Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


501. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175919 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #175915 by seeker_of_truth


http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/volume43/number2A/azu_radiocarbon_v43_n2a_157_161_v.pdf

I didn't see where my question was answered in this link. Could you please 'dumb it down' for me in your own words? Thanks.
We aren't responsible for your education. That is ultimately your responsibility. Of course, if you want to delegate it to your mom in your home school then that will be fine.

4000 year old dinosaur reference?

502. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175912 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 8:29 am

Comment #175898 by seeker_of_truth

May I presume since no one has disputed this or offered an alternative explanation of why C-14 is invalid beyond 50k years that my above, stated discourse is agreed upon?
No you may not. Stop evading the issue, where is the paper on a 4000 year old dinosaur.

This is the third time you have been asked to provide the evidence for a 4000 year old dinosaur. Unless you can supply it at this time of asking I intend to invoke Calilasseia's maxim.
If an entity X is postulated to exist, and there exists in turn no substantive evidence supporting the existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity x as non-existent until said substantive evidence materialises.

503. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175871 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #175866 by seeker_of_truth


Now imagine you find dino-bone fossils in a geological column that we assume, yes assume, is 70 million years old - yet these bones test at 4,000 years average under C-14 with no known contamination of any kind. Do we go with the assumption [based on evolutionary theory] or the more scientifically verifiable process of C-14 dating?
I don't believe you have given us the reference to this putative 4000 year old dinosaur.

I believe I asked you for this before, peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal as I remember.

After all, if you don't give this then why waste space with such dribble.

Oh - and go look up the word consilience with reference to dating methods. I believe I have given you this one before but it doesn't appear to have sunk in as yet.

504. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175856 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #175833 by Cartomancer

America's first strictly academic daemonologist eh? Pfft. We've had academic daemonologists in Europe since... well, since the Middle Ages to be exact.
And if you are going to go for a definitive volume rather than a crappy work of fiction then why not go for one written by a king - http://www.amazon.com/Demonology-King-James-I/dp/1585096660

505. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175814 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #175809 by MPhil

If Bill Gates had never used a computer, hadn't done what did - hundreds of millions of dollars less would have gone to charities...
He does a lot of charitable work true, but don't take it at face value.

Look at the tie up between the Gates foundation and drug companies for example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/may/18/medicineandhealth.microsoft and http://www.alternet.org/story/47713/)

506. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175804 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #175803 by Fanusi Khiyal

Just to drive the point home, Muazzam Begg will be talking about how terrible Gitmo was in Cambridge, to slobbering audiences.
Good of you to anticipate the appearance and reaction of the whole audience.

Your point would have been better made without the emotionalism.

507. Record-setting Laser May Aid Searches for Earthlike Planets

Comment #175799 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 4:05 am

Comment #175797 by rod-the-farmer

Can someone suggest a link that would explain how this works ? Is this another one of those interference things ? Maybe with a diagram ?
Here you go - http://www.rp-photonics.com/frequency_combs.html

508. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175778 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 2:38 am

Would it be useful to arrange a Mensur match between MPhil and Bonzai?

509. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175764 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #175758 by _riverrun_

Couldn't agree more. That was precisely my point. Lost it seems. I assume that my statement that "Sam Harris is wrong on every count. The time of the attacks, the rational, and the noble intent are nothing but vacuous assertions from mainstream reportage," is equally without function.
I suspect that most of your audience disappeared before they got to that paragraph.

Perhaps you ought to try reading some Hemingway?

510. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175756 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #175753 by sphardy


http://exjw-reunited.co.uk/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=77
Ye gods and little fishes, one of the posters is from Horsforth in Leeds, not too far away from where I was brought up.

A little too close for comfort.

511. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175755 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 1:27 am

Comment #175749 by keith

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and even less enthusiasm to make the effort to find out.
Agreed, pretentiousness masquerading as intellectualism. But of course it is your problem if you don't understand it.

It actually fails one of the first maxims of good design - form follows function.

512. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175733 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 12:18 am

Comment #175731 by Spinoza


(perhaps we should/could continue this on some sort of Messenger or Facebook chat?... I would be interested in engaging your scepticism about quasi and Cornell realism...)
Please keep the conversation here. I, and I suspect a number of others, find it interesting. And if it isn't rational and clear thinking then I don't know what is.

And it is vastly better than the lunacies of the recent theist drive-bys.

513. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175412 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 11:17 am

Comment #175410 by babrock

Sam gets a rather large amount of critisism for racism, for taking positions just like what he is taking here.
There seems be a standard practice by certain Muslims of equivocating between religion and race. Certainly in the UK this may be something to do with the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006). While prosecutions have been brought for racial hatred I am not aware of any for religious hatred.

514. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175393 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 10:40 am

Comment #175369 by al-rawandi

Although, put enough 56 IQ's together and you have another problem.
As the fat yellow man said - "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers".

515. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175325 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #175324 by StephenP

If you're using IE, then you need to enable these in the "tools" menu.
Rather than do this, just install Firefox from www.mozilla.org. Then install Adblock Plus, Adblock Filterset G and the British English dictionary from the downloads site.

Believe me, you won't go back to Internet Exploder.

516. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175322 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #175304 by al-rawandi

Well compared to Anna, I am all over the map. I am pretty left on some issues and I don't consider myself right at all.
"Right wing" - two words to characterise someone's whole political viewpoint seems to be a good example of black and white thinking.

From a number of the posts that Al-Rawandi has made it is obvious that he has nuanced (is that an insult to an American?) views of the political landscape. The same is probably true of most people here (though there are a few examples of fairly rigid ideological positions).

The only thing that could be worse is to reduce the characterisation to a single word, say, "socialist" for instance ;-{)

517. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175317 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #175311 by MaxwellSmart


I have two words in response to pretty much any post on these educational travesties:

"Home schooling"
What age do these get home schooled until? Do they have to pass any sorts of standardised tests? Do they go on to college, or just drop into the low skill, low educational requirement jobs?

You will gather from the spelling I'm British, just interested in what long term future these kids have.

518. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #175262 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment #88288 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Isn't intelligent design a scientific hypothesis?
No it isn't. It doesn't fit with Kuhn's requirements, i.e. accuracy, broadness of scope, self-consistency and consistency with other theories, parsimony and fruitfulness of further research programmes. Neither does it fit with Popper's idea of falsifiability as providing demarcation between science and non-science.

Indeed, as Behe was forced to admit in the Kitzmiller-Dover trial any definition of science that was wide enough to include ID would also be wide enough to include astrology. You don't think that astrology is a science do you? If so, you might care to read http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/thagard.html
For all we know some extraterrestrial civilization designed the first replicators and planted them on Earth as some kind of experiment, or perhaps in order to populate the cosmos with life, or for some other reason, who knows. I mean this is a possibility entirely compatible with ID.
It can't be ruled out, but one should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. Hence the research into abiogenesis.

Of course showing that the earth was seeded by some natural (as opposed to supernatural) entity only leads you into regression.

And I suspect it wouldn't satisfy the cdesign proponentsists since they are actively looking for the designer to be a specific deity.

519. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175235 by epeeist on May 5, 2008 at 1:12 am

Comment #175081 by Fanusi Khiyal


In Denmark "Three-quarters of rape are carried out by non-Danish immigrants", says Peter Skaarup, a prominent politician.
This would be the Peter Skaarup of the Danish People's Party.

Hardly an unbiased reporter. Give us some pointers to the police statistics rather than a politician's sound bite.

520. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175064 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 10:13 am

Mitchell and Ty - Have a glance at some of Hempel's work on explanation in the field of science, particularly his deductive-nomological model and inductive-statistical model.

You might also want to look at Railton's deductive-nomological-probabilistic model.

521. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175054 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 9:41 am

Comment #175051 by Fanusi Khiyal

(BTW, the BBC kicked him out for that comment. So much for 'government control of media is the only way to guarantee freedom of expression)
The BBC may have an odd funding regime, but it is by no means government controlled.

Look at the reporting of the David Kelly affair as an example of the BBC and the media not being in alignment.

522. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175041 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #175030 by saraswati


But are we wrong to be so worried? I don't know anything about the US political system to know how close these academic freedom bills are to actually being implemented. Do we, with our constant exposure to this kind of news in the atheist/rationalist community, see the problem as bigger than it really is?
No, I don't think we are wrong to be worried about this. However, what we have to realise is that is not primary about the science. It is about politics and law. It is not surprising that Regent University is turning out so many law graduates, and that there are a significant number acting as interns in the Bush administration.

523. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175006 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 5:22 am

Comment #175002 by woe-monger

If creationism is going to be taught in schools, then it surely doesn't affect only science, the history curriculum will have to be altered to accommodate the "controversy" between a young earth and an old earth, and when events must have occurred, and the students can be left to decide that one.
You need to have a look at the "Wedge" document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It might look as though it is only evolutionary biology that is being targeted. The long term strategy would affect history, geography, geology, archaeology, cosmology and so on. It is a lot worse than you are apparently aware of.

524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175001 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 5:04 am

Comment #174997 by keith


From what you are saying, it sounds like ideas on religion have polarised. I'd like to think that those that were in the middle ground - the C of E and Catholics, by the sound of it - have drifted over to us, rather than joining the Fundamentalists. Any idea if this is true or not?
I think (speaking ex cathedra from my bellybutton) that for most religion has simply become irrelevant. Whether they have come across to the rationalist side is moot.

As I have said before, thinking is hard work and most people prefer to let other people do it for them. While a lot of people watch David Attenborough type programs on TV I actually wonder how many actually think "Gosh, that shows evidence for evolution". How many people are content to use their Tom-Tom navigation system without considering that the basis of it is quantum mechanics and relativity. Have a glance at the "Have Your Say" pages on the BBC and see how many people provide rational arguments - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm.

525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174992 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 3:52 am

I have been musing on the state of Christianity in the UK. My thoughts, completely personal opinions with little evidence to back it up.

The CofE seems to be dying gradually. From what I can gather its regular members are getting older (http://www.whychurch.org.uk/age.php) and the number actually attending is getting smaller (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1529106/Migrants-fill-empty-pews-as-Britons-lose-faith.html)

While there are a large number of supposed members of the church most of these are of the "hatch-match-dispatch" variety with the occasional attendance at Christmas Midnight Mass, those who have attended once or twice to get their children into a faith school, or those put down as CofE by default when forms are filled in.

The Catholic church seems to be in a similar predicament, although it has had a boost recently with the influx of Catholic Eastern Europeans, particularly Poles. Having said that, they are having difficulty finding people to become priests (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4590019.stm).

Even David Robertson's cohorts seem to have falling numbers (http://www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk/widerchurch.htm).

In fact the only sects seeming to be gaining numbers are the evangelicals (http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news.aspx?action=view&id=2306), and these are the ones that are more likely to reject science and specifically evolution. However it should also be noted what demographic these churches serve.

What seems to be happening is that "reasonable" religion is becoming a spent force. What we will have to face is the rump lunatic fringe, supported by people like Peter Vardy and similar exports from the US.

526. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174986 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 3:28 am

I have just been looking at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=expelled.htm

Given a ticket cost of $10 then it looks as though on the second weekend it was down to under 50 people per showing and as of last Thursday it is down to about 15 people per showing.

Of course it will make an amount on DVD, however I do get the feeling (on no evidence at all) that the movie has tanked. Would anyone with more experience of these things care to comment?

527. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174961 by epeeist on May 4, 2008 at 12:46 am

Comment #174954 by rotaTOR

the US still currently has some of the best universities in the entire world,despite some of the nervous posts here..
Fixed it for you.

Remember also that the US has places like Liberty and Regents.

528. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174741 by epeeist on May 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

Great title for a book in the fourth comment "Superstition for Dummies".

529. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174702 by epeeist on May 3, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #174672 by Fanusi Khiyal

Anyway, the basic point is this: Islam can't be reformed
I think I am going to disagree with the semantics of this.

Could Islam be reformed? The answer to this must be yes. Will Islam be reformed, almost certainly not.

530. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174657 by epeeist on May 3, 2008 at 5:15 am

How many Christians does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, the light from god never goes out.

531. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #174642 by epeeist on May 3, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #174635 by bsoft

It's presumptuous to assume that your lack of knowledge indicates a general failure of the scientific community.
Or that a current lack of knowledge in the scientific community proves goddidit.

532. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174622 by epeeist on May 3, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #174620 by eagles12


Wow! I can't believe Richard's arrogance. After close examination of the human cell how can anyone question the evidence for a designer? Not one scientific fact supports evolution yet blinded humanists continue to believe it because they can't bear the thought that there is a final authority to whom they must give an account.
Wow, argument from personal incredulity, argument from the appearance of design and appeal to authority all coupled with lack of knowledge in one paragraph.
Because Christ lives,
Mark
Romans 1:22
And of course the obligatory reference to the one book in his library.

533. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174471 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #174464 by seeker_of_truth

Reimer, Paula J.; et al. (2004). "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0â€"26 Cal Kyr BP". Radiocarbon 46: 1029â€"1058.
So they took simple count data from tree rings, varves, coral growth and the like to calibrate 14C. Your point is?

If I provided you with recent examples of dinosaur fossils being tested with C-14 and resulting in thousands of year-type ages, would you be lacking confidence in at least one component of the dating system as much as I am?
This would be documented in peer-reviewed papers in a reputable journal I presume.

534. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174442 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Comment #174434 by seeker_of_truth

You represent your client and I'll represent mine. If we both win our cases, we'll celebrate at the local pub and I'll even buy the first pitcher.
Displacement activity.

Since you have yet to provide any evidence that falsifies either 40Ar dating or the Rev. Dark's paper why don't you get on with that.

I don't know about the pitcher, but the burden is definitely on you.

535. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #174340 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 7:48 am

Comment #174335 by al-rawandi

He either has a tourette's typing disorder
Slow day and a Friday:

Traffic Warden to driver of car just parked in disabled space "What's your disability?"

Complete able bodied driver "Tourettes, just fucking get over it."

536. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174308 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 5:01 am

It doesn't end. More here on the loathsomeness of Ben Stein - http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

537. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174296 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #174291 by riandouglas

How so? Are you claiming that Jesus wasn't European? Guess you think he looked like an Arab or something. Pffft :-)
Next thing you'll be telling us is that he didn't speak English. Blasphemer!

538. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174283 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 2:06 am

Comment #174282 by riandouglas

Perhaps cave paintings don't count.
Of course they don't count. They don't show pictures of Jesus.

539. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174277 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 12:56 am

Comment #174268 by robotaholic


Epeeist I looked up your name the other day and found out what it means and it was interesting and I wonder if you fence electrafied :D
Personally no, I am too old, slow and fat to fence at all these days. However, all competitions apart from tiny school ones are fenced electric.

I was serious about the epilepsy thing by the way.

540. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174267 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 12:24 am

Comment #174259 by MPhil

Whoa, robotaholic - that avatar is making me nauseous... IT'S TOO FAAAAAAST!!! :)
I just hope there is nobody reading who is subject to epilepsy.

541. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173913 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #173899 by seeker_of_truth


And with that... I'm going to lunch
Time of death 18:32 UTC, cause "I have to go now", complicated by "I don't have answers to your hard questions".

So how many times have we seen this before?

And just in case he does come back

seeker - answer mesomodel in #173889

542. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173887 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:16 am

Comment #173881 by seeker_of_truth


Your list of rules would be fine if I were only debating only one individual who was writing from a majority account of experience and intrinsic knowledge.
Fine, then respond to Mesomodel or Geraint if you want to limit your responses.

543. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173884 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:14 am

Comment #173876 by seeker_of_truth


Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.
So go away until you have some answers and then come back and post them.

At the moment all I can see is a time-wasting creotard.

544. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173878 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:12 am

Comment #173872 by seeker_of_truth


Do you find it interesting the speed of gravity measured here on earth matches the exact speed of light? It seems an almost impossible coincidence, or one apparently controls the other.
Irrelevant argument.

Your questions have been answered. Please respond to comment #173870 by mesomodel.

545. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173868 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 10:01 am

In http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-Richard-Dawkins-Michael-Shermer,page3#165735 I gave some of the things that one should not do in critical dialogue. Included in these are

  1. Unlicenced attempts to change the agenda are not allowed
  2. Not making a serious attempt to fulfill an obligation is a bad strategy. Notable here are failures to meet a burden of proof or to defend a commitment when challenged.
  3. Trying to shift the burden of proof or alter the burden of proof is illicitly is not allowed.
  4. Purporting to carry out an internal proof using premises that have not been conceded is not allowed.
  5. Appealing to external sources of proof without backing up your argument properly can be subject to objection.
  6. Failures of relevance including providing the wrong thesis, wandering away from the point to be proved or answering the wrong question in a dialogue are not allowed
  7. Failing to ask questions that are appropriate for a given stage of dialogue should be prohibited, along with asking questions that are inappropriate.
  8. Failing to reply appropriately to questions should not be allowed, including replies that are unduly evasive.
  9. Failing to define, clarify or justify the meaning of a definition in accord with standards of precision appropriate to the discussion is a violation if the use is challenged by another participant
So what are seeker's scores? I think I would be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on number 7, all the rest he definitely seems to have committed.

546. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173810 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 9:01 am

Comment #173805 by riandouglas


You're trying to redirect the argument again. Naughty naughty. So, how many refutations of evidence for your lower bound of the age of the universe - 4500, will you have to be presented with before you reject it?
And how many times is he going to present material as his own when he got the idea from a YEC site?

547. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173786 by epeeist on May 1, 2008 at 8:45 am

Just a quick response, since I am in an audio at the moment.

Your use of supernova for dating is incomplete.

  1. There will be a period after the Big Bang before stars are formed.
  2. There will then be a mean lifetime for the stars that do go supernova
  3. Once this is past then you might be able to use this as a statistical method for dating
EDIT: Your method seems to ignore the first two parts.

548. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173149 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Comment #173147 by annabanana 

Will it work if you blockquote it?


No, but it should if you put it inside < pre > tags, i.e. replace "blockquote" by "pre".

549. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173006 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

Comment #172985 by Ajuydog

Serious peer review there!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

If so talk origins has some responses.
And there is also this - http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

550. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172972 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 8:07 am

Comment #172965 by seeker_of_truth

Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.
Oh no you don't.

Firstly you commit an "ad populum" fallacy. Secondly, all the empirical data points to an age of the earth as around 4.5 billion years and an age of the universe of 13.7 billion years.

If you want to claim otherwise then the burden is on you.

Standard tactics by someone who has no arguments, only rhetoric.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next