Comments by riandouglas

251. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173007 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

seeker_of_truth: Actually my statement was "at least" 4500 yrs old. I hope that helps to clear up any misunderstanding that might have occurred.

Again:

Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:36 am
My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.

Please justify that belief?
Or you know, any of the other questions you've had put to you?
Or you could admit the evidence against K-Ar dating was bogus?

Ball is in your court seeker.

EDIT:

seeker_of_truth: If that is still a problem, I would suggest you do your own research to verify this claim as it would be a waste of my time.

What research would this be for again? Should we check all the evidence for anything which supports your lowest date figure. Even though you've been given argument and reference to evidence you still cling to that figure. I wonder why?

Strike 2 anyone!

252. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172997 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 am

seeker_of_truth: I'm afraid when it comes to my willingness to respond... I do make the rules. This is my last response to you until you provide a reason to reconcile. Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.

Wow, so snippy.
Instead of talking around the questions, could you be a dear and answer at least one of them?
That would be great, cheers

253. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172988 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:17 am

Seeker, if you can't back up your beliefs with evidence, then they don't deserve to be considered as any sort of alternative. In fact, they become ridiculous. So, evidence or ridiculous belief in some sky father, which will it be?

254. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172980 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

seeker_of_truth: Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.

So, you're not actually "confused" about the evidence. You're not "looking at all sides". You're simply following along with your beliefs:

Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:36 am
My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.

Which historical writings?
Why are they reliable?
Care to justify that belief with evidence?

Thought not

255. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172962 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 am

seeker_of_truth: Wiki is correct but your conclusion is a fallacy. If there were only miniscule amounts of K-Ar conversion, then dating is unreliable. However, in the tests I am presenting, the labs 'found' sufficient amounts of argon to date into the equivalent of millions of years.

Perhaps the problem lies in the assumptions that are made prior to physical testing?

No, the problem is the rocks are not of an age where K-Ar is going to give a reliable result. Simple.
If I can second steve, why are you asking these varied questions? Is there something you're unsure of or would like to know, or are you simply looking to improve your knowledge?
I know you claim to be wondering which side is "honest" or has the evidence, but this is something you could easily do on your own - simply check the age of the rocks (10's of years) with the age range of the dating methods (100,000 years plus). If they don't match up, then the "evidence questioning the validity of the K-Ar dating method is bogus. Could the K-Ar method not be reliable? Sure, but that particular result doesn't say anything about it. That K-Ar is used successfully dating other rocks, and the curves it gives matching up with other dating techniques whose ranges overlap with the K-Ar range give us confidence in the reliability of the technique.

256. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172954 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 am

seeker_of_truth:
If this is the case, would you then agree that I was being talked around?

Is it a problem if you were?
Fora are not a great method of transmitting all of the nuance we're used to when communicating face to face (or even over the phone). You don't get too many clues as to emotion, intention etc.
That things like being "talked around" happen is to be expected, surely?

257. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172950 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:43 am

seeker_of_truth: I found the first article and the testing was done by Geochron Laboratories. Do you have information on this company which would shed suspicion on their level of reliability and/or respectability?

It's not the testing or the lab which was unreliable, it was the people who submitted the samples. As has been pointed out, the dating method is not going to work for rocks that young. That is where the wide range of dates comes from, not the unreliability of the method or the labs.

258. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172948 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

seeker_of_truth: I think this is where he seems to be indicating a desire for a link-war instead of personal, intelligent debate. Don't we love talking around people who are listening?

You've made some assertions (dating methods might be unreliable. I've read papers on it etc), yet you've not provided any evidence of that. We can "talk" about this all night (or in your case, probably day), but in the end, without evidence, and peer reviewed papers, it is simply talk and doesn't get anywhere.
Now, Epeeist has linked to papers, whos abstracts you can read (and you can probably get the whole paper, not sure) which show c¹⁴ dating has been correlated to extend it's accuracy by using varves from a lake. Tha varves go back some 40,000 years, so stating the earth might be 4500 years old is somewhat silly.

259. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172942 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:38 am

Still not asleep :-(

seeker_of_truth: I could probably find them if you are interested in reading the entire articles.

Ref's would be good if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.
I may be mistaken, but Argon dating may have a limited range of usefulness (almost sure it does), of which the samples were likely outside the range of. From wiki:

Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old

So, young rocks from Mt St Helens are not within the useful range of this method. The "evidence" is bogus

260. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172930 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:20 am

Epeeist: I think this is where he needs to be pressed. We have provided links to a variety of evidence. As yet he has provided nothing at all. He needs to be pressed to provide references to empirical data.

Seeker, any references for some reputable evidence indicating a "young" earth. or universe, or whatever it is you're conflicted about?

Good luck extracting the information. I look forward to reading the thrilling highlights tomorrow morning.

261. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172924 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:09 am

G'night folks.
Enjoy whatever is left of your morning/day/afternoon whatever your timezone is. It's midnight here, and I've got to fit 8-10 hours sleep into the next 5 hours :-)

262. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172919 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 7:04 am

seeker_of_truth: These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?

What is this "comparable quality of evidence"?
Most of the "theories" for a young earth are either flat out wrong (or as the saying goes "not even wrong"), or quote the bible as a source of evidence. Or all of the above.
"How can I explain the evidence" should not have "so it matches Yahweh's revealed 'Truth'" prepended to it.

263. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172910 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:55 am

Steve Zara: Good luck if you choose to so so. He is as slippery as an eel. Check the attempt to hand-wave away polyploidy so as to deny that true new species have appeared.

Yeah, I remembered that without looking. I was curious to see his initial posts.
As for being slippery - it seems I'm a bit of a masochist when it comes to these things. I'm "harassing" on a couple of other fundy blogs, with no hope of any progress, to try to understand how they manage to hold their views. EDIT: And why?
It's interesting. Now, if only I'd studied psychology instead of computer science...

264. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172905 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:52 am

Thank you again Calilasseia

265. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172901 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:50 am

seeker_of_truth: "It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science."

And the responses you got did not answer that?
Yes, you can perform good science while having religious faith. You can also perform terrible science because of that faith. You only need look into the white hole cosmology to see an example - cherry picking facts and evidence to fit the biblical story of genesis. Any why? Because the evidence does not support the biblical world view. Humphrey's cosmology is blown out of the water by the varves epeeists papers mentioned - they put the age of the earth a lot later than he does. Not to mention dating of rocks, fossils etc etc.

266. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172893 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:44 am

seeker_of_truth: These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?

What are the evidence based theories on the other side? Do they explain all the available evidence better than the "old earth" scientific ones, or do they ignore uncomfortable things (like the lake varves epeeist linked to). You can't have a 4500 yeah old earth which has lakes showing 40,000 years of varves.

EDIT: seeker, did you pick your name because that is what you're doing? Do you see the "controversy" and not know who is being honest?

267. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172885 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 am

Congrats to Al-annabananarawandi!

268. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172878 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:30 am

seeker_of_truth: Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?

I guess we're confused as to what your position is, seeker.
With such a long "age of stuff" belief, it is a little difficult to understand what you might believe.
I haven't gone through all your old posts, but what are you arguing here?
You seem to be denying the evidence for the age of things.
You seem to not accept evolution (tiktaalic is a "fish" - well sort of maybe not quite).
So, whats up?

EDIT: just checked some of your back catalogue.
You're willing to give ID a listen for some reason, and are not convinced it doesn't have a shot. Is that about it?

EDIT EDIT: Or, you're playing the devils advocate for some reason?

269. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172874 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:27 am

Tezcatlipoca: They were quoting as "evidence" 60 to 100 year old material that has long since been discredited.

Do they do that because they think their 2000 year old book is still valid?
Is it a case of believing that science doesn't actually move on because their religion doesn't get many new revelations, and even those are not supposed to change the old ones?

270. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172869 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:25 am

annabanana: I wasn't lying. I think you have made some excellent points which was why I sincerely hated to correct you, but it was sort of like nails on a chalkboard and was detracting from all of those excellent points you were making.

Don't hesitate to correct me on anything, please. It annoys me when other people do it too. I'm sorry I haven't picked up on it.

As long as it's not 'but you keep using "you're" where you should be using "your" you you ignorant dipshit' or similar then it's all good. Not that you'd use such crude language to get your point across

In fact, if I'm wrong, I don't really care how it's delivered, though I would appreciate some courtesy :-)

271. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172860 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:14 am

annabanana: Your posts are very good and I hate to be the grammar police to someone who is so nice, but you keep using "you're" where you should be using "your". I just thought I'd let you know...also, it's driving me a little crazy. :-)

Thanks for the compliment, concenring my posts, but there is no need to lie :-)
As for the your/you're thing, I do apologise, and will try to be more aggressive is spotting the errors. At least I do it the wrong way around - most folk seem to use 'your' for everything :-)

Maybe if I actually stopped to think before typing...

272. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172858 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:12 am

seeker_of_truth: Can you paraphrase the jist of these sites for me please? I usually will ask for a site-link if I am desirous of one.

From the abstract, which you could have easily read yourself:

A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: Extension of the 14C calibration curve

EDIT: And the abstract to the other one:

High-resolution pollen data (average interval between samples<15 years) are reported on part of a varved sediment core from Lake Suigetsu, Japan, spanning the interval 15,701 to 10,217 SG vyr BP (Suigetsu varve years Before Present). This new record is compared with a previously proposed event stratigraphy based on pollen-based reconstructed changes of mean annual temperature. The deglacial climate history reconstructed at Lake Suigetsu resembles that observed in the North Atlantic, although the major boundaries of pollen zones are asynchronous with those in the North Atlantic event stratigraphy by several centuries. The onset of the Late Glacial interstadial occurred earlier in Japan than in the North Atlantic. This demonstrates that the climate in Japan was closely linked to the low-latitude Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures that first reacted to orbital forcing. Conversely, the onset of the subsequent cold reversal phase in Japan lagged that of the North Atlantic (Younger Dryas) by several centuries. The duration of this cold phase was about the same as the Younger Dryas event, but the amplitude was much reduced (4Â±2 Â°C in Î"mean annual temperature). These findings support the hypothesis that this pan-hemispheric cooling event was triggered by North Atlantic forcing, most probably by a meltwater pulse and an associated change in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. However, the mechanism which transmitted the change in the North Atlantic to the Far East is unknown.

273. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172852 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:09 am

Steve Zara: I really do suggest Dr Benway's strategy. But that is just my mood :)

Hope your cold/virus/whatever thing gets better soon steve, or at least that you become less impatient/grumpy :-)

EDIT: Besides, I'd feel obliged to look through his previous posts to see what position he may have taken.

274. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172848 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:06 am

seeker_of_truth: Did I not already say that parsimony is a good principle?

You said:

Parsimony is a fine principle except when it does not apply. Before the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.

When does it not apply?

275. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172839 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 6:00 am

seeker_of_truth: I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?

You have a reasonable source for that information?

276. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172836 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:59 am

Cartomancer: If it were a theory, I could come up with a comprehensive theory of everything in a heartbeat.

"res sunt quod sunt" - things are what they are.

There. No need to do science anymore. Pack up and go home everyone.

You're theory is still wrong!
GOD DID IT! *stamps foot*

277. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172830 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:53 am

seeker_of_truth: Hi Philip. Do I need to explain a fish fossil when my age of the universe/earth proposal allows for millions, even billions of years on the high end?

So you're theory covers all bases?
Billions of years in case science is right, and thousands of years in case the "ancient texts" are right?

EDIT: You may want to revise your lower limit to explain tiktaalik - ~375 million years ago.

278. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172827 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:51 am

seeker_of_truth:
To follow the notes on the same debate, start with TalkOrigins then do a keyword search on AiG [homepage] to match up the debaters by name.

And this is relevant how?
What is it you think we're missing out on by (possibly) not having read up on all these debates?

279. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172824 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:48 am

epeeist: Once you get that under your belt you might start to look at things like tree ring and ice core data and the consilience between these, C14 data an known natural catastrophes.

Do varves get a look in as well?

EDIT: I see they do :-)

280. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172822 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am

Cartomancer, your avatar seems to have neglected some solarium sessions on his hind quarters.
Not that it detracts from his appeal :-)

281. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172817 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:44 am

seeker_of_truth: I hate to repeat myself, but what I'm driving at is that parsimony is a good principle but also subject to prove false. Is this too difficult to conceptualize?

So, given a number of different theories of differing complexity, which explain the available data, and no other way to choose between them, you'd pick which?

EDIT: Parsimony may give you an incorrect theory (as in your number of stars example), but the only way to know that is with more data, not a stab in the dark/divine revelation.

282. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172804 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:34 am

seeker_of_truth: I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs.

What in particular?

283. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172797 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:29 am

Philip1978: Thats way over 4500 years old!

That's unpossible! :-)

284. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172795 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:27 am

seeker_of_truth: The only problem was at the time, there was no good reason to speculate that there were billions of stars in the universe. Parsimony was served with the three thousand [observable] estimate. Parsimony in this case, led to a false conclusion.

It matched the available evidence. You're saying that because your god might exist, we should throw out the principle of parsimony and think that it does?
Which god by the way? not sure if you've mentioned

285. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172790 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am

seeker_of_truth, you say the earth and universe are at least 4500 years old. Would you say, perhaps, they might be around 4.5 & 13.7 billion years old?

286. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172788 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:22 am

seeker_of_truth: If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.

Because it's difficult to debate the insane?

287. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172784 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:17 am

seeker_of_truth: I was glad to hear you take this position as your repeating style while ignoring new and relevant proposals by me was beginning to get boring.

Which new and relevant proposals did you put forward? They must have been pretty insignificant.

288. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172781 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 5:10 am

Steve Zara: You can? Sorry, didn't notice. All I noticed was ignoring of evidence, blurring of arguments and refusing to deal with points raised.

I was going to ask if you'd had your shots, but it seemed a little rude.

289. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172776 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:58 am

My guess is he'll continue to get responses, as he is a kind of fun.
Hopefully now the cat is somewhat out of the bag he'll lose his appeal :-)

290. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172774 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:51 am

Tyler Durden: I'll do my best to plead insanity on your part, but I'm sure he knows all about you and your posts.

I don't think you'll have to plead to hard for that insanity ruling.

EDIT: Regardless of how idiotic his rants are, he still gets a response. Is someone seeing how long we'll dialogue with such an obviously deluded person?

291. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172773 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:48 am

Having had more exposure to it I agree Steve.

Running a perfectly good statement in english through an automated translator a bunch of times results in text that is a little too wooter-ish.

Time to fess up somebody? :-)

292. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172761 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 4:21 am

Thank you PJG, I could feel the stupid leeching into my bones.
Was very informative though.
- The ionosphere was created so Christian missionaries could spread the word.
- Faraday was a "great creationist physicist"

I had to stop before I lost the ability to type. Cleaning up the drool is going to take a while :-)

293. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #172755 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 3:43 am

babu: fuck god,
oh my mistake if there is no god how to fuck it...

my thoughts don't see any possibilities of god...sure and certain

Given this comment, and your other one concering Richard Dawkins' possible schizophrenia, you come across as somewhat angry about something. Is it that people doubt the existence of a god you possibly believe in?

294. Fleabytes

Comment #172753 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 3:36 am

me:Doesn't that make mankind prior to the fall amoral?

Philip1978: Certainly does hold weight doesn't it!

Would it then be fair to say, to those who take Genesis literally, that prior to eating the fruit, Adam & Eve (or proto-man, as you said) were less thinking/rational/moral etc than chimpazee's given that chimps behave in a moral fashion and have been shown to display some reasoning skills (I think).

Philip1978: People have been begging forgiveness because of a set up, how the religious can justify this without feeling slightly stupid I don't know!

Death is really Yahweh's way of taking you aside and letting you in on the joke

295. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172751 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 3:33 am

babu: richard dawkins is schizophrenic, he thinks a lot...wot would he do if there were no thoughts.
common sir don't make other think about the riddle....wot's the difference if u believe in god or don't believe at all like me.....a wink

Babu, this article concerns a debate/discussion between Dan Dennett and Lord winston, so Richard Dawkins is not so much a subject.
Ignoring that for the moment, did you have a question at all? Perhaps there is some reason you think Dawkins is Schizophrenic?

296. Fleabytes

Comment #172731 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 2:26 am

Philip1978: My other theory is that God set them up to fall in the first place - he lets the snake in, plants the tree within easy reach of his credulous creations and then sits back and then pretends to go berserk and punishes them for it.

I do love the setup theory of the garden. Even if you asume they were intelligent prior, they still didn't have knowledge of good and evil, and couldn't have known it was wrong.
Doesn't that make mankind prior to the fall amoral?

297. Fleabytes

Comment #172725 by riandouglas on April 30, 2008 at 2:07 am

godless1: We would be born with what we needed to know and we could skirt around doubt, skepticism, differences in interpretation, and whether or not when the bible says to "smash the little ones against the rocks"- that's what god really means or if there's some interpretive riddle in amongst the scriptural murkiness.

I'm sure the response would be something about free will, and how doing what you describe would impinge upon that in some way. If some overt action is all it takes for Yahweh to impinge upone free will, then everything which has been attributed to him falls into that category, surely.

godless1: I don't believe that even the temptations of another perfect being whether in the form of a snake, man, or garden hoe; who is biblically said to have been god's most perfect angel, could sway the fine young couple in Eden to do anything morally wrong. Only the omnipotence of god could be capable of that.

Just curious about the origin of equating the snake with the adversary? As far as I've read it isn't even implied in Genesis. Some later books, or in some non-canonical texts?
A quick google search didn't turn up anything of merit.
EDIT: My google search was for "stan" not satan. Google was still not much help though.

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

Comment #172679 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Woops. Sorry Goldy :-)

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

Comment #172675 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm

EDIT: Incorrectly attributed to Brian English Goldy: Nah, think Darwin is Jesus and Dawkins maybe a Paul...though I don't think RD is a spin doctor like Paul.

So who in this little game gets to be Yahweh, or is his absence the point?

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

Comment #172669 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Brian English: Tosswad, I regularly add nothing to the conversation and do voluminously (sp?). :D

But you do it with such style. I've also caught you adding to the conversation, which is certainly out of character.

Why do I have the feeling I'm going to regret that "tosswad" thing? :-)