Walsingham

The degree of belief many atheists have in themselves strikes me as far more amusing than a belief in a supreme being. Religion is like drink. Good in moderation. And mixing religions makes you vomit.

I blame the catholics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's always the Catholics with you isn't it, Muso? The Catholics stole and ate the candy. The catholics ate my homework. The catholics revere the Holy Virgin Mary. When are you going to accept responsibility?

Er yes... because clearly the son of god, born of an immaculate conception is going to obey standard rules of heredity? We're lucky he didn't have five arms and a trunk.

You don't HAVE to be a Christian to believe abortion is wrong. I also think that ID in school, whlie being the thin end of the wedge, is not exactly proof that the End Times are upon us. I mean, oughtn't we to get more irate about the fact that our schools fail to impart the curriculum to the majority of students, and worry about what that curriculum is later? I dont know much about the US, but British schools are churning people who can't read, write, and do basic maths! Let alone grasp the fundamentals of scientific endeavour. Di and Eldar, you're both clearly interested in understanding each other's POV. I say keep talking.

Yeah babay! *does the dance*

Ye wouldn't be saying that if we had a pic of YOU up here. :D Not sure if this topic counts as spam though. Hmm.....

I agree that it seems logical to suggest that the possession of a great deal of power by a specific group would translate into signs of their agenda being pursued. The question is, how overt do those signs have to be? One might argue that the very fact that creationism was even being seriously considered as fit for teaching as objective truth is a sign that something is afoot.

Never mind not looking at the keys. I can and do type without even thinking what I'm saying.

Ditto. That game needed serious tasking, due to the way it handled infantry/armour/arty/air and recon. Great game though. But I doubt I would ever be able to complete the last couple of missions without cheating. I still don't know what happens.

I doubt I shall ever understand the appeal of adopting an animal which causes nothing but trouble. Sorry, was thinking out loud about why women date me. *b-dum tish!*

I have rectified my earlier ignorance regarding irreducable complexity. I have to say I have yet to see the flaw in the original statement. To whit: the existence of a mechanism which cannot be incrementally improved suggests that evolution is flawed. I can't think of any such mechanisms, but give me time. I'm still reading... Di, I can't say I know much about Christian politics in the US but I can't possibly agree that Missisippi snake-testing baptists are in effective cahoots with New England Anglicans, or Utah Mormons. I mean I'll agree Christianity dominates American culture, but precisely how that manifests is probably pretty messy, and not up to individual people or sects. Having said that, Eldar, I was under the impression that there has been a deliberate effort over the last fifteen years or so on the part of the Christian right wing to get involved in the political process through fund-raising, joining political parties, and mobilising their members to vote. Because of the generally low level of political participation, and the importance of the primaries, the Christian right have been able to punch well above their weight in numerical terms. This is evident, so I have been given to understand, in church sermons, interviews with churchgoers, and the traceable origins of campaign funds. If I've understood y'all correctly the suggestion is that ID is merely one battle in a much wider campaign to get a Christian right agenda and viewpoint accepted as orthodox. i.e. (to mutilate my analogy) the debate is a smokescreen for the real issue, while at the same time being symptomatic of that issue - the replacement of a search for objective truth with a subjective defining of truth by a self-appointed (unless one counts in God) minority. Is that a fair summation?

Sounds like you'll have a cracking time. <_<

Boobies. It

I'm glad to see an attempt to return to debating points. Keep it up, gentlemen.

It's already been covered in this thread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Rats. Caught out.

I would have said that a sport must be 1) Competitive. 2) Must have a fixed set of rules. Which kind of rules out sex, really. 3) The competitors, while having artificial aids, receive little or no competitive benefit from those aids. The focus of the competition is on the human performance of the individual. I draw the last point to distinguish a game like Axis and Allies from a sports like rugby, although clearly there are degrees of shading involved with for example chess or F1 racing. AD&D can't be a sport because you're using completely artificial proxies. It's a game. How's that sound?

What is irreduceable complexity, anyway? I could look it up, but I'd rather hear it from you guys.

Insofaras I have free time to do so, I am, by suggesting we have a crack at it. Otherwise, being neither a biologist or physicist I am not well placed to contribute much. As for praying and seeing if it affects a field, that sounds no less outlandish than observation altering the outcome of a physics experiment, as has been clinically noted. In any case we seem to be chasing in circles. I have a different definition of what truth to yours. We've made clear what our definitions are. I'm happy to let it rest.

Agreed. Keep us posted.

I think you underestimate the orthodoxy of a well entrenched scientist! You also underestimate the peculiar behaviour of clerics under the right circumstances. I may also ad that you seem to be disstressingly keen on associating me with ID. It is not MY theory. But as a scientist I regard it as a moral imperative, and an intellectual challenge that we should investigate it thoroughly. Or else how are we different from the learned wise men (not just priests) who told Galileo he could not possibly be right, without looking through his telescope?

I thought they were above average, recalling my own university experience. I recommend drawing pictures on the notes. Pictures of anything will help you recall the data. EDIT: If you make the drawings especially violent be sure to ask questions on the notes of your tutor. :D

I prpose we concoct a list of 50 non-combat things that suck, which can be directed at your fancy pants players. For example, getting hideously drunk, getting off with the wrong girl, and waking up to moderate a forums full of lunatics while your head feels like it's stuffed with ants eggs. Also consider giving them ennui penalties to their stats for finding everything so tediously easy.

Moose and taks, I'm glad someone's readng my stuff, but if you re-examine "The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong." You'll see I do not actually back ID because while it has yet to be disproved, it is very weak. It is weak because it has no testable points. It is like Freud's theories. He says "Either you agree you want your mother, or you are suppressing it." [Thinks: I wonder what Freud's mother had to say about this. Must have made great conversation at Christmas.] What I'm interested in here is whether we can concoct a workable testable hypothesis on behalf of the ID people. If we do create a good one then we can set about demolishing it. But until we do, we are simply relying on faith to tell us they are wrong. And if we are relying on faith alone then I think we could get off our high horses. Finally, never mind pandas. Have you seen a platypus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

You do not have to believe in ID. But if you want to call yourself a scientist you have to allow for it. It is true until proven otherwise. And yes, this does mean that there are plenty of crazy things not yet disproved out there. However, if you refuse to allow for ID, simply because you have no 'proof' you are no better than the creationists. There is little 'proof' of evolution as the root of mankind. We can observe evolution at work now. We have fossils, but these in themselves are not proof. They are instances where evolutionary theory might have fallen but did not. The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong. Metadigital is our resident philosphical genius. Ask him if I've got this right.

I follow your statement, but not insofaras it disproves my point. If that makes sense... You philosophers correct me here: The nature of emprical truth is that a statement has yet to be disproved. The statement 'All swans are black' is fine until someone produces a white swan. Equally, the statement that natural objects are so clever they must have been designed is fine until someone produces a not clever natural object. Of course, this is modified by the fact that exceptions are often explained by random chance. Our white swan may have fallen into some paint. However, if I randomly select 1,000 swans, and all of them are white then the black swan guy is in trouble. This is the approach I am arguing for.