151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168226 by mmurray on April 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm

God reveals Himself in His creation in many ways, in the language of DNS, the complexity of the cell. In the physical laws, in the miracle of life, to name just a few.

Ah God's word secretly encoded in the Domain Name Servers of the internet. There is a movie script in the making. `The DNS Code'.

Michael

152. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166320 by mmurray on April 23, 2008 at 6:14 am

No one has popularised brain surgery yet

Ian McEwen's `Saturday' wasn't bad.

But it's the conclusions people come to as a result of the speculation that is where it becomes worthy of ridicule or being elitist about (as you did).

What worries me more is the people who throw up some obvious silly objection to a well established theory (eg why are there still apes) without seeming to be able to think `hang on surely someone thought of this before me and there must be an answer I could look up on wikipedia'. People like that come across to me as either just parroting their pastor or AiG or being really arrogant. I guess a more generous possibility is that they just don't understand science and think it's like a political argument where if you get in a couple of smart sound bites you win.

Michael

153. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166170 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 11:55 pm

How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.

Actually this fleawoman is totally confused here. Advantage doesn't mean what she seems to think it means it means something like will the numbers of the new thing increase in the population. In that case it is clear that if some atoms get together in combinations that can cause new combinations to be made then they will increase. Then she wants to try on the the argument by statistics. This doesn't work either as you can imagine precursors to cells of small bits of virus or preons you don't have to shake up some sludge and hope whole cells are formed at random.

Why do these think people think that with a few half baked misunderstandings they can over turn ideas that smart people have worked on for a long time? Are they serious or is it just a game? I'll bet they would have a fit if anyone did the same thing in their area of expertise whatever that might be.

Michael

PS: Doesn't anyone know how long there was from when some kind of reproducing cells could have existed to when they did exist ? I was looking it up on wikipedia and it wasn't clear.

154. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166161 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Hi Christopher

Wikipedia says a troll is

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

You are right that sleight of hand where the unseen designer becomes the christian god is the tricky bit that they all like to gloss over.

Michael

155. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166010 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Part of the problem seems to me to be people willing enough to proffer ideas - or 'any kind of argument in public' based on those ideas - which have inevitably been formed precisely because they think themselves excluded from participating in the cosmological and physics-based discourse which could stop their inane rantings.

I feel the same about flying 747's. Every time I get on one the secretive elist, cabal of pilots, aided by their stewards, steer me to a seat without controls. Why can't I fly the plane ? It's the same in hospitals -- I'm never allowed to have a go at the scalpel's. It's all a big conspiracy.

Seriously this isn't about elitism. If you don't have the right qualifications for the job you shouldn't do it. So if you want someone to comment when a differentiable manifold admits a spin structure I'm your man but if I'm at the controls when you get on a plane I would get off quickly.

Michael

EDIT: Oh bloody hell Steve has already posted this. Read the thread before posting. Read the thread before posting. Read the thread bef .... Sorry Steve.

156. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165684 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 3:30 am

Some good comments on the articles original site.

Michael

157. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165634 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 1:00 am

Which is why HUMANITY needs to be the center of a such institution.

Hi

I don't disagree with that but I am not sure what you are looking for besides government run organisations ? Or if you are sceptical of that private organisations contracted to do the same jobs. I don't think there is any need for some kind of secular church which was what I thought you were arguing for ?

By the way its not really relevant but I never thought of Malcolm X as non-violent. wikipedia gives this quote

"The time for you and me to allow ourselves to be brutalized nonviolently has passed. Be nonviolent only with those who are nonviolent to you. And when you can bring me a nonviolent racist, bring me a nonviolent segregationist, then I'll get nonviolent. But don't teach me to be nonviolent until you teach some of those crackers to be nonviolent."

Michael

158. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165617 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 10:43 pm

You see, since the beginning of humanity, religion fulfilled the important role to keep society together. This is a fact that anyone who spent some time with history and social sciences must admit.

It only keeps society together if everybody has the same religion. If not it is a very nasty way of keeping people at each other's throats. In any case the fact that something was popular since long ago is not a good reason to continue with it. Consider: infanticide, cannibilism, oppression of women, slavery, trepanning ...

Officially the religious institutions stands for:
1. Gathering and distribution of welfare to the needy
2. Taking care of the sick and the weak and welcome the outcasts
3. Fighting society problems like drugs and poverty
4. A community that keeps people together and fights segregation
5. Recognizing the stages of life (birth, confirmation, marriage, funeral)
6. Dealing with pain and sorrow after tragic events
7. A focus on people's feelings in an easy to understand language
8. A spokesperson for morals with focus on compassion, self-control, the value of helping others etc.

All these have better secular replacements already. Better because the people involved don't have silly ideas but are practical and want to get on with solving the problem.

1. There are secular organisations eg Smith Family in Australia. But really this should be a government job.

2. Universal health care and welfare.

3. What like the Catholic Churches homophobic approach to AIDS/HIV ?

4. Like in Northern Ireland I guess ?

5. http://www.civilcelebrants.com.au/

6. Professional trained councillors. Better than having to listen to tortured christian discussions about why God loves us but also lets shit happen.

7. See 6.

8. Like the Pope whose solution to AIDS/HIV and human overpopulation is that we all stop having sex. His clergyman have amply demonstrated what happens
when you thwart basic human drives like that. I'll swap him for Steve Zara or MPhil anyday.

Imagine everyone abandoned church tomorrow!

Most of us in Europe, UK, Australia, Canada etc have already abandoned church. Come on in the waters fine.

Michael

159. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165609 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 9:09 pm

"Science and reason are important," says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. "But science and reason won't visit you in the hospital."

No friends and family visit you in the hospital. Science and reason are just there increase you chance of getting out alive.

What is it with the `humanist chaplain' tag? Why not just call him a counsellor and be done with it?

Michael

160. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165607 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I am very disappointed that the jewish community is not directly answering to the this misinformation, anti-Semitism and revisionist history about the holocaust.

Good point. I was thinking the other day that the best way to squash this bit of nastiness would be some kind of open letter or something from a suitable collection of willing Jewish scholars or Rabbis or similar. Has anyone got any suitable contacts ?

Michael

161. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165146 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 5:59 am

I only just discovered that Answers in Genesis has a nice (long!) list of arguments not to use in favour of creationism. Maybe we should point some of our regulars at these

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

They include the old favourites: `why are there still apes', `evolution is just a theory' and `there are no transitional forms'. These are apparently no longer a good thing.

Michael

I love their banner motto: believing it. defending it. proclaiming it.

What about testing it. improving it. understanding it ...

162. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165115 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

F_A_F

If you want to remember how to do quotes click on the [Comment Posting Guidelines] just above the comment box you are typing in.

In short put your quote between

(blockquote) and (/blockquote)

BUT replace ( and ) by [ and ]

Michael

163. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165102 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 4:06 am

solar system, both of which are designed with specific calculations â€" tilting of the earth, the sun's perfect distance to the earth, earth's spinning around itself and around the sun to make us days and nights, do not need a designer? Or do not imply a designer?

And what's more if you divide the time it takes the earth to revolve into the time it takes for it to rotate around the sun you get 365.24219. A number like that can't have been an accident there must have been an intelligent designer.

By the way why did this intelligent designer make testicles hang outside the body at such risk of injury? I guess this proves God doesn't ride a bicycle ?

Michael

164. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #164984 by mmurray on April 20, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Surely his name is misspelt ?

L. Brent Bozo III

that's better.

Michael

PS: I don't think he is a rev but you can find out more at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III

165. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164284 by mmurray on April 20, 2008 at 2:15 am

However, I would like to know why I appear to be most content when I have nothing better to do than stand at the window, mindlessly staring. I'd like you to assure me, if you can, that this is neither bone-idleness, nor a symptom of getting older, but instead something grander. Am I, in short, unwittingly ersatz-meditating?

Hi Keith,

Good to see Reggie's smiling face again :-)

My limited understanding is that if you are thinking less and sensing more then you are meditating. It seems basically impossible to stop thinking but you can lower the roar a bit and I am told a lot. You can also learn to let the thoughts go past without doing the judging and calculating and getting sucked into some long internal story with all kinds of emotions attached to it that we humans are so good at.

In my few failed attempts to finish Dan Dennetts `Understanding Consciousness' it seemed reasonable to me that his ideas of self being a construct formed when we try and model the world including ourselves are compatible with what some meditators such as Sam Harris describe as moments when the self dissolves. I have never got to that kind of cosmic stuff.

I figure that evolving the ability to think, like so many other aspects of our evolution, was an amazingly useful and wonderful thing but not without its disadvantages such as stress, obsessional thoughts etc. Kind of like standing upright which was great but you discover in old age that it is not that great for the lower back. My problem is that I forget to do my meditation nearly as much as I forget to do my lower back exercises!

Regards - Michael

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164249 by mmurray on April 19, 2008 at 8:48 pm

By the way, I wouldn't be bragging about your wife and the public indoctrination centers. Change agents like your wife are just pawns that have been put in the indoctrination centers to destroy children's beliefs and faith. They are as Lenin referred to them "useful idiots" that are just doing a job for their masters. The public indoctrination centers are there to destroy children and God will take care of those that have a part in destroying the faith of children

Thanks. I guess that answers my earlier question about what IDers think the scientists of the world are up to. You at least seem believe in some kind of massive conspiracy.

Kind of redefines `God Delusion'.

Michael

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164226 by mmurray on April 19, 2008 at 6:34 pm

If you are going to quote scripture please use the approved versions for this web site:

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.

4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.

5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1


Tthis proves that in the beginning Ceiling Cat just existed. Its that simple.

Michael

168. The Child Preachers

Comment #163863 by mmurray on April 19, 2008 at 7:56 am

Perhaps if Professor Dawkins danced around the podium, gave his lectures in a sing-song higher octave, and added a "Ha" at the end of each breath, he might reach a wider audience.

Well maybe a bit of baptist preacher wouldn't hurt. What about

`I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, little children will be taught the true meaning of evolution.'

Michael

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163855 by mmurray on April 19, 2008 at 7:31 am

All that is within a living cell could not be placed ther by chance.

Others have pointed out that, while this is correct, it isn't going to disprove evolution. So let me ask another question that always fascinates me about your kind of post. Why do you think hundreds of thousands of scientists out there support evolution when it is so clearly wrong ? Surely one of them would have spotted this glaring big hole in their favourite theory? Are they all dumber than you ? Are they all part of some world wide conspiracy to protect evolution from the bleeding obvious ? And if there is a conspiracy surely somebody would have decided: `oh to hell with silence I want that Nobel Prize' ? I am seriously interested in understanding the mind set of someone who thinks well established scientific theories can be knocked over by arguments that require about five minutes of thought to invent.

Here is a bit of advice you might find useful. If I read about some new bit of well established mathematics that I was previously unfamiliar with and I think I can immediately see a glaring inconsistency in it I usually explore the topic a bit more before I go and make a public fool of myself. My reasoning is that as an average sort of mathematician it is unlikely that I have suddenly spotted something on 30 seconds reflection that others have missed over decades. What I usually find is that I have completely misunderstood what I have just read and that, amazing thought it may seem, all the textbooks and journal publication are correct.

Michael

170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163300 by mmurray on April 18, 2008 at 6:58 am

How would I know? Perhaps it's whatever you want it to be, assuming the powers that be feel you deserve a reward.

The impression I'm getting from these posts is that you don't seem to have any idea what the purpose of our existance might actually be, you just hope that we have one.

Looks like the standard christian purpose of existence. You behave well in this life and get your reward in the next.

Is that the three powers that be that are mysteriously just one power that be that I learnt about in catechism class ?

(What is the singular for powers that be?)

Michael

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163298 by mmurray on April 18, 2008 at 6:53 am

or like the Muslims are you going to have non stop sex with 72 virgins for ever?"

Non stop and for ever? No wonder the martyrs want to die while they are young.

Reminds me of the old joke about the keen fisherman who dies and is upset to discover that he has gone to hell. The devil says it is not so bad and offers to show him around. First stop is a magnificent trout lake (or is it stream for trouts ?) and all the requisite equipment which the devil says he is free to use. So he starts in and lands a few trout and tells the devil how underrated hell has been. After a dozen or so trout he puts down the rod and says he is going to have a rest. No, no says the devil you have to keep fishing.

Michael

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163296 by mmurray on April 18, 2008 at 6:48 am

From that article about new laws for mediums one of them is not happy:

"By repealing the Act, the onus will go round the other way and we will have to prove we are genuine," said McEntee-Taylor, from Essex. "No other religion has to do that."

A good argument for more law not less. Perhaps only religions that can prove they are genuine should get tax-free status.

Michael

173. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163291 by mmurray on April 18, 2008 at 6:35 am

I'll give you an explanation for how God created matter out of nothing as soon as you give me an explanation for how matter created itself. It's a paradox, and it gets us nowhere.

Matter and anti-matter created from a vacuum?

OK your turn now.

On the definition of athiest there is a wikipedia article on the various definitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

and it links to another on Strong and Weak atheism and this quote which is probably relevant to this particular board:

" In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no god". He categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "Strong Atheist"."

Michael

174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162555 by mmurray on April 17, 2008 at 4:07 am

The mechanism in my mind is that a higher power manages those processes.

You might as well just say `I think it's magic' because saying `a higher power manages those processes' is bordering on the meaningless.

If you want another mechanism what about the possibility that consciousness is inherent in all things like some extra aspect of reality and that it manifests itself into people and then extracts itself when we die and manifests itself again. Some kind of Buddhist reincarnation.

Michael

175. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162358 by mmurray on April 16, 2008 at 6:13 pm

And this is from Florida, the state where Nasa has Cape Kennedy based? I thought that this would have been one of the more enlightened of the US states!

I would assume the placement of Cape Kennedy is due to the proximity to the equator making launches easier. Or pay-off to a congressman whose vote was needed.

Michael

176. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162084 by mmurray on April 16, 2008 at 6:23 am

I don't want to think about viruses, spyware, critical patches and defragmentation

As the snake said to Eve "You need an Apple"

Michael

177. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161883 by mmurray on April 15, 2008 at 8:07 pm

If these schools are privately funded, then they ought to be able to do as they like,

Except they are not any old organisation they are schools. They have to satisfy certain legal requirement or the children attending would be deemed to be truant. If anything can be a school you can declare the local skateboard park a school. So there are already legal obligations such as using qualified teachers, teaching a particular curriculum, police checking teachers etc. I woudn't have a problem with them being obliged to follow the anti-discrimination laws the fully government funded schools have to follow. Particularly as they are partially government funded in any case. (Although for political purposes they like to call themselves the Independent School sector!)

Cartomancer: I think this is a generational thing. It didn't happen at the school I went to in the 70's. But according to wikipedia UK schools are afflicted as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Formal

Michael

178. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161783 by mmurray on April 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Is it just me or are they implying that gays sleep around more?

Yes I thought that was pretty funny. As if heterosexual kids are all waiting until marriage while the gay ones run wild. Yeh sure. More offensive is that word `lifestyle' which is code with this kind of homophobe for `you can choose not to be gay'.

If the school gets any public money, then the school should follow the community standards.

I agree 100% but it is better if you get government money and are also private. In Australia the tradition is that parents bankrupt themselves to send their kids to private schools and then university is free(ish). My understanding of the the US is that it is college that ruins the parents :-). Because of this a lot of people in government and influential places have been to private schools or have kids in private schools. So they have a strong political lobby. My understanding is they can choose to be exempted from aspects of the anti-discrimination laws.


Michael

179. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161747 by mmurray on April 15, 2008 at 3:37 pm

This is what happens when you push the dregs of a continent into a desolate dust-bowl with only their invisible sky-man for company. See also: America.

On a more serious note, this seems to be the latest in an increasingly concerning trend of intolerance coming from the colonies. Australia never really occurred to me as such a hotbed of anti-Gay feeling, but evidently I was mistaken.

Troubling times.

Nah I reckon your faith schools in the UK beat this particular bit of stupidity :-)

Australia is still pretty secular but we are suffering from the world wide trend where people are trying to chip away at it. We have a number of nutty church leaders who mouth off every now and again. Expect it to get worse when we close down Sydney for World Youth Day

http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en.

I was impressed these kids stood up and put the pressure on their school. They would have been subject to a lot of abuse from fellow students in my day. I suspect that even though `gay' has become a euphemism for weird or broken in everyday teen speak the level of homophobia is lower than when I was a kid.

Michael

180. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161744 by mmurray on April 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm

.. at the age of 11.

Is this a serious argument?

Hungarianelephant: It is actually sillier than this. Putting aside the fact that parents pick these schools most of them will have a junior school and a pre-school attached. (These schools are expensive and like to get you in early.) So the decision is made when the child is 4 or maybe when the child is 0 if the waiting list for admission is long!

This and some other things I read lately led me to go and read up on what the bible says about homosexuality. Looking at the wikipedia article I was surprised by how weak the evidence for biblical opposition to homosexuality is if you put aside Peter who is a nutter about sex. Of course there is Leviticus but to be consistent you have to ban students wearing more than one type of clothe to the ball as well and institute school stonings.

It would be nice if our government had the courage to say that so-called private schools who actually get a lot of government funding only get the funding if they waive their right to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. But they government is unlikely to do this as it would be politically damaging and the Prime Minister is a regular church goer in any case.

Michael

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161299 by mmurray on April 15, 2008 at 6:23 am

Dr. Dawkins asserts that Evolution has been definitively proven, yet many prominent Evolutionists disagree on key points, or do not yet have tenable answers for fundamental questions.

Which key points and which fundamental questions ?

Intelligent design proponents suggest they can bring scientifically supportable theories to the table that address these questions.

What scientifically supportable theories? All they do is look for gaps they can stuff God into. For thousands of years people have been saying `I don't understand how this happened God must have done it' but every time someone has been able to explain it. Asserting the god of the gaps every time you cannot understand something is an exercise in futility. It would not be so bad if IDers were genuine but all the evidence suggests they are just doing this as a front to push religion in schools. They are not brave original thinkers challenging the dominant paradigm.

When we refuse to allow credentialed scientists at the table because we believe in a flat earth, we risk becoming scientific dinosaurs because the facts will eventually come out, and we will be left behind.

Were the scientific dinosaurs vegetarian until The Fall like T-Rex ?

Michael

182. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160468 by mmurray on April 14, 2008 at 6:13 am

Curl the fingers of your right hand inward, meeting the thumb to form a circle. Jerk it rhythmically up and down in front of your face. Repeat for six hours.

Surely this is only for one gender and won't you go blind after six hours ?

Seriously it does seem that the nutters are taking over the asylum.

Michael

183. A New Flea

Comment #160408 by mmurray on April 14, 2008 at 3:37 am

He has a response to `The root of all evil' here

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/

I like this bit: after he talks about the misuse of science in war and explains it is not the scientists fault (gee thanks) we get to

So it is with religion. Religion can be used by those with a blind will for power (though the religious need scientists to make their bombs). But religion is also the source of immense good hospitals, hospices, relief organisations, universities and schools, great cath-edrals, music, art and literature and philosophy. Would the world be better without such things?

How can you pride yourself on being a philosopher and not ask why religion is the `source' of these things and why they would not still be there without religion. He also forgot to say after hospitals `(though the religious need scientists to create the medical treatments)'.

Michael

184. A New Flea

Comment #160404 by mmurray on April 14, 2008 at 3:23 am

wikipedia gives us this gem

I am a born-again Christian. I can give a precise day when Christ came to me and began to transform my life with his power and love. He did not make me a saint. But he did make me a forgiven sinner, liberated and renewed, touched by divine power and given the immense gift of an intimate sense of the personal presence of God. I have no difficulty in saying that I wholeheartedly accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.[6]

and more at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward

He has also been highly critical of Materialist philosophers of consciousness such as Daniel Dennett as well as social scientists such as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx,

I wonder if Karl knew he was a social scientist?

Given this guy also works at Oxford you would think he might have done the Christian thing and nipped over and told RD what this proof is so he could avoid the embarrassment of publishing TGD.

Michael

185. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160393 by mmurray on April 14, 2008 at 3:08 am

but I loved biblical stories more than any other children's literature.

That is just really sad.

Michael

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160118 by mmurray on April 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I do think that if others of you were more honest with themselves the would have to look at it a little deeper.

That's a bit rude and ungrammatical - what happened to love one another ? If you can't see why scientific explanations of how the world works have nothing to do with ethics maybe you need to look at things a little more deeply?

At the risk of just repeating what others have said here is another example. As a fully committed Einsteinian should I believe I can behave in anyway I like because everything is relative?

Michael

187. Lungless frog discovered in Borneo

Comment #158766 by mmurray on April 11, 2008 at 3:02 am

and the fact that decreased buoyancy from a lack of lungs makes the fast rivers easier to navigate without being swept away.

So there is an advantage to dumping the `floaties' excellent.

SmartLX: Just in case you haven't seen it before this is
from the Goodies

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

188. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158758 by mmurray on April 11, 2008 at 2:35 am

Okay, I quite don't know how to quote someone on here yet...sorry noob here....

Have a look at the link saying [Comment Posting Guidelines] above the comment box. You can use any HTML code I think. The trick for the blockquote is to

<blockquote> put text between tags like this </blockquote>


Michael

189. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #158754 by mmurray on April 11, 2008 at 2:31 am

Still, as you say, I am looking forward to new insights from the Cern facility, providing they don't create a black hole and suck us all up. :-)

Maybe that is how the big bang happened. In the parent universe life developed to a level of intelligence that they could build their version of a LHC and it made a black hole which sucked up the universe and it all started again until we could build ours and then ...

OK I know this is not really possible but it's Friday night.

Michael

190. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158482 by mmurray on April 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Maybe a relevant movie quote:

They ... will swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Michael

191. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158472 by mmurray on April 10, 2008 at 3:12 pm

As Dawkins himself has asked somewhere,what is the difference between practicing 8 hours a day to be a good concert pianist and genetically modifying for musical ability?

jiten: In the first you are making a choice for yourself and in the second you are doing it for someone else. If there are unintended consequences (eg diminished social life, athritis in fingers in old age) for all that practice that is your choice, your life and you have to live with it. If the genetic modification has unintended consequences (maybe those genes code for something else or maybe the technology modifies a different gene) then the next generation have to live with it.

It's a bit like asking what is the difference between practising 8 hours a day yourself and making your kids practise 8 hours a day!

Michael

192. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157478 by mmurray on April 9, 2008 at 6:31 am

Yes, he meant a carbon nucleus, and the Devil's Chaplain had the same error.

Thanks Donald.

But, one slip amongst so many effective, educational and eloquent points can be forgiven.

Wasn't suggesting otherwise! But I told the story to my son who is doing year 12 chemistry and he didn't believe it. Then I checked it and couldn't decide if it was the nucleus or me getting my pico's and nano's confused.

I assume only the outer electrons are shared so you can't imagine that in the lattice the electrons are in a fuzz and the nucleus exposed ? (Whatever that means when everything is quantum.)

I read Unweaving the Rainbow only recently and I loved the story about stretching out your hands and marking of the evolution of life on earth. I wished I had known it when my kids were younger as it would make a great game along the line of `Round and round the garden ...' if you swap dinosaurs for teddy bears.

Michael

193. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157438 by mmurray on April 9, 2008 at 5:13 am

Sounds great so far but I got distracted by the diamond story. Any chemists here ? According to Wikipedia the lattice spacing in diamond is 0.15 nm = 0.15 x 10^{-9} m = 1.5 angstrom and according to wikipedia the carbon atom has radius around 0.7 angstrom.

I thought RD said if his head was a carbon atom the nearest one is 1 km away. Maybe he meant a carbon nucleus ?

In fact it's here on page 46

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104126/Richard-Dawkins-A-Devils-Chaplain


Michael

194. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157411 by mmurray on April 9, 2008 at 4:21 am

This allowed the design of molecules that would have similar, or better, action to existing drugs.

As you probably know Steve I think it also have benefits of a commercial nature such as allowing a company to release a new drug and persuade doctors to move patients onto it before the patent expires on the old drug and it goes generic. If you can concoct something that is arguably better than the old drug and sufficiently different to get its own patent it is a winner!

Michael

195. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156684 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 6:29 am

OK it didnt' work. It just pop's up a message thanking me for helping administer the site. How embarassing. Sorry for wasting your time Josh and other admins.

Michael

196. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156682 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 6:26 am

Testing troll button now.

Michael

197. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156678 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 6:18 am

Styrer: Can't you just press the troll button or does it have to be someone else ? Maybe you go blind if you press it yourself.

Michael

198. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156677 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 6:15 am

The point I made (I'm sorry I even said anything)

Don't be. We just all seemed to jump at once. You have a point about the political question of how best to achieve change or prevent change. I don't know if a softly, softly approach will help with YEC's and IDers though I would imagine it will only help with woolly deistic anglicans and agnostics. There is an argument that it is worth getting them on side to helps us battle the YEC's and IDers in the schools. Not sure how I feel about that strategy.

Michael

199. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156647 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 5:25 am

He's an easy target for religious people.

I guess that means that religious people must be really bad shots as I have been hanging around here since 2006 when I read TGD and I have yet to see anyone score anything approaching even a near miss.

Back when I first started the popular attack on TGD was the `not my god' in the form of `not the modern theologian's god' or `good biologist but not really up to scratch on this theology'. Of course this is the courtier's defence that has been well rebutted on this site but nevertheless I was interested to see if we would every hear from someone telling us what the modern theologian thinks about god ..... I'm still waiting.

Michael

200. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156596 by mmurray on April 8, 2008 at 2:20 am

Australian religious breakdown from 2006 census according to Wikipedia:

"25.8% Roman Catholic,
18.7% Anglican,
19.4% Other Christian
2.1% Buddhist,
1.7% Muslim,
0.4% Jewish,
2.0% other,
18.7% No Religion,
11.2% Not described.

The category of "No Religion" includes non-theistic beliefs such as humanism, atheism, agnosticism and rationalism. A fifth sub-category is "No Religion - nfd" ("nfd" = no further definition). The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not provide statistics on how many people belong in each sub-category on "No Religion". "

I went to some Catholic schools when I grew up (Marist Brothers). No-one at them would have taken opposition to evolution seriously.

I would be interested in knowing where you work Thor'Ungal? I find Australia to be a lot more secular than the US or UK except like them we are less secular than we used to be.

Michael