Comments by MaxD

Comment #178964 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 10:17 am

Diacanu,
You make an excellent point about Rapturitis. This escatology business is one of the most intellectually vapid of pursuits it has been my unhappy experience to encounter.

I mean never has more ink, processing time or human effort been squandered then in the goofy arcana of Endtimes prophecying, and analyses thereof. It has all the precision and meaning of Astrology but without the feel good goofyness, or the superficial appreciation of the stars.

702. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178862 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 6:59 am

Artful Dodger,
There doesn't need to be a referee, only a series of contingent choices, if x then y, or b or what ever. You will note that human interactions while not predictable in fine details is predictable in large scale trends. People are nicer to family and nicer and more generous the more closely related they are. People tend to be nicer to members of communities than to members outside that community especially if those community members are suitably placed to return favors.

Remarried parents tend to treat their biological kids better than they treat there step children, any new children produced by the new couple will be treated better by the mother than any of her biological progeny from the previous marriage or relationship. That is a mother will treat the kid from her new husband better than the kid from the old pairing. (Better can simply mean, more diligent care, more doctor visits, more doting, more toys, etc)

This all falls in line with standard Darwinian reasoning and logic. How is any of it predicted by desert theology?

703. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178855 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 6:42 am

Txpiperoferranttunes spake unto the ether thusly,

Don't forget, I quoted them, and the quote represents the known statistical realities about mutations.

More untruth, either willful or born of ignorance. You will want to harken back a few posts to one of the definitive refutations of your nonsense by Calissiea (sorry about the mangled spelling of the moniker) who demonstrated that you actually ingnored what the statitistics say about mutation.

But enough of this. The neo-darwinian synthesis is the very best explanation we have for evolution. It is supported by the mass of evidence, and makes predictions, postdictions, that have thus far been correct. But maybe it is a case like Newtonian gravity and close but not quite the real picture. Maybe it is actually ripe for a toppling.

If you have the solution, and indeed you think you do then propose it, mass your evidence and see how well it stands up. Publish your master work collect your prizes and we can get on talking about the new fucking paradigm. Please expand the human range of knowledge or do quit wasting time, and space with your uneducated meanderings.

704. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178849 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 6:33 am

riandouglas,
I don't think it is that kind of relationship.
Though I could be wrong.

705. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178848 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 6:31 am

Did anyone find it just the tiniest bit condescending when Txpiper addressed all those errant geologists thusly,
"and you geologists have....blah, blah, blah."

Listening to him, you'd think txpipey was the world's preemminent polymath or something, and not the quote-mining, cut and paste fraud he actually happens to be.

He couldn't even grasp why all those papers were about fish, african cichlids to boot. Allow me to reccommend a book that you won't read txpiper. The one will give you an excellent background on why those fish in particular are of such interest to evolutionary biologists.
The Cichild Fishes: Nature's Grand Experiment in Evolution by George W. Barlow.

706. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178839 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 6:21 am

Mordicacious,
There are womens groups, in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, they are not, however recieving enough support internationally. This is too bad as they essentially have targets pasted on them for their messages (often not all that unorthodox).
Why is that? Perhaps we should all look for ways to send aid to these groups?

707. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178655 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:46 pm

This is a brilliant little piece on nature and the philosophy that all that is natural is necessarily good.

708. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178652 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Croatcat,
He (W)is looking out for his. That makes evolutionary sense. It is the tragedy of the commons writ large.

709. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178651 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Babrock,
I think we can see much of his motivation is driven by religious impulse by the manner in which he drones on about being willing to kill his sons, and the way they have terrorized the girl's mother.

I would also note that the affair was no such thing. It was a school girl crush. It was infact a thought crime she had the temerity to bring up. She had failed it would seem to have taken that step that would even lend a modicum of credence to the charge of dishonoring her family, or at least the males of it.

710. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178646 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Uh Dragonfirematrix,
Do we really need to malign the Neanderthal?
I mean really?

711. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178642 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:02 pm

righton,
Actually yes on the dog points. Though I think the limits are mostly strucual reproductive isolation but it would qualify, I think as isolation, and thus in wild systems warrant different specific epithets.

712. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178640 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Txpiper said of his/her tendency to quote mine:

I don't see context as an issue.

I think you have said really all that needed to be said about and to you. If you cannot deal with the material you cite honestly, and examine it honestly then you aren't really up for an honest examination of the issue are you?

Here you grace us with a dozy of close reasoning.

I don't buy the "quote mining" accusation. This is just a tactic that had to be developed on account of embarrassing things written by evolutionary writers/theorists. Context is rarely an issue (though I would not disagree that there have been occasional abuses, and I would not excuse those). More often, it is simply about someone publishing some candid observation or admission which in and of itself does not support some point of evolutionary theory.

This I think is an example of you, again, not being honest. Darwin, Gould, Sagan, Dawkins and many others have been, and continue to be deliberately misquoted and the context is almost always important. In fact I've yet to see a quote in which the context was unimportant.

My first exposure this kind of thing was a WatchTower tract that quoted Darwin as saying that they vertebrate eye seemed to defy his explaination. It pulled this quote out of larger paragraph that explained his own rationale for seeing the eye as well within the purview of evolution by natural selection. Since that first exposure, I've seen it done to all the thinkers I've just named, and many I have not named.

You think that it is fine to ignore what an author is actually saying. This means to me you simply haven't figured out a way to wiggle free of it. That is a species of bullshit I think.

713. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178633 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Mordicacious,
What about more international pressure to conform to Western norms?

Logicel. I think the content (comment #178609)of your comment has to be the other prong in any civilizing change. It cannot just be education, education, education at least in the third world. Maximizing vibrant economies has always seemed like a no brainer to me, because it would seem to pay long term dividends for my own counrty while also doing the same for others. I do think this is probably the strategy we ought to be adopting with regard to Iran for instance. (We seem to be using this approach with China, why not others?)

DingoDave,
The order along with everthing else that twittering blob said was deeply disturbing. I hear this Allah is all kind of sentiment too too much. Even among moderates. Prayer?! Five times a day? Isn't that a bit obsessive?

714. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178582 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Arty,
You are simply not up the latest and greatest in psychology and neuropathology. Our moral intuitions seem rooted in our brains and their activity. Indeed much that we know supports Hauser's hypothesis of universal grammar of morality. Though you rightly say picture isn't yet fleshed out.

However, even if we were no where near a physical understanding of morality it would not justify the unsubstantiated theistic claims to explanation.
Would it?

715. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178576 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Artful Dodger,
Simply having some adaptation that would increase some quantity you call survival advantage isn't important to selective concerns unless that survival advantage also confers a reproductive advantage.

Consciousness, morals or any other thing you may want to bring up may be unnecessary to survival per se(though treating contemporaries well might arguably lengthen a life seems in little doubt) this simple fact alone may not increase one's differential reproductive success. I could be utterly ruthless in my apey dealings and this might indeed give me a longer a life, but if I alienate myself from the group I may have hurt my reproductive success (this has to be counted as children who reach child bearing age and also reproduce successfully).

716. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178563 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Mordicacious,
I am unsure about education being the answer either. I think it must certainly be part of the answer, but when this honour killing thing happened in Britian a few years ago a friend of mine asked a Muslim doctor friend of hers what possesses people to do such terrible acts she was met with a shocking response.
The recent med school graduate said the father had done the right thing. If his sisters were doing the same bad things, or his any daughters he had, he'd have no choice but to kill them too.

I am not sure how you foment a radical shift in the metaphyiscal horizon's on communities of believing Muslims.

I know womens groups in these countries are always under threat but probably very good for educating and empowering women. However US committment to protecting these groups and women in general is more than mildly pitiful.

717. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #178522 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Al,
I am jumping into this debate a wee bit late, but I think Hitchen's defense of Irving was of the same character as that of Chomsky and the that other strange historian. Hitch is offended by the fact that, nasty man or not, he was arrested for potentially uttering an unpleasant thought.

718. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177815 by MaxD on May 9, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Phil excellent point.

719. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177814 by MaxD on May 9, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Guys I have an excellent design for the beer bong if we are going to be there for awhile, we might as well do our benders in style, or failing that, with maximum efficiency.

720. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #177781 by MaxD on May 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Who is John Galt?
Oops I made a funny.

721. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177778 by MaxD on May 9, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I think Dawkins sees connections of style to certain kinds of minds. He likened Ted Haggard's church services to the swagger, and sweep of the Nuremberg Rallies in Root of All Evil. It was almost lost on Haggard I think.
It can be loaded certainly. But I suppose if you see a connection you ought to make it.

722. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177777 by MaxD on May 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Windweaver,
Do you think it is appropriate to use a mass of quotes that seem to have been uttered more than twenty years ago? Only about 22% of the quotes you have are likely to have been made in the last twenty years. I see Ehud Barack makes several appearences, as does Sharon, and Olmert. Were these made in the same setting? The same day?

Why are you not concerned with the equally heinous things uttered on the Palestinian side. Is it right to deny someone a Ph. D. position simply because they were in Israeli Defense Force? Seems like a bit of a leap from this post alone.

I'm not saying you are wrong necessarily, I am noting that you are making a lot of assumptions, and that a list of mined quotes isn't an argument.

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

Comment #177207 by MaxD on May 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Chick Tracts are the strangest preaching tool I've ever come across. The strange obsession with the King James Version of the bible, its disgruntled annoyance and disgust with catholics, the strange way any professor of biology teaching evolution looks like a stereotypical jew, and every god-boy hero the whitest, white bread ever. That is all just the funny part. Its tendency to use fear though is what makes the whole enterprise deeply disturbing, and not just mildly sickening. I can see these things haveing their most potent effects on children, and of course idiots of the kind Jack Rawlinson had the misfortune of encountering.

724. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177019 by MaxD on May 8, 2008 at 1:16 pm

I do find it funny that Stein has done out did Michael Moore concerning this film of his.

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

Comment #176435 by MaxD on May 7, 2008 at 10:18 am

I just got a Watchtower track on my porch last weekend. It is precisely the opposite of good reading.

726. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176415 by MaxD on May 7, 2008 at 9:24 am

I do believe that SeekerofTruthiness did get a bit nasty there toward the end O'clearminded one. Perhaps you should go review the thread again.

727. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176411 by MaxD on May 7, 2008 at 9:16 am

Hey, if Reverend Dark can enjoy Dean Koontz's silly Odd Thomas books (and they are enjoyable), one can check one's brain at the door and enjoy some well acted trash like armeggedon!
Futhermore, you cannot blame Affleck for what happened to Daredevil, that was the director, the director, the director, and the big studios.
And you gotta like Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin.

Also just to take a swipe at Bonzai, I think non-gay folk can enjoy that activity as well. Or so I've been told by people in the know, and if trends in adult film are anything to go by.

728. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176409 by MaxD on May 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

Gigli is a film I haven't seen. But I will take your word for it.

729. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176396 by MaxD on May 7, 2008 at 8:31 am

Reverend Dark,
You slammed Ben Affleck movies and I have to say you did this for no good reason. I submit,
Gone, baby gone, Chasing Amy, Jersey Girl (a formulaic, but well executed romantic comedy), Good Will Hunting.
I accept that sometimes people must be maligned in order to disabuse them of creationism. But there are much more deserving targets. I think most of the Elton John canon could be employed (Candle in the Wind?) to this same effect. Dean Koontz?
Just a thought.
However do continue to give seeker the business end of reason.
-Max

730. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175820 by MaxD on May 6, 2008 at 5:35 am

Teratornis,
Do you think you could just direct us to other comments you've madeabout peak oil? I know you think that oil is a big problem and I do agree with that for the most part, but...most of us here have read your posts and there is no need to continue to regurgitate it over and over again. If you worry that some newbie may have missed one of your peak oil rants, then direct them to an older comment or pm them maybe.
Just a thought.

731. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175655 by MaxD on May 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm

This evidence of more or less isolated lineages has been building for some time. I'm not sure the acrimony that often surrounds this debate (thankfully not in evidence in the review presented here) is justified.

However this is another piece of the puzzle, it will be interesting to see how this falls out in the next few years.
If it ever really does.

732. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175631 by MaxD on May 5, 2008 at 6:29 pm

_riverrun_,
Is the Dershowitz thing a red herring? Your post seems to avoid the meat of Harris is argument. I have read Harris extensively and I have yet to see any of this we own the world in evidence.

733. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175411 by MaxD on May 5, 2008 at 11:06 am

MarcCountry,
You said:

Of course, just because it MAY obfuscate this issue, doesn't mean it isn't true.

While I agree entirely with the point and spirit of Sam's article, it is nonetheless true that the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions.

I think you may have missed the point of why it is so often used. In these debates and rebuttals, it is used as the classic misdirection.

Sam Harris or someone says, in the Islamic doctrine the Koran says wicked proposition x. Massive amounts of Muslims follow this x. What is the Response?

Well christians have a variety of x's, so I don't know why you'd pick on Islam. (This trick isn't wholly found in Islamic apologetics, it is found everywhere brains have been checked at the alter). But whenever it is used (and I've heard it more from islamists, it completely dances around the issue, and often is followed by some appeal to post-modernist cultural relativism. "Well that is their culuture" reasoning and "who are you to judge?"

You are right of course that fundamentalism is a problem in most all religions.

734. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175406 by MaxD on May 5, 2008 at 10:59 am

I think the thing that is most interestin about the way all the religious folk meet the strong critique, it the continual retreat into obscurantism (when the critique is about one's own personal religion anyway).
There is the continual redefinition, or the religious metaphor, or the well somethings we will just never ever know, blah, blah. That is at least the tack of the so-called moderate.
Its very bizarre, and I cannot imagine a more unfulfiling way to live.

735. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175129 by MaxD on May 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Christorpher Davis about your comment 130,
You are of course right.

736. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174503 by MaxD on May 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm

SeekerofTruth,
You still have yet to address the issue of your original science quote. You know the one, that had you read on (or was it not present on the site you lifted it from?) explained the problems with your style of interpretation.
Why is that? I mean this would be a simple matter for you to address.
Simple.
Why continue to ignore it?

737. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174493 by MaxD on May 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Mesmomodel, Tha tis a lot of damn super novae. A lot of damn supernovae

738. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174248 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:41 pm

I agree with Keith.
ID is an exploded hypothesis.
That is all.

739. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174244 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Tom-foolery=Ben Steinery...hmmmmm
This is very special equation Benway

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

Comment #174157 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Mphil,
Did anyone do that? I didn't see any.

741. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174145 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Th1nk3r,
Have you not read much of this post?

742. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174144 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Elli,
"Intellectual vandalism"
This, I like.

743. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174134 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 6:06 pm

SeekerofTruth,
i don't think I was trying to be a smart ass when I asked who was there to write out an account of the universe. I was just noting there were no witnesses to the account keeping track of the goings on.

So, sneaker, when you say:

I love it when at attempt as smart-ass proves my point.

The reason I know the earth is at least 4500 years old is because not only were there people on earth at this time, they were writing accounts of their history.

Now can we move on from this tom-foolery?

You reveal what a little dishonest sneakerofuntruth you are, while also not addressing my post as it was intended. This is the province of liars.

You have quotemined either intentionally, or by using some creationist style sources. You never addressed, and never said-at least earlier-the fact that author of the peice you quoted, in the very peice you quoted said you couldn't use the SNRs to date the universe.
You may have since addressed it or apologized for your credulous lazy actions, or you may have continued to ignore the point.

[edit]
You were making an anology that I don't think works even a little bit.
You say,

I know the world is at least

such and such an age because there are historical records that fit the right time. There are older cave paintings and evidences of people predating such civilizations by a great many years.

You have that interesting dishonest tick of the true believer in that you like to take your science like your scripture ala fucking carte. Well I'll take a little physics here and little anthroplogy there and maybe a little biology, voila conclusion supported. This is a conspiracy theorist's picture.
You are welcome to it.

744. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173993 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Seeker,

Now suppose I asked you for hard evidence on when the United States became an independent nation. Just what would you base your response on?

Lets see....who was there at the begining of the universe?

745. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173983 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Seeker,
It isn't the only thing we have, the quote you used wasn't the whole article. It was quotemined as riandouglas noted,

Was the original article you didn't actually read because it explicity says SNR's are no use in dating the universe.

If you had actually read the article you would have further read what that author said. The artilce makes the point everyone else here has made. You either didn't read the article and quoted it from someother source where it was quote-mined, or you quote-mined it yourself. Epeeist's observations make me think you pulled from a creationsist site. Had you read the article in its entirety you would be unable to make the arguement you are now making with as straight a face.

746. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173976 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Don_Quix,
I'll get to work on the script now.

747. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173970 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:57 am

SeekerofTruth,
I don't think anyone has told you it is shoddy pool to question the age of the universe. No one said that.
You asked some questions they were answered, links were provided to papers, and articles and such. Difficulties were explained and you've chosen to pluck on, without even acknowledging-I don't think-that such arguments provided difficulty to your interpretation, or at least the interpretation of the Creationist sources you use.

748. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173961 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am

Seeker,
Is there any reason you ignore the arguements and evidence of other posters here?
I just notice that they have fleshed out the picture you initially painted, but you don't like that at all and pluck on with out addressing it.
That doesn't seem like a good example of intellectual honesty.

749. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173958 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am

I take it the discussion of SNRs is over then?

750. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173934 by MaxD on May 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

Mesmodel, Don_Quix
Or worse they will start saying where is transitional evidence of cuts, and where are the transitional people that make up this inflated 6 billion figure? Hmmmm?