' then on going back i saw that the article continued, then read quickly then realised i had to zap my post as it was inappropriate by which time id seen your post and then i thought 'jees, i sound like a bloody caveman' a bit like reading only 'i love eating beef' and missing the whole sentence 'i love eating beef textured soy burgers as im a strict vegan'.

517. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90530 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm

There is no sensible comparison between faith and science, and at this point just comparing the two makes it harder for society to be free. Writing an article for the NY times about how scientists have "faith" in their work is a blatant attack on naturalism

as i mentioned earlier, articles like this can be used in a very unspohisticated way to undermine evolution for example, questions in 'deep' physics are one thing but relatively observable phenomena like evolution do not need to be weakened. Weve seen the results of quote mining and down right lies that creationist will pedel and when this potentially hits education there is some concern. Im not saying this article will do that but in the same way that i initially misread it some could deliberately misuse it on a scientifically illiterate audience.

518. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90520 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

steve99

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

steve, i hope you dont actually sign off for good, you are one of those who make excellent contributions. I actually spent this morning with my initial 'bloody idiot' comment in my head and felt quite foolish in 1) not reading the intro paragraphs carefully and 2)failing to see the article continued.

Paul for sure is a respected writer (i only read fifth miracle so far). FRom my skim this morning of the first paragraphs i assumed a religious apoligist who was basically saying science is equivalent to faith and no matter how deep we delve we still see this faith stand up, i read it to mean 'it still stands only on faith no matter what we learn' whicg of course could push a few buttons.

Even if people eventually find that 'laws' do evolve then these will be incorporated into physics too.

anyway i digress a fraction. stay put steve, nobody is perfect, not even the disbeleivers :)

519. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90454 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:27 am

True, but what Davies is saying is that some scientists are kind of assuming 'there are laws' in an axiomatic and unquestioning way, and this can in some senses be like the unquestioning way people assume God as axiomatic.

i guess that those who can genuinely ponder the origins of the laws are perhaps waiting for the right time, once we (they) have a better idea of how and when the laws did/do/will operate then it will be easier to establish why. For sure scientists have to assume the laws are there (and in that sense it could be a type of very practical faith)but only in the same sense in that every time you take a step you assume that you will not fall down into the void.

i can see a slight danger that articles like this one could be hijacked by full on faithheads and pass on the science is a faith to others.

there is a difference here between 'faith' in universal laws being present (even if locally they vary) and faith in the traditional sense. if i throw a ball up, i know its going to come down, not through having faith in (local?) laws but by evidence, having seen balls only ever come down. traditional faith is a faith that god is there but also more importantly how he works and as we know once could pray to god all day that the ball stays up but it really just isnt going to do so.

520. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90451 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

steve, yes i blundered, i thought the snippet was the entire piece!! then i read the whole lot and hey presto the authors meanings become realised.

edit, a case of my not looking before leaping and in my defence i deleted my post before i even saw steves wrist slap :)

521. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90450 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:18 am

i dont really understand the authors point. accepting a framework of physical laws even if as yet their reason is unknown isnt faith, the laws are apparently there. To suggest this is somehow equivalent to faith in a universal ceator which may or not be there seems quite different even if this notion of god is way different from one that doesnt like people to work on sundays.

522. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90442 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:05 am

523. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90342 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 11:36 am

i feel its time to flag a teenage troll, i for one will not feed the troll from this point......even if i get drunk later

524. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90303 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 6:44 am

I was trying to use the term 'believe' in the sense of 'have faith in', but I accept what you are saying

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm

this is useful

525. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90300 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 6:25 am

I have no idea what you mean by "odds like that", but we believe in evolution as against life being made by an intelligent being not just because evolution is far simpler, but because we have actually seen evolution happen. Lots of it. And not just with bugs, but with large organisms. We have seen new species form. We have seen animals adapt to changing environment. We don't really 'believe' in evolution any more than we 'believe' that the Earth is round - it is silly to talk about possible 'belief' in evolution when it happens all around us.

steve 99. in the course of any conversation on evo i always ensure i use the word 'accept' over believe , believe has become one of those words oft overused these days, i blame oprah, same with joy, love(unconditional), praise.

526. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90298 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 5:39 am

Tell that to those who have experienced him in the supernatural.

How do you handle all of the firsthand witness reports of things like near-death experiences and other such 'phenomena?' Are all of these people lying?

lying? no. the brain is a master of simulation but not perfect (excuse my use of the word perfect) it simulates the world around us as appropriate for our survival.

We can 'imagine' things that seem peculiar or unexplained but that is no evidence whatsoever for divine experience.

We all have moments of 'simulation malfunction' I saw what i thought was a daddy long legs spider on my wall recently, for a split second i actually saw a spider in detail, it wasnt, it was a bit of fluff on the wall that was moving in a way similar to a spider (air currents), my brain so expected a spider that it actually formed the image of one and i saw it, another split second later extra info (visual info of the fluff) allowed my brain to reinterpret it and update the image for the fluff it was. Experiences like this are enlightening as to how we can be deceived, i could have said 'oh, a spider turned into some fluff, god is here' but i choose a more likely explanation, indeed if i told friends and neighbours id just seen a transubstantiation of spider to fluff they would rightly see me as a bit crazy. A good demonstration of the brains ability to simulate what isnt there when smebody takes an LSD trip.

(interestingly when i was abroad i once saw some assassin bugs that im convinced were mimicking old bits of cobweb and moulted spider skins, you know how little bits of old web and egg sacs kind of blow in the breeze under overhangs, they were almost transparent, with a fuzzy integument and moved in a way that made them look like a bit of web in the breeze. When i first saw them I honestly thought they were old discarded exoskeletons and webbing just hanging there, maybe i have too much imagination but a good disguise for sure!!)

Combine that with so-called 'coincidences' with what is written/prophesied in the Bible to the things that absolutely have happened on the earth as prophesied in the Bible, and there is much evidence.

general biblical prophecies have been debunked for years, general prophecies generally (like in news papaer horoscopes-ok so mini prophecies)have been debunked as having no basis for serious consideration.

And how about the pathological evidence? when you see a spark plug, do you think it came about through evolution, or intelligently made? if a simple device like a spark plug is intelligently made in your eyes, why is not something as complex as a DNA chain or an eye or a brain, etc., not intelligently made in your eyes?

I think you are misunderstanding the word pathological here. Ruht, you are making the classic mistake of seeing a spark plug as designed (as it was) and then transferring that design to all complex objects. watching dawkins (yes dawkins, he is a good explainer) 'growing up in the universe' is a good starting point to get a grasp of 'designed or not' and even if you decide to disagee with it entirely at least you will have done what we all hav edone here, and that is at least try to understand other possible explanations, for most here simply saying 'god did it' just isnt a fulfilling or detailed enough explanation, ID (as it stands) doesnt add anything either. the said video is free and linked from this website, you may be suprised that dawkins doesnt shout and bang darwins book on his pulpit saying 'this is true because my book says its true'.

As your own guru Dawkins said inadvertently, the chances for evolution, as proven so far, are 1-infinity. With odds like that, why is it that you nevertheless believe in evolution, seeing how the chances for all of the life on this planet being made by an intelligent being are far better?

another misconcption ruht, most here do not see dawkins as a guru, that is a religious mind imposing its own failings onto others (the need for some type of guiding force/person), its common for the religious to put non believers into a religion of their own with gurus/leaders/doctrines/dogmas/scriptures.

1-infinity, just what the hell are you talking about???? the rest of what you said re odds of evo vs creator becomes meaningless.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in God; meaning what you believe is more of a 'religion' than the belief in God, from that aspect.

once again the classic case of evo is a religion 'your BS is as bad as my BS'. Funny how faith suddenly becomes something to not be aspired to when the 'faith' is evolution. ruht, faith is believing in something without evidence, remember darwin didnt set out thinking 'im going to show that god didnt create the world' he thought god did (as far as i know) he examined what he saw around him and it simply told a different story, thats how science works, the evidence points to a conclusion.
proponents of creation establish their conclusion first and fit their beliefs and even try to bend evidence to fit, one look at 'answers in genesis' leaves you in no doubt of this. Imagine what a dreadful place we would live in if law was applied in this way. Its the equivalent of the verdict being made at the beginning of a trial and having the evidence explained in a way so it fits the verdict (or indeed having no evidence whatso ever).

"Mr jones, at the beginning of this proceeding we find you guilty, witness x please tell me how you know Mr jones is guilty"

"I witness x 'know' he guilty as he was in the vicinity of the murder 4 weeks before the murder'

"good enough for us methinks, off to the gallows Mr jones"

or of course:

judge "Mrs sparrow, at the beginning of this trial you are innocent of murder, witness y, tell us what you know"

witness "i witness y found mrs sparrow bloodsoaked, holding a dagger in the chest of her husband, she was yelling 'you evil adulterer' and spitting on him'

judge "well its quite clear that she was cutting some potatos and slipped on her apron and fell against her husband, as for witness y's testimony, he must have imagined the spit and her shouting, mrs sparrow you are free to go"


ok, i have too much time today!!

527. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90297 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 5:01 am

ruht,

you are coming across as a serious troll.

throwing scripture around is ineffective, it would be as ridiculous as me joining a christian forum and throwing around quotes from the 'origin of species' shouting 'dawkins says...' and expecting people to take me seriously.

Unfortunately unless your arguments become significantly more sophisticated you are either going to be ignored or barred (the darwin conspiracy police are everywhere) or have each and every point you make sliced, diced and thoroughly consumed.

528. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90295 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 4:49 am

rhut:

If it's truly a "ridiculous statement," then tell me what I mean by "the cat is green."

now youve backed out of the evolution debate you have resorted to playing word games.

Your argument goes something like this: 'if you dont know what I mean by the 'cat is green', then it shows the bible is unknowable by natural man and proves there is a god'

non sequiter.

529. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90255 by phasmagigas on November 23, 2007 at 7:40 pm

The proper interpretations of the Bible have been deliberately hidden to the natural man, so as to make it impossible for the natural man to interpret it with his own natural abilities.

an intersting assertion, so an UNnatural man can understand the bible with his unnatural abilities, so maybe genetically engineered individuals could do this by being 'unnatural' or even gay people as ive heard christians calling them 'unnatural'.

well a ridiculous statement requires a ridiculous comment!!

530. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90254 by phasmagigas on November 23, 2007 at 7:33 pm

And God wrote the Bible this way intentionally.

so that people could interpret it any way they wished, nice people can do nice things from the scriptures like make cakes for sunday school outings and nasty people can kill, rape and pillage after reading them and its all mean old gods fault!!

Ruht, your initial points on evolution allowed at least some answers, please continue with those rather than this tomfoolery.

531. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90130 by phasmagigas on November 23, 2007 at 5:45 am

its quite common to have creationists trounced in an argument on evo who then go on to god arguments. The most recent intereaction I had was when an evo discussion suddenly turned into the 'can you prove you love your wife' session, yawn.....

532. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90014 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:51 am

To hanker for such explanations is natural. To indulge in them is understandable. To proselytize and seek to displace scientific endeavour with them is disgraceful.

nice, more constructive than my chin stroking!

533. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90010 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:42 am

rhut

But seeing it and explaining it are two different things.

i accept that generally, I saw a jewish guy vigorously praying in an airport lounge a few months ago (and he has every right and should have every right to do that and im happy he can imitate being totally crazy in a public space) there were several things about the whole spectacle that i didnt understand, i didnt understand why more people werent looking at him out of sheer curiosity, i also didnt understand why he wasnt dragged away by security as at the same time over the PA system the following (or similar to) was being said: 'in the interests of security please report any suspicous activity'. Had the guy been islamic and praying on the floor he might well have had a very different reception by people waiting to get on the plane.

anyway it has nothing to do with the thread but i just remembered it and felt compelled to write!

edit: actaully i know fullwell why nobody was looking at the guy (irrespective of what they were thinking), its because they were being (or playing at being) fully accepting of this extremly odd head banging, holding a book and chanting bacause its part of his religion, so thats ok and if i look at him oddly then im being rude and inconsiderate and even hostile and i dont want to seem uncultured in this crowded public space.

534. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90006 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:34 am

I consider God to be able to do anything he is capable of doing.


And in anticipation of your next probable question (something which I don't usually try to do in a place like this), since I am not able to explain infinity, then I am not able to explain the infinite. But even though infinity is 'invisible' in that aspect, nevertheless I can still 'see' it though, by seeing its 'shadow.' But seeing it and explaining it are two different things.

We are a finite living inside of an infinite. We operate with created laws and physics, inside of non-created infinite laws and physics that we are not capable of knowing while operating in the finite. But nevertheless we know they are there; unless one wants to claim that infinity does not exist, but which is impossible.

i prefer the evo stuff, all i can do now is stroke my chin and say hmmmm...........im beginning to wonder if this i actually RD having a little joke with us :)

535. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89999 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:15 am

The kinds of evidence we have for the existence of god are exactly the kinds of evidence we would espect to find if there were no god at all, but rather just a whole lot of wishful thinking, ignorance, tradition and cultural inertia.

J, a nicely written little piece. This morning i saw one of those pieces of evidence, walking my happy, warm(ish) dogs we passed a gaggle of canadian geese at the river bank, one was limping and the poor beast had its foot literally hanging by a thread, of course a similarly cruel fate is to be had by all the said geese (and every other living thing, including people). A religious person might console themselves with 'oh, its gods will' or even 'it will enter ducky heaven soon' i just see what youd expect if there was no god, no god atall, some fine healthy bird the product of 3.5 billion years evolution, unceremoniously hopping in pain and soon to die (thankfully)by cold, microbe or coyote.

536. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89994 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 10:49 am

ruht:

Explain how either to destroy or not to destroy makes one any less 'perfect' than the other.

ok, my last non evo post (we were discussing ID vs evo ruht, i was enjoying that more) if i can resist! so its a bit like going past a train wreck and seeing some poor child missing a leg and seeing the perfection in her tears.

537. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89992 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 10:39 am

eepeist. ah, the new avatar, the swords are very clear now, no more mistaking you for a golfer!!!! :)

538. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89961 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:29 am

Are you asking me which one I believe is true, or are you asking me to guess which one you prefer, or are you asking me which one you'd like me to pick for you.

which one you believe in.

either way im going to ignore the god sections here and concentrate on the evo posts, i wish dianelos would come over and he can take over the god bits.....i gotta take the bloody dogs out....

edit: i was suggesting dianelos only as he might well enjoy showing believers that their view of god is wrong, as its not quite like his. we might as well get the believers to agree on stuff before they start debating.......and besides this was an evolution thread, when i accept something is true, i at least like it to be falsifiable, i can at least to be demonstrated wrong in my 'beliefs' and thats got to be a good thing.

539. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89957 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:26 am

Perfectly confusing! If God is omniscient, then he knows when and why he'll change his mind. Therefore he would just start off with the "correct option", hence not changing his mind at all! I've also blogged about this, it doesn't get easier to explain with time!

whats interesting to me is that in the company of believers I could come up with any old nonesense about god, i could randomly make it up, something like 'well i think god is everywhere, in me, on me, but at the same time totally separate which allows me to make my own choices upon which i'll be judged' and i can bet theyd all accept that was a perfectly reasonable thing to say (and i did just make that up) and they smile and say what a nice thinking christian i am. Its also interesting that its not so easy to masquerade as a pro evolutionist (not that thats anything to do with masquerading as a christian), im not sure of my point but seems that religion allows for any old dishonest/honest BS where ANYTHING can happen. remember that twilight zone? episode where an omniscient/omnipotent being says it can do anything, until some guys says 'get lost' at which point the said being vaporises in faliure!!

540. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89951 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:16 am

Your question is flawed. Only one God is the real one. I believe what you're trying to ask is how do we decide what is written on him is true or not.

so which one? a know many muslims who say its allah and hes VERY distinct from krishna (for eg) if there is a god i know nothing of him/it/she, you are the one who can enlighten here.

541. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89943 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:10 am

quetz

If he decided to do something else, then obviously his first choice was incorrect or worse than the second. Therefore, not perfect.

come on quetz, remember god works in mysterious ways, perfect in its imperfection!!

542. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89940 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:02 am

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it because you refuse any evidence that contradicts darwinism. You create your so-called 'scientic method' to purposely exclude anything but darwinism even if something is the truth, as stated by your own beloved but clearly insane Judge Jones:

as of yet there is not one, not one piece of evidence that contradicts evo, none that i know of! Evolutionary scientists constantly try to falsify their own ideas (thats how science works), and as of yet the falsification hasnt yet done any falsifying so the theory as a whole remains the best known account for lifes diversity.

'beloved' judge jones, well im not sure hes beloved of any of us here, he merely did his job, upheld the constitution, had a hindu asked for equal time on hindu creation myth im sure youd have agreed with him when he rejected it as unconstitutional and not science. the judge may be insane but he doesnt seem to show it publically.

"While ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." - The honorable but totally insane Judge John E. Jones III, United States District Court, Case No, 04cv2688, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

ID hypothesis may be true but there isnt anything (zero, zilch, 0 )to demonstrate that it is so for now we have to assume it isnt. heres another version of it:

'While maori creation arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, maori creation is not science." - The honorable but totally insane Judge John E. Jones III, United States District Court, Case No, 04cv2688, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District'

Even if something's the truth, if it goes against evolution it's not science, according to darwinism insanity.

there isnt a single piece of evidence that is accepted as true that contradicts evolution, i could start being a complete ass and say 'well just what do we mean by truth' as do many religious people when they get stuck in a corner, i am not yet in a corner, evo theory is no where near.

Therefore what darwinists are promoting isn't true science, it's totalitarianism; it's a cult.

im not sure my teacher suggested any horrors if i didnt subscribe to evolution, many religious people do quite the opposite. Darwinism a cult, oh the dishonour, surely a religion!! the classic case of 'your BS is just as bad as my BS'

543. For the glory of God

Comment #89937 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 7:43 am

Without religion, people would still form groups and groups would still fight over resources. Examples of non-religious groups: by location, language, political party, profession, trade union, charity, sport, etc.

very true. i remember vividly as a kid in the UK (and this will sound almost unbelievable to americans) a slightly older relative of mine from 25 miles away came to visit, his accent markedly different from mine. A walk through our local town had my relative singled out by a gang of lads, one asked 'are you from f'in 'insert town x' he actually got it wrong anyway, woefully wrong (the town hed mentioned was actually 15 miles east and not 25 miles west!) anyway a fight ensued and I remember being truly amazed that a difference in accents was enough to instigate a fight.

544. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89931 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 7:23 am

I find that mentioning this stuff usually results in a period of thoughtful silence from creationists, as a pet argument has been demolished. Of course, what usually follows is an attempt to redefine 'species' and 'mutation' and so on...

unlike 'ontlogies' posts where there is some debate to be had at least evolution is based on real evidence that once can hold and manipulate, creationists have so little to go on (actually zero) in terms of evidence over wishful thinking that the arguments are demolised very easily.

remeber 'revcort'? we were talking about the dino bird connection and archaeopteryx came up, rev said hed read that some scientist was saying that archeoperyx was actually 'just a bird', i replied by trying to explain the idea of cladistics and just what is a bird??

Cladistics and the idea of groups of organisms changing through time, that species are almost only defined through the fact that intermediates are dead/no remnants are difficult to imagine initially.

the majority of creationst questions regarding evo simply illustrate a lack of understanding of the process, a real shame as this is the stuff that should be taught in schools.

I can bet there are many non biology specialists teaching evo in schools who themselves do not have a grasp of the basics, so that when a kid throws a question such as 'if we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?' only a teacher with a good grasp of the theory can demonstarte that the question as posed is flawed, a well armed teacher could effortlessly draw a quick family tree on the board, point out where we and modern monkeys 'are' and trace back and voila, the kid leans something, a teacher who cant do that might say 'er, well, i'll look it up and tell you tomorrow' that immediately reinforces the 'controversy', no kid is going to question a teacher on the haber process, evo needs a special place in school curriculums, esp as denying it can be an open door to ignorance for life. comments on youtube are a classic example.

pro evolution comments such as:

'HELLOOO dummy, you evr heard of ring species? go read a book and learn summit. IDIOT.'

tend not to be found and for good reason.

545. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89914 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:55 am

ruht

"Possibly a Christian?" you ask me for 'proof,' and then you use the word "possibly" to put forth your own assertion?

Different standards for different folks, I guess.

Typical "clear thinking" darwinists.

reasonable people prefer to use the word 'possibly' a lot, the use is can be reduced as more evidence piles in. If you use 'possibly' you are hardly making an assertion.

Assertions occur when you say someting without evidence. If a car goes past me and theres a jesus sticker on the back I can say that the driver is 'possibly' a christian, I have allowed for 2 opposing options, 1)driver IS a christain and 2)driver ISNT a christain. If i say that driver IS a christian, then ive made an assertion. The driver could be the atheist or islamic brother of the driver who is merely borrowing the car. If the car stopped outside a church, the driver gets out and is seen to have a crucifix around his neck and then enters the church i have 2 more pieces of evidence that that person is possibly a christian, however at that point most reasonable people would reasonably drop the 'possibly' at that point (unless soemthing vital hinged on the proposition of the person being a christian, akin to say a group of shia muslims wanting to be sure that the person in their midst and sweating profusely was actyually a shia too and not a sunni)

the corroborative evidence for evo is overwhelming, theres literally tonnes of it, that this can be trounced by a couple of pages in an old book is astonishing, and thats what it boils down to, id rather people be honest and say their non acceptence if evo is religious in nature and based on faith, at least i know where i stand with them, the attempt to use the scientific method to demostrate ID (and we are still waiting for the easier falsification of evo)is fine, each to their own, but it hasnt showed ONE thing pointing to design, not ONE single thing, not one thing on this entire planet points to design, well apart from cars, radios etc.

546. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89911 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:39 am

ruht.

Darwinism is big business these days

indeed it is.

selective breeders of animals and plants

microbiologists working on antibiotics, vaccines, anti parasite drugs

both these massive endeavours (food production and attack by microbes are our species biggest immediate concerns, i think theres a strong argument for that) work on the assumption that evolution is true, its used entirely as the framework for both these ventures.

ruht, if you find yourself with a complex chest infection an the doctor suggests you need 2 antibiotics to help reduce the chance of a resistant strain emerging would you question the doctors advice? you should to be consistent say 'oh no, i only need one, evolution doesnt happen' would you then sue the doctor if a difficult to treat strain proliferated in your chest at that point??

547. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89905 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:15 am

If they can't, then darwinists can never prove their theory. If they can, then they will have just inadvertently proven Intelligent Design to be a possibility and to therefore also be science, seeing how they, perhaps minute intelligent beings (I'll give a darwinist that much), created life themselves.

im late on this thread but anyway....

if humans manage to create a self replicating living system in the lab its says nothing about how life arose on this planet, it says nothing what so ever. It would be a bit like an engineer building a syscraper and concluding that mound building termites must also be intelligent in the same way that he or she is.

No scientist worth their salt says intelligent design is an impossibility, its just that given the evidence its all rather unlikely and unnecessary.

It's a sticky wicket for darwinists, and it proves that their theory of evolution is impossible.

No creationist worth their salt would say that evolution is impossible. Evolutionary theory has yet to be falsified, almost anybody can find a potential falsification but when tested the falsification just hast worked. The ultimate test for evo theroy was when scientists discovered how to read the genome and with it the ability to make some VERY specific predictions.

Had chimps and humans shared less DNA than chimps and mice, had horses and zebras shared less DNA than horses and gazelle etc it would have undermined the theory in an instant (assuming that we had the taxonomy correct) BUT, and heres the big BUT..........it didnt falsify it, it merely cemented it to practical certainty. genomes are a 'godsend' for evolutionary biologists, the detail at which organismic descent can be unravelled is so astonishing that special creation (ie that without evolution) can be utterly dismissed.

548. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89902 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:01 am

ruht.

Can human science artificially create or recreate evolution in a lab?

'create or recreate evolution', im not sure what that means but what i think you are asking is can 'human science demonstrate evolution', well, one can do it in a bedroom not even a lab.

1) Get some walkingsticks/stick insects (i suggest these as they tend to be easy to keep-aslong as you have leaves in your area in winter), grow them to adults and measure their lengths.

2) only breed the from the two smallest individuals.

3)continue this process for a few generations, say 4 or 5.

4)what you should end up with (all other things being equal) is a colony of stick insects on average smaller than that what you started with, what you have done is remove the genes for (or are linked to) larger individuals to an extent, you have changed the gene frequency of your little population from what it began with.

hey presto, you have demonstrated evolution!! you have changed gene frequency in your population over time which is what evo in essence actually is.

Now if you bred your insects for another 30 years you may find your self with individuals so small that if you took them back to the wild you may even find that the wild types on average are so large in comparison that they could no longer mate (insects have interesting lock/key genitals unlike our own any size fits all approach!) with your tiny stick insects, hey presto, this by definition means you now have 2 species.

if any of the above is know BS i am happy to take advice from biologists!

549. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88886 by phasmagigas on November 19, 2007 at 5:56 am

As Lord Kelvin said in 1895 of an admittedly simpler problem "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

this says nothing about god and our minds but in the same way that there was (according to the theory of evo) and gradual series of forms from say ourselves back to simpler organisms>single cell>collection of molecules and membranes>>


I suppose a similar thing can be drawn with our minds, modern mind>ancestors>>>>> we can use modern organisms to emulate what those ancestor minds were possibly like as they went through generation to generation. one could imagine (i guess its easier for a human to imagine being an amphioxus rather than the other way around) the mind of an amphioxous, a fish, a frog, a komodo dragon, a cow, a lemur, a chimp, a human, of course this does not represent a lineage as you know but we can assume our ancestors went through a stage rather like a frog brain stage, a tadpole larva stage, a segmented wormy stage, a bilaterally symmetrical collection of cell stage, a slime mould like stage ie from a stage with no mind atall, again, thats the power of evo and that which terrifies creationists.

im not sure why one has to posit the requirement for god in the human mind when its obvious (assuming evo to be true) that our minds, like our bodies got added to bit by bit, generation by generation. now god might have added a bit to us later on, or gave us a soul uniquely but im just not falling for that, assuming im not in some matrix and my dog isnt real I can be quite confident that my dog, like another person has a little mind, it may not appreciate self like a person does but only like how a lamprey cannot appreciate jawiness like a trout can(he can flap his gills though) those who suggest that minds have to be from god are no different than those who say bodies have to be from god.

An alien intelligence could arrive and scoff at us for being so primitive, 'they havent even joined minds yet over the biosilico net fusion, and they think they need god to explain themselves, hahahaha, and they still have jaws the poor wretches, oh my aching sides'

edit: i also forgot about each humans actual run through the development of conciousness, as we grow from a single cell>>>>>>>>>>>

550. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88870 by phasmagigas on November 19, 2007 at 5:14 am

Having said that, I also believe with some confidence that the many miracle stories in the Bible are mythological. Why do I believe that? Because I find these miracle stories pointless and childish, not to say often demeaning to God. These stories are probably the result of people of little trust in God trying to impress others.

this paragraph was really written by the verbose ontology king??? its simple understandable posts like this that help us see what DG is really like behind those long arguments.

'people of little trust in god' what a load of nonsense, maybe they just made it up for the fun of it, maybe they were trying to deceive, maybe they were mad and thought it true, as for 'trying to impress others' hmm, so i can now see some guy in a desert making up stuff just to impress his peers by concocting a story or two.

As for the pointless and childish nature of the stories pointing to their mythological origins, im sure they could be seen as untrue even if they wernt childish or pointless, like the ressurection, well maybe that is childish and pointless too? reads more like a horror flick.

and 'demeaning to god' really means nothing does it.