tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1018133867681730116..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The real war is between rationalism and superstitionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger185125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18970120108640470372015-10-22T16:52:07.241-04:002015-10-22T16:52:07.241-04:00I believe belief itself is irrational. For example...I believe belief itself is irrational. For example, if someone believes something to argue or debate that point may be a rational thought however if the motive to that thought is irrational or in other words not reasonable to ones belief it shows ones true aim. I can honestly say I am truly irrational about a lot of things except the obvious. The obvious is not ones belief in something or something proven through facts but the factual conclusion which leads to the debate of death. This has no debate you just die. In saying that I will not quote any but say that once we face death all is proven to rather one is religious or not. Everyone fears death to say you don't is suicidal, so this leads to the facts crushing all superstition and rationality that ones life is lived based on ones belief. Any rational thinking cannot save you from death rather religions or non religious. Faith is a belief, a thought is not a belief rather an idea or opinion. Like one saying, "I believe I will be an all star NFL running back" and another replying, "you know there's only a 1 in 1,000 chance that you will be in the NFL?" Superstition is an illusion not a belief so the battle is not rationality vs superstition it is but faith vs doubt which leads to your own studies and indulgence in those studies. Theologically speaking to believe in it you must fully indulge yourself in it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08140233219632472798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6408048621894220602014-02-15T18:24:14.158-05:002014-02-15T18:24:14.158-05:00Re GS Talbert
I always get a laugh then noodle br...Re GS Talbert<br /><br />I always get a laugh then noodle brains like Talbert try to blame what happened in Russia on evolutionary biologists like Prof. Moran. Just for his edification, the Communists under Stalin rejected Darwin's theory of natural selection in favor of the inheritance of acquired traits theory espoused by Trofim Lysenko. The acceptance of that theory directly led to the famines in the former Soviet Union that led to the deaths of millions of its citizens. Evolutionary biology was rejected by Stalin because it was not in accord with Communist ideology, much like it is rejected by fundy Christians, Jews, and Muslims because is is not in accord with their nonsensical "holy" books, the Hebrew bible, the Christian bible, and the Quran.<br /><br />Just to complete the circle, the fundy claim that Darwin's theory led to Frankenberger and the Nazis is also disproved the latter's rejection of common descent in Mein Kampf.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66357633087111659352014-02-15T12:30:10.639-05:002014-02-15T12:30:10.639-05:00GS Talbert accuses me.
You are espousing a danger...GS Talbert accuses me.<br /><br /><i>You are espousing a dangerous ideology that is responsible for the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings as well as the destruction and devastation in both of the cultural revolutions in China as well as the deliberate brutal genocide and cultural liquidation in Russia.</i><br /><br />What "ideology" would that be?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9624724248740855862014-02-15T09:50:11.304-05:002014-02-15T09:50:11.304-05:00P.S.
Jesus loves you and I'm praying for you...P.S. <br /><br />Jesus loves you and I'm praying for you - GS Talbertsteve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4925010959625189302014-02-15T09:23:06.779-05:002014-02-15T09:23:06.779-05:00One of the most fascinating things about the Chris...One of the most fascinating things about the Christian Right is that they project themselves onto their enemies. The ones that fret most about 'Shariah Law' are exactly the ones who want the laws change to reflect (their) Christian values. The ones who talk about invading hordes are the ones that deploy hundreds of thousands of troops abroad. The ones that bleat about individuality want us all to conform, there's a two in three chance that a Catholic bishop talking about secularism destroying families has covered up a child rape in his diocese. <br /><br />I guess it's 'do unto others' in action. <br /><br />Once you notice this, it's terrifying. Once you see that what they accuse atheists of is what they would love to do to atheists ... well, be afraid.<br />Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65708156926770525572014-02-15T06:00:40.879-05:002014-02-15T06:00:40.879-05:00Please understand I do not mean to insult, but.......<i>Please understand I do not mean to insult, but....</i><br /><br />and thusly begins the letters from many a good christian, it seems. This should be interesting. And just when it seemed that the comment section for this post was getting quite long enough.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1957405032323221062014-02-15T03:36:04.396-05:002014-02-15T03:36:04.396-05:00Dr Moran,
Please understand I do not mean to ins...Dr Moran, <br /><br />Please understand I do not mean to insult, but you are an ignorant, idiotic, dangerous biggot, one who most certainly will not waste his time attending to contrary views (and even if you did I doubt it would do you any good), you literally do not know what you are talking about. I believe this is entirely your fault, as you display the necessary intellect to grasp the flaws in your bullshit and thus the stupidity here is entirely your own. I think you know on some level to be true, the alternative is that you possess mental retardation of one form or another. You are espousing a dangerous ideology that is responsible for the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings as well as the destruction and devastation in both of the cultural revolutions in China as well as the deliberate brutal genocide and cultural liquidation in Russia. While I understand unthinking brutes such as yourself are impervious to reason I can only hope that you actually think about what you are saying. The irony is, of course, you aren't thinking otherwise you wouldn't be saying the very things you are; this is indicative that this activity is beyond your capabilities. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt in spite of your obvious stupidity, its just the kind of person I am. I doubt you will bother to rouse yourself from your dogmatic slumbers to actually read his book (there are several in this strain but Dr. Cavanaugh's is really the forefront of this line of scholarship), that would require you to actually think about this issue and I am not sure you are up to such a task. No, here's something someone with a lazy and dull mind, such as yourself, can WATCH as reading for such a low thinker is a difficult chore, unless of course the subject serves to masturbate the ego. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWnInrHihAM<br /><br />It'll only do you good if you're humble enough, pearls before swine and what not. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03883419787695010991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87471976659454799602014-02-13T09:29:19.270-05:002014-02-13T09:29:19.270-05:00Andy, If you could point out where your answers ar...Andy, If you could point out where your answers are, that would be fine. But I certainly don't recall them. If you're interested in making your views known, you are not currently succeeding.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43693650431316033052014-02-13T01:22:20.867-05:002014-02-13T01:22:20.867-05:00Colnago wrote: "I hate to point this out to W...Colnago wrote: "I hate to point this out to Wilberforce, but the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"<br /><br />Could you show a quote where I say that?<br /><br />John, wrote: "Are you still not talking to me?" <br /><br />Sorry if you feel neglected, I just haven't seen any new question that I haven't already answered.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62440959211064926662014-02-12T18:34:53.267-05:002014-02-12T18:34:53.267-05:00I hate to point this out to Wilberforce, but the T...I hate to point this out to Wilberforce, but the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, any more then it has to do with the origin of the universe. Just to repeat something I have stated on this blog previously, the origin of the universe is a problem in physics, the origin of life, defined as the appearance of the first replicators, is a problem in chemistry, and the evolution of life is a problem in biochemistry. Sorry to rain on Wilberforce's parade but that's the size of it. Therefore, the statement that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant. It is not designed to explain the origin of life and never claimed to, except in the imaginations of the creationists and the IDiots.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38488704532541707392014-02-12T17:40:50.009-05:002014-02-12T17:40:50.009-05:00I wonder if they all believe in the same deity. Eg...I wonder if they all believe in the same deity. Egnor's is a Texas sharpshooter (who fires a load of shot first and then paints the <i>telos</i>), Andre's is an absent-minded engineer (who makes mistakes but what the hell: nobody's perfect!), Andy's is just the Lord of the Gaps (there are lacunae of knowledge, therefore God).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89145565362963302222014-02-12T17:27:03.691-05:002014-02-12T17:27:03.691-05:00John Harshman said: Why did god choose that time t...John Harshman said: <i>Why did god choose that time to introduce lots of new phyla, many of which he immediately abandoned? Why was he incapable of setting up a world in which such intervention was unnecessary? </i><br /><br />John, I believe Andre Gross addressed this in another thread where he told us that in the bible, god (sounding no more omnipotent than the auto mechanic down the street) has owned up to his mistakes.<br /><br />So there's that.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21647613979111654982014-02-12T15:55:10.804-05:002014-02-12T15:55:10.804-05:00In evolutionary theory the idea about vestigial st...<i>In evolutionary theory the idea about vestigial structures is not that they lack function but have been co-opted for new function.</i><br /><br />Andy, as Piotr pointed out, you are incorrect about this. Regardless of whether you admit they are vestigial legs, as the fossil and genetic records amply show, would you care to hazard a conjecture as to what possible function they *do* have?<br /><br />Here's another question along the same lines, which doesn't depend on your knowledge of paleontology or genetics: Why do guys have nipples?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26049254907923861822014-02-12T14:00:24.777-05:002014-02-12T14:00:24.777-05:00@Andy WilberforceMonday,
H2O relates to river as ...@Andy WilberforceMonday,<br /><br /><i>H2O relates to river as brain relates to mind. </i><br /><br />So are you proposing a non-material explanation for the behaviour of rivers ?<br /><br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1224516030200860382014-02-12T13:40:42.486-05:002014-02-12T13:40:42.486-05:00Andy: Judmarc, as all "vestigial" struct...Andy: <i>Judmarc, as all "vestigial" structures the "hind limbs" of whales do have function.</i><br /><br />What function? Hiding under blubber so that they can't be seen?<br /><br /><i>In evolutionary theory the idea about vestigial structures is not that they lack function but have been co-opted for new function.</i><br /><br />They <i>may</i> be so co-opted, but they may also have no function at all, in which case they don't contribute to the organism's fitness.<br /><br /><i>The "proof" of this is based on comparative studies of homologous features in "related" species, i.e. it based on a circular logic.</i><br /><br />They also develop from very similar limb buds in cetacean embryos, and their growth is controlled by some of the same control genes.<br /><br /><i>There are many arguments against the structures being vestigial legs, the most apparent is maybe the separation of the pelvic girdle from the spine.</i><br /><br /><i>Basilosaurus</i> had 35-cm-long residual hind limbs with all the typical skeletal elements still present (including a foot with three digits), but its pelvis had no articulation with the spine. If you look at the fossil cetaceans, you can see the <b>gradual</b> reduction of their hind limbs, via stages when they still looked like legs but could no longer be used for locomotion. Even today, some mysticetes (especially the bowhead) retain several elements of the hindlimb skeleton. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59309659395445313182014-02-12T12:38:18.325-05:002014-02-12T12:38:18.325-05:00Andy, just to make things clear: do you think whal...Andy, just to make things clear: do you think whales were created de novo and have no genealogical relationship to other animals, including hippos? If not, what is the point of your claim that whale "legs" are not vestigial?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85996705692203431752014-02-12T12:35:53.217-05:002014-02-12T12:35:53.217-05:00Andy, Judmarc didn't write that. I did. And we...Andy, Judmarc didn't write that. I did. And we weren't talking about the Cambrian explosion. We were talking about whale evolution. Would you care to answer that question, as well as others?<br /><br />I'll answer your question: no, I wouldn't call the Cambrian explosion "tweaking". But some of the same objections apply. Why did god choose that time to introduce lots of new phyla, many of which he immediately abandoned? Why was he incapable of setting up a world in which such intervention was unnecessary? If what he wanted was humans, why didn't he just create them in the Cambrian? And why, if this was some kind of a creation event, does it emerge grqadually over a period of 40 million years or so?<br /><br />Are you still not talking to me?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10818688557657389422014-02-12T12:26:58.570-05:002014-02-12T12:26:58.570-05:00Judmarc wrote: "And why did God find it neces...Judmarc wrote: "And why did God find it necessary to tweak evolution at that particular point?"<br /><br />So you seriously mean that the Cambrian Explosion with all it's new phyla with unique body plans appearing in a geological instance could be described as "tweaking"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13326737294772608952014-02-12T12:05:11.693-05:002014-02-12T12:05:11.693-05:00Judmarc, as all "vestigial" structures t...Judmarc, as all "vestigial" structures the "hind limbs" of whales do have function. In evolutionary theory the idea about vestigial structures is not that they lack function but have been co-opted for new function. The "proof" of this is based on comparative studies of homologous features in "related" species, i.e. it based on a circular logic. There are many arguments against the structures being vestigial legs, the most apparent is maybe the separation of the pelvic girdle from the spine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20898805218144298022014-02-12T05:00:11.308-05:002014-02-12T05:00:11.308-05:00[I think mind is an excellent example of where mat...[I think mind is an excellent example of where materialistic reductionism fails. Materialistic processes cannot explain consciousness or intentionality ....]<br />So you say. Let's presume that's correct. Tell me how "supernatural designer did it" - "explains" consciousness and intentionality. How does it work?Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59239747883090145482014-02-11T22:39:56.129-05:002014-02-11T22:39:56.129-05:00I was first alerted to the ubiquity of this metaph...<i>I was first alerted to the ubiquity of this metaphor when discussing Chasidus with a Lubavitcher rabbi who was attempting to explain the term "ehad" in the "shema".</i><br /><br />Attempting? What exactly is the great mystery in translating the word for "one," as in "The Lord is one," as in monotheism? (Except for all the confusion engendered by a certain offshoot Jewish sect that developed an urgent need to show the Lord was actually three - oh, and one also, at the very same time!<br /><br />As Dr. Egnor says, this type of very precise thinking can be seen to lead directly to Science.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67677202568719668182014-02-11T22:26:20.466-05:002014-02-11T22:26:20.466-05:00And why did God find it necessary to tweak evoluti...<i>And why did God find it necessary to tweak evolution at that particular point?</i><br /><br />And why did He tweaketh it in such a way as to give the whale rudimentary *internal*, useless feet? A particularly antic sense of humor, perhaps?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66113074286337791242014-02-11T18:35:27.202-05:002014-02-11T18:35:27.202-05:00[ Rumraket wrote: "...why the FUCK would the ...[ Rumraket wrote: "...why the FUCK would the IDiots want to debate whether "Neo Darwinism" (a population genetics model) is adequate to explain the origin of life?"<br /><br />Sounds like someone missed what the debate is about again...Origin of life?!? ]<br />No, that's not the full debate resolution. The full debate resolution was, as stated by the moderator about 3 minutes and 20 seconds in: "<b>How adequate has Darwin's theory, and it's modern version - Neo Darwinism, been at explaining the origins of life?</b>". <br /><br />Please explain to me Andy, who ever thought it was? Who believes that population genetics explains the origin of life? Why would anyone be called upon to defend a resolution never believed by a single person? It is inherently dishonest. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52900472311966722332014-02-11T15:58:29.848-05:002014-02-11T15:58:29.848-05:00אָמֵן
;-)
אָמֵן<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07537613136778261438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36305807032705101862014-02-11T15:54:34.283-05:002014-02-11T15:54:34.283-05:00" ...pushing the envelope further, such notio..." ...pushing the envelope further, such notions of altruism, and righting wrongs really cannot be addressed at an enzymatic or molecular level."<br /><br />Of course they can: I want to live in a world full of kind people, not nasty ones, therefore I try to be kind. <br /><br />Now, what's nicest: a person who just wants to be kind, or a person who can only be kind if they think one of the gods wants them to be and might reward or punish them? <br /><br />If you want to reduce this to the molecular level, then ... well, co-operating is generally a great way to survive longer to pass on your genes. Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.com