Comments by epeeist

Comment #145308 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #145302 by Pathfinder

OK,OK maybe I was a little immoderate! Still, God is serious bussiness and I'd thank you not to take his immortal glorius name in vain.

Is this god person anything like your angels?

Oh, and there is only one glorious name - Quetzalcoatl.

1402. Fleabytes

Comment #145289 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #145281 by Pathfinder

As Benjamin Disraeli said, I am on the side of the angel's, not the gibbering babbon's of ATHEISM.

What's a babbon?

I presume that these angels float in the air (so that they don't leave footprints), are insubstantial (so you can't sprinkle them with powder to show they are there), and do not generate any heat (so you can't use an infra-red detector on them)?

1403. Fleabytes

Comment #145275 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #145182 by Steve Zara

Well, I wasn't going to, but I think the rapid approach of the 6K mark, and the hope of 10K, is a good motivation.

Should we not be celebrating post 4004 plus 2008 plus 1?

1404. Two More Fleas

Comment #145271 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Comment #145149 by clearmind

Epeeist
Dear philosophy addicted pal:

I am not your "pal", please don't even think of assuming such a thing.

BEGGING THE LOGIC
Evolution is an idea. It was popped up by Darwin and since its idea is not based on logic, Darwin was wrong. Therefore evolution idea was wrong. For the sake of Petitio principii,
"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible."
It is impossible or hard to prove something does not exist. But it is easy to prove something exists.

Where did you cut and paste that from? It is of course completely wrong. For a start off it isn't even petitio principii. However, this is how it should be framed:

Let us create a hypothesis

h = ~(Exists x) G(x)

In other words the class of all gods G is empty.
Now, there will be consequences to this hypothesis (for example, we can state that if our hypothesis is true then there can not have been a global flood caused by god in which he killed 99.99999% of human beings). Call these consequences p
We therefore have

h -> p
Now if p is false, i.e.

~p
We then have

~h

In other words we can have a contingent hypothesis that no gods exist. This hypothesis is valid until the theist can bring forward some empirical evidence to disprove it.

Now, I have answered your point, so let me raise a question to you.

Sitting on my bookshelf in my study I have Susan Haak's "Philosophy of Logics", Copi's "Introduction to Logic", Quine's "From a Logical Point of View", Frege's "Theory of Judgement", Walton's "Informal Logic", Hunter's "First Order Metalogic" and Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery".

As I have said I used to be a physicist, but most of my physics books are still in boxes from when we moved house, nevertheless I can see Mattuck's "A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-body Problem", Margenau and Murphys "Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry", Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and Dirac's "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics".

This is just a small selection, I can also see a number of books on philosophy, mythology and, of course, fencing.

A simple question Wooter - what books are there on your bookshelves that allow you to make such fundamental pronouncements on logic, biology and science in general?

1405. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145068 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 8:13 am

Comment #145059 by V'Ger

And I am actually a little worried.... Whilst watching my son's nativity play last Christmas - all of a sudden some kid comes out and started reciting lines about how "the world looks like it must have been intelligently designed for a purpose..." My wife and I exchanged a slightly worried look at that point.

If this is a reasonably accurate paraphrase of what was said I would be very worried about it.

I would be looking at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/science/?view=get and asking to see how your children's school complies.

1406. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144924 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #144846 by Cartomancer

Giving it any space on the official curriculum, even as a straw man to take swipes at, is, in my opinion, a mistake.

and

Comment #144898 by fides_et_ratio
I thought the teaching of evolution was a statutory elementy of the national curriculum. In which case, it has to be taught in all state-funded schools.

As some of you may be aware SWMBO is a member of various committees developing science syllabuses both in England and Wales. There is no mention of creationism in any of these and nor will there be. The topic has also been raised at various conferences of teaching unions, again decisive decisions against teaching creationism in science have been made.

Having said that she teaches at an independent girls' school in Manchester. Being girls only a significant proportion of their intake is Muslim. She has noticed some increase in the religiosity of some of the girls and a consequent increase in the reaction against well accepted theories that go against teaching in the Qu'ran.

1407. Two More Fleas

Comment #144891 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #144738 by clearmind

Look. Now 84 per cent of world population in any way they believe a creator, now you are trying to tell us that we are all wrong, with low understanding but 16 percent is right? Among 84 percent people, there a lot educated people and smart guys so they cannot think right and but you can?

Wooter I thought you were a master of logic? And there you go committing one of the most elementary of logical fallacies - argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#populum).

The problem is evolution theory is not based on logic. You are still struggling to find Leonarda da vinci inside the painting, in one of the colours whatever you call it blindwatcmaker or menotthinking or blindwatchmaker. I wisj you can understand this analogy and say you are right. May be some day.

No wooter you cannot apply theories of evolution to inanimate objects - read my post http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060 again, or may be read it for the first time.

And how about responding to my posts http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page6#144521 and http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page6#144558

What about those non-believers in your god that he killed, are they in heaven or hell?

How do you answer the points put forward by one of the greatest of the Enlightenment philosophers David Hume? Are you going to pretend that you know more about philosophy than him in the way you pretend to know more biology than Steve Zara or more about physics and logic than me?

1408. Two More Fleas

Comment #144613 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #144588 by The Reverend Dark

The first written creation myth we have, the Enuma Elish was written approximately in the 12th century BC, a full 400 years before you think creation occured. You should read it, as much of the biblical myth was cribbed from it.

10,000 BC saw the emergence pottery in Japan

And of course 12,000 years is next to no time compared with the age of the earth, which wooter accepts is around 4.5 billion years ago.

Which raises the next question - if god created living creatures all at the same time some 10,000 years ago the what was he doing for the rest of the time.

And another one for you - in Japan there is a lake called Suigetsu. This is quite a still lake, every year algae grow on its surface during the summer. Come winter time the algae dies and sinks to the bottom of the lake forming layers known as "varves". Some 29,000 of these can be distinguished forming a chronology that goes back to almost 38,000 years before the present. This is detailed in Kitagawa, H. & van der Plicht, J. 1998. A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve. Radiocarbon 40: 505-515.

All you have to do is count - no radiometric dating necessary (though there is consilience).

1409. Two More Fleas

Comment #144574 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #144569 by Steve Zara

That made me snort my G&T.

Lime or lemon in the G&T?

1410. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144566 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:46 am

The Scientologists don't seem to be doing well on the legal front either - http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article416511.ece

1411. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144563 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #144557 by Koreman

So, when evolution is banned everywhere and hospitals have been closed down by lack of medicine, what's next? Einstein? Quantum mechanics?

Further down the line - expect things like geology, archaeology, anthropology and ancient history to be hit first.

1412. Two More Fleas

Comment #144558 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind

Analogy is just to compare two things to understand logic in them.

No, as I explained analogical reasoning is a form of induction. You don't compare two things, you assume they have a common attribute.

You assume that because a watch shows design and living material has the appearance of design then since watches have creators then living materials must have designers.

Unfortunately watches and living beings are quite different. Watches do no reproduce, do not mutate and are not subject to selection. I made this explicitly clear in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060. That is why I wrote it. Your analogy is a very bad one because there are more differences between watches and living things than there are similarities.

This is one of the arguments that David Hume produced back in the eighteenth century. There are others:

The design is poor. We have vestigial tailbones and a useless appendix, women have difficulties in childbirth because the birth canal passes through the pelvis, our windpipe and oesophagus are so close together that we can choke on food. On top of this we are subject to disease, like Philip's Fragile X syndrome and like the bubonic plague and influenza that I also mentioned.
Even if you had demonstrated some empirical evidence for a designer, which you haven't, all that this would point to is a finite being cleverer and more capable than ourselves. It certainly doesn't establish a transfinite, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being.
Unless you can show this omni-maximal being, which you haven't, then you have to explain your designer. You have to show how this designer came about, which is going to run you into infinite regress.

1413. Two More Fleas

Comment #144521 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 9:26 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind

Okay one question:
What is happening to those people died in flood or other disasters?

They are dead.

Now some of them were Christians (those in Lisbon that Scottish Geologist mentions for instance), some were Hindu, some Muslim and some would have been Buddhist or followers of Confucius.

Given that all the beliefs cannot be true then according to you some of them will have gone to heaven while the rest went to hell.

1414. Two More Fleas

Comment #144428 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #144424 by tstinchcombe

Just out of interest, has clearmind/wooter/etc, ever given any indication as to his/her age? Clearmind/wooter - would you care to enlighten us?

Wooter has never answered questions with any degree of specificity. We don't know a gender or age. All that has been divulged is that the poster claims not to be a native English speaker, supposedly has a BA and an MA and purports to be a teacher of primary school children.

The native language of the speaker has not been divulged, nor has the university where the qualifications were apparently gained, nor the location of the supposed school.

1415. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144416 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 3:09 am

Comment #144320 by weesam

What about the widow on the last line?

It seems that the draft never went near a professional.

The words in the book demand better treatment. Books - especially with content such as this one - should be objects of beauty.

I missed the widow.

I would agree with you - very badly produced and has never been near someone who knows anything about typesetting. I am fairly sure it was simply put together in a word processing package.

I wouldn't claim to have your expertise - my main interest is usability engineering oriented towards work on a screen. However, one still has to care for layout and typography even at this level.

1416. Two More Fleas

Comment #144411 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #144404 by windweaver

Has the world gone mad?

Why do so many intelligent posters on this site waste their time debating with this imbecile Wooter???????

You are assuming that we are writing for wooter's benefit.

Personally I am writing for the people who come to the site out of interest and in the hope of finding something out. Also as a demonstration of what a totally blinkered outlook can do to you.

1417. Two More Fleas

Comment #144410 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #144342 by clearmind

I am saying that Mona Lisa is made by an artist. So the same way all the creations who has got different DNA structures, design, and form, (colours) cannot be designed in the same way.

Just do the comparison that anybody can do.
And this is your pals' answer: Paintings need artists because they don't breed and have offspring that are just a little bit different.

I will keep doing this wooter - look at http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060

This gives an extremely simple description of the way evolution works, why it is not random and why it doesn't work for paintings or cars.

Analogical reasoning is based on induction which can only give a probabilistic result. The argument looks like this:

P is similar to Q
P has attribute A
Therefore: Q has attribute A

The further the analogy from the original argument the lower the probability of truth the argument has. You are trying to compare inanimate objects whose creators were known to exist and do not reproduce with animate objects descended from their parent(s) by reproduction. As such your argument has a very low probability of being true.

Your argument is that:

The universe is like an intricate watch
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator

However one can reframe this:

The universe is like an intricate watch
Many early watches were designed by locksmiths
Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith

Now this is an informal logical fallacy.

Just as a matter of interest - while I was doing my Ph.D. I also took some a class in logic as well.

1418. Two More Fleas

Comment #144403 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:25 am

Comment #144343 by clearmind

NOTHING CAN HAPPEN BY THEMSELVES OR CHANCES.

Wooter - I am taking it this is your answer to my question in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144053

What you are saying is that you believe that your god is responsible for the creation, movement and destruction of every particle in the universe. This is simply an extension of your idea that your god creates every snowflake different.

If this is so then your god is responsible for:

The 1931 flood in China that killed 3.7 million people
The 1942 drought in India that killed 1.5 million people
The 1991 hurricane in Bangladesh that killed 138,000 people
The 1908 earthquake in Italy that killed 100,000 people
The 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean that killed 40,000 people

This doesn't count things like disease, which your god also created, for example influenza killed 20,000,000 people in 1917 and bubonic plague in the middle ages that killed an estimated 50% of Europe's population.

1419. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144302 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #144295 by The Smart Patrol

I can confirm that, at least in the copy that I bought in Scotland, the text is fairly heavily hyphenated.

Produced in something like Word? No ligatures, no kerning, character width leading only and a sans-serif font for a book.

I wonder if The Smart Patrol is having difficulty reading it because of the poor layout as much as anything else. Given this is from the OUP I wonder why they allowed something that looks as bad as this?

1420. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144290 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Comment #144276 by weesam on

I hope the preview on Amazon IS NOT indicative of the typesetting in the actual printed book.

The Hyphenation is terrible and should only be used on naturally hyphenated words or when the column width is very narrow - like newspapers.

Should not be used in books. EVER.

Where are you from weesam?

The hyphenation looks to be American in style, it really grates if you are British.

I wouldn't quite go as far as you in saying that hyphenation should never be used in books, but you shouldn't see it very often.

As you say, if this is the quality of the typesetting in the book then it is seriously bad.

Oh for the days of LaTeX when it was easy to produce beautiful typography even when penalty copy was involved.

1421. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144065 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 2:15 am

Comment #143967 by Bonzai

Suicide bombing is a way of waging asymmetric warfare. It is a way for the weak side in a conflict to inflict maximum damage on an overwhelmingly stronger adversary by turning themselves into human bombs and set themselves off at "soft targets".

I would disagree with "maximum damage", the aim is maximum publicity and the concurrent weakening of support in the home population of the strong force.

If you have a small, weak force then to inflict maximum damage you go for the infrastructure targets. Take out power stations, sewage treatment plants, computer centres and the like.

1422. Two More Fleas

Comment #144060 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 1:57 am

For Wooter - Evolution 101

Now I have given you exactly this explanation before. However I didn't bookmark it, I have bookmarked this post.

When you claim that the theory of evolution is nonsense because of the design of cars I will point you back to this post.

For evolution to happen you need:

Reproduction, this is what plants and animals to do to produce the next generation of offspring. Cars, paintings, watches and geological features do not reproduce and do not therefore qualify for this
Mutation. When things reproduce you may get mistakes in the copying of genetic information, this is known as mutation. These mutations are random. Note that since cars, paintings, watches and geological features do not reproduce then this type of mutation does not apply to them
Mutations may be neutral, deleterious or favourable. Individuals with favourable mutations will be more likely to survive and reproduce than those with deleterious mutations. This is a selection process and is non-random. Since cars, paintings, watches and geological features do not reproduce nor undergo biological mutation the this process does not apply to them

1423. Two More Fleas

Comment #144053 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #144009 by clearmind

(How old do YOU think the earth is?)
Say, 5 billion years is and your point is?

OK - so you are prepared to accept the current estimates for the age of the earth.

So - when were all the animals and plants created simultaneously? Three billion years ago? Three million years ago? Six thousand years ago? Or some other value?

(your first cause argument is nonsense.)
What is your first cause argument then, in terms of ET? We are all ears.

I pointed out to you that virtual particles are created and annihilated all the time without causality. This means that I have shown an exception to your argument that god is the necessary first cause.

Now either you accept this, or you claim that god directly causes these particles to appear and disappear. Which one is it?

1424. Two More Fleas

Comment #144049 by epeeist on March 15, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #144009 by clearmind

Wooter - have you heard the expression "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"?

Steve Zara has a Ph.D. in biology, Anna has at least a first degree in the subject. Don't you think it is somewhat insulting to try and pretend that you have more knowledge on the subject than them.

For your information I have a Ph.D. in physics. My wife has a Ph.D. in chemical thermodynamics. Your attempts in these areas are so wrong, you obviously know less of science than the 10 year olds in the primary part of the school she teaches at.

1425. Fleabytes

Comment #143704 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #143686 by Dr Benway

How did you manage to get hold of a picture of wooter?

1426. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143677 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 9:50 am

Comment #143608 by irate_atheist

Once again you have both my condolences and sincerest regards.

Many thanks.

Getting away from the Cheshire set was an extremely good move. My daughters initially went to school with Verity Roach - the daughter of Bill Roach. How he won his libel action I do not know.

Having been acquainted with the lower end of that particular social group I am not convinced that the Wintertons or Hamiltons were really exceptions.

Much more down to earth where I am now. You can see the surroundings here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/

After that Zara fellow posted the pictures of his abode (a stable!) I felt rather put upon. At least our place was actually built as a house (well a toll cottage anyway).

1427. Fleabytes

Comment #143612 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:46 am

Totally apropos of nothing - I wonder whether people are aware of this site - http://www.quantiki.org/

1428. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143602 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:36 am

Comment #143595 by irate_atheist

There'll be no mention of that loathsome toad in this place!!! What are you thinking of man!!!

Hey, I used to live in a place that had Neil Hamilton as M.P., along with his lovely wife Christine to accompany him. With the wonderful Nicholas and Ann Winterton in neighbouring constituencies.

Do you wonder why I moved (only to get James Purnell)?

1429. Fleabytes

Comment #143589 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #143557 by scottishgeologist

These people are miserable - a lot of them cannot stand "worldly pleasures" like music etc. Its all the devils work.

So to quote Quetz again, "Think happier thoughts." These people arent worth the anguish.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

H.L. Mencken

1430. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143572 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #143565 by cowalker

I'm waiting to see if my theory proves true. I theorize that Ratzinger's leadership will drive away most of the Catholic women

But they don't need American women when they have Ann Widdecombe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Widdecombe

1431. Two More Fleas

Comment #143566 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #143564 by al-rawandi

Thus he would be open to quantum fluctuation....

Second intention...

1432. Two More Fleas

Comment #143561 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:52 am

Comment #143533 by al-rawandi

I am now taking wagers on whether wooterpants will ever answer a direct question put to him.

I really, really want him to come up with a response to whether he accepts that virtual particles can appear or disappear without cause.

1433. Two More Fleas

Comment #143523 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:25 am

Comment #143513 by clearmind

and my question is; Please how does evolution explain the work of our nose through chances and being selfish?

How many times have you been told that natural selection is not random?

Now - how old do YOU think the earth is?

I am assuming that since you haven't made any comment that you accept that since virtual particles can be created without cause then your first cause argument is nonsense. Unless you really are arguing that god is directly responsible for creating and destroying them.

1434. Fleabytes

Comment #143458 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 6:06 am

Comment #143432 by scottishgeologist

(for anyone who can stand reading it:
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/1998/January/article4.php )

Makes Swift's Big Endians and Small Endians seem the essence of rationality.

1435. Fleabytes

Comment #143447 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 5:50 am

Comment #143443 by Steve Zara

"Gods make weather, and it is not a scientific question" [gone]

"Gods move the sun and moon, and it is not a scientific question" [gone]

"God made all species, and it is not a scientific question" [gone]

"God made the universe, and it is not a scientific question" ....

Shush, wooter may be listening.

1436. Fleabytes

Comment #143427 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 5:33 am

Comment #143420 by Sargeist

Well, when I can get around to thinking about it carefully, my opinion about abortion tends to be that I would prefer the world to be a place in which it was not necessary, but given that it is, I think that it ought to be made as simple as possible as early as possible to those who want it.

It isn't very much different from what the pro-choice people want - http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/

Look at the section on birth control in particular.

You will also note that Mr. Robertson states

Secondly as science clearly demonstrates, it is not just your body. There is the body of the child within. Science now tells us that the body within the womb has everything that the body outwith the womb has. Why do you regard the body of the mother as sacred but the body of the child is dispensible? From a rational point of view (never mind the 'good book') it does not make sense.

My emphasis.

Personally I think this is a simple use of emotive language. Is a blastocyte a child? If it isn't then what is the problem with abortion? If it is then why does god let something like 50% of foetuses spontaneously abort?

1437. Fleabytes

Comment #143409 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #143397 by fides_et_ratio

How about a nice coffee shop in London?

Blasphemer!

The obvious place is York, home of Betty's Teashop. The best time to go would be during the York Early Music Festival - http://www.ncem.co.uk/yemf2.shtml (Tea, Music, pagan deities at the Jorvik Centre, Sam Smith's Beer, boating on the river, what more do we need?)

1438. Two More Fleas

Comment #143318 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #143282 by clearmind

(1.How did god make our sense of smell?)

God created all creation with his ultimate knowledge and wisdom that is reflected on His art.

In other words, he just did it. No explanation. I will keep this on the list of questions you haven't answered.

1.(How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose?)
(I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on)

Where? Jon and I wanted the exact process, you haven't provided this. I will keep this one on the list.

2.(What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force?)

Answer:
The genetic code in the DNA proves that life on earth originated from intelligence, since information requires an intelligent sender.

Does not address the question and also uses a circular argument. So far your score is 0 out of 3.

Since you didn't answer the rest of the questions you score on this test is 0. Not very impressive.

The first cause thing by the way - virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles) are created and annihilated all the time in the quantum vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Vacuum). No causality is required. Unless you are saying that your god actually creates and destroys all of these particles. Would you agree with that, a simple yes or no will do.

To go on to your questions

Chemistry of the early earth - probably much like that of Titan (www.rssd.esa.int/SB/HUYGENS/docs/SP1177/raulin.pdf ) but much warmer of course.
Chirality of amino acids. More a question for a biologist than a a physicist. I suspect the answer is "we don't really know", some amino acids that fall to earth are left handed and the Bonner hypothesis proposes that this could have been caused by natural beta decay or polarisation
Genetic Algorithms. These are algorithms implemented by programmers. I know programmers exist, since I work with them on a daily basis. Fred Williams - someone who can't tell the difference between Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity. I see where you are getting your information - http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t120.html

Now let's cut to the chase:

How old do YOU think the earth is?

1439. Fleabytes

Comment #143188 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Comment #143165 by Quetzalcoatl

There will apparently be a Q&A session. If anyone can think of any good questions, feel free to PM them to me, and I will try and ask some of them.

No, but this sounds a good technique

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,453,The-Only-One-in-Step,Richard-Dawkins,page6#141632

1440. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143045 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 11:43 am

Just dropped a line on the article comments suggesting that the Church ought to excommunicate any Catholic either being involved in or denying the Holocaust, even if they have to do it posthumously.

1441. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143016 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 11:09 am

What is it about the clergy from Lancaster and its environs? First we the Bishop of Carlise claiming that homosexuality caused the floods and now we have another bishop wanting to bring back the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Time to write to Ed Balls I think.

1442. Fleabytes

Comment #143001 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #142994 by annabanana

This is a bit late, but...

Comment #142968 by SharonMcT on March 13, 2008 at 9:25 am

I agree with you totally. Nothing irritates me more.

It isn't too late at all.

I might send my elder daughter the details of the Mr. Robertson's London meeting. She might just attend. She used to work for Naral in Boston...

1443. Fleabytes

Comment #142982 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 9:46 am

Comment #142935 by Steve Zara

Garden view:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mistdog/2277709922/in/set-72157600382950605/

How incredibly flat!

You can find mine here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/page2/

I haven't started tagging or setting them as yet, so apologies for the apparent chaos.

1444. Fleabytes

Comment #142933 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #142927 by Steve Zara

This site has motivated me to finally start planning an actual study, with organised book-shelves, a good desk and a view out to the garden.

The study I have, and my employer provides me with a good desk and chair (Miller Aeron for all you back sufferers). The garden is slightly tricky since it slopes up at about one in 6 from my window until it reaches the tennis court. Essentially all I can see is a grassy bank.

1445. Fleabytes

Comment #142922 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 7:53 am

I know it is a truism that getting atheists to agree on anything (apart from a distinct scarcity of gods) is like herding cats. However, there is a distinct community of friends here.

I think the major thing that this site has done for me is to get me out of the eat, work, sleep cycle. It has stretched mental muscles that haven't been exercised for too long. The complaints I have is there isn't enough time in the day to stretch these muscles as much as I would like, that the equipment needed for the exercises is either in boxes (I keep raiding them and coming up with "The Scarlet Pimpernel" or "The Once and Future King" rather than "Objective Knowledge, though I did find Frege's "Theory of Judgement" the other day) that we haven't opened since we moved or has to be waited for since there is always too much month at the end of the money.

1446. Fleabytes

Comment #142905 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 7:28 am

Comment #142903 by AllanW

What do you all want to talk about now? :)

We could talk about Diacanu - he has obviously gone to bed and is missing the party.

1447. Two More Fleas

Comment #142897 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #142890 by clearmind

Reverend, you seem to be very relaxed, while you are at it, would you please explain us how did flea mutate or evolve from what and ended with what? So much about fleas but we never talk about their spot in the evolution tree?

Actually no, it is your turn to answer questions not to ask them. Please answer the questions here - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page2#142666

1448. Two More Fleas

Comment #142889 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 7:21 am

Comment #142868 by nalfeshnee

I like that one and will be keeping it to bring out when confronted with a similar "question".

The one that I like to point out is that the only place that human crab lice can live is in human hair, particularly that around the genitals.

One can therefore argue that the universe has better tuning for crab lice than for humans.

1449. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142854 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 6:31 am

Comment #142703 by Jon_Sociologist

You will now note that he has switched threads
Where?

Here

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page2#142623

I am already asking for answers to questions...

1450. Fleabytes

Comment #142835 by epeeist on March 13, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #142825 by MPhil

concerning one of your posts on page 99 - are you aware that McIntyre turned Catholic Thomist in the 80s?

No, "After Virtue" stems from the early 80's, I wonder if he changed before or after he wrote it.

Also - do you know T.M. Scanlon's "What we owe to each other"? It's a Rawls-ian contractualist approach to morality... and very nice.

On the list, like Steve Z. I think I am going to have to have a moan at what this site is costing me in books. But then - think of the value.

But not only do they need to show that the can provide a 'better' theory than Aristotle or McIntyre (before he turned nuts), they would need to show show that there are objective moral values and that there are real alternatives to consequentialism.

Indeed, its back to those lemmata again.