2851. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78122 by epeeist on October 12, 2007 at 12:24 am

Comment #78047 by Corylus

How interesting - I hadn't thought of decay in terms of energy release before.

All of the YEC suppositions are very much like the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. They just keep adding auxiliary hypotheses when the consequences of their "theories" are pointed out. The energy balance is obviously one of them, and yes it is a first law (assuming you mean thermodynamics) thing.

If you can't contribute on the science side, there is always the morality side to consider. It only ever seems to be Noah and his goodness that are concentrated on in this myth. But will nobody think of the koala bears - what had they done that the majority of them were drowned. How moral is an entity that kills somewhere around 27 million people as well as virtually all the animal and plant life on the planet.

2852. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78119 by epeeist on October 12, 2007 at 12:05 am

Comment #78034 by devolved

I can't help but wonder why you pose that exercise. Perhaps you want to demonstrate how clever you are and show that I cannot do it. Well I've never lied on this website and I don't intend to, so well done on both counts.

I have no problem with you saying you don't understand something or can't do something. The same goes for every other human on the planet (including me). Its only people who pretend to knowledge they haven't got that get under my skin.

One way of doing the calculation is at http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm. It is extended in http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=23374&p=390291&hilit=+plasma#p390291

As you can see from the second calculation it results in a core temperature of the earth as being around 1.7 x 10²⁶ Kelvin. Compare this with the temperature of the solar core which is around 10⁷ Kelvin.

Now to take up a similar theme

The suggestion that '40 days of indiscriminate rainfall' formed the Grand Canyon is not an idea that any creationist I have studied would ever support. Most of the flood water came not from rainfall but from the oceans and possibly subterranean sources of water. (Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

If the water came "from the deeps" then it would have been hot and under pressure when it. It doesn't emerge at the temperature water from your cold tap, it appears as a cloud of superheated steam. This is not going to do Noah much good now is it?

2853. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78023 by epeeist on October 11, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Comment #78011 by revcort

I don't see those as contradictory at all walk. As a matter of fact, they are complimentary characteristics. He knows what will happen because He causes or allows it to happen. Why would He want to stop something from happening if He has already ordained it to happen perfectly? So, in short, they go hand in hand in my understanding of God.

This is quite an old one revcort. Lets explain it more detail.

If god is omniscient then he must know everything that has happened, is happening or will happen. This of course includes everything he does.

The question is therefore can he do something different. If he can then he is not omniscient, if he can't then he is not omnipotent.

You might also want to consider this one from Epicurus (see, the Greeks are useful reading):

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

2854. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77967 by epeeist on October 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

Comment #77966 by steve99

I just wanted to say that on this thread, I think you have done it.

You flatter me...

No she doesn't, your contributions outweigh the efforts of anyone else on this thread. You have held on to DG, despite his Protean twists and turns.

As you say in an earlier comment, he is dangerous because he is plausible. I am not accusing DG of womanising, but there is the essence of Elmer Gantry about him.

2855. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77925 by epeeist on October 11, 2007 at 6:04 am

Comment #77919 by LeeC

(Mark would disagree of course - No Big Bang in the bible)

Not much about Japan either, or koala bears. I can't remember seeing anything about Hero's Engine either, though he falls in the same period.

And if the Bible is God's blog you would have thought he could get around to updating it. Two thousand years since the last entry and that in a language that isn't in common usage any more.

2856. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #77906 by epeeist on October 11, 2007 at 4:45 am

Comment #77746 by skeptic of Skeptics

Steve, you were correct the first time. But then again, you probably knew that.

You mean your god is called "God", wow that's err.. imaginative.

2857. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77781 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Comment #77751 by Jonathan Dore

I have the feeling that in many cultures medicine is regarded not primarily as a humanitarian vocation but as a prestigious one, and that parents encourage their children to take it up in the same attitude of merely functional self-betterment with which they might recommend engineering or accountancy. Does anyone have any thoughts on that, or am I barking up the wrong tree (or simply barking)?

SWMBO is a teacher at arguably the best girls' school in the UK. Lots of the girls from an Asian background seem to be pushed into it because of the prestige and financial reward. This is also true of those from other backgrounds, but less apparent.

2858. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77776 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Comment #77767 by phasmagigas

revcort.
i think youll find the science of dating techniques and all that it leads to very illuminating, even the relatively simple dendrochronolody using tree rings can take us far back when you overlap equivalent rings from a series of trees, actually im not sure just how far back it can take us, maybe past 6000 years!!

Actually he might be better having a glance at ice cores or varves, the ones from Lake Suigetsu in Japan go back a long time. This is a fairly simple page describing them - http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm

2859. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77769 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Comment #77762 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Epeeist (post 511, or #77732):

In a similar vein one shouldn't convert "Science, or methodological naturalism, can't currently explain this, therefore it will never explain this, which means that that it is a failure, which means that there must be another explanation, which is god"

You might want to follow this link:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=irony&branch=&textsearchtype=exact

2860. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77749 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 am

Comment #77742 by Bonzai

I wonder why you guys even bother. All of Dianelos arguments are just meaningless word games. It all boils down to this: since God is a magic man everything and anything is possible, so whatever argument you come up with he always have this escape clause: God may choose not to reveal himself, God may live inside the quarks, God may be lurking inside the cracks of what we call logic.. The possibilities are endless.

To paraphrase Marian Moore, a word game which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt.

2861. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77747 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 11:33 am

Comment #77738 by tangerine_tree

there are grown, seemingly intelligent individuals who actually believe that the great flood story is true.

I wouldn't want to cause you to have a hernia, but have a poke around for the "Answers in Genesis" and "Creation on the Web" websites and the "Discovery Institute".

And for a real laugh try http://afdave.wordpress.com/, but make sure you go to the toilet first or you could do yourself a mischief.

2862. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77732 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 10:40 am

Comment #77727 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Or maybe many educated people commit a series of logical fallacies, for example to think that "blind natural evolution can produce the species" implies "blind natural evolution has produced the species" which implies "God has not produced the species".

Yes, that would be wrong, you shouldn't really convert a conditional like this. In a similar vein one shouldn't convert "Science, or methodological naturalism, can't currently explain this, therefore it will never explain this, which means that that it is a failure, which means that there must be another explanation, which is god"

Or to commit the fallacy to think that "the God hypothesis is not necessary for scientific understanding" implies "the God hypothesis is not necessary for ontological understanding".

Assuming that science doesn't attempt ontological understanding of course.

2863. Call for major science campaign

Comment #77662 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 3:24 am

One might like to consider what the last prime minister of the UK who took a science degree actually did with it.

Did the policies of this prime minister promote science and the manufacturing base which to some extents support it. Or did the policies support the City and financial services instead?

2864. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77653 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 2:18 am

Comment #77643 by Goldy

Anyways, worse things out there. There's this http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3043739.ece - arse! Buggers!

If you were based around Manchester (the real one, in the UK) then I could ensure you had a good workout with the bonus that you get to poke people with a three foot piece of steel ;-)

2865. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77447 by epeeist on October 9, 2007 at 10:35 am

Comment #77442 by steve99

To save you from having to go through a long series of posts, I believe what Dianelos is means by 'YEC' is that God could have created the entire Universe 6000 years ago as if it had already existed for 14 billion years.

Thanks for that.

Well yes, but this either counts as an ad hoc addendum to the original hypothesis or a miracle. Both render YEC as non-scientific hypotheses.

Anyway - no time for any more, off to coach my young pentathlete.

2866. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77440 by epeeist on October 9, 2007 at 10:05 am

Comment #77429 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But as I find that the gambit of "the burden of proof is yours not mine" only evidences a person's intellectual cowardice I am perfectly happy to give my justifications for all beliefs I hold.

Could I say that I find that deeply insulting.

1. Dawkins in TGD claims that all hypotheses about the existence of a God who designed the universe are scientific hypotheses. (premise)

Having loaned my copy of TGD out I can't substantiate the "who designed the universe" clause. However, I will go along with you for the moment.

2. A hypothesis is scientific if and only if it can be falsified by science. (premise)

I would change that to "allows a critical experiment to be made which could falsify it"

3. Therefore Dawkins's original claim in TGD is equivalent to the claim that all hypotheses about a God who designed the universe can be falsified by science. (from 1 and 3)

By modus tollens as I previously stated.

4. Young Earth creationism is a hypothesis about the existence of a God who designed the universe. (premise)
5. Young Earth creationism cannot be falsified by science. (premise)

And here we part company.

If YEC is a hypothesis then then there are consequences, such as there should be a uniform sedimentation layer across the whole earth because of the Noachic flood, there should be genetic bottlenecks due to the limited number of individuals left after such a flood, there should be evidence of accelerated nuclear decay due to the requirement to match current isotopic ratios, the speed of light would have to have changed to avoid the earth becoming a plasma due to the heat emitted by said nuclear decay, and so on.

There is no evidence of any of these. The only ways not to falsify the YEC hypothesis are therefore to invent ever more ad hoc sub-hypotheses or invoke miracles. The former route leads to a hypothesis that has no predictive power, cannot be tested or falsified and therefore is not a scientific hypothesis.

6. Therefore there exists a hypothesis about a God who designed a universe that cannot be falsified by science. (from 4 and 5)

Only if you invoke the miracle. And if you invoke the miracle, an extra-ordinary claim, then the burden lies on the claimant to show it happened. And if you invoke the miracle, then YEC is not a scientific hypothesis.

Oh, and please don't change your wording. Your first premise was about the existence of a god, this one doesn't make that qualification.

7. Therefore Dawkins's equivalent claim that all hypotheses about a God who designed the universe can be falsified by science is false. (from 3 and 6)
8. Therefore Dawkins's original claim in TGD (i.e. that all hypotheses about the existence of a God who designed the universe are scientific hypotheses) is false. (from 3 and 7)

In abeyance at best until someone can show that YEC is a scientific hypothesis.

2867. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77409 by epeeist on October 9, 2007 at 8:16 am

Comment #77214 by revcort

Or, I guess you could just put in on par with Greek Mythology- a completely useless waste of reading time- except for some entertainment, a few chuckles perhaps.

You call reading the Illiad, one of the great epics of western civilisation a "useless waste of reading time".

So what's your take on Plato, Shakespeare or Confucius? Are these a waste of reading time too? Mallory, Francis Bacon, Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hemingway, Steinbeck and others too many to number, centuries of great writing dismissed as only worthy of a bit of entertainment and a chuckle.

And then of course there is music and art...

2868. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77351 by epeeist on October 9, 2007 at 5:43 am

Comment #77347 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I am discussing the God hypothesis as Dawkins defined it. If you can suggest how that hypothesis can be falsified by science please do so.

With all due respect the burden of proof is on you.

They hypothesis is that the class of all gods is the empty class. It is up to you to produce a consequence of hypothesis that has been subject to a critical experiment and shown to be false.

2869. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77326 by epeeist on October 9, 2007 at 4:17 am

Comment #77322 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I think it's rather simple to recognize that the God hypothesis as Dawkins himself defined it on page 31 of TGD cannot be falsified by science, and therefore is not a scientific hypothesis.

Dianelos - I gave you the scientific hypothesis and the way it could be tested and falsified about half a dozen pages back. Simple propositional calculus using one of the nine valid elementary argument forms.

2870. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77283 by epeeist on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 am

Comment #76979 by devolved

Yes you did "Quotes from the bible or AiG don't count." Remember that? And if you want evidence read up on the work of D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

Well quotes from the Bible are hardly evidence are they?

So let's look at the article by the good doctor. Ah yes, the supposition that since this earth is 6000 years old then nuclear decay must have been accelerated in the past.

Here is a small exercise for you:

1. Choose a particular decay used in radiometric dating, ¹⁴C is probably not a good one, try something like ⁴⁰K to ⁴⁰Ar. Work out how much energy is released in the decay.


2. Look up some estimates of ⁴⁰K abundance and using the "old earth" age work out how much there was when the earth supposedly formed (I am not asking you to accept the "old earth" age, it is just easier to work out the values if you only need a simple first order rate equation, note that the Creation Institute accepts the decay process to the current isotopic ratios)


3. You should now be able to determine how much ⁴⁰K has decayed and hence how much energy has been released


4. Now work out what happens to the temperature of the earth when you release that much energy over a 6000 year period rather than a 4.5 billion year period
   

I have asked you to do this for a single nuclear decay. Think what will happen if you add in the decay of every other radionuclide in the calculation of the earth's temperature.

Once you have justified the first point in Dr. Humphrey's paper then we might just look at the second one.

2871. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77096 by epeeist on October 8, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Comment #76981 by BaronOchs

Has anyone worked out precisely what force would be required to carve out the Grand Canyon in just one flood, and what quantity of water this would require? And also how 40 days of indiscriminate rainfall manage to produce so precise a result?

And where is this water supposed to have come from? And how long would it take to evaporate?

I pointed devolved at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html, lots of information there that might raise other queries.

2872. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77067 by epeeist on October 8, 2007 at 10:55 am

Comment #77061 by The Wee Flea

You need to go a wee bit deeper. What do you call proof? Your idea of proof is based upon a naturalistic materialistic presuppostion (and you could throw in as well the presupposition that you are in the position of being able to judge any proof anyway).

I presented it as a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. You responded that this couldn't be all that there was to atheism and there were other "tenets".

Three times (that rings a biblical bell) I have asked you what these tenets are, each time you have failed to respond.

2873. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76975 by epeeist on October 8, 2007 at 2:20 am

Comment #76903 by devolved

So here's a question for you. Geologists and dendrochronologicists can determine the age of all sorts of things by simple counting. Tree rings, ice cores and varves in lakes like Suigetsu. All of them are consilient.

I hate to disagree but we're back to evidence and its interpretation. Varves are given as reliable examples for establishing ages but are they?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative7-20-2000.asp

I'm sorry - what is the link meant to show? All it offers is some vague references to other types of layering where hydrological sorting took place. Nothing to do with varves.

You also missed the word consilience. The varves weren't looked at in isolation. Mass spectroscopic measurements have also been obtained which are consilient with the layers.

Try searching with Google Scholar, rather than just looking at the AiG site.

2874. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76949 by epeeist on October 7, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Comment #76903 by devolved

You thought wrong. The problem is that on previous posts you wanted me to talk about it without reference to either the Bible or creationist websites and that would be like asking me to cross a busy road blindfolded.

Lying for Jesus again.

I didn't ask you to not to quote the bible, I asked you for evidence that one can go and look at.

Got to agree with Capt. Underpants

I find it objectionable when a semi-educated pig-ignorant prick pontificates on subjects of which he clearly understands nothing.

Please refrain from making further comments on this site until such time as you can cite credible evidence to substantiate your claims.

Let's give you one to start with - have a look at Meert's site, specifically http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/northrup.htm and come back with some arguments and evidence as to why he is wrong. A citation in a non-vanity published journal or web page would be acceptable.

2875. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76853 by epeeist on October 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Comment #76823 by devolved

I think you should talk about scientists studying the past (or not). When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs. One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude).

You don't mean that some people might see it as evidence of "The FLOOD". I thought you didn't want to talk about that.

No, let's rephrase that. You couldn't answer all the questions that I raised so you decided to attempt to dismiss it as beneath you. In a similar way to the questions you have ignored from other people on the site such as Billy Sands.

So here's a question for you. Geologists and dendrochronologicists can determine the age of all sorts of things by simple counting. Tree rings, ice cores and varves in lakes like Suigetsu. All of them are consilient. To me this shows an observation of historical events, in that not only can they count they years they can also correlate with things like volcanic eruptions.

Of course, this actually shows that the earth is older than 6000 years...

2876. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76564 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 9:43 am

Comment #76460 by The Wee Flea

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species.

There was a piece of music on Radio 3 this week which characterises Stalin quite nicely.

It was Prokofiev's cantata "Hail to Stalin" (op 85). Makes him sound a bit like a deity.

2877. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76563 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 9:30 am

Comment #76503 by captain underpants

devolved (102), It has long been abundantly clear that rational argument is not your thang. Your preferred response to difficult questions is to run away. I will therefore repeat my request that you provide credible evidence for virgin birth, so that you will run away again and leave us alone for a while.

There seems to be a queue forming waiting for devolved to provide answers. He owes me a whole stack on why "The Flood" really happened, and Billy Sands various responses on evolutionary questions.

2878. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76551 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 8:04 am

Comment #76531 by rokort

It's sort of off-topic, but i wanted to share this, for what it's worth: yesterday the Council_of_Europe accepted a resolution that creationism shouldn't be taught in Science class

It is completely on topic.

Thanks for the links, I have passed them on to SWMBO to take to her QCA meeting next week,

2879. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76461 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 12:20 am

SWMBO is a member of the QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) and picked this up last week when it was mentioned on the radio.

She is down at a meeting next week and intends to raise this. Needless to say she is not for making any accommodations to the religious of any denomination.

Incidentally, have a look on www.teachernet.gov.uk for information on teaching evolution. It is a Word document (spit) and posting the long link to it is more than I can manage.

2880. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76269 by epeeist on October 5, 2007 at 9:41 am

Comment #76240 by LeeC

If God created the universe, Earth, life and man and all that – why is the bible so focused on a little tribe from Israel? Why does God care about the Earth at all? (The universe is rather BIG)

It is almost like God has a favourite football team or something?
Why isn't God concerned with the WHOLE world if Earth is so important?

And why can't he keep his bloody diary up to date. I mean, he had a hard week (well, 6 days) at the start of creation. But nearly 2000 years between entries is a bit much.

2881. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75187 by epeeist on October 2, 2007 at 2:18 am

Comment #75183 by Bonzai

Not just in axiomatic system. If Dianelos is accused of murdering X and he can produce convincing alibi that he was debating with atheists on a computer hundreds of miles away from the crime scene when the murder occurred (taking into account the error of time estimation etc)most of us would accept that as a proof that he is not the murder(proof of a negative)

But this is still a probabilistic proof, albeit with a very high probability.

2882. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75182 by epeeist on October 2, 2007 at 1:56 am

Comment #75175 by Bonzai

Dianelos wrote:

Mathematicians all the time prove negative assertions such as there is no greatest prime number.

That's right. But a non existence proof is only possible if you actually have a definitive existence claim in the first place.

And such a claim, and hence proof, can only be done for an axiomatic system.

Neither DG's theistic idealism or methodological naturalism are axiomatic systems, hence the only thing you can get by induction is some kind of probabilistic estimate.

Hence the reason why science uses deductive methods and deals with contingent validity.

2883. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75174 by epeeist on October 2, 2007 at 1:39 am

Comment #75030 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Entropy is a property of mechanical systems that can be in many different states.

Do you know the phrase "teaching your granny to suck eggs"?

There are one or two of us about that, you know, might just have an idea or two about things like canonical ensembles, Bose-Einstein statistics and the like.

2884. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75151 by epeeist on October 1, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Comment #75146 by Russell Blackford

Whoever it was, damn that Dawkins for provoking it. Any other good examples of his perfidy?

Beziers, 21st July 1209. RD was obviously an influence on the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury when he said "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

2885. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75060 by epeeist on October 1, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Comment #75020 by Janus

Makes me wonder why religion deserves so much attention, but something like political ideologies don't. Why not form an interdisciplinary program called "politology", where anthropologists, psychologists, historians, sociologists, etc whose work has something to do with political ideologies are all gathered up to "interact in an organic way"?

Already exists, PPE at Oxford and SPS at Cambridge.

2886. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75008 by epeeist on October 1, 2007 at 10:35 am

Comment #74989 by Bonzai

Like I said, why aren't you people so worked up about Business? It definitely has no place in university no matter how you square it. It should be a college diploma.

I'll go with you on this one. A degree in theology has some academic content and graduands should have some appreciation of a wide variety of topics.

I have never come across an MBA who could claim as much.

2887. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74747 by epeeist on September 30, 2007 at 8:37 am

Comment #74744 by brother john

It SHOULD be called VALUES EDUCATION.

I can go with replacing Religious Education by Values Education.

Let's start with looking at what the Greeks did for Western civilisation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle provide the basis for philosophy, ethics and logic.

Let's continue with the influence of religion on society, including the preservation and advancement of knowledge during the dark ages by Islamic civilisations.

Let's look at the flowering of art, music and science during the renaissance and the reaction against reason by the likes of Luther.

Finally, let us look at the true beginnings of rationality during the age of Enlightenment.

Let us use the lessons from these examples to build a rational, critical society that is confident in going forward without prejudices and superstitions.

2888. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74558 by epeeist on September 29, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Comment #74472 by steve99

Coming from someone who has shown a profound misunderstanding of thermodynamics, quantum physics (both interpretations and implications), mathematics, and philosophy (such ideas of truth and abstraction), I find any criticism from you of Dawkins 'going outside his area of expertise' a bit rich. You do this regularly here.

Don't forget classical physics and logic.

2889. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74308 by epeeist on September 28, 2007 at 4:54 am

Comment #74279 by Roger Stanyard

I've issued this request for help to DebunkCreation and was wondering whether anyone here might be able to help. There is a posting about it on the BCSE web site at www.bcse.org.uk :

Your URL is wrong.

Ah yes, Operation Christmas Child, how nice does that sound.

Have you found http://www.inminds.co.uk/occ.html

2890. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74265 by epeeist on September 28, 2007 at 2:17 am

Dante has come up in a couple of posts recently, so it might be instructive to look at what Ben Stein might be in for.

It looks to me as though he has committed a "sin of the wolf" and belongs in the 8th circle of hell, either in Bolgia 9 or 10.

In Bolgia 9 he will be torn apart by demons, his wounds will heal and then the process will start all over again.

In Bolgia 10 he sounds as though he has going to have some pretty nasty scabs, he might be able to scratch but all his skin is going to come off as well.

I really like the loving nature of Christianity...

2891. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74259 by epeeist on September 28, 2007 at 1:56 am

Comment #74218 by Liveliest Crib

For anyone interested, this story has been picked up by the progressive, U.S. blog, Crooks and Liars.

And in today's Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2179047,00.html

2892. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74247 by epeeist on September 28, 2007 at 12:49 am

Comment #74219 by Russell Blackford

There may be theoretical problems with Popper's work, but it's interesting to me to see how intuitive scientists find it. When I talk to working scientists about how they understand what they are doing, they tend to come out with Popperian-sounding falsificationist language. It's the philosophical theory about science that real scientists often seem to think "gets it".

Popper's ideas on falsification are an excellent basis for deciding on the validity of theorems, though some people use the idea quite crudely.

Where it is less good I think is on the methodology of science, i.e. problem, hypothesis (or hypotheses), test, rinse and repeat. It is somewhat simplistic. Have you read any of Imre Lakatos' works? I think he gets closer on this.

2893. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74172 by epeeist on September 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm

By the way, have you seen the Atkinson's video where he plays the Devil receiving newcomers to hell and sorting them out? He goes: "Rapists, please come here to this line. Lawyers there. Murderers here please. Christians, there – oh yes, the Jews were right you know" :-) See:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eJA9RPX9mRY

Sounds a bit like Dante's Inferno.

2894. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74069 by epeeist on September 27, 2007 at 6:36 am

Comment #74059 by Philip1978

To all, I have noticed that people's messages are being trolled for no good reason, can someone please own up to be being naughty or Josh, we seem to be having problems here! J is stuck in Yellow limbo, this is not good!

Personally I blame Leonard de Caprio (trit, trot, trit, trot, over the rickety bridge).

2895. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74023 by epeeist on September 27, 2007 at 4:59 am

Comment #74021 by Geraint

What amazes me is how some of the philosophers who've reviewed TGD (Plantinga included, apparently) fail utterly to grasp the distinction between a logical deduction from premises and an inference from data.

Or to put it another way:

"Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument"

2896. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73873 by epeeist on September 26, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Comment #73853 by irate_atheist

Returning to this thread, I notice that Revcort is still dribbling into his beard. What a pity.

He doesn't have a beard and is a pastor.

Billy - what shall we do, what does the bible say?

2897. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73806 by epeeist on September 26, 2007 at 8:28 am

Comment #73765 by BAEOZ

Well said Northern Bright. Though I'm confident WeeFlea's logic filter will exclude your points from consideration.

Already has - see various of my posts presenting atheism as a testable hypothesis. Completely ignored and still claims that there must be other "tenets" (which I believe was a fairly carefully chosen word).

Nothing provided for these tenets though.

2898. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73706 by epeeist on September 25, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Comment #73685 by Crazymalc

Once again though, it delays the question. What made their parents believe?

I was once admonished by the flea for this - its a pyramid selling scheme.

Get your entry into heaven, or avoid going to hell, by recruiting other people.

2899. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73535 by epeeist on September 25, 2007 at 7:56 am

Comment #73530 by revcort

Alas, your fight is not with me. Your fight is with all of Christendom. You are at odds with all of the Reformers and with all of the early church writers. This is your trouble. Peter, Paul, and John disagree strongly with you. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Wycliffe, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wycliffe, and all Puritan writers, including Jonathan Edwards, strongly disagree with you.

This is Jonathan Edwards the atheist we are talking about is it?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1991114.ece

2900. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #73468 by epeeist on September 25, 2007 at 3:52 am

Comment #73441 by Roger Stanyard

As at pointed out earlier Devolved is a bog standard creationist turning out bog standard creationist boilerplate who utterly ignores what is said, endlessly repeats himself and fails to answer any questions.

Now that you have tackled devolved, do you want to have a go at Dianelos?