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 Geoff


151. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161558 by Geoff on April 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Nothing new here.

152. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161554 by Geoff on April 15, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I found this an extremely confused article, even by their standards!
Most of the peculiarities have already been pointed out.

I wonder, though, whether the "law of unintended benefits" might come into play here. Maybe making them choose between their bible and their partner might help them escape the clutches of their religion?

153. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161461 by Geoff on April 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

176. Comment #161293 by irate_atheist

Swift application of Occam's razor reveals that, quite simply, Henri is a prick. Anything else just adds superfluously to the length of his member.


That, sir, is a quite splendid metaphor. When one considers the juxtaposition of razor and prick, one cannot help but think of circumcision, and which part would be better discarded.

154. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161459 by Geoff on April 15, 2008 at 10:09 am

I too think that this format (and the Paula one) are far more enjoyable than a debate format.

In a debate, one gets the same old tired non-statements from McGrath and his ilk, which then have to be debunked, and this means the really interesting stuff never gets a look in.

My only criticism is the quality of the sound from the audience mikes. (I listened to the Google version; don't know if the other formats are any better in that regard).

155. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161274 by Geoff on April 15, 2008 at 5:06 am

Apologies, Quetz, I thought you meant Henri.

Have some tea?

156. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161074 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 6:42 pm

292. Comment #161064 by Steve Zara

The Telegraph used to have a good science section (I don't know if it still does).

It does. Roger Highfield is still the science editor, too.
I don't often get the paper version these days, preferring to read it online (nothing to do with Teratornis, BTW...).

The crossword seems to have got easier, though, which is a pity.

157. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161072 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 6:27 pm

56. Comment #160920 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm


Al-

I'm predicting TOD within 30 minutes.


Out by 2 hours, Quetz? You're slipping!

158. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161068 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 5:59 pm

24. Comment #160826 by Koreman

Religion might be gaining some ground because of internet.



No worries on that score; just the opposite, in fact.

Religions (or, more precisely, religious leaders) largely rely on keeping their adherents ignorant; the internet makes that more difficult for them.

It's a lot easier to ban books than it is to block educational websites.

159. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #161057 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 5:46 pm

True, Steve; as I said earlier, I'm deliberately oversimplifying here.

And I'm misspelling "speciation", I notice! Oh well.

160. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160987 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 4:18 pm

60. Comment #160974 by ivellios

Are these the examples of "no great leaps?"


They're some of the examples I had in mind, yes, but when I said "no great leaps" I was really talking about no single "leap" between two species. I was trying to stress the point that seciation is a very gradual process. There is, in nature, no sharp dividing line between two species, it's only our human need to classify (a la Linnaeus) that defines them so.
To some extent, that's what causes the "missing link" idea so beloved of creationists.

We almost certainly will never know if the various species of the genus Homo were interfertile, so other indicators must necessarily be used in order to "pigeonhole" them.

161. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160938 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 3:02 pm

57. Comment #160785 by keith Geoff,

Really? Is there a sliding scale of more or less viable? Does this mean still able to survive with a handicap? Surely this goes against the general rule that a great leap across genetic space will almost invariably end in disaster.


But there are no great leaps. Think of the "temporal" example again. In exactly the same way that you can't draw an exact line between two species that cuts the "descendants" line, there will (again, by definition) never be two neighbours that can't interbreed, yet the further away in time that they are, the less viable will be their offspring.
Some closely related species, for example, can produce offspring that are rarely, if ever, fertile. That's a kind of "transitional" point along the scale towards no offspring at all.

I'm conscious of oversimplifying here, though.

162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160721 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 10:18 am

1407. Comment #160679 by sschaller

The Scientific community has two options:
(snip)
2. Discuss the Evidence -
Tell Intelligent Design proponents to "Prove It." If they have anything legitimately scientific to offer, the scientific community would benefit. If not, they will simply dig their own graves. They will not even have the benefit of whining that they are not allowed at the table.

(snip)

Let's see what they have, and let the facts speak for themselves.


Which is precisely what was done, and is still being done.
Check out any post on this comments page, or better still in the "debunking creationism" section of the fora, and you will see constant cries of "show us your evidence". To date, none has been forthcoming.
Read the transcript of the Dover trial, too; that amounts to the same process. Most especially, read Judge Jones' summing up at the end.

You use the term "Intelligent Design proponents". Their own literature contains a reference to "cdesign proponentsists", where they couldn't even get their revisionism working properly.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160601 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 8:18 am

1361. Comment #160597 by Kardashovel


I am constantly accused of being vague here, but in fact I have answered these questions before in this forum.


It's quite acceptable to post a link to your previous answer, rather than copy it out again.

164. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160596 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 8:13 am

54. Comment #160557 by keith

a "species" is essentially a man-made pigeonholing of what is more of a sliding scale. "Ring Species" are a good example of this.


Hmm. I agree that this is, to some extent, a problem of a 'sliding scale', but this is not simply another example of the way that, say, one colour merges into another at some point along a continuum.

Yes, at some point green becomes blue and you would be hard-pressed to say precisely where one becomes the other. However, in the animal world there exists a natural line, namely, that of the unviability of offspring. This barrier is not simply a phenomenon of language or how human minds interpret reality, but a real facet of the natural world. And even if this barrier isn't 100% leak-proof, this still doesn't reduce the concept of 'species' to a man-made construct.

Neither does the rather rare existence of ring species convince me that we would be right to view the idea of 'species' as simply one of human convenience, for which there is no correlation in the natural world.


No, that line is not as clearcut as you make it out to be. There is still a sliding scale of
"more viable"<----->"less viable".

Rather than ring species, if you prefer, think of time separation rather than distance. Imagine following your family tree back all the way to our common ancestor with, say, chimpanzees. Every intermediate (by definition) can interbreed with its neighbour (past or future), but the species classification line still has to be drawn somewhere between a parent and its offspring.

165. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160582 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 8:01 am

18. Comment #160513 by Cartomancer

Pisco-Cartomancy is a very difficult art to master. You need to laminate the deck first for one thing...


But what about those of us who don't own a boat?

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160565 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 7:49 am

al-rawandi, thanks for that link, I must admit to never having read Kant. I've skimmed it just now, I shall read it properly later.

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160559 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 7:43 am

1336. Comment #160549 by thisisme


Dr Benway, what we need is a standard. Otherwise nothing can be right or wrong so how we feel makes little difference.


Yes, but why do you assert that such a standard must be imposed from above?
As in Dr. Benway's examples, standards can be arrived at simply via consensus.
Indeed, standards can change as consensus changes: for example the relatively recent ethical advances in the (more) equal treatment of women, homosexuals, other racial groups - often despite religion, not because of it.

168. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160546 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 7:33 am

119. Comment #160533 by Alkal

Doesn't the "Secular Army" sound suspiciously like "Dumbledore's Army"?


It does! Now where's that secret room for us to meet?

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160536 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 7:29 am

1320. Comment #160483 by thisisme

Yep, but I don't think we can say that 'evolutionary stability' makes right any more than 'is so' does. It's the same thing anyway isn't it? And what no-one seems to be able to get around, from a materialistic worldview, is - why should we criticise someone for being less evolutionary stable anyway?
All we have is 'is' - as you say there's no real 'ahead' for evolution so what makes one view better than another?


Nothing at all, except in the sense of what works best. There really isn't a "better", or a "right", in that sense, any more than saying one species is "better" than another.

It seems to me that what you perceive as criticism (of a less effective ESS) is more accurately described as pointing out its weaknesses in survival terms.

I have to admit I'm still not sure what your point is; are you tending towards postulating an "absolute morality"?

170. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160487 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 6:42 am

50. Comment #160463 by keith

Christopher Davis,

The basic definition of a species is one that cannot have viable offspring with another species (though there are some grey areas e.g. some very close species don't like the look of each other though they probably could interbreed).

Surely not being able to interbreed with another species is not simply 'a man-made construct' but an obstacle that exists in the real world?


Yes, although a "species" is essentially a man-made pigeonholing of what is more of a sliding scale. "Ring Species" are a good example of this.

It's this need to classify that lends itself to the creationists "transitional fossils" cry (like asking for a transitional person between a child and an adult).

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160470 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 6:15 am

1317. Comment #160443 by thisisme

But seriously, if it's just evolved with us, then it's an 'is', not an 'ought'. And if someone has evolved to lie rather than tell the truth, well ok, that's another 'is'.


Indeed so. However, as Dr. Benway says, some strategies are more "evolutionarily stable" than others. I'd suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" or similar books, for a more detailed treatment of the concept.

What right have we got to criticise them? Maybe they're ahead of us on the evolutionary timeline...???


There isn't a sense of "ahead" in evolution, as I'm sure you know. Many other species act in ways that we would consider "moral", and for exactly the same underlying reasons that we do.

172. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160422 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 4:37 am

I'm reminded of the Mike Harding song: "Sodom & Gomorrah"

http://bandrooms.com/lyrics/harding/sodom.htm

173. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160395 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 3:12 am

1308. Comment #160373 by thisisme

So where on earth does RD think he's deriving all his 'oughts' in this long and derogatory article? If matter is all that exists, where are the moral standards coming from?


Essentially, they've evolved with us, in the sense that a society where immoral acts are common won't survive very long.

As Christopher Hitchens puts it (paraphrased):
Were the children of Israel really addicted to killing, stealing, etc. before Moses turned up with the commandments?

174. Fleabytes

Comment #160390 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 3:04 am

How did we get onto Goth metal?

Oh, never mind...forgot which thread it was.....

:)

175. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160388 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 2:56 am

1234. Comment #160105 by BillySands

It is an inconsistency that you see a lot. It is a bit like creationists attributing butterflies and birds of paradise to god but not crediting him with the malaria parasite or the small pox virus.


All together now:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.

-Monty Python (of course)

176. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160092 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 4:02 pm

1194. Comment #160031 by MaxD

Geoff, I am reading the Creationist/ID taxonomy theories and I beginning to see why they are having so much trouble making it work!

You said:

They have something they call "baraminology", but they still can't work out how to make it seem plausible




It kind of collapses under the weight of the fossil record alone doesn't it?


Well, yes, but it doesn't even get that far; they start with the premise (as with anything from AiG) that it cannot contradict the bible.

That premise alone dooms them to failure.

For example, they have to come up with some classification that separates humans and primates, but still groups "kinds", essentially, purely on external appearance.

177. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159994 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm

1151. Comment #159977 by MaxD

Phil Rimmer,
I've just read your post about the great design flaw of the ID research programme. That problem being that it has no idea how to procede.

I think in some ways this has been the thing that has kept alive. Do IDers have any taxonomy for instance?


They have something they call "baraminology", but they still can't work out how to make it seem plausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind

178. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159989 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

1132. Comment #159950 by Kardashovel

But if you think I'm interesting, you should try talking to God.


I did, for several years, then (aged about 7) I realised he was never going to answer.

179. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159982 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 1:45 pm

1133. Comment #159951 by Steve Zara

David A. Roberston (for it is he) wrote-

Now I must leave this oasis of clear thinking, freedom,love and reason and return to the cess pool of Christianity....




The only relevant word is "freedom". This is an open and largely unmoderated site. That means there will be just about every variety of poster you can imagine. My experience of Christian forums (albeit limited) is that they tend to be moderated.

As usual, David either deliberately otherwise, misses the point. The tone of discussion here is probably more a result of the freedom of the site rather than the set of beliefs.


Indeed, Steve, but his statement was still the most (only?) accurate thing he's said, even if it was meant ironically.

180. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159969 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 1:32 pm

154. Comment #159768 by Julius Morche

There are a lot of developments within the Catholic Church that trouble me, but the liturgy is surely not one of them. And since I only indulge in liturgy, not in exorcisms etc., it is not my job to worry about these things.


I can understand, and sympathise with, most of what you say, but the part I've quoted above worries me.
Can it be that you don't see that simply by being a member of the organisation, you imply acceptance of all it's actions? I'm afraid that, as one of them, it certainly is your job to worry about those things, and indeed to try and change them.

Here's a current example of the sort of thing I mean:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n09290708-pope-usa-abuse/

Not the abuse itself; that's not news, but the fact that Catholics are asking the pope to make reparation (rather than saying, as you are, that it isn't their concern).

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159795 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 7:03 am

herding cats?

cat fight?


1055. Comment #159784 by Styrer-

Now, who haven't I called a fuckwit today?


Me, but it's still early...

1056. Comment #159785 by Peacebeuponme

I do give a shit about us lot, here, and the discussions we have.


Me too.

182. Fleabytes

Comment #159608 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm

7684. Comment #159499 by Cartomancer

Alas the all-powerful influence of the sun has put a stop to my efforts!


Buffy will be along in a minute, too...

183. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159589 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm

964. Comment #159533 by myarbrough61


One other thing...I would rather spend my life believing that I was created by God than to believe that I descended from a rock!


But dust is just very small rocks!

Genesis 3:19 "For you were made from dust..."

184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159585 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm

970. Comment #159574 by Steve Zara

It has seriously weird properties, like the ability to reduce the speed of light through the material to zero.


It's a stop light?

185. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159578 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Wakarimasen, gomen nasai.

186. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159504 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 10:52 am

56. Comment #159450 by Julius Morche


Prof. Dawkins,

With all due respect, I think your appearance on this programme was a big own goal. Beside the fact that insulting fellow scientists on third-rate talk shows is unlikely to improve your standing with the people you are trying to convince, it is particularly unfortunate to have made such comments in the company of Bill Maher. This man is the best example that being an atheist does not automatically make you a reasonable person.



Why should it? The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods. There's no reason to suppose that this lack of belief automatically means reasoning in other subjects.



His childish equating of "religion" with "belief" is not only extremely silly, it is also rather disturbing to people like me, who do not believe in anything supernatural but nevertheless value the religious traditions they grew up with for purely cultural reasons.


Richard calls himself a "cultural christian", he's addressing those who actually believe in their religion, not people like yourself.

Regardless of how intellectually dishonest Dr Collins may be, he certainly does not believe in a "talking snake"* for he is an evolutionists and a fellow combatant in the fight against creationism and ID. A belief in a "talking snake", in contrast, requires a literal understanding of scripture.


Richard originally says that he doesn't think Collins believes in the talking snake. He accepts Maher's story, perhaps out of politeness to his host? The point he is making, quite correctly, is that anyone who does so believe is deluded, as he's said many times before.
In any case, as Layla quite rightly says, why should he bother to remember which particular person holds which particular set of cherry-picked beliefs?

187. Fleabytes

Comment #159500 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 10:27 am

Google corrects me to "genethliacon" when I try it!

188. Fleabytes

Comment #159421 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 7:00 am

Thank you all! I don't know what genethilic means either, but thanks anyway, Cartomancer (I think!)

Philip:
"You are old enough to know better but still young enough go and do it anyway!"

Oh yes! That's me!

189. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159390 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 4:40 am

Steve, I'd be happy using the word "organiser", perhaps, for your example, but in my view a leader implies followers; that brings us back to the "herding cats" analogy.

I enjoy and agree with most of what Richard says/writes, but I don't consider myself a follower of his, any more than I'm a follower of Tolkien, Sagan, Clapton, Python, whatever.

190. Fleabytes

Comment #159387 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 4:33 am

I, too, appear to have missed the RM incident! Oh well, it's my birthday, so I refuse to feel disappointed.

Did I miss anything else of note? - I've been busy catching up on too many other threads, and sadly neglected this one!

191. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159370 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 3:30 am

Am I the only one to be surprised to see a Buddhist in the list?

Steve, I'm with Peacebeuponme on the "atheist leader" topic. Sure, people like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens can and do speak up on behalf of atheists, but that doesn't make them leaders. Do we follow their "orders" in the same way that, say, catholics [are supposed to] obey the pope?

192. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #159002 by Geoff on April 11, 2008 at 10:22 am

Raiko: actually, and perhaps surprisingly, many reports, including this one,
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
show home schooled children doing better than their peers in mainstream education.

193. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158980 by Geoff on April 11, 2008 at 9:20 am

14. Comment #158318 by MelM

I found this from news item NCSE in my email box today.

"Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement" April 9 by NCSE
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp




May I permit myself a small snigger...?

194. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158972 by Geoff on April 11, 2008 at 9:09 am

60. Comment #158225 by irate_atheist

Hmm...does my Masters in Engineering Sciences count as:

Engineering?

or

Science?


I'll keep quiet about my modest little BSc in Aeronautical Engineering, then!

195. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #158347 by Geoff on April 10, 2008 at 11:24 am

Finally managed to watch it all, and by now everything that I would have said has been said.

So...


Well Done Paula, thanks Richard...and can it be an annual event, please?

Or, better still, can we see more of the same format in other venues around the world? Especially Wigan.

196. In search of the God particle

Comment #156737 by Geoff on April 8, 2008 at 8:08 am

Me too, Quetz, but the "Higgs Bosun" in the introduction made me smile!

God just keeps getting smaller and smaller, doesn't he?

197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156612 by Geoff on April 8, 2008 at 3:38 am

593. Comment #155799 by sdbranum

Double Bass Atheist,

I noted your post where you stated, "Inventing data, misrepresenting information, deceit and deception, are common place..."


Do you mean like this?


"...and they are even paying "Christian" schools per kid that they send to the theaters"


Skimmed most of this thread, but I don't think this bit has been commented on.

sdbranum, check out Expelled's own website if you don't believe that's true.

http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php

198. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156289 by Geoff on April 7, 2008 at 8:49 am

43. Comment #156179 by Corylus


What is it with uber straight men liking Queen? I know someone like this myself. I can only conclude that they manage to completely push Freddie Mercury's life style out of their minds; or maybe there are a few that simply do not realise?


Dunno if I qualify as "uber-straight" or not, but in my case the sexual preference of a musician/band is totally irrelevant to whether I like their music or not.

199. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156067 by Geoff on April 6, 2008 at 3:45 pm

As someone who started watching it when William Hartnell was the Doc, I muct admit I enjoyed yesterday's episode, despite the silly adiposes!

200. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156065 by Geoff on April 6, 2008 at 3:36 pm

The LHC protest is essentially Walt Wagner. He's tried things like this before, most notably against the RHIC in New York. That action failed, too.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next