<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Neural Gourmet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neuralgourmet.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neuralgourmet.com</link>
	<description>Feed Your Brain</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Did the American Physical Society reverse its stance on global warming? by Durkheim is Dead</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/07/20/american-physical-society-reverse/#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator>Durkheim is Dead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=138#comment-77</guid>
		<description>Well, as a social scientist, I'm rather used to people questioning my opinion on a range of topics.  Are people truly rational - the bulk of psychological, anthropological, and sociological evidence says no, but people like to argue that one.  Can we explain religious belief through psychological and sociological processes basic to all human groups?  Don't even touch that one.  So, you have to give credit to the society for welcoming the ravings of a critic even though I am sure he ways roundly disproven by his opponents - you know, the actual scientists.  It's too bad politics is always getting in the way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, as a social scientist, I&#8217;m rather used to people questioning my opinion on a range of topics.  Are people truly rational - the bulk of psychological, anthropological, and sociological evidence says no, but people like to argue that one.  Can we explain religious belief through psychological and sociological processes basic to all human groups?  Don&#8217;t even touch that one.  So, you have to give credit to the society for welcoming the ravings of a critic even though I am sure he ways roundly disproven by his opponents - you know, the actual scientists.  It&#8217;s too bad politics is always getting in the way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on She&#8217;s left, she&#8217;s right, she rocks by Blue Gal</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/07/16/shes-left-shes-right-rocks/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>Blue Gal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=136#comment-74</guid>
		<description>thanks, honey!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks, honey!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Periodic Table of Videos by Periodic Table of Videos</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/07/15/periodic-table-of-videos/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Periodic Table of Videos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:04:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/07/15/periodic-table-of-videos/#comment-73</guid>
		<description>[...] neuralgourmet.com wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerpt A very cool periodic table of the elements with each element getting it’s own video talking about and demonstrating it’s unique properties, produced by the University of Nottingham. I love stuff like this that manages to squeeze real information into a compact, entertaining format. H/T to Andy. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] neuralgourmet.com wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerpt A very cool periodic table of the elements with each element getting it’s own video talking about and demonstrating it’s unique properties, produced by the University of Nottingham. I love stuff like this that manages to squeeze real information into a compact, entertaining format. H/T to Andy. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ignorance is nonpartisan by Leo</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-72</guid>
		<description>That's interesting how we have two different interpretations of the third option. I guess I see nothing about #3 that automatically excludes belief in God, although I can see how the first two options don't perfectly represent the full range of theistic belief on the subject of human development.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s interesting how we have two different interpretations of the third option. I guess I see nothing about #3 that automatically excludes belief in God, although I can see how the first two options don&#8217;t perfectly represent the full range of theistic belief on the subject of human development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ignorance is nonpartisan by Durkheim is Dead</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>Durkheim is Dead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-71</guid>
		<description>I've taught about ID for a while in my Senior Seminar in Sociology class, and you can make an argument for either, but it falls more with option one.  Most ID folks are young earth creationists, although a handful (such as Behe) have an heir of scientific authority.  Behe seems to stay away from the timeline by stressing the "irreducibility" of biological phenomena such as flagella in bacteria, but also states outright a Christian perspective.  That said, ID normally requires belief in such mush as Flood Geology, a "theory" that claims that the earth was inundated by a global flood and all the world's great features (exhibit A: Grand Canyon) were carved in a few days.  Another certainty to ID afficionados: that all life was created according to their "forms" and that evolution cannot lead to speciation, which of course would preclude number two above.  I've got to think that a number of deists and agnostics would pick number two on the basis of, "well, maybe."

That said, the story that never gets told is how a sizable but still minority segment of the protestant population has now been christened int he media as the true "Christians" and get their views presented as the "Christian" message.  Not that the Catholic Church is the poster child for progressive, er, anything, but like many mainline protestant groups the Church does not find a problem with evolution, although I think they would favor the devine guided version - whatever that means.

PS - the mechanism for the "great flood:" a bursting of the portals of the sky, i.e., the Mediterranean firmament, and the fountains of the deep, or guysers.  The ancient belief, going all the way back to the earliest writing from Uruk in the late 4th Millenium BC, was that the earth is surrounded by waters "above" the firmament - a thin dome to which the stars are attached - and waters "below, i.e. the abyss" from which guysers originate.  This is the view in the Bible, and there is a great Jewish Midrash from the early Common Era that describes the firmament as only a "few fingers" thick.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve taught about ID for a while in my Senior Seminar in Sociology class, and you can make an argument for either, but it falls more with option one.  Most ID folks are young earth creationists, although a handful (such as Behe) have an heir of scientific authority.  Behe seems to stay away from the timeline by stressing the &#8220;irreducibility&#8221; of biological phenomena such as flagella in bacteria, but also states outright a Christian perspective.  That said, ID normally requires belief in such mush as Flood Geology, a &#8220;theory&#8221; that claims that the earth was inundated by a global flood and all the world&#8217;s great features (exhibit A: Grand Canyon) were carved in a few days.  Another certainty to ID afficionados: that all life was created according to their &#8220;forms&#8221; and that evolution cannot lead to speciation, which of course would preclude number two above.  I&#8217;ve got to think that a number of deists and agnostics would pick number two on the basis of, &#8220;well, maybe.&#8221;</p>
<p>That said, the story that never gets told is how a sizable but still minority segment of the protestant population has now been christened int he media as the true &#8220;Christians&#8221; and get their views presented as the &#8220;Christian&#8221; message.  Not that the Catholic Church is the poster child for progressive, er, anything, but like many mainline protestant groups the Church does not find a problem with evolution, although I think they would favor the devine guided version - whatever that means.</p>
<p>PS - the mechanism for the &#8220;great flood:&#8221; a bursting of the portals of the sky, i.e., the Mediterranean firmament, and the fountains of the deep, or guysers.  The ancient belief, going all the way back to the earliest writing from Uruk in the late 4th Millenium BC, was that the earth is surrounded by waters &#8220;above&#8221; the firmament - a thin dome to which the stars are attached - and waters &#8220;below, i.e. the abyss&#8221; from which guysers originate.  This is the view in the Bible, and there is a great Jewish Midrash from the early Common Era that describes the firmament as only a &#8220;few fingers&#8221; thick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ignorance is nonpartisan by Woodrowfan</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>Woodrowfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-70</guid>
		<description>I saw number 3 as not acknowledging the existence of God and so saw my suggestion as being between 2 and 3. It places a heavier emphasis on foreknowledge than on hands-on guidance.  (If I do this, then in X billion years we'll get mankind. Cool!)   I agree my suggestion is  Deistic.  However, from what I've seen of the ID crowd they tend to be between number 1 and 2.  Basically they are creationists, but think God took a long time to finish. (Mankind being like one of those home improvement projects that seem to take forever.).

To put it somewhat kiddingly, the YEC think God had everything he needed and got it done immediately and the IRs think he kept having to make trips to the cosmic Home Depot to get 'just one more thing' to finish. (grin).   The more modern Christian position would be that God hired subcontractors and they took their own sweet time to finally finish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw number 3 as not acknowledging the existence of God and so saw my suggestion as being between 2 and 3. It places a heavier emphasis on foreknowledge than on hands-on guidance.  (If I do this, then in X billion years we&#8217;ll get mankind. Cool!)   I agree my suggestion is  Deistic.  However, from what I&#8217;ve seen of the ID crowd they tend to be between number 1 and 2.  Basically they are creationists, but think God took a long time to finish. (Mankind being like one of those home improvement projects that seem to take forever.).</p>
<p>To put it somewhat kiddingly, the YEC think God had everything he needed and got it done immediately and the IRs think he kept having to make trips to the cosmic Home Depot to get &#8216;just one more thing&#8217; to finish. (grin).   The more modern Christian position would be that God hired subcontractors and they took their own sweet time to finally finish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ignorance is nonpartisan by Leo</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-69</guid>
		<description>Actually I think your variation as falling into the #3 category, unless I'm misunderstanding your statement. It's essentially a Deistic position isn't it? A God the Creator but also a hands-off sort of God? "...with guidance from God" means to me that God was involved in the process of evolution, which seems to be synonymous with what Intelligent Designers believe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I think your variation as falling into the #3 category, unless I&#8217;m misunderstanding your statement. It&#8217;s essentially a Deistic position isn&#8217;t it? A God the Creator but also a hands-off sort of God? &#8220;&#8230;with guidance from God&#8221; means to me that God was involved in the process of evolution, which seems to be synonymous with what Intelligent Designers believe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ignorance is nonpartisan by Woodrowfan</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/29/ignorance-nonpartisan/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Woodrowfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=107#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Well, Number 2 has a variation, "that humans developed over millions of years but with God's foreknowledge that man would arise."  I suspect that some variation of #2 (foreknowledge or guidance)  is what most liberal Christians believe and it doesn't require that anything like creationism be taught in a Science class.  

But yeah, the degree of support for Creationism (Young Earth Creationism especially) is disturbing....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Number 2 has a variation, &#8220;that humans developed over millions of years but with God&#8217;s foreknowledge that man would arise.&#8221;  I suspect that some variation of #2 (foreknowledge or guidance)  is what most liberal Christians believe and it doesn&#8217;t require that anything like creationism be taught in a Science class.  </p>
<p>But yeah, the degree of support for Creationism (Young Earth Creationism especially) is disturbing&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on John Loftus entertains, informs and incites in Fort Wayne by The 92nd Carnival of the Godless &#171; Jyunri Kankei</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/05/16/john-loftus-entertains-informs-and-incites-in-fort-wayne/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>The 92nd Carnival of the Godless &#171; Jyunri Kankei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=60#comment-67</guid>
		<description>[...] his thoughts of preacher-turned-atheist John Loftus, who&#8217;s book is coming out soon, with John Loftus entertains, informs and incites in Fort Wayne. Posted at Neural [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] his thoughts of preacher-turned-atheist John Loftus, who&#8217;s book is coming out soon, with John Loftus entertains, informs and incites in Fort Wayne. Posted at Neural [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Carnival of the Liberals #66 by Leo</title>
		<link>http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/06/05/carnival-liberals-66/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuralgourmet.com/?p=94#comment-66</guid>
		<description>No, the CotL site is fine, it's my time that's fractured! My partner and I bought a lovely wreck of a house and since she works during the day I've been busy meeting contractors... which is where I'm off to now!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, the CotL site is fine, it&#8217;s my time that&#8217;s fractured! My partner and I bought a lovely wreck of a house and since she works during the day I&#8217;ve been busy meeting contractors&#8230; which is where I&#8217;m off to now!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
