701. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75629 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 6:58 am

wednesdayguevara

Yes!! I quit smoking eight months ago. It was during the initial withdrawal period that I became aware of my brain's strange behavior wrt cigarettes. Talk about mutually exclusive goals! My brain several times actually tried to trick me into smoking a cigarette, as if there were two people in there fighting for supremacy (the non-smoker eventually won out, if you care). Now, I'm not remotely educated enough to understand how any of this works, but I think you are on the right track, Richard. Glad I'm not the only person who has noticed this.

ot but my sister who 'wants' to give up has a very strange relationship with cigarettes, the amount of mental time devoted to the excuses/rationalising! that she gives for not getting there (giving up) and having a cigarette at any given time of the day is quite incredible, its almost like cigarettes are a little gremlin, a hand wringing living creature that whispers in the ear that she is utterly slave to.

702. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75627 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

silentmike

I think we actually agree to a degree. I didn't mean every racist behavior is encoded in our genes, or that there's a "Racist gene" as such. I meant there's a basic mechanism for "us and them" devisions in our minds. I think that the root of racist tendencies is in something like that. Clearly society has an effect. I don't we can make the little bigot inside disappear, but we can probably turn his volume knob down quite a bit.

id be suprised if every human didnt have the them/us capacity, it has survival value. various amounts of desperation must initiate its energence but it obviously can be initiated socially where imminent survival isnt threatened and it becomes the norm. extreme examples are the lynchings Sam metions and there must be hundreds of current examples, of course the whole thing is on a continuum, including the religious mind and the football team supporter mind. Its mindboggling that some people wont eat animal products and yet another will gleefully carve up another human alive simply because they are not part of their group (and you can bet they believe in god), examples of this must occur daily in many parts of the world.

703. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75622 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 6:39 am

mat7895

And I agree with him on some points. I agree that the term 'atheist' shouldn't be used so much because its starting to make the religious people think we're some kind of cult or religion of our own

thats the limitation of the religious mind, all very discontinuous. Also another way of 'them' saying your BS is as bad as my BS.

704. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73005 by phasmagigas on September 23, 2007 at 6:39 pm

the world is becoming anything but more secular despite advancing science and technology.

CHEER!! HURRAH!!

all i can say is WTF!

what kind of hellish reporting is this??


so despite the 'you will burn in hell if you dont follow us' position of most of the rising religion in the USA (as an example) the caped crusader antics of dawkins is driving the far more deadly batman and the joker faith called evolution into classrooms.

words are failing me. the feeling i get from this article is something like 'the world around me is falling apart but i dont give a flying fuck because I have a job at the guardian and i'll be OK for a while'.

705. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72670 by phasmagigas on September 22, 2007 at 7:23 am

revcort, take care.

oh and by the way, look up 'ring species' involving herring gulls and black backed gulls. I think you will find it quite illuminating. Instead of species gradually changing forward (or back) in time, heres an example of the same but occupying the same time but a different space!! This should destroy any notions that species are fixed. enjoy.

706. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72541 by phasmagigas on September 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm

revcort.

the more i read your posts (and this isnt me having a dig at you its merely something that I notice and want to comment on) about gods glory and all that, the more i think the term 'delusion' is appropriate.

Honestly, if i was thinking right now what you are writing, i'd think i was mentally ill. It would like being in a twilight zone segment for me. Something like 'this is true because it says it is on the inside' and never being able to get away from it, the thought horrifies me. It reminds me of being in infant school, you know when one kid says somethng like 'i know something you dont know, and we just know and you dont, heheheh'.

When i see images of people dancing in church (and I personally find it difficult to watch and its VERY far removed from some genuine 'trance like' state you might see in some other cultures, for one the music is invariably awful in the church. anyway i digress....) I see a kind of large scale kindergarten class having a disco dance, its like a part of the mind truly remains in an infant like state. maybe this is related to the physical neoteny that we humans possibly show????

707. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72342 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 7:14 pm

revcort (yes you again!)



the people you have chatted to on this forum, have you noticed that despite the fact that this is RD site, nobody ever quotes passages of the selfish gene and says see, richard says so and so, so its true. sure, many of the principles of evolution are nicely explained in them but has anybody ever shoved a quote under your nose as if that is evidence in its own right, i can bet not. When i read something of dawkins, or paul davies or whoever, if i want it verified i could easily find out what university the work was done at and actually confirm it myself (if i really wanted to). do you see what im getting at??

I know this anyway from talking to religious people both christians here in america and muslims in the UK but my mind is very different from the religious mind, i cannot begin to understand how you can look at THAT book and accept it as a truth, i just dont get it, its utterly alien to me, must be in the genes.

on that note, can you accept (im doing a sam harris now!) that had you been born in Iran you would actually have been a fundamentalist muslim, just what would that mean for your soul being saved??

708. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72326 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I came away unimpressed so far. Actually, I'm more impressed with some of you than with him.

revcort, my suggestion is that before you read TGD, read one of RD's evolution books, the selfish gene is a logical starting place but I really like climbing mount improbable and the blind watch maker, here you might find less that you plain disagree with and lots of insitefula nd utterly compelling ideas and processes, if you read say maount improbable and you feel its a load of well crafted nonesense and lies then so be it. actually another i'd recommend is the ancestors tale which is a book i'd like to lend to an alien to give them an idea of life on this planet (assuming they hadnt got many samples, an ark if you will!!) ignore one of the amazon.com comments about the ancestors tale something like 'i dont know why he bothered writing this' was singularly the most revealing thing ive ever read about the religious mind (whoever wrote that was a luddite, a moron, an ignorant sod of the highest order) the book cannot fail to be interesting.

709. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72271 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:39 pm

That happens often. In fact, our bodies are defeating tumours all the time. You can see this through the effect of immunodeficiency diseases, when a major symptom can be all kinds of tumours.

I remember gould?? saying its amazing our bodies arent just masses of tumors, yes, our bodies are constantly battling tumors and i guess like with most things there is discontinous variation, all theway from the mutation site in the DNA being 'silenced' (im guessing here) through single mutant call being recognised and destroyed and then up to full sized tumors that for whatever reason are then stopped by the body, facinating and terrifying!!

I like probably everybody has had a whole list of weird and wonderful ailments, aches and pains that have all just vanished as teh body repairs itself, ive had dozens including childhood asthma that I suppose would have killed me on one occasion if it were not for ventolin! I have never once prayed, well not since I was about 12 at school in the UK and even then i wasnt praying, just thinking about sex or food or something more interesting.

710. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72267 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:32 pm

but just recently a lady in our church spoke about a tumor that had simply disappeared. It was there before, but when they did further testing, it was gone. Many had been praying for her.

i know nothing about tumors but im sure that many do spontaneously stop growing and then are somehow reduced in size or maybe even destroyed by the immumne system, any tumor experts out there who can veriry/refute this? im sure many a tumor has vanished without prayer, i also bet that many MORE tumors grow (and stay/spread) in people that pray anyway than those that then vanish.

711. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72261 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:23 pm

If God is indeed guiding evolution then what we can infer from evidence is that this "designer" is grossly wasteful, incompetent and perhaps drunk or high. Based on my admittedly superficial understanding, evolution is not a "clean" process, it is round about, wasteful and full of ad hoc contraptions and dead ends. If God is an engineer he would be fired. Perhaps you can elaborate on this since you are a biologists and we will all be benefited from your knowledge

bonzai. yes, evolution is very wasteful and whimsical, I see that, thast partly why im a full on no god evolutionist (its exactly what youd expect to see if there wasnt a designer). I was helping revcort with a possible 'intermediate state' in at least understanding the process of evo, well its a start i suppose.

712. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72239 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Certainly, I'll answer that. (I've been reading elsewhere for a while- trying to come out of the "dark ages" in my evolutionary knowledge is hard work. :D )

revcort, there is a halfway house you know, theistic evolutionists. these creationists accept evolution but say that god guided the process, at least one doesnt have to ignore all that challenging evolutionary theory.

one could imagine that upon presenting the genesis bit of the bible to man, god realised that the writers 2000 years ago werent up on evolution so he just said he created all stuff, he didnt use the word evo as it was too confusing at that time. well, its just an idea. it does at the very least mean that reading up on evolution isnt a waste of time, as god did it!!

713. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72234 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:55 pm

revcort

(which is equally as terrifying as what another just said in this thread- that humans are actually fish)

revcort, remember thats merely down to definitions, it doesnt mean we have gills and fins, it merely was a way to demonstrate that names are just that, mere labels and in the case of sharks and rays being erronously grouped with bony fish (like a cod for eg) as 'fish' means that EVERY animal descended from the ancestor of sharks and bony fish HAS to be included under the name fish, and that includes most of the vertebrates including us. Luckily for us the word fish is specific to a particular branch of the vertebrate line, namely those with bony skeletons, fins and scales. sharks are, well just sharks!! im hoping you find this way of seeing the natural word perhaps a bit more challenging/interesting than saying 'god did it'.

714. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72225 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading.

revcort, oh and remember theres no such thing as a half and half creature, maybe in myths and childrens books, its a ridiculous notion made up by creationists. The nearest thing i guess to a half creature is any child to its parents as it contains half the DNA from each. the concept of crocodiles with duck heads (as one creationist likes to show as ridiculous, we agree!) simply shows a lack of understanding and imagination.

715. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72211 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm

revcort

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading

cool, glad you are still reading.

now deciding if archaopteryx is 'just' a bird is a tricky one.

By saying its a bird (as in todays birds) what the scientist is technically saying is that ALL modern birds and archaeopteryx PLUS every other descendant from the common ancestor of birds and archaeopteryx are birds, now all that simply does is move the goalpost a bit and includes archaeopteryx and a lot of other tailed, toothed animals as birds.

as it stands thats not a problem, it does not in any way, shape or form change the ancestry of these things. You could by that process call all dinosurs 'birds' and that would still include modern birds, the definition of birds would change so it wouldnt include 'no teeth' and 'feathers'.

The nomenclature is irrelevant, its the ancestry thats critical, in the same vein (and vertebrate experts tell me if this is wrong), if we call a shark a fish and a goldfish a fish, then WE by definition also have to be fish, confused (maybe horrified)? go read up on cladistics (the way living things are grouped by common descent) names mean very little, they are merely there for our convenience.

Unfortunately revcort you are grasping at straws, by reveling in the fact that some scientist says that archaopteryx is just a bird afterall shows just how desperate you have become to believe your genesis.

716. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72199 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Oh no, I know what you want. But what you have just said is the equivalent of standing next to Rembrandt, admiring The Abduction of Europa, and saying, "Wow, it sure is amazing the way this paint all just randomly fell on this canvas creating such a beautiful pattern!" And then turning to him and saying, "Chance is such an awesome thing, isn't it?" I wonder if he would be insulted by that?

back to square one, revcort, are you insinuating that living things came about by random chance? it is preposterous right? Yes, i'd agree, living things do not come about by chance. Natural selection is anything but random chance.

717. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72187 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm

but what I still haven't seen is a half-lizard, half-bird in the fossil

now that revorts throwing scripture at us and is liable to be blocked from this forum too (revcort, remember that it was people throwing scripture that turned many from religion in the first place) I am going to go back to the reptile bird thing (damn i really need to brush up on this as theres so much NEW stuff to learn.

that whole MASSIVE misconception about these half creatures is so annoying. what creationists are expecting is this large turkey like dino monstrosity, oh a bit like this:

http://www.edugraphics.net/0-loe1/images/lg-Feathered_Dinosaurs.jpg

ok, artists rendition but no cameras back then. Anyway, to my mind it demonstrates the lack of imagination and sheer misunderstanding of the living kingdom.

Somehow they expect a nice set of perfect intermediates (actual descended individuals mind you!!) from what, a T-rex to a chicken?? Now if im not mistaken T rex could well have been surrounded by birds in its environment.

What creationists totally miss is that there were a whole menagerie of feathered dinosaurs big and small that were running alongside the more familar unfeathered ones, and way before the creataceous extinction the line that lead to modern birds were already 'birds', it just so happens that when the big extinction hit (thankfully for us!) the only feathered dinos to survive were those little ones that now are the modern birds.

the dino bird connection has been around for ages and with each extra fossil the notion that they evolved from a therapod dino has yet to be falsified, maybe it will, but that will take more of those incredible fossils. Anyway so much for the 'freak of nature' that is archaopteryx, revcort, poor old archie is not even the tip of the iceberg, merely one branch on a huge tree and one of the branches reaches out and surrounds us today (tweet, tweet). anyway for freak of nature awards, its possibly us as (possibly) giant overgrown sexually mature ape embryos that could get the crown, but thats another story.

718. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72116 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 11:35 am

bonzai

In any case the world is quite over populated as it is. It is actually very immoral and selfish to pop out 10 children like some religious fanatics do. Think of the resources you will deplete especially if you're in the developed world.

interestingly there were 2 reports a few weeks ago in the same news programme, one was the threat of bin ladens terrorism, and the other was a recent speech by the pope where he suggested that certain people shpuld have as many children as possible (im not sure who it was), anyway its was interesting for me as in the long run we should have more to fear from the popes wants than the bin laden terrorism.

719. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72095 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 10:15 am

revcort

Ha! That's laughable. if it were that obvious, why would there be SO many people (scientists) be questioning it? I can't remember the last time a respected scientist offered an alternate hypothesis for the cause of aids or the arrangement of an atom.

I cant remember the last time a respected scientist offered an alternative hypothesis for evolution. As i said before those that do reject it are in an extreme minority and do so for religious reasons, they value the scripture over evidence. revcort, you need to face facts, the theory of evolution just like the theory of atomic structue has yet to be falsified, thats why its taught in schools , thats why its used to drive the fight against disease causing bacteria, heck its even assumed to be true when we breed crops/domestic animals/pets.

im sure if you look in the literature there are several alternative hypothesis for what causes AIDS, its just that its connection to the HIV virus has yet to be falsified.

720. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72090 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 10:04 am

revcort:

Unfortunately, by the time the empirical data presents itself, it will be too late

too late for what?? if tomorrow the sky turned green and all amputee limbs grew back within seconds i'd accept either extremely advanced alien intervention or a supernatural eventand i would accept a divine act (possibly allah). I doubt very much that it will happen but it could, surely tomorrow is isnt too late. Am i being facetious?? well im not the one who believes in miracles.

721. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72083 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 9:41 am

revcort:

I can see that there is clearly evidence that things evolve- but to what extent? I'm not certain of that. I will do more reading on this

theres lots of stuff on this, LOTS, from poular science for the layman to 1000's of peer reviewed scientific papers. so to admit that somethings evolve wasnt too difficult (its not for you to agree/'believe' me but simply that it means you can at least go out there and even retest some og those scientific experiments if you want to verify them)

There was a time in the not to distant past when the scientific community was nearly united in its belief that Darwinian evolution was nigh unto a natural law. (psst... it's just a theory, lest we forget) Yet, more and more, I'm reading reports of scientists who have found research that leads them to be unable to agree with this theory

yes, evo is a theory, just like its a theory that HIV causes AIDS, that protons are found in the centre of an atom, that DNA carries the information for life, that energy can become mass. they are all 'theories', models that best explain the facts, facts that do not at the very least falsify the initial hypothesis. Eg the hypothesis that chimps (as anatomists have assumed) are close to us has not been falsified by the fact that they share more DNA with humans than with any other creature, why is it that orangs and chimps share less DNA than humans and chimps if we are supposedly made in gods image, is the penny dropping yet???, the similarity between chimps and humans is a great example of evidence supporting the theory, had chimp DNA been closer to that of a dragonfly or dog, it would have thrown a major spanner into the works. Incidentally if the human genome was drastically different from that of any other living thing, eg chimp dna was closer to that of a termites but humans was different than both it would open some very interesting avenues of thought including alien intervention and possibly even special creation (if only because our physical similarities with said chimps/mammals/vertebrates indicates that we are allied to them and it would take another explanation to unravel why our genome was so different, but again, it isnt!!!

the business with scientists not accepting evo, few and far between and guess what, they ignore it always?? on religious grounds just like yourself, the behe's and dembskis have been thrown to the lions, even behes college posta a disclaimer about his ideas!! the basic theory is not in doubt (variation>selection>repro>pass on genes>change in gene frequency=evolution) the details of course are, any squabbling between scientists is over details, like dentists squabbling over which is the best toothpaste, they all at least suggest that we DO use toothpaste.

Yet, there are millions and millions of dollars (insert currency of choice here) being spent by atheistic people and groups desperately attempting to prove this theory true because they have ZERO interest in answering to any Creator

conspiracy theories not needed here, and I can speak for all atheisrts here, if there is a god, they really want to know that and really want the proof, it would be a profound and interesting revelation, it would open many new doors to understanding and questioning, like 'so where did you come from?' oh and BTW, theories are NOT proved to be true, this is a major misconception than many poeple have, scientists attempt to falsify a given part of the theory and if its cant be falsified, then that part is at least given to hold for now (it could be said to be 'true'). evolutionary theory has not once been falsified and yet theoretically its VERY easy to falsify it, if chimp DNA was closer to that of a rat and fruitfly and not a gorilla or human that would indeed be a good contender for falsifying it, but guess what, that is not what genetic studies show.

Though, let me add one caveat to this- if I were to follow the advice of the man whom you all so mightily praise- the great Richard Dawkins himself- I would see absolutely NO reason to study evolution because it would be unnecessary to study something that does not exist,

OK, I challenge you to go into any university biology department, check out the genetics department, the behavioural ecology department, in fact pretty much any department, all the disciplines work on the assumption that the theory is there, for real, working. I challenge you to understand just what the hell they are working on, and I can tell you now its not some hotch potch post modern, subjective, mental gymnastics essay writing. its field work, statistical analyses, instrument calibration, use and maintenence, you think its being done for laughs?? you want to tell those undergraduates they are studying something that doesnt exist when their particular hypothesis hasnt been falsified that they spent 3 years working on??????? also medicine, those people working on say tropical medicine are working under the assumption that evolution is there, those parasitic worms, the fungi and bateria are evolving every day, they are making predictions based on evolution to help combat those diseases, i bet there isnt a single case of that predictive power leading to a falsification of the theory, well of course there hasnt been as otherwise wed have all heard about it on answeres in genesis (no they prefer the T.rex was on the ark stuff, its what 5 year olds understand)

The Scripture is clear...

revcort, posting bits of the scripture just isnt going to work. oh and nature isnt 'right' or 'wrong' its indifferent, its US who make things right and wrong.

oh and as for dawkins being the great dawkins, i think not, he is a man, I tend to enjoy his books, i find myself often agreeing with what he writes but please dont ridicule people for 'praising' another, that is something I do not do but im sure you do each and every day.

722. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #72007 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 5:43 am

Sounds like he just decided there was no God and everything he has learned since that point has bolstered a decision he had already made.

what makes me laugh is that if there is no good evidence for something then why would one even BEGIN top believe in that something, that whole question of 'is their a god/gods' just stupifies me, its become so knitted into our psyches that people can walk around muttering god as if its something that is self evident. anyway thats my personal take, I walk through life under the assumption that god is NOT there, its not something i even have to tell myself, why waste time even thinking that. Its quite useful because when a godless person (not necessarily me of course) masturbates (as a rather crass example) one doesnt have to feel like you are being watched, man, i'd hate that!!!

to my mind having a god in your life is rather like junk, its just shit i dont want or need, a type of mental prostitution, it would clutter up my thoughts rather like the average american christian basement and garage (is cluttered)!!

723. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71864 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm

well, there was a few words of reason spoken at the very end. 'that reminds me of al quaida'

724. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71859 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm

I got the impression that Joy (the one next to Whoopi) was completely in a different league than the others. She was trying to point out how a number of the Republican candidates don't think evolution is true and implied that is a problem. She was not too articulate or forceful, but at least she tried to counter the stances of the others.

i wasnt sure which way she was taking the republican candidates non acceptance of evo, I thought at first she was using that as someway to give its non acceptance credibility! it was probably the other way around though.

725. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71858 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 7:30 pm

quite incredible. even the two most reasonable people seem very unsure of the issues (and thats not a bad thing, just that they are on TV discussing science). village idiots can now get on TV. I though whoopie was supposed to be atheist??

audience: women aged 20-55, take prozac, see mediums, read horoscope, believe in gaaaawd.

726. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71841 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:43 pm

hobbit:

After doing this, the next step of admitting that you may actually be wrong is not as difficult. That is one of the reasons I enjoy coming to this site. I never claim to be an expert on any of the subjects here, but I am happy to put my thoughts out there and have others discuss them. I have found that I have learnt so much from others responses and even more by the references they provide.

But I don't stop there and take them at face value. I have found that I have been inspired to do further independent research to further my knowledge and understanding of things.

hobbit, great points, theres one thing i like and its when I think ive got the right idea about something but then somebody else says 'well its not quite like that' and then shows me why, its so refreshing to get something wrong and then know you are that extra step to the truth (nobody start debating 'truth' if i think ive got cancer on my finger and my doctor says its eczema, then its eczema, unless it really starts going weird).

I wonder if the religious mind is primarily a mind that cannot handle being shown to be wrong (of course it isnt that cut and dry but maybe there is an element of that), that whole cognitive dissonance is quite interesting.

a mutual aquaintence of my wife and i goes to mediums, I told here about cold reading and lies and general skullduggery involved and she just kind of smiled this big silly smile and didnt take heed to anything i said. odd really, considering the medium had told her nothing that anybody could have told her! oh, and yes, she is religious.

727. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71835 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:28 pm

hobbit.

This can also be used to explain the formation of oil, gas and coal (which are called fossil fuels for a reason). These can not be found by random drilling or digging. Modern science uses very specific techniques and analysis to increase the probability of finding oil, gas and coal at any given site.

i mentioned that fossils are random in my post, that was in relation to say any individual creature and how/when they get exposed. As you say the process insnt random as such but for all intents and purposes for any given individual creature the chances of being fossilised could be considered random. hope that clears up any notion of evolutionists not getting their stories straight.

728. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71833 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:24 pm

steve99

I hope I am not seeming like I am ignoring your posts... I take a while to post and sometimes a thread has moved on a bit, and others have already made the same points!

no totally not, there are several people doing that and the great thing is that at least our arguments tend to concur, that HAS to be a good sign, the theistic arguments tend to ,err, vary, quite a bit from theist to theist, im not sure what that means (and its not even us who have been reading the same book!!!!).

729. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71831 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:21 pm

re 'the flood' jees, just thinking about that makes my head hurt.

The space, the variable temperature rooms (they had AC back then?), the photoperiod thing (you know for equitorial/northern/southern organisms) the meat supplies (maybe more than 2 zebras were needed for tose lions then), the very particular plants for those fussy herbivores, all that poop, urea, guano, dead skin, hairs, what about fighting t rex and those dimetrodons, and trying to locate those insects in the first place, and trying to differentiate 2 very similar beetle species only 2mm long, wow, quite a feat. yes, the millions of tonnes of meat and plant material needed every day, thats quite a mucking out of the stables i'll tell you.

I think the flood was invented to give the reductio ad absurdum argument a really good example.

730. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71824 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:11 pm

steve99,

thanks for adding the extras, i tend to make general commments but you give specific examples which are really useful. the more the merrier!

731. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71819 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm

How do you know that the archaeopteryx was not simply an entirely different species itself that has become extinct. You see half this and half that because you WANT to see it.

Oh, and I can foresee that these lines of mutating creatures carried forward by natural selection will never be seen because they don't exist.

These examples that so many of you have given tell me nothing. They are isolated and random. They are not a scientific process that applies to all. These strange examples are just that- strange. There should be millions of examples of these things in the fossil record. They should literally be everywhere- and they should still be occurring right now. They are not everywhere because they don't happen except in freaks of nature- which never survive.

archaeopteryx was indeed and entirely different species that has become extinct, just like the vast majority of all species that ever lived, it almost certainly is NOT the ancestor to modern birds.

i dont see half this and that atall, I see animals with transitional stages and so do all professional palaenotologists (im not one of those im just saying that they at least DO know what they are talking about)

these lines of mutating creatures (of which you are one of them revcort)as you put them (its not them that mutate but the DNA in their gonads) will have had offspring (if lucky) but I agree its VERY unlikely that any of them will have living descendants today, just like its VERY unlikely that you will have living descendants in 65 million years too. what you are seeing are very ancient second/third/fourth etc cousins if you will, a bit like seeing a photo of your great aunt but knowing full well she is not your direct ancestor but you still share some common traits, you know like nose shape etc.

the examples are isolated and random as thats what the fossil record is like, try putting a dead chicken in your garden and see if its gets fossilised, its more likely to be animal poop within 48 hours. the most interesting incomplete jigsaw puzzle known.

strange examples, i would agree, all life can be strange, an alien visiting this planest would see a dog as strange, but no stranger than a small dinosaur or a praying mantis, you are displaying lack of imagination again, indeed even we might appear strange, we are by ape standards quite an abberation.

oh and finally there ARE millions of examples of these strange creatures in the fossil record (as rare as fossils compared to the number of organisms that have lived are there are still lots of them), every creature is an intermediate genetically to its ancestors and its descendants (if it has any, its a given it has ancestors) if the creature doesnt quite fit in with the species alive today you call it 'strange', if you want strange you want to check out the burgess shales or even just a common or garden rock pool.

'freaks of nature', well im not going to comment on that phrase as im not sure what it means.

revcort, you really need to get your biology up to scratch before discussing it here.

732. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71803 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm

I know that Dawkins in his TGD argues that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and hence falsifiable by science

does dawkins really say that?? id be very suprised if dawkins says that god is falsifiable, there NOT being a god is falsifiable.

Even something as extreme and as stupid as young Earth creationism would work, as science cannot possibly verify that a six day divine creation of our universe at about 4004 BCE did not take place.

is that because its unfalsifiable (god made the layout of rocks and radiometric dating evidence to seem like its older). On what basis is YEC extreme and stupid, many treat it as 'gospel'.

733. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71796 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 5:05 pm

archaeopteryx is oft quoted as the reptile/bird intermediate, of course it is technically correct, but only in a VERY unspecific way, you could also say that its an intermediate between a snake and a bird if you see my point (the reptile clade includes a lot of groups)

I wonder just how close it is to modern birds compared to all those other very cool feathered therapods, I guess its small size and general 'birdiness' make it seem close to the bird ancestors but you can bet there are some other larger and more monstrous creatures yet to be found that are actually closer to birds.

palaeontolgy is very exciting, i always like to imagine just what INFORMATION is literally out there to be dug up, i can foresee a time when really nice fossil lineages (better than we have now, i hope excavation is faster than erosion)showing transitional features (and really quite close to actual ancestral lineages) will be on display in museums, I can also foresee creationists STILL complaining that there are still gaps (well of course there are dummy, do you have your great great grandma propped up in the basement next to your great grandma??)

734. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71791 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Hey Revcort, have you accepted homosexuality as natural yet? Or are you being dishonest and ignoring the evidence because your faith tells you to?

actually one wonders where homosexuality begins and sinless sex ends, think of the kinsey scale (as a fairly blunt measurement) but then think of all the tiny increments from one end of the scale to the other, think of the christian father with wife and kids who had a quick grope with his best mate at the tender age of 13, whats to become of him, is he sinful?? think of those papuan culture/s where boys fellate the men, is that sinful, are they full of sin too? I suppose men like Ted haggard could answer some of these questions better than others (im not being facetious, if ted is bisexual, power to him, he just needs to work on it a bit, but cut the hypocritical bits very firmly out, very firmly out indeed, then he might not be considered a number one candidate for the village stocks.

735. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71783 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm

steve99

You are assuming that the organisms will only work in conjunction. This is the case for many, however, we see plenty of examples of different stages of symbiosis where the organisms are less dependent. Perhaps you have a garden? Well, the soil is full of fungi, a large number of which are symbiotic with green plants. Some of these fungi act as an extended root system for the plants, increading water update. In return, the fungi get nutrients from the plant. However, in some conditions this symbiosis is not vital. For example, when the plants have access to plenty of water. But, when water is scarce, the symbiosis is vital (at least for the plants), as they need the water-uptake capabilities of the fungi.

So we can see just how such partnerships evolve.

You see, the best approach to science is this area is not to sit back and claim that things are impossible, never happen, or require 'faith'. All it takes is a little humility, enough to ask those who know about these subject to explain things, and you will get clear answers.

sweet answers.

if im not mistaken most plants in the wild actually have a fungi/root relationship. there are probably many, many plants that are common garden and house plants and do fine despite the lack of their 'intended' partners!! biology rules

736. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71770 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Saying that micro will produce macro over millions of years sounds great, but it is unprovable- requiring faith

funny how the faithful start throwing around the word 'faith' (ignoring its context here) like its a dirty word, a bit like when saying atheism is 'just' another type of religion.

737. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71766 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm

And what about symbiosis? Two organisms which live off of one another or two parts which work only in conjunction- how do you explain how they evolved this way? Which came first and how did it survive prior to the other?

which came first?? the organisms now symbiotic 'met' at the same time as independant organisms and over time became more and more mutually dependant. i can bet there are literally 1000's of papers on this stuff (from orchids/bees to sharks and wrasses), a MASSIVE and deliberate lack of imagination required to find sybiosis as evidence against evolution (ie how did it come about otherwise).

i found a spider in my pitcher plant (an otherwise invertebrateivorous plant), as i am 100's of miles from known pitcher plants in the wild I must assume that its in there clinging to the 'slippery' interior by chance! its even grabbing insects that fall in. now my imagination runs wild and I can see that this spider could theoretically breed in here and it (its kind) could over time become so specialised a spider that as its so protected from sunlight and predators within the plant it could become pale and quite docile (well by a spiders definition) as it would be wasteful to produce pigment and strong muscles for running etc, in time it could become the pitcher spider, a pale slow but very good at clinging onto the inside of pitchers type of spider, but has become dependant on its plant home, OK so not symbiotic but this is the type of simple imagination i feel creationsts lack.

symbiosis experts please give some evolutionary explanations to revcort.

738. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71759 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Now, I have no problem believing that Darwin saw 13 or 14 different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands, but what I still haven't seen is a half-lizard, half-bird in the fossil record.

ive seen a picture of a half crodile half duck on some creationist video. actually nobody has seen a half bird half lizard fossil either. what you find are therapod dinosaurs with transitional features aligning them to birds, none of them will be bird ancestors (very unlikely) but they are very distant second cousins so to speak, can some vertebrate palaeontologists get on here and explain to revcort that 'half' creatures dont exist, well not in te way they want them to (they can be found in butcher shops, but more like 1/32th creatures), any creature that leaves descendants is an intermediate between its ancestors and its descendants.

739. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71722 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 2:33 pm

revcort:

I believe we are all predisposed to certain weaknesses and temptations, but that does not excuse the sin involved in taking those actions. Homosexuality is obviously sinful- it is a crime against nature itself, wouldn't you agree? Do you know of any homosexual animals? (that are not trained that way by some wacko) Even nature tells us that if a man and a man mate, there is no reproduction

its will be an overall improvement in our lot when phrases like 'homosexuality is a sin' become as redundant, as offensive as say 'jews are infidels' and in this case you can choose to be a jew, theres nothing inherent about anybody that makes them jewish. Although now i think about it, the word sin applied to homosexuality is more preferable than having ones head removed because of it, go revcort you liberal you. maybe you could join westboro baptists and their placards, anything but those awful beheadings!!

oh and another thing, men and men dont mate, well not as such. anyway did the bible not say something about 'lie with another man'?? so in literal terms standing 'mating' is allowed???

740. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71441 by phasmagigas on September 18, 2007 at 7:27 pm

baeoz. interesting. im a brit living in the USA and have not yet had a hospital experience here, i dont seem to recall religion being asked for in the UK. I must admit id be a bit annoyed though if i was incapacitated and they called in a priest (by default) as id prefer it if they made room for one more doctor and one less priest.

741. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71439 by phasmagigas on September 18, 2007 at 7:19 pm

baeoz:

They asked what religion I was when I was quickly admitted, I'm proud to say I replied "none"

why were you asked that??

742. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71431 by phasmagigas on September 18, 2007 at 6:56 pm

revcort.

#1 The Scripture NEVER gives a date or even a number of years as a timetable for Christ's return. The words that are used are "soon" and "quickly." Now, to the Apostles, they may well have thought He would return in their own lifetimes. But Peter says that "with the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day." (2 Peter 3:8) So, in God's estimation of time, it's been only about 2 days.

so does that mean the earth might be actually as old as 6 million years according to the bible or even as young as 6 years?? so maybe we ARE in the matrix. or maybe im missing some fundamental point as im not really up on my bible studies.

So, God's reason for delaying His return is clear. He delays so that ALL those who are to be saved will have an opportunity to be born, hear the Gospel, and be regenerated

or maybe its so that ALL those who arent to be saved will have the opportunity to be born, ignore the gospel and be sent to hell.

im not sure if i'm being serious as im not quite sure if revcort is either.

743. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71035 by phasmagigas on September 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

ultrvioletG

When referring to what Atheists (don't) believe, it might help monotheists bypass their emotional reflex, and understand your point better, by saying that Atheists don't believe in gods. Saying "God" triggers an automatic response. Saying "gods" is both more accurate and less emotional

this is an interesting 'tactic', firstly it would throw a rabid believer offguard, they would also find themselves agreeing with you regarding the X-1 (X=total mumber of gods believed in across history) number of gods that they also dont believe in. You just have to get to the hard part when you tell them you also dont believe in the extra one they do. You could say something like 'i dont even believe in mercury' just to 'help' them see the sillyness of their position.

744. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70628 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 11:04 am

to blazing arrow 74

I don't think I understand what you mean phasmagigas ... May you please clarify ? ... Are you saying subjects like that are brought-up so they may be deemed irrelevant ? ...

blazingarrow74. I was suggesting that we start to waste our time continually debating if we are (for example) descended from a common ancestor with chimps (as our most recent extant relative) or having to show fossils showing intermediate traits, these things are worth showing of course but again its akin to the aircraft designer having to reiterate and show what he/she knows about lift 'theory' in order to gain acceptance by people (in general)regarding the flying capability of a plane. you dont see lift being continually being debated in public forums or in politics despite the fact people could easily believe that its the hand of god carrying the plane up and over the sea (that wasnt in the bible of course so it never came to be questioned). anyway, of course they are worth answering, 'why are there no intermediate fossils' as such but they have been answered continually, and if somebody asked me that question id be happy to give them an answer.

edit. blazing arrow 74, ok, i think i see whay you were confused, i seem to have been reading the original article and kind of tied it to my post with andother quote and it all went pear shaped. ANYWAY. my point was more relating to the original post, ie the list of comments on TGD, many relating to evolution show that the posters have little to no understanding of the process which leaves biologists to continually have to explain the basics (and maybe thats good reason to try and expalin the basics continually, it obviously didnt work in schools.)

745. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70624 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 10:49 am

"Nothing" lacks an observer to ask this question

ive often wondered about that 'nothing' thing, maybe there just IS something and nothing is a silly notion, just a figment of our imagination.

746. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70610 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 9:50 am

I actually find the argument that God must exist because, "What caused the big bang?" to be particularly weak - akin to Newton postulating that a divine force must hold together the solar system because he couldn't solve his gravitational equations for more than two bodies.

(edited for some weird grammar)I think many people when considering these more fundamental questions to our ultimate cosmic origins dont necessarily ascribe anything to a god (its just taht they are more unknown)but more its to push out those ideas that really dont need discussing anymore (and they are often arguments against non belief), time is wasted with things like 'why are there no intermediate fossils then?' it would be like having a plane designer having to explain the exact details of lift etc every time somebody says 'i just cant believe those things get off the ground' prior to the first test flight.

edit, whoops i seem to have thrown in the wrong quote and now my post isnt really relating to the quote.........next time.

747. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70585 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 7:04 am

from dancingthemantaray

interestingly we seem only to be discussing the weaker points..I actually quite like the point about space and time being created by the big bang therefore whatever caused the big bang is outside of space and time...if only more theists argued like that- think of the interesting debates to be had!!

instead of:

Dawkins seems to be getting more desperate by the day. I think "The God Delusion" will turn out to be a giant own goal for him. In choosing to attack God Dawkins as shown to himself to be intolerant, blinkered,nasty and always breathtakenly arrogant. I hope he finds salvation in Jesus Christ before it is too late. Secular fundamentalism will certainly fail."

"The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence. That these cells then gathered together ,and witrh no fore plan, designed the amoeba, let alone the human being is so outrageously obsurd that one must doubt the sanity of those that believe in this nonsense."

agreed, would make for far more interesting and time wasting debates, i mean according to this guy (the last quote) some cells designed the amoeba!!!

although of course he is TOTALLY RIGHT about this bit, and no evo biologist disagrees:

"The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence.

of course thats the problem, most people dont have a clue what evolution entails (or miss the point when its stares them in the face) why is it tyat people feel they are biology experts but not say in aircraft engineering???

748. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70581 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 6:42 am

Ok, i wont make any more posts on peoples posts as its quite boring and wed be here all month. last one.

quote"

"I suspect that Richard Dawkins would still dismiss the beliefs and experiences of billions of thinking people even if Jesus appeared in person and performed miracles just for him. This is inconsistent with being open-minded and open to scientific enquiry and intelligent debate. Curiously, the evidence shows that whilst Dawkins might hate God, God loves Dawkins."

endquote.


if jesus appeared and waved his hand over an amputee stump and it grew back there and then or indeed he managed to eradicate a scar with the wave of a hand, i think I and RD would accept that was a miracle, the thing is, its just NOT going to happen is it???? its the type of thing non believers are 'waiting' for.


what an idiot that poster is.

749. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70578 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 6:36 am

"Richard Dawkins IS a fundamentalist- pure and simple. And yes, he does shrill, rage and spew hatred. No better or worse than the average human. The difference between a Christian fundamentalist and a Dawkin fundamentalist is that the former says "God knows best", while the latter says "I know best".

This brings up the question- which Charles Darwin considered- as Dawkins is an evolved monkey (true evolution), how much faith should one place in the judgment of a monkey's brain?

I rest my case."

so should I trust a human brain or one (gods brain) that another human brain imagines is there?? so am i trusting gods brain (so to speak) or that of the person who believes in the non apparent brain.

and as for trusting the evolved monkey, well thats a curious argument for monkey or not we trust other people every day of our lives (well most of us do). So is this an argument against evolution 'how can we trust a monkey, see evolution didnt happen!!' or just a silly argument against a particular evolved monkey (dawkins), and then its just even sillier as if the poster thinks hes NOT an evolved monkey, than he is therefor trustworthy as he was made in gods image right??

in a nutshell, whatever dawkins is then so is the poster, so should i even trust the poster!!

sorry, when i read something full of it i have to exercise my limited powers of weak argument breakdown as best i can.

750. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70202 by phasmagigas on September 14, 2007 at 10:16 am

stanford is taking the piss yes??

'Cornwell does, however, start to get sucked in to Dawkins's fact-based approach'

SUCKED in?, like its something bad.

'for it simply isn't about facts'Religion fails utterly this test'

agreed.

' Cornwell has done an excellent job in providing a book that should, in an ideal world, be sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion as an essential corrective.'

corrective??? and this being composed the following:'It is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible'

ie BS.

this write up is a piss take, it has to be.