1. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #315285 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 8:03 am

Comment #315278 by irate_atheist:

But still no attempt to address 1882. Comment #312615 by irate_atheist.

And no attempt to answer my posts http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3315,Does-Religion-Make-You-Nice,Paul-Bloom-Slate,page44#313704 and http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3315,Does-Religion-Make-You-Nice,Paul-Bloom-Slate,page44#313708

jgirolamo: given that I have presented material to which you have been unable to refute and have presented counters to your vague statements such as "polonium halos" do you now retract any claims to the earth being 6000 years old and accept the values that I give, namely 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe and 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth.

2. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #315099 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 2:32 am

Comment #313843 by Richard Dawkins:

PS Why do you guys waste time replying to dvophoto? Can't you see, that's what he is here for, to waste your time and attention?

Blogs are quite a strange medium. Ostensibly they look as though they are in the sphere of personal argument.

However they are really in the sphere of public argument. As such the people who respond to the likes of dvophoto, skb, dianelos and even isthatclear are writing for the gallery as much as the poster.

I would be interested to see statistics showing how many different posters we get over a period, compared with how many different readers we actually get. I know the latter would be difficult, but as a crude measure the number of distinct IP addresses might be a reasonable start.

3. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #315054 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 1:35 am

Comment #315052 by gf ferre:

Everything in the universe is proving the existence of God if you have the eyes to see it.

So which god would that be and what evidence do you have for this?

A real believer can only laugh at this campaign because he knows that you are making this campaign according to God's will.

Self-sealing argument.

To read and learn the real truth about life, visit www.harunyahya.com

Haven't they put him in jail yet?

4. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #315046 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 1:25 am

assume that atheists are more broadly read than fundamentalists---but i wouldn't get too comfy here.

fundamentalists probably haven't read whitman but the cadences of whitman are inspired by the biblical prophets.

the bible, for all its faults, grapples with the ontological mystery in an often brutal and non-reductionist way that keeps it (the ontological mystery) alive (as in the books of job and ecclesiastes, and in many of the genesis stories (i'm thinking, for example, of where jacob wrestles the angel and abraham dares to negotiate with god over the fate of the inhabitants of sodom). there are more than a few shakespearean hamlet-like moments where one wrestles with confusion and agonizes and doubts in the bible.

i love, for example, the book of jonah. it is profoundly discomfitting, and teaches compassion, both for man and animals.

i think that atheism, especially at its most strident, is capable of choking its own life energies by nihilistically clearing the ground of religious meaning, and then killing off the ontological mystery by not going to imaginitive literature for replanting and sustenance.

A strident, overconfident atheism is a stupid atheism (I'm thinking of the PZ Myers brand of atheism that is stridently industrious in its offensiveness and completely callous to the sacred, the poetic, or the literary---as when Myers called on his followers to get him a Catholic host to desecrate on the Internet).

There is an atheism that can be nihilistic and unliterary and unpoetic, and then there is an atheism that can be more agnostic, and humble, and keep an open heart to the ontological mystery, and embrace the crooked timber of humanity in an open and liberal fashion.

In the end, we may find that there is a spider at the center of the universe, and no ontological mystery, or god, or meaning at all, but we don't have to revel in it (ala PZ Myers, who I regard as a crank).

Camus, an atheist worthy of respect and imitation (as opposed to Myers), offered such a prospect resistence.

It is an outrage to the epiphenomenon of the human soul that the universe should be absurd and without meaning.

It is probably true, but it is still something to be resisted, according to Camus.

Literature is one means for providing that resistence, and for keeping alive in ourselves the ontological mystery.

Edited down to the essential content.

EDIT: And a fail, your first clause is 9 words long and doesn't include a pronoun.

5. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #315043 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 1:22 am

Comment #315031 by AllanW:

'Still, I don't think atheists joke when they ask theists about what *mechanism* does God use. '

which seems a promising and uncontroversial start point to;

'it demonstrates that many atheists are simply incapable of conceptualizing a reality which is ultimately *not* based on mechanical principles.'

One of the problems with the theists (especially the fundamentalists) is that they use commonplaces (general beliefs or values that are widely shared within a culture) as warrants. Typical examples would be that the free market system is the only basis for wealth creation or that god is the source of all things.

But of course such warrants are just variants on folk psychology, they have no basis in fact. As such they can and should be questioned.

6. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #315030 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 12:58 am

Comment #315019 by Santi Tafarella:

I'm pleased to hear it (that you read broadly).

FFS 214 words to say that Dr. Doctor used a metaphor and you were pleased to see he reads broadly. Perhaps you ought to take some Immodium to cope with the verbal diarrhoea.

Now in not more than one Churchillian sentence, i.e. not more than 8 words, do you want to answer my question in http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine,page14#315009

7. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #315011 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 12:27 am

Comment #315005 by binlid:

I hope science would explain how matter came about in my lifetime .because it seems the only ace in the the religious persons hand. until science comes up with the answer to that puzzle religion is here to stay .

That and the demonstration of abiogenesis in the lab.

8. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #315009 by epeeist on January 8, 2009 at 12:26 am

Comment #314996 by Santi Tafarella:

Atheists should read their Dawkins, yes, but also Dickens, and Wallace Stevens, and Shakespeare, and Walt Whitman, and James Baldwin, and Jane Austin, and Thoreau.

On a couple of other threads we have the fundamentalists skb and jgirolamo. Which group do you think is more likely to have read the authors you name, the fundamentalists or the atheists responding to them?

9. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #314997 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 11:51 pm

Well it looks as though I may have made an



in my prediction. Let's leave it till after the weekend to reveal what I thought was going to happen.

10. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #314748 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Comment #314729 by skb:

I wish I knew why some christians become gay. Oh, i know, it's because they want both to serve God and to act worldly. It's a concept that God really doesn't allow. He doesn't like people who are lukewarm in believes. Either you are hot or cold. Which do you pick?

Is it arrogance or just that you fear a threat to your bigotry. Why do't you actually read what other people write.

If you follow this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior for a list of around 1500 animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour? Including the bonobo in particular, which is a close relative of ours. I posted this before, have you actually looked at it?

Or this link from Cartomancer which gives a series of papers on the biological underpinnings of homosexuality - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page20#309831 did you make any attempt to search out the papers and actually read and possibly learn something from them?

11. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314734 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Comment #314709 by Ivan The Not So Bad:

Brace yourselves (and that's just for the headline).

I think this justifies the RS sacking him.

And why is it always the Christians who invent everything, note the comment claiming that Augustine was the first person to hypothesise about evolution. The Greeks were there long before the Christians, but there again they, the Indians and the Chinese always are.

12. Milky Way 'bigger than thought'

Comment #314532 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 9:47 am

Comment #314529 by hoops mccann:

111 - have a nice day

In the UK you have to say the number while standing on one leg

13. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314380 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 4:58 am

Comment #314363 by Verylee:

However I feel that "probably" has too much uncertainty to it

As has been pointed out a number of times, and as DAR almost certainly knows, the word "probably" was inserted so that it did not fall foul of the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority, particularly the substantiation rules - http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_id=1489

It may be that the proponents of this campaign were being a little too scrupulous, after all how could they substantiate this:

14. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314355 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 4:14 am

Comment #314340 by irate_atheist:

Thou wrong'st a gentleman who is as far from thy report as thou from honour.

You know in all the time that DAR has been posting here he has never chosen an avatar. Your Shakespeare quotes give me a clue.



Perhaps this might be appropriate:

15. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314252 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 1:51 am

Comment #314246 by David A Robertson:

Imagine that message being given to an abused child, a Woolworths worker having just been made reduntant, a Palestinian being bombed by Israel, a junkie, someone having just received the news that they have terminal cancer.

Well, when it comes to mentioning abused children and atheists in the same message they don't come much better than you do they David?

Any sign of your replacement forum by the way?

16. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314223 by epeeist on January 7, 2009 at 1:26 am

Comment #314209 by Evilcor:

Is it just possible we really DO live in End Times (the End, that is, for Spaghetti-Monsters everywhere)? Will I, or my son, live to see the day the churches are taxed, King William repudiates the title "Defender of the Faith," and jackleg big-mouths get hooted off the stage for being insultingly stupid?

I think the end is nigh for the "reasonable" faiths, e.g. the inoffensive element of the C of E. and their equivalents in other countries. However I think we will see a rise in the number of wing nut faiths, either directly or by them taking over organisations like the C of E. When Fanusi was around he dismissed this, but it does worry me. The fundamentalists have significant funding of their own, but let them get their hands on to the investments of the established churches, the schools that they run, the media outlets that they have access to and I think we could really have a fight on our hands.

17. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313823 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Comment #313661 by Oystein Elgaroy:

Consider Pascal's Wager when weighing the odds of that kind of game.

>If you DON'T believe in God and He DOESN'T exist - nothing happens.

>If you DO believe in God and He DOESN'T exist - nothing happens

>If you DO believe in God and He DOES exist - You inherit His kingdom

>If you DON'T believe in God and he DOES exist - You do NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

Wasn't it Vaal who posted Richard Carrier's response which shows that only non-theists go to heaven - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

18. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313792 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Comment #313751 by Caudimordax:

She's just parroting things - I sometimes think someone is coaching her.

No, she is lying. She actually does use links to other web sites. In particular "Answers in Genesis" and "Creation on the Web" (if you really want links to these you are going to have to find them yourself).

When we had Joe Morreale on the site he used to do similar things to jg, but very much more blatantly. You can find a lot of things that creationist raise in the Talk Origins archive - http://toarchive.org/ and especially in the quote mine project pages - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html (this may be down at the moment).

19. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313769 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Comment #313679 by phil rimmer:

I'm sure she's a nice woman. I'm sure she's confronted her fears just as much as she's prepared to. But it's time we went back in our box.

I am sure she reminds me of somebody.

If she was brunette rather than blond and wore rimless glasses...

It will come to me in a minute.

20. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313708 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 1:40 pm

And

Slow speed of light, debunked here - http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison3.pdf and here - http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

Dissipation of comets, debunked here - http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/why-comets-are-not-evidence-for-a-young-solar-system/ and here - http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/more-reasons-why-comets-do-not-prove-creationism/

Now van Eemeren and Grootendorst have formulated a set of principles to identify what kinds of behavior in an argument are procedurally correct. These principles include the following:

1. A party who advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so.
2. A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has actually been advanced by the other party.
3. A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.
4. A failed defense of a standpoint must result in a retraction by the party that put forward the standpoint; a conclusive defense of a standpoint must result in a retraction of doubt by the other party about that standpoint.

Given that I have both demonstrated using multiple examples that the universe is over 10 billion years old and presented additional evidence to show that the points that jg raised are false I expect her to retract the claim that the universe is only 6000 years old.

EDIT: Just a quick additional comment about some of the things that the creationists have put forward. They all seem to have a similar theme, the models they put forward tend to have a number of adjustable parameters, these can obviously be used to get the required result. For example, Morris is trying to show that the bible chronology is correct but the model he proposes has the length of a generation and the average human life span as parameters. He plugs in ones that he takes from the bible.

Just another form of begging the question.

21. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313704 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

I might continue posting science type stuff on this thread, but that's all. Otherwise I am going to be accused of actually precipitating my prediction (which Quine and ChewedBarber have in virtual sealed envelopes).

So:

Polonium haloes, debunked here - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

Population growth, debunked here - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/populate.htm

Spiral Galaxies, debunked here - http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/creationist-claim-spiral-galaxies-wind-up-too-fast-for-an-old-universe/

22. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #313537 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 9:31 am

Comment #313530 by gringo:

I have been following this website and the studies of Mr. Dawkins. And I appreciate his scientific efforts to illuminate the people all around world.

Welcome aboard. Always good to see another Turkish rationalist.

For myself I have mixed feelings about Turkey's potential membership of the EU, but hate isn't part of it.

But, I really care about science which needs an international membership.

In that case the more important thing to join would be the European Space Agency and things like the Erasmus programme.

23. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313515 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 8:23 am

Comment #313513 by Quine:

I'm done. She is some clinician's problem now.

PM for you

24. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313506 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 8:03 am

Comment #313503 by chewedbarber:

At least--I think anyway--that people usually resort to this kind of gibberish after realizing that they can't refute any of the arguments against their position. It's a step in the right direction, maybe?

We haven't quite got to the last stage as yet.

PM for you, let's see if it happens as predicted.

25. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313504 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 7:55 am

Comment #313493 by irate_atheist:

On a more serious note, many of theist's inane statements can be categorised as subsets of the Chewbacca defense.

And there was me thinking they were all a variant on argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the authority isn't so much inappropriate as non-existent.

26. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313473 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 7:03 am

Comment #313457 by decius:

How odd you Brits are. BTW, I had never heard of this Morris Dance before posting here, it certainly deserves more publicity.

There are very many different types of Morris - this is one from fairly near me. If you don't want to watch it all then skip to about 3' 45" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBxzS0nhzcQ&feature=related

And while it isn't Oberammegau you might find this amusing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTA2z9a-RwY

27. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313452 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 6:21 am

Comment #313440 by Laurie Fraser:

Comment #313433 by Vaal Scary, Vaal! What will cricket be without Morris Dancing?

By a stroke of luck I have managed to retrieve a picture through a rift in the space time fabric. It was (or is going to be) taken at the RD Dublin event. I can't quite make out who is who, though I think Steve is the second one in the line - http://www.coconutters.co.uk/photoalbum2/thumb11b.jpg

28. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313445 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 6:15 am

Comment #313435 by jgirolamo:

The problem is I am not the least bit concerned with your data, I know in the end it all points to God. that is why I am confident, not arrogant thinking I know more than some scientists you pick.

So you have no data, no argument. All you have is a warm fuzzy feeling that supposedly points to your god.

Despite all the evidence I and others have provided so far, and can carry on providing until the cows come home you are just going to ignore it.

Essentially what you are saying is that all the work of scientists and philosophers is as nothing compared to the wisdom contained in the holy book of a set of cattle sacrificing primitives.

But presumably if you are ill then you will make a doctor's appointment (presumably online on your computer if possible), drive to your doctor's in your car using your satellite navigation system and you will accept the drugs your doctor prescribes.

And doing this relies on the underlying science, on the theories of quantum mechanics, general relativity and evolution.

29. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313325 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 3:21 am

Comment #313322 by Quine:

With a few years of training, you can provide an opening that moves as it disappears that gives you the power to manipulate the position of the attacker without touching him or her. I am sure epeeist can tell you similar things.

Yes, we would call that "second intention". You make an initial move not with the intention of hitting your opponent but to generate a foreseen response to which you have a counter. You rarely get down to reducing your opponent to a single response so you are usually in a situation which is only partially foreseen.

If you charge in regardless (what a Yorkshireman would refer to as "'eres me 'ead, me arse is coming later) then you are in a completely unforeseen situation and this is normally when you lose - badly.

A few recommendations for training, these are obviously fencing oriented but I suspect are applicable to most combat sports - http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Fencing-Czajkowski-Zbigniew/dp/0965946886/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231240775&sr=8-1 and http://www.amazon.com/One-Touch-Time-Psychological-Aspects/dp/0965946878/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231240775&sr=8-3

I have also found this useful - http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Art-Juggling-Potential-Business/dp/0517886553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231240888&sr=1-1

30. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313303 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 2:11 am

Comment #313301 by Quine:

Yes, epeeist, that is a landmark piece. However, Herringel only gives you a subjective account with little about what is going on in the process. As usual, it seems magical from that view.

Agreed.

But I presume you can work out why I bought it and where I use it.

31. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313300 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 2:06 am

Comment #313293 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

Those studies don't only show that religious people give more of their money to help others; they also give more of their time, and even more of their blood. Willingness to help others at some cost to one's personal comfort is precisely what one means by "being nice".

We have been through this before.

We don't operate on the principle that "what you say three times is true". All you have done is repeat your post http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3315,Does-Religion-Make-You-Nice,Paul-Bloom-Slate,page41#313246 in slightly different terms. You have still not provided a warrant for your inference.

32. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313295 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 2:01 am

Comment #313291 by Quine:

Those interested in the neuro impact of meditation are encouraged to read Zen and the Brain by Professor James H. Austin.

I prefer Zen in the Art of Archery personally.

33. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313270 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 1:31 am

Comment #313267 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

Being God so intelligent and all my guess is that his energy source is nuclear fusion.

Now that Stargate Atlantis has finished there must be a whole lot of zero point modules going spare.

One fiction powering another.

34. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313259 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 1:19 am

Comment #313246 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

Right, the evidence is overwhelming. It is established then that on average "religion makes you nice".

No, you have provided no warrant to infer that the religious are nicer than the non-religious from the statement that they give more to charities.

You are claiming a correlation, but you have not established that generous giving and niceness occur together or whether in fact they are merely coincidental, you have not considered whether there are any counter-signs such as generous giving and racism or homophobia. You have not considered whether there may further correlative factors such as fear of hell or purchasing access to heaven.

Perhaps you ought to read http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3315,Does-Religion-Make-You-Nice,Paul-Bloom-Slate,page41#313214 and try and understand the point that Brian is making.

35. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313221 by epeeist on January 6, 2009 at 12:14 am

Comment #313212 by Brian English:

I can imagine the result. It's the mud that's less than 4000 years old. Shale isn't mud, Q.E.D.

The standard one with creationists is to try and discredit counting the layers as an indicator of age. They usually claim that multiple layers can be formed in one year if there is volcanic activity.

But it comes down to consilience again. In the paper I referenced they show that the layer thicknesses are consilient with sunspot cycles and El Nino events. She has to explain why this should be so.

And even if she gets this far she has to explain why the measurement of these varves is consilient with dendrochronology (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/dating/suess.pdf), lake varves, ice cores etc.

I really hope this sparks Calilasseia's interest. She really won't know what has hit her.

36. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313205 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 11:39 pm

Comment #313114 by jgirolamo:

You talk about things that are beyond myknowledge, I am putting simple, basic, easy to prove facts on the table because they show an entirely different result.

What you are actually saying is that you have no counter to the evidence I put before you.

Again, it was chosen deliberately so that it would be difficult to go to somewhere like "Answers in Genesis" or "Creation on the Web" to find a cut and paste response.

I find it interesting that claim that you don't click on links but all your supposed ripostes (polonium haloes, comets and spiral galaxies) are the standard ones from AiG.

And now you have raised the spectre of Henry Morris, the former hydraulic engineer. I wonder if this might raise the interest of the blue butterfly. In which case my slap-down is going to look distinctly amateurish.

37. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313199 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Comment #313123 by Brian English:

Here's the report for the Yarra delta in Melbourne.

And here is one for Green river - www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf

This has the advantage that it is not, to paraphrase GWB, in foreign. It is all American.

38. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #312701 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Comment #312699 by Oystein Elgaroy:

Amen!

To quote Mike Harding - "I feel like Tom Jones when you say things like that, but I have lost his telephone number."

Any corrections on the science and cosmology welcomed.

39. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #312696 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Comment #312107 by jgirolamo:

I can only argue what I know and what is relevent.
I know somethings about young earth but I am not a scientist.

I am going to answer this and ignore what the rest of the riff-raff on the site have to say.

I am not a cosmologist, I was trained as a physicist but reading things like "New Scientist", "Scientific American" as well as books on a variety of sciences have given me some idea of what is going on in the subject.

I have read, listened to debates and research some. What I have seen just supports my views.
I don't need confirmation but I do know that any dating methods anyone uses are faulty. Not completely accurate. Therefore there is much assumption.

Which is why there were error limits on all the figures that were given (the figure after the ± sign). Even if we take the lower values then the age of the star and globular clusters that were measured is still over 10 billion years. This is nowhere near your 6000 year old earth. You will note that three different and independent methods were used to estimate the ages and there was broad agreement or consilience between them. Using multiple independent methods is common in science, we don't like to base hypotheses on a single type of measurement. The same is true for calculating ages on earth, we don't rely on carbon dating we also use other radiometric methods, dendrochronology, lake and river varves, ice cores, coral growth and thermoluminescence. And again we find there is consilience between them and with other things such as sunspot cycles, El Nino events and catastrophic events such as volcano eruptions.

These measurements are not "faulty" though they all have their inaccuracies. Attempting to pass them off as somehow worthless because we assign error bars is a complete canard.

Not to mention the fact that both of us work off of a presupposition. We look for facts that support our position.

I deliberately chose this example because I (and others on the site) knew you would attempt to smear the scientists who produced these theories and made the measurements.

The scientists involved have included Newton, Fizeau, Doppler, Einstein, de Sitter, Le Maitre, Friedmann and Edwin Hubble. Are you actually going to tell me that you know better than all these people? Are you really that arrogant?

In the list we have people from Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Russia as well as the US. We also span the time from Newton (the mid 1700 hundreds) to 1930. The list includes Christians (both Protestant and Catholic, including a Catholic priest), Jews, someone who was a pantheist as well as someone who was probably an atheist.

Are you going to tell me that there is a conspiracy which spans two continents and two hundred years and which has never been made public?

when we look at the stars being billions of light years away we are looking at distance not speed. Light has recently been slowed down in the laboratory therefore we can assume light speed is not constant. Then we can theorize that when the universe was created (or the big bang happened) Light speed may have come to earth at a much faster speed in the beginning.The fact that "secular" scientists believe the the universe expanded in only a trillionth of a second would support a faster speed.

Two things here. First you haven't a clue what you are talking about, inflation (which is your trillionth of a second) is about space expanding, not about the velocity of something within already existing space.

Second, if your "creation scientists" are raising this as a hypothesis then they need provide some evidence and to work out how to test it. If they can do this then they will almost certainly be able to have it published in a reputable journal. Just raising a conjecture is insufficient.

And in any case, this is just a rehash of Fritz Zwicky's "Tired Light" hypothesis which was raised as an alternative to the expansion redshift (which rather scuppers your "presupposition" canard). This fails because it can't explain why the universe is expanding, what the source of the cosmic background is or why its entropy is constant.

40. 15 Evolutionary gems

Comment #312519 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 4:44 am

Comment #311750 by BillySands

You still have a question to answer concerning chickens with teeth

It has been so long I can't remember who has precedence, your chicken's teeth or my evidence for the big tap and giant plughole for Noah's flood.

EDIT: Comment #312509 by BillySands

the author whos authority he bows down to is clearly ignorant (or stupid - or both)

It has been quoted here in the past - One can be honest, intelligent and a creationist, but not all three at the same time

41. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312499 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 2:31 am

I am in the office today rather than working at home, so I don't have access to my home email.

I did put in a fairly affable complaint to the "Today" complaint email address and got a post back from someone who was part of a "religion and ethics" department. I did mail back and ask whether this meant that the BBC regarded it as only being possible to be ethical if you were religious.

42. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311955 by epeeist on January 4, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Comment #311953 by phil rimmer:

DG, you are starting to look really desperate. Can't even bother to check your own wacky sources. Your linked statistics point out that-

Similar points to yours are made here - http://dot-org.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-really-cares-review-part-1-of-2.html and http://dot-org.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-really-cares-review-part-2-of-2.html. The comments are quite interesting.

43. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311905 by epeeist on January 4, 2009 at 11:07 am

Comment #311898 by jabber:

Comment #311645 by jgirolamo on January 3, 2009 at 8:27 pm

You can't know the scriptures without the Holy spirit."

there are so many interpretations that it appears even with the Holy Spirit there is no certainty.

Is there any substantive difference between the comments of jgirolamo and Dianelos?

44. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311785 by epeeist on January 4, 2009 at 7:17 am

Comment #311778 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares"

Ah yes, Arthur Brooks. In his calculation of how much religious people give compared to non-religious could you tell me whether he separates out religious charities, church-affiliated non-profits and tithes from his estimates?

I seem to remember you having some problems justifying Brook's statistical methodology before.

EDIT: A link to a previous comment about Gregory Paul's paper (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html) - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1752,Debate-between-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Alister-McGrath,Christopher-Hitchens-Alister-McGrath,page12#83411

45. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311717 by epeeist on January 4, 2009 at 3:26 am

I see DG has never heard of principle components analysis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_components_analysis or Kruskal's algorithm - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal's_algorithm or Procrustes analysis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes_analysis or seemingly anything to do with generalised linear models - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_linear_model or indeed any kind of multivariate analysis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_analysis

46. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311678 by epeeist on January 4, 2009 at 12:46 am

Comment #311671 by Sarmatae1:

Ok, so I can retain any factual credibility. When in my last post I wrote that, I think I meant it. But rereading my post I suppose it's not true.

Don't worry about it. DG spouts what, to an onlooker, looks erudite. However, when investigated more closely it turns out to be something he culled from elsewhere, doesn't properly understand but thinks might support his idealistic theism.

Others on this site have eviscerated his takes on quantum mechanics, cosmology, consciousness and theories of mind. Your comments simply adds another to the list.

47. 15 Evolutionary gems

Comment #311479 by epeeist on January 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Comment #311453 by tvictor:

LIES! WE WANT CROCO-DUCK!

No problem

48. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311306 by epeeist on January 3, 2009 at 4:21 am

Comment #311303 by Steve Zara:

Sorry, couldn't resist. I assume my punishment will involve cricket.

Cricket, folk music and organic food.

49. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311301 by epeeist on January 3, 2009 at 4:12 am

Comment #311299 by Brian English:

Like shooting fish in a barrel. The bible is presupposed to be perfectly correct. Thus, anything that does not accord with the bible as interpreted by fundis is wrong. I think that takes care of your four points.

I have follow ups

50. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311298 by epeeist on January 3, 2009 at 4:07 am

Looking back through jgirolamo's posts it looks as though she is a young earth creationist.

So far all I have seen in her posts is waffle, bare assertions and the usual circular reasoning. Rather than continue on the un-evidenced assertions about Jebus produced by pushers of the cult from decades and centuries afterwards I would like to see her provide empirical evidence that the world is only 6000 years old.

jgirolamo Back in 1924 Edwin Hubble showed that nebulae were not part of the Milky Way, they were separate galaxies in their own right. This brought to an end the debate as to whether we had a "one-island" or "many-island" universe. The former was originally proposed by the Stoics and the latter by the Epicureans. You will note that both of these movements originated in classical Greece. Little if any science has been documented as coming from the tribes of Judah (though the Babylonians and Egyptians did some sterling work in the measurement of time and distance).

The other thing that Hubble did was to show that the relationship between the velocity of these extra-galactic nebulae and their distance from us is linear. From this we can make can derive a simple equation t_H = L_H / c. Where t_H is the Hubble time and L_H is the Hubble distance. For a constant value of the Hubble constant t_H the age of the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years.

A more sophisticated model gives an estimate of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years old.

However, as well as just modeling we have some empirical data:

1. One can look at the luminosity and temperature of stars in star clusters. This has been done by Chaboyer, Demarque, Kernan and Krauss (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115) who came to a figure of greater than 12.07 billion years with 95% confidence for the age of the universe, The latest estimates (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128) give 11.5 ± 1.3 billion years for the mean age of the oldest globular clusters.
2. One can look for cooling white dwarf stars. This has been done by Hansen et al. (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401443) who give 12.1 ± 0.9 billion years for the age of the M4 globular cluster.
3. One can measure the age of the chemical elements. This has been done by Nicolas Dauphas (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7046/full/nature03645.html) and gives a value of 14.5 billion years with error bars of -2.2 and +2.8 billion years. Another paper by Wanajo et al. (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206133) gives 14.1 ± 2.5 for the age of CS 31082-001.

Given the error bars then all of these values agree with each other and with the model.

What I would like you to do is

1. Tell us why the model is wrong
2. Tell us why each of the methods for estimating the age stars, star clusters and hence the age of the universe are wrong
3. Tell us why there is consilience between the model and the measurements, i.e. if they are all wrong then why are they all wrong by the same amount
4. Provide a similar model and empirical data to show that the earth and the rest of the universe is 6000 years old