Only rules:
No-one gets kicked off - ever.
Posts may get edited for bad language but that's it.
We could call it 'evolutionflamewars' or something like that
Then we just invite interested parties to come and play...
form_srcid: Tim
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.95
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Tim
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Tim%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2005/03/27 21:11:58, Link 24.19.39.63 |
| Author: TimChase |
|
For something a little more serious... Of course, it is argued by some evolutionists that it may be impossible in some cases to identify one species as the ancestral species of another species -- simply due to the fact that intermediate steps were not preserved and due to the presence of a large number of closely related species across time (e.g., that the hominid family tree is actually more like a bush than a tree), but in some cases, there is a impressive amount of continuity in the fossil record. Please see: Smooth Change in the Fossil Record |
| Date: 2005/03/27 21:35:44, Link 24.19.39.63 |
| Author: TimChase |
|
I hope no one minds if I throw in a something a bit more concrete -- I find this example rather interesting. One of Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity is the eukaryotes' axoneme. As such, I think you may take an interest in a recent paper (2004) by David R. Mitchell at the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York. He argues that gliding motors which rely upon undulation would have preceded bending motors, and that such gliding motors -- although far less efficient than bending motors -- would not have any special requirements in terms of their structure (e.g., the 9+2 geometry of the axoneme, the doublets of microtubules, the radial spokes, the central pair of microtubules) but that each of these innovations would have improved either the strength or control over the flagellum. The article is entitled: "Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organelles and the role of central pair microtubules" I have found several links for David R. Mitchell's article: Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organells and the role of central pair microtubules (pdf) Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organelles and the role of central pair microtubules (pdf) Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organelles and the role of central pair microtubules (html) Lynn Margulis (a leading proponent of the view that symbiosis is the source of much of the novelty in the generation of new species) had argued that the axonemes (as well as the mitochondria and chloroplasts) were originally bacteria which combined with the eukyrotes through symbiosis. Apparently she got the axonemes wrong -- although she was right about the mitochondria (whose closest known living relative is the rickettsia bacteria responsible for typhoid) and the chloroplast (which was originally a species of cyanobacteria -- clumps of which are called blue-green algae). |
| Date: 2005/03/27 22:18:00, Link 24.19.39.63 |
| Author: TimChase |
|
What I would say is that this is just plain false. The immune system gets programmed to recognize proteins which are a part of the organism vs. proteins which are alien to the organism (at least in humans) by the thymus. Please see: Shadow Proteins In Thymus May Explain How Immune System Gets To Know Its Own Body In addition, we know that viruses have the ability in various cases to suppress the immune system (e.g., ebola, HIV) and integrate themselves into the human genome (HIV and other retroviruses, such as the human endogenous retroviruses -- three of which are responsible for making the placenta an impregnable barrier to the mother's immune system). Please see: The viruses that make us: a role for endogenous retrovirus in the evolution of placental species by Luis P. Villarreal (Incidentally, Villarreal has a new book that just came out "Viruses and the Evolution of Life." Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, though.) The important thing is that -- at least as far as the thymus is concerned -- the change in the genetic code take place in the germline -- but that is already a given, since otherwise it will not be passed on to the offspring. One thing to note, though: the immune system of humans is a bit more versatile and powerful than that of most other mammals. Please see: Ancient "Jumping DNA" May Have Evolved Into Key Component Of Human Immune System This might help explain why so much gene therapy is heralded a success in rabbits and other small mammals, but usually is rejected by our immune system before it has a chance to work. |
| Date: 2005/03/27 23:49:13, Link 24.19.39.63 | ||
| Author: TimChase | ||
This article looks good -- but I am going to have to give it more time than I have right now. However, I am not sure how much of a respected place Intelligent Design can earn, given the nature of the beast. For example, in response to Behe's argument from irreducible complexity, the most important point in answering Behe (and his argument of Irreducible Complexity) is to recognize that once we declare a structure or protein to be irreducibly complex, and therefore the product of an intelligent designer, the inquiry ends, and there is no further explanation, no further attempt to understand how the thing came into being. This is the very opposite of science, where every discovery leads to further inquiry and further discoveries. Behe is simply dressing up the argument that "It is that way because God made it that way" in pseudoscientific language. This is similiarly the case when ever an intelligent designer is involked (unless one is willing to admit that one's intelligent designer is something which can be studied, experimentally prodded, and scientifically categorized -- not the kind of thing an ID adherent is wont to do.) It is thinking like that which would have left us stuck in the caves, entirely ignorant of electrons, microscopes, cells, DNA or proteins. But at the same time, detailed, technical responses to specific points raised by Behe (such as David R. Mitchell's recent article Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organells and the role of central pair microtubules (pdf)) have considerable value -- if for no other reason than demonstrating that evolutionary theory is alive and well. |
| Date: 2005/09/08 23:56:06, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA eeeeeh stop it stop it. My stomach hurts. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Someone actually believes this? I mean seriously? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Next they'll be telling us the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA aaaah ... this is too much. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude. But ... global flood? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
| Date: 2005/09/09 05:16:35, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
I'm sorry, who? Henry Morris, Phd? Tell me, is this the same Henry Morris who said in his farcical book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, ; "As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets." As early as 1984, astronomers discovered that dark clouds of matter which obscured distant stars were indeed planets. Since that date 20 years ago, the Hubble telescope, through direct observation, has identified that around half of the one hundred or so stars observed so far in the Orion nebula alone have planets orbiting them. Source Direct confirmation of a planet in another system has been made by independent astronomers in 1999, orbiting the star Pegasus 51. NASA and Berkeley Is this also the same Henry Morris, Phd, who has failed time and again to deny the Bible's geocentrism. The Bible refers to the earth as the centre of the universe, which goes to show how poor a basis for scientific fact it actually is. Henry Morris, Phd, has tried and failed to deny this fact. Source If you believe Henry Morris' gibberings which have been proven false, it's no wonder you believe there was a flood. A big, Global flood. Hmph. Ahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "Move along folks, nothing to see" |
| Date: 2005/09/19 17:25:14, Link 24.19.39.63 |
| Author: TimChase |
|
There is a good analysis of myosin and how it works (nothing particularly mysterious, I might add) at: pharyngula.org - Evolving Motors Moreover, both myosin and kinesin are the subjects of on-going phylogenetic analyses: Kinesin Tree Motor Diversity - Phylogenetic Analysis - Myosin Evopeach -- scientists can sometimes strike people as somewhat abrasive, perhaps more so when interacting with someone who is so ignorant that they believe that they are brilliant, and that their opinions should carry as much weight as someone who has had a great deal of education and experience in a field that they themselves barely know. However, if the average citizen takes this to be some form of unmitigated arrogance, then I believe such citizens will deserve the world that they get for as long as it lasts. -- Timothy Chase, novice in the realm of Molecular Biology |
| Date: 2005/11/14 20:55:32, Link 57.56.132.154 |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
How long would it take for a genetically engineered 'bioweapon' virus or bacteria to start showing diversity once it's released? Not long, I would think. Also, someone engineering bioweapons would probably create more than one similar strain, specifically to avoid a single vaccine being effective. |
| Date: 2005/11/14 21:41:30, Link 57.56.132.154 | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
The problem with that is that big changes sometimes do happen - particularly with transposons or retrotransposons. Or frame shift mutations. Or even symbiogenesis. I think overall there is a problem with detecting design. This is the same problem encountered by the ID proponents - their 'design detection mechanisms' have been shown to be useless over and over again. I realise that what they are trying to show is 'supernatural' design, but I think the same problems occur when trying to demonstrate human design as well. This was one of the points I was making on the original thread - if hypothetically some (well funded) IDist splices a whale gene into a bacterium and claims it was found in the wild (therefore 'blowing evolution out of the water' yadda yadda) - how do you show it was designed - and specifically how do you show it was designed by a human and not some unspecified supernatural designer? |
| Date: 2005/11/16 22:16:07, Link 57.56.132.154 | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
You are wrong unfortunately. Assuming some standard of coding was agreed on there is no particular reason why a human scientist couldn't manufacture a DNA sequence representing pi and splice it into a living organism. Which would class as a known genetic event. |
| Date: 2005/12/12 21:40:24, Link 57.56.132.154 |
| Author: Tim Hague |
| What's a 'lemma' anyway? It is some kind of text-speak for dilemma? |
| Date: 2005/12/12 21:53:07, Link 57.56.132.154 | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad". From the Cambridge Dictionary. I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation. I also agree with the overall impression that it's the ID folk who do most of the ad-hominems against the credentials and reputations of the evolution supporters, not the other way round (Salvador vs Flank being another prime example on this board). |
| Date: 2006/01/10 21:59:20, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
We could just start up a blog specifically for debating the ID and creationist types. Only rules: No-one gets kicked off - ever. Posts may get edited for bad language but that's it. We could call it 'evolutionflamewars' or something like that Then we just invite interested parties to come and play... |
| Date: 2006/01/10 22:07:14, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
The problem is that doing PR properly takes money. And time. And effort. Is there anyone out there who will be willing to sponser a PR initiative for 'real' science? Are there any scientists who be willing to give up their day jobs in order to do science PR full time? |
| Date: 2006/01/17 00:44:20, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Can you provide a linky to the Uncommon descent blog. I'm fascinated. |
| Date: 2006/01/17 21:31:05, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
Hello Larry. Welcome to After the Bar Closes. If I don't believe a theory is useful, why would I use it? I would say that using a theory implies some kind of acceptance that the theory may be useful. You must also be careful not to fall into the 'evolution is just a theory' trap, because evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. |
| Date: 2006/01/18 21:48:51, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
I have to admit, I haven't read much of Davidson's stuff before. It seems bizarre to see his stuff on UD, because a lot of it contradicts the ID position, as well at itself. Just a quick example: JAD: "I also have never questioned Intelligent Design. Quite the contrary, I always regarded it as self-evident and a mandatory starting point from which to examine the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny which are simply two aspects of the same reproductive continuum." OK, so 'self-evidently' something is involved in doing design. JAD: "Darwinism is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and every attempt to simulate it has failed." This is just bizarre. JAD is stating that there is an external identifiable cause behind evolution (and thus 'Darwinism' ) , which is the exact opposite of what evolution states. If he replaced the word Darwinism with ID I might understand and agree with his argument! My version: ID is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and as far as I know there have been no attempts to simulate it. |
| Date: 2006/01/19 22:04:57, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
Keiths, Sir_Toejam, thanks for the responses. I'm just having a think about where down the line a heritable mutation might occur, and I'm concentrating on sexual reproduction. I'm using the definition of mutation from talk origins - mutation is a change in a gene. I'm looking at the types of mutation as well and thinking about which types are most likely to result in a heritable mutation. If anyone knows of any studies comparing the likelihood of various types of mutation and can point me in that direction I'd be grateful. |
| Date: 2006/01/25 07:40:42, Link 80.99.175.128 |
| Author: Tim Hague |
| Is anyone taking bets on the odds of thordaddy actually turning up? |
| Date: 2006/01/25 10:03:50, Link 80.99.175.128 |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
Cranks do have their uses. Some of the more interesting threads you will see will be 'crank inspired'. I have to admit I only got into the whole ID vs. evolution debate last year, and it was completely due to a crank on a football (soccer) forum I was on, who utterly refused to acknowledge logic. Due to him, I ended up researching all over the web, and found Panda's Thumb among other excellent sites. The whole debate has reignited my interest to the point where I am seriously thinking about getting back in to proper science again - the last time I did any was towards the end of my Genetics degree 12 years ago. I'm thinking about doing a masters in Bioinformatics, and possibly leaving IT to do science again full time. All inspired by a single crank. |
| Date: 2006/01/25 21:09:40, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
"I believe it because it's true. It's true because I believe it." If you can't persuade someone that this is circular logic then you're wasting your time. |
| Date: 2006/01/27 01:12:48, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
I enjoyed the programme overrall. They did a good job of building up Behe's bacterial flagella, with his good ol' "it won't work if all the parts aren't there" canard, which to a layman can make a lot of sense, just to knock it down so thoroughly with Ken Miller's wonderfully clear demonstration subsequently. The same approach was followed with Dembski (is he always so spooky?). They took some time to explain his mathematical probability theory that makes the 'chances' of evolution happening (whatever that means)impossible. Again this was followed with Ken clearly explaining that if you take a deck of cards and deal out all 52, the probability of you dealing those same 52 cards again in the same sequence is extremely low. However that is entirely irrelevant; the original 52 card sequence (evolution) had a 100% chance of happening, as that is the card sequence we have today. Ken's explanation made Dembski and all his moody dice throwing look, well, a bit silly. For me this formula of building up and thoroughly explaining the 'science' behind ID, just to then knock it down again so convincingly was a persuasive way of presenting the creation/evolution controversy (or lack thereof). I felt that the programme could have interviewed some of the Dover board of governors on the creationist side; those that voted for the original change in the biology curriculum. They interviewed one couple who voted against the change, and one science teacher who resigned when he realised the board majority's agenda, but none on the creationist side. However I'm guessing that after they were voted out they'd be rather reluctant to grant any interviews. Dawkins I thought came across as rather shrill, but then he usually does. It's a shame because his points are always very clear and concise, but his manner (I am RIGHT and they are WRONG) is immediately off-putting. The moodiness in the presentation of the program with lingering shots of not very much was, I agree, unnecessary, but overall I don't think it detracted too much from the subject therein. Anyhoo, leave it to the ever-wonderful and ever-interesting David Attenborough to sum things up beautifully at the end. |
| Date: 2006/01/27 02:49:09, Link unknown | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
As someone who has designed a lot of software, I have to disagree with that. The hallmark of good design is often simplicity, however the only hallmark that really applies for design is - does the designed object actually do what it's designed to do, and do it efficiently enough to be useful. The simplest design is not always the best design. All good designs involve a compromise between the ideal (simplicity) and the pragmatic (reality). |
| Date: 2006/02/01 23:46:07, Link unknown | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
Not all engineers are ignorant of biology... some of us software engineers have degrees in both genetics and design and have no problems whatsoever in spotting the 'breathtaking inanity' of ID |
| Date: 2006/02/07 06:04:15, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
I smoked for ten years, mainly Marlboro Lights, but also Silk Cut and Camel Lights, and occasionally anything else if I had little choice and needed to light up. It took a hiking trip along the Inca trail in Peru, where some of the walks are at altitude where the air is thin, to make me realise how much smoking had adversely affected my health. I became out-of-breath extremely easily, my fitness unreasonably poor, my lung's ability to process oxygen unduly limited. At a relatively young 28 years of age this came as a real shock. I decided there and then that I would not smoke another cigarette, and to this day a little over four years later I have not relented. The habit was hard to break, particularly when out socialising. But I decided that if I were to see it through, it would be through sheer will; patches and other alternate forms of nicotine intake still feed the addiction troll, and that just didn't hold water with how to successfully break the habit for me. As Flint has said, I think that it's best just to suffer and bear it if you are to break it. Now, very occasionally, I get a pang when I'm in a pub and I see someone light up. But one glance at a disgusting and overflowing ashtray, one nauseating whiff of putrid smoke in a restaurant while I'm eating, one walk in the hills when I can breathe the fresh air and can stride energetically without loss of breath, and I am quickly reminded of why I gave up. Go at it and stick to it. It's well worth it. Good luck! |
| Date: 2006/02/08 06:08:51, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
What it all boils down to is evidence. Avocationist keeps banging on about ID explaining the 'facts' and the 'details' being with ID. Well, what facts? What details? I have never seen any positive evidence for ID. All I've seen from the ID community is negative arguments against evolution, which - even if true (and they're not) - would not prove design. So where is the positive evidence? The only thing that comes close to a positive argument is that 'it sure looks designed to me'. Well, it looks designed to me as well. But then, from my perspective the sun moves through the sky every day. And from my perspective the continents are in no way moving around. What's wrong with my perspective? It's a human one, that's what is wrong with it. Human's have an inherent (dare I say evolved? ) difficulty in imagining things beyond the range of their sight, and things that take longer to happen than their lifespans. That's why we need to exercise our imaginations. Are we ever going to see the earth revolving round the sun? This one's a bit more possible. Technically speaking I could build a space ship, park it somewhere at right angles to the earths orbit and sit there for a year, watching it happening. We can take the geologicial evidence and we can imagine the continents moving around. Are we ever going to actually see it happening? No way. Not unless we crack the 70ish year life span we currently have. Do we need an intelligent designer theory to show that continents can't move by themselves? Not so far. Humans have major difficulties dealing with geological time spans. I have major problems trying to imagine what a million years would be like. If I live until 70 it will seem to me to be one #### of a long subjective time - twice as long as I've been around so far. I'd have to live 14000 times longer than that to get anywhere near a million. 14000 long life spans. And that's just a million years. Don't get me started on a billion years. Evolution may be slow, and random mutation may appear to give only tiny weeny changes one at time, but when you're talking about bacteria that reproduce once every 20 minutes you're talking about incredibly vast populations of fast breeding organisms where small mutations will be happening literally every single second world wide - every second of every hour of every day, every year, for billions of years! Now tell me again how improbable evolution is... |
| Date: 2006/02/21 03:17:21, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
It was the 2002 Miss World pageant, which was eventually moved to London due to the rioting. More at CNN ... |
| Date: 2006/03/10 04:42:06, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||||||
| Author: Tim | ||||||
Oh dear. Another opening of the Windows/Mac can of worms.
Time and money spent battling viruses, trojan horses, spyware, addware etc? All that's needed to fully and safely protect any system (windows or not) is ZoneAlarm (free) for a firewall and AdAware (free) for all spyware. As for viruses/trojans/worms, all that is needed is common sense (don't open email attachments from unverifiable sources or run unverified executables etc) No time or money invested. Here in the UK, Dell is now knocking out brand new PCs for less than £250, leaving Mac struggling (and so far failing) to reduce the price of their most basic systems to less than twice that.
There is a tremendous free/shareware community for all types of utilities and software in all types of fields, no matter the OS. |
| Date: 2006/03/17 03:33:38, Link unknown | ||||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||||
Some of us biologists are design experts anyway - I've a bio sciences background and design software for a living. |
| Date: 2006/03/31 02:51:51, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
The whole is so much greater than the sum of its parts.  |
| Date: 2006/04/04 21:36:08, Link unknown | ||||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||||
That's along the lines of "no-one believes us when we refuse to identify the designer, and it's just not fair!" As the Judge rightly points out, even a school kid can see through such a transparent attempt to get round the establishment clause. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 01:17:07, Link unknown | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
Interesting analysis J. G. There is one additional factor that might be worth having a look at - is the human race currently under selection pressure? In certain parts of the world it is, however in increasingly large parts of the world I would argue that millions of humans are not under any particular pressure to survive at all. When a species is not under selection pressure, and with technology providing the vast majority of us the ability to survive, then deleterious traits would be able to spread (not being selected against). If there are genetic influences on sexual preference, then they would not currently be affecting the survival of the species as a whole. There's also nothing to stop a homosexual man popping down to the sperm bank to make a donation, and - for a double whammy - a homosexual woman deciding to have a baby and popping down to the same sperm bank. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 03:29:24, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
Renier - it's called scope. You can show either a positive or negative statement to be true or false if the scope is small enough. For example - the statement 'God is currently sitting in my closet in the form of a kindly old man' is disprovable by opening my closet and finding a lack of a kindly old man. Narrow scope. Note I can do the reverse and say 'God is not sitting etc' and open my closet and prove that negative assertion (I just checked.  No kindly old man.). Saying something like 'the weak nuclear force applies everywhere in the universe' is clearly much larger scope and is impossible to prove without visiting everywhere in the universe and measuring the weak nulcear force - a practical impossibility. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 04:24:36, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
The first rule of the CBEBs club is - don't talk about the CBEBs club. Possible club motto: CBEBs give IDiots the heeby geebies. The designtologists are convinced that there is a 'global conspiracy' of scientists - are we starting one? Or is it just that no-one has invited me yet   |
| Date: 2006/05/02 04:30:03, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Ummm ... no ... this is not America. This is the internet. Many of us who are reading your guff aren't (gasp! ) in or even from America. Imagine that! |
| Date: 2006/05/02 04:30:03, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Ummm ... no ... this is not America. This is the internet. Many of us who are reading your guff aren't (gasp! ) in or even from America. Imagine that! |
| Date: 2006/05/02 06:08:26, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
... into a world much like our planet earth, but devoid of people. The child manages to survive to a young adult age by eating the plentiful fruits and animals of the forests and savannahs she finds herself in. She remembers nothing of awaking here in her early childhood, she has only ever been aware of the world she sees, feels, hears and smells around her. As she sits thoughtfully one day by a lake, gazing at the view around her, does she think to herself ... : A) ... that this magnificent world she finds herself in to be so utterly wondrous, bountiful, supportive of her life, and incredibly complex, that it must have all been created by some magnificent, omnipotent creator. She sits back contentedly at this thought, quietly comforted with the feeling that there is an indecipherable higher power somewhere looking out for her who has created these wonders for her. B) ... that this magnificent world she finds herself in is indeed wondrous, and is a little curious to find out why it is so wondrous. Where does the fruit she eat come from. Why are there fish in the lake. Why is the sky blue during the day, but red in the morning and evening. Why are there insects buzzing about, eating the discarded remains of the fruit. Why do those animals with big teeth chase and eat those other large grass-eating animals? Why does some fruit agree with me but others make me sick. Why are there some animals that are as happy in the water as they are on land. In finding these questions in her head, she sits back contentedly and decides to start investigating all these wonders the minute she wakes up the following morning. |
| Date: 2006/05/03 01:16:24, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Lots of interesting comments ... I posed the question really because I am under the impression that one 'becomes' religious almost entirely due to the influence of ones parents as one grows up, and to a lesser extent the influence of ones immediate community, rather than through simply automatically feeling a spirituality as one develops in early life. So I was curious to see what other people thought about this, about a person born into a world without any pre-conceived ideas of spirituality or structured religion. Would such a person develop their own spirituality which would lead them to thoughts of an almighty creator? Or is the idea of a creator one which has developed steadily over the generations, and is nothing more than a contrived idea born of time and perpetuated by our earlier developing society? Perhaps it really is down to the individual? Some of us have more of a scientific bent. Some of us are more curious to see how the world around us functions. Others perhaps have more of an in-built spirituality, and have a need to satisfy that through structured worship. |
| Date: 2006/05/03 06:04:50, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
|
I have read and read this thread, and lurked and read some more ... ... and we finally come to this:
Can one really argue against this? Can one really debate with a man who convinces himself that the hundreds of thousands of published, peer-reviewed, professional scientists who put into workable practice their research every single day, are really part of a big conspiracy to further the evolution cause?? Yes Dave, the next time you pop a pill in your mouth to help soothe your aching head, or get vaccinated when you travel to malaria country, I'd beware because the medicine was indeed developed by a team of scientists who didn't really research their immunology very well, they just wrote some nonsense in the vague hope that they and AAAAAAALLLLLL the other scientists will have their big conspiratorial evilution cause furthered, because yes, they sooooooooo want it to be true. Sheesh. And you're looking for intelligent answers to this? |
| Date: 2006/05/12 02:49:14, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Funny. I've lived in the UK for over 16 years now and I've yet to encounter a local who doesn't pronounce Calais in the same way that the French do; (ie 'callay' ). But then knowing how hopeless the English are at learning and speaking foreign languages it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they did. |
| Date: 2006/05/12 04:16:07, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
He has, however, conceded a point; the AiG argument on gene head-to-tail fusion was shown to be false. He has held his hands up and said that the AiG position was wrong, and that he agreed that the science presented at AtBC did indeed convince him. In my (admittedly few) years of following this strangely American controversy, I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen a YEC concede a single point about anything. Although he did say that he would write to the author of the erroneous AiG piece correcting them, and we have yet to see if he will stand by his word on that point . Progress, however small the steps, is still progress ... |
| Date: 2006/05/12 04:35:23, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
Sigh.  So I see. 'Progress' of the one step forward, two steps back variety ... |
| Date: 2006/05/17 04:11:26, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
.... which is exactly how science is conducted. Hypotheses are proposed, experiments conducted to test those hypotheses, conclusions and predictions drawn, all through the rigorous process of peer-review. As new information comes to light, as you so rightly say, some of these hypotheses become redundant, or "crash and burn" if you will. This happens all the time in all fields of science, and evolution is certainly no different. As has been said so many times, there is lots of discussion and many hypotheses proposed to explain various mechanisms within the evolutionary process, some of which are re-enforced as new data comes to light, and some of which are made redundant by new data, and are thus discarded. As time goes by, hypotheses are tested and tested again as new data comes to the fore all the time. The better the hypothesis, the better it stands up over time to any new data used to test it. This is science. And you "feel sorry" for scientists who do science this way, as science has been done ever since the scientific method was first adhered to? |
| Date: 2006/05/17 04:41:15, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Funny stuff indeed!  |
| Date: 2006/05/26 03:28:14, Link unknown | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
We did. Unfortunately the mere human designers responsible for the 'intelligent' design of irony meters had no way of knowning the levels of irony that would be produced by UD. Years of observation of all available evidence provided robust irony fuses that could stand many megademskis of irony, several time the amount that had ever been recorded previously anywhere in the natural world. The gigadembskis of irony produced by UD are beyond anything we could ever have imagined. An overload of irony of that extent causes the irony fuse to get sucked into an alternate reality where logic no longer exists, permanently destoying the irony meter. These unforseen circumstances are also not covered by warranty. Sorry about that. |
| Date: 2006/05/27 07:53:27, Link 80.99.175.128 | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
Maybe we should just use the Richter scale for our irony measurements. We could call it the Springer Scale and the units can be dembskis. So a 1 or 2 dembski event on the Springer scale would be pretty much undetectable without sensitive instruments. A 3 or a 4 would be detectable by most normal people (maybe not Americans ). A 5 would be ten times stronger than a four and would certainly rattle your teeth a bit. 6 and 7 are major irony events with large amounts of furniture moving around and put your irony meters in jeopardy. And a 9 is an apocolyptic level of irony that - so far - has only ever been detected on UD. |
| Date: 2006/06/09 00:53:55, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Flaming Sambuca, in a large shot glass. Tastes fantastic with 2 or 3 coffee beans floating on top, which give a lovely moccha tinge to the aniseed flavour. Blow out the flame just as the coffee beans start to sizzle, then knock back in one go (being careful not to swallow the beans). The hot liquor on top mixes with the cold underneath and gives a wonderful sensation as the two mix in your throat on the way down. Best drunk after a large italian meal. |
| Date: 2006/06/09 01:44:48, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
| Hmmm that's like me with whiskey. Any kind of whiskey. Just the smell brings on a retching urge. Although I never had 'a night' which put me off the stuff. |
| Date: 2006/06/09 01:56:01, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Atheist. Isn't the definition of atheist; one who denies the existence of God (or gods) rather than one not seeing any reason to believe? Indeed, the OED gives the definition as the belief that God does not exist. That sounds a lot more definite about the possibility of God's existence than not seeing a reason for his existence, as is posited in the poll here. But perhaps I've just touched on the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism; the difference being, as Wikipedia puts it: Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible. By these definitions, I'd be a strong atheist. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 04:52:22, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Could you address ericmurphy's questions please, particularly the ones in his post at the top of this page? As a long-time lurker here, it is eric's patient questions directed at you that I'd most like to see you answer. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 08:55:47, Link 80.99.175.128 | ||||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||||
Yet here I am, a software engineer and architect and I have no problems whatsoever with the evolution of complex biologicial structures. Weird. You'd think that software design was some kind of magic trick the way Dave describes it - i.e. we sit down, design a perfect system, write the code and it works perfectly first time. The reality of course if very different. We usually start by borrowing someone else's design in the first place (we even have whole books full of design patterns). We frequently get small or large parts of our design wrong. We have to make compromises in our designs because all the disparate bits don't fit well together. When we build it we introduce many errors which then need to be fixed. And when we've finished it doesn't actually match the original requirements specified (usually poorly) by the customer. That's software engineering. And it's actually pretty similar to the way evolution does it - lots of iterations with incremental small improvements. The only thing we can do that evolution can't is 'refactoring' where we can go back and fundamentally redesign bits of the system which don't work well (usually because of bad design in the first place). |
| Date: 2006/06/29 09:21:26, Link 80.99.175.128 | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
I'm sure they'll trot out the Thylacine soon. |
| Date: 2006/07/07 05:45:28, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
There was a horrendous remake a few years ago, wasn't there? With Joey from Friends in it. Unless it was just a horrible nightmare I had... |
| Date: 2006/07/11 04:07:33, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
In my experience of religious people, their view of atheists is that they cannot possibly have that sense of good or bad that you refer to. The bible, or God's word, provides a Christian with his moral compass, with his sense of good and evil. Without the bible, or without listening to God, how can one have a sense of good and evil? It is to this that Christians attribute their perceived modern 'breakdown of society'; atheist humanism. As is obvious to any atheist however, one's innate sense of good and evil does not come from the bible or from the mouth of God, but rather from one's parents, upbringing, community, and more arguably from one's very own genes ... |
| Date: 2006/07/27 04:23:04, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Just to add to Louis' points above, what on earth has this case got to do with a "liberal conspiracy" in the first place? As someone who works for the HSBC umbrella and is acutely aware of their sensitivity to such things as race awareness, this seems to me to be a global bank which is explicitly promoting a culturally diverse work ethic internally, and its "The World's Local Bank" ethic externally, protecting its image. A case like this is potentially damaging to this carefully nurtured commercial image. It could damage sales, the bottom line, and, in toto, what is more important to HSBC than that? If you'll read your quoted source more carefully, you'll note that it is HSBC themselves who sent their errant employee on "race awareness training", not the courts, not the British Government, and not as the result of any EU directive. So you are wrong on that count GoP. The employee did not lose her job, nor was she disciplined internally. So you are wrong on that count too. Liberal conspiracy? Pff. It's about protecting corporate image and the bottom line. Liberalism need not apply. |
| Date: 2006/07/27 06:55:43, Link unknown |
| Author: Tim Hague |
|
I got a bit stuck on the poll. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive you know. One is statement of knowledge, the other is a statement of belief. As such, I am an agnostic (weak) atheist. I don't do strong atheism because I don't think it's scientifically tenable. |
| Date: 2006/07/27 23:57:52, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
I just feel sad for his kids. |
| Date: 2006/07/28 00:24:07, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
I think strong atheism is perhaps more a philosophical position than a scientific one. The existence of God cannot be proven either way scientifically. But I can think of plenty of philosphical reasons as to why God doesn't exist. On the flipside, I'm sure a religious person can think of plenty of philosophical reasons as to why God does exist. |
| Date: 2006/08/07 02:40:29, Link unknown | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
I think the default position on everything lacking evidence should be "we don't know". It's a big old universe out there, and we've only (partly) explored an incredibly tiny bit of it, so who's to say what might be out there? I'm not ruling out fluffy pink unicorns at this stage. The problem - as it often is - is one of scope. We're fairly sure that Santa Claus does not live at the North Pole. But that's only because we've limited the scope of where Santa Claus could live. If the claim was that 'Santa Claus exists somewhere out there in the universe, and might be invisible/undetectable' then there really is no way to falsify that claim - the scope is simply too large. I can say - "God in the form of an old bearded man is not currently sitting in my closet". And I can open my closet and confirm the lack of bearded old men. Small scope, confirming my hypothesis. But to say that "no God exists anywhere" is too large a scope to be realistically testable. I can't demonstrate my hypothesis, so I can't say for certain either way, just as I can't say for certain that there is no such thing as fluffy pink unicorns. |
| Date: 2006/08/07 02:47:39, Link unknown | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
From that article about fisking:
Although Harris lost out in calling his concept 'fisking' I do think the phenomenon: "...not to face the facts for as long as possible and, when found out, to divert the public from your mistake by spinning shiny stories in the air." is particularly relevent to the anti-evoluton debate as it appear to describe the likes of Behe and Dembski to a tee. Shall we come up with another term for it? |
| Date: 2006/08/17 00:34:09, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||||
| Author: Tim | ||||
Well you could say that all we need to do to show that bible inerrancy is just plain silly is to show that the city of Tyre is not a barren rock. Tyre is and always been populated, and there is a nice thriving little city there. The bible is wrong, QED. But back around 40 pages or so, Davie-D even tried to pretend that the city WAS a barren rock. This must come as a suprise to the families that have lived in Tyre for generations upon generations ... |
| Date: 2006/08/17 04:30:35, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
The only true thing you've said in 144 pages. |
| Date: 2006/09/04 05:45:30, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Having been a lurker since page 1 of this most wonderful of threads, and having learnt much about many things, there is one question that I don't think has been laid before our favourite creationist. Since most of these 178 pages has been spent with Dave attempting to pick holes in accepted scientific evidence in many, many disciplines, has he ever actually presented any scientific evidence (ie not from the bible) for a ~ 6,000 yr old earth? Especially as this is supposed to be his Creator God Hypothesis. So, rather than pick holes in our millionsofyearism, where is your scientific evidence for a ~6,000 year old earth? Where are your ice-cores? Your varves? Your dendrochronology evidence? Your paleosols? Your 40+ different radiometric dating methods? |
| Date: 2006/09/04 07:43:20, Link 86.144.33.15 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
There are 14 items listed on that page, each one purportedly showing 'problems' with the long-age of the earth. None of those 14 paragraphs, not one, produces any set of data, based on research. And that research reinforced by further research, reinforced by tests on the research, and tests on the research of the research, etc. You know, science. Most of them contain vagueries and approximations, based on not very much seeing as no data sets are presented. One of them (the sixth item, the earth's magnetic field is decaying 'too fast' ) even suggests that the age of the earth cannot be more than 20,000 yrs old. Hardly direct, precise evidence for a 6,000 year old earth now is it. Now what I originally asked for was a direct scientific dating method showing that the age of the earth is 6,000 years old. Y'know, something simple, like an ice-core that has a number of annual rings in it, and all one has to do is count the number of rings to get an idea of the age of history. Is there any such direct dating method, or is all there is just AIG picking holes in several of the many thousands of data points showing the long-age of the earth? I'd genuinely like to know. |
| Date: 2006/09/05 05:34:00, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
|
Just been reading the posts in the Uncommonly Dense thread about the evolution of altruism. Came across this article and thought it interesting in this context.
|
| Date: 2006/09/05 08:29:29, Link 86.144.33.15 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Why did the chimps cross the road? To further the study into socio-evolutionary development in human history ? |
| Date: 2006/10/18 10:08:19, Link 89.132.110.105 | ||
| Author: Tim Hague | ||
You asking seriously? Allen is the guy who ran the 'Evolution and Design seminar' at Cornell during the summer. You can read all about it: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ |
| Date: 2006/10/18 22:29:24, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Well duh. Of course Adam and Eve were supernatural. One was created from dust, and the other from ... errr ... a rib. And dudes lived to 900 years old in them days. In Daveland it is perfectly possible for these super-dudes and dudettes to be 'genetically-rich' with 1,000 times the number of chromosomes of us poor saps and enough genetic variation therein to spawn the 6bn different folk we see today. Mutations. Pffft. Who needs mutations. I laugh at your high-falutin' sciency silliness. Just because you don't see 900 yr old dusty-lookin' folk with 248 different eye-colours today doesn't mean they didn't exist 6,000 years ago. Duh. |
| Date: 2006/10/23 09:04:53, Link 81.154.57.24 | ||||
| Author: Tim | ||||
Heh. This reminds me of my old headmistress in primary school. She was a religious nut and used to take us kids for weekly Religious Education classes. After going through the detail of yet another bible-story, a kid put his hand up and asked the question; "Where were the dinosaurs while all this was going on?" After a brief pause, her straight-faced answer was; "They were in other countries" Speechless? We certainly were. Any young minds in our class with any lingering doubts about the scientific merit of biblical allegory had them swiftly dispelled with that little gem. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 04:34:55, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Born in South Africa to multi-national parents. Brought up in South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, UAE, Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh, Cyprus, The Phillipines and the UK. Currently live in Kingston-upon-Thames, UK. In other words, I'm not really from anywhere. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 05:43:17, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Heh. I'm sat in my office in Winkfield at the mo, several miles out of Windsor. Go into Windsor all the time for lunch n stuff. |
| Date: 2006/12/28 04:11:20, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
33, write software for big evil bank. Hobbies - kite boarding, skiing, constantly being stunned by the mind-numbing stupidity of my creationist colleague that I sit next to every day which got me started on this whole evolution learning frenzy. |
| Date: 2007/01/03 07:19:12, Link 193.132.146.241 |
| Author: Tim |
|
Well, as this thread is facing it's timely brick wall, I thought I'd toss in my tuppence-worth as another long-term lurker. I've been here since before our Air-Force friend crash-landed at ATBC, and have followed every post from the first and will to the last. Overall I've thoroughly enjoyed the rickety journey, and as a non-biologist, non-anthropologist, non-palentologist, non-archaeologist, non-phycisist, non-linguist and non-geneticist, I've garnered some very, very useful info from these circa. 11,000 posts. The patience and layman's language used with which to explain some very basic stuff so that the uneducated can understand it has proven to be invaluable to someone like myself. To that extent I am grateful to the thread-starter for inducing the regulars to make these wonderful explanations. It leads me to realise firstly just how much there is to learn, and secondly just what utterly complex subjects these really are. More than a lifetime's worth of learning, which makes one feel quite humble. Which then compels me to wonder just how a layman (such as the thread-starter) can attempt to not only grapple with some of the more detailed aspects of evolutionary biology, physics, anthropology, genetics, cladistics etc by mere drive-by reading of encyclopaedias (and faux-encyclopaedic websites), but also to overturn and refute the research carried out by the many thousands who have made these subjects their lifetime's work. Humble is not on show here. I have gone from amusement through open-jawed amazement all the way to utter incredulity at what I have witnessed on this thread. The moment of realisation of what we were really dealing with finally hit home during the (non-) debate on the watchmaker analogy. One or two regulars posted wonderfully lucid explanations as to why the watchmaker analogy fails in the context of evolutionary biology, to the extent that not only could I understand it, but that it became obvious; watches don't reproduce. This perfectly simple point just failed to reach the thread-starter, despite repeated (bold-faced, italicised, capitalised ad infinitum) posts of that very point. Either it failed to reach him or he refused to understand it. Beyond that he became really very confused, stating that the 'difference' between a watch and a butterfly was one of complexity, when complexity is one of quantitative similarity, and not a difference at all. Unbe-smegging-lievable. It was at this point that I finally accepted the reality of the situation and capitulated; this thread is doomed. Since that time the thread-starter has begun using the word 'intractable' to describe his YEC position, as well as describing himself as an 'amateur scientist'. The words intractable and scientist form an oxymoron of the highest order, but I'm sure this point is lost on the thread-starter, just as so many other seemingly simple points are lost. I have more recently spent some time lurking at www.theologyweb.com in the natural sciences area; a regular haunt of G R Morton. The YECs encountered there are quite a bit younger, and a number have switched from YEC through OEC to full appreciation of the scientific world-view, in the face of patient explanation from the resident scientists. The point that at least two recent converts there have cited as their main reason to change their world-view is that of attempting to reconcile starlight with a young universe; ie the YEC God would have to be a con-artist. It is satisfying to see the opening-up of young minds who have been brought up (dare I say brain-washed) in YEC environments when confronted with scientific reason. Without fail they have found the experience both humbling and overwhelming. It is at times like those that I am utterly glad we have threads like this where the studied knowledge and dogged patience of forum-posters can open up heretofore closed minds. I have come to realise however, that the thread-starter, in part due to his age perhaps, and the amount (in time, money and effort) he has invested in his world-view, will never reach this point. Intractable sums up the position of the thread-starter rather nicely here, and I'm sure he would become a little more humble if he ever comes to realise that intractable is exactly what science is not. |
| Date: 2007/01/03 08:26:07, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Is this actually true? I'd have given far more credence to the abilities of the investigative reporters of Newsweek and Time than that. |
| Date: 2007/01/03 10:07:36, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||
| Author: Tim | ||
Welcome. Use it wisely. |
| Date: 2007/01/05 04:16:41, Link 193.132.146.241 | ||||
| Author: Tim | ||||
In his penultimate post on his now-defunct Update Creator God Hypothesis thread, AFDave asked Steve Story ...
To which there has not been an answer. Is AFDave still free to post in other threads? Or has he been banned outright? |
=====
