Science, Meet Your Maker!

Originally posted by miriam0566
again, MAY provide a mechanism for developing new interactions and a pathway for the evolution of new genes.

Aye, scientists prefer to not make grand absolutist claims when discussing brand spanking new findings, then look rather silly when shown to be wrong. A bit like saying it's proven that mutations decrease information in the genome.

yes, you do. the burden of theory is that it must be proven. all you have proven with gene duplication is that there is more ¨stuff¨. you call it information, but in the end its just more stuff. and yes the excerpt above says it can be involved, not that it is.

the process has not been proven

Heh, I always like the way non-scientists like to throw round the word 'proven'.

i did, and it said that it may be responsible not that it is.

Yes, scientists generally say things like 'may', 'appears to', 'suggests', 'indicates' when discussing scientific findings. Whereas some like to say 'proven', then they more often than not are shown to be clearly wrong. Crazy innit!

Leave proof to mathematicians.

Gene duplication and divergence is a well-established and well-supported phenomenon. The 'may' is more related to his own inference regarding the mechanism - the freer from constraint bit. Not the presence of gene duplication and divergence, that's pretty much a scientific fact.

Pubmed shows up 916 online articles for the terms 'gene duplication AND divergence'. That's a lot of science. This process has been found in regulatory networks, MiRNA, and protein coding genes.

But you want to rely on highlighting the humble tentative language of scientists, heh.

You have nothing of consequence, miriam. And I've got ya number.

Bye!

[edit on 15-5-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by miriam0566


Your doing a fine job keeping mel honest miriam. He's a nice enough fellow but I know it can be tricky.

originally posted by miriam0566
has the definition of ¨fact¨ changed when i was sleeping or something?

When Darwinism is the subject - we call it science "faux" not science "fact".

Originally posted by melatonin

Aye, scientists prefer to not make grand absolutist claims when discussing brand spanking new findings, then look rather silly when shown to be wrong. A bit like saying it's proven that mutations decrease information in the genome......

Heh, I always like the way non-scientists like to throw round the word 'proven'........

Yes, scientists generally say things like 'may', 'appears to', 'suggests', 'indicates' when discussing scientific findings. Whereas some like to say 'proven', then they more often than not are shown to be clearly wrong. Crazy innit!........

Leave proof to mathematicians........

But you want to rely on the humble tentative language of scientists, heh........

listen.... im not furthering this discussion.

i have no problem admitting when im wrong about stuff (which i was wrong about information theory) but you getting nasty with me, and theres no need for it.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
In short, the conflict exists because some scientists and some clergy are being too dogmatic. They do not realize that their doctrines, theories, and beliefs are severely limited. They also refuse to be flexible in changing their world view to comport with evidence and logic.

I agree. I am not a big fan of the young earth creationist movement that just blatantly discounts the evidence. However I will take a person who takes scripture to literally over someone who completely ignores it any day. One has eternal value and the other is temporal. My personal opinion is that young earth creationists are too prideful to admit that their interpretation is lacking. The Bible makes no claim of the age of the earth. Truly the Bible was not intended to teach us how God did it - but that he did do it.

For instance "In the Beginning" the first words in your bible comes from one Hebrew word "resh-t" that always means a period of time not a point in time.So "in the beginning" could be 7 days or 10 billion years we do not know. Th 7 day account is describing the preparation of the place for man to live; not the creation of the actual universe that was done "in the beginning" and he doesn't say how exactly. But I think we can definitely pull out some clues from scripture and I find nothing that really conflicts.

Now the problem is most Christians are not YEC, but most scientists are atheists. They use science as a weapon to further the secular humanist movement, homosexuality, and abortion. Now that creates a lot more conflict than arguments about how things came to be. By using to science to discount God it creates a vacuum in the source of moral authority as well. I like science but scientists like Richard Dawkins are truly not doing science any favors by using it to attack religion. It would be better for all concerned - if he stuck to science.

Originally posted by miriam0566
i have no problem admitting when im wrong about stuff (which i was wrong about information theory) but you getting nasty with me, and theres no need for it.

Where's the nastiness? The only thing that comes close is this:

Aye, scientists prefer to not make grand absolutist claims when discussing brand spanking new findings, then look rather silly when shown to be wrong. A bit like saying it's proven that mutations decrease information in the genome.

It can be construed as saying that you looked rather silly making such an erroneous claim. You did. Sorry.

Nothing nasty there.

I looked silly t'other day. This might make you feel better, looking silly doesn't become a intrinsic trait.

Now, we get marking in these big messenger bag things. They all look the same. I was a bit knackered that day, having been marking solid for a few days, but I takes the bag in to return it, and pick up some more. I give it to one minor person, she takes it in the office and the main target come out with a bag. And we discuss how my life will be spent looking at UG stuff for another couple of weeks. She gives me the bag. I say 'they're the ones I just returned'. She says 'no, they're the new ones'

We do a minute or so of to and fro. I eventually open and check bag, and she was right. The bags are identical, you see. It was like some magic trick from my perspective with my grading-dulled brain. Or perhaps like some super-spy bag exchange at the airport.

I looked silly. But hey, so what.

Like me, you'll get over it. Maybe go and have a choccy biscuit and a cup of tea.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Oooh! This is on-topic.

What did hell freeze over?

This is a juicy bit of work. Heh.

Asty called me a "notorious" creationist. - "So if you don't know now you know..."

The Notorious B.I.G. - "Juicy"

Firstly, 'science rooted deeply in religious faith'?
Not really.

No really.

People of faith were those who made major efforts to form the scientific method originally, couldn't have been any other way. Only in the same way people of faith were those who made the printing press and then printed a bible.

You mean like in this way… (let me quote your favorite author mel)

Kepler, however, was certain, based on his deep Christian faith, that God had employed an even more beautiful pattern, and he labored hard to decipher it. When he discovered what it was—his three laws of planetary motion—he experienced something of a spiritual epiphany. Kepler announced that his laws showed that God had used a far simpler and more elegant scheme than the one previously delineated in the Ptolemaic system of cycles and epicycles. In a prayer concluding The Harmony of the World, Kepler implored God "graciously to cause that these demonstrations may lead to thy glory and to the salvation of souls."

Kepler's laws posit uncanny relationships. For instance, Kepler's third law states that the square of the time of a planet's revolution is proportional to the cube of its mean distance from the sun. How could anyone have figured that out? Kepler did in large part because he was convinced that there had to be a beautiful mathematical relationship there hidden and 66
waiting for him. Part of his Christian vocation was to find it and promulgate it to the greater glory of God. Kepler's success leads to the surprising recognition that religious motivation can sometimes result in breakthrough discoveries that change the course of scientific history.

K epler

Atheists and heretics were burned at stakes in those dark days. But science is agnostic (methodological naturalism), that's the way these people wanted it. You can view it as a way to uncover god's work, or to understand nature, or whatever floats ya boat. Even Bacon essentially said, nature teaches people how to interpret the bible. So not t'other way round. You might want to digest that, whammy.

Swallows... digests

I think from our other debates we have agreed methodological naturalism is not to equivalent to agnosticism. And you know that scientists go further in that they take a materialist reductionist stance to everything including things like consciousness.

I think materialism disproves itself as a way to define human consciousness in that “If materialism is true, then my thoughts are just a product of chemical reactions. Chemicals are just chemicals and there is no reason to believe they can determine truth.

Secondly, 'It is only the out of control egos of some prominent atheist scientists that cause the conflicts'.
Haha. 'Only'. I'm sure Bruno and Galileo might have had something to say about that. Atheists have only really been safe in popping their heads above the trenches since the days of d'Holbach (after the greeks). Deism being the trendy and safer option. In that time, the major conflicts surrounding science have been sourced from those holding to genesis-based creationism, and now the modern trojan-horse ID creationism. As noted above *waves*, people of faith have been attacking biology, geology, and physics for around 100 years. And in the US, the attacks on good science education have been relentless, and are still ongoing. Moreover, the major ID proponents want to theologise (is dat a word? T'is now) almost every aspect of science (from biology to psychology), and culture itself.

You are right “only” was incorrect. There have been plenty of attacks by both sides. But I will contend that the church has been largely in the defensive posture. I don't always agree with the YEC crowd. I posted on this in my reply above.

Now for your science persecution fairy tales…

The freethinker Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, but as historian Thomas Kuhn points out, "Bruno was not executed for Copernicanism but for a series of theological heresies centering on his view of the trinity." Bruno's execution was a terrible injustice, but it has nothing to do with the conflict between religion and science.

Bruno

The heresy was over religious doctrine not science. Unless you consider the doctrine of the trinity a scientific one?

The Galileo story however is more of an atheist fable. Galileo didn’t get in trouble for teaching Copernicanism as much as he got in trouble for making an agreement to not teach it, then doing so getting caught and lying about it. That is not a scientific question but an ethical one.

Contrary to what some atheist propagandists have said, Galileo was never charged with heresy, and he was never placed in a dungeon or tortured in any way. After he recanted Galileo was released into the custody of the archbishop of Siena, who housed him for five months in his magnificent palace. Then he was permitted to return to his villa in Florence. Although technically under house arrest, he was able to visit his daughters at the convent of San Matteo. The church also permitted him to continue his scientific work on matters unrelated to heliocentrism, and he published important research during this period. Galileo died of natural causes in 1642. It was during subsequent decades, Kuhn reports, that newer and stronger evidence for the heliocentric theory emerged, and scientific opinion, divided in Galileo's time, became the consensus that we share today.

Galileo

But it's Dawkins'/Dennett's/Harris'/Hitchens' fault - he/they wrote a book that you didn't like in the last few years. Haha, that's brilliant. Some think they have certainly had an impact - a scottish church even blamed their dwindling numbers on Dawkins.

Yeah they’re all a bunch of clowns and substance abusers. There has been a dramatic shift The liberal churches are losing members in droves. The traditional churches, not the liberal churches, are growing in America. In 1960 the churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention had 8.7 million members. Now they have 16.4 million. Tell Hitchens to mix that with some scotch and drink it down.

Lastly, 'Ii is more true to say science has come close to proving his existence'.
If you say so.

Glad you agree!




[edit on 5/15/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Where's the nastiness? The only thing that comes close is this:

i quoted the texts. your tone was very condesending. just because i havent heard of information thoery before this discussion doesnt make me an idiot.

Like me, you'll get over it. Maybe go and have a choccy biscuit and a cup of tea.

i am over it. it just harder to let it slide off your back when you´ve had a REALLY bad day, know what i mean?

----------------------------------

this is what i gathered from our debate.

- gene duplication and divergence is a phenomenon that has been observed and proven.

numerous scientists have seen this well documented happening

- information theory counts static as informatiom

i can understand why. if you are trying to build a WIFI network for example, i can understand why you would have to deal with interference and such. however, when talking about functional data, and the end result of such data like for example from a manual, your ability to measure it is of little consequence. DNA cannot just be randomly sequenced, it must follow certain rules otherwise you have a dyfunct organism, and thats even if you have an organism at all.

- scientists theorize that duplication and divergence is a possible explaination for the evolution of species. they propose the possibility that this raw material can turn into functional DNA. if it was true, then creatures with simple DNA strands could possibly advance with beneficial mutations rather than the norm of nuetral and less common detrimental.

- this theory has not been observed or recreated. at this moment it is only supposition.

my conclusion

while it is a unproven theory as to how species could evolve to higher species, it still doesnt touch how DNA could be so significant so fast. it also doesnt not touch on the sophistiacation of the DNA ¨language¨.

it hardly concludes that DNA can form at random

[edit on 16-5-2008 by miriam0566]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Keppler was not being all funamentalist when he used religion to further his understanding. He used the notion "God is perfect", when "there must be more" would have done just as well. Now, if we compare him to fundamentalists, who say that the Bible spells out what's happening in the universe (not that the original writers of the Bible even knew there was a universe). Their incentive notion "The Bible spells out how everything works, and to say otherwise is incorrect", is a far cry from saying "God is perfect" or "there must be more", as it immediately and intrinsically limiting.

You can't take a result and try to shoe-horn reality into it. That is the very antithesis of science.

Also, Keppler, even if he was a rabid fundamentalist, does not disprove the "religion holds science back" hypothesis one iota, as he is but a grain of sand on one side of the scales, when there is an elephant on the other.

Originally posted by miriam0566
i quoted the texts. your tone was very condesending.

Sometimes I can get just a little bit snarky, but it is positively correlated to the evasiveness of the person I happen to be dancing with. There was no nastiness at all. Not a bit.

- this theory has not been observed or recreated. at this moment it is only supposition.

Nope, lots of evidence dear. Spend sometime looking in teh science library. I have posted the results of three studies providing such evidence in the last two days.

All you had was an absolutist assertion, which I assumed was trawled from some creationist website.

it hardly concludes that DNA can form at random

[edit on 16-5-2008 by miriam0566]

Was that even the point of the studies?

And so we foxtrot to another ID tune. Not sure chemsitry and biochemistry is what can be considered truly random. Every time I tried this experiment:

NaOH + HCl --------- NaCl + H2O

I got the same outcome. If you mean 'random' as in undirected by the think n' poof of a magic god-dude 'designer', then yeah. Probably.

Anyway, I have real-world stuff beckoning for a while. Bye.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, lots of evidence dear. Spend sometime looking in teh science library. I have posted the results of three studies providing such evidence in the last two days.

would you be so kind as to provide a link?

All you had was an absolutist assertion, which I assumed was trawled from some creationist website.

you would assume wrong

And so we foxtrot to another ID tune. Not sure chemsitry and biochemistry is what can be considered truly random. Every time I tried this experiment:

NaOH + HCl --------- NaCl + H2O

I got the same outcome. If you mean 'random' as in undirected by the think n' poof of a magic god-dude 'designer', then yeah. Probably.

i think ¨random¨ as in ¨these proteins and amno acids randomly came together to form DNA¨

yes chemistry is chemistry but DNA is not standard chemistry. infact, i bet you couldnt name a chemical reaction in nature that matches or exceeds DNA in complexity

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Asty called me a "notorious" creationist. - "So if you don't know now you know..."

So if you don't know me, you don't know Dick?

I'm not sure notorious is the first thing that comes to mind. I'd have to take you serious to apply that label.

Firstly, 'science rooted deeply in religious faith'?
Not really.

No really.

It is only rooted in religious faith in the way that you could consider almost anything pre-enlightenment to be rooted in the same way.

I wouldn't deny that the religious status of an individual can drive their their motivation to understand nature. In fact, it can often be quite a problem in some. But in others, those able to take a more Baconian stance of nature as a way to intepret religious texts rather than reverse, they can certainly do science as good as anyone out there.

I think from our other debates we have agreed methodological naturalism is not to equivalent to agnosticism. And you know that scientists go further in that they take a materialist reductionist stance to everything including things like consciousness.

You might have in your own mind. Science doesn't deny supernatural stuff, it just says 'how do we test it?'. When you have a method to test the supernatural in a way comparable to science, then you can haz 'methodoloigical supernaturalism' as well.

Nothing wrong with seeing consciousness as a product (an epiphenomenon) of the brain. Never seen one that wasn't associated with a brain. Then when we add all the neurological, neurobiological, neuropsychopharmacological, psychological findings, it appears that minds, consciousness, and the brain are inextricably linked.

Mess with the brain, mess with consciousness. Indeed, split the brain, split the consciousness.

Science won't stop you from thinking you have a disembodied mind if that floats ya boat. You could even test it I suppose, and some are trying with these OBE studies. Appear to be more phail though. The mysterians are good at phail.

Chemicals are just chemicals and there is no reason to believe they can determine truth.

Plantinga I assume. I think we might need to go a bit higher up the chain for such claims. Science aims for Truth (TM). But it never claims it. We will never achieve it. Just degrees of certainty. We leave specious claims of absolute truth to religions.

Now, more relevant, I doubt reproductive fitness would be best achieved by aiming for 'not truth' in the real-world. However, it does appear to have produced a brain that is 'safety-first' and has a tendency to produce false positives, particularly seeing agency in the environment where none exists

You are right “only” was incorrect. There have been plenty of attacks by both sides. But I will contend that the church has been largely in the defensive posture. I don't always agree with the YEC crowd. I posted on this in my reply above.

Nice. I like this new found ability of yours.

True to an extent. But I don't think that theists are in anything like a defensive posture. I'm not suggesting what you should be able to teach in your churches, you can preach and teach whatever you like. If you want to shout 'teh gay sucks and Darwin was teh devilman-thing'. Fine. Not an issue. I'll just think it's a sad state of affairs and faith in action.

In science education we will teach the best science we can. And if that conflicts with your faith, tough poo-poo.

Now for your science persecution fairy tales…

Aye, a heretical freethinker. I did say 'atheists and heretics' didn't I?

It was a case of 'my way or the highway to immediate hell' in those theocrazy dark-ages.

The heresy was over religious doctrine not science. Unless you consider the doctrine of the trinity a scientific one?

Does it make real-world claims? Or is it just magical thinking?

But, anyway, that's the problem, when science conflicts with religious doctrine, then some find that deserving of death and sanction. So, of course it was about religous doctrine.

You'll like this about the Vatican archives though:

In one of the last interrogations before the execution of the sentence (maybe in April 1599), the Dominican friar was questioned by the judges of the Holy Office on his cosmogony conception, supported above all in the “La cena delle Ceneri”(Ash-Wednesday Dinner) and in the “De l’infinito universo et mundi”. Even then, he defended his theories as scientifically founded and by no means against the Holy Scriptures

"Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting."

asv.vatican.va...

Bruno refused to recant his ideas. Result? Death.

Pee-wee D'Souza vs. Original Vatician archives.

I'll take my chances with the original documents thanks.

The Galileo story however is more of an atheist fable.

Which you want to switch for D'Souza's fable. Yes, he's right about some things, but like most good sophists, mixing the lies with truth is the dish of the day.

Galileo didn’t get in trouble for teaching Copernicanism as much as he got in trouble for making an agreement to not teach it, then doing so getting caught and lying about it. That is not a scientific question but an ethical one.

Contrary to what some atheist propagandists have said, Galileo was never charged with heresy

He was charged with 'vehement suspicion of heresy'.

So they tried to muzzle him, they attempted to stop him teaching his ideas. Freethought was under attack by the dark-age theistic mentality of one group of individuals.

Sounds familiar.

Yeah they’re all a bunch of clowns and substance abusers.

bwahahaha.

There has been a dramatic shift The liberal churches are losing members in droves. The traditional churches, not the liberal churches, are growing in America. In 1960 the churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention had 8.7 million members. Now they have 16.4 million. Tell Hitchens to mix that with some scotch and drink it down.

Aye, quite probably. Other reports in the UK show faith is losing out big-time. Only the muslims and east-european catholics making the rot seem less substantial.

Glad you agree!

If you say so.

Anyway, to you too - see ya another time.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, lots of evidence dear. Spend sometime looking in teh science library. I have posted the results of three studies providing such evidence in the last two days.

would you be so kind as to provide a link?

Address:
Biology Library - Sevilla University
41012 Sevilla
Tel: 95 455 11 30
Fax: 95 455 11 35

This one is probably right around the corner from you.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


i was refering to when he said he had posted some studyies

Originally posted by miriam0566
i was refering to when he said he had posted some studyies

I posted two earlier in this thread, one about testes genes, t'other about hormone receptor genes. In the micro-RNA thread is another. All are evidence for the evolutionary significance of duplication and divergence.

Now, don't you ever say I don't do nice things for you - this took me about 15 mins, and is more than you have ever done for me. I hope this will make your day as sweet as mine was. See it as my leaving present.

The link below is to a word document containing part of the search results of a 'Web of Science' query for 'gene duplication AND divergence'. It contains citations and abstracts for those available on this academic research tool (one of the best). In total, there are 1425 articles since 1970 (which is the year Ohno sparked modern interest in this phenomenon, so very apt). but I have only included the first 500 - should keep you busy for a while. A number of them won't be so relevant, many will be very very relevant.

Ohno! Teh Science

Don't fear the link it's only science. If I tells lies, the mods can apply the banstick. I can get the other 925 to you if you really want them.

Have fun!

To the science library, batman!

ABE:

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Address:
Biology Library - Sevilla University
41012 Sevilla
Tel: 95 455 11 30
Fax: 95 455 11 35

This one is probably right around the corner from you.

Epic lulz.

Seen the thread about your uni application, well done!

[edit on 16-5-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

originally posted by melatonin
Nothing wrong with seeing consciousness as a product (an epiphenomenon) of the brain. Never seen one that wasn't associated with a brain. Then when we add all the neurological, neurobiological, neuropsychopharmacological, psychological findings, it appears that minds, consciousness, and the brain are inextricably linked.

Of course they are linked but consciousness hasn't be explained by reductionism, not even close. The problem with that view is you get scientists like Darwin who said,

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.”

originally posted by melatonin
True to an extent. But I don't think that theists are in anything like a defensive posture. I'm not suggesting what you should be able to teach in your churches, you can preach and teach whatever you like. If you want to shout 'teh gay sucks and Darwin was teh devilman-thing'. Fine. Not an issue. I'll just think it's a sad state of affairs and faith in action.

They are when it comes to the university system and that's where the conflict lies. Was Darwin a devil man? Well it seems he got extremely angry with God when his young daughter died. Maybe angry enough to concoct a way to get back at him?

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” -Charles Darwin

I am a musician first and foremost. I produced my first music video, I have to admit I had you in mind while I was recording it

originally posted by melatonin
Pee-wee D'Souza vs. Original Vatician archives.

Sorry but the Vatican archives you accessed even admit that they lost most of the documents...

Since the volume or the volumes of the Roman trial against Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), once kept in the archives of the Holy Office, were irremediably lost,

asv.vatican.va...

For the real reasons we look to historians. Brun secularized the trinity just like D'Souza said.

Nicholas of Cusa (1402–1464) explored the boundaries of human reason for the sake of making religious belief believable. Unwillingly, he became a milestone in the process of rationalizing Christian theology. Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) is a proof to this perspective by the way he makes use of Cusanus’ approach. In his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante, Bruno discusses Cusanus’ attempts at the geometrical problem of squaring the circle. Bruno not only promotes his atomistic geometry, he also uses the metaphoric meaning of triangle for Trinity as an occasion to supplant ‘Faith’ with ‘Sincerity’. For Bruno faith is not anymore the true belief of religion, but rather ‘good faith’ and fidelity, i.e., social and political virtues.

TRINITY AND TRIANGLE – GIORDANO BRUNO’S SECULARIZING OF THE CUSANIAN TRINITY

bwahahaha.

Yep Sam Harris dropped out of Stanford to pop ecstasy..

What he'll say is this: At age 19, he and a college friend tried MDMA, better known as ecstasy, and the experience altered his view of the role that love could play in the world. ("I realized that it was possible to be a human being who wished others well all the time, reflexively.") He dropped out of Stanford, where he was an English major, in his sophomore year and started to study Buddhism and meditation.

Washington Post

And Hitchens alcoholism even made wikipedia

A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol — and his prodigious literary output."[10] However in early 2008 he claimed to have given up smoking, undergoing an epiphany at Madison, Wisconsin.[91] His brother Peter later wrote of his surprise at this decision.[92] Hitchens admits to drinking heavily; in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule."

wiki

originally posted by melatonin
Aye, quite probably. Other reports in the UK show faith is losing out big-time. Only the muslims and east-european catholics making the rot seem less substantial.

Oh no doubt. And as expected...

There is a trend for falling marriage rates and increased marital breakdown across Europe. This trend started in northern Europe, but has since spread throughout western and most of southern Europe. The majority of countries are now reporting a drop in the number of marriages.

www.statistics.gov.uk...

Yep jolly old Britain is 44% Atheist/Agnostic with a 42% illegitmacy rate. Nice... oh yeah "blind, pitiless, indifference" that's right. A scientific man needs a heart of stone.

The proportion of children born extramaritally (outside marriage) varies widely between countries. In Europe, figures range from 3% in Cyprus to 55% in Estonia. In Britain the rate is 42% (2004). The rate in Ireland is 31.4%, close to the European average of 31.6% .

www.halfvalue.com...

originally posted by melatonin
Anyway, to you too - see ya another time.

wow, spoken with true scientific pitiless indifference.

Tootles...



[edit on 5/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Correlation != Causation.

You should learn what that phrase means, then read over your statistics.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


wow, 2 ad hom attacks and a misrepresentation of a quote

darwin was talking about how a scientist should act during science. there should be no conviction behind a scientific experiment, that would obviously skew the results

and on the alcoholism thing...at least hitchens never messed with the laws of reality to get another drink (sorry, but you left that wide open)

Originally posted by melatonin


Aye, scientists prefer to not make grand absolutist claims when discussing brand spanking new findings, then look rather silly when shown to be wrong. A bit like saying it's proven that mutations decrease information in the genome.

I never really hear that one being discussed mel?

I always here the one that stumped Dawkins from being discussed.

Reducing Complex to simplex mmmm seems it take less moving parts or like killing off brain cells would make a person retarded.

that may prove that point but what about going the otherway

Isn't that where we get all the bluster from you

- Con

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

wow, 2 ad hom attacks and a misrepresentation of a quote


and on the alcoholism thing...at least hitchens never messed with the laws of reality to get another drink (sorry, but you left that wide open)

Oh heeeere we go again, Two alerts and a thumbs down for you whammy taken by the infraction faction Nyaaa nyaaa.

By the way MaDDD Hitch wouldn't know reality if it hit him in the face.

Lots of people say they want to meet him, just to test that theory

and prove it

- Con



[edit on 21-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


hooray for off-topic posts, idiotic ad-hom attacks, and veiled threats towards public figures

next time try to include the part where i directly pointed out how a quote was misrepresented.

i was denying the ignorant misuse of a quote and pointing out what needed to be pointed out.