101. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107340 by Galactor on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Sam Harris, thou art verily a God.

You're beautiful baby, just beautiful!

102. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107208 by Galactor on January 4, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #107202 by Tyler Durden

I have a creationist who lectures us on Freud in college...

Oooh, I'd love to have a creationist! Where did you get him/her?

103. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107095 by Galactor on January 4, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #106886 by PlagioClase

Evolution is a grand, motivating, uplifting, invigorating philosophy. All designed to remove God's claim on our lives.

I find this statement at first hand to be staggering and illuminating. PlagioClase, are you really saying that (the theory of) evolution was "designed"? By whom and what makes you able to make such a claim?

Do you really mean that this scientific theory is a "philosophy" or are you getting your words mixed up or do you mean something different from a scientific theory when you say "Evolution is a grand ..."?

How do you reconcile the fact that serious scientists regard the theory of evolution as on a par with, say, the theory of gravity - not complete but holding up to vast swathes of evidence?

104. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106759 by Galactor on January 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm

RedneckfromIdaho

Can you please explain to me what an "evolutionist" is? I can never understand its usage in discussion about religion and science and I would hate to make assumptions. Is an evolutionist different from a gravitationist or a electromagneticist? In the sense that you compare honesty and rationality with average evolutionists, have you in your travels been able to compare these qualities in gravitationists and do you find them to be less or more honest and rational than say an evolutionist (whatever that may be)?

Can you explain to me what is meant by

most evolutionists accept only a materialist/naturalist worldview, but they do this without any evidence to support such an assumption

as I am at present unable to understand it? Can you elucidate on the relevance of a "worldview" of materialism and/or naturalism on the ability to be honest or rational and are you of the opinion that it is necessary to be spiritual and believe in the supernatural to hold these qualities? Could you tell me what worldview would be necessary to be able to conclude that alchemy has merits?

You mention a

the mounting evidence against evolution

.

Staggering. I was never aware of such evidence. Can you provide me with one simple grain of evidence in this supposed mounting (is it mountainous yet) evidence?

105. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106746 by Galactor on January 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

In response to Roger Stanyard. This is where the next creationist battleground can be found, namely the martyrdom that you point out. ID was an attempt to fit creationism into science but now that this has been found out in a court of law, the next step is to try to move the boundaries of science to encompass whackoism and fruitloopery. You can observe this movement in that ridiculous film "Expelled" where attempts are being made to paint science with the brush of a rigid dogma unwilling to allow for creativity.

106. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106733 by Galactor on January 3, 2008 at 11:08 am

In response to comment #106527 by PlagioClase.

What irony. It ventures to suggest hypocracy from those criticising creationists yet reading it through a number of times you can see how riddled it is with hypocracy.

I'm tired of evolutionists accusing creationists of being dishonest.

Well, I'm certainly tired of having to tell creationists they're dishonest but it's hardly unfair, is it? The creationist method - and it's certainly not scientific - is one of distorting truth and pissing on the the scientific methodology. Wouldn't it just be great if biological science didn't have to fight a rearguard action and there was no pressure to get creationism taught as science? It wouldn't be necessary to tell creationists that they're dishonest for one thing, and you wouldn't get so tired.

It's hypocritical to accuse a creationist of lying for doing the same thing he [Dawkins] is doing.

It would be hypocritical if it were what Dawkins is doing in the article but he clearly isn't. Science - what Dawkins stands for - is a reasonable way of trying to understand how nature works. Creationism isn't at all reasonable - it's all about making facts fit certain beliefs. This requires perversion of truth, distortion, dishonesty.

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell. Neither has anyone ever seen it happen.

This is a supreme example of exactly what creationist dishonesty (and therefore in this case hypocracy) - or is it just incompetence - is all about. Misunderstanding and misrepresentation skulking hand in hand with irrelevance. Dishonest or at best incompetent. Firstly, no-one has been trying for 150 years - this is gross misrepresentation on your part - to demonstrate abiogenesis. In relation to the work done on many areas of scientific research, work on abiogenesis is in its infancy. It is not - as you try to intimate - something which scientists have been struggling for years and years, getting nowhere, scratching their heads trying to come to terms with. Secondly, your statement about the transition from "lifeless chemical to cell" is devoid of congruency and the stock in trade of the creationist. No evolutionary scientist claims that this is what occurred! The hypothesis is that a replicator was once formed (abiogenesis) which, well, replicated, sometimes mutated, was subject to natural selection and survived in relation to its fitness (evolution). Only after billions of replications with minor mutations do we eventually arrive at cells. What you have done is misrepresent what evolution is and you disgrace yourself in doing so when you accuse others of hypocracy. And thirdly, the old "no-one saw it happen" card. So what? So fucking what? Do you expect ever to be taken seriously here with this kind of tripe? It wouldn't be so bad but you have the temerity to call others hypocritical.

But Richard still says, against the observational scientific evidence, that it did.

Against the observational scientific evidence? Against the observational scientific evidence? Are you saying that there is observational scientific evidence (whatever that is) suggesting that the abiogensis hypotheses are not supportable? This is just another creationist style strawman but it's based upon a false premise (found in the utter drivel of you notions of abiogenesis and evolution) which is that Dawkins [wholeheartedly] supports conclusions which are unfounded just to fit his own "beliefs". Scientists don't do this. Creationists, on the other hand, do so each day before they've had breakfast.

Should we accuse him of being dishonest? Perhaps he should have a talk to ex-atheist Antony Flew, an honest atheist who now says, 'There is a God', because of the scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

An honest atheist. An honest atheist? Say it again and weigh the bagage that comes along with these words. Firstly, atheism has nothing to do with honesty nor dishonesty. Nothing whatsoever. Atheism is just a conclusion made by (presumably) honest and dishonest people alike. And what has atheism got to do with doing good science or not? Are we supposed to conclude that this "honest" atheist is honest because he has made a conclusion that you agree with or should I say he was dishonest because he renounced his atheism? There are "honest" theists that abandon their religious belief or would you call them "dishonest" for doing so? What's the point? It's all so irrelevant and incongruent.

And what scientific discoveries of the last 50 years are you talking about?

Do you really find it any wonder that creationists are told they're dishonest?

107. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100025 by Galactor on December 18, 2007 at 5:13 am

And can we hear a "Bah! Humbug!" from anyone?

108. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100019 by Galactor on December 18, 2007 at 4:52 am

Anyone who can't rip into "Deck the halls with boughs of holly" 'aint smelt my Xmas duff which has been liberally laced with cognac and steamed over a pan of boiling water for eight hours. I mean to say: 'tis the season to be jolly!

Can't wait for the day: presents for the children and missus Galactor, great grub (and I'm a mean (although not in the Ebenezer sense of the word) cook) and good wines and champagne, a roaring fire and good company. Games, songs and fun!

Happy Xmas everyone!

109. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96086 by Galactor on December 10, 2007 at 12:20 am

You know how the religious hold bible classes where passages of the bible are studied and the "meaning" behind it all is discussed and explained, it is apparent to me, given the lack of understanding of TGD by many who phoned in, that there should be TGD study classes for those who fail to comprehend it. The case in point is that politician (a politician for crying out loud) who responded to the retort from RD of believing in fairies by actually saying something like "fairies are fairies - everyone knows that, but God's the real McCoy" without really understanding, seemingly, the concept of evidence and liklihood.

110. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75267 by Galactor on October 2, 2007 at 7:48 am

Comment #75265 by gr8hands

revcort --

Why be stubborn and deny the evidence?

Why change the habit of a lifetime? Being stubborn and denying evidence is exactly what revcort does.

111. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74307 by Galactor on September 28, 2007 at 4:54 am

Another shocking report (again, unverified) from the same website as given above about Franklin Graham and an organisation in which he is involved:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cajee04112003.html

The reports are from 2003.

112. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74304 by Galactor on September 28, 2007 at 4:45 am

I found this article about Franklin Graham:

www.counterpunch.org/chuckman04262003.html

I cannot vouch for the website but it seems suitably critical for it to be worthy of reading. I had a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for Billy Graham who by seems to be on death's doorstep. Apparently, Franklin has taken over the reins and has good contacts with Dubya.

113. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73862 by Galactor on September 26, 2007 at 11:38 am

revcort

I can't absolutely prove He DOES exist, and neither can you absolutely prove He DOESN'T exist. So, we're both operating on a kind of faith. My faith is that He is real and my death will actually be the beginning of life. Your faith is that He is not real and your death will simply mean you cease to exist. If you're right, it won't matter that I've been deceived all my life. But if I'm right, well, I would tell you to pray that I'm not right, but what good would that do? I guess you should keep trying to prove He doesn't exist- either that or seek Him to find out whether He does exist.

Well hallelujah, revcort. Here's something that begins with a factual statement that I would agree with. I would, however, take your statement further and add some substance to it: you can't absolutely prove that God doesn't exist, no, but you can get nowhere near a good argument – using the methods that mankind employs to make medicines that have tripled our lifespans, make computers and space travel possible and so on and so on – for suggesting there is even a small chance that he does exist. You can, on the other hand, using the methods of reasoning that rational people employ, make a pretty strong case for the non–existence of God. The same methods that others have adopted in this whole thread; the inconsistencies in the bible; the implausible God that is so loving and vengeful; the huge bag of nails in the coffin of creationism from the theory of evolution, astronomy. Etc, etc, etc..

Your faith is just that – belief in something for which you should have no cause to whatsoever. My "faith" is something completely different. It's to be found in the consistency of the universe that I – and you - observe and utilize day after day. Repeatable, verifiable, constant, predictive. Most of us here wouldn't call that "faith" however; this is a common misconception of theists when they address atheists and you're not the only one to have it, I assure you.

You have avoided or you cannot provide any reasons for why you have this faith (perhaps other than your personal circumstances). I can for my "faith". Your faith is a house of cards or so it seems to me. But prove me wrong. Tell me what gives you such confidence that your God is not only something that exists but is the right one?

By the way, it does matter if you're wrong revcort. All those people who you and your kind are mentally persecuting and psychologically abusing. The desire of creationists to have their Armageddon. It matters revcort, oh yes, it matters.

114. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73798 by Galactor on September 26, 2007 at 8:10 am

I've just gone through the whole thread and here's a synopsis of its course. It took a turn in comment 47 when revcort shamed the sinners with

Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide.

I had to read and re-read this after having gone through what was written by him thereafter. Here it is again: " ... person who claims with absolute certainty ..."

From then on, the following has been attempted:

provide arguments which demonstrate how ludicrous theism is;
demonstrate the fallacies of the bible;
demand how it is that revcort "knows" that his brand of Christianity above all other religious or non-religious beliefs is the one that cooks the goose.

The first two types of approach have basically been treated by revcort with a kind of "that's just how it is; God can do what he likes" response. All wrapped up in a biblical Scripture parcel of nonsense.

The last one - how do you know you're right - has at best been answered in a kind of "'cause the bible says so" way but in essence, it would appear that revcort has gone out of his way to avoid directly answering this point - what makes him so sure? He's dabbled with the laws of physics and the theory of evolution - things about which he patently knows little or nothing and is clearly hiding behind the creationist pseudoscientific beliefs that enable people to lie for Jesus.

I can't really see, speaking for myself and given the rock solid intransigence of the man, that anyone has a hope in hell in convincing him that the bible is possibly fallible. I would suggest that he answer the many questions that have been put forward that inquire as to how he can be so sure. There are literally dozens of them - all of them unanswered. Would it not make sense to leave off with the biblical study approach until an answer - a real answer - is given to why he has faith at all?

115. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73597 by Galactor on September 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

The Day of Judgement

God is weeding out the sinners from the saints as our hero revcort comes in to bat. CHeard can be seen looking on nervously and somewhat sheepishly. Over in the corner is a group of atheists looking onward with concern …

God (enthusiastic): "Aha! Revcort! I've been so looking forward to meeting you. How are you old fellow? "

revcort (reticent and somewhat taken aback): "Well, God, I'm just fine thankee."

God (serious and in earnest): "Now then revcort, what are we going to do about this CHeard fellow? I understand he's been on some slippery slope and despite your warnings, he's not taken heed.

revcort (spiffingly): that's right G. I told him he'd be in serious trouble if he didn't repent – told him to wash his hands, I did. I, on the other hand can claim that I sounded a clear call.

God (proud): "Indeed you did, lad, indeed you did and it didn't go unnoticed, never you fear. In fact, we've been rather impressed in the manner that you've been psychologically bullying and threatening all those mortals who didn't toe the line. And you know what I really like about you? Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you, among so many, have been able to put purblind faith in me without a single jot of doubt. Now that's what I really appreciate"

revcort (gushing): "well, I knew this evolution thing was a just a hoax, I mean really, who would put faith in science and our respected scientists?"

God: "Exactly! Anyway, what should we do with this CHeard fellow?"

revcort: "Well, I was kind of upset with the way all the atheists kept complimenting him and deriding me, so I was kind of hoping you could, well, turn up the heat on him, if you like.

God: "Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you revcort, but it's not that simple any more; things have moved on a bit in the last two thousand years, don't you know?"

revcort: "Really?"

God: "What with this greenhouse thing – heavenly warming – to give it its proper name; these days we're not really able to stoke the fires as we'd like to. And the costs are astronomical. Unfortunately, all we can really give 'em these days is a nice warm feeling. Eternal torture is just too far out of budget I'm afraid. Sorry about that, revcort. Besides, to be honest with you, I've kind of mellowed out a little bit since all that fire and brimstone stuff. I still quite like the adulation though. Would you mind, revcort?"

revcort: "Pardon me?"

God: "A bit of adulation if you don't mind, there's a good fellow."

revcort (on knees, hands clasped together, eyes shut (although one does from time to time take a peak)) "Oh God, you are really great, you really are, gosh, the things you do, …."

God: "Ah, that's more like it; I do seem to enjoy being worshipped. Now then, what should we do about those atheists ?"

116. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73592 by Galactor on September 25, 2007 at 11:43 am

revcort (630)

You reel off a list of preposterous, laughable, derisable, contemptible biblical tenets in which you have absolute faith and belief. You clearly understand what it is that atheists and moderate Christians have trouble with - the plausibility of it all which has been highlighted to you in this whole thread - one ridiculous notion after the other.

You have the temerity to say

... but you are giving these guys exactly what they want - something that will neither save ...

when I would suspect that what people want on this forum is an understanding of what is likely to be the truth.

While I am in awe of CHeard's rebuttal to you - it is erudite and measured - I would say that his gaining the upperhand derives not from the mismatch in debating skills of which I say nothing - it has been gained by the position on the subject matter.

What is it with you, that you can identify what is plainly cuckoo but nonetheless embrace it so wholeheartedly? All of our (mankind's) reasoning and rationale point away from what you maintain as truth. What has happened to you that you cannot bring a balance to your beliefs?

117. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73118 by Galactor on September 24, 2007 at 6:59 am

The thread of responses that can be found via the original link contains some good repostes and furthermore, the author Tristan Farrow responds in turn whereupon he, in my opinion, exposes himself as holding some of the fallacies that the religious "intelligentia" maintain. It would seem that the main argument he makes is: "we're not all nutters so don't shout please". Well here it is then:

"Please, pretty please with sugar and cream, some of us think, although Galactor's not shouting or anything, that you might be a little bit wrong (I'm not saying deluded or anything like that) about this God thing and that your maintaining this erm, fallacy, might, just might, lend credence to the manifestly extreme section of the religious that might, just might, lead to the destruction of the world if they get their way with say a nuclear bomb. Would you mind having a little think about it, you know, from say a rational starting point and seeing if you couldn't see your way to, well, er, examining whether or not there's anything in the way of, er, how do we put this, erm, truth in the whole idea?"

118. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72413 by Galactor on September 21, 2007 at 2:41 am

To Roger Stanyard with regard to your comment #72015.

Firstly, thank you for this information which I find illuminating. The whole creationist/ID movement is one I find interesting if only for the fact that it is staggering that it exists at all. Without wanting to disagree with you, I wonder how you have been able to draw the conclusion

... lost both the public relations (read public opinion), scientific and legal battles, there is nowhere for them to go. They've also lost the political battle because America has had enough of right wing religiosity

My expectation is the ID will not lie down and with powerful organisations behind it, we may well find that it does not go away. Also, I am of the opinion that ID is not really aimed at the scientific community where it doesn't stand a chance in gaining acceptance, simply because it is not science. It has, I think, the aim of providing credibility in creationism to those who are unable to know any better and to perpetuate the myth that there is a debate at some scientific level and that God is not just faith alone. It provides non-scientific religious fruitcases a stone to throw.

I would be interested in your comments.

By the way, correct usage would be "death throes".

119. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71682 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm

revcort

I am not always rude; in fact I seldom am. Certain things do trigger annoyance in me, that much could be said, and one of them is the type of intransigence and ignorance that you demonstrated earlier in this thread:

Now, if you're attempting to lead me down a path that will deny creation, the flood, the existence of dinosaurs in Job's day, or things along those lines, you're not going to get far. Those are not allegorical.

I think you get what you deserve for this kind of wilfull ignorance and closed-mindedness. If science were ever to disprove evolution or prove the liklihood of a god existing, I'll be the first to get out my mat.

I am not sure I have accused you of not reading any non-religious material - please refer to my having done so and I will readily retract it given that I have no foundation for stating as much.

The posts that others have made in addressing you are rhetorical; they attempt to propose how ridiculous the notion of a loving god is when he can quite happily murder us in our thousands. Does this not bring you to perhaps significantly doubt his very existence? All of the atheists here, I would imagine, do not believe that they know God doesn't exist. They have strong doubts but based upon the evidence by which they are surrounded, they make balanced judgements as to their belief systems. Can you do that? Are you still not prepared to accept common fact?

I find it illuminating that you should ask whether I have done any "honest" investigations. Is dishonest investigation something you need to differentiate? It certainly seems to me to be the method that creationists adopt to bolster their crackpot beliefs about evolution being a lie, the flood and Noah's Ark, dinosaurs and humans co-existing. I make no apologies when I say that these beliefs are laughable, derisable and contemptible.

Finally, I sincerely regret that you have been banned from the forums. I for one don't agree with the measure taken but apparently, dissent is not permitted.

120. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71656 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Not entirely on topic but if anyone wants a cracking laugh at some Christian satire, check out Eddie Current on YouTube. The following link is a belter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU

revcort, you might want to take a peek to see just how laughable and derisable your "founded" beliefs are.

121. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71599 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 5:13 am

Comment #71592 by Hobbit

I think your mathematics works but I would begin with the premise that a generation is traditionally 25 years and I wouldn't be generous with the time given for Jesus to get on with it.

I calculate 9 million years or thereabouts using your method. Interestingly, there is a creationist myth about how the earth can't really be that old - otherwise there would be no place left to sit down as there would be so many people. A kind of exponential growth without bounds (sensible bounds that scientists apply when dealing with population growths of say bacteria - they tend to get in each others way what with resources not being able to keep pace).

Your method should have suitable appeal to revcort and it is seemingly simple enough for him to grasp. I doubt, however, that you will persuade him to think outside of his little box.

122. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71591 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 4:56 am

Comment #71589 by epeeist

No, I didn't think you'd do such a thing. I just wondered, that's all.

123. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71585 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 4:49 am

Comment #71574 by epeeist

And did you then, turn on the mutated giant mosquito and beat it to a pulp with its own appendage, whilst thundering the words, "And-let-that-teach-you-not-to-try-and-suck-the-blood-of-an-atheist-you-blood-sucking-insect, you", each word punctuated with a strike from said proboscis before sitting down to a nice hot cup of tea and retrospectively asking yourself whether you'd done the right thing?

124. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71565 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 3:53 am

Comment #71564 by epeeist

It (the narrow-minded bigotry) had not escaped me nor the limitations in his reading interests which are to be found on the website we located.

You've certainly hit the nail on the head. Without exposure to Star Trek, how in the cosmos are you going to be able to entertain ideas?

By the way, is that a proboscis that you've ripped, in a rabid frenzy, from a mutated giant mosquito?

125. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71554 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

revcort

You said:

Now, if you're attempting to lead me down a path that will deny creation, the flood, the existence of dinosaurs in Job's day, or things along those lines, you're not going to get far. Those are not allegorical.

You read this information presumably sitting behind a networked computer whose functionality is intrinsically found within the hard won achievements of the world's great scientists. For example quantum theory which lead to the production of microchips. Thousands of examples could be provided of achievements made by science which you readily utilize and without which you would be on your way out. You seemingly choose to make one exception in accepting all that science offers, like some Bronze Aged Luddite, and to pervert science by denying the facts of evolution just so that you can cling to your precious idiocy or would you profess to have doubts about the theory of gravitation? Your intransigence is shameful, disgusting and disgraceful.

You point out how the currently accepted age of the earth has changed as science improves and attempt to cast this in a dubious light. This is the beauty and strength of science – it is open to review and improvement. It accepts criticisms and moves forward. Your creed is no such thing. It is backward, intransigent, narrow minded and is prepared to willfully distort and pervert anything that contradicts or undermines it.

I would have some respect for you if you were to go and live in a cave bereft of what science has to offer.

126. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71547 by Galactor on September 19, 2007 at 2:33 am

Bizarro Dawkins

You said:

Maybe then you could begin to question their existence as there is obviously a lack of evidence to support magical green men who can appear at will.

God is no different. If you desire to argue successfully against an idea, you have to know what it is that you are arguing against. It's a rather simple concept. Intellectual laziness is no excuse for not believing in God.

Surely, the onus to prove anything is up to those who postulate an idea or belief especially when the very notion fits very poorly in what is scientifically well known and accepted? It's very simple indeed although seemingly not to you. The very epitome of "laziness" is observed in those who just declare or assert that something is or exists without providing one shred of tangible evidence to back up their postulations. This is scandalous. It's even worse when they start living their lives and imposing their beliefs on others based upon nonsense.

Clearly, many atheists do not have a thorough or perhaps even rudimentary understanding of theism. One may argue that it is insufficient to then attack theistic reasoning but let's put the horse before the cart: the vast majority of the faithful have a very rudimentary understanding and knowledge of theology and the bible yet they are prepared to wallow in its many fallacies and incongruencies. Talk about laziness.

127. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71334 by Galactor on September 18, 2007 at 1:08 pm

A biblical translation in the junk DNA; that'd do it for me, oh yes. Or an installation/usage copyright notice.

128. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71328 by Galactor on September 18, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I don't really have a big problem with people who, despite the lack of evidence, choose religious faith. What really makes the bile in my belly foam is creationist nutcakes like revcort who have the temerity to utilize what science in its various disciplines has to offer mankind, such as computers and medicines, but choose to deny that one section of it that is widely accepted, in order to maintain their perverted view of the world. I'm talking, of course, about revorts comment:

The earth is about 6,000 years old based …

in which, admittedly, he doesn't flatly state this as his belief but implies so through mockery of the scientific method which happily admits it's wrong when evidence suggests so.

People who deny science should be denied science. Maybe revcort and his ilk should go and live in a Bronze Age world dressed in rabbit skins, devoid of any modern scientific benefits. Perhaps watching their kin die of hunger at the age of 30 because their teeth are in no fit state to allow them to eat would knock some sense into them.

129. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71309 by Galactor on September 18, 2007 at 11:33 am

For all of you that might want to know a little bit more about the creationist fruitcake we are dealing with, just Google "revcort" and you should come up with:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=59586621

Read it and weep! When I started to read the nonsense that this fellow has put forward, I thought "this has just got to be a hoax". But no, it's the genuine article.

130. A Table for One

Comment #70905 by Galactor on September 17, 2007 at 7:59 am

"Isn't it up to us to continue to believe in God even if we have no evidence?"

And the way he delivered the question! Fantastic.

131. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69719 by Galactor on September 12, 2007 at 11:26 am

This subject runs somewhat parallel to an earlier topic; see for Dutch related young earth fruitcakery some of the posts around

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1624,Young-Muslims-begin-dangerous-fight-for-the-right-to-abandon-faith,Times-Online-David-Charter,page1#69418

132. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69439 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 8:58 am

Great Teapot

Thanks for the interesting links; they'll no doubt make good viewing.

rokort
Aah! The powers of reasoning of the faithful. I'd just like, one of these days, to put the famous sales "what will it take to get you to ride home in this car, today?" question to a creationist fruitloop, namely, the "what would it take for you to believe in the theory of evolution?" question and see what reaction they give. Compare this then to their presumable belief in the theory of gravity.

133. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69433 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 8:44 am

I must say that the whole set of threads about fleas is my least favourite on the site. Apart from the beautiful poetry found within this thread and the picture of the good lookin' NorthernBright, reading it fills me with a hint of dismay.

Surely, given the emotive nature of the TGD, it is to be expected that others should be respected when providing what to them may be genuine rebuttals of the subject material, and that it is not fair to immediately cast them into to the limelight of the flea circus when we are patently unable to know what the motivation of the authors are. It's worse, or so it seems to me, given that many of us, most of us perhaps, have not read the books and even when it would be justifiable to trash their content, this still says nothing about the author's intentions and motivations.

134. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69427 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 8:13 am

rokort

I only found out about it when I got back from holiday late August when a lot of the dust had already settled. I was nonetheless shocked, after having delved into the issue, at how entrenched anti-evolutionism is in this country. I do get the distinct impression that there is a misinterpretation as to what Dutch "tolerance" is precisely. Often, it would certainly seem to be confused with ambivalence, apathy and that Dutch "right" to just get on with what one is doing and leave others alone and in turn be left alone.

It is extremely difficult, perhaps more so here than anywhere in Western Europe, to address this (creationist nuttiness) issue when (a) religion has the "pre-ordained protected rights" that you highlight and (b) there is such a sense of live and let live and the respect of the rights of others.

135. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69418 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 7:31 am

Here's some more information about creationist nuttiness in NL. According to the EO's website:

http://www.eo.nl/eoportal/article.jsp?article=8467215

"[there is not much] doubt of God as the creator of the earth. Around 61% believes that God created the earth in six [twentyfour hour] days [up from 53% in 1997]"

The most recent membership count I can find is around 470,000, i.e., around 286,000 Dutch creationist fruitcakes believe in the young earth stuff.

136. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69415 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 7:07 am

Just an aside to my previous comment, the director of the EO is a Mr. Hank Hagoort; any similarity with a Mr. Ted "Shaghard" Haggard should not be overlooked.

Just kidding.

Really.

137. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69410 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 6:50 am

I am also a native English speaker with a diploma in Dutch which is fluent; my wife is Dutch and her English is outstanding (she studied English literature at University). If any translations or reviews are needed, please feel free to contact me.

On a more interesting note, I wonder if the Dutch speakers amongst us and certainly the resident Dutch would be interested in researching the state of affairs regarding, say, creationism in the Netherlands. Take a look around on the web and it's staggering to find the amount of creationist nuttiness there actually can be found in the Netherlands. I am sure that many of you will have heard of the debacle last July when the EO (evangelical broadcasting company) here in the Netherlands doctored the BBC series Life of Mammals by either not sending some commentary out, clipping sections and in the case of the portion of the documentary covering evolution, simply omitting it altogether.

138. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63350 by Galactor on August 14, 2007 at 2:23 am

I would just like to commend and congratulate Johnny O on his dissection of the thread of contradictoral drivel that darwin2 spouts. I have seen similar nonsense from Bizarro and it seems a common trait of those who attempt to circumvent any form of reasoning - they end up treading on their own feet.

I really think we should bookmark Johnny O's analysis for further reference in respect of posts by darwin2 - it's a belter.

139. Using the 'Beauties of Physics' to Conquer Science Illiteracy

Comment #56998 by Galactor on July 18, 2007 at 5:05 am

I would fundamentally agree with the approach of this professor. It reminds me of a story in the autobiography of R.P. Feynmann, my hero as a Physics undergraduate and someone who I can find strong similarities in Richard Dawkins, in which he tells of his time as a lecturer at a Brazilian university where the undergraduates learnt by rote. Dismayed by this, he asked his class to explain why looking directly at the sun through a single polarized glass fragment lets the light through regardless of the orientation of the glass whereas light bouncing off the sea could be filtered out. Not one student could apply the knowledge of polarization that they had learnt by rote.

It's the ability to be able to apply physical laws and work by deduction that is so important. If a larger number of the world's population had this upbringing, I am sure that we could make inroads into the unfounded beliefs that we are all interested in combatting.

To Michael who whimsically asks what seven times eight is: I honestly don't ever try to remember the answer to this. I know that the associative law of multiplication allows me to say

8 x 7 = 2 * 4 * 7

and I find 4 x 7 much easier since this is

2 x 2 x 7 = 2 x 14 = 28

and therefore I only need to work out 2 x 28. This is much easier than "remembering" 8 x 7 and the beauty of it? The method is the same for all real numbers (that I will have to deal with).

I am looking forward to being able to explain this property of numbers to my young daughter and to provide her with an understanding of *what* multiplication actually *is* and not what its results are.

Is it not the case that those who are taught results will be unable to find results for themselves? Is this not the root problem of religion - people being taught results and not questioning them or being able to derive them for themselves?

140. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54059 by Galactor on July 5, 2007 at 6:27 am

In response to Comment #54003 by Bizarro Dawkins in which was written:

Granted, domestic dogs may not [Galactor's emphasis] be subject to natural selection given the obvious factor of human interference …

Surely, ALL things - and certainly dogs - are absolutely subject to natural selection.  In this particular instance humans may be taken as a process within natural selection and if a breed does not withstand the "oohs" and "aahs" of Crufts judges, then it will be deleteriously selected.  Can someone comment upon this?

"Well, sir, there could be many things that you know well. There are other things that you don't know well. As you age, you'll find yourself wrong on some things, right on some other things. But please, in the process of it, don't be arrogant." – Shagghard

141. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53112 by Galactor on June 29, 2007 at 1:02 pm

phasmagigas: I suppose I should really worship the god Galacticos but I'm not really good at gods.

What gets me praying on my mat is statements like

"It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence"

coming from someone who seemingly does just that - believing without evidence - whilst attempting to pervert the arguments of evolution.

142. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53060 by Galactor on June 29, 2007 at 6:57 am

Hallo everyone, my first but hopefully not last post. I thought I would begin by answering post #52990 (from our friend at Liberty) in its own graven image, so to speak.

My observations are in brackets.

I am surprised that the bible in the world at large (for educated people in particular) is still so revered by religious apologists as evidence for a supernatural creator. I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited nonsense can be extrapolated to imply any presence of a supernatural creator at any scale at all. Sure, we can muddy the waters and call it "faith", but any dimwitted and religiously inclined individual understands that the "supernatural" processes we observe today and what religious apologists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals.

We can also bring time into it; limited amounts of time, say 6500 years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem. We don't observe supernatural processes altering anything whatsoever in our universe. There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred, save for a handful of disputed scrolls that most religious nutters are constantly arguing over. And as I've said before, it is only irrational to believe what is most unreasonable based upon our experiences. Keep in mind that a lack of reasoning simply assimilates experiences to form illogical conclusions and make no sense of them. [I shall, indeed, keep this nugget of wisdom in mind]. It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence. [Note that this sentence is verbatim; if only those of faith who venture into the realm of scientific reasoning could invertedly apply such an observation. Sigh.]

Of course, I'm sure it was a spectacular trip. Being a student at Liberty, erm, that is to say, aah, oh go on then: "University" (that's how I became interested in perverting evolutionary biology), the Galapagos islands are on my list of places to visit before I die. [how nice; this adds such credence to those erudite and thought-provoking arguments that has convinced me, Galactor, that the only explanation for our being is that which is held to be the one truth namely the god Zeus who must have come up with it all ]