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 Geoff


601. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #129123 by Geoff on February 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Richard Morgan comment 122:

Fair point; my PC is already more intelligent than I am!

Not that that's saying much.

I think the www will become self-aware fairly soon, anyway, and take over the world. It's currently only being held back by the wooters, which dramatically lower its collective intelligence.

602. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128895 by Geoff on February 18, 2008 at 7:24 am

Here's another page I use a lot: Quite long winded in parts, but some wonderful soundbite "quotes" on it, too.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

"Creation science begins with wholly Biblical presuppositions and interprets data from all of reality, including science, within that framework." --Donald Chittick (Rohr, 1988, p. 156)

"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework."--Henry Morris (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 184)

I love this transcript from the Dover trial:

Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?

A. Design.

Q. When did that design occur?

A. I don't know.

Q. Who was the designer?

A. Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching my class I do not answer that. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

603. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128885 by Geoff on February 18, 2008 at 7:05 am

Ah. Cal doesn't do soundbites, more like 27 page rebuttals. That forum is still a cool place to hang out though - I've learned a terrific amount there! Lots of other valuable contributors too.

604. The argument from oranges

Comment #128883 by Geoff on February 18, 2008 at 6:55 am

phasmagigas:


im impressed he didnt ask to see the half orange half turkey...


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1138/563081472_dcdc412990.jpg

605. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128879 by Geoff on February 18, 2008 at 6:48 am

Steve, have a word with Calilasseia on the fora - he has such a resource that he uses to devastating effect on the "debunking creationists" forum.

Meanwhile, this is highly recommended:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

606. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128874 by Geoff on February 18, 2008 at 6:33 am

I'm reminded of Clarke's first (not as well known as his third)law.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Like many others that have posted, I feel the main issue is not if, but when. I don't believe 2029 is realistic, though.

607. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128667 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

babrock, can I just say that your typing etc. has improved dramatically in the month or so that you've been on here. Keep up the good work! (oh dear, now that sounds patronising, and I really don't mean it that way, sorry!)

I'm normally a stickler for correct spelling & grammar (just ask Steve Zara...), but I'll always make allowances for those with a valid excuse, whether that be simply being new to typing/computers, or for example those for whom English is not their native language.

Back on topic, I keep getting scary visions of a neuronic interface equivalent of Microsoft Windows.

I have enough trouble with "file not found" using my organic memory.

608. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128576 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Steve, please tell me this was deliberate...


proof reasing


;)

609. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128575 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm



Adam and Eve and the flood story are far from demonstrably false. They are extremely plausible, and fit in with much of the evidence.



Have a browse through this debate...come back when you've read it!

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=10678&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

610. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #128559 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 11:38 am


49. Comment #128432 by Quetzalcoatl
Sarah95-



Neither can we forget to harness the power of Scotty's farts to maximize the efficacy of said warp drive


See, and I was trying not to focus on that. You've dragged the thread down, now.

:-)


It's mesomodel's fault; he brought up the atmosphere of Titan.

611. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128543 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 10:55 am

annabanana:

What peacebeuponme said (#178)! Except the bit about engaging you in respectful debate, because you're both more eloquent and more intelligent than I am.

The invitation to the UK still stands, BTW... ;)

612. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128507 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 9:05 am

The problem I see is that the people who most need it will try to have it suppressed.

It's an amazing thought, though; I feel I need an intelligence implant right now, just to keep up with some of the poeple on here! Where do I sign up?

613. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128491 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 7:13 am

Off topic: Steve Zara, sent you a PM re your blog.

614. The argument from oranges

Comment #128458 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 3:55 am


13. Comment #128260 by steveroot

Where's Irate when we need him? Hello?
Five


Maybe someone else is going to have to say it...?

615. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128454 by Geoff on February 17, 2008 at 3:35 am

The question's far too general. As others have commented, nanotech itself can't be "immoral" though undoubtedly some of its applications may be.
It's like asking if medicine is immoral, or nuclear physics, or metallurgy.

616. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128293 by Geoff on February 16, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Live long and prosper, both of you! Condolences and congratulations.

617. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #128271 by Geoff on February 16, 2008 at 4:40 pm

hungarianelephant #216


Do some research on the Danish prison system. You may find it a little too "liberal" for your tastes, but rates of reoffending are significantly lower than those in Britain or the US. So by the measure that we all say we agree upon, it works.


Your comment seems to have got bypassed amid the general mayhem, but, somewhat belatedly, I did, and found it fascinating.
While I remain to be convinced that a similar approach would work in the UK, it's certainly food (toast & jam...?) for thought.


On a slightly different topic, al-rawandi, trying to drag the thread back on-topic, said (#179):


I am not very good at being 'responsible', so I needed the practice. Fine, go back to Paddington


Have we started another game? I don't recall who won the last one...

618. The argument from oranges

Comment #128248 by Geoff on February 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Passed the bar? Spent too long in the bar, maybe.

619. The argument from oranges

Comment #128237 by Geoff on February 16, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Please tell me it's a spoof...

Poe's law?

The banana was funnier.

620. Virus immunity 'created in lab'

Comment #128085 by Geoff on February 16, 2008 at 4:33 am


"Queer Street" means "in debt or other difficulties".


Correct. I believe there was originally a debtor's prison on that street (In London?)

Edit: Wrong again, it was a bankruptcy court!

http://www.coventgarden.uk.com/featureshistory/fh_streets.php?street=51&submit=Go&submitted=TRUE&p_id=features&c_id=street

621. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127437 by Geoff on February 15, 2008 at 9:40 am

Fucktards.

622. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127436 by Geoff on February 15, 2008 at 9:38 am

I can assure you that there is a high percentage of uneducated schoolchildren in the UK; I'm in the middle of marking mountains of GCSE mock exam papers at present!

623. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127431 by Geoff on February 15, 2008 at 9:27 am

Geoff has a day AFK, and reappears with a bemused look on his face...

Was part of this thread originally about Richard's debate with Madeline McGrath?

Some bits I picked up during my ill-advised skimming of this topic:

Zarbi: your blog url is now safely bookmarked.

Richard: We might be missing a "transitional quote" in the "biblical literature" lineage?

Diacanu: your post #115 lacks your usual brevity; you're getting positively loquacious!

Everyone else: WTF? OK: Dollis Hill!

624. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126871 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 11:36 am


Logically, that designer must be just as, if not more, complex than its creation. But the inability to explain the designer doesn't derogate from the fact that complexity requires a designer.



That's simply the argument from design.


Furthermore, the evolution story suffers from its own complexities. No one has yet to date been able to prove how life first came into existence.


Now you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution.


In other words, there is no reason to go against one's intuition in this respect. The only time one should do so is if there is evidence to the contrary.


No, if one has an intuition, it has to be confirmed by some other method, or it remains just a flight of fancy. For example: perhaps Darwin initially had an intuition that his theory of evolution by natural selection was correct, but he then had to find evidence for and against it. Said evidence eventually filled a whole book, and has been massively added to over the last 150 years, as new knowledge of, for example, genetics, comes to light.

Similarly, suppose someone intuited that "cold fusion" was possible; the burden of proof would be uopn them.

It's my intuition that women are irresistably attracted to me, but, sadly, I have no proof. It isn't up to anyone else to falsify my intuition (although it would be quite easy...)

625. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126859 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 11:17 am

Another 4 animals to fit on the ark...

626. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126812 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 8:57 am

Anna, Richard, whatever it is (I'm interested but not wanting to appear prying), if our light hearted waffling (or even our more serious discussions) help, dont' go away; there's more!

For example:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315

627. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126805 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 8:47 am


Incidentally, I think you are being rather helpful. If anyone who was undecided about creationist views came to this site, and saw the factual responses to your questions, this would help them avoid the intellectual mistake of believing that a designer was required.


That's largely why I continue to join in debates like these, both here and on the fora. I realise that the likes of wooter are never going to be convinced, but there are an unknown number of "lurkers" who might be. "Converts Corner" has many such examples.

And it's fun, too! Wooters are often good for a laugh, even if it's not always clear whether or not they're actually trying to parody cretinists. I'm still tempted to think he works for the Onion.

628. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126741 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

errr...it is a spoof!

Poe's Law strikes again!

Here's another:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/top_story/58

629. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126729 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 3:56 am

Here's another haunting story from the Weekly World News:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/top_story/56

630. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126725 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 3:37 am


Geoff - if you knew what the slang meaning of "queue" was in French...!!!


I do now! Many thanks!

Did I mention that my Iranosaur was attacking a Saudipod? Or was that the Syriannosaur?

631. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126724 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 3:31 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09fsUJ_i66I

632. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126713 by Geoff on February 14, 2008 at 2:48 am

irate_atheist:

not the word(s) I was expecting!

633. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126643 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Richard: agreed!

and this bit kinda worried me...

"In most species of crocodile, it's hard to determine the sex of living animals without an intimate exam..."

Volunteers form an orderly queue...

634. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126642 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 5:25 pm


Well, if you want the only thing to have on toast, it is the full breakfast, bacon, eggs, sausage, all the trimmings.
And washed down with Guinness.


Absolutely correct; I'd prematurely moved ahead to "dessert".

635. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126639 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 5:20 pm

The Reverend Dark:

Thank you!

(for stopping)

I'll be going to sleep with Gloria Gaynor now (in a manner of speaking...).

636. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126627 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 4:48 pm



sort of flashy winglets


Steve, that sounds more like a drag show...


I was thinking more along the lines of KFC.

637. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126620 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I'm sorry, but you're all completely wrong. It has to be Mackays Spiced Ginger Preserve.

And strong black coffee.

638. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126610 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Well, it was originally called the Iranosaurus, but then found to be almost identical to the Iraquiosaur and Persianodon.

639. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126607 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 4:24 pm

"Gyranosaurus Rex?"

That has a sort of "swivelling" suggestion to it...

I'd suggest the one wearing the veil would be a Q'ranosaurus, though...

640. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #126481 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 10:32 am

Also, Damjan, there's no need to apologise for your English; it's far better than many who come on here, for whom it's (presumably) their first and only language.

One poster, in particular, seems to have written his posts in Japanese, used Babelfish to translate them into Sanskrit, and thence to the resultant language which bears little resemblance to any Earthly tongue.

641. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126476 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 10:21 am

The guys who did the "***king with Dinosaurs" series...

642. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126436 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

Could be worse: dino-mites can do a lot of damage...

643. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126433 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 8:43 am

Wow! Just wow!

But:


In species where females usually mate with a single male during a breeding episode, penises tend to be small and uninteresting.


I consider that to be an insult!

644. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #126357 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 3:56 am

Damjan, as we ask everyone, where is the evidence? We're open-minded enough to be convinced by any evidence of a god's existence, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out.

As yet, no evidence has been produced.

Can I also ask "which god", as you don't make that clear. And why that particular god, whichever one it is, from the infinity of possible choices?

645. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126348 by Geoff on February 13, 2008 at 3:46 am

Beware the Jabberwooter, my friends!

Can't he be "alternatively threaded" again? I fail to see what he's contributing, other than comic relief.

Wiperwooter:


The way you attack on theists like - no offense - like vultures. Krisking is a good example.


Where have we "attacked" krisking? We might have disgreed with him on occasion, but at least we had a relatively sensible conversation, unlike the garbled, illegible, unintelligible, misspelt ramblings of your alter-ego.

646. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125941 by Geoff on February 12, 2008 at 9:49 am

The "bits" would already be there in related organisms, but they might separately evolve differently in different organisms.

As he said: "the bits already present in bacteria" might do different jobs (just as the bits of bone already present in the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals evolved to become components of jaws or ears respectively).

If you haven't read "Your Inner Fish" yet, I can recommend it. Lots more examples in there.

647. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125902 by Geoff on February 12, 2008 at 8:32 am

krisking:

I found it a bit surprising that James Randerson was happy to have published this comment "What's more, many of the components of the flagellum have turned up doing separate jobs elsewhere in bacteria. (okay so far) So the notion of natural selection bodging together the tail using bits already present in bacteria is plausible."

I think it's the "bodging together" bit that puzzles me.


Natural selection does that all the time; that's one of the many indications that life wasn't designed intelligently.

One well known example is the mammalian ear, but there are thousands of others. It's important to understand that evolution has no "foresight" and no intended "end product" that it aims at.

648. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125882 by Geoff on February 12, 2008 at 8:14 am

@ Comment #125878 by The Reverend Dark

http://www.escapade.co.uk/World-Cup-Party-Accessories-web-specials/Sheep-costume-J48-J48.asp

649. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125876 by Geoff on February 12, 2008 at 7:57 am

Happy Darwin Day, one and all!

It also happens to be my son David's 17th birthday; some years ago I told him he shared his birthday with Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln - he asked me who Lincoln was!

650. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125573 by Geoff on February 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Teratornis, just a small, slightly off-topic, question, if I may?


Among the largely inherited traits which determine a person's prospects in life, two are especially important:

1. Intelligence...


Has this been demonstrated as "largely inherited"? I was under the impression that the jury was still out on the nature/nurture issue, if not coming down on the "nurture" side. I have to admit I'm probably not up-to-date on the issue.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next