1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186578 by riandouglas on May 30, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Ahh, it's good to see txpiper is still spouting his thoughtless drivel. Well done sir!

txpiper: I believe things are in descent having begun in perfection. Evolution is trying to say that organisms have ascended to where they are now from a single cell by way of mutations. I believe living organisms are in a downward spiral.

Others have addressed the directionlessness of the theory of evolution. All you've offered is your belief, yet you've put this forward as an alternate theory. Surely you can provide evidence for this directed trend as well as the mechanism by which this is accomplished when all the evidence appears direction less?

Oh yeah, and any time you'd like to admit your flood hypothesis is flawed given the evidence does not support it, that would be great :-)

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #183485 by riandouglas on May 22, 2008 at 7:15 am

2 driveby's in short order. Hooray!

calvaryguy: I happen too know Ben Stein and the makers of the film. Im sorry too disapoint everyone but they are telling the truth. they have done all the research nessecary and I loved the film. IT was great!!!!. Ben stein is a great man and great friend. ttyl.

Translation: "I'm an idiot but think name dropping when no one is able to verify it will make me seem important. I didn't understand anything in the movie, but it seemed to agree with my prior beliefs. Did I mention that I'm an idiot?"

3. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183420 by riandouglas on May 22, 2008 at 5:04 am

HungarianElephant: Any chance you can post in Romanian, then? It might make more sense.

Well, it's worth a shot anyway.

Google does Romanian -> English translations. Perhaps it will make the logical arguments, with which he hopes to shut down this website, and which obviously wow his students (Pre-school?), understandable to we delusional Evolins :-)

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181988 by riandouglas on May 19, 2008 at 3:51 am

txpiper: I don't see anything promising about any of the theories. Whether RNA, DNA or a protein sequence came first, the insurmountable problems are surely there.

Incredulity again. Can you show there are insurmountable problems? That you don't like the implications is no reason to dismiss the science. Who am I kidding. In your world that's a perfectly good reason :-)

txpiper: Second, even if they did, they would have inserted into the equation the precise component that you insist cannot be involved, which is INTELLECT. Any experiment which is not 100% accidental would not be a true replication of the "natural process". It would be decidedly unnatural.

If I hadn't thought it before, this one assertion shows me you're a blithering idiot. Thank you sir! :-)

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181664 by riandouglas on May 17, 2008 at 9:39 pm

txpiper: In other words, going nowhere. What happened to Calilasseia's next step on the way to something?

You seem to think there is some kind of destination in mind here. A common error from you guys, but an error nonetheless.

txpiper: Right. After watching Michael Ruse in Stein's movie, I can see why you would want to build a fence between the formation of the first self-replicating molecule and everything that happened after that.

I'm not trying to "build a fence", they're different theories and address different processes. You've been given this answer numerous times.As MaxD has pointed out, there are promising theories which have not been falsified, and of which no "insurmountable" problems are known (despite what you assert).

txpiper: You know neither of these things. I work in a field that depends on the application of hard science. Engineering and mechanical design depend on the accuracy and veracity of real numbers which reflect real things. We do not have the luxury of the conjecture and guesswork. Things either work or they don't work.

Ever subjected the bible myths you believe as truth to the test concerning "accuracy and veracity"?
Given the "accuracy and veracity" you and your number have displayed here and elsewhere, I can't help but think you're less than competent in your profession.

Since you're hung up on stats here, how about you give us the statistical probability that Yahweh created the universe and all live on earth in 6 days some 6000 years ago?

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181448 by riandouglas on May 17, 2008 at 8:40 am

txpiper: mindless drivel deleted

say for example, instead of a person walking, it's a mechanical walking device - say asimo in some kind of "random walk" mode. No intent just mindless stepping. You're basically saying that, walking randomly, without intent it is impossible for this robot to get anywhere.
Now, lets say we take a billion of these robots, all without intent, just random walking. You think one of them might make it across your country?

Oh, and before you ask the question, the creation of asimo can be taken as analogous to abiogenesis, a theory we aren't discussing.

EDIT: I forgot some words :-)

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181421 by riandouglas on May 17, 2008 at 8:02 am

Brian English: Well, that's settled it for me. Evolution is debunked. Any nominations for txpiper to receive the Nobel prize? I think it would be very magnanimous of Richard Dawkins to do that very thing.

txpiper needs to write this up and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.
His arguments are so compelling, and with such strong supporting evidence, it's sure to be published. He'll be lauded as a genius!

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181418 by riandouglas on May 17, 2008 at 7:55 am

Brian English: I'm sure that txpiper wouldn't find that realistic in his opinion it just couldn't be done. As his opinion is the new way science is done and facts are determined, then it can't occur. :)

Of course such a journey is impossible, I mean the mechanism is simply putting one foot in front of the other. It's because of the obvious impossibility of the journey that I used it to highlight the strength of txpipers own argument :-)

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181417 by riandouglas on May 17, 2008 at 7:51 am

MaxD, thanks for the book recommendations. Are they suitable for someone of txpiper's reading level, or are they useful for someone like myself? :-)

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181414 by riandouglas on May 17, 2008 at 7:42 am

txpiper: Any bio-system or subsystem walking had to have been formed accomplished, according to the theory, incrementally in extremely small steps. It isn't realistic to think that successive generations steps would add thousands, if not millions, of developmental touches metres to any system journey. This is beyond what accidents putting one foot in front of the other can accomplish.

Your argument is analogous to saying that, while it is possible to walk to your front door, it would be impossible to walk from Washington to Las Angeles, as my hatchet job (hopefully) points out.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180587 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 8:54 am

caudimordax: It does make you wonder what they are teaching in engineering school, law school and computer science school these days. I already know what they teach in catholic school, but it's their job to teach the young their corkscrew logic.

Whatever it is, I'm glad I didn't have to sit through it (CompSci) and I really wish they'd stop.
Most programmers I know are ignorant enough of computer science, I don't know why they'd feel confident pronouncing on something else :-)

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180585 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 8:48 am

Quine: Does anyone else notice the following troll behavior:

(1) Go get questions and answers about evolution.
(2) Throw away the correct answers and write in bogus sound-alikes
(3) Present the above and declare that it does not work
(4) Sit back and laugh as those attempting to help do the job of explaining the correct answers
(5) Tell everyone that it is still nonsense
(6) go to (1)

I think 1 & 2 are done by different people to 3,4,5 & 6. People like AiG do the leg work of making shit up (1&2).
People like txpiper simply vomit it at us like they've drunk ipecac. The rest of are stuck with the stink and mess.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180583 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 8:42 am

Caudimordax, if I'm not mistaken the guy is an engineer a lawyer a computer programmer and a catholic, so his qualifications are impeccable.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180577 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 8:30 am

Philip1978: You wanted something larger, hows about humans for example taken from Wikipedia, in chronological order by genus:
large list of human ancestors deleted

Don't you see Philip, in between each of those, there are gaps. No where do we have the remains of half one ancestor species and half it's descendant species, nor are there any examples of half an eye, I mean, what purpose would half an eye serve - the fluid would just splosh out of it.

This evolution thing "beneath ridiculous". :-)

[sarcasm]txpiper, your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.[/sarcasm]

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180574 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 8:23 am

Tyler Durden: rian, such optimism :)

Always look on the bright side and all that :-)

Tyler Durden: If txpiper went searching for evidence, his opinion would have to change - as the evidence backs Natural Selection as the mechanism - and I don't think he came here to have his opinion changed, merely to spout it as us (much like ASMarques).

Yeah, but I'm hoping his arrogance and ignorance will combine in such a way that he has to show us his claims are real.
I suspect he actually thinks he is showing us poor "darwinists" how foolish and dogmatic we are in sticking to our ideology. Especially in the face of his amazing and incredibly intellectual insights into the flaws of evolutionary theory (and geology, haven't forgotten about the flood).

As you said, I'm far too optimistic :-)

16. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180570 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 8:13 am

clearmind: Now I delete the first paragraph

Instead of telling us about it, you could, you know, actually do it.

For future reference, it's the little button labeled "delete" or "del", near all the other little buttons you hit with what would appear to be your forehead.
Hope that helps

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180485 by riandouglas on May 15, 2008 at 5:03 am

txpiper: Once again, the odds are stacked enormously against evolutionary ideas about mutations changing fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles and reptiles to birds and mammals. To make that pitiful notion more so, only one out of millions of candidates are going to actually be involved in reproduction. To think that the mutants would consistently be the lucky ones often enough to define something like the ten layers in the retina of the human eye is again, beneath ridiculous.

You simply do not have a statistical case for believing this nonsense.

You keep telling us your opinion of evolution. Like arseholes, everyone has one.

What you need to do now, instead of continuing to display your arrogance and ignorance, is back up your argument with some evidence.
Until then you're just another nutjob blabbering on the intertubes.

Though to be fair, since you believe in a global flood, the antichrist etc you'll always be a nutjob to me :-)

18. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #180095 by riandouglas on May 14, 2008 at 8:04 am

theist1218: What is Dennett's point in introducing his world religions? While interesting, this has nothing to do with the question as to whether God is a human invention.

Surely the preponderence of gods is an indication that the concept of a god is man made. Perhaps not proof as such, but it does suggest a trend.

theist1218: Take Christianity for example: it did not evolve.

So it owes nothing to judaism? Doesn't have any hellenic influences? Oh, and about that whole "Jesus is fully divine" thing, well the early christian's disagreed about that. It's pretty much what the first council of Nicea was about. I dare say your local lutheran and Augustine would disagree with Saul.

19. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180058 by riandouglas on May 14, 2008 at 6:45 am

Richard Morgan:BTW - Jesus had some very kind things to say about the weak and the ignorant, so perhaps you're right!

Nah, it was the script writers. Seems they plagerised some older scripts to flesh out the character a little, try to make him believable. That's showbiz for you :-)

Richard Morgan: Incorrect : the first time.

So who were the imposters you met the first couple of times around?

20. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180030 by riandouglas on May 14, 2008 at 6:04 am

Tyler Durden: True, but my refrigerator is nearly six foot tall, how am I supposed to get anything out of it if the door is on top? :-)

These redesigned fridges would be set into the floor :-)

21. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179687 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Shaden, I thought zero-point energy was the holy grail? :-)

22. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179680 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I haven't slept tonight, I should communicate more clearly :-)

23. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179676 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:51 pm

mesomodel, I agree. I was just attempting to tease Quetz. Unfortunately he didn't fall for it :-(

24. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179669 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Hasn't fusion power been 5 years away for the last 30 years?
Would be the way to go, but it does seem to be the never ending story.

Who know's, Jesus might return and teach us how to do electro-weak quantum tunneling. That would solve our energy needs :-)
(appologies to steve zara if he reads this - I couldn't resist referencing Tipler :-) )

25. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179666 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Frannkus1122: Or is he saying something else and I just can't see it because of my 'materialist-lens'?

To me, he seemed to go a little bit 'woo woo' towards the end. I thought a "soul" or dualism was strongly suggested, but I may be reading it poorly also.

26. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179658 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:33 pm

I saw a science program on these a few months back. Seemed kind of cool, especially as the default failure mode was to not go critical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

No idea how viable, whether they're breeder reactors etc.

27. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179647 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Al: I think many people here already are crazy.

Not me. I'm a slightly more advanced form of the Eliza chatbot. How does that make you feel? :-)

28. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179639 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Al, i'd love to help you put the conversation back on topic, but i'm not well read enough concerning the issues to say more than "This is disgusting", and it has been said before and better than I can manage.

As for riding tricycles, well, it's still night time here, so it might be a little dangerous.

29. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179626 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Am I simply sleep deprived, or is it saying "Look, science says spiritual experiences are legitimate, therefore god!"

30. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179598 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm

The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.

Isn't that the essence of most new-age garbage?

31. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179590 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I'm not sure that the "truth" is beyond doubt. Somehow it has become indispensible.
You can doubt and question it all you want (hey, the bible asks us to, right), but whatever you do, you have to come up with "the truth".

32. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179582 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm

I resent that insinuation Al - I'm not a hippie! :-)

33. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179579 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Quetz, Iron man is
~3km swim (I think, could be longer)
160km cycle
42km run (a marathon)

Stupid I tells ya!

34. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179577 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Anna, I only ever managed sprint distances. Even so the swim's nearly killed me. I was always near last out of the water, near the front on the bike, and the middle in the run. Decided I should play to my strengths :-)
I know some guys who did the recent IM here in Aus. I don't know what would possess someone to exercise for 10 hours without a day of rest in there somewhere :-)

35. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179572 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Colwyn, thats because that has to be the answer, given the "Truth" they submit to.

36. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179571 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:06 pm

MaxD, it's getting to be winter in these parts, so you're right in more than one way.
Triathlons were kind of fun. They'd have been more fun if I could swim and run :-)

37. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179564 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:58 am

Colwyn: As well as the "make him in OUR image".

I thought the "our" was because the genesis accounts were cribed together from polytheistic myths. Hence the El, Elohim, council of gods etc.

38. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179562 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:55 am

annabanana, what distance do you generally do?
Hopefully not those ridiculous ironman events :-)

39. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179556 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:52 am

MaxD: Just to bring it back to bench pressing, I am a bit miffed that Al and I have the same bench press max. Call it my competitve nature.

I weigh 225 though, so I will still claim victory as Al does outweigh me, if memory serves.

I think I'd have trouble benchpressing myself these days, and I only weigh ~80kgs (~176pounds if memory serves).
Does riding a bike 100 kms count for anything?

40. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179529 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:17 am

Perhaps his wooterness could be coaxed into producing a photograph.

Maybe a search of rd.net, to find out who has had the term used to describe them most frequently?

41. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179520 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:09 am

Al, which of the numerous candidates for the prototypical fucktard really represents the ideal?
:-)

42. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179519 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:05 am

Jayalenik, I have no idea. I had no idea when I was typing it either :-)

43. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179514 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 10:59 am

Jayalenik, I do believe you're right.
I'm almost completely sure Al knew what you meant.
I'm also almost completely sure that you knew that Al knew what you meant :-)

44. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179503 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 10:45 am

Jayalenik,
Merriam Webster
Pronunciation: ˈtəf
Function: noun
Etymology: earlier tuph, tuft porous rock, from Middle French tuf, from Old Italian tufo
Date: 1815

: a rock composed of the finer kinds of volcanic detritus usually fused together by heat

tuff-a-ceous adjective

45. Fleabytes

Comment #179391 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 7:46 am

Thanks NakedCelt. Isn't the whole Lilith thing an invention to overcome the discrepancy between the two Genesis accounts of creation?

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
Man and woman created at the same time (Adam & Lilith in Jewish mythology)
Genesis 2:21-22
"So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."
Woman created after man, and from man (Eve in Jewish and Christian mythology).

Revelation is a hoot. The text seems to imply that the deception is current, as apposed to being the original deceiver. Poor old Satan, always getting a bum rap. Does the boss's dirty work (Book of Job) and get's no respect.

46. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179359 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 6:56 am

64. Comment #179354 by irate_atheist

An act which he seems quite proud of, though it most certainly is against the laws of the land.

47. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179351 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 6:36 am

irate_atheist: He may be deluded and believe them, but they are still lies, and he is still telling them.

I was quibbling over semantics really. The message that he makes a living out of lying to people deserves to be repeated :-)

48. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #179336 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 6:16 am

clearthinker: I would find it very difficult to live with the fundamentalist certainties rational evidence based reality of ....let me think....the RD website? (we're right and we know we are back claims up with evidence and reasoning - anyone else is if you aren't able to do the same you're obviously talking rubbish).

Fixed it for you clearthinker. It's more reflective of the discussions you've tended to be involved in here :-)

irate_atheist: Certainly, if that's what you want. You tell people lies for a living.

It doesn't get more basic than that.

Is it actually lying if he's deluded enough to believe?
Sure, he's "obviously talking rubbish", but if he believes it, it's not lying right?

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179260 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:34 am

Goldy: Rian, he's ignorant. Militantly so and will fight each and every attempt at education. Save your typing for those that wish to learn.

I realise that, though I don't know that he does.
It is kind of fun, and I enjoy learning new things :-)

EDIT

Goldy: He believes in the Biblical flood - what does that tell you about him?

That he has no idea what emprical evidence and the scientific process are. Nor does he understand what scientists actually do.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179244 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:01 am

txpiper: You asked two questions. The answer to the first is no. As I have mentioned, the sheer size of some of the formations is difficult to explain with a conventional interpretation. The second question is posed as if the evidence is clearly in favor of the interpretation you have accepted with no anomalies that oppose that view. That is simply not the case.

I didn't ask you if you were going to accept the conventional geological model. Your flood hypothesis was shown to be flawed on the very example you gave to promote it as valid. I wonder why you stick with it?
The second question was posed in that fashion because the evidence does not in any way support your hypothesis. I wonder why you stick with it, not even adopting an agnostic position. Are you trying to find some evidence to support your flawed position?

txpiper: Because it is lame. Having an incidental resistance to one parasitic disease on account of a genetic blood disorder barely qualifies as a beneficial mutation.

Why barely? It shows that a beneficial mutation depends on environment. Without malaria, sickle cell anemia is deleterious. In an envirnoment with malaria it is advantageous. Which environment is likely to select for sickle cell anemia? And which environment do we find people with sickle cell anemia?

txpiper: The idea that they will serve some other function in the meantime is absurd in most any biosystem or subsystem, especially when you consider that they could only be waiting for another rare beneficial mutation that might never occur. I'll be glad to provide you with some examples if you think you can describe what their intermediate usefulness might be.

Do you mean intermediate stages of a bacterial flagellum functioning as, say a molecular syringe to inject toxins?

txpiper: It was an idea designed to cope with the fact that there isn't sufficient evidence.

I may be mistaken, but PE was a theory to account for the apparent "fits and starts" in the fossil record. Gradualism was taken by some to mean that we should see a constant and gradual rate of evolution.

txpiper: What next step? What should make another one-in-a-million replication error occur in the same region so that it would just happen to code for a protein which adds another enhancement? What are the odds in of that occurring in a molecule with millions of places for an error to occur? They are astronomically against that happening.

You may want to check the literature on this stuff. These questions have been and are asked.

txpiper: This is total nonsense. You have morphed selection into fairy godmother.

I see no mention of the supernatural in Cali's comment. From my understaning:
- A beneficial mutation is likely to cause greater replication (read: more offspring)
- Those offspring will be likely to also have the beneficial mutation, and therefore have more offspring
- Rinse, repeats, and you end up with the mutation being spread through the population.
It's a fairly simple concept wouldn't you agree.
Now, if you coule that with multiple advantageous and deleterious mutations all having varying effects on the phenotype, and mixing in a fashion which selects advantage over disadvantage (natural selection), what do you end up with?

I still don't understand txpiper. Thousands, perhaps millions of scientists do this every day. They run the numbers. The make predictions. They gather evidence. And the theory of evolution still stands. People like Behe and Dembski make claims, and they are shown to be false or flawed.
Do you think there is some huge conspiracy going on, or is it simply your ignorance of the subject?