1. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #199710 by rabbitpirate on June 26, 2008 at 8:16 am

Per Ahlberg is a great guy. I once had a debate some hardcore fundamental creationist on youtube who insisted that he had got Per Ahlberg fired from his job by showing that he had faked one of his fossil finds. I contacted Per about this and even though it was a stupid youtube debate he was more than happy to help me out and even sent me copies of the papers this creationist guys claimed to have show to be wrong.

2. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112777 by rabbitpirate on January 18, 2008 at 4:30 am

The worst part of this is in the FAQ section.

Q: What's the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?

A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we've found that hosting a school-wide "mandatory" field trip is the best way to maximize your school's earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well.

That's just, well, wrong.

3. How Evolution REALLY Works

Comment #112772 by rabbitpirate on January 18, 2008 at 4:21 am

I love CDKs videos. He has a number of great ones dealing with many aspects of evolution on youtube. The best thing about them is how they attract so many creationist who simply don't understand any of the concepts of evolution and will argue against any evidence presented to them.

It is also worth checking out Potholer54's excellent "Made Easy" series and the ExantDodo teams great "Critical Analysis" series.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=potholer54

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ExtantDodo

4. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #100024 by rabbitpirate on December 18, 2007 at 5:09 am

Am I the only person who finds themselves thinking of the old Jurrasic Park "life will find a way" line when ever someone says something like "They are designed to grow in a cosseted environment with very high food levels, You throw this guy out on the ground, he just can't compete. He's toast."

Is there any reason to believe that synthetic life would not evolve in the same way as good old fashion regular life? Ok so right now your little bug can't survive but apply the pressures of natural selection and who knows what might happen.

It is still mindblowingly cool though and we definately have an interesting future ahead of us.

5. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77946 by rabbitpirate on October 11, 2007 at 8:00 am

Am I the only one who finds themselves wondering if this amazing scientific achievement will be highjacked as proof that only an "intelligent Designer" could have created life?

It is either that or they will go completely the other way and claim that this is either not the creation of a new lifeform or that it simply didn't happen at all. Anything but accept the truth.

6. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72035 by rabbitpirate on September 20, 2007 at 7:30 am

Did she write this while drunk or something. It makes about as much sense as the drunken ramblings down the local student union!

7. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64632 by rabbitpirate on August 21, 2007 at 4:18 am

It seems this is the week for amusing religious news stories. I take it you have all seen the one about China banning reincarnation. I laughed so hard my sides hurt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/

8. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #46079 by rabbitpirate on May 30, 2007 at 6:39 am

I'm a little confused by this article. He starts by saying that faith as we know if is not faith at all. In fact real faith is knowing your own place in the world and being a thoroughly nice chap…that is faith in God and everything after that is idolatry and doctrine which is bad. Now at this point I have to agree, if this was the faith that Sam was complaining about then maybe he is a bit harsh…but it's not and in fact it doesn't represent the faith of any of the major religions. Oh that we lived in a world where the main concerns of the religious were knowing your place in the world and being nice but unfortunately that is not the case. If you asked anyone to describe their faith I have no doubt they would describe what Chris refers to as idolatry and doctrine. So basically at this point, though they use different words for it, both Sam and Chris agree. The trappings of faith and the things they make us do are bad…great end of article.

But then he goes on. Sam points out that, though no one wants to really admit it, America is at war with Islam. This is a fair point even though I agree with Chris when he says that most of the 1 billion muslins are no more violent than you or I. The thing it that just a few lines earlier Chris himself was talking about how bad religious doctrine is and it is this very doctrine that Sam is complaining about. Sorry to sound like a broken record but if faith was just knowing yourself and being nice then no one would have a problem with it. Chris then points out that:

The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion.

But what is it but doctrine that makes these faiths different from each other? And then he seems to flip again.

Religion is often a convenient vehicle for this blood lust. Religious institutions often sanctify genocide, but this says more about us, about the nature of human institutions and the darkest human yearnings, than it does about religion.

Ok so he catches himself at the end but yet again he is basically saying that religion is bad because it makes our already violent and sucky species even more so. Faith good, religion bad. If only we could separate the two. The rest of the article goes on about morality and I for one really can't see what this has to do with his argument. Even if morality came from God how would we know what He/She/It considered moral if it wasn't for books like the bible…which Chris himself says waters down and distorts the original message by putting it into writing. We can know nothing about God without books like the bible, at least not the definition of God that most of us use.

As I said to start this article confused me. Though Chris no doubt comes down on the side of the religious he seems to agree with Sam that almost every aspect of what makes a religion a religion is bad. I find it hard to understand how you can be a Christian, as I assume he is, when you think that everything that makes your religion different to the others is evil doctrine and that the bible was a mistake and has destroyed the original message.

I'm now going to read Sam's reply. Maybe that will explain things.

9. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44657 by rabbitpirate on May 25, 2007 at 6:37 am

It's at times like this that I am glad that I live in the UK where the Earth most definitely revolves around the sun. Now it may stand still in America but that's not my problem.

Now as much as I really want this to be a spoof and claim that we are all falling victim to Poe's law I have to say that having read a number of Sisyphus's other articles I think he really means it. It is either that or all his articles, comments and posts are spoofs as well in which case how on earth, and by that I mean a spinning like a top version, are we meant to work out what he actually believes. It's scary that some people still think this way, this guy is almost as bad as the flat earthers…oh the arguments I have had with them.

10. BBC man says 'I was wrong to lose it. But these scientologists are truly scary'

Comment #41429 by rabbitpirate on May 16, 2007 at 5:43 am

I watched the Panorama documentary last night and I have to say that I found it highly disturbing. I am also in awe of John Sweeney for keeping his cool as long as he did as I know for a fact I would have been unable to do so for even a fraction of the time he did. That Scientology guy was getting up in his face for no reason that I could see other than to provoke the very response that he eventually, after enough abuse to test the patience of a saint, got.

And to my mind John did nothing wrong with regards to the questions he asked. He never once made a statement that he believed them to be a cult, he simply asked the perfectly justifiable question that "other people believe you to be a cult, how do you respond to that?" Well clearly they respond by attacking the person asking the question. I also found the part where he interviewed the various celebrity Scientologist very telling. Again he asked this, admittedly difficult but, important question and this time the response was to deny him the right to use the interviews. He also asked about their thoughts on Xenu and was greeting with looks of bemusement. The Scientology spokesman even announced that he had no idea what John was talking about and that he was clearly making this up. Are we really expected to believe that someone in this guys position has never even heard about one of the most widely held beliefs about Scientology!?!?! Of course not. They are clearly trying to distance themselves from this, clearly foolish, belief and think that out right denial is the way to do it. At least one would hope this is the case as the only alternative is that these people honestly have no idea what it is the "religion" they belong to actually believes, and that's even more scary.

I was actually shocked by how much this documentary affected me. Last night I had, if not an actual nightmare, an unpleasant dream about trying to save a friend from being sucked in by the Scientologists and about being followed everywhere I went by members of their church. Again I have to say that I have nothing but respect for the way Jon Sweeney carried out the interviews, and that includes his completely human outburst as I believe that sometimes you must face abusive people on their own ground. It was clear that he was trying to be unbiased and was only asking the questions that any good journalist in his position would have asked. If the Scientologist are really so offended by and obviously afraid of this then clearly they have something to hide. I for one wish that the documentary had gone on for a full hour and that John could have had the chance to find out exactly what those secrets were.

11. In the beginning

Comment #34082 by rabbitpirate on April 23, 2007 at 6:57 am

"In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims, who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar's strong appeal to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon."

Sorry to lower to tone, and with my first ever post as well, but am I the only one who thinks there may be some correlation between "Mr Oktar's strong appeal to young women" and "his vast canon" that Islamic websites can't help but talk about?

After I read that I just couldn't take the rest of the article seriously, not that it really warranted it in the first place...and that's me banned from another forum no doubt!!!