Comments by riandouglas

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

Comment #172667 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Brian English: The closest thing they can find to fit the bill is evolution.

Because we "cling" to it in the face of overwhelming evidence I suppose. No wait a minute...

I'm adding nothing to the conversation. Continue as if I'm not here :-)

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

Comment #172662 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Goldy: with Darwin as some sort of Jesus figure

Surely Darwin=Yahweh and Dawkins=Jesus?

MPhil: I also don't quite get how the same people who say that religion has the answers, and is to be protected are the ones that attack Evoluton/Neo-Darwinism and Atheism as being some kind of religion, which it - of course - isn't.

Religion has "Truth", science has only "theories". The "theories" contradict the "Truth" and are therefore false.
Evolution isn't a law!

Very frustrating, though thankfully I haven't had to deal with it in person, and do kind of enjoy it online :-)

303. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172649 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Brian English: AFL is an indigenous game. It wasn't imported.

See, the reeduction wasn't that bad. AFL does seem to bear a remarkable resemblance to Gaelic football...

Brian English: Not that I'm getting all 'proud Australian' on you.

Damn! More indoctrination required I think :-)

304. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172631 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Brian English: I think you've pretty much got it right there. I hate the way the term 'unaustralian' is used here against anybody who doesn't support some supposed unique aussie values that seem to include joining foreign military expeditions and all that....

That is unaustralian Brian. Please report to your AFL and cricket reeducation centre immediately.

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

Comment #172623 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Goldy: Have you mentioned what exactly it was about evolution that frustrated so? I should check through all the posts, I know...but I'm lazy :-)

Not wanting to put words into TTID's mouth but it seemed to be incredulity fueled by ignorance.

306. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172616 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Corylus: Note to self:

Do not piss off Calilasseaia.

Or if you d make sure:
1) it's unintentional
2) you're not so ignorant you can't follow along
3) you humble yourself in apology

:-)

307. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172098 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

annabanana, you're forgetting the details of the future imparted.

el Heffe, Darwin didn't avoid it. He didn't tackle it (as far as I know). Like saying that Newton avoided quantum mechanics.

308. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172092 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:19 am

Obviously.
But the lack of dreariness here, and the purported abundance of it where you are leads me to think things aren't simple :-P

309. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172091 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:15 am

SharonMcT: I am having difficulty seeing what the plan could be that I would agree to help.

Thanks for saying what I've been trying to say a couple of times, just not so clearly.

Night all. Damn GMT 10! :-)

310. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172089 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:13 am

Thanks irate

Why do the discussions have to start after midnight my time?

Night all. I can't deal with another 36 hour stint - at least not during the week.

311. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172087 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:11 am

annabannana: Maybe you have posted what the evidence is and I missed it, so forgive me if I am being redundant.

He received a message from something, which out thought him in his head and provided some details of the future - innocent stuff I think. Apart from that he's not given too many details of the contents of the message.

312. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172084 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:08 am

Steve, since you seem to keep up to date on these things - hasnt Humphrey's white hole cosmology been refuted? I seem to remember reading various debunkings, but the initial theory seemed to be a stretch to begin with so I wasn't paying much attention.

313. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172083 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:06 am

kardashovel:
Well, I am suggesting that you do a thought experiment in which you receive such evidence, and I am asking what it is that you would then believe. If you tell me that this is like asking you to throw mathematics out of the window, then this puts the lie to your assertion that you would believe, provided evidence. Do you see the bind you're in?

I can't speak for Frankus, but for myself, I couldn't think of anything which would convince me of the existence of Yahweh as he is normally conceived.
If you had have stuck with some nebulous intelligence from the future, then you'd probably fare better, at least from me. Linking said intelligence to the bible is the bit I can't understand. Did this intelligence suggest it was Jesus or Yahweh, or was that what you surmised?

314. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172077 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 8:01 am

seeker_of_truth: According the Humphreys, this "White Hole" cosmological model is based on the Genesis account combined with one other 'verse' from the New Testament.

Can you see where Humphrey's might have gone a little wrong?

EDIT:

seeker_of_truth: According the Humphreys, this "White Hole" cosmological model is based on the Genesis account combined with one other 'verse' from the New Testament.

See, scientists (those worth the name) from my understanding try to start and end with the least assumptions. As far as I can tell, Yahweh is one very large, very complicated assumption.

315. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172059 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:35 am

Steve Zara: I consider religious scientists to often be like an athlete with a physical handicap. Of course, some manage to do very well. Some do far better than non-"disabled" people. But, on average, it can be a problem. Kepler struggled to reconcile piles of data with his religious beliefs about how the universe should operate. Today we have people like Francis Collins who is wibbling about information in the DNA because of something that took over his mind when he looked at a frozen waterfall. Then we have those who seem to have completely lost it, like Frank Tipler and his Physics of Christianity.

Looking at some religious scientists, I am astonished at how they function.

I don't fully agree. Athletes with handicaps have no choice but to cope with them :-)

316. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172058 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:34 am

Kardashovel:
Are yo saying the universe is not complex? Imagine the Feynman diagram!

I'm sure steve will beat me, but I think he mean the initial state of the universe, not the universe as we see it now.

317. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172057 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:33 am

seeker_of_truth: I chose those with the Christian faith as this seems to be where 90-plus-% of the focus is placed by Dennett and this debate in general. That was my read on Breaking the Spell anyway.

I guess that's because it's the delusion we're most familiar with. I only speak for myself in this :-)

318. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172055 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:29 am

Frankus1122: Thanks for that vote of confidence :(

Kardashovel had such high hopes for you. I thought a bit of negative was appropriate :-)

319. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172051 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:25 am

Kardoshovel, if I've got the following right about your belief:
1) Your god can influence people to believe it is actual.
2) Your god is able to convince them that it's plan is worthwhile.
3) Your god doesn't need or want worship
4) There doesn't appear to be a heaven or hell, simply paradise (not sure if the dead get to go there, or simply those living in the future).

Did you simply come on here to discuss the belief you'd worked out after your strange experience, or does convincing others of the (even possible) truth of what you're saying matter?

Note: I only checked your first few posts to see what you were initially doing.

EDIT: I just noticed your post which happened to be above mine - you answered this question there.

320. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172039 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:11 am

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

And precisely for the reason that science follows the evidence. That's why scientists of today can stand on the shoulders of the theistic scientists you mentioned without having to believe - because science is about evidence, not beliefs.
Should we acknowledge alchemy as valid because Newton was a big fan?

EDIT: Don't forget the scientists you mentioned stood on the shoulders of the greeks and arabs.

321. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172035 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:05 am

Read through your thought experiment again, and unfortunately I'm with Frankus. I can't imagine what would make me believe something was "god".
If you want me to believe some super advanced mind from the future was talking to me, that I could probably manage, but as you said, I'm not to steal your theory. Perhaps if I had all the details of your encounters it would help, but you've said you choose not to discuss them (I think), which is fine.

By the way, you speak of the old testament and new testament as the works of this god of yours. What about other religious beliefs and experiences? Was the buddha contacted by this being, you think?
He seemed to have quite a lot of impact on a lot of people in a seemingly similar vein to but earlier than the new testament, unless I'm way off course.

I'm with Al on this - it is curious

322. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172027 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 6:54 am

Me: Considering the nature of the conversation, that would have become apparent fairly quickly in the following weeks. Nothing was discussed that would create a situation that would be damaging or dangerous to anyone. It was more about optimization and warnings.

Kardashovel: Considering the nature of the conversation, that would have become apparent fairly quickly in the following weeks. Nothing was discussed that would create a situation that would be damaging or dangerous to anyone. It was more about optimization and warnings.

I meant, that this god is as you say it is (some being from the future), but it is somewhat other than you believe. It gave you information of the future to convince you, but the plan which you believe it has is not the plan it actually has. Basically how do you know this being is as you believe it to be?

I'll get back to you on the thought experiment.

323. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172021 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 6:37 am

ysntw: It is only contradictory when someone understands Genesis 1 as a literal account of creation, rather then a true product of its time.

Every book in the bible is a "true product of its time". I assume you treat some of the bible differently*. Why?

*Note: As I understand it, it's difficult to be a christian without believing in the life, death and resurection of Jesus as historical fact.

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

Comment #172014 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 6:22 am

Titania: Bonzai, I did offer twice to send TheTruthID (and Remnant) free copies of a textbook on Evolution, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable. You can find these offers in my comments. He has not responded and seems to prefer gathering information from video sources or from ID books.

He claims to have read many books:

I have read, combined, over 20 books on the subjects of Evolution and ID.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page30#170532
I'd be interested in what those books were.
You're offer is very generous. I've half a mind to come back spouting nonsense under a different guise simply to take advantage of it :-)

Titania: I admire those of you who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and continue to explain evolution to him, however, I am curious to see what will happen when he gets frustrated again.

I'm not sure what else to do actually. Even if he isn't being honest, playing along with him may be useful anyway - increasing his knowledge as well as my own, and perhaps some people in the audience.

325. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171993 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 4:59 am

clear-as-mud: 1. Contradictions are in the way people think and interpret not in the creation of God and in the truth.

Again clearmind, I have no idea which god you're talking about. I'm going to assume Zeus for the rest of this comment. If you'd like to tell me which god, then I wouldn't have to guess.

clearly-a-joke: 2. I respect all holy divine religions and their prophets since they were sent to deliver the truth.

There was only a single "religion" devoted to Zues to my knowledge, though you might be able to squeeze in the roman worship of Jupiter.
Did Zues have prophets? I'm not sure. I'm sure the people you're probably referring to (Jesus, Moses, Isaiah etc most likely) certainly weren't prophets of Zues, therefore bringing them into the conversation is pointless.

low-clearance: 3. But conflictions and assumptions and chain of assumptions are totally full of in evolution. One assumption follows another and another assumption follows another. Since the first assumption is totally illogical, then, there is a break in the evolution.

All I see here is assertion after assertion after assertion. The "tough problems" for evolution you stated, such as the silk worm are laughable. But go ahead, continue making a fool of yourself. It's kind of fun.

clearly-nuts: You are here too. You know what? What stupidity mean is that millions of creatures with different structures just came from a worm that happened by luck and chances through amino acids that came out by chance again by getting in right(!)order by unexplained randomness and blind watchmaker and again amino acids dropped down by chemical rains from planets which we do not know how the planets came out. The story goes on like this and never ends.

I've run my answer through an automated translater a few times, in the hopes that you'll understand it:

If you have changes, it realizes that this is actually observed. And that you have no clear concept, is the interpretation of the remarks.
In addition, during your training in itself, perhaps a little easier cosmology. Perhaps phyics.

I notice your comments are slightly more lucid of late, any reason for that?

326. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171976 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 4:00 am

Adam Morrison: A friend of mine is doing her MA in Primatology now and was studying Oragutans for a while and apparently some females have been seen using smoothed and blunted sticks to ... uh... pleasure themselves (ie. a dildo)

The important question is whether they found this on their own, or if they were mimicking?
Would teaching that sort of behaviour to another species be considered ethical? :-)

327. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171970 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 3:48 am

decius: Why would Jesus disrupt the law of physics and use supernatural powers to talk inside your head, but would not answer prayers of worthy people in distress, or save dying children, or heal them from horrible chronic diseases? Don't you think you are indulging in a very self-centered view of the world and an obscenely arrogant one?

Kardshovel's "god" appears to be capricious and selfish *edit: much like the usual one really*. If I've read his posts right, god (Jesus?) contacted him so that Kardy could help it come about in some way.
Sound about right Kardy?

328. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171850 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 12:10 am

kardashovel: a) Know about people and events that I had previously never witnessed or heard about. (Weakness: perhaps I simply forgot about learning of those things, or overheard them while focusing on something else).

So can we discount this as evidence for?

b) Predict the details of my future experience, weeks after the conversation.

Did you write down the details of the conversation, and then check back on it weeks later, or were you relying on your memory of the conversation?

Edit, addition:
c) Out think my conscious mind in terms of quickness and understanding, while requiring no discernible processing power, and leaving my conscious mind free to converse and ask questions that it answered on-the-fly.

How do you know that?
Perhaps your mind simply made up the memory of the conversation post-hoc?

329. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171846 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 11:49 pm

setex01: as much as one would like to be "not alone" in this awful world populated by people deluded by wishful thinking RE "evolution" and other sacred oxymorons .... this cute orang hutan is not using the stick as a PROJECTILE but as a HITTING TOOL ... (see the water splashing up along the linear path of the stick hitting the water?) which is an old hat! So sorry .... but you are all DELUDED!

So you didn't read the later part:

Although the method required too much skill for him to master, he was later able to improvise by using the pole to catch fish already trapped in the locals' fishing lines.

It may not be using it in a thrusting manner in the photo, but it seems it did successfully use the pole as a food gathering tool.
You think one of our ancestors simply picked up a long stick, sharpened one end and thrusting it into the water, caught some fish?

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

Comment #171843 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Brian English: Tosswad (as you said I could call you) you're probably right, but in any case I was just having fun with Goldy, hence my stultifying explanation of Emus. ;)

I thought you were being serious. Emu's are funny and stupid :-)

331. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171836 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 10:53 pm

clearmind: Do you believe in God or Allah or Yehowah?
Or Do you believe in any creator?

I see you again are using generic terms - "god" "allah". Why do you capitalise them?
And you're stuttering again - "god or allah" is the same as saying "god or god". The added redundancy is certainly not needed.
So your question asks whether I believe in Yahweh or some generic gods?
No, I don't believe in Yahweh due to it's contradictory nature and the contradictions in the books supposedly inspired by it.

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

Comment #171832 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 10:41 pm

Brian English: Goldy, that's teleological. ;)
I mean, they didn't loose their wings because they needed them? :P
It's hard to explain evolution without implying a reason behind it.

How about:
They lost their wings (or ability to fly) because it didn't confer an advantage (wasn't needed) in their current environment (eating stuff on the ground, with few to no predators to escape from) yet still used resources (calcium for bones, protein for muscles, energy etc).
Those which had smaller (or less functional, different, whatever) wings required less food to survive (or were stronger on the same amount of food) and therefore more likely to survive, mate etc etc.
Reasonable?

333. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171824 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Kardashovel: That depends on what you mean by worship. My feelings of awe and wonder at the majesty of the world are the same before and after my conversion. My specific feelings about God obviously changed... I doubt that most theists would consider my activity to qualify as worship (although I have great reverence for God and His plan).

I was going to ask you what reason there could be to help this future cosmic god thing out, but I think you've answered it there - you agree with it's plan.
Did this being reveal the whole of the plan to you, in broad brush strokes or did you deduce much of it?
How do you know this being wasn't being duplicitous in order to fulfill some other agenda, something you wouldn't have reverence for?

el Heffe, you're assertions seem to be based upon ignorance regarding the theory of evolution, and have been addressed by previous posters.
Is there something specific which bothers you about the theory of evolution? Something you feel is simply wrong or impossible?

txpiper, looking forward to that evidence supporting your global flood hypothesis

334. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170925 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:31 am

Steve, point taken.

Happy discourse all. Bed time

335. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170913 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:20 am

Steve Zara: My point is... who are you (or I) to tell anyone else to leave this site? It isn't yours (or mine).

Well, to be a pedant, I said I'd ask him to leave

Nuff said. I'll get more sleep in future

336. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170907 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:14 am

Steve, not meaning to be a pain, but I seem to be a tad pedantic at times.
Saying "I'd like you to behave in this fashion for dialogue, if you don't I'll politely ask you to leave" is surely no more than a warning that something like:

You could say "I wish you would go away", but that is it.

will be forthcoming?

EDIT: I'm unfortunately sleep deprived again, so my thinking may be a little sloppy at this time

337. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170904 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:11 am

el Heffe: Where did the first cell come from?

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

338. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170900 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:10 am

el Heffe: I am here looking for answers, not to read you all squabbling about who gets to kick the religious folk off.
anyone,
anyone?

No one here can actually "kick you off". Simply use the filter controls to mark your posts.
What questions do you have?

339. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170896 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:07 am

My statement may have come across as a little too authoritative, as if I was speaking for the web site, which obviously I'm not.

Was trying to simply set the tone, or something :-)

340. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170893 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 6:04 am

Steve Zara: With respect, you shouldn't really ask this. It isn't your website.

The most you should threaten is for you to ignore or troll the person.

Surely I can ask him to leave, and would definitely ignore his posts afterwards?
I can't make him leave, or cancel his account, but I can request he stop polluting the thread and go elsewhere, if that is what he's doing.
I know it's not my website, but I'm not sure why that means I can't make a request of another poster?

341. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170889 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:59 am

Note, el heffe and shinewithjoy. Due to the influx of drive by posters like yourselves, we've instituted a three strikes you're out rule. You've got 3 chances to indulge in some rational conversation, after which you'll be summarilly dismissed, and your posts ignored.
el Heffe, you're on you're last warning, so please ask or answer a question. There are plenty to choose from.

342. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170888 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:57 am

el heffe: 1.There is an article at the top of this page.
2.I have read the article.
3.I thought we were discussing the article.
Perhaps I missed the point of commenting?

What parts of the article would you like to discuss. What do you take exception to?

343. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170887 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:54 am

melissa1234: Sin entered the world through the deception of Satan to Adam and Eve.

Presumably that means sin is satan's fault and curse. Why is mankind afflicted with it? Wa satan doing the bidding of Yahweh, as we see in the book of Job?

344. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #170884 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 am

shinewithjoy: If it took millions of years for snakes to develop legs, why haven't we found thousands and thousands of half developed legs on snakes? And how would half developed legs help a snake in the first place; wouldn't natural selection cause them to die off because added appendages cause an extra burden to carry?

Would you care to discuss the evidence for and against your assertions?
How do you think ID answers these questions?
Do you think Yahweh created animals and man fully formed, from dust?

345. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #170883 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:51 am

shinewithjoy: Micro evolution is a fact; everyone knows that. However, I don't believe fish became birds. How come we don't see thousands of fossils with "half-wings" on them? I don't see how they would have benefited an animal anyhow. Same with the eye. You can't have half of an eye that functions. How would all the proteins randomly appear into any eye? It just doesn't make sense to me.

You bring up some interesting cases of evolution. Would you like to discuss the evolution of the eye? Or perhaps the wing?
If not, what are you doing here?

346. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170881 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:49 am

el Heffe: Tyler
Clearly it wasn't you!

Excellent, I think the conversation is underway. El heffe, you've removed Tyler Durden as a candidate for this mysterious designer. I'd like to remove myself as well, as I honestly don't have it in me.
That leaves quite a few candidates however, so if you could help out a little, that would be grand.

347. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170877 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:47 am

el Heffe: Tyler,
Clearly it wasn't you!
If you read and have any way of understanding such a simple post, no scientific method needed here, you would see that Mark Mathis was trying to make a point in not allowing PT in but allowing all of his friends. But once again RD does not see the intelligence behind the prank.

You'll have to excuse me, I'm sometimes a little slow on the uptake.
Do you actually have a point?
Again, would you like to discuss the movie, Dawkin's response, evolution, ID?

The question goes to you too, shinewithjoy. If you're simply here to post foolish statements which you think make you look clever, then I'll politely ask you to leave.

Thanks

348. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170859 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:30 am

el Heffe: RD says he finds it ironic that his friend was "expelled" from "Expelled". Clearly this was a mistake, maybe it was an idea formed on the backs of crystals, or in some mud, or maybe from an alien.
The real irony here is that once again RW fails to see the Intelligent Design of the expulsion.

It seems you've come here from the expelled site. Would you like to discuss ID or evolution? The expelled movie or Dawkins' letter above?

Why did you come here and ridicule something you don't seem to understand, speaking about crystals and aliens?

EDIT: Did you post here to do anything other than gloat?

349. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170855 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:26 am

Tyler Durden: Are we to assume that Jesus could allegedly walk on water, rise from the dead, and ascend bodily into heaven - but couldn't teleport around the Earth to announce his existence?!?!

Superman did it in "Supeman II" - teleport, not ascend bodily into heaven :)

Superman's powers are obtained from our yellow sun - Jesus can't match that.
Plus, the miracle things were a little over blown. No walking on water - just falling into a fountain while tanked.
Ascending to heaven? A bit too much weed that day.
Rising from the grave? Was a trick his mates played on him for his bucks night. Those guys were crazy

350. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170845 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:09 am