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

Comment #167809 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 10:48 am

Epeeist, I will cease and desist if you have responded to my pressing questions about fencing.
I will repeat!
Why are fencers tethered to the line?
And why does the contest take a more or less linear form?
I've always wondered why that was and I've never taken the time to discover why.
Thanks :)

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

Comment #167781 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 10:25 am

TruthID,
Above you say some gibberish about eukaryotic organisms paving the way for more complex life. Here you are actually onto something. Then you, of course, derail into non-points and bad arguments about things you know precisely zip about.

The origin of eukaryotic cells is indeed the key, but simply because they can do more work than bacteria. The key to that business of more diverse work springs from the development of organelles with in a single cell. What you don't realize, or chose to ignore is the origin of the simpler beginnings from bacteria to eukaryotic cell is imprinted in the very structures of the eukaryotic cells. The understanding of this comes from Lynn Marguilis's Endosymbiotic Theory.
The eukaryia have if you care to canvass the existing biota have examples of every kind of organization of eukaryotic cell, from relatively un-differentiated but communal say in the protists, to the highly organized critters like animals, fungi, and plants.

It isn't that bacteria produce exact copies of their DNA that is the problem for the origin of more complex, multicellular aggragetes. Bacteria pick up all manner of mutation, plastids and what have you. It is that their interiors are not capable of doing the work of a eukaryotic cell.

Think of the following imperfect analogy. In tribal economies there is no real ability for crafts, and noveltie skills to form. People, hunt and gather and that is really all they have time for and cannot afford to spend the time developing more detailed crafts, and technologies. But when a group hits upon agriculture as a means to sustanance that can potetially free up people and time to develop whole new classes of work and product to trade and produce. For instance a hunter/gather tribal society cannot support a standing army. Or an artisan class. Or sufficient technological RnD to be competitive with Agricultural folk.

Agricultural is the anthropological equivalant of the eukaryotic cell. Its development was a product of the luck of the ecological draw and not every human group hit upon it. That isn't because they were stupid, just that the factors that make agriculture easy to develop are not equally distributed across the earth.

Hopefully that helps you a bit.

603. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167759 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 10:04 am

I have to say I agree with the torturing kids with supernatural nonsense is wicked, if not out right evil. I spent some time laboring, and losing sleep as young kid over first my friend's roasting possiblities and then I lost lots of sleep over my own roasting in hell chances. I was sure demons were going to take me to hell one night. This was not the ideal way for a 3rd grader to spend a few weeks. I am sure my experience is not unique. Hell it made at least one person make a movie "The God who Wasn't There."

604. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167722 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 9:33 am

Eve was the smart one that is true.

605. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167668 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 8:52 am

Sorry to be peevish but this quote from Remnant really annoyed me.

Again, I do not make the rules, I am but a messenger, a sinners saved by the grace of God. Here is what the bible, the word of God reveals.

The self importance, hidden under a veneer of bullshit humility, revealed in this narcissistic statement is astounding.

"Out of the way, I'm on an errand...for God."
And the theist claims the atheist is self-absorbed.

606. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167657 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 8:42 am

Epeeist,
Perhaps you can answer a long standing question I've had rattling around in my head, but never actually took the time to research.
Why are you guys tethered on those lines? And why is the contest more or less linear? (Poke me with no foils I am an ignoramus with regards to this sport!):)

607. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167646 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 8:36 am

Reverend Dark said of the great perp in the sky:

While conducting the robbery, the perp not only insists he love you, but demands that you declare your love for him; constantly. You would think that a omnipotent, omniscient, entity would be a little more self-actualized than that, but in the words of the late John Belushi, nnnnnoooooooo! This celestial douchebag craves your adulation; he made you, better get down and tell him how wonderful he is

I hasten to add, hoping that it hasn't been added already, this is a classic sypmtom of violent sex offended behavior.

608. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167645 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 8:32 am

Wow debbyo is my hero! Great post!

609. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167313 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 10:03 pm

On the subject of Breaking the Spell I thought is was quite well done and engaging. However he will have to do a great deal to beat what I think is his master work, Darwin's Dangerous Idea

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

Comment #167308 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 9:49 pm

TruthID,
Nope the flu example puts the screws to your nonsense. It would be a different species, and thus Macro by your definition. Of course you will redefine to keep your fantasy safe. In much the same way artificial selection processes have produced macrochanges in Dogs, and other domestic breeds.

What the flu example shows (and the dogs and the plants, curious you keep ignoring those examples)I think, is that your macro-micro distinction is useless. Good luck in your research, you are going to need it!

611. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167297 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Though I do believe it was something supernatural.

612. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167296 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Taken care of sir.

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

Comment #167295 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Terry_1964,
It was an excellent point about the horses and donkeys. It has not been brought up,at least to my knowledge on this debate.

614. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167291 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Remnant, I think this will be the last post I waste on you. Bytes are fer good interneten', not bad interneten'.

You know nothing about God.

I would bet Phatbat has given the character of God, in his various instantiations, a good deal of thought. I know I have and I have come to the conclusion that he is a very unpleasant, immoral, callous, and perhaps just the tiniest bit cruel. This goes for both old and new testament versions. Where is the justice in tormenting children to see if his favorite yes man is loyal? Where is the justice in the torment of Job? Where is the justice in Slaughtering innocents and saving virginal women for one's own uses. Seems a bit shitty to me.

God is good and just.

I want to see some decent textual critique that demonstrates this and not the assurity of your faith. You have to do this honestly. No bullshit. Consistent treatment of entirety of the text and what ever other evidence you can provide will have to be amazing on this point. Reproducible, and clear. No handwaving. No selective quoting. And you had better be prepared to enter into a serious discussion about what you say here. If not then you simply full of it. And you know what it I mean.

He created man is His image with free will.

Hmmmmm. You care to establish that free will bit. Where is my free will? I'm looking around. I'm wondering how this is established. And since we are made in his image then don't we carry all his/her/its capacities and how can this character hold us responsible for a crime none of us committed?

Man used that free will to disobey God. Man is fallen. All man is sinful.

Nifty bit of mumbo Jumbo. I didn't disobey God. I had no share in the incident you seem to think so important to our current status as sinful creatures. Where is the justice in holding me responsible for the crimes of my parents? Is that moral action? What is sin? Is wearing clothing of mix fabric a sin? How about eating pork? Shellfish? When my daughter smarts off to me when is it good for me to hit her in the head with a stone? Would it be a sin for me not to brain my daughter? Do you even read your bible or do you just repeat the quotes your pastor likes?

For example, you sinned quite a bit in your post.

Oh do piss off on this point. Phatbat at least wears his anger on his sleave and doesn't condscend, or veil his vitriol like you do. You have been one of the most belligerant and insulting visiters it has been my unhappy privilage to interact with.

God is holy and just.

Like when he turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for nothing more than looking back at the destruction of a city she had called home. Or perhaps some of that justice is evidenced more clearly when he visited death upon the innocent first born of Egypt for his ungrateful people?

He cannot allow sin in His presence for He is Holy.

I seem to remember a bit where daughters get their dad drunk and have sex with him so they can be made with child. Ugh...yuck. Oh and wasn't Abraham pretty shitty to his mistress and the child she gave him? That seems pretty sinful to me, having a mistress and all. But God was pretty good to Abraham.

Man is separated from God.

If your God does exist, then this is our strongest, and most noble feature.

God is love.

I seem to remember bits about vengeful, wrathful, and jealous God. I know women in the middle ages were marveling, as the screws were put their fingers, at this love. Lets not forget those innocent first born in Egypt. No doubt God explained their brevity upon the Earth at length. And whem Moses commanded his warriors to kill all the men, and male children and women not virgins but to keep the virgin women for themselves, this love was marveled at by all. After all the rapes of course.

He does not want man to be separated from Him.

.
Sure he does. "Do not cast your pearls before swine." And if he is going to consign people to hell simply because they don't find the evidence compelling then he clearly isn't all that loving, or understanding. Most theologians and theists admit that athests are not off their rocker on this point. Much of the religious excersise involves faith after all.

He loves man so much he sends His only Son to live a sinless life, and die as a propitiation for man's sins. All those that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are counted righteous in front of God through Christ's sacrifice. Salvation is by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Many has a free will to accept or reject this plan of salvation. Those that accept it have eternal life. Those that choose to reject it choose their own destiny, separation from God. God is just in that he will give us what we choose. End of story.

More massively unsubstantiated sillyness on your part. No one is choosing to reject God. I am just unconvinced by the theistic argument. There is no historic evidence that any thing in Christ's life occurred. If salvation is by God's grace alone, then we have no part in it. Poof, bye, bye to your free will thesis. If the holy spirit does not convict us then it cannot be held against us because it is the action arm of God's will. The benign deity chose not to save us. Nevertheless you are convinced that we go to hell for this rejection. Do you not realize how absurd this set of ideas is?

Either we are free to peruse the subjects that would speak to the truth or falsity of the God assertion or we are not? If we are mistaken is that cause for an enternity of torment? Just cause? If it is up to God to convict people on the point then can those he decided to over look be held responsible for their lack of faith?

And that as they say is that. If you don't respond with more depth and more commitment to actual dialogue then I will mercilessly deal with you hearafter.

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

Comment #167277 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 8:06 pm

TruthID, and example of evolution we are all dreading will be demonstrated to catastrophic effect if the Bird Flu makes a few minor adjustments to its code and suddenly, unpleasantly looks like one of the most deadly strains of flu in human history. That would be the flu that lowered human life expectancy drastically in 1918-1919. That will be an example of evolution. A beneficial mutation, at least as far viral copy-me codes go. Now will that be macro? Or micro?

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

Comment #167176 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 5:30 pm

I think a Dinosaddle would at least prove the Flintstones was documentary drama!

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

Comment #167172 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm

TruthID,
Have you ever heard of Cuvier? Brilliant anatomist, theist, who said show me the tooth and I will describe the mammal (he later amended that to a tooth and a foot because of some joker who found something truly novel). Look him up. You will also be shocked about how much we know about mammalian dentition, and how much it tells us about the mammals that masticated with said fossil teeth. Is it always correct? No, but that is why we keep digging I guess.

However you are playing dishonest cards here. I ask you to comment on the case I put before you. I would also add that another team of researchers found corroborating evidence of Tiktaalik independently of Shubin. And there are several nearly complete skeletons of the beast.

618. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167162 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Is zero % change to 1 all that massive a change? No? how about 1% change to 2%? Again not so grand a change. There is no biological structure I have ever studied that is inconcievable with that process of gradualism. But if you look at say 0 % an eye and then say the eye of a squid, or a human 0 to 100% is going to be too much. And you might think the conclusion justified that well it is just too improbable to go from nothing to structure x. Just think back to simple incremental change and the problem resolves itself. This is precisely the kind of change we see in nature.

It can happen in the blink of a geological time of course. There will likely be no fossil evidence that Chiuachuas were descended from wolves over the course of about 10,000 years of artificial selection but the evidence for that is more or less overwhelming. The examples from artificial selection abound.

619. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167156 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Remnant,
Fair enough but your line about chaos made me think you were hinting that evolution was a process equatable with randomness.

However

The combined probabilities for all of the events that had to happen for a simple cell to spring to life from non life has been calculated as 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.

Unpack that. You are going to have to show that to be the case, or someone is going to have to show that. That is to say you are going to have to address the point that you cannot do probablity backwards like that.

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

Comment #167130 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 4:41 pm

TruthID,
I've also just finished a bit of research on the D.V. Ager. He is certainly an evolutionary biologist. Here I just read this paper, by him, go give a whirl, Ager DV 1983. ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION - AN EXAMPLE FROM THE MESOZOIC. BRACHIOPODA, Paleontology 26: 555-565

Ager was, as I suspected, advocating the punctuated equalibrium hypothesis.

EDIT: It would be better to say I hit the abstract and read the discussion.

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

Comment #167120 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I suspect you are right Steve.
But sometimes its hard to avoid the match. Though theists that won't honestly engage get on my nerves like you wouldn't believe. I accept your analogy of young love, but man when do these people grow up?

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

Comment #167118 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Also TruthID here is the post I submitted for your comment a little while back. Do respond.

TheTruthID,
I think an ID theorist such as yourself would have some cogent explanation for the arrangement of the fossils in the strata. I mean why are there no rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian strata? What do you even expect of a fossil record? What should it show and why? I would expect you to have an explanation of why it is the simplest forms are found in the oldest rock and progressively more complex as we move forward in time. And why can we so precisely predict where we might find certain developments in the fossil record.

Shubin et al put this predictablity to work for them with their ground breaking find of tiktaalik when they were looking for the origin of hands. They knew, based on other findings that somewhere between time x (no hand template) and time y(clear hand template) there must be some intermediate forms between the two periods. They estimated a 15 million year window, looked for sights of the appropriate age and strangely they found tiktaalik. A fish with the first rudiments of hands and fingers and wrist. Why should this be the case? At all? Why should the fossil record conform so narrowly to an evolutionary expectation. WHy should it yeild important finds to such a precise prediction?

Does ID have anything to say? It doesn't. All you have is the negative campaign, and the imagined shortfalls of modern evolutionary theory. By all means if you have some novel finding, go and get it published. But please don't come in here being beligerant and insulting.

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

Comment #167116 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm

How has the fossil record been debunked? Certainly not by Ager's work. Or Gould and Eldridge.
You are going to have demonstrate why the massive consensus is wrong or you are going to have zip it.

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

Comment #167103 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm

TruthID
A quick google search told me that your good friend D.V. Ager is a popular citation among creationists.

You must have missed my recap of one of the most amazing fossil discoveries in recent times. I will go find my post describing that effort and the evolutionary rationale that went into the predictions.

Crick was not saying that evolution is a ho-hum game, he was joining Gould in a critic of the study of selection pressures that lead to adaptive design. Sometimes they can be done well and we can have high confidence but there was a time when people were too quick to spin a yarn about adaptive benefits without doing the necessary research legwork that would back it up. You don't even know what he was talking about because you are depending on Creationist quotemining.

Now do answer me about what an IDer would predict about the fossil record.

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

Comment #167084 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 3:41 pm

TruthID,
Did you ever describe what ID would predict about the fossil record, or why the fossil record should yeild amazing finds based on an evolutionary prediction? Just wondering.

Your question about an ID for life's origin is I suppose dimly possible. However, there is not yet any reason to suspect that it is the case. People working in lab have produced some interesting findings, replicating molecules, etc. And we have several workable hypotheses for how the process could take off. I think until scientists see something that really curls their toes, like a bar code on a pancreatic cell, or a recipe for really good coffee cake embedded in "junk DNA" no one is going to be resorting to the ID hypothesis.

626. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167058 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Remnant,
Is there a law of non-contradiction? Would it even apply to a question of what you thought about the morality of the god you so worship?

I can ask you why you think God is good and note biblical passages that cast doubt on the assertion that God is a moral being. No belief on the questioner's part is implied in the slightest. I can note a believer not behaving as righteously as the God the they think is implied in the Bible with carrying any belief myself.

I have to ask you the Remnant. Why do you bother with all this if you really believe that we are simply refusing what is in our hearts because we don't want to bow down to Jebus and his magic Daddy? The bible suggests that every man knows in his heart that God is the man, but that he has given such people as we up to our ignorance. You aren't to cast your pearls before swine and all that right? So why are you here?

627. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167039 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Remnant,
Sadly you know nothing about evolution, biology, or theories of abiogenesis. You encapsulate that ignorance in the following quote.

The combined probabilities for all of the events that had to happen for a simple cell to spring to life from non life has been calculated as 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.

It should be noted at the outset that not one biologist has ever said that something like a cell arose from chaos at random. You are confusing random mutation with, the random spontaneous generation of various well adapted life forms. Mutation is random. Selection is not. So from infinitely uncomplex replicating entities, say RNA, which has been formed from rudimentary, non-life and seen to self-replicate to elephant, sequioia, and shockingly even you we have a plausible series of intermediate forms, provided each is not much different than the one before it. The fossil record screams this at us from deep time.

Second you just can't do probablities like that with out setting some parameters. Here lets make up a number and see if that gets us anywhere.

Say we walk into a class room of twenty people the chance that they are born on a certain day(any day will do)of the year is going to be 1/365. The kids sit down in my class more or less at random in five rows of four, and I then tally up the days by row, front to back for a sequence of 20 numbers. I submit that I could just as easily as you did, claim retrospectivelythat sequence was impossible to get by random chance alone. Its such a huge number? Because the odds that I got that particular number are quite large when looking at it retrospectively. The likelihood that I would hit that particular sequence is if I remember my probablities 1/365^20th, because each seat represents a number (1/365*1/365*.........and so on twenty times.) Isn't that a very improbable sequence but nevertheless there is the arrangement in my imagined class room. Wouldn't you say, by your logic, that order was divinely inspired as it couldn't have happened by random chance by our retrospective criteria. (I am imagining that we have the sequence and forgot how we got it.).

When looked at retrospectively every lottery number is a staggering feat of improbablity. I am sure if i am wrong someone will clean up my example.

My point is that if just look at the sequence without the understanding of how it was generated we may well marvel at its improbablity to be generated in a random way.
Hopefully that isn't too error laden.

As to your points about historic Jesus. This seems a strange place to rest your hopes on proving Jesus's divinity. There is no historical record that I know of that conforms to the scriptual elements of the reserection. Certainly no historian of the time noted the odd goings on. The risenness, the other supernatural craziness that accompanied the day.

628. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166881 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Mphil,

This tendency in the theistic argument, the one where they assume any hole, or gap in current knowledge immediately, post haste, implies their pet theory is deeply annoying. Remnant's kind of theist is particularly prone to this type of flawed reasoning.

Even if everything we know about cosmology and biology and chemistry were overturned tomorrow by a simple equation that would not immedieately imply that that Jesus was born of a Virgin or that the bible was the inerrant work of the God. It could be the Odin story. Or something completely unknown, or that we were a simiulation on someone's computer or on and on. The theist, expecially the hard line theist almost invariably imply a dicotomy where none necessarily exists.

629. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166814 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Remnant, you are on a kind of shaky ground that does not support tones such as these:

Well kids, I must run for today. I'll leave you with this to chew on.

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. You have your free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

This doesn't follow at all. You are simply assuming the evidence is overwhelming based on your dim understanding of the facts. Furthermore, to say it is our free will to chose not to believe your evidence is just as bogus. We might simply, and legitimately be unconvinced. Your overwhelming =my blah…. Surely we can have honest disagreements over data sets?

1. scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details.

This is a fine example of not knowing what the hell you are talking about. What science has described doesn't fall under the purview of the two conflicting versions of creation found in Genesis. Unless you are willing to say Genesis is a metaphor. If you concede that I will direct you to epeeist who has some pressing questions for you to answer

2. the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory

I think Steve has addressed this example of talking about things about which you know nothing when he brought up quantum fluctuations. The fact is though we are unsure about the origin. It may forever be a mystery to us, an event horizon from which any information we get will too impoverished from which draw a meaningful conclusion. Such a mystery does not imply a God, much less your God. It only implies a mystery. If you want to put your God in that gap in our understanding I suggest you start filing the grant requests and making cogent research proposals.

3. the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation

More of that sweeping abiogenesis knowledge of yours. We have created the basics in several ways from simple beginnings. They keep this kind of information hidden in books so I think that might be why you missed it.

4. the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life

This idea of life coming from life is a description of the way biological processes work now. It isn't a law and kind of falls apart when we begin to look closer at smaller replicating units. It isn't fashionable to call viruses living things but they do behave in ways that are unmistakably life like. They just highjack the machinery of other organisms to get their job done.

5. the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires

You will have to spell out what intelligence is required. And why your understanding of this should be weighed more heavily than anyone actually studying biology.

6. the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed

This micro macro distinction you are making doesn't exist. More than this it has been observed. Go look at your dog, or your friend's dog. Then go look at a wolf. Then smack your forehead really, really hard with the palm of your hand and then go have a V8. Or go look at broccoli, and then go look at the wild plant from which it originated. Then repeat conclusion described above.


7. the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed

Ever opened an embryology text book? Ever read about Hox genes?

8. the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record

Everything is a transitional. But if you need to look at life in transistion I would urge you to read Peter and Rosemary Grant's finch work. They have a unique, long term research project in an environment that waffled around a mean. And Darwin bless them an organism with a suitably short generation time. In certain years the weather was hot and dry, and this would favor changes that resemble those of other finches on other islands in the Galapogos. Other years it would be wet and somewhat cool. This caused vegatational changes that pushed the morphology in the opposite direction. However the climate never continued its walk in any one direction for very long so he could track the evolutionary changes and the selective pressures that drove them in unique ways. You can see though how one species was in transistion the whole time (20 plus years). That was a short and messy synopsis but it qualifies as an example of evolutionary change.

9. the Cambrian explosion

HA!

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously

You are going to have to prove this. Simply trusting Michael Behe won't do as all of his examples have been throroughly, roundly refuted.

11. the development of human morality

12. the development of human reason

13. the origin of human conscious thought

14. the origin of dark matter

15. the origin of dark energy

Sadly for your case this all seems rather well explained by non-supernatural causes.

16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism

No such thing has been done. Evolutionary theory does not violate Thermodynamics at all. You need to think closed systems vs open systems. Is the earth a closed system? No. It gets energy imputs from several degenerative processes. This energy can then be put to use in self-organizing processes. Order can arise so long as somewhere else there is increasing disorder.

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance

This is a lot of hand waving I am afraid. We simply are not yet ready to say what kind of universe we live in. We have several working hypotheses but I don't think they justify the marveling at the "perfectness" of the Universe we live in. I would ask that you simply think about this alleged perfection a little harder. Most of the Universe, and much of our planet besides, is completely inhospitable to life. Completely. Our own planet almost didn't make it during the formation of this solar system. It was nearly destroyed when a Mars sized object impacted Earth. At least this is what the best evidence seems to indicate. The process made our moon. Look at the violence in the cosmos, and in the history of our world. We that is to say earth-life, were never a foregone conclusion. Only someone with large blinders on could think we were.

The rest of your points are largely matters of your myopic faith. So I am going to ignore them.

630. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166728 by MaxD on April 23, 2008 at 11:54 am

I've always prefered Walt Simonson's Thor. He and Louis Simonson put that guy back on the map.

631. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166138 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Geodesic,
I liked all that you described but I was hoping you would get to part where Thor joined the Avengers which is-to my mind- the most unique part of the whole Norse mythology.
(I keep wondering when Jesus or Moses will join the Avengers. The Avengers could use a good new villain to fight. I nominate Leviathan.)

632. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166119 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Remnant said:

The universe must therefore have a cause.

God is that eternal first cause.

Um it seems like there is a lot of, um...unsubstantiated...um mindnumbing...er..assumption here.

Actually, I think it is just possible that God is a second cause and that really it was the great mystical Cheeseburger (vastly more powerful than that late appearing douche the FSM) that first caused God.

Now Remenant, prove that assertion wrong!
Pretty damn brilliant on my part I must say.

EDIT: oops. Not as brilliant as I thought I was. Didn't see Steve-O pull the same sort of trick before I did.

633. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166113 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Remnant,
Do you think you could learn to use the blockquote feature? The directions for doing so are in the comment posting guidelines.

Here is what that would look like. Person I want to quote said:

Tilting at windmills is very fun.

This simple tool will help make your posts a bit clearer.

634. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165825 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm

How would the landing process be described I wonder?

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

Comment #165819 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Chewmanfoo,
Isn't the fact that we have these wonderful relationships filling enough?

I mean when I am hanging out with my daughter I don't find that experience would in any way improved by imagining a God or entertaining a sense of the pre-ordained. A sunset for instance doesn't have to be for me to be any more beautiful.

636. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165809 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 11:52 am

This seems almost as pointless as discussing conscioussness with hippies of a certain sort. Though Karda clearly knows more about this subject than any woolyheaded moron's contemplations on conscioussness.

This God you believe in doesnt' seem terribly like the Chrisian deity. I can't remembere though Karda, are you a Christian?

637. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165784 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 10:20 am

That is kind of why I have thought alot of bits have been expended on essentially that refutation. I think Steve has offered the technical version thereof, but really that is what he is saying.
It (the problem) is encapsulated in the old saying about carts and horses.

I'm not saying Karda is wrong, he just has vastly more leg work to do to get to the point where anyone could even accept his basic assertions about the cosmology.

At least that is how it seems to me. But to quote Stephen J. Gould, "I'm a tradesman not a polymath." It is outside my area expertise.

638. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165780 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

Kardashovel,
Pardon me for asking a question that I am sure has been covered. But aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself? I mean it seems you are placing a lot of faith that cosmology is going to be a certain way. Then you are proceding in your theological hypothesizing on the basis of those un-proved assumptions. You are essentially saying, "if the universe is the way I think it is then God can do all these neat things."

That doesn't seem very sound reasoning. But maybe I have mis-read you. And I haven't been following the thread to closely because it seems that there is a lot of arm waving on your part because so that would convince anyone is missing from your case.

639. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165598 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Geodesic! Holy shit! That guy's organization www.endtime.com used to be based in my hometown!
Irvin Baxter! Small world. I called into his show a few times and took him to task for his goofy bullshit.

640. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165597 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I'm not sure Navyjake is for real. Though I suppose he could be. We are getting trolled like mad these days by all manner of theist.

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

Comment #165581 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 6:04 pm

TheTruthID,
I think an ID theorist such as yourself would have some cogent explanation for the arrangement of the fossils in the strata. I mean why are there no rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian strata? What do you even expect of a fossil record? What should it show and why? I would expect you to have an explanation of why it is the simplest forms are found in the oldest rock and progressively more complex as we move forward in time. And why can we so precisely predict where we might find certain developments in the fossil record.

Shubin et al put this predictablity to work for them with their ground breaking find of tiktaalik when they were looking for the origin of hands. They knew, based on other findings that somewhere between time x (no hand template) and time y(clear hand template) there must be some intermediate forms between the two periods. They estimated a 15 million year window, looked for sights of the appropriate age and strangely they found tiktaalik. A fish with the first rudiments of hands and fingers and wrist. Why should this be the case? At all? Why should the fossil record conform so narrowly to an evolutionary expectation. WHy should it yeild important finds to such a precise prediction?

Does ID have anything to say? It doesn't. All you have is the negative campaign, and the imagined shortfalls of modern evolutionary theory. By all means if you have some novel finding, go and get it published. But please don't come in here being beligerant and insulting.

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

Comment #165371 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Jac12358,

If David decides to respond he will not address a single substative point. He will make heavy weather of the any vitriol and play the victim. This is his method.

It is disengeious, as his blanket attacks in his own letter to the hurt jewish guy amply demonstrate. In fact he didn't really wish to make his case for theology but rather just imply that it was again atheist who is the problem and imply the only option is his religion. This is strangely the same tactic of the ID/creationsist studies folk. DR only offers the false dichotomy and not much of substance.

It is for this reason people tire of him, and get uh..."short" with him.

643. Pope's Views on Science Invoke Spirited Debate

Comment #165352 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 11:38 am

What struck me with the tone of the article was its spin.
The pope is percieved as negative-x, but wait he's really Mr. Reasonable.

And the level of critique is appauling. I mean the question I asked, one of many, "Why does this guy need a palace?"

Vaal's point about the right and reasonable Church's action against Galieo also seems so obvious that any reporter ought to have pointed out exactly what the Church's actions were. Where is the discussion of this assertion? Again, Pope Benedict is negative-x but wait....

Fucking strange.

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

Comment #165342 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 11:21 am

Mphil,
Excellent rebuttal to DR.

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

Comment #165330 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 10:56 am

David,
It seems that the main point though is that Hitler wasn't a Darwinist. He never mentions Darwin, never discusses natural selection. Never gives credit to Darwin for the initial instantiation of the idea. The idea of breeds of human, and mixed blood etc was in the consciousness long before Darwin entered the fray. And that perculiar fascination with the Jews seems just a bit to Christian to me.

Dawkins language when discussing the nature of Hitler's belief and lack of the prefix un to accompany it probably stems from the fact that Hitler's own writings point to a very mixed, but somewhat supernatural picture. Dawkins mentions both Hitler's theistic mental meanderings and his disdain for Christianity as a whole in the TGD. However it is also clear that Hitler believed a lot of bizarre supernatural type things. So atheist cannot be the label we give him.
I suppose we could throw up our hands and say well, Hitler's thoughts on this issue are so mixed up we may never know. Based on what I have read-admittedly I am no historian- that agnosticism seems unnecessary. No one here has said that Hitler was a Christian. But that many people in Germany were professing Christians also seems in little doubt, nor does there seem room to doubt the idea that Germany's previous history of anti-semitism springing from its Christianity (Luthernism and Catholocism have a history of this strain of paranoia) was the spring board to National Socialist policies. Anti-semitism in Germany was well placed long before Darwin.

David, I think we would be here a very long time indeed if we were to catalogue all the things you don't know but think you know about the world. Take this completely confused line.

By the way I am not so sure that Social Darwinism is as dead as you suggest. Konrad Lorenz was an enthusiastic Nazi, J B S Haldane was a committed Stalinist and R A FIsher used to argue that civilisation was threatened because upper class women did not have enough basis - leaving the non- quality to breed. One of your own heroes Bill Hamilton certainly had a different take on morality and Darwinism. He once said that he had more sympathy for a lone fern than he did for a crying child. He argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia to save the world. Genocide was the result of overbreeding and he would grieve for the death of one giant panda more than he would 'one hundred unknown Chinese'. Perhaps we should be glad that evolutionary biologists have finally caught up with the Zeitgeist but listening to the comments of Peter Singer, you will forgive me if I am more than a little concerned.

What is it you are trying to say. First you say you aren't sure Social Darwinism is dead and then you mention several people's thoughts on things decidedly not Social Darwinism. Do you mean any old social engineering scheme can be called Social Darwinism? Or are you refereing to what most people here think of as Herbert Spencerism? J.B.S. Haldane may indeed have been a Stalinist, but that has little to do with Social Darwinism (Spencer's version of said philosophy not whatever blanket charge David R is making). In any event Most of these people are the distant past, and perhaps more than a little bit the product of their times. And aren't you now doing a bit of the disingenuous thing you are constantly accusing all the members of this site. You will note in Haldane's day most people had some crackpot racist theory they abided by, especially in the upper crusts. But here you are doing what you always love to do. Mine the past for people who support your case.

You do this trick in the reverse as well when you trudge through history-oddly leaving out the modern era almost entirely-to find appropriately theistic scientists.

Anyway it is true that people can say lots of odd and weird things and justify numerous evil thoughts they already had by pulling ideas from other quarters. There is no doctrine though accompanying Darwin's dangerous idea. No divine revalation. Religions are quite different, though I needn't tell you this.

A point about Peter Singer. He is a philosopher and part of his job is to follow assumptions around and see where they lead. In my mind he is kind of a brave guy to go where he goes and then write about it for the rest of us to ponder. You'll have to point out why he worries you instead of just dropping out a line before anyone will be adequately able to address it. However, I can say he isn't a Social Darwinist at least as most people understand the term.

-MaxD

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

Comment #165005 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm

onlythingtofear,
You are simply here to incite some vitriol. Your tone is insulting, and not furthering debate. If you have a point make it. If not then go talk to your like minded friends and enjoy the world, well insulated from reality, you prefer to inhabit.

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

Comment #164960 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 pm

He will certainly get his wish if he keeps posting unsubstantiated jibberish.

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

Comment #164952 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Theonlythingtofear!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, bwaaaaaaa......
Yes follow the money. Exactly. Because research scientist make so very much of that. I remember well my time as undergraduate working summers as a field biologist, the benjamins were rolling in. Every professor I met was bedecked as the most regal pimp.
Yeah follow the money.

649. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164936 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Nothing of it. I just was remarking on your tone.

650. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164934 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Karda,
I think all this God traveling back in time business may be interesting as the plot of a series of science fiction novels, say Dan Simmon's Hyperion Cantos, but why are you so convinced of it? I mean I enjoyed the books, that also contained numerous references to the Tlielhard that Epeeist made. Clearly I didn't enjoy them as much as you did.

Do you think this scenario of yours really characterizes reality? I mean doesn't it seem a wee bit non-parsimonious. Perhaps you are just offering possibliites and I have missed something.