Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


1001. Fleabytes

Comment #145939 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #145936 by mlearnedfriend


I tend to take the counsel of 'epeeist' in this area. With archaeology we are dealing with an imperfect record so it is difficult to prove that something is untrue from its absence.
You flatter me, I lifted it from Carl Sagan and I'm sure he wasn't the first to use it.
Was Nazareth a town at the time of Jesus?
I won't comment on the history, others with more knowledge than I can do that.

What you have shown is that multiple sources have found no empirical evidence for a "Nazareth" at the time of the purported Jesus. Now this doesn't rule out the place existing, but it does lower the probabilities somewhat.

You also have some written evidence from the bible, but this doesn't advance your claim as much as you think because a) it is a secondary source, b) the sources you quote are not independent of each other, c) the writers were not historians, they were writing from the basis of their beliefs, and d) they were probably trying to align the story to earlier biblical prophecies.

However, at least you have actually presented something that can form the basis of a forensic debate.

1002. Two More Fleas

Comment #145899 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #145881 by Steve Zara


Are you an expert on radioisotopes?
Nah, he just did a cut and paste job from one of the sites he posted.

As usual he didn't acknowledge that he had done the cut and paste, so he is guilty of plagiarism which is of course a variety of theft.

Oh - I did have a glance at sites, lots of pictures but none of the detailed mathematics that were given in Calilasseia's post. Neither of them mention consilience between dating techniques either.

1003. Two More Fleas

Comment #145894 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 9:27 am

Comment #145869 by clearmind

To epeeist

You can read all the books on the earth but if you are unable to read the book of universe, does it matter? All real SCEINTIFIC books are the interpretations of universe book, so if you can't read the main book, how can you benefit from the interpretations of it?


In other words - you know have read nothing and know nothing about logic, biology, physics or philosophy.

Now ignorance I can put up with if people don't have the opportunity to learn or the access to information. However, you obviously have both.

I can only conclude that if it existed you would end up in the 9th circle of Dante's hell. You are a traitor to yourself, you have the opportunity to learn and have not taken it.

You asked me what book I have read; I have read major books about English literature and my favorite one is William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity fair.
I too have read Thackeray, Elizabeth Gaskell and Anthony Trollope. However the difference between you and I is that I realise that they are fiction.

The thing is that I can read the book of universe so I can see what I am supposed to see. I am not blinded by blind theories that are based on blind concepts like blindwatchmaker? By the way, the audience is still waiting and getting more curious why are you avoiding to answer the following question? (in terms of their wording, they seem to be question indeed.)

Blindwatcmaker
Luck and chances
Methinks

Lying will get you nowhere - these were answered multiple times by several people - I answered them here - http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060

1004. Fleabytes

Comment #145811 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #145809 by Pathfinder

Lady Chatterleys Lover (our moral decline began here!)
Yes, it isn't a book I would care for my wife or servants to read.

1005. Fleabytes

Comment #145800 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 6:42 am

Comment #145787 by Pathfinder


Epeeist: 'Fraid I'mnot going to let Darwin off the hook that easily. The book is really a ziggurat of MONSTROUS hubris. He should of known of the consequences of what he was publishing! And he was supposedly destined for the Church! One shudder's to think...
One should have suppressed its publication then?

Anything else you would like to put on your Index Librorum Prohibitorum?

1006. Fleabytes

Comment #145778 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 6:16 am

Comment #145767 by Pathfinder


Forset Mist: You're right, up to a point, though I am at a loss to comprehend your first sentence. It doesn't seem logical. I was trying to say that I accept they saw these people as Untermenshen, and THAT FALLACY was possible becuse of a misreading of Darwinism. The fact that it was a misreading is neither here nor there!

Oh but it is.

Who does the misreading reflect on, Darwin or the Nazis (who also dismissed the theory of relativity as "Jewish Science")?

But it still doesn't stop some elements of the religious community to link the monstrosities of Nazism and Darwin together, a basic "bad company fallacy".

1007. Fleabytes

Comment #145764 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 5:52 am

Comment #145756 by Geoff

I am one of the founder members of the AAAA (back in the days when the Daily Mail was a newspaper).
Wow, you must be seriously old...

1008. Selling science to the masses

Comment #145740 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 4:25 am

Just came across this while browsing and listening. http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/if_you_watch_five_hours_of_cab.php

1009. Selling science to the masses

Comment #145737 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 4:12 am

Comment #144878 by AtheistAspy

Does anyone have a solution to Hume's Problem of Inductivism? I've been racking my brains for a solution but have yet to come up with one.
Try Popper's "Objective Knowledge". He deals with it reasonably thoroughly there. If MPhil was here he could probably(!) give you some more up to date references.

Split it into two, the logical and psychological problems of induction. The logical problem, are we justified in reasoning from instances of which we have experience to other instances of which we have no experience. Hume said no, and Popper agrees with him.

The psychological problem, why do we expect that instances of which we have no experience will conform to instances of which we do experience. Hume's answer is "custom and habit".

Popper replaces Hume's inductivism by hypothetico-deductivism. You still don't get truth, but you do get verisimilitude and falsifiability.

Sorry this is brief - I have an audio-conference in 5 minutes.

1010. Fleabytes

Comment #145729 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #145724 by Steve Zara


It is such a shame that you have to deal with this. A waste of your talents.
Steve, Paula - I am not sure it is a waste. Turning over rocks to expose what is underneath to the view of others is always useful and Paula seems to do it par excellence.

1011. Fleabytes

Comment #145727 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #145721 by vijikumar


I'm not an authority on this Shiva chap but during my formative years as a member of a Hindu family, never saw the guy.
Hai (seems to be the spelling of the moment) vijikumar, if nobody has said it before, welcome aboard.

As you can see we mostly get people from a (former) Christian background here. It is good to see someone with different formative experiences.

1012. Fleabytes

Comment #145696 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #145692 by Steve Zara

I think it is time to settle these theological issues once and for all. I propose a Deity Superstars Smackdown. Quetz versus all-comers. A no-show is counted as a knockout.
We need to set the rules though, I mean Quetz really is a monotheistic god, Yahweh is a whole fucking tag team.

1013. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145669 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 12:55 am

Comment #145525 by Bonzai


They should teach ID and creationism as case studies in general courses such as "science and pseudoscience" or "intellectual self defense" which aim at a larger audience than biology majors.
You could call it "Defence against the Dark Arts", bound to be popular.

1014. Fleabytes

Comment #145414 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Comment #145310 by Peacebeuponme


epeeist - Pathfinder may have Wooterism. We've not found a cure yet, so our thoughts should be with him.

Well it finally happened on the "Two More Fleas" thread, Calilasseia descended and dropped a megapost. Let's see how wooter responds.

1015. Fleabytes

Comment #145332 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #145320 by Frankus1122

The whole spelling thing is interesting. I am not the world's best speller by any means, but I try my best. When I am really unsure about the spelling of a word I look it up.
It happens to us all.

Could I make a suggestion? Use Firefox as your browser and switch on spell checking. I have the British English dictionary installed as well. At least you can see if something is misspelt and you get an immediate list of possibilities.

1016. Fleabytes

Comment #145326 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #145310 by Peacebeuponme


epeeist - Pathfinder may have Wooterism. We've not found a cure yet, so our thoughts should be with him.
Yes, exposure to wooter can do this kind of thing to you. I would propose a strict diet, no tea and abstention from the "Two More Fleas" thread until he returns to normal.

1017. Fleabytes

Comment #145308 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #145302 by Pathfinder


OK,OK maybe I was a little immoderate! Still, God is serious bussiness and I'd thank you not to take his immortal glorius name in vain.
Is this god person anything like your angels?

Oh, and there is only one glorious name - Quetzalcoatl.

1018. Fleabytes

Comment #145289 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #145281 by Pathfinder


As Benjamin Disraeli said, I am on the side of the angel's, not the gibbering babbon's of ATHEISM.
What's a babbon?

I presume that these angels float in the air (so that they don't leave footprints), are insubstantial (so you can't sprinkle them with powder to show they are there), and do not generate any heat (so you can't use an infra-red detector on them)?

1019. Fleabytes

Comment #145275 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #145182 by Steve Zara


Well, I wasn't going to, but I think the rapid approach of the 6K mark, and the hope of 10K, is a good motivation.
Should we not be celebrating post 4004 plus 2008 plus 1?

1020. Two More Fleas

Comment #145271 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Comment #145149 by clearmind


Epeeist
Dear philosophy addicted pal:

I am not your "pal", please don't even think of assuming such a thing.

BEGGING THE LOGIC
Evolution is an idea. It was popped up by Darwin and since its idea is not based on logic, Darwin was wrong. Therefore evolution idea was wrong. For the sake of Petitio principii,
"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible."
It is impossible or hard to prove something does not exist. But it is easy to prove something exists.

Where did you cut and paste that from? It is of course completely wrong. For a start off it isn't even petitio principii. However, this is how it should be framed:

  1. Let us create a hypothesis

    h = ~(Exists x) G(x)

    In other words the class of all gods G is empty.
  2. Now, there will be consequences to this hypothesis (for example, we can state that if our hypothesis is true then there can not have been a global flood caused by god in which he killed 99.99999% of human beings). Call these consequences p
  3. We therefore have

    h -> p
  4. Now if p is false, i.e.

    ~p
  5. We then have

    ~h


In other words we can have a contingent hypothesis that no gods exist. This hypothesis is valid until the theist can bring forward some empirical evidence to disprove it.

Now, I have answered your point, so let me raise a question to you.

Sitting on my bookshelf in my study I have Susan Haak's "Philosophy of Logics", Copi's "Introduction to Logic", Quine's "From a Logical Point of View", Frege's "Theory of Judgement", Walton's "Informal Logic", Hunter's "First Order Metalogic" and Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery".

As I have said I used to be a physicist, but most of my physics books are still in boxes from when we moved house, nevertheless I can see Mattuck's "A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-body Problem", Margenau and Murphys "Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry", Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and Dirac's "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics".

This is just a small selection, I can also see a number of books on philosophy, mythology and, of course, fencing.

A simple question Wooter - what books are there on your bookshelves that allow you to make such fundamental pronouncements on logic, biology and science in general?

1021. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145068 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 8:13 am

Comment #145059 by V'Ger


And I am actually a little worried.... Whilst watching my son's nativity play last Christmas - all of a sudden some kid comes out and started reciting lines about how "the world looks like it must have been intelligently designed for a purpose..." My wife and I exchanged a slightly worried look at that point.
If this is a reasonably accurate paraphrase of what was said I would be very worried about it.

I would be looking at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/science/?view=get and asking to see how your children's school complies.

1022. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144924 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #144846 by Cartomancer

Giving it any space on the official curriculum, even as a straw man to take swipes at, is, in my opinion, a mistake.
and
Comment #144898 by fides_et_ratio
I thought the teaching of evolution was a statutory elementy of the national curriculum. In which case, it has to be taught in all state-funded schools.

As some of you may be aware SWMBO is a member of various committees developing science syllabuses both in England and Wales. There is no mention of creationism in any of these and nor will there be. The topic has also been raised at various conferences of teaching unions, again decisive decisions against teaching creationism in science have been made.

Having said that she teaches at an independent girls' school in Manchester. Being girls only a significant proportion of their intake is Muslim. She has noticed some increase in the religiosity of some of the girls and a consequent increase in the reaction against well accepted theories that go against teaching in the Qu'ran.

1023. Two More Fleas

Comment #144891 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #144738 by clearmind


Look. Now 84 per cent of world population in any way they believe a creator, now you are trying to tell us that we are all wrong, with low understanding but 16 percent is right? Among 84 percent people, there a lot educated people and smart guys so they cannot think right and but you can?
Wooter I thought you were a master of logic? And there you go committing one of the most elementary of logical fallacies - argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#populum).


The problem is evolution theory is not based on logic. You are still struggling to find Leonarda da vinci inside the painting, in one of the colours whatever you call it blindwatcmaker or menotthinking or blindwatchmaker. I wisj you can understand this analogy and say you are right. May be some day.


No wooter you cannot apply theories of evolution to inanimate objects - read my post http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060 again, or may be read it for the first time.

And how about responding to my posts http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page6#144521 and http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page6#144558

What about those non-believers in your god that he killed, are they in heaven or hell?

How do you answer the points put forward by one of the greatest of the Enlightenment philosophers David Hume? Are you going to pretend that you know more about philosophy than him in the way you pretend to know more biology than Steve Zara or more about physics and logic than me?

1024. Two More Fleas

Comment #144613 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #144588 by The Reverend Dark


The first written creation myth we have, the Enuma Elish was written approximately in the 12th century BC, a full 400 years before you think creation occured. You should read it, as much of the biblical myth was cribbed from it.

10,000 BC saw the emergence pottery in Japan
And of course 12,000 years is next to no time compared with the age of the earth, which wooter accepts is around 4.5 billion years ago.

Which raises the next question - if god created living creatures all at the same time some 10,000 years ago the what was he doing for the rest of the time.

And another one for you - in Japan there is a lake called Suigetsu. This is quite a still lake, every year algae grow on its surface during the summer. Come winter time the algae dies and sinks to the bottom of the lake forming layers known as "varves". Some 29,000 of these can be distinguished forming a chronology that goes back to almost 38,000 years before the present. This is detailed in Kitagawa, H. & van der Plicht, J. 1998. A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve. Radiocarbon 40: 505-515.

All you have to do is count - no radiometric dating necessary (though there is consilience).

1025. Two More Fleas

Comment #144574 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #144569 by Steve Zara

That made me snort my G&T.
Lime or lemon in the G&T?

1026. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144566 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:46 am

The Scientologists don't seem to be doing well on the legal front either - http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article416511.ece

1027. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144563 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #144557 by Koreman


So, when evolution is banned everywhere and hospitals have been closed down by lack of medicine, what's next? Einstein? Quantum mechanics?
Further down the line - expect things like geology, archaeology, anthropology and ancient history to be hit first.

1028. Two More Fleas

Comment #144558 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind


Analogy is just to compare two things to understand logic in them.
No, as I explained analogical reasoning is a form of induction. You don't compare two things, you assume they have a common attribute.

You assume that because a watch shows design and living material has the appearance of design then since watches have creators then living materials must have designers.

Unfortunately watches and living beings are quite different. Watches do no reproduce, do not mutate and are not subject to selection. I made this explicitly clear in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060. That is why I wrote it. Your analogy is a very bad one because there are more differences between watches and living things than there are similarities.

This is one of the arguments that David Hume produced back in the eighteenth century. There are others:
  1. The design is poor. We have vestigial tailbones and a useless appendix, women have difficulties in childbirth because the birth canal passes through the pelvis, our windpipe and oesophagus are so close together that we can choke on food. On top of this we are subject to disease, like Philip's Fragile X syndrome and like the bubonic plague and influenza that I also mentioned.
  2. Even if you had demonstrated some empirical evidence for a designer, which you haven't, all that this would point to is a finite being cleverer and more capable than ourselves. It certainly doesn't establish a transfinite, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being.
  3. Unless you can show this omni-maximal being, which you haven't, then you have to explain your designer. You have to show how this designer came about, which is going to run you into infinite regress.

1029. Two More Fleas

Comment #144521 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 9:26 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind


Okay one question:
What is happening to those people died in flood or other disasters?
They are dead.

Now some of them were Christians (those in Lisbon that Scottish Geologist mentions for instance), some were Hindu, some Muslim and some would have been Buddhist or followers of Confucius.

Given that all the beliefs cannot be true then according to you some of them will have gone to heaven while the rest went to hell.

1030. Two More Fleas

Comment #144428 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #144424 by tstinchcombe


Just out of interest, has clearmind/wooter/etc, ever given any indication as to his/her age? Clearmind/wooter - would you care to enlighten us?

Wooter has never answered questions with any degree of specificity. We don't know a gender or age. All that has been divulged is that the poster claims not to be a native English speaker, supposedly has a BA and an MA and purports to be a teacher of primary school children.

The native language of the speaker has not been divulged, nor has the university where the qualifications were apparently gained, nor the location of the supposed school.

1031. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144416 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 3:09 am

Comment #144320 by weesam


What about the widow on the last line?

It seems that the draft never went near a professional.

The words in the book demand better treatment. Books - especially with content such as this one - should be objects of beauty.

I missed the widow.

I would agree with you - very badly produced and has never been near someone who knows anything about typesetting. I am fairly sure it was simply put together in a word processing package.

I wouldn't claim to have your expertise - my main interest is usability engineering oriented towards work on a screen. However, one still has to care for layout and typography even at this level.

1032. Two More Fleas

Comment #144411 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #144404 by windweaver

Has the world gone mad?

Why do so many intelligent posters on this site waste their time debating with this imbecile Wooter???????
You are assuming that we are writing for wooter's benefit.

Personally I am writing for the people who come to the site out of interest and in the hope of finding something out. Also as a demonstration of what a totally blinkered outlook can do to you.

1033. Two More Fleas

Comment #144410 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #144342 by clearmind


I am saying that Mona Lisa is made by an artist. So the same way all the creations who has got different DNA structures, design, and form, (colours) cannot be designed in the same way.

Just do the comparison that anybody can do.
And this is your pals' answer: Paintings need artists because they don't breed and have offspring that are just a little bit different.

I will keep doing this wooter - look at http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060

This gives an extremely simple description of the way evolution works, why it is not random and why it doesn't work for paintings or cars.

Analogical reasoning is based on induction which can only give a probabilistic result. The argument looks like this:
  1. P is similar to Q
  2. P has attribute A
  3. Therefore: Q has attribute A

The further the analogy from the original argument the lower the probability of truth the argument has. You are trying to compare inanimate objects whose creators were known to exist and do not reproduce with animate objects descended from their parent(s) by reproduction. As such your argument has a very low probability of being true.

Your argument is that:
  1. The universe is like an intricate watch
  2. A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker
  3. Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator
However one can reframe this:
  1. The universe is like an intricate watch
  2. Many early watches were designed by locksmiths
  3. Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith
Now this is an informal logical fallacy.

Just as a matter of interest - while I was doing my Ph.D. I also took some a class in logic as well.

1034. Two More Fleas

Comment #144403 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:25 am

Comment #144343 by clearmind


NOTHING CAN HAPPEN BY THEMSELVES OR CHANCES.


Wooter - I am taking it this is your answer to my question in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144053

What you are saying is that you believe that your god is responsible for the creation, movement and destruction of every particle in the universe. This is simply an extension of your idea that your god creates every snowflake different.

If this is so then your god is responsible for:
  1. The 1931 flood in China that killed 3.7 million people
  2. The 1942 drought in India that killed 1.5 million people
  3. The 1991 hurricane in Bangladesh that killed 138,000 people
  4. The 1908 earthquake in Italy that killed 100,000 people
  5. The 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean that killed 40,000 people
This doesn't count things like disease, which your god also created, for example influenza killed 20,000,000 people in 1917 and bubonic plague in the middle ages that killed an estimated 50% of Europe's population.

1035. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144302 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #144295 by The Smart Patrol

I can confirm that, at least in the copy that I bought in Scotland, the text is fairly heavily hyphenated.
Produced in something like Word? No ligatures, no kerning, character width leading only and a sans-serif font for a book.

I wonder if The Smart Patrol is having difficulty reading it because of the poor layout as much as anything else. Given this is from the OUP I wonder why they allowed something that looks as bad as this?

1036. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144290 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Comment #144276 by weesam on


I hope the preview on Amazon IS NOT indicative of the typesetting in the actual printed book.

The Hyphenation is terrible and should only be used on naturally hyphenated words or when the column width is very narrow - like newspapers.

Should not be used in books. EVER.
Where are you from weesam?

The hyphenation looks to be American in style, it really grates if you are British.

I wouldn't quite go as far as you in saying that hyphenation should never be used in books, but you shouldn't see it very often.

As you say, if this is the quality of the typesetting in the book then it is seriously bad.

Oh for the days of LaTeX when it was easy to produce beautiful typography even when penalty copy was involved.

1037. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144065 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 2:15 am

Comment #143967 by Bonzai


Suicide bombing is a way of waging asymmetric warfare. It is a way for the weak side in a conflict to inflict maximum damage on an overwhelmingly stronger adversary by turning themselves into human bombs and set themselves off at "soft targets".

I would disagree with "maximum damage", the aim is maximum publicity and the concurrent weakening of support in the home population of the strong force.

If you have a small, weak force then to inflict maximum damage you go for the infrastructure targets. Take out power stations, sewage treatment plants, computer centres and the like.

1038. Two More Fleas

Comment #144060 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 1:57 am

For Wooter - Evolution 101

Now I have given you exactly this explanation before. However I didn't bookmark it, I have bookmarked this post.

When you claim that the theory of evolution is nonsense because of the design of cars I will point you back to this post.

For evolution to happen you need:

  1. Reproduction, this is what plants and animals to do to produce the next generation of offspring. Cars, paintings, watches and geological features do not reproduce and do not therefore qualify for this
  2. Mutation. When things reproduce you may get mistakes in the copying of genetic information, this is known as mutation. These mutations are random. Note that since cars, paintings, watches and geological features do not reproduce then this type of mutation does not apply to them
  3. Mutations may be neutral, deleterious or favourable. Individuals with favourable mutations will be more likely to survive and reproduce than those with deleterious mutations. This is a selection process and is non-random. Since cars, paintings, watches and geological features do not reproduce nor undergo biological mutation the this process does not apply to them

1039. Two More Fleas

Comment #144053 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #144009 by clearmind


(How old do YOU think the earth is?)
Say, 5 billion years is and your point is?

OK - so you are prepared to accept the current estimates for the age of the earth.

So - when were all the animals and plants created simultaneously? Three billion years ago? Three million years ago? Six thousand years ago? Or some other value?

(your first cause argument is nonsense.)
What is your first cause argument then, in terms of ET? We are all ears.

I pointed out to you that virtual particles are created and annihilated all the time without causality. This means that I have shown an exception to your argument that god is the necessary first cause.

Now either you accept this, or you claim that god directly causes these particles to appear and disappear. Which one is it?

1040. Two More Fleas

Comment #144049 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #144009 by clearmind

Wooter - have you heard the expression "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"?

Steve Zara has a Ph.D. in biology, Anna has at least a first degree in the subject. Don't you think it is somewhat insulting to try and pretend that you have more knowledge on the subject than them.

For your information I have a Ph.D. in physics. My wife has a Ph.D. in chemical thermodynamics. Your attempts in these areas are so wrong, you obviously know less of science than the 10 year olds in the primary part of the school she teaches at.

1041. Fleabytes

Comment #143704 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #143686 by Dr Benway

How did you manage to get hold of a picture of wooter?

1042. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143677 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 9:50 am

Comment #143608 by irate_atheist


Once again you have both my condolences and sincerest regards.
Many thanks.

Getting away from the Cheshire set was an extremely good move. My daughters initially went to school with Verity Roach - the daughter of Bill Roach. How he won his libel action I do not know.

Having been acquainted with the lower end of that particular social group I am not convinced that the Wintertons or Hamiltons were really exceptions.

Much more down to earth where I am now. You can see the surroundings here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/

After that Zara fellow posted the pictures of his abode (a stable!) I felt rather put upon. At least our place was actually built as a house (well a toll cottage anyway).

1043. Fleabytes

Comment #143612 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:46 am

Totally apropos of nothing - I wonder whether people are aware of this site - http://www.quantiki.org/

1044. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143602 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:36 am

Comment #143595 by irate_atheist


There'll be no mention of that loathsome toad in this place!!! What are you thinking of man!!!
Hey, I used to live in a place that had Neil Hamilton as M.P., along with his lovely wife Christine to accompany him. With the wonderful Nicholas and Ann Winterton in neighbouring constituencies.

Do you wonder why I moved (only to get James Purnell)?

1045. Fleabytes

Comment #143589 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #143557 by scottishgeologist


These people are miserable - a lot of them cannot stand "worldly pleasures" like music etc. Its all the devils work.

So to quote Quetz again, "Think happier thoughts." These people arent worth the anguish.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

H.L. Mencken

1046. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143572 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #143565 by cowalker


I'm waiting to see if my theory proves true. I theorize that Ratzinger's leadership will drive away most of the Catholic women
But they don't need American women when they have Ann Widdecombe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Widdecombe

1047. Two More Fleas

Comment #143566 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #143564 by al-rawandi


Thus he would be open to quantum fluctuation....
Second intention...

1048. Two More Fleas

Comment #143561 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:52 am

Comment #143533 by al-rawandi


I am now taking wagers on whether wooterpants will ever answer a direct question put to him.
I really, really want him to come up with a response to whether he accepts that virtual particles can appear or disappear without cause.

1049. Two More Fleas

Comment #143523 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:25 am

Comment #143513 by clearmind


and my question is; Please how does evolution explain the work of our nose through chances and being selfish?
How many times have you been told that natural selection is not random?

Now - how old do YOU think the earth is?

I am assuming that since you haven't made any comment that you accept that since virtual particles can be created without cause then your first cause argument is nonsense. Unless you really are arguing that god is directly responsible for creating and destroying them.

1050. Fleabytes

Comment #143458 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 6:06 am

Comment #143432 by scottishgeologist


(for anyone who can stand reading it:
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/1998/January/article4.php )
Makes Swift's Big Endians and Small Endians seem the essence of rationality.

More Pages: Previous | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 | Next