Announcement about RDF Part 3.

[Ilovelucy]

You know what annoys me about RD.net? On rare occasions when an actual science finding or article is posted, the majority of comments always follow the same theme "Wonder what the creationists would make of this!" What a bunch of boring, small minded, monomaniacal cunts.

Wonder what the creationists would make of this!

Ha ha! I was just wide open for that one.

[lordpasternack]

You know what annoys me about RD.net? On rare occasions when an actual science finding or article is posted, the majority of comments always follow the same theme "Wonder what the creationists would make of this!" What a bunch of boring, small minded, monomaniacal cunts.

Wonder what the creationists would make of this!

Ha ha! I was just wide open for that one.

That's what SHE said!

[surreptitious57]

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, as long as they can base that disagreement upon evidence, something I was always careful to provide when delivering my own opinions

Absolutely - it appears so obvious that it shouldn't even have to be mentioned, but alas it does. I try to do the same and I guess most of us here. But we are only human and occasionally let our guard down. But I would push the envelope even further: I want to be wrong and not just slightly but spectacularly. Why ? Two reasons: nobody is infallible, we all make mistakes and need to realise that and I much prefer humility to arrogance. It takes some balls to admit to the whole world that you made an almighty cock up. But you will feel much better for it afterwards and have the respect of your peers. If I am wrong I will admit it and I don't feel less of a man for doing so. I was amazingly so on the issue of the death penalty - I used to believe in it but no longer do. I have also had someone change my mind on a particular topic - Europe - over at the other place - and I feel no regret in that. I am only of average intelligence anyway and am surrounded by highly rational individuals and I want to learn from them. I hope to do so for the rest of my natural life.

[lordpasternack]

You know what annoys me about RD.net? On rare occasions when an actual science finding or article is posted, the majority of comments always follow the same theme "Wonder what the creationists would make of this!" What a bunch of boring, small minded, monomaniacal cunts.

Hey, Ilovelucy - here's a really cool article posted on RDF about a return to the Miller-Urey experiment. This was an experiment whereby scientists demonstrated that with some relatively simple starting molecules, thought to be in earth's early atmosphere, like nitrogen dioxide, methane, ammonium, and the likes - put through experiments to mimic the conditions of early earth and heated to mimic what might go on in the likes of a volcanic vent - you can quite easily produce nucelotide bases, some simple sugars, and some amino acids - representatives of three of the four crucial building blocks of life: nucleic acids, amino acids and carbohydrates. (The fourth group of building blocks, lipids, have also been produced from oxalic acid, in similar experiments)

This was one particular experiment that helped put to death the idea that there was some unique 'vital force' contained within living organisms that couldn't ultimately be explicable in terms of ordinary physics and chemistry. It goes some way to demonstrating not only that we are made of the same molecules and laws of physics as everything else, but that precursors of the main molecules that make us are not somehow chemically special, and are relatively simple to synthesise under conditions mimicking those of the early earth - and as such there's a credible route of the complexity of life, and modern molecular biology, emerging from simplicity - even if the story is not yet completely fleshed out, and all the intermediate steps between non-living and 'living' chemistry, not yet filled in. It was a truly remarkable experiment, and a great credit to the intelligence and insight of the men who did it.

Anyway, here's the article on it on RD.net - and be sure to read the very few comments! http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/6 ... -revisited

You'll also notice that it's one of the very few science-related articles on the site. There's about as much science there as there is meat content in a Tesco Value sausage roll. They say they're for reason and science, but my critical thinking skills and evidence-based understanding of their site make me take that with a pinch of salt. I don't know - maybe they're just non-practising, but still feel a nominal affiliation?

[charlou]

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, as long as they can base that disagreement upon evidence, something I was always careful to provide when delivering my own opinions

Absolutely - it appears so obvious that it shouldn't even have to be mentioned, but alas it does. I try to do the same and I guess most of us here. But we are only human and occasionally let our guard down. But I would push the envelope even further: I want to be wrong and not just slightly but spectacularly. Why ? Two reasons: nobody is infallible, we all make mistakes and need to realise that and I much prefer humility to arrogance. It takes some balls to admit to the whole world that you made an almighty cock up. But you will feel much better for it afterwards and have the respect of your peers. If I am wrong I will admit it and I don't feel less of a man for doing so. I was amazingly so on the issue of the death penalty - I used to believe in it but no longer do. I have also had someone change my mind on a particular topic - Europe - over at the other place - and I feel no regret in that. I am only of average intelligence anyway and am surrounded by highly rational individuals and I want to learn from them. I hope to do so for the rest of my natural life.

Missed this before. Good thoughts.