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

Comment #168483 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:06 am

The one argument against it is that it doesn't really fit with the "Be Who You Are" theme for the day.

Other than that, let him wear it. However, the converse applies. Anyone wearing a t-shirt from the organisation in my previous post should not be penalised in any way.

752. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168476 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:01 am

Comment #168473 by Bonzai

So he is not going to give us an answer.

Which is exactly what happened with TTID.

Quite happy to whine about the problems with evolution with stuff that he can cut and paste from AiG.

Totally incapable of defending his own position.

753. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168470 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #168455 by Remnant

False premise, our Creator God gave us the laws of nature

Aren't you making a presupposition here:

1. You haven't established the universe was created
2. You haven't established there was a creator
3. You haven't established that this putative creator still interferes in the world
4. You haven't established that this creator is actually the god of a set of cattle-sacrificing primitives in one part of a small planet, circling round a star amongst 100 billion others in 150 billion galaxies
5. You haven't established that all of this was written down in 2000 year old book

Until you do all of that I am afraid writing "Creator God" is just hubris on your part.

754. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168449 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comment #168434 by Frankus1122

I think this outlines very succinctly the problem we have with Remnant. He has stated that the biblical truth will trump man's truth no matter what the evidence shows.

I was going to leave it for a while to see if he actually came back to me, but it doesn't look as though he will.

The only way out for him as far as I can see is to claim a miracle. But if he claims a miracle then it is a pretty pathetic one. Why didn't god just make humans vanish. As I said in http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page80#168296

why did he have to kill 99.99996% of the world's population by drowning? Furthermore, why does he then appear to have hidden the fact that he did it, was it remorse, shame, sheer bloody-mindedness?

Assuming that Remnant's god gave us the gift of reason surely he would have realised that we would attempt to find out actually whether it happened. That being so, why would an omni-benevolent god deceive us in this way?

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

Comment #168428 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:24 am

So would it be OK to wear this?

http://www.atheists-online.com/store.asp?shop=01800#1

756. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168424 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #168418 by Steve Zara

Yikes. I assume "blood" should be in quotes?

Well we do have quite a turnover in beginners :-{)

I should have put an "originally" in there somewhere.

You will not the minor alteration to the emoticons I am using by the way.

757. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168419 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #168413 by Remnant

I must inform you also, that in midst of all of your self-aggrandizement, you made a another fatal logical error, that being an appeal to authority, self-authority.

I don't think Dr. Zara (Ph.D Biology) did actually commit this. And if you want to be pedantic, then you should refer to it as appeal to improper authority.

Do you want to respond to my post at some time pointing out how weak your conjecture of a global flood is?

758. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168414 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #168400 by MaxD

You may find this interesting as you are pirate like sword fighter and all. This was the weapon art I used to do. (I'm currently teaching it to my daughter!)

Not my style, but quite interesting.

I have given links to three videos, one for foil, one for epee and one for sabre. You may have to go a couple of minutes in to avoid the spiel at the start.

Foil and epee are pointy sticks. Foil was meant as training for using a sword to kill people. If you notice they are wearing a metallised jacket that defines the target area, the trunk of the body. It also has the concept of priority, if I am attacking you then you must make a defensive action before you get the priority.

Epee is a duelling weapon, fenced to first blood. The target area is the whole of the body and there are no priorities. If two hits land within a certain amount of time then it is counted as a score for both sides (a coup des deux veuves).

Sabre is mainly an edge weapon, though you can use the point. Only the upper body counts, since it was originally a cavalry weapon the below the waist the horse gets in the way. It has the same idea of priority as foil.

The idea of priorities and the size of the target area are the major things that influence the way each weapon is fenced.

Don't know how sporty your daughter is, but if she ever decided to go into sport fencing the women's sabre is the weapon to go for. The States do extremely well and have had significant successes at world championship level.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2765904229499246733&q=fencing world&total=224&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=4&hl=en-GB
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3260269398588152912
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457&q=fencing world&total=224&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=1&hl=en-GB

759. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168386 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 5:29 am

Comment #168381 by Bonzai

No, it is not sufficient. You need F = ma in addition to the force law.

Fair enough. You can see where I am going with this I assume.

How did you do the power thingy

You need a couple of HTML tags, sub and sup. Enclose them in angle brackets the same way as the blockquotes. One of the small number of things that irritates me about this site is that it won't let you insert special symbols, or even plus or pound signs.

760. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168373 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 5:14 am

Remnant - I asked you whether you believed in a global flood not to twit you on it but to make a point.

Take Newton's law of gravity

F_g = G * m₁ * m₂ / r²

This is sufficient to explain ballistics, planetary motion and was sufficient to get Americans to the moon and back. Can you see how simple it is (parsimonious would be a better word).

Scientific theories look for the most parsimonious description that explains a phenomena. A simple theory has a great deal of empirical strength. Every time you have to add an ad hoc explanation it weakens the theory. If you have to keep adding subsidiary explanations then your theory eventually becomes worthless.

Now, you claim a global flood. Let us accept this and look at what your conjecture has to explain (you haven't any data as yet, so you can't claim it as a theory). Here is a list that I culled from elsewhere. I am not looking for you to provide the explanations for each of them. What I am trying to illustrate is that unless you can come up with a single explanation, or at worst a small number of explanations then your conjecture is pitifully weak. Anyhow, here is the list:

Building vessel as big as ark
Number of animals on ark
Loading them
Feeding them
Mucking them out
Special diets, eucalyptus leaves, live food
Where did the water come from
Where did it go to
How come the atmosphere didn't become toxic or superheated
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice cores (assuming that polar caps are even possible)
Why is there no evidence of a flood on tree rings or varves
Why are geological eras consistent world wide
Why are fossils sorted
Why did corals survive
Why are there no human artifacts in the same layers as dinosaurs
How can a single flood (or asmall number of floods) account for sedimentary layering
How did varves form, for example the Green river formation in Wyoming has 20 million layers
Where did all the heat go if all the geological record was deposited in a year
How can you explain the accuracy of coral clocks
Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from
How did all the fish survive, when some need fresh water and some need salt water
How did diseases survive
How did things like Mayflies survive
Why are some animals found in only a few areas
Why are there no records of the flood in the historical records of Egypt and Mesapotamia
How come there were sufficient humans around after the flood to build the pyramids or Stonehenge

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

Comment #168349 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #168344 by Steve Zara

Haven't you missed one:

7. Someone who claims evolution is false because they have information from a higher power (well, AiG but you know what I mean) - reaction, derision.

762. 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

763. 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.

764. 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.

765. 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.

766. 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.

767. 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?

768. 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).

769. 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

770. 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).

771. 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.

772. 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.

773. 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.

774. 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?

775. 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".

776. 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.

777. 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?

778. 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

779. 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.

780. 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.

781. 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.

782. 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.

783. 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.

784. 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.

785. 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.

786. 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.

787. 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.

788. 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).

789. 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.

790. 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?

791. 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.

792. 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.

793. 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

794. 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.

795. 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.

796. 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?

797. 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.

798. 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.

799. 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.

800. 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.