“Science is, I believe, nothing but trained and organised common sense, differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only so far as the guardsman’s cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club.”
Nothing but trained and organised common sense, the way Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), defined science.
Yet, 200 years after Darwin’s birth and 150 after he published The Origin of Species, more than 5.5 billion of the world’s population still believe in the superstition of a god (mostly spelt as a matter of utmost respect with a capital G), a supernatural being who can intervene in their lives and knows what each and everyone of them are doing and thinking at this very moment.
More than 5.5 billion of Homo sapiens, said to be the most advanced of all species on Earth, leaving their brains at the church door, at the entrance to the mosque, at the temples of a myriad of gods. And despite Darwin they continue believing in what A.N. Wilson called the greatest wild goose chase in the history of humankind, the quest to find God/god.
My only New Year’s resolution for 2009 will be to counter this superstitious belief in a mythical God, counter it with knowledge, more exactly, scientific knowledge, to try and get people to think like scientists, to act like scientists, to give rational thinking their highest priority, even if the crutch of leaning on their god is discarded and falls along the way. If people using their brains for once can understand that “It is not so much knowledge of science that the public needs as a scientific worldview – an understanding that we live in an orderly universe, governed by physical laws that cannot be circumvented,” as Robert Park wrote in Voodoo Science – The Road From Foolishness to Fraud.
Huxley further emphasised, “The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.”
If you are one of those more than 5.5 billion people who in the year 2009 still lean heavily on that God-crutch, I have compiled the following list of God antidotes. The only by-effects will be a clear mind, rational understanding of the principles of science based on verification, and, hopefully, the permanent release of the fear of death, the devil and hell. (But don’t bet on it).
1. Charles Darwin – The Origin of Species
2. Richard Dawkins – The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life
3. Christopher Hitchens – God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
4. Steve Jones – Almost Like a Whale
5. Ernst Mayr – What Evolution Is
6. Richard Feynman – The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
7. John Allen Paulos – Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up
8. Lewis Wolpert – Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief
9. Carl Zimmer: Evolution
10. Michel Onfray – In Defence of Atheism
11. Daniel Dennett – Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
12. Steven Mithen – After the Ice: A Global Human History (20,000-5,000 BC)
13. Peter Watson – A History from Fire to Freud
14. Jared Diamond – The Rise of the Third Chimpanzee
15. Richard Fortey – The Earth: A Intimate History
16. Carl Sagan – The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
17. Michael Shermer – Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
18. Pascal Richet – A Natural History of Time
19. Simon Singh – Big Bang
20. Robert Park – Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud
George wrote:
“If people using their brains for once can understand that “It is not so much knowledge of science that the public needs as a scientific worldview – an understanding that we live in an orderly universe, governed by physical laws that cannot be circumvented,” as Robert Park wrote in Voodoo Science – The Road From Foolishness to Fraud.”
I will give my total support to this objective. I can only add that it has been my resolution ever since i was able to get the god shit out of my head: not because i care much about what people believe but because i care what they think and because i would love to live in a world where only reason is used as intellectual currency.
The most important thing for me is to look for and often find and eradicate some bullshit ideas that still linger in my head. If people can learn to think, to question, not only the godbots and the ideas of those who hold irrational ideas, but also the idiocyncracies of some of the authors that you quoted, and many others, it will be a great world.
Comment by Objective — January 8, 2009 @ 12:44 pm |
Objective wrote: “If people can learn to think, to question, not only the godbots and the ideas of those who hold irrational ideas, but also the idiocyncracies of some of the authors that you quoted, and many others, it will be a great world.”
Yes, these authors are not gods or their ideas cast in stone. The fact is that because they think scientifically, they – and I – know that our perspective on the existing knowledge may change as we get to know more. That is the strength of rational thinking based on scientific verification: that we may doubt without feeling that we have offended some holy sacrament or god.
It will be good if you could add similar books you feel any godbot can benefit from to open his or her mind. Such a list is always incomplete and even dangerously so, and always subjective.
Comment by George Claassen — January 8, 2009 @ 2:13 pm |
And even with all the horrible hatred that Dawkins, Hitchens, Zimmer and the rest of the people on your list say and publish about Christians, and God, we still care enough about your soul to continue to be your punching bags, is that not love or what? I don’t go around saying that anyone that is atheist, or evolutionist, is morally bankrupt or intellectually dishonest. I merely say that once you are willing to come to terms with your denial of sin, that you can start to understand the grace that is Jesus. Now who sounds more ‘rational’, the one spewing hate or the one at which it is directed?
Comment by mcoville — January 8, 2009 @ 3:51 pm |
“[H]orrible hatred,” mcoville? Really? Where’d you get that idea? Clearly not from having read any of those authors you so accuse.
As for people’s “souls” (whatever that might be), they’re just as illusory as is your god and your implied claims to superior goodness.
And what is “sin” in the absence of your supposed god and your ostensible saviour? In some cases it is just another word for misbehaviour and in others for nothing at all. Also, in case you missed the news, your Jeeebus is dead.
Atheists still sound more rational. They don’t argue from unsustainable premises whereby they arrive at even less sustainable conclusions.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 8, 2009 @ 4:34 pm |
Is there any reason why Dawkins’ The God Delusion is not included in your list? Not that anything’s wrong with your list anyway.
Comment by lennymaysay — January 8, 2009 @ 6:37 pm |
mcoville wrote: “And even with all the horrible hatred that Dawkins, Hitchens, Zimmer and the rest of the people on your list”
Prove it please, or are you just making stuff up? Does your Bible not say you should not falsely accuse someone?
Comment by Renier — January 9, 2009 @ 6:40 am |
“At a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell.
Comment by Objective — January 9, 2009 @ 9:01 am |
Thanks for the list, but if the books are not read with the correct attitude, I am afraid not many will be converted.
Even reading the daily newspapers with the correct mindset will cure the god superstitions. Just yesterday in a local paper a person cured through an operation praised god. Why?
Did god allow him to become ill in the first place? Or was it the devil?
Why allow someone to become ill, just so that you can hear his “Thank you’s” once you cure him? And if he does not thank god, god sentences him to eternal damnation? Sounds a bit like hitting your dog and if he does not keep on wagging his tail, you shoot him.
Learn to start asking the right questions – activate your BS detector when you read.
Comment by Johnman — January 9, 2009 @ 9:48 am |
Johnman wrote: “Thanks for the list, but if the books are not read with the correct attitude, I am afraid not many will be converted.”
Agreed. Is it not amazing how the parasitic memes they love so much skews reality for them, so much so that they reject reality for the simple reason that they have to assume their God is watching them? And yet they think they know it all.
Comment by Renier — January 9, 2009 @ 1:36 pm |
I question the ability of these people to critically read anything! Most are used to reading thier holy book and then to having the preacher/priest/imam provide them with a explanation/interpretation that fits or backs their life views. Critical thought that comes from questioning and reading often appears to be a step too far.
This quote says it much better than I can “Reason is, of all things in the world, the most hurtful to a reasoning human being. God only allows it to remain with those he intends to damn, and his goodness takes it away from those he intends to save or render useful in the Church . . . If reason had any part in religion, what then would become of faith?”
Comment by Ian — January 9, 2009 @ 2:22 pm |
I highly recommend this Carl Sagan interview:
Comment by McBrolloks — January 9, 2009 @ 10:11 pm |
In this new year, and in the spirit of Sapere aude (or as George puts it #2: ‘…our perspective on the existing knowledge may change as we get to know more’), I add a list of alternative views written mostly by scientists.
1. Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow
2. Buried Alive by Jack Cuozzo
3. Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe
4. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton
5. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells
6. Thousands not Billions by Donald DeYoung
7. In Six Days by John F. Ashton
8. The Design Inference by William A. Dembski
Ps. Off the point, but thought you might find the following interesting too …
9. How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not). (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, October 28, 2008) ISBN 1933859849
Kind regards.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 4:06 am |
1. Marvin L. Lubenow is a professor of bible/apologetics, not a scientist.
2. Jack Cuozzo is an orthodontist and a young earth creationist, not a scientist.
3. Michael J. Behe is a professor of biochemistry and an ID creationist.
4. Michael Denton is has a PhD in biochemistry and has since distanced himself from his earlier work and creationists.
5. Jonathan Wells has PhDs in religious studies and biology and is an ID creationist, not a scientist.
6. Donald DeYoung has a PhD in physics and is a creationist.
7. John F. Ashton has degrees in science and philosophy and is a young earth creationist.
8. William A. Dembski has PhDs in mathematics and philosophy and is an ID creationist.
None of them enjoy the support of mainstream scientists.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 7:10 am |
Mooi gesê, Con-Tester! Ag ja, in ‘n ander konteks – om hierdie in konteks te bring – sou mens seker ook ‘n lys van titels deur sg wetenskaplikes/historici kon neerpen wat ‘n alternatiewe [sic] blik op die Nazi volksmoorde werp ..
Comment by Karel de Pauw — January 12, 2009 @ 7:21 am |
CT, hope you have a good 2009.
As stated in #12, the listed material is “…written mostly by scientists”. The first two are laymen (as were a number of significant contributors to the Evolutionism / ID hypothesis), professionals who have dedicated most of their time to investigating these fascinating areas of science.
Ps. Listing the word ‘creationist’ or ‘ID’ next to a scientist’s name is irrelevant, it does not make him a ‘non-scientist’ (Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Donald De Young, John Ashton).
Regards.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 7:45 am |
Re DJ Short #12 and Con-Tester #13:
The only “scientist” in DJ Short’s list is Michael Behe, a devout Catholic and father of NINE children. Randy old godbot that he is.
A young female PhD student, Abbie Smith, shot the central argument in Behe’s latest book “The Edge of Evolution” down in flames: Behe claimed that HIV should have been subject to evolutionary changes in the time that we have been observing it, but had not undergone any. Ergo, evolution is falsified.
Abbie pointed out the evolutionary changes that had actually occurred – but “accidentally missed” by Behe. http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/05/repost_ervs_dubutante_post.php
Behe still does not admit his mistake (and the invalidity of the whole argument made in his book) – like any good godbot he merely issued a “notpology” on his blog and put his fingers in his ears, singing “Nananaaah I can’t hear you!”
Comment by Hendrik — January 12, 2009 @ 7:51 am |
Karel de Pauw wrote (#14 or thereabouts):
Indeed, and some have. Michael Shermer devoted an entire chapter to them in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things.” Also, the Nazis had some weird cosmological ideas. For example, they vigorously defended Hans Hörbiger’s decidedly idiotic Welteislehre/Glazial-Kosmogonie (World Ice Theoy/Glacial Cosmogony).
D.J.Short wrote (#15 or thereabouts):
Thank you, and the same to you.
D.J.Short wrote (#15 or thereabouts):
A couple of things. First, science will always have a small residue of rogues who, for various reasons, wish to upset the apple cart or upstage their mentors. This is actually a good thing because it tests the robustness of extant scientific thought. There are even “scientists” who passionately deny relativity in favour of the Newtonian formulation. Second, creationism and ID are not scientific or part of any area of science, fascinating or otherwise. Both ideas fail on an essential criterion, namely falsifiability.
D.J.Short wrote (#15 or thereabouts):
No, it isn’t irrelevant. Doing so alerts one to a certain possible slant in their agendas or to vested interests, just as does the association many of them have/had with the Discovery Institute (DI) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Mainstream medical journals increasingly demand that authors disclose their source of funding when reporting on clinical drug trials in order to avoid vested interests influencing the findings and to enhance diligence. The basic problem these authors that you have listed have is that they cannot put up a proper scientific argument in the arena where these things should be discussed, namely in journals and symposia. Instead, they put the fight before the court of popular opinion, an act of cowardice that always ends in trouble all around.
D.J.Short wrote (#15 or thereabouts):
In and of itself, agreed. Nor did I say or imply such a thing.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 8:23 am |
Hello Hendrik. In our last exchanges of 2008, you suggested that I was an American, probably had no children, linked me to a cult, and suggested that I should go and !@#@@!! (something about masturbation).
Hendrik, I don’t need to point out that your findings related to my heritage and family status were greatly exaggerated. I discussed your outburst (sexual advise) with my wife and she said that your remarks reminded her of of the little Afrikaans boys who lived across the road who used to bliksim anything they did not understand … I had to agree with her, but was alarmed that not only did you display similar behavior when facing alternative viewpoints, a number of your fellow ‘bloggers’ patted you on the back.
The basic problem with those kids across the road Hendrik, was their distinctly underdeveloped emotional Quotient or EQ. To explain this concept to you, I shall quote from an article on BNet:
Compelling evidence recently has surfaced, leading scientists to believe that Einstein’s superior intellectual ability may have been related to the region of his brain that supports psychological functions. In other words, according to Newsweek science reporter Steven Levy, “When it comes to appreciating the most famous brain of our century, it ain’t the meat – it’s the emotion.”
This new evidence is no surprise to those behind the latest rage in corporate competence – the idea of emotional intelligence (EQ) as a counterpart to intelligence quotient (IQ). Nor is the concept of EQ totally new to successful global communicators, many of whom have refined their emotional and communication competencies to a fine art.
What’s new is the recent identification of these skills under the singular phrase “emotional intelligence,” with an accompanying scientifically based, systematized approach to personal development that’s rapidly attracting attention within corporate and organizational settings today.
Research shows that emotional intelligence may actually be significantly more important than cognitive ability and technical expertise combined. In fact, some studies indicate that EQ is more than twice as important as standard IQ abilities. Further, evidence increasingly shows that the higher one goes in an organization, the more important EQ can be. For those in leadership positions, emotional intelligence skills account for close to 90 percent of what distinguishes outstanding leaders from those judged as average.
What is known about emotional intelligence today is grounded primarily in psychobiology and modern neuroscience. One of the first to point out the distinction between intellectual and emotional capacities was a Harvard psychologist named Howard Gardner, who introduced his theory of “multiple intelligences” back in 1983. His research identified seven kinds of intelligence – including math and verbal abilities – as well as two personal varieties he called “knowing one’s inner world” and “social adeptness.”
“Emotional intelligence,” as it is referred to today, was formally conceptualized in 1990 by Jack Mayer, Ph.D. – now a psychology professor at the University of New Hampshire – and Peter Salovey, Ph.D., a psychologist at Yale. But it wasn’t until Daniel Goleman’s first book, “Emotional Intelligence” – and his expanded perspective on EQ competencies and capacities in his second book, “Working with Emotional Intelligence” (1998) – that emotional intelligence theory was actively applied to the mainstream business world.
Ps. Hendrik, your profiling methods are clearly unscientific – as was your advise (of a sexual nature). My wife recommends that you need help and suggested you read up on Dr. Ruth’s personal website: http://www.drruth.com. Needless to say, I concur.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am |
Actually, Hendrik (#16 or thereabouts), several of them have held academic posts, as a series of Google searches will reveal — some at seminaries and diploma mills. But let’s not quibble and generously acknowledge that academia (or residency at research institutions) is a valuable ingredient for making a “scientist.” I don’t know their full publication histories (nor am I much inclined to find out), which, if devoid of articles in respected and peer-reviewed journals, could spell the difference between “scientist” and “non-scientist.”
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am |
I agree with Huxley’s statement “The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification”, and I also agree with DJ Short on EQ. It seems that many on this blog has been, and some still are, victims of religion. Religion has destroyed free thinking and faith alike. If you cannot verify the validity of creation, have you tried the other bits (99% of the bible) before dismissing it? In the same breath do we accept what is taught in faith as law, or do we verify it as truth?
The Universe has laws and chaos alike(we can explain biology but not behaviour – we can only theorise on behaviour). We don’t use faith to explain chaos away, but rather to make order of chaos that should cross our way. So by now you know that I’m a Christian and I believe that all Christian’s can benefit from being a bit of an atheist! If God is truth then truth will justify itself and can be verified. The problem is that Christian belief is not manifested and thus holds no more value in society.
In conclusion my belief is that one cannot be whole by knowledge/understanding alone (as per DJ Shorts comments) – we have another dimension of our being to satisfy in the same way our natural mind has to be satisfied and that is our soul (or call it whatever you like). Einstein in my opinion understood this.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 12, 2009 @ 9:33 am |
#20 Goed gestel LC.
I would like to add, Christianity that is religious has nothing to do with the truth. True believers walk the truth, and it is a lifestyle that is not a respecter of person, ritual, or tradition. LC, I think we understand totally why Skeptics think of us as lowly as they do – and can one blame them? On the whole, the traditional church (and evangelical) have been poor witnesses to the truth.
On another point raised, one can think of a number of great Scientists of the 19th and 20th century who understood that it is both possible (and necessary) to believe, and uncompromisingly research the boundaries of science in order to have a complete understanding …
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 10:01 am |
That’s the essential difficulty well illustrated right there. You believers will say anything, no matter how preposterous, to preserve the respectability of your delusion. First, find out what the word “truth” actually means and how it is usually arrived at before attaching it to fanciful notions. Then we might have a fruitful engagement instead of bickering over nonsense.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 10:23 am |
CT, I am in a good place right now. I am speechless. Thank you.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 10:53 am |
Forgive my ignorance Con-Tester. Please explain to a lay man how one arrives at truth.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 12, 2009 @ 11:53 am |
D.J.Short wrote (#23 or thereabouts):
Your sardonic wit notwithstanding, always a pleasure to help.
L. Cilliers wrote (#24 or thereabouts):
Your sardonic wit notwithstanding, ignorance itself is not an offence, only the denial thereof, especially in the light of . As for how one arrives at truth, the best method that we know of is through evidentiary validation, as exemplified by the scientific method. Wishful thinking, flights of fancy, imagination, supposition, conjecture, armchair philosophising, etc., while all of these can extend the scope of investigative initiatives, the ultimate arbiter of truth is concordance, or not, with observable reality itself. If something has no demonstrable real-world referent, it cannot qualify as truth, nor legitimately labelled thus, except perhaps in the imaginations of the wilfully obtuse. I’d’ve thought that was palpably obvious.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 12:24 pm |
Ooops! “… especially in the light of superior knowledge.”
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 12:26 pm |
Con-Tester – I’m not sure why all the sarcasm is necessary. I wasn’t being sarcastic or trying to mock you (if it came over that way I apologise) – this is my first time on this forum I though you guys were involved in a discussion that anyone could join in on (ie BLOG). Thanks for clearing up the definition though.
Can we step away from Creationism for a second and focus on what faith is about – LIVING. You say that for something to be true there has to be evidence for it, and one should be able to demonstrate it. Can things like love, forgiveness and faith be scientifically explained, measured or demonstrated? Help me with a criteria for this and maybe I can explain or demonstrate the truth of our faith.
Thanks for challenging “us believers” to think about what we believe.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 12, 2009 @ 12:44 pm |
L. Cilliers wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
It isn’t, but I don’t get why you are now implying that I was being sarcastic – I wasn’t, though I did think you had been in a mock passive-aggressive way. Oh well, we were both wrong.
L. Cilliers wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
Yes, that’s what sometimes happens, and anyone can chip in. Mostly, however, we get comments from people who have no real interest in discussing anything. They’re much more concerned about pushing one or other worldview.
L. Cilliers wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
Sure, but let’s get one thing straight from the start: a person does not need religious faith in order to live a full life (or otherwise).
L. Cilliers wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
To some extent through various models, mostly neuroscientific, but there are still certain pieces missing from a complete and satisfying picture.
L. Cilliers wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
Yes, absolutely. Think about it. There are clear and unmistakeable ways for distinguishing the real thing (love, forgiveness & faith) from a mock-up, as well as functional criteria for identifying each of them.
L. Cilliers wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
De nada, as long as you really do think about what you believe and, more importantly, why you believe what you do.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 1:20 pm |
CT, I milled over an appropriate response to your point on truth and wrote down my answer a few times – without submitting. I decided to shut up instead.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 1:28 pm |
Thanks for the input CT. I agree with you and I will not try to put my worldview on anyone, especially on issues of faith. I disagree on the point of having a full life though, but my departure point is not acceptable in a scientific sense – that is that I have a soul/spirit(which cannot be demonstrated or proved) that must also live and grow – so there is nothing further to add in this sense.
In the end one can only demonstrate it to those you come into contact with. Once you put it on paper, argue about it or try to convince someone of it – it has alreay become meaningless.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 12, 2009 @ 2:07 pm |
D.J.Short wrote (#27 or thereabouts):
Besides giving me the possibly mistaken impression that the above is overly contrived, perhaps even manipulative, it is relevant exactly how? And to what?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 2:22 pm |
L. Cilliers wrote (#30 or thereabouts):
Colloquially, that stance is referred to as “begging the question” – i.e. assuming something to be true in order to show that it is true. Can you name just one thing (other than religious faith itself) that a believer can enjoy or achieve that is denied the unbeliever? Have you ever tried living a life in the absence of such faith? How many atheists do you know well on a personal level?
Demonstrability is certainly not limited to the scientific domain. We use it every day ourselves. If someone tells you that aliens have landed in Peru and are crossbreeding with llamas in an endeavour to take over the winter coat trade, you’d think they were telling tales and then demand proof if the teller insisted, wouldn’t you?
L. Cilliers wrote (#30 or thereabouts):
And that observation doesn’t make you wonder at the validity of those concepts? It very much should, you know.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 2:38 pm |
I would like to ask D.J.Short a question about the list of books and authors you posted.
Do you believe in creationism?
Do you believe the earth is about 6000 years old?
Do you take the bible literally?
Do you believe in ID?
Comment by McBrolloks — January 12, 2009 @ 3:53 pm |
I have a great speech by Hitchens, highly recommended.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 12, 2009 @ 4:15 pm |
Faith is not about LIVING only though, but also about DEATH. In particular, everlasting life after death. Without this metaphysical carrot, I suspect few people would be willing to do the donkey work of staying on the proverbial straight and narrow all their lives.
Many believers have been asked to prove the existance of their god. As an atheist, I propose an alternative challange, prove there is life after death. With proof, there will be ample reason for me to look for ways to also get a ticket to heaven. The reward will justify any sacrifices I might have to make.
Comment by Lobo — January 12, 2009 @ 4:59 pm |
Lobo wrote (#35 or thereabouts):
The facts do not support this contention. No statistically significant differences in morality have been found between believers and atheists. In fact, among US prison inmates, the religious outnumber the atheists quite a lot more heavily than in the general US population, which seems to indicate either that religious believers are easier to apprehend/convict, or religious belief can in certain people contribute to a predisposition towards criminal behaviour. Logically, the latter makes sense because one of the things religions do is to divide the world into black and white, morally: if you’re not for me and my god, you’re against us.
Lobo wrote (#35 or thereabouts):
Proof of life after death is insufficient to establish either the existence of a heaven or hell, nor that religious believers’ alleged requirements for entry into heaven are accurate. Consider, for example, the Buddhist conception of life after death as ongoing reincarnations in various form, as necessary for the individual to learn certain universal lessons or truths.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 12, 2009 @ 5:28 pm |
I stand corrected.
But to be immortal (everlasting life) would suggest some help from a being that is itself immortal.
Comment by Lobo — January 12, 2009 @ 6:07 pm |
McBrolloks, your question #33 refers. My answer to your 3rd question (Do you take the bible literally?) is yes! This should answer any other question that you have.
Mc, would you mind answering a question too? Do you believe that, when your child tells you that he or she loves you, you are just listing to a heap of matter that is but a product of chance, having evolved from rock over billions and billions of years?
Comment by D.J.Short — January 12, 2009 @ 6:57 pm |
Lobo #37
“But to be immortal (everlasting life) would suggest some help from a being that is itself immortal.”
Not necessarily. Life may be a process that requires process and something to process.
Or perhaps it is, in fact, something that is added (the X factor), somewhere along the line, to inanimate matter?
Comment by Objective — January 12, 2009 @ 7:31 pm |
Thanks D.J. Short. That does answer all my questions.
To answer your question, it looks like you stated the answer you expect to hear from me, which is: “Do you believe that, when your child tells you that he or she loves you, you are just listing to a heap of matter that is but a product of chance, having evolved from rock over billions and billions of years?”
If you mean: “do I believe in evolution?” the answer is yes, evolution, is something I believe in.
To get back to your answer to my question, taking the bible literally, well, I have trouble sharing your point of view. Because if that book was written word for word by a god, then I can deduct from reading that old book, that that god is not a very nice being. Not the kind of creature I would bend my knee for.
What about all the raping and genocide and murders and cannibalism and war all committed directly by god’s orders? How literally should that be taken? And if god did order those deeds, well, I will run till I can’t run anymore from a monster like that.
Good thing is, I am not afraid of the dark, or ghosts, or spirits or gods, because those things were invented by man and the stories have been told from generation down to generation. And it is all nonsense.
ps: Why didn’t you include that book called the Bible in your list of reading material? If that is gods true word, he “qualifies” as a credible source, like someone who can be called a scientist, right?
Comment by McBrolloks — January 12, 2009 @ 8:50 pm |
Thanks Mc. But you did not answer my question. All you said was that you believe in Evolution – that was not my question. Please read it again – carefully. In so much as my answer was a very personal one, I’m trying to understand how you perceive situation as in #38.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 13, 2009 @ 4:31 am |
D.J.Short #38
“Do you believe that, when your child tells you that he or she loves you, you are just listing(sic) to a heap of matter that is but a product of chance, having evolved from rock over billions and billions of years?”
Once again: the concept “belief” has nothing to do with it.
A product of chance? Surely. That is how evolution functions.
Evolved from rock? I am not aware that “rock” features anywhere in Darwin’s or anybody else’s writings as the source of life. But then perhaps you are reading creationist versions of existence and the theory of evolution…you know …god and the dust/mud thing.
I think when your child tells you she loves you she is nothing more than a collection of very carefully and wonderfully arranged chemicals.
I also think that people’s acceptance of the ghost stories of the creationists is naive in the extreme and god as a writer sucks big time: she should take some lessons from Con-Tester.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 5:20 am |
Objective #38
“I think when your child tells you she loves you she is nothing more than a collection of very carefully and wonderfully arranged chemicals.”
Thanks Objective. I find your description intriguing: “…carefully and wonderfully arranged”. We are in total agreement. Objective, the amazing thing is that one does not have to give too much thought to it – when you look and listen to your child, ones’ understanding and perception is instinctive. This is why my question was on a personal level. Thanks for your honesty.
Encarta Dictionary English (UK and US)
Carefully: watchfully; with awareness; vigilantly; with care; tenderly;
Arranged: agreed; given; approved; pre-arranged; smart; orderly; efficient; precise
Comment by D.J.Short — January 13, 2009 @ 6:00 am |
DJ Short,by admitting to McBrolloks’s question about believng literally in the Bible, it also means you believe the Earth is nly 6 000 years old and the Universe the same.
Do you live in the 21st century or in the Middle Ages. Have the findings and discoveries of science, proven by independent verification over years,no value to your closed-minded clinging to a belief in a god for which there is no iota of evidence for his/her existence?
DJ, you really need a baloney detector and need it switched-on. Your one life is being wasted by burying your head in that old and anacronistic holy book. Look around you, for crying out loud, and observe the Universe that has developed over more than 13 billion years, proven and factually found a sound calculation by scientific experts.
And yet, you still believe in a book that was written by a group of ancien Middle Eastern patriarchs who believed in repressing women, stoning adulterers and gays, etc. etc. Astonishing!
Comment by George Claassen — January 13, 2009 @ 6:09 am |
McBrolloks “What about all the raping and genocide and murders and cannibalism”
In the bible I’ve not come across God ordering any raping or cannibalism. As far as the wars of the old testament, are they any different in your sense of understanding from any other nation of that time?
Now let’s look at the New testament verses, can someone quote any raping, genocide, murders or canabalism there?
I do agree that a lot has been done in the name of God, but nobody around was questioning those actions because nobody was verifying it against the word of God. We have a super continent that also claims at times to do things in the name of God, but I’ve not come across scripture that supports this claim.
“Faith is not about LIVING only though, but also about DEATH. In particular, everlasting life after death. Without this metaphysical carrot, I suspect few people would be willing to do the donkey work of staying on the proverbial straight and narrow all their lives.”
I agree that many churches use the gates of hell as their departure point. Trying to sell heaven as the alternative to death. Faith is living without the fear of death, it’s not about death at all – it’s what we do on earth while we are here. Also, being on the straight and narrow will definately not get you into heaven(even the old testament where the law operated tells us this), only the accepting what God has done for us can get you into heaven. Again these perceptions about faith and God are not based on His word, so these deductions are based on hearsay or some sect doctrine I would assume.
“Many believers have been asked to prove the existance of their god. As an atheist, I propose an alternative challange, prove there is life after death.”
Ok, I accept this challenge – proving it might take another 50 years though!
Con-Tester wrote “And that observation doesn’t make you wonder at the validity of those concepts? It very much should, you know.”
My point is that you have to experience it to know it is real. Knowing & understanding can happen on a soulish or spiritual level. Soulish means that we can comprehend it, spiritual means we can experience it, and understand on a deeper level. So if you want to know if the bible is the truth, try it by experiencing it(looking for a church is not the same as looking for God). In Malachi the Word challenges us to test to see that what is written is the truth (regarding giving). In the new testament Paul gives praise to those churches that tested all that was preached against the Word of God – to not accept it just as God. So to answer your question I continually seek to verify it, but on all levels of being.
On the other point, I have had a close friend for many years that is an atheist , but this type of relationship could not progress beyond platonic – but it was very interesting and entertaining if that is what you look for in relationships.
“Can you name just one thing (other than religious faith itself) that a believer can enjoy or achieve that is denied the unbeliever?”.
Other than a relationship with God(which is the message of the bible), I would say love, forgiveness, correction, resurrection, the power of God. Some might consider love & forgiveness universal, but faith is knowing & understanding what godly love and forgiveness is.
Objective wrote: “I also think that people’s acceptance of the ghost stories of the creationists is naive in the extreme and god as a writer sucks big time: she should take some lessons from Con-Tester.”
If you take out creation(like you would take out a piece of a puzzle that you don’t understand yet), what other ghost stories don’t you believe.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 13, 2009 @ 6:25 am |
D.J.Short #43
“Thanks Objective. I find your description intriguing: “…carefully and wonderfully arranged”. We are in total agreement.”
Are we? YOu focus on the term “arranged” and automatically assumes *someone* did the arranging. If you are in agreement with me do you also accept that evolution, working by means of natural selection, produced us all?
” Objective, the amazing thing is that one does not have to give too much thought to it – when you look and listen to your child, ones’ understanding and perception is instinctive.”
Really? That is fascinating. How is it instinctive? Do you also understand Russians and Chinese children?
I think one has to give a lot more thought to it than you do. In fact, it is precisely your assumption of *thoughtless functioning* as a valid means to knowledge that compels your desperation.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 6:26 am |
Hi George. A few questions:
1. Please indicate where the Bible stipulates an age for the earth / universe.
2. Over the past hundred years, scientists have aged the earth more often then some might change their underwear. Do you feel that 13 billion years is the right answer? If so, how was it determined.
3. A word on the Skeptics’ Bible. When Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he had little idea or understanding of the composition and function of cells. The word often used by him and his piers was protoplasm (or similar terms). Indeed, Darwin also admitted that he had no understanding of the origin of life. Yet, on a hypothesis without foundation, thousands of believers flocked – building hypothesis upon hypothesis, all resting on an unproven, shaky foundation. Is this science?
4. The Big Bang is all but a whimper. Another unproven theory where the original hypothesis has largely lost support. It could be said that cosmologists are more willing to honestly ask the tough questions and accept the answers… Why do you think Biologists are afraid to ask though questions?
5. What is a baloney detector. I note that it is a device advertised regularly on this blog. How does it work?
Comment by D.J.Short — January 13, 2009 @ 6:54 am |
L. Cilliers wrote (#45 or thereabouts):
Personal experience and testimonial is just about the worst kind of “evidence.” It is subjectively appraised against a background of pre-existing expectations, biases and other experience. These are well known facts from psychology and neuroscience, as is the human brain’s adeptness at confabulating. Sorry, but your point falls flat, especially when it comes to such an important question. If someone tells you that a tree in their garden speaks to them about Nietzsche but that you have to experience it to understand it, you’d no doubt soon dismiss that person as deranged.
L. Cilliers wrote (#45 or thereabouts):
Only if “soul” and “spirit” are merely synonyms for some aspect, part or facility of the brain. If you’re arguing for some intangible quintessence, you have a heavy burden of proof to shoulder.
L. Cilliers wrote (#45 or thereabouts):
I have and I found it deeply troublesome. Later, I dumped the whole idea as ludicrous, depraved and perverse.
L. Cilliers wrote (#45 or thereabouts):
“Verify” clearly only insofar as you count the hits and ignore the misses. When good stuff happens, your god did it; when bad stuff happens, it’s not your god’s doing. Tell me this: Exactly how is an alleged omnipotent uncaused first cause creator-of-all god not ultimately responsible for everything, good or bad?
L. Cilliers wrote (#45 or thereabouts):
Please explain to me how an atheist cannot experience these things.
L. Cilliers wrote (#45 or thereabouts):
Resurrection is a biological impossibility. Ask several billion dead people and an even greater number of dead animals. If you mean “spiritual” (whatever that might be), you’re not saying anything meaningful in the absence of proof for “spirit”/”soul.” As I indicated above, the “power of God” is a subjective appraisal and there’s no evidence for the existence of your god so experiencing his/her alleged “power” is a clear case of all round circular reasoning: assume this god exists and is powerful to experience his/her power to prove that s/he is powerful and exists. Weak, man, very weak.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 7:00 am |
Con-Tester, you believe in macro evolution, but have not proof to show me. Yet you believe with such strong fervor.
You believe in the big bang, but have no proof to show me. Yet you believe in equal measure.
The Christian believes in an almighty God who created you in His image, but he can not prove it to you. Yet his belief is unshakable.
The Christian believes that the universe, the earth and all that lives, was created by God, but he can not prove it to you.
Sounds like you both have a belief system. The difference is that the one accepts that his belief is based on faith, while the other is in denial.
Comment by Delve — January 13, 2009 @ 7:22 am |
Con-Tester – Looking at your comments I’m reminded of my days programming where the computer would go in a loop because it does not understand div/0(which is mathematically correct but still the CPU cycles through trying to calculate). In this discussion soul and spirit as are assumed to be 0 because we don’t have a known scientific measure to proof it yet, that’s why our arguments are looping all the time. So the question then would be if we could proof that there is a soul and spirit, how would we proceed from there?
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 13, 2009 @ 7:23 am |
Delve, thanks for the insight! Not believing is a believe system.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 13, 2009 @ 7:30 am |
Objective, DJ Short also pointed out your use of the word “carefully” in “…carefully and wonderfully arranged”. Your words Objective!
That would imply some form of intelligent input, would you not agree?
Comment by Delve — January 13, 2009 @ 7:53 am |
Ag neef Delve, hou tog asb op om jou onkunde so ten toon te stel en jouself belaglik te maak.
Oor die oerknal – gaan lees gerus ‘n goeie boek oor astronomie. Oor makro-evolusie, dieselfde. Ek’s seker George, Objective, Con-Tester ea kan jou ‘n paar goeie skrywers aanbeveel. Ek ook maar soos jy tekere gaan – en dit geld ook vir neefs Short & kie – klink dit nie of jy regtig sou belangstel en liewer wil sit en raas en kafpraat. Maar as jy mooi vra sal ons jou dalk probeer help.
Comment by Karel de Pauw — January 13, 2009 @ 8:30 am |
D.J.Short wrote (#47 or thereabouts):
You should read more than just made-up creationist drivel that you then embellish and attempt to sell as truth. These straw men that you parade and then attempt to incinerate are very tatty.
D.J.Short wrote (#47 or thereabouts):
You really should read more than just made-up creationist drivel that you then embellish and attempt to sell as truth. These straw men that you parade and then attempt to incinerate are very tatty.
D.J.Short wrote (#47 or thereabouts):
Whatever gives you the idea that biologists avoid tough questions? Just because their answers don’t agree with these infantile preconceptions you hold so dear?
Delve wrote (#49 or thereabouts):
You should read more than just creationist drivel.
Delve wrote (#49 or thereabouts):
You really should read more than just creationist drivel.
Delve wrote (#49 or thereabouts):
Ho hum. So, once again we’re faced with the derisively idiotic claim that science is “just another religion.” You really, really should read more than just creationist drivel.
L. Cilliers wrote (#50 or thereabouts):
And reading your comments, especially the one above, reminds me of how ready believers are to make stuff up as and when it suits them. First off, division by zero is never allowed in mathematics – the operation is simply undefined. Second, computers from the earliest ones onward (remember the 8088? The 8086? The AT?) had a dedicated hardware interrupt (IRQ) specifically for (integer) division by zero. Some BIOSes would simply reset the instruction pointer back to the divide instruction when the interrupt was triggered but all operating systems (OS) that I know of hooked the interrupt and handled it. These days both the CPU and the FPU are still thus endowed, and the interrupt, when it occurs, is called an “exception.” The CPU wouldn’t do any kind of looping unless the OS handled the interrupt in such a way that it would just keep retrying the operation until doomsday but I don’t know of any OS that was designed in such a way – or any systems architect who would even consider such a stupidity.
L. Cilliers wrote (#50 or thereabouts):
No, you cannot even legitimately make that claim because “0” is a meaningful, precisely defined concept (quite apart from its membership in an axiomatic formal system), unlike “soul”/“spirit” about not much can be said except that the words seem to resonate (hollowly) with some people.
L. Cilliers wrote (#50 or thereabouts):
No, they are “looping” because your OS keeps resetting your instruction pointer to the offending divide instruction instead of alerting the user that the programme is buggy.
L. Cilliers wrote (#50 or thereabouts):
Why, we would examine those things carefully to establish their relevance and to gain a deeper understanding! What we would not do is immediately accept that all of the other attendant religious baggage is also valid. These, too, will require separate validation but we certainly would need to take such claims slightly more seriously.
L. Cilliers wrote (#51 or thereabouts):
To borrow a suitable response, just like being bald is a hairstyle, yes?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 8:38 am |
Devision by zero is not allowed – that’s what I said. The computer should not understand it (maybe I expressed myself incorrectly).
Basic/Qbasic did not have exception handling because it was running in kernel mode (ie code is not checked by CPU) operating at Ring 0 of the CPU. To handle exceptions you had to write your own exception handling per instruction. Ring 3 operands are required for exception handling which is what made Windows SO popular for development. I can send you my Windows 95 book and you can read up more about this. Even though x86 cpu had primitive exception handling interrupts, they could not predict if code would execute a loop.
CPU, FPU and any processor can still be put into a loop with a /0 instruction, depending on what level the code is executed.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 13, 2009 @ 11:00 am |
DJ Short #asked five questions, all showing his immense ignorance (that’s why I published this list of 20 books which I thought could help you, Delve, L. Cilliers, and other people who have never even visualised the possiblity that science, with all its evidence, may just be more right than your belief system (with absolutely NO evidence).
1. Please indicate where the Bible stipulates an age for the earth / universe.
DJ,the Bible may not stipulate it, but since Soapy Sam Wilberforce in the 19th century, you creationists have made calculations that the earth could only be 6000 years old, taking Genesis as your basis. And this is strongly and regularly supported by literalists believing every word in the Bible to be the words of God. Just watch channel 341 on DStv to see how American ministers progate this and fume against an old earth and universe. So, please,don’t suddenly distance yourself from the only book you take as a valid explanation of how the Eearth and Universe came about – despite the findings of science.
2. Over the past hundred years, scientists have aged the earth more often then some might change their underwear. Do you feel that 13 billion years is the right answer? If so, how was it determined.
That is exactly the strength of science, that it rectifies mistakes as technology improves. To be exact, scientists calculate that 13.7 billion years can be more or less correct. This is determined with highly sophisticated instruments. Please go and read Carl Zimmer’s excellent article in National Geographic magazine of September 2001: “How Old Is It?” He explains in detail the measurement yardsticks and methods.
If science was once wrong, it does not mean it is always wrong. We have moved on and our knowledge have improved. Scientists don’t stick to a theory becuase they like it. They change it when they find that they were wrong. Why do you people accept sophisticated scientific developments and instruments that can enhance your life (the glasses or contact lenses you wear, the pace-maker of your heart, the hearing-aid, the Viagra to raise your cock, the blood pressure machines, the pathologist’s analysis of your health) but when it comes to findings that can endanger your mythical god, as propagated by the Bible, you suddenly reject it?
3. A word on the Skeptics’ Bible. When Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he had little idea or understanding of the composition and function of cells. The word often used by him and his piers was protoplasm (or similar terms). Indeed, Darwin also admitted that he had no understanding of the origin of life. Yet, on a hypothesis without foundation, thousands of believers flocked – building hypothesis upon hypothesis, all resting on an unproven, shaky foundation. Is this science?
Yes, it its science. Read my answer to question 2. Darwin formulated his theory in 1859. That is 150 years ago. Since then we have discovered many facets (genetics, for example) that Darwin did not know about. Again, that is the strength of science, that it continuously seeks to understand he world better, that it adapts when new information and discoveries come to light. Just look at what we now know about human diseases since the mapping of the human genome in 2001. Modern genomics change our world. Do we have to reject, like you, any new discoveries made, because it contradicts pevios theories? Then Einstein would not have been accepted because Newton was totally right. We now know Newton was an absolutist (as his religious views also show) and that Einstein fround him wrong in some instances.
4. The Big Bang is all but a whimper. Another unproven theory where the original hypothesis has largely lost support. It could be said that cosmologists are more willing to honestly ask the tough questions and accept the answers… Why do you think Biologists are afraid to ask though questions?
No, it is not a whimper. You are clearly not informed by scientists, but by creationists and by people who fear that god may indeed be the figment of humankind’s imagination. Why do you think the possibility that South Africa could get the new radio telescope (MEERKAT) in the Karoo could be such an immense achievement? Because it will open up more knowledge about the beginning of the Universe. Like the Hubble Telescope did since 1990. Just read one book to inform you (it is on the above list of this post): Simon Singh’s Big Bang. Or are you afraid to read any of these listed books? Are you a man of one book, as Thomas Aquinas warned: “Hominem unius libri timeo.” (”I am afraid of the man of one book”).
Can you really afford to be a man of one book in the 21st century, DJ? And you L. Cilliers and Delve?
5. What is a baloney detector. I note that it is a device advertised regularly on this blog. How does it work?
DJ, read book number 16 on the above list: Carl Sagan – The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. And get yourself such a baloney detection kit, the protective instrument against being misled by preachers, pseudoscientists, psychics, Scientologists, Mullahs who promise paradise and 70 young virgins to gullible suicide bombers, and all sorts of other nonsense.
You can start with the list above. Read those books and then come back to debate us. It’s very difficult to debate anything with ignoramuses.
Comment by George Claassen — January 13, 2009 @ 11:31 am |
I feel offended by your reference to: “Mullahs who promise…” Have scheduled meeting at 19h00 with Judicial Council to discuss holding you accountable for your blasphemous utterances.
Comment by Delve — January 13, 2009 @ 11:58 am |
L. Cilliers wrote (#55 or thereabouts):
No, you didn’t. Go back to your comment #50 (or thereabouts). There you will find what you actually wrote. It reads, “the computer … does not understand div/0(which is mathematically correct…).” Now, division by zero is, as I pointed out, never allowed in mathematics so how, please, can it be “mathematically correct?” Or do you mean that it is “mathematically correct” that the computer can’t do division by zero?
L. Cilliers wrote (#55 or thereabouts):
That’s totally irrelevant. The OS would get the interrupt first and handle it, unless the programme simply installed its own interrupt handler. MS-DOS would simply terminate a program with a runtime error if it caused a divide-by-zero interrupt. QBasic was interpreter-driven, not compiled, so the problem was the interpreter programme. Exception handling is in any case a protected mode extension to the IRQ-based error alerting methodology in protected mode.
L. Cilliers wrote (#55 or thereabouts):
Only if the protected mode OS code which, as you point out, runs in Ring 0 has been so badly written that it will not handle CPU faults. I think you’re confusing hardware design with what software does on it. The hardware gets the error notification first and hands it in a predefined way to a piece of software for handling. That piece of software’s function can be arbitrarily defined by the systems programmer. The CPU/FPU doesn’t “check” any code before running it or “predict” what it might do, whether in Ring 0, a call/far jump/interrupt gate or in Ring 3. What the CPU/FPU does is to generate specific faults (interrupts in real mode) as they occur in the code. When a fault occurs in practice, the state of the CPU is saved (usually on the stack), and the CPU is re-vectored to fault-handling code, invariably OS code. I’ll refer you to Frank van Gilluwe’s excellent book “The Undocumented PC” as well as the technical manuals from Intel and AMD that describe the process in detail across the entire spectrum of CPUs from the 8088 to the current spate of multi-core processors, including the 64-bit models. The only big difference in the way error handling happens in hardware occurred with the introduction of the 80286, which was the first CPU that could be switched to protected mode.
To test your theory that “[the CPU] can still be put into a loop with a /0 instruction,” I suggest you write a small kernel driver that forces a divide-by-zero error upon being loaded into memory. I guarantee you that you’ll get a blue screen of death on MS Windows with a divide-by-zero error message. (NB: Flag the driver as manual load, though, because if you don’t it’ll load automatically on start-up and effectively render your PC useless.)
Delve wrote (#57 or thereabouts):
Ah, yes, when reason fails, resort to intimidation. That is the way of the ignorant fundamentalist who likes to pretend that his/her god and religion are about peace, love and harmony.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 12:57 pm |
If, on the other hand, Delve, it’s a joke, you’re a very sick person and need some serious help.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 1:02 pm |
Delve #54
“Objective, DJ Short also pointed out your use of the word “carefully” in “…carefully and wonderfully arranged”. Your words Objective!”
Yeh my words and i chose them specifically because i knew you or some other religious arsehole would focus on them and make the suggestion you made in the following line.
“That would imply some form of intelligent input, would you not agree?”
No i do not agree. the terms do not imply some form of *intelligent input* – YOU read that in the concepts. Nature took 3.6 billion years to put humans on this planet. If you dont consider that careful …and then you dont think humans are wonderful creatures? [ <-- another word for you to select.]
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 1:12 pm |
“Over the past hundred years, scientists have aged the earth more often then some might change their underwear. Do you feel that 13 billion years is the right answer? If so, how was it determined.”
George has given a very good reference to read Zimmer’s article in National Geographic, and how science quests to find more information. But you know DJ Short; the determination of the age of the Universe is far from final. (Cosmologists need more underpants!). And with the many cosmological models around, which figure is correct? (The age of the Universe, I mean). You guys don’t get it, do you? Science tries to describe Nature; you have already described her. But only through accepting an ancient book written by ancient people. No questions asked, and no additional information allowed. Any god around should take your brains away. (But again, perhaps there is nothing to take away).
Comment by Savage — January 13, 2009 @ 1:28 pm |
Delve wrote: “I feel offended by your reference to: “Mullahs who promise…” Have scheduled meeting at 19h00 with Judicial Council to discuss holding you accountable for your blasphemous utterances.”
Delve, so you will follow the route of threats if your reiligion is exposed as not really based on facts? Is that how you debate? By threatening? And what are you going to tell the Judicial Council? That these promises are not made to young, vulnerable people? Why would anyone fasten a bomb around his middle and intend blowng innocent people to smithereens – and him or hrself – if something in the hereafter is not promised? Do you really think the 19 hijackers would have flown those planes into te Twin Towers and the Pentagon without a definite belief in the promise that they will be compensated for their “heroism” in the afterlife? Come again!
One question: would you be prepared to do that? If not, why not? Or are you too afraid that there may be only darkness after the bomb has torn up your flesh? Why, if you believe in it so strongly, don’t you take the chance for God or Allah?
Comment by George Claassen — January 13, 2009 @ 1:44 pm |
Delve #57
“I feel offended by your reference to: “Mullahs who promise…” Have scheduled meeting at 19h00 with Judicial Council to discuss holding you accountable for your blasphemous utterances.”
Dont you want to sue me too??? I have long had this incredible desire to have a godbot taking me on in court…we can even have the press cover the case and broadcast it to the nation….please please… what must i do??
Jesus is a bastard..his dad screws jewish virgins!!
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 1:44 pm |
D.J Short wrote: “On another point raised, one can think of a number of great Scientists of the 19th and 20th century who understood that it is both possible (and necessary) to believe”
Really? Necessary? Pray tell. What did their belief have to do with their scientific discoveries?
l.Cilliers wrote: “Can we step away from Creationism for a second and focus on what faith is about – LIVING”
Faith is the acceptance of things when there is a lack of proof. Your “living” might be influence by such acceptance of things without proof but it does not mean your acceptance of things where there is a total lack of evidence leads you to knowledge. In short, faith does not lead to knowledge. Why? Because the opposite of faith is doubt. To believe in god or to doubt his existence. Doubt leads to questions and investigation where faith is the acceptance of things without investigation. Since god cannot be investigated it requires faith to believe he is real. Since doubt is the enemy of faith is comes as no surprise that the Christian religion opposes doubt, for if you doubt you do not have faith, and faith is required to enter into heaven, according to the Gospel of John. Therefore, the Bible says that doubt will lead you to eternal punishment. Now, to me, if anything prohibits doubt, then it is afraid of doubt and probably hiding something, such as that it total bullshit.
L. Cilliers wrote: “Can things like love, forgiveness and faith be scientifically explained, measured or demonstrated? ”
Yes. First off, love is regulated by hormones. Low oxytocin levels for instance and a mother will reject her newborn child. We can in fact manipulate the feelings of love in people by chemical interference. There are various factors, all natural though. Forgiveness is a human action, an action that originates from a human’s brain. Without humans, there would be no forgiveness as we experience it. We can monitor the brain to see what areas light up for different emotions, and probably contrast forgiveness and vengeance in this way too, by looking at what parts of the brain are involved in such emotions. Faith can easily be demonstrated to be real. Tell a child there are fairies in the garden and watch them run out to see the fairies. Some grownups show this same blind trust in authority and their acceptance of such things are still called faith, same as the child’s. However, I should note. Abstract things such as faith and forgiveness are not tangible things and therefore we don’t observe them by interacting them with matters, like we do with electrons and neutrons. Just like ideas, abstract things are the outcome of certain matter (brain) and thus not tangible, although we can observe their effects. Forgiveness would have an effect, causing a person to not retaliate for instance. Faith has affects, just look at all the shrines we call churches today. But with God? No effect we can measure or observe and the times we tried, nothing, like the experiment on prayer for heart patients.
L.Cilliers wrote: “Thanks for challenging “us believers” to think about what we believe.”
Pardon me for doubting your sincerity in this case. It’s nothing personal, just based on my observation of how religious people deny reality. Once faith is understood as a meme, a replicator that inhabits people, then perhaps the religious will see it for what it really is. However, should a person be honest enough to entertain doubt, there is hope.
Lobo wrote: “Faith is not about LIVING only though, but also about DEATH.”
Yes, the thing the death cultists so love to threaten us with. God’s cosmic spitbraai with us as the main course.
L.Cilliers wrote: “In the bible I’ve not come across God ordering any raping or cannibalism. As far as the wars of the old testament, are they any different in your sense of understanding from any other nation of that time?”
God did order murder, at least. Yes, very much the same as all other wars, yet some people think these wars were special because they were commanded by god, and thus divine. So not so much difference between normal human actions and divinely inspired actions after all.
L.Cilliers wrote: “Now let’s look at the New testament verses, can someone quote any raping, genocide, murders or canabalism there?”
Jesus said, take this bread.. my flesh… blah blah blah. The Catholics even believes the bread turns into Christ’s flesh, once eaten. Yuckie! “Umh, Padre, I’ll have some tomato sauce with my Jesus today!”
L.Cilliers wrote: “I do agree that a lot has been done in the name of God, but nobody around was questioning those actions because nobody was verifying it against the word of God.”
The murdering of children as commanded by god IS in the “word of god”. And think about it. A couple of kids do what kids do and tease an old man for his baldness. What does god do? Yup, two bears tear the kids apart. Cool god eh? We call such action by humans pshycotic, but when the Christian god does it, it is all holy and divine. People should not praise in their god what they would hate in themselves.
L.Cilliers wrote: “We have a super continent that also claims at times to do things in the name of God, but I’ve not come across scripture that supports this claim.”
So, are you saying the Old Testament is not accurate, as far as the mass murders commanded by god go?
L.Cilliers wrote: “only the accepting what God has done for us can get you into heaven”
Do you not see how stupid this really is? Would you torture your children in everlasting fire if they did not love you? No? So, that makes you a better being than your god.
L.Cilliers wrote: “My point is that you have to experience it to know it is real. ”
Yeah, I heard LSD users say the very same thing. L Clilliers, what you experienced is probably real as far as the experience goes, but so is a person experience that hears voices in his head. The subject of experience is under question here, not the experience itself. To hear a voice is real, but did the voice come from outside your head? We know our brains play tricks on us. I remember the night I started talking in “tongues”. I even “heard” a wind and even convinced myself I might he felt it. But I failed to realise nobody else heard the wind and that it was in fact wind still that night. So was the wind real or in my head, aka, imagination. We see kids imagining things and then believing it is real. You think adults like yourself are immune to such self-deception? You are not.
L.Cilliers wrote: “Knowing & understanding can happen on a soulish or spiritual level.”
What is the soul or spirit? What does it do that the brain does not? Proof please.
L.Cilliers wrote: “but faith is knowing & understanding what godly love and forgiveness is.”
Godly love? Eternal torture in fire by those who do not bow before the pompous god? Love and the Biblical god should not even be mentioned on the same page, they are very different. But then, we know the Adam and Eve myth was based on an earlier Sumerian myth. See Gilgamesh.
Comment by Renier — January 13, 2009 @ 2:00 pm |
Delve wrote: “feel offended by your reference”
Why, your god not capable of feeling offended himself? Besides dude, if you *want* to feel offended, then feel free to feel offended. Fortunately you do not have the right not to feel offended. But go ahead, stroke it, that persecution complex, I know you want to.
Comment by Renier — January 13, 2009 @ 2:02 pm |
Delve, you and your council chinas need to organise a death sentence fatwā against these people first before taking on George. After all, they expose your god’s deeply hateful message of murder and torture of the infidel, as given in the Qur’an.
But, as said, if you were joking, you’re a thoroughly sick individual.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 2:20 pm |
D.J.Short wrote:
“”Thanks Mc. But you did not answer my question. All you said was that you believe in Evolution – that was not my question. Please read it again – carefully. In so much as my answer was a very personal one, I’m trying to understand how you perceive situation as in #38.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 13, 2009 @ 4:31 am “”
Your question shows that you know nothing about evolution. Why should I get into a discussion about evolution with you? People who practice a lack of thinking like you do, wants god’s trademark on everything in the universe you find wonderful, and put the devil’s trademark on everything you find horrible. Just because you can’t explain something does not mean some god or devil did it.
But you guys go even further. You try your best to shoot science down, so that your mighty god can get all the credit for all of creation. I say fine, take the credit, nobody cares what you think. But stop getting in the way of science and stop brainwashing children with your bullshit.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 3:02 pm |
I love the way most of the posters here like to label anyone with a different view wrong, so narrow minded of you.
I love the way that evolutionists like to fall back on “are they peer reviewed?” in regards to someones status as a scientist. Don’t you find it irrational to ignore someones scientific work because a bunch of mainstream evolutionist scientists won’t agree with them? Its a rigged deck and at this moment evolutionists hold all the cards in academia. Maybe if atheist evolutionists would be more open minded they may see that there may be other ideas out there besides just their own.
Just because the majority think one thing does not make it true, maybe if you would think for yourselves you may find the truth.
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 4:20 pm |
Gentlemen, please lets stop the remarks related to Delve’s last statement #57.
Although most (if not all) of the points raised on the issue of violent fundamentalism are valid, I can see nothing good coming from pursuing this topic.
Discretion is likely to be the better part of valor. Thanks.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 13, 2009 @ 4:51 pm |
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
You will, I hope, agree that it’s more sociable and polite than simply labelling them “dolts,” “morons” and/or idiots, yes? And how is that narrow-minded?
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
That’s because the peer review process is an integral part of the scientific method of accumulating knowledge. It has an eminently proven track record, one that stands in diametrically opposed contrast to the religious process that demands one believe indefensible twaddle based on nothing more than the “authority” and hallucinatory “revelations” of a bunch of smoked up Bronze Age goatherds.
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
Not in the least. If someone’s work has scientific merit, it will be recognised, even if it takes some time to get there.
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
… but anyone can play, provided they have the appropriate ante.
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
Yes, and for good reason. Their hands trump all the others factually.
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
It’s hardly an inability to recognise the presence of other ideas. It’s that those ideas cannot withstand close scrutiny. And maybe if those oh so convinced that they know better actually understood the scientific game properly, they too might have something to say that’s worth listening to.
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
True enough as a general rule, but when the overwhelming majority of experts in a specific field are largely agreed on the basics, the layman would do well to accept their verdict as authoritative. Evolutionists do not debate whether evolution is true; they debate how it proceeds.
mcoville wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
Whose “truth?” Yours? The bloke’s at the corner selling apples and cigarettes? The Chinese chambermaid’s? See, thinking for oneself is desirable and worthy, but distorting the facts in order to fit them to some preconceived worldview, well, that is the pastime of smug, self-limited ignoramuses.
By the way, are you going to answer the questions posed to you earlier?
D.J.Short wrote (#69 or thereabouts):
What, and let the fundies get away with such unmitigatedly churlish behaviour? As Jefferson once sagely quoth, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 5:01 pm |
mcoville #68
“Just because the majority think one thing does not make it true, maybe if you would think for yourselves you may find the truth.
You mean like you think for yourself in your #3 above?
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 5:33 pm |
Isn’t science just grand? No god had a hand in this. 100 million times the resolution of previous variants, and still not a sign of any god or devil. Isn’t science just grand?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 5:33 pm |
Mcoville, all the points raised by your are reasonable and true.
I really do look forward to seeing the screening of the soon to be released full-length documentary ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ (directed by Nathan Frankowski and written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein). Mcoville, it touches on the very behavior of segments of the science community toward entertaining different ideas that you elude to. It was the #1 documentary in the USA for 2008 (and is currently being distributed in SA on DVD), and is reported as having contributed toward changed perceptions in both the legislator and the classroom.
The Issue covered by ‘Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed’(extract from their official web site).
Why is debate being suppressed?
At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:Knowing this – should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3: Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” looks to scientists on both sides of the issue…and reveals some truly shocking answers.
Mcoville, note how they will move to discredit the documentary before it is even launched in local cinemas. They will refer to failed US law suits (without mentioning that the they were failed) aimed at stopping the distribution of the movie, they will lie in an attempt to discredit the producers, and they will say that scientists were misquoted. Be prepared by reading up on the off-set drama that occurred in the USA as evolutions scurried around in their usual attempts to silence dissident views.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 13, 2009 @ 5:52 pm |
D.J.Short wrote (#73 or thereabouts):
Yes. Because science is evidence-based and there is no, zero, zip, nada, zilch evidence to support other views. That’s why such appeals are repeatedly turned down by courts of law.
D.J.Short wrote (#73 or thereabouts):
Go on, be honest and admit that you can’t provide a shred of evidence for either of these two preposterous claims.
D.J.Short wrote (#73 or thereabouts):
No. And nor should theology or religion, which is a special dispensation the latter always insist on for themselves.
D.J.Short wrote (#73 or thereabouts):
If something is “beyond the limits of science itself,” you’ll find very few scientists voicing purportedly definitive opinions on it, unlike just about every cassock-pisser and self-appointed religious authority who has no qualms about pronouncing effusively on how the world actually is. The funny thing is that whenever science turns its penetrating gaze on some or other object of investigation, it habitually strips away layer upon layer of bullshit. Most annoying, that.
D.J.Short wrote (#73 or thereabouts):
You really should stop making things up, especially when they are so transparently ridiculous. Maybe you’re too tired to heed your crony’s advice to think for yourself. S/he forgot to mention that an important part of such an endeavour is to examine the plausibility of the premises from which such thought proceeds.
Oh, and here’s a review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by Roger Ebert, eminent US film critic. Note that he’s not an “evolutionist” and assesses the film’s content by way of an analogy with entertainment media.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 6:29 pm |
DJSHort #73
“Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge,…”
I doubt, for some reason, your ability to willfully generate, such hermetic generalisations and therefor assumes, that you copied it from someone else, who similarly preferred to remain vague and perhaps deliberately obtuse for the sake of his readers.
I shall refrain from asking that you afford “the enterprise of science” the same courtesy that you demand for your religious drivel….
I shall not enquire whether you would demand that the pronouncements of science and its practitioners should be accepted on the same basis as the utterings and pronouncements of Christians, Muslims and other idiots.
What I do wish to enquire from the learned D. J. Short and/or his informant is the following (trivial) bit of information that is alluded to but not addressed explicitly in the quote that I refer to in this post:
What “..other forms of human knowledge,…” are you/your informant referring to?
“…. and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry,…”
Now this “special priviledge” bullshit again has me baffled….: you mean that *onus of proof* thingie??? or are you referring to the evidence shit that they always insist on??? and the “robust debate” thingie…you mean like when someone stands somewhere high and shouts: “are you saved? are you saved?” and everybody lower down shouts ” we are saved!! praise jesus fucking christ!!!!”
are you referring to that kind of robust debate or what???
“….especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?”
Again this “larger issue” bullshit that you sneak in as if it is clear as shit to everyone reading it (of course it must be to most rahgb’s – they are so amenable to the aroma generated by godshit) has me confused… “it extends beyond the limits of science”…now perhaps you almost revealed….damn it was close… but science of course works way beyond the limits of religion and any and all godshit already and you did say you wanted equal treatment for both huh????
What are you suggesting? I am really confused….are you selling your soul to the
devil or are you asking the devil to sell his to you? One thing i must concede: when it comes to bullshitting nobody, but nobody can beat a preacher or a reborn christian…only difference is that the reborn is a bigger pain in the arse the second time around.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 6:37 pm |
and you should be in bed getting a good nights rest instead of wasting your breath on assholes like short et al like i do.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 6:39 pm |
Just shows you how stupid some of these guys are. Anybody who uses “Expelled: No intelligence allowed” as a source for anything but a perfect example of the dumbest movie ever made, it just as stupid as Ben Stein.
The title says it all: “No intelligence allowed!!!”
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 7:07 pm |
Was this the film that scientists were interviewed under false pretences? One who made these claims being Richard Dawkins! The one where P Z Myers was refused entry in spite of his being one of the scientists interviewed in the film? The film where the schools were offered a minimum of $5 back for each ticket stub of students taken to see the film returned?
Comment by Ian — January 13, 2009 @ 7:07 pm |
Con-Tester is a prime example of whats wrong with atheistic evolutionist, in response to my post that the majority opinion is not always correct you said “True enough as a general rule, but when the overwhelming majority of experts in a specific field are largely agreed on the basics, the layman would do well to accept their verdict as authoritative. Evolutionists do not debate whether evolution is true; they debate how it proceeds.” do you not see how irrational your response is?
The majority of experts taught the world was flat, the majority of experts taught the cell was the smallest unit in life, the majority of experts taught the earth was the center of the universe, the majority of experts taught that man was descended from a rock (oh wait, they still teach that one).
It is ok to listen to others and agree with their knowledge once you have examined the evidence and came to your own conclusion. In post #3 I stated information I learned from others, examined for truth and then came to my own conclusion, this is called thinking for myself. Con-Tester you have demonstrated no ability to think for yourself, try it sometime… its fun
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 7:15 pm |
D.J.Short: As I am not a big fan of documentaries I can not comment on Expelled and it’s level of filming I can say that it does give you an opportunity to hear several scientists on both sides of the debate in their own words. I love it when Richard Dawkins admits that life could have been created by a designer, as long as that designer was an evolved alien.
Of course most people on this site will say the pro-ID scientists are all quacks, but thats no surprise, even though they held (or currently hold) positions at universities and degrees just like their evolutionist scientists. I recommend watching it, I even own it, but take note on who said what and know that there has been a lot of research put into the film and what they are talking about is factual.
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 7:20 pm |
Ian, yes, that’s the movie.
Micheal Shermer was also interviewed, he wrote about it in Scientific American. Lets just say he doesn’t think much of Ben Stein or his movie.
PZ Myers was shown away at the box office, by a security guard, and escorted of the premises. You can find the link to watch the whole debacle on Youtube. The kicker is that Richard Dawkins was with him at the movie theater, and they didn’t recognize him, so he went in to watch the film.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 7:41 pm |
For more info on that stupid movie:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 7:45 pm |
mcoville #79
“It is ok to listen to others and agree with their knowledge once you have examined the evidence and came to your own conclusion.”
Evidence…evidence??? examined? truth?
yah well no fine.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 7:48 pm |
PZ was sent away because he did not have an invite. Besides he was in the movie and his words was all we need to see. There are two sides to every story, ha
ha 
thats the theme of the movie 
McBrolloks: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ (see we can post links to
)
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 7:50 pm |
Objective wrote (#76 or thereabouts):
I assume that was directed at me. You have a point, but I find this both curiously entertaining and restful at the same time.
mcoville wrote (#79 or thereabouts):
No, I don’t. Please explain it to me. I’m sure that others would also be keenly interested in your explanation.
mcoville wrote (#79 or thereabouts):
Science has been wrong on several things in the past and will no doubt continue to err. However, it is its nature self-correcting. Perhaps you missed that part. That would be the part where your straw men have been shredded by improved knowledge arrived at by other, later scientists. Moreover, you should compare the number of times scientists have been right when public opinion was against them to the number of times the converse occurred. Thus, your argument is risible. It’s a piss-poor joke.
mcoville wrote (#79 or thereabouts):
Agreed, as far as this is possible. But some issues far exceed our individual capacity to assess the evidence correctly because we do not possess the appropriate expertise. I repeat: when the relevant experts are largely agreed, the layman will be well advised to pay careful attention.
mcoville wrote (#79 or thereabouts):
I’m sure you believe that on no good evidence except that the assertion makes you feel good. Much like many other things you believe, I expect.
mcoville wrote (#80 or thereabouts):
And – Shock! Horror! Alas! – the entire evolutionist lobby has conspired against them, either consciously and deliberately with malice, or because they’re dullards. Have you any idea how idiotic your implication is?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 7:52 pm |
The thing that really gets me is that every person I have ever encountered who believes in ID, is also a big time bible thumper.
ID is always followed by god this and god that. This is what the bible says etc etc etc.
All ID supporters have a religious agenda. ID has nothing to do with science, it is just religion.
People who say: “We have to teach other theories as well in the science class!”, well, NO, ID is not a theory, it is an ideology, a religion, definitely not science. Keep it out of science classes. Teach it in religious studies if you want it taught anywhere.
And to say evolution is just a theory is wrong too. You fundies love that line. Evolution has a lot of facts. Science does not know 100% of the facts, but the facts that are known are not disputed. ID is 100% unadulterated bullshit!
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 7:54 pm |
Don’t get me started on creationists. Definitely the dumbest theory I have ever heard. Any adults who believe that crap must have some kind of virus of the brain.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 7:57 pm |
McBrolloks #82
Thanks for the ref. but as you pointed out in #77 the title says it all.
These people, including the likes of DJ Short, Mcoville and other creationists who frequent these pages are desperate for anything that can possibly aid their quest for a weakness in science and the scientific method.
They have no evidence for their beliefs and must of necessity attack human knowledge and man’s ability to know – they have nothing else you see.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, these people hate man and life – they need to vindicate their belief that man is inherently evil, and that he cannot know and they are prepared to throw even their pretence at decency, morality, honesty, love, etc. into the pot as long as it serves their end.
This is clearly demonstrated by D.J.Short and others who spread lies and use deceit in the name of truth and love for mankind.
You know what is worst? They know it and they hate themselves for knowing it.
I am living proof that there is no god: if such a fuckhead wanker lived she would have struck me dead eons ago.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 8:01 pm |
at mcoville # 84
First of all, Myers was chucked out by a security guard.
Secondly, it wasn’t because he didn’t have an invitation, people were allowed to buy tickets to enter.
Thirdly, give me a single credible scientist who gave a favourable review about the movie: “Expelled: No intelligence allowed.”
Fourthly, I am glad for you that you can also post links here. Congratulations!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 8:05 pm |
Objective, yes, you are right. And these guys all sound like a broken record.
I have another name for Expelled: No intelligence allowed.
How about: God-did-it: No science allowed.
Imagine if we lived in the 1600’s. They would just find out who you were, and take care of you. All in god’s name. Nothing like a good old fashioned witch burning to get closer to god!
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 8:14 pm |
McBrolloks: I could give you “credible scientist”s names but you would say “they are pro ID so they don’t count”. But if you really want one there is Dr. Michael Behe.
Con-Tester: your argument (notice I don’t call them strawmen like you would) of improved knowledge does not work. Before the majority of scientists knew the world was round it was taught in the Bible, Isaiah 40:22. Before scientists knew that blood was the life force of the body the Bible did, Genesis 9:4.
We are not getting smarter, we are only learn slowly what the Bible knew in the beginning.
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 8:15 pm |
Con-Tester #85
“I assume that was directed at me. You have a point, but I find this both curiously entertaining and restful at the same time.”
I concede defeat – i used to be amused and relaxed by this kind of altercation but i am increasingly disillusioned….i cannot accept that people can be so dense and misuse language to the extent that these people do.
Its an age thing i suppose
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 8:16 pm |
To the creationist and ID fundies, here is quote for you from Inherit the Wind.
“Can’t you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!”
Watch the movie, it is great. Luckily morons like you are losing the fight in the modern world.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 8:19 pm |
Behe is not a credible scientist anymore. ID is not science either.
Behe had his arse handed to him in court under cross examination by other scientists in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case of 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
“”"Witnesses for the defense
October 17-19
* Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity and set out the idea in his book Darwin’s Black Box.[15]
As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe’s critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”,[16] and that the definition of ‘theory’ as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[17] His simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design”,[18] but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[19][20]
For more details on this topic, see Michael Behe#Dover testimony.”"”
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 8:25 pm |
From that case:
“”"Decision
On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
Wikisource
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.
“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child” (page 24)
“A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” (page 26)
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)
“Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.” (footnote 7 on page 46)
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (page 64)
“[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (pages 86–87)
“ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” (page 89)
“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (page 132)
Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case
In his Conclusion on pages 136–138 of 139 of this decision he writes:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. “”"
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 8:29 pm |
so ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 8:31 pm |
mcoville #91
You should go and learn about that silly book that you quote from so often. It is much younger that you would care to admit and much of it was copied from other writing that predate it by thousands of years in some instances.
If you compare for example the book Job with a clay tablet document called ‘the story of the righteous sufferer’ you will find a direct correlation ; the song of solomon was copied from the epic of gilgamesh at least in terms of its theme and structure; some of the hallucination of Isiah was a direct crib of the cosmology of Aristotle who was a contemporary, the book genesis is a crib of the Egyptian book of the dead.
much of it was only finalised around 300 years ago. JFC was voted in as part of the trinity around 400 years after he allegedly lived. Spiritus sanctus was voted in as aprt of the trinity some 100 years later.
why do i even waste time telling you this? You dont care and you dont want to know this. What you want is to believe all the crap you learnt from others..examined by means of the bible and the truth of which you verified by means of the bible.
wake up and smell the coffee boy.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 8:37 pm |
McBrolloks: I have seen the movie, god movie… to bad they missed the point of the real event, but still a a good movie. To clarify one thing, I never said to stop teaching evolution, I think every bad theory deserves it’s time to be debated. I am not afraid of debates and inquiries, they help educate people. What I am against is when one idea is the only idea that my tax dollars pay for. If you want only your religion of evolutionism taught to your kids, start a private school.
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 8:41 pm |
McBrolloks: I have seen the movie, good movie… to bad they missed the point of the real event, but still a a good movie. To clarify one thing, I never said to stop teaching evolution, I think every bad theory deserves it’s time to be debated. I am not afraid of debates and inquiries, they help educate people. What I am against is when one idea is the only idea that my tax dollars pay for. If you want only your religion of evolutionism taught to your kids, start a private school.
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 8:41 pm |
Objective: thank you for the tirade, now go take your prozak and settle down before you have a heart attack. Can you cite material as your source?
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 8:45 pm |
mcoville wrote (#91 or thereabouts):
Really? You just marshal the straw men, skipping the step of calling them for what they are, and then proceed to incinerate them, just like your creationist brethren usually do.
mcoville wrote (#91 or thereabouts):
Let’s see. Isaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, …” (KJV). A 3-D sphere is a 2-D circle only when projected onto a 2-D surface. Our planet is not a geometrical circle, and “circle” is an archaic English term for “encompass,” as in a flowery way of saying, “He who surveys the whole world…” Funny also, then, that the notion of the world’s flatness stuck around as an item of common “knowledge” for most of your bible’s existence. Obviously, people weren’t paying sufficient attention.
mcoville wrote (#91 or thereabouts):
Let’s see. Genesis 9:4: “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” (KJV). The admonition is against eating meat with a certain property. Thus, your interpretation (or maybe the one you cribbed from a creationist website) that this passage implies that blood is the “life force” is surely an imagination-stretching joke. And blood, though essential to various life forms, is not the only “life force.” A brain is equally essential to certain life forms, as are a heart, stomach, liver, neurotransmitters, regulatory hormones, etc. Also, algae and amoeba – basic life forms – have no use of blood.
In short, your bible is hardly a science text. Or one of clear, direct and/or infallible knowledge.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 8:49 pm |
mcoville wrote (#91 or thereabouts):
Really? You just marshal the straw men, skipping the step of calling them for what they are, and then proceed to incinerate them, just like your creationist brethren usually do.
mcoville wrote (#91 or thereabouts):
Let’s see. Isaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, …” (KJV). A 3-D sphere is a 2-D circle only when projected onto a 2-D surface. Our planet is not a geometrical circle, and “circle” is an archaic English term for “encompass,” as in a flowery way of saying, “He who surveys the whole world…” Funny also, then, that the notion of the world’s flatness stuck around as an item of common “knowledge” for most of your bible’s existence. Obviously, people weren’t paying sufficient attention.
mcoville wrote (#91 or thereabouts):
Let’s see. Genesis 9:4: “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” (KJV). The admonition is against eating meat with a certain property. Thus, your interpretation (or maybe the one you cribbed from a creationist website) that this passage implies that blood is the “life force” is surely an imagination-stretching joke. And blood, though essential to various life forms, is not the only “life force.” A brain is equally essential to certain life forms, as are a heart, stomach, liver, neurotransmitters, regulatory hormones, etc. Also, algae and amoeba – basic life forms – have no use of blood.
In short, your bible is hardly a science text. Or one of clear, direct and/or infallible knowledge.
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 8:53 pm |
mcoville, ID and creationism is not science. You can not teach religion in a science class. And in the USA you cannot teach religion in public schools at all.
And evolution is not just a theory, many many aspects of it are fact. Where ID and creationism cannot provide any facts to support their theory.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 9:01 pm |
ID and creationism have provided evidence, but evolutionists label as creationism and then refuse to allow it in “peer-reviewed” journals so they can say it does not exist. You keep go around in circles with same old arguments, come up with some thing new. If you want proof of Intelligent Design, answer me this question first: What is going to happen to you when you die?
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 9:08 pm |
mcoville #100
“Objective: thank you for the tirade, now go take your prozak and settle down before you have a heart attack.
” Can you cite material as your source?
Yeh : Aristotle On the heavens
Unknown group of people the christian bible Job. Genesis. Isiah.
library a translation of the epic of gilgamesh
a translation of egyptian book of the dead
a book on the history of the church (meaning the jfc church you know…. that came from the catholics via luther calvin etc. Find one with a chapter on the proceedings of the synods of nicea or some others…(this is useless knowledge that i may as well not have and which i havent bothered about for many years)
nOW READ then and compare: note the following: the book of the dead predates Abraham by about 1000 years as does the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of the righteous sufferer. Aristotle lived around 500 BC. you can find the exact dates on the internet i am sure.
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 9:13 pm |
mcoville #104
“If you want proof of Intelligent Design, answer me this question first: What is going to happen to you when you die?”
Ok – but only if you answer this one first! What is life?
Comment by Objective — January 13, 2009 @ 9:18 pm |
If you want proof of Intelligent Design, answer me this question first: What is going to happen to you when you die?
Comment by mcoville — January 13, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
He-he, you call that proof?
Where is the proof?
I will die someday. Big deal, everybody will. Then hopefully someone will put my body in a cheap cardboard box and burn it till there is just bones left, and then crush the bones into powder, and then sprinkle it somewhere.
Compare it to a TV that you pull the plug on. When the picture disappears from the screen, it is all gone. No soul, no heaven, no hell. Nothing. And who cares? At least we had 1 short life.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 13, 2009 @ 9:19 pm |
mcoville wrote (#104 or thereabouts):
Ha ha ha, very funny. Where is it? Must be all of those tens of thousands of scientists all either stupid or banded together, maybe both, to ward off the Real Truth™, as creatinists/ID proponents know it!
mcoville wrote (#104 or thereabouts):
No, it’s because it’s anti-scientific and ridiculous that it doesn’t get into the journals.
mcoville wrote (#104 or thereabouts):
And maybe you should follow your own advice.
mcoville wrote (#104 or thereabouts):
Why, my family and loved will probably grieve for a time. My consciousness will be obliterated. My body will decompose and my atoms eventually be widely dispersed, some of them to be used by other life forms. What’s intelligently designed about all of that?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 13, 2009 @ 9:20 pm |
“What is going to happen to you when you die?”
Unless you’ve been dead, you’re merely guessing, and nothing more.
It remains unknown, proven by neither science or religion.
Not dying sure seems nice, but with a total lack of proof to support the possibility, the default position should be that you just die.
Unless of course, you support the notion of a parasitic ghost living inside you. What happens to it when you die, is anybody’s guess.
Comment by Lobo — January 13, 2009 @ 10:34 pm |
Lobo #109
“It remains unknown, proven by neither science or religion.”
Science can describe every microbe worm and beatle and the sequence in which they will decompose your body. As Con-Tester pointed out: you will decompose to the molecular level and the molecules will eventually be put together by some other structures of matter.
That is what happens when you die. The idea that “you” is something more than your body; that there is some non physical elan vital present in the body, has never been demonstrated by science or religion simply because it doesnt exist; that life or consciousness is added at some stage of the chain of being is pure metaphysical fancy as is the concept *metaphysical*
;that our thoughts and emotions etc are somehow non physical is equal bullshit and those who still hang on to that notion need to see a shrink.
Comment by Objective — January 14, 2009 @ 5:14 am |
Con-Tester – We are digressing, but this article will show that DOS programming was done in REAL mode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_mode
Check with a developer from that era (I have confirmed with 2) and they will tell you that the compiler did the error checking, but failing that if a devide by zero condition should occur running the code in real mode even if the CPU triggers Interrupt 0, there is no mechanism to convey it to the application (BASIC, Pascal, Assembly or other language capable of RM). Thus the application would wait for a memory register to be populated with the answer, but the CPU would not permit it to be written because of the interrupt state, causing the application to endlessly wait. Reboot ^ restart. Protected mode was later supported in DOS albeit primitive and too late (remember those DOS4/GW games and some of the last Spreadsheet programs also used Protected mode, I think QUATTRO if I remember correctly).
Maybe I should have used Delphi/VB while loops to demonstrate my initial comment (while spirit=FALSE, soul=FALSE)
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 14, 2009 @ 6:26 am |
L. Cilliers wrote (#111 or thereabouts):
That is simply not true. In real mode, an application has full and direct access to all system resources, including the interrupt vector table. This means that a RM application can install its own interrupt handler for any (or all) of the 256 possible interrupts in order to respond appropriately when one of them occurs. The application usually hooks the interrupt(s) when it starts up and unhooks them on closing. The hooking usually is done in such a way that the previous interrupt handler is called at some point in the new handler. It’s a technique called “interrupt chaining.” Any DOS programmer worth his/her salt would know this in his/her sleep.
L. Cilliers wrote (#111 or thereabouts):
Again, not true. As I said earlier, some – but not all – BIOSes (which contain the most basic default handlers for some interrupts) simply reset the CPU’s instruction pointer to the offending instruction, thereby setting up an infinite loop. However, the OS, upon loading, would generally ignore some of the BIOS handlers and install its own – for example, MS-DOS hooked Int 21h for user services (disc access, memory management, file I/O, keyboard, console, etc.) Now if an Int 0h handler simply did what those BIOSes did, then and only then would your claim hold water. But they didn’t. MS-DOS simply killed the offending application. It did so because Int 0h was triggered and it had a handler ready and waiting. Moreover, the DOS kernel is just an application – of a special kind, to be sure, but still just an application.
L. Cilliers wrote (#111 or thereabouts):
Actually, it wasn’t proper protected mode. It was called “virtual 86 mode,” a hardware capability which let real mode programmes run as though they were in real mode but adding some protected mode facilities for the OS like memory paging. Programmes couldn’t willy-nilly switch between RM, V86 and PM because this was done via an interrupt service call, and guess what? Yes, the OS had already hooked that interrupt so a programme invoking it would fail to make any mode switches. The first versions of MS Windows were basically MS-DOS extenders, running on top of DOS, providing user services like a consistent GUI, a flat memory model, multi-tasking and assorted other features that we love so well about MS Windows. In fact, Windows 95, 98 and ME retained the DOS extender architecture (you can create a Win 95/98/ME boot diskette to give you just a command prompt, something the NT family doesn’t permit), running on top of a 32-bit DOS (version 7, codenamed “Chicago”).
Comment by Con-Tester — January 14, 2009 @ 7:22 am |
Two points …
1. Attitude towards different views. Attempts to discus the shortcomings of aspects of Evolution in a logical (if not scientific) way is often greeted by rebuffs related to an individuals’ belief system (unrelated to the points made), sometimes with false accusations that an individual is from some or other group or cult. I responded to broer Hendrik outrageous remarks (#18), but clearly he is not the only one to follow this strategy. Why is it just so impossible to deal with an issue at hand without making outrageous personal attacks on an individuals?
2. Faith. That said, I shall attempt to address a number of valid points raised by George and Con-Tester on the subject of faith. For, in so much as some of you are experts on the subject of evolution and (some) speak from a position of scientific involvement, I think that I can contribute on the subject of faith from a position of knowledge and personal experience.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 8:35 am |
Con-Tester, are you or were you at any stage involved or worked in the IT field? True = 1, False = 0
Ps. This is not a trick question.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 8:42 am |
I’m tired of running around in circles and not getting anywhere. How can we summurise the issues so far? Faith is a believe system based on the unseen, science is working with tangible evidence to that can be verified as correct. Can the two spheres ever meet?
Regarding faith: The final evidence that God exists (that could be seen) was Jesus Christ. He is the express image of God. We don’t have any records that scientifically prove for instance his resurection from the dead, we only have scribes and the evangelicals that provide their record of what happened, which is how history was recorded at the time. Was Jesus really dead or not – there were no scientists to demonstrate true or false, so what manner can we use to proof it? Can we say the fact that different letters and accounts of the same event constitutes the truth? I don’t know.
Either the non-believer has to come to God believing that He exists, and God will reveal himself, or God has to reveal himself in a miraculous way that will shake the believe system of the non-believer. Paul wrote in the NT that the purpose of miracles were not to persuade or confirm the faith of the believer, but the unbeliever.
My prayer is that in your lifetime you will experience such a miracle.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 14, 2009 @ 9:30 am |
L Cilliers #115
“How can we summurise the issues so far? Faith is a believe system based on the unseen, science is working with tangible evidence to that can be verified as correct. Can the two spheres ever meet?”
While you can form a very large number of concept that have no valid inference ie from the random combination of (valid) concepts such as for example *flying pink elephants* or *four leg two headed human* all valid concepts are derived from sensory input.
Science discovers the physical elements (unseen)of existents, such as atoms, molecules and energy by doing experiments to provide data that can be captured by the senses and THUS to demonstrate initial abstractions derived from existing conceptual constructs in the brain.
REligion however uses a default position by accepting all concepts as both valid and true. REligionists in contrast to scientists do not engage in experiments to test their conceptual constructs but accept that they are valid because they exist.
Thus: a scientist seeing a seed sprout and grow will postulate that there are forces at work somewhere within the seed and proceed to formulate hypothesis based on existing knowledge to design experiments to test the hypothesis. The same applies to the sinking of ground or the building of a volcano.
Mystics would argue: seeds grow into trees ; therefor trees are a consequence of seeds; mountains result from volcanic eruptions. Man exists therefor he must have been a consequence of something. Ok so we know about sex but how does the mind get into (mindless) man? How does life get into “lifeless chemicals”? There must be a source of life and of mind.
Do religious design an experiment to test their hypothesis? Do they examine their premises and test them empirically? No of course not!
Their premises must be valid; their definitions sound and therefor their conclusion that there must be a source of life and of mind called god must be valid and true….they have after all already accepted the primacy of mind and of life as some for of metaphysical essence.
So can bad and ignorent reasoning be reconciled with logical (non contradictory) reasoning? I think not.
Yet that is exactly what you ask of people.
Comment by Objective — January 14, 2009 @ 10:59 am |
Con-Tester
Read the wiki again to get the correct facts. Maybe you never worked in DOS, that’s ok because it’s redundant nowadays even for proving a point on this blog it seems!
If you don’t come right I can post more reading material or give you the contact details of a programmer that can explain it to you.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 14, 2009 @ 11:04 am |
On a lighter note, physiologists can find proof in unexpected areas… The following article appears on News24.
Finger points to market success. 14/01/2009 12:25 – (SA)
Washington – The length of a man’s ring finger may predict his success as a financial trader.
Researchers at the University of Cambridge in England report that men with longer ring fingers, compared to their index fingers, tended to be more successful in the frantic high-frequency trading in the London financial district.
Indeed, the impact of biology on success was about equal to years of experience at the job, the team led by physiologist John M Coates reports in Monday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The same ring-to-index finger ratio has previously been associated with success in competitive sports such as soccer and basketball, the researchers noted.
The length ratio between those two fingers is determined during the development of the fetus and the relatively longer ring finger indicates greater exposure to the male hormone androgen, the researchers noted.
Increased confidence
Previous studies have found that such exposure can lead to increased confidence, risk preferences, search persistence, heightened vigilance and quickened reaction times.
In a separate study last year, Coates and colleagues reported that the hormone that drives male aggression and sexual interest also seemed able to boost short term success at finance.
They studied male financial traders in London, taking saliva samples in the morning and evening.
They found that those with higher levels of testosterone in the morning were more likely to make an unusually big profit that day.
Testosterone, best known as the male sex hormone, affects aggression, confidence and risk-taking.
In the new study, the researchers measured the right hands of 44 male stock traders who were engaged in a type of trade that involved rapid decision-making and quick physical reactions.
Risk-taking and quick reactions
Over 20 months those with longer ring fingers compared to their index fingers made 11 times more money than those with the shortest ring fingers.
Over the same time the most experienced traders made about 9 times more than the least experienced ones.
Looking only at experienced traders, the long-ring-finger folks earned 5 times more than those with short ring fingers.
While the finger ratio, showing fetal exposure to male hormones, appears to signal likely success in high-actively trading that calls for risk-taking and quick reactions, it may not indicate people who would do well at other sorts of financial activities, the researchers said.
Some traders require additional skills on dealing with clients and sales workers.
And the advantage may even reverse for some, Coates team said, such as traders taking a more analytical and long-term approach to the markets.
One study, which looked at average finger ratios in university departments found that faculty from math, science and engineering exhibited longer index finger ratio, rather than ring finger, they noted.- AP
Can you imagine future application processes for a job as an engineer: “sir, please indicate the length of your index finger”.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 11:08 am |
It’s not the length of the finger, but the WIDTH that counts!
Comment by Lurkie — January 14, 2009 @ 11:34 am |
D.J.Short wrote (#114 or thereabouts):
. 386
. model flat,stdcall
option casemap:none
. code
align 4
GetAnswer proc
mov eax,1
ret
GetAnswer endp
align 4
Start:
call GetAnswer
ret
end Start
;P.S. This is not a trick answer
L. Cilliers wrote (#117 or thereabouts):
Exactly which facts that I presented are in error, and exactly how are they in error? Would you like me to post the assembler (or Pascal) source code for a real mode programme that generates a division-by-zero interrupt and handles it itself without getting stuck in an endless loop? All you’ll need is an assembler like MASM (or a Turbo/Borland Pascal compiler) and a machine that can boot to proper DOS to run it on and to see it with your own eyes. Would that satisfy you that I do know what I’m talking about?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 14, 2009 @ 12:21 pm |
mcoville wrote: “If you want proof of Intelligent Design, answer me this question first: What is going to happen to you when you die?”
So, when the Disco Institute and other ID “cdesign proponentsists” told us that ID has nothing to do with religion they were just lying again?
mcoville wrote: “ID and creationism have provided evidence”
Really. Tell us what it is, because even the Disco institute with Templeton money has been unable to provide any. Perhaps mcoville will get a Nobel prize for being the first person to provide scientific proof for ID and creationism, and thus for god. He must really be smart, I can’t wait to hear wat the proof is!
mcoville wrote: “Maybe if atheist evolutionists would be more open minded they may see that there may be other ideas out there besides just their own.”
Sure. Perhaps we should teach kids some alternative “theories”. How about that Odin made the earth from Ymir’s body? How Greek mythology as “scientific theory”? How about some bronze age desert tribe’s mythology? Oh, wait, that’s what you want, right? Let me ask you this. What is the “scientific” theory of ID. How can we test it and how can we falsify it? C’mon, own up to your claims already.
mcoville wrote: “Just because the majority think one thing does not make it true, maybe if you would think for yourselves you may find the truth.”
Boohoo sniffle sob. Damn evolution. Most biologists thinks it’s true! Not fair, boohooo hoo, I want my god to get the glory, boohoo hoo sniffle sob. And if the majority of scientists think evolution is a sound theory, it just shows you that Satan is lying to them. Cant win eh mcoville? I mean, if the majority of biologists rejected evolution, you would be all happy and say that since the majority rejects it, it should be rejected, so praise god. But now, since the majority accepts it, you also have a fracking issue with it. You butter your toast on both sides often? You sure as hell creep me out.
D.J.Short wrote, about Expelled: “directed by Nathan Frankowski and written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein”
Ken Miller? The bloke who took down ID at the Dover case? Are you sure? I mean, Ken Miller is a Christian yes, but he is anti-ID and in fact an evolution supporter. This makes no sense, since Expelled is just another ID propaganda piece of crap. Source please?
mcoville: “McBrolloks: I could give you “credible scientist”s names but you would say “they are pro ID so they don’t count”. But if you really want one there is Dr. Michael Behe”
Credible scientist? Okay smartass, lets see. Behe accepts evolution even to the point of common descent. Do you? Common Descent means we and Chimps share a common ancestor (proof for it, b.t.w). Even Behe accepts this. Are you going to accept Behe’s view since he is a “Credible scientist”? He is *your* “Credible scientist” after all, ID’s poster child. And one more thing. Behe’s issues with evolution are really with the bacteria’s butt, the flagellum. Somehow his god was smart enough to make things evolve( common descent remember?) but not smart enough to just let evolution make the flagellum. No sir. God had to tinker with the poor bacteria’s ass to give it a bit of motion. Motion so that the bacteria can be successful, and they are, with infecting humans too. The Cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe is causes by Cholera bacteria, dear little bacterial critters with… yup, you guessed it, equipped with your God’s special tinkered flagella. Of course, a crapload of people has died due to this bacteria that you claim your god equipped with a nice little ass with a molecular motor. So, let me ask you this. Can you please ask your stupid god what the fuck he was thinking? Furthermore mcoville, I need to ask: Do you not see the utter stupidity of what ID is? Poor little god, has to fix and tamper and change his creation all the time because he could not get it right the first time. Shame. Crap god and a crap designer.
mcoville: “What I am against is when one idea is the only idea that my tax dollars pay for. “
Science in the science class, not religion in the science class. But hey, let’s teach the kids the Norse creation myth as science. Would you like your tax dollars to pay for that? No? How about a nice Muslim creation “theory” in the classrooms? Would you like that? No? Then perhaps you should try and think a little bit. See why your statement “What I am against is when one idea is the only idea that my tax dollars pay for” is utter stupidity, grounded in your desire to cram your dogma down the throats of kids and lie to them by telling them it is science, yourself unable to even show why it is science.
Besides, keep your religion out of the science class because we don’t “preach evolution in you church. You got that? Try and remember to be fair next time.
mcoville wrote: “If you want only your religion of evolutionism taught to your kids, start a private school.”
Haha. You might as well have said “religion of Einsten’s relativity”. Let’s see. Evolution is a religion? Hmm, of course. You caught us out, you little rascal you. The game is up boys, lets go home. Pack it up, mcoville has outsmarted us. Our conspiracy to hide evolution as a religion as been snuffed out by God’s anointed bloodhound, mcoville. Let’s just come clear about all of this, for woe is us, we have lost! Darwin will punish us, but lets be honest. We pray to Darwin and hopes he forgives our sins and find us a better job, oh, and of course we pray for Darwin’s protection over our cars and TVs and houses and spouses and to cure our flu and ingrown toenails and insomnia and to drive out the evil spirits of non-evolution that are unseen, but everywhere! Beware! We go to Darwin churches every Sunday and give a tenth of our earnings to help evolution spread on earth, hoping we will be rewarded with cookies and milk in the afterlife. And if you are greedy, you may hope for a mansion. We also spend billions on Darwin Churches each year so that people can worship Darwin like they bloody well are supposed to. All praise Darwin! If you don’t believe in Darwin then Darwin will haul your ass into the pit of hell and fry you for your honesty. Of course, we have books to sing out of too. Glory, glory evolution, save my soul, take my sin because I am a useless moron without you oh mighty Darwin. Oh wretch that is me, I am nothing without you, oh Lord Darwin. Of course we also believe Darwin commanded various tribes to be murdered, but it was all holy acts, since Darwin commanded it. We also have Darwin’s ten Commandments. Thy shalt love Darwin above all else and preach the gospel of Darwin in other people’s churches. Oh, and of course we believe Darwin was born of a virgin. No messiah without a virgin birth! In fact, Darwin sort of impregnated Joseph fiancée (without Joseph’s consent) and then the virgin gave birth to… yes, Darwin himself! Confused? So are we, we just call it a miracle and leave it at that. Proof? Have faith oh infidel or burn in hell! Some “Darwinians” knock on people’s doors at eight o fkn clock on Sunday mornings to tell them about Darwin and how super duper awesome he is, because Darwin commanded all evolutionists to tell all people about evolution and to threaten them with hell if they doubt. Nobody loves us more than Darwin. He tortured a tortilla once so that we do not need to be tortured. We pray to the holy tortilla that took our sins and averted Darwin’s wrath away from us. Oh, of course we also have crappy rituals, like blabbering like idiots when Darwin’s spirit possesses us, we dunk people in water thinking it will save their souls and we have a holy book that we are supposed to read every night less the spirit of anti-Darwin steals us away from the one true god, Darwin. Of course we have various sects. Some people think it was not a tortilla that died for our sins, but in fact it was an Oreo cookie. The bloody heretics! Everyone knows Darwin never liked Oreos! Why wont people accept Darwin into their hearts and give their life and savings over to him? How can people be so heartless as to reject him after the innocent tortilla had to die for our sins? Now, mcoville, do you get the idea or shall I draw you little pictures so that you can understand why you are lying when you say evolution is a religion? In fact, the above story is pretty much what you believe, just change Darwin for God. And then, somehow you thought you are the smart one hey?
Comment by Renier — January 14, 2009 @ 12:25 pm |
L. Cilliers wrote: “Regarding faith: The final evidence that God exists (that could be seen) was Jesus Christ. He is the express image of God.”
The fact is not even that is certain, L.C. The only reference to Jesus in history books was in the Roman historian Josephus’s history about the Roman empire in Palestine. It was later found that the Roman Church wrote that into an early copy of the manuscript exactly because there is no evidence at all that someone that this Jesus had indeed lived and had been crucified.
My question again: where is the evidence that he was alive? Where is the evidence that a child can be conceived through a spirit and born from a virgin? Where is evidence that this so-called Jesus rose from the dead? Where is the evidence that he went to heaven on a cloud? Where is the evidence of this heaven and hell you believe in and that you, DJ Short, Delve,Mcoville and others like you propagate?
LC wrote: “We don’t have any records that scientifically prove for instance his resurection from the dead, we only have scribes and the evangelicals that provide their record of what happened, which is how history was recorded at the time. Was Jesus really dead or not – there were no scientists to demonstrate true or false, so what manner can we use to proof it? Can we say the fact that different letters and accounts of the same event constitutes the truth? I don’t know.”
Scribes and evangelicals? You trust them after historians and linguists of ancient Middle Eastern studies have proven that the Christ tale was a copy cat of other, far older religions in the Middle East, even 500 years before. The Christians literally stole the basics of other religions, ancient documents show, and applied it to their own religion.
And please read the contradictions in the tales told by Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. If they were witnesses, why were these books of the Bible written so many years after the alleged death of Jesus? So that it could leave them to to concoct their stories?
Fact is, the more science advances – yes, also historical science analysing ancient customs and documents – the more far-fetched the Christian belief system gets.
LC writes: “Paul wrote in the NT that the purpose of miracles were not to persuade or confirm the faith of the believer, but the unbeliever…My prayer is that in your lifetime you will experience such a miracle.”
To believe in miracles, is the final insult against human intelligence and rational thinking. I wrote about this in my book, Geloof, Bygeloof en Ander Wensdenkery: Perspektiewe op Ontdekkings en Irrasionaliteite (Protea Boekhuis):
“Volgens Dawkins faal so ’n geloof ‘on the deniable fact that religions still make claims about the world which, on analysis, turn out to be scientific claims … they make wanton use of miracle stories, which are blatant intrusions into scientific territory. The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Raising of Lazarus, the manifestations of Mary and the Saints around the Catholic world, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and very effective they are with an audience of unsophisticates and children.’
“Dawkins wys daarop dat elkeen van hierdie wonderwerke inderdaad aanspraak maak op wetenskaplikheid, ‘a violation of the normal running of the natural world’. Om in wonderwerke te glo, is om die wette van die natuur omver te gooi terwyl dit die een wat glo onmiddellik in die veld van die wetenskap plaas. As teoloë wil eerlik wees, moet hulle ’n keuse uitoefen, skryf Dawkins. ‘You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science’s, but still deserving of respect. But in that case you have to renounce miracles.’
“Gelowiges wat in wonderwerke glo soos die rots van Lourdes wat krankes kwansuis kan genees deur bloot daaraan te raak, kan nie verwag om wetenskap en godsdiens in twee afsonderlike magisteria te wil indeel nie, kan nie die standpunt huldig dat wetenskap en godsdiens versoenbaar is nie.
Niall Shanks, hoogleraar in filosofie aan die East Tennessee-staatsuniversiteit en ook buitengewone professor in biologiese wetenskappe en fisika en astronomie aan dieselfde instelling, huldig dieselfde mening as Dawkins oor die onversoenbaarheid van godsdiens en wetenskap:
“I am an atheist, and by this I mean that I am someone who does not believe that there is any credible evidence to support belief in the existence of God … I have no particular solution to the problem of reconciling science and religion. Sadly, I very much doubt that the problem has a universally acceptable rational solution. Those most in need of such a solution are the very ones incapable of appreciating any such solution, were it to be discovered and offered. You are more likely to reconcile the Israelis and the Palestinians or the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland than you are to come to a universally agreeable solution to the problem of the reconciliation of science and religion.’
“Volgens Shanks is dit beslis ’n getuigskrif vir die krag van ’science envy in our culture that religious extremists have found it necessary to invent religious versions of science to serve their ends. The supreme irony, of course, is that in passing off their religious views as scientific, intelligent design theorists and creationist fellow travellers seek to ruin the very sciences in whose respectability they try to cloak themselves.’ ”
Therefore, continue believing in your miracles, but show us just one miracle that you have evidence for that your mythical god was responsible for that. The cancer cured? By God? Evidence?
Comment by George Claassen — January 14, 2009 @ 12:42 pm |
“My prayer is that in your lifetime you will experience such a miracle.”
The problem here is how to recognise a miracle. If I (as an atheist) suddenly feel a great surge of emotion, its unlikely that I would attribute it to a supernatural cause.
The ‘miracle’ would surely be lost on me. Unless its a force that can change my brain patterns, to force me to experience it differently.
Comment by Lobo — January 14, 2009 @ 12:43 pm |
That would be great yes. You can put the floppy image on an FTP or rapidshare location and I can test it.
Thanks for the effort.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 14, 2009 @ 12:51 pm |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GENXQJu45ds
I think that clip should hopefully clear up some of the nonsense about Expelled and how “scientific” it is.
It is a parody called “Suspended – No Astrology Allowed” and is based around the idea of astrologers being thrown out of astronomy-related departments/endeavours.
Enjoy!
Comment by Cachtice — January 14, 2009 @ 12:55 pm |
Renier wrote:
“Ken Miller? The bloke who took down ID at the Dover case? Are you sure? I mean, Ken Miller is a Christian yes, but he is anti-ID and in fact an evolution supporter. This makes no sense, since Expelled is just another ID propaganda piece of crap. Source please?”
Renier, please read it again and you will see that I typed Kevin Miller (not Ken Miller). For more info, see http://www.expelledthemovie.com ; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 1:10 pm |
D.J.Short wrote: “Renier, please read it again and you will see that I typed Kevin Miller (not Ken Miller).”
Well, that explains my confusion. My bad. Apologies.
Comment by Renier — January 14, 2009 @ 1:26 pm |
Editorial Review, Amazon: Godless, by Ann Coulter
“If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.
Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left’s attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion—a godless one.
And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this county.
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the “absolute moral authority” of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).
Then, of course, there’s the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.
Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is—Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution’s proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the “evolving” peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?
Liberals’ absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution’s scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.
Fearlessly confronting the high priests of the Church of Liberalism and ringing with Coulter’s razor-sharp wit, Godless is the most important and riveting book yet from one of today’s most lively and impassioned conservative voices.
“Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’” —From Godless
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 1:30 pm |
Thank you Cachtice – Great clip. I especially like the bit “Astrology gave me my wife. Astrology gave me… my second wife”
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 14, 2009 @ 1:48 pm |
Coulter… haha… hahahahahaha… you blokes are a laugh riot!
Comment by Renier — January 14, 2009 @ 1:50 pm |
Comment by mcoville — January 14, 2009 @ 2:11 pm |
DJ Short, please, please Ann Coulter? Do you know how little credibility she has? Do your homework, my friend. Again, I have to repeat it: why don’t you start reading the scientists (start with the list above) and then you bring all these writers with no scientific background.
America the conservative heimat for fundamental Christians like Ann Coulter, who spews nonsense in the media.
Comment by George Claassen — January 14, 2009 @ 2:19 pm |
George wrote: “Do your homework, my friend.”
They never do. The gullible just “believe”. And even if all the evidence showed Coulter is just a liar, they would still believe her and the drivel she spews.
Comment by Renier — January 14, 2009 @ 2:22 pm |
God bless you Renier. You seam like such a nice guy, I am sure your funeral will be packed with people one day. Your Mother and Father must be so proud of the great man you have grown to become. Keep up the good work.
One last question for you though, when you die and all your friends and family come to pay their respects… where will your conscience be? What do you think happens to you when the end comes?
Comment by mcoville — January 14, 2009 @ 2:27 pm |
Anyone who uses Ann Coulter as a credible reference is insane!!!!!!!
That bitch is completely crazy. She has been barred from various TV stations in the USA.
Here is her rap sheet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_coulter
This from wiki about her new book, Godless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism
Comment by McBrolloks — January 14, 2009 @ 2:30 pm |
Thanks for the advise George. I do in fact read a wide range of material on all sorts of topics (from astronomy to geology to my sword) and find it all fascinating. The reason I posted the review of this specific book (Godless), is Coulter’s interesting take on Liberalism (one could call it orthodox liberalism). It is topical and worth adding to the debate from the point of view that she makes a reasonable argument that Liberalism taken to the extreme, is a religion…
My approach is that it does not necessarily take a scientist to write a book about science. Phillip E. Johnson(an attorney) brings yet another approach to the debate with his book “Darwin on Trial” (which I accept is not a science book). As an attorney, he is familier with scrutenising evidence, and evaluates proposed evidence for evolution – using his own specific skills.
I can write an article about music, but I’m a lousy musician. From a music lover’s perspective, I can still write a knowledgeable article on music. For this reason, I will not write off Coulter (unless proven to be a lying lunatic). I am also comfortable with the fact that she is conservative.
As with anything, I measure it with my own sword which is “… living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart”.
Regards
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 3:09 pm |
DJ Short, and now you bring us Phillip Johnson! The archangel of Intelligent Design. Have you read what Judge John Jones said about ID in the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board case? If not, please, again, do your homework.
He (a concervative judge nogal) emphasised that ID’s supporters (Johnson included) were liars and that ID was not science but religion.
Johnson, a lawyer trying to teach evolutionary biologists the art of how life developed!
Mcoville writes: “One last question for you though, when you die and all your friends and family come to pay their respects… where will your conscience be? What do you think happens to you when the end comes?”
Mcoville, my conscience will be clear, that I would have dedicated my life to finding the truth, based on evidence, not on wishful thinking that some imaginary god has saved me for an afterlife.
Hell, guys, what wasted lives you are leading on your knees, never using your brains and critical faculties. All because you fear death more than anything else!
Where is the evidence for this heaven and hell you are all so frantically propagating?
Comment by George Claassen — January 14, 2009 @ 3:32 pm |
Hi George, yes, the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board case was very interesting. I posted about it on my post # 94 & 95.
Behe was one of the leading witnesses for the defense, and his testimony fell apart under cross examination.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 14, 2009 @ 4:23 pm |
L. Cilliers wrote (#124 or thereabouts):
Uh uh, it’s not going to be that easy. I won’t do all of your homework for you, especially since I know that what I’m saying is true. I’ll provide you with the source code and some instructions, as said, but that’s it. The rest is your indaba.
Still, I’d like you to point out in some detail what you think I said is wrong, and also how it is wrong, as I requested of you in #120 (or thereabouts). In detail, please.
Anyway, here it is:
Save the above to a file called “Int0Demo.asm” (or whatever). You’ll need MASM version 5 or later and a 16-bit linker to produce the COM file. These utilities are freely available on the Internet. You may also find DOS or Chicago boot images on the Internet and the deployment tools for them. Once you’ve built the COM file, run it on a true DOS machine. (It even works on the Win NT family’s virtual DOS machine). You will find three messages written to the DOS screen, the second one having been output by the Int 0h handler, showing that it caught the bad division. The third message is output after the bad division attempt, showing that the CPU doesn’t hang on a bad division as you would have everyone believe.
One final remark: This whole thing is a whole lot bigger than just about some obscure ins and outs of computer programming. While the details (i.e. those ins and outs) may be tangential to the main subject of religion and its defensibility, the underlying principles we have witnessed here are important and instructive. This argument about how a CPU does or does not behave is about respect for demonstrable facts, but what has actually been illuminated is how inventively – some might even say desperately – believers will try to defend their stance even in the face of a clear, unequivocal, black-and-white, repeatable, undeniable demonstration that their claims are in error. I do not anticipate any acknowledgement that such an error was made; only further denial, equivocation, dodges and excuses. After all, the evidence can be mined for loopholes and escape hatches, so please dig on ye faithful.
Mais c’est la vie, c’est la guerre, n’est-ce pas?.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 14, 2009 @ 6:32 pm |
CT, for what its worth – I’m impressed!
Comment by D.J.Short — January 14, 2009 @ 6:48 pm |
Impressed with what exactly, D.J. Short? Did you perhaps think – maybe even hope – that I was just “blowin’ smoke,” as the saying goes? Never mind, don’t bother answering that because it doesn’t make any odds.
See, while it would be the polite thing for me to say “thank you,” I am unimpressed in at least equal measure. I do not hold with the widespread (and mistaken) idea that it is much more important to be polite than it is to be factual. I hold with exactly the converse. To be precise, I am unimpressed with your underhanded implication that a person cannot have a bow of more than one – perhaps tatty – string.
Singularly unimpressed.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 14, 2009 @ 8:14 pm |
def corr re the gen
shi br ur mch shrpr thn i thxxgxt.
Comment by Objective — January 14, 2009 @ 8:37 pm |
Thx, O.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 14, 2009 @ 8:46 pm |
Con-Test
My programming is very flaky (haven’t done it in a long time – I work on infrastructure, not systems) I would admit so I’m open for your correction if I’m wrong.
Your program on MASM uses the .386 instruction and according to the MASM instruction manual that will make the program run in protected mode(http://doc.ddart.net/asm/Microsoft_MASM_Programmers_Guide_v6.1/Chap_13.htm).
Can you provide me with code in real mode so I can test. It would be a good exercise.
CT Wrote: “Actually, it wasn’t proper protected mode. It was called “virtual 86 mode,” a hardware capability which let real mode programmes run as though they were in real mode but adding some protected mode facilities for the OS like memory paging.”
As far as your error is concerned, protected mode was available on DOS. (more detail here: http://www.tenberry.com/dos4g/faq/basics.html). DOS programs would always start in real mode(as does the computer and BIOS), but it was possible to change to protected mode using DOS extenders. This gave you access to protected mode on 386 and later models, and allowed access to larger memeory area (64MB). It is not common knowledge because by this time Windows had already taken over and was providing application protection.
Virtual 86 mode was not necessary because the OS was already operating in Real mode(what do you need backward compatibility for?). Virtual 86 is still used in NTVDM on Windows for compatibility to help with the memory addressing issue that you raised.
Thanks for taking me back on memory lane, I don’t know how many of these issues I had to address migrating systems from DOS to Windows.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 15, 2009 @ 6:48 am |
LC, jou doring!
Comment by D.J.Short — January 15, 2009 @ 8:19 am |
mcoville: “God bless you Renier. You seam like such a nice guy, I am sure your funeral will be packed with people one day. Your Mother and Father must be so proud of the great man you have grown to become. Keep up the good work.”
Mcoville. Instead of worrying about my funeral, why don’t you rather attempt to address the points I made?
mcoville: “One last question for you though, when you die and all your friends and family come to pay their respects… where will your conscience be? What do you think happens to you when the end comes?”
When a person dies, they are dead. “Conscience” is an outcome of our brain function. Thus, when the brain is dead, there is no conscience. Think about it. If we doped you with a good dose of anaesthetic and you loose consciousnesses, why do you loose consciousness when we interfere with your brain functions? Of course, you can always provide proof that consciousness “lives” apart from the brain, then you might have a point. Can you prove such a thing?
Now, Mcoville, please address my questions. Here is a shortlist for you. If unclear, reference back to my post roundabout 121.
1. So, when the Disco Institute and other ID “cdesign proponentsists” told us that ID has nothing to do with religion they were just lying again?
2. Please provide the evidence you claimed exists in your statement: “ID and creationism have provided evidence”, or, admit there is none.
3. Would it be okay with you if we taught alternative theories to evolution in class, such as the Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Muslim and Hindu creation myths? After all, you are moaning about alternative “theories” that do not get their “due” time in science class.
4. What is the “scientific” theory of ID. How can we test it and how can we falsify it?
5. Do you accept common descent as Behe does, since you claim he is a credible scientist (biologist) on the ID side?
6. Cholera is killing thousands op people in Zimbabwe right now. Cholera bacteria are equipped with what ID claims is god designed flagella, so called Irreducible Complexity. Shall we hold you god responsible for the deaths, since he enabled Cholera by tinkering with their butts?
7. Are you really happy to preach a god that had to tinker (Cholera) and fix all the time (ID) because he did not get it right the first time?
Comment by Renier — January 15, 2009 @ 8:38 am |
George wrote “Scribes and evangelicals? You trust them after historians and linguists of ancient Middle Eastern studies have proven that the Christ tale was a copy cat of other, far older religions in the Middle East, even 500 years before. The Christians literally stole the basics of other religions, ancient documents show, and applied it to their own religion.”
I would like to read up more about this, can you provide a source for this study?
Also, I’m not sure about the 500 years. David prophesied about Jesus +/- 1000 years before(Ps 22 and other), Isaiah 700 years before, so who borrowed from who?
Regarding the evangelicals, they were eye-witness accounts as you correctly state. Maybe you can demonstrate how their differences in account would make the message of Jesus a lie? Does one say Jesus lived, and the other one that he did not. Does John claim Jesus was just a prophet and Mark that He is the son of God, and Luke that he was pharasee? No, they all witness that Jesus is the son of God, the Christ, preached the message of His kingdom, performed miracles, was crucified, died and arose again on the third day and ascended to heaven.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 15, 2009 @ 10:21 am |
DJ Short, it seems you are a master in evading the answers I have given you in #56 and #137. You say thanks for the advice, but have you considered even reading one of the books on the list? Or will you quietly disappear when the heat of science and rational thinking becomes too hot, without doing anything to arm yourself with a baloney detector?
And then, in two weeks’ time, or a month or two, you suddenly reappear, commenting on another post but still using the same old irrational thinking and creationist/Intelligent Design arguments?
Why is it that the meme of religion and uncritical analysis is so strong in you and your religious cronies?
Comment by George Claassen — January 15, 2009 @ 10:32 am |
L.Cilliers #146
“they all witness that Jesus is the son of God”
Did any of them witness the virgin birth? Or was that just added later to complete an ancient prophecy?
Comment by Lobo — January 15, 2009 @ 11:05 am |
None of them witness the virgin birth, because none were present. They recognised him as the son of God when they started walking with Him(through his conduct, the scriptures that were fulfilled and through the revelation of the Holy Spirit – recall Peter’s revelation than he was God, the cleansing of the temple etc).
I can only speculate but the logical deduction then would be that they relayed the virgin birth from other witness accounts, possibly Jesus’ mother!
Maybe DJS can provide more information on this.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 15, 2009 @ 11:20 am |
L. Cilliers #149
“None of them witness the virgin birth, because none were present.”
You really believe this shit dont you?
Do you also believe that Gigamesh was the product of intercourse between a god and a human as was Osiris as was tons of other halfgods from around the same time?
go read the myths of most any culture of the time both in the middle east and western and eastern europe.
It is furthermore generally established that the jesis myth and much of the practices of the catholic church were imported from the East.
Find a copy of “The two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop in which he attempts to denegrate the catholics in favour of the protestants
while giving a decent overview of both sources and history of those cultures and the practices present in adapted form in most churches today. (This is an old book and most prob out of print – they dont often reprint this sort of shit because christians dont like to read the facts) but you may be lucky and find it in a library.
You can of course also rent it from me.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 11:37 am |
To reply to questions around Jesus birth, I have drawn from study material compiled by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
The miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ has perplexed many people and has actually kept them from accepting the truth of Christianity. However, the Bible declares that God decided that His Son would have a miraculous entrance into humanity.
Seven hundred years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah said, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14, NASB).
The New Testament records the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: “Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.… And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.… ’ And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’
“And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit, will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.… For nothing will be impossible with God’” (Luke 1:27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, NASB).
The virgin birth is set down in the Bible as a historical fact. The writers who recorded the story were Matthew—an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus—and Luke, the doctor, who presents many things in the life of Christ from the viewpoint of His mother, Mary.
The passages in both Matthew and Luke are authentic, with no evidence at all that they were later additions to the text. The doctrine of the virgin birth has been believed by the church from its beginning.
Ignatius, who lived at the beginning of the second century, wrote to the Ephesians and said, “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost.”
There are several reasons why the virgin birth was a necessity. The Bible teaches that the Word who became flesh was with God from the very beginning (John 1:1). The fact of the pre-existence of Christ is testified many times in the New Testament (John 8:58; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 1:15, 16).
When Jesus came into the world, He was not a newly created individual such as we are, but was rather the eternal Son of God. To be born into this world of the virgin Mary required divine intervention, and this is exactly what the Gospels record.
Another reason why Jesus needed to be virgin-born was because of His sinless nature. A basic New Testament teaching is that from the day He was born until the day He died, Jesus was without sin. To be a perfect sacrifice, He must Himself be perfect—without sin. Since our race is contaminated with sin, a miraculous entrance into the world would be required, hence the virgin birth.
Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to assume the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28–30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, He could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line.
The virgin birth of Christ is not only a historical fact, but it was also a necessary historical fact when one considers all the data.
Regards
Comment by D.J.Short — January 15, 2009 @ 12:15 pm |
Objective
It’s good sh1t, man!
Seriously though, I believe the witness accounts of the apostles to be true, since they are consistant with what is written in the Old and New testament by various authors.
I know about the corolation in catholosism of Jesus/Mary and Nimrod/Diana of Babylon from past studies although I can’t remember the books that I used as source – your’s does ring a bell. I’m not catholic so I won’t defend their doctrine because there is no scripture in the bible to support the divinity of Mary(that is if we can agree that the bible is the directive for Christian believe). In the new testament there is no diferentiation between Mary or other saints in terms of their godliness. She is called blessed in one verse, but so are all the other saints! Their practices will stem from their believe of Mary having elevated status, I suppose.
I cannot comment on the myth’s that you are talking about but maybe you can provide some reading material on the origin’s of the myths. If they are myths, are they tied to any faith that I might know, possibly one that still exists today? Are you linking that to the argument that Jesus was distilled from eastern myths and believes? If so, does the child that was born in this myth fit the description of that which was prophesied centuries before in the Bible, or have any consitancy with the scriptures before his birth? I doubt it.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 15, 2009 @ 12:23 pm |
This is a very good commentary DJS. Thanks for the info!
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 15, 2009 @ 12:29 pm |
For a moment lets say that the Bible is factual, I believe it is so this will be easy for me but I would like you all to play along. Let’s say that everything in it is true, what would that mean for history?
Just over 6,000 years ago God created the heavens and the earth, and all the plants and creatures upon it. Then he created man so that he can have fellowship with his creation. He gave man free will so that his love for God would be genuine and not forced. Man used that free will to go against God’s rules and God cast judgment upon him.
Then around 4,000 years ago God cast judgment on the people and sent a flood to kill them all, except for Noah and his family whom God saved so they could repopulate the earth.
So that brings us to a post flood civilization. If all that is true I would predict that you would find stories of world, and local, floods in any culture older than a couple of thousand years old. The Chinese and Japanese both have flood stories, the Babylonians had a flood story and numerous others.
I would also predict that because God blessed the nation of Israel, even though they where mainly farmers and shepherds they defeated some of the mightiest armies of their time, other nations would seek them out for information to try and learn from them. When the scholars of these nations returned with the stories told of the Hebrew God and how he created everything, you would find creation stories in other cultures. I don’t think I need to list them for you, but there has been a creation story in almost every culture.
My point is this, if I am correct and the Bible is true then all the things you list about other cultures tales of creation and about their gods would be similar to that of the stories in the Bible and of Jesus. You can not prove which came first so saying that the Bible is based on the myths of other cultures is an invalid argument because God created everything and his story came first.
Now you can go back to believing your own fairy tale of everything coming form nothing and worship your gods of time and chance, your priests and scribes in universities will continue to spin their myths so you will continue to pay your tithe in tuition and book sales. Everyone has a religion, the big question is which is true and we will only find that out in the end when it is too late to switch sides.
Comment by mcoville — January 15, 2009 @ 1:49 pm |
LC wrote: “I believe the witness accounts of the apostles to be true”
Uhm, you DO know that neither Matthew, Luke, Mark or John actually wrote the gospels, right? No Eye witness wrote anything in the NT. Even some fellow theologians would be able to tell you that.
Comment by Renier — January 15, 2009 @ 2:23 pm |
Renier wrote: “you DO know that neither Matthew, Luke, Mark or John actually wrote the gospels, right? No Eye witness wrote anything in the NT”
There seems to be some type of general consensus among many people that the New Testament documents were written many years after the events took place and hence do not contain reliable information. However, the fact of the matter is that the life of Jesus was written by eyewitnesses or people who recorded firsthand testimony. The writers were all living at the same time these events transpired, and they had personal contact either with the events or with people who witnessed the events.
There is strong internal testimony that the Gospels were written at an early date. The Book of Acts records the missionary activity of the early Church and was written as a sequel by the same person who wrote the Gospel according to Luke. The Book of Acts ends with the apostle Paul being alive in Rome, his death not being recorded.
This would lead us to believe that it was written before he died, since the other major events in his life have been recorded. We have some reason to believe that Paul was put to death in the Neronian persecution of a.d. 64, which means the Book of Acts was composed before this time.
If the Book of Acts was written before a.d. 64, then the Gospel of Luke, to which Acts was a sequel, had to have been composed some time before that, probably in the late fifties or early sixties of the first century. The death of Christ took place around a.d. 30, which would make the composition of Luke at the latest within thirty years of the events.
The early Church generally taught that the first Gospel composed was that of Matthew, which would place us still closer to the time of Christ. This evidence leads us to believe that the first three Gospels were all composed within thirty years from the time these events occurred, a time when unfriendly eyewitnesses were still living who could contradict their testimony if it was not accurate.
This type of evidence has recently led one liberal scholar, John A.T. Robinson, to re-date the New Testament documents much earlier than most modern liberal scholars would have us believe. Robinson has argued in Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament could have been completed before a.d. 70, which is still well into the eyewitness period.
Facts involved in the issue led W. F. Albright, the great biblical archaeologist, to comment, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after a.d. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today” (William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1955, p. 136).
Albright’s a.d. 80 date might be questioned when it comes to the Gospel of John. There is a strong possibility the apostle John’s banishment to Patmos under Domitian was as late as a.d. 95–96 in Revelation 1. There is strong tradition John wrote Revelation there at that time. This is testified to by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Irenaeus (cf. New Testament Survey, p. 391, by Robert Gromacki).
The evidence points out that (1) the documents were not written long after the events but within close proximity to them, and (2) they were written by people during the period when many who were acquainted with the facts or were eyewitnesses to them were still living. The inescapable conclusion is that the New Testament picture of Christ can be trusted.
For more reading on the subject, here are additional reference sourses:
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? rev. ed., Eerdman, 1977
John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, SCM Press, 1976
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford, Claredon, 1963
Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method, Concordia, 1977
John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, Here’s Life Publishers, 1983
Regards
McDowell, Josh ; Stewart, Don Douglas: Answers to Tough Questions. Nashville : T. Nelson Publishers, 1993
Comment by D.J.Short — January 15, 2009 @ 2:46 pm |
mcoville wrote (#154 or thereabouts):
Or alternatively, if there is some common element – itself a product of common descent – in the human psyche that favours similar myths across all cultures, one would predict the same. The evidence favours the alternative account and, in addition, it has assorted bells and whistles trimmed off it by Occam’s Razor. Scientifically, it is thus a more appealing (read: plausible) rendition.
mcoville wrote (#154 or thereabouts):
No, not everyone. Far too many do, I would agree, but your particular variant seems to worship by the simple expedient of fabricating baloney.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 15, 2009 @ 2:47 pm |
D.J.Short #151
YOu should attempt to find a study on logic: look up “circular argument” and “begging the question” both are also known as “logical fallacies”.
Then given that you may actually have an active mind rather than an open mind, you may wish to test the drivel that you posted in #151 against those two fallacies.
An active mind is able to do this. An open mind on the contrary accepts anything and everything that supports its basic premise without challenge or thought.
Since you have posted no original thought, except the erroneous assertion on division by 0 that Con-Tester demolished, but rather posted stories written by godbots with open minds, i suspect that you will continue in that vein rather than take an active stance with respect to the bsbb approach of your peers.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 3:18 pm |
Con-Tester: So you agree that IF the Bible is correct then the myths mentioned before could be explained as ripping off the Hebrews?
also, “A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often [but not always -added by me] with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.” Wikipedia, and on Dictionary.com the second definition is:”a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”, sounds like evolution fits those definitions to me. But no one here is going to openly admit that evolution may fit these definitions because then you loose the argument of teaching religion in a science class room. It is only an irrational mind that will ignore evidence based solely on it contradicting their world view.
I admit Christianity is a religion, now admit the evolution is a religion so we can move along with this discussion.
Comment by mcoville — January 15, 2009 @ 3:45 pm |
L Cilliers # 152
“I cannot comment on the myth’s that you are talking about but maybe you can provide some reading material on the origin’s of the myths.”
Like my good friend Con-Tester commented in another context somewhere up there: nuh uh. Do I sound like the sort of person who will do your homework for you?
You see, when i was in my late teens i did go through the Lobsang Rampas and Eric von Dannikens and i even still have some of those books, but they have long since been relegated to a cupboard somewhere.
What you are looking for is evidence for your beliefs and your erroneous premises, as do most of the other godbots who post on these pages. YOu only ask for source books, of contrary views, so that you may counter them with references from the bible – a book that was written, compiled and edited over many years by many people and only accepted in its current form some 300 years ago.
I never had that problem – i was looking for truth that was logical, and none of the books that you are reading, will provide that. I had to learn to think first and then i was able to recognise the bs in the bible and similar books for what it was, and to finally dispose of it. You are not interested in learning to think but rather to confirm what you are thinking.
I read many of the books i learnt from, by candle light under my bed in the “maids” room, where i grew up. Many of these were banned – if not officially then by the powers that were dominant in my life at that time. We had no television; no internet; no FM radio; no cds; we only had books and time to think.
I had very vague beliefs, because that is how i was raised, but what i really wanted was to understand, to know; to find logical explanations for questions and a means to counter arguments that were obviously absurd (such as those about gods and devils and angels and similar shit). It took some time, but i eventually figured out how those in power were able to beat me into submission every time: they sneaked in invalid and false premises and I (fool) accepted them.
I merely mentioned those odd memories ito of Gilgamesh and other books and facts in an attempt to point you to something outside the bible…which is at best a very bad introduction to “Mindfucking for the gullible 101″.
That however is bad strategy because you are not interested in knowledge but rather in confirming your beliefs.
What i should have done is what i will do now:
if you believe there is a god prove it.
until then go on believing whatever you wish.
ps. Abraham was born around 1800 Bc – the Epic, by then, was old news and according to research by Tigae, remained the dominent book in circulation for two thousand years and it was translated into every known language of the period – it was the dominent book until the advent of the modern period. Moses lived around 900 Bc
by the time “god told moses about creation” the Egyptian book of the Dead (copied from a Sumerian source almost 1500 years older) was losing its lustre in Egypt itself. Moses having grown up in Egypt must have prayed to Osiris and studied the “Holy Book of the Dead” until jewish scholars combined his life with the egyptian stories to create their own story book that is known as MfftG101 from which you quote to so freely today.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 4:10 pm |
mcoville, IF the stories in your bible are factual, THEN those myths aren’t myths, ripped off from the Hebrews or anyone else. They are then varying retellings of FACTS, as coloured by the passage of time, word-of-mouth transmission and cultural perceptions.
Biological evolution, as per Wikipedia. Not a word there to intimate that it’s a religion. In fact, it clearly states that it is “science.” So you really should refrain from making stuff up. Doing so makes you look either like a fool or a deliberate liar, perhaps both.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 15, 2009 @ 4:12 pm |
mcoville #159
“I admit Christianity is a religion, now admit the evolution is a religion so we can move along with this discussion.”
The word “religion” is derived from the term “re legio” which means: with reference to the many. You see there were many gods then and people were about as gullible and ignorent as they are today.
Definitions by definition defines a concept (it does not give a general explanation). Defining a concept means to isolate those elements that are essential to the concept: ie those element/s without which the concept will not be what it is. Logically, to say that christianity is a religion and that evolution is a religion translates to: christianity is evolution.
Evolution means “change” and in a biological context it means “change with modification over time”.
Christianity is a religion and its essential element is : supernatural
Since “evolution” (in biological context) does not share the element essential to “christianity” or “religion” (supernatural) it is not a religion.
btw. you should really read up on the etymology of the term “discussion”.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 4:29 pm |
Well I live the United States of America where we speak English and in the English dictionary the word religion is defined “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects”. SO lets see if the myth of Darwinian evolution fits:
“a specific fundamental set of beliefs” = common descent from nothing to everything, check.
“and practices” = ’scientific’ tests and dissemination of information in ‘peer-reviewed’ journals, check.
“generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” = hey this is in those ‘peer-reviewed’ journals again, check.
Yup, it looks like evolution fits the English definition of the word. Of course you can redefine the word religion away form how it is commonly used to mean what ever you want it to.
Comment by mcoville — January 15, 2009 @ 4:44 pm |
mcoville, you’re starting to look ever more like a completely biased moron. By your reasoning, every activity shared by a few people becomes a “religion.” I gave you a link to an article on the subject from the same source you yourself used earlier. Clearly, you simply skipped the step of reading it, even if only cursorily. That adds hypocrisy to your growing list of intellectual impostures.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 15, 2009 @ 5:13 pm |
Mcoville wrote: “I admit Christianity is a religion, now admit the evolution is a religion so we can move along with this discussion.”
No, evolution is pure science, based on evidence published in peer-reviewed publications by thousands of reputable scientists from all over the world.
We do not believe in evolution, or relativity or the Big Bang or gravity. We do not pray to these accepted theories based on evidence. We accept them as valid theories because they have been proven time and again. I do not get onto the 12th floor of a building and walk out a window because I know Newton’s theory of gravity is still the best scientific theory we have about gravity and that I will die if I do something as stupid as that.
Evolution happens before our very eyes every day (just think HIV/AIDS) and I ignore the power of the virus to evoluate at my peril if I start screwing around without a condom. The fact of evolutionary power by natural selection cannot be ignored, even if you want to.
Mcoville, please read the books on my list on evolution (Darwin, Jones, Mayr, Zimmer) and stop lending yur ears to creationist drivel because you are too afraid that evolution might just be a valid theory.
I and my other co-thinkers on this blog accept evolution as scientific fact because the overwhelming evidence says it is true. Just as we accept the sun will rise tomorrow in the east and will set in the west, not because it moves and the Earth stand still, but because Copernicus and Galileo proved the planets are the movers around the sun. Evidence, my friend, pure evidence.
Now, where IS the evidence for your Jesus? Count out the Bible, it is agreed by historians it is not a sound history book. Why? Because if you start believing in snakes talking, in a woman created from a man’s rib (did Adam have a navel then because he was not born from a woman?), donkey’s talking, a nwhole crowd of people walking through the Red Sea, a virgin birth – the list goes on and on – then you have serious mental problems. And you still believe this stuff…
Comment by George Claassen — January 15, 2009 @ 5:24 pm |
Ladies and Gentlemen, the zealots of the church of Darwin have spoken. You know what, Darwinian evolutionists are such narrow minded people… “I’m right and everyone who doesn’t agree with me is wrong.” How do you ever expect to convert anyone if you keep calling them names? You should be more accepting of everyone’s beliefs and just show love. Maybe if you didn’t try to indoctrinate the kids with public funding you would have less problems. What Would Darwin Do?
Comment by mcoville — January 15, 2009 @ 5:34 pm |
George #166
“I do not get onto the 12th floor of a building and walk out a window because I know Newton’s theory of gravity is still the best scientific theory we have about gravity and that I will die if I do something as stupid as that.”
So do the godbots George so do they. They put fuel in their cars; they eat to live; they breathe; they metabolise; they evolve as humans in their cultural adaptations and physical manifestations.
as much as they profess a yearning for death to be with jesis..it is death that they fear above all and rational men that they hate more than anything else. Because it is rational men who expose them to themselves.
As Con-Tester points out above and many others elsewhere on these pages:
some people are honest while others are liars. There are people who make honest mistakes: dont look for the godbots amongst them!
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 5:40 pm |
mcocville #167
“You should be more accepting of everyone’s beliefs and just show love.”
1. You mean you want us to accept the crap you post and make you feel good?
2.
we do show you love – to be honest is the greatest love one human being can show another, because it is only honesty and truth that is pro-life.
Consider your own doctrine: does it promote knowledge? no. Does it teach children to reason? No. does it promote truth and the means to truth? No.
Does it create a sound foundation for children to build their lives on? No.
Does it help to alleviate pain and suffering, war and famine? No.
Only science can do that by means of reason. THAT is love.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 5:50 pm |
mcocville #167
“What Would Darwin Do?”
What he did. Spend his life in search of a rational answer to a difficult problem, solve it and publish it.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 6:00 pm |
WOW! You really do believe this “science” stuff, don’t you Objective?
First let me point out that I have been cursed with the gift of sarcasm, so the for those of you that missed it my post at #167 was pure sarcasm. Secondly I completely agree with your second statement. The honesty and truth of Jesus Christ is the only source for life, love and grace.
To respond to your statements about my doctrine:
“does it promote knowledge?” = Yes. God is the source of all knowledge so we study Him to learn all we need to know. Then we study science to learn the things we want to know.
“Does it teach children to reason?” = Yes. Ever wonder why Christian Private Schools produce more collegiate students each year than public schools…maybe because public school wastes time teaching evolution.
“does it promote truth and the means to truth?” = Yes. Too easy to elaborate on.
“Does it create a sound foundation for children to build their lives on?” = Yes. Which sounds better:”Kids, you where made in the image and likeness of God and he has a purpose for you.” or “Kids, where are descended from a monkey and when you die, games over.”?
“Does it help to alleviate pain and suffering, war and famine?” = Yes. If everyone in the world (not that I think it would ever happen) followed the teachings of Jesus, there would be no war and we would be able to spend all that money and time on improving the living conditions of everyone in the world.
How does the church of Darwin answer those questions?
Comment by mcoville — January 15, 2009 @ 6:11 pm |
L. Cilliers wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
No, it does not. Get your facts straight, please. That would be the “.386p” directive. The “.386” directive enables use of the 32-bit CPU registers (the 80386 was the first 32-bit processor), which my code uses. I could have done without the 32-bit registers, but I used them because it makes certain things easier.
L. Cilliers wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
I have done so. If you think a COM executable is a PM programme, you don’t know what you are talking about. I even gave you the procedure to follow for testing yourself. You clearly have not done so. Instead, you continue to argue and compound your error, when you could do the simplest thing yourself: the experiment I described.
L. Cilliers wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
I never claimed that it wasn’t. I also said that MS Win95/98/ME ran on top of a version of DOS. How would that work if DOS didn’t have a mechanism by which mode switches could be effected. V86 mode, as used by the DPMI, is PM but of a special kind that allows native DOS code to run without having to use an emulator, which would slow things down tremendously.
L. Cilliers wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
Again, your facts are wrong. The 286 was the first processor to support protected mode, not the 386, and it had a 24-bit address bus giving access to a flat memory space of 16MB, not 64 MB. The 386 had a 32-bit address bus, giving access to a flat memory space of 4GB.
L. Cilliers wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
Again, your facts are wrong. It very much was necessary – and remains so to this day – for running legacy software, of course! You can still run old DOS programmes on Win3.x/95/98/ME, which don’t need to load any virtual DOS machine, unlike the NT family.
L. Cilliers wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
At last, a fact that is halfway true. V86 mode is not just about memory addressing, though. It’s also about trapping illegal/bad instructions and handling issues of resource accesses by DOS programmes. DOS programmes, by their nature, implicitly assume that they have direct, unrestricted and exclusive access to all system resources, which obviously cannot be allowed without adequate control on a multi-tasking OS because there’s no guarantee that the programme will not compromise system integrity by leaving it in an adverse state, e.g. switching the video to 50-line text mode and not switching back to the prior video mode.
Now, L. Cilliers, I submit to you that you should go and do the test I proposed rather than arguing this futile line of yours. I suggest you go through all the steps yourself so that you can verify them, otherwise you’ll come back and say that I cheated. Also, you might learn something from the exercise.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 15, 2009 @ 6:19 pm |
Ag vader tog, hoe kinderlik – of moet mens liefs sê hoe kinderagtig? – die galoof van neefs Short, mcoville & kie (edms) bpk (sal iemand asb vertaal vir die volksvreemde elemente wat nie afferkaans magtig is?).
Mens sou wou maan dat hul tog samblief bietjie gaan lees oor wat kenners die afgelope 150 jaar of wat oor die herkoms en sameflansing van die niewe testamint ontdek het.
Ooggetuies? Watwo!
Onafhanklike getuies? Watwo!
Maagdelike gaboorte, nogal voorspel ook? Watwo!
Kortliks, Markus se relaas – saamgeflans, wie weet waar, wanneer en deur wie nogal – het later as bron vir Mattewis en Loekas gedien (plus nog ‘n ander sameflansing deur onbekende verdagtes). En let wel, dié 2 sondaars het nie gaskroom om aan Markus te peuter waar dit in hul kraam gepas het.
Maar nou ja, die neefs en hul trawante sal seker ook wat dié aangeleentheid betref nie belangstel om hul kennis uit te brei en verkies om te sit en kerm en kaf praat.
Ag die ou mensies, soos wyle ds Murray Jannson altoos gesug het …
Comment by Karel de Pauw — January 15, 2009 @ 6:24 pm |
mcocville,
pffft. one thing you have to speak to god about: how could she run out of neurons before you had a chance to get one?
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 7:16 pm |
Karel,
Al vertaal jy ook vir hulle in Aramees die nodige wil en integriteit ontbreek.
Comment by Objective — January 15, 2009 @ 7:19 pm |
Con-Tester (that’s me) wrote (#172 or thereabouts):
The implication being that the “.386p” directive itself compels MASM to assemble the code for protected mode. This is not actually the case, as I now remember. These “.?86” and “.?86p” directives merely tell the assembler which particular subset of the whole x86 instruction set the code is allowed to make use of. The “p” suffix enables use of the so-called “privileged” instructions, normally reserved for exclusive use by an operating system. If, for example, one specifies “.386” and then inserts in one’s code an instruction that is only supported on a Pentium (586) or later CPU, the assembler will not assemble the code because a 386 won’t know what to do with the instruction. In other words, the “.?86” directive itself does not affect whether the code is assembled for real mode (segmented memory model) or for protected mode (flat memory model).
It is the order of the “.?86” and “.model ?” directives that together determine RM or PM. If the “.?86” precedes “.model ?,” the code is assembled for PM, otherwise for RM. Moreover, the use of segment overrides (“cs:…,” “ss:…,” and “ds:…”) in the code (#139 or thereabouts) clearly show that we are dealing with RM code because Ring 3 PM code isn’t allowed to play with selectors. The OS won’t allow it.
It’s been quite a while since I worked with this stuff.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 15, 2009 @ 7:52 pm |
L. Cilliers, how does it feel to get your arse handed to you?
Mcoville, it is now obvious to me why you don’t understand the theory of evolution; a total lack of neurons! As Objective pointed out, don’t blame anyone except your god.
Comment by Savage — January 16, 2009 @ 4:37 am |
Mcoville writes: ““does it (belief in Christianity) promote knowledge?” = Yes. God is the source of all knowledge so we study Him to learn all we need to know. Then we study science to learn the things we want to know.”
Now you have explained exactly why religious people like you, DJ Short et al will never accept the findings of science, or only when it suits you. First god, “Then we study science to learn the things we want to know.”
What do you want to know, Mcoville? That your cell phone comes from god? Or from science?
That your clothes come from god – or were manufactured by people using their brains and the intricate machinery in the factory?
That the shampoo for your hair comes from god -or from chemists who use research to find the best solution for your dandruff/oily hair/dry/hair/split ends etc.?
That the roll-on you use to look and smell good comes from god – or from the same chemists?
That the pace-maker in your heart comes from your god’s loving heart – or from top, thinking engineers, inventors and brilliant medical scientists?
That the food you eat daily comes from god – or from hard-working farmers using machinery and tecnology developed by science?
That the weather channel you peruse so that you can plan your day/holiday/party, comes from god’s predictions – or from meteorologists who study a vast number of details to try and understand what patterns will develop tomorrow and later in the week?
That the microphone used by the preacher in your church so that you can hear at the back comes from god – or from sound engineers? Ditto the powerpoint presentation, the loudspeakers, the lights, the electricity, yes, the very building you are sitting in?
That the computer you are using to write all your crap and the ability to communicate here on a blog, comes from god- or from scientists knowing how to develop and utilise electronics and computer programmers enabling us to debate this?
The car you drive, the bicycle you ride, from god? Or from engineers?
The medicine you use to cure your ailments, from god – or from science?
The camera you use to take digital pictures, from god – or from scientists and engineers who have moved on from daguerrotype to film to digital technology?
In fact, your thinking and the religious canyon you are stuck in, reminds me of daguerrotype camera technology. Would you use daguerrotype processes today with its iodine-sensitized silver and developed in mercury vapour? Or would you use film? Or digital cameras? Your religion was once valid, because science had not then been able to explain what we know today. For you to ignore that or to pick selectively what you want from evidentiary based science and reject from evidentiary science is basically dishonest and very close-minded.
You prefer to name-calling, labelling Darwin’s findings and its science-based discoveries as a church.
No, YOU think in terms of churches, science thinks in terms of evidence and finding a rational explanation for things.
I now understand why your nation would have elected George W. Bush twice as president – if the thinking of the general population of America is as bad and blind as yours. America is awash with religious fundamentalists who have all switched off their baloney detectors and brains. Despite the brilliant scientists in their midst who are regularly villified (stem cell research to cure your ills? No, they are playing God, you say!) and whose findings are often rejected from the pulpit.
It’s therefore good news that Barack Obama wants science to be returned to its rightful place in America, that he wants the best minds from all over the world to come and work in the USA. Despite the Mcovilles and Co. living there! And the way Bush rejected these top scientists from other places to speak at conferences, to research, to better your lives.
Comment by George Claassen — January 16, 2009 @ 5:36 am |
George, so true, but you are speaking to a neuronless crowd. I happened to bump into this when I ordered a book from the National Academies Press recently.
“[A] recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2 % were overtly atheistic, 20.8 % agnostic, and only 7.0 % believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population.”
Mcoville, you are obviously surrounding yourself with American illiterate godbots, because your scientists (most top scientists in America are members of the NAS) look at the scientific findings and fail to see any god(s) around. All they do is use their brains to come to the conclusion that the only tenable positions to hold are that of atheist and agnostic. But then again, we are talking here of people who have neurons; what happened to yours and your buddies’.
Comment by Savage — January 16, 2009 @ 6:16 am |
Has anyone noticed that L. Cilliers and D.J.Short are not being entirely truthful here? By that, I do not mean that they are sincere, though genuinely deluded believers. I mean that they are knowingly playing out a deliberate and mendacious deception. If either or both of them deny it, I will put forward two compelling reasons why I believe it to be so.
L. Cilliers and D.J.Short, j’accuse: you are frauds.
There is even a possibility that L. Cilliers = D.J.Short, although I cannot be certain that that is indeed the case.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 7:01 am |
Savage wrote: “L. Cilliers, how does it feel to get your arse handed to you?”
Do you know anything on the subject, or are you also influenced by how impressive computer code looks?
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 16, 2009 @ 9:11 am |
I don’t have to be a pugilist to see when one fighter is down for the count.
Comment by Savage — January 16, 2009 @ 10:21 am |
Evolution may be a fact, but it still has a long way to go.
There is a lot of really stupid in the world. Why? Their ancestors should have died out by mere stupidity around the stone age, poking sabre-tooth tigers with sticks just to see what will happen.
Comment by Lobo — January 16, 2009 @ 10:48 am |
I agree, Lobo. The stupid gene shouldn’t be so persistent. I think these guys are too stupid to realise when they are dead!
Comment by Lurkie — January 16, 2009 @ 11:01 am |
DJ Short has fallen very silent again – as predicted. Until he entertains us again with one of his Intelligent Design “scientist’s” views. You can see the man/woman(?) does no reading in the field of science. Otherwise he would have known Phillip Johnson is a totally discredited science-pretender. That Michael Behe was destroyed under cross-examination at the Dover trial, that new research by historians and linguists of ancient Middle East civilizations and cultures has shown his religion is nothing more than a stolen set of fundamental beliefs from Summerian and other Mesopotamian civilizations.
L. Cilliers asked for a source for this. I mention just one, there are many others by reputable historical scientists studying old cvilizations, their religions and cultures: Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?
Freke and Gandy show:
1. how thousands of years before Christianity pagans had also worshipped a Son of God;
2. how this pagan Saviour was also born of a virgin on the 25th December before three shepherds, turned water into wine, died and resurrected at Easter, and offered his body and blood as Holy Communion;
3. how these pagan myths had been rewritten as the gospel of Jesus Christ (yes, Luke, Matthew, John and Mark were all master counterfeiters and plagiarists!);
4. that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus;
5. that the earliest Jews knew that the Jesus story was a myth;
6. that this myth was kept from us by the greatest cover-up in history, that by the Roman Catholic Church who invented the Holy Spirit only 450 years after Christ was alleged to have lived.
Freke and Gandy use modern scientific analysis of linguistics, history and archaeology to expose the myths of Christianity. In this way these scientists supplement modern natural sciences such as evolutionary biology, palaeontology, physics, archaeology, geology, genetics, genomics, astronomy whose findings are totally contradicting the Bible and Koran.
Another excellent book showing how we can explain the cultural hold of religion throughout history, is that of Scott Atran, senior research scientist at the Institut Jean Nicod at the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in Paris: In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Oxford University Press).
But again, why do I bother to give these books, even if L. Cilliers asks for them? The question is: will he and DJ Short and Mcoville even try to get hold of these books AND READ them? I don’t think so. The God-meme is too strongly embedded in their brains.
Comment by George Claassen — January 16, 2009 @ 11:03 am |
George
If I can get my hands on the book I’m sure I will take a stab at it(!). Can you recommend a South African bookstore that might have it, I had a look at two major online store but could not find it.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 16, 2009 @ 11:32 am |
George
I just had to laugh out loud at your last paragraph because what flashed through my mind was a post from cilliers or short reading: George, can you perhaps give us a brief summary of the content of those books?
Comment by Objective — January 16, 2009 @ 11:44 am |
Con-Tester, #180
“Has anyone noticed that L. Cilliers and D.J.Short are not being entirely truthful here? “
Not truthful??? How dare you suggest that such believers, such lovers of jfc and his daddy could be deceitful? How dare you evern suggest that the glaringly obvious must be considered factual???
Sis on you… YOU are supposed to be nice! Pretend that what they say is well uhmmm you know…uhmmm not bs. YOU are supposed to make the feel good!!
YOur insistence on truth and honesty shows you up as one of those rational asshole who worship logic and facts above love…and even when you recognise that these godbots are in fact liars and bullshitters and deceitful liars….you must pretend…
Comment by Objective — January 16, 2009 @ 11:49 am |
I had a look at he wiki of the book(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries) but there is not much info on it, and the related wiki’s only have the hypothesis of the Christ Myth without the supporting documentation/facts thus not refuting or supporting their view through facts. I’m still looking through online sources but if anyone on this forum can point me to a source that would be great, or maybe just website that elaborates a bit more. The ZA stores don’t have the book it seems.
Comment by L. Cilliers — January 16, 2009 @ 12:22 pm |
Mea culpa, Objective. Mea maxima culpa. Alas, alack! Thine penetrating gaze hast piercethed mine armour and sundered mine graceless airs. Oy vey.
Still, my charge is a bit stronger than just that the two of them are telling tales to support their contentions. That, one could still stomach up to a point. Polite or not, I’m accusing them of directed, behind-the-scenes collusion while pretending to be separate and autonomous here. I’m accusing them because I have good reasons for my suspicion.
Now, let one or both of them deny it and I will explain how I came by that notion.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 12:35 pm |
I noticed that no one has answered my question as too how does the church of Darwin answer the questions of (as found in post #171):
“does it promote knowledge?”
“Does it teach children to reason?”
“does it promote truth and the means to truth?”
“Does it create a sound foundation for children to build their lives on?”
“Does it help to alleviate pain and suffering, war and famine?”
You seem to jump on others for ignoring tough questions, but turn around and do the same.
Comment by mcoville — January 16, 2009 @ 12:51 pm |
mcoville, “yes” ×5.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 1:04 pm |
“The Church of Darwin” is a book authored by lawyer/Idiot/Cretinist Phillip E. Johnson who also happens to be an AIDS denialist. I take that back. It’s an incompetent propaganda piece, based on childish flights of fancy, rather than a book.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 1:12 pm |
Con-Tester #190
” Polite or not,I’m accusing them of directed, behind-the-scenes collusion while pretending to be separate and autonomous here.”
What do you take me for, a fool? I wont put money against that claim – i thought it was rather obvious.
What is worse is that she doesnt even do it well…still it would be interesting to see you prove the point and i may add my two cents worth. :-*
Comment by Objective — January 16, 2009 @ 1:17 pm |
Objective wrote (#194 or thereabouts):
Nottachance.
Objective wrote (#194 or thereabouts):
There’s a fair amount of circumstantial indication, which, by itself, could be explained away innocuously. However, here’s the kicker: a comment by one of them clearly refers to a prior comment by the other. Trouble is, the prior comment was held up in WordPress’ spam filter and only released about 36 hours later by George. How did the later commenter know about the earlier one’s comment unless they were communicating in some way? One supposes that their god could have told them after they prayed for guidance on how to defeat the evil atheist. Not that it makes any odds to their deceitfulness, but maybe they work in the same office. Maybe they’re the same person.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 1:59 pm |
Con-Tester:”“yes” ×5.” How about you elaborate a little more.
I did not know about the book by Johnson. I started using that expression a little while ago with no reference to the book, all though I may have to check out the book now that I know about it
Comment by mcoville — January 16, 2009 @ 2:17 pm |
mcoville wrote (#196 or thereabouts):
Are you shitting me!? You’re not interested in my elaborations. You have yet to acknowledge any one of them, let alone provide cogent counters, with anything other than a smug guffaw meant to prop up your delusions of superior wisdom. Until you start demonstrating otherwise, I’ll assume I’d be wasting my time engaging with a petulant six-year-old.
mcoville wrote (#196 or thereabouts):
It’s not a book. I mistyped. It’s a short article. You can read it here. It’s right up your alley.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 2:38 pm |
L. Cilliers (or DJ Short, his/her alter-ego) wrote: George, If I can get my hands on the book I’m sure I will take a stab at it(!). Can you recommend a South African bookstore that might have it, I had a look at two major online store but could not find it.”
My goodness, LC (or DJ), have you heard about Amazon or Kalahari? The book was for nearly a year at the top of The New York Times’s bestseller list. I bought it from Exclusive Books in Cape Town. Ask any Exclusive branch to look up on their computers (designed by science) whether they have it in any branch.
Mcoville writes (and I’ll answer each one after the the question):
I noticed that no one has answered my question as too how does the church of Darwin answer the questions of (as found in post #171):
(GC: as previously said, evolution is valid and pure science and Darwin was a true scientist, basing his theory on evidence. If you do not like the message, please do not call scientific findings a church. It shows your lack of logic and ignorance of the processes of science).
“does it promote knowledge?” (GC: yes, Darwin’s theory brought a total new concept of how life developed and still does, how species evolve, and how the process of natural selection works. It promotes knowledge about the tree of life. Again, you don’t like the message, Mcoville, and then turn to ad hominem attacks on the scientists and people who accept their findings. And this knowledge unfortunately contradicts the “knowledge” propagated by the Bible and Genesis).
“Does it teach children to reason?” (Yes, just read the logical arguments in The Origin of Species. Science is about reason; based on evidence we make certain deductions.Where is there any reason in the idea of a creator god and the myth about a virgin birth etc.? Religion does not want rational thinking and difficult questions being asked, does not want reason to be part of humans, rather wants people to believe, whatever the Bible tells us, however far-fetched and irrational it is).
“does it promote truth and the means to truth?” (GC: yes, absolutely. Through Darwin we have a far better understanding of how life developed and how species come about and become extinct again. That’s the truth, based on evdence. Where does your religion promote truth? It rests on fairy tales for which there is no shred of evidence.)
“Does it create a sound foundation for children to build their lives on?” (GC: yes, why not? I’d rather build my life on the scientific truths than on a mythical fairy tale, again for which there is no evidence. Your religion is a lie, so how can any child build his life on a lie and fairy tale and myth? By the way, atheistic societies are more moral than religious ones, as McBrolloks has pointed out to you with statistics from American jails. Why do you ignore that?)
“Does it help to alleviate pain and suffering, war and famine?” (GC: Why not?: the truth shall set you free. Where has your religion alleviated pain and suffering, war and famine? The biggest wars on this planet have been and are still – think Israel and Gaza at the present moment – being fought in the name of religion, even among Christians – think about the 80 Years’ War between Spain and the Low Countries, the Palestinian conflict, your own 9/11, etc.etc. Science relieves more famine through better genetic plants than any religion can do. Take science away, and you will see the biggest famine ever. And no prayers will change that until science comes to save us. Pain and suffering?: again, prayers do not help, science helps far more to take pain away.)
Mcoville, stop asking stupid and silly questions.
Comment by George Claassen — January 16, 2009 @ 2:48 pm |
“Since the Darwinists sometimes define evolution merely as “change,” and lump minor variation with the whole creation story as “evolution,” a few trivial examples like dog-breeding or fruit fly variation allow them to claim proof for the whole system. The really important claim of the theory — that the Darwinian mechanism does away with the need to presuppose a creator — is protected by a semantic defense-in-depth.”
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm
The most interesting thing about the approach of the godbots to evolution is their dividing the process into “macro-” and “micro-” evolution. Microevolution is the process of change within a species while macroevolution refers to changes from one species to another.
Some godbots will accept microevolution but they will consistently reject macroevolution.
The vision that i hold of this particular division is similar to those you see on television sometimes…where the fish suddenly gets feet and start walking and then gets up on its hindlegs while it changes into a primate and finally into a man. [Isn't science wonderful? Without computer aided graphics none of this will be possible].
As i have pointed out on numerous occasions this apparent “problem” is epistemological rather than metaphysical. AS I write in my description of macroevolution in the third paragraph: “…while macroevolution refers to changes from one species to another.” [a description i quickly found on the net].
This of course is bullshit. Evolution does not teach that “one species changes into another” but rather that individuals within a species is subject to continious change as the result of an exchange of genes. While the gene has numerous controls to control faithful replication copying errors do occur. The simple recombination of thousands of genes in sexual reproduction contributes to the variations that occur within a species. The maths is fairly simple and explains the extent of variation that can occur within a population given the number of genes involved or the number of times a cell divides and the errors that result.
godbots will argue that god determines the colour of their eyes and every hair on the head of an individual – thus when black parents suddenly have a white child the mother will blame god; ditto when this young innocent virgin daughter suddenly becomes pregnant…well who else to blame but god? Cells according to the godbots are convenient structures that provide structure to their bodies….and keep their heads from echoing when they talk.
Fact is that the cell is the functional unit in biology. What evolve are cells. Now i dont have to tell that the world was populated by unicellular organisms for approcimately 3.6 billion years before multicellular organisms made their appearance. And i think it is common knowledge that unicells dominate life on earth ito numbers. But then cells evolve the ability to specialise and we find that sponges and comb jellies appear in the fossil record; next come the polyps with a more complex organisation of cell specialization in their basic nervous system; then come organisms with internal organisations of cells that perform specialised functions such as metabolism and circulation. All these various forms, that we classify as different species evolved from single cells – BUT they are not more than single cells…they are simply Specialised Single Cells that work together. Within each body however the cells are the functionaries and their dna specifies their functionality.
To understand the complexity of functionality that can result from millions of cells working together one only has to recall what Darwin wrote re the Hymenoptera: “It is certain that there may be extraordinary mental acitivty with an extremely small absolute mass of nervous matter.” The same can be said of any unicell and anyone may do a search on the net to find a million references including sketches, videos etc of cells and their inner workings and structure. Darwin continues: “[T]hus the wonderfully diversified instincts, mental powers, and affections of ants are generally known, yet their cerebral ganglia are not so large as the quarter of a small pin’s head.” (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex).
THUS: one does not find an Australopethicine and then see it get up on its hind legs and change into a Cro-Magnon. What science did find in the fossil record are: tracks of bipedal creatures (with feet similar to apes) 4.5 mya; a primitive skull with features resembling apes more than it does H. sapiens in association with crude stone tools ( a few chips removed from the edge of a flat pebble to provide a cutting edge); a skull with heavy brow ridges and an undeveloped chin (H.erectus) 1.8 mya. in africa, western europe and Java; some remnants of this type of skull morphology survive in the Neanderthals until as recently as 30 000 years ago. Skulls of H. sapiens are known from Africa from around 150 000 years ago, from Europe from around 90 000 years ago. Many of the intermediate forms survive amongst modern H sapiens to this day.
NO matter how much these guys believe the movies… evolution is obvious to anyone who cares to look at the evidence.
It is however obvious that they dont know and dont care to know. They need to believe because that is how their brains are structured and to change that structure would require more willpower and integrity than they possess.
The worst is that they have embedded the idea that man is evil (without that they dont need a saviour) and thus they need to promote the idea of “sin” and the need for a redeemer. But more…they hate knowledge and the people who provide an ever increasing body of knowledge, the scientists, because these people are ever more intensely exposing their incompetence and stupidity.
That is why mcocvill wants us to “accept all viewpoints” as valid. To accept that love is unconditional.
unconditional love does not exist – even their god demands their consciousness in exchange for her love.
Anyway i’ve rambled on long enough and “i shall arise and go now, to Innesfree because i hear it in the pavements grey and in the deep heart’s core..” (The lake isle of Innesfree – forgot the name of the poet: forgive me.)
Comment by Objective — January 16, 2009 @ 3:50 pm |
I’d like to add a book to George’s list: “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins.
Until I’d read this book, I thought I understood evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest etc. properly. I didn’t. At least, not in any real depth. And my thought processes were sloppy.
Any last shadows of doubt I had about needing a god to guide the evolutionary process were blasted away for good. I’m free of the god meme.
Mcoville, read this book. Even just the first four or five chapters.
Comment by Lurkie — January 16, 2009 @ 4:15 pm |
objective:” [Isn't science wonderful? Without computer aided graphics none of this will be possible].” Perfectly stated. Evolution would not be possible without computer aided graphics.
When did I say “accept all viewpoints”?
How do you explain the common decent of “humans and oak trees”? (see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evo_02)
Comment by mcoville — January 16, 2009 @ 4:20 pm |
Lurkie: Will do, all though I hope it is not just God bashing like his God Delusion book. It got repetitive fast.
Comment by mcoville — January 16, 2009 @ 4:21 pm |
Mcoville: Nah, the book is of a technical nature and is focussed on explaining the mechanism of evolution. You can download it from:
http://uath.org/download/literature/Richard.Dawkins.The.Blind.Watchmaker.pdf
Comment by Lurkie — January 16, 2009 @ 5:16 pm |
mcoville wrote (#201 or thereabouts):
While my source (Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th edition) doesn’t treat your specific (and no doubt intentionally inane) question, the various phylogenetic trees it does ahow seem to indicate common ancestry in the very remote past, possibly in the form of a protozoan, an amoeboid or algae, itself descended from an earlier ancestor, possibly virus-like. Details are sketchy, given both how far back in time they are thought to have occurred, and the microscopic size and soft composition of the participants, which conditions conspired to leave almost no record behind.
A creationist will say, “Ha, gotcha! ‘Evilutionists’ are just so dumb. There’s no half man/half oak tree to be found anywhere in the fossil record. Bwahahaha!” This response immediately prompts the forgivable suspicion that oak trees might actually be descended from a human subspecies known as ‘Homo Cretinist IDiotus.’
Comment by Con-Tester — January 16, 2009 @ 6:48 pm |
mcovile,
“When did I say “accept all viewpoints”?”
#167
Maar weet jy mcoville, dit maak nie werklik saak nie. Jy praat baie duidelik soveel kak en stel net so min belang in die feite dat jy selfs vergeet wat jy kots en sluk.
Daar is ‘n paar baie goeie wetenskaplikes in Amerika en dan is ek seker daar is heelwat mense was so nou en dan dink. Jy is baie duidelik nie een van hulle nie.
‘n Mens hoor dikwels hoe arrogant en onkundig die Amerikaners is en jy neem dit met ‘n knippie sout maar wat jy hier gedemonstreer het is iets wat ek dikwels oor wonder wanneer ek Amerikaners op die internet ontmoet.
Sou ‘n mens die soortlike gewig van die brein van ‘n gemiddelde Amerikaner vergelyk met die van lood sou jy heel waarskynlik vind dat lood eintlik op water moet dryf terwyl die gemiddelde Amerikaanse brein dwarsdeur die eksperiment val en heel waarskynlik deur die aarde.
Ek weet dit is onregverdig om te veralgemeen en heel waarskynlik onwetenskaplik maar die argument sou geldig wees in ‘n toets met jou brein massa.
Ek dink egter dat jy dink ons is almal idiote wat nie kan sien dat jy bloot stront pos terwille van die pos nie en dat jy dit natuurlik glo.
Ek dink ook dat my vriend jou onnodig hoog op die leer plaas deur jou te klassifiseer as Homo. Jy is baie duidelik bewys van die feit dat daar nie ‘n god bestaan nie. Hoe kon ‘n goeie god iemand soos jy gemaak het? Verder is jy ‘n sprekende voorbeeld van ewolusie in aksie: jou dna is baie duidelik sleg gedupliseer or miskein gemuteer en jy ‘n sprekende voorbeeld van die gedrogte wat godsdien produseer.
Jy verstaan nie wat ek hier skryf nie? Ek wou voorstel dat jy werk aan jou opvoeding maar dit is baie duidelik te laat en fisies onmoontlik gegewe dat jy kognitief niks het om mee te werk nie.
Sug. C’est la evolution.
Comment by Objective — January 17, 2009 @ 4:16 am |
Mcoville #201: Yours is an excellent reference to read for anyone who wants to understand the basic theory of evolution. Now why don’t you go and read it? Possibly because it is quite a hefty piece of work and your limited attention span makes it impossible to comprehend.
I am convinced that these godbot assholes appearing on this blog do not want to know something about anything that might differ from their book of stories, The Bible.
Mcoville, here is a link to an article answering your question. It is short and I’m sure you’ll be able to go through it AND understand it. But then again, perhaps I’m wrong.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=83
Comment by Savage — January 17, 2009 @ 5:25 am |
Savage
thanks – i had a look at the page re evolution 101 and printed it for my granddaughter. I saw her yesterday afternoon and when i asked her what the highlights of her first week back at school was she replied: I am taking Natural Science this year!
So we went to the planetarium last night
(to celebrate).
Comment by Objective — January 17, 2009 @ 6:50 am |
Savage wrote (#206 or thereabouts):
Quite so. Objective hits his head right on the nail (
) when he writes that these people aren’t really after knowledge at all; they are merely after confirmation for the things that they think they already know.
mcoville’s haughty taunting and derisive superciliousness showcase the point perfectly.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 17, 2009 @ 8:03 am |
Objective, I also printed out evolution 101 sometime ago (all 150 odd pages if you follow all the sub-routines) and regularly refer to them. What I don’t get is someone like mcoville asking a stupid question and referring to this evo 101 link. Or do I miss something simple here?
Great for your granddaughter taking natural science. She will never be sorry and with you around you could obviously gently steer her to all the phenomenal discoveries of scientists through the ages.
Astronomy is my favourite hobby. If you do not already have astronomy software (like Starry Night) you can download a good programme. Just google Cartes Du Ciel; the download is free. You can guide your granddaughter along a great discovery journey.
Con-Tester: “.. they are merely after confirmation for the things that they think they already know.”
They better go find another blog, because the hammering they are getting here is sometimes not too nice to observe.
Comment by Savage — January 17, 2009 @ 8:52 am |
Savage, @209
“Astronomy is my favourite hobby. If you do not already have astronomy software (like Starry Night) you can download a good programme. Just google Cartes Du Ciel; the download is free. You can guide your granddaughter along a great discovery journey.”
I do not have the software. I have a 3″ Newtonian that ive had for many years and i learnt the mechanical way (planisphere and star charts). Am considering a cassegrain and may get a link to the computer. Thanks for the info.
My gdaughter and i have been going to the planetarium since she was about 4 – last night she fell asleep on the floor after the show because i got involved in a discussion with the presenter. Had to carry her to the car – and im getting older and she is somehow getting heavier (;
i also went the whole hog and printed everything of evol. 101 but it is worth it.
Comment by Objective — January 17, 2009 @ 11:19 am |
Cultivating Exceptional Cannabis – An Expert Breeder Shares His Secrets
by D.J. Short
ISBN-13: 978-0-932551-59-7
May 2004
Published by Quick Trading Company
Comment by D.J.Short — January 17, 2009 @ 4:07 pm |
“Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:39 pm |
“It is a cursed evil to any man to become as absorbed in any subject as I am in mine”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:40 pm |
“My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding laws out of large collection of facts”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:41 pm |
“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:42 pm |
“A man who dares to waste one hour of time has not discovered the value of life.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:47 pm |
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, – a mere heart of stone.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:48 pm |
“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:49 pm |
“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:50 pm |
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:52 pm |
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:52 pm |
“Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:52 pm |
“Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:53 pm |
“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:53 pm |
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:54 pm |
“The very essence of instinct is that it’s followed independently of reason.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:54 pm |
“What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature!”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:55 pm |
“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
Charles Darwin
Comment by McBrolloks — January 17, 2009 @ 6:55 pm |
Objective #210: “I have a 3″ Newtonian that ive had for many years and i learnt the mechanical way (planisphere and star charts). Am considering a cassegrain and may get a link to the computer.”
Your telescope is small but ample to see plenty. Algol’s eclipsing binary stars, the dance of Jupiter’s four big planets, the Orion Nebula (M42 & M43), Saturn’s rings and many, many more. A very good pocket directory to get which is helpful in the field (if you don’t already have one) is Stars & Planets by Ian Ridpath and Will Tirion; only R70 at Books Galore. The mechanical way is by far the best way to get to learn the skies (just my opinion), but a go to (GPS) Schmidt-Cassegrain is of course very nice to have, although they are pricy. (I suspect if you put an ad in the paper you should get one cheaply; telescopes are almost like fitness centres; gathering dust in the attic.)
Anyway Objective, happy star gazing with your granddaughter. The only problem it gets so addictive, but I’m sure there are worse addictions than astronomy.
Comment by Savage — January 18, 2009 @ 4:02 am |
What happened to Oubaas?
Is he bored with us or the godbots or perhaps travelling in Africa?
Comment by Objective — January 18, 2009 @ 6:20 am |
McBrolloks, your #217 refers:
“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, – a mere heart of stone.”
Do you know the source of this quotation? I would like to find the context.
Comment by Objective — January 18, 2009 @ 2:41 pm |
Hi Objective,
Some of the Darwin quotes I found in the January 2009 edition of Scientific American, the rest online somewhere when I was looking for more information about Darwin.
Let me know if you come across the context please.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 18, 2009 @ 6:28 pm |
Haai, McBrolloks, korreksie :
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Ek dink bs kwotasie is afkomsig uit Richard Dawkins se boek, @River out of Eden’ (hoofstuk 4)
Comment by Karel de Pauw — January 18, 2009 @ 6:50 pm |
Dankie Karel, ek het nog nie daardie boek gelees nie, maar hy is op my lys.
Comment by McBrolloks — January 18, 2009 @ 10:54 pm |
Plesier, McBrolloks!
Dawkins volg bs as volg op om dié hoofstuk af te sluit :
‘As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it :
”For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.”
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.’
Comment by Karel de Pauw — January 19, 2009 @ 6:09 am |
Karel,
“DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.’”
Ons kry darem al hoe meer dikwels die geleentheid deesdae om te lei in die dans.
Comment by Objective — January 19, 2009 @ 6:26 am |
A few more books for George’s list, ones that I found valuable and/or illuminating:
* Bertrand Russell — Why I am not a Christian
* David Mills — Atheist Universe
* Simon Blackburn — Think
* WV Quine & JS Ullian — The Web of Belief
* Jamie Whyte — Crimes Against Logic
* Nicholas Humphrey — Leaps of Faith
* Chris Mooney — The Republican War on Science
I also recommend an excursion into Ray Comfort’s silly little book Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. One needs a strong stomach to read it but it is mercifully short and gives a glimpse of what it would be like to have no clue how to construct a consequent argument or to stick to a train of thought. It collects a several months-long e-mail exchange between Comfort and an atheist, and makes for useful exercise material in games of “spot the fallacy/ruse/dodge.”
Comment by Con-Tester — January 19, 2009 @ 6:52 am |
From the Financial Times.
In defence of Darwin and reason
Published: January 16 2009 19:52
As the world celebrates two Charles Darwin anniversaries – 200 years since his birth and 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species – it is sad to reflect how far we still are from the scientific enlightenment he promised. By the early 20th century almost every biologist accepted that life evolved over time through natural selection.
Yet at the beginning of the 21st century, evolution is under sustained attack from creationist theories inspired by fundamentalist religion – sometimes dressed in scientific clothing as “intelligent design”. Opinion polls show that more Americans believe in Biblical creation than evolution, and even in Europe’s relatively secular societies a growing minority rejects Darwin.
Many scientists and liberal politicians regard the rising creationist tide as a side-show that they can safely ignore. They are wrong, for several reasons. Wide areas of research, from biology to cosmology, would suffer directly if it became politically difficult for governments to fund fields that depend on such a basic a part of science as evolution. The cost would be economic as well as intellectual.
But Darwin is also worth defending because attacks on evolution symbolise a wider and more varied assault on policies based on evidence rather than prejudice. Some of this assault comes from the same religious forces as creationism – think, for example, of those ranged against embryonic stem cell research. Sheer ignorance plays a role too and so do the mass media.
The campaign against the MMR vaccine, which has cost many lives by delaying the elimination of measles from Europe, demonstrates the harm that can come from ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence. A faulty study suggesting a possible link between MMR and autism was quickly picked up by anti-vaccine campaigners and amplified by the media. Scientists could have limited the damage with a quick response, pointing out the defects in the study and the evidence for the safety of MMR – but, as so often happens, they reacted slowly and reluctantly.
Mavericks are occasionally right: the few who warned in the 1980s that mad cow disease might affect humans come to mind. But any extraordinary claim must receive extraordinary scrutiny – and be weighed against all the evidence.
We need far more scientists than are available today to speak out quickly and firmly when reason is under attack. And in the long run we need a scientifically literate population, better educated about what constitutes valid evidence to support a particular viewpoint.
A hopeful sign in the short term is the attitude of the next US president. Barack Obama has named several of his country’s most respected scientists to senior posts and stated: “Promoting science is about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Amen.
The Financial Times Limited 2009
Comment by Savage — January 19, 2009 @ 7:18 am |
Objective (#230) asked why Oubaas has been so absent on this thread. I would never presume to answer on his behalf, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he, like myself, has tired of reading the same old arguments by the godbots/IDiots countered by the same (now familiar) arguments from George Claassen, Con-Tester, Objective, Savage, Renier, McBrolloks and many others. It gets tedious and unrewarding after a while. There is never some result, some consensus — it invariably degenerates into a slanging match where the focus shifts from the argument at hand to the intelligence or sincerity of the participants.
I have yet to learn of one single convert from either side; the arguments are futile.
So, while I still visit this blog from time to time, I regard it as waste of time to post any argument either way.
Comment by Oom Stoffel — January 19, 2009 @ 5:55 pm |
Oom Stoffel, I respect your view point.
“It gets tedious and unrewarding after a while.”
I agree. But what I have posted from The Financial Times also holds true.
“We need far more scientists than are available today to speak out quickly and firmly when reason is under attack. And in the long run we need a scientifically literate population, better educated about what constitutes valid evidence to support a particular viewpoint.”
We may not all be scientists on this blog but I’m sure we are doing a good job defending science and reason, if perhaps not to the right people. But if only a few science books are being read and taken seriously from advise coming from this blog, I’m sure our persistence is worth it.
At times I also sort of disappear; but the total rape of science and the scientific method by some who appear on the blog, kick-starts me into action again.
Comment by Savage — January 20, 2009 @ 4:39 am |
Oom Stoffel # 239
“I have yet to learn of one single convert from either side; the arguments are futile.”
The fight is never futile.
While i realise and am myself guilty of thinking it futile at times i realise that one can never give up on protecting reason.
The arguments are not about saving science but about establishing reason. REason need not be save because it is almost an unknown for most people but rather it must be established.
We only go for peoples intellectual abilities when they are obviously demonstrating malicious intent and trolling for the sake of and refuse to engage in discussion.
WE need to establish reason because we need in not only in science but also in politics, economics, education and our general social structures and functionality.
Science merely offers a means to address the fundamental premises of godbots and show them up to be false at best, destructive of human ability and happiness at worst.
People apply their beliefs in all the spheres mentioned because they think if they “humble themselves sufficiently” some metaphysical entity or princi0ple will kick in that will save them from themselves….that all they need to do is believe and the law of cause and effect will cease to function for them…and that they will somehow escape from the consequences of their actions and inactions.
Dont address aids and economics etc…simply humble yourself and some metaphysical principle will “heal your land”.
To give up on the fight for reason is to accept the religious principle: dont worry about reason….if some metaphysical principle should require that it truimphs then so will it be..if not..well SHRUG.
So yeh it may get boring at times…it may seem futile at times, but it never is futile.
Let us never give up on ourselves and our ability to reason and our desire to promote and establish reason. Let us never give up attacking the irrational, the evil that resides in religion and religious people and above all Please lest us not accept their principles.
Comment by Objective — January 20, 2009 @ 5:49 am |
Well said, both Objective and Savage. I can only add that, as I see it, the primary practical function of this blog is not so much to produce converts; rather, it is to act as a consciousness raiser, to kick people in their metaphorical balls, to rouse them from their somnolent reverie and shout in their ear, “Hey, wakey-wakey! What you believe is a bucket of manure! And here’s why…”
If that striving becomes at times tedious, repetitive and/or heated then that is a price that needs to be paid in order that the effort does not falter. If for every ten fundies that post their inane drivel here just one lurker goes away and even only just thinks about both sides of the argument then the effort will have been worth it.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 6:24 am |
Oom Stoffel wrote: “I have yet to learn of one single convert from either side; the arguments are futile.”
Well, there is Thinus. I have been in contact with him and although his transition phase from religious to non-religious has been tedious, it seems like he is holding up.
Comment by Renier — January 20, 2009 @ 6:50 am |
Oom Stoffel is wise. One is dealing with two belief systems. To move someone’s paradigm, might take a Damascus experience.
1.Evolutionists need to understand that one does not address scientific questions by vilifying the questioner. They have some valid questions to answer, and the more they side-step these by tackling the credibility of scientists and laymen who are asking these questions, the more they resemble a belief system (or political party at worst).
2.Proponents of ID, must know that the substance of their message can not only be conveyed through intellect alone. The problem for a number of scientists convinced of ID, is that they do not have a belief system (agnostic) and are therefor unable to adequately expand on the evidence pointing towards ID.
Comment by Subbull — January 20, 2009 @ 6:56 am |
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
Undoubtedly.
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
No. One is dealing with one belief system and one evidence-based canon of knowledge.
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
And those selfsame questioners need to understand that simply ignoring valid answers by an assortment of dodges vilifies those giving the answer by implying that those answers are meaningless or irrelevant.
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
Doubtlessly so, but some of the answers must await the results of further study and investigation. To point at some other wholly unproven alternative as an answer is not only to jump the gun but also to commit a fallacy of false dilemma.
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
Where do they sidestep, please? Is saying, “We don’t know for sure – yet, but this is how it might be: …” a sidestep by your reckoning? Because, personally, I much prefer that kind of “sidestep” to the limping one that goes, “Goddiddit!” And the credibility “of scientists and laymen who are asking these questions” is a rather important issue in this affair. If you think otherwise, you need to think again. If Stephen Hawking made a pronouncement on some counterintuitive and surprising property of the cosmos, one would be advised to take it more seriously than had it issued from a fresh-faced physics undergraduate.
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
First, ID proponents need to specify functional criteria by which instances of design can be recognised in nature. For example, they need a clear set of (preferably quantitative) principles that would allow scientists to differentiate between reducible and so-called irreducible complexity in nature. Once these are to hand, they can apply them to nature in order both to recognise ID and to refine the criteria further. ID proponents have yet to succeed in either area. A vague hand-wave in the direction of “intellect alone” is not scientific. In fact, it is entirely anti-scientific.
Subbull wrote (#244 or thereabouts):
What evidence points towards ID, please? If there was any, even only vaguely suggestive, don’t you think many expert scientists would pursue it? Because the fact that very few of them do should tell you something, and that something is not the convenient fiction that they’re all daft and/or conspiring to keep the truth from people.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 8:25 am |
A. Con-Tester, in answer to your question “what evidence points towards ID?”. Here are two of the areas of study that have raised particular interest in the scientific community.
1. Attributes of Information: Functionality, Complexity, and Specificity. “Information theory” is a special area of mathematics which has developed a way to define and quantify information —which has certain characteristics. Note, that a significant amount of actual information must have all three of the following attributes: functionality, complexity and specificity. This theory enables one to identify and sort input based on whether it is random or intelligent.
2. Irreducible Complexity. IC states that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or “less complete” predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.
For more information, suggest you read some of the following sources:
The Soul of Science, by N. Pearcey & C. Thaxton, Wheaton,IL: Crossway Books, 1994.
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by M. Denton, 1985.
Intelligent Design In Nature (A Mathematical Proof)- by R. Totten – (c)1999 (http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html).
B. Reading through these blog pages, it is striking how many fellow-bloggers attack the person. In fact, most would not last a day in my class if they responded to fellow students’ point of view the way that it is tolerated on these pages. By most definitions, this behavior can be classified as unprofessional and disruptive. Points of view are often responded to by an ad hominem argument or otherwise termed as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”). It consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. Definition of Ad hominem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Comment by Subbull — January 20, 2009 @ 9:58 am |
Con-Tester asks: “What evidence points towards ID, please? If there was any, even only vaguely suggestive, don’t you think many expert scientists would pursue it?”
Lets repeat that last part of your question: “If there was any, even only vaguely suggestive, don’t you think many expert scientists would pursue it?”
The simple answer is NO! You and I and everyone on this blog and the whole world knows that the scientific community will not pursue any proposed ID theory, let alone one that is “…only vaguely suggestive”.
And to be fair Con-Tester, one can understand that – given the prevailing attitudes toward ideas alternative to Darwinism. In my humble opinion though, it is well worth exploring both of the theories listed by Subbull in response to Con-Tester’s question: 1. Testing origin (random or ID) on the basis of Attributes of Information (Functionality, Complexity, and Specificity; and 2. Testing origin (random or ID) on the basis of Irreducible Complexity. Both should meet your criteria “…only vaguely suggestive”.
Having worked through the maths on the Information Theory, it does make sense. With regard to Irreducible Complexity Theory, it makes sense to. But then, I am neither a mathematician nor biologist.
Challenge: Con-Tester and George, what are the possibilities that one of you (or other learned member of this blog), take on the task of evaluating these two theories (or just one). If it is evaluated fairly and with an open mind, I shall earnestly study your evaluation results (with professional assistance), and give honest feedback to the blog (irrespective of the outcome).
Comment by D.J.Short — January 20, 2009 @ 1:39 pm |
D.J.Short wrote (#246 or thereabouts):
What two theories did Subbull put forward? As far as I can tell, s/he was merely attempting to outline some perceived difficulties that seem to prevent fruitful dialogue (#244 or thereabouts). I have already discussed these issues (#245 or thereabouts) in case you missed it.
D.J.Short wrote (#246 or thereabouts):
I have some news for you, D.J.Short. There is no response of Subbull’s currently showing, so how do you know that there is one (probably caught up in the spam filter again)? More sockpuppetry, maybe?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 2:42 pm |
D.J.Short wrote (#246 or thereabouts):
First things first. My phrase “only vaguely suggestive” refers to any evidence (in the scientific meaning of that word) that suggests ID, not ID itself. There’s a subtle but nonetheless important distinction. Second, notwithstanding your entirely baseless asseverations regarding both the knowledge of various people and the scientific community’s preparedness to pursue various proposals, you need to understand one thing clearly: anyone wishing to displace the naturalistic account of life’s diversity that evolution provides has set him/herself an enormous task. S/he needs to give some very powerful reasons (a) why the existing account is deficient, (b) their account is superior, and (c) a whole mountain of concrete evidence to support those claims. Moreover, anyone who wishes to invokes the supernatural as an explanatory principle has automatically thereby removed themselves from the domain of science.
D.J.Short wrote (#246 or thereabouts):
And have you asked yourself why Darwinism has come to enjoy that prevailing attitude among the overwhelming majority scientific experts (but not from laypersons)? Here’s a hint: the proponents are scientific experts, which means they have studied the evidence; any alleged deficiency in their mental faculties and/or collusion to keep out the truth hardly enters into it.
As for the remainder of your questions, they will be addressed commensurate with the merits of what your alter ego has posted once George releases the comment.
In the meantime, I think you should for the sake of fairness and credibility at least attempt to answer some of the many questions that have been directed at you. Otherwise one might start suspecting that you have an agenda other than balanced discussion.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 2:51 pm |
Perhaps another commenter will confirm that at present the only comment by Subbull is #244, commencing with the text “Oom Stoffel is wise. One is dealing with two belief systems.”
Maybe then D.J.Short will come to understand how this works.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 2:58 pm |
And now we know, through my release of #246, that Con-Tester was indeed right: SubBull is indeed the “honest” DJ Short who creates alter-egos to support his own flimsy case. As he was L. Cilliers. Unfortunately for you, the spam-filters of WordPress has torpedoed your devious tactics, DJ.
Or are you ashamed that your arguments are blowing against the cyclone of evidence churned up by science?
Comment by George Claassen — January 20, 2009 @ 3:44 pm |
Thank you for confirming that, George.
Having been demonstrably caught out twice, D.J.Short — and I would not be surprised to learn that Delve (#49, #52 & #57) is another of your personae given your very odd response (#69) — do you honestly think that anyone will be impressed by your deceitful ruses?
I think you’re missing the bigger picture. Your mendacities not only cast serious doubt on anything you say, but more importantly they belie a preparedness, a ready willingness on your part to indulge in dishonesty in order to defend your contentions. Need I remind you of your god’s strict admonition against bearing false witness?
That you have repeatedly violated it?
That you thereby seriously devalue the very things you profess to believe in?
In short, that you have jettisoned whatever credibility you may once have had?
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 5:31 pm |
George and Con-Tester, your are behaving in the manner that a number of visitors to this site imply – you guys tackle the person, in stead of the subject. Hendrik say’s I’m American, not married, and has no kids. A day or two ago, you started asserting that LC and I are like the same person. To that, you have added another two: Delve and Subbull.
In so much as I gather that there are certain friendship’s / alliances on this site, LC and I are both friend and colleagues. We are like minded, but differ on a number of issues. For instance, LC is not particularly interested in the ID debate. Look again, and you will see that his writing style and subject choice differs considerably from mine. Being active in their ministry shows in his writing which is mostly around issues of faith. We are both it IT, but work approx 300Km apart. We serve a large mining company that is geographical dispersed (but from an IT point, interconnected).
For you and Hendrik. This is my 2nd marriage (20 years) and have 4 children. 2 are mine and two hers. Although a school teacher by profession, my wife is currently writing a book (based on arts and crafts). All our children have finished school – my youngest still studying graphic design.
George, you and I exchanged email a number of years ago (while you still wrote articles for news24 / Burger). If you still have them, pick up a phone and call me. I will gladly put you in touch with LC.
I have pointed a number of friends to your site, but am only aware of LC and my father-in-law who contribute. He owns a law firm, but 1st studied geology before doing his LLB in later years. He does not share my views on ID. What is it with those geologists?
There! You now know much more about me.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 20, 2009 @ 6:12 pm |
Ps. Speak to your IT guy regarding Subbull’s mysterious article. I responded to Subbull’s article when it 1st apeared on your site – I saw it some time after 3. It was then removed. It later reappeared as #246.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 20, 2009 @ 6:16 pm |
D.J.Short, hypocrisy doesn’t suit you. Courts of law assess a witness’ credibility and sincerity in large part on personal information that is extraneous to the case before it. To say that “you guys tackle the person, in stead [sic] of the subject” is thus just another in a growing list of deflections. Besides, many of your questions and concerns have been addressed with very little sign of any quid pro quo.
D.J.Short, you compound your lies with yet more lies.
WordPress won’t show publicly a quarantined comment unless the blog owner releases it. As someone allegedly in IT, you should know this. The only way to see a quarantined comment is if your PC is recognised as the one that comment was authored on, either because you have a WordPress account and are logged in or because there’s a WordPress cookie on your PC from a previous posting.
Therefore, your assertions above about “both [being] it [sic] IT, but work approx 300Km apart” cannot plausibly be held to be true. At best, you work in the same office, a possibility I raised in #195 if you’d care to look. Nor did I assert as an ironclad fact that these four individuals issue from the same body. Again, you can verify this for yourself.
The aforegoing applies to a comment by L. Cilliers and one by Subbull, and given your history of two priors, I merely added Delve as another probability.
D.J.Short, a suggestion: don’t compound your lies with yet more lies. The cracks are showing and the balance of probabilities overwhelmingly against you.
Nobody will believe you. Now for your own sake, ’fess up, pard!
Comment by Con-Tester — January 20, 2009 @ 7:11 pm |
dj short #247
“If it is evaluated fairly and with an open mind…[]“
Let us start with a clarification of your terms.
1. What do you mean with the term “fairly”? Who will determine whether the evaluation is “fair” or not [once we have established what it means]?
If you provide a definition for the term and a standard of judgement will the same apply to your evaluation of the evaluation?
2. What do you mean with the terms “with an open mind”?
Then i also have a problem with some of the conceptual content of some of your statements such as this one: “Testing origin (random or ID) on the basis of Irreducible Complexity. “
If it is complex it isn’t irreducible. Question then is what do you mean with the terms “irreducible complexity”? do you mean it is so complex that YOU cant understand it, or that it is so complex that nobody can understand it?
You see if it is complex and you know it then it means that you know it has components and you may be claiming that you dont know the components (whether of a process or structure) or even that nobody knows them. In principle however it doesnt mean that they cannot be known – rather the contrary.
AS i understand the problem: you, and others like you [people who believe in ghosts], take the term “belief” as self evident proof for any assertion you care to make. thus your belief in a “metaphysical existent” is vindicated by your belief in the claim that the concept *complexity* is indicative of your claim for the existence of a metaphysical existent. In less complex terminology: you believe that metaphysical matters of faith prove corporeal matters of fact or should i say; corporeal matters of fact are interpreted to vindicate your beliefs in metaphysical matters of faith.
This reinforces the conundrum: who shall judge the “fairness” of the explantion and what you do mean when you use the concepts “open mind”?
Comment by Objective — January 20, 2009 @ 8:08 pm |
NON random
=
organism
^
Organ system
^
organs
^
Tissues
^
Cells
^
Organelles
^
Basic biostructures
^
Macromolecules
^
simple molecules
^
atoms
^
elementary particles
The elementary processes that make up what we call “life” are shared in common by all biological species.
The processes that give rise to the beating of the heart in the human body are essentially no different from those that underlie the cardiac functions in fish. birds, frogs, apes or any other animal with a heart.
The nerves of humans function the same way as those of all other animals.
The internal states of organisms are controlled by biological control systems – the princple of homeostasis was first identified by the frenchman Claude Bernard in the 19th century.
All behaviour (including beliefs in ghosts) result from the need of animals to maintain homeostatis in their internal environment.
And in fact..the proteins from which the nervous sytem eventually developed are present in unicells.
Comment by Objective — January 20, 2009 @ 8:29 pm |
Con-Tester wrote (242) “If for every ten fundies that post their inane drivel here just one lurker goes away and even only just thinks about both sides of the argument then the effort will have been worth it.”
Amen. Let the dogs bark, this caravan is moving on! For as long as they “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”, they will see us as mere proxies for these imagined fears, and they will discriminate against us, ban us, and burn us whenever they get half the chance to do so.
I’d rather burn out than fade away. Christians have been at the wrong side of every moral and scientific argument from day one. We are here today not because of Christianity, but in spite of it, for “he that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”.
Their obsession with “meaning” and “purpose” and following “God’s will” is mostly an indication of how fearful and greedy they are. Not contend to live, love and leave like the rest of us, they want it all. They do not know that their narrow path is the broad, easy and immature way. They do not know that their love is conditional and fake. They so want to believe that they are special and loved – and, not realizing that they are indeed special and that love is really a verb and not a feeling, they miss out on the real joy of trying to figure out who we are and why we are here and why we should enjoy the fact that we do not know everything and probably never will and that it does not really matter that much because we can work and serve and eat and drink and procreate and that all of these things are supremely joyful activities – if you do not believe in sin.
They are like animals in a cage, kept in their confines by the imaginary bars of sin, believing that they do not belong to the world, and that God has chosen them out of the world, and that for that reason the world hates them.
How can you in all honesty believe that you are a loving and compassionate person if you have the God of the Bible on your side? But then, they do not seem to know the Scriptures, their self-centered horoscope-like interpretation of feel-good verses preventing them from really reading what is written.
Oom Stoffel (#239), I will never grow tired of pointing out these things. My heart goes out to all those blinded by religion. As Voltaire said, “Let us therefore reject all superstition in order to become more human; but in speaking against fanaticism, let us not imitate the fanatics: they are sick men in delirium who want to chastise their doctors. Let us assuage their ills, and never embitter them, and let us pour drop by drop into their souls the divine balm of toleration, which they would reject with horror if it were offered to them all at once.”
Comment by Oubaas — January 20, 2009 @ 9:28 pm |
The ID argument about how conditions in the universe were designed to sustain life is self-defeating anyway.
If the conditions were different, we wouldn’t be here.
Its like being surprised at how conveniently a river flows exactly along the border of two countries.
Comment by Lobo — January 20, 2009 @ 9:49 pm |
Objective, my challenge is in response to Con-Tester’s statement “If there was any, even only vaguely suggestive, don’t you think many expert scientists would pursue it?” If it was but so …
Be that as it may, on the basis of CT’s statement, at least one of the two theories should in all reasonableness be evaluated – if the science community to which he refers indeed are open to investigating alternative theories.
Objective, “With an open mind”, refers to an even-handed approach (no preconceived ideas).
Comment by D.J.Short — January 21, 2009 @ 4:17 am |
D j Short #260
and my response was in reply to your: “Challenge: Con-Tester and George, what are the possibilities that one of you (or other learned member of this blog), take on the task of evaluating these two theories (or just one). If it is evaluated fairly and with an open mind, I shall earnestly study your evaluation results (with professional assistance), and give honest feedback to the blog (irrespective of the outcome).”
Now can you address my #256.
DJShort #260: “Objective, “With an open mind”, refers to an even-handed approach (no preconceived ideas).”
All your ideas or that of anyone else are preconceived. It they werent you couldnt express them…ideas dont pop in and out of peoples heads as and when they need them but are structured physically from birth onwards.
And to assert that “open mind” means “even handed” does not address the question – it is what is known as a circular argument.
CAn you therefor please address my questions in #256? You did say you will earnestly consider an evaluation …earnestly…
I am merely attempting to kickstart the evaluation by ensuring what i think is evenhandedness: a clarification of the terms after which we will proceed to clarify premises and then the argument.
If you are not prepared to go that route then your insistence on “open mind”=”evenhandedness” would seem to be nothing more than idle usage of terms without attaching any meaning to them like a child who has learnt to say the word Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
Comment by Objective — January 21, 2009 @ 6:34 am |
Welcome back, Oubaas
. Good point, Lobo (#259 or thereabouts) — that observation is a simple statement of the so-called “Anthropic Principle.”
D.J.Short wrote (#260 or thereabouts):
D.J.Short, go read my comment #249 (or thereabouts) very carefully, especially the second half of the first paragraph. Now read it again. And once more, please. Now do the same with #245 (or thereabouts), 6th paragraph (“First, ID proponents need to…”).
Have you got it? Has it penetrated?
The upshot of what I wrote there is that the onus is on the claimant to convince the scientific community that an alternative theory is worth investigating. Just standing on your head and whistling, “Hey, what about this?” isn’t enough without also giving sufficient reason and evidence why any alternative should be investigated. Do you think physicists should investigate an alternative to General Relativity (which accounts for gravity) simply because some people think the Earth sucks? (Pun aside, I make no joke.)
Scientists have much better things to do with their time than waste it on debunking people’s follies. If they did the latter, they’d never get anything useful done for deflating all the manifold stupidities out there that others believe to be true. As individuals, nothing pleases a scientist more than when s/he can show his/her peers to be wrong so there’s a natural incentive to investigate plausible alternatives.
IDiots and cretinists have yet to provide any good reasons and evidence for why their claims should in any way be taken seriously, and that’s why the scientific community largely continues to ignore them.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 21, 2009 @ 6:47 am |
Analysis of “A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design In Nature” by R. Totten, © 1999
(For context, the reader is referred to #246, points 1. & 2.)
For the sake of brevity, I’ll confine myself to just a few of the key points of Totten’s article. I will first examine the strength of each of the four pillars that support the “proof” before tackling its mathematical content.
This rests on conflating a vague notion of “meaning” or “purpose” with the effects that result from certain mechanisms. A pendulum performs a “useful function.” So does a river or the wind, both of them systems in which many “things work together in coordination.” Thus, this criterion is not sufficient to establish directed purpose or function. Moreover, there’s an unstated assumption that this system, and only this specific system, can produce the observed function, a contention that is unsupported and improbable.
At best, this would be an after-the-fact and circumstantial assessment, since no functional criteria exist for judging “complex, specified information” objectively. To illustrate, consider that a primitive tribesman unfamiliar with any of the aspects and contrivances of modern life would hardly suspect any “complex, specified information” in a wristwatch, and nor would s/he fathom its purpose without some extraneous input. S/he might use it purely as an intriguing and decorative bauble, or possibly as a tool for performing some simple task unrelated to the watch’s raison d’être.
This falls entirely flat with the demise of the first pillar. Moreover, there are many examples in nature of otherwise inert self-ordering systems that spontaneously produce complex order. One example is ice crystals and snowflakes.
Again, this is based on the assumption that the “ordering” is unique – i.e. that the system simply cannot work if the ordering or assembly was different. It is hardly clear how this assumption can be convincingly defended, quite apart from the fact that it is unsubstantiated.
On to Totten’s mathematics. And how silly it is! This harping on about strings of letters and the “information” in them is, of course, a very poor analogy. For one thing, “meaning” and “information” are not the same thing. Information theorists concern themselves only with “information,” which can loosely be thought of as a measure of how complicated it is to describe a particular string of symbols. Thus, a string of completely random letters, counterintuitively, has a higher information content than one that repeats substrings because the latter is easier to formulate and to describe. From this perspective, a usual English sentence, while it may convey meaning to the reader, has high information content because the ordering of the letters in it is pretty much statistically random. But so does an otherwise meaningless string of random letters. Information theory cannot distinguish between the two.
Another problem with the analogy, perhaps a graver one, is that similar meanings (i.e. “functions” in the parlance of the wannabe information-theoretic evolution deniers) can be imparted in a variety of different ways. Even the same sentence with just a few of its letters jumbled up can be comprehended fairly readily. More condemningly, a sncenete in wchih ecah wrod is mxeid up in scuh a way taht olny its fsirt and lsat lterets keep tiher porepr pelacs is not too hrad to raed. In addition, meaning can be ambiguous, not to mention misunderstood. These facts show that similar or non-unique “meaning” can be induced in different ways, i.e. that function can be brought about in a variety of ways and, conversely, that unique function doesn’t necessarily follow from a given structure.
The calculation of the probability of a 50-amino acid protein emerging is fraught with the abovementioned difficulties. First, it assumes that there is only one viable 50-amino acid protein among the multitude of possibilities, an unproven and indeed questionable assumption. Second, and more importantly, it assumes that the protein must appear fully formed, another unproven and indeed very questionable assumption. It is far more probable that it was built up from less complex but nonetheless stable bits by trial-and-error. For illustrative purposes, we’ll use the calculated probability of 1:10^65. Restated slightly, this probability is near enough 1:2^216, or equivalent to flipping 216 consecutive heads (or tails) with a fair coin, clearly an entirely unlikely occurrence.
So far, so good. Suppose, however, that we adopt the following strategy: keep flipping the coin until six consecutive heads occur. On average, this will occur within 128 flips (= 2×2^6). Every time six consecutive heads occur, chalk them up to a chain of consecutive heads that grows by groups of six until you have achieved 36 such runs, i.e. 6×36 = 216 heads. The expected number of flips for this is 128×36 = 17,408 – far, far short of the 2^217 (= 2×2^216) expected to achieve a once-off run of 216 heads. Even if we use a more stringent substring requirement of 12 consecutive heads, we can still expect to achieve 216 heads, i.e. 18 runs of 12, in about 148,000 flips – still manageable. As the substrings get longer, the expected number of flips increases.
The point of the above exercise is simply to illustrate this: evolution deniers who raise such information theoretic objections do not understand that evolution is cumulative, discarding the useless bits along the way and retaining only the useful ones whenever they occur, just as we have done in building our string of 216 heads.
The above few counters seriously undermine the validity of the “mathematical proof of intelligent design in nature.”
Finally, we’ll a brief look at “Irreducible Complexity.” Behe, the originator of the concept, says that a system is irreducibly complex if it is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”
By that criterion, the Earth’s hydrologic cycle is irreducibly complex. It should be obvious that that is an entirely vacuous statement, since the alleged “irreducible complexity” is in this case plainly reducible to interactions of matter with several laws of nature. Thus, Behe’s definition is inadequate. Not only does it fail to identify its own target, it also fails to distinguish design, which was the intention behind the idea in the first place.
Comment by Con-Tester — January 21, 2009 @ 5:05 pm |
Thanks Con-Tester. Having read through your review of aspects of Totten’s theory, I find your presentation (for the most) easy to understand, but will take a while to respond. I recognize some of Totten’s reasoning from statistical analysis. And that is not a precise “science”. But then, I am no mathematician so I shall comb through your arguments and try to give a meaningful response.
Regarding comments on Behe’s Irreducible Complexity theory, it is – by your own admission – brief. My understanding of the theory though, is that it was developed to evaluate living organisms (perhaps I am showing my ignorance here). Please comment.
Comment by D.J.Short — January 21, 2009 @ 7:48 pm |
D.J.Short wrote (#264 or thereabouts):
De nada. It’s for everyone’s benefit, including my own.
D.J.Short wrote (#264 or thereabouts):
Au contraire, dude. Statistics and statistical analysis are very precise and firmly grounded mathematical disciplines. The imprecisions are in the data (as well as in certain assumptions about the data) that the statistical techniques are applied to, rather than in the techniques themselves. Part of the misperception about statistics arises from the fact that the statistician’s toolbox is a very, very well stocked one and the statistician can often use different tools to arrive at conclusions that seem at odds with one another.
D.J.Short wrote (#264 or thereabouts):
Can Behe or you or anyone adequately define “living organism?” While there are clear examples of both living and non-living entities that we have no trouble classifying correctly, there are others, e.g