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 BAEOZ


351. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94516 by BAEOZ on December 5, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I KNOW that God is real, and therefore I KNOW how wrong your types are and what fools you are. I have this edge on you, and I ALWAYS WILL HAVE IT, as do all others who KNOW that God is real, and there is not a thing you can do about it.

And you have the gall to call others liars. You can't, by definition, know god is real. You'd have no faith, and you'd be able to demonstrate his existence. So which is it? Do you have no faith in god, because you know he exists and can demonstrate his existence or not?
You are a liar.

352. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94457 by BAEOZ on December 5, 2007 at 5:21 pm

ADH:

It is the story of our creation, our fall into a state of rebellion (and by the way that truth is not incompatible with the theory of eveolution)

Creation implies a purpose. Evolution has no purpose. It has no aims or desired outcomes. They are incompatible. Humans are not the end result of evolution anymore than bacteria are. We'll evolve into something that is not human someday. If we don't wipe out our species.

353. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94065 by BAEOZ on December 4, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Hitch has such a grasp of history and ideas. Astonishing.

354. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92156 by BAEOZ on November 30, 2007 at 1:35 am

Hi Richard. Good response. Though I didn't get from your original article that you were recommending dishonesty or lying or breaking promises. Must be me.
Out of curiosity, what does "rhgw" and "somex" mean. Or do you suffer from typos like us unlettered non-believers? :)

355. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91964 by BAEOZ on November 29, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I salute you Richard. Brave article. And plenty of food for thought. I don't think I'm the swinging type, but I can't see any harm in it if people who swing are all ok with it and take appropriate precautions. I'm more of the type who admires a pretty woman but doesn't go much further.
I also agree with Bonzai that there's nothing wrong with sex for sex's sake. Doesn't have to be emotional. Prudery is silly.

356. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91678 by BAEOZ on November 29, 2007 at 12:56 am

They say alcohol is a social lubricant. I think oil is an immoral lubricant. (Apart from it's other well known lubricant properties.) It makes everything slide. Especially when used internationally. Otherwise, we'd treat these misogynists like the scum they are. I couldn't say beasts or brutes. Because animals don't do this shit*.

*Unless that animal is a rational thinker like man who believes women are property. Especially Abrahamic man.

357. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91237 by BAEOZ on November 27, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Bonzai. I've heard the same justification too. Women (girls in this case) are no more than property to be used to make babies when physically able.

358. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91233 by BAEOZ on November 27, 2007 at 5:58 pm

By the way that nine year old girl (Aisha) was already engaged at age six and was going to marry another middle aged man before her father offered her to Muhammad as a token of friendship (!!!!!). Crazy as it sounds but it was the norm then. Don't ask how, I can't explain it!!!

The version I've read is that Mohammad dreamed of Aisha when she was six. Asked her dad, a close confidant of his, for her hand. Her dad was reticent, but Mohammad convinced him that as god's prophet it would be ok. Aisha then got sick which delayed the "wedding" and he didn't get to "deflower" her until she was nine.
Whatever the case. Muslims will point to Mohammad and say that he's morally perfect or near enougth to it [and thus so is Islam]. This may have been the case in the 7th century. (Although, ordering murders and taking slaves seems rough in any time.) It clearly isn't now. God never chooses timeless messengers. They always seem to jade and their messages are surprisingly similar to what any person of there era would have thought. Not what an omniscient god would have known. His religions have little or nothing to say to us now morally. And of course have no evidence of said deity. :)

Edit: Spinoza made my point first. That Islam is reprehensible now. Whether it wasn't back then is irrelevant.

359. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90938 by BAEOZ on November 26, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Anyway, having now made myself probably hugely unpopular (at least in some quarters),I really am taking a break from this site for at least a while... it is too interesting and distracting!

Bugger. One less reasonable, intelligent voice. All that will be left is my silly musings and trolls one day! Next the likes of Quine, Bonzai, Epeeist, Russell Blackford etc will go.....
Have fun and catch you round some time...

360. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90626 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Most non-religious people are idiots... Just like the rest of the population.

Yay me! That was a compliment wasn't it?
Anyway, I'm reading theological-politico treatise atm and find it easy to read (compared to other philosophers.)

361. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90623 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm


You must be quite an aficionado for she-donkeys. :)

I missed that one. Great catch Bonzai!
Dicanu likes burritas. :)

362. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90616 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Have you ever noticed large urban populations generally are in the vicinity of a permanent supply of water? Gee, someone must've put the rivers and lakes there so that the cities could develop. Oh wait, the cities developed where the water supplies were, where people could reliable access an essential component.
Just like humans developed where they could. Not the other way around........

363. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90605 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Are they doing papers and research according to accepted science but themselves secretly not believing the results? Isn't this akin to lying?

Yes, they are doing serious science, and getting Ph.Ds. They don't believe that the world is billions of years old, but they do the required science. It's a good way to give their beliefs credibility. After all a Ph.D. from a serious university gives you authority on the subject. They are lying. But lying for Jebus is good. Haven't you read the bible or chatted with fides_et_ratio before? :P

364. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90595 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Imagine a cosmic shower thermostat, where you have have to set the temperature control to within 1 part in 10 to the power 50 (to give a rough indication) in order to get something other than absolute zero and heart-of-atomic-explosion temperature, and you get the idea.

I remember (probably incorrectly) that Victor Stenger said most of the finely tuned constants weren't finely tuned any more than saying if a basketballer was only 1 meter shorter he'd not be the world's best......That probably didn't make sense. The ones that seem finely tuned are only because of broken symmetry....

But anyway, I have no desire to argue with you Steve. Not least of all because you're far more knowledgeable in these topics and I find you a reasonable, interesting poster with whom I have no desire to argue. Peace. :)

365. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90588 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Alas, Davies also brings up the anthropic principle, that tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism. When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a little bit different, I have to wonder…how do they know?

I love PZ's turn of phrase.

366. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90571 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 3:09 pm

And if I deign to speak against his hypothesis, I will be shot down as I don't have the standing he has, either in the scientific community or the religious one.

Damn tootin' I'll shoot you down 'cause it's fun. Let's go for a kiwi shoot!

Sorry, I had a deliverance moment there. The coffee has kicked in!

367. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90566 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Steve99, Don't apologize.
I'm pretty terse, flippant and at times silly with my comments and don't mind having a dig. I was tired last night and pissed off at reading the article from a guy, who should know better, give religion a free pass at the expense of science. (If you only read the opening spiel, not the whole article, as quote miners are apt to do.) I dread that there are now scientists who'll have to challenge this furphy instead of doing science. I hope I'm wrong about that and that we'll never see Danielos MKII quote mining this article and similars to support their woo woo ideas about religion giving knowledge while science is dogmatic faith. :)

368. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90561 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Steve99, I understand what you're saying about Davies. But as you point out yourself, he's blundered with his words. Any theist will grab this and run with it and say science is as faith based as religion. He knows this, unless he's a hermit who's never come across an apologist before. So to do this, in my opinion, is similar to how Dawkin's describes scientists who foolishly attribute laws or science to "god", even though they mean god is nature, not the Abrahamic god. It had to have been done deliberately.
You may not have liked my "Davies must hate science " comment. But for the life of me, why would an intelligent man, give "manna" to the theists when he could have put it any other way? Now we await more trolls who'll use statements like this to prove science is faith......

369. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90389 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 1:45 am

Paul Davies must hate science. He's saying that one (and only) assumption that science takes for granted. That has been backed by evidence is the same as religious faith which is backed by no evidence and is obviously the product of ignorance. Talk about equivocation on a grand scale. Sad.

370. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90094 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 9:06 pm

If something has a beginning, it obviously was created.

That's just wrong. Look up something like quantum vacuum fluctuations for example to see why you're wrong instead of reapeating your errors.

371. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90081 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 6:17 pm

I was just walking along,
singing (poorly) a song
when up from his hole,
popped a nasty troll.
Spewing rubbish about,
was the lovely Ruht....

372. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90073 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Is that why babies start fretting and wailing when I'm near?

373. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90071 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 4:49 pm

For something to be, something always had to be.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Look up quantum vacuum fluctuations before you spout that error again.

374. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89885 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 3:30 am

foil and sabre...epee. In my ignorant world that translates as (narrow) sword and (less narrow) sword...(french word for) sword.
:)

Wow, I didn't thing they fought long enough for hydration to come into it. I thought it was more like the 100m dash or something.

375. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89878 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:49 am

Why is it that fencers are confined to strips? Why don't they have, for instance, a large circle to move about in?

Because 2 blokes who can do the 10 meter dash in world record time would just jump about for ages in a big circle or area, before 1 got buggered enough for the other to reach him. It increases the skill level I imagine. Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

376. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89877 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:45 am

The actions are as far as possible pre-planned (I know he does this kind of move, so I will present him with the situation where he can do it and then I will have something prepared to defeat it).It is the second bit that, as far as I am concerned makes fencing one of the best individual sports.

I agree. I was showing it to my wife and commenting that they seem to cover 10 meters in a second. I thought that I'd have the reflexes to just about move my foil when seeing my opponent move. But by that time a professional opponent would have covered the 10 odd meters, gutted me and tanned my hide. Without breaking a sweat of course.

377. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89874 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:40 am

We need theists to prevent the infighting!!

Such a negative cynical view. Right, have at it Brian Coughlan World citizen!
Then I'll take on that incredibly decent, polite and reserved Steve99 because he's smarter, and more decent, politer and reserved than I. Damn him. Then Epeeist. No, scratch that I know he can bleed me out in a few seconds. I love epeeist. Almost as much as Quetz. We thank thee quetz!

378. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89869 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:20 am

I don't want idiotic, unquestioning sheep for worshippers.

I feel all warm and important inside. Must be the beer :)

379. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89867 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:14 am

Obviously God doesn't like to do more work than he has to.

God maybe. But aren't you the creator of the universe? Or has this whole i-tea designed explanation been a hoax? My faith is being tested by your last comment Oh quetz.

380. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89865 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:08 am

Incidentally, have you seen the article on the giant scorpion claw? What's your opinion on that? Are you a YEC?

He still hasn't answered my question about his thoughts on the relationship or not between humans and chimps seeing they share almost %100 of DNA.

381. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89864 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 2:06 am

Epeeist. I saw the first few minutes a while ago when you posted it on another thread and was impressed but didn't appreciate the technical fine points. I just watched the first 9 minutes then and was impressed by the skill and amazing reflexes of these guys. Not to mention the fitness. Just in case, is there something that a ignorant like me might miss in the last 9 minutes. I mean I wouldn't appreciate the technical side, but a good impaling. Well, I think we can all appreciate that. :)

382. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89859 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 1:39 am

Epeeist your link doesn't link. Please don't disembowl me for this impertinence oh great one. :)

383. Man-sized sea scorpion claw found

Comment #89858 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 1:37 am

It should have been out his south end, Can't you picture the big screen with him flying through the buildings shooting web out his...

And what about Shelob in the Lord of the Rings? Stabbing victims with her derierre! Spiders bite not sting.

384. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89853 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 1:22 am

Why would an all powerful, all knowing erm ... "God" need to change their plans?

If god is perfect, he can't change his mind. Thinking means working out something. Changing your mind means not knowing the end result. In either case a perfect being cannot do this because perfect means complete, finished. Not thinking or changing.

To quote from someone much more lettered than I:
Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno.
- "Was the World Made for Man?"
Mark Twain's dates were out a bit, but that was over a century ago. His sentiment is spot on.

Ruht, why do you ignore all my replys? It's been demonstrated that you were wrong about the word science, about many other things, yet you don't admit to one error. Perhaps you are god and are perfect. Or you're narcissistic.

385. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89828 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 8:38 pm


Infinity - no beginning and no end.

Try attributing that to evolution


The only one attributing all and sundry to evolution is you. But then you don't know what evolution by natural selection is in the first place. Nor what lightning is. Nor what a debate is. Over to you doctor....

386. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89811 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Dr. Benway, are you in the clininc? This patient is loosing it fast. Dr. Benway! To this thread Stat*!

*What does stat mean in this context?

387. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89809 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Except for the fact that you have not proven that there is no need for an Intelligent Designer, you have inadvertently proven or provided evidence for the opposite, that there IS a need for an Intelligent Designer, seeing how you didn't prove it can be created without one, but with one.

So now stars are intelligently designed? Wow, I thought it was just gravitation overcomming the repulsion of protons due to the strong nuclear force. Silly me.

388. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89807 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 7:07 pm

A paradox of sorts, seeing how by making lightening in a laboratory you have proven that it can be made by an Intelligent Designer, not by evolution.

OK, I'm calling this a fake. No person with intelligence could possibly confuse the physics of lightning with the evolution of life. Lightning is just a discharge of static electricity. It's basic physics. Darwinian evolution is a theory studied in biology. Only an idiot would be able to conflate lightning with the evolutionary process, or a faker.

Your thinking is convoluted, and you don't even understand this.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

389. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89795 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Wonder what Darwinian theory would have to contribute to, say, quantum physics?

The right-spin quarks evolved from left-spin quarks?*

*Those sub-atomic particles may not exist or may not be known to exist but have been used for purposes of silliness. If, however, they are proposed in some future theory, I'll be attributed with some of the credit for postulating their existence. Hopefully.

390. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89792 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Walk, I know man. I was just being silly. It's a bad habit I have. I use levity* to stop myself from taking myself seriously and getting caught up in these arguments. It's all a bit of sport and why shouldn't I take the piss from myself from time to time?
Peace!

*Not everybody shares my sense of humour, and it's hard to tell from words what I'm getting at. :P

391. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89788 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:38 pm


The fact of so-called 'evolution' being created in a lab by humans is perfect evidence/proof of Intelligent Design.

To reiterate. If you are determining the outcome of evolution in a lab it's not evolution by natural selection. It's man-made selection, what you wrongly described as an oxymoronic oxymoron. If you are watchin evolution by natural selection in a lab, you stand back and let nature do it's thing. It's not intelligently designed.
But then you wrongly said Darwinian biologists changed the meaning of science. And you called a judge insane because he correctly didn't agree that your ID isn't science. You and the truth aren't good friends. You're not even on a first name basis. Bye bye Mr. Troll. 'Twas fun.
See Dr. Benway if you need more excoriating. :)

[Thought] Perhaps our friend Ruht is deliberately equivocating. Suggesting that evolution by deliberate selection (selective breeding) in a lab is the same as evolution by natural selection in a lab. Therefore he would be trying to suggest that evolution by natural selection was a teleologically driven process like ID. But that just would be dishonest, wouldnt' it? We know that IDiots are not dishonest. Don't we?

392. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89784 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Well said, BAEOZ.

However, I'm not sure he has the ability to understand.


If I am able to see more clearly it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants such as Steve99, _J_, epeeist, Dr. Benway, Walk, et al. Oh bugger, none of you guys would in your right mind want to claim my illogic and silliness as products of your teaching! I guess if I said anything logical it was by accident, not intelligent design.
/end silliness ;-)

393. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89781 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:28 pm

This reminds me of those who write (usually in oddly coloured ink) off to prominent scientists claiming that they have had a brilliant and original insight that proves Einstein wrong.

It does seem common that people who've no knowledge of a field think they've come up with a slap down argument that destroys the validity of the given field and more strangely think no one in that field will not have thought up and worked out a solution to their slap down argument before hand. It is possible, but unlikely.

394. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89775 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Bizarre.

Ruht isn't Biz in disguise?

395. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89772 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:03 pm

'man-made evolution.' The oxymoron of oxymorons in the science community.

Let's take a wild animal. Say a wolf. Lets breed it's young and keep the ones that are docile, look cute, protect us and don't eat us. We'll repeat this process with every generation of wolves. Only breeding the ones that best fit our criteria. Someday it won't look much like a wolf, won't act like a wolf and won't be able to breed with a wolf. Guess what? We've got a dog. It's a different species. And it was done by man. Wow man-made selection. Evolution by unnatural selection even. That would be evidence of some form of Intelligent Design. :)
So your statement is just ignorant. Man-made evolution has and does occur. It's just not evolution by natural selection that occurs all the time without any intelligent guidance.

396. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89770 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 5:01 pm

It seems Ruht thinks that evolution has a purpose. He imagines evolution in a lab evolving to some predetermined outcome. Which he equates with ID. The fact is we are not breeding dogs for their sheep-working ability if we are watching evolution in the lab. Natural selection doesn't have a goal.

397. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89767 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:56 pm

In order to create what you call 'evolution' in a lab, you have to be able to totally and completely understand how 'evolution' works. Either that or you have to be able to have a lucky guess. However, to RECREATE it over and over again, in other words to completely PROVE it, you definitely have to know exactly how it works first, no lucky guesses this time.


If you can't rerun evolution from scratch. Evolution is false? If you can't remember everything you learnt in school then your memory must be false by that logic. We don't have the ability to rewind the clock and wait 4 billion years. But we see in fossils and lab that evolution is occuring.

Therefore if you can't recreate 'evolution' over and over again by your own ability, then your theory will forever be just a theory until you do, because you then don't totally know how it works, and you then cannot PROVE it. However, if you CAN recreate 'evolution' in a lab over and over again by your own ability, then by your own ability you've just proven that what you call 'evolution' can be created by an Intelligent Designer, seeing how you, a supposed intelligent being, not 'evolution,' just created it.

No, you won't have designed it. You'll have intelligently put all the ingredients in your test tube then let it evolve. You won't have interferred with it, it's natural selection. Not intelligent selection.

Therefore, because of this absolute TRUTH, your theory of evolution - life by random chance natural selection without any Intelligent being (a Creator) involved - is PROVEN impossible.

Again it doesn't follow and it's inane. Evolution isn't random. It's determined by the mutations a lifeform has and the environmental conditions it encounters.
Your premises are wrong and the conclusion is silly. Please try to understand what Evolution by natural selection is before you attack it. You've just put up a silly strawman argument.

398. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89764 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Ruht's gone? See what happens when you nasty atheists gang up on a poor IDiot IDer? Just nasty, especially that _J_. I've got my eye on you Mr!

399. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89760 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Personally, I find this conspiracy theorist attitude fascinating. It is surprisingly common.

It is. Climate change denialists thing climatologists are some nefarious collective out to promulgate the religion of climate change. IDiots and creationists think almost all biologists, who accept Evolution by natural selection, are some nefarious collective out to promulgate the religion of Darwin.
It seems to be that if their favorite nag doesn't get a start at the race meeting. The outsiders believe it's because the organizers of the races are out to nobble the potential champ. It never occurs to the outsiders that the horse may be a cow and not even capable of entering the race. Just like ID isn't science and is thus not enterable in a science class....

400. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89754 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Ah, another thread where I see we're enjoying our Christmas fruitcake a bit early this year. I must go and find the sherry.

Can I share? The sherry that is, I've had enough fruitcake. Burp!

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next