51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195647 by Donald on June 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm

RtG Intelligent Design

Thank you for drawing our attention to the theory that a designer constructed some life forms in the past.

But at what stage does a soul get injected into the cells that develop into a human?

52. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195600 by Donald on June 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Oystein - in the hope that you might read this before being tempted to reply to "clearthinker" (he is David Robertson, scottish preacher, famously called an unpleasant fruitcake by Richard Dawkins).

Please be aware he specialises in superficial inaccurate responses to atheist views, ignores substantive points made here against his views, and persistently misrepresents things that Dawkins wrote, as well as misrepresenting things that people have written in conversations with him here. The result (unfortunately, but perhaps understandably) has been an avalanche of rudeness and insults directed at him, which enables him to dismiss atheists as rude, sad or bad.

53. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195593 by Donald on June 18, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Level III comes from a radical solution to the measurement problem proposed by a physicist named Hugh Everett back in the 1950s. [Everett left physics after completing his Ph.D. at Prince­ton because of a lackluster response to his theories.] Everett said that every time a measurement is made, the universe splits off into parallel versions of itself. In one universe you see result A on the measuring device, but in another universe, a parallel version of you reads off result B. After the measurement, there are going to be two of you.

It's much worse than that. It is only in certain specific, rather narrow, experimental situations that there are merely two outcomes to consider.

In general, every quantum collapse creates a colossal number of outcomes. Instead of two-slit experiments, diffraction is a much more typical example. Consider a photon aimed at a wide screen through a tiny hole Here the collapse of the photon can occur at any position on the screen. An almost inifinite number of outcomes. And this is for every quantum collapse. The universe must be splitting, not merely in two at each quantum collapse, but into a staggering number of universes, each one representing a different location for the collapse.

It doesn't stop there. Quantum collapse is governed by tight laws of probability. So these universes are not equiprobable - if they exist, their existence cannot be merely binary, exist or not exist, there has to be a probabilistic character embedded in their existence OR observers have to be OUTSIDE the universes, traversing them in a manner that obeys the probabilistic rules. So either existence is no longer binary, or we reintroduce a spiritual nature to "observers".

These problems destroy the advantage of Everett's theory IMO.

As for Tegmark's "theory", well.....

I think it's vacuous. I read http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9704009

He begins that paper by presenting the question: "Is the physical world purely mathematical, or is mathematics merely a useful tool that approximately describes certain aspects of the physical world?" Very reasonable question. But a few sentences later he rules out!!: "The physical world is not completely mathematical."!! from further discussion. So it is not surprising that 30 pages of obfuscation later he reaches a conclusion that our universe is a mathematical structure. It's a bit like theologians starting out with the idea that god must exist.

He completely ignores the possibility that he started by acknowledging - that the universe is not a mathematical entity, but is merely approximated by one. He completely ignores the different possibility that mathematics does not have an existence independent of our thought-structures, and the consequent possibility that the universe, even if susceptible to mathematical description, is not large enough to contain a complete and perfect model of itself.

Anyway, having restricted himself to theories that assume the universe is a mathematical structure, he ends up arguing that it is pointless to discuss whether mathematical structures which do not correspond to our universe have reality, because we could never know, and as we know our mathematical structure exists (because we exist within it), we might as well say all mathematical structures correspond to universes. (I simplify in the interests of parody, but I have conveyed the essence.)

Tegmark's "theory" reminds me strongly of St Anselm's ontological argument. Not so much true by virtue of its structure, but having the virtue of being so convoluted that it's not easy to see it's false.

I think Max Tegmark is one of the most exciting thinkers in physics. He is a highly reputable physicist with a young and active mind, and we need thinkers like him to challenge the status quo.
We should not dismiss lightly what he says. It is not games, it is someone with a deep understanding coming up with original thoughts. - Steve Zara

Sadly, there is nothing to prevent highly intelligent people having nutty beliefs whether it's belief in the God of the Bible, or in the power of mathematics to create universes.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195478 by Donald on June 18, 2008 at 9:48 am

What I don't get is why I have to choose between science and faith. - Jethro

You might be interested in what Oystein Elgaroy has to say:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2732,Oystein-Elgaroy----the-Christian-defender-who-became-an-Atheist,Even-Gran

55. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195471 by Donald on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 am

Thank you, RD.net and Strappado for presenting this article.

Oystein's willingness to be open about his change of mind is an inspiring example of the scientific principle that evidence trumps emotional attachment. It can't be easy to reverse one's position after being a public defender of Christian faith. Welcome Oystein.

56. Diamonds unlock secrets of early Earth

Comment #195462 by Donald on June 18, 2008 at 9:21 am

bichard: Here is the nature paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/abs/nature06083.html

TeraBrat: it's the enclosing zircon that is dated.

57. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191910 by Donald on June 12, 2008 at 5:11 am

... his [Richard Dawkins] major ad homienm fallacy - look what some people do in the name of religion, therefore all religion is child abuse. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

You are at it again. You misrepresent other people's statements, and are continually tilting at strawmen.

However you will forgive me saying that it is a bit of a cheap shot to use such a tragedy to promote the atheist cause. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

You are at it again. Throwing back accusations thrown at you, that were justifiable accusations when thrown at you, but inappropriate when you throw back.

Do you not recognise the difference between a natural tragedy that requires empathy and support for the victims, not exploitation, and a man-made tragedy with a specific cause (in this case religious madness) that also requires identification of the cause and action against the cause?

58. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191902 by Donald on June 12, 2008 at 4:42 am

Go to RichardDawkins.net Home Page. In the right column, beneath the image of TGD, are several icons, including Amazon.com, Borders, Barnes and Noble etc. Click on Amazon.com. If you are in Britain, Amazon will recognize the fact. Although Amazon.com's page will come up, you'll see a little British flag near the top of the page with "Shop at Amazon.uk" Click here and you'll get to amazon.co.uk and all your purchases, not just books, will result in a credit to RDFRS.

Thanks Richard. I wish I had known this earlier. I quite often buy things from Amazon and I would have been happy to click through from RD.net instead of using my normal bookmark link. Like others, I disregarded the RD link because it was to .com instead of .co.uk.

I second Steve Zara's suggestion to make the link (and the UK option) more conspicuous on the RD home page.

59. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191788 by Donald on June 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Paula, thanks very much for posting that report of the June 10 lecture.

Some people can't be cured, and can't be endured. It sounds like the new Prof at HTC is in that category. Perhaps an appropriate subtitle for his talk would have been "Why my new job ought to be preserved". In science, inaugural lectures are often about past and present research and it's value, presented in an entertaining style. It sounds like this one was rather more about defending his job from a rising tide of atheism. Let's keep the tide rising.

"Dawkins presupposition is that everything that exists came about by chance." Oh dear. This type of equivocation reminds me of stage illusionist misdirections. From one perspective it's true. At the lowest level of physics (that we know of) interactions always have a chance component. (Or perhaps he's up at the level of mutations in genomes.) But it's so misleading. I would want to scream out too. Yes his LEFT hand was showing the empty hat, but his RIGHT hand was busy picking up the rabbit. In this case, the right hand is holding the emergent properties that are necessary to gain understanding of larger physical entities (or natural selection, if he's up at that level). (I know this analogy is a bit imperfect, but hey, this is only a comment thread...)

Regarding Torrance and the Templeton prize, perhaps a little awe is in order. It's nearly a million pounds! Incidentally, I notice that the prize title has evolved. It used to be (until 2001) the "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion". Now it's the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities". Looks like a little agnosticism has crept in there. Perhaps a "Templeton prize for progress in the evidence for or against Spiritual Realities" could be the next step.

I wasn't sure what to make of the "lamentable tolerance" comment - I guess he's against all this tolerance for single mums, gays, shops open on Sundays, etc. Presumably doesn't notice the lamentable tolerance given to out-dated religious delusions.

"Brilliant professor with no knowledge" was presumably a dig at Richard Dawkins?

Thanks Paula. Due to your sacrifice, we are all saved from the eternal pain of actually listening to a theological lecture. :-)

60. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191082 by Donald on June 10, 2008 at 7:36 am

Interesting case.
It would be good if some non-human animals could eventually be granted some legal rights according to their degree of "sentience".
Presumably Paula Stibbe is bringing this case to raise consciousness about the issue and is hoping the publicity will generate some means of funding a better future for Matthew.
But chimps are not humans. Sentient, yes. As sentient as humans, no.

The creationist religites will no doubt want to have their say about this case.

61. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191025 by Donald on June 10, 2008 at 6:02 am

And your notion that it is evolution that makes us feel good or bad is completely empirically unfounded. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

You are obviously unaware of research into animal behaviour that shows our nearest evolutionary cousins, the apes, share some of our behaviours such as cooperating, sharing, withdrawing cooperation if cheated, and behaviours that are like humans when they sulk, are in distress, or are pleased or frightened. There is clear evidence that our nearest animal cousins have emotions and feel good or bad. Dogs also display emotions and feel good or bad according to whether they have pleased their masters. Do you have a dog? Do you not think their facial expressions and body language are indications of how they feel? The evidence for our feelings coming from evolution is that other animals have similar characteristics, with our close cousins having the most similarity.

you are ignoring the negative effects of evolution such as the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the weak. The fact that we are able to overcome these negative aspects of evolution only begs the question - how do we know they are negative? - clearthinker(David Robertson)

They are not negative. Survival of the fittest and elimination of the weak has eventually produced us. If one thinks existing and being human is good, then one has to accept that survival of the fittest and elimination of the weak has produced a good result. But evolution has produced this good result by a process that inflicted sustained unspeakable misery to countless individuals all the way along. Now that evolution has produced us, there is now something better. Animals (us) have evolved to the point where we can devise a better future for ourselves without the indifference and cruelty to the individuals within society. Please do not confuse the theory of darwinian evolution (which explans biological history) with "social darwinism" which is a bad and cruel way for humans to organise themselves, and rightly reviled. Humans can invent for themselves better ways to organise their own society (and have).

62. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191015 by Donald on June 10, 2008 at 5:38 am

But you were the person who said that there were inate qualities of justice etc in every human being. Surely Hitler was human? And Stalin? And Pol Pot? And Mao? All you have to do is look at human history (whether religious or atheist) to see that your statement is just empirically false. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

You have totally ignored the following part of my earlier post:

As with all instincts, they express themselves to varying degrees in different individuals due to variations in genetic makeup and environmental factors, including culture and zeitgeist. I did not mean that every atheist is exemplary in terms of justice, fairness, cooperation, etc!

Your response is selective, superficial and inaccurate, David.

You seriously think that Hitler wanted to live in a society of constructive co-operating individuals? What kind of newspeak is this? - clearthinker(David Robertson)

It's not newspeak, just an obvious fact stated in an unusual way. Hitler wanted to construct a thousand-year Riech, with dominion over Europe, consisting of millions of (he thought) superior humans from Germany. Of course he wanted them to be constructive and cooperative - they'd have to be to achieve his ambition. As we know from history he combined this aspiration with a need that they obey their Fuhrer (him), and inhumane, cruel, uncivilised ideas and actions, including the elimination of humans that wouldn't cooperate.

63. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191008 by Donald on June 10, 2008 at 5:21 am

My target point was that atheists are (to some extent) united by their opposition to oppressive, intrusive, politically-dominating religions.

Donald - again this is Disneyworld atheism without any empirical evidence whatsoever - and a great deal of contrary evidence. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

This website is evidence - despite the minor squabbling, there are thousands of subscribers here who are united in their opposition to overbearing religions. The growth in secular society and humanist society membership is evidence. The campaigns against bishops in the House of Lords, and abolition of the blasphemy law is evidence. All those things required a degree of unity - defeating entrenched self-interested religious organisations requires a certain amount of organisation on the part of atheists.

As for "Disneyworld", how about the christian narrative: "Adam and Eve were in idyllic Eden, until a talking snake persuaded them to eat an apple that god told them not to eat" ... "god magically impregnated a woman with a god-child, who was god himself, and told a few (only a few) humans stories about how they should behave, performed miracles, was killed for interferring, then magically reappeared, was seen to ascend into heaven, is still alive today, and now talks to people silently inside their heads". It's not ME with the disneyworld beliefs David.

64. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190695 by Donald on June 9, 2008 at 12:02 pm

[Lengthy garbage deleted] ... It should be noted that although this column is comparatively lengthy, it is still only a column and barely scratches the surface of the clear proofs that evidence the existence of the Divine and the Divine nature of the Bible, the Torah. The reader is encouraged to study further and to ask questions.

Yomin Postelnik is the President of IRPW, a company that offers business plans, funding advice and facilitation, SBA loan applications, SWOT analyses, bold and effective marketing strategies, general business development and grant writing and research for non-profits and certain qualified businesses. Call today for an initial consultation

This guy is a 21st century businessman. He caters for people who believe what he writes and seek his advice.

I take it we've all seen the documentary IDIOCRACY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0 ?

65. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190289 by Donald on June 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Atheists share with each other and all other humans a typical innate sense of justice, fairness, and a desire to live in a society of constructive, cooperating indviduals.

I should clarify what I meant. It was too terse and it was read (at least by those who reacted to it) as meaning something other than what I intended.

My starting point was that atheists, being human, share what is common to all humans. That includes instincts for justice, fairness, cooperation, etc. It also includes other instincts, such as those for food, love, sex, lying, fighting, power and control, etc, but I wanted to focus on those instincts which I thought would tend to unite atheists in common cause against the depredations that come from religion. As with all instincts, they express themselves to varying degrees in different individuals due to variations in genetic makeup and environmental factors, including culture and zeitgeist. I did not mean that every atheist is exemplary in terms of justice, fairness, cooperation, etc!

Atheists are not united by their atheism. My target point was that atheists are (to some extent) united by their opposition to oppressive, intrusive, politically-dominating religions.

I don't think it's helpful to simplistically retreat to the dictionary and say "atheism simply means lack of belief in god", even though that's true of course.

David Robertson is wrong about a lot of things, but I think he is right that atheism, in the presence of oppressive, intrusive, politically-dominating religions in the world, is experiencing increasing cooperation, common cause, and websites such as this one. If the bad effects of religion evolve away, or are otherwise eliminated, then what David sees as organised and evangelical atheism will disappear too. There really will be nothing to unite atheists then.

Is this the Disney version of atheism? Its certainly very sweet " and totally unevidenced. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

It's kind of you to describe it as sweet, but unfortunately that view comes from your misinterpretation. As regards unevidenced, here is some evidence for you regarding justice and fairness: http://www.physorg.com/news128011495.html

In fact it is empirically false. Did Hitler (as a human being " not an atheist) share a desire to live in a society of constructive, co-operative individuals? - clearthinker(David Robertson)

Oh dear. We had an exchange some time ago in which you failed to distinguish between AND and OR. (When I said certain people were EITHER deluded OR unintelligent, you criticised me on the grounds that I was challenging their intelligence. You reacted as if I had said they were deluded AND unintelligent.) Now you seek to criticise a remark about innate human characteristics by reference to a single exceptional, notorious and despised individual. And you post as "clearthinker"!!

Anyway, this particular criticism of yours is not only ill-thought, but also fails to make the point you hoped to make. Because dictators, such as Hitler, various Popes, Stalin, etc, etc do desire to live in a society of constructive cooperating individuals!!! It's their methods of obtaining this society (e.g. brain washing, oppressing or eliminating anyone who opposes them) that we object to!!

And where are you going to get your absolute morals from? - clearthinker(David Robertson)

There are no absolute morals in the sense you imagine. There are, however, plenty of moral principles, such as the "golden rule" (written down hundreds of years before Jesus) and numerous more sophisticated moral principles applicable to the present day, derived from practical experience, knowledge of the world, and zeitgeist of the time. They are grounded in essential characteristics of humans, all the result of evolution, for example: (1) our brains make us feel good if we help other people or have successful social relations, and feel bad if we hurt other people, lie or cheat, and (2) our brains can reason about future consequences of various actions we might take, so we can choose advantageous actions.

66. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189817 by Donald on June 7, 2008 at 10:27 am

Is it not the oft repeated mantra that atheists do not have a creed; that atheism is just simply the lack of belief in God; that atheists come from many different backgrounds and have many different beliefs so that the only thing that unites you is the lack of belief? Then how can you have something? And what is this something - that all atheists have and others do not have? And why feel the need to organise, evangelise and behave like a religion? And why set up a website espousing atheist beliefs if there are no atheist beliefs? Surely if the only belief is the negative one of there being no God - it must get pretty boring? Unless of course - atheism is actually a religious/philosophical belief system - with its own need for support groups, self congratulatory sychophants and demonisation of oppenants. - clearthinker(David Robertson)

Since David's questions are actually quite sensible, despite the tone and lightweight insults at the end, I offer an answer..

Atheists do not have a creed, that's true. But it's not true that the only thing that unites them is lack of religious belief.

Atheists share with each other and all other humans a typical innate sense of justice, fairness, and a desire to live in a society of constructive, cooperating indviduals. Atheists mostly also share with each other a resistance to power wielded by the religious deluded, and a resistance to laws and morality contaminated by beliefs about what imaginary sky fairies supposedly reward and punish humans for, in a non-existent afterlife.

Personally, I think there is a need for atheists to organise and even evangelise, until such time as non-religious education has taken over a particular role usurped by the religious, that of moral teaching. Historical tradition has left the religious to be disproportionate propagators of moral teaching to the young, with the (intended) result that religious delusions propagate along with their teaching.

I believe atheists have to unite to disconnect moral teaching from beliefs in sky fairies, because moral teaching is important, and imaginary sky fairies enable dangerous nonsense to propagate. There is also a need to replace the world's greatest social clubs (religions) with delusion-free social clubs, such as humanist societies and other delusion-free structures of social cooperation. That also requires considerable organisation, as well as initiatives from entrepeneurial individuals.

Edit: the word "mostly" added after complaint by Barry Pearson

67. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187279 by Donald on June 1, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I heard Steve Jones give a lecture on why evolution is right and creationism is stupid at the University of Dundee. Highly entertaining (lots of photos of George Bush), well presented and intellectually bankrupt. - clearthinker (aka David Robertson, preacher)

Intellectually bankrupt? Steve Jones?? Haha. But you aren't trying to be a comedian are you? What you are actually doing is demonstrating the power of confident assertion to people who don't know better. Simply by your confidence, your chutzpah, your blinkered focus that excludes huge swathes of modern scientific knowledge, you are able to transfer your delusions to hundreds of followers. This is unfortunate for them, and for humanity as a whole. Steve Jones intellectually bankrupt?? About as likely as the bible being the inerrant word of god!!

He spent the whole lecture talking about micro-evolution and hardly one word about macro-evolution. ... If Steve Jones wants to present his case then he is going to have to do more than propogandise and instead come up with evidence. - clearthinker (aka David Robertson, preacher)

Well, I doubt you will want to take time away from your own propaganda activities to actually absorb significant amounts of evidence, and you may not even read this post, but I think it is good idea from time to time to place some evidence in these comment threads. So, here goes....

First, a preliminary remark about evidence. Nowadays, after nearly five hundred years of scientific investigations by millions (by now) of scientists, the evidence is distributed throughout tems of thousands of respected scientific journals, millions of scientific papers, and tens of thousands of artifacts such as fossils. When atheists talk about evidence, they don't just mean the evidence that a single person can remember or directly observe, they mean the collective accumulation of all the evidence stored in the combined records of all the scientific works of humanity to date.

So, on to micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

The timescale of evolution from the original primitive cells to the modern-day biosphere is outside the immediate grasp of the human mind. Consider a map of the UK (or just Scotland if you prefer). If this map is on a single sheet of paper, it is not going to show all the streets of Dundee, let alone all the houses, trees and gravestones in the churchyards. But suppose we are standing in a graveyard and have available, on a single sheet, a map of the graveyard that shows the location of all the gravestones. Let us say that the width of the graveyard corresponds in timescale to some micro-evolution that we have been able to observe within a single human lfetime, say fifty years of observation. So, might we be able to say something like: the map of Dundee corresponds to the evolution of humans and apes from their common ancestor, and a map wide enough to span from the Isle of Mull to Aberdeen could correspond to the evolution of mammals from primitive cells?

Before I answer that, let me comment that although a map of the graveyard could conceivably show all the individual gravestones, a map of Dundee would not - if the map of Dundee is on a single sheet of paper, there simply would not be enough room to show all the items the size of gravestones. And on a map of Scotland, there would not be enough room to show all the streets of Dundee. In terms of evolution, the "graveyard" map could show the individual changes to genes for antibiotic resistance, but the "Scotland" map would be unable to show such detail, and would show, not the tiny details, but only the gross charactistics of the skeletons of large animals. But the land really exists, and items the size of gravestones really exist all the way across Scotland. Similarly, small changes in genes occur all the way along the history of evolution, within species, and, when enough changes have occurred, producing different species.

Anyway, to return to the map question. Is it a useful analogy to relate a map of David's graveyard to a human lifetime and a map of Scotland to the evolution of the past four billion years?

NO!! It's ludicrously out of scale.

To match the timescale of biological evolution would take a map, not just the width of Scotland, but much, much wider. As wide as the whole planet??

NO!! Still ludicrously out of scale. That would only span back to early apes. Not even as far back as dinosaurs.

That is what I mean when I say the timescale of the totality of biological evolution is beyond the intuitive grasp of the human mind. I leave it to readers to work out how wide a distance the map would have to cover to match the total timespan of evolution. Be prepared to go far beyond this planet.


Now, on to the evidence for macro-evolution.

Let's start with a favourite of creationists when bamboozling the ignorant. Transitional forms.

"There are no fossils of creatures which are half fish and half land animals". "There are no intermediate forms between the land animals that are supposed to be the ancestors of whales and whales themselves" "There are no intermediate forms between reptiles and birds" Etc Etc.

WRONG!! WRONG!! WRONG!!

That might have been true in Darwin's time, but there have been a lot of fossils dug up since then.

Part-fish, part-land animal? Let me introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Intermediate forms between early mammals and whales? Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, amongst others. See: Gingerich, P., Raza, S. M., Arif, M., Anwar, M., and Zhou, X. (1994) "New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming." Nature 368: 844-847. And: Gingerich, P. D., Haq Mu, Zalmout, I. S., Khan, I. H., and Malkani, M. S. (2001). "Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan." Science. 293: 2239-2242. Also note, aquatic mamals that never fully converted to ocean dwelling, the seacow: Domning, D. P. (2001) "The earliest known fully quadrupedal sirenian." Nature. 413: 625-627

Reptiles to birds? How about: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, (It's not just Archaeopteryx!!) See Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Now let's look at the DNA of modern creatures.

There are some genes that all creatures have: it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes.

"Ok, the creationist says, having figured out some essential genes, god used them in all creatures. That's a natural thing for a designer to do."

Except that the ubiquitous genes are not the same. There are slight variations in the genes, and the discrepancies match the evolutionary distance we would expect from the evolutionary tree deduced from the fossil record.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html


Then there are vestigial features and strange relationships

Humans have vestigial tails. Whales have vestigial legs. Mammalian ears develop from two bones that develop into jawbones in reptiles.

The laryngeal nerve in mammals runs from the brain down to the heart, then back up to the larynx, a detour of several feet instead of going direct. Why?
Because mammals evolved from fish, and in the original fish layout, the organs were in a straight line. For more on this see:
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474


As epeeist already posted, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
It's a fact-packed, evidence-rich, collection of pointers into scientific evidence for macro evolution.

As for the numerous people who automatically come up with words like 'moron' or 'idiot' whenever anyone dares to question Darwinianism, can I humbly suggest that you are not providing a convincing case either. - clearthinker (aka David Robertson, preacher)

Fair enough. But how about "ignorant", "too lazy to read talkorigins.org", "wilfully spreading misinformation"? Or would that be rude? I'm in favour of politeness, myself.

68. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175570 by Donald on May 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

This is the best and most stimulating article I have read on this website. Congratulations to Sam Harris. The question is what can be done about it? - clearthinker(aka David Robertson)

Expose and ridicule all religious myths so that Islam eventually will lose credibility too?

Or would you prefer we preserve and protect Calvinism as well as Islam?

69. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175550 by Donald on May 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm

http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbonpercentage20Dating.htm

You'll have to remove the word 'percentage' and use the symbol % in its place when you copy/paste... sorry. Limitations of this site I guess.

No, not limitations of this site. "%20" is one way to display the "space" character when an actual space would be misinterpreted by some software. Here is the link with the space character displayed as normal: http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbon Dating.htm

What bothers me is that every dating method used is subject to a similar amount of variables and corrupting factors yet, according to naturalists, they all lead us to consistent ages plus/minus these small ranges. It's just all too neat for my liking.

It's not neat at all. The problem is that it is complicated, that is, there are a lot of interrelated factors to take into account, in order to get an accurate understanding, and obtain accurate C14 dates of samples from different geological environments. Many hundreds of scientists and thousands of scientific papers have been written about these matters, and the result is that isotope dating has now become well-understood (by the practitioning scientists) and most datings have become mutually consistent.

If we can't nail down C-14 much past 4000 years due to unknown and un-testable variables beyond that period, how the heck are we supposed to swallow millions and billions of years as accurate ages?

Because dates before a few tens of thousands of years are not obtained by C14 dating. Isotope ratios of other atoms are used, such as potassium-argon dating of rocks, which is useful up to billions of years.

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

Comment #174549 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I personally find it shameful that I am the only self-declared Christian I have ever seen comment on this website. Do you have any idea how many atheists challenge Christians on *Christian* forums? If atheists aren't scared to engage Christians in debate on their own websites, then why don't Christians have the guts to do the same on atheist sites? - Ryan (Bizarro)

Well said! (But there have been quite a few other self-declaring Christians here. They tend to disappear after a while. It's not only the insults. They also get serious replies that (I think) make them worry about whether their beliefs are really well-founded.)

71. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174538 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 3:53 pm

I offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay) - seeker_of_truth

As Rev Dark has already posted, the range of accuracy of C14 dating is limited to 10K years or so. This limit basically arises because the number of atoms of C14 becomes too small to count reliably. However, there is another source of inaccuracy in C14 dating. This is the effect of neutron irradiation on C13 (1% of all carbon). If the sample (e.g. fossil) has been close to rock or mineral that contains uranium or other radioactive material, there will be a few C13 atoms that get converted to C14. The effect of this is that the count of C14 atoms will increase and make the sample appear younger than its real age. Just thought I'd mention that, because I once saw an absurd claim on a YEC site that was based on not understanding the possibility that C14 could be produced within ancient rocks by radioactivity, as well as within the biosphere by cosmic rays.

So, Seeker, C14 ages can be inaccurate in the too-young direction if researchers did not test for (or did not have any information about) nearby radioactivity associated with the sample. That is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy you report.

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

Comment #174526 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I find it absurdly boorish when some of the atheists on this site bash God on an article that is totally unrelated to the issue of His existence (or non-existence). - Ryan (Bizarro)

Actually articles about healing amputees are related to the issue of god's existence. Have you visited and read the site http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ ?

It suggests an insecurity in their own beliefs since they find the need to twist any issue (relevant or not) to validate their belief that God must certainly not exist. - Bizarro

Insecurity can be exhibited in many ways. Drive-by comments as opposed to sustained dialogue with people who have studied the matter and have opposing views, for example.

Actually I agree that RD.net is oversupplied with insulting, rude and uncivilised comments (some of which are justified by extreme provocation from pervasive religious lunacy). However there are atheists here who focus on being polite, kind and thoughtful, just like your family and religious mentors, but without treating ancient myths as if they were factual. If you wanted to seriously debate the question of god's existence, how society obtains moral values, and how society could promote the kind of loving, caring society we all want, without believing in fictional gods, then you could certainly find suitable people here to do that. I think Corylus was essentially offering that in her reply to you.

73. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171143 by Donald on April 28, 2008 at 10:32 am

Decius,

We agree about the undesirability of pandering to myths. But in dealing with the avalanche of misinformation and misperceptions surging through human society, a certain amount of triage is vital. We both see it as more important to tackle theism and leave deism alone for now.

Regarding the terminology, or philosophy of science if you prefer:

I say that untestability places things outside science, because I regard testable predictions as being essential to science. However, I also would say that plausibility/credibility can be judged even in the absence of testability, so that unscientific beliefs, such as the existence of fairies, the existence of a larger universe in which our universe is but a simulation, the existence of a deity who created the universe specifically for humans, the existence of teapots inside black holes, etc, can be judged as implausible/incredible (or credible in some cases).

If something is outside science, I am willing to say it is compatible, and restrict my criticism to the implausibility.
Your comment "I do not subscribe to the notion that what is currently untestable is therefore compatible with science" seems to be suggesting either:
that untestable speculations are incompatible with science, because of their lack of testability
or perhaps:
that untestable speculations are incompatible with science, because of their implausibility

I'm not sure we have any essential difference in our view of the world and of science, but perhaps we have slightly different associations, and hence shades of meaning, in our use of words such as "science", "compatible", "testable", etc.

74. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170763 by Donald on April 28, 2008 at 1:15 am

... The point I am trying to convey is simply that God's character (and Bob's) have no significance regarding the probability of their existences. ... - Ryan (Bizarro)

Welcome back, Ryan. I agree that discussing the character of the god of the bible is a minor argument for whether god exists or not. But it is not right to say it has no significance.

People today have to judge whether the ancient scraps of text that constitute the bible are fact or fiction (we know they were written down by humans). If we found stories of a similar age about a benevolent being who brought presents to millions of children at the time of the winter solstice, we would be faced with the same task of deciding whether the stories were fact or fiction.

The behaviour and character of the personna in the story are definitely a factor in deciding whether the stories are fact or fiction.

... If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action. It doesn't matter if you think it is loving behavior; that is totally irrelevant. ... - Ryan (Bizarro)

Ah. Once one has decided the fact or fiction question, yes.

But first we have to decide whether the stories are fact or fiction. You have jumped ahead to the conclusion of that decision process, and started arguing from an assumption that god exists.

I'm not convinced that the bible stories: genesis (2 conflicting versions), flood (genocide by god), exodus, jesus (miracles and resurrection), etc, etc, are fact. Evidence from geology, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and yes, the character of the various biblical dramatis personae, overwhelmingly point to the bible being fiction stories - sometimes based on real human events and history, sometimes totally invented. (And Revelations clearly being some poor fellow's nightmare!)

75. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170357 by Donald on April 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm

the alleged compatibility of a deistic god with science is a pandering myth - Decius

It is compatible with science in the same sense as a belief that we are all simulations in a supercomputer built by aliens who inhabit an even larger universe. Or a belief that the purpose of the universe is to generate black holes for harvesting by time-travelling beings who created this universe. All I was saying was that deistic beliefs are compatible with science. They are compatible because they are untestable, not because they are credible.

I think the point is that deistic beliefs are essentially pointless and usually harmless. Provided that is all that other people believe then it's ok with me.

What I object to are beliefs that god is behind supremacist scriptures, beliefs that god has laid down laws in those scriptures that everyone has to obey, beliefs that god will reward after death people who enforce those scriptural laws, beliefs that god hates and punishes anyone who doesn't worship him, beliefs that prayer can be a effective alternative to studying how the universe works, belief in enternal hellfire, etc.

I also wish to challenge beliefs that, if there is no god, then anything goes. Moral behaviour is still required for personal benefit and societal stability - just grounded in humanistic considerations, e.g. the golden rule.

I don't think we disagree.

76. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170337 by Donald on April 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm

I've read William Phillips' essay now. His was refreshingly different from Schonborn's. It was coherent and tried to outline how he reconciles his work as an eminent scientist with his religious belief. (He is one of those rare highly-distinguished scientists who believe in god.)

Perhaps it was his essay that prompted riandouglas's comment that "Science, for some, may make belief in an intelligence reasonable." However, I personally think Phillips is trying to preserve religious belief against the rising tide of science, rather than deducing religious belief from the discoveries of science, even though Phillips does say that he finds the order (mathematical laws etc) in the universe evidence for a god.

Phillips essay is primarily a defense of Deism, not the god of the bible. Deism, if defined as the belief that a god created the universe, then left it alone, is perfectly compatible with science. That kind of Deism is an optional extra to science. That kind of Deism predicts nothing and demands nothing. It's ok with me. Phillips' Deism goes a little further, attributing feelings of love, beauty, etc to an intention of god the creator. That's still compatible with science, provided Phillips stops short of asserting that god intervenes in the universe. Indeed, in trying to establish how belief in god can be compatible with science, he is careful to make all his statements about god, be statements that are not subjectable to any tests of truth and falsity. He has nothing to say about whether intercessary prayer works, whether any biblical stories are literally true, etc. He also honestly acknowledges that the existence of suffering in the world, the multiplicity of different religions, etc, give rise to doubts for him (perhaps he prefers not to look too closely into those aspects of the world).

He mainly enjoys the loving company of other people who base their world view on a Jesus the loving god, rather than a humanistic world view. Fine, I can understand that. I feel the lack of a sufficiently developed humanistic social club myself.

77. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170288 by Donald on April 27, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I have read two so far: (1) Stephen Pinker was excellent, as usual. (2) The opening paragraphs of Cardinal Schonborn's piece were very different and made me momentarily angry. But I managed to overcome this initial reaction by stepping back, trying to understand why it made me angry, and analysing his writing.

First the bit that annoyed me. Schonborn started with two extraordinary statements that were the direct opposite of the truth. First he wrote: "The knowledge we have gained through modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos more reasonable than ever." Then he said: "Yes [science makes belief in god obselete], as a matter of mood, sensibility, and sentiment."

Quite extraordinary. In fact, knowledge from modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos unnecessary, optional, and therefore much less reasonable than before. It is also clear that science fails to make belief in god obselete for people for whom mood, sentiment, and emotional responses dominate beliefs.

Schonborn has stated the exact opposite of the effect of science on religion. Why? Does he see things differently? Have I missed something?
After due consideration, I don't think I missed anything or misinterpreted what Schonborn wrote.

So why did Schonborn write the exact opposite of the truth?

Once the question is clearly put, the answer becomes clear too. Lying for Jesus.

It is sometimes said that if one wants a lie to be believed, the bigger the lie the better.

As far as science and religion go, a claim that modern science makes god more likely is certainly a big one. (Perhaps Schonborn has found that it goes down well with his flocks on Sunday sermons.)

After that startling start, Schonborn's essay contiunues with such gems as "This theistic outlook has been fully vindicated", meanders through lip service to various scientific discoveries, and concludes that "...our incompleteness leads us ...[to god]".

I did wonder whether Schonborn might genuinely believe what he wrote at the start of the essay. But I don't think that's very likely. Cardinals have to be quite intelligent to get to be cardinals.

A phrase from that viral "beware the believers" rap video comes to my mind: "... the stooges of popes...". That phrase could certainly apply to Herr Schonborn.

Anyway, posting this comment got rid of my annoyance. :-) Perhaps I'll read some more of the essays now.

78. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157472 by Donald on April 9, 2008 at 6:18 am

I thought RD said if his head was a carbon atom the nearest one is 1 km away. Maybe he meant a carbon nucleus?

Yes, he meant a carbon nucleus, and the Devil's Chaplain had the same error.

But, one slip amongst so many effective, educational and eloquent points can be forgiven.

The UHI talk was excellent.

Well done Paula.

(But I wish he would update what he says about group selection - I think he misspoke there as well.)

79. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154720 by Donald on April 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Excuse me? This is BBC newsworthy? That a second-rate clergyman says that UHI should arrange its invited speakers in a different way?

Must have been a slack day.

80. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154689 by Donald on April 3, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Sect members were given a cow after they left the cave because they refused to drink milk from cartons that carried bar codes.

Says it all. Absurdity of the beliefs. Kindness of the more enlightened.

81. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153767 by Donald on April 2, 2008 at 3:04 am

Islam in the middle east today is strongly authoritarian, forcibly supressing other religions and applying religious doctrine to political power

this is how Christianity was until quite recently.

Christianity has undergone hundreds of years of adaptation that Islam has not yet had.

Western powers destroyed the Caliphate after WW1, carved up the territories into mandates, created Israel, installed rulers... How much influence could Islam have had?

It created the notion of the Caliphate, and the Ummah, and it combines deep indoctrination with a powerful sense of ingroup-outgroup. It thrives on propagating fear of a terrible vengeful god, wickedness of nonbelievers, and contains instructions for war and martydom. If you look only at the rulers, then yes, western interference has been widespread, but if you look at the influence of Islam on the education of the people, on the acceptance or blocking of intellectual thought, on scientific education, and particularly on the political processes within Islamic countries, then the influence of Islam is massive.

True, but I'm looking at the influence of the same "holy" scripture that underlies them all, and the direction in which that scripture drives them

And I say again, it is just a book. It all depends on the translations, as it were.

Hmm. Just a book? True on one level, of course. It is similarly true that DNA is just a chemical, but if I said a recessive gene for cancer or anaemia is ok because it can be overridden by control genes, people carrying the gene might feel uneasy about that. When we look at the effect this book has had on the world, and the extent to which it has influenced the thinking of billions of people and their political processes, it certainly gives me cause for concern.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you write. It's unfortunate that internet comment threads tend to gravitate into is-isn't soundbites. I try to resist that, but I'm not always successful.

82. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153656 by Donald on April 1, 2008 at 6:50 pm

we see from history and in the present middle east, that things are different when Islam gets control

Different to what?

Different to the benign version apologetics present. Islam in the middle east today is strongly authoritarian, forcibly supressing other religions and applying religious doctrine to political power. In the west apologists present it as merely seeking to coexist multiculturally. I think that, if Islam were ever to gain a majority in a western country, it would seek to suppress alternative religions and take political power, just as happens in the middle east today. That is different to the liberal, part-xtian, part-secular, regimes that prevail in the western world today.

The present Middle East could be said to be in its current situation as a result of Christian western interference.

No doubt christian western interference was a significant influence, but I think Islam had a much greater influence.

From history we see that there was a greater degree of tolerance in the Islamic world than there was in the western.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate this in detail. My impression is the opposite.

Aboriginal populations of various English speaking countries could also argue against your point.

I have no doubt that aboriginal populations were treated abombinably, perhaps genocidally in some cases, but they mainly were hit by diseases neither side understood properly, and religious doctrines were a smaller influence. And since my point was about the relationship of western islamic apologists to middle eastern islamic regimes, I don't see how aboriginal views affect that.

Islam in the west is different to Islam in the Middle East which is different to Islam in Asia.

True, but I'm looking at the influence of the same "holy" scripture that underlies them all, and the direction in which that scripture drives them. I don't like what I see.

83. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153613 by Donald on April 1, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I think there's value in sorting Islam into teaching, consensus, and practice. Then we can imagine specific interventions to limit the toxic effects of the religion. - from comment #153596 by Dr Benway

Good post, Doc.B. I'm a pragmatist too. However, I also support clear thinking about what is the nature and magnitude of the problem before we consider interventions. I think there is a need for more people to understand the nature of the Islamic threat (and I do see it as a threat to western civilisation) before intervention. So I wish more people would read the Koran, and see how it propagates its memes. It does differ significantly from Xtian religions, and we need to understand those differences. I also am rather disturbed by the prevalence of misleading apologetics for Islam - it seems to be presented as benign, and similar to xtianity, when in a minority in western countries, yet we see from history and in the present middle east, that things are different when Islam gets control.

84. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153587 by Donald on April 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I noticed that apostasy got mentioned:

... Here is a mail from a muslim who saw one of my vids on YT. ... Beheading apostates? ... Go watch probably the most respected Muslim on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X28J8-xt6hU
... - from comment #153399 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

I had a look at that video. This "most respected Muslim on Youtube" was certainly polite and softly spoken.

So polite and reassuringly softly spoken that one could easily overlook some of the statements nested within his talk:
"the Koran does not specify that a person who leaves Islam is to be put to death"
"the Hadith, when talking about putting to death ... a person who leaves Islam .. " so Islam does specify the death penalty for apostasy
"the punishment is ... for the person who leaves Islam and then works against Islam (or wages war against Islam - war does not necessarily have to mean combat)" ah, I get it, only apostates who SPEAK OUT against Islam are to be hunted down and killed.
"the person who leaves Islam in order to work against Islam, to harm Islam, comes under the Islamic Sharia" and what does the sharia prescribe? - oh yes, that the person is to be put to death.
"the person who leaves Islam to become Jew/Xtian/Atheist ... there is no question of putting that person to death" Oh, that sounds better...
"... until and unless he starts to work against Islam" ah, death penalty applies after all.

Why do people believe the death penalty applies to all apostates?

"there is one hadith which people quote a lot in which Mohammed says whoever changes his religion is to be put to death" Oh, you didn't mention that just now. So how does that square with your earlier claim that there is no question of putting them to death?
"that hadith is so general that it could apply to any religion" excuse me, what did you say?
"that hadith is so general that it could apply to any religion" yes, but then all the suras and hadiths about "unbelievers" could be about any religion!! We all unbelieve in something - even devout muslims will be in trouble with allah in that case. Are you seriously trying to tell us that therefore this hadith doesn't apply to persons leaving Islam?
"this hadith has some weakness in the chain of narration" Ah. Then how about this one:

Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle [Mohammed], 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Merciful! (and I note that the Islamic religion is mentioned explicitly in this hadith, despite the claim that another hadith is "general")
And this one:

Narrated Abu Burda:
... There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle [Mohammed] (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

How about this one:

Narrated 'Ali: ... I heard Allah's Apostle [Mohammed] saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

All weak narrations I suppose. But when will Islam get around to actually tearing them out? And do any Islamic sects explicitly reject the principle that Mohammed was the "exemplary perfect man" to be emulated today?

The following countries have the death penalty for apostasy: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Fortunately, I've never been a Muslim, so I don't have to worry that some stray maniac will misinterpret those hadith. But I wonder - are significant numbers of muslims deterred from renouncing Islam because those hadiths exist, however "weak"? Just asking.

85. Beware the Believers

Comment #152246 by Donald on March 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Maybe it's just provocative fluff carefully calibrated to confuse, enrage and lampoon both sides of the debate. - Comment #152241 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Yes, I could believe that.

Whatever the precise intent of the creators of this video, I regard the probable effects as:
Short-term: highly desirable for the expelled movie - the more the controversy, the more people will want to see it
Long-term: In the longer term (several years) good for the atheist view point. Religion thrives best if its beliefs are not publicly questioned. As many people as possible need to hear that there IS a credible alternative world view, and religion doesn't want them to hear that. Long after expelled has ceased its run, the effect of advertising a controversy will benefit the atheist argument.

86. Beware the Believers

Comment #152231 by Donald on March 30, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #152230 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

I'd like to think you are right, but I think you are looking into subtleties, and not looking at the simple direct effect that the video will have on casual viewers.

87. Beware the Believers

Comment #152229 by Donald on March 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm

... just tell me whose side it's on. - Richard Dawkins

Well, I'm late to this thread but let's see:

o) Opening image "Ministry of Science Propaganda" with wartime newsreel sound
o) "Dick" instead of "Richard" (associating Richard with .. well .. you know .. )
o) Science as a sinister machine viciously expelling anyone who questions evolution
o) The scientist who questions natural selection speaks in a reasonable voice, and merely expresses an opinion. The "orthodox" scientist who calls for his expulsion is sinister and uses the codename "middle tool".
o) The rap mocks RD's qualifications
o) The video portrays RD (and the other atheists) as arrogant and condescending ("your concern is noted --- and stupid")
o) The rap portrays RD as being dictatorial ("listen to me and don't argue")
o) Were the figures below the atheist heads children dancing? If so was this an attempt to portray atheists as the ones with the childish beliefs?
o) RD kicking a dog
o) The money and dollar signs suggesting that atheists make money from their views

On the plus(?) side is the clever and accurately-worded lyric, catchy tunes, and amusing cartoon animation.

Some commenters here judged it to be on the side of science and evolution. That's not how I judge it.

88. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #135457 by Donald on February 29, 2008 at 2:02 am

The Merck vaccine was pushed through fast, and only had about 4 years of testing. The tolerability trials were done on ~22,000 women. There was an observed difference (non-significant) in the number of people developing lupus and arthritis (both auto-immune) between the control and vaccine groups. With only 3 cases in the control group and 9 in the vaccine group it wasn't significant, but that could be due to a lack of sufficient statistical power.

Given their scientific background, I expect Epinephrine and SteveZ know this, but for any other readers:

The information above is grounds for seeking further information, but is not necessarily evidence for an unsafe vaccine. First, we need to check the size of the control and treatment groups. (I expect they were approximately equal in this case, but in general one needs to check that - drug trials do not always have equal numbers in the two groups.) Second, we need to know the prevalence of lupus/arthritis in the overall population (suitably matched for age and any other factors already known to affect the prevalence of lupus/arthritis). To see that this matters, consider two examples. (1) overall incidence of lupus/arthritis is 3 in 11,000. In this case, the vaccine seems to present a significant risk. (2) overall incidence of lupus/arthritis is 9 in 11,000. In this case, the control group seems to have been merely a lucky group, and there is no concern about the vaccine.

Peter Donnelley gave a great ted talk on this kind of issue - entertaining, informative without requiring more than high school education to understand. I think it should be compulsory viewing for everyone!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67

89. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #135118 by Donald on February 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Can any of you clever scientists point me to a web-site which explains how sexual reproduction evolved? - hello

As our hero Richard Dawkins is fond of saying, we don't know, science is working on it.

But it already seems likely that the evolution of sexual reproduction started with prokaryotic cells that were capable of fusing together, to make a double-size cell with two copies of the chromosomes. As a separate step in evolution, some prokaryotic cells might have become polyploid (e.g. had two copies of their chromosomes) - this would give the advantages of redundancy, and the possibility of repair of genetic damage.

For sexual reproduction, there must be an intermediate stage in the act of reproduction when a cell has double the usual number of chromosomes - this is so that the chromosomes can pair off, and then be copied by a copying mechanism that sometimes switches between the strands, thus creating a new chromosome which is some mixture of the two original strands.

To evolve sexual reproduction, prokaryotes with polyploid DNA would have to reproduce by: (1) fusing, then (2) have the postulated "double chromosome copy" mechanism work on a mixture of chromosomes from the fused cell, rather than on chromosomes that only came from one of the pre-fusion cells.

All this is feasible, given what is currently known about chromosomes and meiosis, and the associated biochemistry. But since the evolution from simple prokaryotes to full sexual reproduction may have taken a hundred million years, occurring 3 billion years ago, we may never be able to identify the main sequence with any definite precision. But I think it's a safe bet that we'll have some possible routes worked out in some detail within a few decades.

There is quite a bit about prokaryotes and eukaryotes in wikipedia.

But to answer your original question, there is a little bit about the possible evolution of sexual reproduction in:
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html

BTW, do read the God Delusion. You might as well know what Dawkins has said, even if you don't believe it.

90. Fleabytes

Comment #134800 by Donald on February 28, 2008 at 8:14 am

Please Donald. Go and look up the word 'irony' in the dictionary. And whilst you are at did you realise that they have removed the word ËÅ"gullible' - clearthinker(DAR)

Lost the argument? Then resort to the language of the playground.

BTW, I think the word "gullible" is better applied to someone who believes the bible is inerrant.

91. Fleabytes

Comment #134007 by Donald on February 27, 2008 at 6:15 am

David, you are embarrassingly unaware of the extent to which you distort and manipulate and take out of context. Even in your comment #133977 replying to Richard Dawkins, while trying very hard to be polite in the face of accusations, you slip in:

incidentally I am delighted that you want people to be Christian - clearthinker(DAR)

Richard Dawkins has not said that, did not mean that, yet you try to assert it. No doubt just another cheapo debating trick, but it does not earn you any respect.

Then you go on:

Personally I think that the real reason that you do not like the book is that you struggle to answer it.

Here you provide us with more strong evidence that you are deluded, this time about your book and RD.

Despite one or two fair points made in your comment #133977, I'm still waiting for a post that would convince me that you can read atheists opinions without distorting the content and mispresenting it subsequently. As our "reverend dark" says, you set up a loaded question with an oblique insult built in, after writing a whole book which misrepresents and insults RD, so perhaps you shouldn't be too surprised if you got an insult back.

92. Fleabytes

Comment #133937 by Donald on February 27, 2008 at 3:24 am

Regarding McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox, if they do fully understand the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years, then I would say yes, they are one of "unintelligent, deluded, dishonest". Because you have just excluded lack of knowledge. - Donald

Thank you. That is what I thought you were suggesting and that is what I said. Thanks for confirming it. - clearthinker(DAR)

NO, you said:

Does this mean that McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox are all being dishonest because they clearly know about the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years?

You switched from one of "unintelligent, deluded, dishonest" to specifically "dishonest". Did you not notice the difference, or are you dishonest, as others here say?

Personally, I would leave open the possibility that you are a hopelessly superficial reader and writer, unaware of how poorly and inaccurately you write, and deluded with it. You could still change my mind by writing something fair and accurate. I won't be holding my breath though.

93. Fleabytes

Comment #132623 by Donald on February 25, 2008 at 3:57 am

Because an intelligent, undeluded, honest person could lack crucial relevant knowledge and then hold traditional theistic religious belief, not knowing it contradicts some of the critical scientific discoveries of the last three hundred years, your statement that Dawkins claims that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest" is not true. - Donald

Does this mean that McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox are all being dishonest because they clearly know about the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years? - clearthinker(DAR)

No. You are dodging about instead of sticking to the point. You claim Dawkins believes that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded, or dishonest". I was pointing out that there is also a category of believers who lack the knowledge to realise they are wrong about the existence of god. So, religious believers are not neccessarily unintelligent deluded, or dishonest.

Regarding McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Brown, John Lennox, if they do fully understand the critical scientific discoveries of the past 300 years, then I would say yes, they are one of "unintelligent, deluded, dishonest". Because you have just excluded lack of knowledge.

But in this example you switched from statements that people are one of those three, to singling out dishonest for those particular people you named. Why? Is this a debating trick? Can we so easily exclude deluded in their case?

Also please be more careful to distinguish between OR and AND.

If I say someone is either unintelligent, or mistaken, I have not asserted that person is unintelligent. I have left open the possibility that they are misinformed, or have been misled, or have misjudged something.

94. Fleabytes

Comment #132400 by Donald on February 24, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Was the title The God lack crucial relevant knowledge already taken or just nixed by the publisher then? - Radesq

Sigh. I was taking "delusion" to be only an appropriate description when placed alongside knowledge which contradicts it. Otherwise "ignorance" or "speculation" seem to me to be more appropriate terms.

Were scientists before Einstein deluded to believe that time ran at the same rate everywhere, or just ignorant of Einsteinian relativity?

Were people before Darwin deluded to believe that living things must have been created as separate species, or just ignorant of evolution by natural selection?

Is a 4-year-old child deluded to believe in Santa Claus, or just ignorant (for now) about how the presents got there.

Perhaps different people might make different decisions about whether the word "delusion" is applicable.

On the other hand, a person who believes that he can fly, despite the evidence from his senses after numerous failed attempts is definitely deluded. Ditto someone who thinks they are Napoleon.

I took Dawkins to mean: "delusion" when applied to an individual who was in a possession of information that could reveal the contradiction, and
"delusion" when applied to whole communities within which scientific knowledge and religion belief manage to coexist.
But I assumed Dawkins would not apply "delusion" to badly-educated believers who are ignorant of the modern knowledge that conflicts with religious beliefs.

Maybe I'm the one who is wrong on this point. I don't know.

But I'm certainly out of place here, amongst the last few hundred or so comments. Bye.

95. Revealed: Secrets of the Camouflage Masters

Comment #132335 by Donald on February 24, 2008 at 3:51 pm

From Carl Zimmer's article:

Dr. Hanlon and his colleagues are also puzzled by the many camouflage colors of the cuttlefish, which have a single type of pigment in their eyes. Humans have three.
Experiments in Dr. Hanlon's lab have shown that they are color blind. They see a world without color, but their skin changes rapidly to any hue in the rainbow. How is that possible?
"That's a vexing question," he said. "We don't know how it works."

It's still not clear to me how the animal 'sees behind itself' in order to present, to my line of sight, a pattern on its skin similar to the background. - Azven

Our bodies sense heat (which is also EM radiation) all over the skin. Also UV light is absorbed by skin cells to create vitamin D all over the skin.
Perhaps those creatures have evolved skin cells that sense visible light, and can distinguish colours. If the whole of the skin is light sensitive, there would be no ability to focus the light, in the manner of an eye, so no way to detect the direction of the light impinging on the skin, so the skin would not be an alternative to an eye. But if there was also a capability to signal what the skin on one side was "seeing" to the skin on the other side, the creature could reproduce the light patterns impinging on one side, on the other side, thus become almost invisible against any background.
This would only work if the creaure is very close to the scene, terrain, or plant that is to be mimicked, so that no focussing is neccessary. But that seems to be a characteristic of this ability - the creatures mimic the scene when they are very close to it, or even in contact.

It would not be an "eye", but never mind, if it works, and is useful, evolution could select it!

96. Fleabytes

Comment #132313 by Donald on February 24, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Donald (465) Thanks for this. I am inclined to agree with you. Perhaps after all Dawkins does believe that whether you are religious or not has nothing to do with your level of intelligence or honesty. Perhaps he is prepared to grant that a religious person can be just as rational, intelligent and undeluded as an atheist. I was writing about the impression that TGD gives because of the language, tone and arguments used. If Dawkins really believes that what I have said is wrong and that he is not claiming that religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest, then all he has to do is say so. - clearthinker(aka David Robertson)

Dawkins is not claiming that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest". As I indicated in my comment, Dawkins undoubtedly believes that knowledge of certain scientific discoveries contradicts some vital elements of (theistic) religious belief.

Because an intelligent, undeluded, honest person could lack crucial relevant knowledge and then hold traditional theistic religious belief, not knowing it contradicts some of the critical scientific discoveries of the last three hundred years, your statement that Dawkins claims that "religious believers are either unintelligent, deluded or dishonest" is not true.

So, yes, if Dawkins gets to notice this particular issue within this enormous thread, and takes the time to respond to your challenge, I am sure he will say yes, you were wrong on that point.

97. Fleabytes

Comment #131227 by Donald on February 22, 2008 at 4:54 am

From comment #131217 (~456) by clearthinker:

Letter 1: The myth of the higher consciousness

According to Robertson, Dawkins claims that those who share his views have attained a higher consciousness and are therefore "de facto more intelligent, rational and honest than other human beings". Does Dawkins actually make that claim anywhere in TGD?

This is all about perception. Dawkins does talk about his aim being to raise consiousness - one assumes that having had your consciousness raised you have attained a higher consiousness. He also talks about religius mania among todays less educated classes(p.41) ; "more highly educated people are less likely to be religious" (p. 102. My perception is that Dawkins believes that religion is a delusion and that the more intelligent and rational you are then the less religious you will be, if you are honest and have had your consiousness raised.

Apologies for repeating an earlier post, but I posted this two days ago:
From comment #130611 (~217) by Donald:

In the first, introductory, letter he refers a couple of times to Dawkins' phrase "raising consciousness". He does not seem to realise that Dawkins meant "raising awareness", i.e. bringing the matter [of problems due to religion] to the conscious attention of people. Robertson has interpreted "raising consciousness" to mean a higher level of consciousness, i.e. a claim of superiority. Having failed to understand Dawkins on this point, Robertson goes on to criticise Dawkins for, in effect, insulting people with religious belief.

I realise you are responding to Paula, and are not obliged to respond to all and sundry, but perhaps you could consider whether you might have misunderstood the phrase "consciousness raising"?

I went on say:

Robertson accuses Dawkins of "seeming to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist". At this stage, I think Robertson has a good point in mind. Robertson is using the wrong word. He is using the word consciousness, echoed out of context from Dawkins. But I think that what Robertson really has in mind is that Dawkins "seems to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of knowledge". Although this is still wrong [Dawkins does not think that all people who are religious lack knowledge], this is getting to a valid point. Dawkins does indeed think that religious beliefs are associated with lack of knowledge, and that much religious belief would fade away if people were better educated about some of the things that the last three hundred years of scientific endeavour have discovered.

So I agree with you that Dawkins suggests elsewhere (elsewhere from the consciousness-raising remarks) that lack of knowledge is a factor in the prevalence of religious belief, but you go too far if you suggest that Dawkins is accusing believers of being less intelligent. Lack of knowledge is very different from lack of intelligence.

98. Fleabytes

Comment #131005 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm

BTW, I notice that in your comment #130988 (~354) you present two blockquotes in succession. The first is an rude poem, presumably sent to you by email. The second is an extract from a comment on this site by me. There is nothing in your comment #130988 to indicate that the quotes are from separate people. I would just like to make it clear to casual readers that the rude poem has nothing to do with me.

99. Fleabytes

Comment #130997 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 4:58 pm

this site is actually outstandingly open, liberal, and transparent in allowing posters the freedom to directly post a wide variety of opinions without filtering by moderators. Your own website "www.freechurch.org" only presents comments that have been inspected individually by moderators - effectively "banning" every post they don't approve of. t

Donald, you know that this is not fair. Firstly our own website puts on plenty posts we do not approve of. Most of the recent ones have been by atheists. The only reason we have a moderated board is to prevent the kind of language and nonsense that our good friend Billy delights in. And you also know that this site does not allow a wide variety of opinions without filtering etc. The proof of that is seen simply in the fact that my opinions are banned and in the missing 300 posts from the original thread. Whether you have filtering before or filtering after does not make much difference. - clearthinker(aka David Robertson)

No, I do not "know this is not fair". I think it is perfectly fair. You pre-select only those posts you approve of. Yes, you let some comments by atheists through, and they include some opinions you disagree with, but you have a mechanism to prevent anything that too troubling to you ever getting onto the site. That is very different from this site, where everything gets posted, and then, in rare circumstances, it sometimes gets moved into an "alternative thread", and very rarely, and with great reluctance, posts get removed. Very different.

100. Fleabytes

Comment #130990 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Thanks for the "Jonathan Edwards" reference, Corylus.

I had in one post, suggested that it might be good if David Robertson could "do a Jonathan Edwards". I had in mind the living athlete Jonathan Edwards, who has recovered from his religious belief and announced his atheism. I now realise my comment could have been misunderstood! Thanks for making me aware of the 18th century Jonathan Edwards.