1. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202233 by Roger Stanyard on July 1, 2008 at 4:53 am

Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

The Americans have answered this for us all. They shot Lincoln.

:-)

2. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202223 by Roger Stanyard on July 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

Steve,

So which theological viewpoint does he want to impose on science - given that there are 400 main religions in the world?

I've seen this argument time and time again. Science doesn't give a stuff what his religious opinions are, or mine, or yours or Richard Dawkins.

I haven't seen this bloke's arguments but if past nonsense from creationists is anything to go bay, it will be the same ld tired stuff of 20-30 years ago which, if you taake to its conclusions means that science is utterly subjective and depends on which religious sect or cult you belong to.

3. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201134 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:54 am

One of the key issues that is widely lost in the "debates" over science and religion is that fundamentalism (as distinct from religion in general) is a serious political issue - between what is essentially a call for a theocratic state and what can broadly be described as the modern liberal democracy. The fundamentalists (YECers/IDers are nearly all fundemntalists_ are driven by a hard line ideology and they want to be in control.

Organisations such as the Christiann Coaltion, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, the National Association of Evangelicals, Truth in Science and the Discovery Institute are deeply political organisations.

There is no debate between YERers/IDers and science. Science has won. The YECers and IDers have contribute absolutely nothing to science in the last 50 years.

4. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201131 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:40 am

Rod the Farmer,

The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds.

No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They all hate each others guts as well - what do you expect with extreme ideologues?

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

Remember, there is such a thing as Poe's Law. No matter how much you parody them, they will somewhere believe what you are parodying.

Most of them are so stupid that no only do they not understand even basic science but they don't understand the creationist position. Yet they all think they are "right".

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

5. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199311 by Roger Stanyard on June 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm

The Mormon position is dead easy to pull to pieces.

Marriage is not a christian institution, never has been and never will be. It is, as far as I am aware, a universal institution common to all societies, whether they be christian or not.

It is not the business of Mormons or any other religious group to impose their view of marriage on people who don't subscribe to their religious views. If they don't like it that way, then tough luck to them. Tell 'em to go shove it.

Roger Stanyard

6. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124316 by Roger Stanyard on February 9, 2008 at 5:02 am

Sleep of Reason: "Hi Steve.

I've noticed that you don't like the Daily Mail!

But although I agree with your sentiment that they are right wing, that in itself does not mean the story in incorrect."

It probably does! The extreme right is pathologically dishonest; have a look at the Religious Right in the USA. The Mail has no credibility whatsover as a newspaper of accurate reporting.

Then there is the little matter that the Government's chief scientists who has basically stated that teh Daily Mail's campaign on MMR has killed between 50 and 100 children.

7. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124313 by Roger Stanyard on February 9, 2008 at 4:56 am

Krisking - "Is this a quote from Dawkin's writings? If so, I find it astounding that he can make such a statement, given that he himself was brought up in christian church-going family, and claims to have had a personal religious conversion/experience as a teenager. How difficult was it for him to shake off his inculcated beliefs? "

he was brought up within the Anglican movement and is essentially English. Therefore no problem at all.

8. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117997 by Roger Stanyard on January 30, 2008 at 7:14 am

I seem to recall that the Italian fascists were in bed with the Roman Catholic Church and handed over a religious monpoly to it.

I also recall that Franco killed 300,000 of the republican movement when he gained contyrol of spain. Strange isn't it that this fascist was also in bed with the Catholic Church nad handed power over to it on a massive scale.

Well, then there is Father Tiso. He was an ordained minister who was the puppet dictator of Slovakia in the 1940s.

Any of these people exommunicated for their involvement in violent fascist politics. Um no.

Likewise with the Nazis who ran and ruined Germany. Not one of them was excommunicated for their violent political activities.

The only one that got excommunicated was for marrying a Protestant.

Seems like Oakes has an exceedingly short memory.

The history of dictatorship and authoritarianism in Europe over the last two centuries was critically dependent on the active support of, er, not atheists, but the religious.

9. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114894 by Roger Stanyard on January 23, 2008 at 6:19 am

AllanW,

Whatever anyone comes up with, it has to be totally legal. No throwing rotten fruit, no abuse, no blocking of people or cars...

The aim is get maximum publicity for our cause.

10. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114837 by Roger Stanyard on January 23, 2008 at 2:34 am

Al-Rawandi,

The UK has done pretty well without a written constitution.

11. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114836 by Roger Stanyard on January 23, 2008 at 2:31 am

Welcoming committees for Ken Ham are a very good idea indeed. I'll be putting the matter to BCSE members shortly. With a bit iof luck I can make Oxford; I tried Leicester last time he was there but got stuck in a thirty mile traffic jam which meant I missed it.

My own view of Ham is that he is the Prince of Darkness and bloody dangerous as well. He's running Answers in Genesis as a business and doing damn well at it, sad to say.

Paul Taylor of AiG is also appearing at Skeptics in the Pub in London on 19th February where, touch wood, I'll also be attending. He's as mad as a hatter.

BTW all, I got a plug for BCSE on an international 24 news channel last week. The channel is Press TV and you can watch the programme online at BCSE at http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=39562

If that doesn't work go to this URL where you can click into the programme (Nexus):
http://www.presstv.com/prg_detail.aspx?SectionID=3510513

I appear pretty late into it (about 20 minutes, I guess).

12. Florida in the process of approving new science standards

Comment #114360 by Roger Stanyard on January 22, 2008 at 4:22 am

LorienRyan:

"Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion..."

What the heck are you talking about? Even Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind it, admits that it is not even a theory or a hypothesis - just a set of ideas.

If it is a theory, why didn't the Dover School Board put together a curiculum for it? Answer: they couldn't. All they could use was the scam "teach the controversy".

Guess what? They lost the Dover trial, big time, specacularly and completely because the Judge found ID wasn't science but creatonism.

Ha ha! You lost completly.

Bet you can't tell us what the scientific theory of intelligent design is and how it can be tested by the scientific method. Just like every other IDiot.

13. The Group Delusion

Comment #113563 by Roger Stanyard on January 20, 2008 at 3:47 am

Presumably the gibberish written by Selfishmind is, in fact, written by Wooter under another name?

Same style, same incoherent dross.

14. The Group Delusion

Comment #112818 by Roger Stanyard on January 18, 2008 at 6:21 am

Nice to the participants Wotterbaitering.

Wooter, yet again, demonstrates to the world that he is a typical creationist:

1. he never listens.
2. He never answers any questions.
3. He repeates himself endlessly.
4. Provides links to URLs that he doesn't understand.

Now, here is Birmingham Palace?

15. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110447 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 7:19 am

"And for the record, are we to understand that you are actually referring to the subset of original thoughts that are actually valid when tested empirically and peer-reviewed?"

1. basically yes and
2. The subset makes for most of original thoughts.

However, I don't confine original thoughts to science or applied science.

16. Blind Faiths

Comment #110444 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 7:14 am

Al-Ranadi: "If I limit myself to the 20th century I could think of a couple of enormous exceptions. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Rwanda, Serbia, Purges in Russia."

Well pointed out but you don't have to limit yourself to the 20th century.

In proportion to the size of the population, the Thirty Years War was horendous and probably until WW2 the largest war in history in absolute casuality terms. Current estimates suggest 7.5 m people died as a result of it. But it's worse than that becaue many historians believe that both WW1 and WW2 were the final battles of the Thirty Years War.

Nobody doubts that religion was a prime cause of the Thirty Years War. And it was purely Christian against Christian.

17. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110436 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 6:49 am

ADH: "OK Roger, I'll hold you to that."

Hold me to what? All I have stated is what a half decent first degree teaches.

I've said this before and got loads of stick for it but I'll repeat it again. In the modern world, cery very few people are capable of having a single original thought in their lives without at least a Master's Degree and probably a PhD and even then they are likely to come up with no more than one.

You can include me in not having a single original thought.

18. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110430 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 6:38 am

ADH: "I have no access to scientific studies so I can only express my considered opinion. Do you have studies and statistics for every assertion that you make?"

There's a vast amount of scientific info readily available on the net.

As any half decent journalist would point out, opinion is cheap, facts are valuable.

For just about everything I don in my professional life, I am exceedingly heavily reliant on "studies" and "statistics".

Likewise, when coming to a position on just about any subject outside of my profession, I am almost totally dependent on others in my understanding. That's how the world works. If I take a position on history, I am wholly dependent on the collective works of hundreds of thousands of scholars, researchers and whatever over the generations. Likewise, with geology, sociology, economics or any other subject I can think of.

I feel confident of my position only after I have taken a significant look at wat others have produced on it. Without that I know I am a baby in arms, a ranka amateur ignoramus.

It's th main reason why I nearly always shrug my shoulders and say "so what" when people who think their opinions are as good as everyone else's keep telling me them. They rarely are.

It's one of the reasons why I am so hard on fundamentalists. They are always dead keen to let their opinions on religion and science be known but few of them know anything about science, or their own "creation science" or religion. They cover up the utter banality and ignorance of their own opinions by calling them beliefs and hiding behind "faith". It's a thoroughly dishonest scam.

19. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110342 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 2:39 am

ADH "Roger, you will notice that I said "A HABIT OF MASTURBATION"

So what the heck is the difference between masturbating and being in the habit of masturbating given that all adults have a life time's experience of it?

20. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110326 by Roger Stanyard on January 11, 2008 at 1:54 am

ADH: "AfraidToDie, I'm not going to pontificate about masturbation. I believe that a habit of masturbation can induce a kind of psychological dependence on the fantasies that are normally associated with it, which can thereby become obsessive and interfere with normal interaction with other people. This kind of dependence is obviously unhealthy, from a psychological, social and emotional point of view. The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation per se, but it has a lot to say about self-centred indulgence, about directing our minds and our energies towards the well-being of the "other". Masturbation is wrong in so far as it inclines us against this thought pattern."

Another set of sexual hangups. Good grief, from what you are saying everyone in this forum is a psychologically disturbed pervert with severely impaired social skills and are deeply emotionally disturbed.

Alternatively you might apply some common sense and recognise that masturbation is a normal healthy activity even for couples.

Hum, from what ADH is saying I should have joined the boy scouts and tied a knot in it.

21. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110000 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 9:10 am

"Epeeist, are you Wooterbaiting in a public place?"

Wooterbaiting? Who could possible do a wicked thing like that to our esteemed and authoritative expert on science?

Perish the thought!

22. Creation 'Museum' honored

Comment #109996 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 9:05 am

The fundies are so dim that they don't realise that the museum is an own goal which advertises to the vast majority of Americans how bonkers they are.

Whatever the opinion pools claim, most Americans are simply not youg earth creationists and don't know much about it; that's why the Discovery Institute thought it could the wool over their eyes by spending a fortune on PR puffery and sod all on science.

AiG's "museum" removes the smokescreen and shows just how staggeringly idiotic fundies are.

Touch wood, but it looks as if the fundies in the USA are increasingly up the proverbial creek ithout a paddle. The public are turning against them and have been doing so since the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Court. The Religious Right look set to be blasted out of the water and abandoned by the Republicans, most of whom think they are all nuts anyway.

Amyway, closer to home, the UK cretinists got hit by a torpedo today. The Independent has reported today that the Brown government has abandoned the policy of more faith-based schools.

23. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109990 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 8:52 am

"Can chimeras bombinating in a vacuum nourish second intentions?"

Now, now, Epeeist. You know perfectly well that he will use the question to prove your science wrong by downloading a load of Answers in Genesis crapola that he doesn't understand.

24. Blind Faiths

Comment #109970 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 7:39 am

Kimpatsu: "I think this is a misunderstanding of at the very least the nature of the British Empire. Its missionaries saw the empire as the greatest expression of god's approval, for they read into it connotations of manifest destiny. Further, they were spreading the Word in the name of the established Church of England, so there were no missionaries who preached that the empire was bad. In that, they were as much a part of the empire, and complicit in its spread, as the East India trading company or the colonists in Africa."

Nah, the British Empire was never anything like that. It was a money making exercise. The "moraility" behind it was a Victorian invention created long after India was taken over.

Moeover, a vast number of the missionaries were not Anglican. My own distant family was full of 'em and they were all Methodists.

The East India Company was a profit making joint stock company. Clive of India was so greedy in India that he was later impeached. Rhodesia was founded by mercenaries and was owned by another joint stock compamy until 1923. The Boer Wars were largely an exercise in who controlled the gold and diamonds. Our involvement in Mesopotamia was about oil supplies for the Royal Navy (my grandad was killed there in 1921 fighting for the British Army).

The very basis of the British Empire was a deliberate trade (business) carve up after 1688 where the Dutch got the spices from Indonesia and the English the textiles from India. (The Dutch pulled the short straw.)

Australia was formed as a prison colony and, indeed, the USA was a major prison colony up until 1776. The people who were shipped there were hardly Anglican missionaries.

Finally, the one feature of the British Empire that people forget was that its development was highly decentralised; the Anglican church had very little say or involvement in it. It was ignored, largely as it was in Ireland.

25. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109955 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 6:39 am

Epeeist: "And the word of the day is "sophomoric""

How about inventing a new word for the nutters: "sophomoronic"?

PS: Good manners suggest that you should never use the "n", "f" of "c" words in dealing with them.

(Alas by habit I continue to do so (n=nutter, f=fundie, c=cretinist. It's difficult not to given how utterly stupid they are.)

26. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109953 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 6:34 am

Incredulous: "How does the trolled person know he has been trolled? if you see what I mean. Do the website administrators email him or something to let him know? "

What on earth makes you think the average cretinist would understand the term trolled or what has happended?

I'm a member of a science forum where one of them was put on moderation becaue he refused to stick to science. None of his posts then appeared in the forum but he continued to merrily post away for weeks without apparently ever noticing. (Last time I checked he still was posting.)

It speaks volumes about creationists never listening to what people say. They are too dim even to notice that their own posts are missing.

27. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109939 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 5:35 am

Epeeist: " was just making my self a cup of tea when I thought to myself "Isn't about the time that wooter usually deluges the site", and low and behold there he is.

But have a look at http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/12/common-objections-to-intelligent-design.html..."

It's all dimwitted standard fundie boilerplate based on their belief that there are only two types of people in this world - Christian fundies and atheists. All scientists must, by their definition, be atheists if they are not fundies.

Of coure, all the fundies are down each others throats about their religious opinions but they don't tell you that. They can't because they know even less about religion than they do their own "creation science" or mainstream science.

28. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109928 by Roger Stanyard on January 10, 2008 at 4:28 am

Wooter: "Since mutations are the only "tool" evolution has to "work" with, and since evolutionists have yet to show how new information could be added to a genome without design, mutations cannot account for the origin of these protein-transport pathways."

Alas Wooter, yur cut and past technique won't wash because you are too dim to understand what you are cutting and pasting.

Do, though, tell us in your own words what you think information is. Are you taking about raw data, meaning, Shannon information theory....?

Tell us in your own words whether you think polyploidy results in an increase in information; and why.

You should be able to do this because you keep telling us that the vast majority of scientists are wrong.

(Twiddles thumbs for ever knowing that Wooter is incapable of answering my questions.)

BTW, Wooter the billions of organisms that live in your body outnumber its cells by 10:1. Moreover, they can reproduce in minutes rather than six months. So why didn't Adam explode?

Or are you too thick to realise that bacteria are evrywhere in and on your body and that's the reason you smell if you don't wash?

29. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109675 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Peacebeuponme: "The absolute worst would be to have the rules dictated by a small set of religious zealots. You only have to look at Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Europe before the enlightenment."

You only have to look at the USA before the age of the enligtenment and also the USA today. Much of the USA still hasn't moved on from the 17th century when it comes to religion.

30. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109668 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Devolution: IIRC the blasphemy laws only apply when the alleged blasphemy is against the beliefs of the Church of England.

We can say what we like about other denominations and religions. That's why it is a complete anachronism.

The laws were basically dead, IIRC, until the 1970s and I guess it is exceedingly difficult to bring a prospecution under them.

31. The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief

Comment #109663 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Interesting. The book includes a contribution by Antony Flew.

Strange, isn't it, that the fundies involved in Intelligent Design are claiming that his "conversion" supports a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Or are they lying yet again?

32. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109637 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 10:37 am

Woote: "You would not tell us that the sun mutated from another planet and fixed all the helium reactions WHICH REQUIRE A VERY HIGH SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE to heat us BY ALL ITSELF?"

Shakes head in utter disbelief at Wooter's staggering ignorance of even the simplest scientific claims.

The bloke is raging bonkers.

33. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109634 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 10:26 am

"To Roger at 370 -- w00ter has already won an award for his submissions on this thread. See my 118 -- and he apparently hadn't even warmed up yet. w00ter is as w00ter does -to me it's entertainment"

I love yur description - Batshit Crazy

Wwell, i've just learned from Wooter that "Birmingham Palace" is evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong. The good denizens of the aforesaid city may be a little surprised when they get home from the pub tonight to learn this.

(Eyes roll)

34. Did mozzies, not a meteor, do for the dinosaurs?

Comment #109630 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 10:14 am

"Geoff Macdonald, who has a keen interest in such matters, calculated that there is enough for 300,000 pints of beer for every person on Earth every day for the next billion years"

Well we'll just have to cut down a little then.

35. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109629 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 10:08 am

Al-Rawandi: "Secondly economics isn't a "science" so much as a form of psychology and sociology with a little mathematics."

It involves very little psychology, no sociology and an aweful lot of maths. I've been there, done it and got the proverbial medal. Done all three subjects in my time, all up to post-grad. There are whole swaths of economics that are essentially meaningless without recourse to mathematics. The standard undergraduate textbooks in the subject are full of mathematical proofs. Eeven before I went to university, I had to understand the maths behind it. Even the simplest stuff, like working out elasticity of demand, requires knowledge of maths. In addition to that it requires a good working knowledge of statistics as well.

There's one thing I like about economics despite its no doubt numerous faults - it's a very intellectually rigorous method of analysis of the world and much of that is down to its mathematical underpinnings.

PS, the greatest economist of them all was a mathematician.

36. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109592 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 8:41 am

AndreG "My question is, who do atheists shake their fists against? "

Dunno. I wasn't aware that any of them did. Nevertheless outside of totalitarian theocracies we all are free, and all do, criticise religion and religious belief. Unless, of course, you are saying all religions are equally valid and all Gods exist.

As for you own religious opinions, I'm not the slightest bit interested in them. Likewise, I hope, you with mine.

37. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109574 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 7:57 am

Annabanana: "I don't think economics is science, but it's kind of like an extended phenotype, I suppose. A product of the human mind, so naturally the human mind can be scientifically explored...right?"

I've never felt economics is a science although my first degree is a BSc in Economics. The best I could say is that economics as a subject is a product of the age of enlightenment and because it is very heavily reliant on mathematics and quantitative evidence, is akin to science in its methodology.

It also uses the hypothetico-deductive model which Popper argued was the scientific method but, IIRC, others disgree with Popper over this.

Strictly speaking economics is not based on greed. It's the world that it describes, theorises about and models which is based on greed. As pedants, we could argue about this.

38. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109569 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 7:33 am

Stupidest Creationist on the Internet

How about reopening the annual award scheme for the stupidest creationist on the Internet?

I'll propose Wooter as a candidate.

Would anyone like to second it?

Wooter's random word and logic generator will clearly help in deciding the winner.

Wooter, the great advantage of winning this prestigous and coveted award of international acclaim and prestige is that nobody will ever listen to you again. Not even God.

You'll also get, absolutely free of charge, distribution, by Internet and world-wide, of your top ten most stupid statements. You will become a legend in your own lifetime.

(PS: The most famous past winner is Laurie Appleton, the Australian chicken farmer, who still repeats himself every day, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, and everyone completly ignores him. He remains as daft as a brush.)

39. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109558 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 7:19 am

Wooter: "About the transitional fossils I pasted quite enough web pages that there is no such a thing. So please at least on this point give it up. i feel funny when i prove it again and again"

Are you so idiotc, Wooter, that you can't comprehend why most fossils are intermediates? Do you actually know what a foram is@ Or a ring species?

Do you actually know how to type in "transitional fossils" into Google and get piles of examples?

Well, I'd do it for you:

He is the very first list that came up:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

(Shakes head and wonders why someone as stupid as Wooter thinks that God had a hand in creating him.)

40. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109549 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 7:10 am

Annabanana: "Are you asking how DNA replicates itself? If so, I'll be happy to explain. I wasn't quite sure. You might want to brush up on your punctuation a bit or else proofread before you post. I'm having a hard time interpreting some of your posts."

If yu did explain it to him he would:

1. Utterly ignore you.

2. Continue to repeat himself.

3. Whinge that nobody answers his questions.

4. Fail to answer any questions we put to him.

I've met some gross speciments of creationism in my time. Ther is Ed Garrett who has threatended to shoot one of the scientists who debated with him and openly admits that he relishes the prospect of mowing down unbelievers with a machine gun. There is Michael Tong who believes that men are genetically prediposed to white women in red high shoes and has been repeating the rubbish for years, even after Michael Behe described him as a serously disturbed person. There's Jabriol who appears to have successful convinced a young person to commit suicide and then wrote to the man's mother bragging about it.

But few I have ever met is as utterly stupid as Wooter. He is world class in that respect.

41. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109539 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 6:59 am

Wooter: "we are getting populated here ha? You just get in the line to be funny for being evasive. Don't eat eggs. Just in case, wrong mutation, encoding,- etc you can be chicken too as well according to evolution. be careful. this is evolution. anything can happen. EVOLUTION FORBID."

You're reply looks to be utter gibberish again. The theory of evolution does not say a human can change into chicken - not by any stretch of the imagination, not directly, not gradually, not by any process.

But if you understood the first thing about what you are talking about, you'd know that it is the theory of evolution by natural selection where the governing factor is the environment. You'd also know there is a feedback loop in it where species actually alter the environment in which they live.

It all precludes the branches of the species changing into each other. It's governed by the arrow of time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics if you like.



.

42. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109533 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 6:50 am

Wooter; "Would you expalin to me how sun and earth adapted to each other- days, nights, best location, the degree of the earth's tilting to make our lives perfect? Just one of the blessings of God to us."

How the heck does the tilting of the earth's axis relative to the sun make our lives perfect? Most people live in the northern hemisphere and it makes much of the area extremly unproductive in biomass during the winters. In other words, it is agriculturally a poor place to survive.

43. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109526 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 6:39 am

Wooter: "IF WE GO TO A LIBRARY WHICH HAS GOT 3000 MILLION BOOKS.. WE CLAIM THAT ALL THESE THREE BOOKS CAME OUT FROM ONE BOOK, WHAT WOULD A VERY SMART PERSON OR CHILD SAY?

(both my gut instinct and the weight of evidence on this thread tell me that there is no point in trying to reason with you.)

Sorry pal, the most reasonable answer to any logical analogy is either to keep quiete or admit it. So reason with yourself first.

Let me give you another shot: If we go to any library with 3000 thousand books only and we say 'okay guys, all the letters in these three 3000 thousand books mixed together and there you go, we have another meaningful book?
My best wishes with only mocking the ideas not the people."

The genome is not a book; it's a set of chemicals that is subject to the basic laws of physics. Nor is it a form of computer programming. Genetics simply does not work by randomly mixing up base pairs or genes to form new species. It's about incremental small changes. You logic is utterly meaningless because you are utterly clueless ven about basic science.

The whole of your argument is virtually incomprehensible. That's why everyone is ignoring it.

So why haven't you answered our questions again?

44. Blind Faiths

Comment #109487 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 6:05 am

"Balderdash. The Crusades were a defensive conflict. They were a response to centuries of Islamic jihad that conquered the traditional Christian heartlands and viciously oppressed the jews and Christians in those lands. "

Not quite. The Christian heartlands were mostly not seriously threatened until well after the Crusades. Have a look at what the Christians did to the heartland of Christianity during the Crusades and after - in particularly the Dogue of Venice and Constantinople. Take a look at the thirty years war as well. It makes India's partition in the 1940s look like a picnic.

45. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109483 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 5:55 am

AndreG "I am sorry, my friend, but it appears to me that your expertise in the Bible is somewhat incomplete. The fundies believe that the moral law/conscience written in all peoples."

That sounds like genetic determinism again. Strange, I thought the fundies believed genetics is crap and our genes are rapidly degenerating.
.

46. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109481 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 5:48 am

AndreG "The Bible provides the moral rule, which is timeless and unambigious"

It isn't timeless and it isn't unambiguous. Nor does it originate in the Bible.

47. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109475 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 5:41 am

AndreG: "What is a brainwash? One example: when I was still going through the primary school, the deputy principal would often take me from my class into his office, where he would spend hours explaining to me how bad is religion (he would make a great co-author for Mr Dawkins' next book) and how wrong I am that I still clinch to my beliefs in spate of such facts like, for example, the men (Uri Gagarin) went into the cosmos and allegedly did not see the God there, and so on. I was too young to comprehend everything he was saying to me, but one thing I know now that is was the classic example of a brainwash"

Huum. In that case I've been brainwashed by religion. I was subject to 13 years compulsory daily religious services at school plus compulsory religious education plus compulsory church attendence. From the age of five.

Well actually the whole shooting match is not brainwashing. Very few of us ended up believing a word of what was said. Nor is AndreG's "experience" brainwashing.

48. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109472 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 5:35 am

Steve: "That is not a rule from the bible. That is the Golden Rule, and we see it in other animal species. It comes from evolution, not the bible."

That's genetic determinism. I strongly dispute it.

49. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109469 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 5:31 am

"The danger of atheism, in my view, is that everyone would be entitled to their own morals."

That's nothing to do with atheism. We all have freedom to determine our own moral standards and we all, in some way or other, determine them differently.

I think there is nothing at all immoral in drinking alcohol in moderate amounts. Others disagree and are free to adopt that morality in their own actions. I happen to think that creationism and Intelligent design are deeply immoral outlooks and many religious people no doubt agree with me. Many religious people think otherwise, that they are part of the foundations of morality.

It's the same with the rest of religion. We have some 400 different major religions facing us. Of thse, Christianity consists of 33,000 different sects/denominations or whatever. Of those, 31,000 are Protestant. There simply is no consensus on moraility betwen these groups. Members of one lot frequently believe that another lot are blasphemous and immoral. Religion is not even a panacea when it comes to working out the vast set of rules that we live by in the world. It's unworkable, contradictory and irrelevent. Just like atheism is irrelevent.

50. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109459 by Roger Stanyard on January 9, 2008 at 5:14 am

"Well, we do not negotiate the road rules. And most of us do not set the road rules, it is done by professionals. "

That's because we live in a representative rather than a participatory democracy. Moreover, we do also participate in setting the rules where appropriate. I've done it.

Politics is, by definition, the art of resolving conflict between different interest groups. Even in the mundane issue of road rules, there are conflicts of interest. Some drivers want to drive fast, others are concerned about the safety consequences of doing so. Others are concerned baout their tax bills for making roads safe for fast driving.

It's for the democratically elected politicians to ensure that the "professionals" apply rules that resolve the conlicts in a manner that is generally acceptable to the public.

It's a fudge but reading the Bible ain't gonna help. As the Japanese well know.

Dunno about the others, but it seems to me that the fundies believe that only the Bible can provide rules that work and they are all ordained by God.

I wonder what they think they would do if they lost their belief in fundamentalist religion. Do they really believe they would become dangerous driving maniacs or randomly kill, rape and rob others if they dropped their religious opinions?

There are some very sad cases around if they do.