51. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189111 by Epinephrine on June 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Carrot juice is murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

52. A New Step In Evolution

Comment #188841 by Epinephrine on June 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I think the theists are going to cry over this one :).

If only... remember that their arguments include how well the modern banana fits the human hand and the absence of crocoducks from the planet. I suspect it'll slide right off their ignorrogance fields like a buttered eel on a teflon pan.

53. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #186509 by Epinephrine on May 30, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Artful Dodger:

Dawkins doesn't need to say anything new about creationism - there's nothing to say.

Intelligent design is a cop-out, having no predictive value, making no falsifiable claims, and boiling down to wishful thinking and treating fiction as reality. The FSM is as provable as anything in intelligent design, and people don't seem to be all worked up over it.

The lack of an acceptable explanation for something does not mean that "goddidit" is a substitute. The cause of malaria wasn't known, but that didn't make "bad air" a correct answer. Science leads to answers, intelligent design leads nowhere.

A solid proof, defense, or disproof doesn't need to be changed. Dawkins doesn't have to change things up, anymore than Cantor's diagonal method requires a modern reworking - it was true then, it's true now, and it always will be.

54. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185399 by Epinephrine on May 27, 2008 at 5:59 pm

MaxD -

I am going to have to go with your numbers because I cannot locate the source for mine. As I said I was going from memory. Could you send me the site for your numbers epinephrine

I was just looking at the numbers from the study posted by Frankus, which are derived from Statistics Canada/Department of Justice numbers.

Here's a DoJ paper though:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1997/wd97_3-dt97_3.pdf

It only shows number of households with a gun, not number of guns, but it's somewhat illustrative.

And statcan on gun related deaths
http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/82-003-XPE/pdf/16-4-04.pdf

55. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #185327 by Epinephrine on May 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Agree with Sh!fty, phatbat, and noneoftheabove.

I don't think the rudeness is typically called for. I've been rude to clearmind, eventually, out of frustration - but it's not the way to talk to people. And sometimes, the person may actually want to learn - and even if they don't, others coming to the site and reading a nice discussion may be influenced.

Of course, then we get labeled concern trolls.

56. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185326 by Epinephrine on May 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm

MaxD -

Canadians own per capita as many guns as we do here in the land of shootin' shit.

What? I read the stats, the US has 3.3 times as many guns per capita. That's not the same at all.

57. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184933 by Epinephrine on May 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

huzonfirst -

You can't tell people what to believe, but we sure as hell have a right to be concerned with what they do

Agreed. I don't care what anyone believes, only how they act. Setting up a separate school is an action, not a belief.

That's not to say that the Camden-ites aren't acting out of fear, racism, or what-have-you - it's entirely possible. In fact, I think it's likely.

Freedom of religious belief does not equal freedom of action. I think that those who would let their children die rather than accept treatment should have their children taken from them and treated. If you want the right to behave in certain ways, find a country in which it is legal. You can believe what you will, but you can't kill children through neglect. That's an action, not a belief, and it's no more justifiable than stoning someone to death or killing heretics due to scripture.

58. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184908 by Epinephrine on May 26, 2008 at 11:52 am

Mordacious1 -

No, many muslims are of course very nice (as are people from many religions). My neighbour two doors over is a very pleasant muslim, and his daughters and mine play together and take the bus together to school. (And sing "I Like to Move It" together, which is hilarious when performed by a 10, 5 and 4 year old getting off a school bus).

While there are many lovely muslims, christians, budhists etc., I still don't like segregation.

I suspect there really is a lot of prejudice in the town of Camden, but at the same time I understand not wanting to have yet another barrier to overcome (separate schools) if that is the reason some have for their objections.

59. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184900 by Epinephrine on May 26, 2008 at 11:23 am

I agree that people mistake concerns about culture/religion with racism.

Race (as typically used, let's not ask whether it has any biological meaning) may be correlated with culture, language, and religion.

A prejudice against race is racism, but being against elements of a culture or religion is not racism.

I am against the treatment of women as chattel, the attitude that men are superior, and various other things associated with some religions.

This has nothing to do with racism, it's my feelings about a behaviour - one that has some correlation with religious belief, and hence with race, but I certainly don't judge by race, but rather by behaviour. I would be against those behaviours (or others by other groups) regardless of skin colour, ethnic heritage, language spoken, or the like.

I'm against islamic schools, but I'm against any religious school, and against any attempt to segregate children by any means, and by any party. The best way to dissolve barriers is experience. I was mildly homophobic until I realised some of my best friends were gay - then it suddenly seemed like the dumbest thing in the world. I'll point out that it's not just religious separation I'm against - it's socioeconomic, racial, sex, political, heck, even geographical, though that part can't be helped to some extent. It's too bad, I think it'd be great to have kids of all nations sitting in classes together, but the commute would be a killer.

While I suspect that some might be racist, others may simply not wish to have segregation rearing its ugly head. That's legit - so long as they'd react the same way about any other segregatory school.

60. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184784 by Epinephrine on May 26, 2008 at 7:08 am

Severus Snape -

I don't think anyone believes that homeschooling is only done by creationists; my wife and I debated it, and some of our friends homeschool (or were homeschooled).

Nice to see that you are helping other homeschoolers though :)

61. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184603 by Epinephrine on May 25, 2008 at 8:33 pm

The animals God created are beyond fascinating. Children need a resource with which they can study them in-depth, one which does not compromise their faith or sow seeds of doubt,"

Wow...

Translated? The animal world is a clear proof of the bible's origin in fiction. Ignoring fact completely allows one to stay blinded by ignorance!

The animals God created are beyond fascinating. Children need a resource with which they can study them in-depth, one which does not compromise their faith or sow seeds of doubt,"

Much better.

62. Scientists discover 'frogamander' fossil

Comment #183607 by Epinephrine on May 22, 2008 at 10:44 am

That's brilliant Quiddam... I love the criticism that there's no half-chimpmunk/half-crocodile, complete with the chipmunk crawling out of a shell.

63. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182956 by Epinephrine on May 21, 2008 at 6:43 am

Why do you keep engaging him? He's clearly only out to get a rise out of us.

For fun, I imagine. Or out of boredom. It's not like anyone can understand him anyway.

64. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182948 by Epinephrine on May 21, 2008 at 6:33 am

Clearmind, you make no sense. A chimp hurling faeces at his Yerkish keyboard is more articulate. Crawl back under your rock.

65. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182593 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Absurd. It is a cult.

Cult -
2.a. a particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.

What about it isn't a cult?

66. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182559 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Woohoo, glad to see we're getting along again.

I think you're right that in general speech, indoctrination has a certain meaning, but it certainly can mean as little as teaching a point of view.

As for teaching of non-belief, I am not sure. As I said, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics about "teaching". One can certainly teach children facts, and falsehoods, and their opinions on matters certainly seem to be influenced by those opinions presented to them (especially if presented as facts). We can probably chalk this up to differences in terms of definitions? Do you agree that one can influence the belief patterns (belief and non-belief) of a child through experience?

And lastly, yes, I think DJSP and I were both simply being cautious, not trying to condemn the summer camp without evidence. Glad to be back on your good side :)

67. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182554 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment 29 - Epinephrine

Firstly, learn the difference between 'teaching' and 'indoctrination'. It's quite significant.

My advice, back at you :P Use a proper dictionary?

I can provide you with a list of the various uses of the word "indoctrinate" as well as the sentences they were used in, in which publications and in what year. That's the nice thing about having the complete OED available. Before I commented I looked it up. Before telling someone to "learn the difference" you should probably get a decent reference.

Secondly, I'm intrigued - very. How exactly does one 'teach atheism'? Read and understand my comment about being taught Swahili before replying.

I read your comment about Swahili. You are coming across (at least, to me) as an ass - hence my bristling and typing in a less than completely friendly tone. I'm probably on your side, you realise? We likely have a semantic difference in terms of defining "atheism", but instead of investigating that possibility you have elected to simply employ rudeness.

Just because you were not taught to speak Swahili, rather than being taught not to speak Swahili doesn't mean that it applies to the situation at hand. I can both not teach someone to believe in a god, as well as teach them not to believe in a god.

In fact, it's implicit in Christianity - they teach the belief in a god (God), and they also teach not to believe in other gods (anyone else). As a coincidence, they also do not teach the belief in those other gods (both not-teaching and teaching-not them. Suddenly it feels like some Tolkienesque language.) Clearly then, teaching non-belief is possible, just extend it by one god and you have atheism.

Now, that is somewhat tongue in cheek, but one certainly can teach belief, if only by continually reinforcing it. I fail to see why one couldn't teach a child that all religion is garbage, and that none of it could possibly be true. It might not stand up to a test of logic, but neither do the religions that are successfully taught to children.

Of course, some might argue semantically if one can "teach" non-belief, and I do not really like the thought of a drawn out semantic battle. I referred to toilet training and was corrected by some PC moron with the term "toilet learning", as we don't train children. Not an argument I want to get into.

Lastly, I think you are taking exactly the right approach with your daughter. But you are wrong to assume from this article that that very same approach isn't being used in this summer camp and criticise the place without evidence.

Thanks, I like to think I am getting some of it right. I take my role as a parent very seriously. I didn't really criticise the camp, merely said that I can see DjSouthPaw's points about indoctrination. I think dogmatically presenting opinion as fact is problematic for either theists or atheists (in either case it involves essentially an argument by authority, which if accepted will result in a vulnerability to that style of argument), and wasn't saying that the camp does so, but agreeing that IF they do so, it's not a good thing.

68. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182545 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Nova -

Ok, you have two basic points in here - one about teaching of atheism, and one trying to tease apart atheism and agnosticism. I'll work in reverse order.

Surely, if you are not sure enough of atheism to teach it that makes you an agnostic.

Atheism/agnosticism. This is a bit of a line-drawing fallacy, unless you feel that atheists are those who claim with certainty that there is no god, in which case anyone with a rational approach is at most agnostic. You can't rationally claim that there is no god, so you are either an extreme agnostic or irrational. The label "atheist" is of little use if you only use it to denote certainty in the non-existence of deities. If instead you use it to define those people who don't believe in a god, then it does come down to a question of belief. I don't believe in a god, but I can't be certain of the non-existence of god, so I am both atheist and extremely agnostic.

Yes, I have heard many atheists espouse this view but I don't understand it. There is no reason not to teach what the facts tell us and surely you are an atheist because you observe the facts pointing towards atheism, then, in what way, is teaching atheism different to teaching anything else?

Right - so you teach facts, you teach reasoning, and when (inevitably) they ask for your opinion, you explain what your opinion is, and why you hold it. If your 5 year old is like mine, she'll ask something like, "but you can't be sure, can you?" And I said, "no, I can't be sure."

And that's your choice - you either explain your reasons and opinion, and allow her to make her own, or you choose to present opinion as fact, something I can't agree with. Obviously, we continued to discuss it, and I imagine it'll come up again.

69. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182535 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 11:28 am

Stew282:

I am perfectly aware of what atheism is and isn't.

One doesn't actually need a doctrine to be capable of indoctrintation - teaching in general, and of opinions, principles and points of view qualifies fine. My OED says that these definitions date to the early 1600s, so it's not exactly a new use of the word.

I am not out to forge my children into atheists, nor into anti-theists. I will give them the tools they need to make up their minds, I will debate with them, challenge their views, and try to encourage introspection. That is what I mean.

Guys, ATHEISM HAS NO DOCTRINE! - It is impossible to indoctrinate someone not to believe in something unless you accept the premise that that thing exists.

Really. So you have to accept that unicorns exist before you can teach your child otherwise?

You cannot "teach atheism".

Sure you can.

You can teach religion and indoctrinate religious belief. You can indoctrinate someone to believe the falsity of evolution.

Right, but one can also do the opposite.

In any other subject, it's perfectly acceptable to point out the faults in skewed thinking: the failings of facist or communist politics, bad economic strategies, eugenics, statistics etc. etc. So why do people start crying when responsible adults teach children about the flawed thinking of religion.

Your complaints, gentlemen, are an example of the undeserved deference shown to religion that Richard Dawkins is constantly decrying.

Not to be rude, but it seems like you are the one missing the point. I said precisely that I will teach the fallacies and flawed thinking of religion. What I won't do is teach her that there is no god.

I only teach her truths, not what I believe.

At one point my daughter explained that a friend of hers had seen a vampire. Our dinner guest was quite amused by the whole interaction, as I never once said that vampires don't exist. She even pressed the point - "it could have been a vampire!", and I agreed that it is possible that it was a vampire, but explained that there are many other things that seem more likely. I suspect my approach worked, she eventually decided that there were many other things it could have been, and that it prbably wasn't a vampire - and she's better armed now for taking on other strange claims than if I had simply said that vampires don't exist. I can't assert the non-existence of something.

70. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182501 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 9:16 am

DjSouthPaw -

You can quote people by using <_blockquote_> and <_/blockquote_> to begin and end the segment you wish to quote (removing the underscores).

I agree that children should be taught the logic, and how it applies to argumentation afterward, and I am also against indoctinating them as atheists. I suppose it depends in a sense on what the environment is; here in Canada my daughter is most likely only going to be exposed to religion by general mention of it and its presence in the lives of her teachers, classmates and so on, and as a result I'm confident that teaching her to think critically is all that is needed.

In areas of the USA, where people in authority positions may attempt to use fallacious arguments to influence children, I can see why picking apart standard creationist fare might be helpful.

While indoctrination isn't the answer to indoctrination (nor is intolerance an answer to intolerance), I do believe that preparing them for challenges makes sense. Innoculating them (in a metaphorical sense), ensuring that they've been exposed to something similar, so that their "immune system" recognises the invaders for what they are, and can produce antibodies of the right sort. While our bodies can fight off invaders, we often give it a boost by preparing it ahead of time - the flu shot isn't exactly the flu strain you'll eventually meet, but it sure helps a lot.

Even as it is, the weight of a teacher's opinion is heavy in a child's world. I've corrected things that my daughter's teacher has claimed (generally silly generalisations about nature, like "snakes lay eggs", or "X is a vegetable, not a fruit"), and there is certainly a resisitance to it - she trusts her teachers, so having them contradicted is tough. Luckily, she trusts me more (and I know the subject area better). If you are in an environment that puts specific pressures on a child, it's certainly right to arm them with the right (intellectual) weaponry.

71. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182484 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 8:28 am

But of course once your children see all the immoral swedish atheists raping and killing indiscriminately nothing you say will have any bearing - they will undoubtedly realise the only way to be moral is through god.

Oh, I just have to share a story now -

Last weekend my wife lost her wallet while doing some shopping at the various garage sales in the area; when she realised it she went out looking for it at the various sales, and one person explained that someone had come by her garage sale to tell her that they had found a wallet. My wife went to the address and recovered her wallet (with all contents), and on our walk home pointed out the house to me - and there on the back of the lady's car was a Darwin fish.

Darned amoral atheists. Not just returning wallets, but going out of her way to inform other garage sales that she had found it.

72. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182482 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 8:21 am

I'm of two minds about these camps - on the one side, I think it's great for several reasons - feeling comfortable discussing atheism with others their own age, meeting people who share their mindset, exposure to rational thought and logic, and the general good that comes out of camps (activity, friendships, etc.)

I do also see DjSouthPaw's points. My children aren't being "taught" atheism. It's a difficult line to walk, trying to encourage a child to think critically, without foisting one's own views on them. It doesn't seem the least bit wrong to do the exercise on the existence (or not) of unicorns - it's in my mind the right approach, and the one we've taken with our children.

We've explained that there are some things that one can tell things about directly, through one's senses, like the existence of an apple. That there are other things that one can discver through their effects, like magnetic fields or gravity, and that because of their consistency we can make predictions, test them, and come up with ideas about how they work. And a third class of things about which there is no evidence, and thus there is no way of determining their existence - like spirits, or an afterlife. Lack of proof of their existence doesn't imply that they don't exist, but without evidence to support their existence we have no reason to believe in them either.

Somewhat surprisingly, despite my eldest being in kindergarden, she's already had to deal with her lack of belief (or at least, her agnosticism) and how it affects relationships with other children. In that sense, I think the camps sound great.

73. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180945 by Epinephrine on May 16, 2008 at 7:37 am

- k1mgy:

Let's launch a national protest movement against the crucifix.

Anyone care to raise a cup of brew to that?

Sounds great. I find the thing offensive too, and I suspect many others do as well.

74. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176340 by Epinephrine on May 7, 2008 at 7:35 am

Seeker -

More evidence is typically required for extraordinary claims.

No evidence for a "great flood" exists that can't be as easily used to explain smaller, localised floods.

Localised floods, in societies that live on riverbanks, would likely thus appear in nearly all mythologies, and as mentioned already, would be inflated by storytelling.

You asked for least convincing evidence of a great flood?

My pick is mythology (like the bible) - it's simply a claim something happened, and is likely the exagerration of a natural disaster. The presence of flood mythologies among groups that lived on flood plains is not evidence of a global flood.

I know of no good evidence, though, so I can't offer you a "most convincing" bit.

75. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174412 by Epinephrine on May 2, 2008 at 11:45 am

Regeneration of digit-tips in mice is known, and humans can too; Scientific American had an article on this (April 2008), and says that it has been documented in medical journals thousands of times. Work is being done to determine what processes are behind this in mice, since we can't randomly chop fingers off people - but apparently the literature is full of cases of children, teenagers, and even adults regenerating fingertips. One "treatment" that doesn't work is to put a skin flap over it - this will prevent regeneration even in salamanders.

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

Comment #172038 by Epinephrine on April 29, 2008 at 7:09 am

TTID:

Epinephrine,

I did watch the other video. Again, I know you make no distinction between what I call Micro vs. Macro Evolution, but in my mind, this video explained micro-evolution in which I readily understand. I swear that I'm not trying to frustrate you or I am not intentially being hard-headed, I am being truly honest. Colors change, sizes change, but to add an appendage? Would not every random mutation between the first and the final need to be advantageous in itself in order for natural selection to continue in that direction. How would the first mutation leading to a hand offer a beneficial advantage for natural selection to continue in that direction?

Please have patience with me.

Of course - I have nearly no end of patience talking politely about a topic :)

I'm glad that you accept (as you put it) micro evolution, and you are correct in your guess that I make no distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, seeing the latter as merely the former over longer periods of time.

The example of the organisms adapting to their environment (which I thought was well done with the computer simulation, showing a slight delay often before they catch up to the environmental changes) can of course explain how a single homogeneous group can become two discrete groups.

Speciation is thought to occur in a variety of situations, and there are names for each; one type which might apply easily to this type of population is allopatric speciation, in which some form of barrier comes into being between two populations. Some examples would be separation of continents, a river, chasm, desert or other barrier to population mingling, being blown of course and populating a new and distant area, etc...

If such a thing happened, it's easy to see that one population might settle into one colour configuration, while the other might settle into another. This is of course occuring in genes other than colour as well, and eventually the two populations may differ so much that they no longer breed. tada! Speciation.

Now, this doesn't address your question of the development of something like a hand, at least not directly. It's very similar in principle though - we must remember that hands didn't develop on a plant or amoeba; they developed on a creature with something resembling a hand. It is certainly incremental.

So I suppose I have a few questions, to try to pinpoint where you may be feeling resistance.

1) Could you see something like the human hand developing from something like the ape (chimpanzee, orangutan) hand? These are fairly similar structures, and require only some changes to the length of bones, shifting of tendon attachment points and so on.

2.) Is the development of an ape-like hand from a more primitive hand a problem? Say, from a lemur, aye-aye, or other small prosimian?

3.) Could you see, through gradual changes, a paw like that of a squirrel or raccon, changing to become more like a prosimian's hand?

To me, these are pretty similar structures. working our way back, slowly, it doesn't seem at all surprising, the changes seem small, and easy to account for. Of course, the evidence is sparser the farther back one goes, but (to me, at least) it's not surprising that finding 90 million-year old hand bones is harder than finding recent ones.

The interesting thing is that it isn't just the bones/fossils that tell this story, it's also in the genes.

Is your trouble with the idea much earlier, with the idea of developing limbs at all? Why would a fin become a limb, why would a fin be advantageous over not having one?

Even slight changes can be advantageous, and there is a remarkable history of bodyparts being co-opted for use in a function that differs markedly from its original use (exaptation) - the bee's stinger, for example, is a modified egg-laying tube (ovipositor), and the lobed fins of some of the putative ancestors of terrestrial animals are thought to have been useful for moving in shallow waters. The eventual use of walking on land was not selected for, rather, they were handy right then, for staying put in a moving current, or for moving through weedy, shallow waters. The panda's "thumb" is another interesting example of exaptation, but there are countless examples. It's important to remember that no feature could ever be selected for as being advantageous later, but they may have been advantageous for some other purpose.

So, does the development of something like the hand need to be incremental? Yes. Beneficial at every step? Not necessarily for the function of being a hand. Beneficial for something, most likely.

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

Comment #171689 by Epinephrine on April 28, 2008 at 5:22 pm

TTID:

I'm really impressed that you watched the video, and came back to ask questions. Your mention of the idea that two different offspring might possess different traits presenting benefits is indeed possible; in fact, in every generation there are bound to be many variations that are beneficial, some of which will be lost. The best adapted individual can happen to die young. The nice thing is that overall, better adapted individuals are more likely to survive than the poor variations.

I'll invite you to watch another short film actually, called "How Evolution Really Works" - I like this because it shows that sometimes, through chance, the best adapted specimen dies. The number of generations and the selection pressure will still result in adaptation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

Hopefully you'll enjoy this one, if I recall it was well done, though it might not address all your questions. It's still a good example of how evolution can occur.

PS: ignore the Wagner. It's a bit overplayed :P

78. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171314 by Epinephrine on April 28, 2008 at 12:28 pm

DamnDirtyApe

Side note: much dumber animals (crows) are excellent tool users, and very good at making and using spears for 'fishing' grubs

What makes you think that crows are "much dumber"?

79. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #169446 by Epinephrine on April 26, 2008 at 5:55 am

Well, since we've successfully managed to get the vast majority of the votes there, perhaps we can influence the "yahoo movies" rankings, since Expelled was a "B" yesterday, and it's down to a "B-" today - but the vast majority of the "helpful" reviews are still positive.

If you have a yahoo account, feel free to go vote with your heart ;)

80. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168743 by Epinephrine on April 25, 2008 at 10:27 am

Thanks, I edited the link so it will work now. Nearly 10:1 for "No" at present! :D

81. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168713 by Epinephrine on April 25, 2008 at 10:03 am

A bit OT, but I figured I'd mention it in a thread that is still being read - there is a poll asking whether ID should be taught in the classroom over on http://www.myspace.com/expelledthemovement if anyone wants to voice their opinion on the issue, the rational out there have pushed the score from 2:1 in favour of ID to about 5:1 against it so far. You may have already followed the link from PZ's Pharyngula blog, but if not, it's a chance to embarass the Expelled folk by having the poll on their site clearly against ID in the classroom :)

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168120 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I do not restrict my children reading list nor do I force them to read my suggestions. My children have literary freedom.

That's great! So do ours. At least we can agree on that much :)

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168116 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Evolution isn't an atheist conspiracy, it's a fact of the natural world and of science.

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168078 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Hey, we fooled you with Hugh Laurie you know.

Naw, my wife loves him, but one of her favourite games is to listen for the words that trip him up a little, and hear the accent peek through :)

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

Comment #168070 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

TTID -

Bogus.

That about sums up your case. Give it up.

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

Comment #168055 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Where is the mutation in Darwin's finch scenario?

Why don't you read Darwin. He wrote wonderfully about it. Then again, you might learn something.

You don't answer our questions, I'm done answering yours.

Why are there so many religions, and miracles witnessed by those following other religions?

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

Comment #168039 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Next.

What next? you haven't managed to respond to a single question asked of you.

Or are you meekly asking for your next whipping? I would think that the intellectual drubbing would get a little embarassing for you, since all you manage to do is hold up worn out creationist garbage, debunked countless times.

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

Comment #168026 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Yes, and at one time most scientists thought that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, being bled was a cure. Majority does not dictate right from wrong. You see, science is constantly changing.

Right. We learn, and build on knowledge with more evidence. Oh, and sometimes bleeding is a cure. It may have worked in antiquity for hypertension, and is still used today for hemochromatosis, as an example.

ID is constant.

And wrong. And it'll be just as wrong tomorrow as it was yesterday.

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

Comment #168022 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Oh, don't quote me, I'm paraphrasing another poster (or possibly author). Someone wrote something along the lines of: accepting microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying, "Sure, putting one foot in front of the other, you can walk out the door, maybe down the street, but all the way across the country? Impossible!"

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

Comment #168011 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm

No, the evolution you all are proposing is nothing like the observable modification or adaptation that takes place

Actually, it's exactly like that. Just like walking from Ottawa to Montreal is exactly like walking from my chair to the door, only difference is that it takes a little longer.

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

Comment #168004 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:17 pm

TTID:

You are the one who is ignorant. Getting 700 "scientists" in favour of ID is nothing. See project Steve.

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

Comment #167988 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm

TTID:

Back at you

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

Comment #167986 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Exactly. The proven scientific evidence of the complexity of life leaves without a doubt that there had to be a designer.

Not true, the complexity of life proves that there couldn't be a designer.

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

Comment #167980 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 1:06 pm

There is no big debate. There is no big conflict. There are a very small number of scientists who use religion in place of reason.

If Christianity is right, why are there so many other religions, which also have holy texts and witnessed miracles? I don't see much conflict in atheism.

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

Comment #167789 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 10:32 am

Steve Zara -

I am not even sure what "macro" evolution is supposed to mean. I am guessing "evolution in a big leap". We do occasionally see that. As I often mention, we get new species in a single generation by chromosome duplication.

However, what I suspect "macroevolution" is really intended to mean is "evolution in bigger steps than scientists have yet found", so it is goalpost-moving

Indeed. I suspect that "macro-evolution" is their term for speciation, but viewed through an ID perspective. Where's the crocoduck-type speciation.

The science daily article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm ) on lizards and evolution (found on RD.net as well) is a fascinating example, but as PZ points out on Pharyngula, "yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they're a different kind of lizard now." The ID folks won't be happy until a frog turns into an owl or some such.

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

Comment #167653 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 8:39 am

decius -

May I ask you what you imply with your reference to people's backgrounds? If you think that it's a class or education-related issue, I have to disagree. Among others, I know a heart surgeon of upper-class extraction who cusses like a fishwife

Nothing of the sort - I meant their past experiences, the formative factors which (along with genetics) influence their behaviours.

For example, attitude toward religion may depend in part on your experiences with it, and while social class and education won't predict with any real accuracy an individual's patterns of self-expression, their behaviours (in speech/text, for example) are no doubt related, at least in part, to their experiences growing up. My brother and I are like night and day in some ways, but we had very different experiences as young men.

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

Comment #167586 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 7:22 am

Al-rawandi, Quetz, and others -

I wasn't pointing fingers, and I do get that it's frustrating. And there are those that I would also insult, but there are folks who do it much better than I do.

I don't mind the insults to the habitual trolls, in that they are often well-deserving of your (our?) scorn and derision, having abandoned any attempts at rational thought. Wooter in particular was amusing, and I enjoy the poetic way he is handled when he makes his incomprehensible quackings. And of course you are all free to express yourselves, I have no clue what your backgrounds are, and there can be very legitimate reasons (other than the frustration we all share) to have some vitriolic fury at the believers who proselytise here.

I just hope that it doesn't drive away those who may really be coming here to learn, and decide that it's not a nice environment. I don't hold anyone here responsible for it, and I appreciate all the effort made to encourage discussion and share knowledge - it's just a regret for those who might not stay, since there is so much more here than the odd insulting post might manage to portray.


And decius - I hope it's obvious that I'm not a troll...

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

Comment #167542 by Epinephrine on April 24, 2008 at 6:41 am

I agree with lol mahmood, actually. I find it discouraging that there are members more prone to insult than talk, but that's what happens when one takes a sample - you get folks from all walks of life, with all sorts of attitudes. I don't think it's particularly helpful (though perhaps at times fitting, and even mildly amusing) to insult the trolls that come here, as they're apt to simply be after some ire to quotemine anyway.

More important is really how we seem to those who might be interested, but are turned off when they load in and see ad homs/insults flying.

==========================

Re: TheTruthID; you make claims that have no evidence, we're ignoring it. I can just as easily say that the bible has been disproved (and it has, it's self contradictory and full of false information), and that a host of very religious people have realised that there is no god (same argument you make, that there are scientists who believe in god). It's as meaningful as anything you've posted.

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

Comment #166939 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm

If your main argument is "but look, there are scientists who believe in creation," you've already lost.

The proportion of scientists who believe in ID is vanishingly small. And while scientists are, by virtue of their education, as a whole better trained in rational argument than the lay person, that doesn't prevent long -held delusions from surviving their education, biases from life affecting judgement, nor does it mean that they are infallible. The proportion of scientists who believe in ID is much smaller than the proportion of the population as a whole, and among those who study biological sciences it is even lower. The more educated about the subject, the fewer people believe in ID. Maybe because ID has no supporting evidence (excepting of course a really old fairy tale collection), and relies on garbage science, misinfomation, quote mining and such.

Please, bring a legitimate argument or stop trolling.

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

Comment #166924 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm

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.

Very interesting?

A physicist who believes in creation does not prove it is true.

Despite having an education, a physicist doesn't necessarily know a thing about evolution - much like the vast majority of people who haven't studied it.

Oh, and he's not "one of our own". We're atheists, he clearly isn't.