51. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208039 by Quine on July 10, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Rod, it is not the size of the thread, it is that posts were moved to the alternate, and the coding does not handle the numbers correctly after that. You will also notice that the links from the front page on latest comments no longer work for this thread.

52. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208034 by Quine on July 10, 2008 at 2:13 pm

clearmind was quote mining a 2003 ref above without checking to see that by the summer of 2005 the match over the whole genome between humans and chimps was up to 98.77%. ^[ref] Also, the current match to chimps is of little importance next to the conclusive DNA evidence of common ancestry.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207463 by Quine on July 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm

txpiper:

Stuff like this does not even scratch at proving evolution, and things like crocodiles which haven't budged for supposedly over a hundred million years are not helpful either.

54. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207258 by Quine on July 9, 2008 at 11:59 am

One of the things that has come from recent advances in courtroom standards is the light that has been shined on the psychology of "evidence." Those weighing evidence in court tend to go with the witnesses who are perceived to be sincere. However, modern additions, such as surveillance video recordings and DNA analysis, have shown that completely sincere witnesses are often, also, completely wrong.

55. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207160 by Quine on July 9, 2008 at 9:00 am

Richard, I understand the feeling of windfall you had sitting there and letting him spout on about the miracle belief. I would not have been able to stop myself from asking why he gave more standing to the writings about these miracles v. the contemporary stories of miracles in the mystery cult of Mithra (for example)? After all, writing itself is not a miracle, and folks like J.K. Rowling create entire miraculous worlds.

56. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206710 by Quine on July 8, 2008 at 5:12 pm

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." - Ecclesiastes 9:5

57. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206593 by Quine on July 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I suspect that Richard just took some mercy on someone so departed from the field of logic and philosophy claimed. The arguments from Lennox are too flawed for me to sit still long enough to go through the whole list, but I have put some up in a blog entry.

58. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205891 by Quine on July 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Ertu, thanks for posting all those segments; it helps the world see that the book is worthless. Now, how about answering Brian's questions?

59. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205587 by Quine on July 7, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Thank you, Phil.

Thank you, Steve; I will try to keep my end of it going.

60. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205548 by Quine on July 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Once again, we see the lack of basic logic. The ToE is all about how new species come into existence. Nothing in the ToE says an existing species has to go extinct. An example of a species that shows very little change over a long time just means that small changes in its genetic makeup were not helpful in its environment, and that that environment must have been relatively constant.

Also, other species can branch off during geographic isolation and evolve into many new species in new places while the ancestral species is not changing very much over in its environment. Thus, finding something that has not changed does not prove that it was not part of evolution you don't know about.

61. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #205531 by Quine on July 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm

I have taken Steve's advice and started a blog to keep track of my thoughts on posting here and elsewhere. You can look it over at:

http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/

I just put up a post about this "Fine Tuning" with copies of parts of a thread we had going a few months ago. The specific link to that is here.

62. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205358 by Quine on July 7, 2008 at 7:30 am

The sound of sliding into irrelevance.

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204545 by Quine on July 5, 2008 at 7:13 am

txpiper,

You doubted that any changes could be made in protein sequences, then backed off to a "2 point type" position. You consistently do not get that small changes accumulated over long reaches of time add up to significant changes.

You also claim no positive mutations, in general. That is why I gave you the link in my last post. In this study from the references in that link, you can read about a specific tiny change that gives a big phenotypic advantage. The information is out there, you can learn.

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204334 by Quine on July 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm

txpiper, I am sorry to hear your 9'th grade teacher was not so good. The story of the evolution of toxic venom is very interesting, and I suspect you would have been quite engaged if you could have heard something about it back then.

You should go find out more about the "sensitivity of amino acid sequences in proteins." What you will find out is that it depends on where the substitution happens, and the kind of substitution. For example, there are many different forms of hemoglobin among different living species and within those species (including people). The hemoglobin that bar-headed geese have works something like three times better than ours does, because the mountains rose up slowly under their migration paths, and the ones with better hemoglobin mutations could fly at the higher altitudes required.

Try taking a class; it won't be like 9'th grade.

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204139 by Quine on July 4, 2008 at 8:20 am

txpiper, I suggest you check to see if you can take some biology classes at your local community college. Although you seem to enjoy making unscientific comments that wind us up, I think you, actually, have an aptitude for the subject, and could greatly increase your understanding.

66. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #203683 by Quine on July 3, 2008 at 11:03 am

Comment #203613 by ~manic-depressive

Nice observation. I think of it as its own electrochemical evolutionary context in which patterns of activation are fighting it out for survival and propagation through selfishly gathering neuron resources. Patterns that keep that high correlation firing going, last longer and condition more neurons. Who you are at any time just depends on what patterns are currently winning (expressing a high frequency in the population of patterns of neuron firing).

67. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202622 by Quine on July 1, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Kentrel, I appreciate your point. I generally welcome any religious folk who will take the effort understand the geologic age of the earth, and the ToE (even the ones who say they have doubts). Just getting some on the other side moving in the direction of understanding is (in their idiom) "lighting a single candle." However, at the same time that I give credit to Giberson, he has stepped on a slippery slope by acknowledging common decent, and that, somehow, human consciousness emerges in development from the single cell. He wants to stand just as far as he wants to go down the slope, and not slide any farther (i.e. deny the logical implications). If he were not smart enough to see it, I would give him a pass and thank him for going as far as he has gone, but he is smart enough to see the implications, so not facing up to them is, to me, disingenuous.

68. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202567 by Quine on July 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Deus ex molecule.

69. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202536 by Quine on July 1, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Yes, Steve, I took your comment exactly that way; I just wanted to be careful not to be guilty of logical overreach. (I leave that to the other side.)

70. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202530 by Quine on July 1, 2008 at 3:23 pm

I freely admit that the effects from LSD do not, in themselves, prove that some biochemical system evolved in the brain to give us the ability to trip out. It could be just a coincidence that this molecule has just the right shape and activity to key a cascade of reactions (note activity in just tens of micrograms dosage) that have no natural activation. At the same time, we have reports of similar subjective experiences from extended Zen meditation where no invocation of the supernatural is involved. I, for one, suspect molecules, and look forward to more brain research in this area.

71. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202501 by Quine on July 1, 2008 at 2:37 pm

People are far more likely to have certain experiences that overwhelm them and don't seem like conclusions of rational arguments, but seem like a kind of momentary contact with something genuinely transcendent. You say there's something more to the world than the atoms and molecules.

72. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202480 by Quine on July 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm

I still think Darwinism is a silly term.

73. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #200931 by Quine on June 28, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Either that or it selects for good liars.

74. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200924 by Quine on June 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm

bluebird, that was, clearly, Qui-Gon Jinn.

75. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200789 by Quine on June 28, 2008 at 8:45 am

Bonzai, are you still suffering from that allergy to the word "philosopher" without regard to the content of the arguments?

76. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200520 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Go Pat!

77. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200519 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm

If I remember correctly the punch line to a famous joke goes, "No, I can't outrun the bear, but I can outrun you." This guy does not have to be that smart to be successful in what he is doing, he just needs to be slightly smarter than the audience he chooses to address.

78. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200495 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Very good.

[Edit: If this were called the "Holy Sockpuppet" it might make a good expletive.]

79. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200490 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 6:06 pm

decius, I do not know if you were asking in general, or more specifically for this site. The term sockpuppet has been around in usergroups and other kinds of chat for awhile. Here, we always have to be on the look out for it because the form seems to appeal to those who are not willing to argue for their position honestly.

80. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200368 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #200355 by shad0w:

I find Atran's work very exciting and interesting to be perfectly honest. However i find his conclusions a bit hard to swallow since he ignores the evidence mentioned above.

81. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200340 by Quine on June 27, 2008 at 10:40 am

MBC Morgan,

Thank you for your comment. It is testimonials like yours that communicate best with those who, otherwise, reject simple reason. People can't help recognize being in the same situations and from there, can better see the application of thoughtful evaluation of the bigger picture.

82. A War On Science

Comment #199834 by Quine on June 26, 2008 at 11:58 am

Christian? An infinitely wise deity who screwed up world making so badly in the first attempt that it had to be flooded to start over?

"Well, what are you doing creeping around a cow shed at two o'clock in the morning? That doesn't sound very wise to me."

83. A War On Science

Comment #199761 by Quine on June 26, 2008 at 10:32 am

Oystein, if you just index all the deities thought up by all the religious groups over time, you get a widely adjustable parameter right there.

84. A War On Science

Comment #199709 by Quine on June 26, 2008 at 8:15 am

rationalE, science works by going as far as it can without supernatural considerations. People working in science may have supernatural beliefs or just hunches, but these have to be set aside to do the work. Sometimes that is difficult, but if not strictly observed, we loose the information about how far natural observation and inference gets us.

P.S. In case you were not aware, "e" is not just irrational, it is transcendental.

85. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199274 by Quine on June 25, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Hang in there, Corylus, you have seen the community over long enough time to have insights. I appreciate these.

86. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199234 by Quine on June 25, 2008 at 11:15 am

Of course, we will then have to sit through the spate of "flea" books that explain how Satan fabricated the evidence, and why their deity let him do it to test the faithful.

87. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199223 by Quine on June 25, 2008 at 10:49 am

As we have had those tedious, repetitive arguments, I have taken heart thinking that, perhaps, Prof. Dawkins is noting just what really needs to be in the book to most effectively address the willful ignorance. If that helps in any way, it will have been worth it.

P.S. I hope there is a great big section on ToE's predictive power, which is a complete farce when it comes to religion.

88. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #199200 by Quine on June 25, 2008 at 10:13 am

Welcome eifelastronaut, and thanks for your effort, but I honestly cannot force myself to listen to McG again.

89. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198743 by Quine on June 24, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Words censored by
Mindless rules
Carin spouts fountains
Ripples still travel

90. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198638 by Quine on June 24, 2008 at 10:34 am

It gets easier with practice. Try writing some Haiku.

The great wings soar
Through skies of words
Quiet thought
Chooses only a few

91. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198625 by Quine on June 24, 2008 at 10:16 am

Teratornis, my compliments on a succinct post.

92. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198428 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Forget pulling out fingernails, if you wanted to get any information out of me by force, all you would have to do is have McG start talking.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198357 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Thank you, Steve, I do feel myself slipping over the edge.

[Edit: into the blogosphere, that is]

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198347 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Steve:

One can write a very detailed rebuttal than can be lost into the depths of an old thread, and then has to be dug out again and again.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198219 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 11:47 am

decius, I will speculate that at a point in the evolution of the human mind the realization of existence was shortly followed by the realization of personal death. This was scary. People call some class of scary and unpleasant realizations "unthinkable" because it is so disturbing to "go there." ("Softly .. mayhaps to dream ...") However, the experience of being dead is actually unthinkable because there is no machinery left going to do the thinking. So, when evolution got to this point, it may have been necessary (selection pressure) to evolve the ability to "whistle past the graveyard" or to develop religion just to be able to bridge the angst and "get on with it."

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198212 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 11:35 am

I tend to trot out the Jesus Camp DVD when one of my Christian neighbors starts going on about the evil madrasas in the Islamic world.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198203 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 11:12 am

Hi decius,

I am sure there are folks as you have described. They tend to quote their abusers and defend them with terms from strong emotion. Sometimes that source is scripture itself and we have had types who cut and paste long chunks of scripture into the threads, and then go on and on about their emotional attachments to their imaginary friends.

The tx persona seems different. He is not slavishly representing some other, he is, as Steve has remarked, himself taking on all of the scientific community as if to stride the world of knowledge like a Colossus. There is megalomania on one hand, and just poking us for fun on the other. Anyone with another hand, please hold it up.

As for Steve's question of what to do, I think we are past the "demand answers" phase and have come to the "just ignore" end game. The Rev may continue to enjoy roasting him as far as I am concerned, because that really does not waste any of my time I would not have given over for entertainment, anyway. In the past couple of months I have put in time working to correct the vast world of tx misconception, but then shifted to just presenting to the observers of this thread things I thought would be interesting and helpful based on topics mangled by him. I may continue to do so, from time to time, but it stopped being for his benefit some time ago.

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198174 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 10:01 am

Steve, I think tx has fabricated a disingenuous persona exemplified by the little boy who pokes a bee hive with a long stick, just to see the reaction. Trying to analyze that persona is just going to elicit more poking. In order to make an interaction valuable there must be some level of honesty and respect for truth, which I just don't see in this case.

However, if you just want to have fun on your end of the stick, your time is yours to do with as you please.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198166 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 9:51 am

Thanks, Barry, for the link to Blackmore at TED. I had not heard the proposed "teme" label although the ideas have been all over the transhumanist and artificial life groups for many years.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197931 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 12:36 am

I think Darwin put "natural" in Natural Selection in part to indicate a process that could happen without agency. In this sense, it is linked to "undirected." From our viewpoint, the change from undirected to directed will result in a big step discontinuity in the rate of change, no matter the terminology.

However, from a "selfish gene" viewpoint, it could be a complete disaster (i.e. non propagation) as our intelligence allows us to modify and swap out genes such that future human bodies may predominately contain de novo sequences of DNA that code genes that have never existed before, and may even include inorganic symbiotic components.

Professor Dawkins has written about disposable survival vehicles for the preservation of the genes. We are looking [at] a future where the vehicles turn and use intelligence to make the genes disposable.