51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195975 by phasmagigas on June 19, 2008 at 6:28 am

Several of you have been banging on about evidence. My argument is that, for example, some scientists propose it is plausible that there is intelligent life somewhere else in deep space. There's no supporting evidence that is accessible to us at this time, and maybe we wouldn't recognise such life even if we did come across it, so there could be cases where evidence will forever be inaccessible. But the absence of evidence doesn't make the idea ridiculous. We can say that since we exist we must be possible, and if we are possible, others may be possible, even if completely different and beyond our perception horizon.

thats not equivalent, we know there is life in the universe (on this planet) so to extrapolate that there might be life elsewhere in the same universe is different than wondering about the existence of a god for which there is no evidence, if there were evidence for one god then the question we could ask is 'are there 2 or more gods?'

the idea of a god isnt ridiculous as such its just that theres no real good reason to assume there has to be one.

The human desire to accept nonsense beliefs was again reaffirmed to me this week. i read a couple of paragraphs of 'a new earth' by eckhart tolle (a spiritual guidance book recommended by oprah!) anyway i quickly told my friend that it was meaningless bullshit and infact im going to challenge my friend to differentiate between paragraphs from the book and ones that i have made up, written on the spot, actually that will be rather interesting, hey and if friend cannot tell my words from his then maybe i can make myself rich talking tripe too!

anyway i then saw some footage of oprah and tolle being slated by evangelicals for being in tune with the devil and obama! anyway its amazing how much shit people accept, even after calling other peoples shit!)

god as yet is just a part of many, many similar silly belief 'requirements'.

52. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194690 by phasmagigas on June 17, 2008 at 7:34 am

the fact that every species seems so damned conveniently unique

another biology know nothing.

every species 'seems' unique, do they? maybe to you.

there are hundreds of documented 'species' of plants and animals that are distinguishable by human eyes and yet will hybridise freely and esp in plants will produce fertile offspring, precisely what would be predicted by evolution, not what would be predicted by a designer making unique species.

the breeding groups will have been separate long enough to render distinct difference but not long enough to isolate them from breeding when brought together, dont mention 'kinds' evolving as you will therefore accept evolution and will have to define 'kinds' and as many have done before will only demonstarte just how poor your knowledge of biology is, you know, 'fish kinds' like sharks and guppies!!

also you suggest that no species are 'transitional' well that nails the case, organisms are transitional in hindsite because they have to have already changed form in the future, thats why we have transitional fossils (they show many transitional features but may still not be actually ancestral to later fossils or present organisms, but sister lineages)but not present day transitional orgs, however you can see organisms today that will have transitional features held from their ancestors, eg some snakes have remnants of the pelvic girdle if im not mistaken and as predicted there have also been snake fossils found with actual hind limbs. the fossil record has many, many fantastic transitional sequences demonstartiong everything from whale evolution to jaw bone>ear bone deveolopment in mammals.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194621 by phasmagigas on June 17, 2008 at 4:53 am

This dialogue is turning into a sitcom. Spontaneous life? Spontaneous life.? Am I not reading this correctly?

brian proposed spontaneoous life way after your creation proposition, please (and i now join in) please provide the evidence for your beliefs rather than ridicule anothers ideas to try and sidestep the issue that all you have done is laugh at an useful established explanation but provide nothing to support own.

No evidence: could that possibly mean that the designer isnt there? and if so that means that your one way ticket to jesus could just possibly not exist, imagine that, no jesus, that means when you die, you are gone, shudder. seems evolution is a doorway to making you very afraid.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194620 by phasmagigas on June 17, 2008 at 4:42 am

I assume that since there is no mathamatical equation for the theory of Evolution that it can never be considered a scientific law, thus only a theory based on far reaching inferences.

yes, rather like the theory that the heart pumps blood or that vitamin c is a vital component of the diet for humans (not most mammals though, funny that one, isnt it, seems that our ancestors didnt need vitamin C but some genetic event now means we have no choice but to eat nice oranges!) or that if you get lyme parasite in your body it can make you ill. these are all theories too. non proven, all falsifiable.

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194411 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Yes, same-sex relationships are part of society. This does not mean it is good for society. You need help. God does love all. It is your actions in which he hates. It is not natural. Can you breed with this person? Is this why you have been denying the Lord? Just ask him for guidence and clarity. He will show you the way and help you heel from your unnatural desires.

wanker, im flagging this friendless ass all the way.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194409 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm

The momentum is swinging our way. Don't be frightened. It is the truth. Shortly you will be the minority and will have to, at some point, reevaluate what you inferred to be truth. You have all been deceived by the continued perpetuation of bogus science

poes law in effect or simply another example of unintelligent design. troll eitherway, flag needed.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194407 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm

I understand that grass is not just grass. There is grass, as in lawn, and there is the grass you have been smoking your whole life which has caused your innerself to self destruct. That's why you need to get on your knees and ask Jesus for salvation. You need to fill this bitterness and hostility in your heart with the Holy Spirit.

i see that RTG is now showing his/her charity, how very bloody christian. AS for the brit jokes, well im a brit and am one of very few people i know who has never had a single filling, and thats with a mouth still full of teeth. funny how many peoples teeth are crooked on emergence, unintelligent design at work, actually i wonder how good functioning teeth positions vary over the human population and if there has been an increase?? in badly positioned teeth as we have become less dependant on perfect nashers for survival, i only wonder as when i see the typical dog (for eg) they generally have remarkably well postioned teeth (well as far as i can tell), anyway i digress....

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193853 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 6:27 am

irate:

If only that were the case...

im probably being too optimistic.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193848 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

steve Zara

We can't carry on in a world where twits like RtG think they are supermen, able to hand-wave away the work and ideas of centuries of experts because of their magic super-brains. It is too dangerous.

This is why I am focussing on this point, and on ridicule. I suspect at least some who may know RtG, if they are reading, may find rating him/her above Einstein may be a bit absurd.

in 'real life' the loons we get on here are probably not to far away from being sandwich board carrying street preachers, maybe already there.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193840 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 5:57 am

No. I have the ability for disernment in recognizing, what science has proven. The complexity of life is not a process of Evolution. It is mathematically impossible.

science doesnt prove stuff.
the second sentence, you mean the complexity of life didnt come about by evolution? your ignorance isnt evidence.
mathematically impossible,erm, thats never been shown to be the case as far as I know, unless you have some extra special knowledge as yet unknown to all others.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193835 by phasmagigas on June 16, 2008 at 5:51 am

So you admit that Evolution might be false?

there isnt a single person on these boards who wouldnt agree that evo could be false. even RD! would agree that evo could be false.

As said before its open to falsification at every step. Each time a new genome is sequenced there is potential falsification, if a great diving beetle had its genome examined and it was found that it (genome) was identical to that of an elephant seal and not remotely close to say a stag beetle than that would give evolution some serious problems, if it were verified that the beetles and seal genes were identical it would need a very good explanation, as it stands I herby declare that if evolution were true then diving beetle genome would be more similar to that of a stag beetle than to an elephant seal. if evolution didnt happen then that distinction would not necessarily be apparent.

go check the beetle and seal genes and see what it shows.

only where supernatural entities are involved does falsification fail. behe in the dover trial apparently said a flagellum shown to evolve in a petri dish would falsify design, he made a big blunder, the next creationist in the line could simply say, 'no it doesnt, god put his magic tentacle in the petridish, you just didnt see it'.

Can you imagine new drug trails conducted in the same way: drug x shows to be no better than placebo, drug company says 'oh, but it works, god is simply testing us, keeping us on our toes, hes making it not work today, it will work next week, honest'.



no god shield, no science.

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192934 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2008 at 9:38 am

its funny that the vast majority of creationists seem to stay away from these forums, i wonder if theres a particular type of mentality that brings the one or two here that flirt with the dark side?

maybe they are tired of prostituting themselves to an unknowable entity and want to actually break free.

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192930 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2008 at 9:26 am

RTG, i know many a muslim who might well pray for you, for your salvation as such, you understand their position yes?

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192663 by phasmagigas on June 13, 2008 at 9:38 pm

RTG has done the unholy three in one post:

insists evolution is all rather silly
then throws scripture
then prays for us.

it usually takes several posts to get that far but at the very least this person has shown in one post what a busy body they are. i think I'll just go and troll some islamist website just to get a reaction, just so I can think its all about me, me,me,me!!

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191925 by phasmagigas on June 12, 2008 at 6:03 am

No, I think you got it. We live on a planet loaded with water and there are plenty of well-equipped laboratories staffed by people who have tried to coax life into existence. So far, despite all their applied intelligence, they haven't even gotten remotely close. Call me incredulous, but I don't think a shortage of water is the holdup.

personal incredulity again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1142840.stm

this isnt life as such (just before you point that out to the everyone) but at least some people are out there working/testing/doing the hard stuff and all you can do is sit back and criticise to uphold your belief that one day you will sit in paradise next to jesus (i guess).

your agrugment: people havent made life in the lab so therefore goddidit: false argument.

even if scientists did created an honest to good ness working single cell in a lab that could replicate and even if that were achieved by allowing mutations to occur/forcing them to occur and then selection the creationist can still say

1) see, intelligence is needed to make life so goddidus: no, its says intelligence can make it but it says nothing about non deliberate causes.

2)man isnt god so goddidit in the petridish, man was a bystander.

where supernatural entities are involved you can say anything you want, and you need provide no evidence, ignorance works wonders for sure.

remember that ass dembski giving that 'lecture' on irreducible complexity and the flagellum, a prof from the collecge explain 4 possible steps using secretory vesicle evolution to get the flagellum, dembski then said that wasnt enough and he asked for (if i remember correctly) .....point by point mutations that confered advantage for each step and knowing each physical change each mutation caused, holy shit, he didnt ask for much, somthing that is as far as i know impossible to do becasue the flagellum evolved rather a long time ago. Even if somebody could demonstrate that to dembski, he could still then turn around as say 'god still didit' and we are back at square one.

anyway, my point is that creationists even the 'best' of them, are full of it.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191917 by phasmagigas on June 12, 2008 at 5:39 am

I'm sure it would, but I believe you have the concept reversed. The accepted jargon is "mammal-like reptiles". I realize it is a detail, but when you are dealing with an uncooperative fossil record, correct emphasis is very important.

the 'mammal like reptiles' had branches that led to the mammals, yes, but not birds. The 'uncooperative fossil record' hmm, you make it sound like the fossil record was put there explicitly for us. most organism dont fossilise, its quite obvious that most orgs when dead are very quickly assmilated back into the bodies of others/gases/soil components. 'MLR' is also an outmoded term, people working on these groups dont use that term anymore.

i have the concept reversed?, can you explain that in more detail?

67. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191544 by phasmagigas on June 11, 2008 at 7:00 am

epeeist

The way that this is phrased makes it sound as though ad hoc explanations are being added to already existent theories. This isn't so, what tends to happen is that theories are replaced by new versions that explain both the observations that the old theory explained and new observations that the old theory was unable to explain.

yes, i see what you mean, glad you pointed that out.

68. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191533 by phasmagigas on June 11, 2008 at 6:35 am

goldy.

You concede that okapi and giraffe may be related. Okapi and llama too?
Don't forget these classifications are made by humans, not the animals themselves. We call cats cats and give the label to a range of them. Pandas - we call them a bear, Chinese call them Daxiongmao; literally: "big bear cat" according to Wikipedia, making them a bear-like cat. See where the argument falls a bit?

a good point re the naming. a creationist who says a cat is a cat is simply stealing the idea of relatedness from the biologists, if all cats are cats then why is that? Anatomists put tigers and housecats together as cats as they have many features in common but are not the same species, creationists in order to be consistent should not see a housecat and a tiger as anything close atall, how can they be, unless god had special 'cat putty' to make all the cats from and 'mantis putty' to make........etc.

actually I may assign my own 'theory', the 'putty of kinds' creation theory.

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191528 by phasmagigas on June 11, 2008 at 6:21 am

goldy:

Something else regarding different species. But I guess a bird is a bird, eh, txty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7446647.stm

interesting that that very cool phylogenetic map would be dismissed as nonsense by creationists, it never ceases to amazeme that the sum totality of information relating to evolution can be dismissed as lies or delusion (it surely came from somewhere right? surely all that work/maths sprang from something real) by a couple of paragraphs of genesis, poor suckers.

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191524 by phasmagigas on June 11, 2008 at 6:10 am

txpiper

1-I would not think that antelopes and buffalos share a common ancestor.
2-Speciation as I understand it, seems to hinge around reproductive capabilities, specifically resulting in offspring which are not sterile. That being the case, I have to think that the number of chromosomes is an important factor in defining a species.
3-I don't understand your omnivorous reference in the context of these animals, but I don't think adaptation goes as far as bovines becoming aquatic animals. I think polar bears are extremely adapted to water, but not evolving into anything beyond a bear.
4-I would default to morphology. But as I've noted, while I think that adaptation can be quite dramatic, I don't believe that reptiles became mammals and birds.
5-I think cats are cats, canines are canines, bears are bears, etc. There are obviously going to be unique and interesting cases, but generally, I don't think it is difficult to identify similarity. I think Okapis and giraffes are probably related.

antelopes and buffalo do share a common ancestor, as do you with both of them.

the number of chromosomes does play a part in potential speciation but the number as such isnt critical, if it were there would have to be a unique # of chromosomes for each species, and so some species would have to have millions of chromosomes, indeed over time there would have to be species with billions of chromosomes to match all species that have ever lived, obvioulsy absurd.

polar bears and not evolving into anything but bears, hmm, you can also predict the future, your comment sounds naive, again something you cannot know about bears or any other organism is what they might become, its all down to definitions anyway (just what constitutes a bear-names are for our convenience anyway), you need to understand cladistics first.

you dont beleive that reptiles bacame mammals and birds, again an argument from incredulity, you have no way of knowing this, have to some evidence that as yet the rest of the world doesnt know?? To coin somebody elses phrase 'your ignorance is not evidence'. When you say reptiles, what to you mean? the common ancestor of snakes, mammals and birds would have been 'reptile like' to our eyes, technically if that was a reptile then birds and mammals and modern 'reptiles' are by definition all reptile themselves, again, you need to understand cladistics but creationists ignore cladistics as it only exists as a real concept if evo is true.

cats are cats etc, but you think giraffe and okapi are related, ah, you are turning, if you can admit that you are saying that they share a common ancestor, therefore evolution happenend, its only a matter of degrees, you can now consider the common ancestor of the giraffe/okapi and what other similar animals have a common ancestor with them.

txpiper, when you start talking about evolution you really display the fact taht you actually know very, very little about the subject, the things you are saying are typical of what I hear all the time, you simply misunderstand biology but feel you are in a position to present a 'dissenting' position.

Well, since it is me you are asking, I wouldn't exactly jump for joy since I'm not waiting for validation. As far as expectations about how the evolutionary community would react, that is predictable. They will simply adjust the theory to accommodate the find. If they found one still completely upholstered, the same thing would happen. As I noted to Keith (I think), people generally believe what they like. Evidence is a secondary consideration. If you don't believe this, think about the people who sit at SETI consoles, or the big brains you see who think that if they find water on another planet or moon, they might find life. IQ and education unfortunately do not inoculate people against delusion.

you are really not getting it are you, you say scientists would adjust the theory to fit the findsings (if verified), well of course they would, thats what science has been doing for teh last 500 years!! thats how we have airplanes and gene therapy and sent machines out into space. your comment on water and life is frankly ridiculous, you are truly ignorant and arrogant. If water is found on a planet a person can wonder 'can there then be life' and you are ridiculing that??? or am i missing your point??

71. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191110 by phasmagigas on June 10, 2008 at 8:21 am

generally.

when i see some biological phenomena (or read about it or whatever) i ask myself 'if evolution were true is that what youd possibly expect' and also 'if creation were true is that what youd possibly expect' (both limited by my own knowledge etc)

one that i feel tells me a lot is human male copulatory behaviour.

Its quite common as far as i know that the human male as he approaches orgasm (unless hes trying very hard to be gentle or especially sensitive to his partners needs) starts to pull faces, to grunt, to grip his partner tightly, to force his orgasm as quickly as possible, culminating with a most grotesque series of final thrusts and beastly noises, sweat and pleasure.

anyway, my point??? If evolution were true this is what could be expected yes? If man was created in gods image (as creationists tend to accept) then its something i'd not expect (well, at least according to my own established 'paradigm'- though maybe god looks like a tall, bald, neotenous ape embryo grunting thing)

In fact if creation were true there would be no good reason for copulation in the first place, there would be no need for sex, simply because there would be no mutating/evolving pathogens/predators/parasites to genetically run from.

A perfect god would have made a truly perfect world where his asexually budding clones made in its image would all start equally, (god would have made the only flexible system the mind, as freewill is everything yes?)

anyway i digress.......

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191095 by phasmagigas on June 10, 2008 at 7:54 am

txpiper

Your statement here is about the ramifications of the Hell Creek T rex. I have to point out that experts who have been researching and publishing for decades never expected to find what was found. Twenty years ago, nobody but nobody would have ever suggested that bone or soft tissue could be preserved for 68 million years, so there is no expertise to appeal to. The fact that virtually nobody (at least publicly) questions the dates now, after the undeniable fact, does not indicate inquisitiveness on the part of the community. It only shows devotion to the paradigm.

again, a zero argument, what you are saying is 'something new was found that i personally dont accept could be 65 million plus years old and therefore it changes the date because i dont want evolution to be true' you think a bit of material that has been fossilised differently than usual suddenly means that the accepted chronology of the earth is wrong?? devotion to the paradigm, once again the religious mind pushes its own weakness as a point: 'devotion' and just what is this 'undeniable fact' that you are talking about????? so the samples have somehow been verified to break 'the paradigm' interesting that if they have then it is the only material on the entire earth that has yet to do so. And to think it was found in a T rex, very cool, maybe its a whole elaborate game by god: popular gaint animal that permeates the public conciousness named rex=king=jesus>god is real !!!!!!!! a nice little unfalsifiable bit of nonsense for us all to chew over.

What systems would you illustrate this with?

im not sure if this is an example but last year we had snow flurries build up in a corner of the house that were beautifully layered and formed incredible arched structures and almost a mini cave!! of course god could have done that but as theres no special 'god deflecting material' one can never test that idea.

No, I am stating that if scientists are ever able to mimic things like that in a laboratory, it would be violating the belief that design can occur without intelligence being involved.

nonsense, it would only show that design can occur by intelligence but we knew that anyway, it says nothing about design appearance being caused by a non intelligence.

Well I'm not ashamed. I have a great deal of respect for what scientists are able to accomplish. That does not compel me to defer to their religious ideology.

yawn, you accept scientific findings unless they dont fit your religious ideology.

No, I just don't believe that there is a conspiracy, or that all evolutionary scientists are stupid or evil. I just disagree with their premises and conclusions.

and on what basis can you do that? do you have some unique insight that allows you closer access to past events. You only disagree with those things that dont agree with your religious sensibilities (whatever they are). You are basically saying I know better than the general concensus. Explain how you know better, what is your access to knowing the past? general concensus suggests that T rex died out 65 mya or so, when do you think it died out? explain how you know this.

You cannot just say the paradigm is wrong and walk away, you need to show some evidence.

Different perhaps, but hardly to the degree that you would say it is something besides a cricket. The same thing hold true for all kinds of organisms, many of them embarrassingly stable:

again, you have no idea what you are talking about, if evolution is true it doesnt mean that organisms all change at the same time at fantastic rates, some will have to our eyes changed and others less so, what special knowlegde do you have that somehow supposes that past organisms should be somehow unrecognisable copmpared to modern ones?? Are you expecting stromatolites to all have evolved into stromatomonkeys?

If you put a modern stromatolite back in an ancient sea they would quite possible be poisoned by the conditions. they will not be the same internally, just because they still look like a similar big blob you somehow think that suddenly means that evolution did not occur?

Again, an argument from personal incredulity you say 'many creatures look similar to my eyes to those in the past therefor i say evolution didnt happen' you are ignoring all the data, and decide that you know more about earths actual history on the basis that your brain recognises similarities between say a modern cricket and an ancient one sat in amber.

the whole science of understanding evolution came about by noticing organisms similarities, thats the whole point, if each and every species on this planet was utterly unique, as unique as a starfish was from a spider (rather than there being many starfish and many spiders-and they might still share biochemical similarities of course) it would be very unexpected, if evo were true you expect to find lots of species with similar body plans, on the contrary if creation were true you could well expect to find every species with a different body plan and there would be no good reason (save some unfalsifiable one) that they would share any hereditary material whatsoever. its just that when we observe nature that is NOT what we see atall.

as i said before its rather likey that over time some orgs change externally far less than average and some far more than average and of course most falling somewhere inbetween, thats what youd expect, just because stromatolites have remained looking like amorphous blobby mats for 3.5 billin years doesnt automatically mean that evolution didnt happen or that goddidit, thats an assertion for which you have NO evidence, none whatsoever.

I hope to get to that. There are enough subjects on the table right now. I'm trying to gracefully change projects, perhaps companies and locations. I write when I have the time and energy.

the world is waiting, theres yet no good eveidence for a biblical flood, maybe you can personally show the entire scientific community that they are all wrong.

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

Comment #190839 by phasmagigas on June 9, 2008 at 5:21 pm

I couldn't bother reading past the point where he states that all living creatures were designed with a male and female so as to propagate themselves. Not even worth the effort.

it is a dreadful article for sure, barely worth putting on RD or even commenting to, useful as a nice argument tester though.

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

Comment #190825 by phasmagigas on June 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Their knowledge of religion and philosophy was on par with their knowledge of economics or any other subject that they had never studied. They knew as much about religion as they knew how to paint a house, the only difference between the two being that had they delved into the former instead of reflexively dismissing it, they would have found it to be of profound logic and give depth to their other areas of study.

hmm.

so an uneducated person has no good reason to believe in a god? they may not have a good reason but they are free to do so.

I know people not educated specifically in biology/evo but should they have good reason to accept it as true then?? Of course, it would be like suggesting that unless you study the actual mechanisms of how a cancer drug works in your body you should not accept it works??

im hoping ive got a point and that im making it sort of clear!

either way this article is written for the naive believer.

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

Comment #190817 by phasmagigas on June 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm

whan i read the subject i was interested in what it had to say, within seconds i began to skim it.

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190344 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm

txpiper:

I'll let you decide whether or not you are mistaken.

i was aware of the tentative nature of the find initially and it seems that nobody is still quite sure what it is or what info it can provide, lets just say though thats its unlikey that its going to collapse our ideas of the age of the earth and how life developed on the planet simply because the evidence for that can be found throughout the worlds entire geologic column, once again the inanity of creationists is demonstrated, they know nothing of the tissue or science but suddenly it tells us the bible is true!

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190290 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 6:00 pm

generally i find the creationist position peculiar although just about understandable, the creationsist WANTS creation to be true because its simply means that if it is true then its more likey that they will live with jesus when they die and be around forever enjoying thoughts just like we do now.

the evolution accepter doesnt WANT evolution to be true, its simply what the evidence shows.

I think theres a major difference in motives here.

darwin of course didnt set out to show creation to be false, he simply observed and what he saw made no sense if creation were true.

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190279 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Component commonality is often used to support the idea of common ancestry. I understand the premise, but I don't see it as significant. The DNA of everything is composed of four nucleotide bases. Same with RNA with one substitution. Almost all protein molecules are sequences of twenty essential (chiral) amino acids. So what? That is the pattern of living organisms. The commonality of components doesn't tie the forms together any more than bricks relate buildings to each other.

non comprende.

its not the bricks as such, they are the basic physical building blocks, its the SEQUENCE of the 4 bricks that important, ie the information content.

Its a bit like saying the english and german languages dont have a common ancestor just because they use the same alphabet (which is good evidence in itself-although of course pre literate languages can be 'literated' using any other alphabet, maori for eg)) despite the commanility of the arrangement of the letters. using the building analogy its not bricks that relate buildings but the style, architects over the ages have copied each others work, the transmission isnt genetic of course but cultural, a gothic church in the USA was likely inspired by another, maybe in Europe, they didnt arrive at similar structures by separately originated design ideas but by a transmission of information.

it makes you wonder if other independently evolved replicating mechanisms ever existed, ie another lineage that used something other than DNA as its hereditary molecule.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190271 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Sorry for the delay in replying. Are you sure they have not evolved? I can see that croc, on the Nile, eyeing the farmer in the field and wondering how that monkey would taste....
The body shape may be the same, but I'll wager the insides are totally different.

Goldy: good point, another example of creationist ignorance when they point out that some orgs havent evolved.

To our biased eyes (we are honed to see difference in humans of course but I know many who cannot see the difference between Apis and Vespa at a glance)an ancient shark may well look similar to a modern one but you can bet (and its a falsifiable notion of course-well maybe, ancient physiology must be difficult to deternmine!) that their physiology has changed dramatically to deal with new pathogens/parasites./sea composition etc.

If you sample all the worlds organisms theres probably a nice old bell curve (well again, im guessing here, to be falsified or not), some will have appeared by morphology to have evolved evolved rapidly (and who are we to suggest that crude morphology that we can detect with our eyes is even that good an indicator of genetic change relative to other non visible changes) some less so and with most in the middle.

An ignorant mind could look at a 50 million year old cricket and say its no different from a modern one, but you see what the cricket thinks, he'll say you are not much different from a lemur.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190263 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm

txpiper.

Absolutely. The last thing that would occur to an establishment geologist/paleontologist would be the whole paradigm is wrong.

and as i said prior:

the scientist would say 'what we knew prior needs to be somehwhat evaluated' as it stands no such rock assemblage has ever been found

repeat, no such assemblage has yet been found, its yet to be falsified that trilobites died out millions of years before bats evolved, so basically theres nothing to suspect that the 'paradigm' is wrong.

If it seems reasonable to you that unfossilized bone and reconstitutable vascular tissue can be preserved for 68,000,000 years then by all means, enjoy your credulous expectations.

finding unaltered biological tissues is not to my expectation, if im not mistaken the material found contained some of the original material in a highly modified state, the notion that billions of atoms from the original animal could remain in situ isnt hard to believe, again, its an argument from personal incredulity, you say 'i just cant accept that so nobody can'.

I remember AIG saying the following though: soft tissue preserved=Trex is 60000 years old=t rex was on the ark! right, this is they type of nonsense we are dealing with here.

Of course they have. I think someone picked this tactic up from some of the clergy at Talk Origins, probably Mark Isaak. Things like that spread like wildfire.

im not sure what you are talking about here (re argument from personal incredulity).

supposed support for Theropods eventually blossoming into hummingbirds.

luckily the chinese fossils that are still being uneartherd will weaken or support that notion, whichever gets us closer to knowing the truth is fine by me.

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190121 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 12:14 pm

txpiper

The tissue should not be there. It is as simple as that.

so you are an expert on biological tissue preservation?

'The tissue should not be there' according to who and why?

simple personal incredulity as somebody else already pointed out.

if a palaentologist were digging in trilobite rich rocks and found a well preserved fossil of a bat within the rocks and it was clear that it was contemporaneous with the trilobites the scientist wouldnt say 'the bat should not be there' or 'the trilobits should not be there' (actually if such a rock were found it would most likely say that trilobits lasted way longer than anybody previously knew) but the scientist would say 'what we knew prior needs to be somehwhat evaluated' as it stands no such rock assemblage has ever been found....

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190107 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2008 at 11:42 am

tx piper

You also actually believe that anyone who doesn't accept what you believe is either ignorant or a moron. But they aren't. There are lots of people with much higher IQ's and a much more serious education than any of you or myself, who saw or see the facts pointing back towards an instantaneous creation. But you think they are all stupid. Just about all the fathers of the modern sciences were theists, most creationists, if not young earth creationists. There are people living now who possess soaring intellect who recognize the inadequacies of the TOE. But you are forced to think they are all imbeciles. A very good example would be this guy, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/biosketch.html but you think he is another narrow minded, religious idiot. Isaac Newton spent some thirty-five years trying to sort out the details of the books of Daniel and Revelation, but you think he was an idiot too.

That being the case, why should I try to explain the supporting evidence for the flood? I know what you will do. You will make up your own flood version, and then disbelieve that. The same thing would happen with prophecy. You would either ignore or dismiss obvious, supernatural breaches of time as coincidence or something else. You would have to. You don't seem to realize that your worldview is very fragile and narrow. It is also policed, heavily in some cases, depending on your peers, location and circumstances. What is interesting is to observe how this rolls over into self-policing. There are things you don't permit yourself to acknowledge, or even entertain. It is not allowed.

for petes sake, ive not read RD for weeks, i thought id peep at the 'big thread' for a bit of elightenment and I read this! painful.

it all sounds rather like my dads bigger than your dad so there.

the 'high IQ/soaring intellect/serious education' of any given person does not automatically make everything they say correct, it seems odd that the general concensus of 100's of thousands of working scientists can be trumped because txpiper 'knows' of a few who share his/her beliefs. because someone good as science in the past was a theist says nothing about god but only reflects the expectations and limitations of the time, the fact that the majority of working scientists today accept evolution and are probably not (honest to goodness) theists should be (by your own argument)enough to say that your worldview is not particularly sound.


as for making up a version of the flood, WTF? scientistc do not make up their own versions of things, they observe first and then derive a conclusion, its 'flood creation scientists' who do it the other way around, remember high school science? there is a good reasdon why the conclusion came at the END of the science practical.

and as for 'policing', this reminds me of those silly notions like 'atheism is just a religion/scientists are narrow minded/the religious are the real skeptics'

so when the twinkie guzzling lady in line next to me in the store is busily reading one of those papers on the sweet/candy rack on horoscopes/britneys alien baby/obamas part of al quaeda then i should perhaps take her worldview seriously??

policing, pah, the religious who masquerade as some kind of cutting edge mavericks need to remember that its they who spend their lives prostituting themselves under some cosmic authority.

In a nutshell:the religious argue the rationalist position down by describing their own foibles and still not seeing themselves there, ive never understood that.

83. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186694 by phasmagigas on May 31, 2008 at 5:20 am

it seems almost unbelievable that some tribes are probably little changed from how they were 1000's of years ago, thats provides such an incredible pool of info for modern observers. however it is they who will be even more amazed when they eventually realise what the rest of the world is like!! of course their intelligent brains are ripe to be exploited by modern 'magic' and modern superstition.

84. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #182110 by phasmagigas on May 19, 2008 at 8:31 am

remember when peter hitchens referred to delinquent kids in the Uk as practicing 'active atheism', that really pisses me off, thats such an arrogant notion, just because they might not believe in god theres this assumption that they are suddenly 'active atheists' and anything they do is BECAUSE of that, once could say thay are actively antisanta or antikoalas because they dont embrace santa and koalas generally, its ridiculous. Anyway a general point.

funny how those same kids in the Uk will get RE lessons and probably a rather casually presented prayer in the morning at school(when they go that is)

as sean salvador points out in his post you can opt out of RE from 3rd year/year 9 in secondary school to concentrate on the chosen subjects.

85. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #180040 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 6:15 am

dr benway

Example: Someone is heating up hot lead and is about to pour it up my ass

the bastards, so they got you upsidedown too!

86. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180023 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 5:51 am

That the "official church astronomer" thinks that it's okay to believe in aliens is, to me, a good thing. What scares me (among other things) is the current Pope's apparent step backward in promoting ID, as opposed to John Paul II's apparent acceptance of Natural Selection.

thats the problem though isnt it, there seems to be a lot of caprice when it comes to what is and isnt true according to the vatican.

The church here is saying its OK to believe in aliens, its the prescription thats ugly, its got nothing to do with possibilities and everything to do with its pathetic relationship with invisble daddy bear.

remember the limbo thing??

87. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180019 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 5:44 am

I suppose being right about atheism is no immunity to being human.

unless the atheist is actually an alien.

88. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180018 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2008 at 5:41 am

Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God,

of course it doesnt because when you are talking about the unknowable, all powerful, supernatural entity you can just make up any stuff you want, on the spot at any time.

"Just as we consider earthly creatures as 'a brother,' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation."

wow, some mind expanding insight here.

Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom, he said.

yup, as i said you can say what you want, no problemo, just like that.

Pope John Paul declared in 1992 that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

and thing still arent really any different now, think creation. (although is the vaticans 'official' position that evo did happen?)

Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.

adds some credibility yes??

89. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179324 by phasmagigas on May 13, 2008 at 5:51 am

americans, hmmm.

Im a brit living in the USA and it took my neighbours a while to get over the fact that i'll WALK the pleasant 15-20 minutes into our town (its a bone fide town) and buy some milk or beer, or go the library or post a letter. As im a brit they accept thats 'what a brit does' and im not seen as some total weirdo (what is it with americans? I get the feeling that a guy walking on the street alone must be a paedophile or stalker). initially i was asked if i couldnt drive by one guy (OMG, that would have put me firmly in the freak category, i told him 'oh I can drive alright, and a stick shift too!!')

Of course for a large shop i have to go the nasty strip mall at 3 times the distance in the car. With the increased gas prices do people drive less? do people cut their lawns less frequently? do they sweep instead of using dust/leaf blowers? i think the answer is no.

as for food prices, well i suppose we in the west get a far greater deal than most, i wonder what % of income/work hours is spent on food in the USA compared to say some subsistence farmer in a less developed nation. i bought a huge bag of nuts the other day for about $5 and it had enough calories for a couple of days, that to my mind seems incredibly inexpensive.

and i feel dreadful for those swapping out meat for pasta, as long as they eat beans too they will get the amino acids they need.

90. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178510 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

it makes sense that in an evolved biological world that animals (for eg) have some type of 'behaviour code' they simply have to other wise they would just be randomly buzzing about and that could never seemingly be selected for. A forgaing ant doesnt bite through every grass stem it finds as that would be a waste of time, whirling dervishes of destruction tend not to exist in nature, a captive tarantula doesnt constantly strike at the glass of its tank, it just sits there 'behaving' itself as such, it doesnt need a god to sit quietly and a lack of a god doesnt mean it will bite eveything in its path.

we judge our own behaviour in a biased way, is our good behaviour any different from that of a tarantula sitting quietly in its tank??

91. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178504 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm

So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

if thesre is a prescription it could come from allah or even kali in some peverse way but i personally dont accept either of those explanations.

92. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178500 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm

If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

imagine if an individual thought 'ok, lets see how far i get with the red tooth claw behaviour, as humans are my most direct competitors it makes sense to go around and kill every human i see and i'll have more resources for myself' its quite clear that the consequences of that would be disastrous for the individual, within seconds of the killing spree you would be killed yourself by a mob who realised that you were a danger to them. You see it in nature and our own societies that there is a variety of optimum behaviours that work over different timescales but that aid the fitness of the organisms in that group.

what you also have to realise is that as soon as things get tough things DO become more red in tooth and claw, take a walk through a rough neighbourhood or some failing country and you will immediately see that being a victim is really to be expected. In settled communities we mainly want to behave well as it aids us in those communities but these communities are always on a knife edge, some last a while others will fail, the world right now shows communities developing and those collapsing and those in utter chaos, not the type of thing to expect if there is a loving god (the theist could find a billion justifications though from homosexuality to greed to atheism to looking at other mens wives to testing the faith, the usual hotch potch of made up bullshit) but just the type of thing you'd expect to find if evolution were true.

93. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178354 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 9:42 am

funny then how the vast majority of people who are religious are themselves not 'theologians' so their beliefs are weaker for this??

94. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177697 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

This is very important. Amongst the vast majority of Britain's youth, religion is very uncool.

agreed, the average kid in the UK seeing a mega church in operation with its lame music and childish dancing would find the whole spectacle hysterical, uncool would barely describe it, I agree and find the same spectacle utterly sad, I wonder if those adults clapping for jesus actually had a notion of young adulthood atall and are just catching up.

95. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177455 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2008 at 5:57 am

The article assumes that 'christian' children will 'lose' their faith, whilst 'muslim' and 'hindu' children will retain theirs. In reality, as these immigrant communities become 4th, 5th and 6th generation, I believe that the dropout rate will begin to match that of christianity

right now the whole west vs islam spotlight fuels the rising religiosity, hopefully it will fizzle out somewhat, its amazing to think that the USA engagement in the middle east strengthens islam in the UK and elsewhere.

96. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177453 by phasmagigas on May 9, 2008 at 5:52 am

its all rather expected isnt it.

So long as churchgoing is something that gets you laughed at, so long as there is a social stigma attached to being a churchgoing young person, it will be difficult to reverse the trend." He said that young Muslims operated in a different environment. "Being religious is a way that you show you are different, that you are proud of your heritage. One of the ways young Muslims assert their identity is by being more observant than their parents."

some general musings

the average brit kid of non recent immigrant stock doesnt give a hoot about christianity, you are breaking the rules by not being religious (being religious takes some effort as such, so is rejected) so it suits the modern kids fine, it tallies with breaking all the rules generally which isnt perhaps a good thing but i wouldnt say its 'active atheism' as peter hitchens put it recently, its kids lacking any form of social control at all, teenagers who are active atheists tend to be more intelligent than average, the trouble makers are simply engaging in their default tendencies.

the muslim kids are doing what comes naturally to a group that sees themselves as a minority, they cling to whatever they can to show they are not like the rest of the population, I remember in the 80's muslim kids would seemingly 'westernise' to rebel against their parents but now they seem to want to seperate themselves from the rest of mainstream UK 'culture' and do this by strongly identifying with islam. There is a problem with this of course and its that in using religion as an identifier you are using a mechanism that innately sees the user as superior to those not using it.

I believe that many young muslims in the UK feel very strongly that they have the righteous upper hand over their non muslim peers, and comparing them to many of the kids in the UK they could be right, many reject alcohol and general vulgar behaviour but still many male muslims use drugs and are very misogynistic towards non muslim women.

Its all very interesting, if i walk down a uk street and see a bunch of white/non muslim kids on the corner theres a good chance they will be abusive towards me, a group of non white/muslim kids are less likely to do that, they might look at me as the enemy though and a friendly 'hi lads' directed at them will result in looks of (pleasant) suprise (please nobody suggest a friendly hi to a bunch of teenagers is in any way unwelcome, admittedly a group of thuggish white kids wouldnt appreciate it, they are too far gone, but a friendly gesture towards muslim kids is useful, it shows that im making the effort to at least see them as ordinary people, as an adult it is I who should make the effort and show by example)

we all know religion is a tyrant and forces people to keep in line as does local social norms but in the UK both seem to be disintegrating, I wonder to what degree do many people need cloaking in regulations to give them some perceived structure?

the thing with islam in the UK is that the snowball is rolling downhill quickly, christianity is one that is melting very quickly. note that the growth area in NI probably corresponds with differnt groups asserting their own identity, paralleling that in mainland UK.

its quite amazing to see hoards of people going to mosque, the nearset equivalent i see in non muslim uk is hoards going to football matches, im sure it serves a similar mental 'need'. iM only guessing though as i engage in neither.

97. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177196 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Unique to Australia, the platypus has confounded observers for centuries. Aboriginal legend explained it as the offspring of a duck and an amorous water rat.

sweet jeebus, i hope that the 'academic freedom' crowd are reading this, kids should get full marks for reciting the origins of the platypus, they should like that its almost the crocoduc idea.

98. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177192 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Ironically, the platypus is a creature which creationists in my class claim "could not have arisen from evolution" on the grounds that it is "too weird." This from the same side that demands to see a crocoduck! I think when creationists say a creature "could not have arisen from evolution" they probably just misspoke when they meant to say it "has an incredibly fascinating evolutionary history." I wish.

yet again the creationists show themselves as masters of the argument from personal incredulity and general ignorance. 'Too weird' well just how does someboy define 'too weird' from 'just a bit weird' only through our human coloured spectacles are we not also too weird, crestionists singularly lack imagination out of all humans.

99. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177191 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:09 pm

i read this article this morning and even the title told me the science was going to be a bit off, 'part bird' of course the platypus is no more bird than you or i its just that it retains its egg laying ability as do birds.

100. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #175171 by phasmagigas on May 4, 2008 at 6:04 pm

what strikes me firstly about this programme is that discussing topics with rationalists on this site has made me forget just how utterly naive, gullible and stupid the british audience can be, its not just the USA, the fact that the most ridiculous viewpoints were given anything but ridicule was astounding.

after listening to clearly hammered out reasonable arguments from the posters on this site its pure comedy to hear comments by the most unspohisticated members of society speaking as if they have some credible viewpoint, its like nursery school.

education obviously is failing somewhere.

i can say that at least my skills at reasoned argument have incereased dramatically since joining this site.