101. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147175 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 1:43 am

Rod the Farmer

Next of kin have the right to over-turn the wishes of a person who donates their body to science. (I believe this is true in the UK at least, though I filled in the forms some years ago and things may have changed).

I think this is right. As things stand at the moment, my husband is in agreement that I should be able to donate my body. However, depending on the age I am, and the circumstances of my death (assuming he outlives me) I would want my husband to have the final say so that he can cope with his bereavement in the best way for him at the time. (He is my priority).

Driver

I have requested to have my body donated to the local Health Sciences Center. My very religious mother refuses to do so. I tried to compromise by agreeing to a religious funeral.

I assume it is possible to register someone other than a mother as next of kin, someone who will abide by your wishes to benefit living people after your death. What is the difference between donating organs and donating the whole body? Does your mother oppose the donation of organs? It may be a way to talk to her if she doesn't mind you giving your corneas, heart, lungs etc. away. Maybe you could ask her which bits God wants and which bits can go to benefit other (living) humans!

102. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147162 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 1:20 am

It can be argued that, far from it being impossible to be moral without God, if you NEED God (or any external motivation) to be moral then, by definition, you have not progressed to the highest level of moral maturity.

It is easy to see how useful God can be when controlling the behaviour of people in the Expedient (no internalised morality - feel bad only if they are caught!) and Conforming stages (no internalised morality - go with the group) and it may be true that many people need that external control... but to pretend that one can't be moral without it actually reveals a level of immaturity which society would do well to try to leave behind.

103. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145705 by PJG on March 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

The reason why CREATIONISM should and MUST be taught in sceince classe's is everything in our phenomenelogical world has a creator. But EVERYTHING. Why should existeance be any different?

OK, this is too pathetic even for the most moronic creationist autodidact!

Come on - you are busted... come out now! :o)

104. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145668 by PJG on March 18, 2008 at 12:41 am

emmet

I am inclined to agree. He can't be real.

If any of us typed really, really fast, didn't use a spell check, didn't think and had our brains fuddled by hallucinogenic drugs, alcohol or a late-onset congenital brain defect, we too could write like Pathfinder.

Come on, we're onto you.... own up... who is it? :o)

105. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145358 by PJG on March 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm

The Government states that Creationism and ID are not science and they do not form part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study. This does not prevent the teaching of creationism/ID in science a la First Amendment/Kitzmiller v Dover School Board.

There seems to be little doubt that this nonsense is being taught in schools. Not just the "independent faith schools", but also state schools and academies that receive money from tax-payers. So long as the children learn to "tick the boxes" in exams - regarding evolution - who knows what they are being taught as "fact"?

The problem is worse than many people want to believe. We in the UK are being squeezed between the evangelical nutters from the West and the Islamic creationists from the East - but no-one seems to want to mention that - presumably in case Muslims are offended. I understand that 95% of Muslims worldwide do not accept evolution - and they are not all outside Britain!

Some universities have been tacitly endorsing the most outrageous anti-science by allowing Islamic organisations to display anti-evolution propaganda on their campuses and to hand out glossy booklets showing scientific "proofs" of the infallibility of the Qu'ran which would shame a scientifically competent 14 year old.

This booklet, see it at www.islam-guide.com , shows "proofs" as convincing as a piece of chewed gum that is supposed to look like a human embryo. It would be funny if it were not so worrying. My husband was handed one when he visited Leeds University recently... the person who gave it to him was a medical student *shudder* . This potential future medic knew virtually nothing about evolution and still less about the evidence that supports the theory.

We have a tendency to think that all creationists are uneducated idiots - the Wooters and Robert Byers of the world. Wrong.

The problem is that the umbrella of "faith" is protecting the likes of Professor Andrew McIntosh - Head of Thermodynamics at Leeds University - a YE creationist. This is where the "respect" given to faith really causes problems. If he was as deluded about ANYTHING else as he is about the age of the Earth and evolution (he believes it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics), Professor McIntosh would be on extended leave and receiving treatment somewhere - but because his delusion involves faith, he remains in post - even though Leeds University feels compelled to publish a disclaimer - distancing itself from his views:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm

It is true that a few of us are intending to hand out leaflets at Ken Ham's Leicester talk - 3rd April. We really need people to hand out leaflets at ALL his talks - as well as any other creationist lectures. The leaflet is now endorsed by the British Centre for Science Education. Their website: bcseweb.org.uk

I am also putting together a possible extended version of the "Creationism Threatens Science Education" leaflet. I am hoping to keep it short (not more than 20 - 26 pages) and VERY easy to read. It will have to expand upon things that people KNOW and accept as part of their day-to-day lives which run counter to what creationists are telling them (People like DNA fingerprinting to put criminals away, but don't want the same science to suggest that humans share a common ancestor with chimps - that sort of thing).

(If anyone has any ideas for things that should be considered - please feel free to PM me. They have to be REALLY short, sweet and SIMPLE.)

106. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142947 by PJG on March 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

For example, if someone wants to claim that prayer works, what are we actually studying? If there was, hypothetically, some effect, how are we supposed to distinguish some direct "psychokinetic" effect from an intervention by supernatural beings? No matter how much we insist that the first explanation is the more reasonable, due to simplicity, you can bet the "god did it" explanation would be the one that would be accepted.

OK, you have a point here, but I was assuming that most of their work would be on Biblical truth and stuff like that.

107. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142943 by PJG on March 13, 2008 at 8:39 am

Bonzai:

I do understand your view. I think the problem is that with the battles that are going on in the USA, we need to be careful about giving any ground.

I am not sure what the right balance is, but I would rather err on the side of keeping religion away from science.

I don't think that is quite fair. I think it is vital to prevent the teaching of religion as science, of course, and any person or organisation misrepresenting scientific findings so they appear to support religious myths should be fallen on from a great height. But to somehow try to prevent scientific investigations into religious claims seems a little strange. It could be interpreted as fear of what they may find.

I think it is perfectly fine if an honest religious organisation wants to put money into scientifically testing some of their claims though I certainly wouldn't want tax-payers' money going on it.

So long as they are honest - what can they do?

It isn't as if they are going to prove Goddidit and all they will do is show, for example, that prayer doesn't work!

I may be speaking from ignorance here as I am not sure what sort of research they fund - I wouldn't mind teams of deluded scientists searching for evidence of a global flood, for example.... they can only keep coming up for air occasionally to say "haven't found it yet".

108. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142869 by PJG on March 13, 2008 at 6:56 am

I was speaking of UK government research.

Maybe in other parts of the world, government funded research is squeaky clean, results (statistics) are never manipulated and everyone is always told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Maybe?

109. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142778 by PJG on March 13, 2008 at 5:12 am

Irate - I think you have it right there.

EDIT: Think Robin Hood (I come from Nottingham!)

110. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #142682 by PJG on March 13, 2008 at 2:31 am

Yes, they tried to ban "Body Worlds" (I think that is what it was called), in London a few years ago.

If people voluntarily donate their body (provided they aren't bumped off early for it!!!) I can't see the difference between donating that and donating organs - or even blood. It all goes for the benefit of other, living people.

This is one of the problems with religion - it is as interested in what people do in eternity (in private!) as it is with what they do while they are alive (in private).

111. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142597 by PJG on March 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm

I think I heard somewhere that the Templeton Foundation funded some of the (so far) best research into the efficacy of prayer. The results (of course) showed that there was no benefit (in fact, those who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse!) The findings were published with no attempt at suppression even though, presumably, these results were not what they had hoped for.

That shows a certain integrity (better, as Bonzai says above, than certain pharma companies... and certainly better than most (all?) government funded research!)

However, I understand also that there is a considerable pressure brought to bear (is it a "condition"?) that the recipient of the funding says nice things about God/religion. If that is the case, then, depending on what that would have to consist of, I might refuse the money. No amount of money is worth compromising one's integrity as appears (allegedly!!) to have happened here:

http://www.islam-guide.com/video/moore-1-28k.smi

to Dr. Keith Moore (Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto)

112. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #142340 by PJG on March 12, 2008 at 11:00 am

I've donated my body to science. If it is of no use, they can use it as a crash cadaver if they want (apparently, they can learn more from real bodies than from crash test dummies.)

My husband can over-ride that decision if he wants, and he won't know how he feels about it until it happens (assuming I die first!)

When you are dead, you are dead. I don't see that it makes any difference what happens to your body. (Though I hope my friends and family have a nice party to celebrate my life!!!) If you are cremated you are no use to anyone, at least if you donate your body to science, they may be able to learn from you and help others in the future - even if it is only training medical students.

113. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141802 by PJG on March 11, 2008 at 8:24 am

I meant it in the sense that it would not be disrespectful and start throwing the bones around for the dog to chase in the backyard.

So long as no-one near or dear to me is aware of it (we are talking L O N G dead here with no living relatives to upset), I rather like the idea of my bones being thrown for the dog!!! :o)

Hmmm... providing it was a nice dog, maybe a Labrador or a lurcher... not a poodle or a bloody Shitzu.....

114. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141622 by PJG on March 11, 2008 at 12:03 am

Re alcohol being a drug. I was in a hotel lobby when I read this in a newspaper when I was out in Ireland last year. It was one of the highlights of the trip!

Priests fear altar wine may tip them over driving limit


Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Concerns have been expressed that priests celebrating more than one Mass in a day could soon find themselves over the legal limit for drink driving.

Enniskillen-based Fr Brian D'Arcy said the issue was already a concern among some priests in the North, which, like the Republic, is actively considering a reduction in the blood alcohol limit for drivers.

"The shortage of priests has resulted in those who are currently ministering having to say multiple Masses, and often drive from church to church to do so, having drunk from the chalice in each church," he said.

"Perhaps it [celebrating a number of Masses] could be enough for you to fail a drink driving test, and while I don't like to use the word wine, as it is the precious blood in the Eucharist, it still has all the characteristics of wine when in the blood stream," said Fr D'Arcy.

He pointed out that the use of non-alcoholic wine was not an option, as it was not allowed by the Vatican, even where alcoholic priests were concerned.

Fr D'Arcy said he always felt bad himself when getting into a car after celebrating a number of Masses. "As a pioneer myself I am conscious of the danger now that there is zero tolerance here in Northern Ireland of alcohol for people who are driving, and I assume the zero rule is due soon in the South as well," he said.

"Perhaps a small amount would not show up in blood tests but only medically qualified people can decide that. After doing several Masses I often have to drive off immediately to visit some person who may be very ill in hospital," said Fr D'Arcy.

Both the Republic and the North currently have the same blood alcohol limit for drivers of 80mg/100ml, but a reduction in the limit on both sides of the Border is expected within 18 months.

Fr D'Arcy was responding to a Tuam Herald report which quoted a north Galway priest as saying that, while he often had three ministers of the Eucharist at some Masses, he sometimes had to finish the wine left over in their chalices as well as his own.

This, he felt, could put him over the legal limit for driving.

"I would often have to read an evening Mass in the church as well as another one in a nearby nursing home and then drive to celebrate a neighbourhood Mass, all in one evening," he said.

"If I only took a mouthful of wine from the chalice at all three Masses I feel that this could put me over the legal limit for driving. But if a call comes in that somebody is nearing death, I have no choice but drive to where that person is and give him or her the last rites," he said.

© 2007 The Irish Times

Interesting that the blood of Christ has EXACTLY the same properties as wine. I mean, how much had he DRUNK at the last supper?

Don't you just love the Catholic church?

115. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141620 by PJG on March 10, 2008 at 11:48 pm

I am interested in some of the posts here.

Can someone explain to me what "respect" means when referring to long dead remains?

116. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140276 by PJG on March 7, 2008 at 5:05 am

*PJG emerges from behind the settee, stands tall and applauds mightily*

"Bravo! Bravo!"

117. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140231 by PJG on March 7, 2008 at 4:07 am

* PJG ducks behind settee and awaits Phil's rant at Wooter *

118. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139646 by PJG on March 6, 2008 at 10:10 am

Wooter, you don't appear to have answered my questions. They only require "yes" or "no" answers.

Please answer them. I will repeat them here:

1) Do you accept that living things reproduce?

2) Do you accept that the offspring of living things are not identical to their parents, but tend to be very similar?

3) Do you accept that an animal that is born with fur is likely to survive a cold winter better than one that is born with no fur (bald) even if this is the result of a genetic mutation?

4) Do you agree that one that survives the winter is more likely to have babies than one that does not survive the winter?

5) Do you agree that animals with fur are MORE LIKELY to have babies with fur because they will pass on the genes for fur?

6) Do you agree that if several cold winters follow, the animals with fur are more likely to survive, and therefore reproduce, than the bald ones?

7) Do you think it POSSIBLE, therefore, that thicker fur might be SELECTED FOR and that the bald version of the animal might die out and just leave the ones with fur?

Is it POSSIBLE?

119. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139492 by PJG on March 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

Mitchell

Because. I love doing, I love thinking, I love seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. I love experiencing, I love being.

Death is the lose of all that I cherish most, all that I am, and all that I have. It is no mystery to me why people can delude themselves into believing in an afterlife. Nothing equates, nothing else comes close.

Of course, that is all true (and I was trying to lighten things, not treat you like an idiot. Sorry if I offended)

I too rejoice in all those things and, of course it is not a nice thing to contemplate not existing. But doesn't that make it all the more important to relish this life, to try to leave good memories with those we love and, so far as possible, not waste a moment in regret or worry?

To me, believing that this is the one shot at life means that I am obligated to make it great. One day, I will go to sleep and never wake up (I hope that is how it happens or, like my Mum who, at 84, died instantly whilst snorkelling on holiday - what a way to go eh?)and I hope it will be when this life has lost its joy and I am tired. A life cut short is a shame, but if you have had the time to enjoy all the things you mention, you are one of the lucky ones. Isn't that something to be joyful about in itself?

120. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139311 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Mitchell, I have some really bad news for you. You might have to sit down....

You are going to die.

We are all going to die.

When you die, you will not know anything about it and it will not bother you at all. There is nothing you can do to stop it happening.

Life is too short to be scared shitless of what happens after it! :o)

121. Fleabytes

Comment #139307 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 2:46 pm

3613 posts...

Anything approaching evidence for the existence of God yet?

Ok, I'll pop back in about 1000 posts and ask the same question (and get the same reply!)

122. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139290 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Fearing dying is not the same as fearing death. Death is a doddle, I know because, funnily enough, I was in exactly the same situation 47 years ago and it was perfectly acceptable. The dinosaurs managed just fine without me, as did the Roman Empire and several quite important wars. Apparantly some chap rose from the dead while I was away but I have it on good authority that it was just a rumour put about by some marketing company.

I expect there will be important wars in the future that I will miss too, and the "Age of the Cockroach", which will be post-homo sapiens, will be an interesting time (for cockroaches) and will be looked back upon by whatever they eventually evolve into with wonder... or not.

I am hoping I die about ten minutes after I have had enough, quickly and quietly and with no pain. While I am waiting, and before I do die, I wonder if Wooter will answer my question:

If this life is meaningless unless there is a life after it, what would be the meaning of an eternal life which, by definition, has no life after it?

123. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139200 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 9:44 am

You poor fool: what could be more perfect than spending all of eternity polishing god's rocket?
Ste5e

You've really upset me now! I thought after I had shuffled off at the end of this pointless, barren and desperate atheist life, I would at least have eternity to learn to play the harp or have fun doing some exciting flying tricks a la Jonathan Livingston Seagull (I've always wanted wings!) Polishing God's rocket? Sounds like Hell to me! ;o)

124. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139192 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 9:18 am

Wooter

Please answer these questions:

1) Do you accept that living things reproduce?
(Mummy bear and daddy bear producing baby bear)Unlike watches and buildings which do, indeed, need a designer/builder

2) Do you accept that the offspring of living things are not identical to their parents, but tend to be very similar?

3) Do you accept that an animal that is born with fur will survive a cold winter better than one that is born with no fur (bald) even if this is the result of a genetic mutation?

4) Do you agree that one that survives the winter is more likely to have babies than one that does not survive the winter?

5) Do you agree that animals with fur are MORE LIKELY to have babies with fur because they will pass on the genes for fur?

6) Do you agree that if several cold winters follow, the animals with fur are more likely to survive than the bald ones?

7) Do you think it POSSIBLE, therefore, that thick fur might be SELECTED FOR and that the bald version of the animal might die out and just leave the ones with fur?

Is it POSSIBLE?

EDIT

Philip

Can I anticipate Wooter's reply?

You are being punished by God for not believing in him, it is obvious!

Wooter,

Why do you think eternal life is desirable? If there is no point to this finite one, what woud be the point of an infinite one?

125. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #139068 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

Just thought of another...

h) All politicians are lying, self-serving, contemptible scum-bags with less integrity than a retarded cockroach and who's honesty could be improved by lessons from Kent Hovind

126. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #139064 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 5:12 am

Teratornis

Sadly, I have had to learn from previous mistakes when my sarcasm/jokes were thought to be aimed at a particular poster/serious - hence my disclaimer. Certainly not meant to insult your (or anyone else's) intelligence! :o)

Agree entirely with your additions to my list...

New list... further suggestions Anyone?

a) totally incompetent
b) burying their heads so far into the sand that their noses are getting burned by the central core
c) pretending things are going to carry on the way they have been because the riots and mayhem that would result from them being honest would be out of their control
d) they know being honest would lose them votes
e) they are ignoring their countryman Colin J. Campbell, who could explain the peaking of North Sea oil in 1999 and its implications for the future of the U.K.
f) they haven't yet learned to edit collaboratively on wikis
g) all of the above?

127. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139017 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 3:11 am

Wooter

Some of you they invite me to the museum "thanks- and I invite you to the exhibition, the biggest lab of the world, the earth where any second millions of creatures ARE BEING BORN, FED, PROTECTED, MULTIPLED AND SERVED THEIR PURPOSE pointing out their creator with their AMAZING ART AND CREATION.

Wooter, I would like to invite you to the exhibition, the biggest lab of the world, the earth, where any second millions of creatures are dying, starving, neglected, diseased and parasitised, pointing out the fact that some things survive (and all the good things you mention also apply) and some things don't. In fact, it would appear that the world is exactly as you would expect it to be if there were no God.

So far as fearing death is concerned.... speak for yourself!

I don't fear death at all (see Mark Twain quote above) - I relish in life and know I am lucky enough to be one of the tiny number of potential creatures to have had life.

If any one of my ancestors had not produced the exact young that they did, I would not exist. If a single one of my father's sperm, other than the one that did, had fertilised that particular egg, I would not exist.... someone else would. This brief glimpse of consciousness is amazing and I want to enjoy it (even the bad times) because I am here.

Of course, I don't want to suffer while I am in the process of dying, but even if I did, I would have no memory of it which makes the suffering finite. In your belief, the suffering would continue in your memory (our memories of pain can be as emotionally painful as the event) - unless you believe that you have no memory of your life (and death) on earth when you are in Heaven (or Hell!) in which case, what value would there be in being re-united with your loved ones?

* PJG just keeps getting drawn into this. Note to self: recognise futility - or see doctor regarding some very specific form of OCD*

128. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #138444 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 10:32 am

Hmmmmm. I don't think this constitutes much of an argument. I am all for finding evidence that debunks the idea of God, "chosen people", miracles, resurrections and all that crap but if theists put forward this sort of thing in favour of any of their beliefs, we'd all laugh at them.

Of course, I think it is MORE likely that Moses was on drugs, suffering from a mental illness or lying (or for that matter, just about any other possible explanation) than that it was actually God talking to him. But that's just me! :o)

129. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #138211 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 4:18 am

Teratornis

Gosh, you don't mean to say that, maybe, the extra runway at Heathrow (to be opened in about 10 years) might be, well, not a good idea then?!

Maybe we should tell our imbecilic (UK) government?

The sarcasm is not aimed at you, Teratornis, but at the people making these sorts of decisions who are either
a) totally incompetent
b) burying their heads so far into the sand that their noses are getting burned by the central core
c) pretending things are going to carry on the way they have been because the riots and mayhem that would result from them being honest would be out of their control
d) they think being honest would lose them votes
e) all of the above?

Any other suggestions?

(I think the answer is "e".)

130. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138199 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 3:57 am

Ashton Black

A being that had evolved would not be a god, because it would be natural. A being for which there was "evidence" would have to be explained by what we understand to be natural forces which would, again, make it a natural phenomenon.

Unless our understanding of "natural" was so turned on its head as to make everything we currently deem to be "evidence" invalid, there can be no gods.

Edit:

Steve,

Much as I enjoyed Stenger's book, I wasn't convinced by his arguments. I very much doubt they'd convince any theist (though maybe I will be proved wrong by one of his converts on here???)

P.S. I think you and I keep the same hours on this site - I always seem to post just after you!!!

131. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138178 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 3:16 am

I think that in order to be a God, as opposed to a being (alien) that had evolved, it would have to have supernatural powers which were true magic - not just a technology or similar that we would interpret as magic because it was beyond our comprehension.

If that is the case, I would have to say that I don't believe in any gods that I haven't heard of either - so I am with Nefrubyr on this one. I live without god (any god). I think that makes me an atheist, not an anti-theist (though I am bordering on that too!)

132. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138133 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 1:28 am

In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence):

"There is a God because I say so and people who don't agree are horrid. So there!"

133. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #137879 by PJG on March 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Usually, I do dislike rudeness but I must admit that I take my hat off to Reverend Dark for this one:

.... you contemptible splash of vomit slowly sliding down the freshly cleaned commode of rational thought

That is quite masterly.

May I retain it and use it should I be given a parking ticket by a traffic warden? I suppose I would have to change "rational thought" to something like "human decency" but otherwise, I feel it could fit the moment rather well. ;o)

134. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137744 by PJG on March 3, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I wonder why it matters to these people so much what they are descended from.

Does their ancestry make any difference to how they behave now, in this one life?

Personally, considering all the damage Adam did did - couldn't do as he was told for five minutes (when he was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge), all the sin he let into the world, rogering Eve (though I've always wondered how they would have peopled the Earth if he hadn't), his second son was a murderer (which suggests his parenting skills left something to be desired) so he really can't be considered a good role model - I would rather have a hairy, knuckle-dragging primate (and some time before that, a fish!) as my ancestor.

135. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137515 by PJG on March 3, 2008 at 3:27 am

I always wondered how over 50% of the US population can possibly NOT accept evolution.... now I know...they haven't had David Attenborough!!!

Ok, you guys have... but you've had so many other things available on you TVs, maybe you've missed him! :o)

Sadly, I was talking to a teacher acquaintance of mine a couple of days ago and he was saying that, in the UK, 95% of the children would sooner watch "Big Brother" or "Eastenders" (a dreadful UK soap opera) than anything to do with natural history.

I hope his series on evolution puts an end to misconceptions about it... especially the "blind chance" aspect. The tragedy is that it will probably not get shown in the countries where the information is most needed in case someone is "offended".

136. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #137067 by PJG on March 2, 2008 at 9:25 am

Steve,

Please don't apologise. Posts can often be misinterpreted - either because of the nature of the written word or because the need for brevity means information can be omitted.

One of the things I love about this site is that people feel free to comment, correct and expand upon other people's posts and when this is done, it is normally taken with good grace. I don't think a day goes by without my learning something new from here.

137. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #136839 by PJG on March 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Steve

Yes, of course, but I was referring to the (our) potential.

I was trying to point out to Wooter that our sense of smell is not as good as it could be and that we have the genes to make it better.

It seems strange that God would give us a potential and then diminish it.

It would suggest that we have what we need to survive, rather than having been created in the image of a perfect being. Why on earth (sorry!) would God put the potential there and switch it off?

Of course, we are probably being punished because of naughty Adam and Eve. (sarcasm Wooter, sarcasm)

Also, we only see within the range of what we call "visible light" and yet other creatures can see well beyond that range. Even ignoring the potential usefulness of being able to see into the infrared and/or ultra violet, (re Jon_Sociologist's* post above) if God was so kind, why not make it possible for us to see as well as an eagle in the day AND as well as an owl in dim light (that would be good, save me tripping over a bloody cat every time I go downstairs at night!) A better sense of smell could be useful sometimes too!

EDIT* Sorry Jon_Sociologist, I think I misread your name before... but maybe you are a socialist too!!!!

138. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #136571 by PJG on March 1, 2008 at 12:39 pm

It might also be worth asking why humans have such a poor sense of smell. About 50% of our olfactory receptor genes are non-functioning. Interestingly, researchers found a very high correlation between the percentage of fossilized genes and the evolution of full colour vision in primates.

Now, which is more likely...

a) God made a mistake and put loads of extra junk into man's DNA because he didn't know what he was doing (could be the case when you look at all his other questionable experiments)
b) God put the extra stuff there to trick us into thinking we evolved (a bit mean, but God is like that!)
c) Primates didn't need their sense of smell so much once they had full colour vision (colour vision was selected for more than sense of smell) but, because there is no mechanism in nature to remove it, non-functioning DNA just stays there but doesn't do anything.

139. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #136001 by PJG on February 29, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Rod the farmer

:o)

If we could get rid of the fundies by doing that, and all the homeopaths by only allowing them to use homeopathic "medicines", we could solve almost ALL our problems!!!

Whhhaaaahh ha ha.

*PJG pulls black cloak around her shoulders and slinks off into the night*

140. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #135523 by PJG on February 29, 2008 at 4:04 am

OK, I tried, I'm done.

Jon-socialist, he's all yours!!! :o)


* PJG goes to stroke a cat*

141. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #135432 by PJG on February 29, 2008 at 12:43 am

Wooter

That is great. I will warn you that it appears the videos were made because of the misinformation put out by creationists (and Potholer54's frustration with this is sometimes clear). They may appear a bit harsh to you. Please ignore that and watch the explanation of how natural selection works. I think you will be fascinated.

This is not some worldwide, fantastic conspiracy. The vast majority of accredited scientists all over the world agree that evolution takes place because the evidence for it is overwhelming. No discoveries, so far, have contradicted it. It is true that there are slight disagreements between SOME scientists about SOME of the detail but that doesn't affect the theory as a whole.

Natural Selection Made Easy (9minutes 48 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy (9 minutes 51 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related

Human Evolution Made Easy (9minutes 59 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=related

142. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135406 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Anyone interested in this!!!!!

CHEMISTRY FOR AROMATHERAPISTS WORKSHOP - THURSDAY 3RD APRIL 2008

VENUE - THE EVRON CENTRE, JOHN STREET, FILEY, NORTH YORKSHIRE

10 am - 4 pm

Cost - £80

This workshop counts as 6 hours CPD credits

The above workshop covers chemistry as utilised by aromatherapist starting with the basic atom, molecules and working through all the functional groups associated with essential oil chemistry including the therapeutic properties of each group and their application in therapeutic interventions.


The workshop covers Empirical or Molecular Formula, Constitutional or Rational Formula , Graphic or structural formula, Simplified formula (without hydrogen atoms) and Basic, also without carbon atoms.


The course also covers:-

single and double bonds
saturation
chemical pathways - the Mevalonic acid and Shikimic acid pathways
chain and ring building blocks
isomers
There will be time to work on practical activities building three dimentional molecular models as a visual aid for students.

Refreshments of tea, coffee and water are included in the cost of the workshop (lunch is not included)

EDIT: From http://www.suelincoln.co.uk/

143. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135404 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Just as an example, my husband was talking to someone about his concern that a certain British University was allowing anti-evolution propaganda to be given out from a display on their campus. He said he was planning to write to some of the Heads of Departments there.

"Well, you know, don't you", said the man he was speaking to, "that the Head of Thermodynamics there is a creationist". I am talking about a mainstream British University with a good reputation.

I wonder if they would allow "educational" information to leave the campus that informed people that the chemical formula for water was CH4? It is as bad as that and yet no-one is making a fuss about it because it involves "faith".

144. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135399 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 11:01 pm

wundergeist

So, paraphrasing Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the first Beyond Belief conference, the problem is much bigger than we think.

I am in England. You are not joking! You wouldn't believe how "hidden" the problem is here. I am discovering people almost daily, some educated, articulate people, who do not believe in evolution. I had thought it was confined to the weirdo evangelicals, JWs and the non-westernised Muslims.

I was wrong.

I was worried before, now I am really scared! I am starting to feel like a character in "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I am talking to someone about evolution, someone who looks normal and bright and educated and they look at me and say, "Evolution is only a theory though...." Music from "The Twilight Zone"

Aaaaggghhhhh!!!

145. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #134689 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 5:40 am

Wooter

So we may be able to have a reasonable conversation about your understanding of ET, could you tell me why you have refused to watch the Potholer54 (or similar) videos which have been recommended to you so many times by so many people? You always accuse us of sending you on expeditions into the Internet instead of answering your questions when we ARE trying to answer your questions in the clearest, most effective way. A picture says a thousand words and the pictures in these videos would save so much time and complicated written explanations... we are trying to save time - yours and ours.

If I have been guilty of being less than patient, it is only because there must be some REASON for your reluctance to watch them and see where we are coming from and that makes you seem argumentative and ignorant.

If you watch them, at least we could perhaps start to look at some of your misconceptions.

So far as "How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy? ".

Maybe it is the form of the sentence, but this is almost unintelligible. If you are asking how "luck, chance and coincidence" (which is your (incorrect) understanding of how ET works) can result in something like a human being who can hear, see and feel sad or happy, then we have told you so often to find out how natural selection REALLY "works" and you may understand how a human being who can hear, see and feel sad or happy can be the (so far) end product.

I AM trying, I really am, but you have to work with me here!

146. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #134552 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 1:27 am

Jon-socialist

I think we agree entirely. I have no desire to ban people either for their opposing views or being uninformed or misinformed or for being ignorant. However, if someone is deliberately, provocatively and maliciously offensive, that is a different thing (and I don't think Wooter is any of those things).

However, he CAN be frustrating when his questions are answered or he is given easy access to the information he requires but he refuses to look and learn, but then continues to spout the same "objections" to his (lack of) understanding of the science.

There does come a point when people can decide it is a waste of time to continue the conversation... they may then ignore him (as I said, I am getting close to that point myself) but others may continue to try to get through to him.

147. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #134544 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 1:10 am

Goldy/Al-rawandi

I remember the first time I ever heard my father say "Fuck off". It was as he switched off the radio as "Thought for the Day"* came on.

I must have been about 12 (and my parents very, very rarely swore). Strangely enough, I rarely swear but, nearly thirty-five years later, it is my usual response to the same programme!

* 'Thought for the Day' is an eight minute daily religious programme in the UK

148. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134541 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 1:04 am

Steve

100% agreement. I want the same thing for the same reason - and probably ONLY that reason!!! :o)

149. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134539 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 1:02 am

A reaction to this from a British citizen.....


*SHUDDER*

150. Fleabytes

Comment #134226 by PJG on February 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm

"Who says? I do. Oh."

And the good lord spoke to me
Who says?
He said
Who says he said?
I do
Oh.

Said the good lord spoke to me
And he told me what to do
And he told me to tell you what to do
And he told me to tell you when to do it
And he told me to tell you what will happen if you do
And he told me to tell you what will happen if you don?t
Yes the good lord spoke to me
Who says?
He said
Who says he said?
I do
Oh.

And it's all there in my book
What the good lord said to me
When he told me what to do
When he told me to tell you what to do
When he told me to tell you when to do it
When he told me to tell you what will happen if you do
When he told me to tell you what will happen if you don?t
Yes the good lord spoke to me
Who says?
He said
Who says he said?
I do
Oh.

I've only got your word for it.
It begins and ends with words.
Your words.
Yes but the good lord spoke to me.
Who says?
He said
Who says he said?
I do
Oh.