1. Biologist Teaches the Nation's Judges About Genetics

Comment #202583 by Greyman on July 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm

3. Comment #202399 by Forti on July 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm

In America, JUDGES don't know what DNA is? Holy shit. Here I am sitting in a backwards Catholic-ruled Republic of Poland and we have genetics taught in middle school. I can't imagine anyone having trouble with DNA.

It's not so much that they don't know what DNA is, it's that they worry about how to judge the reliability of DNA evidence presented in their courtroom.  It's more a question of 'what is the state of the art in forensic testing'.

Hey, the good thing about this is, they're admitting ignorance about the feild, and doing something about it.  Getting hands-on practical experience.  That's brilliant!

2. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196487 by Greyman on June 20, 2008 at 3:21 am

No.  Thinking and learning are the proper terms.

The bacteria have the collective ability to solve a problem and react with learned behaviour.  The solving and learning just does not take place on an individual level and they store the information in gene regulation networks rather than networks of neurons.

Using the Tower of Generate and Test definitions, riemann provided above, individual bacterium are first tier, or "Darwinian", creatures but over generations a population acts effectively like a single second tier, or "Skinnerian", creature.

3. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196402 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

It's about how the regulatory mechanisms controling the activation of other genes, and thus the cell's metabolic processes, behave as though they are anticiplating changes in their environment.

They have a network of trigger and responses so that the bacteria can respond to changes in one condition just in time to take best advantage of the opportunity presented by an another changing condition before it happens.

"Oh, it's getting hotter.  I better switch over to aerobic respiration so I'll be ready for the oxygen when it gets here."

More remarkable, these algorithyms change over generations.  The population learns to recognise when rising temperatures means they should switch to aerobic respiration, and when it means they should switch to anaerobic.

"Oh, it's getting hotter.  I'd better switch over to anerobic respiration so I'll be ready for when the oxygen level drops."

The process of selection is optiming the response triggers patterns over generations, enabling the bacteria population to learn.  The simulation they used demonstrates how this is possible without a designer reprogramming the cells.  The networks of trigger and responses evolve into working algorithyms; but the code they develop displays a lot of useless kruft.

Design without a designer.

4. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196047 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 8:44 am

I was going to say this was sickening and made no sense at all.  Then I read Border Collie's post and it made all too much sense... and is still sickening.

Remind me again, what century are we living in?

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195972 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 6:24 am

Several of you have been banging on about evidence.  My argument is that, for example, some scientists propose it is plausible that there is intelligent life somewhere else in deep space.  There's no supporting evidence that is accessible to us at this time, and maybe we wouldn't recognise such life even if we did come across it, so there could be cases where evidence will forever be inaccessible.

But the absence of evidence doesn't make the idea ridiculous. We can say that since we exist we must be possible, and if we are possible, others may be possible, even if completely different and beyond our perception horizon.

Well, yes this is so.  And yet not.  The operating principle is not to make assumptions unless they are nescessary.

We can't observe many things directly, but we can make indirect observations, propose hypothesis, make and test predictions based on this, and refine things until we have a model —a theory— that explains what might be happening.

The process involves inference and assumptions, so we can't definatively prove anything.  But, by eliminating models that are falsified –that don't work– we can develop useful theories.

8223. Comment #195959 by Jethro on June 19, 2008 at 6:02 am

"How many of these people state - categorically - that there is intelligent life? ...Please feel to look at the work done at CERN, or Los Alamos etc etc." (How do you get the quotes boxed into the response?)

They don't state categorically that there isn't, and one way of seeking evidence is to behave as if there is, and have the hypothesis falsified or not.

Precisely so, but to be good science the hypothesis must be at least potentially falsifiable.

"there is no need for us to infer - and no good reason to believe in - any creator or theistic or deistic gods."

Agreed. No need, no obligation, but not ridiculous to go look at other insights.

A priori assumptions have to be made; a posteri knowledge must start somewhere, after all.  But the best practice is to make as few, and as simple assumptions as possible.  If working theories cannot be found on a foundation of the most parsimonious of assumptions, then consider something more eosoteric.

6. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195912 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 3:06 am

To summarise:

1. Life cannot come from unlife.  DNA needed to be formed millions of times to get enough variations.  RNA and DNA needed to form at the exact same time for cells to work.  Neucleic Acids not found outside cells.
2. Lack of transitional fossils.  No documented gradual change.  Refutes Archaeopteryx and Platypus as not having half-features but being fully formed.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195304 by Greyman on June 18, 2008 at 3:37 am

Maybe either automated or animated?

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194542 by Greyman on June 16, 2008 at 11:34 pm

ReceivedTheGift, they are asking what exactly it is that indicates that life was designed?  It does not matter how ridiculous you find having no explanation to be, you need to indicate why your theory is viable.

A non-testable theory is no more useful than no theory at all (in fact, it is not a theory at all).

So what observation leads to the formation of the theory of design?  What experiments can be performed to support or refute it?  How can it be potentially falsified?

9. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193154 by Greyman on June 14, 2008 at 9:23 pm

15. Comment #192941 by qomak on June 14, 2008 at 9:52 am

One question, ruling out the "Goddidit idea", this organize material must have been made somewhere. Does anyone know why it is hard for uracil and xanthine to have been formed in the primordial sea?

Well, for one thing, current models of planetary formation indicate that the Earth was originally too hot to have a primordial sea at first; or much of an atmosphere for that matter.  The veneer of water and air are speculated to have been added, from cometary and meteoric impacts, and interplanetary dust, after the planet cooled down a bit.  The young solar system was a lot less tidy and much more prone to traffic accidents back then.

So while the compounds might have formed after the fact, it looks like they could have already been in the primordial sea right on formation.

10. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #192831 by Greyman on June 14, 2008 at 2:49 am

The answer is probably in those percentages.  We know how much carbon isotopes can curretly be found in terestrial biological matterial.  So if by comparison the metorite matterial contains a statistically different percentage, local contamination can be excluded as a source.

PS: mordacious1, space borne carbon is continually being irradiated, forming heavier isotopes.  But once that carbon arrived and was protected from cosmic raditation, the less stable isotopes would have since decayed.  However, the chemistry of replication is not dependant on the isotopes of carbon involved.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192392 by Greyman on June 13, 2008 at 1:14 am

6981. Comment #192381 by Diacanu on June 12, 2008 at 11:47 pm

...wait, I skimmed by quick, did the idiot just wave junk DNA away as fake, and oil as synthesized?

Did I just see that?
I'm not hallucinating?
He said oil is fake?

Not exactly.  He evidently believes that all oil deposits were formed rapidly following a massive natural catastropy.  (No guesses as to what.)  He will no doubt hold up the presence of porphyrins in petroleum as evidence that the deposits were so rapid that no oxygen could destroy them.

Porphyrins can be produced from chlorophyl in a few hours, but break down rapidly in the presence of either oxygen or heat.

He's holding the synthetic oil process up as a theory as to how it might be possible to synthesise the oil found in sedementary deposits.  Apparently those sedimentary rocks were exposed to 42 kg/cm² and 260°C for up to 15 to 60 minutes.

Uhm, but not any longer, because porophins start to break down when exposed to 210°C for a few hours.

So there you have it. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, killing off all the plants and animals and burring them under 30 million cubic miles of sediment from... uh...  Anyway, sometime durring, or after, this then all of that sediment was very breifly heated and squeezed under extreme presure and temperature to providentially cook oil.  At the same time, the sediment was buckled and folded to produce layers while still wet; though somehow showing no sign of being heated to such a degree and with fossils distributed in… uhm.

Origin of Oil from, guess where.

Oh, and on Junk DNA.  Remember, txpiper has latched onto Neo-Lamarckian evolution (such as Ted Steele's mechanism of endogenous retroviral transcription) as an explaination for purpose of all that 'non-coding DNA'.  It's there to provide all the information a kind needs to adapt to changing conditions, don't you see.  Mutation can't provide new information, so that's evidence of design.

The reason why onions have five times as much more of this than humans is obviously that they are going to need to adapt a heck of a lot after the antichrist comes.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191978 by Greyman on June 12, 2008 at 8:16 am

6951. Comment #191862 by Tyler Durden on June 12, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #191806 by txpiper:

I'm not really avoiding it but I'll be honest and say I dread it. It isn't about lack of decent arguments or reasonable questions. It's that decent arguments don't count.

LOL

Maybe in your world decent arguments don't count, txpiper, maybe in your world.

(Seriously, did you think that made any sense whatsoever when you typed it first? Do you think it makes any sense now?)

Well... To be fair I think txpiper was trying to say that he has those decent arguments but fully expects they'll just be dismissed out of hand.

Though I don't see why he should dread that.

13. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191512 by Greyman on June 11, 2008 at 5:21 am

Nice, Hunargianelephant.  However, you missed a little one:

… The simple fact is that even if humans were so perfectly formed, if food, water, sunlight or any one of a host of details necessary for life to exist were somehow missing, human life would have lasted on this planet for a maximum of a few days.  [Presumtion of purpose.  The fact that human life exists in conditions needed to support it does not prove that those conditions were created in order to support human life.]

14. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191465 by Greyman on June 11, 2008 at 2:51 am

304. Comment #191452 by Carole on June 11, 2008 at 2:12 am

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but I don't see that this link proves your point at all. It does say:

"Many people worldwide believe. In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001."
and
"Yet many scientists ‘40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer’ believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, "

(Sorry I don't know how to do these fancy quote boxes)

Indeed.  The quote is pretty much pointing out that while the percentage of atheism is small but rising in the general population, the percentage was already significantly higher among scientists in 1997 (60%, then, but what is it now?).

PS: Just put the text in between <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags, and let the site’s CSS file do the rest.

15. New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells

Comment #190427 by Greyman on June 9, 2008 at 4:48 am

9. Comment #190336 by mmurray on June 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Interesting. I had a quick look at the actual paper as my work has Nature. It's not my area but it looks like they haven't actually built a cell like in the picture just tested the constituent parts. Can anyone who knows this kind of stuff clarify

They built it.  They got the lipids to form micelles, developed activated neucleotides, injected them into the protocell, and watched to see if the material could draw nutrients through the membrane and replicate itself.  It could!

Of course, since the replicated neucleotides remained inside the protocell, it's a long way from developing a fully Von Neuman cell, but it is a strong indicator of how early cells might have developed.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190396 by Greyman on June 9, 2008 at 2:35 am

6802. Comment #190177 by txpiper on June 8, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Of course it has been measured. I quoted what has been measured. That it happens is not the issue. What I want to understand is how you think natural processes produced such things. I don't understand why I should have to point out that there is something more than chemical processes going on. If an acid comes in contact with a base, there is a reaction. This continues until equilibrium is reached, and the reaction stops.

What happens with replication enzymes is completely different. There are starts and stops. There is some kind of deliberation occurring. If a nucleotide pairing is incorrect, it is recognized as incorrect. It is removed and replaced. That, unlike the acid/base reaction, is reversing course to get a sublime result.

Place, evaluate, approve or disapprove, delete as required, reinstall correct components as necessary. Every step in this process indicates purpose and something approximating intellect. It is not realistic to think that a random assembly of amino acids just happened to form so as to function the way enzymes do. They act as catalysts to make things happen and they stop when it does.

There are thousands of enzymes acting in concert in even the simplest cell. Do you have a reasonable explanation for how they formed and why they do what they do?

It begins with Carbon's position on the periodic table of elements.  The tetrahedral geometry of it's valence bonds and their stability, grant it the ability to form stable molecular chains with itself, Hydrogen, and other elements, notably Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Sulphur.  Organic chemistry is not just more complex because of the number of possible arrangements, and configurations, the sheer size and shape of these molecules adds a dimension to their reactions not found in inorganic chemistry.

A simple example can be found in certain chains which are water soluable at one end, but immisable at the other.  Placed in an aqueous solution, lipids naturally form into micelles; hydrophilic heads on the outside, hydrophobic tails on the inside.  A mechanical interaction isolating a non-aqueous environment inside an ambient aqueous one, produced by their chemistry.

A slightly more complex example is how deformation in shape in response to chemical signals can act as on-off triggers for enzymes, activating or deactivating their catalytic properties.

An even more complex example is how neucleic acids form complex chains which may fit together in zipper like arangements that, when unzipped, can assemble copies using ambient material to replace the gap.  If only there were a way to gather such neucleotides in a non-aqueous environment where they could do so.

The partly mechanical, wholey chemical, process of transcription, and protien synthesis is extremely complex but completely automated.

Exactly how such a self replicating system was formed is under investigation, but that the components could be formed from natural chemical reactions has been shown to be feasible.  Once formed, then time and competition for resources will optimise performance to develop a more complex one.  It's a very simple algorithm.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189965 by Greyman on June 8, 2008 at 12:36 am

6767. Comment #189778 by txpiper on June 7, 2008 at 8:53 am

If I point out that enzymes split, reassemble, evaluate and repair a DNA molecule during replication to the tune of about 2000 base pairs per second, it is no more impressive to you than salt dissolving in water or an ice crystal forming. You are able to relegate the whole process to chance and accident, as Greyman puts it "just what happened to have been developed". Somehow, in your anxiety to be intellectually satisfied by evolution, you've completely lost track of what is impossible.

No, it is quite impressive.  But it is quite possible.  It is what actually happens.  It’s been observed and measured.

Biochemical processes are elegantly organised, and organic chemistry is amazingly complex, but at their heart lie the same simple rules of chemistry.

18. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189724 by Greyman on June 7, 2008 at 4:08 am

54. Comment #189688 by King of NH on June 7, 2008 at 1:46 am

I don't get this time thing either. They say that at a microscopic level, time can go in reverse.

It’s all about symmetry.  Record events taking place on a quantum level, play them back in reverse, and they still look like things that can, and actually do, happen.  Record events taking place at a macro level, play them back in reverse, and you get those funky “uneating eggs” videos.

Space Time is mostly symmetric on a micro scale, but observably asymmetric on the macro scale.  The arrow of time has a dirrecion.

19. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189680 by Greyman on June 7, 2008 at 1:10 am

41. Comment #189637 by 8teist on June 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Surely having your nuts crushed would stop you impregnating any female ? If every male has his goolies squashed how does the tribe reproduce ? do they not object to males from competing tribes impregnating their wimmin ? defeats the purpose does it not? Bet a bloke did`nt dream this up. More like wishful thinking on the womens part.

It's one testical only, 8teist. Most males start with a pair.

27. Comment #189578 by Steven Mading on June 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Oh ,and by the way, why did the article refer to young men being circumcized willingly when it's done to newborn babies - that's hardly willing.

It is, and was, not always done at this early age. In most tribal societies it seems to be a manhood ceremony. Infant circumcission appears to have been developed only by one particular culture.

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189649 by Greyman on June 6, 2008 at 10:20 pm

I think you are severely underestimating what all is involved. Milk is an extremely complex and specialized protein assembly. The production, storage and delivery mechanisms are also extremely refined, as are the receptive systems of nursing infants. Everything involved has to be precisely designed by proteins which conventional theory says are the result of selected DNA replications errors. These would have to have all been occurring in parallel, which is a ridiculous thought.

Why is it ridiculous? It seems perfectly reasonable for parallel, and interactive, development of various components of a system to optimise the development of the whole. A gradual change in one aspect will affect all the rest. Small changes accrue and build over time.

It's already been outlined how a simple system, such as a cutaneous incubation patch with antibiotic secretions, can evolve into the complex system of biochemical, morphological, physiological and behavioural adaptations that comprises mammalian lactation.

You simply get stuck on the idea that the end result has to be the target of design, rather than just what happened to have been developed.

21. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189315 by Greyman on June 6, 2008 at 2:39 am

Ramases, blockquotes are simply blockquotes. Cut and paste the text you wish into the comment textbox, and suround it with <blockquote> </blockquote> tags.

Click on the [Comment Posting Guidelines] link for more information.

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188929 by Greyman on June 5, 2008 at 2:25 am

6704. Comment #188849 by txpiper on June 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm

I would probably ask him/her about the T-Rex that was found with bone and vascular tissue still not fossilized, though it was supposed to be some 68 million years old.

I read most everything that was published on the net about that back in 2005, but I never heard any paleontologist openly state that their dating methods might be suspect, which is of course, exactly what this discovery suggests. But then, as you noted, there is a large degree of "have to" involved in the beliefs of establishment paleontologists.

It's probably because the discovery doesn't actually suggest that the multiple dating methods used might be wrong at all.  On one hand you have independant radiometric and geochemical data determining the age the fossil and surounding rock formation, on the other all you have is the incredulity that any organic matterial tissue could be preserved so long.

[edit: The Reverend Dark provided a nice link outlining this.]

6707. Comment #188870 by txpiper on June 4, 2008 at 9:18 pm

You bet. A fluke. But your attitude reflects an odd disposition towards science, one that I noticed in some other articles I read about this particular T rex specimen. It sounds like you'd prefer that this particular fluke had not happened. I would have thought that anyone with a real interest in science would be absolutely thrilled.

The research is still ongoing on the MOR 1125 T rex. The latest thing I read was about the sequencing of collagen protein from that specimen.

Yes, and one of the more thrilling results of this is that biochemical comparison of these protiens supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Goldy undoubtably does not prefer that this wonderful fluke did not exists.  His point was that such flukes, though rare, have happened before.

23. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185548 by Greyman on May 28, 2008 at 3:56 am

34. Comment #185526 by DanDare on May 28, 2008 at 2:48 am

Daniel Dennett is wrong about teaching religion in school by the way. They have R.E. classes in state schools here in Oztralia and they just push for more.

24. In God's Name

Comment #182836 by Greyman on May 21, 2008 at 3:09 am

23. Comment #182818 by ianmac66 on May 21, 2008 at 2:32 am

This isn't education with a bible class thrown in, this is bible class with education thrown in.

Slight correction: it is a bible class with education thrown out.

25. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #182303 by Greyman on May 19, 2008 at 4:09 pm

By way of contrast, I had a nice Aussie public schooling where the worst chastisement I ever received was verbal. No ranting or raving, just a good stern talking to.

Corporal punishment did exist durring my schooling years, but was gradually phased out of use. It was more and more generally seen by teachers as a last resort type of thing. It died a slow death by disuse and, in Queensland, they finally bothered to actually ban it in 1995.

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181696 by Greyman on May 18, 2008 at 1:23 am

6401. Comment #180786 by exp(2*i*pi)=1 on May 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm

If anyone cares, the beauty of this formula IMHO is that it involves probably the most famous constants in Analysis: e, Pi, i, and of course 1.

27. God seekers go public

Comment #179861 by Greyman on May 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm

12. Comment #179378 by BW022 on May 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

Do they think that real scientists won't shred any weaker evidence in seconds? Do they think scientists won't point out that in science you have to prove the positive and that disproving other ideas doesn't make yours any more valid? Don't they understand that that in science (or court) your background, sources of funding, previous claims, secrecy, sources of publications, lack of peer reviews, etc. are all going to be dragged over the coals?

28. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178674 by Greyman on May 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Comment #178604 by riki on May 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm

On the subject of nature, I enjoyed the TED talk by Michael Pollan
The omnivore's next dilemma

It's an interesting perspective, isn't it? And I for one welcome our new corn overlords.

Seriously, permaculture rocks.

29. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165738 by Greyman on April 22, 2008 at 7:39 am

Other than putting Alaska on the other side of the international date line? Why should we bother?

30. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165678 by Greyman on April 22, 2008 at 3:17 am

38. Comment #165646 by Ygern on April 22, 2008 at 1:20 am

I was also quite stunned by how many 'gaps' were exposed in Mr Mathis' knowledge - some of the things he said about things like the Dover trial displayed that while he may have read 'many' books, they have clearly all been written by one side, and a rather biased and not particularly truthful side at that.

His defense for not seeking other sources being that, surely the Discovery Institute wouldn't lie about something like that, seems rather naïve.

31. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #165105 by Greyman on April 21, 2008 at 4:16 am

36. Comment #165071 by babrock on April 21, 2008 at 2:57 am

Goldy

At t risk of looking like an idiot( I am sure it is neither t 1st or last time), I'd like to ask, What is that Jim London quote in that box? Where is it from? Who is Jim London? ect.

Useally, text in a box, like that (another thing I still have not yet learned to do, btw) is something that someone has previosly posted, or it is from t initial article. I looked but did not see it either place.

It's Jim, from London. He's one of the respondants in the the "Have Your Say" comments section of the Times online article.

Text in a block quote, by the way, is accomplised by wrapping it in HTML tags:

<blockquote>just type some text here</blockquote>.

32. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163711 by Greyman on April 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm

22. Comment #163460 by al-rawandi on April 18, 2008 at 11:31 am

mintcheerious,

Richard Dawkins is a Raelian.

The Discovery Inst. really is a useless piece of trash. Flailing about in all directions, desperate to get hold of some item that could be the ad hominem to defeat Evolution. So they call Dawkins a Raelian, simply because he said it is "possible that advanced aliens could have seeded life".

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

That's been the Discovery Institute's (public) stance for years. When did they change?

So, okay, ID has now stopped pretending that it's not Creationism, but it is rather disingenuous to ridicule Doctor Dawkins for restating their own old argument.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163324 by Greyman on April 18, 2008 at 7:44 am

Nothing wrong with seeking "false comfort" in and of itself. Why do you insist on operating on people without anesthetics? What good does it do?

Anesthetics can cause nerve damage, or loss of cerebral function, which can be severe and potentially fatal. This is not to say that anesthetia is without merit when proper clinical technics are applied, but addiction and prolonged abuse should be avoided.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163292 by Greyman on April 18, 2008 at 6:36 am

2237. Comment #163118 by Egomaniac on April 18, 2008 at 2:39 am

It's my belief that when atheists attempt to "convert" people to their beliefs, which some undeniably do, they are depriving people of a real meaning to their existence, whether that meaning is true or not.

Emphasis mine.

Ah. What? I'm not parsing that last phrase. How can a meaning be real if it is not true?

2239. Comment #163120 by Egomaniac on April 18, 2008 at 2:42 am

Can you really call writing books, painting a painting, etc., a meaning for your *existence*? They're things you can derive pleasure out of, but on a deeper level, they don't explain why we're here. If one is an atheist, they can't logically think we exist for a reason, can they?

Yes, that's so. More precisely, we do not see any indication that anything was created for a purpose. It does not follow that we cannot find a reason to continue to exist.

2242. Comment #163123 by Egomaniac on April 18, 2008 at 2:46 am

"It does not follow that some higher power exists because people hope for a continued existance."

Yes. I never remotely implied anything contrary to that. What I did say is that such beliefs bring fulfillment to many people, whether they are accurate or not.

Oh. I see. So... if I understand that, you are saying that: it's not the content of belief that matters, only that it provides comfort? Since false comfort is better than none?

2277. Comment #163172 by Egomaniac on April 18, 2008 at 3:40 am

Sorry, I don't mean to insult anybody... I'm sure most atheists find happiness their lives. But in a grand sense, an atheist must think they exist for no real reason, which I find very disheartening

also...

2266. Comment #163160 by Egomaniac on April 18, 2008 at 3:20 am

Vaal (2089) --

"Ah, please advise us what you will be doing for eternity in the afterlife. I would be very interested to know. And what age do you go to the afterlife at, the age you died, or as a youngster. What ages will your parents be? Will you be married for eternity, or like the Muslims are you going to have non stop sex with 72 virgins for ever?"

How would I know? Perhaps it's whatever you want it to be, assuming the powers that be feel you deserve a reward.

The impression I'm getting from these posts is that you don't seem to have any idea what the purpose of our existance might actually be, you just hope that we have one.

35. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163061 by Greyman on April 17, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Homosexuality does not prohibit mating with the opposite sex, just biases against choosing to do so.

If the genetic contributor in males also causes increased fertility in female offspring then there's a long term cancelling effect.

It would then become a trade off between decreased chance of replication in male generations versus an increased chance of replication in subsequent female ones.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162545 by Greyman on April 17, 2008 at 3:59 am

The problem is in the last four words. "... doesn't harm other people." All too often, that turns out not to be the case when you abandoning critical thinking and reason.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162532 by Greyman on April 17, 2008 at 3:45 am

2060. Comment #162525 by Egomaniac on April 17, 2008 at 3:36 am

How do you know they threw their lives away, even if it was a lie? What if pursuing that lie that they believed in made their lives more fulfilled?

So it doesn't matter what anyone believes as long as persuing it provides a sense of fulfillment?

Fair enough. I'll continue to believe truth matters and find fulfillment in it's persuit though.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162524 by Greyman on April 17, 2008 at 3:34 am

2022. Comment #162482 by Egomaniac on April 17, 2008 at 2:49 am

The notion of a continued existence after death, along with the idea that the manner in which one's life has been lived will influence the level of quality of said existence adds meaning to many people's lives.

The idea that people will be reunited with loved ones who have passed on adds great meaning to people's lives.

Neither of these seems possible without the existence of some higher power, does it?

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162506 by Greyman on April 17, 2008 at 3:18 am

2034. Comment #162494 by Egomaniac on April 17, 2008 at 3:07 am

Regarding "hope" vs. "meaning" -- this hope is what lends the meaning. What's your issue with that?

40. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161821 by Greyman on April 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm

183. Comment #161348 by wendelin on April 15, 2008 at 7:38 am

As long as these women are free to do as they wish, as long as they are earning enough money to take care of themselves and their health (as they clearly seem to be doing), what is the problem?

Their freedom of choice is: prostitution, marriage, or... no, wait, that's it. Plus once you choose one you can't latter choose the other. That's the problem. Not the lifestyle, but the limitation.

41. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160447 by Greyman on April 14, 2008 at 5:40 am

89. Comment #160436 by isaone on April 14, 2008 at 5:17 am

As a resident of the Southern US. I just wonder what it must be like to live in a society where a major paper can state "Christianity is a myth" and that statement is so generally accepted that no one even comments on it. They would be burning copies in the streets of any newspaper that printed such sacrilege here.

It's pretty nice, I can tell you. Over Chrismas the Courier Mail, a very widely read paper here Downunder, reviewed The Golden Compass, noting that, "apparently Pullman's stories have upset various Christian groups, supposedly because the stories are neo-magical gibberish with little resemblance to reality that may encourage innocent kids to believe all sorts of fanciful nonsense. Unlike the Bible."

42. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159765 by Greyman on April 13, 2008 at 4:29 am

Clive, you may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

43. Lungless frog discovered in Borneo

Comment #158671 by Greyman on April 10, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Most excellent news all round! So many species of frogs have gone extinct over the past few decades. The discovery of a new and fascinating species is remarkable on so many levels.

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

Comment #156617 by Greyman on April 8, 2008 at 4:05 am

DasSquid, you should take some notice. Rudd's religiousity isn't a new stance, and it has shaped his politics. He's quite open about it.

He's a firm believer that a Christian voice (ie church representatives) needs to be represented in political debates. He's also a main member of the Parlimentary Prayer Group.

Still, while he's pro-Christian values, he's not exactly anti-secular, and he's by no means a bible thumper or anything. There's also a fairly sensible amount of pragmatism in his policies.

Edit: Having read this post, I'm not quite sure what I'm saying here. Oh, well, buggrit. I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.

45. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155826 by Greyman on April 6, 2008 at 2:07 am

It is a relief. We wouldn't want anything to interfere with your terrorkissed activities.

46. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155588 by Greyman on April 5, 2008 at 2:39 am

Diabolical. Where will you strike next?

47. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154774 by Greyman on April 3, 2008 at 5:32 pm

So basically, archaeological evidence actually shows that societies which have accepted homosexuality have lasted for more than just a few centuries.  Perhaps it is this acceptant lifestyle that is good for any nation?

48. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150979 by Greyman on March 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

His argument was simply (paraphrasing) "unlike 2 plus 2 equals 4, we can't prove most of the important beliefs in our lives, such as democracy is better than facism". How on Earth does that even begin to address the question of God's existence?

Uhm, SteveN, the question actually was "is belief in God a dangerous delusion?". It was a debate about the utility of religion, not about its truth. Although this point didn't seem answer that either, as far as I can tell.

Firstly, he doesn't seem to consider that there are degrees of rigor in proofs between, "I can rigorously prove," and "I have no proof at all." Preference for Democracy over Fascism can arise from making comparative observations of societies. His belief in god appears to be based on nothing more than his feelings, but that's good enough for him.

Secondly, demonstrating that people do hold unsubstantiated beliefs, about things other than religion, and do make decissions based on such, in no way at all shows that this is harmless behaviour.

49. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146991 by Greyman on March 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Homosexuality - PRACTISING homosexuality, is a sin, as you no doubt know from your Leviticus.

50. The Atheist Apocalypse

Comment #146234 by Greyman on March 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm

I love the gothic dripping text when they condem the world to a new age of ... reason and compassion!