Comments by riandouglas

101. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177879 by riandouglas on May 9, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Gordon: Is there another person there. At 6:23 you can hear a prompt "tell 'em...." - can anybody pick up what the person is saying? I think its why the question is repeated, because the man in the silly skirt s distracted...

Good pick up. All I can hear is "Tell 'em...". It does make it seem that someone is feeding him his responses.

102. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177867 by riandouglas on May 9, 2008 at 9:20 pm

The Cardinal: There are unbelievers who construct their own god in order to as it were, demolish him as a way of attacking those who believe. Now I think that kind of god is not a god I believe in.

I still believe in my god, so whatever it is you demolished, it can't have been him. Even if the description and attributes of your god and my god are the same, they're different, so nerr!

The Cardinal: You can't talk easily, ah simply about god. God is mysterious, beyond all our comprehension.

But let me tell you all about him, and how magnificent he is...

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177866 by riandouglas on May 9, 2008 at 9:19 pm

txpiper: No, I don't accept the explanations for where all the sediments came from. Some of the formations are phenomenally large, covering thousands of square miles. Something besides tsunamis and typhoons had to be involved.

I didn't ask if you accepted the current model for sedimentation. I asked whether you accepted your flood model was false, as the sedimentation examples proved.

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177496 by riandouglas on May 9, 2008 at 7:29 am

txpiper: Ready to admit that your flood hypothesis does not hold water?

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177318 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 11:00 pm

occi64: I have read many books on evolution, etc. including yours. To me it is amazing at the amount of "buzzword" statements, words, that seem to say something but in fact say nothing.

Which of Richard's books have you read?
What are these "buzzword" statements? Things like "irreducible complexity"?

Be that as it may, I have one comment after watching Expelled. Well, maybe two.
1. The audience clapped after the movie. And,

Entertainment value cannot be equated to factual value. Everyone in the audience clapped at the end of the latest Spiderman movie, so by your logic there is a guy who shoots web from his wrists living in New York city.

2. I cannot believe you can claim to be "conned" into the movie? If it that easy to con you, I suspect you might have to answer how the things you believe are not also con jobs.

That is a serious question. Someone who professes to be in your position of knowledge makes me wonder about being so easily dupped. Can you please explain this "excuse" versus a solid rebuttal? Thanks, Bob

A scenario from Prof Dawkins point of view. He was approached by some people making a documentary called "Crossroads" which is to be a documentary exploring the intersection of science and religion. This is something which Prof. Dawkins is interested in, so he agrees to the interview.
I'm not sure where Prof. Dawkins had the opportunity to find out about the deceit prior to the interview. Do you?

106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177226 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 7:31 pm

txpiper: I wouldn't claim that things like this prove my beliefs, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that they don't easily support yours.

Well, apart from the explanation of the sediment being formed over billions of years being more reasonable than the flood model, and hence it being accepted by the vast majority of scientists, that doesn't matter.
We were discussing your flood hypothesis. Your flood hypothesis is unable to explain the features of sedimentary rock, fossils etc which are seen. Therefore, your hypothesis is falsified.

txpiper: I also think it is important to keep in mind how much sedimentary material is involved, how deep it is in some locales, and what a miniscule amount of it has actually been examined.

It is also important to keep in mind just how long these processes have been going on.
If you assert that the Earth is only ~6,000 years old then you likely do require some kind of very large catastrophe(s) to account for the evidence.
The evidence however, points towards a 4.5 billion year old earth, using a wide variety of techniques, so the flood model is not required.

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177199 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Mark Smith: The mathematical argument would have to actually calculate the number of mutations needed and then do another calculation to show why there was not enough time for the first number to happen.

Also note that when these mathematical arguments have been presented in the past by people such as Dembski etc, they've been shown to be incorrect.

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176795 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 3:26 am

Bonzai: Is the platypus friendly? It is soooo cute. I wish I have one as a pet..

The males have a poisonous spur on its hind (I think) feet. Not sure how poinsonous however.

109. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176790 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 3:19 am

MPhil: in "Baby Bible Bashers", when the little kid talked about hell, that "you will burn forever", "worms will eat your flesh" - that's when I cried.

You could see that this child takes this literally, children have a very literal mind - even if the parents mean it as a metaphor, a small child cannot grasp the concept of metaphors. But these parents meant it as they said.

I think I blocked that part out.

It's just fucking nasty, is what it is!
Grrrrrr

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176789 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 3:17 am

Go the platypus, your friendly neighbourhood species exibiting transitional features.
Well, my neighbourhood anyway :-)

111. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176779 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 2:49 am

JimJ: If you want to actually see some of this insanity, the film Jesus Camp is extremely disturbing as it shows young children being indoctrinated in a very similar environment to the one described in the excerpt.

If you "enjoyed" the movie, you can discuss it with the people in the movie at their blog site

112. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176778 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 2:40 am

MPhil: That was hard to stomach... but if you reached your limit of disgust by watching this movie, do not (or do, depends how far you are willing to go) watch the documentary "Baby Bible Bashers", it's on youtube in several parts... especially the story of the american white kid traveling to New York. That was far beyond Jesus Camp... focused on individuals rather than a camp, but it was so incredibly disgusting... I think parents should be forbidden to do that to the mind of a child...

The look on the poor little kid, in NY, when his father and the "random lunatic" were facing off brought tears to my eyes.
A terrible example of parenting, though they believe in Jeebus, so I guess it's all ok :-(

EDIT: Fixed the damn quote

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176749 by riandouglas on May 8, 2008 at 12:13 am

MPhil: I've always said, learning programming-languages, especially learning informatics in general, is practically learning formal logic in a specific application.

So I'm some kind of logician now - cool.
I think programming does get you used to thinking logically, but in an informal manner - at least for most people.

EDIT: I remember reading a quote somewhere which claimed that learning to program was akin to learning to think. I used to like that, though not so much anymore :-)

Brian English: Programming languages are fun. But I meant more the languages in which you grammatically express a programming language. Not the grammar of the programming language itself. Something like:

Statement -> expression
expression -> factor * factor | factor
factor -> term - term | term
term -> 1|2|...|9 | (expression)

You mean something like BNF?

MPhil: Have you read the links I provided? They have questions to all your answers.

Your misconceptions lie in
1. The numbers
2. The concepts
3. The calculations of probability (dependent on 1 and 2)
and
4. The neglection of time.

So, basically everything then? :-)

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176701 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 10:05 pm

MPhil: Evolution is not a theory of chance. Natural Selection is non-random - and the evidence for common descent is incontrovertible.

Very nicely worded!

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176694 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 9:52 pm

txpiper, any evidence for the global flood?

I may be mistaken, but I don't think you've addressed that. Once you've done so, we can move on to another topic

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176686 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm

MPhil: Nah, seriously, I'd like to hear what you think of the books (in general and of the parts you get to read in the next weeks) :)

Will do. I'll try to start them soon, just for you :-)

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176682 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Goldy: Diacanu, you can just ask them to go on and try and follow their argument through. Let them waste typing time, finger cells and brain power.
Shows up their ignorance, which can hopefully then be corrected.

It does seem to work, if you can actually get the person to present an argument. The argument is often of the "Evilution is teh suckorz. ID rulez!" level.

118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176681 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Brian English: Tosswad, I got the Mackie book today, and a logic book by Kalish et al, that MPhil recommended. I shall be in retreat for a while whilst I digest (cognitive abilities allowing) some of this stuff......

My Mackie turned up with ~10 other books, so I should probably become a hermit for the next year or so.

Brian English: Gravity happens, and it's a fact. First Newtonian, and now Relativistic theory explain how it happens.

Seems fine to my diminutive cognitive capacity. The only difference being that evolution is false!
Hang on. No, the analogy is fine :-)

119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176675 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Diacanu: "Darwinism leads to ~~social Darwinism~~ Nazi Germany"

Fixed it for you Diacanu

Diacanu: Not so much the reiteration of these same lame-ass refuted arguments (although that IS driving me up a fucking wall) it's the attitude every single fucking time like "ha ha!! Take THAT, atheists! Yeah! Yeah! I really burned your ass! You've never seen MY like before!".

I wonder what they've read which gives them such confidence in their position and such sneering disdain for opposing positions.
Is it simply due to the obvious Truth of their belief?

120. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176660 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:52 pm

MPhil: I'm interesting to see if this (the Alien64 post) turns out to be a hit and run thing, a troll, or someone willing and interested in learning and engaging in rational debate.

He's posted twice, the first time about a week ago where he accused people on the forum (without naming names) of bullying.
I'm thinking hit and run, though I'd love to be shown wrong.

MPhil, the first of your recommended books arrived yesterday - Mackie's "Miracle of Theism". Looking forward to reading it. Thanks again!

121. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176652 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Bonzai: I think maybe Wooter is just pulling our legs in order to provide some entertainment. No one can be that stupid.

We can only hope.
I'd think someone that dull would not be able to utilise a computer. Surely at the very least, the excess drool would make things very difficult?

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176642 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Alien64: I beg to differ. Evolution or the theory of evolution has not been proven to be a FACT.In the future it may be proven to indeed be a fact but as of now still remains a theory. The only fact which pertains to evolution at this point in time is the FACT that it still remains a theory by definition.To present it as FACT is wishful thinking.
Evolutionists need to get over this.

A couple of things.
1) Please distinguish between your own post an the one which you're replying to. the [Comment Posting Guidlines] discusses how to do this using the html 'BLOCKQUOTE' tag.
2) As MPhil said, you're comment shows a lack of understanding of scientific terminology. Luckily people here are generally happy to address ignorance of this sort.

Enjoy

123. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176634 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm

clearmind: And I have got a very nice surprise for you but not on this thread?

I don't see how that sentence is a question, but that's not surprising.

clearmind: Let's see how tall the first human being as it was stated in Bible?

In Norse mythology, the entire Earth was made from Ymir the giant. I doubt your bible guy was that big.

124. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176626 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:55 pm

mereblind:
One ~~million~~ dollar question;

Is there possibility that seeker can be wooter?

Doubtful. One formed coherent sentences, showed some (small) understanding of science and capability for learning.
The other is you

The Reverend Dark: I proposes, humbly, that the Wooter be adopted as the standard unity for measuring creationist inanity.

Seconded
How can we make this an official SI unit?

125. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176389 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:23 am

seeker, I don't suppose it's too late to get that flood evidence off of you is it?
You know, before you go back into hiding from the world and it's "scary" ideas.

126. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176385 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:14 am

seeker_of_truth: I believe I have received what I came here for. Every once in a while I need to take a pulse and see if the human mind is still capable of the high levels of self-deception that I remember from my last investigation into the matter.

Last time around it was with theists, as will my next time around. I rotate out of fairness :)

Carry on and whatever you do, don't let go of the rank and file - the party-line. Not even a single plank for that matter. You never know what else might unravel in life if you do.

Farewell to all.

So all along you were just pretending to be an ignorant, arrogant half-wit who didn't understand anything of which he wrote, ducked questions, failed to support any assertions he made and routinely "left" or changed the subject when things became difficult?

You are quite the actor seeker - you had me completely fooled

127. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176378 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:10 am

Rev Dark:
As to 'stupid ass shit' this latest outburst is a lovely example of your inability to find your own backside without a flashlight, both hands, a talented and highly trained sniffer dog, an internationally acclaimed team of spelunkers and Sancho. For he. He is Sancho.

Beautiful. Can I borrow your script writer? :-)

128. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176377 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 8:08 am

al-rawandi:
Ya, 304 billion people in the US, pretty damn close. No wonder he can't figure out how old the earth is.

What a dipshit. I would have thought this was a mistake if not for the fact that you typed "billion" over and over.

It simply means that his 'm' key is where his 'b' key should be.
Either that or he's a moron.

129. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176365 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:56 am

Seeker, you claimed that you believed there to be a very large, possibly global flood.
Why do you believe that?
What evidence led you there?

If you can't justify it, I'd expect a statement from you to the effect of "My belief in a flood is unfounded"
Thanks

130. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176361 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:53 am

irate_atheist: Worse than that. He used my plumber, who is now no longer available to service my boiler. The wife is not best pleased with this. Quetz - you have been warned.

In movies I've seen, it's usually the wife, not the boiler which gets serviced ;-)
Perhaps you should be thanking Quetz :-)

131. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176355 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:49 am

seeker_of_truth: You don't know an answer when you see one?

You simply don't give one when you "believe" you do

132. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176353 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 am

MPhil: Then I come here today and what do I get to read - flood-myth.

Ahh, see there is where you're wrong.
If seeker was going solely by the bible, then it would be a myth.
That's not the case. He's got flood myths from many ancient civilisations, and some evidence to back it up, haven't you seeker?

See MPhil, not a myth at all :-P

133. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176347 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

seeker_of_truth: I don't see where a small or large number of scientists on either side or this issue can offset the cultural effects of this debate in its present state.

So it's a cultural debate then?
Excellent, we all agree. Our best estimate for the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years and the universe 13.7.
Great. So what was the problem again?

Oh yeah, flood evidence?

134. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176341 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:35 am

al-rawandi: Is this an ad popullum?

ad scarium I think

135. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176338 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:34 am

seeker_of_truth:
That's no way to live life if you ask me. What I fear is intolerance, not someone's fantasy life.

Speaking of fantasies.
Any evidence for:
- basically global flood
- age of earth ranging from thousands to basically infinite

I may have missed some posts, but I don't think you got through with either of those as yet.

136. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176333 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:28 am

seeker_of_truth: Largely unbiased.

"Undecided" is not the same as "unbiased".

seeker_of_truth: I think that goes as far any shit I have read of late on evidence to support or refute these devices issues revolving around the age of the universe and origin/evolution of life on earth.

Did you mean "devisive" issues?
You realise they're only devisive for particular demographic of society (specifically YEC's). They're not devisive in the field.

137. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176329 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:18 am

seeker, assume for a moment I said

I find this idea of a global flood you've put forward interesting. Please tell me how you've arrived at that positions

Then, after you've assumed that, you can start trying to justify your belief.

If your argument and evidence for a global flood holds up, you should publish in a peer reviewed journal.

You'll be famous - "The man who found the flood!"

138. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176328 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:14 am

seeker_of_truth: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you have already done some research on this evidence.

Which points did you find the most compelling and which the least?

No no no. I asked you a question. I'm not putting foreward the proposition here, you are.
So, any evidence?

139. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176323 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:12 am

seeker_of_truth:Correction.

No evidence that your little scared-shitless-of a-deity that you don't believe exists brain can bear to consider.

Evidence then?
When did it happen?
Where did the water come from/go to?
How large was it?

It's hard to be scared of something you dont' believe in

140. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176320 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:07 am

seeker_if_truth:
Isn't that what we've been discussing for four days now?

So, you're sticking to 6000 - infinity for the possible age for the earth and universe then? I've been away, but it doesn't look like your position has changed.

And now with the global flood. As Rev Dark said - any evidence for that?

141. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176318 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:05 am

irate_atheist: Cards on the table time. What are your credentials in the scientific field?

He's read some ancient documents, as well as all of the creotard literature on how C-14 dating gives erroneous dates for dinasaur bones. Good enough?

142. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176226 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 12:47 am

Appleby: I know this may sound politically incorrect, but you just can't help some people.

How do you propose to tell the difference between the "can't be helped"'s and the "can be helped"'s?

Appleby: It's best they writhe in their own backwater nations and come to the realization themselves that Islam is a poor choice of ideology. We also have much less to fear from them if they are thousands of miles away.

Wouldn't that reinforce the seeming stereotype of the west in the msulim world as "evil".
Not sure it would work in any reasonable fashion.

143. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #176213 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I really can't understand the problem with "Teach the current theories which have scientific consensus in high schools". It's not like they're being taught string theory.
Oh, that's right. Evolution goes against the beliefs of people. How could I forget. Carry on.

144. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176212 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 11:07 pm

darlets: Is there room for a science movie in the market?

"Expelled" shows there is room for a "non-science" or "nonsense" movie in the market.
Unfortunately I think you'll have trouble pitching a movie which contains "actual" science to the masses.
Seems you'd need some kind of controversy and some personal stories. Conspiracy's also rate well.
Bonus points if you appeal to a persecution or martyr complex :-)

EDIT: Even though I think it would be a hard sell, I also think it would be great to something happen.

145. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176190 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Mesomodel, you're saying that given the tools they're using, it's a waste of time to look for life, and given any tools the evidence will probably have been destroyed anyway?
Does that make it a publicity stunt?

146. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176178 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 7:36 pm

mixmastergaz: "Demonology", "fairyology", "theology" etc. Putting an '...ology' after it doesn't make it a respectable area of research. It just makes it sound as if it is to a moron.

Szymanowski: No, sorry, that's just not right. You can't add "ology" on the end of something to make it sound more "scientific" when it's actually a steaming pile of shit.

Scatology anyone?

Freddy Kreugar scared the beejezus out of me as a kid. I guess he must really exist in people's dreams :-)

147. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175852 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 6:45 am

Stryer: How exciting. I cannot wait for Bradshaw's 'very definite' findings to be published, after appropriate peer-review, in a reputable scientific journal.

Quite why he is first presenting his findings in the form of a 'ficitious suspense novel', though, seems rather strange in delaying the awarding of his surely guaranteed Nobel Prize. Unless it's the one for literature he's after, and not for science.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Perhaps he wants the daemon (for you cartomancer) information to get out to the wider public as rapidly as possible, or perhaps there's simply more money in fictional suspense novels I suspect?

What a fucking retard! If only there was some way to shorten that abusive label...

148. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175847 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 6:40 am

Frankus1122: Sorry if this seems off topic a bit. I am musing on a comment by fides-et-ratio from another thread. He said that only the most ridiculous religious topics are dealt with. He claimed there are far more rational religious sects.

I don't think so.

If not more rational, then at least quieter :-)

149. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175257 by riandouglas on May 5, 2008 at 3:21 am

MPhil: In any case - I recommend Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

Finally a comment which doesn't require me to buy another book, as I already have it...

and Paul Churchland's "A neurocomputational perspective"

Oops, I spoke too soon :-)

Me: "Really? Why not. I just did - works great. Now if you'd excuse me - I need a drink."

How dare you compare fictional, non-existent entities to an IPU! Shame on you Mike :-)

150. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174994 by riandouglas on May 4, 2008 at 4:03 am

clearmind: And I need a very good proof about human history, and relatively earth's age.

Yet some scratchings from ancient desert tribes is enough to convince you of the truth of your belief.

You're a special person. Not good special mind you.