Not this creationist BS again...

[Olaf]

Whoever this Schnix person is, I like him/her.

A picture of him/her

[Schnix]

Thanks DJ, now the baseball crowd will definitely flee!

I like him/her.

Damn it! This might be grounds for yet another name-change. (For witness protection reasons mostly!)

[Olaf]

3 = a crowd? Must be one of those Canadian definitions again.

[Dr. Medulla]

[Wolter]

I'm no subscriber to Christian Creationism, but I do wonder how/when things started.

May I suggest (as I have probably done several times in the past) both Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale as a great overview of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (including some plausible speculations about possible origins of life) and Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves as a fantastic argument for the evolutionary development of free will from non-sentience in a deterministic world?

Shouldn't Hoy go back even farther, to the Big Bang and the initial expansion (timely, too, given the LHC), before the separate topic of life on this planet? It is a tough question to wrap one's head around (I admit I can't): either there's always been matter in the universe, either infinitely compressed or dispersed, either expanding or contracting; or somehow a significant amount of something came out of nothing. You don't even need to introduce an unnecessary and silly concept like a supernatural being that is infinite in all traits and capabilities for either notion—always something or something from nothing—to be tough to fathom.

I suppose you're right. Ultimately, the cosmic origin is as close to a first cause as we will ever get. I don't know any really easy to read, good books on that topic, though. And I have heard some decently convincing arguments that there is no beginning and end to the existence of matter/energy in the universe, it just is and always has been. Which is REALLY hard to wrap one's head around, especially given I'm just a well-informed layman, not a physicist.


For matedog:
Hard to gist the books. The topic is so tricky that gisting might lead to interpretive issues. Essentially, Dawkins is writing about how life developed on earth, with asides into the nature of Darwinian theory, including a neat section on the "Evolution of Evolvability." And Dennett is writing about free will, how we define it, and how it can be divorced from the realm of theology - he also spends a great deal of time refuting claims from atheists that there is no such thing as free will.

For the record, both men are relatively easy reads (Dawkins is a surprisingly good writer for a scientist, and Dennett has a surprising grasp of science for a philosopher).

[Schnix]

Well, as you can see...Canada sure loves Three's Company!

[Wolter]

Well, as you can see...Canada sure loves Three's Company!

For a reasonably intelligent guy who seems pretty well read and secure in his "Canadian identity", Dr. M sure does love himself some shitty American TV made from 1975-1985.

[Dr. Medulla]

Ultimately, the cosmic origin is as close to a first cause as we will ever get. I don't know any really easy to read, good books on that topic, though. And I have heard some decently convincing arguments that there is no beginning and end to the existence of matter/energy in the universe, it just is and always has been. Which is REALLY hard to wrap one's head around, especially given I'm just a well-informed layman, not a physicist.

Precisely. Far more daunting, to me, than the notion of a god. And (to matedog), yes, Dawkins is exceptional reading. Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson are very readable guys who do the cosmic thing. Avoid Hawking, tho. I'm semi-versed in the subject matter and still don't understand his books.

For a reasonably intelligent guy who seems pretty well read and secure in his "Canadian identity", Dr. M sure does love himself some shitty American TV made from 1975-1985.

I have a perversely near-encyclopedic knowledge of crappy sitcoms from that period. Of all the memories that the TLE isn't corrupting …

[Schnix]

Haven't read either Dawkins or Sagan (although they're well praised in the evolutionary field circle). I gotta say, first year Bio, was pretty convincing, without hurting any religious nut's feeling in the group.

[Dr. Medulla]

Haven't read either Dawkins or Sagan (although they're well praised in the evolutionary field circle). I gotta say, first year Bio, was pretty convincing, without hurting any religious nut's feeling in the group.

Check out raycomfortfood.blogspot.com. Ray Comfort is a snakeoil / denier of evolution / confused Christian. He's exceptional at misrepresenting atheism and evolutionary theory through quote mining and outright distortions. A hoot and a half for those not of the six finger, six toe crowd.

[Schnix]

That's one confusing blog! No wonder he can't get his concepts right.

[IkarisOne]

Haven't read either Dawkins or Sagan (although they're well praised in the evolutionary field circle). I gotta say, first year Bio, was pretty convincing, without hurting any religious nut's feeling in the group.

Check out raycomfortfood.blogspot.com. Ray Comfort is a snakeoil / denier of evolution / confused Christian. He's exceptional at misrepresenting atheism and evolutionary theory through quote mining and outright distortions. A hoot and a half for those not of the six finger, six toe crowd.

He's just preaching to the converted. Which is a lot harder than it sounds. Keeping people toeing the Corporate Christian line is a full time job. The liberal press is constantly feeding you paranoia about how these churches are growing exponentionally, but the fact is that they are shedding members and are a much smaller percentage of the American population than the Republican Party would like you to believe (about a quarter, many of those are not politically motivated or theologically militant in any way).

Growing up in a conservative church you'd see this all the time. Proselytes pretending to debate unbelievers but whose target audience is wavering believers.

[Wolter]

Growing up in a conservative church you'd see this all the time. Proselytes pretending to debate unbelievers but whose target audience is wavering believers.

Yeah, I can see that.

[Dr. Medulla]

Growing up in a conservative church you'd see this all the time. Proselytes pretending to debate unbelievers but whose target audience is wavering believers.

Yeah, I can see that.

Same thing with political pundits—they know that they won't win over the other side. They're goal in those "debates" is to keep their own team energized and angry and to win over the undecided or leaners.

[Jimmy Jazz]

I'm no subscriber to Christian Creationism, but I do wonder how/when things started.

You mean life as we know it didn't start with "Greetings from Asbury Park"?

Whoever this Schnix person is, I like him/her. But no, obviously The Castiles* was Genesis.

*Joke made for probably Jimmy Jazz only

Joke appreciated.