1. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156304 by Deepthought on April 7, 2008 at 9:39 am

Peacebeuponme,

Are you saying you don't agree with theories RD put forward, or are you saying that there aren't any such theories to agree with?

Could the Extended Phenotype be considered a theory?

2. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154669 by Deepthought on April 3, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Hmmmmmm... I wonder if he has a point. I skimmed through the article without noticing it was Robertson and thought that the idea of putting RD and this John Lennox character on the same stage would be fine because then there would be a christian audience as well as atheists when RD talked. I don't, however, know who John Lennox is. If he is a creationist I withdraw my comment.

3. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144139 by Deepthought on March 15, 2008 at 7:29 am

I read another article about the public presentation of science recently. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/a-modest-proposal-for-science-end-it-don.t-mend-it

It says some fairly interesting things but I like how the author says that scientists should, instead of a white lab coat, wear "Perhaps a white cape. Or a black cape. Or something else entirely."

edit: I think the proposal to change the public image of science in the "Blinded by Science" article(that seperate branches of science should be "thought of as self-contained pursuits, like telemarketing or cooking") would deal with the physical chemists trying to fault things done in the field of evolutionary biology.

4. Two More Fleas

Comment #143223 by Deepthought on March 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Thank you.
I have managed not to read any Wooter posts, so is he like Robertson or does he operate differently? And what is with any theist who has been banned reffering to themselves in the third person and as the injured party who didn't do anything but express a different viewpoint?

I did notice that you are being rather abusive of Wooter/clearmind, but would I be right to say that he has done equal or greater amounts of abuse?

5. Two More Fleas

Comment #143216 by Deepthought on March 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Since I don't feel like going through this whole thread (I have only read this page) Is "clearmind" Robertson or is he just one of his followers? If it is Robertson, is he trying not to say that he is for some strange reason, maybe the same reason that an American general made his troops march in a circle near enemy scouts/troops(American Revolution). I hope this blatantly obvious attempt to make it look like there are more Christians like Robertson doesn't work on us ;).

6. Out of the Blue

Comment #140993 by Deepthought on March 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm

There already is a computer God. Google!

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

Edit: I think it was made by atheists, look at this:
Arguments

7. Crossing the Divide

Comment #139876 by Deepthought on March 6, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Good article, and it brings up a good point. I think that people like Stephen Godfrey and other Young Earth Creationists that converted to evolutionism could help those who have doubts about YEC and give them evolution. I think that it is perfectly fine to have an imaginary friend, so long as it doesn't block your thought processes and reasoning. I have a friend who winces the same way I do when he hears about Young Earth Creationists and he is a christian. I think he only goes to church for three reasons which are:

1. Faith
2. Friends
3. A good pastor

I am fine with this kind of religion. It doesn't affect his life but keeps him happy. My own mother has a strange deistic type of the Christian God. It's like she is a deist who has been hanging around Christians for most of her life so it rubs off on her. Again this is fine with me.

To me, trying to force atheism on people would be just as bad as forcing religion on them. I'm not saying that atheism is a religion, but forcing people to accept it is just as bad. The best thing to do would be to teach them, not atheism, but science and scientific methodology.

8. Fleabytes

Comment #138653 by Deepthought on March 4, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Why do these :â€" pop up?

I know next to nothing of Stenger. Qui est il?

Clearthinker,

Did you read MPhil's cosmology section and discussion on the omni-'s? I am not suggesting anything here, I'm just wondering if you read it.

MarkD,
I would say that holds true unless the wealthy person is wealthy because they are a tevangelist or something similar.

9. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137249 by Deepthought on March 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Most of it seems to be statistics but those are enlightening. They are statistics to give any creationist heart and to scare the living daylights out of everyone else.

I don't think the creationists have tried to get evolution out of schools for a while. Now they are busy citing the "teach both sides" in order to smuggle it in and create conflict where none exists.

This is the best statistic yet "In 1993, an international social survey ranked Americans last -- behind Bulgaria and Slovenia-- in knowledge of the basic facts of evolution."

I wonder what will happen to this statistic when my generation gets out of school? (I'm 14)

10. Fleabytes

Comment #137114 by Deepthought on March 2, 2008 at 11:16 am

Thank you Paula and Corylus. Look at his 5th comment under his "Wee Flea" user name. It is about two pages long!

11. Fleabytes

Comment #137087 by Deepthought on March 2, 2008 at 10:33 am

Quetz: I notice that someone has posted a response to David Robertson's post on the FCOS forum-

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg178#msg178

It was posted by Jonathan - aka _J_. Which reminds me that we haven't seen him on this forum for ages. Well, I haven't, anyway. _J_, where are you?

12. Fleabytes

Comment #136637 by Deepthought on March 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Who's posing as God? I had thought about it at one point but decided it would be stupid and childish.

So are you a Christian or an Atheist?

Which God are you anyway?

13. Fleabytes

Comment #136221 by Deepthought on February 29, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Whatthe...?!,

I was tempted to say your username again because that makes little sense. I think that you should laern a bit of science first. If you think that staing you know nearly nothing of the apropriate sciences is not a good counter, try this: YOUR BRAIN IS NON-THINKING MATTER ANYWAY!!!

Everyone else,
I apologise for the all-caps. This is the type of thing that annoys me.

Maybe we should come up with a new name that has no connotation. Let's see if we can try a "Meaning of Liff" style name for those who say there is not enough evidence for God so we shouldn't believe in him. It would cut down on people like whatthe telling us what we believe.

MPhil,
What is the closure of spacetime? I am woefully lacking in knowledge of higher level physics type things.

14. Fleabytes

Comment #134392 by Deepthought on February 27, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Well, I have heard a Christian say that Hell was a seperation from God.

I imagine Jesus would be there.

15. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #134316 by Deepthought on February 27, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Goldy,
Judging from that, I'm guessing bacterial life starts a little before the elbow but other numbers suggest mid forearm.

(edit. I just crunched the numbers again and got a different result. Assuming a seventy inch span the numbers for the estimated dawn of bacterial life being 3.5 billion, the point is halfway down the fore-arm. If you say the Dawn of life is 3.8 billion years (I found that somewhere but forget where) it is just past the wrist.)

16. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #134306 by Deepthought on February 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm

This Jonathan Sarfati guy keeps popping up. A creationist has given me the book this chapter is in and I have put off reading it. I think that this guy is a fool.

First of all he takes facts and twists them out of recognition. First he says that most changes are probably from genetic recombination then he says this proves the creation story. Huh? What is with this "deterioration" he talks about? It seems to play into the commonly held creationist belief that natural selection only limits the amount of varation in a population. I think they were either mistaught or are just thick skulled.

Then he states Darwin's coleagues had "'re-interpreted' it to fit into the old-earth beliefs of the day.". Of the day!!!! It is the belief held by all true scientists that study geology. Scientists are supposed to let the scientists in other fields study what they have been studying most of their life. Chemists are not able to comment on geologists work. We've known that the earth was ancient since before Darwin.

I also object to the fact his trees are not on the same scale. The Creationist "orchard" should be a fraction of the size of the evolutionary one.

This is a good way of showing the scale. Stretch out your arms so they are in a straight line. The distance from fingertip to finger tip is the age of the Earth. Human history can be wiped out with a single swipe of a nail file. Creationist history generally only includes part of human history anyway.

I don't know at what point the dawn of unicellular life would be on that scale. If someone does could they tell me?

(*edited for clarification)

17. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133752 by Deepthought on February 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Nails,

These are the numbers I got:

Estimated # of species: 180000000 Seconds, 3000000 Minutes, 50000 Hours, 2083.33Days, 5.72 Years
Known Species only: 18000000 Seconds, 300000 Minutes, 5000 Hours, 208.3333333 Days, 0.57 Years

18. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133057 by Deepthought on February 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I love how he gives no evidence at all for god but only says that we atheists are so convinced of our assumptions that nothing will shake us. I have seen many people here state what will convince them of the existence of god. For eample Janus' list of ideas for God:

For example, a message in binary code (with a translating key) could have been encoded in the cosmic microwave background radiation that resulted from the Big Bang. Or to give another example, the Judeo-Christian God could have designed the inter-molecular forces in such a way that if you put salt in a certain solution, it would self-assemble into the the text of the Bible written in all the human languages that have ever existed and will ever exist. The Bible itself would contain the instructions for making the solution. Then there would be no need for any of these silly debates. Anyone who doubted the existence of Yahweh could perform the experiment himself and see the evidence for himself. The truth of Christianity would be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and only insane wackos would deny it.

19. Fleabytes

Comment #132187 by Deepthought on February 24, 2008 at 12:34 pm

just require good evidence for any claim about reality.

20. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131554 by Deepthought on February 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm

al-rawandi,

What is your definition of "children" :)

I was reading through this thread and I was laughing really hard throughout most of my reading. Out of curiosity, what is krisking? Is he christian, agnostic, or something else?

21. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131442 by Deepthought on February 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I go back to my original point, despite krisking failing to convince that there is an atheist ideology to indoctrinate, not teaching about religion or attempting to remove them from any contact with it will only prove self-defeating.

Rational, sceptical enquiry and openness to all ideas will inevitably lead most people to a rejection of religion. You don't need to do anything else; certainly not coach or teach against it. The best way to get people to question belief is to expose them to the proponents of belief and inquire into the teachings. Most people here will tell you that is the process that made them into non-believers.

22. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131397 by Deepthought on February 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm

young people are making their decisions at an earlier age. They have access to the concepts, are able to see that alternate positions are respectable, and have access to the material to help them come to their conclusions reasonably quickly. Many young people are atheists when they leave school, or at least when they leave college.

23. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #130931 by Deepthought on February 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm

If this were to be inserted into The Ancestor's Tale, where would it go?

24. Fleabytes

Comment #129830 by Deepthought on February 19, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Truely amazing. Do you mind if I steal your section on Cosmological questions?

Having been struck one Sunday by a line in the creed that I realised I simply didn't believe, I began to scrutinise every word of every Bible reading, every hymn, every sermon, every prayer to see what else I was unconsciously saying "amen" to without actually believing. What became clear to me was that church services put words into their congregations' mouths all the time, and that congregations are lulled into not even noticing the fact.

25. The argument from oranges

Comment #129000 by Deepthought on February 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm

The problem with this whole thing is that many people will leave there thinking he has made a good point! That is probably the most disturbing aspect.

What's worse is when a scientist makes statements like this. If anyone has a lot of time on their hands they can listen to this talk given by Dr. Francis Collins in support of theistic evolution.

http://www.viennapres.net/audio/sermons/DrCollins080210.wma
In some ways I think Theistic Evolution can be as bad as creationism because they pick and choose from evolutionary theory as well as from the Bible. Some of this is shown in the talk when Collins says that evolution can't explain morals.

26. The Dog Allusion

Comment #128209 by Deepthought on February 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

When I first read the title and looked at the cover I thought it was an Onion-type article on a non-existent book. Then I worked out that it was real.

I think that this is a quote to keep: "As with dogs, so with gods - by and large, you should blame the owners."

27. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #128207 by Deepthought on February 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I wrote this as a basic rebuttal which I sent to the person who gave me the link. Was I right about most of it?



I note the author is not a paleontologist. For some reason I would trust a paleontologist more than this guy(who is a chemist).

Chickens are feathered dinosaurs to a certain extent. Somehow people miss the fact that the reason some dinosaurs are so similar to birds is the fact that birds are dinosaurs.

I note that they also discuss the gaps. I find discussing gaps pointless because "Every time you fill a gap two more gaps pop up to take it's place". You wouldn't be happy unless everything that died fossilized. We are lucky enough to have this many fossils.


"Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given."

Because the steps are easy to see to an evolutionist and impossible to see from the creationist point of view. The better mobility in the head the better the animal feeds so a steady gradual transition is possible.

(I inserted a little "parable" shall we say, about this type of gradual transition here. I decided not to include it because it would be preaching to the convinced)

"Many of the alleged transitional forms do not have structures in transition from one form to another. Rather, the alleged transitional nature is a combination of fully-formed structures that in themselves are not transitional."

Are we sure this guy has a brain? Nothing gets anywhere by being a transition to something else. Do we consider chickens "transitional species"? No! But they are transitional. All animals are transitional to something unless they go extinct first. So do we consider chickens a "mosaic" of fully functioning parts? All parts have to be fully functioning or else the animal wouldn't exist.
I'm very worried if this is what his book is like. It shows he knows next to nothing about how evolution works.

Nobody thinks that Tiktaalik is a direct ancestor of reptiles. They do, however, think it gives us a good idea of what that ancestor might look like.

In a later e-mail I supplemented the last statement with this: "If all fossils found at that time were unicellular, then chances are the ancestor was unicellular as well."

28. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #126574 by Deepthought on February 13, 2008 at 3:10 pm

MBee,

From what I read it seems more like an ID theorist as opposed to a run of the mill creationist. I was rather surprised they weren't talking about how all the dating methods don't work.

Check out some of the links on the page, such as the one on Archaeopteryx. The author claims "It wasn't a dinosaur, it was a bird!"

29. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #126115 by Deepthought on February 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Everyone I have heard here supports the tiktaalik fossil as an example of a transitional species. I have come across some of the creationist literature discussing how tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil. Could someone please do a full refutation because I don't know much about tiktaalik. Here it is http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250/#_ftn10

30. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123078 by Deepthought on February 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I like how they come right out and say "use child indoctrination or else christianity is going to fall". Well, they cloak it in fluffy language but that is the message.

The lumping of relgions isn't that hard to do. The same type of faith that is found in evangelical christianity is also found in Islam.

"Atheism is the fastest growing secular religion"
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION!!! (Sorry about the capitals, I'm rather annoyed with these people)

31. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122047 by Deepthought on February 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I just looked back over this and am now wondering if we are missing something. A group can't be this contradictory without their heads exploding could they?

Cartomancer,

I assume that was sarcastic. The annoying thing about posting is that it is hard to show you are being sarcastic.
I think a case could be made that a fundamental christian group and an extremist islamic group would oppose each other by their very natures.

32. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122031 by Deepthought on February 4, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Cartomancer,

What if they were two religious societies that opposed each other by their very natures?
Oh, what is a LGBT society?

33. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #121977 by Deepthought on February 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Where is the "active stance in opposition...."?

The proposal says, "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief."

not

"to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life against (the need for) superstition or religious belief."

34. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #120822 by Deepthought on February 2, 2008 at 4:21 pm

We aren't attacking the NFL, just the sport itself. I am glad the NFL isn't pandering to the religious.

35. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120769 by Deepthought on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm

pulsarlz,

I know a creationist that claims to grasp the element of time. He clearly doesn't because he insists that there is a problem with time. When I press him he just dismisses it as "Huge amount of time blah blah blah, I don't care! evolution can't/doesn't work" (sic)
Another example of someone whose mind is so made up they don't even bother with the facts.

"Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set."-unkonown

36. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #120749 by Deepthought on February 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm

coaches are quite happy to say that god is on their side... post-match only one of them mentions it.

37. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #120734 by Deepthought on February 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm

I dislike football as well. I dislike those who play it far more due to the apparent enjoyment they get from slamming people to the ground. It is a violent sport and I'm surprised churches would want to be connected with needless violence.

38. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120466 by Deepthought on February 1, 2008 at 5:57 pm

the average 14 year old could whip them in a debate

39. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120317 by Deepthought on February 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Whenever I hear debates I take someone seriously up until they say something so stupid that a ninth grader can refute them. In this debate I stopped taking Simmons seriously when he cited the "evolution is just a theory" argument. I just listened to the part about "teach the controversy" and I have to say that Intelligent Design isn't actually being considered in the scientific community. THE FLAWS YOU CITE DON"T EXIST!!!!! Sorry just heard him saying that there are "flaws" in evolution.

Oh it's clear that they are more supportive of Simmons just by merit of reading out all his books and only saying that PZ is a proffessor of biology.

This is the first time I heard the "birth" complexity argument. What is the proper refutation because I don't know the science behind it?

40. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118207 by Deepthought on January 30, 2008 at 1:27 pm

What is this "No true scotsman fallacy"?

The problem with his arguments is that they are phrased in such a way that they seem rational those who don't know anything about Nietzsche or the truth about how the dictators that were cited were raised.

Oh, I believe that all of these people should read the Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. The first deals with "Morality from evolution" and there is a chepter in The Extended Phenotype that is dedicated to dealing with misinterpretations of the word "fittest".

41. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117755 by Deepthought on January 29, 2008 at 2:32 pm

In fact he sounds confrontational in the manner of a pubescent teenager.

42. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117746 by Deepthought on January 29, 2008 at 2:16 pm

I now want to hear the "logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument". I believe they will be ... interesting.

Oh and I really didn't like the "He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God." I find the fact that Dawkins was an evolutionary biologist before he was a "militant atheist" means that he doesn't treat natural selection as only a tool to destory a creator god.

43. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117312 by Deepthought on January 28, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Freethink,

You type /blockquote in the little < things after the section you whish to block quote. If I try typing the whole thing I end up with:

44. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117286 by Deepthought on January 28, 2008 at 1:45 pm

I just read throught the discussions with Omega and I think I'm going to go insane!

Am I oversimplifying or is Omega an atheist that likes some of the teachings of Jesus as well as many other people and just calls themself a christian because they like church? And now they are thinking very deep thoughts about "is anything real"?

I always stop myself before thinking that kind of stuff and just say "yes". That things are real is my one and only unquestioned belief.

Am I going to regret asking "Who is Dianelos?"
I've seen the name pop up before.

45. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116893 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Steve,

It's always nice to see Douglas Adams vindicated. It was reading The Salmon of Doubt that lead me to read Richard Dawkins.

46. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116881 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I've been watching this thread for a while and it is very enlightening.

But any inflation will mean that we are just a tiny portion of a larger universe. And we can't extrapolate easily to figure out what that larger universe is like

47. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116821 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Steve,

That makes sense. I asked a similar question about the Big Bang in a different thread and was given a link on the cyclic universe model. Would that be completely different or would it be a form of inflation theory?

48. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116772 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 11:18 am

Steve and RickM,
Will either of you explain string theory and "B-mode". Posting a link to a good website would be sufficent.
I think the complexity of these theories is the real reason creationists say they are false. The relativly simple theory of evolution gives them headaches, so imagine what happens when they hear the words "string-theory".
Oh, now that I think of it, what does Inflation theory entail? Is that the basic Big Bang Theory?

49. 'Telepathic' Genes Recognize Similarities In Each Other

Comment #116741 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 10:15 am

Putting a god in that gap probably wouldn't be wise. It will shortly be filled by science and that god will be squeezed out again. Every time a gap that somebody put a god in is filled by science, people begin to doubt that god more. This is how I lost faith. I couldn't see a place for a god to fit in because so many things didn't need a god.

50. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116489 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Sally,

Of Pandas and People was a book on intelligent design that was given as a supplement to (American) textbooks when creationists were trying to stop the teaching of evolution after the teaching of creationism was banned. For more on it read "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism"(edited by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey) which is a wonderful book on the subject because it outlines the history of the ID movement as well as rebuttals to the arguments given by creationists and ID theorists.