1101. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74313 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 5:20 am

If there's anything I've learned from years of managing creative people and getting results

If you have managed people (of any kind) and got results, then I am honestly impressed :)

1102. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74306 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 4:49 am

Fair? What's fair got to do with it? Of course it's fair to criticise them, it's just not helpful, as I said, I think it's worse than useless. If you want to be helpful, DO something!

And I have explained why I think it IS helpful.

As a worse case scenario it's better to be ridiculed, laughed at and be recognised than to be wise, unheard of, ignored and trodden on.

Sorry, but I profoundly disagree. I think it is sometimes far better to be quiet than to stand up for a cause and be ridiculed and laughed at, as that can do harm to the cause.

So, in the absence of better action the RRS can do no wrong, for fucks sake give them a break, they're learning, how would any smart-ass here do by tackling such an enormous task without experience? These guys are breaking new ground they need our support and encouragement not snooty-nosed superior judgement.

Sorry, but I don't think that requiring people actually prepare reasonable arguments and get their facts straight before standing up as representatives for a cause is 'snooty-nosed' or 'smart-ass'ed.

I strongly support much of what they do, but I believe that there are situations where you can do real harm to a cause by getting things wrong, as it gives ammunition to the other side. One the reasons that atheist activists like Dawkins, Myers, Harris and Dennett are so powerful is that they damn well know what they are talking about.

1103. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74291 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 3:55 am

RR may not be perfect, but they're at least articulate and intelligent. We owe a lot to them simply for having the guts to stand up for the rest of us who are apparently too busy heckling them from the sidelines to help out.

Do we? I admire their guts, but guts alone does not win or even help an argument. If you are going to stand up and represent a cause, you should make an effort to represent that cause using good and well-researched arguments. Standing up and fumbling things does not help, and is, in my view, often worse than saying nothing at all... it can be damaging.

Those who can't handle that don't have to accept it but whining about others who actually DO something is not helpful, it's worse than useless.

These people were not forced to do what they are doing. They are self-appointed. It is their choice, and as such, it is entirely fair for them to be subject to reasonable criticism.

1104. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74289 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 3:37 am

Oh. And why exactly do statistical mechanics apply to God? Don't you see that by assuming that naturalism applies to God you are begging the question?

This is nothing to do with naturalism. It is general. If someone flipped a coin in Heaven and came up with 1000 heads, you would look for some kind of explanation....

You seem, as always, to think that abandoning your interpretation of "naturalism" somehow gives you a "get out" from having to explain all kinds of things. It doesn't.

So the universe is complex after all. Great, so you agree with premise #3 in post 243.

No. Premise #3 was that the Universe at its origin was complex. In other words, the "thing that needed explaning" was complex. Because we know that additional complexity can arise with no help at all, this additional complexity does not need explaining....

After all, in my description of Dawkins's argument in post 243 I too make the relevant distinction between "unexplained complexity" and "explained complexity". The universe then is "explainably complex" (i.e. as you say the universe's complexity can be reduced to simplicity) whereas God is "unexplainably complex". So what problem do you find with my exposition of Dawkins's argument?

That you refuse to accept premise #8.

Of if you too are not willing or not capable to formally present Dawkins's 747 argument (which as he says is central in TGD), maybe some other admirer of TGD will do so. I am all eyes.

I already have. Twice. Let's try again, in simpler words.

1. People tend to accept that more complicated things require more explanation than less complicated things. A series of 100 heads in a row for a flipped coin raises eyebrows considerably, whereas 5 heads in a row does not much at all.

2. In rational discussion we attempt to progress by explaining complicated things by breaking them down into simpler parts.

3. Given what we *currently* know of the initial state of the Universe, it seems to have possessed some complexity; enough to raise eyebrows.

4. This initial complexity is far, far, far less complex than any framework which would be required to support an intelligent mind (especially one that answers prayers, performs miracles etc.)

Given (1) and (2), it is therefore not rational or satisfying to explain (3) in terms of an intelligent creator (especially one that answers prayers, performs miracles etc.), any more than it is rational or satisfying to explain something that raises eyebrows to the 5-heads-in-a-row level using something that raises eyebrows to the 100-heads-in-a-row-level.

Two possible explanations for (3) are....

5. The Universe just happened. This is far more likely than a God 'just happpening' (if you don't wish to involve statistics, just think of it as less 'eyebrow raising').

6. We don't fully understand things, and we will find that less complexity (or even none at all) needs explaining at some point in the future.

You are free to abandon (1) and (2) above, but only if you are prepared to admit that you don't want to discuss rationally. Many do this, and call it 'faith'.

Please note that neither (1) or (2) require naturalism. All they require is reason and logic.

1105. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74274 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 3:02 am

all of us would have to be considered "theistic evolutionists" of one stripe or another; at least one would buy some version of "front loading").

I feel that this attitude is given far less criticism than it deserves. It implies guidance of, and intention in, evolution for which there is no evidence at all. Indeed, it does not take much thought to realise that evolution as we know of it is not even the kind of process that would be amenable to such guidance, as it is deeply chaotic... and literally susceptible to the 'butterfly effect'. Since the discovery of Natural Selection, and the catastrophic history of life on Earth, it seems to me to be really grasping at straws to try and keep a creator involved in any way. Any idea of 'front loading' - that organisms were in some way pre-designed to cope with future contingencies is easily dismissed, given the fact that virtually all species that have ever lived are extinct.

1106. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74270 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 2:38 am

If you are addicted to animal video programmes, as am I, you can't help but notice the familial ties within a lion pride.

Sorry to have to point this out, but lions also practise infanticide, especially when a new leader takes over the pack....

1107. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74269 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

I think I would prefer to couch it in terms of a lack of critical thinking.

I think you need education as well. Knowledge of how evolution works, for example.

1108. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74262 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 2:08 am

1. God is defined as the designer of the universe and all in it. (premise)
2. The designer is at least as complex as the design. (premise)
3. The universe and all in it are extremely complex. (premise)
4. Therefore God is extremely complex. (from 2 and 3)

No, that is not the argument at all. (Apart from anything else, the Universe is not complex; or rather we know how the current complexity can have arisen from a simpler state.)

It is like this:

Explanations that help us understand reality involve finding simple processes and patterns behind things that seem complex. For example, we build up complex mathematical proofs from simpler ones and simple axioms. We note how complex structures are formed from simpler building blocks. As we find such simplicity, we consider that there is 'less to explain' than with the more complex situation. The reason why we consider that there is less to explain is that in terms of physical systems we understand that less complex situations can occur frequently by chance. (Chance is mentioned because a common argument for God is 'the Universe is too complex to have arisen by chance'). It is not considered a useful explanation to require increased complexity to explain a simpler situation.

You are wrong to have doubts about premise #8. It is a very solid statement based on statistical mechanics. Indeed, Ludwig Boltzmann considered this matter in detail, and wondered about the possibility that the entire Universe as we see it now could have spontaneously arisen as simply a random fluctuation from chaos. It could be the case. However, we usually dismiss this as it is far less unlikely that the far, far simpler universe of 13.5 billion years ago spontaneously arose from chaos and evolved to what we see now. But here is the issue... any intelligence or personality is vastly more complex than that state of the universe, so it is far, far less likely that this personality arose spontaneously and then invented the universe.

No-one is saying that highly improbable things don't exist; just that there is no need to invoke them to explain somewhat less highly improbable things.

1109. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74179 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 2:49 pm

It's not on my list - yet - but I'd suggest "The Fabric of Reality," by David Deutsch for a good "WOW!" experience.

I have not yet read that, although I soon hope to. However, I would suggest some slight caution. Deutsch is a fine thinker (and he gave an amazing talk at the TED (www.ted.com) conference a few years back), but some of his ideas are definitely on the margins, and far from accepted by mainstream scientists. On the other hand, chaos theory and non-equilibrium thermodynamics are very well established, yet few seem to realise their implications.

1110. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74164 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm

That scene is an excellent visual representation of the feeling I got reading The Blind Watchmaker when, for the first time, I really understood what evolution's all about. So simple, yet so surprisingly difficult to get your head around, but requiring no faith at all. Just a bit of patience and effort to understand what's being put in front of you.

You write so well!

For me the 'wow!' experience was reading about chaos theory and my first experience of the Mandelbrot Set. I was already pretty much an atheist, but the idea of Natural Selection was not quite enough to stop me wondering about the need for initial complexity, as there was always the problem of how life got started. But when I realised the implications of chaos and thermodynamics, the answer was there... we get all this complexity for free.

1111. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74152 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I am really curious to understand Dawkins's "unanswerable" argument that demonstrates that "there almost certainly is no God".

As usual, you exhibit your habit of jumping through threads blindly ignoring those who address your arguments. I discussed this in post 230 of this thread.

The 747 argument is subtle but powerful. Given that the universe is really not that complicated at all, it is reasonable to use the same approach that has served us so well countless times in so many areas of understanding, and assume that simplicity is a guide to truth, and reject any idea of a creator far more complex than the Universe He is supposed to explain.

Maybe it is just me, but to assume that the creator (or supporting intelligence) of the Universe of our experience is some sort of Trinitarian personality (based, of course, on Dianelos Georgoudis' idea of what a personality is) who was so obsessed with humans that he did all that 'resurrection of Jesus' stuff seems just a tad too complex as a reasonable explanation.

1112. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74120 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 9:47 am

After all it posits something beyond our own visible universe, which does not work like our universe does. But the multiverse hypothesis is not considered supernatural, apparently because it is proposed by naturalists.

No, it is not considered supernatural because it is, in principle testable (as are the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that you find so absurd). There are some experiments that will soon be performed at CERN (I think) that will actually include tests for certain types of multiverse... those that are only a short distance away in a spatial dimension.

If you had been following the details of QM research, you would know that there have been some recent (albeit very controversial) results that seem to favour the transactional interpretation of QM.

Supernatural is that which acts beyond the rule of physical law. There is nothing about QM, or multiverses that is beyond physical law.

I am afraid that reality does not have to conform to what you personally consider sensible. If it turns out that reality is strange and 'absurd', then we will just have to accept that.

1113. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74109 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 8:53 am

Are you are saying the Dawkins 747 argument was designed to refute the thesis that a designer is necessary? Well Darwinism refutes that thesis pretty unequivocally and on scientific grounds, so why would the world need Dawkins's philosophical argument on top?

If I may add something....

Dawkins' 747 argument is actually rather subtle. The argument of spontaneous 747 formation being unlikely was (almost certainly) used by Fred Hoyle as an argument against the formation of life. We know that argument is nonsense, as there are many ideas about how life could form in simple stages. Most sensible theologists have given up the idea of requiring a creator for life, and have moved back to the idea of a creator for the Universe.

When we come on to Universe formation, we aren't even sure if the 747 idea (that we have to explain something complex) is even appropriate. The initial state of the Universe was almost certainly very simple. What some people think we seem to need is an explanation for some fine-tuning of constants, but in multiverse theories even this is unnecessary.

What Dawkins is doing is, I believe, not claiming that there really is any complexity that needs to be explained.... what he is doing is saying that even if you were to assume that there was complexity, then invoking a creator is no useful explanation.

1114. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74044 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 5:50 am

We can criticise the RRS but it's irrelevant unless we can demonstrate, not talk about, a better way.

I don't think that is entirely fair. It is reasonable to criticise someone who chooses to stand up and poorly defend a point of view, even if you aren't prepared to stand up yourself, and especially if you (like me) think it is better to say nothing in such a public way than to put your foot in your mouth and in so doing somewhat diminish your case.

1115. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74031 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 5:18 am

I must apologize to all of you. What I have done here has been from a pure motive, but my arrogant attitude at times has been nothing short of blasphemous. So, I am sorry to all of you.

You need to think more highly of yourself. It is not God who has revealed things to you - it is your own mind; we should all be grateful that we have thought and reason and imagination, but we need not pass on that gratitude to any creator. Over millions of years of evolution, we selected each other for the attributes we now admire.

Your words are welcome, but you deserve better than to be oppressed by thoughts of blasphemy.

1116. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74029 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 5:08 am

But in fact the goal of science is to model phenomena, as evidenced by the fact that that's what science actually does.

Ah. I see your problem. You are confusing the goal with the tools.

Science uses modeling phenomena as one tool for studying reality, but so say that this is the 'goal' is as mistaken as to say that the point of most people turning at an airport is to 'get on a plane', whereas in fact they go to an airport to end up somewhere. Modeling is part of the process that helps us on the journey....

1117. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74020 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 4:53 am

Dr Benway... personally, I would be happy even with a button to indicate a 'dumb' post. I have been guilty of many such posts... responding to points not made, or hastily replying before giving things enough thought. It is the implied motive assigned to 'troll' that I don't like.

1118. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74018 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 4:50 am

2)What our conscience tells us is CRUCIAL as a guide to individual and social life.

I am glad you posted this. It is a wise comment.

However, the problem for those who want religious explanations is that we have a good idea where the conscience comes from... evolution. We can see not only ourselves, but also members of many other species behaving in the kinds of ways that we would expect from a biological understanding of where morality.

The problem with bringing a God into these things is that others can step in and claim authority over and above our consciences....

1119. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74000 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 3:55 am

So maybe here we find a source of confusion in naturalists' understanding of theism: You see, on the one hand it's true that theism's basic hypothesis (i.e. that the deepest structure of reality is a perfect person) turns out to have huge explanatory power.

To misquote from "The Princess Bride":

"You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."

In many, many, many posts we have shown that this is simply not the case. The 'perfect person' idea has no meaning because we have no idea what 'perfect' means, or what 'person' means. Zaphod Beeblebrox's idea of the perfect person would be someone distinctly immoral and in two minds about everything. Who knows what the Hive Mind of Sirius thinks what 'perfect person' would be...

And as for explanatory power... well, surprisingly, few particle physicists seem to have extrapolated from their findings to the idea of a loving God... odd that, isn't it?

What it comes down it is that Dianelos desperately wants to believe in Catholic dogma and the resurrection, so has extrapolated from that this idea of a 'perfect trinity person' that, if Dianelos manages to work hard to mentally block off all the destructive counter-arguments, fits what Dianelos wishes to believe about the Universe, even though it goes against all of modern physics, biology, psychology and philosophy.

1120. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #73998 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 3:44 am

Unfortunately the truth hurts and sometimes there's only straight talk that makes sense.

True, but I have to agree with Ilovelucy. It is truth that hurts, not some half-understood improvised version of it, which is what I have seen in some of the debates the RSS have been involved in. One of the main reasons for religious belief is lack of education and understanding of scientific arguments. To counter this, those who wish to publicly debate need to be solid in their understanding.

1121. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73982 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 2:00 am

There's some quality thinking and argumentative skill, including yourself, amongst the unbelieving brigade.

That is the tiresome thing about Wee Flea's arguments.... they are so weary and unoriginal; it is nothing that has not been put and easily dismissed by others long ago. As I have posted elsewhere, some intelligent discussion can been seen in a program called 'The Atheist Tapes', where Jonathan Miller talks to Denys Turner. If only all discussion were at this level.

Another problem, as we have discussed elsewhere, is that we really aren't dealing with people who use the same definitions of 'debate', 'argument' and 'evidence' as we do.

1122. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73978 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 1:38 am

The fact that you all seem to think this is a serious point that someone backs up your philosophy is extraordinary.

The fact that you don't is extraordinary. This is a re-framing of the 'celestial teapot' argument of one of greatest philosophers of recent times - Bertrand Russell.

So don't hand-wave away this 'elephant' argument. Either come up with a decent refutation of Russell's Teapot argument or be honest and admit there is a problem.

1123. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73974 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 1:04 am

Hmm... I have just noticed. I have a comment on this thread marked as a 'troll'. Not particularly happy about that. I don't mind people calling me thoughtless, or even stupid. I may 'lose it' in arguing with people, and I may miss the point, but I try my best to point things out honestly. I am no troll..

1124. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73906 by steve99 on September 26, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Don't worry walk, I'm certain that eventually someone like yourself will prosecute me. I'm pretty much expecting that in the next 20-30 years in Europe, followed closely by the same thing here in the U.S. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I fully expect that it will sooner or later. In a way, it's inevitable. People are becoming more and more wicked and more and more God-hating. The venom I see here is mild.

You see, this is typical of the kind of reasoning I find so puzzling from religious people. It is all about bringing those who disagree with them down to their level. Just because they rely on faith, therefore anyone who disagrees must also be guilty of relying on faith. Just because the religious have persecuted so many people in so many inventive ways over the centuries, it must be the case that their opponents will also resort to persecution.

Well sorry, but we just aren't as nasty as you. All we want is for religion to be a private and personal matter that does get any privileges in education, politics, or any other area of public life. We are no more intending to persecute or prosecute you than we would attack a UFO watcher or Flat Earther.

1125. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72424 by steve99 on September 21, 2007 at 3:15 am

I don't think I have commented on one of your posts and you seem mighty fine to me.

Thank you.

I have no idea what it is like to come from a god-believing background.

Well, it was not that strict... it was a rather relaxed Catholic up-bringing. But, it certainly gets to you. The guilt you get loaded with is lifelong, even if you stop believing. It can best be imagined from the lyrics of the Pet Shop Boys song: 'It's a Sin':

"Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin"

It was so oppressive... it was so easy to slip up and not get to Heaven. But also, it was such an amazing comfort. It is hard to explain the feeling of sureness and security to someone who has been a lifelong atheist, but it is rather like having a permanent hug from God... a never ending security blanket. I can remember as a teenager thinking how awful John Lennon's 'Imagine' was, because it denied Heaven.

I started to get uncomfortable with my faith early in my teens. The idea of an eternal afterlive seemed both very oppressive and infinitely boring, and scared me. Things finally started to crumble as I became more educated. When I came across ideas like 'can God create a rock so big He can't lift it' I realised that much of religion was just meaningless wordplay (and even worse, people don't realise it was meaningless).

Being in my late 40s, I have been an atheist for most of my life. But, like an addict, I can still feel the lure... that warmth and security is very tempting, even if it is nonsense.

Having 'been there' I can understand why people fight so desperately to keep their faith, and why that faith can, in some people, overcome even the most rational of arguments - even for some scientists. Faith in God is a form of infantilism. It is like not wanting to get go of your mother or your security blanket, or your teddy bear. However, to fully mature as people we have to accept life as it is and deal with it responsibly.

1126. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72419 by steve99 on September 21, 2007 at 2:52 am

I find this argument very weak. It is possible that the evolutionary pressure to larger brain for language and tool making came mainly from competition with each other.

It is indeed very week. Another possibility which I rather like is that larger brain size became subject to sexual selection... like the peacock's tail.

1127. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72417 by steve99 on September 21, 2007 at 2:49 am

"Life adapts to it's environment. The Universe does not adapt in response to life."

This is Victor Stenger's argument and one that seems more likely to me than any other, it renders the "fine-tuning" argument unnecessary and has the virtue of being simple. Although some physicists don't like it, they never give a convincing argument why it can't be so, perhaps jealousy they never thought of such a simple and beautiful answer is the reason.

No, they don't like it because they think it is simplistic and wrong. They don't like it because their model of the constants of the universe differs from Stenger's, and Stenger is in a small minority in this area.

For a universe to contain life, it must at least be capable of containing complexity. For the universe to contain complexity it must be something other than spacetime accelerating incredibly fast or a black hole. The view of most physicists as I understand it is that these are the states of the universe for the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of the physical constants (especially the cosmological constant).

I am not claiming you are doing this, but I do sometimes sense an unhealthy attitude, which is to decide the answer you want to get (no fine tuning needed) and then pick the scientist who agrees (Stenger).

1128. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72399 by steve99 on September 21, 2007 at 1:37 am

As a matter of fact, I would take that a step further and say that I have yet to run into anyone on this site who has a genuine understanding of who God is. Of course, I guess that shouldn't surprise me, I'm dealing with atheists.

This is not a good argument at all. Many of us (including me) have been believers in the past. We know very well what our idea of God was, and what we were taught about God by teachers and preachers.

1129. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72268 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm

As a matter of fact, I know of several occasions where this has happened.

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

Sometimes even apparently terminal cancer can go into remission:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/the-body-can-stave-off-terminal-cancer-sometimes

(sorry phasmagigas, duplicated your post unintentionally)

1130. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72258 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Yes.

Which version of the bible? Which gospels?

1131. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72246 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm

So, forgive that insinuation. I admit, after re-reading, it does seem that's what I intended to say, but it was simply poor wording on my part.

Fair enough - well said. (This is however, why the 'choice' argument is so ridiculous.)

John Piper, has said that there may well be scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality could be due to a certain brain development.

Actually, when you think about it, what else could it be?

My point there was to say that by choosing to have no kid or by "being" homosexual, that they are inadvertently not bequeathing their own ideas to a new generation.

That is the beauty of human culture. We don't need pure parent to offspring transmission to spread ideas. We spread ideas through literature, through teachers, via the media and so on.

1132. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72230 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Then again, I don't really care what society widely accepts because it's painfully obvious that society is slipping more and more toward anarchy with each passing year.

You know that is exactly the kind of thing many people said when society became less tolerant of slavery, and when it wanted to treat women as equals, and when black people were given the vote.

Of course, on all those occasions society was right, and the interpretations of the Bible were wrong, but, dammit, those gays are just perverted!

trying to come out of the "dark ages" in my evolutionary knowledge is hard work. :D )

Well, I honestly wish you luck. But you will find there are many more dark ages to come out of as well, such as an understanding of sexuality in Nature...

1133. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72226 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:45 pm

By majority I mean 99.99 percent or thereabouts.

There is a very simple question to put to any theologist who doubts this...

"What proportion of believers pray?"

Anyone who prays obviously believes to some extent in an interventionist God.

1134. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72221 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I will say this though: it is well possible that the desire of so many unregenerate people to be homosexual or to simply not have kids out of selfish motives, they are actually removing their own beliefs from the gene pool.

First, can I express some outrage? How dare you suggest that people have a 'desire' to be homosexual out of 'selfish motives'. That shows an level of crass insensitivity that is almost unbelievable. Gay people are subject to such hatred, prejudice and persecution throughout most of the world it is inconcievable that the majority of gay people would choose that sexual orientation.

Secondly, you are showing yet another misunderstanding of biology. Gayness is not a recurring single mutation that will be wiped out if gay people don't have children. There is almost certainly a genetic tendency for a proportion of the population to be gay that is universal in humanity.

1135. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72186 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

However, acting on this WOULD BE sinful because God has made that clear in the Bible.

No, he hasn't. There are plenty of things in the bible that are declared to be sinful that we now consider aren't... The fact that it needs human interpretation means that it certainly isn't clear.

Look.. you don't believe in slave-keeping (which is supported by the Bible), so who do you believe anything it says about homosexuality?

1136. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72178 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Actually, this is an interesting scientific point. The heavens are certainly not showing the work of anyone's hands. They show the effect of a long-distance attractive force (gravity) on a distributed mixture of hydrogen and helium containing quantum fluctuations which have been expanded by inflation, (probably of a Higgs field).

1137. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72161 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 pm

The issue is not "ability" to reproduce. The issue is that "together" they can't, and this is what makes it unnatural. Now, if you can show me how sodomy produces a baby, I'll completely change my mind about this.

I have already explained this. Nature does not care about whether any individual couple produce a baby... what matters is the propogation of genes.

Having non-breeding individuals who help raise offspring is widespread in Nature. Homosexuality (including sodomy) is also widespread. In some species (the bonobo) it is an important part of social interaction. In the bonobo chimp, sodomy does indeed help produce babies, as it part of a natural method of maintaining bonds in society, and defusing situations that would otherwise result in conflict, and even injury.

So there you go!

1138. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72136 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 12:11 pm

This kind of confused waffling is dealt with very nicely in a review of Darwin's Angel in this week's New Scientist magazine. The problem, the review states, is one of definition. The theologists need to clear up once and for all what definition of God they want to debate about. They can't have it both ways... God as just philosophical concept AND a God that is creator and designer and prayer-listener.

I did enjoy this:

The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God.

Translation: "We don't have a clue what we are talking about, but whatever it is, it is not what Dawkins means"

1139. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72096 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 10:16 am

revcort:

The Scripture is clear...

It is, but it is also clear in its support of things that we now consider immoral, such as slavery. What even you do is to apply your own moral filter to the bible.

1140. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72088 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 9:58 am

Unfortunately the "Guardian" is no better, see today's edition for the piece by Seamus Milne.

I am happy to report a wonderfully sane review of Darwin's Angel in this weeks New Scientist magazine, which savages John Cornwell....

1141. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72085 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 9:44 am

Dead easy - evolution isn't a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life.

[Personally, I think it is]. But anyway, you can be sure they aren't discussing abiogenesis....

1142. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72080 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 9:34 am

revcort: Let me explain how homosexuality can potentially be beneficial. It is well known and well understood that non-breeding members of a population can assist with reproduction. Apart from the obvious examples of insects, this also occurs widely in higher animals. For example, in some bird species some young don't breed, and help the mother raise their siblings.

It may seem confusing that this can be beneficial, but you have to remember that what matters is the reproduction of genes, not individuals, and siblings share a high proportion of genes.

This sort of thing is not just intuition; mathematical modelling shows that it can be a successful strategy.

The moral [sic] here again is don't trust your gut feeling or scripture.

1143. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71960 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:18 am

How on Earth can you have an intellectual equivalent in Theology?

I found out something rather interesting.... the undergraduate prospectus for the Theology course at Oxford University includes a discussion about "whether Evolution is a satisfactory explanation for the origins of life". I do wonder how these people feel themselves qualified to discuss such subjects... I eagerly await the Theology Department's courses on black hole theory.

If Theology was simply a discussion about the hypothetical idea of a God it would not be so bad. However, the taint of the true believer is clear in their assumption that their sub-standard philosophical ideas can be applied to other subjects...

1144. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71951 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 1:36 am

If these particular runs were removed you wouldn't find them, would you? Steve, our discussion would have been much more productive if you took your time to actually read what the other person is writing.

You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of statistics. It does not matter if the other runs were removed or not... you can STILL tell that what you have observed is a statistically very unlikely event. Therefore, we can hypothesise that this is simply one of a larger ensemble.

On the contrary I must do that. If I want to show fallacious thinking in Dawkins's argument I must show that even assuming his premises (for example that the universe objectively exists) the conclusion he claims does not follow. Non sequitur and question begging are probably the two most basic logical errors one can commit and Dawkins's TGD is a case study of how full a book can be of such errors without any of the "admiring faithful" noticing, or maybe those noticing not speaking up. It seems Haidt's principles of authority/respect and ingroup/loyalty are very effective indeed.

Sorry, but you just can't get away with this.

If I want to show fallacious thinking in Dawkins's argument I must show that even assuming his premises (for example that the universe objectively exists) the conclusion he claims does not follow.

No, no, no. This is the intellectual equivalent of cutting off the branch you are sitting on. Yet again you are making serious logical mistakes.

If you don't believe in objective physical reality, you should deny yourself debating tools that rely on it. You can't probe the nature of reality with tools that you claim can't probe the nature of reality. You can't use multiverse ideas after having rejected multiverse ideas.

Dawkins's TGD is a case study of how full a book can be of such errors without any of the "admiring faithful" noticing, or maybe those noticing not speaking up.

Don't be silly. If you want some criticisms of Dawkins book, I am fully prepared to give you some (for example, I think his discussion of the Anthropic Principle is particularly weak). However, as Dawkins book includes nothing as outrageously nutty as your belief in a three-part God and the resurrection of Jesus, I think we have our priorities right in defending Dawkins.

1145. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71927 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 12:35 am

This is shameful.

I remember the original rants about The Selfish Gene from Midgley.

It is, I suppose, tolerable to get things so badly wrong about what an author is saying once. But if it has been pointed at why you are mistaken, and have made factual errors about content, a critic with integrity will either admit their mistake or have the decency to shut up.

To repeat the same mistakes nearly 30 years later is shameful.

It seems to me to raise problems about how to respond. How many times can one say 'please read and at least try and understand the book before commenting'?

1146. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71921 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 12:16 am

Now either...

Unfortunately, there is another option:

C. Satan planted the evidence of fossils in order to make us question our faith. We should not use reason, but trust in the Bible.

1147. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71837 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 6:36 pm

BAEOZ:

I have to say that from what I have read (which I admit is sparse) of his ideas, I am not that impressed. When people of the experience and stature of the head of the Royal Society (Martin Rees) considers Stenger's reasoning seriously flawed, this suggests to me that we should be cautious about what he says. I should read his book!

1148. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71829 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 6:18 pm

This can also be used to explain the formation of oil, gas and coal (which are called fossil fuels for a reason)

Excellent! Of course... these are certainly millions and millions of fossils!

So not only are the creationists eating the results of macromutations, they drive to work using the results of fossilization!

1149. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71828 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 6:16 pm

thanks for adding the extras,

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

1150. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71823 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 6:08 pm

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

No, that is the beauty of science. The nature of skeletons like archaeopteryx has been hotly debated. It has taken many, many years of precise study of the bones to figure our what it was. This is not a matter of what people 'want' to see, it is a matter of tested ideas subject to vigorous debate.

They are not everywhere because they don't happen except in freaks of nature- which never survive.

Naughty, naughty. Doesn't your religion caution you against lying? I have shown you two real examples of macromutations (Spartina anglica and the Argentinian rat) which are not freaks of nature, and which do survive. If you don't believe me, come over to Europe and walk on any salt marsh - you will be treading on acres of the Spartina. It is surviving so well it is becoming a pest.

You claimed there was no macromutation. We showed you there their was, how it happens, and gave real examples.

You wanted half-bird half-reptile. We showed you. This is NOT arbitrary or random, there are plenty of fossils of the things, showing all stages of development: http://www.amonline.net.au/chinese_dinosaurs/feathered_dinosaurs/index.htm

[Of particular interest is the evolution of the bones. Therapod dinosaurs (lots of them, not just one fossil) had already developed the arm bone structure that allowed the arms to be folded against the body, just like bird wings. This structure also allowed a 'prey grabbing' action which is very close to the wing-flap action of modern birds. The progression from dinosaur to bird is clear.]

To carry on arguing against this is intellectually dishonest, and makes you look like a blinkered fool.