151. Comment #135971 by Mitchell Gilks on February 29, 2008 at 11:43 am

Wooter, it is fallacious to form an argument by question. Many questions are extremely hard to answer, while they are quite easy to ask. How could prove such and such equation. Without giving the slightest sense of understanding that it requires a hell of a lot to proof many equations, and cannot be easily explain. Many of the things you bring up, the eye, the cell, the nose. All of which have books and book dedicated to explanation how they evolved, and cannot be quickly explained to you in a few sentences. Just for understanding what you are reading about those things, you need a decent comprehension of the principles and meanings of evolutionary theory. When talking about genetics you need to have an understanding of other fields as well. No one can explain these things to you in a few sentences, it isn't possible.

Combining an argument by question with an argument from incredulity is simply silly. "I don't know, and it isn't easy to explain or understand, ergo, it didn't happen," is plain and simply silly.

In the immortal words of MC Hawkings, "you need to read a book that's not so damn old."

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

152. Comment #136286 by StephenP on February 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

wooter, you clearly do not know what thinking is.

Other Comments by StephenP

153. Comment #136290 by Diacanu on February 29, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Aw, hell, wooter's Hershey-squirting all over this thread now??

Poor thing, never stood a chance.

Other Comments by Diacanu

154. Comment #136291 by The Reverend Dark on February 29, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Wooter's colon heaves; ooh that vindaloo did not sit well

I read many you know what the sources about refution of evolution is much more than the ones about evolution.

HERE ARE MORE:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200802.htm
http://www.darwinisdead.com/

That whoosh you hear is the point zipping past your pointy little head.

There are a whole bunch of Buffy The Vampire Slayers pages on the web. That doesn't mean it is real.

What you want to look for is published, peer reviewed papers. How many published, peer reviewed papers on creationism have you read? Which ones? What journals were they published in?

After all this time you still don't know the first thing about how science works and how to sort the junk from the actual research.

You claim to read, but you can't even put together a good creationist argument, let alone a refutation of evolutionary theory.

The best you can manager are you childish little puppet shows, parroting your misunderstood talking points.

I do like how you keep using the 84% number. Fact is not democratic. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. What matters is the evidence.

And you have none.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

155. Comment #136294 by Mitchell Gilks on February 29, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Wooter, it wouldn't matter if 100% of everyone agreed that something was so, that doesn't make it so. That is an "appeal to the people fallacy."

Smells and tastes are lables we apply to sensory imput, to quickly recognize things. We don't experience the objective world, we experience a mixture of interpreted sensory data, and cognitive applied recognition tools that work as shortcuts. Colours, smells, tastes, and feelings are phemonological subjective experiences. This is why illusions work. This is also why stimulating certain areas of the brain stimulate such experiences without sensory imput.

These are not unexplained things. There is extensive research on the issue. Incredibly interesting and informative research.

We are by no means perfect at communication...the very assertion is patantly absurd. We are extremely poor at communication. You are looking at animals that are not as good at communication as we are, and then declaring us perfect at it for being the best. The best at something can still fall quite short of perfection. If we were perfect there would never been misunderstandings, or failures of communication. All of us would understand each other, and what each other things perfectly. That is by no means the case.

What does the "correct chain of arranged amino acids" even mean? What does "the right combination of DNA" mean?

You seem to be blatantly begging the question in both of those examples.

Lastly why do you keep using the word logic, I haven't seen you outline any logic at all. You do realize (contrary to Vulcans on star trek may imply) logic holds no meaning outside of a context. Without outlining your logic, and explaining it I have no idea what you mean by that, there are various kinds of logic. Using logic doesn't mean you are using good or accuate logic. Flawed or fallacious logic is logic all the same. You appear to just be tossing the word around in an attempt to add credibility to what you are asserting without any expressed logic at all. Also without failing to invoke logical fallacies at every turn.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

156. Comment #136302 by Diacanu on February 29, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Mitchell Gilks-

...you really think wooter will understand any of that?

Other Comments by Diacanu

157. Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist on March 1, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #135491 by wooter:

We have got around 1,000 different scent receptors our nose, with which we are able to detect more than 10,000 smells through by way of the magnificent scent perception system in the nose. How does luck and chances can do that?

Chemistry is what genes do best; a chemical receptor would be a simple cell for DNA to come up with. Having a chemical receptor that allows an organism to smell something poisonous, and thus avoid that danger would give a clear advantage in terms of natural selection. Once you have one it becomes easy for a random mutation to duplicate that receptor, thereby sharpening the sense of smell. A sharper sense of smell again confers an advantage for natural selection. Once you have more than one receptor it becomes easy for a random mutation to cause some of the receptors to be sensitive to different things, allowing an organism to avoid a wider variety of threats, with obvious natural selection benefits. With this sense of smell it is also easy to see how a random mutation could cause certain scents to be attractive rather than repulsive, natural selection would then favour those organisms that were attracted to food sources. Of course it may have happened in the reverse order with attraction to food coming first, and avoidance of poison coming later.

Keep in mind what epeeist reminded you of in comment 135514: evolution by natural selection is not simply a random process. Mutations create variety in a random fashion. Natural selection then selects for and against the various genes in a non-random fashion. A mutation might arise in a human that prevented them from forming a heart; such a human would probably spontaneously abort before ever being born, or at least it would die as soon as it was born thus preventing such a gene from continuing. It would have been removed from the gene pool by natural selection.

Comment #135491 by wooter:

Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.

I don't understand how this is evidence of design. Are you trying to suggest that the "impressiveness" of the hardware implies that it must be designed? If so, then why did humankind, supposedly god's favourite creation, get such a crappy version? Owl's see far better in the dark, Eagles can see so much better and farther that we might as well be blind beside them. In these cases the eyes are of a similar size.

It's also your turn. I have explained how evolution did the things you have asked. Now you need to answer how you think god did it. How did god make our sense of smell? How did god make us able to feel emotion? I want the exact method. How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given? I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on, please do the same. What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force? Did he use something akin to an electron microscope to move things around? Did he use incredibly tiny tweezers? Seeing as he's a he: what does an omnipotent immortal god need a penis for? What goddess is he poking with it if he's the only deity? What happened to the other gods in the old testament that apparently once existed but don't now (Baal for example)?

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

158. Comment #136363 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist

It's also your turn.

Agreed

Wooter - the way a debate works is that you ask questions, we provide answers.

We then ask questions, it is your turn to provide answers.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but until you provide answers to all of Jon_Sociologist's questions then I for one will not respond. Just to make life easy for you I have reworded and reformatted his questions so you can answer them more easily.

1. How did god make our sense of smell?
2. How did god make us able to feel emotion? I want the exact method.
3. How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given? I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on, please do the same.
4. What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force?
5. Did he use something akin to an electron microscope to move things around? Did he use incredibly tiny tweezers?
6. Seeing as he's a he: what does an omnipotent immortal god need a penis for?
7. What goddess is he poking with it if he's the only deity?
8. What happened to the other gods in the old testament that apparently once existed but don't now (Baal for example)

Your turn wooter, lets have some explicit answers to these questions.

Other Comments by epeeist

159. Comment #136370 by Mitchell Gilks on March 1, 2008 at 2:46 am

Diacanu, I highly doubt he has gotten past my avatar. From what I've read, he found evil swares to be grounds for ignoring, so I can just imagine what kind of convulsions he undergoes when he sees my avatar. "So...sooo sexy. No! That is Satan talking! God only wants me to be attracted to sexual situations that involve dudes! It's only natural!"

Epeeist, I don't think you understand how it works. "Goddidit" is the default for everything we don't know. All Wooter must do (however inattiquitely) is argue that we don't know something, or that our explanation for something is false, and god wins by default.

Of course to wet your whisle, he will throw some (I would call it sophistry, but that is subtly fallacious reasoning, so would be a commpliment) question begging at you (i.e. paintings require painters, buildings require builders). Or equivocate, and imply non sequiturs (i.e. if you are walking along in a field, and you spot a watch, you will of course ignore the birds the grass, all the animals and plants, tunnel vision on the watch, and stress how it must have a designer).

If none of that works, perhaps he will tell you how he uses to be an atheist, without explaining the relevence of such a point of course. If that doesn't work, then the last step would be informing you of where you will be spending eternity. Personally I'd rather go to hell then heaven, whom that is cool makes it to heaven? I'd much rather spend eternity with Sagan, RD, Hitchens, Harris, AHA, Einstein, Hawkings. Plus all my favorite anime artists and writers would be there. Sounds far better than what actually is going to happen to me.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

160. Comment #136373 by Steve Zara on March 1, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #136370 by Mitchell Gilks

I don't think you understand how it works. "Goddidit" is the default for everything we don't know.

Hmm. You know that is almost deist. Here's an idea... (which has not the slightest chance of working) If we could persuade him that rather than God fiddling directly, God somehow instantiates complexity or something....

Other Comments by Steve Zara

161. Comment #136571 by PJG on March 1, 2008 at 12:39 pm

It might also be worth asking why humans have such a poor sense of smell. About 50% of our olfactory receptor genes are non-functioning. Interestingly, researchers found a very high correlation between the percentage of fossilized genes and the evolution of full colour vision in primates.

Now, which is more likely...

a) God made a mistake and put loads of extra junk into man's DNA because he didn't know what he was doing (could be the case when you look at all his other questionable experiments)
b) God put the extra stuff there to trick us into thinking we evolved (a bit mean, but God is like that!)
c) Primates didn't need their sense of smell so much once they had full colour vision (colour vision was selected for more than sense of smell) but, because there is no mechanism in nature to remove it, non-functioning DNA just stays there but doesn't do anything.

Other Comments by PJG

162. Comment #136575 by Steve Zara on March 1, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Comment #136571 by PJG

It might also be worth asking why humans have such a poor sense of smell.

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to clarify this slightly. Our sense of smell is poor only in the sense of range, but not in terms of sensitivity. We aren't as sensitive to smell as some dogs, but we can distinguish some chemicals at a concentration of parts per billion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

163. Comment #136839 by PJG on March 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Steve

Yes, of course, but I was referring to the (our) potential.

I was trying to point out to Wooter that our sense of smell is not as good as it could be and that we have the genes to make it better.

It seems strange that God would give us a potential and then diminish it.

It would suggest that we have what we need to survive, rather than having been created in the image of a perfect being. Why on earth (sorry!) would God put the potential there and switch it off?

Of course, we are probably being punished because of naughty Adam and Eve. (sarcasm Wooter, sarcasm)

Also, we only see within the range of what we call "visible light" and yet other creatures can see well beyond that range. Even ignoring the potential usefulness of being able to see into the infrared and/or ultra violet, (re Jon_Sociologist's* post above) if God was so kind, why not make it possible for us to see as well as an eagle in the day AND as well as an owl in dim light (that would be good, save me tripping over a bloody cat every time I go downstairs at night!) A better sense of smell could be useful sometimes too!

EDIT* Sorry Jon_Sociologist, I think I misread your name before... but maybe you are a socialist too!!!!

Other Comments by PJG

164. Comment #136903 by Steve Zara on March 2, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #136839 by PJG

It seems strange that God would give us a potential and then diminish it.

Very useful point to make. Sorry for having been a distraction from it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

165. Comment #136977 by Geoff on March 2, 2008 at 4:47 am

REv:

Popping briefly back to Harun Yahya, do you remember this bit of the Atlas of Creation?

http://forbiddenmusic.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/atlas-of-creation-by-harun-yahya/

"Most of the book is juxtapositions of bad pictures of fossils with bad pictures of conordinal living things (fossil fern, living fern; fossil bunny, living bunny; fossil fly, living fly) alongside the erroneous claim that there are no differences between the extinct and extant forms. Anyway, here's his example of a living caddisfly:
[pic]
It's a fishing lure. He stole the image from Graham Owen."

Other Comments by Geoff

166. Comment #137067 by PJG on March 2, 2008 at 9:25 am

Steve,

Please don't apologise. Posts can often be misinterpreted - either because of the nature of the written word or because the need for brevity means information can be omitted.

One of the things I love about this site is that people feel free to comment, correct and expand upon other people's posts and when this is done, it is normally taken with good grace. I don't think a day goes by without my learning something new from here.

Other Comments by PJG

167. Comment #137253 by Mitchell Gilks on March 2, 2008 at 3:00 pm

So much for our "perfect" communication skills.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

168. Comment #137457 by Jon_Sociologist on March 2, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Comment #136839 by PJG:

EDIT* Sorry Jon_Sociologist, I think I misread your name before... but maybe you are a socialist too!!!!

That is actually the default among sociologists, but no I'm not a socialist (centre right on economics actually, but far left on social issues).

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

169. Comment #137462 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 12:08 am

Comment #135511 by Dr Nev:

It's just a plain old boring reason , I and some others don't like eating meat.

I can respect your position. There are many types of meat that I'm not fond of myself, a few more types and I'd be a vegetarian like you.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

170. Comment #137468 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 12:37 am

Regarding the various comments on being made in the image of a perfect being. What's up with that? Was the photocopier broken that day? Setting aside the incredible number of congenital defects common among humans, would anyone seriously argue that average humans come particularly close to "perfection". What could such a term mean in so broad a context? It seems like a subjective, impossible and therefore meaningless term. A being with perfect learning would be able to learn anything instantly, but a being with perfect knowledge would already know everything and therefore be incapable of learning. We humans certainly don't appear to approach "perfection" on either count.

If it's only a physical image, then why does god have an anus? What does a perfect god poop?

If it's only our "souls"… where to begin? I'm trying to picture Rwandans lovingly massacring each other. Although, I guess this fits with the Old Testament god's treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah. But it seems a little stretched to call such a being omni-benevolent. I don't think anyone would call me a loving father if I were to drown my children in the tub upon finding them having sex with sheep (there are more productive corrective actions to take in such an unlikely eventuality). Why did god create the evil in humankind that he must then destroy? Don't give me that crap about free will. If god is omnipotent and omniscient I'm sure he could have figured out how to make good people with free will. Wouldn't it be more loving to just "create" someone with a gentler adrenal/endocrine system, rather than making them vicious and tossing them in a fire to be tortured for something that god himself caused? Wouldn't such a human have a kinder and gentler disposition while still possessing free will?

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

171. Comment #137473 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #136370 by Mitchell Gilks:

So...sooo sexy. No! That is Satan talking!

You almost made me spit yogourt through my nose.

That said. I like your avatar. Almost every guy dreams of having a threesome, but something many guys miss: if that's your goal then it helps to go after girls that like girls and guys. Mmmm, that reminds me of some of my other favourite websites. . .

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

172. Comment #137545 by Mitchell Gilks on March 3, 2008 at 5:55 am

Actually I like lesbians to be exclusively attracted to women. I am not sure why, I am not taken by lesbians because I dream of a threesome. To be honest, I like romance, and relationship dramas, but only focusing around women. I find them more emotionally appealing then sexually appealing. Although I also find lesbian sex to be far more sexually appealing then heterosexual sex as well.

That aside, I am a bit of a romantic, and just don't think that a group is romantic at all. Love between two people is romantic. There is an inherent inequality to non-exclusive relationships that involve a third party, which is just not romantic. I am a member of the yuricon google group, which has quite a few lesbians members. Yuricon is the only exclusively yuri (yuri is Japanese for lily, but has been coined to mean "girls love" which is directly translated to shoujo-ai, which is anime or manga that focuses on, or involves sexually and/or romantic situations between women.) publisher. They keep me informed about all the yuri material, and the president gives a review to any new material. I find that I enjoy yuri written for women more then I do yuri written for men as long as it actaully enjoys romantic love. Although I like both. Yuri written for men tends to have a lot of needless crap, like explosions, giant robots, and inexplicible spontaneous nudity, I do enjoy the gratuitous girl girl bathing though. When I watch or read something for the relationship aspects, I prefer it to be relationship driven, other than attempting to have a plot. Though I enjoy both deeply, some can pull off a plot nicely, as the anime "Simoun" has recently proven.

Would I join a couple hot lesbians if asked? Without question, it would be sexually satisfying, and thrilling. I would also find a scenario where I was the third party invited into a sexual situation with two women that have an ongoing sexual and romantic relationship then I would to invite a third party into a sexual relationship with someone that I have an ongoing romantic relationship with. I would merely be interested for sexually satisfying reasons, as I think taking such action would be harmful to a romantic relationship.

I like lesbians merely because I like sexual and romantic situations that don't involve men. I don't really know why, I just do.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

173. Comment #137576 by The Reverend Dark on March 3, 2008 at 7:54 am

Asked for specific, Wooter has a breakdown.

The question is why rather than how? The kind of approach does not lead us anywhere. It is same question to ask the architect how you did design the Buckingham palace. Show me how? Otherwise I will deny your art. That does not make sense. If you want to learn how we can look into all science books or medicine books how creations are created and human beings in mother's womb. Science is the curtain of God, with which God display his art and how HE does it. I wrote before science is like a microscope or telescope that searches and finds out how God's creation is done.

Awwww. Isn't that cute. When pressed for evidence, Wooter comes up with a big old blank - or rather a quick dash to the loo for a fresh reload for his keyboard.

The problem is, Wooter you comtemptible splash of vomit slowly sliding down the freshly cleaned commode of rational thought; that the explanations that science gives makes god irrelevent. You don't know. So you say god. Once their is a better explanation than god, then god is not required.

More wooterage, squeezed out hot and steaming from the gi tract of a diseased mind

If I see a house, a decorated house
My logic says somebody built the house and decorated it.

If I see the earth like a big house with the decorations in it; trees, sun, plants, vegetables, fruits, fruit, animals, chickens, sheep, cows,
Then my logic says somebody made it.
So logic cannot be speculated for certain perceptions.

As I have studied wooter and the strange wooterine ravings that he is prone to, I have been struck by the use of the terms 'logic' and 'reason'.

They don't work in the context he gives them. Thankfully Woogle (think Google, but with a search engine that only has one response) has an English to Wooter translation function.

I inputted Evidence, Logic and Reason.

The result came back Dogmatic assertion, Magic and Wish thinking.

Suddenly all of Wooter's posts make sense. No evidence. No logic. No Reason. It all boils down to dogmatic assertion, magic and wish thinking.

It is the Rosetta stone in understanding Wooter's mind.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

174. Comment #137581 by Mitchell Gilks on March 3, 2008 at 8:09 am

So you're saying, our body parts, brain, tongue, stomach gallbladder never communicate when we eat some food and food goes down through our throat? The stomach receives different amount of acid according to the amount and kind of the food, which is arranged by brain and which is directed by our sense of taste.

What a larf, ever heard of indigestion? Acid reflux? Heart burn? Alcers? Is that what you call perfection? Not to mention digestion is actually largely the work of bacteria, and not communication between our organs. Those statements are simply false.

Because randomness will not survive in perfectly designed systems.

Please back this quite obviously indefencible assertion up with something. How the hell would you know what perfection behaves like? Also, objective basis do you judge perfection by, and lastly, why does that standard consider randomness to be a flaw?

Logic is the one and has got the one door for anyone on the earth.
If I see a computer
my logic says somebody assembled it.
If I see a TV
My logic says somebody made it.

If I see a house, a decorated house
My logic says somebody built the house and decorated it.

If I see the earth like a big house with the decorations in it; trees, sun, plants, vegetables, fruits, fruit, animals, chickens, sheep, cows,
Then my logic says somebody made it.
So logic cannot be speculated for certain perceptions.

Like 2x 2 = 4.

You clearly have no idea what logic even means? This is not outlining logic, outlining logic would be demonstrating premises that at least imply your conclusion. Not making assertions and saying they are logical.

For instance "I see stars, and logic tells me they are created" is a no no, that makes no sense at all. You haven't outlined any logic.

Logic would be:

1) computers are artificial
2) artificial things were designed and created
3) thus computers are designed and created

That is outlining logic, if my premises are true, then my conclusion must be. The important thing about forming a logical argument is using justifiable premises, that are non-controverial. Things we can all agree on, or the truth of which can be demonstrated. Otherwise anything can be proven from absurd premises.

For instance

1) All supernatural beings have purple hair
2 God is supernatural
3) Thus God has purple hair!

I have logically proven that God has purple hair. The problem is off course that you would reject my first premise, and I can't support it. Unless you can outline logic, and support you logic, your argument falls short of even my proof of god's hair colour. Because at least I have outlined my logic.

Most importantly though, you must realise that logic tells us nothing about the world, it is conventional and tautological. It merely reasembles knowledge we already possess, and gives us new insights and ideas. You cannot derive new knowledge about the world for logic. Logic is a priori, only a posteriori methods allow us to derived knowledge about the world.

That said, you need to give real world empiricle evidence of your assertions, not merely logical proofs, otherwise I have no reason to accept any of your base assumptions.

Think of it this way, it is your desire that I will see artifical and natural things as the same thing, and not fundementally different. You need to outline a reason for this, not just assure me that they are the same thing. Otherwise your reasoning is no different to me then

I see a person, my logic tells me it is sentient.
I see a dog, my logic tells me it is sentient.
I see a cat, my logic tells me it is sentient.
I see a rock, my logic tells me it is sentient.
I see a cloud of gases, my logic tells me it is sentient.
I see a mud puddle, my logic tells me it is sentient.

You need to outline why they are the same, not just tell me they are. I don't accept that they are, and think they are just as fundementally different as the things I outlined. That is all you have done, and is by no means, and in no sense a logical argumet of any kind.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

175. Comment #137587 by Mitchell Gilks on March 3, 2008 at 8:21 am

sense. If you want to learn how we can look into all science books or medicine books how creations are created and human beings in mother's womb. Science is the curtain of God, with which God display his art and how HE does it. I wrote before science is like a microscope or telescope that searches and finds out how God's creation is.

This is pure inconsistent irrationalism. You say this yet deny and reject any science that disagrees with your fundemental belief, no matter how evidentiary?

You have no respect or admiration for science at all, you use it when it like what it has to say, and reject it when you don't.

Clearly based on personal preference, and no defencible or consistent criteria.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

176. Comment #137601 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 8:39 am

Buckingham Palace? Buckingham Palace? What happened to Birmingham Palace? This argument looked much better when it was about a curry house rather than a dismal pile in London.

Ok, not "better", maybe, but more amusing.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

177. Comment #137607 by The Reverend Dark on March 3, 2008 at 8:46 am

No more curry houses?

Perhaps he is in mourning for Abdul Latif, Lord Harpole, of the Curry Capital (formally the Rupali.)

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
(Viz Reader)

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

178. Comment #137664 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #137566 by wooter:

The question is why rather than how? The kind of approach does not lead us anywhere. It is same question to ask the architect how you did design the Buckingham palace. Show me how? Otherwise I will deny your art.

You're dodging the question wooter. I didn't ask how god designed the world. I asked how god made the world. I am not talking about discussing with the architect how the palace was designed; I am talking about discussing with the construction workers how they actually built the palace. You say that "science is like a microscope or telescope that searches and finds out how God's creation is done." But you reject the Theory of Evolution, which is the most fundamental scientific principle behind biology, modern medicine and many other branches of science. These branches of science both rely on and confirm the Theory of Evolution all the time. So once you throw out the Theory of Evolution, how does your "science" explain how god created life? And I don't mean god the architect, I mean god the construction worker. How did this god of yours actually manage to make a human being? How did he create the raw material? What force did he exert upon it to shape it the way he wanted it to be?

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

179. Comment #137674 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 10:32 am

Might I suggest that personal attacks on wooter are counter-productive. While there may be only a fool's hope of convincing wooter, there are probably lurkers here who are undecided on the issue. Wooter may irritate the crap out of us, but we couldn't ask for anyone better to have a public debate with. Any neutral observer will be unable to misunderstand which side is loaded for bear and which side is shooting blanks. In other words we should keep this debate going as long as possible, because any given observer will join us, if they change sides at all. And if there is even a fool's hope of convincing wooter, it will be even further reduced by referring to wooter by reference of unpleasant bodily functions. We may even alienate some potential converts among the lurkers.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

180. Comment #137678 by steveroot on March 3, 2008 at 10:39 am

195. Comment #137674 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 10:32 am

Might I suggest that personal attacks on wooter are counter-productive... And if there is even a fool's hope of convincing wooter, it will be even further reduced by referring to wooter by reference of unpleasant bodily functions.

It's true that the name-calling and abuse don't shore up an argument. However, as has been noted, when the debate has gotten stuck and one side just can't or won't participate, it's easy to slide into ad hom territory. Besides, some of those bodily functions are not unpleasant at all! Gotta go...
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

181. Comment #137682 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 10:42 am

Jon_Sociologist - Generally I'd be sympathetic to that view, but trying to debate with wooter is about as productive as trying to debate with voicemail. Even if you can wade through the treacle which is his/her posting style, you never get an actual response, just more of the same stuff regurgitated. All the arguments come back to "I don't believe that complexity can arise without a designer, therefore God exists". Each branch of this has been comprehensively debunked several hundred times, as anyone who cares to check the posting history can see. S/he doesn't answer any of the questions put, but just repeats one of his/her own, often in block capitals.

I'm frankly amazed that anyone still has the patience to engage with wooter at all. Even for the purpose of abuse.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

182. Comment #137691 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 10:56 am

Re Comment #137682 by hungarianelephant

The emptiness of wooter's arguments is what makes wooter so valuable to us. Many people can't help but realize that the only difference between wooter and the best "logicians" creationism has to offer, is that the best "logicians" say their completely empty arguments more eloquently. By exposing potential converts to the unvarnished version, we give people a better chance to realize that they are being fed the same crap, and that the varnish doesn't actually add any substance to the argument.

We intellectual boxers need a punching bag, and if a quadriplegic willingly gets in the ring, I say lock and load.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

183. Comment #137696 by Jon_Sociologist on March 3, 2008 at 11:07 am

Uh guys. We may need to reassess the situation. It would appear that wooter is indeed the most godlike person I have ever encountered. When I clicked on wooter's name in an attempt to determine their gender and make my posts less awkward, I received this message: "The requested user does not exist." This suggests a new logical conclusion to the argument. Epeeist brought it up in comment #133440: "The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence." Perhaps there is no contradiction and we are all correct, including wooter. If wooter can type posts without existing, then perhaps god can create the universe without existing.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

184. Comment #137697 by The Reverend Dark on March 3, 2008 at 11:07 am

With a certain self-awareness, I thus type,

Dear Jon,

While I am sure your heart is in the right place; barring non-fatal mutation, I feel that your sentiments are somewhat misplaced.

You are a relative newcomer to the Wooter phenomenon; and while your slow and carefully thought out prose is lovely to read, it is just one of many overtures to rational conversation that have been made over the last few months.

This is not an interesting disagreement on punctuated evolution, with each side laying out their points and evidence and having at over them with well mannered intensity.

Wooter's points, such are they are... okay, Wooters, dull, rounded things that are akin to points through only the most liberal of definitions, have been repeated with no evolution of content since he debuted here like a neighbours turd that has somehow managed to navigate your u-bend and appear in the bowl.

No illusion of polite discourse remains. This is simply a smackdown. Every point he raises must be rammed back down his throat with the force of a tsunami (unlike some Archbishops I could name, the tsunami being referenced was not influenced in any way by homosexual behavior; any homosexuals reading this please carry on in your usual, loving, fashion.)

It is about mockery. Open mockery. Deliberate, nasty, thorough, mockery. If someone wants to claim their imaginary friend as the creator of all things, with enough spare time to worry about each individual snowflake, while still keeping an eye on you in case of a sudden burst of onanism - then that person should be called out and asked for evidence. If they have evidence it should be evaluated. If they do not have evidence, then they should be verbally flayed until every inch of their skin is glowing red from embarassment and shame.

The time for gentle disagreement is over. From answersingenesis to the Institute for Creation Research, to the likes of Wooter; hammer them. Hammer them hard. This is not just abuse. It it abuse coupled with hard facts and peer reviewed science. It should blend education, erudition, and inventive invective into a creole that is not only tasty to the well developed tastes of science, but equally accessible to humour both low and high.

That's the Chicago way and that is how you get the likes of Wooter (or Kirk Cameron). He pulls a crudely photoshopped croco-duck, you pull tiktaalik roseae. He pulls a banana, you pull a durian and a coconut. He pulls the argument from design, mock him for thinking that designed objects have the capacity for self-replication with mutation and a corresponding process of natural selection.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

185. Comment #137703 by robotaholic on March 3, 2008 at 11:16 am

...Praises the Reverend for his righteous sentiments

Other Comments by robotaholic

186. Comment #137755 by Steve Zara on March 3, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #137567 by wooter

(Inspired by a recent Dr Benway post)

Wooter. Please just shut up. I am a biologist I know more about biology than you. I have little doubt I know more than you in any area of science. I am, to put it bluntly, an expert. You aren't. The world doesn't fit into the limits of your ignorance. It doesn't owe you an explanation for things you don't, or won't, understand, and a desire to believe in magic doesn't change that.

You don't have to believe the Universe doesn't care. You can believe that both stars and snowflakes and made by angels if you like. But such fantasies are best kept private and personal, because if you try and tell people who know far more than you what is true, you will only not look ignorant but arrogant.

If I remember right (and I remember it with a shudder), you say you teach children your ideas. Well, I would agree than ignorance is no crime, but the deliberate spreading of ignorance should be.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

187. Comment #137879 by PJG on March 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Usually, I do dislike rudeness but I must admit that I take my hat off to Reverend Dark for this one:

.... you contemptible splash of vomit slowly sliding down the freshly cleaned commode of rational thought

That is quite masterly.

May I retain it and use it should I be given a parking ticket by a traffic warden? I suppose I would have to change "rational thought" to something like "human decency" but otherwise, I feel it could fit the moment rather well. ;o)

Other Comments by PJG

188. Comment #138073 by Mitchell Gilks on March 3, 2008 at 9:00 pm

As odd as this may be, I am afraid I have to side with the insulters on this one. I normally discourage and adhore ad hominem, but there are only so many levels of discourse, and when all else fails. All we have left is ridicule.

When someone refuses to enguage in a proper discourse, you have to either ignore them, or ridicule them into it.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

189. Comment #138200 by Tyler Durden on March 4, 2008 at 3:58 am

Inane rambling from wooter:

If any building is going down in structure because of bad care or lack of care, we cannot blame the designer since he built the house perfectly in the first place.

wooter, why do you have an appendix?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

190. Comment #138201 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 3:58 am

Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh

Duracell bunny, I tell you.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

191. Comment #138202 by Philip1978 on March 4, 2008 at 3:58 am

Wooter

You have proved some small evidence of existence simply by posting on this site. I would bet if arranged properly you and I could meet and have a cup of tea, its possible

If you want to find evidence of evolution, I would invite you over to the Natural History Museum in London and we could go look at the fossils all day, my treat!

But, if I asked you to to arrange a meeting with your God, things are going to get complicated aren't they? I am not mocking you, I am asking you, like a lot of people have asked, to provide some iota of evidence for your God and how to contact him to provide any missing details or misunderstandings.

The bible is not evidence, design is not evidence - I think the ladies and gentlemen on this site have told you enough times about a whole wide range of reasons why your God cannot be included as evidence in all the examples you have given.

Without wanting to sound too sarcastic, you need more than imagination to prove your God exists and works in this universe.

I wish you all the best of luck in that area but please, I urge you to look at the way others have shown you how evolution works and then see if you can provide alternatives that are as verifiable.

Kind Regards

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

192. Comment #138205 by Geoff on March 4, 2008 at 4:03 am

wooter: pop over to the forums (yeah, "fora", I know, I'm trying to keep it simple for him).

Stat a new thread on here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46

You'll be made to feel very welcome.

Other Comments by Geoff

193. Comment #138206 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #138191 by wooter

You can talk to Darwin and Bertrand Russell who were looking for amino acids in the soup and when you find it, it is your turn again. By the way thank you for your very descriptive language of yourself and this web page features. Way to go. You are almost there to prove that E.T is not fact but only a vocabulary of foul language. By the way you live along with Mr Dawkins?

Wooter - you have asked questions, you have been given answers (at least some by a Ph.D. and post-doctorate level biologist). Now it is your turn. Please answer the questions in my reformulation of jon_socialist's post. You can find it here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2299,The-Salamanders-Tale,Richard-Dawkins-RodHullIAmHim,page4#136363

Other Comments by epeeist

194. Comment #138208 by Verylee on March 4, 2008 at 4:13 am

@ Wooter: The way you have been carrying on like a stuck record I think is very uncharitable and insulting to the many people who have given you a lot of leeway having noted your obvious lack of communication skills and comprehension. I think you owe it to everyone who has asked you questions nicely to respond in kind.

Other Comments by Verylee

195. Comment #138236 by Mitchell Gilks on March 4, 2008 at 5:01 am

Wooter, it is clear that any further attempts at communication are futile, as you are either very young, or english is not your first language. That creates a block of understanding. I will assume you didn't understand any of my points, and that is why you ignored them and said the same stuff over again.

Come back when you get older, and/or aquire a firmer grasp of the english language.

(There is of course an excluded third possiblity, but I excluded it cause I'm a nice guy.)

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

196. Comment #138261 by The Reverend Dark on March 4, 2008 at 5:36 am

So Wooter drops his explanation for the emergence of life and calls it logic. Let's take a look at it.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to hang a date on this moment of creation. I know you hate answering questions - as you never seem to have answers.

God created all species separately and at the same time. Each animal has different body structure with different needs.

Magic! What is more in doing this strange god magic he created very specific genetic markers that can be traced through species; demonstrating very specific markers that denote speciation, in some cases independently of comparable morphology. God was thinking more about whales in laying down the genetic heritage of cows than horses. Even though horses and cows appear to share more common traits. Funny that evolution explains this perfectly, but creationism has to fall back on god moving in a mysterious, highly inefficient way.

Wooter, you ignorant git. Body structure is surprisingly analogous in chordate animals. The wing of the bird, the fin of a fish and the arm of a man are based along identical structures. Again, even the most basic knowledge of anatomy reveals this. Knowledge that you obviously do not have, although it has been repeatedly pointed out to you (hint. Read Shubin's latest.)

Some of them went extinct to make our lives easier or some of them became smaller like frogs.

Wish thinking. If you looked at frog evolution you would see that some became smaller, while others became larger.

God created his palace like earth along with the animals. God arranged the sun and world location in the best way so that humans can benefit at their best.

Wish thinking. Welcome to Wooter's world of happy sunshine and smiles. Wooter who conveniently forgets germs, viruses and parasites, created by a loving god to torment, cripple and decimate his creations. From smallpox to polio to leprosy to syphilis; all of them for our benefit, because there is nothing like being scarred, crippled, rotting and going mad to show how much god really loves making things easy for you. God must really love a laugh to watch his twitching, screaming, human creations cavorting gaily in tortuous agony with all the happy diseases of his microscopic creations.

Then God created the factory like soil from which we can grow any fruit or food along with the seeds. Chickens eat the dirt and serve us nutritious eggs, sheep and cow eat the green grass and serve us white milk.

Which is why that a large percentage of the world can still not properly digest cow milk; don't worry, I am sure god will get around to making the genetic change in all his human creations eventually. Until then it is god's own Benny Hill show with whacky gastro-intestinal antics. Of course we have only been domesticating cattle since about 7000BCE, give or take a thousand years, and chickens about 2000 BCE.

By the way, you ignorant tool, chickens do not eat dirt. They occasionally will swallow stones and gravel to help digest the seeds, worms and insects that make up their diet.

So I can go on more and more but we cannot finish it.

So which one is logical?

Wish thinking, Assertion with a hearty load of ignorance and magic. No logic there Wooter. No evidence. Only the blind assertion of an ignorant little god botherer.

Once more I am both amazed and appalled that your, a supposed adult, have managed to gape, shuffle and drool your way through life to this point and still be so utterly without knowledge.

Chickens eating dirt? What sort of adult makes that claim? An adult so ignorant as to literally know nothing about the world around them.

That Wooter would be you. I try to find it in my heart to pity you, but I cannot. Are you so fucking insignificant that you have to believe that sky-daddy made everything for your benefit? I can see why you cling to this like a pair of sea-shells on a mermaid's tits. It allows you to be supremely arrogant while claiming to submit to a greater power; like a small child hiding behind threats of his father.

And you are a small child. Small in mind. Small in vision. Small in education.

But I cannot pity you; for you have had every chance to become an adult, but you cling the child-hood things nonetheless.

Contemptible.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

197. Comment #138265 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #138261 by The Reverend Dark

Until then it is god's own Benny Hill show with whacky gastro-intestinal antics.

Please, never stop posting here.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

198. Comment #138268 by The Reverend Dark on March 4, 2008 at 5:45 am

Thanks Steve.

Until then it is god's own Benny Hill show with whacky gastro-intestinal antics.

I've always thought that a symphony of explosive diarrhea and bazooka barfing could only be improved by the addition of Yakkety Sax.

Cheer,
Shayne

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

199. Comment #138455 by Jon_Sociologist on March 4, 2008 at 11:15 am

Comment #138261 by The Reverend Dark:

From smallpox to polio to leprosy to syphilis; all of them for our benefit, because there is nothing like being scarred, crippled, rotting and going mad to show how much god really loves making things easy for you. God must really love a laugh to watch his twitching, screaming, human creations cavorting gaily in tortuous agony with all the happy diseases of his microscopic creations.

Oh my fucking god that was funny.

But seriously, how could you want wooter to stop posting here. Anyone with half a brain who reads our arguments here, will be about as likely to be converted to our side by his posts. Take this little gem that you've already called him out on:

Chickens eat the dirt and serve us nutritious eggs

Anyone who knows anything about chickens is going to be that much more convinced that creationists know nothing.

It's like we're playing tennis with a blind man:

The ball is in your court wooter. No it's over to your left. Your other left.

No spectator can fail to see who is winning, and we get to bounce tennis balls off of his nose and watch him flail around at balls that have already passed him.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

200. Comment #138459 by Jon_Sociologist on March 4, 2008 at 11:23 am

Comment #138196 by wooter:

Hi Jon, you are very fast to go down to Mocking level from logic and science.

Presumably this refers to my comment on you not having a user profile on this site. Do you think you might be a little over sensitive? What happened to turning the other cheek? I was really looking forward to slapping you again.

Comment #138196 by wooter:

Even when I mock I have got a point, but your mocking level sorry to say that it surely show your intellectual level. I am ready waiting for at the level of logic and science.

I beg to differ, as epeeist pointed out in Comment #138206, you have yet to provide a logical/scientific answer to any of my questions. All you have done is plug your ears and shout NOOOOO.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist