1. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182380 by TonyA on May 19, 2008 at 10:16 pm

smearmind

As for preaching, compare to Mr dawkins' fruitless and numberless interviews, articles, BOOKS, I WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE PREACHING.

Dawkins has a converts corner.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

I'd like to see a link to the people who find your arguments persuasive. As far as I can guess, you're probably converting theists into atheists faster than Richard!

Logic says! Go back to your little pond, wooter.

2. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182377 by TonyA on May 19, 2008 at 10:09 pm

rearwind:

Bad words belong to the the mouth that pops up.

OMFg, Dude! Are you, like, 15 years old?

When speaking to simple people, I prefer to use plain, simple words. In this case, I wasn't trying to insult you or trying to call you names. I simply wanted you to know, in all honesty, that I find your "clearmind/wooter" character, as expressed on this site, to be moronic and idiotic. This is a sincerely held and carefully considered opinion of mine.

I could be wrong, of course. If I've improperly measured you, then I expect to be firmly corrected by at least some of the two people who admire your intellectual contributions here.

3. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181871 by TonyA on May 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm

You are an idiot.

clearmind:
Bad words again. You know the rule.

I don't know the rule. The biggest rule in language is to write what you mean, in order for it to be understood with the least margin for error.

In that spirit, I am completely convinced you are an ignorant and arrogant idiot.

However, for the sake of politeness, how's this instead?

You are a credibility-free and clarity-free propounder of immature nonsense.

Nary a bad word there. How about this one?

Clearmind, your mind is as clear as, though more potent than, a chili-fed baby's formerly empty diaper.

I should add that I remain open to evidence to the contrary. If evidence is presented, I will consider it properly.

4. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181589 by TonyA on May 17, 2008 at 3:24 pm

wooter:

Logic says; I am smarter than evolution, and evolution says i am defetaed in a battle against logic.

While I disagree with your logic, I do agree with evolution, in fact you are defeated in a battle against logic.

I would buy a farm and make a little pond, get some worms, wait for the evolution to happen again.

You are an idiot. Keep preaching it, brother. Theism surely regrets your allegiance.

5. Two More Fleas

Comment #169833 by TonyA on April 26, 2008 at 11:08 pm

JohnQ,

Good point. I hope a "Perfect World Church of Wooter" never reaches critical mass anywhere in this Universe.

p.s. Oops, I slipped and hit the "offensive" button on your post. Clearly it isn't.

6. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #169824 by TonyA on April 26, 2008 at 10:46 pm

katie,

I assume you are confusing the term "homeopathic" with something else. Homeopathic 'technology' was clearly not involved with the discovery of Penicillin.

Homeopathy is not, and never was, a science of natural extracts. It is a pseudoscience based on a faulty (actually, extremely faulty!) understanding of both science and simple mixtures.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169814 by TonyA on April 26, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Jesus overcame death itself on the cross and returned to life and is now seated at throne of God and is interceding for us on our behalf. Now tell me that is not a loving and wonderful God!

That's not nearly as impressive to me as the untold number of atheists who have died in defense of others, knowing that they were putting their only life in eternal jeopardy.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169810 by TonyA on April 26, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I wanted to be an astronomer when I grew up (stinking eyesight ruined it for me!).

I have to say that good eyesight is definitely not one of the things that an astronomer needs. Nearly all astronomy is done with instruments or cameras. I would hate to think this errant comment might dissuade anyone from pursuing astronomy.

9. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160703 by TonyA on April 14, 2008 at 9:55 am

Does it say the author's name somewhere in the article, or do you guys just know it? I looked for it, but it only refers to Charlie at the end. Often there seems to be no author listed in articles here, and I think that should change. It's just nice to know who I'm reading.

Most articles, including this one, include a link to the original source. Simply follow that link to see the article in its original habitat.

10. Expelled Overview

Comment #160366 by TonyA on April 14, 2008 at 2:02 am

Some of they do, but some of them do not dare to join since the level of discussion is easily down to insulting and swaering once evolution is down by Logic and reason. To me I have done my job because now more people join in through logic and reason to prove that evolution is no more than a joke not explicitly but through their smart discussions.

Wooter,
You have undoubtedly created more doubt in the believers' minds than you realize. If there were 10,000 theists like you, we'd surely have scarcely more than 10,000 remaining believers. Ironically, you're a great asset in the battle against idiocy.

By the way, it appears you are losing your wootery affectations. If you don't concentrate, you'll slip up and revert to full literacy.

11. Expelled Overview

Comment #158719 by TonyA on April 11, 2008 at 1:27 am

wooter:

My job is done, pal.

What, precisely, is the job that you have done?

Oh yeah, you have single-handedly made a complete joke of creationism. Since you've been here, the rather more intelligent creationists seem to be so ashamed of your positions that they don't even dare to join in.

12. Expelled Overview

Comment #158711 by TonyA on April 11, 2008 at 1:20 am

I feel sorry for you chamber/clearmind/wooter.

I always thought it would be fun to have a pet chimpanzee, but you've reminded me that long after the novelty wears off, you still have a dung-flinging pain in the ass that all-too-frequently needs his diaper changed.

13. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #149260 by TonyA on March 25, 2008 at 10:48 am

AllanW,

I agree, but we should probably thank the author directly.

14. Two More Fleas

Comment #149249 by TonyA on March 25, 2008 at 10:19 am

Dearest and most honorable chamber/wooter/clearmind,

Your puncturing logic, unskewered reason and self-flagellating communications skills obviously place you deep into an intellectual category all by yourself. Your points reveal an incomprehensible wisdom that negates thousands of years of so-called "scientific progress" made by hundreds of thousands of the very smartest and brightest of God's creation.

I seriously and honestly want to know what it was that caused you, dear wooter, to reach such a level of intelligence that you are able to mentally demolish virtually everything that has ever been learned in the last several thousand years. Is it not amazing that God's brightest have all worked on the same body of knowledge over such a long time only to be shot down by wooter! Clearly God works in mysterious ways.

Did your rare and dizzying mental skills lead you to religion or did your religion lead you to your unique and stunning mental abilities?

Please clear this up for me. On the one hand we have everything we see around us that science has developed and on the other hand we see your contra-reasonable opinions about why the Sun never runs out of wood to burn.

If I want to be like you, you think me to help get smarter too? Clearly to me the informations you are provided about the nature of the universe are much, most simpler, but were can you help see to me that it is also much logicaler and more truefully?
Talk to the logic. Help me out of small pond, my amino acids are trying to turn into worms, but I am still waiting. Can you teach me the logic so your reason and logic explain so much wood? Help me kill the blind watcmaker in my delusional selfish genes.

Tony

15. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #149005 by TonyA on March 24, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Any news on how the Columbia, NYU and Austin gigs went yet?

I was turned away at the door, but there is a good write-up of the Austin visit here:

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/03/report-dawkins-at-ut-in-progress.html

and, continuing here:

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/03/dawkins-at-ut-part-2.html

16. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #147117 by TonyA on March 19, 2008 at 9:26 pm

I have no clue. The Hogg website http://www.utpac.org/venue/seating.php claims seating for 1,200 so I thought I would get in.

17. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #147109 by TonyA on March 19, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Along with a great many others, I was turned away at the door in Austin. It was a full house. I hope somebody gives a report.

18. Two More Fleas

Comment #146213 by TonyA on March 18, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Could someone hand me a working Babel Fish so that I can translate from this into something resembling syntactically and semantically correct English?

Oh, I speak wooter! I'll attempt a fair translation, but I'm in full agreement that this is manifestly retarded.

1)The evolution with HIS MIND AND INTELLIGENT WITH THE HELP OF BLINDWATCMAKER AND A LITTLE CHANCE WILL NOT BE HURT MAKE every snowflake differently,

1) The proponents of evolution claim to be so smart that, no doubt relying in part on some unexplained luck, they can surely can find a reasonable explanation for the uniqueness of snowflakes,

2) T The evolution, THE VERSION FOR SKY, with HIS MIND(!) AND INTELLIGENT FIGURES OUT THE SUN AND EARTH LOCATION, DAYS AND NIGHTS, SEASONS, is spinning planets and rotate them every morning around the sun,

2) The proponents of evolutionary cosmology claim to be smart enough to calculate the celestial mechanics of the objects in our solar system,

3) The EVOLUTION SEND THE WOODS TO THE SUNEVERY DAY, NAM A LOT FO WOOD IS NEEDED. So evolution asked help from dinasours to evolve into such a way that they can fly in the space so that they can carry some woods. The problem is that BERTRAND AND DARWIN STILL LOOKING FOR AMOINO ACIDS IN THE POND.

3) But they cannot explain how the fire on the Sun can burn so bright, because they cannot explain where all the wood comes from or how it is delivered to the Sun on a daily basis. The proponents of evolution are forced to theorize that the blind forces of nature have conspired to evolve a being capable of bringing wood to the Sun to keep it from burning out. Yet the theory of evolution is stuck at the first step, abiogenesis.

4) That EVOLUTION try to make all the plants and animals to only serve humans along with shield,SEVEN LATERS, REVEIVING HARMLESS SUNLIGHT, THE EXACT POWER OF GRAVITY, OXYGEN, CARBONDIOAXIDE THEIR COOOPERTAION WITH TREES, BUT EVOLUTION NEEDED HELP? Where is blindwatcmaker? Oh man he is lost again on the way. Methinks, go get him and methinks says" don't bother me, I am trying to think HOW I CAN THINK?

4) I am asked to believe that:
a) the aimless forces of evolution resulted in a planet in which animals and plants exist only to serve the needs of humans
b) that the heliosphere exists by random chance to convert deadly solar radiation into harmless sunlight
c) by chance, gravity is strong enough to keep things safely on the ground, yet weak enough to keep the fruit from falling off the trees before they ripen
d) air just happens to have a concentration of components that is pleasing to both animals and plants, which exist in a harmoniously synergistic relationship
But how did blind, aimless processes achieve such a wonderful combination of things? The theory of evolution fails to explain this to my satisfaction.

6) That there is a Birmingham palace CAME OUT BY ONE OF THE BRICKS INSIDE. But amino acidsm sorry, I mean bricks do not know how they evolve into different structures like glass, iron, wood so that they can GOT THE CERTAIN DESIGNS LIKE WINDOWS, TABLE OR OVEN?

I do not believe that bricks are alive, nor that things that are not alive can become alive and evolve. With evolutionary theory, all things are like bricks.

7) Mona Lisa came out by evolution. The dark colour dropped from sky and it thought(!) what can I be what can I be? I got it I got. I can be a painting. Hm But I am only one colour. And Evolution is getting in scene right on time. Don't worry I will mutate you and evolve you into many colours? Then there you go many colours(!) But How can I do the painting? I have no mind, no talent, no conscious, And evolution says,' do not look at me, me neither! I am nothing. I am just an idea. Please call Learno da vinci then, the colours says. Leorna comes in looks for the thing it calls him. " hey colours where are you? And colours says, I am here, don't you see me? Leonarda says, "no". And colours says, Oh may God I am delusion, evolution come over here? Why? And Evolution says, " because I am delusion too.
Leornardo says, " don't worry, I brought my colours. And Leonarda did Mona Lisa and the reason why she smiles is the conversation above.

Paintings do not seem to support the theory of evolution. Paintings exist, so evolutionary theory is wrong.

19. Fleabytes

Comment #146150 by TonyA on March 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Ah yes. Monty Python. No it wasn't!

Yes it was.

I think we could easily hit 10,000 this way.

No you can't. Your five minutes are up.

20. Two More Fleas

Comment #144385 by TonyA on March 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

wooter:

To Tony
Okay let's see what Prof Dawkins says: [quote omitted]

Well it looks to me that your citation is in agreement with what I said. This is hardly surprising, as I only know about this from reading and learning to understand what Richard Dawkins was saying.

Yet your analogies continue to be stupendously wrong even after much thought.

21. Two More Fleas

Comment #144025 by TonyA on March 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm

It is impossible that This Dna can act selfishly, or have a conscious. The parts of DNA are unconscious particles that can be selfish.

You are a nitwit. The "selfish gene" is a description of a conceptual viewpoint, much like when one says, "water wants to flow downhill." Nobody would say that the water has true emotional desire, nor would any honest person claim that genes have consciousness or self-contained desires.

The designer of a very well- designed palace, [car, truck, watch, etc.] ...

These little stories do little more than allow your profound ignorance to be known by all. You are presupposing a designer and then finding yourself amazed that your presupposition influences your conclusions.

22. Two More Fleas

Comment #143915 by TonyA on March 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm

"Clearmind/wooter/wipeout/selfishmind:"

He also posted as user "chamber"

Please how does evolution explain the work of our nose through chances and being selfish?

Bogus question, but ...
If you can smell more food than your competition, then you can get more food for yourself and your children, thus any random variations in nose performance are more likely to be inheritable.

23. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143480 by TonyA on March 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

demented audience ... listening to a load of smelly old hogwash ?

So very lame.

Surely the theist knows that atheists do not believe in religious fairy tales. You might think we're wrong, but our heads are not filled with unprovable cosmic fantasies, ghosts, goblins, angels, gods and unicorns.

If anyone is demented, it's the one who pretends to know detailed things about the mind of a god who hasn't ever been seen and who apparently maintains an evidence-of-existence policy that is suspiciously identical to a god-does-not-exist policy.

24. Two More Fleas

Comment #143352 by TonyA on March 14, 2008 at 3:22 am

I've been reluctant to look at Vox Day's book. After seeing that Steve thinks the first two pages might be enough to form an opinion, I decided to have a look at it. I read the first two pages, and then another and another until I had read nearly five pages. I was ready to erase if after less than six minutes, but I endured dozens and dozens of additional pages until I convinced myself that I wasn't going to be able to find the page where the shit stopped and the intelligent arguments started.

It is my considered opinion that $0 is very much too high a price for a book of this caliber.

For the curious among you, consider reading the first two pages, but be prepared for a disappointing read. The book appears to be written by a defensive and vulnerable debater. The frequent drive-by rhetorical insults evoke the stereotype of a ranting, factually-challenged schoolyard bully.

Very sincerely,

Tony

25. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132152 by TonyA on February 24, 2008 at 10:59 am

Tony, maybe the following questions/statements can answer your river thing. I also mention here the blood, the river of life in our body- .

Nope. I didn't see anything responsive to my query in your return volley of questions. If you have meant for me to answer on your behalf, under the safe assumption that you are a moron, you've succeeded brilliantly, indeed suspiciously brilliantly.

26. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132148 by TonyA on February 24, 2008 at 10:51 am

But Wooter is an idiot.

While this is undoubtedly true, I feel a curious admiration for the sheer audacity and hubris of his self-inflicted ignorance.

In some ways, I'm not convinced he's smart enough to be so effectively stupid. It seems to me that he wouldn't know which of his holes to push his food into (indeed, he might well get it wrong rather frequently, by some reports).
To paraphrase the agonized cries, with no disrespect intended to those involved, at the Hindenburg disaster, "Oh, the inanity!"

27. Why Darwin matters

Comment #132082 by TonyA on February 24, 2008 at 5:27 am

Earlier, I challenged wooter thusly:

Bring some logic and I'll talk to it. If you keep exposing your wooter instead, what response do you expect?

You have an open opportunity to demonstrate that your opinions are more valuable than spontaneous, explosive diarrhea.

I've seen plenty more spewing, wooterish, semi-liquid projectiles, but I'm still waiting for the logic. Bring on the logic, wooter!

28. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132077 by TonyA on February 24, 2008 at 5:19 am

Diacanu, I greatly appreciate your posts too. I have seen you act heroically as the last line of defense on many occasions. Quite often your posts serve to reduce or remove a burning urge to write a lengthy and thoughtful post to some shithead who doesn't deserve the effort.

29. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132065 by TonyA on February 24, 2008 at 4:43 am

wooter:

Tony's Reverse psychology

It wasn't reverse psychology, it was full-on mockery.

[wooter] stands with logic against E.T. May be I can make it simple for your just in case you don't get it again?

If you knew what evolution was, yet you still rejected it, I could at least forgive your wrong but honest misunderstanding. However, your stunning and overwhelming ignorance creates howls of puerile derision instead. You must be proud.

Your unenlightened mind is so infected by delusion that you cannot even recognize how much of a pathetic caricature you are. While a dung-flinging monkey might be slightly less entertaining, at least he would be more capable of learning. You do your god proud.

I can imagine your proud, intelligent and powerful god flushed red in horror and embarrassment upon realizing that one of his brightest creations, the glorious wooter, has willfully and thoroughly misunderstood god's wonderfully brilliant natural world, which he has created for you to explore, but you won't. So sad for your god. Why do you want him to cry?

Logic: How does ET explain the amazing mathematical calculations on honey combs while it is based on LUCK AND CHANCES?

You've already been told. You might ponder how soap bubbles are able to "figure out" how to mimic minimal mathematical surfaces, without ever passing a math class (something the soap bubbles and you share, it seems). Read a book and learn something before you waste what's left of your life selfishly dreaming of an imaginary daddy in the sky.

I am asking you who built the White house and decorated it? It is really so nice. Who is the designer?

James Hoban and others.

While I've proven it is possible to merely pretend to be this stupid, it's still not clear that you are pretending. I'm still waiting to know if you think rivers are designed. Does a puddle of water require a designer to ensure the water doesn't fly off into outer space? Does god stay in every little pond, keeping the water at the bottom?

Logic: How does ET explain the snowflakes?

Since snowflakes are not life, evolutionary theory does not explain them. Snowflakes are crystallized water. Snowflakes are no more made by god than piles of rocks are. In addition, I would caution you to avoid taking powers away from your god. When you require him to make the snowflakes individually, you have denied him the possibility of creating natural processes to make snowflakes. Who are you to deny such powers from your god? Oh yeah, since you created him (in your own feeble mind), you can define him any way you choose.

Have you ever been kicked in the head by a horse?

30. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132055 by TonyA on February 24, 2008 at 3:50 am

The Reverend Dark,

Despite the multi-sensory assault caused by your courageous description of the odoriferous excre-wooter, your post was thoroughly enjoyable.

p.s. Thanks for showing that the giant frog, though dead for millions of years, brings more sense to this world than some of those who post here.

31. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #130932 by TonyA on February 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Thanks for the comments on my faux-wooter. I worried that I should not post it.

After a wootering like that, I slept well.

32. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #130593 by TonyA on February 21, 2008 at 1:12 am

wooter:

Please make sense when you write.

Much logic avoids friendly with wooter. Unhappy puzzle? God says he is good, but you are not god, not are you good. Do you jealous from God happiness? Does god punish the logic for fear of math? It is the way to god being not smart. You go towards god, swiftly?

god says other gods are not him. Does god not alone? why god silly, not? I have to call you mr. Logic Knot!

Perfect art of desert dunes proves designer. Can sand arranging in pretty waves by itself? Logic says no.

is god beyond reality? If I make a model of god, using smoke, mirrors and plastic shapes glued together with a sticky adhesive material. Is it not real? God is not god unreal indeed, he is made of plastic from junkyard tornado.

Is god is number one mathematician knows pi is 3.0, god is rational, not like atheist who want to make pi irrational? Logic denies your reply.

"a priest and another priest says one to another, god is great, no?" A wise man says no is like not. Logic and a priest says god not great? The logic hurts you. You cannot breath from the big logic explosion.

You are confusing again. Snowflakes exactly similar like to fingerprints. god know which snowflake is which, he much busy to name them all, so make them unique instead. What can say I to you? Blind snowmaker, good chances, luck did it, no... god remembers all snowflakes. God, too, sees all children starve and die and he sees priests hurt their wooters, and he says that it is good.

The logic makes you weep. Be best to answer without funny. A fairy tale of god by created man's or mind creates god in his own image... your brain is tiny like a fingernail. Is this logical, NO! Nobody would believe your brain better than logic.

Almost more than 76.3% of world not christian.. It seems like miracle, or chance, not blindwatchmaker. dumb world, dumb logic or dumb christ? We dying to know. Explain us if you can. Please tell your logic so I can tell my kids I teach what logic from god says.

Math, can god explain it? Logic is bigger than god. Not me, I am simple guy but the logic has got a high opinion of itself.
god wants a new captain of the logic team. Who is the one to blame?

freewill, ha, will free, no. conscious, can god explain it? relation of brain to god, is god logic to say it? Does god stay in his little pond? Does god have a wooter? logic says no, can you refuse the logic?

You can look in mirror to see the wooter logic created by god. Another puzzle?

Forbidden thinking, red alert. junk yard 747 requires designer, but it does not complete amino acid chain. 747 is not life? but monkeys are in the way of the genomes. Blame not me, talk to the logic. Exploding Sun requires a designer keep the explosions smooth, not big bang with damaging sound waves. Do you hear loud explosions? No, says logic god, silence them.

No logical questions can escape the swirl of the snowflake tornado. I am sorry. your snowflakes forgot the logic, but god does swirl them together like smart smoke. Tornado requires a designer. See Ice Age to know evolution is unnatural selection.

My students say snowflake is made from ice, not snowflake made from god. Explain us? beware of false alarm.

Queen bee hears engineering words from god? yet most man has no steering words from god. god prefers bees to most mans?

Eyes are perfect camera with 8000 lenses, with auto-focus logic. math creates eyes? you god fear truth of logical math who creates eyes better than god does, does god?

I am just kidding. Of course not! Your god logic is like 475 fish floating on top of water when dynamite blows up. It cannot go beyond any logical stand.

33. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130574 by TonyA on February 20, 2008 at 11:49 pm

wooter

What can I say to you? Chances, luck, blind watchmaker, did it? If it will make you happy, I can but logic gets in the way again and stops me. Talk to the logic.

Bring some logic and I'll talk to it. If you keep exposing your wooter instead, what response do you expect?

You have an open opportunity to demonstrate that your opinions are more valuable than spontaneous, explosive diarrhea.

34. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130038 by TonyA on February 20, 2008 at 12:30 am

I don't believe the wooter really holds the beliefs that he so voluminously excretes here. He's clearly jerking his wooter a bit too hard.

I remember the first time I encountered the Eliza computer program. The best part was figuring out a way to make it say something absurd and ridiculous. For the wooter, it's all too easy to induce it to say something asinine. Yet curiously, I wait with some anticipation for the next steaming pile of wooter to appear.

35. Fleabytes

Comment #130035 by TonyA on February 20, 2008 at 12:18 am

Be sure to rank this article. I've ranked it Excellent.

36. Fleabytes

Comment #130017 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 10:59 pm

I wonder if they felt that Dawkins would somehow "collapse under the weight" of their arguments, a sort of "let's all shout at the same time" approach.

Surely we've all noticed that many theists seem to decide what reality is based on a sort of group popularity or herd mentality. Strength of opinion, probably aggregately, appears to be of great importance. I would call them 'poor jurors.' I'm referring to the ones who spend their jury time trying to decide which group of lawyers is more believable, without much regard or concern for the evidence itself, seemingly on the belief that they can trust one camp or the other, if only they could decide which group was more certain of themselves.

37. Fleabytes

Comment #129946 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Thanks, Paula. I read every word. Nice work. I appreciate your fearless efforts. You are a great asset.

38. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129397 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 4:01 am

Maybe that's why he's too busy to stop mass murderers and to feed starving children. At least he ensures that most of their corpses are uniquely identifiable.

39. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #129393 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 3:56 am

One finds reason only to find how unreasonable life is!!

But at least I know the truth. It would sure suck if I spent my entire life living in ignorance and being proud of it. How can you tolerate all the religious pomposity and arrogance? Aren't you embarrassed by your slavish and servile behavior to a god that isn't there?

40. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129388 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 3:43 am

On the earth including atheist are all the same; two eyes two ears, same body parts etc. Bur we are all different as well: different images. You cannot find another Darwin on the earth. (Thank God) you understand what I am saying. My question is how do you explain this?

Wow! You might be the weakest thinker I've encountered in my entire life. I suppose you think a creator god was required to make sure all the rocks are different from one another.

We are all different because we were not created. We are the result of a very long hereditary lineage. Evolution directly explains this issue. Religion gets it wrong.

41. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129256 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Trusting the experts of fields is considered gullible? Why do they bring in experts for court cases. Do you understand special relativity, astrophysics, microbiology? Are you then gullible to accept the majority veiw of the experts?

One problem is that many people think idiots like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are experts. They listen, read and watch the materials and instead of becoming better educated, they become more ignorant. They don't have the educational experience to recognize that they are being lied to.

While I cannot double-check Hawkings' calculations about black holes, I can think about and comprehend physics and relativity well enough to recognize that the experts are not talking complete nonsense.

I don't expect all people need to do this, but if we each take a few extra steps out of the comfortable fog of ignorance, we will all benefit and I think our society will benefit too.

42. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129221 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 9:52 pm

It's better to trust something that actually exists. I place existence pretty high on the list of important attributes.

43. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129212 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Seeking to obtain current scientific evidence for the existence of god is a challenge - what are the units of God by which we should measure its existence?

The evidence seems to suggest that nobody knows anything factual about any god anywhere. If you want to approach it scientifically, it would probably be best to ignore the superstitions and religions and then think critically and carefully about the issue. This is precisely what many of us have done. Most of us find no reason whatsoever to suppose a god.

44. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129203 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Here's a short video about "Frozen Frogs."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/05.html

45. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129147 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm

..but we are talking about making improvements or changes to specific animals.......how long does it take to make a completely different self-replicating animal?

I was about to thank your for at least asking the right questions, but before I could, you wrote:

So the aurochs survived quite late in history.....

Still a kind of cattle though.

and again:

..but where are the talking cattle?

I'm not entirely sure if you're joking or if you're an ignorant creationist idiot, so I'll address this just in case. Perhaps I can help prevent somebody from claiming we have no responses to these "hard" questions. LOL!

I'd like for you to speculate on an investigable mechanism that allows changes from wolves to poodles and chihuahuas, but prevents any longer term continuation of the same processes. Do you have any hypothesis that adds "within kind" limitations to the apparently already agreed upon "limited" evolutionary theory?

Of course, the difference between big changes and smaller changes within a "kind" are simply a matter of perspective. The fact that there is an evolutionary landscape also contributes to an illusion of "within kind" evolutionary restrictions within animals. This has been much discussed by Richard Dawkins and many others. This is the observation that many animals have worked themselves so far into a niche that they cannot migrate directly to substantially difference niches without first evolving away many of their special adaptations. This means that morphing of a cow into a poodle would get you more quickly to a poodle-like cow, but having come to exist through another route, there will be differences that cannot be easily selected for.

This doesn't mean evolution only works within kinds. It simply means evolution can paint certain animals into a corner. It should be possible to reverse every step of the process back to a common ancestor and then evolve it back out the other route.

Consider, just for fun, the possibility that a four-eyed deer could be better adapted than a two-eyed deer. It is my understanding that evolution probably cannot make that happen, if we start with a two-eyed deer. This is because the deer already so effectively uses its two eyes that there isn't a smooth path to the four-eyed version that is incrementally better at each step. However, if we started with an ancient ancestor of the deer, say at a similar complexity of a jellyfish, it would be possible that the creature could develop four eyes, perhaps by a couple of relatively simple symmetric duplications of the eye development codes. This animal could potentially develop into a four-eyed deer, given the right series of selective pressures and the right combinations of luck.

46. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129024 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 1:58 pm

The idea that there are only 8000, cells in the human eye, is ridiculous.

That's nearly as ridiculous as 8000 lenses per eye!

Breathtaking inanity indeed.

47. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129020 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm

wooter,

5. How does DNA with 100 trillion cells, as big as a 1 million encyclopedia pages, get the different genetic information for each person who are differently created? All the human beings are the same in design but they are different in terms of image and finger prints?

We are not the same design. We are all very similar and interoperable, but not the same. Thus when two of us mate and produce a child, the child is a combination of the two different parents with some added uncertainty stirred in just to make it interesting. Surely, this isn't too hard for you to grasp, is it?

48. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129003 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm

To the thinkers and ponderers,

Below will follow my thinking concerning the huge time required for evolution. I am not making an argument for gradualism or attempting to explain changes, natural selection or speciation.


My dearest and most thoughtful wooter, AKA chamber,

What is the proof, a single proof that confirms species evolved from one another?

Sadly, you don't seem to understand what a species is. Perhaps you can blame early scientists who spent their time trying to organize their observations of life by placing them into named groups. Let me suggest that you indulge us and make an effort to think about this differently.

This is a thought experiment that you can perform for yourself if you really want to learn anything.

Imagine that all of your ancestors were photographed and put into photo books. Suppose the photo books can hold a few hundred photos each. The photo book in which you appear is the last one, so far. You are likely within 3 photos of the end of the last book. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of these photo books in this hypothetical archive.

If you were to open any one photo book, you would not be able to see any significant differences between the first photo and the last photo of each book. You could repeat this experiment repeatedly. Each photo book would contain hundreds of photos of the same 'kind' of animal. However, if you were to compare the last book with another book from very much earlier in the history, you might find large differences. Even though each specific book would appear homogenous, there would be great differences between books that are greatly separated.

If there were a similar compendium of photo books tracing the lineage of a chimpanzee, you would observe the same phenomenon in those photo books. Book after book after book would all appear to be identical, yet if you were to take two books which were widely separated in time, you would see that the books were noticeably different. If you tried to pinpoint the book where the changes had occurred, in most cases you wouldn't be able to find it. The changes are mostly too gradual for that.

Moreover, while you were reaching for an older photo book of your distant ancestors, you might find that I had already removed the same book while looking at the ancestors of the chimpanzee. Would this mean we came from chimpanzees? Of course not, but there are thick-headed people who cannot comprehend this simple hypothetical. Are you one of those people? Can your ample mind comprehend this entire thought experiment without difficulty?

Sadly, fossils are rarely produced when animals or plants die. This means we have only a few scattered photographs from this hypothetical collection to reason with.

The theory of evolution is so restrictive, and yet so powerful, that if it were wrong, we would expect huge amounts of contradictory evidence to surface, but none has. Thankfully, the theory of evolution is supported by all of the evidence found so far. The theory is self-coherent. The theory is explanatory, meaning it offers real insight into the processes we see. If the theory were wrong, nearly every fossil found would prove it wrong. If it were wrong, we would see evidence of diversity decreasing over time. We see the opposite.

The only widely held belief that has utterly failed to show any evidence whatsoever is the theory of a creator god. The theory of god has no evidence, no successful proofs, no logic and no self-coherence. The theory of god has many failed tests and is the world's largest remaining justification (not cause) for ignorance, slavery, oppression and abuse.

49. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128995 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm

wooter,

Please explain yourself. You take the posture of a cranky troll. Are you just stirring the hornets? Do you really want us to learn from you? Do you really want to learn from us?

There is something called "Poe's Law" which suggests that it is nearly impossible for us to figure out if you are acting like an idiot or you really are one.

1.Mutations are today proved that they are harmful. How lucky blindwatcmaker is that mutations of species came out with the perfect design?

Two lies at once. One, not all mutations are harmful. Evolutionary theory has always claimed that very few mutations are beneficial. Two, evolution doesn't result in perfect designs. Those who make claims like yours are not even trying to understand.

50. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128420 by TonyA on February 17, 2008 at 1:23 am

Of course, wooter == chamber == troll

Which means he isn't listening anyway.