Feeds:
Articles
Commentaires

Jerry Bergman on Lifecode

Après Jean Staune présentant Vincent Fleury, voici Jerry Bergman soutenant StuartPivar et Lifecode.

Trouvé chez Denyse bien entendu qui s’est précipitée pour l’annoncer chez les IDiots.

Encore une fois où un couillon utilise le mot « théorie »à tort et à travers.

Conversely, Pivar proposes a radically new theory, of which parts may well have merit. Only time will tell. What he needs is empirical and experimental evidence.

Tiens, lui non plus n’a pas d’évidence expérimentale, c’est une épidémie 😀

Related : PZ Myers

creationists

This is from Larry Moran :

Some people, even evolutionists, think that the only creationists are those who believe in the literal truth of Genesis. They maintain that it is wrong to refer to intelligent design proponents as creationists. Obviously, I disagree and I’m not alone. In fact, I’d go one step farther than the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, I’d say that Theistic Evolutionists are also creationists because they believe in a creator.

and is exacly what I was discussing a month ago about the silly definition of creationists (FAQ6qnto) proposed by Vincent Fleury.

pour Jean ?

En voyant cette pub pour la Holikey, me posant des question si c’est une clé holistique parce que HollyKey m’aurait paru plus convenable pour une clé chrétienne (mais Jean est assez holistique anyway) je me suis dit que ce n’était peut-être pas une très bonne idée de cadeau.

Héh oui ! Jean est en plein Islam, il est possible qu’il prépare sa conversion pour des raisons marketing. Ca ne serait pas la première, n’est-ce pas ?

Dans mon e-mail :

Dear Bright

Brights Central is responding to a request by Atheist Alliance International President Margaret Downey (an Enthusiastic Bright) that we notify Brights of a one-time opportunity.

On September 29th at the AAI’s convention for atheists at Washington, DC, Enthusiastic Bright Daniel Dennett will be receiving the « 2007 Richard Dawkins Award » from Dawkins himself.

The convention (September 27-30) is sold out. However, speeches by Professors Dennett and Dawkins (also an Enthusiastic Bright) will be available on the Internet as live streaming video, and so will presentations by other notable atheists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Julia Sweeney.

The deadline to sign up at http://www.onsitestreaming.com and pay for streaming video is Sept. 19, 2007.

Details regarding this opportunity and a link to information on the AAI convention program are at: http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/aaicon2007_video.php

DVDs of the events will also be available after the conference.

Note: There are charges for live streaming video and DVDs. (The Brights’ Net derives no income from this announcement.)

Bright Regards

Paul Geisert & Mynga Futrell, Co-directors

The Brights’ Net – Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview

In which ERV eats SALs soul

Quand je disais que de temps en temps il faut leur filer un lavement pour assainir l’atmosphère c’est de ce genre là que je parlais.

In which ERV eats SALs soul: « Oh dear. If you thought I was mean to Sal before, dont read this. On second thought, read this, and then tell me whether you still think I was too mean to Sal before. »

(Via ERV.)

Allez lire le reste, c’est un exemple à suivre.

Respects and love lady 😉

stupid of the day

Granville Sewell of UD

Let me rephrase that one :

In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: “If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?” (Of course, I believe we have found thousands of such features, but never mind that.)

If the answer is yes, we just haven’t found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that “ID is not science” immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.

As you point out, you believe that irreducible complex biological features exist. And that you found thousands of them.

That’s a comforting a priori for you maybe, but it remains an hypothesis. You should start proving that IC bio features exist, then start the discussion. For the moment, your thousands of them is just a measure of your ignorance of biology.

If people believing in ghosts can find one, and propose it to tests, that doesn’t make their actual quest a scientific approach, a science. It remains as much spiritual as Intelligent Design, isn’t it ?

Why one would accept your quest as scientific and not theirs ? Or do you ? There is no the slightest part of scientific approach in ID.

And a last question for the day’s idiot. Do you believe (also) sophisms could replace scientific inquiry ? I don’t think so.

feathers and claws

Ah, j’ai dit déjà que quand Jean Staune s’accroche à une idée elle est probablement fausse. Je sens que c’est le cas de son nouveau chouchou, Vincent Fleury, mais là je viens de tomber sur des images qui m’ont pas mal amusé en pensant à Jean.

Qui s’est posé beaucoup de questions quant au développement du vol chez les oiseaux, descendants des théropodes.

Je en connaissais pas Sinornithosaurus. Nous venons de faire connaissance et j’avoue que je suis impressionné par la qualité des fossiles disponibles et la facilité avec laquelle on trouve des images sur le Net. Autrement dit, aurait dû voir ses images en préparant son bouquin. hé oui, 20 ans d’enquête scientifique 🙂 Je note ici pour l’instant les adresses où l’on trouve une belle image avec les griffes et les plumes des membres antérieurs (en détail), ou une belle photo d’un fossile entier. Ah, celle-là aussi il l’a ratée.

Sans laisser de côté les Microraptors quand même !