Comments by riandouglas

Comment #170843 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:06 am

Tyler Durden: Becuase he had a lousy agent and terrible PR manager? :)

I heard it was due to a travel incident. He was actually meant to appear to the chinese, but he missed a connection in france, and had to take another flight which went through the middle east. Well, that one was delayed, and, well, he just got a little impatient. Shouldn't have gone with the budget ticket, but you know Yahweh!

EDIT: txpiper, sedimentary rock as support for the flood hypothesis?

352. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170840 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:02 am

Steve Zara: As far as I can tell, the only justification for believing that God is good is that we are really screwed if he isn't.

Surely that's not justification. More like wishful thinking, given the evidence?
Abusive relationship - "He says he didn't mean it. He says he's sorry. He says he'll never do it again" *BAM* Tsunami!
EDIT: "He says he still loves me"

353. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170837 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 4:59 am

JimDidriksen: While "The Richard Dawkins diary" was a comical blog post of a scared man or women who wants to lash out at anyone who seeks to show how they have wasted a huge part of their life... i Actualy think Richard Dawkins should read that into a podcast, "point of inquery" or "skepticality" will probably gladly post and distribute the sound byte and the rebutle.

Did you look at the other posts on that blog. I believe in one he bemoans the "socialist" UK. Unless something major has happened without me knowing it, this guy is off his rocker.

354. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170826 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

Quetz: Except the Corrupt, obviously.

I'm afraid you're wrong. I've been reliably informed that it is what would have been chosen by the "Corrupt" as you term them.
Something about getting what you wanted (yay! I'll get a bunny!), doors being locked from the inside.

355. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170824 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 4:15 am

Well past dinner here. Almost bed.

txpiper, I'm waiting for you to continue this search for supporting evidence to this flood theory of yours. Are you ready to continue, or would you prefer to simply concede the point?

356. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170820 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 4:10 am

Quetz: You're right. It's so strange that so many people do not agree with this vision of "One World Order". Obviously they are corrupt, and should be purged from God's Kingdom.

Yahweh|Jesus would obviously be the leader right?
I assume he'll be talking through some kind of intermediary, as I'm not worthy to receive his message directly.

357. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170812 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:46 am

Quetz, I bow down before your mighty visage and far superior erudition!

EDIT: Should I have gone for fearsome visage?

358. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170807 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:29 am

Quetz: The key word there is "if". Of course, the problem is that you are assuming that the many authors of the Bible weren't simply talking crap.

At the end I assumed he was simply referring to the bible as a work of fiction. Within the fictional "universe" created by the bible, the Yahweh character is indeed all good, as he said, by definition.
But it's really all made up isn't it?

No one could really say that Yahweh was all good could they?
(for the common usage meaning of good Bizarro, not this yahweh=good thing you tried to export from a work of fiction)

359. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170806 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:26 am

PJG: As in "sides" of an argument. What is wrong with that?

Hmm, I really must sort out this administration bungle. I was trying to simply discuss things with people, you know see where they were coming from.
Now I find out that not only are there sides, but it's been an argument all along!
I tell you, this sort of communication failure will not do. Heads will roll! :-)

360. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170802 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:21 am

Quetz: that's right, there are two sides: "Us" and "Them". Unfortunately they use the same terms but reversed. So as far as "Them" are concerned, they are "Us", whereas "Us" are seen as being "Them".

Does that clear it up?

Really? I mean coming from you, my father, and the living god, it must be true. I'd not figured it out.
I was working under the assumption that it was all "Us", that some of "Us" thought they were "Them" (or that they're "Us" and we're "Them" to them. Now I'm confused). Anyway, the ones who are think we are "Them" to their "Us" are just a little bit too wedded to some unfortunate beliefs they haven't thought about in depth for some reason.

Hmmm. That doesn't clear anything up does it?
Ok, so we're "Us" and they're "Them" Much better.
Quetz be praised!

361. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170800 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:17 am

irate_atheist: P.P.S - I'm just a rebel without a pause.

I thought the perceived problem was caused by a lack of pause?

362. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170798 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:15 am

melissajoy1234: Discovery Channel regarding the "scientific probability" of the global flood. And this is a very atheist channel that doesn't like to say good things about God or the Bible.

I know you're being asked a lot of questions but I'm curious as to what you mean by this statement melissa?
Do you mean it has an anti-bible bias?
Do you mean it activily promotes a life without Jesus?
Do you simply mean that it shows many programs concerned with science, and doesn't show any bias towards any one religion or god?

melissajoy1234: I don't think any of us have real evidence of anything. I have no concrete evidence that the earth is round. This could be a big deception told to me through science books and through tainted pictures from satellite imagery. But do I believe the earth is round? Of course. Why not? If I'm wrong, it has no eternal significance. But if I say there is no God and I'm wrong, that's gonna matter in the end.

As Roland_F has pointed out above, you're using pascals wager, which is a very poor reason to believe in something. Do you think Yahweh, if he existed, would accept belief under those circumstances - belief simply because you're afraid of being cast into hell?
Your statements prior to this concern evidence. You say you don't thing we have evidence for anything, and that the earth being sort of spherical (you said round, which would be flat, so I don't think you mean that) might be a lie.
Just curious about how you'd go about checking that information? Lets assume you've been given stacks of money and the cooperation of all the nations on earth to find this out. What sort of things might you do?

363. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170795 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:08 am

V'Ger: This guy is on our side right? That can be the only explanation.

There's sides now? Why do I never get the memo!

364. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170786 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 2:07 am

Philip, again I have no idea what you're talking about.

The use of big words to scare people!
All for it myself. Don't know many though so it's not effective.

365. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170783 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 2:04 am

Steve Zara: If God's nature is green, and he must be consistent with his nature to be defined as God, then any action perpretrated by God is a green action.

It's all just word-play, innit?

Spoil sport! Hmmmph

366. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170778 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 1:54 am

Philip, no need for an apology to me. I had no idea what you were talking about :-)

367. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170772 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 1:43 am

Enlightenme... did you get dizzy?

368. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170771 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 1:41 am

Philip: Truth ID go and get your eyes checked

Philip, TheTruthID has apologised for his terrible behavious (especially to Elli), and actually had a constructive discussion on the "Open Letter" thread. Quite a turn around. I said I'd let folk know.
Whether you and others forgive him is up to you.

Apart from that it's business as usual. Well I assume it is. I'm still kind of new here...

369. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170755 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:30 am

riki: I almost feel sorry for the creationists. At least they can still appreciate science for the Nukes. Let's put a stop to this horrible thing called medicine though.

Perhaps if we pointed out that the theory of evolution has direct links to creating advanced bio weapons. Think that would get them enthused?

370. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #170754 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:27 am

clearmind: If your mother says, Rian, please believe in God or Allah.

Sorry, I couldn't let this go.
Clearmind, Allah is basically arabic for "god", so in reading back that sentence to myself, it sounded like you had a stutter.
In future could you please designate which god you are talking about. All this use of a generic terms can be confusing. Thanks

371. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #170753 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:24 am

clearmind: You can use some online dictionaries for ENGLISH WORDS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, or my students can explain them to you?

Easy with the capitals tiger, someone might think you're shouting and take offence. We wouldn't want that now would we.
Now, about you're question. I have absolutely no problem understanding what each of your words mean. Given I'm a native speaker I likely understand them better than you do, though I could be shown to be wrong.
The thing you're having an obscene amount of trouble with old chap is grammer and semantics. You're sentence structure is all jumbled up. Even if the sentence structure was straightened out (which I'm forced to do while reading) the actual usage of the words make no sense when read as a sentence. I doubt, given your previous interactions here you'll take anything I've said on board. I think you'll simply take it as an indication of my inferior intellect. Something about me picking on your grammer because I can't refute or understand your superior logic.

Hey, I just had a brain wave. As logic can also be expressed as symbols in some formal system, perhaps you could do that, and therefore we wouldn't have to worry about this language divide/ How about it clearmind?

372. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #170752 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:19 am

clearmind: If your mother says, Rian, please believe in God or Allah. Please I am begging you. Or in your dream, you died and they put you in grave and they left. Suddenly you noticed that you are not dead and your soul leaves your body dress and go up to heaven to face God. Suddenly you woke up. It was a dream and you just said abruptly "THANK GOD it was a dream."

Each of us have faith in our hearths but a few of us just buried it with some illogical ideas and we can't revivify it.

I did have a dream like that. Only my mother was begging me to believe in the invisible pink unicorn. In fact the unicorn was present in the dream. I couldn't see it of course, but I could feel it's presence.
When I woke I decided it was simply a dream. Was I wrong in that assesment?

clearmind: I am sorry to ask; your mind has got the eyes?

actually, my mind has a little homonoculus, looking much like a man, this man is me. When I sleep, this man, who usually has to sit through some kind of boring movie of the real world, with very little control over the actual plot, is able to project the most amazing things on the screen, for his own enjoyment. Did I mention this man was my mind? I think I did. This man has the eyes, so the answer to your question is yes.
At least it would be if the cartesian theatre was a plasible explanation for our conscious experience.

clearmind: I do not need to see such a dream. I believe in God already.

Which one? the yahweh of judaism, yahweh|jesus|spirit of xianity, yahweh|allah of islam, ahura mazda of zoroastorism (sp?) or another one of your own devising?

I'll leave it there, as I've some catching up to do, and you're responses will make as much sense as the rubiks cube thing. By the way, I did ask you what your native tongue was. Didn't seem to get an answer to that one.

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

Comment #170750 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:04 am

presentation from Vic Stenger concering science and the supernatural.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

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

Comment #170747 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 11:53 pm

mmurray: Yep and the testicles outside the body, the lower back which isn't strong enough, female pelvis too small, auto-immune diseases, male urinary tract through the middle of the prostate gland and the old joke about the effluent outlet in the recreation area which, of course, isn't funny if you are a female with a urinary tract infection.

The fall?
Sorry, I'll leave now

375. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170746 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 11:52 pm

cornbread_r2: I just wanted to confirm that not everyone here is like melissa; 80% or more probably are, but that still leaves a few people mostly grounded in reality.

I'm hoping melissa is simply suffering from ignorance. As the ads say
"With advances in modern science, ignorance can now be cured!"

376. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170744 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Here you go txpiper, this is where we were:

You said:

txpiper
The most conservative number I've seen for the amount of sedimentary rock on the exposed continents is 30.4 million cubic miles. There are some 57 million square miles of exposed landmass. What that translates into is enough sedimentary rock to cover every one of those square miles to an average depth of over 2800 feet.

Almost all sedimentary rock was formed from mud, or particulates suspended in water. 30 million cubic miles of sediments is a strong indicator that a catastrophic, planet-wide flood happened. At the very least, this is as reasonable and plausible a view as the establishment idea. To think that streams and rivers overflowing in local flood events deposited material, on average, over a half mile deep from sea to shining sea on every continent is not realistic.

Others responded:

SteveZara
Much sedimentary rock contains stratified fossils - proof that it can't have been laid down in one go.

Mesomodel
Not to mention the intervening layers of ash between sedimentary layers (indicating volcanic eruptions), and layers of enhanced rare isotopes indicative of large impacts. There's also radioisotope dating of layers indicating the actual age of the layers. Let's also not forget the slight problem of where water for a global flood came from and where it went.

BillySands
Not only that, but you often find different environments preserved in different layers - eg coral reef, coal forest, lagoon, reef etc. You can even find in situ trees (and not modern ones) preserved in specific layers in between sediments. Not possible in a flood model

You challenged thusly:

txpiper
But the fossils of T-Rex, for instance, have been found many thousands of miles apart. Long periods of time might help with your idea, but wide distribution of the fossils does not.

Which was also addressed:

BillySands
However, they only apear in rocks consistently dated to the last 5 million years of the cretatious - and always below the Iridium layer of the K/T impact

To which your final response was:

txpiper
My original comment was in response to the claim that there is no geological evidence for a planet-wide flood event. Such a statement, in view of the amounts and distribution of the sediments, is rather dismissive in my view. One may argue about the interpretation of the evidence, but you can't say that it isn't there.

Now, given your less than stellar performance in addressing a single of the complaints against you initial assertion, I feel your final pronouncement of the evidence supporting your view was, how did you put it? Ahh, that's right "a good example of an impatient dismissal I think"
Bravo!

So, again txpiper, about that flood evidence?

377. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170738 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 11:35 pm

History_Junk: Also did anyone get the bit where he said science gives the notion that man is nothing more then mud and dirt hit by lightning? Sounds awfully similar to the bible story of adam and his creation. Poor saps getting his own fantasies mixed up with his horrible bigoted rantings.

But with Genesis you get a magical ingredient - Yahweh spit. What, you thought it was his breath that gave life. Not a chance.

378. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170728 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 11:08 pm

MaxD: I was thinking that what really kills people dead is reactionary, short term gain politics both foreign and domestically applied. It is certainly a kind of politics endorsed by Stein.

I'm taking a stab in the dark, but i'd say those same policies get people wealth and power.
As Stein is not likely to ever serve, I wonder where he'd fit into that?

379. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170726 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Just finished watching it.
The stupid...it burns!

380. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170719 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:47 pm

haha.

Night mesomodel

381. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170718 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:46 pm

mordacious1: Ben Stein and GW Bush, both Yale grads. I won't be sending my kids there.

Nah, the school is probably fine.
You're kids aren't mentally ill are they? Because that could cause problems :-)

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

Comment #170713 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Brian English: Bunnies in the Cambrian strata. :D

He found them? But, doesn't that mean...Shhh, nobody mention this to anyone. :-)

383. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170710 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Is it just me, or did it get quiet in here?
Hello?
txpiper? funkymaniac? melissa? trace? anyone?

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

Comment #170707 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Speaking of evolution. Does anyone know what convinced Popper that evolution was falsifiable, instead of the position he originally took (difficult but falsifiable in principle or something)?

385. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170705 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:36 pm

I'm a little surprised, that given the number of comments at the movie blog site thing, and that the lying thread was linked from there, that there have been so few drive by's.
Perhaps I missed the worst of it.

Oh yeah, Stein and the host as...well I want to say it, but I've heard it's only given to irate_atheist and The Reverend Dark.

"Deluded fools who revel in their ignorance" will have to do

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

Comment #170702 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Nite Adam. People will read it as they do. If someone refers to you from the "angry" years, one of us should put in a good word for you.

387. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170699 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:29 pm

txpiper, I can post the previous discussion if it would help get you thinking?

388. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170696 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

txpiper: No, I really was speaking of Ruse's reference to the theory about life forming on crystals. Granted, this was about origins, but it was the kind of thing that can't be part of the "research that has proven evolution to be a fact of nature" because nothing like that has been coerced into happening in a lab.

I apologise for mistaking your intent.
So, what problems do you have with Ruse's theory?
Anything specific, or a general feeling that "it can't be right"?

txpiper: Actually it was about the supposed lack of evidence for the flood that I thought warranted a comment. The quick dispatch of 30 million cubic miles of sediments was a good example of an impatient dismissal I think.

Right you are. Lack of evidence. Check.
I seem to remember you proposed an argument which, if correct, would use sedimentary rock to support the flood hypothesis. Problems were pointed out in this argument, sufficient to make it worthless as evidence in support of your view.
I seem to remember that, instead of continuing to discuss either that argument, or another one, you simply asserted you'd shown evidence in support of a flood.
I'm afraid an impartial referee would have to disagree with you on that one, I mean, you barely made an effort to address our critique, let alone strengthen your case.
But, we're here to help, so let's have at it again.
Please try not to go over old ground, though, it gets tedious.

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

Comment #170691 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:18 pm

TheTruthID: No, ID'ers truly believe that there are only two options. Chance or a Designer. If IDers can disprove or weaken Evolution Theory then the only other alternative would have to be a designer.

As Brian said, natural selection means it is not random chance.
Also, a desiger is not the only alternative. Given the evidence I don't think it would be an alternative. There is no indication that descent with modification is anthing more than natural selection acting on random mutations.
Well, something to that effect. Anyway - no evidence for design, even though DNA is hugely complex.

390. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170690 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 pm

trace: Wow. Way to prove the premise of the film.

Trace, I see that you're new here.
Are there any aspects of the film, or of the letter which heads this thread you'd like to discuss, or were you simply passing through to see what all the fuss was about?

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

Comment #170685 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:14 pm

TheTruthID: No there is no proven scientific theory of ID. And yes, I plan on reading that paper.

That's the frustrating thing. Many ID'ers pick something evolution has not yet explained (such as the bacterial flagelum), and say "Ha, evolution is false, therefore "
The truth is, if evolution is false, then we need a new theory which explains all of the evidence which evolution does.
In my understanding this is likely to make it resemble evolution a great deal.

392. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170679 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:11 pm

mesomodel: Have you been back over to christianinformant.com to correct your points on floods and sedimentology?

Perhaps he's back here with fresh evidence and argumentation.
Either one is good.

txpiper, ready to discuss your flood hypothesis?
I think we finished up understanding that sedimentary rock does not support the flood. We can go from there if you'd like

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

Comment #170677 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:09 pm

TheTruthID: Please clarify, correct or confirm.

Sounds about right - many small mutations leading to a larde change, with the mutations not required to happen all at once for benefit.

394. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170674 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Ben Stein is scum!

What a hideous man

EDIT: I've gotten 1 minute in

395. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170669 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:04 pm

txpiper: But the problem is that if you really inquire about this research and proof, you too often get a response like the one from Michael Ruse in the movie. In my experience, when you pose reasonable questions, you most often get impatient dismissals, canned evolutionary jargon or insults for having asked them.

You mean when matthis took a film crew to the smithsonian, knowing that he was going to be kicked out?
Or the misrepresentation and lies concerning the people who had been "silence" by the evil darwninsts?

txpiper, I think we were talking about the flood?

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

Comment #170666 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:01 pm

willlll: Come on, admit it; you're pro-ID and just trying to waste our time.

Yeah, he is, but he stopped hyperventilating for a moment :-)

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

Comment #170665 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:59 pm

TheTruthID: The only alternative ID's have is to attempt to declare that Evolution is not proven due to the holes and weaknesses whatever that might be. Process of elimination. No evolution means what?

That's the $64 question, which you never get an answer to. It makes it difficult to pick holes in the theory of intelligent design. In fact, it's not really fair. The theory of evolution is there for all the world to see (but not many to understand, unfortunately). the theory of ID is a closely guarded secret. It's an unfair advantage ID i keeping for itself, and yet it is still failing.
I suspect there is actually no theory of ID

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

Comment #170661 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:56 pm

TheTruthID: In my apology letter I stated that I came to the conclusion that discussing evolution vs. ID strictly on a scientific basis is futile. The only answers I had were to attack evolution vs. defend a theory that is beyond the scope of scientific reason. Supernatural laws cannot and are not viable in the scientific realm. Science does not allow it. So my intent was to intentually incite you in response to my inabilty and frustration of not being able to use any unproven supernatural explanations. How could I answer them?

Truth, did you take a look at the paper I mentioned concering science investigating the supernatural?
If not, here it is again. If nothing else it's interesting.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews- Final Author's Copy (Fishman 2007).pdf

399. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170659 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Bizarro, any evidence that your "ever lovin" Yahweh actually exists?

400. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170656 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Abhishek: Hahaha I wish I had the sense to do that! I'm currently in med school and I have the biggest exam of my life (boards) coming up in a few weeks, and I totally wasted last weekend glued to the laptop catching up on every comment ever made :) Dammit, I might not remember the pathophysiology of Diabetes but I can tell you why God doesn't exist! My name is Abhishek and I'm an addict.

That's the second confession of addiction I've heard today.
Thankfully I'm not addicted. I can give up any time I want. Honest! :-)