51. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15330 by quork on December 30, 2006 at 12:46 pm

"Perhaps his experimental electric current simply mimics the work of an equally powerful spirit."

Occam's razor makes quick work of that.

What's more, the test with an electrical probe is reproducible in a laboratory. Who's going to provide a powerful spirit for comparable testing of the alternative?

52. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #14954 by quork on December 27, 2006 at 8:25 am

3. Ed Brayton blogged about a possible quotemine of Jefferson in the God Delusion [sic].

Sort of. The possibility that Jefferson was an atheist rather than a Deist, as is usually claimed, was repeated in TGD based mostly on a single source, a recent biography of Jefferson by Christopher Hitchens. Brayton disputes the conclusion of Hitchens, and does a reasonable job of backing it up:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/hitchens_jefferson_and_atheism.php

I would suspect Dawkins has already heard from friends and critics on this point, and I would encourage him to investigate the topic deeper, using more sources. Whether Jefferson was an outright atheist or not does not detract from his commitment to the separation of church and state in the USA, a topic which has been muddied in recent years by the bogus revisionism of the "America is a Christian Nation" movement.

53. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #14877 by quork on December 26, 2006 at 8:45 am

Since Robert O'Brien has put in appearance here, you may be interested to know that Ed Brayton awards a "Robert O'Brien Trophy" (formerly the "Idiot of the Month" award) at his excellent blog, "Dispatches From the Culture Wars: Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture":

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/

Most recent award to Dennis Prager:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/robert_obrien_trophy_winner_de_1.php

"Dispatches" provides good coverage of U.S. separation of church and state issues.

54. The Only One in Step

Comment #14567 by quork on December 23, 2006 at 9:17 am

A tiny little example, the white cliffs of Dover. Please do not try and convince me that those tiny little coccoliths built the great thicknesses of chalk in a few thousand years!

A few thousand years? No, that is just plain silly. They were formed in forty days and forty nights, during the great Noachic flood. (snicker)

55. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #14461 by quork on December 22, 2006 at 2:27 pm

The Judge Jones School of Law" is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the "Rembrandt" of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork)


This reminds me that Dembski was glorified on the dust jacket of one of his books as "The Isaac Newton of Information Theory."

56. The Only One in Step

Comment #14455 by quork on December 22, 2006 at 2:02 pm

You can find some of McIntosh's thoughts on thermodynamics and evolution expressed at the web site Answers in Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/mcintosh.asp

Merry Cephalopodmas, and have a good laugh.

57. The Only One in Step

Comment #14446 by quork on December 22, 2006 at 1:28 pm

There was also one from a certain Professor Steve Fuller of Warwick University which displayed a quite jaw-dropping ignorance of elementary fallacies.

Could that be the same Steve Fuller who testified, ostensibly for the defence, at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in the USA?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15am.html#day15am16

He claimed that Intelligent Design was doing so poorly in the science labs that it should be taught in the schools as a form of 'affirmative action'.

58. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14222 by quork on December 21, 2006 at 2:12 pm

The problem is that by "denying" the holy spirit, you are announcing that you believe there is something to deny.

Let's try a few samples:

I deny invisible pink unicorns.
I deny orbiting teapots.
I deny leprechauns.

Nope. You are wrong.



Either that, or you are simply trying to convert someone to your own "faith".

A statement of your own views (which are not based on faith) is necessarily an attempt to convert someone else? That is just not so.


And:
I deny the holy spirit.