Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
by Dan Dennett, Lord Winston
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Print this article with comments | Without comments
Is religion a threat to rationality and science?Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2275308,00.html
Prof Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston present their arguments ahead of tonight's public debate
Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston
Tuesday April 22, 2008
The Guardian
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
2. Comment #166154 by Spinoza on April 22, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
3. Comment #166156 by Mbee on April 22, 2008 at 10:16 pm
"You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife."4. Comment #166160 by mordacious1 on April 22, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I don't know why this made me laugh. I think it was "Lord Winston, professor of fertility studies". The Lord of fertility? I thought that was god's job! 5. Comment #166163 by MatthewL on April 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
It's funny that Winston id a leading expert on embryo reaserch, if anyone's an atheist, I would of thought it'd be him. 6. Comment #166164 by 82abhilash on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 pm
2. Comment #166154 by Spinoza on April 22, 2008 at 9:50 pm
With all due respect (which, intellectually, doesn't seem very much due at all), my grandfather survived a Nazi camp without any spirituality whatsoever.
In fact, the experience solidified his lack of faith.
7. Comment #166166 by Roland_F on April 22, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Still no proof of God from the religious speaker Robert Winston.Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force
8. Comment #166168 by born-again-atheist on April 22, 2008 at 11:23 pm
"Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job"9. Comment #166171 by Roland_F on April 22, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Yes the book of Job: a sadistic God is betting with Satan and plays bad games with poor Job cause havoc to his live, and the moral of this story : faith in God gives you power to survive any hardship.10. Comment #166172 by MartinSGill on April 23, 2008 at 12:08 am
Having recently read Viktor Frankl's book (Man's Search for Meaning) I drew the conclusion that he was either agnostic/atheist or possibly a deist, despite his Jewish heritage.11. Comment #166178 by GordonYKWong on April 23, 2008 at 1:07 am
I must be honest and say:
If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess?There... you've said it, all that shit is irrational. Affirmative wins by the negative rolling over and playing dead.
12. Comment #166183 by passutoba on April 23, 2008 at 1:28 am
I think that Lord Winston is unconvinced by his own arguments...he is still a Jewish mummy's boy, permanently in thrall to the wishes of his probably overbearing Jewish momma. Whether she is dead or alive is irrelevant....she simply won't allow him to give up his belief in god.13. Comment #166186 by Szymanowski on April 23, 2008 at 1:34 am
Lord Winston IS God. QED 14. Comment #166187 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 1:35 am
Comment #166172 by MartinSGillHaving recently read Viktor Frankl's book (Man's Search for Meaning) I drew the conclusion that he was either agnostic/atheist or possibly a deist, despite his Jewish heritage.I can't find the quotation. But wasn't it Frankl who said the biggest lift in the morale of camp inmates was being moved to a new camp where there were no chimneys?
15. Comment #166190 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 1:36 am
There has been a recent debate about this on Brian English's blog. 16. Comment #166191 by BicycleRepairMan on April 23, 2008 at 1:37 am
..he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously.
...the book of Job.
17. Comment #166192 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 1:39 am
"only those with some spirituality - ... - survived the depravity of the camp"
18. Comment #166193 by Vaal on April 23, 2008 at 1:39 am
One decisive knock-out hook from Bennett, and a feeble empty parry from Winston. Like Muhammed Ali versus Adrian Mole. I am sure Epeeist can better describe it in fencing parlance. 19. Comment #166199 by Styrer- on April 23, 2008 at 1:55 am
I know Dennett only from 'Breaking the Spell', which I found a long-winded and unengaging read, and the same qualities of writing are more or less evident here. Glad to see that he's at least stopped sucking up to Muslims with talk of their 'great faith', but he's no match for a Dawk or a Hitch, in person or in print.20. Comment #166200 by HunterZolomon on April 23, 2008 at 1:56 am
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
21. Comment #166201 by Adam Morrison on April 23, 2008 at 1:59 am
Might not God disapprove of this much more?
22. Comment #166203 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:00 am
In my humble opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that - at the very least - religion has damaged Lord Winston's rationality and ability to apply critical thinking.
If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess?The first would make you an idiot, the latter, a ghettoising idiot.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job.I've read it already, thank you. I've no need to pollute my mind with such filth again, thank you very much.
23. Comment #166205 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 2:04 am
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book
In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty.
24. Comment #166207 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:08 am
23. Comment #166205 by Quetzalcoatl -
25. Comment #166208 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 2:12 am
Irate-
26. Comment #166211 by rod-the-farmer on April 23, 2008 at 2:22 am
I agree with Styrer....unimpressive on both sides. And then this
Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife."
27. Comment #166212 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:22 am
25. Comment #166208 by Quetzalcoatl -
28. Comment #166213 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 2:24 am
The "lack of serious scholarship" rubbish again is it? And then he goes on to suggest that Dennett re-reads the "deeply mysterious and spiritual book" of Job. Lord Winstons response is worthy of nothing but ridicule.
29. Comment #166216 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 2:31 am
3. Comment #166156 by Mbee on April 22, 2008 at 10:16 pm
"You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife."
Can't lose? You live your life as a lie, then when you die you don't even know that you were wrong!
If you don't believe in god then you live your life based on the evidence available and when you die, if by some remote chance you were wrong, at least you would know it!
30. Comment #166217 by CJ22 on April 23, 2008 at 2:31 am
Winston: "Well maybe so, but science isn't perfect either and Dennett doesn't know everything about religion so there!"31. Comment #166219 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 2:36 am
To see how religion can scramble a scientific mind, one need look no further than the physicist Frank Tipler, who has attempted to explain the resurrection of Jesus in terms of antimatter
32. Comment #166220 by jonjermey on April 23, 2008 at 2:37 am
"Why do intelligent people believe such tripe? Are they that indoctrinated as children? Is there a part of the brain associated with critical thinking that just doesn't work as well for them?"33. Comment #166223 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:45 am
32. Comment #166220 by jonjermey -
34. Comment #166224 by EvidenceOnly on April 23, 2008 at 2:45 am
Here is how you can ridicule Pascal's wager:35. Comment #166225 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:48 am
34. Comment #166224 by EvidenceOnly -
36. Comment #166226 by EvidenceOnly on April 23, 2008 at 2:49 am
35, That is kind of covered in option 4, punishment (b)37. Comment #166228 by bugaboo on April 23, 2008 at 2:54 am
Really dissapointed in Winston. Thought he was simply a quiet believer in belief but now think he's dangerous. Pascals wager? WTF? The use of the courtiers reply. Taking the populist stance equating "brights" with intellegence. Answer this question truthfully Prof Winston Do you believe in God?38. Comment #166230 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:56 am
36. Comment #166226 by EvidenceOnly -
39. Comment #166231 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 2:56 am
Remember, all the different gods seem quite specific on the evils of worshipping other gods. They all seem to get quite pissed about that.
40. Comment #166233 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 2:59 am
39. Comment #166231 by AdrianB -
41. Comment #166235 by teetzelk on April 23, 2008 at 3:09 am
Lord Winston didn't really answer the question.42. Comment #166237 by EvidenceOnly on April 23, 2008 at 3:10 am
Regarding "the book of Job".43. Comment #166240 by BicycleRepairMan on April 23, 2008 at 3:21 am
No clearer evidence that man created god in his/herimage!
44. Comment #166242 by Lycosid on April 23, 2008 at 3:24 am
Lord Winston, as a Jew you're an extremist if you hold others as inferior to yourself as a result of your misguided beliefs.45. Comment #166244 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:34 am
Comment #166219 by Quetzalcoatl 46. Comment #166247 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 3:40 am
I have to agree with most posters here; a poor, unreasoning and disappointing job done by Lord Winston. My respect for his achievements and status goes down as a result of his use of Pascal's wager, the internment camp anecdote and his refusal to address the core questions. 47. Comment #166249 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 3:46 am
Steve-
I'll see if I can find out his explanation of how Jesus walked on water
48. Comment #166253 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 3:49 am
More evidence for the prosecution, perhaps?
49. Comment #166255 by jaytee_555 on April 23, 2008 at 3:52 am
"In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty".50. Comment #166258 by Styrer- on April 23, 2008 at 4:09 am
Comment #166255 by jaytee_555 on April 23, 2008 at 3:52 am
"In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty".
This is absolutely true. One of the two does its best to enlighten man's uncertainty, and has been spectacularly successful. The other one actively perpetuates ignorance by dreaming up absurd explanations which are accepted only by fools.
Is there any 'uncertainty' about which is which?
51. Comment #166260 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 4:16 am
Comment #166253 by irate_atheistMore evidence for the prosecution, perhaps?Cue boy scout song:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/04/22/brazil-priest-flying-party-balloons-lost-at-sea.aspx
52. Comment #166261 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 4:18 am
The title of this article is a trick question, right?53. Comment #166262 by Logicel on April 23, 2008 at 4:19 am
Winston: ...there is plentiful evidence of it (i.e., religion) being a cohesive force.54. Comment #166263 by Barry Pearson on April 23, 2008 at 4:20 am
AdrianB: Remember, all the different gods seem quite specific on the evils of worshipping other gods. They all seem to get quite pissed about that.
irate_atheis: I suppose the problem could arise if they all gang up on you as a collective.
55. Comment #166264 by alfonso on April 23, 2008 at 4:21 am
If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess?
56. Comment #166267 by j s bach on April 23, 2008 at 4:25 am
I am utterly mystified how a concentration camp survivor, not to speak of any Jew, can still believe in their yahweh god and that their faith should have provided the strength to get them through the unimaginably ghastly horrors of an extermination camp. I find it hard to believe that it wasn't the basic human instinct to survive but religion. If yahweh is out there - then surely it has been clear since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem that he's really gone off his "chosen" people. 57. Comment #166268 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 4:25 am
52. Comment #166260 by epeeist -
58. Comment #166270 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 4:27 am
Barry,59. Comment #166271 by flying goose on April 23, 2008 at 4:27 am
Comment 166223 irate atheist
60. Comment #166273 by Barry Pearson on April 23, 2008 at 4:29 am
You become an extremist the minute you condemn others for not following your own irrational views. That is, you can decide to eat, drink, wear whatever you want, the moment you expect from me that I do exactly as you, to honor YOUR god, that very moment, you have become an extremist.
61. Comment #166278 by artificialhabitat on April 23, 2008 at 4:43 am
He doesn't seem to directly address the point in his bit, but seriously, Winton's going to argue that religion is NOT a threat to science and rationality?
62. Comment #166281 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 4:54 am
60. Comment #166271 by flying goose -And what should we do to cure that mental illness?It's a real problem. Unless the sufferer realises they're ill, they can't be cured. But once they realise they are suffering from this delusion, they're - de facto - cured.
63. Comment #166288 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 5:07 am
One of the most infuriating things about (most?) theists is the way you can almost literally *hear* the ears shut, and the brain close off at the slightest hint of anything that draws attention to inconsistency in their thinking.64. Comment #166294 by Reg on April 23, 2008 at 5:14 am
Comment #166253 by irate_atheist
65. Comment #166301 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 5:29 am
To be fair to Winston, I really do think that he is a nice decent chap. Like Dawkins, I also think he doesn't believe in 90% of the religious BS as well.
66. Comment #166303 by Corylus on April 23, 2008 at 5:33 am
artificialhabitatWinston works in fertility treatments and embryology. His scientific discipline is directly suffering sustained attack by religion right now.
You'd think he'd have noticed that.
67. Comment #166305 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 am
Adam Morrison wrote:"For a Canadian, eternal fire doesn't sound so bad, plus I can hang with Socrates, Plato, Juilius Caesar, Spinoza, etc. "
68. Comment #166306 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 5:41 am
Comment by Winston:
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty.
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life.
But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain.
In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous.
The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
69. Comment #166312 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 5:50 am
The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society.
70. Comment #166313 by Monosilabbiq on April 23, 2008 at 5:51 am
Flying Goose and Irate.71. Comment #166314 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 23, 2008 at 5:53 am
Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
72. Comment #166317 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 6:07 am
winston talks a lot of wool.
spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
73. Comment #166319 by logical on April 23, 2008 at 6:12 am
I cannot find more on how the debate went on.
74. Comment #166326 by V'Ger on April 23, 2008 at 6:26 am
"The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous."
75. Comment #166327 by Roland_F on April 23, 2008 at 6:28 am
46. Comment #166244 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 3:34 amComment #166219 by Quetzalcoatl
I'll see if I can find out his explanation of how Jesus walked on water.
76. Comment #166329 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 6:32 am
Roland F-
77. Comment #166331 by lievemebe on April 23, 2008 at 6:42 am
Winston says:Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty.
78. Comment #166333 by Darwin's badger on April 23, 2008 at 6:45 am
If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess?
79. Comment #166334 by Apeseed on April 23, 2008 at 6:46 am
One aspect of Pascal's wager that often seems to be overlooked is the fact that not only are you betting on the existence of god but on an ethnocentric view that it's the Judeo-Christian god. Where are the caveats like if the Hindus are right, your actions determine your future reincarnation and if the Sumerians were 80. Comment #166348 by EvidenceOnly on April 23, 2008 at 7:22 am
I posted this on a different topic, It is relevant here to put the "uncertainty" of science and religion in perspective.81. Comment #166349 by jimbob on April 23, 2008 at 7:24 am
In the midst of all this nobody has commented on the plight of Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh.82. Comment #166362 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 7:41 am
Suggestion for Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al:
83. Comment #166369 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 am
84. Comment #166362 by Dr Benway -
84. Comment #166370 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 am
In case you don't already know, the motion was defeated:
85. Comment #166372 by Chris Bell on April 23, 2008 at 7:48 am
Is there video of the debate?86. Comment #166375 by MrPickwick on April 23, 2008 at 7:50 am
Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies.According to his way of reasoning I bet this lordy is an "Avian Transportation Theory" proponent.
Is there video of the debate?They will release a Podcast of the event soon.
87. Comment #166378 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 am
Haven't read all the posts. Can someone shed some light on Lord Winston's comment that, '...Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.'
88. Comment #166385 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 7:59 am
I must say that the Winston-bashing is uninformed and unappealing. Furthermore, it adds weight to his notion of certainty, and undermines the credibility of Dennett's campaign to label athiests as brights. 89. Comment #166391 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:04 am
Comment #166385 by fides_et_ratio I must say that the Winston-bashing is uninformed and unappealing.
90. Comment #166392 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:04 am
Fides-
91. Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
A couple of obvious ones from this page. I left out the more subtle ones.
According to his way of reasoning I bet this lordy is an "Avian Transportation Theory" proponent.
You'd be stuck with Lord Winston and the like carping on in a whiny voice "weeee told you sooooooo" for all eternity... OK OK I believe!! ;o)
And just constant constant bullshit about faith this and faith that, and faith coming out of my fucking ears. Raaaa! It is all I can do sometimes not to smack their overly fucking smug faces in.
92. Comment #166412 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 8:25 am
93. Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio -
93. Comment #166415 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:29 am
Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio94. Comment #166419 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:32 am
Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio And a glimpse of athiest-induced violence, festering away in the dangerous certainty that Winston exposes.Oh come on, where's the rationality in that statement. Strawman and hasty generalisation.
95. Comment #166424 by mblarson323 on April 23, 2008 at 8:37 am
It's like I been sayin' all along. The more religious you are the more you lose the ability to think rationally. 96. Comment #166433 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 8:43 am
Steve-
97. Comment #166435 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:45 am
Comment #166433 by Quetzalcoatl 98. Comment #166442 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 8:49 am
99. Comment #166435 by Steve Zara -
99. Comment #166446 by nalfeshnee on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am
jonjermer said:
"Why do intelligent people believe such tripe? Are they that indoctrinated as children? Is there a part of the brain associated with critical thinking that just doesn't work as well for them?"
I have come to think that Christians -- and probably other believers -- don't actually HAVE any logical structure to their beliefs. They are in love, infatuated with the idea of God, and like any teenager falling in love for the first time they simply cannot bear any suggestion that their God is less than perfect in every way. This is why most rational arguments don't make any impact: they fail to penetrate this wall of infatuation. Lord Winston and his allies are simply dancing around, moonstruck, singing "I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love with a wonderful Guy!" loudly enough to drown out any negative comments.
That suggests that the best approach to take is to treat a believer like a friend who is besotted with an unsuitable partner: try and show them as gently as possible the qualities which make the partner undesirable. Perhaps the next debater should patiently go through the Argument from Evil over and over again until there are signs it is starting to stick.
100. Comment #166451 by nalfeshnee on April 23, 2008 at 8:54 am
"In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty."101. Comment #166473 by Ty_Webb on April 23, 2008 at 9:06 am
Seems like a perfect opportunity to add the definition of "split the winnings" from Roger's Profanisaurus (a wonderful book by the way, although not for the faint of heart):102. Comment #166489 by nalfeshnee on April 23, 2008 at 9:15 am
Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
103. Comment #166491 by black wolf on April 23, 2008 at 9:16 am
Whereas religion is actually happier when it knows nothing. Because then it can add to the uncertainty by making stuff up.
104. Comment #166492 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:17 am
That suggests that the best approach to take is to treat a believer like a friend who is besotted with an unsuitable partner:
105. Comment #166503 by Noodly on April 23, 2008 at 9:25 am
That Healey comment "savaged by a sheep" comes to mind. No doubt Dennett will win the argument, but will Winston notice? 106. Comment #166517 by Double Bass Atheist on April 23, 2008 at 9:33 am
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth".
107. Comment #166526 by Chris Davis on April 23, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ironic that the noble lord, who clearly knows nothing whatsoever about atheism, should trot out the old rubbish about RD et al not knowing enough about theology...108. Comment #166542 by Barry Pearson on April 23, 2008 at 9:46 am
nalfeshnee: I can't find the reference but I seem to remember Primo Levi saying something about Auschwitz confirming his belief in no God. He (if it was Levi) also said - interestingly - that it was in fact a *moral* decision he made not to give in and "find God" in Auschwitz, since he recognized "faith" as the mental and emotional crutch it is, and refused to indulge in it to merely make himself feel better in the light of the likelihood of his imminent death.
109. Comment #166589 by andydjw on April 23, 2008 at 10:20 am
Seems the good Doctor should stick to the Vaginas and leave the thinking to others.110. Comment #166601 by Border Collie on April 23, 2008 at 10:32 am
Is religion a threat to rationality and science? When has it not been? Amen, Dr. Dan ... 111. Comment #166671 by shaleylouise on April 23, 2008 at 11:24 am
Why Pascal's Wager is RIDICULOUS COWARDLY BETTING!112. Comment #166692 by non_plussed on April 23, 2008 at 11:35 am
Dr Benway
It's no fair pitting the atheist against a representative of woo generally. The biggest problem with woo is the lack of any reliable means of judging woo A better than woo B. We need a three-way, at minimum, to demonstrate this fact.
113. Comment #166702 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 11:41 am
32. Comment #166220 by jonjermey on April 23
114. Comment #166706 by alexmzk on April 23, 2008 at 11:45 am
oh dear, i thought Lord Winston was better than thatOr is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
115. Comment #166733 by Bluff_King_Hal on April 23, 2008 at 11:59 am
"If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess?"116. Comment #166739 by AmericanGodless on April 23, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Dennett: ...religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability.
Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
117. Comment #166742 by Hypoluxa on April 23, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Comment #166692 by non_plussed-This is the main pleasure to be found in watching the BBC's Sunday morning religious debate program 'The Big Question'. The pattern generally is for the religious speakers to mutually agree that religion is 'A Good Thing' for society when talked about in general terms and then bicker once they get to actual details. Of course, the programme flits from one assertion to the next, treating all as equally valid and then moves on without reaching a conclusion.
Richard Dawkins appeared on it recently and got into trouble for having the temerity to suggest that we don't need to respect people's opinions that contradict evidence. He was criticising an evangelical who called homosexuality a lifestyle choice.
That programme started with the religious welcoming the influx of 'traditional values' (read intolerance) being brought by religious immigrants and ended in dispute over exorcism and the devil. Richard seemed genuinely bemused at the spectacle of adults debating the finer details of their imaginary worlds.
The multi-woo format highlights the arbitrary nature of religious claims, but this never seems to register with their proponents. Somehow, the presence of contradictory beliefs justifies the believer's right to hold a personal version of reality, rather than telling them they need a more reliable means to assess evidence. Just shows how well defended these memes are.
118. Comment #166780 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Further to the dirtiness of sex, I am intrigued by how it seems to be received in some non-believers minds that I have spoken to, that there could be anything 'dirty' about sex.
119. Comment #166830 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 23, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Damn, Dennett. That was like Harris but with more balls. (Apologies to the ladies) Reading this I can't get that image from the D to the Dawk parody vid of Dennett in the pimp furs, hat, and gold chain. YEAH! ;) 120. Comment #166849 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm
"Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice.
121. Comment #166900 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 23, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Further to the dirtiness of sex, I am intrigued by how it seems to be received in some non-believers minds that I have spoken to, that there could be anything 'dirty' about sex.
Is this from cultural tradition, or is it more deeply ingrained - perhaps from sex (in the male) having had to be a furtive stealing of the rarer Alpha-male's entitlement?
122. Comment #166927 by Stafford Gordon on April 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Professing a belief is fine. One doesn't really have to believe it. Unless, of course, it's a belief in God. In which case God, being, well, God, would know you weren't on the level.123. Comment #166953 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm
^ Thanks Colwyn, that's interesting and seems to make a lot of sense.
124. Comment #166985 by Stafford Gordon on April 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I recently came into contact with someone who's family run a 'farm' where, for a fee, your children can be told about, among other related matters, the miraculous birth of Jesus.125. Comment #166992 by non_plussed on April 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Colwyn Abernathy
I've never understood this rationalisation of Job.
126. Comment #167023 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 23, 2008 at 2:46 pm
This suggests women should accept the 'it was only sex' excuse then? ;)
What does Tribonin mean? (Scuse my ignorance)
127. Comment #167077 by Clappers on April 23, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I know Dennett only from 'Breaking the Spell', which I found a long-winded and unengaging read, and the same qualities of writing are more or less evident here. Glad to see that he's at least stopped sucking up to Muslims with talk of their 'great faith', but he's no match for a Dawk or a Hitch, in person or in print.
128. Comment #167115 by DalaiDrivel on April 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Of course, I am backing Dennett in this debate, and while I think we are naturaly cautious generally at confrntation as a species (it hurts survival) the "Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion" motto has substantial reason to anyone here.129. Comment #167149 by Friggertool on April 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Winston Says...
130. Comment #167173 by FVGAZI on April 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm
.... sigh... the same old argument of morality and "goodness" being intrinsic to deists (who, may in fact fear punishment from the almighty for not helping the poor, for rape, etc.. to do 'good'). Was this argument not put to bed?131. Comment #167182 by Darwin's badger on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Strange that Winston would approvingly quote a passage that basically says: "Who are you to think you can question me?" One commentary I found on this passage ends with "Humble faith and sincere obedience see farthest and best into the will of the Lord." Why would a scientist encourage us to shut up and do what we're told?He only does it when it's his crutch that's being questioned. When it's the Catholic Church, he calls them liars. He's the stereotypical religious hypocrite who rationalises his hypocrisy in order to ease his cognitive dissonance.
132. Comment #167267 by Rational_G on April 23, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The answer is..........133. Comment #167274 by Goldy on April 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm
marv78rpm
134. Comment #167278 by rar on April 23, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Lord Winston did more question asking than belief professing. And yet, the replies to his intellectual argument are, for the most part, angry and derogatory. A weird thing for enlightened, rational, unbiased people to do. For a group so certain in their beliefs, there seems to be a strong need for reassurance in the posts.135. Comment #167309 by ofir on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Lord Winston did more question asking than belief professing. And yet, the replies to his intellectual argument are, for the most part, angry and derogatory. A weird thing for enlightened, rational, unbiased people to do. For a group so certain in their beliefs, there seems to be a strong need for reassurance in the posts.
136. Comment #167313 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 10:03 pm
On the subject of Breaking the Spell I thought is was quite well done and engaging. However he will have to do a great deal to beat what I think is his master work, Darwin's Dangerous Idea 137. Comment #167321 by Janus on April 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm
There is nothing wrong with certainty.138. Comment #167355 by emmet on April 23, 2008 at 11:47 pm
David Robertson et al point to him and say, 'See! Scientists do believe in god!
139. Comment #167391 by dj2baduk on April 24, 2008 at 1:39 am
fides_et_ratio wrote in comment 93:
140. Comment #167402 by AdrianB on April 24, 2008 at 2:15 am
136. Comment #167274 by Goldy on April 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm
marv78rpm
We had an eruv story not too long ago. You can get around all these silly God-given laws by putting some twine or raising some posts around an area, call it an eruv and bingo - God doesn't know!
141. Comment #167403 by Kimpatsu on April 24, 2008 at 2:16 am
Which god would Robert Winston be thinking of when he cites Pascal's Wager? What happens if I devote myself t the Xian god, only to be tossed into Hell by Allah? Or Zeus? Or Baal?
142. Comment #167434 by Corylus on April 24, 2008 at 3:27 am
There is a review of this in the Guardian today.
143. Comment #167435 by CJ22 on April 24, 2008 at 3:30 am
"I too entered the Lager as a nonbeliever, and as a nonbeliever I was liberated. Actually, the experience of the Lager with its frightful iniquity confirmed me in my nonbelief".
144. Comment #167460 by matt_shute-07 on April 24, 2008 at 4:27 am
Lord Winston, who has had to defend the new Fertility Bill against dogmatic Catholics, ought to know better... yet he continues to trot out this same tired old nonsense that religion is no threat.
145. Comment #167476 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 4:59 am
141. Comment #167355 by emmet doesn't the UK's NHS have homeopathic units?
'Why don't you do homeopathy at this surgery?' she [a patient] asked.
I don't normally get involved in arguments about homeopathy, because people who want to argue in its favour are, by definition, people who cannot manage a rational argument, but she was provoking me.
'Because it's a crock of shite,' I told her.
146. Comment #167485 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 5:16 am
Rar: (#137)
147. Comment #167499 by Johnny O on April 24, 2008 at 5:31 am
Here's what seems like a decent summary of the debate.
148. Comment #167504 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 5:36 am
Comment #167501 by clearmind 149. Comment #167510 by Philip1978 on April 24, 2008 at 5:45 am
Johnny O150. Comment #167515 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 6:00 am
Religion is the manual and handbook of humans if some they interpret it wrongly, that does not mean that God does not exist. If you take it wrong and fail to interpret it according to the time an circumstances, it has nothing to do with religion and accordingly evolution delusion.
Your attempts are like the same as a little boy whose delusional toy is proved that it is delusional, having frustrated, attacking on real toys of other kids who are unable to use their toys properly and they damaged them.
151. Comment #167516 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:02 am
Comment #167501 by clearmindYour attacking on religions and their some practices will not make evolution theory true.Wooter in the Richard Dawkins/Michael Shermer thread you asked me some questions. I gave you some answers that you can see in http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-The-Official-Skeptic-Podcast,page3#166550
152. Comment #167517 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 6:04 am
I think Daniel Dennett is brilliant - he sums up the arguments against religion so well. Pity about his old-testament style beard, though. Why do some men think beards are attractive? Is it a case of 'I must be a man because I can grow all this disgusting wiry stuff over my face?' Or do they find them useful for storing their left-over chips? Couldn't his wife be persuaded to shave it off while he's asleep?153. Comment #167520 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:09 am
Comment #167501 by clearmind Religion is the manual and handbook of humans if some they interpret it wrongly, that does not mean that God does not exist. If you take it wrong and fail to interpret it according to the time an circumstances, it has nothing to do with religion and accordingly evolution delusion.
154. Comment #167526 by paceetrate on April 24, 2008 at 6:19 am
"is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously."155. Comment #167528 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:22 am
Comment #167520 by Steve ZaraIt shows, at the very least, that God is pretty awful at writing manuals, which is particularly strange considering that he (according to creationists) also made the people who are supposed to understand the manuals.Oh, come on Steve. You are a programmer, how much fun is there in writing documentation.
156. Comment #167529 by Skeptic Jim on April 24, 2008 at 6:25 am
How can any educated person in this day and age propose Pascals wager as an argument. Apart from being a false dichotomy it also assumes it is possible to choose to believe in god.157. Comment #167531 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 6:27 am
Oi, fuzzface [Steve z/eepeist]
158. Comment #167533 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:34 am
Comment #167531 by EnlightenmeI wanna see your answer to Dinah's Query - it needs answering if we're going to require answers from Wooter surely to god? :)The moustache is the source of my strength. Without it I would be as an ordinary man.
159. Comment #167536 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 6:37 am
I di wonder where in Hades you get the strength to deal with the reason sieve ;) 160. Comment #167538 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:38 am
Comment #167528 by epeeist161. Comment #167541 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 6:41 am
Woo! I've just noticed that I was used as an example of atheist violence!162. Comment #167543 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 6:42 am
My neice commented to me on Sunday that her new boyfriend has a picture of himself without his sideburns and '(soul patch thingy?)
163. Comment #167545 by irate_atheist on April 24, 2008 at 6:45 am
166. Comment #167541 by Sargeist -
164. Comment #167548 by Cartomancer on April 24, 2008 at 6:48 am
Facial hair makes men look like men rather than boys. I can't understand why this isn't considered something attractive. I do think Dennett's beard is rather excessive though.De gustibus non disputandum est... (and now I'm going to ignore my own advice)
165. Comment #167549 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 6:48 am
"Consider yourself pwnd"
166. Comment #167551 by rotaTOR on April 24, 2008 at 6:53 am
Much prefer the smooth, boyish look
167. Comment #167552 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:54 am
Comment #167548 by CartomancerMuch prefer the smooth, boyish look
Testosterone levels are generally highest in men from about 18-25, so it makes a kind of sense that this is when they should be at their most alluring.
168. Comment #167553 by black wolf on April 24, 2008 at 6:55 am
I think Daniel Dennett is brilliant - he sums up the arguments against religion so well. Pity about his old-testament style beard, though. Why do some men think beards are attractive? Is it a case of 'I must be a man because I can grow all this disgusting wiry stuff over my face?' Or do they find them useful for storing their left-over chips? Couldn't his wife be persuaded to shave it off while he's asleep?
169. Comment #167554 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:56 am
Comment #167551 by rotaTOR 170. Comment #167560 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 6:59 am
"not something to stir the blood in a sexual way I fear"
171. Comment #167561 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:01 am
irate,172. Comment #167563 by Sargeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:02 am
Cartomancer:173. Comment #167564 by Cartomancer on April 24, 2008 at 7:03 am
yuck.sounds like a quote from a member of NAMBLA.Sigh... I get that quite often. It is rather irritating, and pretty offensive when you think about it - being lumped in with paedophiles because of my entirely normal and entirely legal sexual preferences for the younger man.
174. Comment #167566 by bugaboo on April 24, 2008 at 7:04 am
Dennetts beard makes him look like Santa and Winstons moustache is rather Stalinesque!! Dinah :we guys get beyond a certain age (when testosterone levels decline it would appear) and it's a pain in the ass shaving everyday so... Is that right guys? (Ive got a beard and dont know how to do a wink with the keyboard)175. Comment #167571 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 7:07 am
Dinah, I really apologise if you were being tongue in cheek ok :) 176. Comment #167578 by Acitta on April 24, 2008 at 7:15 am
While the arguments of Lord Winston are not in any way convincing, I am bothered by Dennet's insistence that all religion is impervious to reason. He obviously hasn't read the writings of Nagarjuna. Rational inquiry is central to the Madhyamika school of Buddhism and Madhyamika philosophy is central to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Dalai Lama.177. Comment #167579 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 7:16 am
Re Comment #167553 by black wolf178. Comment #167589 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 7:23 am
I'm rather hoping rotator was *trying* to be tongue in cheek.
179. Comment #167591 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 7:26 am
Comment #167578 by Acitta I don't know whether you realise it but you are guilty of equivocation. Are you classifying Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy?
While the arguments of Lord Winston are not in any way convincing, I am bothered by Dennet's insistence that all religion is impervious to reason. He obviously hasn't read the writings of Nagarjuna. Rational inquiry is central to the Madhyamika school of Buddhism and Madhyamika philosophy is central to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Dalai Lama.
180. Comment #167612 by AmericanGodless on April 24, 2008 at 8:01 am
From the post-debate article linked in: 145. Comment #167434 by Corylus:Dennett also rejected the idea that science is certain about anything - except the method it uses to pursue the truth. For Dennett, it is science that expresses uncertainty and religion that plays "the faith card when rationality is no longer on its side".
It is religion that lets people hide behind "the certainty and sincerity of their passions to do something inexcusable", he said.
181. Comment #167636 by Teratornis on April 24, 2008 at 8:21 am
Comment #166217 by CJ22:
Epic fail. To be honest, I actually expected better from Winston than this feeble wounded apology for unreason.
If Winston (who is undeniably a very clever clogs) can't summon up a decent excuse for the ills committed by religion other than the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the God of the gaps, a dash of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Pascal's Dumbass Wager (which has at least 20 solid refutations that I'm aware of), then religion is well and truly embuggered.
182. Comment #167648 by epeeist on April 24, 2008 at 8:37 am
Comment #167623 by clearmind(Newton's law's of gravity explain the orbits of the planets)No, that isn't the way dialogue works. I gave you answers to your questions. Now it is your turn to give answers to mine.
Sorry to correct you: Newton did not/cannot create that law; he just found it. The one who finds it and the one who creates cannot be mixed up.
Okay get a Rubik's cube and try to set it without touching it.Is simply not an answer to any of the questions I posed.
183. Comment #167661 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 8:44 am
Comment #167623 by clearmindSorry to correct you: Newton did not/cannot create that law; he just found it.
184. Comment #167663 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 8:46 am
Teratornis: I don't know how to answer fully, but I know I was hooked, and I know I've been persuaded*. And without any bullshit whatsoever this; watching the 1991 Christmas lectures had a great part to play. The map of Dinosaur extinction theory/beliefs, though not a clincher, will go with me to my grave.
185. Comment #167681 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 9:04 am
Don't get me wrong Tera, I'm (somewhat) pleased about $130 oil - though I'm very concerned that people have reached for/persuaded us that biofuel was supposed to be an easy answer, and people are rioting & dying right now - and we don't know if commodity speculators have any 'Reason' whatsoever do we now?
186. Comment #167685 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 9:07 am
'clearmind's' mind seems about as clear as thick oxtail soup or a mud-filled ditch. I have to confess that most of the time I have no idea what he is on about. Is this a common problem, or is it just me?187. Comment #167697 by Acitta on April 24, 2008 at 9:15 am
Comment #167591 by epeeistI don't know whether you realise it but you are guilty of equivocation. Are you classifying Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy?
Are (or were) you a Buddhist? Either way you are welcome, when we do get religionists here they are mostly Christians. A new point of view is always nice to have.
188. Comment #167700 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 9:17 am
^ He employs a 'Reason sieve', apparently Dinah,
189. Comment #167713 by The Reverend Dark on April 24, 2008 at 9:27 am
Wooter wrote, or rather pounded his head against the keyboard like a poorly trained seal.
My favorite pal, reverend say, and i hope and pray for him one day,
he just saw the truth and became a believer and he started writing against evolution and he is writing so well that nobody can refute his comments? What will you do with him?
190. Comment #167720 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 9:32 am
Rev, You've tickled me 'ol tear-ducts again, I needed that - I've gotta go for a lie-down. 191. Comment #167846 by 2/cb on April 24, 2008 at 11:24 am
is being devout a form of mental illness ?192. Comment #167916 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The map of Dinosaur extinction theory/beliefs
193. Comment #168130 by MelM on April 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Is religion a threat to rationality? Yes, I think so, and I place this in evidence:From Americans United for Separation of Church and Statre. "Sackcloth And Ashes: Birmingham Mayor Schedules Prayer Of Repentance"Unbelievable!
194. Comment #168147 by robotaholic on April 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm
what I don't get about Pascal's stupid wager is how do you make yourself believe anything? Either you pretty well believe it or not right?
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job.made me upset slightly -
God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth?well the earth isn't on any foundation, it's floating in dark outerspace, and Where was Lord Winston (or god for that matter)when humans were evolving for the last 200,000 yrs from our common ancestor with other great apes? -(you can see Winston here lol: http://www.robertwinston.org/)
195. Comment #168176 by Wosret on April 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm
28. Comment #166213 by Steve Zara
I like to use the example of Kepler, who struggled for years to make his data fit models of the cosmos derived from the idea of God the Geometer, and in the end (being at heart an honest scientist) gave up and found that orbits were ellipses.
196. Comment #168178 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Mitchell Gilks,
197. Comment #168193 by Teratornis on April 24, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Comment #167663 by Enlightenme..:
Teratornis: I don't know how to answer fully, but I know I was hooked, and I know I've been persuaded.
Edit; About god, not peak oil (yet)
Don't get me wrong Tera, I'm (somewhat) pleased about $130 oil - though I'm very concerned that people have reached for/persuaded us that biofuel was supposed to be an easy answer, and people are rioting & dying right now - and we don't know if commodity speculators have any 'Reason' whatsoever do we now?
The mind of the market, Social-economic Darwinism - Fuck it.
198. Comment #168272 by Mbee on April 24, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Hey Clearmind, wooter, whatever.199. Comment #168281 by Christopher Davis on April 24, 2008 at 10:48 pm
"Why do intelligent people believe such tripe? Are they that indoctrinated as children? Is there a part of the brain associated with critical thinking that just doesn't work as well for them?"---irate_atheist
200. Comment #168288 by Christopher Davis on April 24, 2008 at 11:34 pm
"You become an extremist the minute you condemn others for not following your own irrational views. That is, you can decide to eat, drink, wear whatever you want, the moment you expect from me that I do exactly as you, to honor YOUR god, that very moment, you have become an extremist."---alfonso, comment #56
201. Comment #168313 by Wadsworth on April 25, 2008 at 2:14 am
Why should we be required to "take the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously",--when they apppear be devoted to irrational opposition to every human advance, and want to force us back to bronze-age biblical literalism? Even the Christians have a point when they say "love the sinner (believer), and hate the sin (irrational belief).202. Comment #168332 by Incredulous on April 25, 2008 at 3:19 am
Comment #167501 by clearmind203. Comment #168715 by Copson on April 25, 2008 at 10:04 am
Clearmind, why do you call yourself this??? You produce nothing but unintelligible gibberish!204. Comment #168730 by Clintspark on April 25, 2008 at 10:18 am
I would have liked my first post ever to this forum to be something a bit more thoughtful, but I just couldn't resist:205. Comment #168859 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Copson: Clearmind, why do you call yourself this??? You produce nothing but unintelligible gibberish!
206. Comment #168900 by bitofinger on April 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Winston of Dennett:The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty.
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life.
But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain.
In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
207. Comment #168922 by D'Arcy on April 25, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Oh mighty Mudmind, when will you condescend to talk in English, and express ideas clearly, so that we know what you are talking about?
208. Comment #168956 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I don't actually want to encourage either wooter or clearmind to post more of their gibberish, but perhaps running a first language version of your presumably ill thought out ideas through an automated translater would result in something which was semi-coherent enough for people to respond to.209. Comment #169337 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm
clearmind, I don't know if anyone has asked you this before. English is not your native language, correct? What is?clearmind: I donna wanna say you are talking gibberish because bad words belong to the mouth it pops up. When you wanna talk something someting scientific or logical you can leave that club and go up to the intelligent level of logic, the, you will see us.
210. Comment #169343 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 7:40 pm
cleamind: All creations and creatures are all wisely connected to each other from sun and and sunlight to plants and vegetables or from soil to rain.
211. Comment #169347 by markg on April 25, 2008 at 7:47 pm
clearmind said:silkworms...How come they eat leaves but produce milk?
212. Comment #169350 by lievemebe on April 25, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Comment #169343 by riandouglasDoes holy water ever become not holy again?
213. Comment #169356 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 8:24 pm
markg: Are you aware their are other creatures that eat leaves and produce milk? Cows, goats, sheep, humans, etc?
lievmebe: It stays holy. For example, if you dilute holy water indefinitely it morphs into a homeopathic miracle fluid.
214. Comment #169369 by riandouglas on April 25, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I know you're intending this for the rev. Hope he doesn't mind if I have a run at it, as inept as the attempt is likely to be.clearmind: My mother passed away and yours too, i guess. I see her sometimes in my dreams. Now my question is that if you see your mother in your dream and says "the truth is that God exists, please reverend believe in God." What would you do? This is another sincere question of mine.
And how do you interpret dreams?
215. Comment #169372 by Russell Blackford on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Winston has it exactly backwards. The people who espouse certainty tend to be the religious. For myself, I'm not certain of much at all beyond what I see with my own eyes. But one thing I'm pretty certain about is that we need far more scepticism about religion. The believers don't even have to abandon their faith if they're prepared to accept that it's something that deserves only provisional belief, that there are many alternatives to believing in their pet supernaturalist views of the world, and that religion is far too uncertain to impose on others.216. Comment #169382 by lievemebe on April 25, 2008 at 11:44 pm
riandouglasWhy hasn't something been done.
217. Comment #169388 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 12:19 am
lievemebe: For the last 2000 years most of the attention has centred on the conversion of water into wine rather than turning oceans into holy water.
lievemebe: Who knows what undesirable effects holy sea water would have on the marine ecology. It is far too risky.
As for miraculous winemaking, there has only been once instance of this and it was not accomplished with sea water. So far winemakers have only been able to tap into photosynthesis and fermentation using ordinary water.
218. Comment #169389 by Charlou on April 26, 2008 at 12:22 am
[quote] Comment #166267 by j s bach I am utterly mystified how a concentration camp survivor, not to speak of any Jew, can still believe in their yahweh god and that their faith should have provided the strength to get them through the unimaginably ghastly horrors of an extermination camp. I find it hard to believe that it wasn't the basic human instinct to survive but religion. If yahweh is out there - then surely it has been clear since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem that he's really gone off his "chosen" people.[/quote] 219. Comment #169395 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 1:08 am
Comment #169388 by riandouglasDoes turning water into urine count as a miracle? I mean, there are people who claim it has health benefits, so it's almost a healing miracle.
If so, I've been doing the miraculous for years.
surely that counts as a little miraculous?
220. Comment #169397 by Clintspark on April 26, 2008 at 1:30 am
Clearmind wrote:221. Comment #169398 by Charlou on April 26, 2008 at 1:34 am
^^^ Ahem, lievemebe, the biblical version of a god is the image of men. Please do not refer to it as her/she. Thank you. 222. Comment #169400 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 1:42 am
lievemebe: The co-evolution of grapes and yeast is miraculous (for a creationist) and wonderous (for an atheist) but "a little miraculous" is a category mistake.
223. Comment #169402 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 1:47 am
Charlou224. Comment #169408 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 2:41 am
riandouglas: Should I continue praying to the Lord for a resolution to this problem?
225. Comment #169412 by riandouglas on April 26, 2008 at 3:18 am
lievemebe: Without the authority of the bible or the holy spirit, I commend you to the freedom and beauty of science. Go forth into a sinless world of theory based on evidence.
226. Comment #169487 by Wadsworth on April 26, 2008 at 7:34 am
34. Comment #166224 by EvidenceOnly on April 23, 2008 at 2:45 am227. Comment #169489 by Wadsworth on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 am
Perhaps neutron stars were involved somehow.228. Comment #169493 by Mbee on April 26, 2008 at 7:50 am
Comment #168423 by clearmind on April 25, 2008 at 6:18 am
To Mbee
(must say you are an interesting character.)
Do I have to say thanks?
(you speak semi english,)
Well, thanks God then,- I wrote more than 400 hundred pages argument in English and I got the so-called answers in the same way. So hmm â€" If I were native speaker, this web page would be closed down. I guess it is gonna be a little longer.
(trying to antagonize people)
Nope. People are trying to offend LOGIC and logic defends itself.
(If you ever open up and tell people about yourself and why you believe what you do,)
I am bit of everything. But I would say I am a teacher. I am married and I have a daughter who recently has been observing the amazing creation in silkworms' job.
(I'm afraid you are getting no where!)
I do not think so. I am write in the human level in creation while Russell and Darwin looking for amino acids in the little pond. Indeed, my argument is very simple. Nothing can be existed by itself or other unconscious things like luck or chances; you can refer to my wooter or clearmind comments to see logical analogies.
229. Comment #169561 by Sargeist on April 26, 2008 at 9:53 am
teratornis:230. Comment #169629 by D'Arcy on April 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I do tend to shake my head in wonderment, though, at the (apparent) lack of any media interest in things such as peak oil, food price increases, house price increases (in the UK) and the absurd levels of credit being doled out to people.
231. Comment #169635 by actofgod on April 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I laughed so hard at clearmind's next post following this one!Oh mighty Mudmind, when will you condescend to talk in English, and express ideas clearly, so that we know what you are talking about?
I can't help it, but he DOES sound like something which didn't answer "yes" to the forum registration question "are you human?"
The piece above sounds like some kind of a Markov chain or other chatbot. Perhaps someone really clever is playing a trick on us, posting computer-generated nonsense to see, for how long it passes the turing test... Actually, I hope so.
232. Comment #169640 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Clearmind,
233. Comment #169643 by newskin on April 26, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Wadsworth #169487-
Here is how you can ridicule Pascal's wager.....
234. Comment #169808 by sigbhu on April 26, 2008 at 9:45 pm
"And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes. "235. Comment #169823 by Verily on April 26, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Although this brief duel is only a preview, it is still surprising that Lord Winston would think that much could ride on the dog-eared Pascalian wager, a piece of arcane reductionist logic which treats belief in God as the optimal choice in a cost/benefit analysis. If religion, as he claims, is hard-wired into cognition, it is difficult to see how it could require justification through an appended accountancy audit. In any case, his focus on the Abrahamic beliefs leads one to suppose that he conflates religion and God. This is ironical, for while he questions the profundity of Dennett's research in matters of religion, his own focus appears to overlook the irrelevance of such a conflation to a religion like Buddhism, which counts atheists among its practitioners.236. Comment #169842 by Teratornis on April 27, 2008 at 12:18 am
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games.
237. Comment #169899 by The Reverend Dark on April 27, 2008 at 4:07 am
Wooter/Clearmind/Laughing Boy,
1. Okay get a Rubik's cube and try to set it without touching it. But you can use some external powers, like wind, water, etc which are all unconscious, and then if you set the cube right, then I will believe that amino acids will went for the same way in the first place!
Are silkworms another threat to Evolution? How come a silkworm changes into another structure in a short time? How come they eat leaves but produce milk? How do they do that?
No worries my analogies are well understood by intelligent people not for the people who is supporting a web page where no intelligence allowed.
What part is confusing you? You can use some online dictionaries for ENGLISH WORDS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, or my students can explain them to you?
238. Comment #169912 by Skepticus on April 27, 2008 at 4:38 am
Could you please explain how the inverse square law could be created?
239. Comment #170150 by markg on April 27, 2008 at 12:46 pm
clearmind had a brain fart:
I do not need to see such a dream. I believe in God already.
(Do you ascribe supernatural character to them, such as messages from God? If so, are all of your dreams messages from God, even the naughty ones you occasionally have? If not, how do you tell the difference? Do you only get "God" dreams after you've stopped taking your meds for a period of time?)
I explained it already. But let me put it another way:
Dreams are the reflections of our daily life, our beliefs, fears, loves, likes dislikes; They are like a mirror which reflect what we are what we do and we have in our minds; Divine dreams are the true ones which God helps us if we are doing something wrong.
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.
To MAXD
Why should we take anything from dreams too seriously?
Dreams can be divided into three categories;
1. Divine ones that can help people to lead to the truth
2. If you think of something deeply in a specific day, then, you can dream something about that thing which boggled your mind all day.
3. That depends on person's state of mind; some people can have bad dreams because of their abnormal psychology and mental state of their mind.
Yours go for item 2.
I know that atheists avoid talking about spiritual; based conceptions but dreams are true and we see our dreams WHILE OUR EYES ARE CLOSED. How is that possible? Because our eyes are the windows of our souls.
240. Comment #170745 by LaMettrie on April 27, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Désolé d'écrire en français, mais mon anglais est très mauvais. Je suis tout à fait d'accord, la religion est une menace sérieuse pour la raison et la science, même lorsque l'Eglise par exemple, paraît reconnaître la valeur de la rationalité scientique, comme c'est le cas dans l'encyclique ratio et fides. Dans ce dernier texte, la raison est montrée comme au service de la révélation, et impuissante sans elle. Et bravo au professeur Dennett pour ses passionnants ouvrages !241. 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.
clearmind: I am sorry to ask; your mind has got the eyes?
clearmind: I do not need to see such a dream. I believe in God already.
242. 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?
243. Comment #170754 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:27 am
clearmind: If your mother says, Rian, please believe in God or Allah.
244. Comment #170779 by Russell Blackford on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 am
Religion may not be the biggest threat, or the one with the most political influence, or the most fundamental (which may be something in our evolved human nature), but it has a lot to do with resistance to ideas and practices that seem strange; and it's not just a coincidence that it is often religious leaders who argue most effectively against new ideas (like that new-fangled idea of biological evolution!).245. Comment #170936 by Tyler Durden on April 28, 2008 at 6:44 am
clearmind,
246. Comment #170980 by epeeist on April 28, 2008 at 7:59 am
Comment #169341 by clearmind Wooter - you were mildly amusing to start with but after a while the constant inability to make any answers and the production of random verbiage just becomes banal and dull.
We cannot limit God's creation into a bottle of or glass of water. All creations and creatures are all wisely connected to each other from sun and and sunlight to plants and vegetables or from soil to rain.
247. Comment #171035 by Tyler Durden on April 28, 2008 at 8:59 am
Comment #171032 by clearmind
248. Comment #171081 by Incredulous on April 28, 2008 at 9:53 am
Sorry about the length of the post I just had to get it off my chest.249. Comment #171088 by lollyish on April 28, 2008 at 9:58 am
' Is religion a threat to rationality and science?'250. Comment #171097 by The Reverend Dark on April 28, 2008 at 10:07 am
Wooter regurgitated his own ignorance, and then liking the aroma and enticing, steaming, chunky bits, slurped it back up.
You are at it agaain with lots of vocabulary, slang but yet no satisfying answers to :
It was not milk as you are a smart guy, you can guess, it is SILK they produce - mine was a typo because if writing too fast-
How is that possible? Eat keaves and produce silk, the most expensive fabric on the earth?
Why is that silkworms change into moth in a very short time that evolution goes crazy along with Darwin and Russell?
And how silkworm survived from so called natural selection?
Take care reverend, still I pray for you. I hope you can see your mother in your dream. And you can see the truth.
251. Comment #171206 by regularrog on April 28, 2008 at 11:15 am
'dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?'252. Comment #171462 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 1:56 pm
oh no - clearmind has been here too. Of all the IDiot silliness that has been found on this site, clearmind's is surely the most IDiotic, as much for its inarticulate expression, as for its plain uninformed stupidity. 253. Comment #171493 by Zaphod on April 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
254. Comment #171682 by Cantonakenobi on April 28, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Comment #166201 by Adam Morrison on April 23, 2008 at 1:59 am
255. Comment #171727 by Shuggy on April 28, 2008 at 6:18 pm
This would have been more of a debate if they'd shown each other their first drafts, and perhaps their second. 256. Comment #171836 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 10:53 pm
clearmind: Do you believe in God or Allah or Yehowah?
Or Do you believe in any creator?
257. Comment #171851 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 12:11 am
Comment #171033 by clearmind258. Comment #171890 by debbyo on April 29, 2008 at 1:34 am
clearmind:bad words belong to the mouth it pops up
259. Comment #171967 by Incredulous on April 29, 2008 at 3:40 am
Dear reverend,
Can I get your mother's phone number?
260. Comment #171980 by The Reverend Dark on April 29, 2008 at 4:05 am
Incredulous asks, Is this a Joke?
261. Comment #171991 by The Reverend Dark on April 29, 2008 at 4:47 am
More Wooterine blathering.
1. Contradictions are in the way people think and interpret not in the creation of God and in the truth.
2. I respect all holy divine religions and their prophets since they were sent to deliver the truth.
3. But conflictions and assumptions and chain of assumptions are totally full of in evolution. One assumption follows another and another assumption follows another. Since the first assumption is totally illogical, then, there is a break in the evolution.
You are here too. You know what? What stupidity mean is that millions of creatures with different structures just came from a worm that
and chances through amino acids that came out by chance again by getting in right(!)order by unexplained randomness and blind watchmaker and again amino acids dropped down by chemical rains from planets which we do not know how the planets came out
262. Comment #171992 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 4:49 am
284. Comment #171988 by clearmind -
263. Comment #171993 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 4:59 am
clear-as-mud: 1. Contradictions are in the way people think and interpret not in the creation of God and in the truth.
clearly-a-joke: 2. I respect all holy divine religions and their prophets since they were sent to deliver the truth.
low-clearance: 3. But conflictions and assumptions and chain of assumptions are totally full of in evolution. One assumption follows another and another assumption follows another. Since the first assumption is totally illogical, then, there is a break in the evolution.
clearly-nuts: You are here too. You know what? What stupidity mean is that millions of creatures with different structures just came from a worm that happened by luck and chances through amino acids that came out by chance again by getting in right(!)order by unexplained randomness and blind watchmaker and again amino acids dropped down by chemical rains from planets which we do not know how the planets came out. The story goes on like this and never ends.
264. Comment #171994 by isenhand on April 29, 2008 at 5:04 am
If religion is the "greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress" then does that not imply that if we remove religion we would have greater rationality and scientific progress? That may not follow. All religions have human origins so they should tell us something about being human. Religions just build on and exploit human nature. If we remove religion we would still have the underlying human nature which would attach it self to something else that would then also hinder rationality and scientific progress. To have greater rationality and scientific progress we must focus on what lies underneath religon.265. Comment #171997 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 5:15 am
isenhand.266. Comment #171999 by Verily on April 29, 2008 at 5:22 am
There are quite a few references to 'evidence' in this thread. Does it mean the same thing to those with a rational bent and those with a proclivity for the supernatural? Quite possibly not, but what would we really count as 'evidence' if we were up against the wall? Any fellow blogger who feels so inclined might like it walk through the following hypothetical.267. Comment #172002 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 5:51 am
Verily268. Comment #172005 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 5:56 am
290. Comment #171999 by Verily -
269. Comment #172019 by SurfDude on April 29, 2008 at 6:36 am
It's the bit at the end that has me the most annoyed:270. Comment #172024 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 6:51 am
What do we do with the scientists of old who claimed that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself? It is upon these shoulders that many devout naturalists/atheists stand, apparently disregarding the historicity of the men who brought advances within their respective fields.271. Comment #172028 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 6:58 am
Seeker of truthWhat do we do with the scientists of old who claimed that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself?
272. Comment #172029 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 6:58 am
seeker_of_truth,
273. Comment #172032 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:04 am
294. Comment #172024 by seeker_of_truth -
274. Comment #172033 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:04 am
What do we do with the scientists of old who began their search before the bible was written?
275. Comment #172037 by epeeist on April 29, 2008 at 7:09 am
Comment #172024 by seeker_of_truthWhat do we do with the scientists of old who claimed that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself? It is upon these shoulders that many devout naturalists/atheists stand, apparently disregarding the historicity of the men who brought advances within their respective fields.Your list contains a number of scientists who were faith-holders.
276. Comment #172039 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:11 am
seeker_of_truth: It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science.
277. Comment #172042 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 7:17 am
Comment #172032 by irate_atheist278. Comment #172043 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:18 am
What does it prove? That a number of scientists were faith-holders (why did you only choose Christians by the way? Why not Ramunjan or Chandresekhar. Why not Abd Allah ibn Sina). Does it show that a deity exists? Or does it just that one should not commit the argument from authority fallacy?
279. Comment #172044 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 7:19 am
The Sumerian, Egyptian and Assyrian cultures were advanced in architecture, economics and political science. There would have been a bevy of scientists active before this and before the bronze age authors of the bible.280. Comment #172046 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 7:21 am
seeker-of_truth281. Comment #172047 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:22 am
So, a notable abscence of anyone born in the 20th century. And very few born after the publication of 'On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' by Charles Darwin...
282. Comment #172057 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:33 am
seeker_of_truth: I chose those with the Christian faith as this seems to be where 90-plus-% of the focus is placed by Dennett and this debate in general. That was my read on Breaking the Spell anyway.
283. Comment #172059 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:35 am
Steve Zara: I consider religious scientists to often be like an athlete with a physical handicap. Of course, some manage to do very well. Some do far better than non-"disabled" people. But, on average, it can be a problem. Kepler struggled to reconcile piles of data with his religious beliefs about how the universe should operate. Today we have people like Francis Collins who is wibbling about information in the DNA because of something that took over his mind when he looked at a frozen waterfall. Then we have those who seem to have completely lost it, like Frank Tipler and his Physics of Christianity.
Looking at some religious scientists, I am astonished at how they function.
284. Comment #172060 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:37 am
301. Comment #172042 by Steve Zara -
Also notable is that the majority of scientists on that list are in unrelated fields to Darwinian biology.Not notable at all considering "And very few born after the publication of 'On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' by Charles Darwin..." The omission is yours and yours alone. Or perhaps no one who really understands evolution is a theist..? I don't know.
285. Comment #172062 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 7:40 am
Comment #172059 by riandouglas 286. Comment #172063 by epeeist on April 29, 2008 at 7:42 am
Comment #172047 by seeker_of_truthSomewhat irrelevant.
Also notable is that the majority of scientists on that list are in unrelated fields to Darwinian biology.
287. Comment #172065 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:46 am
So, a notable absence of anyone born in the 20th century.
288. Comment #172067 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 7:47 am
Comment #172042 by Steve Zara289. Comment #172069 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 7:49 am
Comment #172067 by bugaboo290. Comment #172076 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 7:57 am
312. Comment #172067 by bugaboo -
291. Comment #172077 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:01 am
seeker_of_truth: According the Humphreys, this "White Hole" cosmological model is based on the Genesis account combined with one other 'verse' from the New Testament.
seeker_of_truth: According the Humphreys, this "White Hole" cosmological model is based on the Genesis account combined with one other 'verse' from the New Testament.
292. Comment #172080 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 8:03 am
Comment #172069 by Steve Zara293. Comment #172084 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:08 am
Steve, since you seem to keep up to date on these things - hasnt Humphrey's white hole cosmology been refuted? I seem to remember reading various debunkings, but the initial theory seemed to be a stretch to begin with so I wasn't paying much attention. 294. Comment #172085 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:08 am
311. Comment #172065 by seeker_of_truth -
295. Comment #172089 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:13 am
Thanks irate296. Comment #172090 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:14 am
319. Comment #172089 by riandouglas -
297. Comment #172092 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:19 am
Obviously.298. Comment #172094 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:25 am
321. Comment #172092 by riandouglas -
299. Comment #172096 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 8:28 am
Plain lucky - and cheating. See about 3/4 of the way down this page:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/18/
300. Comment #172103 by John Desclin on April 29, 2008 at 8:36 am
Children are taught religion while they are not yet able to defend themselves against it. This almost permanently damages their skills at critical thinking and favors their unquestioning respect for the argument of authority. It is very difficult to completely get rid of this conditioning when they become adults. What always has amazed me is the fact that they are much more able to loose their faith in Santa...301. Comment #172106 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 8:38 am
See, scientists (those worth the name) from my understanding try to start and end with the least assumptions. As far as I can tell, Yahweh is one very large, very complicated assumption.
302. Comment #172109 by epeeist on April 29, 2008 at 8:39 am
Comment #172096 by seeker_of_truth Does self-delusion have no bounds?I don't know, you are the theist. You tell me.
303. Comment #172112 by epeeist on April 29, 2008 at 8:43 am
Comment #172106 by seeker_of_truthAlthough Humphreys makes a huge assumption by using Yahweh as his stated sourceSeeker - you obviously didn't pick up on my post about the requirements of science. Putting in a supposedly omnipotent being into a theory tends to rather throw out the idea of parsimony.
304. Comment #172118 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 8:47 am
What are your views on Einstein and the cosmological constant by the way? Are we to discard the whole of relativity because of the "biggest blunder" in his life.
305. Comment #172119 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:48 am
Ah. epeeist. Just the man to step into the ring when I start to reach out of my comfort zone.
306. Comment #172122 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:50 am
328. Comment #172118 by seeker_of_truth -
307. Comment #172124 by epeeist on April 29, 2008 at 8:51 am
Comment #172118 by seeker_of_truth308. Comment #172125 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 8:52 am
Comment #172084 by riandouglas309. Comment #172131 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 8:56 am
332. Comment #172125 by Steve Zara -How did Big Ears evolve?Trivial. This was covered in an earlier textbook on the subject:
I am in impatient mood today.I'm not. But I am very hungry.
310. Comment #172148 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 9:15 am
Putting in a supposedly omnipotent being into a theory tends to rather throw out the idea of parsimony.
311. Comment #172150 by epeeist on April 29, 2008 at 9:16 am
Comment #172148 by seeker_of_truthBefore the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.Sounds like a theory that was falsified to me. I don't see the problem.
And gtg for now. Be back tomorrow.With some answers to the questions that have been put to you I hope.
312. Comment #172152 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 9:17 am
Comment #172148 by seeker_of_truthParsimony is a fine principle except when it does not apply. Before the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.
313. Comment #172267 by aoratos philos on April 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I'm not trawling through 7 pages to see if someone has already posted this, so my apologies if some has.314. Comment #172537 by Calilasseia on April 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Oh dear.You are here too. You know what? What stupidity mean is that millions of creatures with different structures just came from a worm that happened by luck and chances through amino acids that came out by chance again by getting in right(!)order by unexplained randomness and blind watchmaker and again amino acids dropped down by chemical rains from planets which we do not know how the planets came out. The story goes on like this and never ends.
315. Comment #172555 by The Reverend Dark on April 29, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Polite applause Calilasseia that was lovely.
316. Comment #172558 by Corylus on April 29, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Note to self:
317. Comment #172614 by Enlightenme.. on April 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Wooter managed to get an H in blind watcmaker at last.
318. Comment #172616 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Corylus: Note to self:
Do not piss off Calilasseaia.
319. Comment #172687 by Verily on April 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Salut, LaMettrie, je comprends votre problème. S'il ya quelquechose que vous voulez contribuer, je vous offre de faire mon mieux de le traduire, pourvu que ce ne soit pas trop long et, enfin, que j'arrive à le comprendre! Si cela vous intéresse, écrivez-le tout simplement, permettez-moi quelques jours et je m'en occupe.320. Comment #172751 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 3:33 am
babu: richard dawkins is schizophrenic, he thinks a lot...wot would he do if there were no thoughts.
common sir don't make other think about the riddle....wot's the difference if u believe in god or don't believe at all like me.....a wink
321. Comment #172754 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 3:39 am
Comment #172537 by Calilasseia322. Comment #172767 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:29 am
Comment #172754 by Incredulous323. Comment #172769 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 4:33 am
clearmind,
324. Comment #172772 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 4:36 am
Comment #172763 by clearmind
Quoted from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.aspSays it all really.
325. Comment #172773 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:48 am
Having had more exposure to it I agree Steve.326. Comment #172774 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:51 am
Tyler Durden: I'll do my best to plead insanity on your part, but I'm sure he knows all about you and your posts.
327. Comment #172775 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:55 am
Is someone seeing how long we'll dialogue with such an obviously deluded person?
328. Comment #172776 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:58 am
My guess is he'll continue to get responses, as he is a kind of fun.329. Comment #172778 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:03 am
Comment #172122 by irate_atheistCongratulations. You too can cut'n'paste a generalised dumbed-down statement.
What are your qualification in this particular field?
330. Comment #172779 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:07 am
That sounds a bit sarcastic? Ask S. Zara, I can bite too.
331. Comment #172780 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 5:07 am
Comment #172767 by Steve Zara332. Comment #172781 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:10 am
Steve Zara: You can? Sorry, didn't notice. All I noticed was ignoring of evidence, blurring of arguments and refusing to deal with points raised.
333. Comment #172782 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 am
Comment #172152 by Steve ZaraSteve Zara quote No more responses from me. Good luck with the others.
334. Comment #172783 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 am
Perhaps we need an answersinabiogenesis.com? 335. Comment #172784 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:17 am
seeker_of_truth: I was glad to hear you take this position as your repeating style while ignoring new and relevant proposals by me was beginning to get boring.
336. Comment #172785 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:18 am
Comment #172782 by seeker_of_truth 337. Comment #172786 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:20 am
How old do you think the Earth is?
How old do you think the Universe is?
Do you think that ID is actually science?
338. Comment #172787 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:21 am
If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.
339. Comment #172788 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:22 am
seeker_of_truth: If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.
340. Comment #172789 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:24 am
I believe both the universe and our planet are at least 4500 years old and beyond that, the sky's [and the theories are] the limits.But why 4500 years? What evidence do you base that figure on? Why is evidence from 2492BC utterly convincing to you while evidence from 3000BC or 10,000BC or even 4 Billion years BC not so convincing?
341. Comment #172790 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am
seeker_of_truth, you say the earth and universe are at least 4500 years old. Would you say, perhaps, they might be around 4.5 & 13.7 billion years old? 342. Comment #172791 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am
These guys love to hear themselves talk.
343. Comment #172792 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am
Comment #172148 by seeker_of_truth
Before the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.
Comment #172150 by epeeist
Sounds like a theory that was falsified to me. I don't see the problem.
344. Comment #172793 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am
If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design?
345. Comment #172794 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 5:26 am
seeker_of_truth 346. Comment #172795 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:27 am
seeker_of_truth: The only problem was at the time, there was no good reason to speculate that there were billions of stars in the universe. Parsimony was served with the three thousand [observable] estimate. Parsimony in this case, led to a false conclusion.
347. Comment #172796 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:28 am
I am going to apologise. I'll leave you lot to deal with seeker without what little assistance I could. Perhaps because I have a cold, I have little patience. Ignorance is acceptable. Ignorance combined with smugness is more that my temper can deal with right now. 348. Comment #172797 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:29 am
Philip1978: Thats way over 4500 years old!
349. Comment #172798 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:30 am
I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs.350. Comment #172799 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:31 am
Cartomancer: You still using the avatar from the flag fiasco?I thought I'd change it back today, but when I got to the edit avatar screen, somehow I couldn't bring myself to do away with him just yet...
351. Comment #172800 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 5:31 am
I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs
352. Comment #172801 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:32 am
I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs"I have seen the future, Kain, and you're not in it..."
353. Comment #172802 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 5:32 am
Seeker354. Comment #172804 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:34 am
seeker_of_truth: I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs.
355. Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:36 am
Why should the artistic stylings of early Egyptian ceramics be a better source of evidence than the radiocarbon dating of prehistoric bones and the light distortions from distant stars?
356. Comment #172808 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:40 am
It matched the available evidence. You're saying that because your god might exist, we should throw out the principle of parsimony and think that it does?
Which god by the way? not sure if you've mentioned
357. Comment #172809 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 5:40 am
I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs
358. Comment #172810 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 5:40 am
Comment #172786 by seeker_of_truthIf ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.Don't give yourself airs. ID isn't "junk science", to quote Wolfgang Pauli "it isn't even wrong".
359. Comment #172811 by Podaar on April 30, 2008 at 5:40 am
Comment #172798 by seeker_of_truthI see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs.I would truly like to read these logs. Can you point me in the right direction?
360. Comment #172813 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 5:41 am
Cartomancer,361. Comment #172814 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 am
Comment #172813 by Philip1978Dont remove the avatar just yet, I think its quite artful!
362. Comment #172816 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 am
Yay for Queen! Quetz...more evidence that you have good taste in music! 363. Comment #172817 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:44 am
seeker_of_truth: I hate to repeat myself, but what I'm driving at is that parsimony is a good principle but also subject to prove false. Is this too difficult to conceptualize?
364. Comment #172818 by Podaar on April 30, 2008 at 5:45 am
Anna
365. Comment #172819 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 5:45 am
If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.
366. Comment #172820 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am
Comment #172816 by annabanana367. Comment #172821 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am
Written records, artistic records, both are products of human ingenuity. I see no difference in the degree of trustworthiness for their dating.
368. Comment #172822 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am
Cartomancer, your avatar seems to have neglected some solarium sessions on his hind quarters.369. Comment #172823 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 5:47 am
Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truthYou might care to look at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4G65VG2-2&_user=3962339&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000061901&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3962339&md5=73d62d4875b7eaa88f6e1f5ed2bca5c4 and http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2462040 before you make comments like that.
I don't think radiocarbon C-14 dating is used for fossilized bones anymore. The results always come up less than 50,000 years old. We've moved to more 'advanced' methods since like Potassium-Argon dating, though I find the latter more questionable myself.
370. Comment #172824 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:48 am
epeeist: Once you get that under your belt you might start to look at things like tree ring and ice core data and the consilience between these, C14 data an known natural catastrophes.
371. Comment #172825 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:49 am
I would truly like to read these logs. Can you point me in the right direction?
372. Comment #172826 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 5:50 am
Oh no! Anna is doing a Zaphod impression!
Nice to see you both :)
(Does this mean that Al's pic will be empty, in a Harry Potter kind of way?)
373. Comment #172827 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:51 am
seeker_of_truth:
To follow the notes on the same debate, start with TalkOrigins then do a keyword search on AiG [homepage] to match up the debaters by name.
374. Comment #172828 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:51 am
How do you explain Tiktaalik then? Thats way over 4500 years old!
Philip
375. Comment #172829 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 5:52 am
I thought I'd change it back today, but when I got to the edit avatar screen, somehow I couldn't bring myself to do away with him just yet...
376. Comment #172830 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:53 am
seeker_of_truth: Hi Philip. Do I need to explain a fish fossil when my age of the universe/earth proposal allows for millions, even billions of years on the high end?
377. Comment #172833 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:57 am
So you're theory covers all bases?I'm not sure I'd call that a "theory", more a complete lack of certainty.
Billions of years in case science is right, and thousands of years in case the "ancient texts" are right?
378. Comment #172835 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 5:57 am
scaramoush, scaramoush, will you do a fandango? Good morning. 379. Comment #172836 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:59 am
Cartomancer: If it were a theory, I could come up with a comprehensive theory of everything in a heartbeat.
"res sunt quod sunt" - things are what they are.
There. No need to do science anymore. Pack up and go home everyone.
380. Comment #172837 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:59 am
Radiocarbon dating, Potassium-Argon dating - the difference is one of details not of principle. It's all scientific data analysis based on confirmed facts of physics and chemistry.
And the light from distant stars travels at a fixed speed through the vacuum of deep space, so it is a very reliable way of telling us how long ago those distant objects emitted light, and hence how old the universe must be at minimum.
381. Comment #172838 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 5:59 am
Comment #172811 by PodaarI would truly like to read these logs. Can you point me in the right direction?Have a glance on the fora here at the formal debates, particularly at the ones that AFDave participated in. Note how he gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
382. Comment #172839 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:00 am
seeker_of_truth: I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?
383. Comment #172840 by mmurray on April 30, 2008 at 6:02 am
why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design?
384. Comment #172841 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:03 am
Tezcatlipoca-
385. Comment #172842 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:03 am
So, given a number of different theories of differing complexity, which explain the available data, and no other way to choose between them, you'd pick which?
386. Comment #172846 by Podaar on April 30, 2008 at 6:05 am
Comment #172838 by epeeist
387. Comment #172847 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 6:06 am
Comment #172786 by seeker_of_truth
I believe both the universe and our planet are at least 4500 years old and beyond that, the sky's [and the theories are] the limits.This isn't an answer, it's the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi. Not to mention Moving the Goalposts.
388. Comment #172848 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:06 am
seeker_of_truth: Did I not already say that parsimony is a good principle?
Parsimony is a fine principle except when it does not apply. Before the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.
389. Comment #172850 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:06 am
I really do suggest Dr Benway's strategy. But that is just my mood :) 390. Comment #172851 by Frankus1122 on April 30, 2008 at 6:08 am
Annabana and Al,
391. Comment #172852 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:09 am
Steve Zara: I really do suggest Dr Benway's strategy. But that is just my mood :)
392. Comment #172853 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:09 am
You might care to look at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4G65VG2-2&_user=3962339&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000061901&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3962339&md5=73d62d4875b7eaa88f6e1f5ed2bca5c4 and http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2462040 before you make comments like that.
Once you get that under your belt you might start to look at things like tree ring and ice core data and the consilience between these, C14 data an known natural catastrophes.
393. Comment #172854 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:09 am
riandouglas,394. Comment #172856 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:11 am
Riandouglas-
When does it not apply?
395. Comment #172858 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:12 am
seeker_of_truth: Can you paraphrase the jist of these sites for me please? I usually will ask for a site-link if I am desirous of one.
A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: Extension of the 14C calibration curve
High-resolution pollen data (average interval between samples<15 years) are reported on part of a varved sediment core from Lake Suigetsu, Japan, spanning the interval 15,701 to 10,217 SG vyr BP (Suigetsu varve years Before Present). This new record is compared with a previously proposed event stratigraphy based on pollen-based reconstructed changes of mean annual temperature. The deglacial climate history reconstructed at Lake Suigetsu resembles that observed in the North Atlantic, although the major boundaries of pollen zones are asynchronous with those in the North Atlantic event stratigraphy by several centuries. The onset of the Late Glacial interstadial occurred earlier in Japan than in the North Atlantic. This demonstrates that the climate in Japan was closely linked to the low-latitude Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures that first reacted to orbital forcing. Conversely, the onset of the subsequent cold reversal phase in Japan lagged that of the North Atlantic (Younger Dryas) by several centuries. The duration of this cold phase was about the same as the Younger Dryas event, but the amplitude was much reduced (4±2 °C in Î"mean annual temperature). These findings support the hypothesis that this pan-hemispheric cooling event was triggered by North Atlantic forcing, most probably by a meltwater pulse and an associated change in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. However, the mechanism which transmitted the change in the North Atlantic to the Far East is unknown.
396. Comment #172859 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:13 am
Hope your cold/virus/whatever thing gets better soon steve, or at least that you become less impatient/grumpy :-)
397. Comment #172860 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:14 am
annabanana: Your posts are very good and I hate to be the grammar police to someone who is so nice, but you keep using "you're" where you should be using "your". I just thought I'd let you know...also, it's driving me a little crazy. :-)
398. Comment #172861 by Demotruk on April 30, 2008 at 6:14 am
People are debating against ID only because ID is attempting to by-pass the scientific method and get their garbage, or even just the idea that ID is scientific, taught in school. You shouldn't take it that because scientists have been forced to engage with IDists, that ID is actually scientific.399. Comment #172863 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:18 am
Have a glance on the fora here at the formal debates, particularly at the ones that AFDave participated in. Note how he gets his arse handed to him on a plate.
400. Comment #172864 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:19 am
So my predictive powers were correct. I thought you may have just been pulling my chain and leading me and everyone else on.
Thanks for the compliment, concenring my posts, but there is no need to lie :-)
401. Comment #172865 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:20 am
Comment #172863 by seeker_of_truthDid ever watch a good debater when positions are switched mid-debate and the better skilled debater continues with the upper hand despite the positions switch?
402. Comment #172866 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 6:20 am
Comment #172853 by seeker_of_truth Can you paraphrase the jist of these sites for me please?I am not here to educate you, that is your job.
403. Comment #172868 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:23 am
I suspect when anyone points out to Seeker that the principle of parsimony does not make it easier to explain a complex God.
404. Comment #172869 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:25 am
annabanana: I wasn't lying. I think you have made some excellent points which was why I sincerely hated to correct you, but it was sort of like nails on a chalkboard and was detracting from all of those excellent points you were making.
405. Comment #172870 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:25 am
Comment #172865 by Steve ZaraSo it is all just a game to you?
I think ID trying to wreck science is very serious
406. Comment #172871 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am
I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?What you have uncovered here, if indeed your statement is accurate (and I have my doubts), is an area for further research into the accuracy of our technology and the reliability of certain of our dating methods. You have not demonstrated that radioactive dating methods should be disregarded or abandoned. We have many, many dozens of different types of radioactive dating methods, not just the two you bring up, and most give remarkably similar figures. The outliers can thus be investigated and their accuracy doubted. The principle behind them all (the confirmed fact of physics and chemistry I mentioned) - the regular rate of decay in radioactive nuclei - is not in doubt. There are also numerous other scientific methods of dating things which broadly agree with the radioactive dates - epeeist mentions tree rings and ice cores, to which you can add soil strata, astral spectrometry and others.
Can you prove all of space is a vacuum as you conceive it and where does the force of gravity fit into your equation?I'm no astrophysicist, but if you seriously want to argue that gravitational phenomena and non-vacuum areas of space could realistically account for a 99% reduction in the observed ages of the stars down to 4500 years then I'm sure there are plenty of better qualified minds here to pour scorn over your ignorance.
407. Comment #172872 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am
Comment #172868 by seeker_of_truth
Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?
408. Comment #172873 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am
Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?
409. Comment #172877 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 6:29 am
Anna,
410. Comment #172878 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:30 am
seeker_of_truth: Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?
411. Comment #172879 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:31 am
Seeker-
Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?
412. Comment #172882 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:35 am
phatbat,Does that mean you and Al-rawandi are an item. I'm sorry if this is common knowledge.
Congrats if it is a new thing.
413. Comment #172883 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 am
Looks like RD.net is fast becoming the hottest dating site on the internet! And not just of the radiocarbon kind.
414. Comment #172885 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 am
Congrats to Al-annabananarawandi! 415. Comment #172886 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 6:38 am
Comment #172879 by QuetzalcoatlEr, because the proponents of Intelligent Design think the Designer is God. Dembski admitted as much recently.Did you mean this document?
416. Comment #172887 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:38 am
Comment #172858 by riandouglas417. Comment #172888 by mmurray on April 30, 2008 at 6:40 am
Radiocarbon dating, Potassium-Argon dating - the difference is one of details not of principle. It's all scientific data analysis based on confirmed facts of physics and chemistry.
I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?
418. Comment #172890 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:41 am
I guess we're confused as to what your position is, seeker.
With such a long "age of stuff" belief, it is a little difficult to understand what you might believe.
I haven't gone through all your old posts, but what are you arguing here?
419. Comment #172891 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 6:41 am
Yes Indeed, Congratulatons!
420. Comment #172892 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:42 am
Looks like RD.net is fast becoming the hottest dating site on the internet!
This could be a wonderful opportunity for marketing slogans. "Find love while arguing with Wooter", "You can still find your soul mate if you don't believe in souls", "RD.net - romance on a scientific footing"...
421. Comment #172893 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:44 am
seeker_of_truth: These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?
422. Comment #172894 by Calilasseia on April 30, 2008 at 6:45 am
I decided to engage in a little trawling of the scientific papers on Silkworms, and the first paper to emerge in my search was very interesting. Namely:We report a draft sequence for the genome of the domesticated silkworm (Bombyx mori), covering 90.9% of all known silkworm genes. Our estimated gene count is 18,510, which exceeds the 13,379 genes reported for Drosophila melanogaster. Comparative analyses to fruitfly, mosquito, spider, and butterfly reveal both similarities and differences in gene content.
Silk fibers are derived from the cocoon of the silkworm Bombyx mori, which was domesticated over the past 5000 years from the wild progenitor Bombyx mandarina (1). Silkworms are second only to fruitfly as a model for insect genetics, owing to their ease of rearing, the availability of mutants from genetically homogeneous inbred lines, and the existence of a large body of information on their biology (2). There are about 400 visible phenotypes, and ~200 of these are assigned to linkage groups (3). Silkworms can also be used as a bioreactor for proteinaceous drugs and as a source of biomaterials. Here, we present a draft sequence of the silkworm genome with 5.9× coverage.
B. mori has 28 chromosomes. More than 1000 genetic markers have been mapped at an average spacing of 2 cM (~500 kb) (4). A physical map is being constructed through the fingerprinting and end sequencing of bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones (5). Many expressed sequence tags (ESTs) have been produced (6), and a 3× draft sequence has just been announced by the International Lepidopteran Genome Project (7). Our project is independent of, but complementary to, that of the consortium. Our sequence has been submitted to the DNA Data Bank of Japan/European Molecular Biology Laboratory/GenBank (project accession number AADK00000000, version AADK01000000) and is also accessible from our Web site (http://silkworm.genomics.org.cn) (8). ESTs discussed in this Report can be found at GenBank (accession numbers CK484630 to CK565104).
Lepidoptera are unusual because they have holocentric chromosomes with diffuse kinetochores. This characteristic is a potential driver of evolution because of the ability to retain chromosome fragments through many cell divisions. The nematode also has diffuse kinetochores, and five key chromosomal proteins are known (32, 33): hcp-1, hcp-2, hcp-3, hcp-4, and hcp-6. (The prefix hcp stands for "holocentric protein.") Hcp-3 is detected in all eukaryotic centromeres, similar to histone H3 in its histone-fold domain, but dissimilar in its N-terminal region. It is also known as Cse4p in yeast, Cid in fruitfly, and CENP-A in human. Their proteins are highly diverged. The putative homolog in silkworm has only 23% identity to the histone-fold domain of hcp-3, but their lengths are similar: 268 amino acids for silkworm and 288 amino acids for nematode. There are many homologs of hcp-1 and hcp-2 (18 and 72, to be specific) making it difficult to determine which ones might be the true orthologs. We could not find a homolog for hcp-4, but we did identify a homolog for a related gene that is known as CENP-C and was previously found in human, mouse, and chicken. Finally, we were not able to identify the silkworm homolog for hcp-6.
423. Comment #172896 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:46 am
Guilty as charged.
424. Comment #172897 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 am
I'm no astrophysicist, but if you seriously want to argue that gravitational phenomena and non-vacuum areas of space could realistically account for a 99% reduction in the observed ages of the stars then I'm sure there are plenty of better qualified minds here to pour scorn over your ignorance.
425. Comment #172898 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 am
Comment #172882 by annabanana426. Comment #172899 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 6:49 am
"It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science."
This is my sole point.
427. Comment #172900 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 6:50 am
Comment #172887 by seeker_of_truthIf you note I used the word "consilience", one that is always ignored by people trying to discredit a single method.
These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?
428. Comment #172901 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:50 am
seeker_of_truth: "It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science."
429. Comment #172902 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:50 am
Steve,
430. Comment #172903 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:51 am
Epeeist-
Did you mean this document?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/richard_dawkins_misrepresents.html
431. Comment #172904 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 6:52 am
al-rawandi-
432. Comment #172905 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:52 am
Thank you again Calilasseia 433. Comment #172906 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 am
Are you going to compose posts together? The mixing of styles should be ... interesting!
434. Comment #172907 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 am
Comment #172852 by riandouglasEDIT: Besides, I'd feel obliged to look through his previous posts to see what position he may have taken.
435. Comment #172910 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:55 am
Steve Zara: Good luck if you choose to so so. He is as slippery as an eel. Check the attempt to hand-wave away polyploidy so as to deny that true new species have appeared.
436. Comment #172911 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:57 am
Good luck if you choose to so so. He is as slippery as an eel. Check the attempt to hand-wave away polyploidy so as to deny that true new species have appeared.
437. Comment #172912 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:58 am
I'm afraid I don't play the personal insult game well.Oh dear, Such a shame. I consider myself a veritable grand master of that particular sport. I could give lessons...
I am done responding to any of your posts until this time tomorrow.Ecce gratum et optatum, ver reducit gaudia!
438. Comment #172915 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:00 am
seeker_of_truth:These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?
What are the evidence based theories on the other side? Do they explain all the available evidence better than the "old earth" scientific ones, or do they ignore uncomfortable things (like the lake varves epeeist linked to). You can't have a 4500 yeah old earth which has lakes showing 40,000 years of varves.
439. Comment #172917 by Frankus1122 on April 30, 2008 at 7:04 am
Cartomancer:
Looks like RD.net is fast becoming the hottest dating site on the internet!
440. Comment #172918 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:04 am
Quetz,
441. Comment #172919 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:04 am
seeker_of_truth: These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?
442. Comment #172922 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:06 am
Quetz,
443. Comment #172923 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 7:08 am
351. Comment #172771 by clearmind Among others.
444. Comment #172924 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:09 am
G'night folks.445. Comment #172926 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 7:15 am
Comment #172919 by riandouglasWhat is this "comparable quality of evidence"?My thought too.
446. Comment #172928 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 7:19 am
Congrats to al-rawandi and annabanana! Two fun, handsome, brilliant, people find each other - the greatest story ever told.
447. Comment #172930 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:20 am
Epeeist: I think this is where he needs to be pressed. We have provided links to a variety of evidence. As yet he has provided nothing at all. He needs to be pressed to provide references to empirical data.
448. Comment #172932 by Frankus1122 on April 30, 2008 at 7:23 am
What is this "comparable quality of evidence"?
My thought too.
449. Comment #172934 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:26 am
Dr Benway,450. Comment #172935 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:26 am
Dr. Benway,
451. Comment #172936 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:27 am
What is this "comparable quality of evidence"?
Most of the "theories" for a young earth are either flat out wrong (or as the saying goes "not even wrong")
452. Comment #172938 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:34 am
Seeker,453. Comment #172940 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:36 am
I think this is where he needs to be pressed. We have provided links to a variety of evidence. As yet he has provided nothing at all. He needs to be pressed to provide references to empirical data.
454. Comment #172941 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:36 am
I remember reading a couple of different articles where near, argon-free lava of known ages from recent eruptions taken from Mt. St. Helens and one other volcano of was presented to a Kâ€"Ar lab and told to expect low argon readings. The results not only missed by millions of years, but were extremely inconsistent in the different samples.
455. Comment #172942 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:38 am
Still not asleep :-(seeker_of_truth: I could probably find them if you are interested in reading the entire articles.
Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old
456. Comment #172943 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:38 am
Don't we love talking around people who are listening?
457. Comment #172945 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am
think this is where he seems to be indicating a desire for a link-war instead of personal, intelligent debate. Don't we love talking around people who are listening?
458. Comment #172946 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am
Seeker,
I have read the article you are alluding to. If I remember correctly, it was intentionally deceitful because the radiometric method that was used was incorrect.
459. Comment #172948 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am
seeker_of_truth: I think this is where he seems to be indicating a desire for a link-war instead of personal, intelligent debate. Don't we love talking around people who are listening?
460. Comment #172949 by Nathan Laurie on April 30, 2008 at 7:42 am
Forgive my general ignorance, I am not familiar at all with K/Ar-dating methods (or any others for that matter), but considering the extremely long half-life of Potassium (mentioned earlier ~10^9 years if I remember correctly) isn't it far better suited to dating materials that are much older (millions/billions of years)?461. Comment #172950 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:43 am
seeker_of_truth: I found the first article and the testing was done by Geochron Laboratories. Do you have information on this company which would shed suspicion on their level of reliability and/or respectability?
462. Comment #172952 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:45 am
No one was talking around you. You said you were leaving, i.e. everyone thought you were gone. Are you just trying to instigate an argument?
463. Comment #172953 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 7:47 am
Comment #172940 by seeker_of_truth I think this is where he seems to be indicating a desire for a link-war instead of personal, intelligent debate.You will note that wherever possible I try to provide references to peer-reviewed papers, ideally with a high citation count.
464. Comment #172954 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 am
seeker_of_truth:
If this is the case, would you then agree that I was being talked around?
465. Comment #172955 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 am
Comment #172897 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 amI'm afraid I don't play the personal insult game well. I am done responding to any of your posts until this time tomorrow.
466. Comment #172956 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 7:50 am
Comment #172952 by seeker_of_truth467. Comment #172957 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:51 am
Ref's would be good if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.
I may be mistaken, but Argon dating may have a limited range of usefulness (almost sure it does), of which the samples were likely outside the range of. From wiki:
Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old
So, young rocks from Mt St Helens are not within the useful range of this method. The "evidence" is bogus.
468. Comment #172959 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 7:54 am
seeker_of_truth,
469. Comment #172960 by phasmagigas on April 30, 2008 at 7:57 am
Perhaps the problem lies in the assumptions that are made prior to physical testing?
470. Comment #172961 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 am
Comment #172956 by Steve ZaraDo you actually have any specific point to make?
471. Comment #172962 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 am
seeker_of_truth: Wiki is correct but your conclusion is a fallacy. If there were only miniscule amounts of K-Ar conversion, then dating is unreliable. However, in the tests I am presenting, the labs 'found' sufficient amounts of argon to date into the equivalent of millions of years.
Perhaps the problem lies in the assumptions that are made prior to physical testing?
472. Comment #172963 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 am
Look! I even found an article from a Christian perspective on the accuracy of radiometric dating! However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.
Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.
473. Comment #172965 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:02 am
If you are of the opinion the Earth is at least 4,500 years old, please provide peer-reviewed papers and sources for this assertion.
474. Comment #172968 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:05 am
Comment #172961 by seeker_of_truth475. Comment #172969 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:06 am
Apparently, my comments are invisible to Seeker. As such, I will continue to speak about him as if he isn't here. I blockquoted where he said he was leaving, I provided him with a very good article and even pasted some of it into my post, but yet he still ignored me. His dishonesty is astonishing. 476. Comment #172970 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:06 am
If you are of the opinion the Earth is at least 4,500 years old, please provide peer-reviewed papers and sources for this assertion.
Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.
477. Comment #172972 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 8:07 am
Comment #172965 by seeker_of_truthSince I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.Oh no you don't.
478. Comment #172973 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:09 am
Comment #172969 by annabanana479. Comment #172974 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:11 am
Steve,480. Comment #172975 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:11 am
Seeker-
481. Comment #172976 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 am
Comment #172965 by seeker_of_truth482. Comment #172977 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 am
seeker,
Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one...That's the Argumentum ad populum. Popular belief does not establish truth in matters, evidence does.
483. Comment #172978 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 am
Ahem! It was Tezcatlipoca! 484. Comment #172979 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am
Bored now. Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss instead? Or how about another game of Mornington Crescent, or some more baking recipes? 485. Comment #172980 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am
seeker_of_truth: Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.
Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:36 am
My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.
486. Comment #172981 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am
Apparently, my comments are invisible to Seeker.
487. Comment #172984 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 am
Seeker-
488. Comment #172985 by Ajuydog on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 am
Could this be the offending article on K-Ar dating of Mount St Helens rocks? Published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical journal
489. Comment #172986 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 am
Comment #172979 by Cartomancer490. Comment #172987 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 am
You don't get to make the rules.
491. Comment #172988 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:17 am
Seeker, if you can't back up your beliefs with evidence, then they don't deserve to be considered as any sort of alternative. In fact, they become ridiculous. So, evidence or ridiculous belief in some sky father, which will it be? 492. Comment #172989 by SharonMcT on April 30, 2008 at 8:17 am
seeker_of_truth:
493. Comment #172990 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 8:17 am
Artery clogging baked mac n cheeze
494. Comment #172991 by Philip1978 on April 30, 2008 at 8:17 am
Getting confused now...495. Comment #172993 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:18 am
I have evolved a recipe over the years. I will explain what has been selected.Hmm, what with the Pat Condell anthology swelling the RDFRS commercial catalogue (and the new dating section of the site going live!) perhaps it's high time for a RichardDawkins.net Atheist Cookbook to hit the shelves?
496. Comment #172995 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 am
Quetz,
497. Comment #172996 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 am
Comment #172987 by seeker_of_truth498. Comment #172997 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 am
seeker_of_truth: I'm afraid when it comes to my willingness to respond... I do make the rules. This is my last response to you until you provide a reason to reconcile. Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.
499. Comment #172998 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 am
Comment #172993 by Cartomancer500. Comment #172999 by Frankus1122 on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 am
seeker:
501. Comment #173001 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:23 am
Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.
502. Comment #173002 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:23 am
Where is the evidence to support your 99% belief?
Surely, the onus is on the claimant to support his claim, i.e. you believe the earth is 4500 years old so please support this claim.
503. Comment #173003 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 8:24 am
seeker,
504. Comment #173005 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:24 am
I'm afraid when it comes to my willingness to respond... I do make the rules. This is my last response to you until you provide a reason to reconcile. Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.
505. Comment #173006 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 8:25 am
Comment #172985 by Ajuydog Serious peer review there!And there is also this - http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
If so talk origins has some responses.
506. Comment #173007 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:25 am
seeker_of_truth: Actually my statement was "at least" 4500 yrs old. I hope that helps to clear up any misunderstanding that might have occurred.
Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:36 am
My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.
seeker_of_truth: If that is still a problem, I would suggest you do your own research to verify this claim as it would be a waste of my time.
507. Comment #173008 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 am
Could this be the offending article on K-Ar dating of Mount St Helens rocks? Published inCreation Ex Nihilo Technical journal
comic. Serious peer review there!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
If so talk origins has some responses.
*exit stage left*
508. Comment #173009 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 am
Seeker-
509. Comment #173011 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 am
To add to comment 529, the only thing I will be sad about is that there are people like you who are so easily persuaded by such fallacious arguments as inaccuracy of radiometric dating techniques, but yet so impervious to the plethora of evidence that contradicts religious beliefs of any sort. 510. Comment #173013 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:29 am
Incredulous,
511. Comment #173014 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:29 am
seeker_of_truth: Good job, now is anyone planning on reading this series of rebuttals to see that merit exists on both sides?
512. Comment #173015 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:31 am
Al-rawandi: This is a clever trick, pretend to be "agnostic" and rational, then reject the evidence, and claim this as evidence to your friends.
513. Comment #173016 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 8:33 am
rian,
514. Comment #173017 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:33 am
annabanana: To add to comment 529, the only thing I will be sad about is that there are people like you who are so easily persuaded by such fallacious arguments as inaccuracy of radiometric dating techniques, but yet so impervious to the plethora of evidence that contradicts religious beliefs of any sort.
515. Comment #173018 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:33 am
In other words, if you don't provide any data for your opinion that the Earth is at least 4,500 years old, I will simply dismiss this as opinion, without the need to say why, or evidence to the contrary.
516. Comment #173019 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:34 am
Perhaps you could come up with some appropriate verses for Atheist Grace before meals?How about we just adapt the famous grace from Christ Church College, Oxford, like so:
517. Comment #173020 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am
seeker_of_truth: Utter silliness of which I tire.
I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow. I don't know why I refuse to accustom myself to the bias that whittles 'argumentation' down to the level as is evidenced by this post.
Maybe you would be interested in providing evidence that an objective reality exists while I'm away?
518. Comment #173021 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am
Strike three! And you're out!519. Comment #173022 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am
Seeker-
I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow.
520. Comment #173023 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 8:37 am
Quetz,
521. Comment #173024 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:38 am
seeker_of_truth: I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow.
522. Comment #173025 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:39 am
Quetz,
523. Comment #173026 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 8:39 am
Comment #173018 by seeker_of_truth
I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow. I don't know why I refuse to accustom myself to the bias that whittles 'argumentation' down to the level as is evidenced by this post.This from the person who takes the word of Chuck Norris seriously when it comes to movie reviews.
524. Comment #173027 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:44 am
Annabanana-
525. Comment #173029 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 am
tsk tsk. Bad manners :)
526. Comment #173031 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:52 am
Anna-
527. Comment #173032 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 am
Comment #173013 by al-rawandi528. Comment #173033 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:55 am
Quetz,
529. Comment #173036 by Tyler Durden on April 30, 2008 at 8:56 am
Comment #173032 by Incredulous
What I don't understand is how anyone would want to waste so much effort trying to defend patently untenable positions because they have a problem with facts?Not strange, just religious :-)
Strange or what.
530. Comment #173038 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 8:58 am
Al-
531. Comment #173040 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:59 am
What I don't understand is how anyone would want to waste so much effort trying to defend patently untenable positions because they have a problem with facts?
532. Comment #173042 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:04 am
Anna,
533. Comment #173046 by Verylee on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 am
In other words, if you don't provide any data for your opinion that the Earth is at least 4,500 years old,
Utter silliness of which I tire.
I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow. I don't know why I refuse to accustom myself to the bias that whittles 'argumentation' down to the level as is evidenced by this post
534. Comment #173047 by mesomodel on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 am
It's not just radiometric dating that needs to be discarded to believe the Earth is 6K not 4.5G years old. You also have to reject the entire theory of planet and solar system formation. And geology and sedimentology. And evolution. And [insert favorite science].535. Comment #173102 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 10:41 am
Comment #173092 by clearmindHis comments became a homework assignment for my students:
536. Comment #173104 by Tezcatlipoca on April 30, 2008 at 10:44 am
Is a Clearmind Clears the same as a Gish Gallop? 537. Comment #173106 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 10:47 am
Wooter is just a troll without a life. Ignore him and hopefully he'll get bored and go away. I wish there is a button to filter out his posts. 538. Comment #173116 by Frankus1122 on April 30, 2008 at 11:33 am
clearmind:
539. Comment #173118 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 11:39 am
Look guys! Clearmind learned how to copy and paste! 540. Comment #173120 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 11:46 am
Somewhat of a digression, but I just wanted to share this post by "alltruism" on the fora:541. Comment #173122 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 11:49 am
And, back sort of 'on-topic' no-one seems to have commented on the delightful intermingling of the two types of "dating" under discussion.542. Comment #173130 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Thanks Geoff! I can't speak for al, but I couldn't be happier! 543. Comment #173132 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Anna,
544. Comment #173140 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I hate autoformat... I have a nice ascii-pic, but it doesn't work. 545. Comment #173147 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 12:36 pm
MPhil,546. Comment #173149 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Comment #173147 by annabanana Will it work if you blockquote it?
547. Comment #173151 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Thanks... let me try:Live long and prosper!
_
.-T | _
| | | / |
| | | / /`|
_ | | |/ / /
`| '.' / /
`-. '--|
' |
.` /
| |
548. Comment #173152 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 12:49 pm
And here you go:/:""| .****,
(/) |:`66|_ @@@@@ `,
/ C` _)aa`@@@
._| (_ ?@@|
)_/ =' @@@@| |
/`8 (```/ |
|| |8| /^^ | /
|| |8| /::/|| |
|| |8| | |||
|| |~| | |||
:| |=: |:|.:.:.::.
||_|,| |:| ':':':`
)))|| ((( |
| :|| | | (/)
| :|| | | /
) :|| |
| :|| | `
| :|| |:.:. `~-._
|_:||_ /~)) `~~-._
(_,__)) /_/YY `':':':':':':`
549. Comment #173154 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Damn, the formatting still isn't quite right.... oh, I give up. 550. Comment #173156 by Calilasseia on April 30, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Oh dear, is someone trying to suggest that radiometric dating is wrong among these comments?551. Comment #173157 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Comment #173156 by Calilasseia552. Comment #173164 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Cartomancer CARTOONS: "Find love while arguing with Wooter",Can someone with a better grasp of Wooterish furnish me with a translation please? Much obliged...
Bored now. Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss instead? Or how about another game of Mornington Crescent, or some more baking recipes?
Clearmind clears: Hmm, I do not think that they can find love while arguing with me. But surely they can find LOGIC.
Clearmind clears: You can date someone since you can't find any argument against LOGIC. Since this web page turned into a dating web page.
553. Comment #173166 by Calilasseia on April 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Heh, wooter has demonstrated that he would be incapable of understanding the first sentence of my rebuttal, let alone the detailed content, if he's the one claiming that radiometric dating is wrong. 554. Comment #173254 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm
seeker_of_truth is the one needing the Calilassea dating service - I see no reason to suspect him of being another wooter clone.
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
555. Comment #173388 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I am taking up a collection for The Wootered and Enfeebled Infirmary. This cheery and well-lit facility includes padded corridors, plenty of nappies, pureed carrots, finger puppets, and shiny happy staff persons.
556. Comment #173468 by The Reverend Dark on April 30, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Well.
557. Comment #173613 by Philip1978 on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 am
Clearmind558. Comment #173629 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 2:08 am
Clearmind-
559. Comment #173663 by Calilasseia on May 1, 2008 at 4:28 am
Tell me wooter. what was that droolingly encephalitic piece of tripe above supposed to prove? Other than your complete inability to conduct yourself as a rational human being?560. Comment #173664 by Philip1978 on May 1, 2008 at 4:35 am
Calilasseia 561. Comment #173669 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 5:05 am
The sad and rather sick element of the Wooterine experience is that of comprehension.
562. Comment #173671 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 5:16 am
When I read the MSN link-headline 'Unbelievable' softball play, I was skeptical to say the least. However, this ended up being one of the better sports-related stories that I have read all year. Through this experience, I'm still trying to place my [undue?] skepticism in perspective.563. Comment #173677 by annabanana on May 1, 2008 at 5:47 am
Can someone tell me what in hades an "evolin" is? Is it supposed to be evolutionist? or evilutionist? Maybe I'm not creative enough, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to be and whether or not it's supposed to be insulting. 564. Comment #173679 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 5:49 am
annabanana: Can someone tell me what in hades an "evolin" is? Is it supposed to be evolutionist? or evilutionist? Maybe I'm not creative enough, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to be and whether or not it's supposed to be insulting.
565. Comment #173680 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 5:49 am
Anna-
566. Comment #173683 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 5:53 am
Found it. Apparently "Evolin" is a fetish pornstar:567. Comment #173684 by Dr Benway on May 1, 2008 at 5:54 am
Thanks for the softball story, seeker. I'll share it with my husband. He's a gifted runner and a big softie who has collected a number of similar stories over the years. It'll make him go all misty, which I find sexy. 568. Comment #173687 by annabanana on May 1, 2008 at 5:56 am
It's going to be a strange day, methinks. 569. Comment #173688 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 5:58 am
Anna-
570. Comment #173689 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 5:59 am
Quetz: don't call me pal.
571. Comment #173692 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 6:03 am
Thanks for the softball story, seeker. I'll share it with my husband. He's a gifted runner and a big softie who has collected a number of similar stories over the years. It'll make him go all misty, which I find sexy.
572. Comment #173693 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 6:04 am
Rian-
Pal is a word he figured out. No offense :-)
573. Comment #173695 by Cartomancer on May 1, 2008 at 6:15 am
Cartomancer: (Can someone with a better grasp of Wooterish furnish me with a translation please? Much obliged..).Oh, right, I get you. So if I keep banging my head against the table and sticking knitting needles through my ears I might eventually end up with an IQ low enough to understand what you're saying.
(IQ level is needed. Please furnish it first.)
574. Comment #173696 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:17 am
Quetz: Offense taken. Be silent, big-hat. :-)
575. Comment #173702 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:30 am
Brian English: Tosswad, you have to throw teabags over your right shoulder whilst saying "Quetz I'm wrong and need help!" to regain standing before the mighty Quetz....
576. Comment #173705 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:32 am
Brian English: Well, if you don't partake in the tea. Do you really partake in the tea ceremony????
577. Comment #173708 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 6:36 am
Educating Wooter.
Orangutangs have managed tool use, but this one is still beyond you.
578. Comment #173711 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 6:41 am
ReverendDark-
579. Comment #173712 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:41 am
Brian English: I believe that any comment I type is a town lowerer.
580. Comment #173713 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 6:42 am
How do you lower a town?
581. Comment #173719 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:02 am
Brian-
By the way, Hello Quetz!
582. Comment #173731 by severalspeciesof on May 1, 2008 at 7:29 am
Can I add something too?583. Comment #173735 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 7:30 am
Hello Severalspeciesof!
584. Comment #173737 by Tezcatlipoca on May 1, 2008 at 7:34 am
By the way, Hello Quetz!
585. Comment #173749 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 8:06 am
You have indeed done well Tezcatlipoca, please feel free to have a banana. 586. Comment #173753 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:10 am
Cause refusing to supply any evidence, blaming this on atheists, then running away
587. Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:13 am
Now back to this age of the earth/universe question.The gist of the creationist's argument is right, observations of ongoing radioactive decay in supernova remnants can only date the very young ones.
Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years.
588. Comment #173758 by severalspeciesof on May 1, 2008 at 8:16 am
Hello Severalspeciesof!
(See, it's catching on!)
589. Comment #173761 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:19 am
seeker_of_truth: If SNR's occur every 25 years as estimated, the simple math puts the age of our universe under ten-thousand years.
seeker_of_truth: Now for the deity issue. Let me first ask, why can't we have a relatively young universe without a Yahweh-type creator?
seeker_of_truth: To age the universe into the billions of years by view of SNR's, I see the need to observe transitions from phase two to three at an approximate rate of the inception of new SNR's, decrease the frequency of the occurrence of SNR's, and/or discovering some on the millions of SNR's theorized to be in the third phase.
590. Comment #173767 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 8:26 am
Seeker-
Pretty simple concept really- a thermonuclear explosion which eventually cools and fades away. We have observed approximately 5 SNR's in the first phase and about 200 in phase two. If SNR's occur every 25 years as estimated, the simple math puts the age of our universe under ten-thousand years. If we get creative with halving and doubling, we can extend that age into the millions of years. Nowhere though, can I stretch this in to the billions of years
591. Comment #173768 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:27 am
How do you explain all of the other data which dates the universe at billions of years?
592. Comment #173770 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:28 am
Quetz: The whole basis is flawed.
593. Comment #173773 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:31 am
Quetz: The whole basis is flawed.
594. Comment #173775 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:31 am
Comment #173767 by Quetzalcoatl595. Comment #173779 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:33 am
seeker_of_truth: You have responded, in length mind you, to none of the evidence that I presented.
596. Comment #173780 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:36 am
Have you shown that SNR's are a valid technique for dating the universe?
597. Comment #173783 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 8:40 am
Seeker-
You have responded, in length mind you, to none of the evidence that I presented
598. Comment #173784 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:40 am
seeker_of_truth: Unless you want to deny the existence of over a hundred words of coherently presented evidence... yes, I did.
599. Comment #173785 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:43 am
seeker_of_truth, given the amount of evidence supporting an old universe, the only way you are going to get a young universe is to presume that your deity created it with the appearance of age. 600. Comment #173786 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 8:45 am
Just a quick response, since I am in an audio at the moment.601. Comment #173788 by irate_atheist on May 1, 2008 at 8:46 am
617. Comment #173709 by Brian English -
602. Comment #173789 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:46 am
Huh? I disputed your assertion that counting SNRs is a valid way of assessing the age of the Universe. Did you miss my point about population III stars? There was also a long period of time between the Big Bang and the formation of the first PIII stars. SNR-counting would give you no insight into that.
603. Comment #173791 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:48 am
You presented details concerning the life cycle of a SNR's. You didn't show, in any way that I could see, that it's a valid method of estimating the age of the universe. I might have missed that part, or it might not have been present.
604. Comment #173797 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:50 am
seeker_of_truth: It was not missed by the people at NASA but we can't all be that smart either.
605. Comment #173798 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:50 am
seeker_of_truth, given the amount of evidence supporting an old universe, the only way you are going to get a young universe is to presume that your deity created it with the appearance of age.
606. Comment #173801 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 8:53 am
Seeker,
Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years. The universe is much older than that, which we know from the oldest stars (on the order of 10,000,000,000 years old). In addition, we observe distant objects that are billions of light years away.
607. Comment #173803 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 8:54 am
Seeker-
There are ways to date older supernova remnants (ages > 10,000 years), however they are not very accurate. These methods involve X-ray observations which measure the temperature of these supernova remnants. From the temperature, one can estimate the speed of the shock wave, from the speed of the shock wave one can estimate the age. Using these methods, we observe supernova remnants up to abound 100,000 years old, when they fade into the interstellar medium.
Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years. The universe is much older than that, which we know from the oldest stars (on the order of 10,000,000,000 years old). In addition, we observe distant objects that are billions of light years away.
The most solid evidence for the Earth being old are the products from long half-life radioactive decay found in meteorites and rocks on the Earth. For example: Potassium 40 (40K) decays into the gas Argon 40 (40Ar) with a 1/2 life of 1.3 billion years. As long as a rock remains a rock, this 40 Ar remains trapped. If the rock melts, the Argon escapes. So, by measuring the amount of 40K and 40Ar in a rock, geologists can measure its age.
Common elements used for this are Potassium 40 (1/2 life = 1,300,000,000 years), Uranium 238 (1/2 life = 4,500,000,000 years), Rubidium 87 (1/2 life = 47,000,000,000 years).
These studies clearly show that the Earth is at least 3.9 Billion years old, because that is the age of the oldest rocks. The oldest meteorites are about 5 Billion years old
608. Comment #173804 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:54 am
Where in your link is there even a reference to using SNR's to date the universe?
609. Comment #173805 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:56 am
Cheers Rev Dark.seeker_of_truth: My wife might say it's time to grow past this insecurity with your perception of a threatening deity. Especially 'seeing' it where it does not exist.
610. Comment #173808 by irate_atheist on May 1, 2008 at 8:58 am
628. Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth -
611. Comment #173809 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 8:59 am
Just curious: Was the issue of radioisotope dating ever resolved? If I recall, all of seeker's claims were refuted, which leaves us with the proposition that the Earth/Moon/asteroids are ~4.5Gy old. So, the universe is at least that old. Why jump to the age of the universe? Seeker, do you concede that our solar system is billions of years old?612. Comment #173810 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 9:01 am
Comment #173805 by riandouglasAnd how many times is he going to present material as his own when he got the idea from a YEC site?
You're trying to redirect the argument again. Naughty naughty. So, how many refutations of evidence for your lower bound of the age of the universe - 4500, will you have to be presented with before you reject it?
613. Comment #173811 by Tyler Durden on May 1, 2008 at 9:01 am
seeker,
614. Comment #173812 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:01 am
mesomodel: Just curious: Was the issue of radioisotope dating ever resolved? If I recall, all of seeker's claims were refuted, which leaves us with the proposition that the Earth/Moon/asteroids are ~4.5Gy old. So, the universe is at least that old. Why jump to the age of the universe? Seeker, do you concede that our solar system is billions of years old?
615. Comment #173813 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:02 am
epeeist: And how many times is he going to present material as his own when he got the idea from a YEC site?
616. Comment #173816 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:10 am
You can't honestly expect him to accept any of the astrophysical evidence you have posted. Astrophysics involves understanding math, and math is hard! If a person doesn't understand something, then that something can't possibly be true, right? 617. Comment #173817 by Geraint on May 1, 2008 at 9:10 am
The gist of the creationist's argument is right, observations of ongoing radioactive decay in supernova remnants can only date the very young ones.
My question - we can only 'date' very young ones or only observe very young ones?
618. Comment #173819 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 9:15 am
Comment #173816 by Don_Quix
Astrophysics involves understanding math, and math is hard! If a person doesn't understand something, then that something can't possibly be true, right?
619. Comment #173823 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:19 am
So, as I said, SNRs are not a valid way of assessing the age of the Universe, both for the reasons mentioned in the quote AND the ones that I have said before. Your evidence is not appropriate for the purposes you are attempting to put it to.
620. Comment #173827 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:23 am
You're trying to redirect the argument again. Naughty naughty.
So, how many refutations of evidence for your lower bound of the age of the universe - 4500, will you have to be presented with before you reject it?
621. Comment #173830 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:25 am
Comment #173808 by irate_atheist622. Comment #173831 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 9:26 am
Seeker_of_truth-
Here we have evidence against a billions of years universe so, for this reason alone, it becomes invalid? This might also be called a preconception of biblical proportion. If evidence is elevated to what it appears by most of us on this site, why not address it instead of topical diversions?
623. Comment #173834 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:27 am
seeker_of_truth: Enough of that. I said 'at least' 4500 years. How old do you think the universe is and does your view conflict with mine or do we just need a diversion?
624. Comment #173838 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 9:30 am
Seeker-
625. Comment #173839 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 9:32 am
Seeker,626. Comment #173841 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:33 am
There is no sharp dividing line between different phases in the development of an SNR, as you seem to imply. Different physical processes dominate at different times. As the remnant evolves it gets harder to observe until it blends into the background.
627. Comment #173842 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:35 am
mesomodel: Your hypothesis, which I'm sure you can back with evidence such as you've given above, will surely rock the entire scientific community.
Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth: My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.
628. Comment #173844 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:36 am
So if we can not see the line [clearly] between phase two and phase three, why can we not see transitional evidence between the two? There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?
629. Comment #173846 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 9:38 am
Quetz I am beginning to see why you are a god.
630. Comment #173847 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:39 am
Comment #173756 by seeker: I will also limit my evidence to the Milky Way system.
Comment #173841 by seeker_of_truth: There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?
631. Comment #173848 by Geraint on May 1, 2008 at 9:41 am
So if we can not see the line [clearly] between phase two and phase three, why can we not see transitional evidence between the two? There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?
632. Comment #173852 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:43 am
Oh no...now they not only want transitional forms of fossils, but they want transitional forms of stars too! I give up.
*head in hands*
633. Comment #173855 by Tyler Durden on May 1, 2008 at 9:45 am
Comment #173844 by Don_Quix
Oh no...now they not only want transitional forms of fossils, but they want transitional forms of stars too! I give up.Isn't religion just great!! :-)
634. Comment #173856 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:45 am
Please support your claim with a credible, peer-reviewed paper showing that supernova suggest the age of the universe is anything less than a dozen or more billion years old.
635. Comment #173858 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 9:47 am
Seeker,
So if we can not see the line [clearly] between phase two and phase three, why can we not see transitional evidence between the two? There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?
10.2 Rate of Supernovae Occurrence
The main source for Davies' value of 25 years for the rate of supernova occurrence in our Galaxy is an estimate made in 1970 by the Swiss astronomer Gustav Tammann. The value Tammann gave was 26 ± 10 years, calculated by comparing our Galaxy to other similar galaxies (in terms of size and luminosity) and working out the rate of supernovae from observing them (Tammann 1970). Poveda & Woltjer (1968) gave a rough estimate of 60 years, whereas Chai & van den Bergh (1970) estimated 100 years, and Ilovaisky & Lequeux (1972b) gave 50 ± 25 years.
In 1994, Tammann revised his 1970 estimate for the rate of occurrence of supernovae in our own Galaxy to 40 ±10 years (Tammann et al. 1994). Cappellaro et al. (1996) suggested that for our Galaxy there should be 4 ± 1 Type Ia, 2 ± 1 Type Ib/c and 12 ± 6 Type II observable supernovae per millennium, which works out at rate roughly half that of Tammann's 1970 value. Weiler & Sramek (1988) conclude that the average interval between supernovae in our Galaxy is between 20 and 50 years and van den Bergh & Tammann (1991) and Turatto (1999) both give estimates in reasonable agreement with this. The values given in Carroll & Ostlie's Introduction to Modern Astrophysics are 36 years for Type I supernovae and 44 years for Type II supernovae. Folgheraiter et al. (1997) gives an average interval of 30 years as being "the currently accepted value".
In the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s, astronomers found that supernovae occurred at different rates in different types of galaxies, and that the rate of supernovae in spiral galaxies is dependent on the luminosity of the galaxy involved (Tammann et al. 1994). In addition, the rate at which supernovae are observed to occur in other galaxies is dependent on the inclination of the galaxy - a lot more supernovae are detected in galaxies that lie pole-on to us (van den Bergh & McClure 1990; van den Bergh & Tammann 1991). Another determining factor in the rate of supernova occurrence is the amount of progenitor stars - either suitable binary systems (for Type I) or massive giant stars (for Type II) are required.
Dragicevich et al. (1999) have proposed that the Earth is situated favourably within our Galaxy for viewing supernovae, thus the calculated rate for supernovae occurrence is actually high compared with the rate throughout the Galaxy as a whole.
Astronomers are generally quite cautious in inferring rates of supernova occurrence from the amount of supernova remnants. Indeed, to quote from Jones et al. (1998):
People should exercise extreme caution in inferring supernovae rates from counts of mature and old SNRs.
And from van den Bergh & Tammann (1991):
Since the lifetimes of radio supernova remnants (SNRs) depend so critically on environment, it will be very difficult to derive meaningful information on supernova rates from the statistics of SNRs.
However, on balance, Davies uses an acceptable value for the rate of Galactic supernovae occurrence. Incidentally, it is thought that one supernova occurs every second in the whole Universe (Burrows 2000).
10.3 Numbers of Supernova Remnants
YECs claim that not as many SNRs are observed as would be expected in an old universe. Davies uses a value of one million years for the lower end of the typical visible lifetime of a SNR and assumes that all SNRs last this long. He gets this figure from Ilovaisky & Lequeux (1972b). However, on reading the original paper it is noticeable that this value is actually for the theoretical lifetime of the remnant, not the observable lifetime of the remnant. Why is there a difference? Quite simply, SNRs are actually hard to detect. Factors that seriously hinder our ability to detect SNRs (and which Davies almost completely ignores) are:
SNRs can only be observed in a small proportion of our Galaxy - our view of most of the Galaxy is blocked by large amounts of dust and interstellar matter. Only some younger, radio emitting SNRs would be visible through this dust (Sramek et al. 1992; Gray 1994). This largely explains why there has been no observed Galactic supernovae in the last 300 or so years (Clark et al. 1981; Dawson & Johnson 1994; Hatano et al. 1997), even though we would have expected perhaps 5-10 to have occurred (McKee 2000).
It is also difficult to identify much older remnants as they either have faded beyond our ability to detect them (they may have merged with the ISM), they have merged with other remnants, or they have faded into the general background "noise" (Nousek et al. 1981; Matthews et al. 1998; Braun et al. 1989; Landecker et al. 1990; Normandeau et al. 2000). Younger SNRs, or SNRs which are still interacting with gas expelled by their progenitors are much more likely to be detected (Jones et al. 1998; Slavin & Cox 1992). Shull et al. (1989) carried out a statistical analysis of SNRs, and found that with isolated SNRs, less than 1% last for longer than 100,000 years, and only 20% are still intact after 50,000 years.
The make-up of the local ISM that the supernova occurs in is critical to the observability of the resulting SNR (Dohm-Palmer & Jones 1996). SNRs in regions where the density of the ISM is low (Henning & Wendker 1975; Gaensler & Johnson 1995b) or there is little ionised gas present (Heiles et al. 1980) may not be readily visible. Indeed, it may be the case that as few as 15-20% of supernova events cause observable SNRs (Clark & Stephenson 1977; Clark 1979; Kafatos et al. 1980).
Some young SNRs can be intrinsically faint at radio wavelengths and thus unusually difficult to detect (Gray 1994; Duncan & Green 2000).
SNRs are obscured by and can be indistinguishable from other interstellar emission nebulae, and their spectra can be similar to powerful distant radio galaxies and quasars (White & Becker 1990; Inglis & Kitchin 1990; Caswell & Stewart 1991, 1992; Williams et al. 2000). In other words, there is a lot of clutter out there, and finding SNRs is often a tricky and difficult task. Indeed, only a minority of SNRs are visible at optical wavelengths (Long et al. 1990).
The limits of the equipment used to detect SNRs (usually radio telescopes) impinge upon our ability to observe supernova remnants (Green 1991; Kassim 1992; Frail et al. 1994). As this gets better in the future, the numbers of SNRs detected will rise. This can be illustrated by the way astronomers have detected more and more SNRs in our own galaxy over the last few decades - in 1984, there were only 174 Galactic SNRs known, and back in 1971, only 113 (Downes 1971).
Not all the sky has been surveyed to the same degree - there are still large areas of the sky (mainly in the southern celestial hemisphere) waiting to be surveyed with more powerful instruments (Case & Bhattacharya 1998).
As a result, Davies vastly overestimates the actual number of observable SNRs. Berkhuijsen (1984) suggested that there might be 1,000 to 10,000 SNRs in our Galaxy (depending on the lifetime of SNRs), but this is the only estimate I'm aware of that provides a figure anywhere near Davies', but even then, Berkhuijsen's estimate is for the total number of SNRs, and not for the observable SNRs.
However, Berkhuijsen's value is very much the exception. Most other estimates for the total number of SNRs in the Galaxy are around 1,000 (e.g. Minkowski 1964; Caswell 1970; Li et al. 1991). Leahy & Wu (1989) give a figure for the total possible number of radio observable SNRs in our Galaxy within 50,000 light years of Earth to be 485 ± 60/f1, where f1 is the completeness factor for SNR observations within 6,000 light years of the Sun (i.e. if we have only detected 75% of nearby SNRs, then the estimate is 486 / 0.75 or 648). Case & Bhattacharya (1996) gave 486 ± 42 as an upper limit, whereas Trushkin (1999) gives 300-1000 potentially detectable SNRs in our Galaxy.
YECs have also invoked the number of SNRs in the Large Magellanic Cloud to support their assertions. From Sarfati's article:
Not only that, but the predictions for the Milky Way's satellite galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud are also consistent with a young universe. Theory predicts 340 observable SNRs if the LMC were billions of years old, and 24 if it were 7000 years old. The number of actually observed SNRs in the LMC is 29.
The number of SNRs observed in the Large Magellanic Cloud in 1999 is actually 37 (Williams et al. 1999), although more are being discovered all the time - indeed it is recognised that, just like our own galaxy, there are many more SNRs yet to be discovered in the LMC (Milne et al. 1980; Dickel & Milne 1988; Chu & Kennicutt 1988). The discrepancy in Sarfati's figures can probably be explained by outdated references, and thus should not be counted against him.
However, both Davies and Sarfati make a more serious error. The estimate of 340 for the total number of SNRs in the LMC is from Mathewson & Clarke (1973). However, Clark & Caswell (1976), Clarke (1976) and Milne et al. (1980) all point out major problems with Mathewson & Clarke's estimate - basically, due to improved observations of SNRs in the LMC, Mathewson & Clarke's estimate is no longer valid. The true number of SNRs in the Large Magellanic Cloud is much, much lower.
Now, Davies has read at least one of these papers (the Clark & Caswell paper), thus he must be aware of the status of the Mathewson & Clarke estimate. Yet he uses this as one of the main supports of his theory, knowing that it is at the very least in serious dispute. When combined with the deliberate misquotation of the Clark & Caswell paper (detailed in Section 10.9), the only logical conclusion is that either Davies is seriously incompetent or he has deliberately set out to deceive (and Sarfati appears to have blindy copied from Davies' original paper, without verifying the original calculation).
636. Comment #173859 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:48 am
Both would be nice but I'll settle for SNR transitions since that's the topic at hand.
Or could the fossil reference been an implied position on my part
637. Comment #173863 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:55 am
our view of most of the Galaxy is blocked by large amounts of dust and interstellar matter. Only some younger, radio emitting SNRs would be visible through this dust.
638. Comment #173865 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:57 am
Sounds like your position is a little bit more than implied. Also, what is it like to go through life while contradicting yourself every other sentence?
639. Comment #173867 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 9:58 am
seeker_of_truth: We're talking billions of light years here, not accounting for unknown gravity effects on the speed of light
seeker_of_truth: - though this does not affect the actual distance. Don't we think the law of averages would play out and create an even playing field no matter which direction we are looking?
640. Comment #173868 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:01 am
In http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-Richard-Dawkins-Michael-Shermer,page3#165735 I gave some of the things that one should not do in critical dialogue. Included in these are 641. Comment #173870 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:04 am
Seeker,642. Comment #173872 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:07 am
The theories and evidence suggest the speed of light is a constant, unless you'd light to back up that assertion with evidence :- )
643. Comment #173873 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 10:08 am
I'm afraid you have given me nothing of substance to respond to.
If this happens again and I do not respond, you will know why.
644. Comment #173874 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 10:08 am
Seeker tried.
Son, how could you miss that catch?
The sun was in my eyes dad...
Son, it's a night-game.
We're talking billions of light years here, not accounting for unknown gravitational effects on the speed of light - though this does not affect the actual distance. Don't we think the law of averages would play out and create an even playing field no matter which direction we are looking?
645. Comment #173876 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:09 am
Seeker,
Rev. Dark provided you with a rebuttal that included many references. Please state how each of these are wrong, and provide evidence and ideally references to back up your claim.
646. Comment #173878 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:12 am
Comment #173872 by seeker_of_truth Irrelevant argument.
Do you find it interesting the speed of gravity measured here on earth matches the exact speed of light? It seems an almost impossible coincidence, or one apparently controls the other.
647. Comment #173880 by Geraint on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
We're talking billions of light years here, not accounting for unknown gravitational effects on the speed of light - though this does not affect the actual distance. Don't we think the law of averages would play out and create an even playing field no matter which direction we are looking?
648. Comment #173881 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
Comment #173868 by epeeist649. Comment #173882 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
Seeker waffled like the IHOP
Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.
650. Comment #173883 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
seeker_of_truth: Do you find it interesting the speed of gravity measured here on earth matches the exact speed of light? It seems an almost impossible coincidence, or one apparently controls the other.
651. Comment #173884 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:14 am
Comment #173876 by seeker_of_truth So go away until you have some answers and then come back and post them.
Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.
652. Comment #173885 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 10:15 am
Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.
The link you provided is too long and reading things is hard. I'd rather just blather on pseudo-intellectually about things I know nothing about.
653. Comment #173886 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:16 am
seeker_of_truth: Your list of rules would be fine if I were only debating only one individual who was writing from a majority account of experience and intrinsic knowledge.
654. Comment #173887 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:16 am
Comment #173881 by seeker_of_truthFine, then respond to Mesomodel or Geraint if you want to limit your responses.
Your list of rules would be fine if I were only debating only one individual who was writing from a majority account of experience and intrinsic knowledge.
655. Comment #173889 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:17 am
seeker:
Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.
656. Comment #173890 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:20 am
Seeing them in galaxies other than our own would be even harder. We can see supernovae in distant galaxies, but only for a short time after the initial explosion, when they're at their brightest. Seeing old relics is a vastly different proposition. You seem to be trying to make an argument here without knowing even the most elementary things about the relevant astronomy.
657. Comment #173891 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:25 am
Stop changing the topic.658. Comment #173892 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:26 am
Handwaving arguments and distractions about the effect of gravity on light speed are not relevant unless you can provide evidence, ideally backed by references, that this has a significant effect.
From that they worked out that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25.... But experts say the indirect evidence that gravity propagates at the speed of light was already overwhelming. "It would be revolutionary if gravity were measured not to propagate at the speed of light - we were virtually certain that it must," says Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
659. Comment #173895 by Tyler Durden on May 1, 2008 at 10:27 am
Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.seeker, why do you think scientific research takes so long? There are no "quick" answers. Of course, you could read Genesis 1:1 - 1:14 and think that's all there is to it. 'fraid not.
660. Comment #173896 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:27 am
Stop changing the topic.
seeker - answer mesomodel in #173889
661. Comment #173897 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 10:29 am
And I'm back. Since nothing seems to have changed, I'll just restate my comment 663 in the hope that Seeker will answer this time.
Here we have evidence against a billions of years universe so, for this reason alone, it becomes invalid? This might also be called a preconception of biblical proportion. If evidence is elevated to what it appears by most of us on this site, why not address it instead of topical diversions?
662. Comment #173898 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:29 am
Comment #173892 by seeker_of_truth663. Comment #173899 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:30 am
And with that... I'm going to lunch.664. Comment #173901 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:32 am
173889 got a response - last page, second from the bottom.665. Comment #173902 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 10:35 am
SeekerOfTruth,
666. Comment #173904 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 10:43 am
seeker_of_truth: Fuck dude, do you know the meaning of a little patience?
667. Comment #173905 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 10:45 am
And with that... I'm going to lunch.
668. Comment #173908 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 10:47 am
Out to lunch metaphorically
669. Comment #173910 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 10:49 am
Was my analogy useful? Of course I pulled the severe cuts statstic out of thin air but the argument he is making seems somewhat similar to proof there aren't 6 billion people. 670. Comment #173913 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:52 am
Comment #173899 by seeker_of_truthTime of death 18:32 UTC, cause "I have to go now", complicated by "I don't have answers to your hard questions".
And with that... I'm going to lunch
671. Comment #173915 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 10:58 am
Comment #173901 by seeker_of_truth
173889 got a response - last page, second from the bottom.
672. Comment #173916 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 11:00 am
In fairness to Seeker, I left for an hour to go home and have dinner. We shall see what happens when/if he returns. 673. Comment #173918 by Geraint on May 1, 2008 at 11:04 am
NGC 6397 is over a billion light years away. I should not have used the word 'billions' [as it does imply two or more] in the sense of investigating SNR's within the Milky Way. My apologies.
674. Comment #173923 by mesomodel on May 1, 2008 at 11:13 am
Comment #173910 by MaxD 675. Comment #173925 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:19 am
The SNR evidence gets washed away, like blood. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
676. Comment #173931 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:26 am
And there you are ladies and gentlemen, another incoherent non-sequitur spouting troll successfully wastes all of our time.
677. Comment #173932 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:27 am
Sorry Don_Quix
678. Comment #173934 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:29 am
Mesmodel, Don_Quix
679. Comment #173936 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:31 am
Re: NGC 6397No it's not. It's a nearby globular cluster.
680. Comment #173941 by Daniel Palmer on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 am
Seeker_of_Truth:This might also be called a preconception of biblical proportion.
681. Comment #173942 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:38 am
In fairness to Seeker, I left for an hour to go home and have dinner. We shall see what happens when/if he returns.
682. Comment #173943 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:38 am
seeker_of_truth, I see you're playing the deflection game again683. Comment #173944 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:40 am
Just to be sure we are on the same page.You're not only not on the same page with everyone else here, you're in a different book.
684. Comment #173946 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 11:40 am
Re: globular clusters - get your hands out of your pants - the other globular cluster - NGC-6397.
685. Comment #173948 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 11:42 am
Seeker-
686. Comment #173950 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:43 am
Comment 173889Now, please, provide some honest to goodness scientific evidence to the contrary. Handwaving arguments and distractions about the effect of gravity on light speed are not relevant unless you can provide evidence, ideally backed by references, that this has a significant effect.
Enough already. If you are not prepared to provide a sound argument based on sound scientific evidence that is not contradicted by the overwhelming evidence that has already been presented, then either please concede the point or take a break and come back when you can put a worthwhile argument together.
687. Comment #173955 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:48 am
My comment # 173892
My comment # 173756
688. Comment #173957 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am
7,200 light years from earth; not anywhere near a billion.
Once again: educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_6397
We are not on the same page; we are not even in the same book - I am unsure what you are reading, but am pretty sure it is about a squirrel named nutty.
689. Comment #173958 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am
I take it the discussion of SNRs is over then? 690. Comment #173959 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
Your avatar is mesmerizing. Is she playing Dawkins in an upcoming bio-pic or something? You know like Cate Blanchett recently played Dylan?
691. Comment #173960 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
seeker_of_truth: Now pay attention everybody as I admit my numbers for this cluster were wrong. See, it doesn't even have to be painful to admit fault. Now I fully expect one bad piece of information to be taken and blown out of proportion, even though my point of the law of averages regarding space dust still stands with the corrected distance. Nonetheless, carry on and have some fun.
692. Comment #173961 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
Seeker,
693. Comment #173962 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
Response to 702You just don't seem to get it. SNRs are not evidence against a universe that is billions of years old. Nor are they evidence for it. The SNRs that we can see cannot be applied to the question of the age of the Universe, no more than the spawning patterns of Alaskan salmon can.
You seem to believe that I am not addressing your evidence. But your evidence is not something that can confirm or deny the age of the Universe as >15byrs. I am addressing your evidence, by telling you that it is not appropriate for the question that you are attempting to use it to answer.
694. Comment #173967 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 11:54 am
Seeker-
I'll simply answer in kind, with... yes it is. How do you like that evidence?
695. Comment #173968 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:56 am
Great.
Now about K-Ar dating and the age of the universe?
696. Comment #173969 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:56 am
seeker_of_truth:
You're addressing my evidence with what, exactly, in this post? Telling me it is not appropriate for the question of the age of the universe?
697. Comment #173970 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:57 am
SeekerofTruth,
698. Comment #173972 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am
seeker_of_truth: Grow-up.
699. Comment #173973 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am
Grow-up.
700. Comment #173975 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Laughing boy fired back
Now pay attention everybody as I admit my numbers for this cluster were wrong. See, it doesn't even have to be painful to admit fault. Now I fully expect one bad piece of information to be taken and blown out of proportion, even though my point of the law of averages regarding space dust still stands with the corrected distance. Nonetheless, carry on and have some fun.
701. Comment #173976 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Don_Quix,
702. Comment #173978 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Sigh.
Evidence of SNR's is gone after < 100,000 years, and they're hard to see along the galactic plane due to stars and dust.
703. Comment #173979 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm
How? How is it evidence for the age of the Universe?
704. Comment #173980 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm
seeker_of_truth: If that's all you guys got to refute the parsimonious theory on SNR's as they relate to the age of the universe, then we are probably done?
705. Comment #173982 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm
What does your young lower limit to the age of the universe depend on again? Oh yeah, ancient writings. Good one!
706. Comment #173983 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Seeker,
Was the original article you didn't actually read because it explicity says SNR's are no use in dating the universe.
707. Comment #173987 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Seeker-
Exactly my point, it wasn't. It was tit for tat
I will now present my main dilemma with buying into the idea that the universe is billions of years old. I also plan to address this deity issue that seems so pressing to many here in relation to the topics of science and history
To age the universe into the billions of years by view of SNR's, I see the need to observe transitions from phase two to three at an approximate rate of the inception of new SNR's, decrease the frequency of the occurrence of SNR's, and/or discovering some on the millions of SNR's theorized to be in the third phase
33. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:13 am
708. Comment #173989 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Now suppose I asked you for hard evidence on when the United States became an independent nation. Just what would you base your response on?
709. Comment #173993 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Seeker,
Now suppose I asked you for hard evidence on when the United States became an independent nation. Just what would you base your response on?
710. Comment #173994 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm
And you explain away every other method of dating the universe how exactly?
711. Comment #173995 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm
So we have moved on from refuting the age of the universe, to refuting the age of the United States. This just keeps getting more and more fascinating.
712. Comment #173997 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Lets see....who was there at the begining of the universe?
713. Comment #173998 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm
seeker_if_truth: How about one dating method per day?
Yesterday was radiometric, today is SNR's, tomorrow... I even let you chose.
714. Comment #174000 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Laughing boy is trying to muddy the waters on textural analysis in regards to history. It is a piss poor attempt, but he is grasping at straws.
715. Comment #174002 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm
You don't seem to understand that scientists have actually already done this.
716. Comment #174004 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm
seeker_of_truth: So everything science has 'done' is a closed case now? Do you think it a good thing that we didn't take that position a hundred years ago?
717. Comment #174005 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Last time I checked the founding of America did not include the dead rising, jewish zombies, the parting of the waters (there was a crossing mind you, but they used a boat), talking burning bushes, global floods, etc.
718. Comment #174006 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Seeker stands as tall as a man with his head up his arse can.
So everything science has 'done' is a closed case now? Do you think it a good thing that we didn't take that position a hundred years ago?
719. Comment #174008 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Seeker-
720. Comment #174009 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm
seeker_of_truth:
Duh, I finally get it. You think I'm making reference to the Old Testament.
1. You're dead wrong
2. You blinding bias is showing
721. Comment #174012 by newskin on May 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm
seeker_of_truth -So everything science has 'done' is a closed case now? Do you think it a good thing that we didn't take that position a hundred years ago?
722. Comment #174013 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Duh, I finally get it. You think I'm making reference to the Old Testament.
1. You're dead wrong
2. You blinding bias is showing
723. Comment #174015 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Here's a short list that covers a historical string from 2700 BCE to 250 BCE. If really need more verification, there's something to go off of but I refuse to do any more homework on this silly issue.724. Comment #174016 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Seeker-
725. Comment #174017 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm
There is no reason or bias for going with 13.7 billion years. It's simply what the evidence points to.It's important to note that the evidence is actually a convergence of evidence using dozens of different methods from pretty much every major field of science...all of which point to the same thing: the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.
726. Comment #174019 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Seeker-
748 still.
727. Comment #174020 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Seeker-
728. Comment #174021 by seeker_of_truth
1. Comment #166151 by Diacanu on April 22, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Well, fuck him.
*Goes back to read the Dennet bit*
Other Comments by Diacanu