551. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191849 by Goldy on June 12, 2008 at 1:52 am

Mordacious1, you will find that those of a religious bent tend to
A) call themselves something they generally are not. Clearthinker is a case to point.
B) enjoy the trappings of open fora but not allow it when they are in control. See how the Church, once it's evil claws were entrenched into society, actively supressed all other thought. Islamic countries are a good case to point even today.
I have to say the humourless WeeF did come up with one truth

Mordacious - you got me.....(weeps buckets)....I confess....I had and have no friends and just made up the God of the Bible out of my head.....please help me....thank God (if he exists) for your sheer brilliance and perceptiveness...

The god he professes to worship and follow does not exist outside that space between his ears. Indeed, it "is not the God I worship", according to the vast majority of Protestants (to name but one sect of his cult).
He should take comfort from this - at least his morality is his own (like ours) - just he needs the security blanket we have grown out of.

552. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191845 by Goldy on June 12, 2008 at 1:42 am

Having only ever had one letter published (in the Torygraph), don't be surprised if a mightily fine example of penmanship is reduced to a soundbite ;-)

553. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191811 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 9:19 pm

I think this is more of an anomaly for you than me since to really do any explaining you have to imagine the sequence of DNA replication errors that produced these animals. I don't think the fossil record will be very cooperative either.

Mate, you also think the Flood is real, that the anti-christ is soon to visit us (an inference to your reply to Diacanu) and you think that some being, the likes of which you will not tell us, made everything as is.
I don't want to know what you think - I want you to research or at least look up and tell me what you can find out. Of course there are replication errors that lead to these animals (hint - it's called evolution) but as you keep trying to tell us, errors are corrected...so how can these come about? Fossils tell us plenty - even our DNA contain fossils :-)

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

I'll say you're dreading it! You have been shown to be militantly ignorant and arrogant in maintaining your stage of blissful ignorance. How did all that sediment end up on the continents? Hmmm - so the buckling of the sediments as shown in the mountains just don't mean much to you, do they? Or that earchquake in China recently (another hint - India is moving into China) didn't tell you something, did it? OK, millins of tons of sediment got to the contimnents because , surprise, surprise, the crust moves! Up and down, underwater and over water. Ever wonder how many tons of Saharan sands end up in Europe? Or how the Gobi can be found in Beijing? Or those magical events too?
this one is really the highlight of your incredible assininity!

We live on a planet loaded with water and there are plenty of well-equipped laboratories staffed by people who have tried to coax life into existence. So far, despite all their applied intelligence, they haven't even gotten remotely close. Call me incredulous, but I don't think a shortage of water is the holdup.

Because mortal men can't make life as you know it, other planets must be barren until God pops over? Can you tell us how you think men have not made life? Or indeed its constituents? Specualtion on your part, isn't it? Tell, then - if God likes life, where are the other life forms on other planets? He would have made then, wouldn't he...
Well, there's no need to imagine souped-up evolution. It has been observed, and of course,

It happens courtesy of the selection fairy, without reference to the mutations that have to be selected:

And, pray tell, just what do you think were "selected" to enable this adaptation?
C'mon, then, Moron. The Flood. And your "well developed" belief. Spill it.

554. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191805 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 8:37 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/l11evolution.html
I am astounded, really. Maybe we scientist should start making our presence felt in theology more.

555. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191787 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 6:00 pm

On another note, I see your letter, Paula, has pride of place in the Independent!

Teenage suicide bomber was a victim of religious abuse

Sir: I hope that your article on the 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber (10 June) has been read carefully by those desperate to claim Islamic terrorism is really about politics and not religion. This boy was told to die because it was what God wanted, not because it was what a political movement wanted, or what his country wanted.

His potential victims' offence? That they were fighting against Muslims (not Afghans). This boy is from Pakistan, so he wasn't putting his life on the line for his nation or for a political cause, but for his religion. What about the people who taught him such actions were virtuous and praiseworthy; who forced him to do as they said? Mullahs, Islamic religious leaders, not politicians, not campaigners.

And they were reaping the harvest of a whole childhood of religious indoctrination, during which this boy was taught that violence in support of Islam is good because it is God's will, that God looks with favour on martyrs, and that mullahs are able to declare God's absolute will.

Any religion that indoctrinates its young to believe that it is not only acceptable but actively a virtue to believe as absolute truth claims that cannot be substantiated by evidence, to accept as truth something that has merely been asserted on the basis of authority and tradition, is guilty of abusing its children, just as these mullahs are.

Paula Kirby

Inverness

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-the-14yearold-suicide-bomber-845061.html

556. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #191766 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Have a banana

557. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #191763 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Have a banana

558. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #191762 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 3:58 pm

How can a cat or a young child disbelieve in god without first knowing about god?

People (and cats) are not born athiests either.

From Wikipedia

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]

Allow me to draw your eyes to "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism"
Absence of belief. Not disbelief - that's different. So small children and cats are atheists.
Of course, language being what it is, other attributes ate attached to atheism. That, I think, is where your confusion lies.
On another note, I am running low on bananas - anyone got one to feed the chimp?

559. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #191759 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Oooh, a chimp. Have a banana

560. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191736 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I have a thing about having racial slurs directed towards me

If I may paraphrase...."But Nazism is NOT A RACE!"
Aaah, that's better - good to get that off my chest :-D

561. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191734 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Maybe I'm lucky - parents not too religious. But all the Goddites had nothing against what i got as a child.....Struwwelpeter!
http://www.bugpowder.com/andy/e.hoffmann.html

562. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191730 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

The PRIDE they take in their rabid anti-intellectualism.

Can you think of any other set of silly buggers who feel the urge to stand in a street or public square, their mythology in hand and prove that they can read? And even proclaim that what they read but don't digest is the truth?
You can take a horse to water, but you sure as hell can't make it drink. These people are so thirsty they've gone mad...

563. Fleabytes

Comment #191725 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Give the chimp a banana...

564. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191724 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm

The article was called "Stumbling towards Eurabia".

Dunno, Al. there's only so much a population can take, and then there's the media...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2106757/Muslim-parents-to-blame-for-children-turning-to-extremism.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2105429/Muslim-children-in-Britain-'brought-up-to-hate-their-homeland'.html
Just reading the British media makes e feel as if there is some sort of backlash coming on.
I must, however, apologise for the source - it is the Daily Telegraph...

565. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191721 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I enjoy jousting with cretinists and IDiots becasue it makes me go out and look up things for my rebuttals. The fact that it can take all of seconds with Google to get a decent article speaks volumes to me - the evidence is there, the cretinists are just militantly ignorant and wish to drag all others to their level.

566. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191469 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:54 am

Actually, I was referring to Ayatollah Khomeini's wife (if it wasn't clear)!

Ah - perils of not reading earlier posts! Ah, well. Arab News is full of young wives. A recentish one I read was about some 60-something divorcing his oldest wife to marry a 12-13 year old. It didn't seem too outlandish to the writer of the piece...
As for edifices crashing down - tell me about it! Had to explain to a cretinist that if the Flood was true (and Islam doesn't, according to Arab News, make that flood a global one...) and all the fossils were dead flood victims, then all science, every branch, is wrong. Which would we rather believe - mythology and hearsay or some refutable, peer reviewed process of explanation?
Sad.
Interesting about Indonesia banning that Islamic sect for heresy. It is, after all, a tolerant religion - shame the adherents can't be too sometimes...
:-)

567. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191462 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 2:47 am

Something else regarding different species. But I guess a bird is a bird, eh, txty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7446647.stm

568. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191405 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 9:18 pm

And here is the article link
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=23375&d=8&m=3&y=2003
I was wrong about her being 29 - she was, apparently, only about 19.

569. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191403 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Speaking of which, different sources give different ages for his wife when he married her. One book says that she was 11, two others say she was 15 (he was 27 and a virgin).

An Arab News piece had her as old as 29, if I remember right. Might try and look that up again in the archives.
I do thoroughly recommend reading the Islam section in Arab News. Some crackers there!

570. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #191401 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 8:53 pm

A follow up article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/europe/11virgin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

571. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191400 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I don't believe that reptiles became mammals and birds.

Care to explain avian and reptilian DNA? And indeed the recent genome showings of the duckbilled platypus and it's similarity to both mammals and reptiles? Why do birds have scales (a reptilian marker) and lay eggs, like reptiles? So many other pointers - and we have not even gotten to the nitty gritty DNA yet :-)

I think cats are cats, canines are canines, bears are bears, etc

So a polar bear is the same as spectacled bear? A tiger is the same as a European lynx? And the wolf is kissing cousin to the fox? Does this work with this statement?

Speciation as I understand it, seems to hinge around reproductive capabilities, specifically resulting in offspring which are not sterile. That being the case, I have to think that the number of chromosomes is an important factor in defining a species.

You concede that okapi and giraffe may be related. Okapi and llama too?
Don't forget these classifications are made by humans, not the animals themselves. We call cats cats and give the label to a range of them. Pandas - we call them a bear, Chinese call them Daxiongmao; literally: "big bear cat" according to Wikipedia, making them a bear-like cat. See where the argument falls a bit?

I have some questions for you: Do you believe in an Intelligent Creator, a first cause? Or do you not? Or are you 50-50 on its existence?

Yes, I'm completely convinced and comfortable about it. But I have to say, that my theological and doctrinal views are very developed. One of the fine details, which I will not discuss here, is about why some people get it and some don't.

Then you are a moron. You ignore what is evident in front of you for that which does not exist. You may assume your doctrinal views are well developed, but the dodo was well developed for Mauritius before man arrived, as was the moa in NZ, etc. It doesn't make it right. And, as a back up to hide your inadequacies in the modern world, you refuse to tell us why your views are so developed. Shy? We don't need convincing - we are convinced. We see it everyday, in front of our eyes. You, on the other hand, never developed beyond the phantasy that is religion. And I am truly sorry for you.

572. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191337 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Funny chimp. Have a banana

573. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #191334 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm

*Passes banana through cage, watches chimp eat*

574. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #191328 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Science evolved Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,

Correction - science showed Adam, Eve and Steve all evolved. And Adam liked Eve and Steve, though Steve only really liked Adam. Eve fancied Steve but had to make do with Adam.
God made Adam and Eve in his image. Some homosexual nature in God made Adam fancy Steve (Steve being one of the men made on the sixth day) but seeing as God was suppressing his homoerotic urges, he made sure the other men made on the sixth day were defective. Incidently, god also made the smake and let it loose in Eden, along with planting the famous Tree knowing full well what was about to transpire. Shows what a shit he was, eh?
What the hell am I doing talking to a chimp?

575. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #191324 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Oooh, chimp on this thread too! Wanna banana?

576. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191322 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Nice chimp :-) Have a banana :-)

577. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191307 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Don't worry, Corylus, it's just that chimp proving he is a person! ;-)

578. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191305 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Get unhooked from oil and walk away from the region

Would that work? China, India, etc would step in as they like the black stuff. And they have a policy of non-intervention - welcome more Sudans, Somalias, Burmas, etc, etc. And still Israel would be there as a whipping stick, power plays would go on, a new cold war and jihadis coming to the west , jumping to Oriental strings...
Rambling, sorry. Better get my shit together and go get some blood samples...

579. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190933 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 12:26 am

BTW which fish do you most resemble?

Dr Seuss' Fat Fish, apparently ;-)
Melbourne, eh? Nice place. Still got my valid tram ticket here in Auckland. Maybe if a decent job presents itself, I may make the move...
You make scientists sounds like some sort of cult-like organisation, all in lab coats and all thinking the same. Oddly, we are not. It's just a job to many. I personally like the rationality. I can't do with gods - make no sense to me. And if they turn out to be real but are in fact aliens from another time - well, then they are no longer gods, but beings. Sons of gods, as it were, like Genesis tells us about. Nothing to get all worked up about :-)

580. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190926 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 11:37 pm

'Athiest wails â€" "but…but….show me the evidence, I need evidence, something I can understand….! You don't need a 'Scientist' to help you use your imagination.

As opposed to the theist who wails "But, but...show me the evidence!" and them ignores it - and, if truth be known, has been known to cover said evidence up ;-)
As for the evolutionary aspects of sharks and crocs, I agree, they have not changed much. But then, we humans have not changed too much from fish either :-) Indeed, were a being to land here, I dare say he could lump us together with all creatures possessing a notochord (should said being want to). And besides, you never mentioned which shark was on your mind, or indeed what crocodilian reptile. None, I believe, are overly evident in fossil records...similar one, yes, but then there are similar hominids in fossil records yet none are human as we see humans to be.
Other species don't tinker? I am sure ants would disagree - though I will concede that maybe they don't do their tinkering consciously...but then, who am I to judge?

Science does not busy itself with looking for evidence of God for several reasons, primarily because we have more pressing things to deal with right here in the land of the Humans on this planet that we think we own.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text

581. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190897 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm

All this Monsanto stuff reminds me of an article I read about bananas.
Look up banana republic, see where the term came from. Rather interesting, have to say....

582. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190896 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Steve

Instead, I point out how unethical their attacks on science are: you have added appropriate adjectives - it is certainly dishonest.

Maybe they just don't know, initially. First, merely point out the errors of their hypotheses. If they continue in the same vein (as Frankus points out in comment 190876) then by all means label them dishonest. They then get a taste of peer reviewed hypothesis defence :-)
txty

If you are comfortable with an exclusionary approach driven by philosophical concerns, then fine. But to me it is repugnant.

When gods appear, we shall include them. Until then, the unknowable, by definition, cannot be included. Would you rather we include God despite his apparent shyness (I am assuming scientific investigation might fall under the graven image restrictions). You may find it repugnant, but that merely shows your hypocricy - your God wants it thus.
Besides, what does it matter. You ignore what is written and you obviously have no interest in the material and references given to you by us to show where we are coming from. I went into the ether to show you there was debate, indeed debate a-plenty, with quotes and hypotheses that refuted what other contributers here had given you (see, even here there is debate and not all between the god botherers and the god deniers). I personally try to bend over backwards to accept what you tell me - but I can't because it is wrong. I go to some lengths to show you why I think you are wrong yet you ignore everything I have given you. You don't even consider thinking about doing for me, and others, that which we do for you. You have here an amazing source of easy answers to questions and yet you militantly protect your ignorance. That is the sign of a "moron" (a term you accused us athiests of terming cretinists [and no, that is not a typo]) , would you not agree?

583. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190862 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 6:46 pm

No, I am stating that if scientists are ever able to mimic things like that in a laboratory, it would be violating the belief that design can occur without intelligence being involved.

Even if you were to mimic natural conditions? Well, I can see theists have the answer for all eventualities :-)

Every 30 minutes for three and a half thousand million years, and virtually no modifications. That's impressive.

Same shape, same creature? Or even same species?

I think I overheard someone mention the Rig Veda at a dinner party a couple of months ago. I'd never heard of it. I'll look into it when I get a chance.

From the world's oldest (apparently) religion, and you have not heard of it? Have you heard of Zoroastrianism? How it influenced Judaism by introducing the concept of monotheism (Daniel has his tomb in Iran - and there are still many Jews there - in case you are wondering how Iranian thought moved to Sinai/Levant/Palestine).
Anyway, flood. You must have read the questions, how about some answers.

My beliefs are just a tad more sophisticated than you might think.

You've got your work cut out proving that one... ;-)

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

Comment #190819 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm

If I may give a counter argument to this religious tract...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/world/asia/10indo.html?ref=world

585. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190818 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm

If I may selectively quote ;-)

One trait we appear to have evolved is the tendency to perceive the presence of other intelligences where there is none.

Like, ummm, religion?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/world/asia/10indo.html?ref=world

586. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190768 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Quetz, txty has 4921 references to go through anout how mutations occur - give him time. I'm still waiting too :-) Hopefully he's read Hancock's book http://www.theosophical.org.uk/undrwrldhy.htm to see what the opposition say.

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

Comment #190766 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Yomin Postelnik is the President of IRPW, a company that offers business plans, funding advice and facilitation, SBA loan applications, SWOT analyses, bold and effective marketing strategies, general business development and grant writing and research for non-profits and certain qualified businesses.

If I may use an argumetn heard before - is he qualified to answer questions of how and why everything is?
And what a waste of space! Is this paper from Alberta?
Edit

One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels

Ergo, there is no God :-)

588. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190355 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 12:24 am

From that great cryptoscientist, Hancock, I have learnt that the Rig Veda is a more reliable source of data than the Bible. What say you to that, txty?

589. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190329 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm

txpiper, had a look at your link...

However, alternatives do exist, as has been pointed out in the accompanying perspective article in Science written by Eric Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects" (Science, vol. 307:1852).

"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."

In short, there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance of the 'tissues' reported by Schweitzer et al.

Debate - and all within the scientific community. See, we scientists are not such an accepting mob! Indeed, here's another bit

In media interviews Jack Horner, Schweitzer's coauthor and former professor, has been much more cautious. He appeared on a radio program, "On Point" broadcast by National Public Radio were Tom Ashcroft interviewed him along with molecular taphonomist Derek Briggs of Yale University, and science writer Carl Zimmer. Then he repeatedly said that they in fact have no idea what the recovered "tissues" are made of, or actually represent. Schweitzer did not appear on the program, but this could mean that there are the familiar disagreements that can occur between coauthors and particularly professors and former students. For example, when Ashcroft asked the question,
"If it's soft tissue, what else would it be other than biological?

Horner replied, "Well that's a good question, but I don't think we go in with the assumption that it is {biological} until we can do our analyses. (approx. minute 30 of the interview)" He also said, "It would be nice to know what this stuff is made of ... if there are proteins present, is it biological?" And, "We're not looking for DNA, we are trying to determine what this stuff is and why it is flexible."

Now, you go on about us accepting this tissue as unfossilised dino tissue when it is just the words of one person that the press reports, yet you can see we in the scientific community would, in general, rather wait.
Methinks Schweitzer et al could do with some more funding. Nothing sinister about marketing - the church does that all the time!

590. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190328 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 9:31 pm

One sees a lot of things on television. However, you'd need to perform this same test in different labs to get a statistical number of results. Obviously you can't do it all in the smae lab as there might be errors etc. One wee tweezer multiplied by many becomes a large chunk...
More reading for you
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?session_query_ref=rbs.queryref_1212985478943&COLLECTIONS=hw1&JC=pnas&FULLTEXT=(how AND mutations AND occur)&FULLTEXTFIELD=lemcontent&RESOURCETYPE=HWCIT&ABSTRACTFIELD=lemhwcompabstract&TITLEFIELD=lemhwcomptitle

591. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190324 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm

txpiper, from our ever so useful Wikipedia (not sanctioned by the religious as it is Satan's work...)

DNA damage and mutation
It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single and double strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and thus they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked and/or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.

Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell's survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.

You can read it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
And here, genetics 101 (I really think you have the read the basics first - you are like the bloke who thought he'd learn to ski atrating at the top of the mountain, not the nursery slopes)
http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml
And, of course, let's not forget that the designer appears to have forgotten that things will try and change his products - seemingly a slight oversight on his part...
http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/viral_genes_in_human_genome
OK, this flood of yours...

592. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190322 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 8:58 pm

But why all the fuss? Why do you suppose that someone just doesn't subject stuff like this to a C14 test and be done with it?

Because that is a destructive process. Once you have done the C14, you have destroyed the tissue. No more testing after that! But that is by the by - you asked why there was no fuss initially

This was published over three years ago. Has anyone heard about any breakthroughs that confirm this guy's penetrating "suspicion" about this alleged "process"?

Now you concede there is a fuss?
And for your assertions on the inviability of DNA becasue of repair mechanisms - why are there mutations? Having one or two myself, I have to ask where they came from....
A question from me - can you prove the flood? I mean in the Biblical sense, not the scientific one (breaking of glacial seas by melting ice dams leading to a sudden rise in sea levels 8000 years ago or so)? Can you show me that there was a Flood and a bloke called Noah saved all the species we know today (and funnily enough, we are following in his example by killing off - he sacrificed one animal on finally reaching dry land - thereby, I assume, causing the first post-diluvial extinction)? Good proof, without recourse to any mythology.

593. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190306 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

This was published over three years ago. Has anyone heard about any breakthroughs that confirm this guy's penetrating "suspicion" about this alleged "process"? Why would he feel compelled to bring something like that up anyway?

Sadly, there will have to be a hot debate before more happens - bit like with the Hobbit discovery in Flores. I can assure you, there are hot, indeed superheated, debates right now in the right publications. Look them up if you feel inclined (quick hint - the BBC is aimed at the layman. It is not really the right source to use).

...Throwing out most of the discipline of geology, as would be required if these rocks were 6000 years old, is not on the table."

Well of course it's not on the table. We know that going in. How could it be? This is mainstream science. That isn't allowed.

To explain why the tissue remained pliable is probably easier to explain that redraw geology to fit the tissue. After all, redraw geology and you'll have to change physics. Each and every step needs refutation and peer reviews.
You cretins have it easy, you know. All you have to say is that God did it (not any other god, mind, just your one) and you're happy. Of course, I guess you never really wonder why you are such a tiny minority...

594. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190285 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Islam is NOT a race!

I think this has been beaten to death now. No, it is not a race, but what is your mental image of a Muslim? I dare say it is nothing like the face you see in the mirror every morning...

595. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190281 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Off topic, but can't resist
Letter in the Independent

Duty to denounce abominations

Sir: As a Christian, Iris Robinson MP (wife of new Northern Ireland First Minister, Peter Robinson) is quite right to condemn homosexuality as an "abomination" (report, 7 June). The Christian Bible is very clear on this point (Leviticus 20:13).

But why stop there? Just a few chapters earlier (Leviticus 11:10-12), the outrageous practice of eating shellfish is identically denounced as "an abomination to God". But, to this day, deviants fond of crab, shrimp, oysters, prawns, lobster and the like get away with their disgusting practices without censure from Members of Parliament â€" and this despite the fact that shellfish-eaters could presumably be "turned" (through counselling) with much the same degree of success as that found among homosexuals.

KEITH GILMOUR

GLASGOW

596. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190275 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 4:57 pm

txpiper

The tissue should not be there. It is as simple as that.

So simple, you can, presumably give a reason for that :-)

Component commonality is often used to support the idea of common ancestry. I understand the premise, but I don't see it as significant. The DNA of everything is composed of four nucleotide bases. Same with RNA with one substitution. Almost all protein molecules are sequences of twenty essential (chiral) amino acids. So what? That is the pattern of living organisms. The commonality of components doesn't tie the forms together any more than bricks relate buildings to each other.

Ever laughed so hard snot shot out of your nose? I have now - icky keyboard!
So, it isn't significant. Odd how is appears to follow a pattern, though. Pray tell the reason for your dismissal. If I may carry out your brick analogy, why are houses in Aberdeen grey and houses in Leicester red brick? Why are animals that have been said to have a common ancestor is relatively recent times seen to have greater commonality that animals that have a common ancestor further back in time? They should, by your argument, have the same commonality.

You also actually believe that anyone who doesn't accept what you believe is either ignorant or a moron. But they aren't. There are lots of people with much higher IQ's and a much more serious education than any of you or myself, who saw or see the facts pointing back towards an instantaneous creation.

You are right. I do consider those that cannot face scientific evidence moronic. Stands to reason - their data is refutable and anyone with better evidence can topple this apparent edifice you call science. However, all we get are Biblical myths dressed up as evidence which is swatted away by schoolchildren, never mind scientists. To carry on banging the square peg into the round hole is moronic. To try and change the square peg by painting it a different colour heightens the moronicity.
I am sorry, but I am not a respector of high IQs or lots of education. A clever person can still be a total nitwit and education, after school, follows the same paths as evolution...some fields lead to a dead end. I am sure the researcher of cryptoscience, having spent 40 years in that field, can amass a dazzling array of evidence, but all can be refuted, correctly and with peer reviews, by a sixth former for his science project.
For all their edication, where are their publications? I mean in serious literature? Oh, yes, I forgot - there is a world-wide conspiracy, a Zionist plot, no less, aided and abetted by the Communist Party of China, to debunk these important findings of God (always God, eh? Never heard anything said about Zoroaster...) and maintain the ignorance of what you perceive to be the truth.
You know, when you said you beleived in the Biblical flood, everything else you have written has become sport for us :-) You, sir, are one of the morons you described above. You contribute nothing really but you are fun to toy with.
What you know of science can be written on the back of a stamp - and that AFTER it has been stuck on an envelope.

597. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190267 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Qster

Although interestingly such creatures like sharks/crocodiles dont appear to have 'evolved' for aeons...why is that?

Sorry for the delay in replying. Are you sure they have not evolved? I can see that croc, on the Nile, eyeing the farmer in the field and wondering how that monkey would taste....
The body shape may be the same, but I'll wager the insides are totally different.

598. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189682 by Goldy on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 am

Can't for the life of me imagine a sign like that appearing in Europe or New Zealand (I sometimes wonder about Australia - Brian, you'll educate me!). Long may it remain so! :-)

I don't understand why atheists are so splintered

Because the only thing linking us is a lack of belief in gods. A bit like saying all humans have two eyes, so they should all act the same. Doesn't work that way. We love splintering because we all have our own ideas of how things should be, ideas which the rest don't agree with.

599. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189231 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 9:51 pm

The embrace of science is great but people must be aware of its limitations and not regard it as absolute.

That's why it deals in theories which can be refuted :-) I don't think it really is regarded as absolute - after all, isn't that one of the "failings" thrown at scientific research by the dogmatists?

600. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189228 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Sometimes I get the chance to check into the creme de la creme of atheist sites (this one!) to see whats new in the world of atheist thinking and each time I'm dissapointed but not surprised to find that actually nothing is new. In this thread like may others >6700 posts amounts to utter monotony..

Methinks you'll find a lot of the monotony is due to theists (a huge majority Christians) simply not understanding/reading/accepting the scientific reasoning. To them, it is all "God did it". I think you'd understand this lack or rationality, you being one of the deluded...(Edit - oops, didn't mean that! Thought you were someone else! 10000000 apologies!!!)

Atheist argues "Darwin discovered evolution ergo things evolve without god ergo there is no god"

I'm not sure that is strictly what is said, is it? As it is, Darwin didn't discover it alone - Wallace was there and I do believe the seeds of the Theory of Evolution were around before that. Certainly farmers over the preceding millenia understood the concept well enough.
An athiest mostly says there is no god because it doesn't seem possible. The theist tells us that God is unknowable (always a Christian, did I mention that?) so he must exist - that makes as much sense as a chocolate spoon!