251. Comment #139196 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 9:28 am

Inane rambling #139177 by wooter:

The hole of unexplained primordial soup's existence â€" The stars or planets, heat etc is not an answer that by luck planets produced amino acids and there you go we have got a protein soup. This is just a delusional soup.

This has nothing to do with evolution. How life started is called Abiogenesis, not evolution.

The hole of unexplained aminoacids existence

This has nothing to do with evolution. This is abiogenesis.

The hole of unexplained unconscious blindwatchmaker, chances, luck cause the designed and conscious creatures like us.

There is no "problem". The only problem I see here is that you don't understand Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection. Try reading a book on evolution.

The hole of unexplained time problem that is needed for E.T

There is no "problem". The only problem I see here is that you don't understand Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection.

The hole of unexplained Leaping from one creature to another without any transitional creatures â€" monsters like ones if it were true.

Tiktalik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktallik

The hole of unexplained passing information from Dna to another dna of diffrenet creatures.

There is no "problem". The only problem I see here is that you don't understand Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection. Try reading a book on evolution.

The hole of unexplained of solar system with perfect design and location thah makes years, days and nights for us â€" although this design and perfect location is so amazing, some of you still do not go the thinking level from being funny level since it is hard to explain with E.T

This has nothing to do with evolution. This is astronomy.

The hole of unexplained soul's existence.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution as the soul does not exist. That is theology

The hole of unexplained of existence of vegetables, fruits and plants and their cooperation and design with sunlight, photosynthesis and rain.

Again, there is no "problem". The only problem I see here is that you don't understand evolution. This is zoology. Go read a book on the subject.

The hole of unexplained how monkeys fell out their hair to look like us

???? There is no "problem". The only problem I see here is that you don't understand Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection. Try reading a book on evolution.

The hole of unexplained fake fossils, the fossils found and showed that their structures are no different from our present time.

Which fossils do you speak of? The fossil record shows us an amazing amount of information about previous life forms that have existed on this planet - if you open your mind. Go to a natural history museum, ask lots of questions, see all the fossils.

I can go on but it will be like the sieve of logic that sieves evolution idea with infinite holes, the logic will not hold anything on the top.

Please, do go on - unfortunately it will only go to show how are utterly ignorant you are.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

252. Comment #139198 by Geoff on March 5, 2008 at 9:32 am

The death is indeed a very deep fear for atheist people who think that they will be gone after they die.

No it isn't. Read that Mark Twain quote again. We were dead, now we're alive, in the future we'll be dead again. That's it.
Some may worry about the process of aging, the progress towards death - the pain & suffering etc, but the state of being dead? Nope.


An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.

Other Comments by Geoff

253. Comment #139200 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 9:44 am

You poor fool: what could be more perfect than spending all of eternity polishing god's rocket?
Ste5e

You've really upset me now! I thought after I had shuffled off at the end of this pointless, barren and desperate atheist life, I would at least have eternity to learn to play the harp or have fun doing some exciting flying tricks a la Jonathan Livingston Seagull (I've always wanted wings!) Polishing God's rocket? Sounds like Hell to me! ;o)

Other Comments by PJG

254. Comment #139201 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:51 am

steveroot - I finally realized that wooter is a computer program that takes text as input and returns gibberish. There's an algorithm in there somewhere, but I'll be dipped if I can see it. I do recognize some Shakespeare quotations there, cleverly inserted to give the impression that we're interacting with a person, not a machine. Do I get any points for spotting wooter as a Turing test project?

No you don't, sorry. Already spotted.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=2089&commentID=109561&URLtitle=Could-there-be-a-Darwinian-Account-of-Human-Creativity&URLauthor=Daniel-Dennett

After extensive analysis, I can confirm that wooter is version 1.0.4, while wipeout is a version 2.0 beta, which has a slightly improved grammar engine.

Edit: I admit that this is not entirely consistent with my other hypothesis, that wooter is an incarnation of the Duracell bunny. Consistency, hobgoblins, etc.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

255. Comment #139202 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 9:52 am

When did he/she/it create the world and everything on and in it.

If Wooter knows her/his theology (which since s/he doesn't seem to know anything, I highly doubt) then s/he will say 4042 B.C.E. on monday august 27th. I am really bad with names, so I can't remember who, but a theologian added up all the "begots" in the bible, and the life spans of the characters, and come up with that date.

I find it so laughable that s/he can say evolution isn't true because it doesn't explain everything, there are holes. Despite her/his complete lack of knowledge of what those are. Some do exist, as there are gaps in all knowledge, we aren't omniscient, there are some things we have yet to completely figure out, and there are competing views on what an explanation for a phenomena might be. Somethings we may never figure out. We will never ever know about every species that has ever lived, we will never know about the majority in fact, they are lost forever. However "goddidit" offers zero explanation of anything, and worse yet, by defintion it can't. You cannot derive an explanation from an inexplicible, and god is inexplicible. You definitely can't derive metaphysics from an inexplicible, that is patantaly absurd.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

256. Comment #139203 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

Mitchell Gilks - It was an Irish archbishop by the name of Ussher. And I think that if you take into account the 11 days in the Gregorian calendar switch, it was a Thursday afternoon.

I have no idea why I know that.

[Edit: See also Tyler Durden's comment below. Creation began on Sunday. Life began the following Thursday.]

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

257. Comment #139204 by al-rawandi on March 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

I am moving to violent ridicule.


Providing evidence has gotten us no where.



This should at least be fun.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

258. Comment #139205 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

Mitchell, it was Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, who was born in Dublin, Ireland actually (my home city, thank you very much!)

Ussher deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

259. Comment #139207 by al-rawandi on March 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

Wooter,




Did your parents have any children that lived?


Or are you "Once more miracle to make grand to glory of god"?


Ladies and gents this is what results when you deprive the brain of oxygen for too long. His mother obviously tried to smother him in his crib but changed her mind at the last minute.

Goes to show, follow through with your commitments.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

260. Comment #139208 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 10:00 am

That's why the date I mentioned was so vivid in my mind! of course some theologian added the begats and lifespans of all the characters in the Bibble.

Very obviously the work of someone with far too much time on their hands.....

Of course "goddidit" seems to be the magical panacea/placebo for Wooter and the Ker-azy wacky world he inhabits.

Other Comments by Prankster

261. Comment #139209 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 10:02 am

I read about Ussher's shenanigans in Martin Gorst's superb Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time

Well worth a read.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

262. Comment #139210 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 10:03 am

Speak for youself Geoff. I'm scared shitless of dying. Nothing scars me more, I'd take hell in a second over oblivion, at least I get to exist.

We are programmed to fear death, and fight for life. I find it hard to believe that anyone isn't afraid to die. I have a feeling that if someone pointed a gun at our heads after shooting someone in front of us, your pants would be no drier than mine.

I don't fret, nor am I depressed about death however, as it would be silly to be depressed about something completely out of my control. I might as well be upset that I don't have super powers. I fear of something doesn't negate its basis in reality. It is merely a moot point to bring up that I'm afraid of death by theists. I'm also afraid of heights, if they feel then can fly then by all means they can jump off a cliff. Anyone can delude themselves out of a fear, some fears are quite healthy. I'd rather be afraid of the things that could hurt or kill me than to be indifferent to them. Fear has an obvious utility.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

263. Comment #139212 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 10:08 am

Once again, Life of Brian says it so well :)

Lead Singer Crucifee: You know, you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

264. Comment #139213 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 10:11 am

Ah, damn, I didn't bother looking up the date. I just used the one offered by royzimmerman in "creation science 101" as I have the song practically memorized by now. I knew the reference when I heard it, but never check it out, I just assumed he was using the proper date. Damn my lack of rigour, always bites me in the ass eventually.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

265. Comment #139214 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 10:15 am

That is a non sequitur. If you never had a tv, then aquired one, and I took your tv away. You lost a tv, it doesn't matter that at one time you didn't have the tv.

When I die, I loose my life, and my existence. I would rather ring every drop out of existence that I can. Even if I die at a ripe old age I still loose my life. If I die at a young age I loose the time that would naturally be alloted to a healthy human being.

I liked life of brian a lot. Though I thought search for the holy grale was better.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

266. Comment #139215 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 10:15 am

Mitchell

Are you referring to the dates in comment 284 By Tyler?

Why worry we know they are not the slightest bit correct-mind you if Wooter has disappeared to check his calendar and disappears for the next few hours then that's a blessing surely?

Other Comments by Prankster

267. Comment #139216 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 10:17 am

I know that the dates are retardedly false. I still would have liked to get them right, as they were proported.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

268. Comment #139217 by The Reverend Dark on March 5, 2008 at 10:19 am

You don't have to fear death, but that doesn't mean that you have to rush headlong at it.

I intend to go out the same way I came in - kicking and scream, hopefully with parts of me lodged in a vagina.

A different vagina than heralded my appearance, but a vagina nonetheless, I am not as Oedipus.

There is no life after death - but you can be useful, and if circumstances allow, funny. My body is slated for anatomical experimentation after I pop my clogs. If I have any lead in time to demise, I will spend it as detailed above (if possible) although I will take a few moments to swallow as many of those children's vending machine capsules (containing toys) as possible.

I want a class of anatomy students to look up from their work in disbelief as one of their number announces 'Hey! This one is giving away prizes.'

Oh, Tyler, you are correct in your points save that botany is more akin to zoology. Both require a thorough knowledge of evolution.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

269. Comment #139218 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 10:22 am

As far as I know, the remnants of Ussher's work with regard to "dating creation" are housed in Trinity College... which is about 5 mins from where I type this. Weird.

*cue music from Twilight Zone*

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

270. Comment #139219 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 10:24 am

"You come into the world naked, sweaty, and covered with vaginal fluid, and you leave the world naked sweaty, and covered with vaginal fluid."

"You don't leave the world naked sweaty and covered with vaginal fluid."

"You do if you plan it right."

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

271. Comment #139220 by Cartomancer on March 5, 2008 at 10:24 am

""Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.
These dates are incorrect.
Medieval Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put Creation as far back as 5508 B.C.
These suggestions are also incorrect.
Archbishop James Usher (1580-1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21th of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour."

- Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

272. Comment #139222 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 10:28 am

Reverend....remind me not to drink or eat whilst looking at your postings. Computer keyboards and frothy cold beer tend not to mix very well-hilarious as ever-speaking of "ladyparts" has Wooter replied at all? No? oh well.....

Other Comments by Prankster

273. Comment #139223 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 10:32 am

Reverend, above post edited, many thanks.

And kudos on: "I intend to go out the same way I came in - kicking and scream, hopefully with parts of me lodged in a vagina."

Now that's funny!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

274. Comment #139226 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 10:36 am

Taxi for Wooter?

Other Comments by Prankster

275. Comment #139227 by SRWB on March 5, 2008 at 10:36 am

the Earth was created on Sunday the 21th of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.

Uhh, how is this possible? I thought that Sunday was a day of rest. Why wait until October - why not midnight on 1 January? I think God would've wanted to maximize the time available, and make use of all that nice spring and summer weather too.

Other Comments by SRWB

276. Comment #139228 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 10:38 am

Why wait until October

Maybe he was living in the Southern Hemisphere at the time? :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

277. Comment #139230 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 10:42 am

Maybe he was getting in a early start as he wanted to create everything on Thursday the 25th?

That way he gets a long weekend until he tells pesky humankind to keep Sunday as a day of rest-also the clocks go back then around the end of October so he could go out on Halloween when it was dark enough for trick or treating?

Other Comments by Prankster

278. Comment #139231 by Geoff on March 5, 2008 at 10:45 am

al-rawandi:

1) You are the stupidest person we have ever met and you simply are unable to comprehend the answers.
2) You refuse to look objectively at the information.


I will go with the second because I am feeling quite nice this morning, in anticipation of a great weekend. So your inability to analyze this information is due to your unwillingness to understand.

Sorry, but I don't think that's a good enough reason. All the evidence points to 1) being true.

Other Comments by Geoff

279. Comment #139233 by SRWB on March 5, 2008 at 10:49 am

Maybe he was living in the Southern Hemisphere at the time? :)

Good point - I am so northern hemisphere centric.

Maybe he was getting in a early start as he wanted to create everything on Thursday the 25th?

Outrageous - God would never create anything on a day named after Thor, a god that doesn't exist!

Other Comments by SRWB

280. Comment #139235 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 10:57 am

SRWB

January 1st is so obviously out as he'd be recovering from New Years Eve 4005 BC surely?
Or does the duck billed platypus disprove this-he must have been blind drunk when he created it or was it deliberately done to fuck with our heads?

Other Comments by Prankster

281. Comment #139236 by Geoff on March 5, 2008 at 10:58 am

288. Comment #139210 by Mitchell Gilks

Speak for youself Geoff. I'm scared shitless of dying. Nothing scars me more, I'd take hell in a second over oblivion, at least I get to exist.

Scared of dying, yes; of death, no. Of course, I'm mainly speaking for myself, yes, but there's quite a long discussion here about it:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=16734

No poll, but a quick scan of 150 posts shows most sharing my view.

Other Comments by Geoff

282. Comment #139239 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:05 am

Just for wooter's benefit.

If god created the universe in 4004BC, then lots of things we thought we knew are wrong. Evolution would be one example, Sumerian literature written on stone tablets would be another, the varves in lake Suigetsu would be another. In which case we obviously can't rely on our senses.

The question is, can god rely on his? How does he know he wasn't created in 4005BC?

Other Comments by epeeist

283. Comment #139244 by Steve Zara on March 5, 2008 at 11:12 am

I have given up responding. Wooter reminds me of a story told by (I think) Dawkins. When he was a boy he heard vague sounds at night that he could have sworn were voices, but when he got up to investigate, it was just the wind.

Wooter is just wind. He is a cat accidentally pressing keys as it wanders across a keyboard. It may take an infinite number of monkeys to type the works of Shakespeare, but only one for wooter. There is the faintest illusion of thought, of communication, but that is all it is; illusion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

284. Comment #139245 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 11:15 am

You guys are thinking Christian theology, the creation myth originates (at least the written down version) with the jews, and they worship on saturday, not sunday. As did the christians until constantine made them switch to sunday, as he was biased toward a solar cult.

Geoff, most people agreeing with you is irrelevent. It doesn't make saying "atheists don't fear death" in any way justified. "Atheists don't belief in gods" is all that follows from atheism, anything else is seperate, and independent of that.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

285. Comment #139253 by Geoff on March 5, 2008 at 11:52 am

Mitchell, I agree, I wasn't trying to generalise about atheists so much as showing that there are many exceptions to wooter's generalisation that we all fear death.

The death is indeed a very deep fear for atheist people who think that they will be gone after they die.

Apologies for not expressing myself clearly; I do that a lot!

What I really fear is growing so old that I lose many of my physical & mental functions - I'm watching it happen to my mum at present, with incipient Alzheimer's.
The "naked, sweaty & covered with vaginal fluid" option would be my choice, too! But not yet; too much left undone (including seeing this thread get to at least 10k).

EDIT: I didn't mean this thread, I meant "Fleabytes", of course! So many posts, so little time!

Other Comments by Geoff

286. Comment #139259 by steveroot on March 5, 2008 at 12:03 pm

280. Comment #139201 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:51 am

No you don't, sorry. Already spotted.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=2089&commentID=109561&URLtitle=Could-there-

D'oh!
Iz dzapntd. Srsly.
5

Other Comments by steveroot

287. Comment #139260 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 12:04 pm

No big deal, Geoff. I only wanted to explicate that I do fear death. Wooter was not accurate in his criticism of course. I could have easily interpreted you more charitably as a counter, and rejection of Wooters generalisation. I chose not to merely forward that I do, but it doesn't matter. The point has no relevence in either case.

Yeah, I am also worried about such things, I do hope that I live long enough to welcome death. Loosing one's cognitive faculaties is akin to dying in my opinion.

I didn't mean to come off as a dick, if I did (and often do) I happen to like your posts. You are one of the few people that I will stop and read if I am not actually following and contributing to a thread.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

288. Comment #139290 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Fearing dying is not the same as fearing death. Death is a doddle, I know because, funnily enough, I was in exactly the same situation 47 years ago and it was perfectly acceptable. The dinosaurs managed just fine without me, as did the Roman Empire and several quite important wars. Apparantly some chap rose from the dead while I was away but I have it on good authority that it was just a rumour put about by some marketing company.

I expect there will be important wars in the future that I will miss too, and the "Age of the Cockroach", which will be post-homo sapiens, will be an interesting time (for cockroaches) and will be looked back upon by whatever they eventually evolve into with wonder... or not.

I am hoping I die about ten minutes after I have had enough, quickly and quietly and with no pain. While I am waiting, and before I do die, I wonder if Wooter will answer my question:

If this life is meaningless unless there is a life after it, what would be the meaning of an eternal life which, by definition, has no life after it?

Other Comments by PJG

289. Comment #139301 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 2:22 pm

No, it's the death I'm afraid of, not the dying. Pain, or discomfort isn't a huge bother to me. It is the not existing anymore that frieghtens me.

That is why I said I'd take hell over oblivion in a second. How bad could it really be? I'm confident that I'd quickly adapt. Even if I didn't, oh well, at least I exist.

I recently took a kidney stone, and only in december I had abdominal surgery. I thought the pain was bad for the surgery...that was a stubbed toe by comparison. I found myself oddly pleased though. Even though I have had a couple painful medical issues over the past few mounths, none were really serious. My life was never threatened, they come and went. That pleased me, I'd take a thousand more kidney stones before I'd give a day off my lifespan.

Even though the pain was far worse than anything I've ever felt. Bringing me to puke, and getting pumped full of drugs. I couldn't help but think "this is it?" My father has taken several, and he never stopped going on about how painful it was. So as painful as it really was (by far the most pain I have ever felt) it didn't meet my expectations. I thought it would be worse.

Pain has never bothered me all that much. I avoid it like the next guy, and definitely would rather not be in pain, but there is plenty I'd rather pain than do, or have done to me.

If I were a soldier with crucial information. I doubt there is any degree of torture that would make me talk, if I knew the revealing of the information would result in someone's death. However, if they could convince me that my life would be forfit otherwise, whether there is no pain at all. I would almost certaintly talk. Threatening to throw me in a pool that is above my head would make me talk.

I am not claiming to be brave, or anything. I am quite cowardly, but pain is just something I'm not afraid of. It boggles my mine when people say they are ok with dying as long as it isn't painful. How I die is of little concern to me, the fact of death is what scares me shitless.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

290. Comment #139311 by PJG on March 5, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Mitchell, I have some really bad news for you. You might have to sit down....

You are going to die.

We are all going to die.

When you die, you will not know anything about it and it will not bother you at all. There is nothing you can do to stop it happening.

Life is too short to be scared shitless of what happens after it! :o)

Other Comments by PJG

291. Comment #139429 by Roland_F on March 5, 2008 at 8:06 pm

230. Comment #138954 by wipeout : To reverend, stop saying about me or insulting me,
234. Comment #138984 by wipeout on March 5, 2008 : You have no idea how intimidating you and your answers are.

The Reverend Dark is struggling with user id Wooter the last days, and you feel insulted now as user Wipeout ??
After not posting under user id Wipeout since 25.February !!

Comment #126658 by wipeout on February 13: YOU ARE AS PATHETIC AS A ROTTEN EGG. LEAVE ME ALONE

When getting angry you use capital letters as Wipeout and as Wooter :

Comment #122206 122207 122656 It is a pity(!) that only 16% world population is atheists. Is that the reason? God help those who are struggling in a Dna Soup trying to find out millions kinds of creatures.

The 16% non God believers are USA not the world, and the primordial soup is not a DNA soup : same person same mistake.

anybody sounds logical is Wooter for you

Only Wooter itself can find itself logical, or as Wooter even on par with Newton and Einstein, despite having a self admitted mindset and reason sieve of a 6 year old child !

Comment #132687 by wipeout on February 25 You are all afraid of Wooter guy because he wipes you out in your delusional world

Catch you !! Wooter = Wipeout

And earlier you started inquiring as user Selfishmind about Wooter's Troll comments moved to the alternate tread.
As shown above most likely Wooter = Wipeout = Selfishmind.

Wooter , Never give up! , I think this guy is really a good debater

So what do we think about a person who used several identities, addressing posts to the other self to sheer himself on and this as 3 different users ?
Schizophrenia ?

Comment #126307 by wipeout on February 13 : He got popular already in other web pages as the best debater who silence entire dawkins web page

Which you could never proof by providing a link.

Other Comments by Roland_F

292. Comment #139439 by Jon_Sociologist on March 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Nod to Tyler, hope you don't mind if I answer him too.

Comment #139177 by wooter:

The hole of unexplained primordial soup's existence â€" The stars or planets, heat etc is not an answer that by luck planets produced amino acids and there you go we have got a protein soup. This is just a delusional soup.
The hole of unexplained aminoacids existence

The stars created the organic chemicals through a process of nuclear fusion. We know about fusion and scientists have reproduced it (big fucking boom). We have observed that these chemicals are indeed present in stars. Thus we have a good answer to how we got a "protein soup". We also know that these chemicals tend to self-assemble in a certain pattern in a chemical reaction that causes the patterns created to self-replicate (DNA).

The hole of unexplained unconscious blindwatchmaker, chances, luck cause the designed and conscious creatures like us.

There's no hole and this has already been answered in my Comment #135126:

The process by which these chemicals replicate themselves is not always 100% accurate, thus we get the random element referred to as mutations. These mutations create variation; most mutations are negative making the organism less able to replicate itself while some are positive, making an organism better able to replicate itself.

The process of elimination by which the organisms with negative mutations are weeded out is the non-random (or at least partially non-random) element, and is referred to as natural selection.

Repeating that this is a hole just makes you look like an idiot (although I seriously doubt that this is just for appearances). Repeat this accusation all you wish, all I have to do is cut and paste, you will just broadcast your ignorance and give us the chance to educate any observers on the basics of science.

The hole of unexplained time problem that is needed for E.T

4 billion years would seem to be enough time, so I don't see a problem here.

The hole of unexplained Leaping from one creature to another without any transitional creatures â€" monsters like ones if it were true.

Actually anthropologist can and do trace a very clear lineage in the fossil record from our common ancestor with chimpanzees to modern humans. Arranging these fossils in chronological order shows a relatively clear progression from this ancestor to modern humans. There are similar transitional records for many other species. Another thing to keep in mind: it is estimated that only about 1 in a million creatures die in circumstances that allow their remains to become fossilized (creatures must be covered and protected from the elements and bacteria before they can decompose or be digested completely).

The hole of unexplained passing information from Dna to another dna of diffrenet creatures.

Oh you poor dear! You mean to tell us that your mother never explained the birds and the bees. I have passed my DNA to several different creatures (although I prefer to call them children). You see it happens when a male creature takes his penis and inserts it into a female creature's vagina. They rub these parts together until the stimulation causes the male to release semen. This semen is filled with many sperm. These sperm carry half of the father's DNA to an egg within the female reproductive tract. Similarly these eggs carry half of the mothers DNA. The sperm fuses with the egg into a new creature with the DNA necessary to grow a full-grown animal.

The hole of unexplained of solar system with perfect design and location thah makes years, days and nights for us â€" although this design and perfect location is so amazing, some of you still do not go the thinking level from being funny level since it is hard to explain with E.T

So you think that because modern biology (the study of living organisms) can't explain the solar system, that god must have done it? Modern astrophysics does a pretty good job of explaining the solar system. I've already given you a breakdown of that, but since you seem to have forgotten I'll cut and paste:

Before the sun and the Earth existed there were other stars (the sun is a star). Some of those stars exploded spreading dust, gas, and ice far and wide. Some of that gas was pulled together by gravity into a new star that we now call the sun. Gravity is what pulls you down towards the Earth, the sun also has gravity and it pulls the planets towards it, but they don't fall in because they are spinning around it fast enough not to fall in, sort of like when you take a ball on a string and spin it around so that it pulls against you and tries to fly away. Some of the dust, gas and ice from those exploding stars were pulled together by gravity to make the earth.

I would also point out that the solar system is hardly perfect. There are several major debris fields full of floating junk (eg: the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud), and many minor debris fields, and rogue asteroids scattered throughout the solar system. Chunks of rock slam into the earth regularly, occasionally causing massive destruction, the Tunguska explosion being a recent example (the K-T boundary event probably being another).

The hole of unexplained soul's existence.

There is no evidence that a "soul" exists. Our minds are a physical part of our bodies. Our minds are an expression of incredibly complex electro-chemical signals inside an incredibly complex matrix of nerve cells called the brain (notably some work better than others).

The hole of unexplained of existence of vegetables, fruits and plants and their cooperation and design with sunlight, photosynthesis and rain.

Sunlight is explained by astrophysics not evolution. As I pointed out above fusion has been reproduced by humans and is understood to create immense quantities of energy, in the form of electro-magnetic radiation. The surrounding atoms absorb this energy, causing them to heat up to incredible temperatures. Laboratory experiments have shown that all matter radiates electro-magnetic radiation at frequencies that are determined by a combination of the specific type of atom (hydrogen, helium, etc.), along with the current temperature of that atom. The rate of fusion in the sun's core is determined by the overall mass of the sun (the pressure in the core crushes the hydrogen atoms into each other creating helium atoms). The fusion rate determines how hot the star gets, which in turn determines what frequencies the star primarily radiates at. Our sun radiates most of its energy at frequencies we refer to as the visible spectrum.

Photosynthesis is easily explained by evolutionary theory: organisms require energy in order to function. Photosynthesis allows organisms to harness the electro-magnetic radiation of the sun as a source of energy. Organisms that developed photosynthesis (through mutation) survived more often than their nearest "cousins" (that didn't) and organisms that mutated in ways that improved photosynthesis survived more often than similar organisms that didn't. It is not surprising that plants and animals evolved to utilize the visible spectrum. Organisms that mutated in ways that would utilize other spectrums would have no survival advantage, and thus would be out competed by organisms that mutated to use the spectrum that was and is actually available.

Rain is explained by climatology not evolution. Water evaporates into the atmosphere. The temperature of the air and water determines the rate at which water evaporates along with the amount of water vapour that the air can hold. Warm water evaporates faster, and warm air can hold more water vapour. Cold water evaporates slower and cold air can hold less water vapour. Water vapour rises from ground water, and even more so from bodies of open water. The air tends to be colder the higher it is in the atmosphere. As the water vapour rises it begins to condense into clouds due to the air being colder higher up. Often the clouds we see are only the tops of columns of water vapour that only become visible higher up where the air is cold enough to cause the vapour to condense into clouds. If the temperature of the air becomes cold enough that the air can no longer hold as much water vapour as is present, then the water will condense even further back into water, with the water condensing on small atmospheric particles such as dust or bacteria. Unlike water vapour, water is heavier than air and thus falls to the ground. All life that we know of requires water to survive (for various reasons). Thus the rain was there before the plants, plants evolved to utilize the rain.

The hole of unexplained how monkeys fell out their hair to look like us

Well for one thing, not all humans are particularly bald all over. I'm sure most people know or have known at least one person who has been called a yeti. Many modern women go to great lengths with wax and razors in an attempt to appear bald (don't take my word for it, turn off safesearch and do a google image search for bald beaver, notably they aren't building dams although some are eating wood), genetically speaking however, generally none of us are bald all over. For another, our common ancestor with monkeys is much more distant than our common ancestor with chimps. If you shaved a chimp it would look remarkably similar to a human: we have similar arms, extremely similar hands. The major differences are in the legs, the hips, the brain size and the structures of the face. But you can take all of our ancestors since our common ancestor with chimps and arrange them in a line that shows a clear transition between us and our common ancestor (the chimp record is sketchier but the earliest "humans" such as Australopithecus looked quite similar to modern chimps). Do you seriously think that the pattern of our fur (which we prefer to call hair) is a serious challenge to evolutionary theory?

The hole of unexplained fake fossils, the fossils found and showed that their structures are no different from our present time.

You still haven't told us what "fake" fossils you are referring to so we can only assume that you are talking out of your ass. In order to dispute the fossil record you would need to do more than show that some fossils are fake, you would need to demonstrate good reason to believe that all or at least most are fake, seeing as virtually every part of the fossil record provides strong support for evolution.

Again sicknesses are the consequences but not the sign of any flawed design.

How can something be the "consequence" of a flawed design without being the "sign" of a flawed design? Blood gushing from your head is both a sign and a consequence of having been shot in the head (by the way: have you?).

And sicknesses are also the curtain of the Gabriel, the angel.

What the fuck does that mean?

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

293. Comment #139442 by robotaholic on March 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm

if the earth were created in 4004bc then we wouldn't even have tree rings right...

Other Comments by robotaholic

294. Comment #139454 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 10:02 pm

(*Sigh*) I am quite aware that when I'm dead I won't be able to fear anything, I won't exist anymore. I'm worried now. Which isn't the same thing is being upset, or depressed about it. I am quite aware that is unavoidable, and inevitable.

All this talk about it is begining to annoy me. I'm being spoken to as if I'm an idiot who doesn't realise that I won't be able to experience not existing to be afraid. THAT IS PRESICELY WHAT I AM AFRAID OF!

I've heard all the philosophical placebos. "IF I am then death is not, if death is than I am not." "The universe got along fine before I got hear, and it will do just fine when I'm gone." "I won't be able to experience death, so it can't be bad or good, it is the end of states." "You weren't afraid of the time before you were born were you? So why fear the time after you die."

None of these apply, and I have no idea how anyone could find them consoling. I won't be worried when death is and I am not, I am worried when I am and death is not because I know that the state of affairs when death is and I am not is will definitely come. I don't think that the universe will have trouble without me, or any persons in it, my fears are selfishly oriented. I am quite aware that death is the end of states, and the ending of being. That is precisely what I am afraid of, I am not worried about it being bad; if it were bad that sounds a hell of a lot better than what I think it will be like. That is again why I said I'd take hell in a second over it. My state of affairs before I was born is akin to death, if not the exact same thing, so in a large why fearing death is fearing returning to the state before you were born.

If you've got something new, then trott it out, not to be a dick, but please don't insult my intelligence and figure I just haven't thought it through to the extent you have, and trott out some tired old reasoning.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

295. Comment #139456 by secondsoprano on March 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I'm being spoken to as if I'm an idiot who doesn't realise that I won't be able to experience not existing to be afraid. THAT IS PRESICELY WHAT I AM AFRAID OF!

Mitchell, I'm sorry to be thick here, but I really don't get what the issue is. The "philosophical placebos" you quote are a sufficient answer as far as I can see. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence - I really don't get it. I really don't understand how you can fear non-existence. Sorry if you're sick of the conversation, but if you could find it in yourself to try and explain it to me in words of one syllable, I'd be most grateful!

Other Comments by secondsoprano

296. Comment #139479 by Mitchell Gilks on March 6, 2008 at 12:34 am

Because. I love doing, I love thinking, I love seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. I love experiencing, I love being.

Death is the lose of all that I cherish most, all that I am, and all that I have. It is no mystery to me why people can delude themselves into believing in an afterlife. Nothing equates, nothing else comes close. All other horrors are a walk in the park by comparison. Nothing else strips it all away.

These issues are unconsolable, unchangable, un reconcilable and the unavoidable fate of all things, for everything is impermanent

I am not upset, depressed or sour about it, that would be useless, and senseless. This is merely the way of things. It does not change my desiring the occurence a whole lot less than any other.

You may not be able to grasp why I feel this way, and that is fine. I can't grasp how anyone can't.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

297. Comment #139492 by PJG on March 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

Mitchell

Because. I love doing, I love thinking, I love seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. I love experiencing, I love being.

Death is the lose of all that I cherish most, all that I am, and all that I have. It is no mystery to me why people can delude themselves into believing in an afterlife. Nothing equates, nothing else comes close.

Of course, that is all true (and I was trying to lighten things, not treat you like an idiot. Sorry if I offended)

I too rejoice in all those things and, of course it is not a nice thing to contemplate not existing. But doesn't that make it all the more important to relish this life, to try to leave good memories with those we love and, so far as possible, not waste a moment in regret or worry?

To me, believing that this is the one shot at life means that I am obligated to make it great. One day, I will go to sleep and never wake up (I hope that is how it happens or, like my Mum who, at 84, died instantly whilst snorkelling on holiday - what a way to go eh?)and I hope it will be when this life has lost its joy and I am tired. A life cut short is a shame, but if you have had the time to enjoy all the things you mention, you are one of the lucky ones. Isn't that something to be joyful about in itself?

Other Comments by PJG

298. Comment #139497 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:00 am

Strange isn't it, we seem to have the two extremes here, typified by Dylan Thomas in "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", and by Robert Louis Stevenson in "Requiem"

Other Comments by epeeist

299. Comment #139500 by Steve Zara on March 6, 2008 at 2:11 am

Comment #139479 by Mitchell Gilks

You may not be able to grasp why I feel this way, and that is fine. I can't grasp how anyone can't.

Sometimes I feel like you do, sometimes I don't. But thank you for being so honest about a difficult subject for some.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

300. Comment #139505 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 2:23 am

Wooter - now that you are here.

Jon_sociologist has answered lots of your questions in a very polite way. Now it is your turn:

How old is the earth?

Please answer the question in the format "The earth is x years old." Replace the x by your answer. Please do not respond with another question, such as "how old do you think it is?"

Other Comments by epeeist