tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post111525581234824554..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Evolution and "direct observation": Be careful what you wish for.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-81376749344979335772009-06-16T12:08:21.295-04:002009-06-16T12:08:21.295-04:00Well done post, CC. Came here via Pharyngula and ...Well done post, CC. Came here via Pharyngula and will be coming back. :)Philosophidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313942468242988568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1161988675599668922006-10-27T18:37:00.000-04:002006-10-27T18:37:00.000-04:00This reminds me of a button I saw recently. That ...This reminds me of a <A HREF="http://www.cafepress.com/missiondesigns/1859971" REL="nofollow">button I saw recently</A>. That cracks me up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1127348144695927662005-09-21T20:15:00.000-04:002005-09-21T20:15:00.000-04:00Great story. Very funny.Let's imagine I'm god, jus...Great story. Very funny.<BR/>Let's imagine I'm god, just for the duration of this diatribe. You see I've got this ever expanding space which I call my universe. At the moment its diameter, as far as I can see, is about the same as the distance across the United States. Being incredibly vain, my plan is to create some kind of 3d living image in my own likeness. I'm going to call it a "human". And being marginally eccentric I want to make its home so infinitessimally small that it can't be seen with the naked eye. This home I will call "Earth". What's more, only one third of this sub-atomic particle sized home will actually be inhabitable, and then with some difficulty. But look, I'm being modest. Actually I'm a bit of a megalomaniac. I'm not making just one minuscule image in my own likeness – I'm making billions of them and making them all live together on the same speck. The idea is that I wan't them to live by some rules that I've made up, but won't tell them. And they'll suffer all sorts of terrible afflictions and diseases, the cures for which only I know. They'll have to figure it all out for themselves. I'm also planning to give them a system of reproduction I've managed to cobble together, but at the moment it's a bit of a risky and excruciatingly painful business for the childbearing humans. <BR/>I've left out quite a few of the finer details but, in a nutshell, that's my grand plan. I think it's rather nifty and obviously the work of a high intelligence. But some of my friends tell me they think it's a really cruel idea and that I should be certified. I find their cynicism and lack of faith unbearable!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1119558494108223462005-06-23T16:28:00.000-04:002005-06-23T16:28:00.000-04:00Isn't the Bible "indirect evidence" anyway? Or are...Isn't the Bible "indirect evidence" anyway? Or are some of theses creationists damn old. And Adam and Eve, having been created last, wouldn't be able to contribute a lot on the subject. Ah... I see. God told them. So God created the world. We know this for no other reason than God said so. In the book written by people who believed in God. And why do we believe this book? Because it's God'd Word (note capitals). How do we know that? Because it says so in the book. And why do we believe the book... (insert circular argument here). Now it's all so clear to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1118860100869654942005-06-15T14:28:00.000-04:002005-06-15T14:28:00.000-04:00Very nice indeed. Thanks.Gary HurdVery nice indeed. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>Gary HurdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1117172779900330142005-05-27T01:46:00.000-04:002005-05-27T01:46:00.000-04:00And while we're at it, when did god get around to ...And while we're at it, when did god get around to telling people how he created the earth, seeing as he doesn't seem very fond of explaining himself. Or was he like one of those insufferable bastards who's built a kit-car or redone his rumpus room..."Yeah, we really like all the extra space the earth gives us. See that ocean? Took me hours, working at night. And don't you just love the light? I saw it and I thought, damn that's good!"<BR/><BR/>"I should be getting this down...does anyone have a tablet and a chisel? So...okay, heavens, earth, light, beasts, man...uh-huh...this is great stuff, big guy. What? You want to give me details? Uh..gee, god, maybe some other time...I've got a ...thing...over at the next temple..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1117172326818950692005-05-27T01:38:00.000-04:002005-05-27T01:38:00.000-04:00As far as another explanation for John's stuff bei...As far as another explanation for John's stuff being missing, if we want to follow proper, rigorous, ID logic, I think we have to conclude that the pixies did it. No other explanation needed. Now THAT'S science...hmmm...I could get used to this ID stuff...so much simpler than thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1117142165922164612005-05-26T17:16:00.000-04:002005-05-26T17:16:00.000-04:00Holy Gamoley!If you were going to quote something ...Holy Gamoley!<BR/><BR/>If you were going to quote something silly from McNicoll, how could you pass this gem:<BR/><BR/>"Or the sad treatment of Galileo, a distinguished scientist who spent the last years of his life under what amounted to house arrest because he’d been convicted of heresy for asserting that the earth orbited the sun, rather than the other way around."<BR/><BR/>Am I the only one who remembers that Galileo wasn't persecuted by other scientists but by the Catholic Church? In fact wasn't John Paul the one who finally re-instated Galileo in the early 1990's? <BR/><BR/>Sorry, I have to say that while your post was entertaining, it didn't hold a candle humor-wise to McNicoll's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116615115286825162005-05-20T14:51:00.000-04:002005-05-20T14:51:00.000-04:00But, you do have point about doubt. I'll be lookin...<I>But, you do have point about doubt. I'll be looking for that doubt when I read an article about the latest fossil find or visit a museum that claims such and such a fossil is n million years old, or that this fossil led to that fossil, or that this proves that. And so on. <BR/><BR/>Where is the: "You're sure ___________ is the only possible explanation? Absolutely sure? No other possibility?" </I><BR/><BR/>Wow, how clueless can you be? That is the quintessential difference between scientists and creationists. Creationists think in absolutes, scientists don't.<BR/><BR/>True scientists NEVER claim "this is the only possibility". They say "these are our conclusions based on this evidence". The stronger the evidence, the more firmly they tend to state the conclusion. However scientists and freethinkers are always open to the idea that new discoveries may turn their current ways of thinking upside-down. That's called being open-minded.<BR/><BR/>Creationists are quite the opposite. They claim to KNOW exactly what happened (the Good Book tells them so) and there is just no shifting their thinking, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>daveb, your lack of even rudimentary knowledge of how scientists work is telling. I think it's sad that you can't even imagine a point of view that isn't as close-minded as your own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116537095266831832005-05-19T17:11:00.000-04:002005-05-19T17:11:00.000-04:00You know, I could slowly and (almost certainly) pa...You know, I could slowly and (almost certainly) painfully explain this parable, but I have a better idea.<BR/><BR/>99% of the people who read this seem to have got the point. You didn't. So just accept it and move on.<BR/><BR/>I don't expect everyone to appreciate or even understand everything I write, and that's life.<BR/><BR/>You don't see my point and I can live with that.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116532534982992302005-05-19T15:55:00.000-04:002005-05-19T15:55:00.000-04:00Well, you're changing the story just a bit, aren't...Well, you're changing the story just a bit, aren't you? You didn't mention any of those possibilities (divorce, delinquency) in the original story. <BR/><BR/>"His microwave is missing. As is his cappuccino machine -- his new cappuccino machine that was on back-order for three months. His heart sinking by the second, John stumbles through the kitchen into the living room to find more of the same.<BR/><BR/>Stereo system: gone. His beautiful, new plasma screen TV: gone. As are all of his CDs and DVDs, camera equipment, ... all gone." <BR/><BR/>It doesn't sound like it was "her stuff". And if John were delinquent with his car payments, might he not have considered that?<BR/><BR/>All of your possibilities exist in the present. We can find out if there <B>is</B> an ex-wife. We can find out if there <B>is</B> a delinquency.<BR/><BR/>But, you do have point about doubt. I'll be looking for that doubt when I read an article about the latest fossil find or visit a museum that claims such and such a fossil is n million years old, or that this fossil led to that fossil, or that this proves that. And so on. <BR/><BR/>Where is the: "You're sure ___________ is the only possible explanation? Absolutely sure? No other possibility?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116528332123973132005-05-19T14:45:00.000-04:002005-05-19T14:45:00.000-04:00"John" knew he had been robbed because he knew wha...<I>"John" knew he had been robbed because he knew what the condition of his house was when he left.</I><BR/><BR/>You're sure being robbed is the <I>only</I> possible explanation? <I>Absolutely</I> sure? No other possibility?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the back door window was broken by the kids across the alley playing baseball who, after they broke it, let themselves in so they could retrieve the ball.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps his belongings were gone because his ex-wife still had a key, and they were her belongings, and the two of them were locked in a bitter divorce and she finally decided to take matters into her own hands and come by and reclaim only what was hers.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the car was not stolen, but was repossessed by a repo man because of John's delinquency in his car payments.<BR/><BR/>You're absolutely sure, without a shred of doubt, that you can rule out all of the above?CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116527810419758852005-05-19T14:36:00.000-04:002005-05-19T14:36:00.000-04:00Can anyone tell me why they think this is a releva...Can anyone tell me why they think this is a relevant analogy? <BR/><BR/>"John" knew he had been robbed because he knew what the condition of his house was when he left. He had observed it. He knew the cappuccino machine was gone, because he had bought it and placed it where he wanted.<BR/><BR/>"Science" can't scientifically tell us what the fossil record <B>means</B> any more than it can tell us what things looked like <B>before </B> it was laid down.<BR/><BR/>A better analogy would be finding a deserted cabin in the woods, windows broken and empty inside, and trying to say what happened and what was missing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116477255772579812005-05-19T00:34:00.000-04:002005-05-19T00:34:00.000-04:00WONDERFUL!! :-)WONDERFUL!! :-)Omnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01535142570254270177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116452176705969862005-05-18T17:36:00.000-04:002005-05-18T17:36:00.000-04:00i wasn't really interested in ham's factual case (...i wasn't really interested in ham's factual case (such as it is), just in his use of prejudice and hatred to leverage his illogical argument against science. <BR/><BR/>that people like him are unconsciously and/or unselfconsciously ironic is true, but beside the point.caligatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10382792525311217743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116450155137584412005-05-18T17:02:00.000-04:002005-05-18T17:02:00.000-04:00Hmmm..not sure which Bible you're reading, but min...Hmmm..not sure which Bible you're reading, but mine doesn't appear to have any problem with abortion:<BR/><BR/>Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.-- 13:16 <BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>15:16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--6:28-29 <BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.--13:16 <BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.-- 9:16 <BR/><BR/>And more...oh, so much more...<BR/><BR/><BR/>( quotes from http://www.evilbible.com/god's%20not%20pro-life.htm and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116439167497856822005-05-18T13:59:00.000-04:002005-05-18T13:59:00.000-04:00one of ken ham's heaviest weapons against evolutio...one of ken ham's heaviest weapons against evolution is homophobia.<BR/><BR/>follow me: the bible says three things: the world was created, homosexuality is bad and abortion is bad.<BR/><BR/>now, if it turns out that the bible is wrong on evolution, then it may be wrong on homosexuality and abortion, also.<BR/><BR/>the successful refutation of the bible's autority on such matters poses a danger to our stranglehold on morality. for that reason, we must stifle the advance of evolution science because it threatens our position homosexuality and abortion.<BR/><BR/>logical fallacy, anyone?caligatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10382792525311217743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116425485780040182005-05-18T10:11:00.000-04:002005-05-18T10:11:00.000-04:00Was anyone present at the Creation described in Ge...Was anyone present at the Creation described in Genesis? I wonder if it really happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116412948060175892005-05-18T06:42:00.000-04:002005-05-18T06:42:00.000-04:00It scary that so many people can waste so much tim...It scary that so many people can waste so much time "refuting" creationism without realising that it is FAITH BASED. <BR/><BR/>NO amount of evidence will sway the believers. Get this through your thick, closet-religious skulls and move on already.<BR/><BR/>The space on this otherwise fine website would be better used for less futile and meaningless acts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116412221527414692005-05-18T06:30:00.000-04:002005-05-18T06:30:00.000-04:00Followup to previous post -- from way back in 1998...Followup to previous post -- from <A HREF="http://www.kypost.com/news/1998/aig101298.html" REL="nofollow">way back in 1998</A>, there's the perfect description of Ham's strategy.<BR/><BR/>What a putz.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116412106003131352005-05-18T06:28:00.000-04:002005-05-18T06:28:00.000-04:00"Were you there?"I think you're referring to Ken H..."Were you there?"<BR/><BR/>I think you're referring to Ken Ham, whose claim to fame (well, besides being insufferably stupid) is that he encourages students to politely challenge their high school science teachers by asking that very question. A sort of (heh heh) "respectful insolence", as it were.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to Google on a combination of "ken ham" and "were you there" to see that he still appears to be working this shtick.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116409235910368942005-05-18T05:40:00.000-04:002005-05-18T05:40:00.000-04:00There was a PBS series on evolution some years bac...There was a PBS series on evolution some years back which, during a segment on creationist attacks, showed a meeting led by Hovind or some similar wacko where he led his audience in repeating his suggested answer to evolution proponents: "Were you there?"ploverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04394160970803074091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116409103027585902005-05-18T05:38:00.000-04:002005-05-18T05:38:00.000-04:00Excellent post!Excellent post!J95https://www.blogger.com/profile/12340652007713733030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116399746966948782005-05-18T03:02:00.000-04:002005-05-18T03:02:00.000-04:00I thought I'd mention that circumstantial evidence...I thought I'd mention that circumstantial evidence is not permitted in capital cases in Jewish religious courts. Come to think of it, Orthodox Jewish apologetics lean on the claim of direct observation of the giving of the Ten Commandments.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1116389202632569542005-05-18T00:06:00.000-04:002005-05-18T00:06:00.000-04:00"Using this same logic, how do creationsists know ...<B><I>"Using this same logic, how do creationsists know that the world was created in the way that the bible describes?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Seems they're pressing that religion and science are alike. Obviously they aren't too concerned about the facts, or reading into their own statements. Dumb the crowds and create potential converts, furthering political influence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com