Comments for Skeptical Monkey

Comment on Would Joseph Smith “Die for a Lie”? by Mattd

Mattd — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:27:33 +0000

@kyli

Is the reward of religion flying under your radar? How odd, I see that often, strangely enough. So, would they all have been willing to die (or kill) in horrible ways, only then to spend an eternity in the land of happiness?

I’d say yes. And it’s hard to refute an afterlife today, so they had no chance to think otherwise in the past.

Comment on You Just Can’t Win With These Guys… by Mattd

Mattd — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:48:18 +0000

@ Julia

Dismissing decades of evidence because you say so and then using the threat of punishment as incentive to believe you. Right.

Is being a bully the only thing your capable of doing to spread that message? You may attack the uncertainty of science all you want, but questioning science is how it works in the first place, so it’s a hollow argument. If you want to argue for the metaphysical, then go visit websites on Taoism or Jewish, or any of the hundred other religions that are playing that game against you. Here, you are merely showing that you prefer bullying by picking on the easy targets.

Comment on Scientific Accuracy and “Circular” Reasoning by Mattd

Mattd — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:51:11 +0000

I have yet to read any religious text that doesn’t use the archaic method of using all of our senses to define the world (which makes the education of the authors limited, and very telling for me).

Comment on Would Joseph Smith “Die for a Lie”? by Quentin

Quentin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:50:58 +0000

How do you know that 11 apostles died for their beliefs, and how do you know that recanting would have saved them? What are your sources? The way I read it, not just Joseph Smith, but his brother also died for this. People also die for lies in war, when trying to protect their comrades.

Comment on Did “Psychic Twins” Predict the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks? by Donny Clark

Donny Clark — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:37:00 +0000

I just have to say that when I first saw a video about those soupposed “psychic’ twins I didnt trust what they were saying…at all just one of those bad gut feelings you get when you first see someone. I dont know maybe they really are psychic I couldnt tell you if they were or not but they seem like they are so full of shit and their using this gift and milking it just to get their 15 minutes of fame…

Comment on Sabermetrics Debunk Traditional Baseball Strategy by Coach Briggs

Coach Briggs — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:35:11 +0000

My comment is similar to Coach Wright’s comment. Sabermetric based strategies typically compare the average number of runs scored in an inning based on one decision, to the average number of runs scored using another. While I agree that most of the time this is the correct way to evaluate a strategy, I would argue that there are some situations where it is not. for example:

From the sacrifice bunt example above, having a runner on first base with no outs is worth an average of .95 runs. Having a runner on second base with one out is worth an average of .75 runs. However, this does not mean that you should never sacrifice bunt.

If I am in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth with a man on first and nobody out, the appropriate question is not “Which decision will give me on average the most runs”. The appropriate question is “Which decision gives me the highest probability of scoring at least one run?”

If you look not just at the average number of runs scored, but the distribution of runs scored, you will see that the number .95 is influenced by the fact that you are much more likely to have a “big inning” with no outs and a guy on first than you are if you have one out and a guy on second. The high potential for big innings makes the average value for the non-bunting scenario higher than the non-bunting scenario. However, scoring more than one run is irrelevant in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game. Although I haven’t seen the data, I would be willing to bet that you are more likely to score 1 or more runs by sacrificing, even though, on average you will score more runs by letting the hitter hit.

Coach Briggs

Comment on You Just Can’t Win With These Guys… by Julia

Julia — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:07:41 +0000

No one will ever find a true transitional form because it does not exist. There is no, I repeat, NO evidence for evolution. There is, however, a universe full of evidence of creation. Those who chose to believe in evolution do so only because they do not want to be accountable to their Creator. But one day they will be, and it will be too late to change their minds then. I pray that the authors of this site and their followers will look to the true evidence and acknowledge the One who created them and gave them the ability to even question their existence.

Comment on Would Joseph Smith “Die for a Lie”? by kyli

kyli — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:19:08 +0000

One person may indeed be delusional, have a mental illness that may cause them to believe things that are untrue, or have pride as big as the moon that keeps them hanging onto their story at all costs… but 11 of the disciples were killed rather brutally. Would they ALL have been willing to die in such ways, especially as some of them died years after Jesus? 30 years later, what could cause them to remain so convinced…and so cheerful and at peace in the face of such awful circumstances? If it were not true, wouldn’t they pass on the torch and slip into retirement? Yes, we have seen suicide bombers etc die for what their beliefs are, but the apostles died for their eye witness account, not what they believed to be true, but what they claimed to have seen and touched and heard.

Comment on Noah’s Ark: Flooded with Facts by Jimmy

Jimmy — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:03:11 +0000

I was doing some similar maths re the rainfall. If we assume constant rainfall, the water would not rise at a constant rate. The last meter in height would take longer to “fill” than the first meter as the volume in that meter is greater due to the radius being larger.

Anyway to cut a long story short, I calculate that the rain would have fallen (at sea level) at the rate of 30 cm a minute about twice your 725 feet a day estimate.

I also calculate that the force of that rainfall would comfortably offset the buoyancy an ark of the alleged size would have and the ark would be submerged approximately 45 minutes after the rain started.

Shame after all the work that went into building it and rounding up the animals,

Comment on Bizarre Creationist Quote #1:Those Arrogant Scientists are at it Again… by Aljaž Kozina

Aljaž Kozina — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:22:42 +0000

Here’s a good website for you:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

On the right hand side of the page you can click in the following categories:
absurdities.
contradictions
injustice
false prophecies
…and others.

For each you will see a considerable list. The contradictions list alone contains over a thousand items.
More than enough to occupy you for quite a while, if you bothered to.
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Christian god -science, on the other hand, is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.

I think you are presuposing the belief that creationists are holding on to personal bias that impacts their work. How can you prove that they are doing that?
Well, I haven’t yet met a creationist who did not base their theory at least in part from the Bible(or another similar holy book) without any other evidence – Young Earth Creationists, for example, have supplied no real evidence with their theory, which strikes me as odd, if their theory is correct. That gives me enough reason to assume they are holding on to personal bias.
The funny thing is, I’m not aware of any bible story or claim(one of the ones with miracles;)) that has been scientifically proven to be true…