Comments by riandouglas

Comment #174981 by riandouglas on May 4, 2008 at 3:11 am

Corylus:
I starts off with some dreadful individual saying to Ben Stein 'You are like the smartest man I know'. It then goes downhill...

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/04/29/gb.stein.economy.cnn

Warning: It's bad. It's very bad - but worth perservering with just for the marvellous Freudian slip at the end.

That video made me feel ill.

Thanks :-)

152. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174944 by riandouglas on May 3, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Chick can't even get his theology straight.
Isn't Jesus supposed to be sitting at the right hand of Yahweh, not on the throne himself?
Isn't Yahweh the one that does the judging?

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174637 by riandouglas on May 3, 2008 at 3:36 am

Corylus: Oh for pity's sake! Is that what we are reduced to now? The argument from dentistry??

I thought mastication was a sin? :-)

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174626 by riandouglas on May 3, 2008 at 2:47 am

Eagle12:

Wow! I can't believe Eagle12's arrogance. After close examination of the bible how can anyone believe it is not a work of fiction? Not one historical fact supports belief it is revealed yet blinded christians continue to believe it because they can't bear the thought that there is no sky daddy to whom they must give an account.

There, fixed it for ya!

Next time, if you've got an argument to make, make it, but try not to reveal your ignorance and embarass yourself in the process. Cheers

155. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174615 by riandouglas on May 3, 2008 at 1:14 am

Teratornis, could a solution be to stop railing against religions and concentrate more against all irrational doctrinal ideologies. In doing that, you get to put the athiest canards on the other ide of the ledger?

"Atheism" is often used byt "our side" to represent rational, free thought and skepticism which is not at all what the majority of people take it to mean.

Haven't thought it through completely though

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174613 by riandouglas on May 3, 2008 at 1:05 am

Goldy: Mind you, one can count the number of orgasms a Christy fundy lass has had in her life on one finger...and that was when she sinned.... ;-)

You're still going on about the myth of the "female orgasm" are you?
Please, provide some evidence to support your assertions, or accept the truth! ;-)

157. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174587 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm

kjmastaw: It seems to me that if Dawkins (and all atheists for that matter) is right, none of us will ever know - because we'll all be dead forever. So, the believers in God and eternal life will have only been fools for a lifetime.

Believers will have been fools for their entire existence.

kjmastaw: However, if Dawkins is wrong, he and all atheists will be shown to be fools for an eternity.

And if believers have chosen the wrong god or set of beliefs about that god, what will they be?

158. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174586 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 8:31 pm

LeeLeeOne: Lost the tip of my long finger in a screen door mishap. Grew back just fine with sensible care. And yes, I do have touch sensation in the tip. My embroidery needles remind me frequently.

But he used pixie dust to regrow his. Can't you see the difference :-)

159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174585 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Brian English: The answer is that your and your brethren won't keep your beliefs in your pants and want to molest science and society with them :)

I like the way your mind works :-)

160. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174337 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 7:44 am

Verylee: The holey parts?
I'll get me coat....! ;)

Wrists and ankles then?

161. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174334 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 7:32 am

severalspeciesof: I've heard that not only Jesus wasn't European, but he wasn't fully human, just look at his daddy!

Which features did Jesus inherit from his dad?
Was it just non-existence, or did he have his fathers eyes too?

162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174300 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 3:24 am

Quetz: Next thing you'll be telling us is that he didn't speak English. Blasphemer!

If you use FF, install the adblock extension and block that specific image.
Of course, robotaholic could use a less annoying avatar and save people the trouble

163. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174292 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 2:48 am

clearmind:
(riandouglas Found it. Apparently "Evolin" is a fetish pornstar)

No comment!

Hey, you mentioned her, not me.

164. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174291 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 2:32 am

Quetz: funny how it was "revealed" that Jesus was white.

How so? Are you claiming that Jesus wasn't European? Guess you think he looked like an Arab or something. Pffft :-)

165. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174286 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 2:16 am

Quetz: They have pictures of some guy, but it ain't Jesus.

Blasphemy! The features of Jesus were revealed to true believers by the holy spirit! :-)

166. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174282 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 1:56 am

The Reverend Dark: If that is your sole justification for pronouncing the minimum age of the earth I suggest that you yank your estimate back to some 32,000 years ago.

Possibly a little further than that:

"Aboriginal rock art has been created for a long period of time, with the oldest examples, in West Australia's Pilbara region, and the Olary district of South Australia, estimated to be up to around 40,000 years old.

Australian Aboriginal Rock Painting

Perhaps cave paintings don't count.

167. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174237 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Verylee: Do you mean that in general or in a special way?

Which would lend additional gravity to the argument?

168. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174231 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Verylee: The corollary being..."Ein-Steinery"

Now now Verylee, it's all relative :-)

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174229 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:13 pm

MPhil re: Theistic philosophers. EDIT: or philosophers in general :-)

Thanks.

170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174187 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Goldy: Yeah, I think th1nk3r wrote his small piece while under the influence of sobriety...not one single mention of any form of beer. He even spelt wining wrong...

Sobriety, like ignorance, can be cured :-)

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174183 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Brian, thank hitchins. I didn't attribute it because
a) I wanted to appear clever
b) I wasn't sure if he'd gotten it from elsewhere.

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174172 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Th1nk3r: Yes Richard, witty retort... wait... what retort?

So you didn't read the article?

Th1nk3r: Oh, I must have missed it amidst all the whining and ad hominem attacks.

You claim to have read the article, but it doesn't match the description I'd give it. I guess it must have made you angry for some reason.

Th1nk3r: I just couldn't stand reading YOUR sycophantic audience sopping up your every word.

Most of this thread hasn't been on topic, so I'm not sure what you mean?

Th1nk3r: Cheers sycophants! And now... the attacks...

From you?
You've already labeled everyone who agrees with Dawkins a sycophant, and asserted that Dawkins' article is without both content and merit Yet you've failed to provide any sort of argument or evidence to back up those assertions.
"What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

173. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174009 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm

seeker_of_truth:
Duh, I finally get it. You think I'm making reference to the Old Testament.

1. You're dead wrong
2. You blinding bias is showing

And you're an idiot for thinking it matters what ancient writings you're refering to.

174. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174007 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm

mesomodel: After finding the papercopy by Lapidus was $45, I quickly checked the on-line catalog of my local library. Surprise! They have it, it's on the shelf, and it's free. Better yet, the library is across the street from my office. I'll mosey on over there after work.

I always forget the library, though there is nothing quite like owning a it.

175. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174004 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

seeker_of_truth: So everything science has 'done' is a closed case now? Do you think it a good thing that we didn't take that position a hundred years ago?

You're an idiot.

EDIT: No one said science has done everything. For our current state of knowledge, the dating methods hold, regardless of what your personal views are.

176. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173998 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm

seeker_if_truth: How about one dating method per day?

Yesterday was radiometric, today is SNR's, tomorrow... I even let you chose.

You don't seem to understand that scientists have actually already done this. They've argued about dating methods, results, everything. It's not something they just pulled out of thin air, it's not a guess.
There is no reason or bias for going with 13.7 billion years. It's simply what the evidence points to.

177. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173992 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

mesomodel: This should be enough to get me started. I'll ask you about the other 97 when I finish these. Now, off to amazon.com...

I have a theory that this entire sight was set up by amazon to make money.

Thanks for the books al, they've been added to "the list" :-)

178. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173980 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm

seeker_of_truth: If that's all you guys got to refute the parsimonious theory on SNR's as they relate to the age of the universe, then we are probably done?

And you explain away every other method of dating the universe how exactly?
Even if you were right about SNR's and the age of the universe (and you're not), it would be an anomoly.
It would still be more parsimonious to stick with the current age as that is what is attested to by ALL of the other dating methods (not that SNR's are a dating method).
I pointed this out in my first post to you about SNR's.

179. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173972 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am

seeker_of_truth: Grow-up.

I'm not the one trying to defend a childish and ridiculous belief using data which doesn't actually support my view.
What does your young lower limit to the age of the universe depend on again? Oh yeah, ancient writings. Good one!

180. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173969 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:56 am

seeker_of_truth:
You're addressing my evidence with what, exactly, in this post? Telling me it is not appropriate for the question of the age of the universe?

Sigh.
Evidence of SNR's is gone after < 100,000 years, and they're hard to see along the galactic plane due to stars and dust.

181. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173960 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am

seeker_of_truth: Now pay attention everybody as I admit my numbers for this cluster were wrong. See, it doesn't even have to be painful to admit fault. Now I fully expect one bad piece of information to be taken and blown out of proportion, even though my point of the law of averages regarding space dust still stands with the corrected distance. Nonetheless, carry on and have some fun.

Great.

Now about K-Ar dating and the age of the universe?

182. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173955 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:48 am

My comment # 173892

Is simply concerning a measurement of the speed of gravity, no mention of gravity changing the speed of light.

My comment # 173756

Was the original article you didn't actually read because it explicity says SNR's are no use in dating the universe.

183. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173943 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:38 am

seeker_of_truth, I see you're playing the deflection game again

seeker - answer mesomodel in #173889

184. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173904 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:43 am

seeker_of_truth: Fuck dude, do you know the meaning of a little patience?

You've had plenty of time.
Yesterday you called K-Ar dating techniques into question, and your argument was shown to be false, yet I didn't see you conceed the point.
Today it's the usefullness of SNR's for dating of the universe, which has been refuted (over and over), and still no concession.

All I can see is someone who's belief in a young earth based on ancient writings floundering with scientific knowledge because they don't want to give it up. You seem to have avoided directly mentioning a god, but I dare say there is one lurking in your mind.
You need to stop reading the creationist gunk you're getting your info from and actually educate yourself.
Or you could continue on as you have been and make more of an arse of yourself.

Your call
seeker - answer mesomodel in #173889

Night folks. 3:40am, and a full day of work ahead.
I'd wish you luck, but I can't see anything changing :-)

185. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173891 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:25 am

Stop changing the topic.
seeker - answer mesomodel in #173889

186. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173886 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:16 am

seeker_of_truth: Your list of rules would be fine if I were only debating only one individual who was writing from a majority account of experience and intrinsic knowledge.

Pull a name out of the hat and say "I'll only respond to questions from 'blah'". Not so hard. Though I imagine it is easier to deflect the topic with so much activity

ps. I take myself out of the hat, it's 3:16am in Australia, and I won't be on for long

187. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173883 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 am

seeker_of_truth: Do you find it interesting the speed of gravity measured here on earth matches the exact speed of light? It seems an almost impossible coincidence, or one apparently controls the other.

Once again you show you have no grasp of anything scientific.
Well done sir!

188. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173867 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:58 am

seeker_of_truth: We're talking billions of light years here, not accounting for unknown gravity effects on the speed of light

The theories and evidence suggest the speed of light is a constant, unless you'd light to back up that assertion with evidence :-)

seeker_of_truth: - though this does not affect the actual distance. Don't we think the law of averages would play out and create an even playing field no matter which direction we are looking?

What are you asking? Why has matter clumped into galaxies?
If you are, can I assume you've accepted 4500 years as a lower limit to the age of the universe is ridiculous, and have revised your belief on the matter?

189. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173854 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

annabanana, I'd like to second Incredulous.

Your posts make a lot of sense to me.

190. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173849 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:41 am

babrock, you seem to have dropped some 'h' and 'e' letters from your post. Feel free to take some from mine if you run out :-)

191. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173847 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #173756 by seeker: I will also limit my evidence to the Milky Way system.

Comment #173841 by seeker_of_truth: There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?

192. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173842 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:35 am

mesomodel: Your hypothesis, which I'm sure you can back with evidence such as you've given above, will surely rock the entire scientific community.

You'd hope so, but...

Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth: My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.

193. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173835 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:29 am

DuarfDog: One of the questions I haven't seen, is that when we die and perhaps go to heaven, what the heck would the purpose of an eternal life to be? Would it not get a little boring after a few billion years?

An enternity would, by definition have to get boring, unless your "consciousness" is somehow completely altered. If that's the case, then how have "you" gotten in to heaven?

194. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173834 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:27 am

seeker_of_truth: Enough of that. I said 'at least' 4500 years. How old do you think the universe is and does your view conflict with mine or do we just need a diversion?

I accept the scientific evidence which estimates the age of the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (with a small margin of error, I think about 0.2 billion years either way), and is attested to by many different dating methods.
You seem to think some historical records from the ancients is enough reason to keep your lower bound at 4500, yet you've not justified it. You're "evidence" for a young earth/universe has been refuted, yet you're still slinging to your absurd date range for unknown reasons.

195. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173824 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:20 am

coolwater: If God does not intervene, then why Bible says God sent Jesus to save us??? Isn't that the Bible itself already contradict with this statement.
God does not intervene,

Because the bible is a collection of myths and stories with a very thin vaneer if historical accuracy.

196. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173813 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:02 am

epeeist: And how many times is he going to present material as his own when he got the idea from a YEC site?

I guess he could claim he's independantly ignorant?

197. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173812 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:01 am

mesomodel: Just curious: Was the issue of radioisotope dating ever resolved? If I recall, all of seeker's claims were refuted, which leaves us with the proposition that the Earth/Moon/asteroids are ~4.5Gy old. So, the universe is at least that old. Why jump to the age of the universe? Seeker, do you concede that our solar system is billions of years old?

Of course it wasn't. He'd have to adjust his beliefs about the age of the universe from the range 4500-infinity.

198. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173805 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:56 am

Cheers Rev Dark.

seeker_of_truth: My wife might say it's time to grow past this insecurity with your perception of a threatening deity. Especially 'seeing' it where it does not exist.

You're trying to redirect the argument again. Naughty naughty. So, how many refutations of evidence for your lower bound of the age of the universe - 4500, will you have to be presented with before you reject it?

199. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173802 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:53 am

coolwater: riandouglas, According to Bible Jesus is God, therefore simple mathematics

He's supposed to be the son of Yahweh, as well as being Yahweh.

coolwater: The fact is when it comes to disaster Christians are often silenced, because they know their Bible cannot explain that.

Which is why I references the problem of evil, because it is known to be a difficulty for an omnibenevolent deity.

coolwater: The question is if God predicted tsunami will kill 300,000 innocent people (40% of the victims are children) why didn't he stop it when he first created earth ???

The simple answer is that god does not exist, or at least god does not intervene - Deism at best.

200. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173797 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:50 am