Comments by riandouglas

201. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173785 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:43 am

seeker_of_truth, given the amount of evidence supporting an old universe, the only way you are going to get a young universe is to presume that your deity created it with the appearance of age.

202. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173784 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:40 am

seeker_of_truth: Unless you want to deny the existence of over a hundred words of coherently presented evidence... yes, I did.

You presented details concerning the life cycle of a SNR's. You didn't show, in any way that I could see, that it's a valid method of estimating the age of the universe. I might have missed that part, or it might not have been present.
As you're taking a single method of dating (if indeed it is valid) and ignoring all the other methods which agree on an age around 14 billion years, I figured it probably wasnt there.

203. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173781 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:37 am

clearwater: For the Christians, since God = Jesus

To be fair, for christians, god is some kind of weird Yahweh|Jesus|Holy Spirit hybrid which defies logic. I think that's enough to show their beliefs are kind of silly, but what do I know :-)

I provided the link so you'd know that it is a well know philosophical problem, which theists of all stripes have (to my knowledge) not dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

204. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173779 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:33 am

seeker_of_truth: You have responded, in length mind you, to none of the evidence that I presented.

Have you shown that SNR's are a valid technique for dating the universe?

205. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173773 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:31 am

Quetz: The whole basis is flawed.

Par for the course really.

seeker_of_truth, it is nice you're actually trying to provide evidence today.
How many refutations until you discard your low end figure for the age of the universe/earth?

206. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173770 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:28 am

Quetz: The whole basis is flawed.

Par for the course really.

seeker_of_truth, it is nice you're actually trying to provide evidence today.
How many refutations until you discard your low end figure for the age of the universe/earth?

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

Comment #173766 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:26 am

Dr Benway: This is narcissism. It is anti-human. It is anti-love

But is it Christian?

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

Comment #173765 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:24 am

RevDark: God shaped hole?

You mean like this?

No no rev. A god shaped hole would need to be much fuzzier around the edges, and yet have very little area/volume. Some kind of fractal shape might do it :-)

209. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173761 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:19 am

seeker_of_truth: If SNR's occur every 25 years as estimated, the simple math puts the age of our universe under ten-thousand years.

How do you explain all of the other data which dates the universe at billions of years?

seeker_of_truth: Now for the deity issue. Let me first ask, why can't we have a relatively young universe without a Yahweh-type creator?

We could. Yahweh is the most common miscreant whom creation is attributed to. How does your deity look?

seeker_of_truth: To age the universe into the billions of years by view of SNR's, I see the need to observe transitions from phase two to three at an approximate rate of the inception of new SNR's, decrease the frequency of the occurrence of SNR's, and/or discovering some on the millions of SNR's theorized to be in the third phase.

Why limit your dating to one method. It may turn out to be unreliable. Better to use a variety of methods, and see what age the point to. I think you'll find it's around 14 billion years.

210. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173754 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 8:10 am

MaxD: That sounds to me like you did say you believed in UFOs, I mean if you weren't joking. Now the question i have is do you mean it in its most basic sense, as simple unidentified flying objects, or are you sure they are aliens?

It's aliens, and he has plenty of evidence to back it up but *cough* he can't show it to anyone *cough*

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

Comment #173748 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 7:59 am

1866. Comment #173745 by The Reverend Dark on May 1, 2008 at 7:51 am

RevDark - very nice!

212. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173740 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 7:38 am

coolwater, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

It seems to be what you're arguing.

213. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173712 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:41 am

Brian English: I believe that any comment I type is a town lowerer.

How do you lower a town?
Any evidence?

:-)

214. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173705 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:32 am

Brian English: Well, if you don't partake in the tea. Do you really partake in the tea ceremony????

Good point, I'll be back in a moment.

Do you think we're bringing the tone down again?

215. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173702 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:30 am

Brian English: Tosswad, you have to throw teabags over your right shoulder whilst saying "Quetz I'm wrong and need help!" to regain standing before the mighty Quetz....

Do they have to have been used? The wet ones would make a bit of a mess.

216. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173696 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 6:17 am

Quetz: Offense taken. Be silent, big-hat. :-)

It's a sombrero, oh terrifying one.

I recently had tea and found it to be good :-)

217. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173689 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 5:59 am

Quetz: don't call me pal.

Pal is a word he figured out. No offense :-)

218. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173683 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

Found it. Apparently "Evolin" is a fetish pornstar:

http://kinkstreamvod.com/stars/10960/Evolin-Pierce/?CLICK=220355&ct=7925

Note: Not work safe :-)

EDIT: Wooter you kinky devil!

219. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173679 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 5:49 am

annabanana: Can someone tell me what in hades an "evolin" is? Is it supposed to be evolutionist? or evilutionist? Maybe I'm not creative enough, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to be and whether or not it's supposed to be insulting.

I think it's like a violin, though I don't know how it sounds.

220. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173633 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 2:35 am

Geoff: Just caught up on last night's chit-chat, and I'm surprised nobody commented on the above.

We're not omniscient Geoff!

221. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173614 by riandouglas on May 1, 2008 at 12:31 am

Bonzai: Australian university soliciting money from Saudi Arabia for its Islamic study program.

Haven't read much (and I'm at work, so downloading audio is a no-no).
Not really sure. I'd like to say "take the money, don't let them have a say in how it is used", but that doesn't work - the embassy would still have influence.
What is "Islamic Studies" anyway? Shouldn't it be either history of Islam (development and spread etc), theology or Arabic studies (cultural)?

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173611 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Brian, just in case you don't have email notification - PM for you :-)

223. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173609 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Brian English: Tosswad. Have you noticed the only you and I are commenting? I think we've dumbed down this site so much that everybody has just stormed off.

I'd like to think it's because others are wary of our towering intellects, but I can't see how that can possibly be true.

Brian English: Well, it's nearly knock-off time so I'll storm of too soon. :)

"Working" late myself (though might do it from home) :-(

224. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173607 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Brian English: Well it could be that, or just that she was raised in a fundy household where any hint of flesh bellow the neck was evil. Thoughts?

The neckling is quite low cut, isn't it? I should cover up more.
Sorry for revealing so much flesh Amber :-)

225. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173605 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Brian English: I think she had too many palapatations from viewing your avatar and suffered a cardiac infarcation. Either that or she was a drive by.

I'm not sure if you're saying I'm hideously repulsive, or devilishly good looking. As you didn't specify I'll assume the latter - Thanks.
So, you think she was having trouble with the temptation that is me? :-)

226. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173603 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Hmm, Amber seems to have been a drive by. :-(

227. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173602 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Brian English: More christian soldiers?

And here I was thinking the message of Yeshua was about pacifism. What could I have been thinking.

228. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173601 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:24 pm

AmberJ: All of the creationist families that I know have more children than the families that believe in evolution. This leads me to believe that eventually, through natural selection, evolutions will become extinct.

Muslims are having more children than Christians. Looks like you guys are on the way out too :-)

229. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173599 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Brian English: So you're talking about animal husbandry (breeding programs.) Which is not natural selection.

Artificial selection usually has an aim. Care to take a stab at the desired result here? :-)

230. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173597 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Brian English: I have copyright on getting shitfaced in ones 20's. Please retrospectively cease and desist.

If I came upon the idea independantly, doesn't that count in my favour?
Also, while I think I might lose out anyway, we'd need to compare stories to see just who came upon the idea first.
You sire will be hearing from my lawyer! :-)

EDIT: Brian, you're not special, regardless of what your mum told you :-)

231. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173596 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:19 pm

AmberJ: Dear Sir,

I don't often get sir. Maybe it's not for me?

AmberJ: All of the creationist families that I know have more children than the families that believe in evolution. This leads me to believe that eventually, through natural selection, evolutions will become extinct.

And like your creationist beliefs it is lacking evidence. Beliefs are not an inheritable trait, though early childhood brainwashing comes pretty close.

AmberJ: Also, I believe Ben Stein may be Jewish which would give him no reason to live for Jesus.

Jesus is a fictional character, which gives me no reason to live for Jesus either.

AmberJ: Best regards,
Amber

Thanks Amber. Take care

232. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173594 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Brian English: Yeah I don't do wine or spirits well. Actually, I drink them like they're beer and get very well done in a short period of time. :D

Sounds very much like my 20's.

233. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173579 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 9:43 pm

My days as a VB drinker are not something I'm proud of.

Brian English: These days you drink beer because you like the taste I guess.

Not quite. I drink beer because I (used to) get far too drunk on everything else.
A little problem I like to call "lack of self control" :-)

234. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173573 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Brian English: Still, I'll take a Boags thanks.

Same. Why are the imported beers (well, Boags is from Tasmania) better than the local stuff? :-)

235. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173564 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Brian English: Don't know anybody who drinks Foster's. That's more an export thingy.

I've been told that export fosters is the same as crown lager locally.
Given that I'm sure you know a few people who drink "fosters".

236. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173561 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Brian English: My favs Beer, beer and beer :D

Ahh, the 3 favoured drinks of the australian male :-)

Podaar: Let me guess, Fosters? :)

Wash your mouth out! Fosters here is not the fosters they sell overseas. Here it is very reminiscent of urine :-)

237. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173537 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 pm

DickDawkins: Imagine being in a relationship with someone, you can't control how you feel even if you know that your feelings might be inappropriate. You can't just rationalize them away, so went to a rabbi and a priest and many of the questions that I had were answered, and it was no overnight conversion either, it was gradual and before I knew it, I believed.

Did you pay a visit to a psychiatrist (or psychologist - can never keep them straight)?
A relationship with a non-existent (or immaterial, if you want) entity sounds like a disorder of some kind.

238. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173521 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:42 pm

MPhil: This kind of argument is only accessible to someone who understands and accepts the validity of logic... and the arguments are increasingly complex.

This "logic" you speak of is not confirmed in the bible, and therefore is false. You evil atheists will bow down before God! (though I'm not sure which one?)

239. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173516 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Goldy: Oh, and don't listen to Brian, he's in some fly infested haven for the world's most poisonous animals....

Please Gold, your information is patently false. It's coming into winter, so the flies have found somewhere warmer to be. Though, had you made that accusation some months ago...

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173513 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Brian English: Tosswad. My amazon ordered copy of Mackie's book is wending it's way to fair Melbourne too as we speak.
MPhil is really a pimp for Amazon I reckon.

MPhil, you amazon shill! How much do you get per book? Come on, spit it out! Can I get a cut?

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173463 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm

MPhil: John Leslie Mackie, "The Miracle of Theism"

Which is in transit somewhere between amazon's mystical offices and my home.
Will add the other to my list, damn you!

Thanks again

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173459 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Brian English: Tosswad. I edited my post. Please give me my theology degree now. I want to write a book bashing Richard Dawkins.

I'll get it for you soon. I don't need to go to the toilet at the moment :-)

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173448 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm

MPhil: Not like we don't believe there's a teapot orbiting Mars - but like we know with absolute certainty that there can be no square triangles or no colourless green ideas sleeping furiously.

Can you recommend some reading (apart from your previous great posts, though I don't fully understand them) which goes through these logical arguments?
Thanks

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173442 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Brian English: So why did a perfect God create an abomination?

As a temptation. There is a reason bacon smells so good :-)

245. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173439 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Dick, you seem to follow the demon theory of disease. Do you have any evidence that demons cause disease or mental illness?

Brian English: And I'm not a vegetarian at all. I just don't see why Jesus, he who committed the pathetic fallacy, would kill a herd of porkers just passing the time.

You're forgetting that pigs are an abomination, and thus expendable. Though why someone was farming pigs in Jewish Galilee I don't know (or wherever the "legion" pig run happened).

246. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173024 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:38 am

seeker_of_truth: I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow.

Time of death: April 30, 2008 at 8:33 am
Cause: Number 10'd away from a discussion

247. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173020 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am

seeker_of_truth: Utter silliness of which I tire.

I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow. I don't know why I refuse to accustom myself to the bias that whittles 'argumentation' down to the level as is evidenced by this post.

Maybe you would be interested in providing evidence that an objective reality exists while I'm away?

Strike 3 for me. Seeker, unless you make good and start provind any evidence or argument to support you beliefs regarding the falsity of dating methods, the age range of the earth, or perhaps answering some of the reastonable questions put to you, I'm done. Have a good life in your little delusion my friend, seriously

248. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173017 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:33 am

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

And that Ms. Banana is what I absolutely cannot understand. I've heard it attributed to "the inner testimony of the holy spirit" (thanks Dr Craig), or "Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation".
Craziness!

249. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173015 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:31 am

Al-rawandi: This is a clever trick, pretend to be "agnostic" and rational, then reject the evidence, and claim this as evidence to your friends.

Shouldn't he be posting on the "Lying for Jesus" thread? At least "misleading with intent for Jesus"

250. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173014 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:29 am

seeker_of_truth: Good job, now is anyone planning on reading this series of rebuttals to see that merit exists on both sides?

You don't seem to get it. Any results for dating rocks 25 years old with K-Ar are going to give incalid results. I don't need to read your "paper" on it, and neither should you. It has been explained to you in detail.