« first day (18 days earlier)      last day (103 days later) » 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

Ami
Ami
00:53
@Vitaly I have to disagree with you on that one
There are important and fundamental differences between the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, and I haven't seen one answer that address those differences.
Obviously Konrad makes a lot of good and interesting points...I just think there are some important issues he isn't addressing
I sort of miss the point entirely.
Ami
Ami
what do you mean?
Thats the shirt that Evan Carroll links in his question as an example of the claim: "the theory of evolution is on par with the theory of gravity"
The shirt reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense
The fact that people and things fall is not and has almost nothing to do with the theory of gravity
The theory of gravity is a mathematical description of the way in which things fall
Well, I'm sure there are equations for describing biological reactions.
But is there a reason to even expect simplified equations?
With physics, that's certainly what it is.
Ami
Ami
slow down a second
we'll get to that
As people who take evolution seriously, it would be disastrous for us if the theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity
Newton's theory of gravity held for 200 years, everyone believed in it, no one could imagine it was wrong...
but now we know that it is wrong
go figure
we think evolution is very different from the theory of gravity
because we think that the mechanism we are using to describe biological complexity won't be overturned by a new description some time in the future
Now, regarding the issue @Josiah raised...the issue of equations
Again, there is a fundamental difference between the physical and biological sciences in this regard.
01:12
The whole idea is flawed, I don't see why you'd bother thinking about it after that point.
If you can't get them to agree that they're being silly, you laugh and walk away.
Ami
Ami
lol
you're maybe right
I think this is a really important issue...I have no opinion about whether Evan's question is on or off topic, but I think its a really important question about the nature of science and should be taken very seriously
I don't see what's intrinsically different than physics, mind you, regarding the fact that the science is proven wrong and fixed.
It happens in biology as much if not more than other sciences.
Ami
Ami
Here's the thing....all the great physical theories of history: Newton's gravity, Maxwell's equations, Einstein's relativity, DeBroglie's equation and many others have one thing in common
each one of these theories made a prediction about the world that was absolutely crazy. A prediction so absurd, that at the time no one believed that such a theory could even be true. And in each case, that prediction was later confirmed by experiment
I didn't know Maxwell elicited that kind of reaction.
Ami
Ami
Maxwell's equations predicted the existence of electromagnetic radiation outside of the visible spectrum
No one believed
if it was only confirmed after he formulated his four equations
01:19
ah
Ami
Ami
Einstein's Relativity predicted that light would be bent around the sun and this was observed during a solar eclipse
*his four painful equations
FTFY
Ami
Ami
DeBroglie predicted that particles can exhibit wave like properties
BeBroglie was almost refused his Phd because of that prediction
The list goes on and on
I'm still missing why that's dangerously different.
Ami
Ami
Evolution, like all the biological theories that I am aware are purely descriptive
Firstly...we know evolution is true because we can watch it happen in a lab
bacteria mutates and evolves...there is no question about it
01:22
Ah.
Ami
Ami
We also believe in biological diversity and biological complexity
We need a way to explain how this complexity and diversity emerged, so we take evolution...its a great theory...but its descriptive. Its being used to explain something we know to be true.
This is very different than physical theories that are confirmed by predicting something completely new and unheard of within nature...those are not descriptive theories but predictive theories
There is a lot of controversy within the scientific community surrounding the validity of string theory. This is partly because for now at least, string theory is purely descriptive and not at all predictive.
Does that make sense?
Ami
Ami
01:45
@KonradRudolf Comparing Hardy-Weinberg to E=mc^2 is offensive to physicists...E=mc^2 was a revolution that denatured assumptions about the essence reality and the fundamental nature of the world we live in.
Relativity predicts a world of phenomenon that humans never could have imagined.
It does.
bbiab
Ami
Ami
talk to you later
=D
And TF2 doesn't want to work.
 
3 hours later…
04:27
0
Q: I just lost 124 rep for no stated reason

Borror0As can be both seen in the chat transcript and in this screenshot since I last checked around 5 o'clock EST but when I go in my replies it doesn't even acknowledge that I won that much reputation. It's like I'm imagining it: I even won the Motarboard badge today! And I'm pretty sure the reputat...

04:40
that's a bid odd
At it been at any other time, it would have been far less irritating
But I was just about to get 1k rep
Ami
Ami
4
Q: Why did I lose 360 reputation on SO?

Patrick Cornelissen Possible Duplicate: Why did I lose reputation points? It's weird, I was at 2000 reputation yesterday and twittered proud about it. Now I'm down to 1700. I have not gained many points by the twitter post and I don't get it why I fell 300 under the value before the posting. My profile ...

@Borror0 You probably got too many upvotes from a single person
All those upvotes went away
Ya. I did. I got like 5 upvotes in the span of on twenty minute yesterday
Sucks for me though.
It's pretty retarded.
If someone likes what you, the votes disappear?
@Josiah I like that version of your comment better. Using homosexuality as a pejorative term is a pet-peeve of mine.
04:52
That made no sense, really, and I have no desire to fix it.
Ami
Ami
It protects against people making a second account and upvoting themselves
I figured you guys would be of that sort of nut, so I revised it. I really don't give a fuck.
Ya. It's not like I can argue against the reasoning. In fact, I'm glad it's there.
I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a better alternative.
But it still sucks for me though. :P
04:53
The implementation sucks, though.
@Josiah I wouldn't have gone nuts over it, but I'm glad you changed it.
I never really understood why it bothers people quite so much. It may have just been more prevalent for me, but I've been used to saying it since I was a kid.
Much like the whole "My god!" bit, I feel I have much better things to monitor about my behavior than 1990's kid slang.
My phone is being a bitch, though. Time to flash a new ROM.
Touch screen is acting up, or maybe wake lock. Don't know, but it's drivin' me nuts.
@Josiah Using that term pejoratively makes it sound like there is something wrong with homosexuality. Imagine if all non-whites started using "whitey" as an insult meaning "void of all redeeming qualities." How insulting would that be?
@Borror0, I would think it was kinda funny.
Like I said, it may be cultural. I have only encountered people bothered by it online so far. I imagine that will change some as time goes on, but, it never actually held that connotation directly for me.
I tend to filter my words a bit around people that are concerned about it. Some people are bothered by rape jokes, and I normally filter it out around them as much as I can.
Fuck you fucking android.
I have to go figure out what's making my phone do this.
If it was my touchscreen I would think the haptic feedback would vibrate on me when it pauses games randomly.
So I want to say it's something telling the game it's going to sleep or something.
night guys
Ami
Ami
05:10
05:30
@Ami this isn't entirely true, evolution predicts complexity from simplicity if there is a selector and replicator. Abstractly, it states that a finite system won't indefinitely stay at n'th complexity indefinitely... If it doesn't state that, please elaborate on why you believe it doesn't.
@Vitaly Do you believe that common arguments attacking pillars of disbelief should be off-topic for this SE?
Ami
Ami
@EvanCarroll evolution predicts the emergence of complexity, because scientists had to find a theory to explain how complexity emerged. This is very different from formulating a theory that predicts something new.
We assume that evolution is a method of going from low complexity to high complexity but we have no experimental confirmation of that...
experimental confirmation could come from computer science but preliminary results have been only disappointing
@Ami I'm not sure I agree with this or understand where you are going en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Ami
Ami
adaption is very different from complexity emergence
They're not adapting.. Random mutations are happening and being filtered out.
Ami
Ami
thats what I mean by adapting
the organism's genetic code changes to survive in its enviornment
These are the types of studies that could prove or disprove the theory of emergence through evolution: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/…
05:39
So what would you mean by complexity emergence if your precluding a change in genetic code?
I don't have nearly enough time to read that paper tonight ;(
I'll have to check it out later
Ami
Ami
its computer science academic gibberish, I don't understand most of it
Everyone agrees that genetic code changes from generation to generation...the theory of evolution is asserting more than that. The theory of evolution asserts that these changes can explain how complex animal lifeforms are the progeny of single celled organisms
thanks for positively speaking up for my question and at least understanding the significance of what was being asked.
I think logically a good follow up will be a question on the lines of "verbiage to differentiate Theory of Evolution with Theory of Gravity"
Ami
Ami
I agree
it seems as if the consensus is mixed, but that they're different would be at some level agreed upon
Ami
Ami
although it might be called off topic
I agree that the verbiage question is a good/important question
05:43
I think it is only being called off topic because Hot Topic atheists are circlejerking this SE to death.
The leading answer on this site is like +34 and two lines...
2
God, I hope were not throwing out legitimate in depth questions about evidence that leads to disbelief for clever bumper sticker quotes.
++ on prefix.
06:52
@EvanCarroll You're being generous. It's more like 1.1 line
@Borror0 so have you read the new chapters yet?
I just got to my PC and saw that they were available and saw that you didn't tell me about it and was quite surprised by that, since it was totally unexpected. XP
Given that you mentioned RSS.
Ya. Read them.
The chat bugged on me when I was reading them
Best line goes to
"Padma said hesitantly, 'Is it just me, or has Harry Potter started talking like a more complicated sort of book in the last few days? I mean, I haven't been listening to him very long -'"
07:09
Ah, ook. :] Going to read them too, now
@Vitaly Am I alone to really, really like his Herminone?
@Borror0 I would have, if she were somewhat older.
I said like, not love.
Hah!
What's the difference between “love” and “really, really like”?
I have not yet devolved to the point of livelessness where I feel romantic feelings toward a fictional character.
07:17
:D
You're being defensive.
That's… suspicious.
You asked for the difference.
At best, that would signify you asked me a loaded question and that I misread the question.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist pulling your leg.
Now, onto Luminosity.
It better be worth it. Watching Twilight was so painful.
Feels like Harry after visiting Azkaban: I will never bee the same. A part of me has been left behind.
Let me know if it's worth it.
07:38
“It would be like a Muggle newspaper testing political candidates to rate their level of scientific literacy.”
I like how he inserts that into his readers' brains
lol
The Twilight fic looks promising so far. From the first Chapter: "I decided that it would be useful to develop a taste for wet weather, and pulled out my notebook du jour to note that if I saw a way to do that, I should."
lol
And the following paragraph is: "We arrived at his house. The truck was a solid red thing that I found strangely appealing. I wrote down that I should think about that - I wouldn't have guessed from a description of it that I'd have liked it, and that meant there was something I didn't know about my aesthetics - and then took it for a test drive around the block."
I should write down that you wrote down that the fic looked promising because someone fictional writes something fictional down every other line or so. :P
 
3 hours later…
10:31
 
2 hours later…
12:19
1
Q: Is evolution science or historiography?

dStulleAs I understand Science it is something you theoretically can observe by yourself. Someone claims he had observers something under certain conditions and you can make your own experiment. A historian looks at records of the past and draws its conclusions without the possibility to recreate the h...

Completely and inarguably off-topic.
12:37
I am surprised I couldn't find Gollum holding the Bible on Google Images.
I expected that it had occurred to someone as a kinda obvious caricature.
12:48
lol
what did you think of the Lord of Rationality?
I found it lacking and a bit convoluted
The Narnia one was awesome though
I haven't read the original Narnia stuff, so I couldn't tell why it would be awesome.
the Lord of Rationality, umm… I am afraid EY hasn't come up with anything as original as Harry
Those particular irrational decisions and mistakes have been noticed by lots of tolkienists
He made so many comments about LOTR in the fic that I expected much more out of his omake
Once he's done with MoR, he should totally write a Narnia one
"'I think maybe the land of Narnia was trying to tell you,' said Susan, 'or maybe it was just your own dreams trying to tell you, that if there was really such a person as that lion, there'd be no use for us.'"
Delicious
Q: Why do you, as an atheist, upvote questions and answers that are off-topic?
13:13
Are there any female theists on Atheism.SE?
Female and theist?
Yeah?
I wouldn't say no, but the odds are very, very low
Check the 600ish users
Ah, well. The Preacher will suffice, I guess. Thanks
Trying to find someone who throws unpersuasive arguments in your face but who has at least the quality of being sexually attractive?
13:22
No, trying to find someone who would suit the new cartoon.
Cartoon?
a picture?
I have already posted a The Preacher picture
the one with the trollface
Ah, forgot to add a direct reference to The Preacher. I guess you could recognize his quotations, though
13:56
Trolling trolls does not make it untrolly.
Wait, am I being trolled by being called a troll who trolls trolls?
That's so meta-trolly.
14:19
XD
Thanks for the contribution to the internet, finally, Russia.
Okay, that's it. The word has been used so much that it is not meaningless syllables.
1
Q: Is evolution science or historiography?

dStulleAs I understand Science it is something you theoretically can observe by yourself. Someone claims he had observers something under certain conditions and you can make your own experiment. A historian looks at records of the past and draws its conclusions without the possibility to recreate the h...

Missing two close votes
I swear that dude looks more like an android than Data ever did on ST:TNG.
Russians are androids you say?
That's a pretty mean thing to say, but it may explain how Putin and Medvedev act..
14:25
@Borror0 It is done.
@Josiah Russians in general? No. That dude (in that context), *YES*.
You're no fun Ustice.
You people and your elitist attitudes! Do you have no enjoyment but laughing at less intelligent people?
HA! ;)
Trolling?
It's not trolling if the people are your friends and get the joke.
If I started using gay a lot to describe things I find silly, stupid or queer, that would probably be trolling.
While we are flagging Q's to close...
-5
Q: How do you account for the preservation of the Pharaoh in the Qur'an?

jase21Its told in Qur'an, that the Pharoah's body will be preserved until the world ends. So how can a book like this, if it's not from God, predict something like this? What can I think about this from a atheist point of view? How come the things written in Qur'an, the predictions, come true?

He's meta-trolling you, that or I am meta-meta-trolling him. I don't know any more. I've lost count.
14:30
That's because trolling has become too broad a term.
At this rate, @Stefano is going to get the Reversal badge
In the fifties it was called joshin', and in england taking the piss.
If we allow people to ask blah blah blah bible how do you view it
Why aren't we allowing blah blah blah quran how do you view it
Seriously, I'm not seeing how it's off-topic
It's obvious what he's asking, his phrasing may be off, but fucking fix it.
So hell bent on closing things that we can all edit!
Well
"How do atheists account for this prediction found in the Qur'an if god does not exist?" or whatever
14:34
Nothing to see here.
;)
I can edit. Editing is at 500 rep.
oh yeah, damn
Also, you're an asshole ;)
What are you even talking about?
I am, I am.
Off to work! I'll see you guys there, because fuck work.
@Josiah You lost me
14:35
You said something about 500 rep, but I'm not sure why?
Just, you know, out of the blue.
lol
Quit trolling
Not trolling if they're friends and know you aren't being serious.
Trolling is when you act serious to get them to respond seriously and then like HAHA BIATCH
Semantics. My point still stands. :)
Also, get back to work
Not at work yet. I will be in ten minutes.
Jeez, that Ustice guy trolled you all. ;)
See, you are talking about trolls now.
Trolling, trolling, trolls, trolled.
I am going to name a law after myself, unless someone else had stated it as follows: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone saying the word ‘troll’ or its derivatives approaches 1.
14:47
@Josiah I don't think that this is the place to debate every passage from every "holy" text ever created.
I mean if we go that route, there is no end to it. I don't see too much of a problem with major debating points, but minutia like that? It's a waste of time.
@Ustice I would still keep that, which is not very interesting, but on topic, and loose some other questions which are off topic but subjective.
How is it about atheists, atheism, or rational thinking?
minor debate value
mfg
mfg
@Ustice but whats the gist of the question? is this some established mystery im just unacquainted with, or is the guy just asking about mummification?
It's just "My book says this, and look, it's true, therefore the whole thing must be."
14:53
i think the bad ones take the form "what is the atheist standpoint on <insert troll topic here>"
mfg
mfg
right but what im not getting is what part of the claim is verifiable? if its an unverifiable claim its beyond the scope of atheism and should go hang out with woo-fighters in skepticism land
@Sklivvz Ya, those are the worst.
@Ustice Rational thinking was specifically his question.
Sorry, was on the way to work.
He actually says "with rational tools" or something.
@mfg thank you.
there's a lot of overlap between skeptics and atheists
14:55
"What is the atheist standpoint on sex with horses?"
3
'Well, horses are a no go. Cows and deer are acceptable. Goats are also off limits to atheists.'
Obviously the communion cup needs more alcohol.
@Ustice Yes... and that's a theist's argument. By that logic, if the question is changed to "How do atheists account for predictions in [scripture]?" You would agree it's on-topic. How is this any different?
mfg
mfg
@Borror0 I would stand by saying that unverifiable claims are the domain of woo-fighters, ask a skeptic not an atheist.
@Borror0 or that they must first make the claim verifiable, otherwise its not a real question
15:00
@mfg God *is* an unveriable claim.
mfg
mfg
ahhh i see what you did there
i guess that means that someone asking an atheist to explain god is not really asking a sensible question
It drives me nuts when ThisIsTheId tries to get us define god
mfg
mfg
if i have no sense experience of god, then any response i or any atheist gives would be nonsense by default
yeah, i mean i understand having a working definition for the sake of the site and having a useful definition; but it just wasnt working
It's more that god does not have a definition
Try to jam the concept of god of pantheism, Norse and Greek mythology, and of Christianity in one definition. Good luck.
mfg
mfg
@Borror0 im a bit surprised his question hasn't been accepted yet.
15:08
How are you surprised?
mfg
mfg
yeah, im of the minimalist school, where you just go with a thread like 'something worthy of worship', which also allows money to be a god
He wants a definition of god and no one can come up with one that works because that's impossible?
mfg
mfg
i guess surprised just that he hasnt closed that one up
Trying to define god is like trying to define all the common traits between all the humans which have been called "jerk" in their life. It's impossible. The label is given out too arbitrarily.
@Borror0 would you be so kind as to point flaws in the two definitions of ‘deity’ I gave in one of my answers?
I am interested what you think about them.
15:11
@mfg There are gods that don't want to be worshiped or are not deemed worthy of worship
8
A: Conflicting or shocking Bible stories

Vitaly There is a whole website dedicated just to that: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html and the main page, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/, where you can select what kind of verses you'd like it to display: Absurdity, Injustice, Violence, Intolerance, Contradictions, and then som...

Subjective
2
A: What are the minimum requirements for a deity?

VitalyI agree with Pascal Boyer that, generally, something supernatural ought to be an instance of an ontological category plus a violation of common sense. To exemplify that: Supernatural ebony tree that can recall conversations held in its shadow = [PLANT] + special cognitive functions Omniscient d...

mfg
mfg
[T]he test of belief “in a relation to a Supreme Being” [in a law
providing for conscientious objector status from military service] is
whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a
place in the life of its possessor parallel to that ªlled by the orthodox belief in God . . .
-United States v. Seeger 1965
@Borror0 the question or the answer?
mfg
mfg
neither, just a different approach
That's just the problem. Any of the "What is the atheist standpoint on ..." questions are bogus. First, there is no atheist standpoint on anything other than there are very likely to the point of absurdity, no gods.
15:15
I think there is something to be said about the definition of god from the point of view of atheists. What is exactly we don't believe in?
@Vitaly The question. Sorry forgot I came to the question via your user page
mfg
mfg
i found this really interesting pdf on defining religion
Ok, no problem.
damn internet connection issues.
Clearly it's a much easier task for an atheist than for a theist
15:17
@Borror0 If the question were more general, and included some examples like the one asked, then that would be okay. It's the specific claims that I have an issue with.
@Vitaly Commented
s/god/deity ?
@Vitaly ???
I have no problem with labelling Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc as deities
And the question is talking about deities, not gods. ;P
That is too fine of a hair for me to cut.
Personally I don't go for anything that would be considered supernatural.
But that isn't true for all of us.
And since that is the case, there are several classes of supernatural creatures of myth that could fit with one group of us, and not all.
15:22
@Vitaly Then I'll point out I was talking about it is impossible to define what a god is
Therefore, there is no way for us to truly define what a god is.
Other than to say that a god is anything that someone calls a god.
To be honest, I hate the term atheist
Since god means nothing, atheist also means nothing because it is dependent on a successful definition of "god"
Or to quote Winston, "When someone asks you if you're a god, you say 'yes!'"
not really
Because, why not?
15:24
Exactly
I like the supernatural bit
mfg
mfg
3
Q: Conflicting or shocking Bible stories

dyveWhat particular examples or resources exist that document the various contradictions, absurdities, or grotesque acts of the Bible? I am particularly interested in being able to document Bible stories you would suggest to show that the Bible cannot and should not be taken literally.

@Sklivvz Are ghosts gods?
@Skl What do you mean?
mfg
mfg
I edited, but am stuck on a title, any suggestions?
15:25
RRRRRRRRrrrrrrisawn!
@mfg As worded, still not answerable
@mfg What resources for finding problems with the Bible?
mfg
mfg
@bor yeah, seems to me like a list of x, im just letting the community at it, i want to see if re-phrasing can get an answer
We could make it CW
mfg
mfg
@Ustice i went with "What are some resources for finding inconsistencies in the Bible?" thanks
15:27
If only my reputation wasn't reserved, I could make it CW
Because that's exactly the kind of question that could benefit from it
mfg
mfg
i think it wouldn't be a bad CW, its domain of query is pretty concise. if three more people go in and edit it it will flip to CW automagically
are we able to query how many edits we've made?
Yes
Press edit and there will be a drop down bar
Right above the question title
mfg
mfg
no i mean how many edits i as a user have made, i want to check in on copy editor
oh, I doubt that is possible
Edited the question again
The phrasing you chose was a bit... peculiar
fuck work
fuck these people
15:34
@Borror0 the reversal badge is almost impossible to get
fucking redneck assholes
@StefanoPalazzo It would be more likely if we had higher trafic. Right now, getting +20 upvotes is impossible.
@Borror0 take a look at this to see what I mean: askubuntu.com/questions/14936/…
that site has quite a bit of traffic :)
@Josiah Careful, this whole thing is logged and saved.
@StefanoPalazzo Talking about reversal, I lost half the reputation I got yesterday. Apparently, I had a #1 fan and the system found it suspicious.
15:37
Interesting
Jeff Atwood

As we discovered in the Stack Overflow podcast with the Reddit guys, they have a hidden mechanism for detecting and defeating revenge voting patterns. I suppose it’s a measure of how naive we are, but this wasn’t even on our radar.

Well, now it is.

If you irritate another user, they might be having a bad day and decide to take it out on you by methodically going through and downvoting every post you’ve made. The impact of this is pretty limited on Stack Overflow, as you only get 30 votes per day, and upvotes are +10 while downvotes are only -2 (and -1 to the votee).  …

the system must've thought it was you
Well, that is what the system is for
sure, makes sense
It doesn't mean it is me. It just means the pattern is unusual.
15:40
sure, it has no way to distinguish if it wasn't you from another computer though, something like that. I'm sure one guy voting up all your answer is pretty bloody unusual anyway
so it doesn't matter if those are caught in the net as well
Exactly
Nice to know I have a fanbase though /flex
As Lauren Ipsum shows, gaining rep is easy
just post 40 fantastic answers
To be honest, the most disappointing part of the reversal is that this answer is back to closer to the bottom once again.
mfg
mfg
wow they didnt think about "To game the reputation system, unscrupulous users might create alternate user accounts that vote up their main account"
@mfg I don't think that's even possible
It'd be ridiculous if the software didn't detect that first of all
No strike that, I know it's not possible. I just remembered, we've had someone with multiple accounts on AskUbuntu. Easily detected.
15:47
@mfg I think (read: hope) it's more of a "oops, how could have we not thought this was an important feature?"
@Josiah Make this CW please
So we can't make a question CW, is what you are telling me?
Exactly.
Or rather, 1000-pts users cannot.
I guess we need three other people to edit that question then
/cough
@Ustice ghosts are not gods: someone who doesn't believe in ghosts does not call themselves atheist.
15:57
@Borror0, not that kind of mod.
Flag it for mod attention and say cw, robert will get to it.
oh
nevermind
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (18 days earlier)      last day (103 days later) »