101. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226459 by phasmagigas on August 8, 2008 at 5:44 am

stafford gordon

Why do people have such a problem with evolution; they don't know what they're missing.

most people simply do not see the natural world, or hear it for that matter.

as a newcomer to the 'new world' i was/am utterly enchanted by the late summer night calling of the 'true katydid' in our area, out of interest i asked various neighbours if they knew what was making the noise (i was curious to know of any local names), incredibly no one knew what it was, and not just that, several hadn't actually 'noticed' them, admittedly if you were brought up in an area you might ignore it as background noise but i wondered that even as children did they not notice the very obvious, incredibly loud squarking noise that continued all night!! werent they even curious as to what hidden creature could make such an unearthly sound?

a few said 'cicadas' which gives them a mark i suppose.

ive still yet to see a katydid, they sit way to high in the trees...one day.

102. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226453 by phasmagigas on August 8, 2008 at 5:35 am

jeepyjay

This article in maintaining that "Natural selection is a philosophy of beauty and imagination" is guilty of being unrealistic, exactly in the same way that christians are when they hymn about "All Things Bright and Beautiful".

Let's have realism. Not propaganda.

its about how we percieve it and thats stil important, its doesnt have to get in teh way of any science or discovery. If a mosquito drills into my arm i wont be overly happy but im still amazed at how quickly the mouthparts can sink in by several millimeters before you even notice.

103. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #226447 by phasmagigas on August 8, 2008 at 5:08 am

Have a look again at Storey's background. He's up to his neck in the Caleb Foundation and the Orange Order. The connection with creationism is not incidental. If you think there is no cultural or social connection between the Caleb Foundation/orange movement and the main presbyterian church, think again.

ironically the parochial 'my teams better than your team because it is' is what youd expect to find if evolution were true, and not what youd expect from some cosmic super wise, perfect deity.

I think their acceptence of creation goes something like 'it doesnt matter how stupid the idea is, its what we believe, you with us or against us?

104. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225688 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 7:57 am

phasma,

I still think that people can just be interested in minority lifestyles, like bisexuality, veganism, bell ringing and black pudding eating.

thats quite ironic, i really do like black pudding, boiled and eaten with mustard (parochial tendencies run through us all but at least BP is real!)

cant get it here in the USA though, well ive not tried id rather just eat it when i visit the uk to get the real deal at a good price.

105. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225687 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 7:55 am

How can it be falsified?

remember kingpin behe suggested that ID could be falsified by seeing a flagellum evolve in the lab mutation by mutation. of course hes such a prat that he didnt even see the evolutionist point his finger and say 'nope, god could still have done it'. poetic eh?

well have to ask storey how he proposes to have god free controls in high school experiments. maybe you grow some plant clones, maybe draw a pentangle around one of them and see if it makes any difference.

106. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225682 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 7:47 am

sargeist from bonzais post

I always wonder why should anyone care about your sexuality unless he/she wants to sleep with you.

so if a good looking guy AND girl come over to you and ask you what your orientation is you say 'bi, bi, bi, yes bi, er who wants to know, bi.

oh dear i dread any christonuts reading this, all the proof they need.

107. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225680 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

This post of Dr Benway's is appropriate:
http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/creationist-logic.html

nice. i especially like the missing tooth, god forgot to provide us with a tooth brush organ on our index finger!

108. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225673 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 7:33 am

steve

I am utterly baffled by this. How is Creationism going to be taught in science lessons? What would the laboratory experiments be? What is the evidence for divine intervention? What predictions does Creationism make? How can it be falsified?

I would be very interested in the prospectus for such a course.

i have also wondered this, i suggested in a previous post that the kids would make clay animals and then this is a demonstartion that a designed thing needs a designer, full marks!

actually in all seriousness id ask any proponent of creation in science class to quickly run down what would be taught and how, this will trip them up most likely, they wont have a bloody clue what to say. even the 'best' of them would be only able to say 'draw the bacterial flagellum, label the parts and say its irreducibly complex'.

109. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225662 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 7:16 am

sargeist

I thought the official response to us bisexuals was that straight people think we're playing at being gay, and gay people think we're playing at being straight.

a bit of jealousy from the polar opposites perhaps?

110. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225629 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2008 at 6:15 am

steve

I am not surprised there has not been a rush to fund this, fun thought it sounds. Atheism is not a movement, and does not instruct its followers to "spread the word". Also, most non-believers in the UK probably consider religion mostly harmless, so would not see any urgency in spreading this message.

Now, if there was something in support of evolution for example, I would find that a different matter.

i dont like the idea of the slogan as such but it seems that the intent is almost to prove a point (im not sure what point) rather than spread any word.

it does seem incredibly silly (and thats perhaps the point) and is rather like giving 5 pounds to say 'i dont believe in santa'.

im starting to despise the whole divison between atheism/belief, i simply wish religious people would keep their fucking ideals to themselves and be happy knowing they are going to see jesus.

on a recent trip to the UK I was in manchester city centre, a large crowd was gathering around some performers and large PA system, hip hop started the proceedings that quickly become a preaching session, within a few minutes the guy who was up there had told all in listening distance that their lives were empty without jesus, what a fucking little wanker, thats what i hate, he was telling me that my life was empty, condescending little fuck, thats what i hate, its basically an intrusion that i or nobody needs.

111. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225509 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm

"The issue for the current Education Minister (Caitriona Ruane] is that she tells us she's all for equality â€" surely if that is the case, you can't have one set of interpretations being taught at the expense of others

hopefully the word 'current' isnt going to be valid much longer.

what a total fucking ignoramus.

An education minister thinks that equality means teaching creationism in science, fucking hell, that is fucking insane, i cannot believe how utterly fucked up that is, the massive irony is that the education sysyem is simply failing and she is proof in person.

if the education minister doesnt have any inkling of what constitutes science then she has no business in that job or at the very least she must have a science education advisor who can explain why creationism isnt science.

to think there are teachers who will fail classroom inspections because they didnt have the class management quite right or they failed to differentiate the work or something and yet the ed minister can say in view of 'equality' then creationism should be in science class, all i can say is fuck, fuck, fuck.

112. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225502 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 4:31 pm

i cannot imagine creationism in science class ever becoming law but if it did I seriously hope that science teachers will simply put down the chalk/pen/interactive board pen firmly down and strike on the basis that they are not presenting science and that they are presenting actual lies. maybe the RE teaches can fill in the lessons and make sure they actually dont forget the evolution part too, hopefully they will do a bit of background reading first.

can you imagine practical lessons in creation science?

'ok class, heres some plasticine, make a little creature from it, give it some eyes, an anus and a mouth, some whiskers etc. now what have we learned from this today? that every thing designed needs a designer, repeat..'

'ok, cut open the flower bud, just look how complex it is. what have we learned today kids? the flower is so complex it must have been designed, full marks'


'miss, miss, this is really great, its just sooo easy to understand!!

113. More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo

Comment #225092 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 7:36 am

I think she was trying clumsily to argue along the line that "an atheist cannot reject God if he doesn't know what he rejects, therefore in order to reject God, he must be able to concieve of the existence of God, therefore athesism is inconsistent(or therefore God exists, depending on the version)".

hey, that is quite useful:

evolutionist: 'describe the basics of evolution to me'

creationist: er, slime, eye, chance, mud, toadbirdy thing, ermm, not really sure.

evolutionist: see, therefore evolution is true, i win!!

114. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225089 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 7:23 am

115. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225073 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 6:59 am

sargeist

The only clip I have seen of the programme so far is the one in the classroom, but your telling of the "what use is it?" story is paralleled rather well with the "why should we learn about evolution?" question in the clip.

I suppose I should just be thankful there wasn't an "innit" at the end of the question.

yeah, there could almost have been an innit in that one!

the boy did ask a fair question though, i remember kids asking the maths teacher 'why do we learn algebra?' and of course it deserves an answer and RD gave that. his motive for asking the question though wasnt positive as such but a 14 year old is a young mind and it takes a rare mind to dispel indoctrination at that age. further to my previous point ive heard people ask why are there so many dandelions in total exasperation at the work required to be rid of them, they ask honestly though, as if theres some reasons that kind of includes THEM 'why are there so many dandelions that i should have to pull them out all the time' and they cannot see the simple anwser as a naturalistic explanation gives, higly competetive, parthenogenetic (i think) colonising species, the seem to miss the point that bare soil is all a dandelion wants!!

ah and my other question that drives me nuts is 'is this plant a weed?'

116. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225064 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 6:47 am

Why should we bang on about evolution by natural selection being a theory?

people are blind to the small stuff, i can take anybody into our back garden and show them natural selection at work, I have the prairie cup plant Silphium perfoliatum growing tall, it is covered in red aphids and at any one time there are parasitic wasps flying round them, the aphids do this sort of synchronised dance to confuse? the wasp, or at least some other specific or non specific predator, there are litearlly 100's of examples of natural selection on display over an hour in a garden, our cherry tree is almost defoliated by the japanese beetle round here, natural selection at work etc, etc. people simply do not see thsi as NS, they think only of lions and zebras (no dig at the programme RD, i was impressed with the scorpion vs solifugid!).

117. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225062 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 6:40 am

Once the layperson accepts that a theory is required for something as "obvious" as gravity, it might then be a smaller step to ask them whether they consider the need for a theory to explain animal descent as quite so startling.

i think part of the problem is a general lack of understanding the natural world, people know im interested in invertebrates generally and will ask me questions about insects they find in their garden.

The thing that always amazes me though is simply how incredibly ignorant people are, ok i dont expect everybody to know that a given beetle isnt a tick and that the said beetle isnt actually an arachnid as it has but 6 legs but its this type of question that gets my goat ' weve found this weird looking grub, what is it and what use is it?'

i have to take a step back and i think 'ok, how do i answer this?' interestingly the fact that i can say 'oh, thats the larvae of the local stag beetle' then at least gives the remains of my answer some credibility, i'll say something like 'well, what do you mean by use? to you or me, to nature? ' then i'll tentatively explain that they fulfill a 'role' of sorts, in reducing trees to soil, to feed other animals etc, to feed their parasites evemn, then if they are still listening i'll go on to the idea that they dont have an actual use, they are there because their ancestors survived, i'll push it as far as i can, ive yet had anybody walk away from me, they probably dont see the godless avenue im walking them......they were still managing quite well though without.

118. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225058 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 6:27 am

After a brief thought, what I'm saying about 'fact' and 'theory' relates far more to natural selection than it does to evolution. However, it's still clear that laypeople do not notice natural directional changes in population densities, and therefore have no experience of evolution 'as a fact'.

That's why evolution has trouble and gravity doesn't. Also, according to the excellent Charlie Brooker article in a recent Guardian, the Bible doesn't mention gravity, so its adherents don't feel that they have to put up a fight.

its a useful tool to demonstarte inanity with the gravity 'theory'

eg 'ha, you can walk up hill cant you? see, gravity doesnt exist' thats the court jester kirk cameron school of inanity.

then theres the 'gravity exists, its just god that does the pulling' thats the unprovable theistic gravitationist school of inanity.

119. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225054 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2008 at 6:15 am

beeline

I'm afraid to say that the camerawork was really quite poor and amateurish too, and this detracted quite a lot from the presentation of the piece. Sure, there were some nice shots, but it was very uneven and actually very poorly thought out in a number of places - especially the piano keyboard illustration of the evolutionary timeline, whose scale was lost at each shot.

i noticed that too.

im going to wait until ive seen all the programmes before i make any more comments but it would have been better perhaps to have had one episode dedicated to 'darwins dangerous idea' and only then were the social implications looked at in detail and the attack on darwinism from the religious bodies, including the push for ID in school, with refutations included covering the common fallacies: no transitional fossils, no speciation, only microeveolution etc.

i did find that the first episode was a little hotch potched, it tried to cover too much to quickly (eg evidence could have been presented over a full programme:fossils/biogeography/genome/behaviour even, i feel more animations were needed and perhaps importantly an extended one that showed the basic idea of descent with change, showing perhaps a budded population of one organism on an island. it was covered but it perhaps needed a very distince set piece thats shows that this is the core event that darwin thus exlained.

i hope that subsequesnt programmes explain how evolution has not yet been falsified, ie it needs to be stated quite clearly that there is not one piece of evidence on this planet that shows it not to have happened. it would be nice to see a set piece showing how the ultimate test (after the discovery of DNA) could be used to test the theory, again, this was covered in the first programme but perhaps too quickly, maybe the first programme is a pre summary.

either way im hoping it gets the credit it deserves and perhaps one or two of the tv rewiewers might have actually read a few of the replies critical of them.

120. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224774 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Allan W.

The comment of the prostitute reminds me of the inane comment of the buffoon-woman who has just paid to have here dog cloned; 'God put him on the earth as an angel for me and obviously wants me to have five others'. What a maroon! One seconds' thought leads you to ask the question;'Doesn't this situation have rather more to do with advanced cloning techniques than God?'.

in all fairness to the prostitue, there probably is very little chance that a world view without a god has ever been presented to her, im not patronising her, i simply suspect that as a prostitute in a slum in Africa shes had little education and a life time of indoctrination. actually allan, i dont think your comment was chastising the african woman but only the californian one, i have far less sympathy for her.

121. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224772 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 3:55 pm

stuart paul wood.

further to my point re teachers lying, id ask this question to any school boards promoting creationism or even to soembody like, that er G W Bush:

'yes or no: when a teacher presents evolution to a class of kids, ARE THEY PASSING ON LIES?

listen to them squirm with that one.

122. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224713 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm

stuart paul wood.

phasmagigas, I honestly don't see the point. They're not worthy of it. I think they're all examples of cheap journalism, undeserving of strenuously considered responses. The articles virtually argue against themselves.

you are actually right, i just get especially tired of reading fallicious arguments that are specifically honed to entrap the more unsophisticated readers. Where they criticise dawkins they are also criticising any teacher presenting evolution to key stage 4 kids in the UK and that pisses me off.

they wouldnt have the guts though to say the teachers are actually presenting lies and flasehoods to the kids, but thats what they are implying or at least thats what they would like others to think thats what dawkins and other teachers are doing.

123. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224693 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm

the various uk newspaper reviews need to be posted on here individually as threads so we can dissect them sentence by sentence. the independent one is so typical and up its own arse: 'dawkins science is religion blah, blah, blah' but what dear reviewer does that say about the truth or otherwise of the content?

funny how these bloody relativists can criticise evolutionary scientists for wanting to educate but pass off genuine religious assertions and preaching as something acceptable.

i personally would love to share out the sentences in those reviews and i hope that the writers actually read them. Josh, maybe that can be done?

124. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #224639 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 9:17 am

the troller hasnt yet been cut off??

im suprised joe hasnt got into a chat with fred phelps like i suggested on 'godhatesfags'.

joe, go and talk to fred, you'll find him an interesting conversation. Hes a ready primed convert for islam, go and save him, the only reason hes not a muslim is that his parents just happened not to be so, thats very unfair, so i hope you can help him.

125. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224630 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 9:05 am

Needless (I hope) to say, a more interesting question was asked! It just wasn't used in the film, but will be on the DVD of the raw interviews when Josh produces it.

I immediately asked the prostitute why she thought God was looking after her rather than any of her colleagues. She said she couldn't explain that, but she DID know that you were less likely to get AIDS if you wore a condom. Her theory was that God wanted people to wear condoms, and that AIDS was a punishment for people who did NOT wear a condom!

the lady of course can be forgiven for believing in god (not that that needs forgiving as such) but at least her assertions are slightly more reasonable and compassionate than many catholics.

RD, actually my 'more interesting questions being asked' point was a general one directed at the guardian reviewer, she'd made a point about the prostitutes answer getting up your nose but I wondered why she (the reviewer)didnt see the god explantion from the prosititue as something worth questioning rather than using it to ridicule you.

126. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224615 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 8:24 am

cartomancer

Needless to say they weren't buying it, and kept saying "No, I'm sure Dawkins thinks that deriving comfort from religion is always a sign of weakness". Though to be fair to them they did eventually say that if my portrayal was accurate then Richard is not the miserly old killjoy he is often portrayed to be.

It seems that far too many people, educated people who should know better among them, are willing to buy in to this unfair mis-characterisation.

its a shame that the point about the prostitutes thank to god didnt in fact start some more interesting questions being asked.

there are lots of people out there who would wonder just why would god give a particular prostitue protection from HIV, according to them, HIV is a punishment from god for sexual deviancy. that is my main gripe with religion, it allows you to postulate anything atall and actually feel almost proud of the fact!

127. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224610 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 8:12 am

Richard Dawkins.

the guardian tv reviewer asks you a question regarding selective breeding and how cats still always look like cats, somehow she feels dogs and pigeons dont(??)

perhaps you could email her personally and explain how her points are utterly flawed or at least come from severe misunderstanding.

further and aside...

She is of course utterly missing the point, she clearly knows nothing of evolution, probably doesnt want to know and somehow feels that she has a platform to ridicule a programme that sets out to educate and dispel ignorance, and here she compounds it.

i despise her tactic of pointing out that the kids names or religious views werent mentioned (she likely feels this will get people on her side, in effect 'the cold scientist didnt even tell us those nice kids names')

i find it so annoying that such an ill conceived and negative review can be put into a generally respected paper. Of course a person who can review soap operas night not be in a position to review an educational programme (clearly she isnt) but it highlights the problem of evolution being singled out and demonised by the most ignorant people in society, especially when they have a public platform that they can essentially abuse.

i'd love to ask this woman 'would you so ridicule a high school teacher also presenting evolution to a class, even with a piano?'

128. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224597 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 7:54 am

nancy banks smith review in the guardian.

stupidity personified. she obviously has a big wooden cross right up her ass.

dawkins present a programme thats supposed to educate, his motive is to present science just as would a high school teacher, I wonder if that idiotic woman would say the same about the 1000's of teachers who have to present evolution to children up and down the united kingdom.

can somebody so inconceivably ignorant atually have a job with a major news paper?? (well, yes, that is a silly question i know).

the prostitue who mentioned god, who possibly got up richards nose, well no, im sure she didnt, what else is a prostitute living in an African slum going to believe.

looks like this ignoramus knows no better.

oh and her comment on cats, well id suggest that she actually contact RD personally for that........leads to my next post.

129. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224565 by phasmagigas on August 5, 2008 at 6:35 am

from part 1 this programme looks nicely done, shows what indoctrination can do to stupify a human mind. the soundtrack is good too.

its despairing that kids in the Uk give great import to text messages and watching big brother, but at the same time can somehow deliberately ignore science and have their families and peers compound the error, then again watching big brother, waiting for trivial text messages and ignoring science are perhaps all equally mindless.

130. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224139 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 7:24 am

For believing this Richard Dawkins calls me a fairy believer, a child molester, a sponsor of terrorism, an enemy of reason, a supporter of the root of all evil; in spite of my life long passion for science he calls me an enemy of science; he accuses me of abusing my own children, and if we both live long enough, when I reach a certain age, he will no doubt be accusing me of being a senile old fool.

thats not entirely fair. there are religious people who without doubt could be described as all the above and you will agree with that. You are no more the above than is a typical shopper at any giant high street/mall store a slave trader/an environment destroyer/a small town destroyer/a community destroyer, but those negative aspects still apply.

131. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224134 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 7:13 am

The point Steve was trying to make was that religion/atheism is a false dichotomy. It should be theism/atheism

i suppose it could be irreligion as default, whereby you dont accept a plethora of general, unverifiable, counterintuitve, unbelievable, contradicting and often downright nasty ideas as being derived specifically from some other unverifiable source that could strike you dead at any moment.

132. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224130 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 7:01 am

roland F, thanks for the info on the gods,

its still abit confusing, those who say there is only 1 god seem to be very, very adamant about it, those who say there are many, seem to be a bit more laid back.

maybe there is a good field guide to teh gods, I seem to remember a book call 'deities and demigods', oh that was for dungeons and dragons game.

133. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224129 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 6:59 am

roger

Comment by Steve Zara - "So what is the opposite of religion? That is hard to describe. Religion has the foundation of theism (or at least supernaturalism) to build upon. Atheism provides no such foundation, as it is the absence of belief. It is the absence of a scaffold."

Why shouldthere be any "opposite" of religion(s). I don't get the point. It seems that the idea is about as useful as understanding the opposite of engineering, or porridge, or custard or computers.

i expect steve would agree with you there, i think he was being generous by saying 'that is hard to describe'

then again, i will let steve speak for himself.....

134. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #224124 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 6:44 am

isthatclear

The Genius of Charles Darwin begins on Channel 4 tomorrow at 8pm


If darwın were genıus then dawkıns would have been a belıever of the unıted states.

If dawkıns were genius ı could have been converted to an atheist on condition that ı would have lost my mind.

fun days are ahead.

isthatclear? er, not in the slightest.

135. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224120 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 6:34 am

27b-6

Hmm. Methinks you shoot yourself in the foot!

If you are to reject any ulitmate explanation on the grounds that it is "complicated" then the logic of this suggests that you ask the question of any possible ultimate explanation, "why is this not maximally simple."

You yourself point out that the maximally simple case is the one where nothing exists. But clearly something does exist. Reality is not maximally simple. In fact there are lots of hypothetical cases we could think of which would be simpler than the one that actually exists. A universe which consists of empty 3 dimensional euclidian space for example.

So the real case is at least fairly complicated. In this context fairly complicated is rather like fairly pregnant.

The criterion of simplicity is clearly needs to be used with great care.

the universe shows complexity therefore there is a god (who is simple or complex or something inbetween).

why should anybody accept that as justification to believe in a god, would this be the god that is only knowable through 'the bible' by the way?? i hear there is a god knowable via 'the koran', so maybe there are actually 2 gods, any learned theologians can help me with this??

136. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224117 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 6:24 am

27b-6

1. There is an ultimate scientific explanation for everything.
2. This explanation can be discovered and understood by humans using the scientific method.
3. The explanation is in some sense "simple."
4. When we find this explanation it will vindicate the world view of Richard Dawkins.

eh, why is this about RD?? dawkins wrote a book, its his way of trying to express his ideas about religion and god/no god to a wide audience, what he says has no bearing on the prescence of not of krishna or whatever god you beleive in, you are setting up a straw man (i think) and by saying 'look, there are holes in this part of the book, that part of the book and so therefore god exists for sure'

RD is just another person writing another book, it gives some people 'ammunition' so to speak to allow them to decide if they want to abandon religion or not, or abandon religion and god, god is one thing, religion is another.

'RD's worldwiew' you seem to give it way too much weight, TGD is not the antithesis of the bible you know, its only religious people who give books some ultimate cosmic referential value.

137. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224112 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 6:12 am

Dawkins has written a book which is about the Bible, Christian theology etc knowing very little about these subjects.

thats not true as has been pointed out. what is there to know anyway about christian theology? you can know it like how one studies literature but there is not a single case of anything that can show the existence of a deity, you think that somebody needs to be an expert in theology to know god??

i know of people who believe in god who can barely read, most of them are about 4 years old, you dont need to be learned to believe so id say its reasonable to say you dont need to be a learned in christian theology to not.

138. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224106 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 6:00 am

27b-6.

Religion gives no evolutionary advantage to humans. Religions only exist for their own benefit. They are parasites.

what page/s are these ideas on? id suggest that religion does/did have an advantage, if it cements individuals identity as a group it can confer priotection advantages, basically 'he believes the same stuff i do, so hes with us and i'll protect him', a modern day equivalent (which may or may not increase reproductive success) would be football hooligans beating up fans of the opposite team and not their own or a church member giving a job to somebopdy else because hes in the same denomination.

dawkins is describing religious ideas as memes which is perfectly reasonable, you could test these ideas as such, you could get children to perform simple exercises like lining up teddy bears in order of size and telling them that the samllest one is magic and is really the biggest one, the smallest therefore goes next to the 'biggest' one at the end of the sequence, after enough goes at this little game i wonder how many kids will say, NO, you are wrong, hes the samllest, he should go at the other end, kids will believe anything you tell them. if you wobble your head every time you speak to a 3 year old, they wont look at you like you are odd, they will simply start doing it themselves after a short while.

if copied ideas/actions are non useful then in affect they are parasitic but its just a way of describing them, if RD says 'religion is parasitic' then feel free to say thats 'unscientific' im sure RD doesnt feel its a scientific description in any way. your comment is pointless at best as what you are saying is probably something like 'RD is making unscientific descriptions of religion, therefor hes wrong and therefore god exists and my religion is the right one to understand god'.

Religious faith evolved because it was able to take advantage of the way a child has trust in its parents. Children tend to believe what their parents tell them. Trust in parents does give an evolutionary advantage - but it has the disadvantage that religious beliefs can sneak in amongst the other more useful things that parents tell their children and get believed. And that's how religions came about and that's how they get passed on.

And how much evidence is there for this theory. None. To be fair Dawkins doesn't claim that there is any - he just waves his hands and says "something like this may well be true". But if there is no evidence for this theory then why include it in a book whose whole raison d'etre is to castigate people for believing things without evidence?!

tell some young kids there is an invisible monkey living in a terrarium and they will believe you.

Lets take a guess at why it's there shall we! This theory has nothing to do with scientific considerations â€" this is straight anti religious propaganda!

Dawkins want to make the unsubstantiated claims that:
a) the only reason people believe is because they were brainwashed as children
b) bringing up children in a faith is a form of child abuse

brainwashed, again, tell some kids that elephants make cars in factories using their trunks and they will believe you. the point about child abuse is that of course its not a scientfic notion, its open to definition.

picking out there 'errors' by dawkins is a bit odd, im not sure hwo this potentially defends religious notions or the exisience of a god, seems that instead of providing evidence for god you are simply saying diverting the attention away to some trivial matters of definitions in a book somebody wrote. if dawkins said 'the mona lisa was painted by a genius' you could argue that the comment is unscientific and so invalid.

139. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224094 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

the really scandalous thing is that there is even a notion of 'evangelical scientists'.

if it wasnt for those friggin luddite creationists there wouldnt be any 'controversy'.

The whole anitiscience/evolution machine springs exclusively? from a religiously motivated and politically charged reading of a few pages from a few books.

because it allows people to feel good about saying 'i dont believe we came from monkeys, science is bad' it allows them to mire in apathetic ignorance generally, it allows them to act stupid and feel its a positive trait because somehow it confers their faith.

140. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #223380 by phasmagigas on August 2, 2008 at 6:02 am

rachedi

Goldy,
phasmagigas,

There are some problems with these kind of replies and indeed in most
of the arguments I've seen so far.

1st - To understand WHEN Evolution becomes faith and also suffers
from 'infinite regress', you need to go back to the messages
151.(#217325), 159.(#217805) and 170.(#219896)... and read carefully.

2nd- Almost all of the replies treat Evolution as an idea
that can defy the idea of GOD.

This is an illusion that is based on a load of Christian historical
background.

Due to the irresponsible behavior of the church throughout many centuries,
during which period the church, representing GOD, claimed lots of wrong
stands against science and scientists in the name of GOD while the authentic
holly scripts never claimed such things. This unfortunate historical
background created the false believe that religion is against science. This
was reinforced by the church's typical stand against the Darwinian Evolution.

The church's failed to understand that Evolution could simply be a way through
which God would create life and its diversity.

the infinite regress thing, at some point in history simple organic molecules started to interact more and may have formed lipid vesicles containing 'metabolising' mixes etc eventually leading to cell (to cut a long story short) prior to all this was of course the long regression to the big bang (so we are led to believe) this is kind of an ultimate regression which needs an explanation, evolution says nothing about this, it explains how diversity came to be once the relicating ability was in place. What you are saying is something like 'what made the cells, what made the molecules, what made the atoms, what made the protons, what made the quarks, so god exists and therefore drives evolution, but thats a non sequiter.

evolution doesnt try to answer anything before the earliest replicating structures came to exist, god might have made the universe but that doesnt imply that it drove evolution (and i see that you are a theistic evoutionist and not a biblical creationist). God might have drove evolution but thats untestable (there is no god shield that you can use in experiments). h epoint of evolution is that when you examine the mechanism it is seen that there is no need for an intellignce, thats the point of it and thats why its reasonably accepted like an other 'no intelligence required process' as a scientific theory.

so no, i am not persuaded that evolution requires any type of faith, if you accept it happened you dont do this on faith, your faith appears to be in the cause/the driver. your acceptance of evolution is the same as anybody elses, its on evidence, a theistic evolutionist doesnt say 'i accept evolution on faith' they accept it because there is evidence in fossis, in genes, in organisms geography, in behaviour, in anatomy. remeber evolution didnt occur as a revelation to anybody, it sprang FROM evidence, i think thats an important thing to notice. the theistic evolutionst says 'I have faith that god drove it'. (sorry if im repeating points here)

let me repeat (as you mention this point on its own), evolution does not deny god, it simply means its not needed in that case.

you describe the church's shortcomings in its general inability to accept evolution was gods way of doing things, well thats very reasonable of you and i'd agree that a literalist non evolutionary origin of diversity is peasant minded at best but what makes you so sure you are right and all those other people are wrong? im pretty sure they are wrong (i wont say they ARE wrong) but somehow you are saying that the atheistic evolutionists are wrong and the literal creationists are wrong, but my theistic evolution is right, you still need to back that up with evidence, youar posts about infinite regression havent presented anything id consider worthwhile, you still need evidence for god, do you have any? then secondly youd need eveidence for 'intellignet design' and as we know from the inanity of the discovery institute that they cannot produce anything but misdirection, lies, assertions, arguments from personal incredulity (a speciality of theirs) simply because they know that its an unscientific notion. i think before you persuade anybody here that a divine being drove evolution you have a long, long way to go to try and persuade many millions of beleievers that 'evolution was gods way of doing it', you will find you will not get very far, biblical literalists wont say they are probably right, they will say the ARE right, and they will know nought of biology, you will at least find more accommodating minds here.

if the bible had described the falling of an apple as 'falleth by the divine power as any movement towards the firmament' (ok, my biblical mimicry is not very good but you gte the idea) just think how many people would be taking a stand against 'the theory of gravity'! 'gravity doesnt exist, its only a theory, teach the controversy, theres no evidence for gravity, its gods will, god makes it look like there is gravity to test the faith' you could well be one of those who accepted gravity but only as a divine command. funny how a few words in some old book make such a big difference.

141. The Trolls Among Us

Comment #223362 by phasmagigas on August 2, 2008 at 5:02 am

my quick take.

well its all very interesting how behaviour becomes more intense 'at a distance'. its a bit like throwing stones and shouting names when you are behing the garden fence knowing the kids opposite wont actually come in the garden (because your dads there!) the difference here is that here are young adults doing the same but with more malign intent.

its another of those things youd expect to find if evolution were true, simply another way for individuals to up their status amongst peers but in this case as it probably doesnt do much in the way of increasing their sexual partners.

that mitchell henderson business, well it demonstrates how easy religions and all the nonsense that goes with it can get started.

makes you wonder if any of those people have ever walked through a meadow on a spring morning and realised just how amazing life can be.

life on the internet, yuck. a few weeks ago our connection wendt down for a few days and it was marvellous to not even have the option to go online, it was actually like having some shackles removed, time to turn off.....

btw, is anybody else finding pz myers pharyngula site not opening at the moment??

142. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223355 by phasmagigas on August 2, 2008 at 4:41 am

Prof Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, is also said to have "scandalously" selected particular quotes from Einstein to back up his claims that God does not exist and that people who believe in a divine creator despite an abundance of contradictory evidence are delusional.

if i rememeber dawkins talks about einsteins lack of belief, he doesnt use that to back up his non belief, 'einstein doesnt and so dont i', hmmm im not sure thats how it went.

the last bit doesnt need commenting on though.

and as for the motive behind writing TGD, well as nothing can prove/disprove deities as RD knows its more to do with exposing religion as something not actually required and hopefully making some people realise that condom use for eg, will NOT send you to hell, its about making people realise that you dont actually have to live in fear of customs forced upon them by evil old men.

143. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222717 by phasmagigas on July 31, 2008 at 7:07 pm

im not sure writing like this is even honest, i get the feeling its a popularity contest, you could go to an average 'party', babble that type of shit and have 80% agreeing with you mainly the religious, the relativists and the know nothings.

its also feels like they type of thing a mature theist might say when he/she feels like the only way they can justify their own religion is by putting a far more useful and powerful construct under the same umbrella: science is just a religion, its very useful and powerful, just like my religion, my religion is good!!

144. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220888 by phasmagigas on July 29, 2008 at 6:50 am

so are these groups asking for permission from the pope or are they doing it for the sake of those who darent question the papal orders for themselves?

those catholics who are using contraception must see the idiocy of the situation, of course its not a mortal sin, its just a pity they cant take the whole 'that is riduculous' thing a bit further.

either way, if the pope says that wearing a condom on intromittent organ sends you to hell then i say hes a abberant little pervert.

145. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220150 by phasmagigas on July 28, 2008 at 6:32 am

Islamists love democracy, so long as shariah is the outcome.

reminds me of several pakistani muslims i know in the UK, they support liberal tolerance in the UK which allows them to indulge their particular religion/notion of right/wrong but would suppress the same if they had the upper hand.

146. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220139 by phasmagigas on July 28, 2008 at 6:15 am

I dunno. Unfortunately, like many theists, he seems to have a lot of emotional investment in the whole apparatus

sometimes i wonder if theists are in a kind of ultimate denial, i do understand that. i know many who are utterly convined that they will see their lost loved ones again, when i say 'i dont believe' I am in effect saying 'i believe you wont see your loved ones again and in to my mind, they are gone, their minds, the thing you loved has gone forever' thats is a difficult thing, its a horrible thing to consider. when i consider the death of an individual i dont think of 'my loss', what horrifies me is that 'they' have gone, to imagine that my wifes mind and body are not there so that she is enjoying life for herself is quite a dreadful contemplation, imagining them floating in heaven and honestly believing it would take away most of the pain, then you would only need contemplate the easy notion of 'my loss'.

i think many a theist just cannot give this possibility entrance into their minds.

147. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220132 by phasmagigas on July 28, 2008 at 6:08 am

rachedi

what
embedded it with its basic laws that ensure the
survival of the fittist ? and so on.

there are no laws special to evolution as such. stand 10 pencils of different length on their ends, blow above them, the tallest will fall first, the smallest will stand, survival of the fittest in effect, theres no extra laws needed there.

infinite regress in evolution? no, im not agreeing there, i bet a modern pond is full of loose biological chemicals floating around, these will have come from animal waste, damaged plants leaking sap, half eaten animals leaking cell contents and blood, they will be interacting in 1000's of ways albeit in a very dilute solution, in effect the pond itself is like a giant watery cell. its not difficult to imagine an ancient water body with organic compounds floating around interacting in many, many ways, im not sure its a great analogy but the point im making is that even in a moderm pond (for eg) there will be interactions between biologiacl molecules that were never 'intended' as such. anyway i think my point is to demonstrate that a water body (i say that as its one possible scenario) containing an amount of interacting organic and inorganic compounds does not need any special laws to increase complexity, once you make a tiny step forward you only need make on more and so on...

you are invoking some notion of extra laws where they are not needed.

148. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220117 by phasmagigas on July 28, 2008 at 5:43 am

racheidi.

hi, im assuimng you are a creationist and i hope i dont sount utterly patronising by saying its a nice change to have somebody from the 'other side' willing to have a reasoable discussion, the recent poisonous, hateful and nonsensical creationists weve had here recently has been quite revealing and disturbing.

These questions are to be answered by the
Evolution theory. I am afraid so far this theory
does not explain how. it stays at the same rank
as the Creation theory. Again, it's a matter of
faith.

a theory that makes testable predictions that come true is not based on faith, thats a false equivocation (i think thats what its called anyway), unless you want to redefine faith.

This is what I meant by Creationist-like answer ...
you can't escape it until you find the
definite answer, Otherwise what is in the
Evolutionist argument that would make it any
better.

[Your phrase "what embedded it with its basic
laws" presupposes that something must have done
this. This is the logical fallacy of begging the
question. This invalidates the rest of your post.]

I leave the formulation of my above phrase to
you .. formulate it the way you like i.e. in the
way that would remove the "presupposition of
something must have done it".. you'll still have
to deal with; Where those basic laws come
from/evolved from (whatever you like to have)? You
then will see that the rest of my prev. message
still hold on.

saying 'we dont know' is honest, saying 'we know, godidit' is an untestable assertion. epeeist isnt anwsering like a creationist, rather the exact opposite.

'where did the laws come from/evolve from' sounds like personal incredulity creeping in, ie you dont know/cant imagine so its not true.

149. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219710 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Funny that figs, dates and olives are especially good for you and they are things that have been grown in the middle east for i guess millenia, funny how other more recently adopted tropical things like brazil nuts and papayas werent mentioned, its all rather parochial isnt it???

i still wont fry black pudding slices though, it just isnt allowed.

150. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219705 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 12:01 pm

epeeist :

I coach in Bury near Manchester, where they make this savoury morsel - http://www.sausagelinks.co.uk/black_pudding.asp

You can buy them here - http://www.buryblackpuddings.co.uk/

Top flight British breakfast? Bacon, fried eggs, fried bread, devilled kidneys, mushrooms, sausages and black pudding.

Heart stopping!,

yup, bury black puddings and of course from many a butcher in that area are quite delicious, i like mine done the northern way, boiled whole and eaten with mustard, none of that frying slices nonsense. They are boiled because they are always boiled, amen.