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 Geoff


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

Comment #170984 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 8:04 am

1541. Comment #170667 by TheTruthID on April 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm


Regarding Dawkins eye lecture. Let's say there was a population of a certain type of pin-eyed creatures. In breeding, a speciman was born with a mutation in which the skin around it's eye protruded by 1%. Now, this one speciman would need to survive in order to reproduce. The mutation was so small that it really did not give much of an advantage over the other like specimans.


It's important to realise that even a very slight, almost unnoticeable, improvement can still be selected for. Imagine, say, in very dim light, there are two prey (or predator) animals, one that sees slightly better than the other. It's easy then to imagine that the better one will see a predator (or prey) slightly sooner than the other, and escape (or feed), at the expense of the other.


There would then be a period of time where the offspring, generations down the line, of this one speciman resulted in an identical mutation on the same exact gene resulting in a little bigger protrusion.


Amongst lots of other mutations elsewhere in the genome, yes, although it's misleading to think of one single gene in this case. I'll have to obversimplify a little here, but for example, it could be a gene that increases the number of rods or cones in the retina, or improves the lens, or the focussing ability of the muscles, or the size of the eye...lots of factors involved, including Pax "control genes" (gets complicated if we go into too much detail).


Over many years the result would be a population of specimans/creatures with a more complex and developed eye. The result of many exactly the same mutations on the same exact genes utilizing natural selection for a now fully involved eye for survival. Please clarify, correct or confirm.

Not the same exact genes, as I've shown above.

A more detailed explanation would run to pages and pages, but there are lots of websites you can find if you want a truly detailed description.

PZ Meyers has a good article, but it can be quite heavy going in places:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php

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

Comment #170808 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 3:32 am

Wow, this has moved on overnight!

Haven't got long; posting from work!

Adam, thanks for your apology, unexpected, but very welcome.

I'll just pick on Brian, for now - more considered responses later tonight.

1455. Comment #170537 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm

For example, Mark Twain was a pseudonym of Samuel Clements I believe. :)


Your belief is not suppported by the evidence...

;)

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

Comment #170393 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm

One more, then I'm off to bed, it's 2 am here!

1306. Comment #170367 by smellhound


Sorry, as I understand ID, or at least the kind that right now I will accept as a scientific theory



that's not even close to being a scientific theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it barely qualifies as a conjecture. look up those 3 terms as they're used in science.

is that something or someone must have intervened at the start in order get the process moving.


again, you need to understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has nothing to do with how life got started, which is (probably) more the province of chemistry.


Whether it was God or something else, I don't think can be explained at this point. I think of ID as more of a rejection of saying that Darwin is enough.


Precisely. All creationism (or ID if you prefer; they're exactly the same thing, just dressed up slightly differently) does is try (unsuccessfully) to poke holes in the ToE, without proposing anything remotely capable of replacing it.


Goodnight, all!

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

Comment #170380 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm

1305. Comment #170366 by smellhound


Sorry, need to clarify. I am not blaming Darwin for eugenics. In fact, I am not blaming Darwin for anything. I bring up the idea of no source of morality, and ultimately no right and wrong from what one of the interviewees on Ben Stein's movie said.
To clarify about why eugenics is Darwinian. We all have the biologically programmed goal to survive and breed. We will be better able to survive and thrive as individuals in a society if we don't have to care for the weak and the sick. Maybe eugenics isn't even the right term, but there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.


No. If anything, that would be species selection, which has been shown to be false.
Bear in mind also that evolution was known about long before Darwin, as was artificial selection (in farming and agriculture, for example). Darwin showed that natural selection (ie with no human interference) would lead to changes in gene frequencies within a population, too.


The only rational argument I can think of supporting this is to gain the assurance that you will not be thinned from the herd. I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality


No-one is abandoning morality; just the opposite. If that's your argument, you need to explain why many other animals demonstrate altruism, presumably without any imposed absolute morality.

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

Comment #170364 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm

1301. Comment #170358 by smellhound


Ok, I'll admit that I am a supporter of ID. I also support at least some form of evolution because its pretty obvious. The reason I support ID in part is because I find no plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell, but I digress.


riandouglas and ThoughtsonCommonToad have covered your second point; I'd just like to ask this:

Even though, as already stated, it's abiogenesis, not evolution, what "plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell" does ID propose (other than "goddidit" I mean)?

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170346 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 4:42 pm

4991. Comment #170340 by Corylus

...require extreme concentration and the use of gratuitous and constant profanity...


a bit like this site, then?

57. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170283 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Can someone explain this US understanding of "obsolete" to me?

To me, it mainly brings up ideas of thermionic valves or slide rules.

58. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170268 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm

343. Comment #170111 by Mitchell Gilks

monogami

...folding a single piece of paper?

(sorry)

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170103 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 11:33 am

4924. Comment #170065 by Quine

I wrote:

All the deities (envisioned by and in the image of the human mind) are mythical until demonstrated otherwise



First, please note that I did not use the word "proved" so please don't misquote it, second, I contend that these two statements are not the same:

(1) There are no gods.

(2) All deities are non-existent until demonstrated otherwise.

The first is a statement of asserted fact, supposedly from a position backed up by observational evidence. The second is a statement about what we recognize to exist. Russell's Teapot is all about why you can't justify (1) but get all you need from (2).

Religious power is about the power of myths when told often enough (and long winded enough) to lull people into forgetting that they are, after all, just myths.


Yes indeed, although why limit (2) just to "all deities"?

60. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170097 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

321. Comment #170053 by Dr Benway:
A slightly disappointing link; the url led me to expect something lolcat-related.

324. Comment #170059 by gr8hands:


The t-shirt is patently offensive. If it said "women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, not in the voting booth" or "women be submissive to your husband, not having a job outside the home" or "worship Satan, not jesus" -- I am certain those t-shirts would raise the ire of those around the community.


My brother wears one with
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
1 Timothy 2:12

...mainly to annoy his wife, who is a teacher.

61. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169973 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 7:36 am

I think I was handicapped from an early age by going to an all-boys school.

Just waiting for Paula or Anna to drop in and show where we're going wrong...

62. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #169971 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 7:25 am

Maybe they're just praying for more "yes" votes, instead of doing something constructive about it?

Incidentally, there was a tactical switch to "what is it?" votes part way through, just to get that above the "yes".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/crash_this_poll.php#comments

Scroll down to around comment #400 to read the ongoing story...

63. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #169959 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 6:21 am

Someone from pharyngula made up a script for automated repeat voting!

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169924 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 4:59 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1q8W4Y

65. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169922 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 4:56 am

273. Comment #169909 by Cartomancer

I am somewhat baffled by the feminine gender to be honest


Me too.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169913 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 4:38 am

I had hopes that txpiper was going to provide something more than the usual suspects, but he/she seems to have vanished...

67. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169878 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 3:01 am

I just want to take the opportunity of posting Richard's quote that melissa objected to in her first post.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."


Just 'cos I never get tired of reading/hearing it, really.

But, melissa, every word in that quote refers to one of your cute little bible stories, as Steve Zara has already pointed out.

68. Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

Comment #169567 by Geoff on April 26, 2008 at 10:05 am

32. Comment #169439 by Simonw


Easter is just one of a number of festivals left over from the old new year (spring solstice).


[pedant]

equinox

[/pedant]

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169563 by Geoff on April 26, 2008 at 9:55 am

4756. Comment #169553 by txpiper

As to the fossils, they only seem to complicate the conventional views which require many small or large scale flood events over long periods of time. A single species being found in a particular strata on multiple continents, seems too uniform for this to have been the case.


Particular strata represent particular eras in geological time. So the fossils found in those strata are the ones that lived in that era.

For your flood to be true, we'd expect to find "hydrological sorting"; essentially the heavier animals at the bottom, because they sank more quickly.

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169531 by Geoff on April 26, 2008 at 8:45 am

This is going to be fun!

I guess we'll stick with the geological column for the time being:

txpiper: how long does sedimentary rock take to form? And when was the flood?

71. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169496 by Geoff on April 26, 2008 at 7:54 am

I'm with MPhil on this one. As the parent of two teenagers who both recently left school, as well as being a schoolteacher myself, I'm all too well aware of the bullying that goes on.

T-shirt slogans are the least of their problems.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169088 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm

4486. Comment #169055 by Bonzai


I think The TruthID's post to Elli (#4471)is offensive, I just flagged it.


Me too: he's in good company, though, as far as I can remember, the only other poster I've used that flag on is Robertson.

Ruminant, anything on the flood yet?

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168977 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Have we found out when the flood occurred yet?



Just wondered...

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168965 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 1:37 pm

4371. Comment #168908 by Steve Zara

It has been quite a good day in some respects. I have been productive work-wise, and I have won 3 out of 4 games of chess against my husband. The latter is good, as he is considerably brighter than I am, even though somewhat younger. I mentioned my discussions here with people such as Remnant. His view was insightful:

There is no point in discussion. Remnant and those like him are simply not rational. They don't accept rational standards of discussion or thought. They aren't actually insane, but they aren't prepared to play by any rules that challenge their beliefs.


reminds me of this quote:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168850 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 12:00 pm

1. Churches are charities.

2. Most charitable giving by the religious goes to their churches.

3. Most of that money goes towards staff and facities.

http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=223

(note, again, that the above is a Christian site)

Christian tithing (the biblically mandated giving of 10 percent of income to the church), it is thought, may become more popular in the United States in light of President Bush's proposed tax credits and deductions for charitable giving. Roughly three-quarters of all charitable gifts in America go to churches, and tax incentives may increase donated dollars significantly.


That's where all "your" giving is going; not to Katrina or wherever.

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168827 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 11:34 am

Remnant, your stats haven't addressed epeeist's and my point that most of that religious giving is to the churches themselves - largely by "tithing" and collection plates.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168792 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 11:05 am

Swing and a miss.

Forget the quotes from your third rate fiction and answer some of the questions.

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168776 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 10:48 am

Remnant, those stats I posted are from a Christian site: care to comment?

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168765 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 am

4242. Comment #168745 by epeeist

Comment #168735 by Remnant


Check the numbers, studies have shown that religious people give far more to charity than secular people.

Are your church and any associated groups registered as charities for tax purposes?


Beat me to it, epeeist! Indeed, those studies show that religious people give massive amounts to their (charity status) churches.

http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161

Giving to Religious Groups: Americans gave an estimated $93.18 billion to religious organizations in 2005

Disaster Relief: Americans gave an estimated $7.37 billion for disaster relief in 2005:

Giving to Health Care: Americans gave an estimated $22.54 billion to health care organizations in 2005

80. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168748 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 10:28 am

9. Comment #168520 by Vaal

Humans are evolving into two separate species now, Homo Sapiens Religites (otherwise known as Morlocks) and Homo Sapiens Rationalists.

In several thousand years the Morlocks will be living in the deserts with their camels or underground living in fear of their small despotic desert God. The rest of us will be colonising the galaxy, with the occasional foray back to Earth as an anthropological exercise to see how our our superstitious cousins are getting on.


I'm not so sure that's a good name for them; have you read "The Time Machine" recently?
I don't think I want to be one of the Eloi.

Why not simply Homo creotardus fucktardus and Homo sapiens sapiens?

81. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #168474 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 7:00 am

I just love consilience.

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168471 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 6:57 am

4097. Comment #168452 by Remnant

No one is "trying to chance the way science is done or halt scientific progress.


That's exactly what the creationists are trying to do. They want their own particular religious myths taught as science.

83. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168396 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 5:41 am

4030. Comment #168361 by Remnant


Maybe a re-reading of "the last 7 pages or so" is in order.

I am a creationist.


My apologies; I was getting you mixed up with TruthID.

Can you explain why creationism, which has already been exposed many times as religion (most recently in the Dover trial), should be taught in a science class?

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168358 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 4:44 am

Remnant, you were doing reasonably well for a brief while there (just caught up on the last 7 pages or so), but if I may make a suggestion: forget the bible quotes, they have no more relevance to this debate than Tolkien or Rowling quotes.

You say (somewhere) that you're not a creationist, but you support ID. Can you elaborate on what you see as the difference between the two? (You'll need to explain the various editions of "Pandas & People", as well as the "wedge document).

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167506 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 5:39 am

3631. Comment #167490 by AllanW


Bugger me! Twenty minutes later and the sun pops out. Nice work Geoff :)


No problem! Just keep praying to me...

The impossible I do at once; miracles (like bringing sunshine to Manchester) take a little longer!

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

Comment #167479 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 5:06 am

953. Comment #167471 by Roland_F


About the own internal and moderated forum: we should have at least an 'atheist handbook' summarizing the rebuttals of claims from Cretinist/IDiots or Biblical apologists so we can simply link to this instead of rephrasing all the time rebuttals to ignorant's like "why there are still monkeys" or "evolution without God contradict 2nd law of thermodynamics" etc.



http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=24090

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167477 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 5:01 am

3623. Comment #167466 by AllanW


And Geoff, send some of the sunshine over here, please :)


Will do; it's on the way!

Please acknowledge receipt..

88. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167476 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 4:59 am

141. Comment #167355 by emmet

doesn't the UK's NHS have homeopathic units?


They are backing down from that now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/30/nhs.health

And this brilliant recent article from a GP:

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4118294&c=4

'Why don't you do homeopathy at this surgery?' she [a patient] asked.

I don't normally get involved in arguments about homeopathy, because people who want to argue in its favour are, by definition, people who cannot manage a rational argument, but she was provoking me.

'Because it's a crock of shite,' I told her.

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167458 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 4:20 am

Due to start 12.30. Beautiful sunshine here, 20 miles from Manchester!

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

Comment #167450 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 4:11 am

941. Comment #167441 by Steve Zara


The fora aren't visible enough IMO.

Perhaps, but wouldn't it be easier to make them more visible than start a new site from scratch?




Indeed. They also don't seem to encourage the same fast conversational style as here.


Isn't that a function of the users, though? If us lot wandered over there more often, it would get pretty fast-paced, I suspect...

Most of the front page articles here are mirrored over there in the appropriate section anyway, usually with similar discussion points.

The discussions have the massive advantage of being moderated. For example:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32467

[6] Do NOT post content in this forum that is scientifically discredited. This means, for those who need to be told this, that ANY garbage emanating from bad apologetics websites propagandising for religious doctrines based upon theological pornography, such as the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis and other purveyors of misrepresentation of science. Any such drivel that is posted here WILL be moved instantly to Debunking Creationism where it belongs. This forum section is for proper scientific debate ONLY, and is NOT a free fire zone for creationist candyfloss.


(some of you may recognise Calilasseia's inimitable style...)

91. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #167440 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 3:47 am

38. Comment #167104 by CruciFiction

The "good" witches of East Africa are penis enhancers.


Very true. Lots of them keep emailing me...

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

Comment #167436 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 3:32 am

What's being suggested doesn't seem too different from the more sensible parts of the fora, to me.

The more scientific fora, such as "Evolution & Natural Selection", "Philosophy, "General Science", etc, are kept pretty much troll-free by the assiduous efforts of the various moderators.

Those who enjoy their "chew toys" can have lots of fun in the "Debunking Creationism" forum and others.

I do agree, though, with Steve, Quine and others who rightly (IMO) point out that these sorts of debates are more for the benefit of the audience, who will easily see the paucity of the creotards' contributions.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167425 by Geoff on April 24, 2008 at 3:03 am

Has he gone yet? Answered any of the questions? Talked any sense?

.......just wondered...


PS Quetz: nice avatar!

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166713 by Geoff on April 23, 2008 at 11:47 am

3431. Comment #166566 by Quine

I was going to try to get him to learn something...


"...Anything can happen. In a year the king may die. Or I may die. Or the horse may die. Or ...
The horse may learn to sing."

95. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166653 by Geoff on April 23, 2008 at 11:16 am

Just checking....


Nope, they've not got at mine yet...

oh, wait...

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

Comment #165815 by Geoff on April 22, 2008 at 12:09 pm

382. Comment #165782 by epeeist

extispicy.


The second addition to my vocabulary today!

Thanks!

97. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165696 by Geoff on April 22, 2008 at 3:57 am

Thanks again, Shayne, your posts are always a delight to read.

You've expanded my vocabulary again, too. "Feruncle" indeed!

Oh, and wooter: what epeeist said in #187.

98. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165687 by Geoff on April 22, 2008 at 3:36 am

31. Comment #165666 by Corylus

...anyone you pick up is unlikely to boil your pet rabbit.


Hadn't heard it called that before!

Actually, I've got mixed feelings about the "atheist church" concept.

Initially I dismissed it as silly, as most on here have, but then I thought of the analogy of using methadone as a way of combating heroin addiction.

99. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165571 by Geoff on April 21, 2008 at 5:22 pm

57. Comment #165504 by al-rawandi

As an infidel you cannot go to Mecca.

Sorry.


...but you can build your own Mecca-no?

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

Comment #165570 by Geoff on April 21, 2008 at 5:18 pm

#10 already? Without even saying goodbye?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next