Comments by annabanana

101. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173130 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Thanks Geoff! I can't speak for al, but I couldn't be happier!

102. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173118 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 11:39 am

Look guys! Clearmind learned how to copy and paste!

103. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173040 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:59 am

What I don't understand is how anyone would want to waste so much effort trying to defend patently untenable positions because they have a problem with facts?

The thing is, he didn't waste that much time. If you go and click the link to his other comments, he rarely wrote more than two sentences and even more rarely said anything of substance (if ever). We were the ones wasting our time, unfortunately, but as al already said, it was calculated deception on his part. He came here acting genuinely interested and innocent when he had no intentions of listening to what we had to offer.

104. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173029 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 am

tsk tsk. Bad manners :)

I don't know what came over me! I must have been momentarily possessed by a demon! That is certainly the most parsimonious of conjectures. ;-)

105. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173021 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am

Strike three! And you're out!

*let's door hit him on the arse*

Oh, I'm sorry, was that rude? I must not have had enough Red Bull this morning.

106. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173011 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 am

To add to comment 529, the only thing I will be sad about is that there are people like you who are so easily persuaded by such fallacious arguments as inaccuracy of radiometric dating techniques, but yet so impervious to the plethora of evidence that contradicts religious beliefs of any sort.

107. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173001 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:23 am

Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.

Errr...what? How/why would we look desperate if you were to leave? I'm pretty sure no one will be sad to see you go.

108. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172974 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:11 am

Steve,

I was lurking that day. I remember. I was getting annoyed because he kept posting something irrelevant from wiki and ignoring all of the evidence of speciation that you had given.

109. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172969 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 8:06 am

Apparently, my comments are invisible to Seeker. As such, I will continue to speak about him as if he isn't here. I blockquoted where he said he was leaving, I provided him with a very good article and even pasted some of it into my post, but yet he still ignored me. His dishonesty is astonishing.

110. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172963 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 am

Look! I even found an article from a Christian perspective on the accuracy of radiometric dating!

Here's the link, even though you probably won't click it.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Just in case, I'll paste some of it here for you:

However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

and...

Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.

111. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172955 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 am

Comment #172897 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 am

I'm afraid I don't play the personal insult game well. I am done responding to any of your posts until this time tomorrow.

Eh?

112. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172943 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:38 am

Don't we love talking around people who are listening?

No one was talking around you. You said you were leaving, i.e. everyone thought you were gone. Are you just trying to instigate an argument?

113. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172938 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:34 am

Seeker,

I have read the article you are alluding to. If I remember correctly, it was intentionally deceitful because the radiometric method that was used was incorrect.

114. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172934 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 7:26 am

Dr Benway,

Thanks for the congrats! My best friend just moved to Boston about a year and a half ago. I'll probably be back up to see her sometime this year and perhaps I can convince Al to tag along. I'll let you know. :-)

115. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172911 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:57 am

Good luck if you choose to so so. He is as slippery as an eel. Check the attempt to hand-wave away polyploidy so as to deny that true new species have appeared.

If I am remembering correctly, he seemed quite nice at first. He's gotten a bit more snippy as well as slippery as the days have passed, however.

116. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172906 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 am

Are you going to compose posts together? The mixing of styles should be ... interesting!

Er...I think we'll be keeping it separate...composing them together would be interesting, though. I think that you would be able to visualize an actual tug-of-war through the words if we ever did...

117. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172892 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:42 am

Looks like RD.net is fast becoming the hottest dating site on the internet!

This could be a wonderful opportunity for marketing slogans. "Find love while arguing with Wooter", "You can still find your soul mate if you don't believe in souls", "RD.net - romance on a scientific footing"...

LMAO!

I don't think I can come up with any that are comparable to yours.

Back on topic...can I just say that I can't believe there's someone on here actually questioning radiometric dating? I thought that the creationists/ID proponents had given up on that argument?

118. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172882 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:35 am

phatbat,

Does that mean you and Al-rawandi are an item. I'm sorry if this is common knowledge.

We are an item. I don't know if it was common knowledge before a day or so ago, but I guess now it is. :-)

Congrats if it is a new thing.

Depends on your definition of "new". ;-) Thanks, though.

119. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172864 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:19 am

So my predictive powers were correct. I thought you may have just been pulling my chain and leading me and everyone else on.

Of course your predictive powers were correct, Frankus! ;-)

Glad everyone likes the pic!

riandouglas,

Thanks for the compliment, concenring my posts, but there is no need to lie :-)

I wasn't lying. I think you have made some excellent points which was why I sincerely hated to correct you, but it was sort of like nails on a chalkboard and was detracting from all of those excellent points you were making.

120. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172854 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 6:09 am

riandouglas,

Your posts are very good and I hate to be the grammar police to someone who is so nice, but you keep using "you're" where you should be using "your". I just thought I'd let you know...also, it's driving me a little crazy. :-)

121. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172826 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 5:50 am

Oh no! Anna is doing a Zaphod impression!

Nice to see you both :)

(Does this mean that Al's pic will be empty, in a Harry Potter kind of way?)

A Hitchhiker's Guide AND Harry Potter reference?! That's almost too much to handle this early in the a.m. Haha...I liked the Harry ref. the best...we'll see what Al's looks like when he gets here. ;-)

122. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172816 by annabanana on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 am

Yay for Queen! Quetz...more evidence that you have good taste in music!

123. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172660 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 8:58 pm

njwong,

You may have a good point or two, but don't you think that if she were an honest person, that she wouldn't have just deleted all of her posts and run off? I know when I am wrongly accused of something, I stay until everyone understands my position. I don't run off because of a "misunderstanding" about editing. That is very suspect behavior, IMO.

124. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172387 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm

MPhil,

Come on, the ladies totally would prefer the hat. "Ladies" being Sharon and I.

125. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172380 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I thought is was a blown glass ash tray.

I wouldn't have said ashtray, but it did look like blown glass...something or other.

126. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172369 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm

al,

Thanks. I would still say that you are handsome, though...regardless of how much you may resemble sasquatch or a yetti. ;-)

MPhil,

HAT!!!!

127. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172341 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm

MPhil,

Definitely the hat. I like it.

128. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172328 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I refuse to comment on the accuracy of this specific picture.

Erm...would you prefer that I post a different one for you to comment on? I'm confused.

All we can say for certain is that the girl in the photograph is very pretty. But whether it's a good representation of you? I dunno, what do you really look like? You could be a 300lb man with a beard for all we know :o)

Well, I think it looks like me, but I don't look at myself nearly as much as some other people do, so I don't know if I'm a good judge of that or not. Fortunately, I am not a 300 lb man with a beard...today... :-O

129. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172319 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I know better.

So you think that pic is a good representation of me?

130. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172313 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Everyone picks the very very very best picture of themselves. It is almost a ruse.

Yeah, I'm heinously ugly. It took a good bit of photoshopping to get me to look like this. ;-)

131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172282 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Karda,

Well, I played your game, so if you will be so kind as to answer a question for me.

I came to the same conclusion, on the grounds that I am not special, and the topic was mundane,

Did you exhaust all of the other possibilities before you came to the conclusion that it must have been god/some supernatural entity? Did you think that there was a possibility that it was a coincidence? Did you see a professional psychiatrist? Anything?

but I could no longer dismiss religion as irrelevant to my life or understanding. I begin to look into the matter more seriously than I had in the past.

Why? I don't understand this. I just can't imagine hearing voices (a voice?) in my head and coming to the same conclusions that you have. I must not be imaginative enough. It's not nearly parsimonious enough for me.

132. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172266 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Kyrie,

fanatical government zealots

What is your particular beef with the government workers who are supposedly fanatical? You sound bitter. Did you fail to acquire a job there that you applied for? Fired maybe? I don't doubt that there are government workers who are fanatical zealots about some things, but to continually categorize government workers as fanatical zealots is beyond reprieve.

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172246 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 11:39 am

MaxD,

I played Karda's thought experiment game and he ignored my post. Apparently, he didn't like the outcome. So get in line with your questions. :-)

134. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172212 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 10:50 am

Jolly Bloger,

On the main page, there is a column on the left hand side of the page that says "Upcoming Events". Vancouver has been on there for quite some time now.

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172140 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 9:02 am

My theory is that he is creating Himself, and the universe, by repeatedly interacting with it and making adjustments.

Please substitute the word "theory" with the word "conjecture" or "guess" as it definitely is not a theory and doesn't really qualify as a hypothesis either since in can't be tested or falsified.

Suppose you became convinced that there is a personal "god" with detailed knowledge of the past and of the likely future. This god will not roll over and beg for you, but nevertheless he/she/it did respond to certain questions on the fly and succeeded in persuading you that it is real. You have no reason to believe that this experience is unique to yourself (although it is uncommon), and you have poor information about the nature or motivations of this being, but no reason to assume malevolence.

If I didn't assume that I were having psychiatric troubles I suppose I would do this: Since I base all of my conclusions on evidence, I would probably keep my mouth shut since I would have no other evidence than my word, which is virtually useless. I would reason, however, that if this being were real and that he/she/it revealed him/her/itself to me, that he/she/it would also be revealed to others in a similar fashion and that hopefully at some point he/she/it would reveal him/her/itself to everyone by some sort of tangible evidence so that I wouldn't have to think of myself as a possible lunatic any longer. :-)

136. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172123 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 8:50 am

Who gave child protective services (people who couldn't pass the psyche evaluations to become police officers or school tyrants, (I mean teachers) carte blanche to make up the law as they go along?

Have you ever considered that perhaps there are people who go into child protective services to protect children and not because they have failed at something else? Your gross generalizations disgust me.

137. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172110 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 8:41 am

you're forgetting the details of the future imparted.

No, I didn't forget those. That could be chalked up to coincidence. It would have to be some pretty specific details about the future that were imparted in order for it not to be attributed to coincidence.

138. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172093 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 8:24 am

Erm...that's not nearly enough detail.

If I were to hear a voice in my head, I wouldn't think it to be evidence for anything, I would think that my mind was "playing tricks on me" so to speak and if it happened more than once, I might seek someone's professional opinion.

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172082 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 8:04 am

I don't mean to butt in, but...

Well, I am suggesting that you do a thought experiment in which you receive such evidence, and I am asking what it is that you would then believe.

I think what anyone would believe would be contingent on what evidence they received. Need more details. Is it a revelation? Or perhaps some sort of "god particle"? What's the evidence? Maybe you have posted what the evidence is and I missed it, so forgive me if I am being redundant.

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171461 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Other that you seem to be an astute fellow.

Indeed.

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171431 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:38 pm

There are plenty of secrets to go around anyhow.

No kidding?

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171427 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Frankus,

I teach in a middle school. I recognize the behaviour. :)

You're very adept.

I thought Anna had the Stalinicon? How did you get it off her? Something you're not telling us?

Al did indeed invent the Stalinicon. I tried to borrow it once, but he told me I couldn't have it.

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171409 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Frankus,

You guys make a handsome couple.

Thanks, we are, aren't we? ;-)

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171407 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Bonzai,

Perhaps I'm the one who is being anecdotal today, but I would venture to say that most of the people who make it to doctorate level are intelligent enough to see through the crap they fed us in public school. The glamorization you speak of is not what sparked my interests in science, at least. This is of course purely speculation. My comments can probably be duly ignored.

145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171382 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Al,

Thanks, I <3 you, too. ;-)

146. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171377 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Is it just me or are there a lot of angry people on this thread today?

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171352 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 12:54 pm

FightingFalcon,

he Army is currently taking convicted ex-felons who don't even have a high school diploma. I'd love to hear why anyone can't join these days.

Since when does one have to join a branch of the military to value their country and be patriotic?

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171333 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm

They should have told the truth: do it while you enjoy it, but if you want to have a family or a balanced lifestyle, do not pursue a career in science.

I would venture to say that perhaps you are speaking from an anecdotal point of view. Simply because you did not learn to properly balance school/work and your personal life doesn't mean that plenty of others haven't been successful at it. Forgive me if you think I am being cruel. I would think that you would have been grateful for the opportunities you had rather than the injustices that you suffered.

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171299 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 12:19 pm

FightingFalcon,

Might I suggest that at this point, you are allowing your emotions to play too great a part in this discussion?

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171288 by annabanana on April 28, 2008 at 12:11 pm

However, one of the most insidious lies that is constantly repeated to kids in schools is that we need more scientists. If that were true, then we wouldn't treat scientists like a bunch of indentured servants or starving artists. The practice of science in this country makes it essentially incompatible with the desire to start a family and actually take part in raising your children. It's a disgrace that science educators do their best to get as many students as possible hooked on the thirst for knowledge when the end result will be either settling for a disappointment or slaving until age 45 for tenure.

Whoa! Where did that bit of anger come from? Bitter much? I'm a scientist, and my thirst for knowledge has in no way hindered my ability to be happy. And why do you limit the thirst for knowledge to science. There's a whole array of different fields in which one can have a thirst for more knowledge. I think the insidious lie is the insinuation that scientists or people who have a thirst for knowledge can't be happy.