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


401. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89750 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm

If you can't create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you can never prove your theory. If you can create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you just proved that life can be created by an Intelligent Designer.

What rubbish. Here's your logic.
P1 - Evolution hasn't been seen to occur in labs.
C1 - Therefore Evolution is false.*
C - Therefore an Intelligent designer created life.
Even if your premise is correct the conclusions don't follow. It's a non sequitur.
Now the first premise is false. You define any change as natural variation, but that's because you want to see a cell become a duck or something in a week. Evolution is a very slow process. Humans didnt' evolve from single cell organisms in a day. The first conclusion is false. We've seen new species arise in both fossils and in living organisms. Because it takes such a long time to evolve, we are not going to see new organisms pop up on a daily basis.
But, and here's the most important bit. Your conclusion that there must be an intelligent designer doesn't follow.

*I edited that part after reading it. I was in such a hurry to post I didn't proof it. :)

402. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89746 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Straw man argument, seeing how Judge Jones said even if it was true it wouldn't be science, not that if it could be proven to be true.

No, a straw man is setting up a false version of your opponents argument so that it can be easily dismissed and you can pretend you've dismissed his real argument.
The judge said it didn't matter if it was or wasn't true because it doesn't use the scientific method and is therefore not science.

403. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89744 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Here's your big chance Ruht. Offer a theory of ID, offer some predictions so we can test the theory. If the predictions come true, we can keep your theory. Just like the theory of evolution. Even better, if your theory can predict something that evolution doesn't it may show evolution to be false (which hasn't happened in 150 odd years, but scientists want to falsify the theory of evolution, because they'd be famous and win the Nobel prize) you get to be the most well known scientist since Einstein.

404. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89739 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 3:54 pm

And Hitler said he was a Catholic; but just like Jones' actions, Hitler's actions also proved him to be a fraud as well.

Saying you're a Christian but also an evolutionist is equivalent to saying you're a darwinist but you believe in ID

No, you are saying that. All I said was that a conservative christian Judge, not a Darwinian liberal science professor said ID wasn't science, it was religious doctrine. By the way, bringin Hitler into an argument that isn't about Hitler or Nazi automatically looses you that argument. It's Godwin's law. :)

405. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89733 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 3:48 pm

"Even if Intelligent Design is true, and evolution is therefore not true, nevertheless we're only allowed to teach that which is not true in our schools because insane idiots like us have decided that if the existence of any and/or all matter has anything to do with Intelligence, then it's not science

No, ID isn't science because it doesn't use the scientific method. If it did, and withstood testing, it would be science. ID can be taught in schools, but not as a scientific theory, because there is no theory of ID to test.

Even if something's the truth, if it goes against evolution it's not science, according to darwinism insanity.

How are we to know if it's true? Please offer a theory of ID that predicts how life came to be as we see it. Please tell us how that theory may be wrong so we can test it. That is how science works. If you it's not testable and not falsifiable it's not science. This method doesn't just apply to biology. It's used in Physics, chemistry and the social sciences. It's not Darwinian insanity.

406. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89729 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Here's some help for you, again from Wikipedia

From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge.[8] Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning.

From classical times until the advent of the modern era, "philosophy" was roughly divided into natural philosophy and moral philosophy. In the 1800s, the term natural philosophy gradually gave way to the term natural science.

So, science, meaning the scientific methodology applied to nature was in use in the 1800.

Charles Darwin was born in 1809 and
His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.

You'll note this is well after the term science had aquired it's current meaning. So either Darwinists, who came after Darwin published in 1859, had a time machine and went back in time to change the meaning of science or you're misinformed (or something more mendacious).

407. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89725 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 3:36 pm

"Possibly a Christian?" you ask me for 'proof,' and then you use the word "possibly" to put forth your own assertion?

Different standards for different folks, I guess.

Acutally, I wasn't sure of my memory of him being a christian. So I said possibly. Unlike you, I'm trying to be honest. But as you want evidence:

Jones is a Lutheran of Welsh descent.*


You said:

Typical "clear thinking" darwinists.

Thankyou I was being honest.


And the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the Butler Act, from which the Scopes trial came forth from, wasn't unconstitutional; so what's your real point? that courts and judges have never been consistent and they're always subject to change and inconsistent opinions?

You are changing the subject from ID to a trial on evolution. The ID trial was in Dover and that was what I was referring too. You are being dishonest by changing the subject.
The judge said this:
The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.*


Now back to you assertion that Darwinists changed the meaning of science from any form of knowledge to just natural science. Evidence please.

*source Wikipedia.

408. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89716 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Steve99 just took our fun away Walk. Let's get him!

409. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89713 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 3:10 pm

The original definition of the word 'science' is simply 'knowledge.'

The original defintion of genourous is of priveledged birth. You don't mean that your friend is of noble birth when you call him genourous, because its meaning has changed over time. Just as the meaning of science is now generally limited to the natural sciences, not deductive sciences like Maths. This is what happens with languages, their usage evolves over time. It happened long before Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection so you can't blame Darwinian biologists for it.

410. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89709 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 2:58 pm

And the original definition of science, before darwinists hijacked academia and created an oppressive monopoly on it, was simply "knowledge."

Ah selective factoids. Science means knowledge indeed. Science as we know it it the science of natural philosophy. There's also the science of mathematics, etc. Should we teach Maths as science then? This modern usage of the word far predates Charles Darwin, so Darwinists couldn't have hijacked it.
Do we call ID science because it's knowledge? You've offered no arguments to put to the test. Nothing that adds to our understanding of the world. When you do, and we test it against the evidence and it withstands the test it will be science (in the modern meaning).

411. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89707 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Therefore we're not allowed to "prove it" to students in public schools in America; remember?

Prove it to us. A conservative Judge, possibly a christian, ruled it to be a religious doctrine, in violation of church-state separation and thus not science and not to be taught as science. Perhaps the ID proponents in that trial were IDiots and didn't get their case across. Or perhaps it's a conspiracy between christian judges and evilutionists....

412. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89705 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Ok, what science have ID proponents put forward?

413. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89704 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Ruht, tell me, do you think apes and humans are related? Chimps and humans share nearly %100 percent of DNA.

414. Man-sized sea scorpion claw found

Comment #89695 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 2:17 pm

"Evolution will not select for large size; you want to be small so you can hide away."

Someone forgot to tell Blue whales this. No wonder they need to swim in the ocean! Away from prying eyes.
What a strange comment. Evolution isn't a purpose driven process. Animals evolve to fill niches, not to be small and hidden.

415. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89516 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 1:39 am

Note to self: Stay clear of physicists with motor-neuron disease or foils.

416. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89505 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 1:09 am

Quetz, what's your blog address?

417. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89504 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 1:09 am

Richard Morgan has gone.

I have spoken to him a few times via MySpace. He got sick of the site. He thought it wasn't his cuppa either.

Josh, I take my hat off to you. You are one committed bloke. RD, I have a great regard for you.

Totally support and second these words.

418. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89499 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 1:04 am

V, If you're going, so long mate. Was great to meet you. Has been great to read your comments and partake in your wisdom.
Thanks. :-)

419. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89498 by BAEOZ on November 21, 2007 at 1:03 am

Donated. AHA does good work. She deserves support.

420. For the glory of God

Comment #89130 by BAEOZ on November 19, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Hi Russell. Fine whimsy there.

super-intelligent, feathered velociraptors

Can I get fries with that? mmm finger lickin' good. Tertiary fried chicken velociraptor.

We could have some fruitcake with our drinks, since it's nearly Christmas and there's a lot of it about.

Do you suspect some form of cause and effect? Christmas causes fruitcake and beverages to be consumed? Or is it just a correlation/third-variable problem? I think I'll need a few beers and some cake to work that one out.....


V.
when Melbourne becomes bitterly cold
So tomorrow ok with you then? Weather will change by then.

I will have to study philosophy in the meantime:-).

Me too. Unless Russell is kind enough to humour us when we get "philosophical" and not point out the philosophical Barry Crockers we make. :)

Forgive my silliness. I gave in to the headache and had a can of caffeinated softdrink. Much better. :)

421. For the glory of God

Comment #89107 by BAEOZ on November 19, 2007 at 6:07 pm

V:

Do you think they really can't see the global stressors that emanate from population growth?

I think if you're convinced that the big guy upstairs created the whole universe for you, and put you in charge so that you could do him homage, then he'll take care of you if you suck up to him in his prefered way. The fact that animals (some humans too) are not part of his plan is, at best, unfortunate. But who are we to question, let alone understand, his great plan?
So lets all have more christian/muslim/whatever soldiers to honour his purported greatness and damn the consequences!

By the way. When's the next CAPAC meeting?

422. For the glory of God

Comment #89089 by BAEOZ on November 19, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Steve99:

Well yes, but things could get pretty nasty in the meantime.

I agree. It'll be terrible for most lifeforms that aren't very adaptable to changed conditions. My only point is that eventually the planet, and life (probably not as we know it) will continue. I guess I was just commenting on the way the IPCC report is very human oriented, using life as a near synonym for humanity.
Oh well. I've probably painted myself as some dark, nasty atheist, when really I'm just tired and trying to kick the caffeine habit.
Peace. :)

423. For the glory of God

Comment #89043 by BAEOZ on November 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Hi V. How goes it?


The latest IPCC report makes a grim warning that if we, as a group of 180 odd nations, can't pull together for the common good then by 2015 we may well have lost the race to restore the planet to health.

This IPCC comment is pretty wrong. The planet will be fine in the long run (read a few million years). A lot of species will dissapear, but life won't. We may dissapear if we don't do something soon. I think the comment means to say "if we can't pull together and reverse CO2 emissions by 2015, humans are going to do it a lot tougher than most do it now (and many do it terribly, in part due to religions urging them on to have more babies, etc) and may go extinct. The planet will recover if we destroy ourselves.
MM, that's probably quite dark sounding, but a part of me thinks we deserve what we have coming if we can't put the petty shit (including religion) to bed and stop breeding like rabbits and treat the planet and all other lifeforms a bit better.....

424. New Ape Fossils Found in Africa

Comment #88670 by BAEOZ on November 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I'm back! The login works again!
Anyway, just a mindless obvservation. Why is a Gibbon(s) reporting on apes? Seems like a conflict of interest. Apart from that. Very cool. Go science!

425. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87959 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Dr. Benway. Will you take me as a Padawan and teach me the ways of the force?

426. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87921 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Weather's lovely - sun, then shower! Hot, then freezing!

I work for the law firm representing the city of Melbourne's long standing and publicly accepted claim to being the city with four seasons in one day. Auckland is requested to stop using Melbourne's weather.

427. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #87919 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Cool. Though I bought the DVD. Still, good for others out there to see daggy early '90's fashions and a great science speaker in action.

428. Rome playing politics

Comment #87912 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Hi V, how'd your break go?

429. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87902 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Bonzai, I thought you didn't think much of Bertrand Russell.

430. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87891 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Spinoza:

and it could be argued that all idiots are ignorant, whereas not all ignoramuses are idiots.

Hopefully I belong to the ignorami alone and not to the stulti.

431. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87859 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Spinoza:

but that's because being an idiot (lacking knowledge) IS a bad thing.

I think you'll find the word you're looking for is ignorant (lacking knowledge). Idiot is an insult. Ignorant is someone who doesn't know something, but may or may not be an idiot.

Idiot.
n 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.

432. Onward Science Soldiers

Comment #87853 by BAEOZ on November 13, 2007 at 11:49 am

First post!
The stuff the Bush government has done to neuter science or deny scientific results and pretend the religious viewpoint is viable is astounding. Someone like Biz spouts the lies that abstinance works and abortions cause breast cancer because of this.

433. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87688 by BAEOZ on November 12, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Spinoza:

his IMPLIES consciousness of POSSIBLES prior to the creation of the actual.

This irks me because a perfect god wouldn't think. To me thinking implies decisions, contingencies etc. A perfect being would know the perfect path from the start. No thinking involved. Perfect = complete.

Thanks for the advice on Spinoza. I think Descartes was very intelligent. My only issue was that by assuming certain metaphysical assumptions he had to have god etc. But as my boss, who studied philosophy way back said, "In those days you believed in god even if you didn't. Good for your longevity."
I tried some Aristotle, but he's pretty dense. I think I need the Cambridge companion for him too.

434. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87587 by BAEOZ on November 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm

I think the point is religion shouldn't be sponsored by the state. The state has nothing to do with a particular viewpoint.

435. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87520 by BAEOZ on November 12, 2007 at 10:58 am

You can make a number two concrete by eating a bunch of apples.

I thought fibre made number 2's less concrete.

436. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87500 by BAEOZ on November 12, 2007 at 10:05 am

Dr. Benway:

We can see black holes through telescopes

I for one can't. No light can escape them, thus they are black.

437. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87341 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 11:14 pm

We realized that religion is just another superstition without wasting hours studying philosophy.

I agree totally. That's why I'm not really interested in Theology. Philosophy though is much broader than god.

438. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87338 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Spinoza developed his system out of the Cartesian system, he reduced Descartes dualism to a substance Monism with two knowable attributes corresponding to Descartes two substances (thus solving Descartes' problem of interaction between mind and body).

Cool. Your namesake is next on my reading list. Descartes mind body interaction breaks the 1st law of thermodynamics. But I guess that kind of thing never bothers a true believer....

439. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87333 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 9:31 pm

One happens to be in my kitchen.

Again the quick witted doctor spies a hole in imprecise language.

440. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87321 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 7:57 pm

it's not about being happy, or clever, or "learned", it's about justification.

Forgive my flippant remarks. I do care. I'm reading bits and pieces of philosophy to better understand the justification I just assumed and the justification or lack thereof that theists assume.
Was reading descartes discourse on the weekend. Struck me as a bit silly. He assumes certain metaphysical claims which determine the course of his philosophy from thereon. But he lived in a different time, sadly many people still accept his philosophy because it meshes well with their beliefs.

441. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87312 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 7:23 pm

I am so tired of idiot atheists.

Gosh we're all really impressed down here I can tell you! Be happy that you're so clever and learned Spinoza.

442. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87274 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Pedant alert:
scio = I know
scire = to know :P
scientia = knowledge/wisdom

443. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87228 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm

"Religion has principles that can help society … Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam … On adultery and living together we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life that helps society"

Abortion should also be made more difficult. "By the time a foetus is 12 weeks old our religion says that the child has got a spirit." Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view".

If that's morality, it's immoral.

444. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86647 by BAEOZ on November 9, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Your true nature is Supreme Bliss

Does that come in caramel flavour?
I think caramel is the most blissful flavour. Thus, supreme bliss would have to be caramel flavoured. QED.

445. The Cancer From Within

Comment #86640 by BAEOZ on November 9, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Bloody hell. The islamists will be onto this like a rat up an aqueduct. Crusade! Crusade!

446. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86633 by BAEOZ on November 9, 2007 at 7:27 pm

It's interesting that the majority of people contacted, refused to do the survey when they understood the subject matter (63%). That alone suggests a sample bias. The results can't be generalized to the population.

447. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86606 by BAEOZ on November 9, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Good article Kelly. Keep 'em coming!

448. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86600 by BAEOZ on November 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

To sum up the good points above:
1. How biased is the research? I mean, if you ask christians should they love their neighbor or does their church group support charities you've already assumed the answer. It's gonna be "Yes, my imaginary friend and his institution are wonderful." The measurement variables in these research efforts are dodgy and only designed to get the answer the researcher is looking for. It's not science.
2. Even if the research is correct, that christian youths are more oriented toward doing some kind of "good" that doesn't prove anything. Giving junkies free smack and needles makes them feel better too. That must be some kind of good.
3. None of the above 2 arguments affect the question of whether there is or isn't a god.

449. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86559 by BAEOZ on November 9, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Roger Stanyard:

You will also find American money behind his attack to the new museum.

Probably Ken Ham's answers in genesis or something shonky like that. Sigh.

450. Velociraptor and prehistoric co. breathed like birds: study

Comment #86276 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 10:56 pm

souless psyche

There's a bit of irony there. psyche is greek for soul. Though we use it to mean mind. :)

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