Jamie123

Members
  • Content Count

    1913
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Carborendum in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was a famous theoretical astronomer, sci-fi writer, and Yorkshireman. He is well known for the theory of nucleosynthesis and was a great believer in the "steady state" theory (that the universe always existed and is in a constant equilibrium state or expansion, new matter being constantly created out of nothing), panspermia (that life on Earth and other planets originated from outer space), and for coining the term "the Big Bang" - which he did to ridicule people like Stephen Hawking who were pushing the idea in opposition to Hoyle's own theories. He once had a very famous spat with Hawking at the Royal Society: after Hoyle had presented his latest theory, Hawking - then a young and exceptionally geeky grad student (his illness had not then deprived him of his voice), lurking at the back of the lecture room - pointed out that one of the summations Hoyle needed to converge actually didn't. Hoyle demanded to know how Hawking knew this, and Hawking replied that he had "worked it out". It transpired that Hawking had been looking at papers which Hoyle's own students had left lying around the office, worked out the calculations himself, and chose the most impolitic way possible to communicate what he discovered.
    It was quickly pointed out to Hawking that however right he was, humiliating Britain's greatest physicist in front of the assembled fellows of the Royal Society was unlikely to do him much good in the long run. I think we can well imagine what Hoyle was like on that occasion: he was the sort of Yorkshireman who would have given Ben Weatherstaff a run for his money. In fact, they say that his "Yorkshire manners" (what anyone outside Yorkshire would have called "rudeness") were what cost him the Nobel Prize.
    Sir Michael Palin (1943-) is a British Comedian and a central member of the Monty Python team. I've always loved his "Yorkshire" impersonations. Here's one example...
     
    “Eh, tha’ mun talk a bit o’ Yorkshire t' 'em then lad! Tha’ll make 'em laugh an’ there’s nowt so good for folk as laughin’ is!"
  2. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to Carborendum in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    Of course.  THAT Michael Palin.  Given the nature of the topic, my mind wasn't calling up Monty Python.
  3. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to Traveler in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    I feel that many religious thinkers refuse to see that there is a forest amidst all the trees.  We learn from scriptures that there is a Father in Heaven.  Anyone that believes that there is a G-d that created the universe and all things in it; must understand that G-d is the common ancestor of all life forms.  It is obvious from simple observation that G-d intends that life creates life.  I think the scripture term for this is the "breath of life".  We know that G-d uses life to create life.  Anyway if we believe in a G-d this should be obvious.  Even Christ had a mother - Mary was his ancestor.
    The Big Bang theory has a lot a problems - but until someone comes up with something better we are kind of stuck with it.  The notion that G-d created stuff via secret magic is the height  ignorance and contrary to a G-d of truth and light.   Or as Isaiah says - "reveals all things from the beginning to the end".  I am of the mind that when we do not understand things that are true it is not because G-d is hiding the truth as much as it is our personal difficulty in believing the truth.
     
    The Traveler
  4. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    Narratives can easily become more real to you than what you actually know...
     
  5. Thanks
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Carborendum in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was a famous theoretical astronomer, sci-fi writer, and Yorkshireman. He is well known for the theory of nucleosynthesis and was a great believer in the "steady state" theory (that the universe always existed and is in a constant equilibrium state or expansion, new matter being constantly created out of nothing), panspermia (that life on Earth and other planets originated from outer space), and for coining the term "the Big Bang" - which he did to ridicule people like Stephen Hawking who were pushing the idea in opposition to Hoyle's own theories. He once had a very famous spat with Hawking at the Royal Society: after Hoyle had presented his latest theory, Hawking - then a young and exceptionally geeky grad student (his illness had not then deprived him of his voice), lurking at the back of the lecture room - pointed out that one of the summations Hoyle needed to converge actually didn't. Hoyle demanded to know how Hawking knew this, and Hawking replied that he had "worked it out". It transpired that Hawking had been looking at papers which Hoyle's own students had left lying around the office, worked out the calculations himself, and chose the most impolitic way possible to communicate what he discovered.
    It was quickly pointed out to Hawking that however right he was, humiliating Britain's greatest physicist in front of the assembled fellows of the Royal Society was unlikely to do him much good in the long run. I think we can well imagine what Hoyle was like on that occasion: he was the sort of Yorkshireman who would have given Ben Weatherstaff a run for his money. In fact, they say that his "Yorkshire manners" (what anyone outside Yorkshire would have called "rudeness") were what cost him the Nobel Prize.
    Sir Michael Palin (1943-) is a British Comedian and a central member of the Monty Python team. I've always loved his "Yorkshire" impersonations. Here's one example...
     
    “Eh, tha’ mun talk a bit o’ Yorkshire t' 'em then lad! Tha’ll make 'em laugh an’ there’s nowt so good for folk as laughin’ is!"
  6. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from MrShorty in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    An idea has just struck me.
    They say one of the central ideas of evolution is "common ancestry" - that modern humans do not only share ancestors with modern apes, but also dogs, cats, horses, snails, oak trees, cacti, mushrooms, slime molds and bacteria. Which means that just one event - one random alignment of atoms billions of years ago - led to the diversity of life we now see.
    Now what has just occurred to me is that this only ever happened once in all the billions of years the Earth has existed, how unlikely must that event have been? It puts the sheer specialness of life into perspective. Perhaps with all the billions of stars in the universe, and the trillions of planets orbiting around them, it was bound to happen once - but it happened to happen here on our planet. What are the odds?
    (Well actually the odds are 100%, because if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. I believe they call that the "weak anthropic principle".)
    Or perhaps it happened more than once. Perhaps the evolutionists are wrong, and that different types of life did spring from multiple "proto-life" events during the Earth's early history. Or perhaps all current life did come from the same proto-life, but there were for a while rival "lives" to ours which eventually died out - our's was the one which (by natural selection) survived.
    Or maybe Fred Hoyle was right about "panspermia" - that the elements of life have been drifting around the universe since forever (Hoyle didn't believe in a beginning) and dropping "like gentle rain from heaven" upon any planets they happen to meet.
    Or maybe the event wasn't random. Maybe a proto-life is so unlikely that it could never reasonably occur at random however many planets there are, but that God travels around causing it to happen on planets here and there. Or maybe God only did it once, and it spread across the universe under its own steam, Hoyle-style.
    Something to think about during lockdown...
    P.S. I can do a good Fred Hoyle impression: "T' Big Bang theeuury is a looada o' ooold crap!"  (Well actually I can never decide if its Fred Hoyle, or Michael Palin pretending to be a Yorkshireman.) I've been reading The Secret Garden to my wife for a bedtime story for an excuse to use my "Yorkshireman" voice for all the Yorkshire characters - especially Ben Weatherstaff.
    P.P.S. My wife says I don't sound Yorkshire at all, but just like I'm "talking stupid". Oh well... 
    P.P.P.S. I knew there was a word for what I called "proto-life event": Abiogenesis. 
  7. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to JohnsonJones in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    Feeling or believing it is not necessarily correct.  It could be that what spawned life on this planet is actually quite common (from a science point of view) and what occurred, though we are unable to replicate it with our current amount of knowledge, occurs quite commonly on planets around the universe that have the same situation as our own once did. 
    From either point of view (creationism or more of a scientific hypothetical view) if life being created is actually far more common than what we've thought thus far, it may be that life is abundant in many areas of the universe.  We have found evidence that there may be life on other places, perhaps at other times from the few places we've gone already.  If we can find evidence that there MAY have been possible life in the past on Mars, and that's just one of two locations we've been able to scavenge (and not very deeply at that) for these types of evidence, it indicates that whatever creates life in the universe, or the causes behind it, may not be as rare as some might want others to believe.
  8. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to Carborendum in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    You're not the only one who has stated this.
    Yes and no.
    Yes, it does.  And this is a question that atheists will never be able to properly answer.  So, they just shrug it off on probability.  The problem is that the laws of probability say that it shouldn't have happened.  The ratio of the existing probabilities 5 billion years ago vs. the likelihood of the right combinations of amino acids forming proteins without any pre-existing proteins is more than astronomical.
    So, what they're left with is infinite universe theory (which scientifically speaking is not a theory).  And that is more faith than science.  Yet atheist scientists buy into it as if it is a reality.  
    Exactly.  People tend to reverse the cause-effect relationship, creating a conundrum where there wasn't one.
    According to William Dembski.  It is mathematically highly improbable (to the point it is pretty much impossible) even considering the immensity of the universe.
    Turtles all the way down.  Got it.
    Once probability says that randomness does not explain a phenomenon, then we are only left with one alternative -- non-randomness, IOW, intelligent design.
    No idea who these guys are.  But my family LOVES The Secret Garden.
  9. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in Laugh or cry? Shake your head or just bang it?   
    I bet a lot of people misread it as "decide".
  10. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from MrShorty in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    An idea has just struck me.
    They say one of the central ideas of evolution is "common ancestry" - that modern humans do not only share ancestors with modern apes, but also dogs, cats, horses, snails, oak trees, cacti, mushrooms, slime molds and bacteria. Which means that just one event - one random alignment of atoms billions of years ago - led to the diversity of life we now see.
    Now what has just occurred to me is that this only ever happened once in all the billions of years the Earth has existed, how unlikely must that event have been? It puts the sheer specialness of life into perspective. Perhaps with all the billions of stars in the universe, and the trillions of planets orbiting around them, it was bound to happen once - but it happened to happen here on our planet. What are the odds?
    (Well actually the odds are 100%, because if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. I believe they call that the "weak anthropic principle".)
    Or perhaps it happened more than once. Perhaps the evolutionists are wrong, and that different types of life did spring from multiple "proto-life" events during the Earth's early history. Or perhaps all current life did come from the same proto-life, but there were for a while rival "lives" to ours which eventually died out - our's was the one which (by natural selection) survived.
    Or maybe Fred Hoyle was right about "panspermia" - that the elements of life have been drifting around the universe since forever (Hoyle didn't believe in a beginning) and dropping "like gentle rain from heaven" upon any planets they happen to meet.
    Or maybe the event wasn't random. Maybe a proto-life is so unlikely that it could never reasonably occur at random however many planets there are, but that God travels around causing it to happen on planets here and there. Or maybe God only did it once, and it spread across the universe under its own steam, Hoyle-style.
    Something to think about during lockdown...
    P.S. I can do a good Fred Hoyle impression: "T' Big Bang theeuury is a looada o' ooold crap!"  (Well actually I can never decide if its Fred Hoyle, or Michael Palin pretending to be a Yorkshireman.) I've been reading The Secret Garden to my wife for a bedtime story for an excuse to use my "Yorkshireman" voice for all the Yorkshire characters - especially Ben Weatherstaff.
    P.P.S. My wife says I don't sound Yorkshire at all, but just like I'm "talking stupid". Oh well... 
    P.P.P.S. I knew there was a word for what I called "proto-life event": Abiogenesis. 
  11. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from MrShorty in Common Ancestry and Evolution   
    An idea has just struck me.
    They say one of the central ideas of evolution is "common ancestry" - that modern humans do not only share ancestors with modern apes, but also dogs, cats, horses, snails, oak trees, cacti, mushrooms, slime molds and bacteria. Which means that just one event - one random alignment of atoms billions of years ago - led to the diversity of life we now see.
    Now what has just occurred to me is that this only ever happened once in all the billions of years the Earth has existed, how unlikely must that event have been? It puts the sheer specialness of life into perspective. Perhaps with all the billions of stars in the universe, and the trillions of planets orbiting around them, it was bound to happen once - but it happened to happen here on our planet. What are the odds?
    (Well actually the odds are 100%, because if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. I believe they call that the "weak anthropic principle".)
    Or perhaps it happened more than once. Perhaps the evolutionists are wrong, and that different types of life did spring from multiple "proto-life" events during the Earth's early history. Or perhaps all current life did come from the same proto-life, but there were for a while rival "lives" to ours which eventually died out - our's was the one which (by natural selection) survived.
    Or maybe Fred Hoyle was right about "panspermia" - that the elements of life have been drifting around the universe since forever (Hoyle didn't believe in a beginning) and dropping "like gentle rain from heaven" upon any planets they happen to meet.
    Or maybe the event wasn't random. Maybe a proto-life is so unlikely that it could never reasonably occur at random however many planets there are, but that God travels around causing it to happen on planets here and there. Or maybe God only did it once, and it spread across the universe under its own steam, Hoyle-style.
    Something to think about during lockdown...
    P.S. I can do a good Fred Hoyle impression: "T' Big Bang theeuury is a looada o' ooold crap!"  (Well actually I can never decide if its Fred Hoyle, or Michael Palin pretending to be a Yorkshireman.) I've been reading The Secret Garden to my wife for a bedtime story for an excuse to use my "Yorkshireman" voice for all the Yorkshire characters - especially Ben Weatherstaff.
    P.P.S. My wife says I don't sound Yorkshire at all, but just like I'm "talking stupid". Oh well... 
    P.P.P.S. I knew there was a word for what I called "proto-life event": Abiogenesis. 
  12. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    Narratives can easily become more real to you than what you actually know...
     
  13. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    You misunderstand me. It's lack of courage that's the mistake. The mistake is to take the easy way out - to convince yourself that black is white, and then kid yourself that you're showing courage by joining the braying mob. As (I'm ashamed to admit) I have often done.
    I know you LDS are rather fond of a hymn by a certain Scotsman...
    If only it were easier to "stem" a "tide of lying tongues". But if more of us tried instead of adding our own tongues to the lying ones (for fear of meeting a "traitor's doom" of our own), the world would be a better place.
  14. Like
    Jamie123 reacted to Traveler in It matters who you are...   
    Back when the first movies (silent) came out there was a movie about a corrupt sheriff (of course taking advantage of a young good looking lady).  When the movie showed in one little town - it so reminded the town folk of their own sheriff that at the end of the movie, they went and lenched their sheriff.   The media is not always the innocent bystander - often it is the catalysts. 
     
    The Traveler
  15. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    You misunderstand me. It's lack of courage that's the mistake. The mistake is to take the easy way out - to convince yourself that black is white, and then kid yourself that you're showing courage by joining the braying mob. As (I'm ashamed to admit) I have often done.
    I know you LDS are rather fond of a hymn by a certain Scotsman...
    If only it were easier to "stem" a "tide of lying tongues". But if more of us tried instead of adding our own tongues to the lying ones (for fear of meeting a "traitor's doom" of our own), the world would be a better place.
  16. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    You misunderstand me. It's lack of courage that's the mistake. The mistake is to take the easy way out - to convince yourself that black is white, and then kid yourself that you're showing courage by joining the braying mob. As (I'm ashamed to admit) I have often done.
    I know you LDS are rather fond of a hymn by a certain Scotsman...
    If only it were easier to "stem" a "tide of lying tongues". But if more of us tried instead of adding our own tongues to the lying ones (for fear of meeting a "traitor's doom" of our own), the world would be a better place.
  17. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    On the matter of UK vs. US justice, it's worth noting the case of William McCaffrey: he was convicted of the rape and torture of Biurney Gonzales in New York in 2006 and sentenced to 20 years. The jury chose to put 100% trust in the word of an innocent-looking girl from the Dominican Republic, despite there being no other evidence, and the fact that the rape kit administered by the police had returned negative!
    Just like in the Day/Bryant case there was a grassroots campaign to prove McCaffrey's innocence. They turned up evidence that the bite marks on Gonzales were not only not those of McCaffrey, but they had not even come from a man (the DNA was female). The authorities were going through the usual bluster of denial when in 2009 - quite out of the blue - Gonzales (now married with kids) admitted that she had made the whole thing up. She confessed it first to her priest, but he (quite properly) refused her absolution until she had told the authorities. Even then the police tried to hold things together, claiming Gonzales' confession had been somehow "coerced", but the conviction really was beyond saving. McCaffrey was freed, and Gonzales got 3 years. (Only her marriage saved her from being deported from the US on release.)
    McCaffrey of course shouldn't have been convicted at all, any more than Bryant should, but there's no denying the US were a lot quicker than the UK to punish the real villain once she was identified.
    I must say though, I can't help admiring Biurney Gonzales. However belatedly she did do the right thing, despite enormous cost to herself and her family. 
  18. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Vort in It matters who you are...   
    On the matter of UK vs. US justice, it's worth noting the case of William McCaffrey: he was convicted of the rape and torture of Biurney Gonzales in New York in 2006 and sentenced to 20 years. The jury chose to put 100% trust in the word of an innocent-looking girl from the Dominican Republic, despite there being no other evidence, and the fact that the rape kit administered by the police had returned negative!
    Just like in the Day/Bryant case there was a grassroots campaign to prove McCaffrey's innocence. They turned up evidence that the bite marks on Gonzales were not only not those of McCaffrey, but they had not even come from a man (the DNA was female). The authorities were going through the usual bluster of denial when in 2009 - quite out of the blue - Gonzales (now married with kids) admitted that she had made the whole thing up. She confessed it first to her priest, but he (quite properly) refused her absolution until she had told the authorities. Even then the police tried to hold things together, claiming Gonzales' confession had been somehow "coerced", but the conviction really was beyond saving. McCaffrey was freed, and Gonzales got 3 years. (Only her marriage saved her from being deported from the US on release.)
    McCaffrey of course shouldn't have been convicted at all, any more than Bryant should, but there's no denying the US were a lot quicker than the UK to punish the real villain once she was identified.
    I must say though, I can't help admiring Biurney Gonzales. However belatedly she did do the right thing, despite enormous cost to herself and her family. 
  19. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Midwest LDS in It matters who you are...   
    It's an overstatement, but there's an element of truth to it. And it applies to societies in general, not just the Brits. Everyone wants to belong to the battalion of white knights, fighting the dragons and ogres on the other side. And when deciding who's the white knight and who's the dragon, its much less trouble to go with the crowd - otherwise they might decide YOU'RE one of the dragons! I've made that mistake myself many a time.
  20. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from Midwest LDS in It matters who you are...   
    It's an overstatement, but there's an element of truth to it. And it applies to societies in general, not just the Brits. Everyone wants to belong to the battalion of white knights, fighting the dragons and ogres on the other side. And when deciding who's the white knight and who's the dragon, its much less trouble to go with the crowd - otherwise they might decide YOU'RE one of the dragons! I've made that mistake myself many a time.
  21. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from JohnsonJones in It matters who you are...   
    It's important to remember what was going on in the UK at the time of the original case. In October 2011 Jimmy Savile died, and some people began to allege that he had abused them as children. At first they were brushed off, but there were eventually so many such reports that the authorities had to sit up and take notice. It transpired that there had been many complaints about Savile during his lifetime which had been hushed up. BIG EMBARRASSMENT!! There was soon a nationwide inquiry into the matter ("Operation Yewtree"), and senior police were appealing for victims of Savile (or anyone else) to come forward. They said they were sorry that victims had not been taken seriously, but NOW they WOULD BE BELIEVED!
    What more fertile ground for the likes of Carl Beech and Danny Day to plant their poisonous seeds? The nation was so disgusted with the Savile affair that anyone accused of anything similar wouldn't stand a chance. Police and prosecutors were too terrified not to bring charges. And it was the same with people in general: you should have seen the comments on the Bournmouth Echo website (mostly now deleted) reporting Bryant's conviction: a few brave posts daring to suggest that there was "no real proof" were heavily down-voted, shouted down with "If you think that, you must be a pedophile yourself!" (all heavily up-voted). I can only imagine the abuse the one dissenting juror in the Bryant/Day case must have received from the other eleven.
    In short, this all started with a genuine concern which needed to be addressed, but was not addressed in a sensible or proportionate manner. But if you think this is a peculiarly British problem which would "never happen in the "good ol' US of A", think back to the Red Scare of the 1950s. The threat of communism was real, for sure, but did it really warrant all the excesses of McCarthyism? 
  22. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from JohnsonJones in It matters who you are...   
    It's important to remember what was going on in the UK at the time of the original case. In October 2011 Jimmy Savile died, and some people began to allege that he had abused them as children. At first they were brushed off, but there were eventually so many such reports that the authorities had to sit up and take notice. It transpired that there had been many complaints about Savile during his lifetime which had been hushed up. BIG EMBARRASSMENT!! There was soon a nationwide inquiry into the matter ("Operation Yewtree"), and senior police were appealing for victims of Savile (or anyone else) to come forward. They said they were sorry that victims had not been taken seriously, but NOW they WOULD BE BELIEVED!
    What more fertile ground for the likes of Carl Beech and Danny Day to plant their poisonous seeds? The nation was so disgusted with the Savile affair that anyone accused of anything similar wouldn't stand a chance. Police and prosecutors were too terrified not to bring charges. And it was the same with people in general: you should have seen the comments on the Bournmouth Echo website (mostly now deleted) reporting Bryant's conviction: a few brave posts daring to suggest that there was "no real proof" were heavily down-voted, shouted down with "If you think that, you must be a pedophile yourself!" (all heavily up-voted). I can only imagine the abuse the one dissenting juror in the Bryant/Day case must have received from the other eleven.
    In short, this all started with a genuine concern which needed to be addressed, but was not addressed in a sensible or proportionate manner. But if you think this is a peculiarly British problem which would "never happen in the "good ol' US of A", think back to the Red Scare of the 1950s. The threat of communism was real, for sure, but did it really warrant all the excesses of McCarthyism? 
  23. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from JohnsonJones in It matters who you are...   
    It's important to remember what was going on in the UK at the time of the original case. In October 2011 Jimmy Savile died, and some people began to allege that he had abused them as children. At first they were brushed off, but there were eventually so many such reports that the authorities had to sit up and take notice. It transpired that there had been many complaints about Savile during his lifetime which had been hushed up. BIG EMBARRASSMENT!! There was soon a nationwide inquiry into the matter ("Operation Yewtree"), and senior police were appealing for victims of Savile (or anyone else) to come forward. They said they were sorry that victims had not been taken seriously, but NOW they WOULD BE BELIEVED!
    What more fertile ground for the likes of Carl Beech and Danny Day to plant their poisonous seeds? The nation was so disgusted with the Savile affair that anyone accused of anything similar wouldn't stand a chance. Police and prosecutors were too terrified not to bring charges. And it was the same with people in general: you should have seen the comments on the Bournmouth Echo website (mostly now deleted) reporting Bryant's conviction: a few brave posts daring to suggest that there was "no real proof" were heavily down-voted, shouted down with "If you think that, you must be a pedophile yourself!" (all heavily up-voted). I can only imagine the abuse the one dissenting juror in the Bryant/Day case must have received from the other eleven.
    In short, this all started with a genuine concern which needed to be addressed, but was not addressed in a sensible or proportionate manner. But if you think this is a peculiarly British problem which would "never happen in the "good ol' US of A", think back to the Red Scare of the 1950s. The threat of communism was real, for sure, but did it really warrant all the excesses of McCarthyism? 
  24. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from mordorbund in The Excuse of all Tyrants   
    A policeman's lot is not a happy one (happy one)
     
  25. Like
    Jamie123 got a reaction from mordorbund in The Excuse of all Tyrants   
    A policeman's lot is not a happy one (happy one)