201. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184825 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 9:07 am

LaurieB:

Absolutely not! If we lost Mass, we might get our shorefronts and lakefronts back, but we would lose the Red Sox, Pat.s, Celtics, Brui.. Ah, nevermind, you can keep the Bruins.

I was thinking a fence down the VT-NY border, along the Mass-NY border, and then around CT, leaving them as a buffer "border town" since CTers are pretty much NYers already (stupid Mets fans).

202. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184822 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 8:55 am

"My post is directed more toward Europeans who have never been to America and don't understand it, yet believe everything they read in the media about how the American education system is literally being taken over by evangelical Christians. It's annoying seeing that idea constantly pop up on this board."

When I was an education major, a professor asked a straight forward question: "Who here thinks that the objective of public education is to help students find, and grow closer to, God?" She then asked all yea's to assemble on one side of the room, and all the nay's on the other. I had one other person on my side, with 21 other students sneering at us from across the room. These same students believed Halloween should be banned from schools, but not Christmas or Easter. A lesser group, but still the majority (I think about 18 to 5) felt evolution had no place in science class, since it "is just a theory, and everybody has theories."

From my experience as an American, yes, Christians are attacking science and free thought. Worse, they are waging this war on children; children who will grow up thinking Dinosaurs were friends with Adam and Eve. That is their victory. Are they gaining ground? They sure aren't losing any very fast.

203. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #184786 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 7:19 am

"Whoop Whoop! Dawkins is at Michigan State March 2nd 2009!"

*sigh* With Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth, and Yale within easy driving distance I hope to see Dawkins soon. Maybe we could lure him with Ben and Jerry's.

204. A Tribute to Douglas Adams: Towel Day May 25th

Comment #184744 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 5:15 am

I had no idea there was such a day, and now being a day late felt left out. I love Adams. But then I remembered. I went fishing yesterday, and rode my motorcycle. It being spring, I always bring a towel when I ride to wipe the pollen off the seat before I sit down (I hate having a mold-green pollen butt), a clear example of the usefulness of a towel that Adams neglected. So I did have my towel, but it stayed a few hundred feet away with the bike. Does that count?

205. Repulsive but right

Comment #184738 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 4:59 am

I love how atheists are supposed to show such kindness to theists. After thousands of years of being burnt at stakes, drown in lakes, crushed beneath stones, and many other evil punishments for heresy, the atheist is the evil one just for saying, "What a silly idea."

I find Dawkins is a little too polite at times, though not as polite as Dennett. What seems to irritate Dawkins, in the cases I have seen, is when someone pulls an idea out of thin air, uses this idea to justify evil, and then says, "It is what I believe, and we all have that right." Given that they do have that right, and given that their right to believe is generally supported more than our right not to believe, I can understand anybody's eye bulging, teeth clenching, absolute frustration. I think Dawkins's and Hitchens's greatest contributions will be more people yelling, "No, all ideas are NOT equal. There are sound ideas, and there are stupid ideas. God-ism is a stupid one."

206. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184730 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 4:25 am

Diacanu: "People already think we're a bunch of Moxie guzzling, pot puffing, lobster wrangling yahoos as it is!!"

Yeah, hehe, we kinda do.

"...one which does not compromise their faith or sow seeds of doubt..."

Isn't science supposed to do just this?

"...selling out of this well researched, scientifically profound book..."

What sort of research? Watching Hovind on Youtube?

"One parent from Maine, commenting on a previous book in the series, wrote, '[This book is] written at a level that kids can understand.'"

Well, I guess that's why this nematode can relate to it. New England really needs to secede and deport these people. Any states want some fundies?

207. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184729 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 4:13 am

I'm both excited and terrified. I'm excited, because we are now expanding our knowledge by immense proportions, digging into the ice of Mars. Yet, forget life, we are sampling extraterrestrial water! For the first time, we are hoping someone did indeed pee in the pool.

My terror is of not finding life. I know such a find would be nothing in comparison of what we do find, but I have so much hope of life being there... It's like opening a gift. Somewhere, in the back of my mind, I can't help but think, "What if it's socks?" But, science must go on. My ignorance has been blissful, but it's time for knowledge. The suspense is killing me!

208. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184726 by King of NH on May 26, 2008 at 3:59 am

What does it matter? Both of these heathens will pay for their blasphemy at the rapture. Darwin at least bought somewhat of a lessened sentence in Purgatory for his noble renouncement of his evil words. This Wallace thing doesn't surprise me: evil men are rarely unique in evil ideas.

Okay, seriously though, before I split my sides. I'm fairly certain most Darwin scholars agree the man never arrived at the idea on his own, and it was only a culmination of geology, biology, and sociology that allowed such a work as Origin of Species to be published. This was a scientific paper, not a romance novel. Ideas, in science, are meant to be shared.

Davies is not unique, though, in his iconoclasm. Every author that creates a classic work is soon accused of something. E.A. Poe was a mad-man. Whitman was gay (probably so, I know, but of no academic importance). Shakespeare was illiterate, or actually Marlowe under a pen name. Thoreau lied about his time at Walden. Einstein had autism. Artists have the same fate. Di Vinci had ADD, for example. Careful, Professor Dawkins! If I were you, I would cultivate your own, minor rumor to follow you into history.

209. Pop Goes Christianity

Comment #184195 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm

"There are Christian sex-advice sites where you can read the biblical case for a strap-on dildo or bondage (liberation through submission)."

Are you kidding me?

'''In the sixth chapter of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul details what's needed to become strong in the Lord's mighty power. He closes his famous armor inventory by reminding us to "take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."''' (from Bibleman Website)

Oh, I guess you're not kidding.

210. Scientists discover 'frogamander' fossil

Comment #184188 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Yes, yes. This is all well and good. But I think that when the earth was flooded in the great flood, the water was moving so fast that it simply slammed a frog into a salamander with enough force to fuse them somehow. The force also rocketed the space-time continuum backward by millions of years before the 6000 years of earth's history, but then it snapped back, leaving evidence of things that happened, oh, I don't know, 4000 years ago appear to have happened millions of years ago. Fossils are just the bones of sinners that have felt god's wrath.

-Graduate of Ken Hovind's Dr. Dino University

211. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184186 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

I think this connection with other species, that somehow we're not so special, is why B.F. Skinner and behavioralism was so easily dismissed by many psychologists. I am not in this field so I can't back this, but: I think Skinner was dead on.

212. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184185 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 9:02 pm

This is an (In God's Name) interesting article. The concept of (Hitler was an Atheist) time fascinates me, but I (Darwin recanted evolution) think there is a huge gap of understanding between what a (Dawkins is a Sinner!) scientist means by 'universe' and 'time' and what the rest of us mean.

(Atheism is a Religion)

213. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184183 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm

'I could become a needed asset to the tribe and they would protect me and feed me'

The tribe has spoken. Give me your torch. =P

I think with eyes, most people that need glasses need them to drive and read and such. These are modern uses for the ancient eye. So in [easier?] times, a slightly misfunctioning eye would still work. I wear glasses to read signs while driving or working, but can 'see' just fine without them. I was 30 before I even knew I had a problem with vision, I thought I saw perfectly. In prehistoric times, I would have just been a lousy spear thrower. Eyes that are worse off would, I think, fall under most other problems that people are born with every day. The conception of life is a complicated process, and the engineer has no brain.

214. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184174 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 8:32 pm

On the appendix:
It seems that there is still study to do, but it may be that the appendix serves modern humans in less developed nations by hosting bacteria that helps to digest food and prevent infections in the intestines. My source: wikipedia

215. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183837 by King of NH on May 23, 2008 at 2:04 am

It will be fun to see if any new discoveries on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn or some other planet completely smashes the idea that the sun was 'designed' for life, or for us.

216. What is science for?

Comment #182513 by King of NH on May 20, 2008 at 9:58 am

Styrer:
"His idea that human immortality - or at least hugely increased longevity - would render us no longer human doesn't seem to follow..."

I think, and would agree, that he means being human requires a mortality. The idea that we have only so long, the fear of death and desease, and the desire to use that time drives us. If I had even, say, 1000 more years, never mind 1000000, I wouldn't feel the need to experience "today." So to lose that shadow of mortality would be to lose an essential part of humanity. I know I would become the world's leading consumer of "I'll do it tomorrow"s.

Aside from that, there's the semantic aproach: a human is a *mortal* being belonging to the ape family of earth. I would say the problem here is how long something has to live to be immortal. Right now, 1Million years would seem to be immortal, but if we lived 1Million years, we might say 1Trillion years is the mark. If it is eternity, then that is imposible according to the currently known fate of the universe.

217. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182359 by King of NH on May 19, 2008 at 8:49 pm

"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." -Monty Python (Meaning of Life)

How can the base of the "pro-life" movement criticize abortion when their policies banning contaception, sex education, and family planning have led to many (I lack the numbers to say most, but I would think most by a large margin) abortions in the first place.

218. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181349 by King of NH on May 17, 2008 at 2:28 am

I just had this conversation with my boss yesterday. Well, he yelled at me, to be honest, for supporting gay marriage even though it is against the bible, and therefore against the Christian-based American law. I asked him to give one law of our country, excepting 'blue laws' or 'Jim Crow laws,' that comes from the bible. He yelled at me again, since I am a veteran so in his mind fought on God's side, for not being Christian. Needless to say, I'm looking for a new job and a lawyer.

219. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #180594 by King of NH on May 15, 2008 at 9:06 am

RobotDevil:

Thank you for posting that. It is quite clear that this book does not deserve any serious attention, from anybody. Vox Day is clearly undereducated and overpaid.

This gives me an idea, though. Instead of beating my brains against a wall every time I see one of these books, I'll write my own. Not a book encouraging Atheism; Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Smith, etc. all do very well there. No need. I will write books about how dumb science is! I'll make millions and become a hero to theists around the world! And then laugh at them all, "It was all a lie to get your money!" I wouldn't be doing anything different than the Pope, except I would be honest in the end.

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

Comment #180524 by King of NH on May 15, 2008 at 6:54 am

"Nonbelievers construct their own god in order to, as it were, demolish him." -Cardinal O'Conner

Now they accuse science of using the straw man?

As many prominent atheists have asked, what is a god? Is god a fruit or a vegetable? You can tell by which part you eat. The 'body of Christ' you say? That would be a vegetable then. I never constructed my own god. I listened (intently as a child) to the religious describe god and then rejected THAT god. I reject the god that made man in his own image. I reject the god that rose from the dead and then flew off into the clouds. I reject the god that sent pictures of his mother to appear on toast. I reject the elephant headed god. I reject the dog headed god. I reject the sentient spirit of a mountain. I did not make up any of these gods. Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Mohawks did.

The only two gods I can think of that were created by atheists, to be then demolished, are the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Yet even these gods, created only to show how foolish the idea of god is, have somehow become more logically feasible than any of their predecessors.

Also, dear Cardinal, faith and reason are not two sides of the same coin. Reason's coin is: "it will be either heads or tails, or it might land (miraculously?) on its edge." Faith's coin is: "the coin always lands on heads becau- [flips… tails] Someone has sinned! Kill the goat!"

221. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #179917 by King of NH on May 14, 2008 at 1:52 am

ChartreuseMuse:
"What I find incredulous about this poll is that they couldn't find an Independent, Green, or Libertarian in the 1000 odd people they surveyed???

It's like having a poll where they only surveyed Catholics & Protestants!!"

I have taken polls that don't offer any choice other than Dem. or Rep., or "go to church every day" vs "go to church only sometimes/rarely." It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's question: "George Bush. Like him or love him?"

222. The Child Preachers

Comment #179365 by King of NH on May 13, 2008 at 7:07 am

I am concerned about the children in religious homes. I agree with Dawkins when he says this is child abuse, but it is only made worse by having absolutely no therapy for this sort of abuse; no way to get the child's head back on straight.

Imagine the human rights abuses that degrade women. How can we say that it is illegal to practice a religion that makes women subservient, yet okay for other religions to practice their foolishness? Ah, that's right! If a woman chooses to believe that her willing humility is a path to goodness, then she should be allowed her humility. Oh, but... What about the women who are taught this from an early age? What of the women who had this so instilled in them that they will kill a messenger of opposition?

I think that no child should ever hear of God or god(s) until they reach 25 (final brain stage, sorry for the lack of source) and can find their god by the "truth" that he is. Of course, churches know that nobody would find any modern god without being indoctrinated as a child or placed through extreme psychological programming, so they would likely refuse my idea.

223. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179210 by King of NH on May 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm

I agree. Einstein could believe what he wanted, and this does not change whether that belief was true or not. Einstein rejected the idea of an expanding universe, but scientists don't let that stop them from insisting on the expansion model's reliability. If Dawkins suddenly lost his [censored] mind and started speaking in tongues and preaching "the good word," I would hardly follow. The evidence still stands against the supernatural.

But I do find that, like Sagan, the "religion" of truely seeing and understanding the universe as described by Einstein is better poetry than the Bible ever offered. For this, I am glad he was who he was.

224. Jay Spears: Smak Dem Christians Down

Comment #178358 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 9:45 am

Deepthought:
"I believe that Thomas Jefferson was something of a diest but still looked through the Bible (and crossed out phrases he didn't like:))."

I did the same thing, and came out of it with a beautiful work. I am born-again!
The Holy Bible now reads: "In the beginning ... God ... loved ... thee ... and ... God ... loved ... me ... amen." Cherry picking saved my soul!

225. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #178298 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 5:43 am

healthphysicist - "The show hypothesized that modern humans had language and Neanderthal did not."

I study the history of language and have come across this as well. First, it must be noted that the word "language" refers to human communication, so by definition only humans have language. But my professors have pointed out that the shape of the human skull and throat (one of the reasons we choke on food easily) is an evolutionary record of language development. I wish I could provide references and details, but alas, I am still placed well in the middle of my studies and have not personally researched that area.

226. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178282 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 4:42 am

"I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments."

What "narrow competences" must one step outside of to criticize religion? At the base of all academia is the same critical thought process. Since Prof. Dawkins has a PhD, I think he is perfectly equipped to criticize a flawed way of thinking.

If a scientist said, "All sliwigs are frinkles, and some frinkles are bogkins; therefore all sliwigs are bogkins," then any priest would be qualified (provided he sees the error) to attack that scientist's logic. It does not matter who or what academic field proposed a logical fallacy, any logical person may attack it.

If theology wants to claim an academic status, then it must provide more than logical fallacies as its instruction. If it does not claim an academic status, then it can not claim immunity from "any Joe" criticism.

Help! Priests and prophets are scaling the Ivory Tower!

227. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178267 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 4:03 am

I may be misreading according to my bias, but it seems the new policy of the church is "We need to stop all of this independent thinking!" This is not just in Scotland, either. I have an uncle who is a priest (love hate relationship, but mostly love). He is working feverishly to help breath new ideas into local French Catholic churches, but he encounters the "changable means falible" argument every day.

228. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #178260 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 3:39 am

D'Arcy: "As to whether everyone likes looking at me and whether I want to be dictator of the world, well we'll have to see what the survey results produce."

Haha. Yeah, after I see the results of the survey I might be thinking, "Perhaps the world would be a better place if I ran it, or certainly no worse."

229. Two More Fleas

Comment #177973 by King of NH on May 10, 2008 at 5:00 am

MPhil:

I think you have, quite well, summed up your doubt on the inability of science to analyze god. I disagree with your supernatural explanation, though. My largest disagreement with the existence of god is in the existence of any supernatural entity at all. I firmly believe that all is natural. I have seen no evidence that a supernatural realm exists in which any god can hide from science. I would claim that only religion proposes such a realm, and it is synonymous with "god."

That being said, I will suspend further argument until I have read some of your suggestions. Mostly because "The improbability of God" was already on my reading list, so I am only looking forward to it all the more. While I am quite confident in my stand (I, too, am a well traveled scholar), I have argued far too many points into a heated argument only to realize there was never a disagreement, but simply a confusion of method.

230. Two More Fleas

Comment #176772 by King of NH on May 8, 2008 at 2:09 am

MPhil,

Yes, I am quite aware of the logical neccesity of a=a, table=table. Please forgive my facetious Descartism. My intent was humor, not logical soundness.

I disagree with your idea that science is poorly equipped to handle the concept of god(s) and dispute such a concept. Rather, I think it is the only sound thinking method that can provide any answer. You mention logic, but logic by itself has been proven impotent time and time again, especially in this realm. I can make thousands of logical arguments for god(s), but none would hold true to the truths we know from real world experience. There must be observations of the real world as well. Observation plus logical reasoning equals science. You also mention philosophy, which I must agree with, but only because science is a philosophy.

231. Two More Fleas

Comment #175864 by King of NH on May 6, 2008 at 7:02 am

I think science has proven that god(s) does not exist to a much better extent than it has proven a table is a table (my table is variably a table, a chair, a bench, a desk, a stool, a shelf, etc.). Secularism has proven to be a force for good (compare Europe circa 1808 to Europe 2008). Dawkins showed quite wonderfully how rational thought is better than religion in moral value. I guess the most infuriating thing with theists is the head-ache caused as the IQ is ripped forcably from one's head in trying to understand them. Just reading those titles above has given me a nose-bleed!

232. Gods and earthlings

Comment #175854 by King of NH on May 6, 2008 at 6:48 am

Science regresses from the "today" (varies by time zone) to the Big Bang, and IDers say "Ah-ha!"

Ah-ha what? Before science was freed from dogma, it regressed from "today" to "yesterday" ("yesterday" being just like "today", but before it rained a lot).

The advance of science compared to religion is literally like a society that has landed on the moon compared with a society still stumped on the wheel. Ah-ha what?!?

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

Comment #175838 by King of NH on May 6, 2008 at 6:25 am

I cannot disagree with Ravenhill more. I adore the art of Michelangelo, de Vinci, Mozart, Durer, and so forth. The Vatican is a wondrous piece of stonework, as is the Hagia Sophia. And while I hate the lyrics, the Doobie Brothers had a catchy tune with "Jesus is Just Alright." But I would gladly watch it all burn, happily suffer the loss of thousands of years of human endeavor, if it erased the misery and fanaticism caused by the same inspirational faith.