601. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168345 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #168343 by mixmastergaz

Irate: I agree with Ian. Surely there must be a simple word that can be coined to describe those who would employ such underhand tactics. I think two syllables ought to do it, but I can't seem to think of the right word. Can you think of any Irate?

There are lots of words that could be used. Here are a set that were culled from "Gargantua and Pantagruel":

called them prattling gabblers, lickorous gluttons, freckled bittors, mangy rascals, shite-a-bed scoundrels, drunken roysters, sly knaves, drowsy loiterers, slapsauce fellows, slubberdegullion druggels, lubberly louts, cozening foxes, ruffian rogues, paltry customers, sycophant-varlets, drawlatch hoydens, flouting milksops, jeering companions, staring clowns, forlorn snakes, ninny lobcocks, scurvy sneaksbies, fondling fops, base loons, saucy coxcombs, idle lusks, scoffing braggarts, noddy meacocks, blockish grutnols, doddipol-joltheads, jobbernol goosecaps, foolish loggerheads, flutch calf-lollies, grouthead gnat-snappers, lob-dotterels, gaping changelings, codshead loobies, woodcock slangams, ninny-hammer flycatchers, noddypeak simpletons, turdy gut, shitten shepherds, and other suchlike defamatory epithets

602. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168318 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:21 am

Comment #168315 by Quetzalcoatl

I hear that software is full of bugs, the Goddidit virus being the most damaging.

Fixed in "Bible 2.0" (TM). However I am not sure you would want to sign the EULA.

EDIT: There isn't a release date as yet though. I heard that it was still in pre-alpha.

603. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168317 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 2:19 am

Comment #168287 by Brian English

I apologize. When a (self-described) physics professor comes along and says that well known and evidenced physics phenomena can't occur I smell a rat and in this case possibly overreacted.

I don't normally pick up on grammar and spelling. But given the poor quality of both in the Dave(TX) post, as well as the dogmatic assertions which simply don't comply with current physical theories then you definitely had the right to claim there was an odour of rattus rattus about the place.

604. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168306 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #168305 by Philip1978

Yikes look out, I have been thinking, sorry Remnant I know God forbids that sort of thing, does anyone else here think that the above quotes only apply to men and that women can get away with blaspheming against the Holy Ghost?

Philip - less with the big G on god. Remnant hasn't established that this particular god exists as yet, nor has he disproved the existence of Thor, Zeus or Atum. Using a big G gives some kind of validity to his presuppositions.

605. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168296 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 12:33 am

Comment #168250 by Diacanu

How many died in the bible fictionally?
Hundreds of thousands?

No, the US census bureau makes estimates here - http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

Given "The Flood" is supposedly somewhere between 2000 and 3000 BC then let's take something like 20 million as the figure. That means god killed something like 99.99996% of the world's human population. Compare that with the 2.7% of the world's population killed by the axis powers in the World War II.

Then look at who gets the bad press.

606. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168111 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Comment #168099 by Remnant

I will mention something. My youngest is an avid reader and excellent writer....thinking about pursuing a career in writing and reads the Bible daily. One thing about the Bible, whether one chooses to believe the Bible or not, reading it develops comprehension skills, vocabulary skills, and expressive writing skills.

So did you let her read things like "The pebble in my pocket: A history of our Earth" by Meredith Hooper, "The human body: How we evolved" by Joanna Cole, "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder or any of the "Harry Potter" books?

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

Comment #167795 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 10:35 am

Comment #167781 by MaxD

The origin of eukaryotic cells is indeed the key, but simply because they can do more work than bacteria. The key to that business of more diverse work springs from the development of organelles with in a single cell. What you don't realize, or chose to ignore is the origin of the simpler beginnings from bacteria to eukaryotic cell is imprinted in the very structures of the eukaryotic cells. The understanding of this comes from Lynn Marguilis's Endosymbiotic Theory.Can I suggest that this is now the limit of the explanation he should be given. You have answered his questions. It is now up to him to answer some of ours.

I would suggest that he be forced to answer those posed by 5keptical (fingers have problems with this, American spelling with a 5 on the front).

I know they are similar to mine, but they are much more specific.

EDIT: Specifically for MaxD. There are two reasons we fence on a piste (strip). The first is a safety issue, it doesn't expose the back of your head (fencing stops if you pass one another). The other is a practical one. If we fenced in 10m circles then it would be difficult to find somewhere that could take 200 or so fencers that take part in some of the UK's bigger competitions.

As for all the wires. Everything is now judged electrically. You make a circuit from the blade, up a wire in the fencer's sleeve, on to a second, sprung wire from the fencer's back to the scoring apparatus. Another reason for fencing in a line. Wireless fencing is starting to appear but the problems are large (How do you tell whether a hit was on the valid part of the fencer's target area, on the invalid part, on the floor, how do you tell which fencer made a hit first since there is no common clock, how do you stop interference with the wireless data).

608. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167674 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #167667 by Remnant

I really do not have the time, nor do I care to answer every off-the-wall claim from the biblically illiterate

I would be very careful about making a blanket accusation of people on this site being "biblically illiterate".

You claim to be a "creationist". If I may, I will ask you two questions:

1. How old do you think the earth is?
2. Was there a global flood

609. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167648 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 8:37 am

Comment #167623 by clearmind

(Newton's law's of gravity explain the orbits of the planets)
Sorry to correct you: Newton did not/cannot create that law; he just found it. The one who finds it and the one who creates cannot be mixed up.

No, that isn't the way dialogue works. I gave you answers to your questions. Now it is your turn to give answers to mine.

Okay get a Rubik's cube and try to set it without touching it.

Is simply not an answer to any of the questions I posed.

Here is a simple example for you.

You take a bottle of water to a priest and ask him to bless it. He does so and turns it into "holy water". You then take a spoonful of salt and put it into the water, it dissolves. Your hypothesis is that it is the blessing that causes the salt to dissolve.

I take a bottle of water, don't have it blessed and put a spoonful of salt in it. That dissolves too. Now, I don't have a deductive-nomological explanation of why the salt dissolves. However, what I have done is show that your conjecture is false.

This is the kind of thing that I am looking for from you. I need you to show an hypothesis (h) which makes some predictions (p). Then we can apply modus tollens

h -> p
~p
Therefore ~h

If p is not falsified then you will have some corroboration for ID, though you will not have shown it to be true (using a correspondence theory of truth).

610. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167635 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 8:21 am

Comment #167625 by Remnant

I didn't say that, I said that under the evolutionary premise of survival of the fittest, the robber would just be following evolutionary dictates,taking advantage of his stronger survival skills

This is simply nonsense. You really need to find out what "fit" means in biological terms.

Now, you still need to answer some of my questions which you have studiously been avoiding. However, I think Al-Rawandi's question is of higher priority.

So, could you get a friend to post a video on Youtube of you extracting the venom of a snake and drinking it.

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

Comment #167601 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:48 am

Comment #167598 by seeker_of_truth

Careful now, Norris is old but he may have a chop or two left in him.

Hah, see my short video above. :-{)

Unless you are talking about a Barnsley chop of course.

612. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167591 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:26 am

Comment #167578 by Acitta

While the arguments of Lord Winston are not in any way convincing, I am bothered by Dennet's insistence that all religion is impervious to reason. He obviously hasn't read the writings of Nagarjuna. Rational inquiry is central to the Madhyamika school of Buddhism and Madhyamika philosophy is central to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Dalai Lama.

I don't know whether you realise it but you are guilty of equivocation. Are you classifying Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy?

Are (or were) you a Buddhist? Either way you are welcome, when we do get religionists here they are mostly Christians. A new point of view is always nice to have.

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

Comment #167577 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #167569 by seeker_of_truth

Feel free to expound on that if you wish epeeist.

I will answer your question, but I do expect answers to a couple I will raise in return. You actually seem to be reasonable, so I don't think it will be a problem.

Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy in which the conclusion is supposed in the premise, it is a form of circular argument.

What I actually think he meant was "raising the question".

I am presuming you are a theist of some kind. Could I ask what kind, and your views on Intelligent Design?

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

Comment #167565 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #167556 by seeker_of_truth

If America's Founding Fathers espoused openness to religion, creationism and the Bible being taught in schools, then it beckons the question, Why don't we?

It does beg the question, but not in the way he thinks.

I would also question whether the bible is "the most influential book in Western civilization".

615. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167533 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #167531 by Enlightenme

I wanna see your answer to Dinah's Query - it needs answering if we're going to require answers from Wooter surely to god? :)

The moustache is the source of my strength. Without it I would be as an ordinary man.

Actually - the upper lip was always the bit I used to cut when wet shaving.

616. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167528 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #167520 by Steve Zara

It shows, at the very least, that God is pretty awful at writing manuals, which is particularly strange considering that he (according to creationists) also made the people who are supposed to understand the manuals.

Oh, come on Steve. You are a programmer, how much fun is there in writing documentation.

Do you think god could put a good entry in for the obfuscated-C competition?

617. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167527 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #167518 by Frankus1122

I am sorry that this is a complete highjack of the thread but I am very proud.

I am not sure that it is a complete hijack. We are constantly accused of living miserable, nihilistic lives with no meaning. Personally I think the feeling of joy in helping someone to an achievement is one of the things that gives my life meaning. It sounds as though you have similar feelings.

Anyway, just to show you how fast these guys move, here is a short clip - http://www.nw-fencing.org.uk/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=73&page=view&catid=8&PageNo=1&key=2&hit=1

618. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167516 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #167501 by clearmind

Your attacking on religions and their some practices will not make evolution theory true.

Wooter in the Richard Dawkins/Michael Shermer thread you asked me some questions. I gave you some answers that you can see in http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-The-Official-Skeptic-Podcast,page3#166550

I also asked for answers to some questions of mine. Now I see you in a different thread. Don't you think it is rather rude to shift threads like this when you have been asked in a completely polite manner.

If you don't provide answers then people are going to think that you don't actually have any.

619. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167514 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 5:54 am

Comment #167507 by colster

Remnant, are you proposing that god wilfully controls the movements of every sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, even those which are billions of light years away from his chosen people?

And if so, how do you reconcile that with people having free will?

And you might also add in, dying in "natural" disasters.

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

Comment #167468 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #167459 by decius

@Steve Zara, Diacanu and all the others who have been taken for a ride by TheTruthID.

Not completely convinced about that. It certainly took longer for him to admit that ID isn't science and drop into insult mode than it should have done. But as other posters have noted, we don't necessarily write for the trolls like TTID, remnant and wooter. Much of the explanatory material is for those who come and lurk. The comparison between what we produce and the sheer inability of the likes of TTID to show anything positive for their side should be apparent to anyone with a reasonably open mind.

Fine intellects such as yours are truly wasted on this individual and those like him.

The intelligence of my uncle's pet macaw would be wasted on these people.

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

Comment #167374 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #167369 by alovrin

But you just kept on parading your small member in public and everyone left. So now there's just you with your fly undone and your member, not getting the attention it craved, is now shrivelling.

This is called an analogy, you should ask your penis what that means.

I can't be bothered looking back, but it was roughly at the point when he started whining about us only wanting scientific evidence when I accused him of not having any shot in his locker. You might also say his ramrod is limber or that he has no lead in his pencil.

You might need to Google for English folksong for the first two, though I am sure the phrases must have migrated to Australia as well.

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

Comment #167370 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 1:07 am

Comment #167134 by Steve Zara

Perhaps we could set up a private blog? Should not be too difficult to arrange. Invitations put out on fleabytes...

Blog or Wiki?

If you want to invite me then I am in. Given that I was actually thinking of setting up a domain of my own then I may even host it.

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

Comment #167367 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #167108 by MPhil

If your IQ should ever rise to room-temperature (in degrees Celsius)... you may try again.

We were knocking 10 points off his estimated IQ for every time he failed to answer the questions put to him.

Al-Rawandi and I had a minor argument. I was being generous and estimated his intelligence to be that of a small beetle, Al wanted it down at the level of the vegetation that the beetle was eating.

I realise now I was wrong.

624. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167003 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comment #166961 by MPhil

even only the comment about the second law of thermodynamics shows what an incredibly ignorant, deluded fool remnant is.

Comes in at number 5 or so in http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1

And so to bed.

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

Comment #166989 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Comment #166968 by TheTruthID

So it is possible for you to accept that there might be a creator of life

A creator? I thought you cdesign proponentsists only talked about designers. I didn't realise you believed in a creator.

As for post #166956 - Harry Kroto (who I have met) is actually a biochemist, so there is probably more of a chance of him having a clue about the ToE than Smalley who was a physical chemist.

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

Comment #166967 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Comment #166959 by AllanW

My prediction is correct so far; the lying prevaricating wilfully ignorant troll TruthID avoids any substantive response.

I disagree, look at comment #166863.

As far as I am concerned that essentially concedes he has nothing to offer. The consequent searching around for authorities to back him up confirms this.

627. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166960 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #166851 by brian faux

A quick shufti at this site gives the impression that it is written by a bunch of religious types.

Yes, some of the staff seem to either be or have been members of the staff at the Margaret Beaufort Institute, which is a Catholic theological house (not even a college).

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

Comment #166938 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #166912 by TheTruthID

Nobel prize-winning scientist Charles Townes said, "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real."

Bad, bad example. I actually met Charlie Townes when I was doing my Ph.D. As far as I am aware he believes in an initial intelligent design and then evolution carrying it forward from there.

Oh, and Smalley was a co-discover of buckminsterfullerene with Harry Kroto. Not exactly a fan of ID if you want to have a search for some of his views.

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

Comment #166926 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #166904 by TheTruthID

No one wants to defend one of your own. You keep asking me for reasons why I beleive in ID, and when I quote one of your own, no response.

But one dead physicist hardly justifies your claim of "more and more scientists" does it?

Just to give you an example. My elder daughter went to Cambridge. The Natural Sciences intake there is 600 per year. How many of them do you think believe (and that is exactly the word I want) in ID?

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

Comment #166893 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #166863 by TheTruthID

That's the problem. Everything to you has to be explained by science, no matter how obsurd it is, strictly because it is your only choice. Well, everyday, more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that life was created. You can deny and fight it all you want.

So your shot locker is empty, your poker hand consists of a Chinese run.

If you want to replace evolution as a theory then it has to be at least as good an explanation as the current one. It has to make predictions that can be tested and falsified.

All you have done is what Behe was forced to concede at the Kitzmiller-Dover trial. Any definition of science that will let in ID will also allow in astrology. And we all know that astrology is not a science - http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/thagard.html

As for your "more scientists are coming to the conclusion that life was created", then I am with Geodesic17 - show me the money. Names and publications please.

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

Comment #166873 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #166848 by Tyler Durden

Just because you don't understand something does not make it "gibberish". That's the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

In http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page6#165442
he complains about being directed to a "gibberish" website. I must admit it was I who pointed him there. I did so because he claimed there was not evidence for macro evolution. The site was of course http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And he pulled the other creationist trick, his response to my post came back within an hour. So either he hasn't got the intelligence or acumen to realise what a treasure the site is or he realised that it would undercut any of his "arguments".

Where's Karda or thisisme? At least they were capable of making an argument, had a modicum of intelligence and a sense of humour.

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

Comment #166832 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #166776 by TheTruthID

Boy are you misguided.

Below are the links to the last three times I have asked you to justify ID as a science.

Have I seen any responses? No. Am I likely ever to get a response? No. Why not? Because ID is not science.

Hence the prevarications, the evasions, the changes of subject, attempts to shift the burden of proof. You haven't got an answer and your posts are an attempt to hide the fact that this is so.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page11#166579
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page8#165782
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page6#165459

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

Comment #166778 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Comment #166773 by Quine

YOKO SUES EXPELLED

Sorry Quine, but the article isn't very accurate. The writer seems to think Ben Stein is a comedian.

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

Comment #166771 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #166725 by Diacanu

TheTruthID-

Are you going to answer my question?

Unlikely, he hasn't actually answered any questions yet.

I am redoing Gandhi's quotation. My version is "First they come to jeer at you, then they refuse to answer questions, then they quote scripture, then they threaten you with eternal torture, then they are busy and have to leave".

TTID on this thread, Remnant, Artful_Dodger act exactly the same. They have nothing to say. Ignorance Deified (to quote Christopher Hitchens) is a pile of rotting dingos entrails that has the same utility as haruspicy.

Since they won't answer questions and nobody seems to be pressing them particularly hard I am off to the penis theft thread for a little light entertainment.

635. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166707 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #166704 by gr8hands

Remnant -- what about all the zombies from Matthew 27?

Can't have been any zombies. There wasn't a mall there. Everybody knows you need a mall for zombies.

Has he actually answered any questions yet, or is it scripture and insults all the way down?

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

Comment #166588 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #166581 by TheTruthID

To All the Ignorant Evolutionists,

Eiseley, Loren C., The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957), p. 199

This would be the Loren Eisley who was given a Phi Beta Kappa Science Prize for his book "Darwin's Century".

Come on TTID. This is just displacement activity. Answer the questions you were asked.

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

Comment #166579 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 10:10 am

Comment #166532 by TheTruthID

The scienctific discovery of the complexity of life is the compilation of evidence needed to come to the conclusion of ID. You have it backwards.

TTID, as you are aware scientific theories have several requirements. According to Kuhn these include accuracy, parsimony, consistency with other theories, fruitfulness of other pathways of research. Popper would add testability and falsifiability to these.

Please tell us

1. What makes ID science? I have given you a starter in the requirements above
2. What are the predictions that ID makes?
3. How can one test these predictions?
4. How can these predictions be falsified?
5. What tests have been done on ID and what were the results?

Please don't prevaricate, lets have some answers. No evasions, attempts to change the subject, shift the burden of proof etc. Just the common rules that are used in critical dialogue.

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

Comment #166573 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #166564 by Elli

thetruthid: if you are going to claim things are impossible, please learn how to spell the word.

Aside: what is it with fundamentalists and using all-caps? Is there some sort of syntax guide they give out in churches or something?

Not only do they have problems with syntax, spelling, grammar and even using a keyboard they seem to have no appreciation of irony either.

639. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #166550 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 am

Comment #166523 by clearmind

How do explain the earth and other planets' rotation and spinning around themselves, their relation between them and the creatures on the earth by sky evolution? (Sky evolution ?) Or again unexplained CHANCES?

1. Newton's law's of gravity explain the orbits of the planets
2. The best theory of planetary formation is by astronomer Victor Safronov. This is the Solar Nebular Disk Model and is an accretion model.
3. I don't know what sky evolution is. However Darwin's theory is that:
   
   1. Living things reproduce
   2. The process of reproduction may introduce random mutations.
   3. Natural selection, a non-random process means that living things that are better fitted to their environment will tend to have more offspring, while those that are not so well fitted will tend to have fewer offspring

Now, I have answered all of your questions. It is your turn to answer mine.

I will repeat again:

1. What makes Intelligent Design science?
2. What predictions does it make?
3. How can these predictions be tested and falsified?
4. What tests have been conducted?
5. What were the results of the tests?

I refer you to my post http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-The-Official-Skeptic-Podcast,page3#165735 as things you should avoid.

640. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166518 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #166514 by Remnant

You never did answer my question...

That is largely because you refuse, or are unable to answer any of ours.

The accepted rules of dialogue are that you answer questions when asked. Once these are answered then you can ask questions in return.

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

Comment #166508 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 9:28 am

Comment #166472 by MPhil

I know I do this all the time, but if I may, I'd like to suggest to you the wonderful book

"Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" by John Leslie Mackie.

OK, I'm calling you on this.

What percentage are you getting?

642. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166505 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #166483 by Remnant

I cannot believe you actually wrote that contradicting and self-defeating statement. "largely unchanged over 500 million years"...."it is a transitional form between worms and arthropods".

Come on Remnant, this is simply displacement activity.

You have been asked questions by a number of people. You haven't even made an effort to answer them.

Steve, Billy and I (and possibly others) have all been through something called a viva voce. We have had to defend our theses in front of both internal and external examiners. No prevarication, no switching topic, no evasions, no pretending about undefined terms.

You have a thesis, answer the questions about it.

643. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166460 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #166450

The fall of man and the resulting deterioration of DNA.

Simply not good enough. What do you mean by the "deterioration" of DNA? Can you show it happened? Can you show how it happened?

We need a mechanism, and a mechanism that can be tested. Making an assertion without any evidence is simply handwaving and hoping that we don't notice.

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

Comment #166448 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am

Comment #166420 by prospero811

So, the question then becomes, "what was that process or mechanism?"

Oh, that's easy. "The Flood"

I didn't say it was sensible. We seem to have a new chew-toy over on the "Lying for Jesus" thread who you might want to put the question to. He goes by the name of "remnant". He is a little busy at the moment trying to justify creationism as a theory.

645. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166434 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:43 am

Remnant - we really are not interested in what you think of the theory of evolution, especially since you haven't a clue about what a scientific theory is in the first place.

Palaeontologists can now predict where fossils will be found, both location and depth. It isn't an exact science and conditions aren't always amenable. But Tiktaalik was found this way as an example.

Other predictions from the theory of evolution include:

• Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
  
• Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
  
• Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
  
• Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
  
• Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
  
• Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
  
• Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
  

If you want your ideas to be accepted I would have expected you to be able to do make predictions at least as good as these.

646. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166419 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:32 am

Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio

And a glimpse of athiest-induced violence, festering away in the dangerous certainty that Winston exposes.

Oh come on, where's the rationality in that statement. Strawman and hasty generalisation.

And wrongly spelled to boot.

647. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166409 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:22 am

Do people know the Gandhi quotation - "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

We do seem to get something of the same here:

"First they come to jeer at you, then they refuse to answer questions, then they quote scripture, then they threaten you with eternal torture, then they are busy and have to leave"

648. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166397 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #166379 by Remnant

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now I don't hate you, but I do want you to do some good to me.

Last night, before I had to go and hit by 3 foot lumps of steel I asked you some questions. Namely, what makes ID science, what does it predict, how can the predictions be tested and falsified, what tests have been made and what were the results.

I have asked you this several times now without receiving an answer.

So in the spirit of "Ask and it shall be given to you" I would you to be so good as to give me the answers I have asked for.

649. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166377 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 7:52 am

Comment #166350 by Steve Zara

Lord Lawson is a good example of the dangers of those who aren't experts in a subject and with an agenda to sell making public comments about it.

Fixed it for you.

650. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166357 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #166342 by gr8hands

Yup, once you start doing the math, using reality, actually thinking about it, you can't help but arrive at the conclusion that it isn't true.

You see that's where your problem is, actually thinking about. You just have to have faith.

That naughty Quine gave a creotard the Sorites paradox in another thread (it actually went "whoosh", straight over his head but that is another matter). If one did the same with "The Flood" you have to wonder how many ad hoc explanations they would have to add in before they started thinking "hang on, this is getting silly". We have had the number of animal "kind" (whatever they are), distances, salt/fresh water fish, the amount of dung, food, dinosaurs, physical impossibility of a wooden boat of the size that is needed. There is loads of other stuff as well, source and sink for the water, the amount of water needed, no genetic bottlenecks, no death of corals, no single layer of sediment, no mixture of fossils etc.

Please tell me that sooner or later this will become so overwhelming that they just have to agree that it couldn't have happened. Please.