Menu Bar
Overmann's Comments
Re: Stephanie Miller on Sarah Palin
I think it's just irresponsible to be above the age of forty and have a child. Of course the chances are higher that the child would have Down's Syndrome. Were she caught up on her biology education, she'd know that.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins Reads His Email
This was funny as hell.
"Hah hah, you f*cking dumbass!"
"Hah hah, you f*cking dumbass!"
By: Overmann
Re: Pat Condell: Take Your God and Shove Him
I think the distinction DaveoftheRave is trying to make is that of religion and faith, that these are two separate entities. One might say that faith is just the belief there is a god, while being religious is participating in any number of worship activities or behaving a certain way or dressing a certain way. I understand this distinction, but I don't agree with it. I think that when people believe in a god, their behavior (whether following religious custom or not) is the direct result of that. I can say I dislike religious people and still cover the whole spectrum (just believers and then those who consider themselves Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) because one needs necessarily have faith to be religious.
By: Overmann
Re: Pat Condell: Take Your God and Shove Him
I'm of the opinion that a number of actions and ideas believers have about their faith and society in general should be met with outright hostility. Not violence, but opposition. I'm more willing to try and persuade the less fundamental believers, but the real hardballs? Nothing much more than ridicule seems to have any effect.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationist Quote Mine Collapse
One thing I would add to that is that works are deemed acceptable by a community of scholars (peer-review) based on that works' commitment to the scientific method. You wrote a whole paragraph on the process of democratically accepting scientific work without so much as a hint of the criteria by which works are judged acceptable. That is the critical success of science - an ability to demonstrate that all other things being equal, assertion x is what the evidence seems to indicate.
By: Overmann
Re: Top 80 Best Short Atheist Quotes
Even if all those comfortable could also be considered complacent, I don't see how religion encourages someone to better themselves. I consider myself a better person for possessing critical thought and compassion and I don't feel I need religion to experience the latter.
By: Overmann
Re: Pat Condell: God is Not Enough
It's not unfair for you to ask for a reasonable and respectful argument against Christianity, Hadman. It's just that those already aware of the reasonable argument and are not motivated to change anything are most often those who subscribe to Christianity or otherwise benefit from its perpetuation. Those aware of the reasonable argument and who are willing to change things are already doing so. Therefore, the only message that needs to be sent is one of open hostility, that having one's religious beliefs pushed on individuals or otherwise pushed through public policy (and given tax-exempt status when none is warranted) is unwelcome; and this message needs to be delivered to the only group whose beliefs are principally swayed by emotion: religionists.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Fact is, Josho, that there are a number of different species that are categorized as 'sentient'. The squid, bonobos, dolphins, dogs, and elephants to name a few. We have every reason to suspect these creatures are highly intelligent. My biology instructor relayed a story of a squid escaping from its "cage" in a laboratory. Thing is, none of the above species (with the exception of bonobos, another primate and our next closest relative to the chimpanzee) use tools. It is, after all, prolonged tool use that has granted us a reprieve from the duress of surviving in the wild and has freed up tremendous amounts of time for us to sit back and reflect on the nature of things... or watch TV, whichever one prefers.
Just because they don't speak the same language as us doesn't make them non-sentient.
Just because they don't speak the same language as us doesn't make them non-sentient.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
How do we test the idea that some gene combinations and mutations are more favorable than others? Humans have been doing it for years through artificial selection. By demonstrating that gene species can be bred to enhance some traits and discourage others, it's only a matter of suggesting a mechanism for how nature can do this on its own given vasts amount of more time.
Your misunderstanding is such that I would recommend you read some information on the subject. For a good non-scientific account of evolution, I would recommend Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
Your misunderstanding is such that I would recommend you read some information on the subject. For a good non-scientific account of evolution, I would recommend Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
"Didn't know it made the shift from the evolutionary theory to the evolutionary fact."
Scientific theories often become fact once the evidence becomes too overwhelming to deny, save out of perhaps ignorance. Gravity is fact, for instance.
"And our belief is not based entirely on faith; we see evidence of the creator in the existence of the creation."
That's not evidence, that's an opinion and a judgment call. There is no direct link between a creator and life on Earth. Nothing in nature explicitly points to a deity or alien race and the assumption that one exists is pure faith, especially in light of the explaining power of evolution.
"God's image refers to His creativity and self awareness not His physical likeness."
That is your interpretation. A baseless one, I might add, because nothing in the Bible alludes to it.
"If the eye is so flawed, why hasn't it gotten better yet"
Because evolution depends on what can be thought to be chance mutations and if those mutations don't arise and benefit an organism, nothing will improve. Besides, there's nothing inherently "flawed" about the eye if it still aids the organism more than if it had no eye at all. The idea of a flaw comes in when one claims the eye was intelligently designed, which ironically destroys that argument.
As for morality from evolution, that deserves its own response, one I will have to give in about two days time unless someone beats me to the punch.
Scientific theories often become fact once the evidence becomes too overwhelming to deny, save out of perhaps ignorance. Gravity is fact, for instance.
"And our belief is not based entirely on faith; we see evidence of the creator in the existence of the creation."
That's not evidence, that's an opinion and a judgment call. There is no direct link between a creator and life on Earth. Nothing in nature explicitly points to a deity or alien race and the assumption that one exists is pure faith, especially in light of the explaining power of evolution.
"God's image refers to His creativity and self awareness not His physical likeness."
That is your interpretation. A baseless one, I might add, because nothing in the Bible alludes to it.
"If the eye is so flawed, why hasn't it gotten better yet"
Because evolution depends on what can be thought to be chance mutations and if those mutations don't arise and benefit an organism, nothing will improve. Besides, there's nothing inherently "flawed" about the eye if it still aids the organism more than if it had no eye at all. The idea of a flaw comes in when one claims the eye was intelligently designed, which ironically destroys that argument.
As for morality from evolution, that deserves its own response, one I will have to give in about two days time unless someone beats me to the punch.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
I'm not sure if you are a troll but I will operate on the assumption that you are being sincere.
For one, I'm not sure who is demanding or assuming that the cosmos is a closed system. Nothing in physics suggests it must be and as far as I know, the concept of something existing outside the known universe is still open to inquiry. All physics is (with the exception of some aspects of theoretical physics) an observation of the laws that exist within the known cosmos. No assumptions or faith are necessary.
Atheistic evolution (which is a bit of a misnomer; there doesn't seem to be such a thing as theistic evolution) doesn't explain the origin of life, correct, but that's not what the theory addresses: it addresses how life changes over time.
Regardless how ID is perceived today, it started out being a repackaged creationist argument aimed at getting at least the idea of a creator taught in science classes.
And in the end, it doesn't matter who one claims the creator is: aliens or God, because the theory makes no effort to try and explain how our supposed creators came into existence. Following the ID argument through, we reach an infinite regress. Natural selection provides an intuitive and predictable explanation for stopping such a regress.
For one, I'm not sure who is demanding or assuming that the cosmos is a closed system. Nothing in physics suggests it must be and as far as I know, the concept of something existing outside the known universe is still open to inquiry. All physics is (with the exception of some aspects of theoretical physics) an observation of the laws that exist within the known cosmos. No assumptions or faith are necessary.
Atheistic evolution (which is a bit of a misnomer; there doesn't seem to be such a thing as theistic evolution) doesn't explain the origin of life, correct, but that's not what the theory addresses: it addresses how life changes over time.
Regardless how ID is perceived today, it started out being a repackaged creationist argument aimed at getting at least the idea of a creator taught in science classes.
And in the end, it doesn't matter who one claims the creator is: aliens or God, because the theory makes no effort to try and explain how our supposed creators came into existence. Following the ID argument through, we reach an infinite regress. Natural selection provides an intuitive and predictable explanation for stopping such a regress.
By: Overmann
Re: Creationism Disproved?
Nice to see an evolutionary explanation for why the photoreceptors are at the very back of the eye. Never thought of the eye that way.
By: Overmann
Re: Tim Robbins' Controversial Nab Speech.
I couldn't agree more. News and the presentation of information shouldn't be argumentative or motivated by profit. NPR is great because it represents foundations that promote quality programming.
By: Overmann
