1051. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #167362 by Bonzai on April 24, 2008 at 12:48 am

Mphil,

No,haven't heard of the musical you mentioned. Is it recent? What is it about?

1052. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #167361 by Bonzai on April 24, 2008 at 12:41 am

Steve

We are dealing here with something that directly affects reproductive potential.

So is impotence a selected trait? What would be the adaptive advantage of having a limp dick? I can't even begin to fathom.To say that a trait has a biological basis is not the same as it being a selective trait. You are making a much more specific claim.

It also occurs in a consistent and significant proportion of the population. If something like that isn't to a significant degree influenced by DNA, I would be astonished.

As I said above, having a genetic factor is not the same as being a selected trait.

Homosexuals are not sterile. A preference for same sex intimacy doesn't preclude mating with members of the opposite sex. It doesn't follow that homosexuals are unable to or unwilling to have offsprings. I think you are mistaking cultural attitude as biology.

While homosexuality may have a biological factor, the gay identity is a rather recent cultural construct. I am annoyed whenever I read so and so (fill in the blanks for your favourite historical personality) was gay. The concept didn't exist then.

(An interesting but perhaps irrelevant aside: Michael Angelo was alleged to be gay, while in fact his had such a miserable personality and disgusting personal hygiene that he was unable to find partner of either sex.He never bathed even though he went to bath houses to find male models. He lived a long and unhappy life and died a virgin. His reproductive failure apparently had little to do with him being homosexual,--if he was indeed a homosexual. A preference for drawing or sculpting naked men doesn't necessarily indicate homosexual preference, there are possible artistic reasons for that. I do quite a bit of sketching so I do understand some of the artistic issues.)

As I said before, homosexuals do leave offspring, if homosexuality is a selected trait there should be a higher incidence of homosexuality among children of homosexuals, there is no evidence for that. You can speculate that the responsible gene may be recessive, this is a possible way to explain the absence of evidence but it doesn't provide positive evidence to support your claim.

1053. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167018 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Troll

You gotta to love that "science of the gaps" mentality. We'll discover it someday, just abandon your faith in the mean time kids.

There may be questions that science can never answer. But how does it prove that God is the answer, or even an answer? If we are indeed unable to answer certain question, then it is an unknown, by giving a name to the unknown and call it "God" is not an answer. You may as well call it "X".

Science doesn't have all the answers, may never have, exactly because it adheres to very high standard in accepting answers so they are hard to come by. If scientists are like you then all questions would have easy answers, only they are likely to be all wrong.

Having answers is no big deal as anyone can make up a whole bunch of them. Having the right answers is very hard. If you don't know, at least admit your ignorance, rather than trying to pretend that you have easy answers from mythologies, it is false certainty.

What you really might want to worry about is what you might discover when it is too late.

"Too late" for what? More threat from your "loving" God,--actually threats from you claiming to be speaking for the "infinite mind" of God. How preposterous and arrogant.

1054. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166955 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 2:05 pm

MPhil,

Good job. I know nothing about Latin but your translation sounds even more authoritative and cryptic than Brian's from what I vaguely remember.

1055. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166944 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Max D

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

I prefer my more concise formulation:

" I don't know, therefore God exists!"

Brian English has translated it into Latin so that it can be engraved on Churches and Cathedrals, though I forget what it is.

1056. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166936 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm

SSE

That avatar really does look like poop!



Sorry for being so childish :(

You beat me to it. I too was wondering why steve mysteriously turned into a pile of dog crap. :)

I thought only I have a childish mind for watching too much South Park.

1057. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166754 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Troll

Thank you for confirming the premise of the movie Expelled.

So you are saying those who get "expelled" are exactly people like you who are intellectually dishonest, who offer nothing of substance in debates, who refuse to answer any straight forward question and refuse to back up their extravagant assertions with evidence and arguments.

Well such people should be expelled.

Ben Stein is correct. Censorship of opposing thought is your only hope

Don't flatter yourself. There is no "thought" coming out from your posts, period.

1058. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166719 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 11:50 am

Remnant

God does not want robots. He gave us free will. We have the choice to accept His plan of salvation or reject it.

Salvation from what? His own damnations and vindictiveness. This is not a choice he offered but a threat.

This is like a robber pointing a gun at you and says you have the "free" choice to hold on your wallet or give it to him. It is a travesty to call that "free choice"

True love requires a free choice.

This is the kind of "love" of a stalker or a possessive boy friend who should be slapped with a restraining order.The God of the bible is tyrannical, forever jealous and distrustful.He always demands obedience and throws horrible temper tantrums when he is crossed, he demands and expects "faith" from us yet never has any in us, as shown by his compulsive need to constantly find ways to test us for loyalty and "love".

What the Bible depicts is a typical abusive relationship.

If you think that represents "love" you obviously don't know what love is. You make me want to puke.

The ironic thing is that without God, there is no free will. With a creator God, your slime plus time theory of evolution leaves you captive to chemical responses that have "evolved". You are a slave to chemical reactions. You have no free will to make any choices. You become a robot.

Bald assertion without any supporting argument or evidence. What is "free will" by the way?

1059. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166690 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 11:34 am

Let's troll him. I already flagged him.

1060. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166674 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 11:26 am

Remnant

Oh but you are? contradiction

Did I say I speak for God? You do!

Learn to read.

Me :

How do you know God prefers lackeys such as yourself rather than people with intellectual integrity?

Remnant:

logical fallacy argument from authority

What authority? I asked a question. Please at least learn the meanings of big words like "argument from authority" before you use them so you won't make a laughing stock of yourself. Oh, but wait, you already made a fool of yourself so I suppose it can't be worse.

Me:

You keep quoting the Bible, how do you know it is not a test just to see how gullible some people can be? Are you taking away God's prerogative to lie to limited beings such as yourself for his infinite purpose incomprehensible to finite humans? What is lying to an infinite God?

Remnant

Is that the lie you choose to believe?

What "lie"? Do you not spam us with cut and paste bible quotes?

Again, did I say I believe in anything? I am asking you to justify your belief that God didn't lie to you. By saying that you know he didn't you are claiming as a finite human you know God's alleged infinite mind and his intentions.

Me:

An infinite being is not qualified to judge us because he can't walk in our shoes.

Remanant

Is that your ruling as a finite being?

Why don't you give an honest response instead of repeating the same question like a bot? By what "infinite" logic do you figure that a millionaire would be able to put himself in the shoe of the homeless?

Th rest of your post is irrational speculation.

That is rich. Coming from someone who thinks an old book of fantastic stories has anything to say about the real world without any supporting evidence and actually with a lot of contradicting evidence.

But then you probably don't even know what it means by "speculating" even when you are doing that wholesale.

Logic is not a strong point of yours is it?

Are you saying this as a self parody? I was about to suggest you to read some logic, but having thought about it a bit, it is too demanding, You should learn how to read first.

1061. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166481 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 9:11 am

Remnant

You are using your finite understanding of God and His plan to judge God. Sorry but man's finite understanding is not capable of "judging" God

Then you are not qualified to make comments on God's preferences and way either.

How do you know God prefers lackeys such as yourself rather than people with intellectual integrity?

You keep quoting the Bible, how do you know it is not a test just to see how gullible some people can be? Are you taking away God's prerogative to lie to limited beings such as yourself for his infinite purpose incomprehensible to finite humans? What is lying to an infinite God?

An infinite being is not qualifiedto judge us because he can't walk in our shoes.

An omnipotent being would not know what it is like to be limited, and this is his limitation. He can play make believe to pretend to be limited, but that is not the same thing, and it is an insult to us, just like it would be an insult to the homeless for a millionaire to sleep a night in the street and then claim to know the experience of being homeless.

Of course all these presume God exists for argument's sake. You have not given us any evidence or good reason that he does.

1062. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166416 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 8:29 am

Steve,

Do you always respond to posts by just reading the first sentence?

It seems like that was what you did to mine.

1063. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166173 by Bonzai on April 23, 2008 at 12:16 am

I agree with Styrer that EVERYONE should have the right to speculate on scientific questions, it is a free country.

On the other hand,i It is not to say that all speculations should be taken seriously, some, such as "god did it" should be dismissed as out to lunch and laughed off the stage, whether it is from a high school drop out or a Ph.D.(such as Behe)

I agree with Steve that in order to be taken seriously, a certain minimal requirement of knowledge and expertise should be met, though this should be judged based on the quality of the arguments put forth, rather than formal credentials. Galois was a high school drop out and Ramanuijan was illiterate.

What I find annoying is not so much technically unqualified people offering their opinions and speculations, but the absolute confidence some such people have on their ill informed opinions.

I am thinking in particular of some religious types who are so sure that they have the answers to scientific questions because it is written in the Bible (or actually answergenisis.com) even though they have zero knowledge about science. If everyone can become an expert by going on the internet, no one would need to spend all the time and money going to school. I think that is what Steve had in mind. IMO hat is justified "elitism".
I think Styrer would agree too.

I also agree with Feynman that a high degree of mathematical competency is necessary,--though of course not sufficient,-- to really understand physics. Mathematics to physics is more than just a convenient language. Physical theories are mathematical in nature,--which is not the case with say, biology. You can get an impression by reading a lot of pop science books, following the journalist's approach, but words are only suggestive and without the mathematics, you are only getting a very superficial and even distorted picture. Some of the most profound difficulties faced by proposed physical theories are mathematical in nature.

Yes, you are of course entitled to an opinion based on what you read, but bear in mind that your knowledge base is not very solid if you know only word descriptions without the advanced math.

1064. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166165 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Quine

On the subject of a logic text: the math/philosophy divide can make a difference in how it comes across to you. As it happened, I ended up taking the beginning logic classes from both the math and philosophy departments at my college and got double credits for learning the same thing. However, the departments did not talk to each other, there, and it was not presented the same way.

Well it is not that so surprising that mathematicians and philosophers don't talk to each other based on our exchange here. :)

When I was in first year I took two third year logic courses in philosophy to get easy humanities credits. The text book we used was KM. The book was heavy and expensive but really had little substance. It was easy but boring.

The approach of the philosopher was to work within the formal system, The whole year was spent on transcriptions and doing formal derivations, which was trivial for math majors and was completely pointless.

The logic course offered by the math department covered all the essential points of the philosophy courses in the first week, skipping all the irrelevant details and get to interesting and challenging stuffs like Godel's theorem, Tarski theorem, model theory, forcing and computability (these are not even mentioned in KM's horrendous book)

Unlike the philosophers who forced themselves to work within the system of formal logic, the mathematicians took a meta view and asked questions about the system and investigated its properties using mathematics.

The best book in mathematical logic IMO is Yuri Manin's "A course in mathematical logic" published by Springer. It covers many interesting topics that are usually not found in logic text books such as quantum logic and the Kochen Specker theorem in quantum mechanics. However, the book is meant to be a mathematics text book at the graduate level and is not a easy read for those without the necessary mathematical background.

IMO a much better undergraduate level formal logic text book than KM by a philosopher is a popular text book written by Mendelshon, though I forget the title now.

1065. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165944 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I heard that you have already done that. I know the aborted babies that the godless have murdered have been pretty terrorized.

Well how do you know they are "terrorized"? Have you been aborted?

I eat aborted "babies" for breakfast, I can assure you that they don't feel a thing.

1066. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165853 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Steve,

Sorry to burst your bubble, flying pigs have been seen, in hurricanes.

Maybe God is Karda himself in the future, caught in some kind of spacetime anomaly and spinning around time like the flying pig. Whenever he was swept by our time he would scream to the Karda of our time, warning him not to fuck with time machines made from old washing machine parts.The voice is real.

1067. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165841 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm

The silliness about this secular "church" exercise is that ritualistic ceremonies, for what they are worth, only "work" if you believe that there is a point to them, say, God told you to do that. With that belief silly movements and rituals take on a higher significance as a gateway to some higher power bigger than humanity.

If you take the "higher power" out of the picture but still insist on going through the motion, all it is left is just the painfully stupid and contrived gestures. It is like bad acting.

Just as someone said earlier, if I want a Pope, there is always the real thing,

1068. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165783 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 10:06 am

Karda's argument boils down to "there is a chance that scenario A may be feasible", therefore it must happen for sure, therefore God exists and have done a, b, c for certain and therefore his faith is vindicated.

Once the structure of his argument is laid bare, I see no point in arguing over his peculiar understanding of physics. There is no way you can persuade him that he is wrong.

1069. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165778 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

Well my connection is slow in the last couple of days anyway, possibly due to router malfunction or the ISP fucking around with our bandwidth. Got a flashing notice on screen the other day saying that thanks to lack of competition our ISP has reset the terms of contract by decree and "unlimited access" doesn't really mean that anymore and we have exceeded our quotas.

So I have mistakenly assumed that things are slow only at my end.

1070. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165774 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 9:45 am

Not to steal Irate's thunder. I have to say "fucktard".

What the hell is a "Islamic scholar" anyway? I thought that their "scholarship" consists of figuring out how many pebbles you should use to wipe your arse, how many leashes a woman should endure for not covering her face and how big the stones should be for stoning adulterers to death. Now it seems they also have an opinion on time zone and the polarity of clocks. That is new to me.

Why don't these idiots get a life.

There should be a wall built around Mecca and let them devolve back to apes or something. They are dragging the feet of humanity,

1071. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165762 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 8:56 am

Sharon

I mean, other hobbies might require a lot more energy, and being that laziness seems to be epidemic in our cultures, it could be a contributing factor.

Church: it's not just for the lazy of mind, but also for the lazy of body.

I am afraid that is somewhat superficial an observation.

People don't just go to Church to sit, listen to sermons and pray. To be fair Churches also organize activities and social events. I know some senior citizens who go to church organized hikes and exercise classes on a regular basis.

I think sometimes atheists do demonstrate a lack of understanding of how religion become a part of many people's lives. It is not just about making truth claims and "believing" in the supernatural.

Religion does fulfill a certain social role, what I differ from Epstein is that I don't think this role can only be met by something religion like, with all its rituals and trappings.

1072. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165753 by Bonzai on April 22, 2008 at 8:31 am

I agree with JammyM to a degree, but religion is not just about making communities. It also has a ritualistic aspect which gets on my nerve, Epstein is soooo annoying because even without God, he keeps all the preaching and sermonizing and religious trappings which are even worse than God.

The idea of secular religion purely for social cohesive purpose is not new. Confucianism is exactly that and it is older than Christianity. While without the super natural mumbo jumbos, it is as pretentious and in every way as much a vehicle for indoctrinations. Its insistence on conformity is as strong as other religion. How else does religion, secular or otherwise, build "social cohesion" and "harmony" if it doesn't encourage conformity?

On a different note, I disagree with posters who say that humanism is the religious wing of atheism. I consider myself a humanist in the broad sense, but I have no time for the silliness of Epstein. I don't need a Church. I think Epstein only represents a very peculiar subgroup of humanists.

1073. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165612 by Bonzai on April 21, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Do you guys think that navyjake is for real? I sense bad acting, kinda like those cheesy John Wayne movies.

1074. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164959 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Layla,

. I was overwhelmed by the Qur'an and decided to take on Islam. It was great; I made a lot of friends, I felt in touch with a Higher Being because Islam affects all aspects of daily life so that even while doing something as mundane as washing one's body or cutting one's nails, one feels that one is obeying a higher authority, Allah. There were some problems, to put it mildly, with my family, but I didn't care--I had found the truth that I was searching for.

Just out of curiosity, what made you pick Islam instead of other religions in the beginning? Is it that complete surrendering of self which is extreme even by religious standard?

Do you think that is the kind of experience that many religious believers seek to varying degrees?

You said your conversion to Islam has generated a lot of conflict with your family, yet you were brave enough to proceed, why are you so cautious about telling others about losing your faith now? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to judge you or anything. I am just fascinated and curious.

1075. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164889 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Well I am not a biologist so I don't have a definitive opinion on this, but I often wonder whether the contention that evolution only operates on the gene level is hard established science or just a particularly influential dogma.

I have the feeling that it is one of those things like some cosmological models, which the science itself is not really that definitive about despite the strongly held opinions of advocates.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia on group selection.

In recent years, the limitations of earlier models have been addressed, and newer models suggest that selection may sometimes act above the gene level. Recently David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober have argued that the case against group selection has been overstated. They focus their argument on whether groups can have functional organization in the same way individuals do and, consequently, if groups can also be "vehicles" for selection. For example, groups that cooperate better may have out-reproduced those which did not. Resurrected in this way, Wilson & Sober's new group selection is usually called multilevel selection theory.[11]

Although Richard Dawkins and fellow advocates of the gene-centered view of evolution remain unconvinced (see, for example, [12][13][14]), Wilson & Sober's work has been part of a broad revival of interest in multilevel selection as an explanation for evolutionary phenomena. Indeed, in a 2005 article[15], E. O. Wilson (often regarded as the father of sociobiology) argued that kin selection could no longer be thought of as underlying the evolution of extreme sociality, for two reasons. First, some authors have shown that the argument that haplodiploid inheritance, characteristic of the Hymenoptera, creates a strong selection pressure towards nonreproductive castes is mathematically flawed (e.g. [16]). Secondly, eusociality no longer seems to be confined to the hymenopterans; increasing numbers of highly social taxa have been found in the years since Wilson's foundational text on sociobiology was published in 1975[10], including a variety of insect species, as well as a rodent species (the naked mole rat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

1076. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164881 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Do you forget the great wisdom from Conan, when he was asked what is best in life?
"To crush your enemies before you,
to see them driven before you,
and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Sounds like Biblical value rather than evolution.

1077. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164862 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I am more of an artsy type when it comes to movies. Never much like action flicks. :)

1078. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164856 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 6:55 pm

It would be like the character in a movie being able to travel outside the screen.

I remember there is a Woody Allen movie like that. I think it is called the purple rose of Cairo or something like that. Watched it on TV.

1079. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164850 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I wonder where did Karda gets his ideas from (the voice?) and be so damn sure about it, but at least it is more entertaining than conventional Christianity.I will give him a star for originality and good sci-fi plot, I don't believe in that, but it sounds cool. I don't believe in reincarnation either, but it is also a cool idea. One life is not enough..(I don't mean only duration, but just being one person..)

1080. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164438 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 am

So, again, my point was: what has it to do with science? Why is Dawkins making this his life work -- instead of devoting himself to biological research?

What does it have to do with the points he made?

Dawkins' job description is to promote public understanding of science, which is very broad mandate, but it doesn't include doing active
research.

Dawkins has earned his reputation as a scientist and generally regarded as a senior statesman of science but no longer doing active research. He is perfect for the job of promoting science and rational thinking to the public. Science is not just cool facts and gadgets, it is also a way of thinking and knowing which insists on evidence and rationality. Religion represents the opposite of it, especially in its fundamentalist forms, Dawkins does a great job for his mandate.

1081. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164395 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:38 am

Religion ascribes false authority and makes abuse of power that much more possible.

Come now. Do you think this guy derived his authority from religion? "God said thou shalt lay with thy local school principle if it is a Christian school.." I just don't see it happened like that. He offered to bend the rule in exchange for a sexual bribe, it is as simple as that.

1082. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164391 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:24 am

Taking your PZ example - we don't have his whole blog replicated here do we?

Thankfully we don't.

IMHO PZ is hardly an example of outstanding journalism. Some times he comes off like a hack.

I also wonder how someone who is supposed to be doing active research and teaching has so much time for his blog and extra curricula atheistic activism. It is not that I think these activities are not valuable, but I just want to know his secret so I can organize my time better.

1083. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164382 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 6:58 am

PBUM

With or without this article this site is doing a marvellous job of #1, but a fucking terrible job of #2, in my opinion.

I don't see how a story like this promotes #2. It shouldn't if people are rational about why they reject religion. The same kind of abuse could have (and has) happened in secular settings, and just because the guy has a job in a religious school it doesn't follow that his behaviour is inspired by his religion. It certainly discredits the school in question, but nothing much more.

1084. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164348 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 5:24 am

Steve,

I think I am perhaps trying to be optimistic. Stupidity isn't curable, whereas ignorance may be.

Well, that may have the unintended effect of encouraging someone to remain ignorant so he/she doesn't have to consider the possibility that he/she may actually be stupid.


I knew this girl who did very badly in school, but she was also extremely lazy. I asked her why didn't she work harder, she explained that if she didn't work hard and fail she could always tell herself she was only lazy, but if she worked hard and still fail, the only explanation would be that she was stupid. She would rather be lazy than stupid, because "laziness can be fixed, but there is not cure for stupidity". She was actually very bright, though in a devious kind of way..

1085. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164015 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I have not used profanity, called anyone a name, or made any sort of personal attack..

And you have not answer the questions that are put to you except repeating the questions in rhetorical "answers" like a bot. Why don't you answer epeeist's questions for a start.

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.

1086. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164004 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Really, is that your "private musing".

Oh, very smart. My "musing" is based solidly on evidence, which is your spam.

Four things you can always count on when dealing with atheists.

1. a filthy mouth

2. Censorship of dissenting thought.

3. An abundance of false premises and self-defeating statements.

4. a blind faith UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.

1. What is so filthy about calling you an idiot? Would a fool sound better?

2. I see no evidence of any "thought" being expressed by your cut and paste spams.

3. Such as?

4. Why don't YOU TRY TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS
for a change, as others have been telling you?

1087. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163983 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 11:55 am

The private musings of scientists are just their personal opinions, not science. All these quotes appeal to emotion, rather than any sound argument.

Quit spamming the thread, you idiot.

1088. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163950 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

Creationists do the same thing.

No, they don't. "Updating" is a systematic process in science. It has to fit with data, other pieces of science and it has to be a coherent, logical extension of existing theory. New predictions would have to be made, new tests performed.

It is not making up ad hoc stories as you go along like in creationism.

1089. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163944 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:29 am

I don't even know why we bother to put up with this BS. All science is wrong because there may be small wrinkles here and there,--while they exist, most of what put forth are strawmen objections and ignorance in basic science,-- but the Broze age mythologies of the Genesis written by a bunch of smelly, ignorant, half crazed goat fuckers are right, even though they don't pass ONE single test.

I see no point in even debating these brain dead morons. The bible must have dropped on their fucking heads when they were babies.

Sorry for pulling a Styrer, can't help it.

1090. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163938 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:10 am

Wiley

No one "believes" in the big bang "on faith". Our scientific picture is never complete. There is no "final word". It is constantly being updated in light of new data, that is why science is a robust way of knowing,--unlike dogmatic systems such as religion,--that is exactly its strength.

You only have a problem because you try to project your religious mindset on science and expect it to offer certainties like religion by fiat. You have it completely wrong, science is not a competing faith.

Science answers some questions, some with more certainty than others, some answers are tentative and speculative, some we don't even know how to begin to formulate the question.

But the bottomline is religion doesn't answer any question

When religion provides one honest answer instead of just using "God did it" as a one size fits all bogus "answer" to shorthand our ignorance, we can have an honest debate.

The failure of science to produce answers for some questions is its strength rather than weakness. Scientifically acceptable answers are difficult to come by because they have to meet very high standard. Anyone can make up a whole bunch of cheap answers as they go along like in religion.

1091. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163924 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

ZekeCDN,

I can't recall whether Krauss was on Richard's informal short list of Americans who would make interesting candidates for his Oxford Chair (I'm fairly certain that Carolyn Porco and Neil DeGrasse Tyson were mentioned ... and that my own first choice, Steven Pinker, was not), but if so this sure was a heck of an interview!

I don't know if any scientist still active in research would want a position like that. It is a position perfect for senior statesmen of science at the end of the research careers such as Dawkins.

1092. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163922 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

This peacock tail filter ensures that only the most committed and intellectually conformist people get to be doctors.

I knew it! House is just a TV show.

1093. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163905 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

Even if the theory of evolution is all wrong, it doesn't validate the Bronze age myth of the Bible by one iota.

There wasn't one shred of evidence and not one compelling logical reason to believe in the Biblical stories even before Darwin. It is very easy to see that for those of us who were raised in cultures where Christianity is not the default mode of belief (It would be just as easy for Christians to see that even if Darwin was wrong 100%, there would still be no reason to believe in Zeus)

1094. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163897 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

Clod,

I can't see my farts either but I believe in them.

But you can see your wet suit expanding like a balloon,

1095. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163880 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 8:40 am

Steve,

Does the term "Church's position" fill you with enthusiasm for anything that is going to follow? Or does it give you the same sinking feeling I get?

It is also the "Church position" of the RC Church to oppose the invasion of Iraq and global inequality, I agree with that. I think the Church has a much more sensible stance on economical justice, than say atheist Randoids.

1096. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163875 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 8:32 am

Russell,

see nothing wrong with this research whatsoever. All the arguments that have been put up by the Vatican, by Leon Kass, etc, etc, are pretty much rubbish.

They may be. But the questions nevertheless needed to be raised. Just because they are asked by religious people doesn't mean that they are by necessity religious arguments.

Some countries have no such debate, for example, China. They also happen to see nothing wrong in harvesting and selling organs of executed prisoners, eugenics and other human right violations.

On closer examinations, the objections may turn out to be invalid, but the fact that they are being raised and taken seriously does reflect on the attitude of a society on humanistic values. Unless you agree with Henri Bergson the poster, I don't think these values are uniquely Christian.

I'm by no means one of the MAJOR voices of reason in the debate so far - go and have a read of On Cloning by John Harris as a good place to start. Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? by Gregory Pence is another good book on the subject

How about designer babies? Do you have a problem with that?

I am not just talking about the single issue of therapeutic cloning, but the whole sleuth of opportunities and pitfalls that are opened up by the possibilities of fundamentally changing the meaning of being humans through artificial means and "design". I am weary of the near orgasmic rush to embrace all the latest techo fads by some posters on this site.

I am frankly quite unease with some transhumanist types who almost see humanity as an embarrassment. Their bad rendition of Nietzsche by Frankenstein doesn't impress me.

As for cloning yourself, it is not so much "fear", I just don't see the point of it, unless, as I wrote somewhat tongue in cheek, you want to have a sex orgy with yourself.

1097. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163865 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 8:01 am

Are we talking about Planet Of the Apes? I like chimps, they're cool.

1098. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163859 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 7:45 am

I'm all for this type of research if it's true-as some one posted previously, science cures disease not religion-a world free from all types of disease or the church wringing it's hands piously saying it's wrong?

I am not sure what scientific merit there is in cloning oneself. This doesn't really tell you anything you don't know before other than that it can be done and someone did it,

I think it is a strawman to suggest that only the religious would feel unease about certain types of research that raise some thorny questions about how humanity sees itself.

Like I have written in another thread, a society which sees no need to properly debate the ethical implications of bio techology probably treats humans as just body parts and has no problem with the most grotesque human right violations.

I am not saying I am against controversial biological research, all I am saying is we should welcome debates and address the concerns raised if they are reasonable, instead of summarily dismissing them as the deluded ravings of the religious. Just because the religious person raises a question it doesn't automatically makes it invalid.

Edit

It is also very naive to think that a very powerful technology would only be deployed to do good such as "curing diseases". I find this is the attitude of many posters here, it is as if their unbridled optimism allows them to only see the up side of technology, so any word of caution would be dismissed as religious induced delusion. Their faith in techno Utopia is actually quite religious in nature.

Technology is always a double edged sword. What can be used to enhance human freedom can also be used to curtail it. All possibilities need to be considered and explored.

1099. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163851 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 7:23 am

To top this someone should clone himself and than marry himself. The ultimate orgy of narcissism.I do find myself very attractive. Too bad I am not a biologist and likely can't afford the service of one.

EDIT I wrote "himself" because I think mostly men are into having non stop perverted sex with themselves, no disrespect for the ladies.

1100. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163656 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm

That does not mean I wish to peek in their bedrooms, much less have my kids peek likewise, whether on the real thing or else a televised depiction, watered down or not.

So that means you wouldn't mind if your kids peek into the bedroom of straight couples? No one is saying that we should show gay people having sex on kid's show. I don't think you would see heterosexuals having sex on children show either, I don't know what your problem is.

True. Let's just leave it up to parents to decide if their kids should view it in programmes purportedly made for them,

Parents can switch off the TV if they don't like Ernie and Burt or the tele tubbies (well, though I heard it is a show more for thirty something stoners) They always have the decision.