1551. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191403 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Speaking of which, different sources give different ages for his wife when he married her. One book says that she was 11, two others say she was 15 (he was 27 and a virgin).

An Arab News piece had her as old as 29, if I remember right. Might try and look that up again in the archives.
I do thoroughly recommend reading the Islam section in Arab News. Some crackers there!

1552. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #191401 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 8:53 pm

A follow up article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/europe/11virgin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

1553. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191400 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I don't believe that reptiles became mammals and birds.

Care to explain avian and reptilian DNA? And indeed the recent genome showings of the duckbilled platypus and it's similarity to both mammals and reptiles? Why do birds have scales (a reptilian marker) and lay eggs, like reptiles? So many other pointers - and we have not even gotten to the nitty gritty DNA yet :-)

I think cats are cats, canines are canines, bears are bears, etc

So a polar bear is the same as spectacled bear? A tiger is the same as a European lynx? And the wolf is kissing cousin to the fox? Does this work with this statement?

Speciation as I understand it, seems to hinge around reproductive capabilities, specifically resulting in offspring which are not sterile. That being the case, I have to think that the number of chromosomes is an important factor in defining a species.

You concede that okapi and giraffe may be related. Okapi and llama too?
Don't forget these classifications are made by humans, not the animals themselves. We call cats cats and give the label to a range of them. Pandas - we call them a bear, Chinese call them Daxiongmao; literally: "big bear cat" according to Wikipedia, making them a bear-like cat. See where the argument falls a bit?

I have some questions for you: Do you believe in an Intelligent Creator, a first cause? Or do you not? Or are you 50-50 on its existence?

Yes, I'm completely convinced and comfortable about it. But I have to say, that my theological and doctrinal views are very developed. One of the fine details, which I will not discuss here, is about why some people get it and some don't.

Then you are a moron. You ignore what is evident in front of you for that which does not exist. You may assume your doctrinal views are well developed, but the dodo was well developed for Mauritius before man arrived, as was the moa in NZ, etc. It doesn't make it right. And, as a back up to hide your inadequacies in the modern world, you refuse to tell us why your views are so developed. Shy? We don't need convincing - we are convinced. We see it everyday, in front of our eyes. You, on the other hand, never developed beyond the phantasy that is religion. And I am truly sorry for you.

1554. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191337 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Funny chimp. Have a banana

1555. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #191334 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm

*Passes banana through cage, watches chimp eat*

1556. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #191328 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Science evolved Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,

Correction - science showed Adam, Eve and Steve all evolved. And Adam liked Eve and Steve, though Steve only really liked Adam. Eve fancied Steve but had to make do with Adam.
God made Adam and Eve in his image. Some homosexual nature in God made Adam fancy Steve (Steve being one of the men made on the sixth day) but seeing as God was suppressing his homoerotic urges, he made sure the other men made on the sixth day were defective. Incidently, god also made the smake and let it loose in Eden, along with planting the famous Tree knowing full well what was about to transpire. Shows what a shit he was, eh?
What the hell am I doing talking to a chimp?

1557. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #191324 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Oooh, chimp on this thread too! Wanna banana?

1558. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191322 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Nice chimp :-) Have a banana :-)

1559. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191307 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Don't worry, Corylus, it's just that chimp proving he is a person! ;-)

1560. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191305 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Get unhooked from oil and walk away from the region

Would that work? China, India, etc would step in as they like the black stuff. And they have a policy of non-intervention - welcome more Sudans, Somalias, Burmas, etc, etc. And still Israel would be there as a whipping stick, power plays would go on, a new cold war and jihadis coming to the west , jumping to Oriental strings...
Rambling, sorry. Better get my shit together and go get some blood samples...

1561. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190933 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 12:26 am

BTW which fish do you most resemble?

Dr Seuss' Fat Fish, apparently ;-)
Melbourne, eh? Nice place. Still got my valid tram ticket here in Auckland. Maybe if a decent job presents itself, I may make the move...
You make scientists sounds like some sort of cult-like organisation, all in lab coats and all thinking the same. Oddly, we are not. It's just a job to many. I personally like the rationality. I can't do with gods - make no sense to me. And if they turn out to be real but are in fact aliens from another time - well, then they are no longer gods, but beings. Sons of gods, as it were, like Genesis tells us about. Nothing to get all worked up about :-)

1562. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190926 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 11:37 pm

'Athiest wails â€" "but…but….show me the evidence, I need evidence, something I can understand….! You don't need a 'Scientist' to help you use your imagination.

As opposed to the theist who wails "But, but...show me the evidence!" and them ignores it - and, if truth be known, has been known to cover said evidence up ;-)
As for the evolutionary aspects of sharks and crocs, I agree, they have not changed much. But then, we humans have not changed too much from fish either :-) Indeed, were a being to land here, I dare say he could lump us together with all creatures possessing a notochord (should said being want to). And besides, you never mentioned which shark was on your mind, or indeed what crocodilian reptile. None, I believe, are overly evident in fossil records...similar one, yes, but then there are similar hominids in fossil records yet none are human as we see humans to be.
Other species don't tinker? I am sure ants would disagree - though I will concede that maybe they don't do their tinkering consciously...but then, who am I to judge?

Science does not busy itself with looking for evidence of God for several reasons, primarily because we have more pressing things to deal with right here in the land of the Humans on this planet that we think we own.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text

1563. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190897 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm

All this Monsanto stuff reminds me of an article I read about bananas.
Look up banana republic, see where the term came from. Rather interesting, have to say....

1564. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190896 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Steve

Instead, I point out how unethical their attacks on science are: you have added appropriate adjectives - it is certainly dishonest.

Maybe they just don't know, initially. First, merely point out the errors of their hypotheses. If they continue in the same vein (as Frankus points out in comment 190876) then by all means label them dishonest. They then get a taste of peer reviewed hypothesis defence :-)
txty

If you are comfortable with an exclusionary approach driven by philosophical concerns, then fine. But to me it is repugnant.

When gods appear, we shall include them. Until then, the unknowable, by definition, cannot be included. Would you rather we include God despite his apparent shyness (I am assuming scientific investigation might fall under the graven image restrictions). You may find it repugnant, but that merely shows your hypocricy - your God wants it thus.
Besides, what does it matter. You ignore what is written and you obviously have no interest in the material and references given to you by us to show where we are coming from. I went into the ether to show you there was debate, indeed debate a-plenty, with quotes and hypotheses that refuted what other contributers here had given you (see, even here there is debate and not all between the god botherers and the god deniers). I personally try to bend over backwards to accept what you tell me - but I can't because it is wrong. I go to some lengths to show you why I think you are wrong yet you ignore everything I have given you. You don't even consider thinking about doing for me, and others, that which we do for you. You have here an amazing source of easy answers to questions and yet you militantly protect your ignorance. That is the sign of a "moron" (a term you accused us athiests of terming cretinists [and no, that is not a typo]) , would you not agree?

1565. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190862 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 6:46 pm

No, I am stating that if scientists are ever able to mimic things like that in a laboratory, it would be violating the belief that design can occur without intelligence being involved.

Even if you were to mimic natural conditions? Well, I can see theists have the answer for all eventualities :-)

Every 30 minutes for three and a half thousand million years, and virtually no modifications. That's impressive.

Same shape, same creature? Or even same species?

I think I overheard someone mention the Rig Veda at a dinner party a couple of months ago. I'd never heard of it. I'll look into it when I get a chance.

From the world's oldest (apparently) religion, and you have not heard of it? Have you heard of Zoroastrianism? How it influenced Judaism by introducing the concept of monotheism (Daniel has his tomb in Iran - and there are still many Jews there - in case you are wondering how Iranian thought moved to Sinai/Levant/Palestine).
Anyway, flood. You must have read the questions, how about some answers.

My beliefs are just a tad more sophisticated than you might think.

You've got your work cut out proving that one... ;-)

1566. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190819 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm

If I may give a counter argument to this religious tract...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/world/asia/10indo.html?ref=world

1567. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190818 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm

If I may selectively quote ;-)

One trait we appear to have evolved is the tendency to perceive the presence of other intelligences where there is none.

Like, ummm, religion?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/world/asia/10indo.html?ref=world

1568. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190768 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Quetz, txty has 4921 references to go through anout how mutations occur - give him time. I'm still waiting too :-) Hopefully he's read Hancock's book http://www.theosophical.org.uk/undrwrldhy.htm to see what the opposition say.

1569. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190766 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Yomin Postelnik is the President of IRPW, a company that offers business plans, funding advice and facilitation, SBA loan applications, SWOT analyses, bold and effective marketing strategies, general business development and grant writing and research for non-profits and certain qualified businesses.

If I may use an argumetn heard before - is he qualified to answer questions of how and why everything is?
And what a waste of space! Is this paper from Alberta?
Edit

One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels

Ergo, there is no God :-)

1570. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190355 by Goldy on June 9, 2008 at 12:24 am

From that great cryptoscientist, Hancock, I have learnt that the Rig Veda is a more reliable source of data than the Bible. What say you to that, txty?

1571. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190329 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm

txpiper, had a look at your link...

However, alternatives do exist, as has been pointed out in the accompanying perspective article in Science written by Eric Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects" (Science, vol. 307:1852).

"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."

In short, there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance of the 'tissues' reported by Schweitzer et al.

Debate - and all within the scientific community. See, we scientists are not such an accepting mob! Indeed, here's another bit

In media interviews Jack Horner, Schweitzer's coauthor and former professor, has been much more cautious. He appeared on a radio program, "On Point" broadcast by National Public Radio were Tom Ashcroft interviewed him along with molecular taphonomist Derek Briggs of Yale University, and science writer Carl Zimmer. Then he repeatedly said that they in fact have no idea what the recovered "tissues" are made of, or actually represent. Schweitzer did not appear on the program, but this could mean that there are the familiar disagreements that can occur between coauthors and particularly professors and former students. For example, when Ashcroft asked the question,
"If it's soft tissue, what else would it be other than biological?

Horner replied, "Well that's a good question, but I don't think we go in with the assumption that it is {biological} until we can do our analyses. (approx. minute 30 of the interview)" He also said, "It would be nice to know what this stuff is made of ... if there are proteins present, is it biological?" And, "We're not looking for DNA, we are trying to determine what this stuff is and why it is flexible."

Now, you go on about us accepting this tissue as unfossilised dino tissue when it is just the words of one person that the press reports, yet you can see we in the scientific community would, in general, rather wait.
Methinks Schweitzer et al could do with some more funding. Nothing sinister about marketing - the church does that all the time!

1572. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190328 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 9:31 pm

One sees a lot of things on television. However, you'd need to perform this same test in different labs to get a statistical number of results. Obviously you can't do it all in the smae lab as there might be errors etc. One wee tweezer multiplied by many becomes a large chunk...
More reading for you
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?session_query_ref=rbs.queryref_1212985478943&COLLECTIONS=hw1&JC=pnas&FULLTEXT=(how AND mutations AND occur)&FULLTEXTFIELD=lemcontent&RESOURCETYPE=HWCIT&ABSTRACTFIELD=lemhwcompabstract&TITLEFIELD=lemhwcomptitle

1573. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190324 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm

txpiper, from our ever so useful Wikipedia (not sanctioned by the religious as it is Satan's work...)

DNA damage and mutation
It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single and double strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and thus they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked and/or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.

Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell's survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.

You can read it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
And here, genetics 101 (I really think you have the read the basics first - you are like the bloke who thought he'd learn to ski atrating at the top of the mountain, not the nursery slopes)
http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml
And, of course, let's not forget that the designer appears to have forgotten that things will try and change his products - seemingly a slight oversight on his part...
http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/viral_genes_in_human_genome
OK, this flood of yours...

1574. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190322 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 8:58 pm

But why all the fuss? Why do you suppose that someone just doesn't subject stuff like this to a C14 test and be done with it?

Because that is a destructive process. Once you have done the C14, you have destroyed the tissue. No more testing after that! But that is by the by - you asked why there was no fuss initially

This was published over three years ago. Has anyone heard about any breakthroughs that confirm this guy's penetrating "suspicion" about this alleged "process"?

Now you concede there is a fuss?
And for your assertions on the inviability of DNA becasue of repair mechanisms - why are there mutations? Having one or two myself, I have to ask where they came from....
A question from me - can you prove the flood? I mean in the Biblical sense, not the scientific one (breaking of glacial seas by melting ice dams leading to a sudden rise in sea levels 8000 years ago or so)? Can you show me that there was a Flood and a bloke called Noah saved all the species we know today (and funnily enough, we are following in his example by killing off - he sacrificed one animal on finally reaching dry land - thereby, I assume, causing the first post-diluvial extinction)? Good proof, without recourse to any mythology.

1575. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190306 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

This was published over three years ago. Has anyone heard about any breakthroughs that confirm this guy's penetrating "suspicion" about this alleged "process"? Why would he feel compelled to bring something like that up anyway?

Sadly, there will have to be a hot debate before more happens - bit like with the Hobbit discovery in Flores. I can assure you, there are hot, indeed superheated, debates right now in the right publications. Look them up if you feel inclined (quick hint - the BBC is aimed at the layman. It is not really the right source to use).

...Throwing out most of the discipline of geology, as would be required if these rocks were 6000 years old, is not on the table."

Well of course it's not on the table. We know that going in. How could it be? This is mainstream science. That isn't allowed.

To explain why the tissue remained pliable is probably easier to explain that redraw geology to fit the tissue. After all, redraw geology and you'll have to change physics. Each and every step needs refutation and peer reviews.
You cretins have it easy, you know. All you have to say is that God did it (not any other god, mind, just your one) and you're happy. Of course, I guess you never really wonder why you are such a tiny minority...

1576. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190285 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Islam is NOT a race!

I think this has been beaten to death now. No, it is not a race, but what is your mental image of a Muslim? I dare say it is nothing like the face you see in the mirror every morning...

1577. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190281 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Off topic, but can't resist
Letter in the Independent

Duty to denounce abominations

Sir: As a Christian, Iris Robinson MP (wife of new Northern Ireland First Minister, Peter Robinson) is quite right to condemn homosexuality as an "abomination" (report, 7 June). The Christian Bible is very clear on this point (Leviticus 20:13).

But why stop there? Just a few chapters earlier (Leviticus 11:10-12), the outrageous practice of eating shellfish is identically denounced as "an abomination to God". But, to this day, deviants fond of crab, shrimp, oysters, prawns, lobster and the like get away with their disgusting practices without censure from Members of Parliament â€" and this despite the fact that shellfish-eaters could presumably be "turned" (through counselling) with much the same degree of success as that found among homosexuals.

KEITH GILMOUR

GLASGOW

1578. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190275 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 4:57 pm

txpiper

The tissue should not be there. It is as simple as that.

So simple, you can, presumably give a reason for that :-)

Component commonality is often used to support the idea of common ancestry. I understand the premise, but I don't see it as significant. The DNA of everything is composed of four nucleotide bases. Same with RNA with one substitution. Almost all protein molecules are sequences of twenty essential (chiral) amino acids. So what? That is the pattern of living organisms. The commonality of components doesn't tie the forms together any more than bricks relate buildings to each other.

Ever laughed so hard snot shot out of your nose? I have now - icky keyboard!
So, it isn't significant. Odd how is appears to follow a pattern, though. Pray tell the reason for your dismissal. If I may carry out your brick analogy, why are houses in Aberdeen grey and houses in Leicester red brick? Why are animals that have been said to have a common ancestor is relatively recent times seen to have greater commonality that animals that have a common ancestor further back in time? They should, by your argument, have the same commonality.

You also actually believe that anyone who doesn't accept what you believe is either ignorant or a moron. But they aren't. There are lots of people with much higher IQ's and a much more serious education than any of you or myself, who saw or see the facts pointing back towards an instantaneous creation.

You are right. I do consider those that cannot face scientific evidence moronic. Stands to reason - their data is refutable and anyone with better evidence can topple this apparent edifice you call science. However, all we get are Biblical myths dressed up as evidence which is swatted away by schoolchildren, never mind scientists. To carry on banging the square peg into the round hole is moronic. To try and change the square peg by painting it a different colour heightens the moronicity.
I am sorry, but I am not a respector of high IQs or lots of education. A clever person can still be a total nitwit and education, after school, follows the same paths as evolution...some fields lead to a dead end. I am sure the researcher of cryptoscience, having spent 40 years in that field, can amass a dazzling array of evidence, but all can be refuted, correctly and with peer reviews, by a sixth former for his science project.
For all their edication, where are their publications? I mean in serious literature? Oh, yes, I forgot - there is a world-wide conspiracy, a Zionist plot, no less, aided and abetted by the Communist Party of China, to debunk these important findings of God (always God, eh? Never heard anything said about Zoroaster...) and maintain the ignorance of what you perceive to be the truth.
You know, when you said you beleived in the Biblical flood, everything else you have written has become sport for us :-) You, sir, are one of the morons you described above. You contribute nothing really but you are fun to toy with.
What you know of science can be written on the back of a stamp - and that AFTER it has been stuck on an envelope.

1579. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190267 by Goldy on June 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Qster

Although interestingly such creatures like sharks/crocodiles dont appear to have 'evolved' for aeons...why is that?

Sorry for the delay in replying. Are you sure they have not evolved? I can see that croc, on the Nile, eyeing the farmer in the field and wondering how that monkey would taste....
The body shape may be the same, but I'll wager the insides are totally different.

1580. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189682 by Goldy on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 am

Can't for the life of me imagine a sign like that appearing in Europe or New Zealand (I sometimes wonder about Australia - Brian, you'll educate me!). Long may it remain so! :-)

I don't understand why atheists are so splintered

Because the only thing linking us is a lack of belief in gods. A bit like saying all humans have two eyes, so they should all act the same. Doesn't work that way. We love splintering because we all have our own ideas of how things should be, ideas which the rest don't agree with.

1581. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189231 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 9:51 pm

The embrace of science is great but people must be aware of its limitations and not regard it as absolute.

That's why it deals in theories which can be refuted :-) I don't think it really is regarded as absolute - after all, isn't that one of the "failings" thrown at scientific research by the dogmatists?

1582. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189228 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Sometimes I get the chance to check into the creme de la creme of atheist sites (this one!) to see whats new in the world of atheist thinking and each time I'm dissapointed but not surprised to find that actually nothing is new. In this thread like may others >6700 posts amounts to utter monotony..

Methinks you'll find a lot of the monotony is due to theists (a huge majority Christians) simply not understanding/reading/accepting the scientific reasoning. To them, it is all "God did it". I think you'd understand this lack or rationality, you being one of the deluded...(Edit - oops, didn't mean that! Thought you were someone else! 10000000 apologies!!!)

Atheist argues "Darwin discovered evolution ergo things evolve without god ergo there is no god"

I'm not sure that is strictly what is said, is it? As it is, Darwin didn't discover it alone - Wallace was there and I do believe the seeds of the Theory of Evolution were around before that. Certainly farmers over the preceding millenia understood the concept well enough.
An athiest mostly says there is no god because it doesn't seem possible. The theist tells us that God is unknowable (always a Christian, did I mention that?) so he must exist - that makes as much sense as a chocolate spoon!

1583. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189206 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 7:34 pm

I don't recall if you were around when I noted some of the specialization involved in mammary function. Do you think that it is reasonable to believe that reptiles developed things like this in a long, tedious, coincidental series of beneficial DNA replication errors? This temporary developmental specialty is about independent, cooperative, integrated systems in both parent and offspring. Considering the complexity involved, do you think it is unreasonable to doubt that such fine-tuned features in both generations developed in tandem on an accidental basis?

Check out the duckbilled platypus. It's all in it's genome...

...Someone had to design and assemble the adaptation catalog. That degree of sophistication, complexity and accuracy can't reasonably be considered accidental.

This is what Darwin did not have the advantage of knowing.

Call me obtuse, but the idea that God did it goes back a few millenia. Darwin did have the advantage of knowing - all he had to do was read Genesis (and ignore the odd inconsistency).
Txpiper, why do some some animals appear to share more DNA with other animals than with others. The hippopotamus and the whale are of particular interest to me. Why is the hippo "closer" to the whale than it is to the horse? Please answer this - you keep dodging this issue with your Ezekielisms.

1584. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189179 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Bonzai

To such believers the status of God would be greatly diminished if he can actually be tracked by science and human intellect. It will lose its mystique as a result. They probably wouldn't believe anymore if there is incontrovertible evidence that God exists.

Well, I guess this is the god who had no images of himself, unlike other gods ;-) Did have a telephonic link at one time but that's somewhere else now - Ethiopia or Zimbabwe, I forget which was the more credible.
Pathfinder

My God is, unconditionally, indubitably, a "God of the gaps".

And when the gaps close, he becomes a lesser god. A diminishing god - interesting. Or does your god maintain his stature despite the closing gaps because he is an unknowable god etc, etc?

Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD

There is no god except that which we make within us. I can say there is no god with certainty because I never see anything that gods do that don't happen anyway. There are gods, same as dreams. I know dreams exist - indeed, one can see and hear dreams in others. Yet a dream is from the dreamer only, shared only if remembered and recounted. Bit like gods, eh?

1585. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189172 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Of course the existence of God cannot be proved!

Why not? And if this is true, why the worship? See why I am an athiest? This is completely inconsistent with rationality, yet it has been fed to me from an early age by society as totally normal and, yes, rational.

1586. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189168 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 3:42 pm

....and a growing Islamism, especially, as I said, the further towards the Syrian/ Iranian etc lands you go.

Aaah, this brought back memories for me. Worked in Syria for a spell. Lovely country - avoid the Al Sharq beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_beer) if you don't like hangovers. Mosy of the people I worked with in no way could be counted as devout Muslims. Indeed, Muslim might have stretched things a bit too. Pork, booze, shagging etc seemed to be perfectly acceptable...well, as acceptable as any of those activities generally are. Only one guy I know prayed and I think he was generally inconsistent with this. All the differences were generally cultural - inasmuch as English Protestantism is different to Spanish Catholicism...

1587. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189166 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Sorry for the delay in replying to comment #188870 - moving house and now I have a cold! Bloody mutating viri (but hey, that's evolution for you!)

You bet. A fluke. But your attitude reflects an odd disposition towards science, one that I noticed in some other articles I read about this particular T rex specimen. It sounds like you'd prefer that this particular fluke had not happened. I would have thought that anyone with a real interest in science would be absolutely thrilled.

Not quite sure where you get the idea I didn't want this to happen. It's a brilliant discovery! I dare say a cretinist like you would prefer it not to happen - it does show that these creatures not mentioned in the Bible but grudgingly admitted to Ken Ham's Flintstone's Museum was actually a creature we can compare with today's creatures.
Your tree thing is confusing. How could the trees have grown there 45 million years ago? Ummmm, seeds spring rapidly to mind... As for old wood conversation pieces, I regularly partake of fine ales in a pub called Galbraiths here in Auckland. They are served to me over a bar, the top of which is a 60 000 (yes, sixty thousand) year old piece of kauri. Swamp kauri, it's called. Oddly, pretty much as your wood described above...albeit a bit younger :-)

1588. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188854 by Goldy on June 4, 2008 at 7:53 pm

txpiper, mate, give up. You're wandering around like Ezekiel now, ranting and raving. Heck, you even started out like Ezekiel, come to think of it.
The T.rex tissue was a fluke. They happen. Look at wood - it has been found fossilised and turned to stone. It has been found as coal. And, I do believe it has also been found as....wood. Just serendipidy. I think the great excitement was that it was found as such. Should look up the paper to see what they say about it.
As for Tiktaalik being "still a fish" - how typical. You cretins...sorry, cretinists, scream out for "transitional forms" (stupid really as they are still all aound us) and when you get given one, it's "still a fish" or "still a bird". What do you want us to do? Rip out embryos from a variety of mothers to show the evolutionary sequence occuring in a series of feotuses? Has DNA sequencing completely passed you by? Why do you think people call the hippopotamus a relative of the whale and not of it's namesake? Why is man more closely related to chimpanzees than lemurs?
Of course, thinking the Earth is only, what, 6000 years old does mean it is hard for you to visualise the time scale involved in change. In this age of globalisation, I guess you can't put your mind back to seclusion and isolation of species by moving continents and time.
On another note, can you explain the black squirrels I have read about terrorising UK grey squirrels. And the fact that both are different from the red squirrel. But hey, they are all squirrels, after all - don't illustrate anything.
Fuckwit.

1589. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188298 by Goldy on June 3, 2008 at 8:06 pm

No, albinism is not the result of a mutation. It is an inherited disorder that happens only when both parents carry a corrupted gene. I expect that the gene is mutant, but albinism doesn't have anything to do with a mutation occurring in the DNA of an albino.

I've highlighted your babbling. If the gene is corrupted, it is mutated (or a variant, as we apparently call them now). So albinism is a result of a mutation. Genes are encoded in the DNA, ergo it is a mutation of the DNA. The fact that a heterozygous offspring does not show the homozygouz mutation does not make it any less a mutation, just that the wild type variant masks the mutated allele.
As for junk DNA, did I not read that this is useful in preventing mutations? After all, if there is a lot of "junk", chances are that the mutations will happens there to a greater degree. As the DNA is "junk", nothing can be seen to occur. However, it does seem that a lot of "junk" is actually "mechanism unknown"...

Besides, albinism is an aberration, whereas what occurs in the cave-isolated animals is an adaptation to that environment. I don't think that the latter is accidental.

Albinism is only an aberration in our sunlit environment. What use melanin in a dark cave? It is an adaptation to the environment, yes. Albinism has no adverse effects in a cave, so is allowed to flourish. Maybe albino genes are linked to other genes that enhance life without light - one would need to check that. After all, these things are often linked :-) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE5DB1439F933A15751C1A96E948260 (as an aside, there is also this http://www.myopia.org/ebook/11chapter6.htm)

1590. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #188285 by Goldy on June 3, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Golly, that's a bit of a pickle, isn't it? Still, one has to ask, do we stop telecommunication progress to protect a small minority or do they have to find ways to treat their illness? I can imagine grumbles if all food was to be halal or kosher so our religious minorities won't be offended - surely this is pretty much the same?
Earthling, you analogy suffers a bit - if Thewhitepearl's boss insisted on keeping the daisies, he is wrong. However, if the offices across the way had daisies, would one expect them to remove them too? Should the city council remove all daisies to protect TWP? Methinks not. In her bosses case, he is infringing on her. In the latter cases, I'd think she's infringing on them.
I think the wireless sufferers have to try and sort themselves out - it is a bit much that non-sufferers have to accommodate them to such a degree.

1591. A New Step In Evolution

Comment #188279 by Goldy on June 3, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Mutation seems to involve as yet unknown factors, factors which science will hopefully soon discover.

Factors in mutation? I think we know basically. Trouble with random processes, it's hard to work them out - bit like second guessing the person that doesn't walk a straight line on the pavement (I hate them!).
As it is, we know what drives the continuation of a mutation - breeders have been using that for millenia :-)

1592. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187837 by Goldy on June 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm

All it means is that when you claim to be equal to heterosexuals (in say the right to adopt children), the onus is still on you to convince us why. To say that *we* (i.e. heterosexuals) must first prove you are not fit for adopting children on the grounds of your homosexuality is being disingenuous.

Aren't all homosexuals the offspring of heterosexual parents? Or at least of parents who perform heterosexual acts. Maybe it is *we* that must be screened for suitability in raising children, eh?

but I'd rather have (vaginal) sex with my girlfriend now. -

You have a vagina? Hmmm, the mind boggles. Got to love the English language, though - how it can be twisted and turned...

1593. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187787 by Goldy on June 2, 2008 at 4:43 pm

From Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=110523&d=3&m=6&y=2008&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion

1594. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187784 by Goldy on June 2, 2008 at 4:32 pm

...zombies ARE scientifically impossible...

You've not seen me in the morning then? ;-)

1595. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185528 by Goldy on May 28, 2008 at 2:52 am

MaxD

EDIT: Goldy you are attributing to her some psychosis. This seems like a possible mistake on your part. It isn't clear to me that she is crazy from this story, she seems simply to be following the radical teachings of her beloved Islsm.

Mate, I see religous people as slightly touched upstairs anyway. She's going out of her way to spread discord and strife. That's seriously touched upstairs! I stand by my assumption in this case! I am also worried that someone this mentally unstable is allowed to carry on as normal (albeit under surveillance). Seems to me like society allows the cancer to spread because, well, cancerous cells have rights too...

Christopher Davis

I realize I have digressed again, but I have just accepted that you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on the meat of this debate.

Digression is good - lets some more information filter to those of us who are not there and do not know. I am sorry we can't meet eye to eye here, but then we are different and, as they say, vive la difference! :-) I'll ponder over the next few days on the subject and see if I can't maybe see your point. Will be busy, mind - moving my garage tomorrow and then moving house on Friday. Bought a new house just as interest rates shoot up. Oh, yes, I'm smart, me... ;-)

Opposing Islam should be the duty of rationalists and humanists everywhere.

Just Islam?

1596. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185463 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 9:29 pm

MaxD, I said before

Islam is a danger, maybe. So is China, apparently. And Russia (if the Telegraph has any credibility). Islam is a danger to our way of life because we appear to let them. That, to me, suggests it is not Islam that is the danger to us but we ourselves.

Have a gander here
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/world/europe/28terror.html?ref=world
I read this in the article

After all, she said, she knows the rules. "I write in a legal way," she said. "I know what I'm doing. I'm Belgian. I know the system."

That system often has been lenient toward her. She was detained last December with 13 others in what the authorities suspected was a plot to free a convicted terrorist from prison and to launch an attack in Brussels. But Belgian law required that they be released within 24 hours, because no charges were brought and searches failed to turn up weapons, explosives or incriminating documents.

Now, even as Ms. El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her main Internet forum and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits.

So, who is more a danger to us? This psychopathic woman, or the western system that allows her to indirectly kill others?

1597. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185461 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Bonzai, I don't think those committing honour killings are seeing themselves doing God's work either. Merely protecting their tribal standing.
As for infanticide, they want a boy. If they kill teh girl and try again, maybe they'll ge that boy. If they sell the girl, they get money and who knows, maybe she gets a better life.
My father in law, before my daughter was born, told us that it would be OK if we had a girl - he wouldn't mind. I thought this was a bit funny at the time. Still, he's very taken by her :-) Now we are expecting another child - hooo boy! Mother in law is a bit surprised and shocked that we're having another and with her daughter being 38...golly. Still, wife and daughter going to Shanghai for 3 weeks in a fortnight - should get all teh shouting and arguing out of their systems then :-D

1598. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185452 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 8:38 pm

MaxD

Certainly this is true but could be said of a Quaker community as well. My question is compared to Islamic communities what is the prevalence of such violence. What I am trying to say is that you seem to be bending over backwards to make a balanced critique when in fact the scales may not balance.

We have Fanusi comparing Islam to the most monstrous thing ever to slither out of people's heads. Of course I shall try and balance the scales a bit. If they don't balance, so be it. I will be wrong. But I cannot let my faith in humanity go. When we talk of Muslims, we are talking of people. The doctor that delivered my child was Iraqi and I think a Muslim. I have worked in Syria, I have lived in Muslim areas in the UK, I have had Muslim friends.
Islam is a danger, maybe. So is China, apparently. And Russia (if the Telegraph has any credibility). Islam is a danger to our way of life because we appear to let them. That, to me, suggests it is not Islam that is the danger to us but we ourselves.
As for the prevalence of violence in China - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1122/p01s03-woap.html (pardon the source...ahem!). I don't know what goes on in rural China, but female infanticide apparently happens, as in India, quite often. What difference that with honour killings in the grand scheme of things? Or of selling females? We hear a lot about honour killings in the Muslim world - but what percentage of families practise that? Could it be that the media, by reporting factual stories, might distort the picture somewhat (I know that doesn't make sense, but it does to me...sort of).
Again, I just have faith in normal people.

1599. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185447 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Slow down Goldy, I'm not rying to piss you off (the increase in typos leads me to believe you are irritated).

just bad typing on my part. you should see my MSN messaging!
I am not saying that hatred of Muslims constitutes racism if (maybe I should write IF) Muslims were not seen in the public perception as, well, not white. Trust me, had they said OK to this school (all academic now as I have heard the powers that be said no - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7420907.stm) and the first load of school kids turned out to be Bosniacs, then I would really have wanted to see the townspeople's reaction :-)
I know it is not racism to hate religion. It can't be - hell, what race is any religion? But there are associations in people's minds when you mention religion. After Bali and Cronulla, I really don't think people in Australia see Muslims as anything other than, well, not white. I would love to be shown to be very wrong and I would apologise wholeheartedly. But I don't see it that way, no more than I'd see anyone assuming a Chinese bloke is called Mohammed and is a Uigher (he is Chinese - one of the 56 "nationalities". It is Han he ain't).
We have images on our heads of who is what - a Muslim in the UK, in my mind, is Pakistani, probably Pashtun. It's not my fault that we associate things with people and races. And reading something like this

Tensions reached their height last November when two pigs' heads were left on the site of the proposed school. Pork products are forbidden for consumption according to Islamic dietary laws.

in the link provided doesn't make me feel any less in the mood to change my mind.
As for the Afghan schools - I guess it is hard for them to drum up enthusiasm. As soon as NATO goes, the Taliban will be back. I heard a BBC thing where they say they are torn (the Afghans, not Taliban) between wanting the troops to leave and yet knowing they need them for peace. They know as soon as the troops go, they will be back to fighting and Islamic excesses. And if you know that as a teacher you could be killed for teaching girls and having the school burnt down, I'd guess enthusiasm is hard to muster. Maybe they just have a wait and see attitude. No point getting all excited - the troops will go. See what happens then, then get enthused.
OK, lets round up 1500 white Muslims and send them to Camden :-)
Question - is hating Jews racism? I mean, seeing as they pretty much encompass quite a few races now....
And yes, my spelling was awful! Sorry for that!

1600. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185415 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 6:59 pm

MaxD

Holy shit. That is one of the most amazing things I've yet encountered on this site. And that is saying something for there are no shortage of equivocators found here.

What?? And Wooter is...? Damn, I am disappointed. I'm trying to argue rationally and I am willing to have my mind changed. For this I am compared to Wooter, Clearmind, ASMarques! :-( Damn! That hurts! Luckily my Triumph passed - that's salved my hurt a bit...
As for suicide bombers in China - there have been a few. Luckily for us, they are directed against the Chinese state. I think honour killings would be not that uncommon in parts of China - but not reported. Not something the state would allow Xinhua to tell the world, is it? Shit, we can't even get reporters into Tibetan regions to find out the real situation there regarding the anti-Han rioting. Just becasue you don't hear anything doesn't mean it isn't happening. I've heard precious little about East Turkestan - I don't for a minute presume it's all quiet and hunky-dory there.

Can you be so sure of this? It may be true but I am not so sure. Christianity of the middle ages would brook no challengers in the cruelty and barbarity department? How then did it open up, and allow for the enlightenment?

Is it really your position that religion doesn't cause violence?

Of course that was conjecture on my part. However, I think religion is like a gun. Just as guns need the people to use them as weapons, I think religion does the same. In fact, given that religion is a man made construct (there is no God or gods), it is some mystical mumbo-jumbo that gives people powers way above their intelligence and allows unimaginable horrors to be perpetrated in the name of something that does not exist. Religion causes violence by justifying it. But it is just a philosophy, a series of words in a book or parchment. How people react to those words causes the violence - and if they are fucked up enough to use words in a book as justification to kill, I don't think a lack of religion would have stopped them. They are mentally fucked already.

Christopher Davis

You contend that the people of Camden are racists because they don't want a 1500 student Islamic school in their town. Your proof? Most of the Muslims here are Arabic looking. That's fucking weak and you know it.

Now I know even less about Camden than I do about China, and as one of the other posters said here (I'm paraphrasing) you don't have to step in it to smell it. You're closer to the Aussie culture, maybe these people are racists, but unless you can prove that this community would not be upset about a school for 1500 lily-white Muslims being built in their community then you can't make that charge.

You claim that you understand that Muslims are adherents to an ideaology not a race, your posts say otherwise.

I know piss all about Camden. I just read the BBC article adn hear it on the news when I wake up. Going back to my first post, I actually maintained the inhabitants of Camden were NIMBYs. Getting to your assertion that I see Islam as a racial issue - in a way, yes. You think my argument is "fucking weak". Well, maybe. BUt poeple are tarred with a broad brush, aren't they? Most Muslims in Austtralia are Arabs, at a guess. The Cronulla riots appeared to be about groups of "whites" against groups of men of Lebanese extraction and with a "Middle Eastern" appearance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots). Read how this site put it http://www.australian-news.com.au/Cronulla_riots.htm
Hardly, then, a great leap of imagination to see Muslims being associated with Arabic looking people. Any more, I think, than Sikhs being attacked for being predominantly dark and turban wearing after 11/9, even though the attackers were Muslim and most Muslim men don't wear turbans (as far as I know).
I know Islam is not a race. No religion is a race. Only thing is, people associate certain races with religion. I may have mentioned that somewhere too.
What they should try and do now is get a Chinese school set up in Camden and see what happens. Then an Anglican school. I think you'll probably see what i think you'll see, even if most of the Anglican students are Chinese (because no one really associates Chinese with Anglicanism, do they?).