form_srcid: guthrie
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.97
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: guthrie
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 'guthrie%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/01/06 09:51:55, Link 80.47.116.169 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I broadly agree with Flint about the non moral situation of markets. Thats one of the reasons why I am some kind of leftie liberal, seeing as markets arent moral, yet we (humans) seem to like some kind of morals, and mine dictate that rampant capitalism is not a good thing. An extreme example being drugs and child porn, there exist markets for both, but they are judged to be dangerous and harmful by most people, hence ultimately they are suppressed. And it also ties in with ideas of freedom and liberty etc. And lets not get into differentiating when you are acting because of a moral principle, or because it just suits you. I only have some interest in economics, and a little of it from when I did some management modules at university, and I have also read a few popular books on teh subject, and history thereof. I am currently reading some of Marx's writings, and have some Smith, von Mises and Keynes lined up. |
| Date: 2006/01/06 12:17:20, Link 80.47.151.67 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Hey, thats kind of what I was trying to say anyway. I know all that, making something illegal pushes up costs etc etc. Thats really basic stuff. I just disagree with exactly the way you word it: "policy makers are trying to protect the delicate sensibilities of people by telling them what they're not allowed to like" Whereas I think if you actually asked most people about child porn, they would certainly ban it. Drugs, well, people do silly things and are somewhat shortsighted in their outlooks, so simply banning them is too simple. But anyway, banning both of them could be justified because "god told me so" or "Taking drugs is bad for you and your community" or "Children are not capable of making the informed choices necessary and anyway they come to harm". Which are moral rather than economic positions. I dont see people arguing that drugs or child porn should be banned because they dont benefit anyone economically. |
| Date: 2006/01/21 09:43:27, Link 80.47.51.85 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I was thinking of making some kind of pithy comment about uncommon dissent, but somehow couldnt work up the emotion. I like the way Dave Scot is turning into an expert on ID; I think it would be interesting if he could participate in the next court case related to ID, whenever that will be. |
| Date: 2006/01/21 09:49:48, Link 80.47.51.85 | ||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||
HHmm, well, we shall have to agree to disagree.
I agree entirely.
Absolutely. My knowledge of parliamentary preocedure is miniscle, but I do know that they have plenty of researchers who could find things outquickly enough (A few days), but the problem then is that Blair might have to take a stand on the issue, something he is I think desperate to avoid doing. Its hard to find issues on which he really truly takes a stand, rather than saying something wishy washy and content free. |
| Date: 2006/01/22 11:19:20, Link 80.47.45.131 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
[quote=Stephen Elliott,Jan. 22 2006,12:57][/quote]
I think you can say that about every single human endeavour that you can think of. Every single one. No exceptions. I start more from broad observations that mandatory basic education is necessary to further peoples betterment and self fulfillment etc. This has historically been state provided, and I cannot see how it can be provided any other way. So, going from this, the question becomes how can we improve things as much as possible given certain constraints like money, time etc etc. For example, smaller class sizes do help somehat to improve test scores. Great, lets reduce class sizes from 30 to 20! But then we need lots more teachers, and more money to spend on them. Then, managed excellently. I have worked full time in 3 different private companies (I have a chemistry degree). All of them exhibited definite lacks of management excellence. From reading newspapers, I have gathered that some failing schools show a lack of excellence, but when you put a good headmaster/ mistress in place, change a couple of teachers, wait a year or two, then it improves. This suggests to me that said excellence depends as much upon the individuals involved as anything to do with the structure of the organisation etc. As for benefiting teachers, I know a few teachers, seeing as my mother is a retired primary school teacher. They would chew you out for suggesting that the main purpose of state education is to benefit the teachers, but then they are good teachers- the problem is the bad ones and the people who aid and abet them. (And I have a story or two about that, but they can hardly be aried on a public forum.) I am too young to rember the grammar school, but the problem with the grammar school system that I recall reading about was that, well apart from being not "practical" enough in the modern sense, it also encouraged elitism. As for admission standards, the simple question remains- what do you do with the children who cannot get into any school? Sure, some of them are obnoxious toe rags; others have a damaging and enervating home background which makes it almost impossible for them to get on in school. Universities- I actually agree about the 50% target. I see it as some weird magic trick. I can see no reason to have 50% university educated, because a REAL university education is not suitable for everyone. Sure, i liked some of it, but I'm part intellectual. I would rather we copied germany, which last i knew had trades colleges and suchlike for pupils whose abilities lay less in essay writing or geekery, and more in woodworking or plumbing or design or suchlike. Of course my occaisional rants about the british economy now being a service oriented one where just about any skill greater than paper shuffling or smooth talking salesmanship doesnt seem necessary is nothing more than my own biased opinion and is said somewhat tongue in cheek. Yet I am sure you know that it sounds good to say that 50% of our youngsters are university educated, even if they never do anything with the degree, and its comparatively worthless compared to old degrees because the modern ones involve much more regurgitation of facts and less actual thinking. edited to add: I'll get back to you about the church schools. Its not something I have really even come across, but your point deserves some consideration. |
| Date: 2006/01/23 11:20:44, Link 80.47.144.22 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
A good question. I personally dont use ideas like "rights" very often. The problem when talking about rights is one of balance as usual, and also as usual, any group of people who are not properly overseen with appropriate checks and balances frequently get it wrong. From my point of view, it is a combination of: 1) Nowhere else to put disruptive child. 2) Need to meet gvt targets, which whilst by themselves seem quite good, overall have a deleterious effect. 3) Their parents will possibly kick up a fuss, and you probably have a rought idea how many parents believe their little angels can do no wrong. 4) Poor headteachering. |
| Date: 2006/01/25 07:23:20, Link 80.47.51.88 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
It seems that Dean is making a lot of my argumetns for me, and he seems to know a lot more about the jobs system than myself. (Not too surprising, since its a couple of years since I last claimed benefits and I've never had anything else to do with it other than that.) But anyway, I would like to suggest with regards to a curriculum- you can I think dictate from the centre the broad guidelines for what can be taught in a class. This is what should be done with ID/ creationism, which are not sciences, therefore belong only in RE or sociology or suchlike, as has been pointed out above. Now, such an approach could easily still leave the local schools to teach within the guidelines how they wanted. However, I believe that one of the problems with teaching these days can be the unhealthy interest the gvt takes in how things are done. Instead of leaving councils etc to manage their local area, the gvt insists on lots of notices on how to do things, or in other words, they have a tendency to micromanage. Remember also that the tendency for over 30 years now has been to centralise control. Local councils arent worth much nowadays, indeed, I have a book written by David Blunkett when he was in Sheffield, about how the gvt of the day was taking away local freedom and responsibility. Blair et al are just continuing this. Its a bit like the problem in the USA- if they leave everything up to the local school boards, many of them will mandate creationism/ ID. If they take it out their hands, it gives central gvt one more thing to mess up, as well as leaving it open to charges of taking away said localness. Dean- with regards to programs to get the lon term unemployed back to work, have they done real cost benefit analyses between the money spent getting someone back to work, and the money saved by cutting the program? And wouldnt it be great if we could get some more people doing science this way? Oh yes, a more political point- my understanding of why the BBC is making more rubbish popular guff is because certain people wanted it to stop making quality stuff watched by less people. Remember also the massive cuts and general hollowing out and privatisation of much of the Beeb, as well as the continuous attacks by Murdoch et al, and you can see there is only one way certain people want it to go- privatisation. Which I personally would oppose. |
| Date: 2006/01/25 07:34:28, Link 80.47.51.88 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I wandered in there, and found that Dave scot had put up an article from new scientist, presumably with the purpose of showing that you dont have to be a professional scientist with a degree to do good science. Unfortunately, it kind of shows that you have to be working in the same universe as "real" scientists to actually do anything useful. Heres the New scientist wbsite url: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925351.600 The first amateur scientist, Forrest Mims, got papers into peer review and says: "Sometimes there is resistance to publishing my papers, but most of them have been published. Now I peer-review papers for scientific journals and I’ve peer-reviewed two-dozen books for scientific publishers. On a number of occasions professional scientists have taken me aside and asked me how to get published in Nature. Only once or twice in my career has somebody been rude or resentful that I didn’t go through the process they did." Or in other words, certain people to my mind have a persecution complex. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 03:37:46, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
WEll, ID in the UK isnt a big thing, and they have been keeping their heads down. I wouldnt be losing sleep over it, but it would be helpful to nip it in the bud. I understand there is a creationism museum in Portsmouth or nearby. I cant remember quite where I read about it. As for writing to your MP, also emphasise the science of it, or lack of, and how religion and science are separate etc etc etc. Then talk about the importance of evolution in biology and how the UK is bidding to be a biotech leader etc etc, so obviously ID would be a step backwards. You could request that they make sure the national curriculum concentrates on the science, as decided by eminent scientists in their field, thus ID would be non science therefore should not be taught. And direct him to talkorigins and basic evolutionary biology textbooks, because ultimately he might get interested enough to do his own digging. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 04:03:29, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Stephen, I can understand the BBC closing comments, since firstly, they have limited space to post them and time to deal with any problems, as well as each story having its own lifetime. Furthermore, that is not a proper "forum" really. SO, I have no problem with them closing it. However I do agree that the BBC often takes too much of a "he said, she said" "Equal time" approach to the story. As for journalists, I am not alone in thinking that very few of them do "real" work because it costs money, time etc etc and may annoy some people. Plus its not what sells volumes of papers, the Sun is proof of that. If you want other forums in the UK, try the Guardians forum. Also my local newspaper, "The Scotsman", has had 2 columnists scathingly mention ID, (And they were pretty well written columns as well actually, proper pieces of journalism) and one guest column from a biologist who also slated it. So all is not lost. But science articles in newspapers are notoriously iffy. Some good, some bad, depending on whom they got to write them, and whether they are supposed to be educational or more issue of the moment grab the headline kind. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 04:11:35, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, Thordaddy is peddling his brand of ignorantism over at: http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html I've invited him to this thread, oddly enough he ignored it. Rather rude of the chap. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 04:41:44, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Sorry, I cant find it on a quick scan of Pandas thumb front page. I'll look later. Updated- now Ive found it in the thread about Hindu creationists. INteresting. So all of them should now be banned from Pandas thumb? But it would be fun if its true. I'd love to have a quiet word in private with such people who waste our time. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 07:01:41, Link 80.47.70.172 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, subtle clues from Larry, such as mentioning his dads AOL account, also suggest that Larry is a late teenager with nothing better to do. Obsessive behaviour does also occur amongst teenagers. But yes, I was wondering about the pro from dover as well. Do we perhaps have a really odd case of 3 people using the same library computer at different times? It might explain why they dont seem to post at once. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 07:45:49, Link 80.47.57.176 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
It always helps to maintain your sense of humour. Recently I've started telling ID and anti-scientists that I believe there is a large pink spider sitting on their ceiling above their computer. So far, on one occaision, it has led to a useful debate about the nature of knowing and science. On another, the person I was addressing left the thread, so never answered it. Now I've tried it on thordaddy, and got an entertainingly vague answer about nothing in science saying there might not be a spider there. Proposing such a ridiculous thing helps make some things about how we know what we know, and how do I know you know what you know, etc etc much more clear. |
| Date: 2006/01/26 21:16:30, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I thought it was too lightweight as well. PLenty of mood shots, long pauses between the presenter saying anything, etc etc. THey should have left out the CArdinal schoenberg bit and had more about the trial. I thought it entertaining that they interviewed Behe in an amusement park- isnt that what the ID'ers kind of do anyway, play about? The problem is that I am not a vaguely interested but scientifically poorly educated layman, so I have trouble working out if it was pitched at them properly. |
| Date: 2006/01/30 00:39:01, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Why is that "400 scientists" list always wheeled out as "recently"? Anyone know what "Commentary" is for? IS it a real journal of something? At this stage I just want to say "Bring it on! HIt us with your best science! Come on!" |
| Date: 2006/01/30 11:08:36, Link 80.47.34.207 |
| Author: guthrie |
| PR takes money? How much money could we raise if every scientist in the USA gave a dollar, and companies employing scientists gave 10 dollars? |
| Date: 2006/01/31 01:30:55, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I suppose its all part of the simple fact that science is now completely integrated into scoeity, and societies attention has moved on. I'm not that old, but looking back at the 20's through to 60's, there was a certain importance and awareness of science that to some extent seems to be lacking nowadays. Old people, feel free to correct me if you like. |
| Date: 2006/02/01 04:41:13, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Yes, I agree, a message hidden across the genome would destroy evolution, and also prove there was a creator of some sort. Now, all we have to do is get them to agree on which language its written in... |
| Date: 2006/02/06 11:15:40, Link 80.47.61.121 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Can you tell us what a purely material universe is? Can you tell us what a universe that is a mixture of material and non-material stuff is? |
| Date: 2006/02/07 08:30:57, Link 80.47.93.135 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Theres 2 or 3 of them on a forum I go to, they've had multiple dozen page threads where they repeatedly fail to grasp the concept of relativity and lack of absolute measurement. They dont however bother me too much, because they are not very rich and powerful, are not as far as I know trying to get into schools, and generally are unlikely to go and burn down a physics lab. (Mind you, hate mail is bad enough) I like the dismantling of the accusation that Einstein fudges his figures for Mercurys perhelion. I sometimes think that what we need is a cranks research university, with a grant attached, so that the cranks can argue amongst each other about what experiments can be done to prove their theory is correct. That is certainly one of the similarities between them and ID'ers, that all they have to do is prove the old theory wrong, hardly ever do they have anything better to replace it with. |
| Date: 2006/02/07 10:42:11, Link 80.47.82.141 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
But the problem here is partly one of philosophy. It is possible to imagine things which have no physical existence, but in order to see if they do or not, you need to do science. As for needing a component of God in matter, there are a few religions and philosophies that claim that, the problem comes in showing it to be the case.
(Bolded text by me) With regards to the bolded section- that is precisely our point. Nobody else can understand how something that has no material/ physical exitence can interact with matter. What makes you think that 1) God is the existence principle? 2) and invulnerable? Quite a lot of ancient beliefs have vulnerable gods, the Greeks being the most obvious example. |
| Date: 2006/02/07 23:03:47, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| So what does the robots.txt file do when it disallows caching? I dont know enough about internet stuff to know. (even though I've been online on and off for 10 years) |
| Date: 2006/02/07 23:57:15, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
HHmm, two questions again. I'm still confused about what you make of spirituality and religion. Is it religion if it has a particular deity as a focus, or is it spirituality if there is no focus? Also, alchemy does take some very unusual thinking to comprehend. But which bit of alchemy are you talking about? Alchemy has clearly changed somewhat over the centuries, and the modern variety is nothing more than a magical movement. (with all that that implies in terms of changing of outlook and reliance upon "spirituality") |
| Date: 2006/02/08 11:43:30, Link 80.47.248.227 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
So let me get this straight- you are trying to see if there is any scientific way to validate your idea that an omnipotent etc etc deity does exist? Well, good luck looking for scientific evidence, but so far no one has found any. The only vaguely scientific (and not actually scientific when you look at them closely) ideas that ID has had so far are irreducible complexity and those calculations of Dembskis, I think. Both of which have been convincingly trounced by scientists. You could just say that "reality" is god and have done with it. As for your own opinion of Greek gods, what you are making is an argument from personal opinion. I believe there is a large pink spider sitting on your ceiling above your computer. It doesnt eat humans, only small insects, so you'll be alright. |
| Date: 2006/02/08 22:45:33, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, heres the stuff abouT Behe and "Darwins black box", i.e. why irreducible complexity is junk. I'll find the Demsbki stuff later. Oh yes, about the Copenhagen interpretation and the "observer" in quantum mechanics- why does the obersver have to be a machine or a human or something? Is it not more than "an observation" is when the particle interacts with something else, since that is functionally the same as measuring it, so essentially wavefunctions are being collapsed all the time. |
| Date: 2006/02/08 22:58:38, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Here we are, one of the critiques of "no free lunch": http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/ I think that covers it. Now, I dont know all the stuff that well myself, but I would be interested in intelligent discussion. |
| Date: 2006/02/09 08:53:16, Link 80.47.43.134 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Well, I dont doubt that the Copenhagen interpretation is a way of looking at it, I just cant see if the idea that the measuring instrument and the thing is is measuring are all in one system, which can be figured as a wvefunction make sany sense unless you look at it figuratively. Certainly not physically. The geiger counter sits there whatever you do. If the experiment was done a year ago, the particles still interacted, and so on, its just you didnt know the result. How about an experiment say (you are in the lab with the equipment, set it up, sit down and read a paper until 5pm and its time to go home) where the reading wil mean that your lab door is locked or not, depending on what result happens. So you wont know what the result is until you get up to leave (we assume that the experiment will definitely be finished in the time before 5pm) and find the door locked, or not. Does that mean that the entire laboratory is a wavefunction? If so, can you not just say that everything is multiple, indeed myriad wavefunctions, that continually collapse every time the particles interact? Which I think argues nicely round to the many universes theory. |
| Date: 2006/02/09 12:20:43, Link 80.47.158.207 | ||||||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||||||
####, I did forget the link. Thats what comes of posting at work where there are too many distractions...
Well, yes, with a God the entire universe would probably exhibit some kind of purpose etc etc. The problem is how we, from our limited perspective, can say. And the answer so far is that we cant. I cant speak for Miller, but I understand there are many Christians and others who see no problem with evolution, because all it takes is the deity to set up the original starting criteria, and since that area of cosmology is still quite fuzzy, and we cant say what happened before the big bang, theres still some room for a deity.
Thats quite impressive misunderstanding here. Darwinism does not exist, as such.
Purpose is in the eye of the beholder. Thats why it is not science. Some people can indeed say that life unfolded according to evolution without a plan, others can also say that life unfolded by evolutionary means, and that was according to gods plan. But, here is the crux- how can you say that it happened by gods plan? Where is the evidence for god? Anyway, I guess I've had it up to here with your havering. If you wish to not be taken as a laughing stock, please explain why you still think that Behe et al are correct, i.e. explain how Miller etc were wrong in their critique of Behe. Put up or shut up time. (If you cant understand it, go and ask them at uncommon dissent for help. Or us. We know lots about these things, perhaps we can help make it all clearer to you. Indeed, feel free to take several days to read up on it to refresh your memory. We arent going anywhere.)
So whats your evidence? Give us some, or we shall consider you a glaikit numpty. |
| Date: 2006/02/09 12:32:55, Link 80.47.158.207 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Scene: Guthrie and artist in training face each other across a room. Each has a medieval longsword in hand. A bell rings, and they approach each other. Guthrie strikes straight down towards AIT shoulder from a high guard. AIT fails miserably to block, because they donat actually know how to use a sword. With blood fountaning everywhere from severed blood vessels, they collapse to to the floor, saying "But you shouldnt be able to do that..." You can tell I'm getting a little annoyed with blatant stupidity, cant you? |
| Date: 2006/02/09 23:27:42, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, I guess it shows what happens when you take things out of context. Meanwhile, over at the PT, in the Tara smith speaks thread, theres a homeopathy bloke holding forth, so far hes managed to avoid the usual cliches (it works on animals, modern medicinei is toxic, etc etc.) If any of you have medical experience you might like to go over and tear him up, since hes quoting some rheumatology study that apparently shows homeopathy is good. |
| Date: 2006/02/11 07:04:54, Link 80.47.45.5 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahhh, if phishy was JAD, that would explain why the stream of consciousness and rambling looks familiar. It was bugging me all the way down this thread. So, Phishy, are you JAD or not? And if you are, would you like to try and act like the scientist you once were, or would you like to carry on like the small child you now appear to be? |
| Date: 2006/02/13 01:08:38, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ummm and? My grandfather was on the beaches on D -Day. He didnt talk about it. Perhaps you dont realise that your own canabilisation of someone elses experience makes you look like a small child. Or someone who has no conception of friendship, morality, and anything else that helps you get by in the world. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 10:28:19, Link 80.47.83.111 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
*To you very good health sir!* *Clink* |
| Date: 2006/02/14 04:45:53, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I believe DAvison retired in 2000, as an emeritus professor. That seems good going for someone allegedly Sternberged in 1986. Anyone want to ask him for evidence? |
| Date: 2006/02/14 05:20:01, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I understand that Sternberg was that journal editor who snuck an ID related paper into the journal just before he retired, and was then roundly condemned for it. Or did he resign? Anyway, details will be at the PT. This kind of statement is begging for evidence. You know, like letters from faculty saying " Dear Dr Davison, please stop your research because it contradicts all we know about evolution.", followed by "Since you have not stopped your research, we are sacking you." I sincerely doubt that any such evidence exists though. |
| Date: 2006/02/14 08:00:22, Link 80.47.140.97 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Sure, I know DS is uummmmmm, the intellectual equivalent of a schemie, but lurkers and people who are new to this dont know that. Thats why the whack-attack on creationist/ ID claims is so necessary. |
| Date: 2006/02/15 03:39:05, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I seem to see this front loading argument quite often, yet nobody suggests a way to test it. It just seems to be assumed to be correct. So JAD, how have you tested your hypothesis? |
| Date: 2006/02/15 07:01:43, Link 80.47.89.155 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Turbo goalposts! Very funny! So are turbo goalposts a software application, or are they powered by a 2 litre turbo engine taken from a car? |
| Date: 2006/02/15 11:58:16, Link 80.47.55.91 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I think its broadly similar over here in the UK. Of the letters in my local paper sympathetic to ID, the wonders of google have revealed that at least half the correpsondents are church ministers or heavily involved in evangelical stuff. Several more of the pro Id people just werent of a high enough profile on the internet for me to be able to find out if they were coming at it from a religious perspective. I just had to tell one of them in a letter that Anthony Flew was converted to deism by an alleged lack of scientific evidence for early life forms evolution, rather than the overwhelming evidence for design in life that the pro-ID bloke (a church minister I believe) claimed. |
| Date: 2006/02/15 22:09:02, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I cant remember why I was looking round the web, but found my way to Pandas thumb in January last year. Or was it Pharyngula first? Anyway, having been adrguing online on and off since 1999, I have had arguments about science before, and at one point argued a YEC to a standstill. (It helped he was going on about geology, which I did a couple of module on in university) So I just side stepped into it from my general interest in science, and stayed because its interesting and fun, and seems like a good place to make a stand against complete bonkerism. |
| Date: 2006/02/16 11:46:58, Link 80.47.89.115 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I must be a big player in the creationism/ evolution debate, I'm getting mail from JAD. He's seen me ask how he tests his hypothesis, and seems to want to take issue with me. Now, although it will be quoted out of context, I would like to say that in other historical periods, I would have challenged JAD to a duel. However, this being today, and what with him being old enough to be my grandfather, and me being a nice quiet peaceful chap, I shall not do that. Furthermore, unlike the various sock puppets of JAD, and several anti-evolution people, this is my real name. Blame my great grandmother. Instead, behold, we have his PEH. So far, as far as I can understand, he is saying that no new information is created, rather it is "released" by changes in the genome. What I dont understand is how then the higher animals evolved, since them doing so seems to involve increasing the size of their genome, does it not? DAvison seems to agree that evolution happened in the past anyhow. Also, he has said before that evolution is finished. How does he know that? Have we completely exhausted the potential rearrangements in our genetic code? That seems unlikely in the least. Can he suggest the potential number of such re-arrangements? I doubt it. The problem also with his idea, is that he suggests no way in which to distinguish between rearrangments that might happen of their own accord, and re-arrangements that have been pre-programmed, or else where the "designer" might have interfered. Although it also looks like he is suggesting that it is all happening according to the laws of nature. Which, ummm, is the whole point. So maybe he is on our side after all? |
| Date: 2006/02/17 04:15:06, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Not loosely correlated? you mean a single celled beastie has as much DNA as a human? Well I never. Anyway, your hypothesis seems flawed because you cannot actually distingush what you are proposing from actual evolution, can you? As for the first cell, I wouldnt presume anything about its size, except that since we have abiogenesis as an active research area, it seems extremely unlikely that the first cell was very large. I would be interested to see your evidence for the cell not being quite small. Oh, I think your point about environmental triggers has already been covered, but anyway, you seem to be postulating an omniscient designer who can foresee all future environments. You have evidence for this designer? As for JAD being a moderation victim, that immediately reveals you as a rabid ID supporter. |
| Date: 2006/02/20 22:04:03, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I thought project Steve was only biologists, and if I am correct, they need to do some more research. |
| Date: 2006/02/22 05:06:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Stevestory, I posted on the PT thread that nobody leapt in to defend Dembski. Maybe they arent all as stupid as we think they are? |
| Date: 2006/02/22 05:11:12, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I offer this possibly controversial idea about religion in the USA: That, due to it being a heavily capitalist nation, people in the USA cling ever more tightly to helpful bedrocks such as church and community, to help buffer themselves against the winds of economic change. Whereas in much of Europe, the gvt on behalf of the electorate has taken over a fair bit of this role and thus churches just arent as necessary. Its a viewpoint, anyway. |
| Date: 2006/02/22 11:54:30, Link 80.47.55.158 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Young and ambitious? Well, more like with lots of money to burn. There are several reasons it costs that much to get a drug to amrket. For starters, you have to do basic research into the molecular actions, to make sure it works properly, and with all the simple stuff like Penicillin known about and used up, your left getting into complex stuff with unknown mechanisms. Then you need to work out how to make it cheaply, which isnt easy, let me tell you. Then you have to test it to make sure it has few side effects and actually works in the body, which means using animals at first, then, eventually humans. In order to do this it takes time and money, and experienced, intelligent people, who seem to want to earn enough money to have a life. And it all has to be checked. There may well be an unreasonably high level of expectation and risk avoidance placed upon new drugs these days, but on the other hand there might not. You also have to do multiple placebo blinded trials to help prove your new drug works, and that also takes time and money. Disclosing all the data from said trials doesnt do any harm either... So, essentially, theres a heck of a lot of work go's into making sure new drugs are both effective and safe, which makes your comment about youth and ambition a little, uumm, small? Sure, with youth abnd ambition you might invent a better way of testing some drugs, or streamline the process of approval. But I doubt you could do much more. |
| Date: 2006/02/22 23:42:14, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
WEll, it seems to me that you couldnt replicate the evolution of flagella etc using modern bacteria and claim that you have thereby shown that is how flagella evolved, given the likely and known differences between archeobacteria and modern ones. As a related question for the biologists, I assume nobody is saying that chromosome rearrangements dont occur, just that they are not that huge a mechanism in evolution, and that when they do occur, they are frequently fatal? I just want to rid myself of the last remaining sympathy for what JAD might be trying to say with his front loading hypothesis. |
| Date: 2006/02/22 23:45:00, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Or in other words, ID is a religiously inspired, pre-determined search for evidence for a divinity? Nice of them to confirm this. |
| Date: 2006/02/24 01:14:35, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
And that is why, in my humble opinion, (given that I am a chirch of scotland raised agnostic) the American fundamentalists we are on about display a total betrayal of the very values of the protestant revolution, even though you'll find quite a few of them who will hark back to the past, and also their Scottish ancestry. |
| Date: 2006/02/26 23:22:56, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Heres the guardian story, for those of us who cant be bothered going to UD: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html |
| Date: 2006/02/27 21:29:54, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Umm, picofarad, what makes you think its ok to introduce creationism, ID and other religious garbage into the public education system? |
| Date: 2006/02/28 00:17:40, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Quack Qauck! Do you mind if I quote mine you? "Nothing in the constitution says you can't teach bad science." That will do nicely for starters. Anyhoo, for the record, I never say that there never will be a scientific theory of ID, I just say that one has yet to be made. Sure, theres scientific sounding ones, but they have been rebutted, as you know well. So right now, there is no theory of ID to teach in schools. |
| Date: 2006/03/01 00:29:06, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| How about a counter petition about teaching the controveries within evolutionary biology? |
| Date: 2006/03/03 02:29:30, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| So, anyone else agree with me that it looks like picofarad has just admitted to multiple previous identities? Or does the entity known as picofarad have a longer posting history that I do not know about because I've only been on here a month or two? |
| Date: 2006/03/04 11:37:56, Link 80.47.188.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
If this: SPeech apparently by a VArdy school head of science is true, and I have no particular reason to doubt it, they are already having their way in the UK. The bloke whose speech it apaprently is should be sacked, because of his total lack of comprehension of any science later than Galileo. The mangling of geology and chemistry is particularly vexing, given that they are subjects I know something about. |
| Date: 2006/03/06 00:04:22, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||||
|
Sheesh. DS first says:
Then says:
Except that the dye and heat distrbution look functionally similar to me. You cant undistribute the heat from the water either.
Can we? Does he have any evidence of this intelligence?
Does this have anything at all to do with what he has said above? I cant see a relation.
He is getting really desperate. I note that he has no evidence wshowing that ID arguments are getting more organised. In fact, I dont see that his point follows on logically from the rest of the post. Are ID and Evolution in a binary system? And what has that got to do with entropy? |
| Date: 2006/03/06 00:07:42, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Anyone want to tell me if DS's latest "Ah ha, your making it all up because I've found something where your wrong" screed has any validity at all? http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/887#more-887 (I'm at work right now, also I dont have up to date cell biology books at home, yet.) |
| Date: 2006/03/06 04:48:11, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Would they be clones of Steven J Gou'auou'uould? Sworn to battle creationists wherever in the galaxy they are? |
| Date: 2006/03/07 09:31:32, Link 80.47.134.229 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I am chuffed that I knew why DS was wrong, given that I havent been to uni for years, and have a bad memory. Thanks to you all for reminding me about this stuff. |
| Date: 2006/03/07 22:58:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| So what is your definition of science, thordaddy? Throwing rocks? |
| Date: 2006/03/08 01:13:46, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
So, basically thordaddy is saying that the definition of science right now is out of scientists hands, and presumably is in public hands or, even, judges! OR teachers! You'll excuse me if I wonder why you seem to think this is the case. Sure, I know about the Dover ruling. I understand that both parties deferred to certain broadly agreed standards of science (That had been thought up by scientists) early on in the trial. |
| Date: 2006/03/08 12:26:09, Link 80.47.138.182 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Maybe we need an award for the poster who stays on UD asking sensible questions the longest. What is the current record? 3 days? A week? |
| Date: 2006/03/09 10:27:32, Link 80.47.143.2 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Welcome, refugee from UD! Presumably there is nothing nefarious about the numerous documented uses of word press options to pre-screen posts? That does explain why so many dont make it through. |
| Date: 2006/03/10 03:00:02, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Which believers? I know some people who think Odin is a great guy, and others who have some allegiance to strange Indian practises. The point being, there are all these competing religions with different ideas of how things started. Which one is correct? They cant all be. |
| Date: 2006/03/10 12:00:23, Link 80.47.68.203 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Ummm, which definition of faith are you using? "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith All the deinitions I have come across say that faith doesnt usually involve empirical evidence. Therefore, why should we pay any more attention to all these people, who, as you keep avoiding, all have apparently had different experiences of religion and the world in general? People used to think that the earth was orbited by the sun. Then eventually they worked out it was not the case. |
| Date: 2006/03/11 10:17:43, Link 80.47.224.87 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I dont exactly know. It would appear to be something to do with the person deciding that they have faith in something. I note youhavnt tackled the problem that all these millions of different people seem to have faith thanks to different empirical evidence. That would lead to me to suspect that either there are many, many gods, or else, that faith is not aquired by empirical evidence. |
| Date: 2006/03/12 11:33:23, Link 80.47.238.47 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
WEll, I note you havent actually denied that different people experience different realities, and thus, if your line of reasoning is correct, there are millions or billions of gods about. Indeed, you cant even make much of the dictionary definition, which doesnt say much about empiricla evidence. In short, you are a bloviating fool. What evidence do you have for your position? None. Thats why you cant present it. |
| Date: 2006/03/13 03:55:34, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| One of the things that does show that ID is not a science is the total inability of its supporters to agree on the story. Even the most recalcitrant of people who think that the modern sythesis is incomplete, can pay out what they think is wrong and why. These people cant even agree if its a religious position or not, let alone what the scientific theory of ID is. |
| Date: 2006/03/18 07:39:38, Link 80.47.66.21 |
| Author: guthrie |
| To be fair, Arden, there are one or two scientists who believe in ID. One of them is a thermodynamics lecturer in the UK, I think in Sheffield. Although I dont know how good his actual scientific research is.... |
| Date: 2006/03/22 00:55:25, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I seem to recall that some of the early psychology was very subjective. Modern psychologists are well aware of this now, and try and avoid it or take account of it. Thus, when they do so, they are being scientific. |
| Date: 2006/03/29 02:58:42, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahhh, but uncommon descent and the DI prove that there is a designer, because they continually break the 2nd LOT!!! After all, how else can you get so much smoke from no fire? |
| Date: 2006/03/30 02:12:29, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Here you go renier: http://justscience.1.forumer.com/index.php?act=idx I havnt checked in for a while, been too busy with other things. As for UD, that stands for "uncommon descent" does it not? I have always wondered why they dont call it "Uncommon dissent", since that would be a nice play on the similarity between descent and dissent when pronounced badly, and also would suggest that this is a lone voice against the "Darwinian hegemony". Message to anyone reading this- feel free to steal the suggestion for your own blog, as long as you credit me with the idea. |
| Date: 2006/03/30 04:08:09, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Thanks sanctum, I havnt actually read any of his books. Just some of his online bloviating. I wonder who has the url then? As for the UK, I have seen a fair number of letters to papers, with people asserting that ID is correct, without any back up. I think they are just reading stuff from the USA without fully understanding it, and as long as they keep out of the schools, and get whacked down whenever they show their head, we'll be ok. |
| Date: 2006/03/30 04:31:45, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
But then everyone will think you are Abba fans... |
| Date: 2006/03/30 11:20:36, Link 80.47.67.24 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
re Goedel- I used to think that too, then I read the wikipedia entry. As far as I understand it, Goedels incompletenmess theorem only holds true withing certain narrow areas of mathematics, not in all formal systems of logic. Thus, if you want to use it about the universe, your going to have to demonstrate, logcally and mathematically, how the universe is like one of these partical areas of maths. Given that we dont know nearly everything about the total universe, I can safely say that anyone appealing to Goedel to bolster their ignorance can be ignored. |
| Date: 2006/03/30 22:16:51, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
With regards to DS making a fool of himself by using innapropriate language to describe an ID luminary, he has replied to some critiscism over here: http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/?p=928 So you can all go and read his excuse. |
| Date: 2006/03/31 10:39:38, Link 85.119.112.33 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Ahhh, well from our point of view, the ID universe is the size of a shoe box, illuminated by some fleeting photons from the decay of some radioactive lump in the corner of it. |
| Date: 2006/04/02 21:38:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| AFAIK, world population growth is flattening quite impressively, as birth control methods around the world turn out to be working very well. The problem is more that everyone in the world aspires to "western" levels of consumption, which cannot be done with our present (or even next 20 years at least) levels of technology. So we could either reduce our population drastically, to permit high levels of consumption, or we could reduce how much each of us consumes. I'd prefer the latter. |
| Date: 2006/04/03 05:35:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Hey, my brain isnt symmetrical. And I'm right handed! As for chaos, is the sun chaotic? Are the orbits of the planets chaotic? |
| Date: 2006/04/03 21:09:40, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Sure, messy, but yet sunspots and things like the Jupiter red spot are kind of like bits of order in chaos, arent they? (I'm obliquely referring to abiogenesis and the way that life seems to live on the edges of chaos, producing order out of disorder) |
| Date: 2006/04/03 21:13:35, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
And what is the sound of one hand clapping? (Taoist quotes will have to wait until I get home and can check my library) |
| Date: 2006/04/03 21:20:19, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
So is DS a convert to post-humanism and uploading your brain to a simulation running on a supercomputer? Looks like it to me with his talk about there being information on CD's in terms of atoms and spacing etc. Surely that makes him a flammable heretic though? |
| Date: 2006/04/04 04:12:03, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Correct. Now that you have shown the ability to write comprehensible sentences in English, would you like to try and make a point related to the evidence that Evolutionary biology has piled up over the past 150 years? |
| Date: 2006/04/05 01:44:20, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Wait a minute, I thought you were on the side of ID? Which as we all know, says there is scientific evidence for a designer. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 01:50:49, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
No, hes saying that it seems likely that the complex of genetic variations and environmental pressures that mean you end up with homosexuals, has survived in the gene pool because in family groups in which one or two members do not necessarily have their own children, but spend time helping rear the children of their relatives, more of the children survive to adulthood and breed. Furthermore, what can you tell us about why men are attracted to women, and women to men? Is it their brain structure? Hormones? The voice of Cupid in their ear? |
| Date: 2006/04/05 04:48:24, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I'll try and dig out stuff on the effects of exposure to hormones in the womb out as well. IIRC, the idea is that a fetus is exposed to different hormones in the womb, and exposure to the "wrong" amount of some of them at the "wrong" time will lead to the parts of the brain concerned with sexual attraction being altered to a different way. I.E. if your a homosexual man, the part of your brain related to what you find sexually attractive has been feminised in the womb. Its a neat idea, and sidesteps a lot of the messy genetic wragling, by putting the causes back to the mother genetics and environmental circumstances. Which is what people often overlook, the way these things are presented in the media or by some researchers amounts to genetic determinism, whereas in most cases the genese merely decide which football pitch you are playing on, rather than which side wins. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 05:14:19, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||
My pencil and my printer both perform the same function, namely that of marking paper with letters. Does that mean their structures are fundamentally the same? No, of course not.
The way you have phrased it makes no sense. If you say "I believe my son will be athletic" when he is 2 months old, you may be wrong. If you see him aged 16 being athletic, you would actually say "I believe my son is athletic". Not "Will be", "IS". Note the difference in tense. One is predicated on observable future events, but is not definitely correct; judgement is actually suspended. The other is about observed past events, and thus is correct. Anyway, as for belief, I believe there is a large pink spider sitting above your computer, on the ceiling. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 05:35:47, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
See! You believe me! Now, in order to stop the spider eating your socks, you must send me a cheque for £100. That will pay for me to contact a handy spider-whisperer, who will help keep it happy and contented. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 12:20:09, Link 85.119.112.200 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I have once seen one person act somewhat sympathetic to Id because he thought that the people attacking ID were using "Science" as a club with which ot beat people, and a means of gathering power to themselves. Needless to say, said person has exhibited many signs of being a non scientist who likes intellectual debate rather than scientific debate. (Yes, I know scientific debate can be kind of intellectual, but to clarify my definitions somewhat, I say scientific debate ultimately goes back to looking at evidence, whereas intellectual debate is more about simple logic and what if... arguing, which is ok if you are then going to go and do research to look at what if, but in the context of the internet, between interested amateurs, is just posing and nitwittery.) |
| Date: 2006/04/05 22:14:00, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Translation: *Fingers in ears* "lalalllalaaaaa I cant hear you, speak louder, llaaaaaalllaalaa" WE have already explained why your comment is utter bollocks. Please try and understand. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 10:13:15, Link 85.119.112.150 |
| Author: guthrie |
| A homsexual gene would only disprove ID if you thought that the designer didnt want homsexuality. Of course, our resident ID'ers are unlikely to answer that questions. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 11:41:02, Link 85.119.112.59 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Once again, TD jumps in with a logical but unocnnected with reality opinion. The homosexuals I know would have loved to have been "Normal", since that would have saved the embarrasment and even physical danger of coming out of the closet, the strained relations with parents, the difficulties of finding other people like them, etc etc. If it really was that much of a lifestyle choice, many of them would not have picked it in the first place. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 00:36:52, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
HUmane form of genocide? Thats very close to being an oxymoron. So its ok to kill people/ take away their reproductive freedoms? Not in my book. I expect someone will consider it sometime, somewhere, but I wouldnt agree with it. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 09:21:52, Link 85.119.112.35 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
So, GoP would like to throw out modern science, statistics etc? I suppose thats par for the course. Why dont you go and pick on fluid dynamics? Or physical chemistry? Why the concentration on Evolutionary biology? Heck, 20 years ago we didnt have the right equations and methods for showing how Bumble bees flew. GoP, if you want to argue about the geological column, I suggest you actually try and get some data on the table. Otherwise your just handwaving. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 09:28:20, Link 85.119.112.35 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Steve, your my kind of conspirator! I could make some thermite without too much trouble. Then theres the industrial recipe for gunpowder I have. The funny thing is I could probably get arrested for being a terrorist these days, just by having it sitting on my shelf. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 11:41:07, Link 85.119.112.43 | ||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||
*Shrugs* Sure, we're human here, (I think I am anyway.) So scientists cheat, lie, indulge in wishful thinking, make up data, etc etc. Yet somehow, things keep getting back on track, no matter what the field. Even if it takes 30 years, new data that realigns the field is absorbed and used to make new decisions and experiments. I thought you were trying to show that evolution was a crock? So far you havnt gotten anywhere. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 11:53:05, Link 85.119.112.43 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
You mean, why is it considered normal to like a drink, even though alcohol is the number one factor in late evening violence, wife beating, liver cirhosis, etc etc? You'd think that if alcohol was relly as bad as it was we would all hate the stuff. And just to drive the point home again- the difference between the alcohol and homosexuality is that you dont have brain structures and hormones pushing you to take a drink, at least not as far as I know. There is more "free will" involved. But with sexuality, all the available evidence says it is hard wired in. Your pupils dilate and other bodily signs change when you see an attractive member of the opposite sex. Besides, I note you havnt actually produced any of these studies that show high correlations with anything, and of course you keep leaving lesbians out of it. I wonder why? |
| Date: 2006/04/07 11:58:35, Link 85.119.112.43 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Yeah, but like with ID, that was ages ago in the past... When I was at uni, I seem to recall spending a few seconds discussing the potentiallity for a war between the physics and chemistry departments. Chemistry would win outright, because in the few hours it would take physics to realign their lasers and wire them up to the power supply, we would have made nerve gas, 8 different kinds of explosives and have flattened them. Mind you, it would also depend on whether your university physics dept had a pet nuclear reactor or not... Oh yes, uncommon descent. Maybe they have a new policy for avoiding us commenting on anything there. IT involves not saying anything. Or else maybe they could make you log in before you could read anything. That would be interesting for them to try and control... |
| Date: 2006/04/09 10:00:01, Link 85.119.112.50 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Ugh. You mentioned Rthur C Clarke in the same sentence as DS. How dare you sully Clarke good name in this way, even if it was in service of a comparison which makes Dave look bad. |
| Date: 2006/04/10 04:34:58, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahhh, but do their stats include deleted posts? If they do, then they are doign badly. If they dont, then theres your problem! The solution is obvious- delete Dave! (Nice slogan, huh?) |
| Date: 2006/04/12 05:26:22, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Anyone want to help great_ape? http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1028#comments He (?) seems to be defending "Darwinism", but is getting chewed out by DS. I wonder how long he will last? Whats just as funny is that some poster repeats the same old canard about Dembski not having been refuted. Which as far as I can see is bunk. |
| Date: 2006/04/14 09:06:35, Link 85.119.112.182 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I dont recall any peer reviewed journal publication about Irreducible complexity. So their point is somewhat like saying "My team won the match because your team didnt turn up to beat them, even though my team doesnt exist at all." Or in other words, total mince. |
| Date: 2006/04/18 10:37:26, Link 85.119.112.168 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Yes, they keep saying that Dembski et al are doing research like things the same way as SETI do. But they dont. And, a Catholic wrote in todays paper (The Scotsman) saying the cambrian is a great problem for evolutionary theory. Yeah, right, you do know that its 35 million years deep? Thats something like 6 times the depth from humans and other apes. (AFAIK off the top of my head). |
| Date: 2006/04/18 22:19:56, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I feel that Afdave would be somewhat put out if we asked him to prove that he could fly a plane, without reference to any outside evidence, nor having the plane with him to demonstrate it, etc etc. |
| Date: 2006/04/19 01:53:06, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| In return, perhaps AFdave can tell us what kind or level of scientific information it would take for him to change his mind about creationism being correct? |
| Date: 2006/04/19 02:00:49, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
As a matter of interest, do you reckon it would be best to ignore it completely, so that it withers and dies, or rather, joins the back scratching set up that are the pro-Id blogs? Or should scores of people join and put his no censorship proclamation to the test? |
| Date: 2006/04/19 22:37:50, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Just as likely that they have settled down to a crowd of regulars who all know the rules. |
| Date: 2006/04/25 03:49:14, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Ummm, what lines of evidence? I have yet to see any. Would you like to provide some? |
| Date: 2006/04/28 02:26:57, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Seconded. Although I'm sure Lenny would have a laugh at being quoted as an infallible source. |
| Date: 2006/04/28 03:33:38, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
You mean like seeing the same old picture attached to someones name day after day? My sig on a different forum goes something like: "Warning! The above writing is only my opinion based upon my limited view of reality, and should not be used as an actual guide to reality." A useful caveat I find. |
| Date: 2006/04/28 04:22:35, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I find pics and sigs annoying sometimes, but the animated ones that take ages to download really annoy me. HHmm, I wonder if the creationists will start making their own animated pics, say of white haired old men in vices, or strange, physically impossible events during the flood, or suchlike. |
| Date: 2006/04/30 23:48:34, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Are you trying to make a proepr comparison here? A better one would be: woudl you rather live in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, or America? Asking if people would rather live in Ancient Egypt rather than modern USA is rather like asking if you would like to do without your glasses, modern dentistry etc. |
| Date: 2006/04/30 23:51:56, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| No no, answer her. I want to see afdave and carol have an argument. It would be interesting... |
| Date: 2006/04/30 23:51:56, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| No no, answer her. I want to see afdave and carol have an argument. It would be interesting... |
| Date: 2006/05/01 22:47:39, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Aye, only buy it second hand. If I wrote as badly as Brown does, I would be chucked out of the writers group I am in. The characterisation is shallow, consisting only of a few scenes designed to get you to empathise with the characters, although I suppose that is perfectly normal. Then I spotted the actual bad guy half way through it, because it was so bleeding obvious. What I found really funny was Brown claiming that much of it was based on real stuff- ie Leigh and Baigents opus, which was later exposed as lies because the people they'd based it on had made all their info up. Deception Point was also annoying, because not only did it have over the top conspiracy guff that was soooo wrong, it also mangled the science at least twice. You average reader wouldnt have noticed, but I get annoyed by these things. They just show how Brown likes to rip things off without actually understanding any of the history or background, which to me just makes him another ignorant fool, unworthy of all the praise. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 21:51:29, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I agree with the general thesis here. I am currently reading "Faucoults Pendulum" by Umberto Eco. Its a laugh, although you should only read it if you are some kind of intellectual. Anyway, it reminds me of ID'ists, in so far as, like the conspiracy theorists, they start with a predetermined idea and look for linkages, but conveniently forget about actual testable evidence. What I would be interested in is how much CoP et al are aware they are acting like this? Do they realise how silly they look trying to out expertise the experts? |
| Date: 2006/05/09 04:54:52, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Plus the issue is hard to explore, because we all want people to not take what we say at absolute face value; but skepticism can be taken too far. Moreover, as fallible humans, in our own areas of expertise we mostly do enjoy holding forth, and it can be annoying for us if someone comes along claiming that we are wrong, and actually putting up what looks like a good fight to outsiders, yet is based upon simplistic readings of fragmentary data that we know about because we are experts yet they dont because they just spent 20 mins mugging up on it. Which leads into something that I think people have been neglecting for far too long- expertise and its place in society. We need experts. In the course of becoming an expert in something, you learn so much and see so many connections that joe average cannot see without going through the same learning processes, that you do appear to be arrogant when debating someone, even when you are not. (And like I said, we all can get rather uppity about being challenged) And it seems to me that people generally are verging too much towards outright skepticism towards experts, instead of a kind of careful questioning and question asking. They shouldn't be obsequois, but bear in mind that their grasp of the subject from an hour or twos reading is likely to be inadequate, since almost every subject has nuances that only experts actually grasp. A related example- a couple of years ago I had an argument about something in the Falklands war, with an inveterate arguer on a forum I frequent. SAid arguer was mos tlikley a 16 year old Canadian nerd. As such, their parents probably didnt even know each other when the Falklands war occured, and I was 5 years old at the time. Yet he insisted on putting forwards some point of view, and backing it up with stuff from online. But seeing as he only knew what he had read, linearly, recently, he was making quite a good, but as far as I could see erroneous argument, precisely because he didnt actually know all the background, the assumptions, and the whole era at all. Kind of Like goP and those fossils- he just hasnt got the near intuitive grasp of how it all fits together, he's still thinking linearly or something, working on what information he can pull together without a deeper understanding of the whole system. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 11:25:08, Link 82.41.246.233 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Its a good question. I can think of several answers, like "Yes, of course designed creatures dont change" and then they would walk about kinds and other such non evidence based ideas that allow them to say that evolution of whatever kind isnt happening. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 11:39:24, Link 82.41.246.233 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
You must have seen that Father Ted episode where a film involving nudity etc arrives on the Island, after being banned in the rest of Ireland, and ted and Dougal have to to out and protest against it. With placards saying "Careful now!" Indeed, their protests are so successful that the film has a bumper run, since everyone on the island want to see what is getting them so worked up, and dont mind a bit of nudity. |
| Date: 2006/05/13 04:03:30, Link 80.192.55.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Cue snarkiness- Ohhh, read up to date journals! But that would be bad, and mean that you would have to learn all this darwinist speech, so that you could read the words. ACtually, you wouldnt, since they do just take the words and make things up about them. I think it just reflects their fundamentalist mind set, they cant go beyond the past 150 years, since so much has happened in them. end snark Mind you, for your average, non science interested punter, can you really expect them to know about biophysicicsts? Even I dont know what they do, and I'm interested in science and have a chemistry degree. Theres just too much stuff to keep track of and learn about. So when mr/ mrs uneducated pro-ID-er pops up, just remember that they dont knwo anything because they have been lied to and they simply do not have the time or the contacts to find out that such things as biophysicists actually exist. |
| Date: 2006/05/13 06:23:29, Link 80.192.55.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
What is conventional Darwinite wisdom? Should I pop over there and ask them that? I've never been banned from anywhere before. Does Dembski go drinking? Is there any way we can get to him when ihes in his cups and ask him what hes doing? |
| Date: 2006/05/13 13:33:26, Link 80.192.55.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Oh no! I can feel the evil Darwinite peer pressure forcing me towards the precipice! What can save me from getting falling into the gorge of uncommon dissent? |
| Date: 2006/05/13 13:49:44, Link 80.192.55.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I second what Stephen Elliot has said. If I hadnt gone to University myself and now have a job in a science related area, I would know maybe one person with whom I could talk about scientific stuff. The thing is, related to communication, the science over the past 100 years has gotten so complex and deep that it is rather hard for a layman to get to grips with it. I have a chemsitry degree, and am generally interested in science. Yet it has taken over a year of reading stuff on here, Pandas thumb and elsewhere, as well as the reading of a couple of popular science books, before I have a reasonable idea of evolutionary things. I dont even know much biology. In order to know much about anything I would have to go through first year university level courses on biology, evolution, information theory, etc etc. Theres just so #### much to learn, that is is quicker and easier to leave it to other people. We can win som ebattles with national efforts, but the war will have to be one one mind at a time. |
| Date: 2006/05/15 21:44:16, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Not that I have undertaken a large study of comedy methods, but one thing that Monty Python and Family guy have in common is that they have an "off the wall" kind of rewriting reality kind of humour. Take an ordinary situation and people, then magnify some things beyond any sensible bounds, to the extent that it is parody. I recall for example a FAmily guy episode where their local pub gets taken over as an English pub, and the brave americans try and get it back to their usual sports bar. Or look at how you have a talking dog, something of an outsider yet people get on with him as if he's a real human. Its all about building up expectations in one direction, then fooling you, the watcher, with a quick switch. Like the reference above, to "What is your favourite colour?" TO set the scene- the knights of ARthur ar looking for teh HOly grail. Several of them come to a gorge, with a bridge guarded by a horrible old man, who asks questions and you can only cross if you answer the question correctly. The question that was asked was, "What is the unladen weight of an African Swallow". The Knight of whom it was asked ummmed, and ahhed, and said "I dont know" and was promptly catapulted to his doom. So, next person goes up, to brave near certain death in his search for the grail, and is asked "What is your favourite colour?" Oddly enough, he gets this right. This could be seen as a kind of redirection of our expectations, a release of tension. THen the 3rd one goes up, and is asked the question of the Swallow, whereupon he asks the questioner exactly which kind of African swallow. The questioner said "I dont know" and was catapulted ot his doom. Again, a switch in expectations and outcome. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 01:24:40, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
That'll be JBS Haldane, who came up with the word clone, and died in 1964. Apprently he played a good part in producing the modern synthesis, but really, attacking the work of someone who's been dead for 42 years really isnt helping their cause. And..... Drum roll...... He was a marxist! So I predict that will get brought up next. (Especially if they read this thread) And if it doesnt get brought up, obviously it proves that they do read this thread! |
| Date: 2006/05/16 04:30:54, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Excuse me for jumping in here- in the UK, what you have said, is, with some general exceptions, incorrect. The conservatives here have mostly stood for everyone having obligations to scoiety, its just that they want to preserve the kind of society in which they are at the top of. I suspect also that GoP hasnt properly defined Liberal or conservative in this argument. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 09:03:50, Link 82.41.158.41 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Or to look at it another way- The scene with Arthur and the Black knight in the Holy grail. Opens with the black knight and another knight fighting fast and dangerously, until the black knight finishes his opponent with a virtuoso sword thrust through the eye slit of his helmet. Arthur has stood watching this appreciatively, and when the fight is over steps forwards congratulating the black knight for a fine fight and askign him if he would like to join the Knights of the Round table. THe Black knight replies "None shall pass", and blocks Arthurs way. "Pardon" "None shall pass" "Why not?" And so on it goes. By this point, the comic potential through miscommunication/ misunderstanding should be obvious. Finally, Arthur has had enough, since even after pointing out that he is King of the Britons hes the man in charge here, the Black knight still stands in his way. So they come to blows. Arthur chops off the knights arm. "Had enough eh?" THen has to rapidly block a blow from the mans sword. "But I've wounded you." The black knight says "Tis but a flesh wound" "But I shopped yoru arm off." The fight carries on. See how things are exagerated and somewhat silly. Then Arthur chops off the black knights other arm. Expecting him to give up, Arthur steps back, only to be kicked by the unarmed man. "Leave me alone, I've chopped off both your arms." "Garn. I've had worse. Are you chicken, fight me" So Arthur gets annoyed and cuts off his leg. Then the other leg, leaving the torso on the ground, trying in vain to bite him. OK, its funnier to watch than it is to read, but hopefully it gives you an idea of the exaggeration and silliness. I also predict that some people will use this episode as an example or simile. |
| Date: 2006/05/18 06:11:38, Link 82.41.246.72 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I finished Foucoults Pendulum last week, still feeling the after effects. Its the ideal antidote to Browns drivel. I think I spotted some of the intellectual jokes, name dropping etc, but also distrubringly enough, I have heard of a lot of the groups and history mentioned in the story. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 08:45:50, Link 82.41.246.195 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Yes, its yet another area in which amateur and public understanding of Evolution lag behind the actual known science. Many people would agree with DS, thats the problem, because they dont know how much things have moved on. For example, severeal people at a foum I go to appear to have bought into "the free hydrogen to fuel your car" and "Hyrdogen torch that can cut through anything" stuff thats going the rounds just now. They are the same people who will listen to DS. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 08:57:57, Link 82.41.246.195 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
My reference book agrees with Rilkes Grandaughter. Its "The Pimlico encycolpaedia of the Middle Ages", published in 1999. What it also says about the formation of Portugal is that the Northern part of what we now knwo as POrtugal was first reffered to by that name in the mid 800's, when it had its own governor. In the eearly 1000's Ferdidnand the first of Castile and Leon took control, and then his Kingdom was divided amongst his children after his death. So, in the early 1100's, feuding was going on, ldeaing to Alfonso seizing the throne from his mother in 1128. Now, even if some Henry bloke was Alfonsos dad, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Daves claimed date of 1143, since by that time Alfonso was in charge, and that date was when Spain recognised Portugal as a country in its own right. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 09:07:07, Link 82.41.246.195 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
I'm sure we'd like to, but so far Dave hasnt produced any arguments, just a bald statement. It seems that Henry of Burgundy was dead in 1112: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%2C_Count_of_Portugal Now, what was Daves statement again?
|
| Date: 2006/05/19 12:23:56, Link 82.41.246.195 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Whats a "yutz"? It sounds faintly disturbing. |
| Date: 2006/05/21 12:38:01, Link 80.192.54.106 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Yup, I saw the appeal to Cthulu as well. But I understand the Illuminati trilogy by Robert Anton wilson is also a good read. Wow, he even appears to have his own website: http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml |
| Date: 2006/05/22 21:53:52, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
We dont try and disprove ID, mostly we just point out where its supporters are wrong, since we cannot conclusively prove that there is no intelligent designer. As for the threat, it is a threat to proper science education, since it is part of an anti-science mindset, and as such threatens a great deal of work and life in the USA. Sure, if nobody though evolution was correct, a lot of science would still get done, but as the unifying principle behind much of biology, people would be unable to see the big picture. |
| Date: 2006/05/23 13:23:34, Link 82.41.154.163 |
| Author: guthrie |
| The thing that I walways wonder about, is that last I saw, a lot of the negative things that occur when raising children actually happen most in porr families. Does GoP agree that we should restrict peoples breeding or marriage rights according to how much money they have? |
| Date: 2006/05/23 22:33:32, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
DAmmit, will you all stop jumping all over someone. Even if they are a troll, you just need to pile on the links to talk origins etc, then sit back and watch their response. If they go "wow, theres so much here, but [insert honset confusion here]" you can be nice to them. If they come back saying "wow theres so much here, but [insert typical creationist boilerplate here]", then you know what you are dealing with. REmember, there is always the chance that someone like sceptic could be a misinformed person who jusst hasnt been able to do some proper research on the topic. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 05:07:40, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
For the hard of reading, what actually happens, is that ccontrary to Dr(?) andersons assertion, bacteria that have mutated to have anti-biotic resistance, although they are sometimes less fit in a normal environment than normal, unmutated bacteria, then proceed to mutate back up to the same level of fitness that they were before the original mutation. Or in other words,
is wrong. Is that right, fellow evolutionists? |
| Date: 2006/05/24 23:00:03, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I'm not a biologist, but I think we would proceed in several ways, such as: 1) We look at various species around the world, collecting DNA samples at various times, so as to see how much they change. 2) We try to breed a species, such as flies, to see what changes we can produce in their genome and how they are inherited and under what conditions they provide advantages. 3) We observe some species in minute detail in their natural habitat, watching how they interact with it, and how their genes and physical forms etc change over time. 4) We breed peas and suchlike and observe the changes in their size and form. 5) We run genetic analyses on animals and plants, teasing out the differences and similarities, and how changes to genes affects the creature with the changes. And so on. All the above have been done at some point in the past 200 years. For example, the Galapagos Finches have been almsot exhaustively studied for I think nearly 40 years- every year some biologists go to the islands and tag, measure, and observe the birds in their natural habitat. So far, all the above have shown that the modern synthesis is a pretty close description of "reality". |
| Date: 2006/05/25 05:21:05, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||
Hey! I've been mindlessly dissed by AFDAve! I feel almost motivated enogh to go and get myself banned from Dembskis place! I shall just have to go and try and find where I read my wild assertion, or do any of you with literature access have something appropriate to hand? |
| Date: 2006/05/25 06:58:03, Link 82.41.154.163 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
That talkorigins article on the RAates stuff is the scientific equivalent of nuking someone. If Skeptic is still reading this thread, heres a paper on Galapagos Finches: Galapagos finches |
| Date: 2006/05/26 01:08:23, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Cant some of you engineers come up with fuses for ironymeters? |
| Date: 2006/05/26 03:25:33, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Do you want to expand upon what you mean by "traits"? You mean the physical differences that result from different genes being expressed, or what? And again, things are probably more and less complex than you make out. I understand that a variety of research has been done about knocking out individual genes in, for example, mice, and that has had quite an effect upon the mouse in some way, whether body size, colour, etc. So, for some genes it is as simple as one gene almost directly controlling things. Yet if you look up methylation (I think that is the word) where some parts of the genome are inactivated due to cellular changes brought on by environmentalchanges, eg as a response to a starvation diet. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 03:48:21, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I like the idea of gigadembskis. We need a proper scientific chart, with proper rankings and explanatory notes like with the Richter scale, e.g. "The amount of irony you would expect at a bad team meeting at work, but is indistinguishable from background levels for meters calibrated for UD" Or "This level of irony is known to have deleterious health effects, and should be avoided" |
| Date: 2006/05/26 12:19:34, Link 82.41.154.163 | ||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||
But why arent they single gene mutations? Have you checked them all? Also, mutations arent quite as random as people naievely think. Some parts of the genome are conserved better than others, therefore some parts mutate much more than others. Plus, looking for profound effects is not necessary. All you need is a few percent improvement in something, and you can have noticeably incrased survival rates over several generations. Then, go look up the mutation/s that mean that a large part of the worlds population can drink milk in adulthood. Did that arise from one single change or several, and how well has it since spread through the population?
But then thats still single gene's having an effect. Now, unless you have total knowledge of the rest of the genome and what all the genes do, you cannot say that such things do not happen elsewhere with different traits. Now, I only have a chemistry degree, so I dont have all the knowledge and links and stuff off the top of my head, but talkorigins archive is a good place to start. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 12:26:07, Link 82.41.154.163 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Argh! Armchair scientists! I have had one on another forum claim to have a proper, working theory of gravity, although they cannot explain it well enough for me to understand it. Now we have Ds suggesting there is "expert software" operating in a cell. So Dave, how will you detect this software? Is it called the genome? So what patters do you detect in the genome? |
| Date: 2006/05/26 12:29:30, Link 82.41.154.163 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
And some handjiving thrown in for that extra bit of rhythm. |
| Date: 2006/05/27 09:12:37, Link 82.41.154.163 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Yes. Professor J A DAvison (Davidson), a well knwon opponent of "Darwinian" evolution manages it. Goggle for his "prescribed evolutionary theory", he has his own website and blog and everything. |
| Date: 2006/05/27 11:35:37, Link 82.41.154.163 |
| Author: guthrie |
| OK, I didnt phrase things correctly, Sir toejam has explained everything to suit. |
| Date: 2006/05/28 12:35:43, Link 82.41.154.163 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Hang on- Beervolcanoes argument looks very similar to that used by YEC'ers. No insult intended. |
| Date: 2006/05/29 11:32:05, Link 82.41.154.163 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Yes, in that sense he is just using good military tactics. And in that vein, would you ex servicemen or whatever you like to call yourselves, care to explain in plain english what you are talking about with regards to Daves flying time? |
| Date: 2006/05/29 22:57:41, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Thats a nice quote, it sums up the problem that ID proponents have, and how they have no room to manouvre. If they get all metaphysical, they lose any hope of a wider appeal, and they cannot actually get more scientific, because it involves lots of work and may be impossible. |
| Date: 2006/05/30 02:00:24, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
HHmm, now which badscience forum denizen are you then? |
| Date: 2006/06/01 08:01:30, Link 62.30.165.231 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Just to make it more fun, the Crichton quote also seems to doom SETI forever as a non science endeavour, which as those of us who read the PT seem to broadly agree, it is. They just dont use the Drake equation for anything. Doesnt Crichton know anything about publicity and jumping to the wrong conclusions? |
| Date: 2006/06/02 11:19:42, Link 62.30.165.231 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Dammit, I wish you would explain these things in your post, it saves my brain. So Salvatore doesnt read beyond the title of the article he links to- a classic ID error. Then I read up the page, and found DS saying:
Um, sure DAve, but its a lot more complex than that. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 21:58:36, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Funniest thread I've seen for a while. A great way to start the day at work. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 23:34:24, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Nope. I guess your going to have to explain it to me. |
| Date: 2006/06/09 04:14:11, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
English. (Although I have a bit of Scots, a bit of french and some german. Not enough to be worth mentioning) |
| Date: 2006/06/14 00:58:03, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I suggest getting him drunk some time and having a nice, close to the heart chat with him. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 07:26:08, Link 82.41.154.112 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Saith AFDave:
Now, I'm in the UK, and even I know that you cant even get your ranting right. The NCSE et al are worried about religion in PUBLIC schools. Let me repeat that. PUBLIC schools. That is, ONES FOR THE EDUCATION OF EVERYONE. Now, pause for a second and consider why that might be a good idea. Do you want your child to go to a school where people quote the Koran at them, and people say they will end up in (whatever the islamic equivalent of ####)? THe ACLU has stood up for some people who were preaching in the public square, since they were exercising their rights to free speech in public. What you dont seem to get is that all people are interested in is not establishing a state religion. You can still get your children educated in your religion, if you home school or use a private school. Many people do. I suggest you look into it. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 01:49:51, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Judging by his recognition that he is in enemy territory, and outnumbered, perhaps he might like to nominate neutral territory somewhere? After all, we all want to know why his definition of science is so narrow as to exclude nearly as much science as a creationist. Indeed, I would like him to explain why all other religions have trouble producing scientific evidence to back up their claims, whereas evolutionary biology does not. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 01:57:17, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| "Brave sir Robin..." |
| Date: 2006/06/15 02:01:24, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| You might like to keep an eye open for an entity called "Randy Macgruber" (Or as I have christened him, Brave sir Robin), because I think it would be interesting to see if he does turn up. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 22:08:49, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
See!!! They've admitted its all speculation!!! |
| Date: 2006/06/16 12:46:38, Link 82.41.249.182 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I wouldnt say its completely contrary to what a public discussion board is about. Your idea is just about what I usually try and do myself- mask my batteries until the enemy is at point blank range. That way I can also tell if they are genuinely interested or misinformed, or are raving lunatics. Although, I admit that when it comes to evolutionary biology I am no 24 pounder. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 12:49:56, Link 82.41.249.182 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Sorry, I should have added some congratulations. So, happy PhD day, I hope you find some good work to do now. |
| Date: 2006/06/19 12:14:44, Link 82.41.249.231 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I would like to lodge a slightly tongue in cheek protest at calling Dave Scott a Springer spaniel. The Spaniels I have met have been many times nicer than Dave, eager to please, helpful, and generally worth their keep. Dave is the exact opposite. Possibly you could compare him to some mis-bred UK pit bull with an owner with a room temperature IQ and a tendency to violence, but I suppose that isnt short and snappy enough. |
| Date: 2006/06/21 00:24:08, Link 82.41.154.140 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I guess Berlinski has been practising his rhetoric. Thats quite an impressive piece of nastiness, however things have moved on a bit since the 18th century, and rhetoric like that doesnt get you anywhere in thw wide world when your opponent is armed with scientific data. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 12:16:53, Link 82.41.154.140 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Even worse, some people insist that the yellow in traffic ights, is actually amber! They will stick to this pedantically no matter how hard you explain things to them. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 14:29:40, Link 82.41.154.140 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
I know a little bit about alchemy, and would be willing to suggest that Dembski is talking bunk. They were quite specific about what happened; the balance of the four elements in teh material would be changed, of the quintessence would enter into it and transmute it into a higher element; or suchlike. Of course, like ID they had trouble defining exactly what these things were... edited to add:
ITs this bit in his essay that I mean especially. Help, I increased the visits to Dembskis page. I shall have to visit PT immediately. |
| Date: 2006/06/28 12:32:53, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
But, ummm, it was the dark age view of the universes origins, at least amongst the Christian part of Europe. The fact that this coincided with a time of exploitation of religion, rampant and blatant nastiness and all the rest of it, not to mention plagues, starvation and crop failures, was entirely beside the point... |
| Date: 2006/06/29 05:55:37, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
|
| Date: 2006/06/29 06:01:15, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I did like this comment:
from the same thread as above So presumably the multiple bannings, lost posts, religion wars of their own dont count? Last I knew, lennys posts were sitll available, on the bathroom wall. |
| Date: 2006/06/30 02:35:06, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
The "engineers" (read mechanical maintenance) as well as normal shop floor workeres where I work can do all sorts of things like putting the wrong size of nut and bolt together, and have it work. TH emaintenance team frequently have to resort to unsceintific bodges to get things to work. People who talk about how things have to be exactly right seem to me to often be lacking in real life experience. They forget that organisms only have to be a little bit better than other organisms, not perfect, and they also forget that designed artefacts like what us humans make, are made to be tremendously efficient at one job. And one only. So what is our job as humans? As far as I can see, we all manage to make new humans, build things, build up entire cultures etc etc. We, and other animals, are not maximum efficiencey machines. The comparison is not valid. |
| Date: 2006/07/01 12:27:01, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
If you'll excuse me from getting all political, all the actual academic studies and evidence that I have ever read about shows that increasing suicide rates are tied in with increasing isolation in society and a breakdown in social ties. you might find this interesting: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories....4.shtml Then as for a total disdain for human life, my understanding is that it is quite common amongst religious fanatics, power hungry people, etc etc. The ready acceptance of extreme violence on TV etc in the USA might have something to do with it as well. |
| Date: 2006/07/02 01:41:23, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
ohhh, controversial! Anyway, an Id'iot of a church minister is claiming in my local paper letters page that Newton and all th emembers of the Royal Society were creationists. Classic appeal to authority, I'm away to compose a letter asking why tens of thousands of scientists across all the major religions and denominations agree that evolution is correct, and, what evidence did Newton have to creationism? And how did he find Newtonian physics in the bible? |
| Date: 2006/07/02 01:47:35, Link 80.192.55.31 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I think LIno D'ischia simply demonstrates that harldy anyone supporting ID etc has a grasp of the actual science, not even of the chemistry involved. When you study chemistry, if you have any brains at all, you end up with a good idea of atoms, molecules, crystals, etc. essentially you have a mental picture of strutures at the atomic level. If you have that, you can comprehend a great deal, and wouldnt make such stupid statements as that Lino bloke did. Or at least I like to think you would'nt anyway... |
| Date: 2006/07/03 12:05:35, Link 80.192.55.31 |
| Author: guthrie |
| OK, so we're agreed that DS should post first on Janies blog? I can live with that. It should be interesting. |
| Date: 2006/07/03 12:39:10, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Indeed. Meanwhile, we can all be free to be mean to DS et al over here. I would be interested what she makes of that, because I think most of us are capable of being perfectly nice to her and many other people, but unpleasant to DS and his ilk. Does that mean we are totally nasty? Or that we are trying to brainwash her with honeyed words? It shall be interesting to see. |
| Date: 2006/07/04 01:21:20, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I am not sure. I would assume that it violates their right to the liberty not to have to know of or think about it, or perhaps their deity might smite them for not wiping it out. Or its their right not to live near sinners, somehow. Religion wars, anyone? I have never gotten my head round this kind of thinking. |
| Date: 2006/07/04 07:52:59, Link 80.192.55.31 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Which God, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/07/04 21:42:42, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Occam just answered my question as to which god.
|
| Date: 2006/07/05 03:03:38, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
|
I note that Salvador says: "Trevors and Abel are backed up by 150 years of empirical data after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. Abiogensis goes against everything we know empirically and theoretically." PAsteurs experiment was an accurate reproduction of the conditions of Earth 3 billion years ago? You mean it is true, we're the result of an alien experiment. Or a giant snotter from some aliens nose. Then theres this paper: cached from google Which appears to be a pukka science paper, but I cannot see how it got past peer review. With statements like:
in the abstract, I cannot quite see that it makes any sense. Programmed for function? Whose the prgrammer?
Pardon? But ultimately, selection pressure operates on the atomic level. Edited to clarify- I'm not a biologist, but it seems to me that since the behaviour of proteins, DNA, etc etc is dependent upon the atoms that make them up, and in turn the structures that these atoms can make up, then you can argue that selection operates right down to the atomic level. Feel free to disagree. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 04:45:37, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I do wonder how all these sedimentary rocks hardened so quickly. Perhaps Dave can explain the chemistry involved. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 05:39:55, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
At last! One question I can answer:
Because areas of the planet today exhibit artefacts with certain structures of particle size. These have been observed to form under windy conditions. Or in other words, we can see similar structures of sand etc forming right now, under windy conditions and they are different from the structures that are currently formed by waterborne sand. Its to do with sorting of the particles, and ripples left behind etc etc. You can find this sort of thing in geology textbooks, but its a few years since I last looked at mine. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 12:14:08, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
You think they can? have you observed them? Certainly water carries sediment, it also sorts out rocks and sand etc etc, producing certain structures, which differ somewhat from those you see on land. SO your challenge is to find pictures and diagrams of both kinds of structure, then compare them to those found in the grand canyon and elsewhere. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 21:35:33, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Denis Healey? Wasn't he a minister in the Thatcher junta? Doesnt strike me as being a likely candidate for running the world. MCC, that stuff about the design filter made no sense to me either, my brain just couldnt cope with it. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 21:50:11, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I never really realised how advanced Creation science was. It beats ID hands down. That they have already identified areas like the Coconino sandstones and devoted time and effort to distorting them to fit their agenda shows some devotion. I'm quite impressed. |
| Date: 2006/07/06 07:23:18, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I thought we were up to 5 or 6 states of matter. Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose-einstein condensate, and I think theres a new one that i cannot remember. So does that mean that Hinduism is the one true faith? |
| Date: 2006/07/06 07:45:49, Link 80.192.55.31 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
ooops, your right. ahh well. My only excuse is that I was a child in the 80's. So in that case, how come he was trying to take over the world? |
| Date: 2006/07/11 01:30:32, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I had to explain at length to someone who claimed to be intelligent and also against ID, that scientists did not object to the teaching of ID in schools because teaching something that contradicted current scientific thought was immoral, but because lying is immoral. It took some time. Theres a lot of confused thinking about this issue. Obviously. Edited to put "laying" to "Lying". |
| Date: 2006/07/11 05:19:04, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
|
I dont think that Lenny is/ has been in the UK, suffice to say that over here theres hardly any SCA, since we have the likes of Regia, The Vikings, for shield walls, and a bunch of other societies for medieval. I have been away at the battle of Tewkesbury this weekend, a re-enactment of a 1471 battle. I can second what is said about pole arms- the point being that pole arms are great in a battle field. In more constricted circumstances, swords and daggers are better. Moreover, in real life your hand and a half was entirely useable against a mass of pole arms because your armour would take care of their attacks. However, I do disagree with Lenny:
THose would be modern reproductions suitable for re-enactment use? A proper blunt reproduction for Historical fencing will weight something like 3 to 3.5 pounds, roughly speaking, and some are lighter still. That is actually quite light, I understand that a lot of period rapiers were nearly that weight. Hence you dont need to be particulalry muscly to use a longsword, at least not any more than you do a rapier. And at least your knees stay in one piece better with a long sword. My understanding is that when it came to battles, peopel still used sabre/ single hand swor dlike weapons, often in the 17th century re-enacting called "hangers". The problems with rapiers were adequately explained by George Silver in the 16th century; he preferred to knock the rapier aside then smash its users head in, using what we would think of now as a hanger, a basic cut and thrust sword.
Indeed. I worked that one out a few years ago myself, but then I have run into the problem of what kind of basic rules of the game do we need to have the most generally suitable society, where peoples happiness and opportunity etc are maximised. |
| Date: 2006/07/11 21:53:39, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
|
DAve is actualy quite sickening. I hav'nt seen anyone act the way he does for years. From the
And, am I correct in thinking that DS shows a certain lack of understanding of the fossil record and punctuated equilibrium etc etc, in this quote:
|
| Date: 2006/07/12 00:06:06, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
It seems to me that Daves thinking entirely violates any application of Occams razor. He keeps dancing around the ideas, entertaining anything that will mean that evolution is wrong, but doesnt involve a deity. Yet at times the mask slips and he sounds exactly like a religious believer. Then at other times, like above, he says that its simpler to posit one input point, which it is, but then this implies taht the designer has been elsewhere for much of the past 4 billion years. It will be interesting to see if anyone over there picks up on the implications. And, to really minimise entities, all you need to do is posit a universe set up by a designer right from the start, with the correct universal laws to ensure that life will arise some time, somewhere. This is I think how a lot of people view it; how come Dave cant get his head around it? |
| Date: 2006/07/12 02:34:53, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, that IQ thing is interesting- did it grow with education and life experience, evolve, or was it all there right from the begining of his life? Has Dave ever actually confronted the evidence for evolution that is laid out in the talkorigins archive? Or does he want to see it himself, which is funny given he was a software engineer, and I dont consider that to be the same as actually getting out there and getting your hands dirty. Actually, maybe the software engineer thing explains it all. He's spent so much time creating worlds with rules, that he thinks all such worlds and rules have to have a creator. So, Dave, what is your evidence for a creator? The evidence that is independent of who produces it, like the fact that evolutionary biologists from all the major faiths agree with atheists and agnostics about evolutionary theory? Message to Janie, who seems to read this- nice blog, the luminarium link is interesting and potentially useful. But it would be nice if it was possible to post without getting a blogger identity. |
| Date: 2006/07/12 03:42:57, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
|
So far, every time an ID'er quotes a biologist, (Except the pro-id ones) they seem to take it out of context. Perhaps they can show an example where they dont quote out of context? GCT- yes, I did mean to keep the possibility of a deity when talking about entities. Haveing re-read it, I aught to make it all a bit clearer, viz:
Should read more like: What is the evidence you have for a creator, that is independent of the observer the same way that evolutionary biology is, and as evidence for that I point out about all these religious people who agree on it. |
| Date: 2006/07/12 03:56:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I wonder if Dave is reading that and here all the time? hhhhmmmmmm. I admit I have spent a wee while at Janies place, its entertaining in a nice sort of way. And interesting. And this week, I'm not too busy at work. |
| Date: 2006/07/12 21:33:34, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Just about everyone in the UK used "lives steel". There are less SCA groups, partly because a lot of people got into re-enacting in the 80's and some even earlier, with an entirely different ethos. Here, perhaps because we have all the history on our doorstep, accuracy has been quite important (But its always a struggle) from the start, and most people never got into the calling each other odd names and taking on personas. Our reenacting is different. There are few people who use Rattan, steel is much better- as long as you are wearing appropriate kit, they are both not very dangerous. Which period do you do? I do medieval, around 1300 to 1500. |
| Date: 2006/07/12 21:36:53, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
What a great idea by Sal! It would keep them all busy for years trying to find and stimulate this software module, which would keep them out of our hair. / sarcasm |
| Date: 2006/07/13 00:01:31, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
We call them blunts- and nobody does full strength blows. So all that is really needed is some moderately thick padding, such as a jack, aqueton or similar. Add that to restricted target zones, (though I have been hit lightly in the face) and you have combat that is fairly safe and applicable to large numbers of people. However, if you want to go the whole hog, you put on fencing masks, elbow pads and metal armour, then you can start thinking about full speed hardly slowed blows. But anyone telling you they do full strength full contact fighting is almost certainly lying- real full speed and strength and technique combat would be really rather brutal when you were hit. (Thats my opinion anyway) If you are interested in swords, I suggest you go here: http://swordforum.com/ The fourum there is frequented by scores of western martial artists and historical fencers, you might be able to find some close to you. Fighting with metal swords is different, they bounce and stick differently, and its hard to get ones the right weight and so on, but it can be done. Finally, I am a member of this group: http://www.dawnduellists.co.uk/ As a matter of interest, why do so many people seem to like Viking? I mean you dont have much in the way of armour, shields make combat a bit more restricted, and they were just a small part of the diversity across Europe at that time. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 00:31:05, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I thought I saw a post on janiebelles blog saying she wasnt banned at UD. I cant find it again though, but we shall see if she starts posting again. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 01:01:36, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I've never heard of tournament productions. As for grappling, yes, we do allow it, most historical fencing groups do, with the usual proviso that you dont just heave your opponent over your thigh and let them drop, partly because we dont have any crash mats. Grapplings kind of fun, if you get it right, but its also important to learn the moves and skill, so that small or light people can throw heavy people, or at least prevent themselves being thrown. As for fencing masks- its a common misconception that they wont do. If you use 1600N competition kind of masks, they last for years, again with the proviso that you dont use full power and strength on them, although I doubt that they would be punctured, but your neck might not take the force very well. I've been fighting with fencing mask for nearly 3 years now, and have had no trouble at all, even against some fairly brutal opponents. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 01:28:08, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Aye, its always good to meet a fellow enthusiast, even if only electronically. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 01:36:10, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I'm afraid I got kind of stuck at this assertion:
Really? I'm just a common or garden agnostic, and cannot quite see where he gets this implication. Actually, I persevered during lunch break, and found an entertaining exposition. I doubt it will win any "converts" for evolution, but its ok. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 03:40:36, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Is that a prediction? Can you explain the model you are using to make that prediction? remember, weather forecasts are frequently wrong. (And frequently right. Since I think DS reads this thread, does that mean that he wont ban Zapatero just to show that your forecast is wrong? What mind games we can play! |
| Date: 2006/07/13 04:34:46, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Vaguely on topic- I didnt realise there were 81 people posting here. (Assuming no one was rigging the poll) Thats quite a lot, for the interenet. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 04:58:37, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I love this comment by Mung in the thread by DS about how Darwinism is 150 year old lies etc etc:
So, ID is correct, but yet would be replaced by something else? So we need to redefine science as absolute truth, effectively freezing scientific discourse at the level at which they are comfortable with? Hasnt that already been tried? Anyway, my brain hurts, I'm going to bow out for now. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 12:20:15, Link 82.41.154.228 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
OK, that sounds about right. Being in the UK, I dont know much about this Derbyshire bloke- I assume that as a Conservative, he is also religious, hence his point about minds and suchlike. Nevertheless, the way he lays into ID is good. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 13:16:23, Link 82.41.154.228 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Actually, some of those comments are quite funny, or at least run of the mill. Its the way thaat DS says the robber must be a liberal democrat that makes me wince. |
| Date: 2006/07/14 12:14:31, Link 82.41.154.228 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
But remember, Sal has his hypothesis about re-activating the old genetic information in cells. I suggest we remind him about it every now and then. Surely they could afford to sponsor a graduate student? |
| Date: 2006/07/14 12:49:48, Link 82.41.154.228 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Having just read this post: about the cornell students I suggest that Hannah MAxson is the best hope that Dembski et al have for someone to do proper ID research. We should encourage her at every opportunity. She seems to be committed, and intelligent. So, how about it, you ID'ers who read this? Want to sponsor a student? Try her, see how she gets on. Think of this as a little challenge. |
| Date: 2006/07/14 12:55:57, Link 82.41.154.228 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Oh yes, anyone want to rip apart Dembskis arrogant dismissal of evolution that is here: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_ResponseToErik_081602.pdf The first four or five pages consist of name calling, and ignoring the beam in your own eye whilst complaining about the tiny splinter in the eye of the bloke who is trying to help you get out of the ditch that you fell into because you couldnt see where you were going due to the large beam in your eye. |
| Date: 2006/07/14 13:00:11, Link 82.41.154.228 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Oh yes, I agree. There is a little bit of sarcasm in my posts, I should probably have made it more obvious. Yet, they could at least try. If they dont, its just another sign of their bankruptcy. |
| Date: 2006/07/15 00:56:52, Link 82.41.154.228 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Thats interesting. However I note that a geneticist says that it is an example of microevolution, so that must be a proper scientific word, and we're all lying about micro/ macro evolution!!! Anyone got a spare island on which I can carry out my experiment into speciation? I was thinking of marooning great danes and chihuahuas on the same island, ensuring that they have different food sources, and leaving them for 200 years, then seeing if they stand any chance of interbreeding. |
| Date: 2006/07/16 00:20:12, Link 82.41.154.228 | ||||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||||
|
Wow, just when you think its gone quiet, up pops Dembski, with another rehash of teleological thought: thunder and lightning
So Dr Dembski, what is the basic function of a flagella? Or a human arm? Indeed, upon what basis do you presuppose a primary purpose of a system?
I dont quite get that- what part of "if there was no life on earth, there would be no flagellae" does he not get? Water is a necessary part of the flagellum, because without the water, the flagellum is useless. (At least in ID world, in the real world it might get used for something else, like microbial sadomasochism.)
But on theistic principles, they come from the designer, right? DEmbski seems terminally confused as to what game he is trying to play.
I wish you'd tell us, we don't know.
Ahhh, lovely. DS misses the point completely. The rest of the comments are typical. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 00:36:38, Link 193.63.235.191 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Renier- the way you put it I'm amazed the enlightenment ever happened at all. As for the Fox news water car stuff, it just makes me mad. I spent quite a while sorting out unscientific weirdos and educating scientifically illiterate people when that came out. It was kind of fun, but horrifying in how it showed up the lack of knowledge and gullibility in society. |
| Date: 2006/07/19 02:07:23, Link 193.63.235.191 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I wouldnt be too bothered- we're fighting an attitude, rather than an individual, although personal involvement always gives a little frisson. So there are plenty more out there where Dave came from. |
| Date: 2006/07/21 22:22:15, Link 82.41.154.38 |
| Author: guthrie |
| DAve scot has already started trying to re-write history over at janiebelles blog. Fortunately we have the evidence right here. |
| Date: 2006/07/21 22:34:25, Link 82.41.154.38 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
But its just the language that is the problem here. Once a structure started being self replicating, using carbon atoms, then of course it would nudge the erganisms evolutionary future towards carbon favourbale development, because theres no way it could stop using carbon and use silicon instead. You know, its like once your born, theres no way to stop yourself growing up and getting older, it comes with the territory. (Well, no way as of yet, and I am aware of people with genetic or suchlike disorders who dont grow.) It comes down the the language- its hard to not attribute some direction to things, some volition, even when that is not the case. But as for the total thread idea, I thought there were some peopel out there who think that the entire universe is conscious. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 07:26:06, Link 82.41.154.38 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
|
IN response to Paleys quip about what cowards we have become: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5214104.stm
So, given CoP exhibits signs of being a creationist, do you reckon this one incident disproves his entire thesis? |
| Date: 2006/07/25 07:31:07, Link 82.41.154.38 |
| Author: guthrie |
Maybe everyone here knows, or maybe Dembski doesnt know, but TANSTAAFL usually means "There aint no such thing as a free lunch". So nice naming by someone being ironic, even more so that they were banned afterwards.  |
| Date: 2006/07/25 12:15:32, Link 82.41.154.38 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Given the article says she was 85 years old in the first paragraph, I think we can safely say that GoP is exhibiting all the signs of creationist selective reading. Is there a fancy latin name for this? |
| Date: 2006/07/26 20:35:13, Link 62.30.165.46 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Stupidity (Thats a reply to the thread title) |
| Date: 2006/07/26 20:40:15, Link 62.30.165.46 |
| Author: guthrie |
| If I were to be at all charitable to him, I might sugges tthat what we need (Sorry, you need- I'm British) is a nationwide campaign to ensure that all biology classes have up to date textbooks. Perhaps someone should ask him to donate towards it? |
| Date: 2006/08/02 02:35:52, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Thanks to everyone for the training and example. I've been pottering about at UDoJ, and managed to get this out of Dave Scot:
I had only asked him how he knew the universe didnt pop into existence a few thousand years ago, and also if biology obeyed the laws of physics. |
| Date: 2006/08/02 02:46:44, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
DEmonstrating even more than ever his general cluelessness, Dave continues in a later post at UDoj:
So why cant we find it, you dunderhead? And how likely is something you have no evidence for? I mean how dense do you have to be? Can he not see that what he is missing is the laws of physics? |
| Date: 2006/08/03 05:20:03, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Your not getting a cut from the site traffic are you? I would just like to point out, for calibration and "how the mighty are fallen" laughter, that Dave is reduced to arguing with me, an obscure scot with no political clout and no biology qualifications, about how epigenetics means that Lamarck was right. Now, I know he's just being stupid, but its entertaining. |
| Date: 2006/08/05 08:54:12, Link 82.41.238.86 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I'm glad my name isnt on the list. It means that my internet strategy of being myself and keeping a moderately low profile is working. And no, I dont want to be on the list and know no more about anything than anyone else. |
| Date: 2006/08/05 13:37:57, Link 82.41.238.86 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
That joel bloke is bad for another reason:
THats SECOND THOUGHT, not guess. honestly. What do they teach them at home/ school these days? |
| Date: 2006/08/06 23:41:34, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Yes. And? Anyone got any statistics on the prevalence of homsoexuals in the entertainment industry? And does it matter at all? After all, there are many more who arent in said industry. And Freddy mercury was more like bi-sexual. |
| Date: 2006/08/09 03:31:36, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Someone should invite Timcol over here. Of course, they may turn out a bit like sceptic; or they may turn out like the recovering ex-fundies we have here. It would be nice to turn this place into a haven from UD for people banned from there. |
| Date: 2006/08/10 00:57:28, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Whilst we are interested in their thoughts for entertainment purposes, ultimately we couldnt care less about their thoughts. Its their actions that matter to us, and so far ID'ist actions are, to put it bluntly, dishonest. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 00:04:45, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I am disgusted that that woman shares a name with my country. (Alba) |
| Date: 2006/08/12 00:11:14, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Icthyic, I do think your getting a bit argumentative these days, though I also think that Jason could do with adding his own commentary to these posts rather than just putting them up and leaving them. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 00:22:03, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Is this a continuation from elsewhere? I wouldn't mind a link. But I can already predict how his argument will go: Arabs started off this muslim thing, what with their warring ways etc. Militant islam comes for Arabia, see wahabiism etc. THe countries you have mentioned all seem to have bought into said militant islamism. therefore the middle east is being arabised. ANyway, I disagree. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 11:22:25, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, yes Arden. From what I know about these regions, what you say is spot on. It sounds from your presentation of his definition that half the planet has actually been anglicised. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 11:45:53, Link 82.41.155.39 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Over here in the UK, most of us look down upon both politicians and journalists. The two professions are amongst the least trusted. |
| Date: 2006/08/16 07:30:02, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I just found O'briens website. What kind of person pops into a blog, insults the occupants and the host, then meets every reply with derision, then crows about it on his own blog? Where everyone can see how childish he has been? (Yes, I know, a troll) |
| Date: 2006/08/16 07:44:04, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Whilst we're on geology, I just want to mention Sir James Hall, (1761-1832) who carried out experiments on metamorphism in rock. Yes, experiments. (He was also a colleauge of James Hutton) For example, he filled an iron cylinder with powdered chalk, sealed it, and had it heated in a blast furnace. What formed was marble. He made igneous rocks by melting Feldspar and quartz together in the proportions found in nature. His experiments helped disprove the ideas of the Neptunists who believed that all the rocks on earth were the result of a great flood. |
| Date: 2006/08/16 11:37:34, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Umm GoP, you mean "Do things our way or else" isnt the linchpin of American foreign policy? Not to mention that only by a typical misreading can you manage to get that policies are being dictated by terrorists out of that letter. And the sub text is only clear if you have GoP glasses on. I like your unsubtle reply as well, it shows exactly what we have come to expect form you. Thanks for confirming our expectations. Oh, and You'd love John Reid- he's Tony Blairs enforcer, basically an ex Stalinist bruiser. They're now touting him as a runner for Blairs job, in order to try and put pressure on Brown, but Reid would be useless, since he's spent his entire life taking orders from people. Oh, wait a minute, he could take orders from Bush. Never mind... |
| Date: 2006/08/16 11:43:52, Link 82.41.155.39 |
| Author: guthrie |
| If thats what I think it is, then all thats left of the infidels will be small strands like spaghetti! |
| Date: 2006/08/24 13:10:46, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
This possibly isnt the best place to say it, but I thought that, as long as his summing up was accurate, Macneill has effectively given us a minor propaganda victory. Namely that even ID's proponents thought that the efforts to make it scientific so far had failed, and all that was left to them was posturing and a fall back on irrational beliefs. I do not recall the course purpose being to prove that ID was bunk, rather it was to discuss the whole situation of ID and evolutionary biology, and as such it seems to me (Who has popped over to the blog over at the course a couple of times) that the course has been a success. |
| Date: 2006/08/25 06:20:48, Link 82.41.158.68 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
|
I did have a nice erudite and intteligent post here, but when i tried to open the recent PT page about the Cornell stuff, internet explorer crashed. Anyway, it seems to me that many people were expecting too much from this course. The description says:
This is not the same as a course intended to showing the scientific vacuity of ID, rather the course looks like it is supposed to explore the issues and debates surrounding ID. Therefore, much of the oprobium heaped upon McNeill by the more, umm, enthusiastic people at the Thumb is over the top. At the same time, it has given us something of a tactical victory. Assuming that MacNeills reporting of the outcome of the course is correct, this:
sounds similar to what most of us have ben saying all along. This leaves ID'ers with only their faith to fall back upon, thus demonstrating ID's total lack of scientific traction. |
| Date: 2006/08/25 06:27:29, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Also, I keep suggesting that the ID movement take on Hannah Maxton as a biology researcher. She seems intelligent and committed enough to do the job. |
| Date: 2006/08/27 22:25:41, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Good questions, but I cant think of any intelligent answers. As far as I can see, the course had a reasonable aim, in that it was to examine critically part of the culture wars. Obviously some people would rather the course had been designed to change the minds of ID followers, but that is not exactly a legitimate primary aim of any academic course. As for how to measure the outcome, thats a bit hard. Didn't he put out questionaires about it all before and after? Also, when you are effectively trying to mark essays, it can be hard to talk about "objectivity". As for class construction, it seemed fair enough, except that I am not convinced that opening it all up ontoa blog where PvM and Salvador could slug it out in front of everyone was really a good idea. It let Salvador put out a lot of rubbish, and meant that anyone could drop by and prejudice the case for either side, without definite reference to the actual science. Lastly, I cant quite decide whether MacNeil is a bit naieve, or very adventurous, to effectively jump straight into a furnace like he did. Anyone seen the ID crowd make anything out of this? |
| Date: 2006/08/27 22:29:13, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
A- no, definitely not. B- a little, in the appropriate class discussing religion, where it should be mentioned in its proper context, i.e. religion trying to masquerade as science. |
| Date: 2006/08/29 02:21:19, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||
BEcause, not being omnipotent, I have not read everything related to the course that is available. Yet it seems to me that MacNeills original course aim and his description of what happened are broadly similar, given the lack of detail in the course description.
I said tactical for a reason- it appears that they managed to make it clear that there is no science behind ID, and the only reasons that people still supported it were their personal religious ones.
Something doesnt have to be worthy in order to be scientifically analysed. We reserve the right to analyse anything scientifically, and the fact that this has been done to something in no way confers scientific legitimacy upon it. It would be interesting to talk to the other students on the course and see what they made of it all. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 02:28:06, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
I'd love to join in the mockery, but right now I have too much real life stuff going on, so UD just makes me wish I was some kind of "nuke em all" kind of guy, with some nukes. Needless to say, I dont like feeling like this, so i dont go there. But this thread at least gives an idea of what is going on, so I can digest it in small lumps. |
| Date: 2006/09/02 09:42:07, Link 82.41.158.68 | ||||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||||
Indeed.
That'll be not a lot then.
ARGH! ANyone know any antibiotics that attack DNA? How do they get in there to do it?
You mean it evolved beforehand?
How did the supposed mecahnism arise in the first place? I could go on, but the stupidity is painful. |
| Date: 2006/09/03 22:15:04, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Hey, I was going to post that! |
| Date: 2006/09/04 03:30:41, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I would like to point out that DS says he doesnt play favourites on the thread regarding the blog poll. Which is kind of funny considering that that is his approach to evolution and ID. |
| Date: 2006/09/04 07:08:51, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
WEll, what do you expect? He can't take a joke... A simple sign of how deluded he is is that he called me a troll! |
| Date: 2006/09/04 10:28:39, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Did someone mention peak oil? The oil drum - a website about peak oil That should answer your questions. Despite a certain amount of stupid people involved and hot air, I think there is a real issue here, and its coming up soon. |
| Date: 2006/09/06 02:25:50, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
But surely the dog was bred that way, thus showing that intelligence is needed to produce evolution. |
| Date: 2006/09/06 13:10:10, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
As far as I can tell, from little knowledge of philosophy, this bloke is claiming that organisms have a drive to reproduction, and that this is some sort of essence of the organism. (Dont ask me what an essence is) And that therefore you have to look at what goes on with reproduction to know what is going on with adaptations of the organism. Which to me is close enough to evolutionary biology as to make no difference, BUT, I have filtered theparagraph quoted above through what i know of biology and therefore my interpretation is almost certainly much more different to that of the author. I'd love to ask him if he can hold the essence of a fish in his hand... |
| Date: 2006/09/10 11:05:00, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Interesting but not too surprising. Anyway, t'internet is a big place. Perhaps you should write a instruction manual on how best to build a blog and sucker people in? |
| Date: 2006/09/11 11:03:31, Link 82.41.158.68 |
| Author: guthrie |
| What we really want to know is who was the cute young woman with the piece of card slagging off Deadman? |
| Date: 2006/09/12 23:53:47, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| How about "Most egregious banning"? |
| Date: 2006/09/13 00:02:43, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
With regards to Blair, about the only good things he has done from many peoples view point is the minimum wage legislation and the EU human rights act. He's getting it from all political sides. Over the past decade he has centralised even more, severely damaged the NHS, encouraged changes in the way things are done, such that billions of pounds of our money have been wasted on privatisation, got us involved in one stupid and pointless war, moved us further towards presidential gvt, encouraged lower and lower turn outs to vote, and so on. Lets not forget the widening gap between rich and poor as well. Brown will be no better. If Brown carries on in the style of tony, in terms of governance, things will be bad. Brown, as the financial wizard, has presided over the PFI/PPP, as well as other scams. Oh, and ID cards are a boondoggle as well. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 20:41:06, Link 82.41.238.68 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Ahhh, the mythical Celtic solidarity. Whereas in reality they spent as much time fighting each other as fighting other people. History is always more complicated than people think. |
| Date: 2006/09/24 12:39:29, Link 82.41.153.176 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Surely the question shoudl be: Which particular flavour of Christianity? After all, Catholicism today is somewhat different from what it was 600 years ago. Then a lot of protestants helped advance the same science that their related descendants in the USA seem determined to malign. Then theres the Gnostics, not to mention everything from Cathars to Wycliffites to Hussites. Think about it- in Medieval Europe, your average pleb didnt even get the wine and wafer at mass, and the area beyond the rood screen was out of bounds to them. |
| Date: 2006/09/25 03:53:15, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Whereas by contrast, in my little university town of St Andrews, population circa 16,000, plus 6,000 students and lecturers and suchlike, along with maybe a few thousand regular visitor for shopping, we had 2 second hand bookshops, 6 or 7 charity shops selling a mix of mills and boon and good quality 2nd hand and the occaisional gem. Not to mention the 30 plus pubs, and maybe 5 or 6 churches. Cathedral ceilings? They need to visit a real cathedral, and be awed at what can be done. |
| Date: 2006/09/25 05:16:55, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I don't think Christianity per se has damaged things any more or less than other cultures and societies. But nor am I convinced that there is something inherent in Christianity, despite its variety over the years, that has made "Western culture" something that people celebrate. So, from GoP, I would be looking for some definitions and pointers, namely: What is good about "The west" What is inherent in Christianity that it has uniquely contributed to these good things about "The west". Perhaps some sort of points system would help? On the other hand, the dark ages were not quite as dark as people used to think. I certainly dont think the dark ages were due to christianity, instead invasions and plagues and the fragmentation of the Roman Empire. To blame all this on Christianity is silly. |
| Date: 2006/09/25 11:19:44, Link 82.41.153.176 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Just now, many parts of it are not nice. But 600 years ago large parts of China and India were more advanced than much of Western Europe, and nicer places to live. Also, some of what makes "The east" a bad place to live right now are imports from "The west", whether its our strains of political dictatorship, or rampant industrialisation that is poisoning part of society. Besides, I really dont think you can involve the Greeks in this, insofar as they were not Christians, and IIRC correctly it was a Christian bishop who had the library of ALexandria burnt, which library contained many copies of important texts from the Greeks and ROmans. |
| Date: 2006/09/25 22:07:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| By all means play with Paley, but if you have something more productive to do, like cat hoovering, go and do it. |
| Date: 2006/09/26 00:48:40, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Richardthughes- is it deliberate that "quotemined" in your sig is spelt wrongly, thus: [badly qoutemined] |
| Date: 2006/09/26 11:30:01, Link 82.41.153.176 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I was thinking about the past 2,000 years. A difference in scale makes a major difference. Also, there is little in Christianity that even makes it clear one way or another about oppression of women or not. And foot binding was not exactly universal practise across China at any time. |
| Date: 2006/09/26 11:35:02, Link 82.41.153.176 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I didnt know you were Russian... |
| Date: 2006/09/26 21:53:47, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well thats ok then Stephen. We have little to disagree about. (Though I'm sure we can find something if we try...) |
| Date: 2006/09/28 02:09:21, Link 82.41.154.165 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Isnt that just a long winded way of saying that god is in everything, and around everything, was responsible for setting up the universe etc etc? So once again it proves that ID supporters have a religious agenda. |
| Date: 2006/09/28 09:49:41, Link 82.41.154.165 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I'm impressed- Heddle has finally gotten it. Should we send him some flowers or a t-shirt or a test tube or something? |
| Date: 2006/09/29 11:04:32, Link 82.41.154.165 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Can you submit papers anonymously? Besides, what is wrong witha it of martyrdom anyway? It has good biblical precedents. Or are you talking about them submitting them here? |
| Date: 2006/09/30 00:25:34, Link 82.41.154.165 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
That peter bros bloke is seriously delusional, yet thinks that all the rest of us are. I'm so glad he hasnt got millions of pounds and millions of followers. |
| Date: 2006/10/03 03:05:57, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Thats interesting. About the only reason I think none of you lot would be involved would be because it prevents the flow of entertainment. If you go direct to the front page, it mentiones some outfit called "shovelbums". |
| Date: 2006/10/04 12:46:40, Link 82.41.152.247 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I think its a typo- they actually mean "theologian". |
| Date: 2006/10/05 05:30:24, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I'm sure we'd all like to see his scientific evidence for cosmological design. i.e. meaning that you dont have to believe it is right for it to work. |
| Date: 2006/10/06 08:37:59, Link 82.41.246.69 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Well, thats a godo point Mr Christopher. I guess I wasnt really thinking about the dangers of getting ID etc into the classroom, more expressing a general desire for such people to put up and shut up when they are preaching to us, rather than trying to bash him with regards to schools and ID. |
| Date: 2006/10/06 12:15:58, Link 82.41.246.69 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
His mother? |
| Date: 2006/10/09 10:25:44, Link 82.41.152.193 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Oh dear. With regards to Global warming, does DAve Scott want to be sued by irate Dutchmen who have seen their country disappear under water? I find myself agreeing with JAD, does that mean the end of the world is nigh? |
| Date: 2006/10/10 11:04:00, Link 82.41.155.227 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Cheers! I cant recall how pissed off I sounded. I'm just a nice boring kind of person who uses his real name online, so am not totally comfortable with what you did, even when i see how much fun it can be. As for identities etc, I reproduce below what I pm'd to Deadman, since he had suggested that he had a clue as to what was going on:
Nevertheless, it was a valiant attempt. I have seen a couple of precocious 16/ 17 year olds online, and its great watching them kind of unfold as they explore things. |
| Date: 2006/10/10 11:57:32, Link 82.41.155.227 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Well, those bits were rather well written. And you did hinit rather a bit that "she" was going to Oxford, although I can never remember if they take 17 year olds these days or not. They sometimes used to. |
| Date: 2006/10/12 11:31:48, Link 82.41.155.227 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Woohoo! I got bathroom walled! First time ever. My post was in reply to PBH, who seems to think we can calculate all the chemical reactions going on in biological situations. |
| Date: 2006/10/14 10:37:20, Link 82.41.155.227 |
| Author: guthrie |
| The other question is what is your genuine political label? |
| Date: 2006/10/14 11:54:50, Link 82.41.155.227 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
From the other side of the Atlantic, on my experience of the past 10 years, its the creationists and rabid theocrat sorts that make connections between social programs and evolution. I have yet to come across a "progressive" calling for a hike in the minimum wage because it will broaden the gene pool if more people can afford to have children. I did kind of think the race issue was closer to your heart, judging by your behaviour on that thread. |
| Date: 2006/10/18 04:33:18, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well, theres this organisation called "truth in science", which is basically founded by the usual suspects, young earth creationists who came into a bit of money. They are intent on lying to schoolchildren. So we, meaning various of us in the BCSE and Just science, would like to put a spanner in the works. Anyway, they have this website with lots of essays and rubbish on biology, and I thought I woudl bring up this horse one: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/ Now, I can see that baraminologists are creationists, and the essay carefully skirts around that issue, treating baraminology papers as real ones. That is just the beggining of their calumny, unfortunately I lack years of knowledge of biology and genetics sufficient to point out some holes. Anyone got any recent references that are especially relevant to the evolution of horse like animals from their less horse like ancestors? The talkorigins essay is definitely a good start, I'm just asking if there is more up to date information available. |
| Date: 2006/10/18 04:42:27, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
|
[insert expletives here] I've done some googling, and found that the essay i referred to above is basically an edited version that the numpty produced several years ago. Contrast this:
With:
All they've done is remove overt references to the flood etc. Argh! Lenny, you are so right. This will make writing a letter to the Times about errors in their website rather easy.... |
| Date: 2006/10/18 12:51:30, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Stephen, theres lots of things that I consider to be problems, but, like most people, I recognise ones that I can deal with just now, and ones that will have to wait a bit longer. Apparent cosmic fine tuning- well, sure, that could be a problem, but we dont have enough evidence relaly. We've got plenty of belief, and a variety of hypotheses. I'm quite happy for someone to say {deity of choice} did it, but as you have already said, that isnt exaclty scientific. Plus, if we did find a note at the other end of the universe saying which {some other deity} did the creating, I think the believer might be in a bit of trouble. |
| Date: 2006/10/18 22:13:35, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| OOps, I should have specified that we are talking about the UK here. I was getting a little excited yesterday at their sheer brazeness and forgot to specify that. |
| Date: 2006/10/19 00:37:28, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| It's more that since we cannot get a proper scientific grip on the possibilities an dexistences of other universes etc, the "problem" is generally put aside for now. I can live quite happily not knowing whether there are an infinite number of other universes, or there are none. |
| Date: 2006/10/19 05:39:24, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Up to a point, yes skeptic, they are fairly harmless. But the point is that they are trying to smuggle non science into schools, as part of the usual wedge strategy. Sure, they are talking mince, as usual, but, like with the last few places in the USA that tried to get ID into the school curriculum, they have to be smacked down. I recall that many of the school boards in question have been changed, by people voting out the ID'ists. This is the kind of issue that really isnt that big to begin with but takes a fair bit of effort to make sure it doesnt grow and to reverse the attempts by the creationists. |
| Date: 2006/10/19 11:17:42, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
That 2nd law stuff is soooo boring:
NO, not anything can happen in a open system- probability calculations come into play- it is so hideously unlikely that silicon will arrange itself into single crsytal wafers and then have circuits etched on it and filled with very rare elements, that it certainly doesnt happen every millenium in nature. Plus there are always limits of energy in an area, its not like the surface of the earth gets great gobbets of solar energy all at once, it trickles in over the day. I though we had been exploring the relationship between entropy and probability for a century or so? So how come this bozo seems not to know of it all?
I can just imagine the earth 2 billion years ago- all those brains rolling around in the mud. Communicaiton must have been difficult though, and it obviously took them a long time to grow legs. And where did the order come from? |
| Date: 2006/10/19 21:56:53, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
And the reason I called the thread what I did was to draw some attention to the way the Truthiness in science people are mostly YEC's, yet have adopted much of the language of ID people, such as Wells books, and also talk happily about the flagellum etc etc. Now, if I could find some leading light in the ID movement slagging them off for stealing their ideas to promote their own agenda, I guess I wouldnt be so bothered. So far, I have yet to see that. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 00:05:43, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
In my amateur capacity, I understand that that statement is indeed correct, insofar as a random stream of bits or on/ offs or whatever can be said to have more information because it takes a lot more to transcribe it, whereas a non random stream can be reduced to simple laws. Although I'm probably mangling it somewhere. Perhaps a telling thing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguments are to do with Andy Macintosh, one of the creationists behind "truthiness in science" here in the UK. A quick google finds no examples of him using the thermodynamics canard. Oddly enough, he's a professor of thermodynamics and stuff at Leeds University. If he doesnt use the argument, doesnt that suggest that he knows its junk? |
| Date: 2006/10/20 00:51:42, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
And they have a new/ old anti-evolutionist about whome I can find nothing on talk origins: Felix Konotey-Ahulu, MD. The evidence is here: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/142/65 Mostly its just a rant about how Darwinism cant explain anything, and I suspect its been totally blown out the water by modern genetics, but it needs someone who actually knows something about sickle cell anemia to deal with it. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 01:17:55, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
What! You mean like most of the rest of the spin and half truths on Truthiness in science' website? I'm shocked! not. I guess I'm still working on short snappy ways of bringing it home to the public how little in the way of substance there is behind their ramblings. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 05:00:49, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
In this particular case, the DI has approved of "Truth in Science", and TiS use the example of the bacterial flagellum in one of their lesson plans. The people behind it are mostly solid young earth creationists, which can be established easily enough by looking them up online. Moreover as I pointed out above, the essay on the evolution of the horse is a creationist essay with references to the flood removed. Now, of course not all ID and creationists will go along with each other; nevertheless, the fact remains that due to their lack of scientific theory, they can rub along ok because they do not make the kind of hard and fast distinctions necessary to have a workable hypothesis. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 10:50:40, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
INdeed it does. Of course, their only explanation about the similarity of cells and stuff across species is that the creator used different modules. How exactly they did this, and how to tell the different modules apart, is not clear. Then theres the fact that they are parasitic upon real scientists. They dont go out and dig up fossils to find more families or kinds. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 10:58:10, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Their not even original jokes. Go on, come up with something new and exciting, after all you are here to entertain us. |
| Date: 2006/10/24 03:10:50, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Why has nobody invented teleportation yet? |
| Date: 2006/10/25 02:05:32, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1928111,00.html
An interesting point, of course it is just one study.... |
| Date: 2006/10/30 10:44:37, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Indeed. Do you expect anything else from an unholy alliance of politicians, businesses, rich people, and worried parents? |
| Date: 2006/11/02 09:20:04, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
I suggest replacing the word "designed" with the word "optimised". That would help remove any doubt about design and designers from the statement. |
| Date: 2006/11/02 23:00:34, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Keiths, you are very funny, and possibly a bit evil. Has anyone replied to your post on Hovinds blog? |
| Date: 2006/11/04 13:33:21, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||
There was that aquatic ape hypothesis floating around a few decades ago, though IIRC it has not gianed a large following even now. Perhaps our body hair is better on land in the pattern it is in, in terms of shedding water or retaining heat. So there would be no need to suggest a long period in the water to account for it. On the other hand, I would like to stress that using words like designed etc in this context is dangerous, as I am sure you are all aware. |
| Date: 2006/11/05 11:48:52, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| So whats this MArat-Sade then? Please enlighten me. |
| Date: 2006/11/05 13:30:54, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ooooook, I could tell it was some kind of humanities cultural reference, but the only high culture I into is music- I was listening to some Rameau overtures this afternoon. I'm afraid it doesnt sound like anything I would want to watch, espcially since I dont know who Jean genet is either. |
| Date: 2006/11/06 00:52:35, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Are you not heading towards the idea that Dembski is doing street theatres? The internet offers great potential for experiential art (I dont know, I'm just calling it that because I dont know any different, ok) by interaction. The aim would be to broaden and entertain the participants whilst calling into doubt their world model. Or something like that. Think of UDoJ as an example. Then consider also the more recent books by Ken Macleod and Charles Stross. They feature post-singularity societies in which art and culture and experience etc are more important, because of their post human cornucopian technologies meaning that you dont have to work for 8 hours a day filling in bits of paper or supervising a steelworkds. |
| Date: 2006/11/23 16:46:42, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Given the transnational reality of the readership of this website, how soon before someone calls in a real Slovak speaker to check if that wasnt just run through babelfish? |
| Date: 2006/11/24 15:35:34, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I've devoted a few seconds thought to Dave Scott myself. I tangled with him on janiebeles blog, and managed to get called a troll, something I have never been called before in 7 years online interactions. Anyway, IIRC (I have some variety of flu like virus, so my brain isnt running at full speed) he ended up arguing with Blipey that it was a bad thing that the Federal gvt imposed science standards upon local school boards, and that the locals should be allowed to teach what they want. Now, leaving aside this particular values argument, it seems to me to be an odd kind of leap from promoting States rights to therefore trying to destroy the theory of evolution. Why not just start up a campaign for better states rights? After all, allegedly he has some money, and we all know how useful money is in politics. But wasting time bashing your head off evolutionary Biology doesnt get you very far in your political goals, although I suppose there is a possibility of using it as a unifying cry for more states rights. Yet if that was his goal, I'm sure we would see more such cries, instead of attacks on biology. So, I see Dave as somewhat confused. |
| Date: 2006/11/25 05:22:11, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Reciprocating Bill, I cant quite see what this problem with "naturalization" is. Perhaps I dont know enough philosophy |
| Date: 2006/11/26 07:09:02, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
As an side, with regards to position statements, MCKitricks comment on them is funny, considering that if people like him didnt go around trying to trash the science behind global warming etc, there would be no need to issue position statements. Same with Biology. That Wikipedia article is a hoot- it is classic ID reasoning all in one go- arguing from lack of evidence Dembski is not a theologian! Yes he is, heres the quotes. But he does science! Really? We cant seem to find anything about that, dont you have any evidwence for that? But hes not a theologian! Heres the evidence But hes not a theologian! Heres more evidence. But hes not a theologian! Havnt you got somehting better to do? But hes not a theologian! I'm getting bored, you've rehashed your argument twice now already, and theres still no evidence. etc etc Do we know which fool Augustinian was? |
| Date: 2006/11/26 15:46:25, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I cant come up with any particular sensible thing to say about this. Maybe a short tale from my student days will help: One saturday morning, I was sitting in the kitchen in our student flat, I think eating breakfast, when one of my flatmates came in with his girlfriend. (SHe is now his wife, this was ummm 8 years ago) They proceeded to disgree about something not too important, but they did raise their voices a bit. Eventually, after I'd heard them go on like this for a while, I tried to point out that they were actually arguing straight past each other due to using different definitions for somehting related to whatever they were arguing about. They stopped long enough to agree with me, then carried on, partly out of ritual I think, for another minute, then they stopped and left. HHMMmm, so maybe the two sides are really going to get married and live happily ever after? I doubt it. But it seems to me that there is a similar amount of talking past each other going on here. If I had a week to spare, maybe I could write a dissertation on who started it and what the different strands are, but I dont have the time or the willpower. I think in MY ideal world, I would have teleported into the rooms that the people who are involved in this are in, and slugged them with some "perspective juice" to bring them down from their hobby horses. |
| Date: 2006/11/27 12:13:36, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
MAybe you could join my club! I'm in the "whats this religion stuff everyone gos on about? oh I cant seem to BELEIVE in anything, so I'll just sit on the sidelines for now." club. Or maybe the "Whats all the fuss about, they cant all be correct, and I cant choose between them" club. Or something. |
| Date: 2006/11/27 12:24:02, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| LAst I heard of, at least something like 14 schools contacted by some other people ( I think Chris Hyland was one) and myself just chucked the pack straight in the bin. We havnt found one using it yet. Perhaps the Grauniad would like to share its journalistic secrets? |
| Date: 2006/11/27 12:30:52, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Oh right, now I've read the article, its truthiness in scienc epuffing themselves up again. The number of secondary schools in England, wales and scotland is about 3,998. So a grand total of 1.5% of schools think their dross is worth using enough to send off a card to say thanks? HHmmmm, obviously its really useful then. |
| Date: 2006/11/29 12:23:26, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
As far as I am aware, an engineer detects design by comparing things to a big book (Or website) full of previous designs. "Ahh, this one is a 1956 Smith mark 2". So, imagine Dave sitting there with his Bible, trying to find information on the appendix, or parts numbers for flagella. |
| Date: 2006/11/29 12:39:49, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I've seen a creationist use the word "syngameon" this week. Has anyone seen this on Uncommon dissent, or will they steal it off the creationists in short order, in which case how long? (I understand it refers to a group of animals that acn interbreed despite their external differences that might get them classified into different species. It may be an attempt to replace toe word "kinds".) |
| Date: 2006/12/13 13:14:20, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
We're not taking them seriously, we're laughing at them. Its world nut daily. The column is long on Daily Mail type attempts at correlation, whilst withholding any real information that might help the reader come to any conclusion other than "Soy makes you like a girl". As for the relationship to homosexuality, the most likely explanation is hormonal changes in the mothers womb affecting brain development, such that certain bits of the fetuses brain are altered. Leading to attraction to the same sex. |
| Date: 2006/12/16 06:19:39, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Nope, I wouldnt say your a luddite, especially if the bus your riding in is driven by flywheels or batteries. I really like that snippet of info. I recall that it would take something like 40 mins to get th ebus into school in the morning when I was young. At that time in the morning it would take you that long in a car, at least. If not longer. I've just realised how weird things are getting. We've only had widely available cars for 30 odd years, and now everyone assumes that they are an inviolable part of our culture and society, like the NHS. Yet they arent, they're just another tool for us to use. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 12:35:44, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
HHmm, lots of graduates? No expansion of university research facilities? I think we're onto a problem here. Add that to the rather large number of companies that dont employ people here in the UK, and suddenly even organic chemistry seems a tricky topic. I thought, being more of a materials man myself, that organic chemists could go into industry, and earn 25,000 a year after getting a PhD. One of my friends managed it, certainly. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 16:42:55, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Weeeeelll, you;d be suprised, maybe. I have no idea about the actual figures, but starting with people I know who did degrees- many of them are no longer employed in the subject area of their degree, since eitehr there were no jobs, or else they had had enough of the subject by the time they had finished uni. Same with PhD's, by the time you've spent 3 years trying to do something, you may well be fed up with that subject. Then, the article you linked to is also USA'ian, and as such not representative of what we have in the UK. Its interesting though. I'll come back to it later, its just i'm a bit busy just now. |
| Date: 2006/12/22 11:47:05, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Scotland. Have spent a couple of years in Sheffield and one in Manchester, am now back in Scotland and dont want to leave except for holidays. I am still amazed that some of you think Manchester or Wigan is the north of England. No, the north is Cumbria or Newcastle. Manchester is only 3 hours drive (When teh roads are clear) from London, but its still nearly 3 hours up to Carlisle. |
| Date: 2006/12/27 17:51:04, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
What you mean you dont have to get drunk? That kind of detail? I'm 29. CHemistry degree, several years crap temp jobs, currently working as a materials technologist at a place that makes furnace insulation. Another year or two and I should know enough to make it worthwhile moving elsewhere and getting a better job. Surely I'm not the youngest on here? |
| Date: 2006/12/28 06:25:24, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
It would make our lives slightly easier (Although possibly less entertaining) if ID people just folded back into Creationism at large, instead of trying to insist upon their own separate identity. Here in the UK< as I have mentioned before, our home grown creationists have stolen irreducible complexity amongst other things, in order to bolster their case for slipping creationism into the science classroom. Its looking more like only a matter of time before ID becomes a small subset of creationism. |
| Date: 2006/12/28 06:29:45, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Last time anyone asked about hobbies, it turned out that a surprising number of us had been or were involved in re-enacting. I also like to go hillwalking. And I have a livejournal detailing my exploration of medieval technology and alchemy. Its great being a mad scientist. Now if only I could find a girlfriend... http://calcinations.livejournal.com/ |
| Date: 2006/12/28 06:34:00, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Oh yes, I don't want to give the impression it was anything but a seb set of creationism- its just that I think overall it did quite a good job, PR wise, of selling itself as the new washes whiter than white, with added science, form of anti-evolution stupidity. Then when it burns out everyone sees it for what it is and what it has always been. I agree that the comedy value will be lost though. It would be fun watching DS get absorbed slowly into the creationist structure. Or maybe he'll set out on his own like JAD. |
| Date: 2006/12/28 18:24:02, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
HHmm, so Mike thinks that "Darwinism" isnt a science. Hasn't he ever heard the one about dont bring a knife to a thermonuclear IBCM war? I predict that he has never made a science based post attacking "darwinism". |
| Date: 2007/01/02 10:02:21, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Best place for it, as long as the teachers dont abuse it, but then I expect that it will be abused since some teachers are lying scum. The tricky bit is that as some people have pointed out, it will allow ID'ers to rant on about the science behind theri view, yet in a religious setting without allowing real science to answer. This could cause problems. Actually, to me it smells of a typical uneducated compromise. |
| Date: 2007/01/03 17:16:02, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I have this mental image of an evolutionary chicken crossing the road, with Dembski revving up a hummer or such, about to run it over. Then it mutates into something that pecks the hummvee into the ground. Or maybe he got the distance wrong- what he thought was a 2 foot high hen is actually 200 feet high. |
| Date: 2007/01/05 10:39:37, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I think it was torn to shreds in the PAndas thumb in December, wasnt it? |
| Date: 2007/01/08 12:59:24, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I think that if PZ were an electrical engineer, cyborg cephalopods would be taking over the world. |
| Date: 2007/01/09 14:00:23, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I just want to chip in to say that I think you can find intellectually honest Christians. But you wont find any pushing ID/ Creationism. |
| Date: 2007/01/09 14:09:39, Link 82.41.157.210 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
oldmanintheskyetc Thats a great wee e-mail. Do tell us what they reply. I personally have noted the link between their essay on the evolution of the horse, and a functionally identical one penned by the same author and published by Creationists. All TiS have have done is take all the references to the flood out. TiS are running a pretty good media campaign. If you want more examples of Orwellian double think you should have a look at theirnews blog on their website. IT looks at things in exactly the way that would suggest the people there are deranged. I've had some fun on the Guardian thread anyway. GlenDAvidson has joined in as well. Louis- your letter is likely too long, fine though it is, so will not get published or will be cut to suit. My forthcoming letter to the Guardian is shorter: "I note that for a science, Mr Buggs and ID appear incapable of providing any experimental data in their support." |
| Date: 2007/01/09 16:01:06, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||||
Tell me if you've seen this one before:
from truthiness in science get a mention Mind you, someone then sets him right:
Any idea how long this guy will last?
Hey, Dave banned someone else:
Yet they were a theist! However, apart from daring to disagree with DS, it seems to me that they take rather a telic (is that the right viewpoint) view of it all, which is of course silly:
|
| Date: 2007/01/09 16:12:00, Link 82.41.157.210 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
The truth in science website has some quote mines. Like this:
Has anyone read this book, so can tell me what the elision is? Any good resources for creationist quotemines? |
| Date: 2007/01/10 16:57:40, Link 82.41.157.167 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Yes, it was me, I know of no other Guthries on the internet (Except my dad and he has better things to do with his time). I understand that some people here like to see new folks every now and then, and so I saw that you had been banned from UD, and then you appeared on the Guardian, I thought I would invite you over. As for your comment that I highlighted, I am afraid I didnt have time to read the entire exchange between you and Dave. It was your language that I didnt quite get. It seemed very close to anthropomorphic thinking. Also, I am fairly sure that mutations re-occur, and that things anc changes to creatures re-occur. Your approach seems somewhat odd, but then I am agnostic. |
| Date: 2007/01/12 17:16:06, Link 82.41.157.167 | ||||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||||
|
For those of you still paying attention, Truthiness in science have another blog post up. Its typical creationist mince. From their website:
So far so good.
Not if you've actually read the Origin of the species and some of the other books on biology that have been written since then.
THats pretty much a lie if talkorigins is to be believed.
Or in other words, TiS still do not have a theory of ID and evidence to back it up, so they resort to slagging off the uncertainties of evolutionary biology. Not to mention that the Nature article still talks about 600 million years ago, and unsurprisingly TiS do not acknowledge this in their article, possibly because they are all YEC's. (Except Steve fuller, who is debating Lewis Wolpert in a few weeks. It should be a walkover for Wolpert, assuming proper debate rules are followed) |
| Date: 2007/01/13 15:44:53, Link 82.41.157.167 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
A quick check in the book "Wiking weapons and warfare", by J Kim Siddorn, (one of the founders of Regia Anglorum, probably the largest UK dark ages re-enactment society) says that the right to bear arms etc was held by free men in Viking society, and naturally jeaslously guarded. No mention of Huscarls. The books "The English warrior, from the earliest times to 1066" by Stephen Pollington, only mentions HUscarls once, talking about how Cnut had them, "household men". this is the traditional view. However, I quote: "Sadly, the traditional view has proven to be greatly overstated, and there is little that was once accepted as fact about the huscarls that would now go unchallenged. Much of the substance of the huscarl concept is derived from later Scandinavian accounts about another warrio-sciety from the Baltic, the Jomsvikingar, allegedly based around Wollin in Poland. Much that was taken on trust about these Jomsvikings has since been shown to be both sspecious and spurious, and the source document jomsvikingarsaga is now largely discredited; with the fall of the jomsvikings from history into romance, the only real parallel to the huscarls is no longer of service. Wherefore, while teh huscarls doubtless existed as the kings personal following, they were probably in fact 'stipendiary troops' (ie men paid a wage to fight), and so closer to our idea of 'professional sodlier' than anything else." Plus, as far as I am aware, the term viking is actually an activity, meaning roughly to go off and wander about finding stuff. But by the period of the Conquest, "Vikings" were actually organised into socieies and countries. You can hardly say that Cnut, who at one time ruled much of England, Denmark and somewhere else (I dont know much about this period off the top of my head) had been going a Viking. He had been carrying out deliberate imperialist expansion of his rule. Hence I think you cant really say that the Vikings had Huscarls, but you can say that some parts of Germanic society had them. |
| Date: 2007/01/13 16:55:32, Link 82.41.157.167 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Hang on, are you defining professional as getting paid money, or as having nothing else to do except hang around waiting for a fight? |
| Date: 2007/01/14 12:17:20, Link 82.41.157.167 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I'm sure its been said before, but if the entire universe was designed, then how exactly do you tell? If the universe was designed, then everything will set off your "design detector 2001*" including pulsars etc. * Available only from the Discovery Institute. Requires one 9volt battery. (not supplied) No user serviceable parts. Virtually indestructible in normal use. Comes complete with certificate certifying the owner as an offical discovery institute design finder! (trademark, registered) |
| Date: 2007/01/15 07:47:05, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Personally, I think some level of civility is necessary to ensure that a debate gets off to a good start. Once the Creationist has shown themselves to be a confused weirdo without good intent, then you can start being uncivil. Occaisionally they do actually have reasonably good intent, but have wondered in waaayyyy over their depth. But on these occaisions it is usually quite clear, so I keep on being civil. Whereas if they prevaricate and continually miss the point, i will get a bit sarcastic and ironic. Blatant insults are no fun for me. |
| Date: 2007/01/15 08:37:28, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I suppose it depends on the venue. I've been arguing with some creationists, (including one who claims not to be but does parrot their stuff) on a BBC blog. Hence the debate has been lacking in f and c and h words, due to it being in a highly public place, and if we all started swearing at each other I'm sure the radio presenter whose blog it is might bring it up on the radio, which would be embarrasing. On the other hand, places like Guardian univeral talk and some other venues have very high tolerance of swearing and nastiness. Or you can just ban them. It is however helpful to be able to refer back to when the creationist is being stupid, so that newcomers who ask "Why are you being so nasty?" can have a reply thus: "See posts 3, 18, 24, 25, 26, 39 etc" |
| Date: 2007/01/15 09:22:27, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
How will you recognise each other? A cuddly panda on the table? A photo of Dembski in a vice? |
| Date: 2007/01/15 10:05:34, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
h word? Come on, did you not sleep last night? What h word is censored here? Actually, how come the swear words are getting through? As for lying creationists, with regards to TiS, I like to inquire about how come the essay on horse evolution on their website is functionally equivalent to a creationist essay available on the web, only its had references to the flood etc removed. If that isnt dishonest, I dont know what is. So far the person I've asked this of has not replied. Finally, given what we use them for, and often seem obsessed with using them, why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names? |
| Date: 2007/01/15 10:42:39, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I thought it was our "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity" kind of protestantism that did it. Then the USA'ians took it over and mutated it into its modern forms. |
| Date: 2007/01/16 05:40:05, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
There's probably a paedophilic atheist somewhere, hence all atheists are paedophiles. Or else that being an atheist makes you more likely to be a paedophile, or something. Of course you all know the counter example to that one. |
| Date: 2007/01/16 07:30:31, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
TiS update- On their news blog, they have a wee blog roundup. They mention on 6 different anti-TIS blog posts on 5 different blogs, (And who knows how many comments and readers) and can only report on David Anderson, the scurrilous author of the anti-BCSE website, and Denyse O'Leary, as being pro-TiS bloggers. I take it no one else is surprised at the complete lack of popular interest in TiS? At least us "evolutionists" have a popular movement behind us, as evidenced by all these blogs, but TiS apparently only have only one supporter and a cheerleader. I know of at least one other UK blog that is supportive of TiS, but I'll let them find it for themselves. |
| Date: 2007/01/18 14:33:50, Link 82.41.157.167 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Darwiniasm? Bears too much relation to orgasm. Oh dear. |
| Date: 2007/01/23 08:23:03, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Best place for it. With appropriate material, they could have a good discussion on religion and atheism and also the importance of religious origins stories, which is what creationism is. I'd like to know what truthiness in science make of it all, since they want it in science classes. If your looking for some entertainment here in the UK, heres a couple of pro-ID blogs: http://www.exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/ http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/ Some fun can be ghad with their denizens. exilefrom groggs confuses philosophy with religion with science, but is otherwise a nice chap. |
| Date: 2007/01/23 17:04:17, Link 80.192.55.240 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
More entertaining than that, Milli.
THey are hacked off that their lies wont be recognised as actual science. http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63 2nd entry down, "what the blogs are saying". It is not the outcome they want at all. even more entertaining, I know the person who runs the pagan prattle website they quote from. |
| Date: 2007/01/24 03:29:48, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
An effective force led by NCO's? Thats what the British have been using for decades. Besides, he has forgotten about the many thousands more injured, often amputees. Not to mention that its all very well building an urban combat experienced force, but if they are withdrawn ignominiously from a country that doesnt want them, rather than brought home with a cheer of mission complete, then the demoralisation will be very bad for them. Of course, whats he going to do with all these trained troops anyway? Given 10 or 20 years they will all have left, so they'll have to have another small war to keep them in training. Unless of course, like many a culture warrior, he sees the USA as the next battleground, and imagines these troops will be used at home... |
| Date: 2007/01/24 16:54:52, Link 80.192.55.240 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
As far as I can see there is no popular demand for ID here in the UK. truthiness in science, in using it as a smoke screen, manage not to engage with anyone outside their churches very well. The only pro-ID blogs I can find are deathly quiet, or else overrun with pro-evolution people pointing out the religiously caused stupidities of the pro-ID people. What we have to watch here is the gvt, and we have to ensure that it is made clear that Id is non-scientific and should never be taught in the classroom. |
| Date: 2007/01/25 14:47:07, Link 80.192.55.240 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Surely using one of daves insults is making too much of him? Cant we use someone else's, preferably someone more intelligent thand DAve, and thus make him jealous? |
| Date: 2007/01/25 16:04:53, Link 80.192.55.240 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Glen, your website is interesting, except that the colours suggest that you might be colour blind or else want to burn out your visitors eyes. Any chance you can tone them down a bit and make it more readable? |
| Date: 2007/01/26 15:20:51, Link 80.192.55.240 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ah ha! A new toy! Is this a plastic squeaky bone, or maybe a rope to play tug of war with, or perhaps it will fly like a frisbee? (Sorry, walked my parents dog this afternoon.) |
| Date: 2007/01/26 16:12:02, Link 80.192.55.240 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
PLease gentlemen, form an orderly queue. One question at a time, or our guest will be overwhelmed. Just pretend you are British for a day or two. We have good beer in compensation. |
| Date: 2007/01/26 17:26:53, Link 80.192.55.240 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Sorry Tracy, make that Ladies and Gentlemen. As for the question- I thought that they were all related in the first place, so the last common ancestor probablty had 5 fingers as well. Not to mention that they inhabit similar habitats, so that physical laws ensure some convergence upon similar body shapes etc. That seems quite straightforwards. |
| Date: 2007/02/06 09:24:12, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Just to emphasise how small a world this is, I found Dave Scot talking about his dieting techniques here: http://www.blogger.com/comment....0201773 Its a blog run by "For the kids", a well known anti-evolution entity. Also on the same thread is someone calling themselves "Sparky", who has been playing in a pro-ID blog in the UK, and making themselves look a bit foolish. |
| Date: 2007/02/07 09:32:11, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Not that I am aware of. It would lead to disruptions in the ecosystem with the sudden fertilisation, as it would all get used up quickly then they would die off. Not to mention the energy to produce the iron filings in the first place, and the energy to get them into the ocean. It was never a good idea in the first place, except amongst the kind of idiots that think we can solve any problem. |
| Date: 2007/02/08 16:37:24, Link 80.192.55.50 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Thats positively school age debating technique. On the internet, most people learn to avoid it within the first few weeks, because they get beaten up every time. But in his nice protecte dhaven, dembski can get away with it. Reminds me of the plague of creationists pretending to be ID'ers here in the UK. You only find the big shots proclaiming their rubbish in arenas in which replies are difficult, such as newspapers or radio talk shows. So they can get away with repeatedly claiming that thermodynamics shows that evolution cannot create new information. On the internet we'd hammer them flat within an hour, but by using old media they can restrict the backlash. |
| Date: 2007/02/18 17:47:36, Link 77.97.218.89 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Dave's posting at Reaclimate! HAHhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Is there any subject he doesn't think himself an expert in? (I've been reading about and around climate change for 2 years, and I still dont know very much. Mind you its enough to defeat 99% of deniers I run into online.) |
| Date: 2007/03/07 02:35:31, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I was still minded to think this was a hoax, but I've just heard people on radio 4 talking about it. The host was refereeing a short exchange between some idiot called Schlafly and someone from Wikipedia itself. The idiot called Schlafly kept complaining that pro-american and pro-christian articles were being edited out on wikipedia. How can someone so stupid that they don't even read the instructions be allowed to appear on radio? Wikipedia says specifically that they are aiming for a neutral point of view. Pro-christian and pro-american articles are not neutral. End of story. He should have been slapped down like a recalcitrant 5 year old, but they were nice to him. |
| Date: 2007/03/07 09:28:30, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahh yes, that's why the name is familiar. What was also amusing was that he protested about some entity called "nearly headless nick" who had been reverting their alterations on Wikipedia. Those of us who read will be aware that that is one of the ghosts at Hogwarts, in the Harry Potter books. He didn't seem to have a clue what the name was from. |
| Date: 2007/03/09 07:48:40, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Or you can marry someone from there... I have a coupe of USA'ian friends who might be interested in emigration, but its money that is the problem. I didn't think the UK demanded money off people to emigrate to it. So you can all come here. |
| Date: 2007/03/16 18:34:39, Link 82.41.246.157 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Just to add to the fun about CO2, I was reading soemthing written recently by a climatologist, and he said that the error on the 800 years fo CO2 increase after ice begins melting, was around 500 years either way. |
| Date: 2007/03/16 18:43:53, Link 82.41.246.157 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ok, Steve Fuller, the british prof who testified at Dover, is clearly intelligent, but also a bit stupid. I have run into a couple of people who dispute that he is in any way postmodernist, but its hard to work out why they think that. So, can anyone up to date with modern philosophy tell me which label suits Fuller? To aid you, I have here a link to a recent debate between Fuller and Wolpert in the UK. (Transricpt provided by the BCSE, whose website hosts it.) http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RoyalHollowayCollegeDebate |
| Date: 2007/04/02 10:01:31, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
I read that and immediately thought of Al Gore. Whadya know, I was right. Is there a correlation between small mindedness and predictability of behaviour? |
| Date: 2007/04/05 09:46:22, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
You fool! Spreading false beliefs! Anyway, I thought everyone agreed there is a good chance there was a historical Jesus, but that all the accoutrements for the church were borrowed from MIthraism to increase Christianities popularity. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 17:39:18, Link 82.41.249.49 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Capable of serious discussion? There's loads of us hanging around, its just that we can't be bothered dealing with someone who censors posts on their own blog. At least you seem to have some sense of humour. Have you tried the Pandas thumb? Thats a lot less free range than here. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 17:43:34, Link 82.41.249.49 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I wouldn't say that, exactly. I recall a few years ago someone did some calculations and worked out that the rate of discovery of important breakthroughs and stuff had actually decreased over the past few decades. What we have a great deal of is filling in the gaps, which makes a nice wide and high and very solid wall for Creationists to run their motorbike into at high speed. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 17:51:29, Link 82.41.249.49 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Who's Oscar de la Hoya? |
| Date: 2007/04/17 07:52:24, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahh, that makes sense then. I have been a champion googler since ohhh, 1999, but there are times when I can't be bothered to do it. I have no idea how I found the Pandas thumb 2.5 years ago, but then i found this place from it, and hung around. It's kind of fun, but the repetitive stupidity of Creationists and ID'ers gets boring after a while. |
| Date: 2007/04/17 13:53:57, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Well spotted, Tom. Obviously my memory is really getting bad these days. I'm pretty sure she has not been banned though. Someone would have mentioned it, and you only get banned from the PT if you run around insulting people, which I do not believe she has been doing. Willfully ignoring the evidence is another matter... |
| Date: 2007/04/17 13:58:04, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
That PT thread is a textbook example of that type of Creationist behaviour. Also, a quick scan suggests she has bravely banned herself from PT, in order to avoid tricky questions. |
| Date: 2007/04/17 14:06:08, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
OK, I'm not a biologist, but that article makes me want to puke. One, the title. "MOre evolved" makes your ordinary person in the street thing "superior". Therefore no sensible and intelligent journalist should use that phrase unless it is precisely defined and essential to the story. remember New Scientist gets syndicated or ripped off by a bunch of newspapers. The first sentence then compounds the error, by mixing up a greater number of changes in the genome with the idea of success and superiority. I can just see this article confusing people and perpetuating the supposed link between evolution and racism and eugenics. Whoever wrote it should come on this board and defend their poor writing. |
| Date: 2007/04/17 16:57:25, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Surely Theology counts as humanities, and engineering as sciences, roughly. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 06:53:01, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Do's: Make fun of clueless creationists Dont's: Randomly insult people and use pages of swear words. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 03:11:00, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Hey, thats rentaghost, isn't it? How dare you besmirch a ghost promoting childrens TV program to push your evil atheistic ways! |
| Date: 2007/04/19 08:21:19, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
|
Newsflash! Steve Fuller has a new book out soon. on amazon The synopsis is interesting reading:
Now, apart from demonstrating that Fuller has no clue about science and how it is and has been practised, it shows that at least he agrees with Judge Jones on one issue- that ID is Creationism, with a religious presupposition. |
| Date: 2007/04/20 14:08:47, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Thanks Lenny. That makes all the point that needs to be made. Now I need to find Fuller and confront him with it. |
| Date: 2007/04/21 05:00:19, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Ian, I doubt you can call yourself a liberal commie in your sig- the two positions are mutually exclusive. |
| Date: 2007/04/21 07:22:56, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Now now lennie, I wouldnt say displace most of the worlds population. Just enough, (Probably tens to huindreds of millions) to make life unpleasant for the rest of us. In the next few decades its not the sea level rise we have to worry about, its the ocntinued ecosystem destruction and changes in rainfall across wide areas, and the lack of snow in some areas leading to lower river water levels. |
| Date: 2007/04/22 05:14:04, Link 77.97.219.105 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I'm curious Robert, at which point do you think he flew off the rails? I'm sure you appreciate that to most of us here he did so as soon as he started publishing on ID. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 08:22:04, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I really like the idea of setting up our own journal. You could solicit contributions from well known comed.. sorry, scientists from all over the world. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 17:14:57, Link 82.35.211.57 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
|
Yes, I have. Get copper, make sure it's quite clean of grease and suchlike. Stick it above a container of vinegar, seal up, and leave somewhere warm for a few days. You'll get a nice layer of green stuff on the copper. (Bear in minds it's a little toxic, so wear gloves.)
The above is a blog post. I am currently trying to re-create some medieval science and technology, for medieval re-enacting. I have a furnace that reaches over 1100 degrees, with just charcoal and bellows. I've recently made Nitric acid, and coloured clear glass with iron to make it green. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 17:18:48, Link 82.35.211.57 | ||||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||||
Ressurect him, obviously. Using some handy Lightning. |
| Date: 2007/04/27 01:26:08, Link 82.35.211.57 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
What, you mean Nitric acid can be used to make terrorist materials? I never knew that at all, thanks for that Lenny, I shall have to now go and make lots of it and test it in my back garden to terrify the neighbours, and then when they arrest me I shall have to blame it all on you for leading me astray.... |
| Date: 2007/04/27 15:29:30, Link 82.35.211.57 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Making nitroglycerin isnt very clever. It reminds me of the infamous anarchists cookbook. I saw part of it on the internet once, it included recipes for making mercury fulminate using mercury from thermometers, and other really stupid ideas. As far as I am aware, trying out half the recipes may land you in hospital, or worse. Indeed, someone in my dads year at school was trying to make something, but he mixed it up and agitated it in a test tube, held by his stomach, so it exploded and he died later in hospital. On the other hand, i have a 1960's chemistry textbook which mentions how to make industrial quantities of potassium nitrate, and a 16th century book with instructions on how to make flamethrowers using a wooden tube, sulphur, gunpowder and some other stuff. I shall try it at some point. |
| Date: 2007/04/29 07:23:26, Link 82.35.211.57 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Phonon- it is all actuall surprisingly easy to do, if you just have the time and a modicum of knowledge. Also, there are a few good instruction books from the 12th and 16th centuries, translated with notes, not to mention old chemistry textbooks around that also have some useful information. The great thing about being an adult is that you can just go ahead and do all this. However, were I to start making explosives or using large amounts of lead and suchlike, producing toxic fumes, my neighbours would get a bit worried and I might be liable in some way, possibly under the environmental regulations. Come to think of it, I am operating in something of a grey area. I shall have to look more into the legal side of things this year, because if I can get it working well enough over the next few months I could get some paying gigs that would pay for the insurance and help pay for my re-enacting hobby. Not to mention selling castings that I do. My livejournal Louis- I thought so. Tha anarchists cookbook seemed rather short on information. I am sure I have met someone who suggested it was an intelligence services plant, i.e. a way of drawing in people who were of such mind as to make explosives, and it would be easy to find them because they are in the casualty department missing a hand. As for ammonium triodide, thats what some supposed terrorists here in the UK were going to use to make a bomb, allegedly IN MID AIR! So they banned liquids on flights. Talk about stupidity, making it in mid air during a flight would be impossible. |
| Date: 2007/04/29 17:16:38, Link 82.35.211.57 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Didn't you just use your special Marine training to escape, Bob? |
| Date: 2007/04/30 03:05:53, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahh, thank you phonon. I do havea chemistry degree, but I do not recall them mentioning negative pH. pH is the log of the H+ last I remember, so if there's no hydrogen in it... The acid did dissolve some lime over the period of a few hours, but I'm trying to work out a more real time demonstration. I don't really want to dissolve silver and then have to precipitate it and then calcine it, but I suppose I could easily enough. |
| Date: 2007/04/30 04:17:52, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I imagine a shaped charge on the cockpit door would do the job nicely. remember Lockerbie was a few kilos of explosives. |
| Date: 2007/04/30 08:16:09, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I disagree, Lenny. The Aum Shinrikyu attack in Tokyo only killed a handful of people because they fluffed making pure sarin. However, I still think it likely that most possible terrorist attacks will end up goign nowhere, but it will be possible to do some nasty stuff. Look at the terrorists in Iraq- using Chlorine tankers as weapons. Louis- as far as I am aware, making a mercury amalgam requires some heat. (Alchemists were quite keen on it) Hence merely taking it into the aircraft wouldnt work. If you want to know more about taking down airliners, just go and look at Lockerbie. But modern ones have a huge amount of carbon fibre reinforcement, titanium struts and different aluminum alloy s from what htey used 20 or 30 years ago. |
| Date: 2007/04/30 08:19:00, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
The point being that Creationists are even less scientific! |
| Date: 2007/04/30 09:27:04, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| A bloke in a pub explained to me how the IRA got its way partly because it was able to cause a billion pounds worth of damage by bombing the city of london, compared to a minimal cost to those who did the bombing. So after a while the gvt worked out it was cheaper to start talking than keep up the security. |
| Date: 2007/04/30 12:05:52, Link 82.35.211.77 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Of course, Stephen. But, a cost ratio of 1 to 100,000 soon begins to bite. Louis- I have omitted the name of the bloke in the pub, lest I be accused of name dropping. I am after all no Creationist. |
| Date: 2007/04/30 12:26:00, Link 82.35.211.77 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
Simple explanation: A republican wants the gvt to take you rmoney and spend it on arms and corporate featherbedding. A Libertarian doesn't want a gvt, taxes, or anything like that that can interfere with you spending your money how you like. These definitions are not entirely hard and fast. There is a lunatic out there who claims to be a Christian Libertarian. |
| Date: 2007/04/30 16:35:43, Link 82.35.211.77 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
D'oh! Thanks, I should have thought of that myself. I happen to have some small bits of copper lying about, from when they put my heating in. I'll try charcoal eventually, but really I need to make a metal box. |
| Date: 2007/05/01 12:58:19, Link 82.35.211.77 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Didn't someone suggest we could produce the next issue ourselves? It sounded like a good idea at the time.* *and I wasn't drunk or anything. |
| Date: 2007/05/05 04:38:34, Link 82.35.211.77 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I thought there had been movements towards this sort of thing back in the early 20th century. Indeed, after WW2, at least in Europe, the unions power was enough to be able to bargain directly with the owners. Except that now, at least in the UK, with the unions crippled by legislation and economic changes that have destroyed their usual workplaces, there is no-one to perform tha function. And, there is still too much external pressure to force the business's into profit maximisation than to allow much in the way of workplace democracy. I am aware of various places actually empowering staff, I first read about it years ago. But as for how widespread the actual uptake of it is, is another matter. Moreover, here in the UK, there are many moves towards further alienation. These include casualisation, short term contracts, threats of leaving, and maintenance if not extension of hierarchies. Maybe if you mention some of the countervailing problems as well, such as the management moving into the upper owners class through accumulation of wealth (Or plundering of the company if you like) and the proliferation of low paid service work. |
| Date: 2007/05/05 16:06:34, Link 82.35.211.77 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
And then do their best to maintain the myth that the proletariat require to be led/ inoculated with revolution. OK, got any good books on that period? I have "Ten days that shook the world" around somewhere, but cannot remember any of it. |
| Date: 2007/05/05 16:12:35, Link 82.35.211.77 |
| Author: guthrie |
| So in one sense, a welfare state is also a means of distributing goods amongst those who cannot afford them. Which is undoubtedly related to their growth. But also the increasing gvt expenditure seems to me to be partly a compensatory mechanism to keep people employed. (as well as a means of empire building by bureacrats and others) |
| Date: 2007/05/05 16:17:02, Link 82.35.211.77 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
That's opposed to the actions of the ID institute, and Truthiness in Science, our own Creationist propaganda organisation. They have so far had no success at anything, except at pissing off lots of people and organisations, from the Welcome trust to textbook publishers, to the Department of Education. Way to go, boys! |
| Date: 2007/05/06 06:22:33, Link 82.41.238.50 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
From what little I've read so far, I don't recall Marx being quote so dogmatic about economic factors being the sole determinant of human behaviour. WHich they are not. So far it looks like he was right about molecules etc in thinking, but where he was wrong was our ability to comprehend and use the "objective truth" of reality outside of ourselves. Then of course it ignores that people outside the party can work things out too. Why should the party be the sole repository of knowledge about how things work? Not to mention that politics etc is bound up with values etc, in a way which makes promulgating !"objective" truths rather hard. |
| Date: 2007/05/06 06:45:35, Link 82.41.238.50 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Thats a Monty Python reference, (When Arthur, King of the Britons, is arguing with some peasants) so there is a good chance they are a man. |
| Date: 2007/05/06 14:32:25, Link 82.41.238.50 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Whereas if anyone reading this is in Scotland, say around Falkirk or Edinburgh, I would be more than happy to meet up with them, show them some of the sights, etc. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 03:36:06, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Shhh, don't say that, he'll use it as evidence for what he is talking about. :p |
| Date: 2007/05/11 14:11:02, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Chris, it's because this best of all countries in the world needs a strong determined leadership which does what it thinks is right. Rather than a consultative democratic setup which gives power to the people. Is it my imagination or did Blairs goodby speech do away with the image of third way blairism that he tried to promulgate in the early years of his regime? |
| Date: 2007/05/12 04:14:59, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
DO you mean a group blog devoted to science in general? Would this include history of science, or more strictly "stuff that people know now and how they learnt it"? I assume it would also be open to much more than biology. I have my own livejournal which I have mentioned before. One or two of it's posts could be polished, increased in length and might suit a group blog on the general topic of science and its history. (At the moment I am interested in the history of science and metallurgy in the past 1,000 years. I find it fascinating how we have narrowed down the scientific method and what is expected of it over the past 400 years or so, not to mention the tricky area of how science can become socially normative. Also the formation of science from the 1100's to 1500's, when there were two strands of thought on primitive science, the more philosophical one and the technological one practised by ordinary craftsmen, whose knowledge was then partially appropriated in the 17th century.) |
| Date: 2007/05/12 04:26:18, Link 82.44.238.254 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I still read it. It's still pretty good, but after Dover things seem to have gotten a bit more boring. So what we have learnt is, don't stray too much onto politics. |
| Date: 2007/05/13 17:34:50, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
| I don't think Lennie suffers from manic-depressive illness. Rather, a uni-polar dislike of nutters, but since thats not listed as a mental illness, there's nothing he needs to be on. |
| Date: 2007/05/14 16:59:20, Link 82.44.238.254 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
BEcause he needs beer I suppose. |
| Date: 2007/05/16 04:00:02, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Speaking as a non academic who went to university and has friends who are going down the academic route, I think that is entirely correct. However, it is due to the larger issue of increased specialisation at work, high levels of competitiveness and a focus upon narrow goals. (partly because narrow goals like number of papers published a year are easier to check up on. It is much harder to measure how many people you successfully educated so that they went away knowing more than they did before and open to learn more.) |
| Date: 2007/05/16 04:50:35, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Also I get the impression that Ed and his ilk are of the "I don't care what you do as long as you don't force it on me" kind of outlook. Therefore, a hearts and minds campaign would not be something they would want to engage in, since it involves crossing the gap between different people and their outlook, the gap which they prefer to keep. My observation of the UK is that simply put, our unification of church and state doesnt matter because the battle for hearts and minds was won in the 19th century, and so the dangers do not arise. Whereas in the USA, they have a well organised popular movement, which would be capable of capturing legislatures. |
| Date: 2007/05/16 09:12:54, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Sounds OK to me, Wesley. I'm also glad to see you agree with something I've been saying for a few years now- one of the reasons few people do science is because they do not know anyone employed in it. Here in the UK, before things went wrong and Thatcher sent cremated the old boy rather than rejuvenated him, british industry ensured that you knew people who were scientists and engineers. You would grow up with an uncle who worked in a lab, your neighbour was involved in R&D, and your schoolteacher had spent a few years making stuff in a factory. Now, that is no longer the case. |
| Date: 2007/05/19 10:50:22, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
| lkeithlu- the technical term is "belief tank". |
| Date: 2007/05/19 15:19:11, Link 82.44.238.254 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
HAhaha! I can imagine it now. "The 2015 Nobel peace prize goes to the Discovery Institute, for forging links between muslims and Christians with their shared outlook on evolution." |
| Date: 2007/05/19 17:48:04, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Wow. Thats impressive skills of prophecy! (Can you tell me what next weekends lottery numbers will be) |
| Date: 2007/05/22 04:42:49, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
I still need to read more on this sort of thing, but it appears that during the Spanish revolution and the Paris commune, things were kept going pretty well, from refuse collection to newspapers to clothes manufacturing. What matters is an interested and fairly cohesive bunch of workers. The great triumph of the right wing is to convince everyone that there is nobody but themselves and to look out for number one. Whereas back in the 19th century, a great many working people knew that in unity lay strength, and also the ability to get things done. What would happen is that the revolution occurs, and everyone gos back to work as normal, but paid the same or whatever mechanism you want to introduce. Jobs that are unnecessary, such as telesales and much marketing and so on, would decrease in number, and what would happen is that peopel would be pressured to find some sort of work. Ideally, the working week would decrease due to all these extra people working away on useful jobs instead of pointless bureacratic jobs. I'm not saying that is how it would happen. It is how I can envisage it, IF you get enough motivated people together. Heck, even Argentina can do it. Back when they ahd the crisis a few years ago, a lot of bosses ran away to avoid paying their factory workers. Who then occupied the factories and recomenced production, selling the goods they made and keeping themselves and their families. Later on the bosses returned and tried to take the factories back. |
| Date: 2007/05/22 11:01:34, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||||
| Author: guthrie | ||||
OOps, there are times I forget about the cross Atlantic communications difficulties. Here in the UK, by using Right wing and referencing things like I have I was talking especially about Thatcher et al. Their mantra was individualism, but what they practised was closer to state capitalism. (The gvt actually grew under Thatcher, despite all the work she did in destroying public services) I should have been more specific about looking out for number one- of course you are the only person who knows what you want and you are in a position to have a better idea of what is good for you in many instances. However most people (who stop to think about it anyway) also recognise that they are part of society, and therefore there is give and take about exactly they can/ want / would like to do. What Thatcher et al drove towards was a kind of rampant individualism, in which no emphasis was put on the kind of enlightened self interest previously mentioned. Do you call yourself a libertarian? The way you have put it sounds rather like anarchism. Which is not a million miles away from Lennies thing. But what myself and many of my friends would like is a more socialised set up in which people are not permitted to fall through the cracks. (Unless they really want to of course). You see, I can very easily imagine several scenarios involving countries which all somehow get into an anarchic setup, but because of the previous history of each country, will each take a different course in social provision etc. Look at Europe and the USA. Putatively similar, but due to different histories, have had interestingly divergent societies in the past 50 years. I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people. |
| Date: 2007/05/22 11:02:14, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Not exactly. We have negotiated settlements as well, which end up with enough for everyone. |
| Date: 2007/05/23 08:00:14, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Yes, exactly. The advances in technology and suchlike that enables them to try and live a more individualistic lifestyle at the same time require greater cooperation and concentration of power. |
| Date: 2007/05/23 08:13:40, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| The economist has never been my favourite magazine, due to the way it mixes opinion with facts to promote specific views. |
| Date: 2007/05/24 10:09:45, Link 83.104.49.149 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
Hang on, I thought that was what anarchists were on about as well? No restrictions on people unless they interfere with others rights? The one thing I think all "isms" have in common is a drive towards some sort of ideal. That this ideal has never really existed in the first place is besides the point. Before the NHS we never had free at point of use universal health care in the UK, it was an ideal to be striven for. Furthermore all sorts of nasty things were said about it before it happened, as if it would be impossible or if implemented, would lead to the collapse of society. Now we've had it for decades, everyone takes it for granted and would fight its destruction. (Except is is being destroyed right now, by stealth) |
| Date: 2007/05/24 13:00:37, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Whoops, yes, no central gvt at all. Which reminds me of something I read in a chomsky book a few weeks ago. An argument between Marx and (I htink) Bukhanin, and the difference came down to Marx thinking there could be a state for a while, having been taken over by the proletariat, and Bukhanin saying that a state was a really bad idea in any form you like. The thing is, I can see how both are correct. |
| Date: 2007/05/28 15:00:55, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Unless its part of your job, having moslems trying to evangelise you daily, at work, is something that should be entirely dealt with by the internal disciplinary process, after you have already told them to politely get lost. As for calling you racist, they could only do that if you started reeling off the standard racist stuff about the prophet, (You know what i mean, if youve been on the internet long enough) and try and apply it to the person your talking to. |
| Date: 2007/05/30 18:33:44, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahh , power and money. We could argue for ages about which came first, I prefer to think of it as co-evolution. We could, by sheer weight of numbers, pass laws making only, say, 5 levels of pay for people, depending on what jobs they do. That would bring pay disparities right down, but would hack off a certain section of the population. If they upped and left, it would be interesting to see what difference it would make. I think very little, as long as those remaining were interested in keeping things going. However if this were to be tried, I would expect external action which would try to restore the previous situation. |
| Date: 2007/05/31 11:41:42, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Now now, why stoop to their level? I mean they only produced that game last year in which you could run around killing unbelievers. Can any comic genius come up with a Princess Bride one? I'm thinking the Sicilian saying something superficially intelligent. |
| Date: 2007/06/01 14:59:39, Link 82.44.238.254 | ||
| Author: guthrie | ||
I'll give you a Sopwith Camel of science versus ID's multi-winged monstrosity any day. I'm thinking of that one which had about 8 wings and crashed when they tried to take off. (I suppose I'm a geek as well. I looked closely at the picture and identified it as a Camel long before I checked the url and found it was one. My excuse is Biggles books, what's yours?) |
| Date: 2007/06/01 15:32:24, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Ahhh, clearly you were deprived as a child. This particular species of camel got its name from its hump. Which housed the twin machine guns. It could also be rather tricky to handle. |
| Date: 2007/06/01 17:05:12, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Your camel was not called Alice? I thought all camels with many humps were called Alice. |
| Date: 2007/06/04 07:27:20, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Maybe. But I guarantee there will, in the near future, be lots of WMD's built by god bothering engineers. |
| Date: 2007/06/04 08:37:39, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
|
Hang on a minute, have they actually put saddles on the dinosaurs? So why then did saddles not make a reappearance until, ummm, something like 1500 years ago. (That date is provisional, i shall have to check it later) Could it be that the knowledge was lost in the flood? But then why are there no fossilised saddles alongside dinosaurs? |
| Date: 2007/06/04 09:56:39, Link 83.104.49.149 |
| Author: guthrie |
| Ahh, but the question I have, is to what degree are either of them aware of their stupidity? |
| Date: 2007/06/04 12:34:37, Link 82.44.238.254 |
| Author: guthrie |
| THen I think this LEgion fellow wins, due t |
2-->
