Refined by Fire - Latest Comments in General

Re: Gregarious and I Caught on Tape at the 5th Ave. Apple Store by GirlsGoneGeek.tv

chrispalle — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:05:15 -0000

i'm just laughing that I used "tape" referencing the video in the title. Genuinely aged myself with that one. lol.

Re: Gregarious and I Caught on Tape at the 5th Ave. Apple Store by GirlsGoneGeek.tv

Stansbury — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:45:22 -0000

Quite possibly the best sound work in the history of citizen journalism.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

ilikeportello — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:31:39 -0000

What's so difficult to accept about random chance? Don't make the mistake of confusing "random" with "unlikely". They're very different things. Life did start by chance, but my point is that it's just not as unlikely as you seem to think.

And yes, it is amazing what can be deduced from jawbones and teeth, isn't it? Palaeontology is an amazing field. Jawbone and teeth tell us about the diet of a particular species, as well as the shape of the skull and hence the size of the brain. The cranial fossils from Nakalipithecus to modern human show a very clear, gradual change.

And on your final point, yes you're right. We weren't there at the beginning of the universe so we don't know exactly what happened. The difference between you and me is that I don't claim to know what happened. You do.

My starting point is only that the universe began . . . somehow. Any other conclusions are based on observations (e.g. background cosmic radiation, the expansion rate of the universe, subatomic particles observed in accelerators).

Of course, there are a lot of gaps in that knowledge and a lot of work to do. Filling in those gaps with the statement "God did it" may be comforting, but from a scientific investigation point of view, it's not particularly useful.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Andy — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:31:16 -0000

Matt, my assumption wasn't that we're here, but that we're here by random chance. Yes, random chance. Evolution cannot disguise it w/the common phrase, "It was due to the right conditions for life being present". That's chance. And can't compare it to the lottery, b/c the lottery has a designer. Well, you can compare, but I think it wouldn't help the evolutionist's cause.

I read up on Nakalipithecus. Its surprising how much is deduced from a jawbone and 11 teeth. This is what constantly confuses me about the fossil "proof". First, the somewhat circular logic to determine fossil ages. Second, on only finding a jawbone and 11 teeth, how anyone arrives at the conclusion that its an ancestor of humans. Can you explain?

Oh, and I didn't say life started at the beginning of the universe, but just at that one time, whenever it was. Remember, when you're talking about beginnings, whether universe, or life, its no longer "science" in the sense of observable, testable, that good stuff. Its simply looking at evidence and interpreting based on bias. The evolutionist says, there is no God, then interprets evidence. The creationist says, God created, then interprets evidence. Evidence does not "prove" anything, it just IS.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

ilikeportello — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:12:13 -0000

Hi Andy. Wow, a few things in there. I'll answer them in order.

". . . what is this common ancestor that we share w/the gorilla?"

There are lots of fossils showing the lineage from prehistoric great apes to humans and from prehistoric great apes to modern primates. Precisely where the split between humans and the modern pimates occurred is subject to debate, but the latest theory is that Nakalipithecus is about the closest we have. There's a nice summary of all this on Wikipedia. (If you don't trust Wikipedia, it links to a bunch of references that might be worth reading.)

The short answer is, the fossil evidence is abundant if you care to look at it.

"Its be shown by science that life does not start on its own. Its not "unlikely", its just plain NOT."

That's not actually true. Until a few hundred years ago it was believed that life often started spontaneously (eg maggots growing in meat, mice growing in haystacks) but these particular examples have obviously been shown to be false. But that's not the same as showing that life doesn't start on its own.

"Why do we know it happened that one time? Because we're here! But, is that science? No, that's assumption."

It's not assumption that we're here. We are definitely here. That's how we're having this conversation. :-)

". . . the evolutionist assumes life started only that one time due to chance."

A couple of things wrong with that sentence. Life did not start when the Universe started. Life came along quite a few billions of years later.

And the evolutionist does not think it was due to chance. That's a common misconception. It was due to the right conditions for life being present.

It's not actually unlikely that that's going to happen somewhere in a huge universe. It's like the lottery. It may be unlikely for you or I personally to win, but if millions of people enter, then it's actually pretty likely that someone will win.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Andy — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:00:10 -0000

Matt, what is this common ancestor that we share w/the gorilla? What is it called, and what does it looked like? Where are the fossils for it? I assume there must be alot of them, I just haven't seen or heard of them.

And when I said life starting on its own is unlikely, I'm talking about spontaneous generation. Its be shown by science that life does not start on its own. Its not "unlikely", its just plain NOT. Again, except for that one time that the universe started. Why do we know it happened that one time? Because we're here! But, is that science? No, that's assumption. And is that proven? No, not even close. I'm pretty sure it wasn't observed. The creationist assumes life started only that one time due to God, the evolutionist assumes life started only that one time due to chance. That's when you get into multiple universes, b/c the chance is so small as to be impossible. But, if we say there are billions of universes, and this is the one that had the correct makeup to start life, then we're safe. Wow, talk about jumping through hoops.

I think Chris I would say a belief in evolution and a belief in the Bible as the Word of God are not compatible. Anyone can believe in a God that they define which could be compatible w/evolution. However, if you believe the bible is the Word of God, you must either believe Genesis was made up (an inconsistent view) or that evolution is not true.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

ilikeportello — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:17:54 -0000

Chris, I'm really interested in your view that belief in Evolution necessarily leads to disbelief in God.

I know many devout Christians (my father, for example, who is a Christian pastor) that have no problem at all believing in Evolution. They simply believe that Evolution is the mechanism by which God chose to develop life on Earth.

What's your view on that?

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:32:55 -0000

@Andy - Forgive me, you're right. I am confusing the line between the natural and supernatural, but that is because one cannot remove the natural from the supernatural.

@matt - A brief, cursory look at your own site tells us that your position in theology is Atheism. Obviously, evolution supports your dogma. So, it's no wonder you would support it. As a matter of fact, a belief in the Theory of Evolution will, undoubtedly, lead to the disbelief in God. The two are NOT compatible.

So, Matt, what you're saying is that a "quite a lot" of fossil evidence shows speciation from one common ancestor? Interesting, because DNA research says the same thing and so does my Bible. ;-)

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:01:24 -0000

@matt - for the record, nothing in science is unquestionable.

On my analogy of art classes. You would be saying that Intelligent Design has no business in a class solely dedicated the Theory of Evolution, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about general, natural science.

Regarding your statement:
"In the same way, the theory of Intelligent Design, in its postulation of a Designer, immediately puts itself outside the realms of science."

Ummm, How? You're saying that if there is pre-defined order and intention, then it is immediately unscientific?

Actually, Isaac Newton was driven to be as scientifically minded as he was because of his belief in God. It was his belief that there is order to the Universe that drove him to discover some of the most fundamental formulas in the study of physics. Which, by the way, is perhaps the most successful area of science.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:13 -0000

It's not the first time it's been opposed, but I think we need to stop worrying about what others will think about our God when compared to other gods. Go ahead, stack the knowledge texts up and see how they compare.
The thing is, as we're discussing below, perhaps these discussions of supernatural shouldn't be juxtaposed to the natural. I would submit that a position to exclude the natural from the supernatural is impossible, though.

I'm not suggesting that taxpayers pay to teach one faith over another, but rather we somehow show the differences. Perhaps throughout a semester, there are different teachers brought in on a day-to-day basis (not publicly funded) for the pure reason to teach one over another. Evangelize for their own case and allow whatever supernatural process to unfold.

That would be a question that I would propose. Would the public be okay with submitting their children to a mandated class that that explained life, how it came to be, and how it continues from a purely "supernatural faith" standpoint? To the complete exclusion of Neo-Darwinism. For the entire semester all teachers of all faiths would be funded from outside of taxpayer dollars; that is, solely on voluntarily basis or private funding. Funding orgs would have to disclose their names and admins.

I don't know, just some thoughts...

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

ilikeportello — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:17:06 -0000

You're right, Andy, there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. But this is because science and religion are two separate fields.
It's like saying piano-players and chess players don't understand each other well enough. Well, do they need to?

There's no real conflict between religion and science except for some manufactured controversy made up by people with a vested interest.
Religion deals with belief and faith and a personal relationship with God. Science deals with what can be objectively observed and measured.
They're just two completely different and separate fields.

A scientist can believe in God (many do) and a Christian can believe in evolution (many do). Belief in evolution certainly does not equate to disbelief in God.

And a couple of minor points Andy, evolutionists don't claim that humans evolved from gorillas. The claim, supported by fossil evidence, is that humans and gorillas both evolved from a common ancestor, which is now extinct.
There's actually quite a lot of evidence for speciation of this type in the fossil record.

On the likelihood of life beginning on its own, nobody knows how likely or unlikely it is. It's certainly not "well-known" that it's unlikely. The universe could be teeming with life for all we know. We only have our planet as an example, which is one out of many billions.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Andy — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:41:02 -0000

I feel like there is ignorance on both sides of this debate, as bobxxxxx has shown us. Sure, many christians don't really know what evolution is, however, neither do many "evolutionists". And the word evolution itself is the major problem (similar to global warming). The trick for the evolutionist is to talk about how we know organisms change, we see the results of speciation. Well, since species change, we'll just assume that happens on higher levels. Though its certainly never been seen, and though there is no fossil evidence, the fact of a gorilla becoming a human is assumed to be true. So what the dogmatic evolutionist does is use evolution to describe the seen change in species to also describe the unseen and completely assumed change b/w different kinds. Then, they are able to say evolution is true and a fact.

BTW, it is also well known in science that the chance of everything happening just right for life to start on its own (which of course science has shown to be false, life doesn't start on its own, but of course, except for that one time), is such a small chance that its now common to believe there are multiple universes and this is just the one where life happened. Wow. So instead of recognizing the chances are small b/c it didn't happen that way, they instead come up w/another crazy idea, all to ignore the supernatural. Do you see the problem with science? Yes, it deals with natrual, therefore cannot deal with any God. However, the assumption that there is no supernatural is itself not scientific in any way whatsoever, it is purely an assumption. And if that assumption is wrong, science itself is based on error.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

ilikeportello — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:18:01 -0000

The fossil evidence for evolution doesn't rely on carbon dating. The order of fossils through rock strata (oldest lower down, newer ones near the top) clearly shows the evolution of species.

The absolute age of strata may be open to debate, but the relative change over time is unquestionable.

The most important thing to note is that there have been no anomalous discoveries. No-one has ever found a human (or similar mammalian) fossil alongside a T-Rex !

There are gaps in the fossil record, of course. As you point out, fossils arise only when creatures die. I'd go further and say that fossils only arise when creatures die in the right place and under the right conditions . . . a pleasant preservative mud, for example. But these gaps are being filled in all the time as palaeontologists continue to dig and continue to refine their techniques.

Now to the issue of religion in the science class. I'm afraid I'll have to accuse you of using a false analogy.

It's not a question of kicking ruler-users out of an art class. It would be a case of kicking ruler-users out of a class specifically for "impressionist art". Rulers then wouldn't be appropriate.

In the same way, the theory of Intelligent Design, in its postulation of a Designer, immediately puts itself outside the realms of science.

The postulation that there is a Designer can only lead to the question "what is the nature of the designer?". And while that's an interesting question, it's a theological question, not a scientific one.

You make the point that evidence for a Designer exists in the lives of believers. I'll leave aside the fact that you've leapt from a nameless Designer to the Christian God, and just say that any such evidence is subjective.

Religion is a personal thing and every believer has a different, personal and highly subjective experience of God. Science does not concern itself with such subjectivities.

Science is only concerned with things that can be objectively studied, measured and understood.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

djByron — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:43:05 -0000

Very good post Chris... I agree wholeheartedly. Even if you were to remove God from the equation (which has already been done for us) one still has an effective argument for allowing a second "faith based" belief. The "separation of church and state" which was originally intended as a protection for people against a state forced religion has been completely taken out of context by activist judges (as usual).

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:16:59 -0000

Hey Matt, Thanks for the thoughtful, rational response. You're mistaken, though. The fossil record does NOT show that lifeforms evolve over time as fact. It shows that at some point, a lot of animals died. It is a fact that said animals' remains still exist, but the fact of its existence does not prove sequential changes over extended time, aka The Theory of Evolution.

Here are some more deductive thoughts on the matter: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/c...

(The method by which evolutionists measure the age of the fossil record, carbon dating, also breaks down under examination.)

As far as theological discussions not allowed in science class is almost the equivalent of saying that there should be no rulers or exacto knives in art class. Some artists such as expressionists may say that capturing a moment as swift strokes of emotional experience is pure art, but they cannot argue that using tools for measurement and precision to create beautiful craft has no artistic expression.

What you're saying reminds me of a class I took in college (secular, Rochester Institute of Technology) called The Philosophy of Science. Awesome class. At the time, I didn't have much care for the things of God. I was Christian, but not following Christ. Anyway it was there the debate of Religion vs. Science completely fell apart for me.

See, even in scientific research, you start with a supposition; that is, an unsupported belief, also known as a hypothesis. Then through objective observation and measurements you find either support or no support of your hypothesis.

Can this be applied to a belief in God? I believe that God's existence can be seen in the lives of men and women who believe in Him. (Likewise, the disbelief in God can seen in those who don't believe) See, I would suppose that if you take someone who lives like hell with no belief in God and then they believe in God, their life will change. They will stop living like hell out of reverence for the things of God. I've observed it happening in myself and I've observed it happen in countless numbers of other people as well. This can be seen repeated over and over. If it were not for the existence of God, those lives would have never been changed.

You can't see the wind, but you can see the effects of the wind. Yet, we know the wind is there. Think about it. ;-)

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

ilikeportello — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:34:52 -0000

There are actually two sides to evolution, and they shouldn't be confused with each other.

The first is a fact. The fact is that creatures and lifeforms evolve over time. We observe this in the fossil record. It can't be rationally denied.

The other side is the theory. The theory only concerns how creatures and lifeforms evolve. Natural Selection is such a theory.

The problem with ID, and the sorts of arguments made here, is that it tends to confuse which part is fact and which part is theory.

ID seeks to replace the theory of Natural Selection with the explanation that God guides the evolution of life. There is nothing wrong with this as a theological argument.

But the point is that it is not a scientific argument and therefore should not be taught in science classes.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support it as a scientific thesis. There is, however, mountains of evidence to support Natural Selection as an explanation for the evolution we observe.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

chrispalle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:12:35 -0000

@cd good thought, Science has found there are many species that adapt and modify even at the DNA level for the survival of the species through tough times. (droughts, floods, etc.)

@bobxxxx Thank you for proving my point. At first I laughed that someone would have such an emotional reaction to this post. Actually, I was just going to delete your comments because at first it looked like you were just looking to get a rise with nothing important to add, but actually your comments add tremendous value to my point. You're obviously an intelligent person and I appreciate the time you took out to remark, but your crassness shows that your "studies" in science have done nothing for your manners.

However, I did want to point out something for you. The definition you cited for "theory" does nothing for your case. Just because it's widely accepted (typically by people who want to believe it for their own selfish reasons) doesn't make it absolute truth. And if you're saying that theory is the highest understanding for science, you're only saying that suppositions (uncertain beliefs) are as good as science is going to get.

Truth is, science itself is not bad and it is not mutually exclusive to spirituality. The Scientific Method has given us an amazing framework upon which to build experiments that help us better understand the world around us. I have no beef with science. This post was about the Theory of Evolution contributing to the devolution of society and people. Which, through scientific deduction, your tone and demeanor has successfully proved a correlation. ;-)

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

bobxxxx — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:12:12 -0000

In science a theory is the highest level of understanding. You used the wrong definition. Here's a correct definition of a scientific theory:

theory: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. Evolution has been tested for 150 years and it has passed every test. The newer evidence from molecular biology is so powerful, it has become completely impossible for an educated person to deny all life is related.

You're a typical creationist. You repeat the same lies that have been refuted again and again. Liars for Jesus never stop lying and they will never study science.

Why do creationists refuse to educate themselves? Is it because they're lazy or is it because they are afraid? Perhaps they're just too bloody stupid to understand science.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

bobxxxx — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:01:27 -0000

"The Theory of Evolution is Another Faith-based Belief"

Why don't you study the evidence for it, Mr. Uneducated Hick.

The reason Intelligent Design Creationism is not taught in science classes is because it's a childish idiotic belief in magic. The designer is a magic man, also known as God. Mr. God is a religious idea. Religious ideas are not scientific. Do you understand, moron?

The science of biological evolution is one of the strongest proven facts of science.

Instead of making a fool out of yourself, and instead of disgracing your religion, why don't you study science instead of lying about it. If you're too lazy to study science, you should at least have the decency to keep your breathtaking stupidity out of our schools.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

cdharrison — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:12:10 -0000

You're right, both ideas require faith. The problem with Intelligent Design vs. Evolution is that no one wants to be wrong.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but couldn't it be possible that evolution is one of God's plans? Isn't it possible that God made all living things and embedded in them the ability to adapt themselves to their environments, if needed? Or does that idea suggest that by nature correcting itself, proves God wrong?

Anyways, having this choice to consider creates another problem: if these ideas are to be taught in school, what else will have to be considered? For instance, should school children be taught what Scientologists believe? Where does one draw the line?

Re: New “Everything” Skit on God Tube

chrispalle — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:06:20 -0000

It really is. Some people get irritated when Christian try to do the Me-Too thing with the world, but i think these guys do a good job of developing community.

Re: New “Everything” Skit on God Tube

Trent — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:14:23 -0000

GOD Tube, that's great - thanks!

Re: TwerpScan - Good Name; Good Way to Zap Them

sedgewick — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:40:26 -0000

Chris,

I made the analogy to a client today, that my twitter experience was like cultivating a ballroom of people(or voices) and wandering through the constant stream of chatter to become informed, to hear new ideas, to mingle, and to meet random folks.

It has been a means to find pace with the evolution of tech. Mainly online social medias. Finding media, good media, interesting content, blogs, ideas, and web-services/apps - was not something I 'knew' how to do. But by cultivating my ballroom (via Twitt and now FF), I have meshed into a network of brilliant people actively participating in shaping and strengthening a human web of innovators and critics. It's really valuable.

To maximize that for me, though - it has been about diversity - following a large sample size of folks in order to interface intimately with a greater field of the unknown (when I first logged on to twitter a couple months back.. I had NO idea who anyone was outside of Scoble).

I basically threw a bunch of seeds into the backyard with a bucket, threw some dirt around and watered faithfully. From that sprung some amazing stuff: connections, ideas, and inspiration.

Specifically I have been interested in following people from my geographic region(NYC). This has been great.. it has allowed me to gain a sense of the localized 'tech' culture: events, ideas, trends, venues. I've learned a lot, met great people, and tapped into a vein of folks I don't think I could really have gained the connection with otherwise.

Shooting from the hip worked for me. I now am learning the skill of balancing one foot in twitter while one in friendfeed.

Re: TwerpScan - Good Name; Good Way to Zap Them

chrispalle — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:47:24 -0000

Hey Sedgewick, You bring up some really good points. In fact, I would love to hear more about your experiences with this approach. Especially because I've met you personally and know you're not a "twit-bot."

I don't think you're dragging the system down. You may really be getting a personal value out of this and no, there's nothing wrong with that. Especially if you're giving back to the community. And I know you are from our discussions at d.b.a.

And actually, to your point, I don't always care who follows me, but there are some who are nefarious in their intentions and it is these folks who bother me.

Can you please share some of your personal experience with using Twitter in the way you have?

Re: Carcinogenic People

chrispalle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:45:09 -0000

We all have been there. A yielded spirit acknowledges this, though. And therein lies, the difference. You acknowledge it, so you're mindful of it's consequences.

We can be tricked into thinking that we're insignificant. Fact is, we're not. We impact others around us all the time, both for good and bad.

Both believers and non-believers acknowledge this, though. I guess the question is to whom do we attribute credit with the driving force?