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

Comments by epeeist


851. Expelled Overview

Comment #165148 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #165145 by HaveEngngDegreeHeHe

Suppose you look under the hood of two different model cars from the same manufacturer. You may notice some similarities. The obvious explanation for this is "design and manufacturing efficiency"
Wow, you have cars that breed and mutate. That is so fucking cool!

852. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165107 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #165093 by clearmind

This is where atheists or evolinn get stuck. They do not want to deal with logic or reason while they put their evolution idea forward, or they go with Dawkins' UNEXPLAINED DODGING.
Clearmind (sic). You are very active in shouting about the problems of evolution.

What you have never provided is an alternative theory. Now when I say theory I mean something that actually predicts something. I also want something that can be tested and falsified if it is wrong.

Here for example is an article in the Washington Post that gives some information on how Darwins theory can predict things - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

You will note that the predictions are testable

So give it your best shot, use "Intelligent Design" if you like since you appear to think it trashes the theory of evolution. What predictions does ID make, how can these predictions be tested and falsified? If they have been tested then what were the results?

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

Comment #165058 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 2:10 am

Comment #165020 by jonwes

(3.1 million last I saw)
I heard 3.2, but I wouldn't want to worry about the difference.

What I did want to ask is, what is the average price of a cinema ticket in the US? This should give us a rough count of the number who went to see it.

The one thing that it isn't going to be possible to estimate is how many of these were Christian groups who were being bribed to attend.

854. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164685 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Comment #164674 by Frankus1122


That is why Tolkien's series of stories and writings are all so interesting. To me, at any rate
Myth-index. He uses just about every entry in the catalogue. Bound to hit you somewhere.

855. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164682 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #164675 by MPhil

well, Berkley's idealism was almost "theistic" - he said that matter doesn't exist, only minds and ideas
Sorry, in joke. We had a user Dianelos Georgoudis who was the bane of Steve and I (and several others) over a period of months. He started off interesting but we got nowhere with him. Mind you Steve and I were young and naive then. I think we would do a better job now, thanks to you and others on this site.

856. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164672 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Comment #164670 by stew99


Great news! Expelled did a lousy $3.2 million at the box office this weekend, despite its huge media push.
Evidence please.

Err, sorry. Could you give us a link.

EDIT: sorted - http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTFVPukHHFXxfTOmpSb22BHpnJeQ

I see it comes just behind another fantasy movie "Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!"

857. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164671 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Comment #164664 by Steve Zara

Oh yes! I have used the "D-word" here in the last few days.
Seems to be getting to MPhil too. He is talking about solipsism, Berkley-idealism and brains in vats. I am just waiting for him to put "theistic" in front of the hyphen.

We're doomed I tell you, doomed...

858. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164665 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Karda - as someone who suggested we be polite but ruthless with theists I am happy for you to stick around. The banter is fun too, keep with it.

Just knock off the faux humility, okay?

859. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164653 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #164648 by Kardashovel


ThoughtsonCommonToad, based on your last post to me, you might find this site/article interesting:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Steve, are you getting the feeling of deja vu?

860. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164647 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #164636 by Kardashovel


We've directed our own evolution on a limited scale since free will has been involved (mammals, perhaps birds and reptiles). But that is just animal per-animal, "unnatural selection".

Now evolution itself is evolving. We need not depend on sex and mutations to create fundamentally different genotypes. And we're just getting started.
Karda - stop this now. You are mutating in front of me. You are turning into...


Teilhard de Chardin

861. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164582 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Comment #164576 by Kardashovel


You never speculate, enjoy the freedom of that type of though(t)
Of course I do.

You want to deny us the freedom to sneer at your half-cocked ramblings?

862. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164572 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Comment #164570 by Mark Smith


Kardashovel
Sorry if you have addressed this before, but your version of Christianity seems pretty much one off.
Oh shit, another Dianelos.

863. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164568 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #164555 by Kardashovel


As I have intentionally accepted the notion that it is speculation, not science, I am not compelled by anything other than your begging to speculate further about the physics.
In which case all you have is a conjecture, a glorified opinion.

You are entitled to this of course. However we are equally entitled to sneer at and dismiss it out of hand.

864. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164527 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 11:18 am

Comment #164520 by MPhil

Once you're through with the Knowledge compendium (only took me a year :)
I suspect it will take me a little longer. Got to keep well in with SWMBO and make sure that I don't have too much month at the end of the money.

I presume that you would disagree with moderationsmuse who seems to want science to be the realm of philosopher-kings. Science definitely is not cosy and can definitely be edgy. My supervisor held up my thesis for some considerable time because the mathematics I used did not follow the standard (but outdated) text book on the subject.

865. The Child Preachers

Comment #164513 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #164418 by Santi Tafarella


One additional thought on the child preachers. Who would you all bet has a more economically successful adult life: the African American child preacher, or an African American child, perhaps living next door to him, who spends time after school watching television?
Ooh, contraries and contradictories.

How about "neither" as an answer?

866. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164509 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #164491 by moderationsmuse


As you're in the UK, I respectfully don't think you could have acquaintance with American churches to make good use of whatever poll stats you've found.
I didn't. I was pointed at the data by an anthropologist who happens to have an American boyfriend. He now lives in Boston, but was born and raised in Arkansas where all his relatives still live.

867. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164506 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 10:49 am

Speaking as an ex-physicist with little exposure to biology I found "The Blind Watchmaker" to be fascinating. Different in style to, say, Richard Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" but all of them enjoyable.

I have also found Hofstadter's "Le Ton beau de Marot" to be interesting too.

Things this site has led me to have included Susan Haak's "Philosophy of Logics", Mackie's "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong". I also intend to read "Knowledge - Readings in contemporary epistemology" edited by Bernecker and Dretske and Paul Churchland's "A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science".

For me at least this site has led to an expansion of my scientific awareness.

868. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164472 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #164464 by moderationsmuse

He appears to be addressing non-scientists exclusively. And thus ironically he devotes his attention to an audience incapable of accessing independently any claims he makes of a scientific nature (though honestly I couldn't find any science in the book I looked at).
You seem to be neglecting the aims of the post that RD currently holds, there is more information at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml

My wife teaches chemistry at girls' school. Most of the girls she teaches go on to do something else besides science. Should we stop teaching science to those who go on to read say anthropology at university?

Neither of my daughters have gone on to be scientists. It was obvious at an early age this was going to be the case. Should I not have taken them to hear Sir Harry Kroto lecture?

869. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164461 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #164456 by Diacanu

Tch, limeys...
Hey, I did say the best they should expect.

I met a coach yesterday whose last ever competitive fight I saw. Complete retaliation - blade to the head of his opponent, guard into face, knee into crotch. All on a single foot movement. Would this suffice?

870. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164454 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #164446 by moderationsmuse

Few Christians believe the earth is 6,000 years old, by the way.
So this is wrong? http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I would disagree with you about Muslim and Christian fundamentalism (why do you immediately raise terrorism when Islam is mentioned?). Do a quick Google for the "Wedge Document" and see what the aims of the Christian right is in the USA. I should note that creationists are strongly active here in the UK too.

I find the prospect of a future theocracy of "Rapture Ready" Christians just as frightening as a Muslim theocracy.

871. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164434 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #164425 by moderationsmuse


With all due respect to your daughter, really, since when was anthropology as science?
Did I say it was? However, as a personal qualification, I would say that physical or biological anthropology is while social anthropology isn't. However there probably needs to be a personal opinion alert on the sentence.
Why is Dawkins making this his life work -- instead of devoting himself to biological research?
Perhaps because he is the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science? Now you might argue that it would be better if he spent more time promoting science but creationism in both its Christian and Muslim forms is probably one of the largest blockers to science around at the moment.

872. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164426 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #164423 by Peacebeuponme

im·ma·te·ri·al /ËÅ\'ɪməˈtɪəriÉ™l/ Pronunciation Key - [im-uh-teer-ee-uhl]
I don't think you are going to get very far with this poster. He strikes me as the type that eats, shoots and leaves.

873. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164415 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #164406 by moderationsmuse

When Europeans first encountered less technologically advanced peoples in Africa or other places, were they greeted "as Gods"? If so, for how long? While not a historian, I'm guessing that if they were so greeted, it was indeed a short greeting before the "primitive peoples" got wise.
I am not an historian either, however I am well aware of Cortez being treated as a god by the Aztecs and the various cargo cults.
But God is immaterial
Prince Philip isn't, the Emperor of Japan isn't (yes, I know his status too a knock after WWII), John Frum was material but is now probably worm-food.

So which big-G god are you talking about? We need two things from you, a proof of his existence and a proof no other gods exist.
My question: what is the "scientific" relevance of Mr. Dawkins's question?
I don't know how much interest Professor Dawkins (why are people who believe in god always so rude about this, aren't earthly qualifications worth anything) would take in this. It would certainly interest my daughter who took a degree in anthropology. She is quite interested in mythology.

874. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164403 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 8:05 am

It is Sunday. This looks like a "News of the World" article (not sure what the equivalent down market tabloid concentrating on salacious stories would be in the States).

If it had been a story showing a whole organisation using a religious front for sexual favours then it would have been worthwhile. As it is it is one person in authority who happens to be religious. Not interesting and nothing to do with clear thinking.

875. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #164384 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #164183 by AllanW


Strategy suggests a mindset that sees too narrowly. It is rooted in a view that looks to (and believes it can) control the variables within a system.
It seems to be my weekend to use fencing metaphors.

The ideal strategy is to use an action which promotes a foreseen response. This is rarely possible, but what you don't want is something that has a completely unforeseen response. Actions which generate a limited set of partially foreseen are about the best that is normally possible. A Pareto principle if you like.
I think that a better strategy is to hit back, hit hard, hit below the belt, hit anything you damn-well can and do it as frequently as possible in as many ways as possible and with as many people contributing as possible because what you need to achieve is a vast range of reactions and results not just one.
A little more forthright that I put it, but I am largely with you.

The only thing I would add is that it has to be appropriate. The likes of remnant is a lost cause, I have no problem with utter and complete ruthlessness with him. However, someone like thisisme may eventually switch to our side of things in terms of acceptance of rationality and the theories of science though I doubt whether he will lose his faith. Him I would treat somewhat differently.

876. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164350 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment #164343 by Frankus1122

You have stepped onto the piste. (Is that right, epeeist?)

You can't run away and call us names when you get smacked down. Well, you can and do, but that is not how to play the game of using reason and intelligence to figure out the solution to a problem.
Exactly the right word in your first paragraph.

Refusal to fence another fencer is covered by rule t.85. It gets you an automatic black card and disqualification from the competition.

877. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164338 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 5:01 am

Comment #164325 by debbyo


Epee, does you wife ever invite the "masters" over for dinner? Does she have to obey them on her own time?
I may be sharp, but I am not actually a sword.

Wife teaches here - http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk/Home/

Look at the information page and the destination of school leavers. Note how many are not doing "media studies" at the university of Little Poggington.

Wife is actually teaching the next generation of masters. Further more since she is part of the secret group that sorts out the science syllabuses they will be taught she is effectively a "meta-master".

As such she corrected me yesterday after she came home from a meeting of the secret (well its name is known, it is the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills) council in Cardiff (close to where the space-time rift is).

I was a little unfair to remnant apparently. I should have said 10 years old rather than 7.

878. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164320 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 3:44 am

Comment #164305 by Steve Zara


I think so. I guess myself (and others) assumed that simply explaining where posters were wrong was sufficient, but you are right.
For our American friends, there are a couple of British phrases "In one ear and out the other" and "There's none so deaf as those who will not hear".

I have no problems with explanations for people who will listen, I thought thisisme was at least trying with MPhil. But remnant and pacman came for a fight and, as I predicted, when they were forced on to the defensive they became wilder and wilder. This is the point at which you deliver the "coup de main". The best we were doing before was a "coup des deux veuves".

879. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164303 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #164285 by Steve Zara

I now understand the point you have been making for some time about not being "on the back foot", but perhaps you need to be more specific :)
Fairy Nuff.

I am not going to claim I have the only strategy for dealing with these people, but I think what I have suggested is an improvement. They deserve no respect, as irate says they are wilfully ignorant and as Billy notes they are not slow to cast us into eternal torment.

Polite ruthlessness is the best they should expect.

880. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #164274 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 12:18 am

Comment #164269 by ramiejae

The point being, however,is that evolution does have an effect on ethics
Does it? It is causal? Can you point us to any evidence that this is true? Can you give us a way to test your hypothesis?
But what about our spirits, and our souls? What about yours, Mr. Dawkins?
Before you talk about spirits and souls we really need you to show that they are rather more than the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.

Oh - and it is Professor Dawkins. Like many here he actually worked for his qualifications. It would be nice if you acknowledged this.

881. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164273 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 12:07 am

Comment #164254 by Zaphod


Wow. I almost feel butt hurt for Remnant after that verbal bashing.
I don't. As I tell my younger pupils, the ones who feel they ought to give their weaker opponents a hit or two to make them feel good, "there are no friends on the piste". I usually follow this by "there is no shame in winning 5-0".

We are too nice to these people. With a few notable exceptions there is no point in trying to educate them. If we do then we are automatically on the defensive.

I think the hit on remnant was instructive. He came here with the usual AiG crap about the faults in evolution. By pushing for answers from him it became obvious that he had no positive arguments to offer at all. Hence the retreat into sniping, "show us how something can come from nothing."

Steve Zara's comment about the Casimir effect was fine. But it was a bit like taking a parry and making no riposte. You have answered his question, now it is his turn to answer our questions. By not pressing him with an immediate question you give him a breathing space.

I must admit to making at least one tactical mistake too. Once he realised he had no positive answers he made the god gambit. I should have immediately pointed out the irrelevance and pressed him again.

882. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #164100 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #163954 by huzonfurst

I couldn't agree with you more, Jayday. I'm of the opinion that Yoko should sue the pants off these malicious liars, and if some people are "shocked and appalled," so be it!
I am going to disagree with you on this, because I think they would just use it to show how maligned they are.

Sue by all means. But as a remedy ask for nothing more than a very public apology. Prime time TV would be ideal. And the text of the apology to be approved by Yoko Ono and her lawyers first.

883. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164096 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #164035 by Remnant


Why don't you provide the scientific evidence where life has been created from non-life or where something was created from nothing.
No, that's not the way it works. You came here a complete blowhard in an attempt to show your superiority over these god-hating atheists.

What you didn't think would happen was they would ask you hard questions. Actually ask you to show how your "theories" were better than the ones that are already in place.

And you failed to supply answers, failed miserably. Because you are a know nothing, an oxygen thief. Someone whose whole library consists of one book. Someone whose whole study is less than that taught to seven year olds in my wife's school.

Zaphod should have used rather more of the quotation, all you have brought us is "a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

884. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164034 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Just come back from a little local tournament where my pupils took one gold and two silvers so I am on a bit of an adrenaline high.

Speaking as your team coach I would like to congratulate you all. Now take a rest, eat a banana and make sure you take plenty of fluids. Put something warm on and don't let your muscles go cold. Active rest, don't forget.

885. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164029 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Comment #164022 by Remnant


Well, I have to run for now. I am going to head out and enjoy God's creation for a bit.
Time of death 1936 UTC. Cause, "I have to run now" complicated by "I am unable to answer any of the questions you have asked".

886. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164016 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Come on Remnant - answer the questions.

What is it that make Intelligent Design (look, I even capitalised it for you) science? Give us some clues as to what it predicts, show us where these predictions have been tested, show us the results of the tests.

Stop procrastinating. We want to know, we really want to know. Why is intelligent design a better theory than the one we currently have?

887. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #164008 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #163987 by wiley16350


I am not trying to come up with an alternate theory. I just want it to be shown that evolution is not fact and not the only possiblity.
Evolution is a fact. That is why I need to get a new flu shot every year. The theory of evolution is exactly that, a scientific theory that has consequences which can be tested and have been strongly tested.

If you want to advance an alternate explanation then you are going to have to provide something that is at least as explanatory as the theory of evolution. Further, it is going to have to make predictions that can be both tested and falsified.

To take your points one by one.

Complexity suggests a creator (not a designer?). So produce a mechanism that this creator could have used to create the complexity.

Intelligence suggests a creator. Same argument, show how it is done. If you can't do it then what you are talking about isn't science.

Everything needs a cause - falsified already. Quantum fluctuations create and annihilate particles all the time. Not sure what this has to do with evolution anyway.

We have no knowledge of how life can be created therefore this suggests a creator. Besides begging the question this is false as well. The only thing it suggest to is that we have no knowledge of how life came about.

Jesus is known to be an actual historical figure. Irrelevant to the discussion and false anyway.

Nobody has refuted his resurrection. Irrelevant even if true, which I beg to doubt.

So - no predictions, no tests, no results. Do you actually have anything to add?

888. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163992 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #163988 by Remnant

Come on, stop prevaricating and answer some questions.

What is it that makes ID science? You haven't told us. You haven't told us of any predictions that it makes or any crucial tests it has undergone. You haven't told us whether it passed those tests.

Answer, or just be considered yet another no-nothing creotard.

889. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163984 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #163976 by Remnant and Comment #163981 by Remnant and Comment #163981 by Remnant

To be absolutely blunt about it I don't give a flying fuck about your quote mining. As Steve says we can return data a hundred fold.

What makes ID science, what predictions does it make, what tests have been made on these predictions?

890. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163974 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #163970 by Remnant

"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."-

So?

Look - what we really want to know is what make Intelligent Design science? If it is science the its got to predict stuff. If it predicts stuff then we can test it and possibly show its predictions are false.

So here it is again - give us some concrete examples of what ID predicts.

891. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163737 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

Comment #163575 by clodhopper

Oh....I found this too which is rich.

"But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience.
I will keep this one in mind. No predictions, therefore not falsifiable, therefore not science. And Dumbski said it.

892. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163736 by epeeist on April 19, 2008 at 12:00 am

Comment #163571 by clodhopper

Comment #163462 by epeeist

epee: good post.
Thanks for that, it was mostly culled from elsewhere.

OK, small fencing analogy. You fence on a rectangular strip (piste). There are two ways of scoring against your opponent, hitting them and forcing them off the end of the piste. People who get pushed into their end zone tend to be forced into defence, and the defence gets wilder the closer they get to the end line.

I am suggesting that the "Expelled" zombies are pushing us in this way. We need to stop defending and start pushing back. We can demonstrate that the ToE is science, Popper was initially sceptical but came round to the view that it was testable and falsifiable which pretty well makes it good enough for me.

While the trolls may have some ludicrous idea of the weaknesses of the ToE (in their notes somewhere) answering these puts us on the back foot (to really mix metaphors). We should be asking them to demonstrate why ID is science, what its predictions are, how it can be tested, how it can be falsified. And we should be going all Brouwer on them. No existence theories, we want constructions and we want evidence.

Similarly with the likes of thisisme. I have found his discussion with MPhil interesting, but to a certain extent they are talking past each other.

If thisisme is claiming objective, absolute morality then let us see an example, how is it objective, why is it objective, what is the decision procedure for deciding this?

893. Flea of the week

Comment #163519 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #163511 by Diacanu

And what would've happened if the resultant creature had bitten Jesus?
You get a cosmic Jewish vampire?

894. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163516 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Comment #163514 by al-rawandi

We also have a sword for beheading ostrich worshippers.
Look, I know how many blades I have in my bag. Just keep your hands off, okay.

895. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163512 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #163411 by max dyson

"If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods?"
Hmm, cargo!

896. Flea of the week

Comment #163508 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Comment #163488 by Frankus1122

No, no, no. All you need to do is look in the Bible and ALL the answers to life's questions will be answered.
Ah yes the bible, because all the works of science are outweighed by the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who believed that all the world's species lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

And

Comment #163490 by freethnkr
I guess I've severely misunderstood their goal
Are you sure you don't mean "goat"?

897. Flea of the week

Comment #163475 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #163470 by SomeDanGuy

As evil as atheism is, at least you've put food on the tables of dozens of christian writers.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I wonder how many of these books are vanity published.

One thing I would hazard a guess at though, if there are any left over they won't be remaindered. They will be pulped.

898. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163472 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #163420 by Serdan

Good call. Hávamál, yes?
Yes
Though you should probably skip stanza 84 if there are any women around.
Stanza 90 in the translation you give would be one to avoid too.

899. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163462 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 11:33 am

I wonder how many of these people have been redirected here from the "Expelled" site, we certainly know of one. Interesting too that they don't want to discuss the merits of ID, they direct their attention to the supposed deficits of the theory of evolution and the benefits of faith.

The conclusions that I come to on the back of this is that ID has no merits and that the judge in the Kitzmuller-Dover case got it right. ID is simply rebadged creationism.

For all our new colleagues - these are some of the predictions of the theory of evolution:


  • Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
  • Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
  • Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
  • Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
  • Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
  • Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
  • Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).


Here are some of the ways the theory could be falsified
  • Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't. For example, if species taken to be closely related (e.g. chimpanzees and humans) had been shown to have radically different DNA sequences, this would have falsified evolution.
  • The genetic code (the mapping of DNA to amino acids) could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
  • If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.
  • The discovery of fossils in rock from the wrong time period (e.g. the discovery of a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian shales) would falsify evolution.
  • If geology or cosmology had shown the earth to be young (i.e. the 6,000 to 15,000 year time span claimed by young earthers) this would not allow any time for evolution.


The challenge here is not to find fault with Darwin's original theory or the neo-Darwinian synthesis. What I want to see is
  1. Predictions that the Intelligent Design hypothesis makes
  2. Ways in which Intelligent Design can be falsified

900. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163442 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #163439 by al-rawandi


You are going to have to list the scholars which were non-partisan and claimed Jesus existed.
I have been told that it is fairly easy to tell he was Jewish
  1. He lived at home for the first 30 years of his life
  2. His mother thought he was god

More Pages: Previous | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 | Next