1. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #235811 by Neuro on August 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Hm.

ANYONE:

I downloaded the parts from BitTorrent. However, only the audio works. They are in *.avi format and play in Windows Media Player. I renamed the avi files to *.wmv files; however, the same thing is wrong - audio works but video does not.

Also, are there any QuickTime downloads? I know they were up earlier for episodes 1 & 2. I do not see them.

Any ideas?

2. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #235535 by Neuro on August 23, 2008 at 7:37 am

Are there QuickTime downloads? I know they had them up for episodes 1 & 2... but what about 3?

3. Knights Templar 'Heirs' Sue Pope For Billions

Comment #233360 by Neuro on August 19, 2008 at 7:47 pm

The title of this article is very misleading. They just want 'recognition'.

Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ has filed suit in a Spanish court, asking for an apology from the pope and recognition that land and property worth about $150 billion today was seized from the Templars.

4. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #233353 by Neuro on August 19, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Thanks for posting!

5. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #231111 by Neuro on August 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Where do you play the demo?

6. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #230900 by Neuro on August 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Ishruul


I see. Thanks!
I really just need the SPORE PC game and that creature booklet, correct?

7. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #230849 by Neuro on August 15, 2008 at 10:26 am

This seems like it will be a cool game.

After watching the TED talk by Will Wright, creator of Spore, I just want to buy the game 10x more!


Has anyone ever played the regular SPORE versus the Galactic Spore edition?? Which one should I buy?

8. God's Warriors

Comment #230599 by Neuro on August 14, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Awesome. I will be back at school by the time it airs! I do not have CNN (cable, satellite, >4 channels, etc...) at home.

9. The God Delusion

Comment #229357 by Neuro on August 13, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I agree with thewhitepearl.

Also, it is not pulchritudinous. It hurts my eyes. It may be symbolic of the 'explosive' content inside, but it still hurts my eyes!

10. Optimism in Evolution

Comment #229233 by Neuro on August 13, 2008 at 8:52 am

Superb article. Yes, if only more newspapers printed this article, the media might get some more respect from me.

11. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229222 by Neuro on August 13, 2008 at 8:38 am

...religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

12. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214629 by Neuro on July 20, 2008 at 5:45 pm

This is incredibly inane. Why the hell would someone review a book's /index/?

That is like criticizing a restaurant's food by reading the menu, not actually tasting the food. Dumb.

13. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211338 by Neuro on July 15, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Ah, so, you can only watch the interview with Weinberg & Krauss? Do you have to buy the second DVD to see Buss and Myers, then?

The interviews with Weinberg & Krauss are excellent.

14. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #200416 by Neuro on June 27, 2008 at 2:34 pm

It should be video, god damn it!

15. The Latest Wedge Document

Comment #200412 by Neuro on June 27, 2008 at 2:25 pm

LUCAS:

My name's Lucas. I submitted the article.

16. Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution

Comment #198885 by Neuro on June 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm

ANYONE:

Is this going on now? Are the exhibits going on year-round or do they start next February?

17. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195092 by Neuro on June 17, 2008 at 5:38 pm

If only all people could reflect on their own beliefs in an objective manner...

I think a lot of people recognize these arguments, and they really do not have a good response to them. However, they are so emotionally attached to their religion, I suspect that they cannot let go just because of the aforementioned attachment and feel badly if they do.

Oh well.

18. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194294 by Neuro on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 pm

This is simply hilarious.

Oh, maybe SOMEONE can answer this:

In bookstores, why do they have 'Catholic Fiction' or 'Christian Fiction'?

My first point is: It seems kind of redundant.
Second, and more importantly, why can they publish Christian Fiction (screwing with the bible, altering details, etc...) but not shoot a movie where it alters endings, details, etc.

It just does not make sense to me.

Can someone explain?

19. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194283 by Neuro on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm

This is not really that new. If you go back in neuroscience literature, there is tons of biological and neuroanatomical evidence for a straight/gay difference. Plus, most males that are gay have feminine brain structures. Plus, studies in rats show that prenatal stress can affect how the rat acts (homosexual behaviors, such as the male arching its back to mate) and how the brain is organized.

20. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193453 by Neuro on June 15, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I laugh at how simply people can convert... you know, uproot their 'current' beliefs and switch to some new ones. It's like buying a car: trade your old car in, test drive some new cars, then buy a new one [and repeat in the next 10 years].

21. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193155 by Neuro on June 14, 2008 at 9:31 pm

ROBDINSMORE:

Right, it really does not decrease.

22. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #192671 by Neuro on June 13, 2008 at 10:12 pm

IVELLIOS:


I believe you're refering to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, the 2nd law is just heat [energy] transfer (hot --> cold [heat transfer]) & entropy does not change in a closed system. Earth's in an open system.
Also, chaos in laymen terms is not really the same as chaos in chemistry & physics.

Here are two good websites about the law: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node78.html
-------

Very interesting. So, they are saying that the beginnings of 'life' existed, and then bits and pieces of this or like-kind meteorite sprinkled down, and the pieces may have incorporated themselves?

That is so cool that they found traces of uracil and xanthine.

Science just keeps progressing. . .

23. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #192615 by Neuro on June 13, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Rock on, Ayaan.

24. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #187277 by Neuro on June 1, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Cool stuff.

25. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184859 by Neuro on May 26, 2008 at 9:56 am

MESOMODEL:


I really like the quote by Bertrand Russell:

"Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do."

26. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #184615 by Neuro on May 25, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Bush is a nut. He should be thrown in an insane asylum. Not for the war, which I think is unwarranted, but because he based, in part, his decision and reasons on faith. He is an ass.
If someone else claimed that faith /guided/ him/her in the decision to wage war in the streets, murder, rape, breaking-and-entering, etc., they would be thrown in jail.
The president does it, and it is fine.

Glory, glory hallelujah!

27. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184599 by Neuro on May 25, 2008 at 8:27 pm

"...oozing evolutionary propaganda and conjecture..."

Ha. That is all I have to say.

They say it's accessible to a child. Yes, and then when the person really grows up, they will laugh at the "full color [sic] photos" and the propaganda that Christian Science is spewing.

(I believe it is supposed to be 'full-color photos')

I have a feeling that Jeannie Fulbright is going to be receiving a lot of emails from people that espouse RD and evolutionary theory.

28. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182647 by Neuro on May 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm

mmurray:



To me, if a judge said it (and it was not taken as an offense), then the man should be allowed to say it, too. He may not have legal rights to do so; I don't know.

Plus, I don't see how they can possibly say he was offending people by saying it was a cult. By definition, /organized/ religion IS, in fact, a cult!

In my opinion, I don't see the word 'cult' as a vituperative or nefarious word.
Then again, I'm not the judge and jury.

29. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182619 by Neuro on May 20, 2008 at 4:30 pm

People are stupid. The boy/man was within his rights, especially if he had a court judge say it!

Do these idiots even know the definition of the word 'cult'?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary <http://www.merriam-webster.com>


Main Entry:
cult ˈkəlt (noun)

1: formal religious veneration; worship

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also its body of adherents

3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious

4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator

5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Let's see. Which ones apply to Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, et cetera.

#1, 2, 4, 5[a,b,c]

#3 counts, if you're an atheist!

Granted 'cult' today typically means #3, an unorthodox (often dangerous) assembly, but the kid could claim that he meant any of the other four definitions. He could refer to Christianity as a cult, which is true.

30. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182505 by Neuro on May 20, 2008 at 9:33 am

Clearmind:



As I said before, the grammar correction was just for my own pleasure.

Anyway, prophetic testimony is no evidence. That's pure testimony (mouth-to-ear conversation). The fact of the matter is, that's all you have. You have no substantial evidence to backup your claim. I'm sorry, but you don't. I'd gladly listen, if you had evidence to the contrary.

Your prophets' testimony is the same as me saying that a prophet (I read this in a holy book) told me that god was a shame. Plus,"Jimbo" is the real prophet!

Evolution and/or natural selection would be on the same ground as your prophets' testimony. When Darwin first proposed natural selection, this is what it was. An argument from authority, basically. However, through the years, evolution by means of natural selection has been corroborated by several lines of evidence. These lines include comparative anatomy, molecular biology, medicine, fossil records, population distribution measures, developmental biology & physiology, et cetera.
Since evolution has been corroborated, it does have a base to stand on. Moreover, natural selection is clearly witnessed in nature. Take the case of the smoky-colored moths, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, et cetera. There are so many lines of evidence and examples that you would need to go read a book to get a gratifyingly complete understanding.

You probably have not read any biology text book. If you have, you probably don't know that much about science. You probably have not majored in a natural, or even a social science, either.

If you have done any of these, I forgive.
You do not have any evidence to substantiate your claims, except for testimony. My testimony is just as reliable as yours (saying "Jimbo" is the real deal from a holy prophet & book).

Testimony is only as credible as the person spewing it, and I don't think you're that credible (or the bible/scripture, for that matter!).

Please go to TalkOrigins.org and read. Educate yourself.

In addition, science is not out to scam people out of mind or into false ideas. Evolution by natural selection is the only proposed hypothesis (that became a theory) that has withstood the test of time. If it is false, why has it not been overturned in 200 years? Seriously, one shred of evidence that contradicts natural selection and/or evolution would /crush/ the theory.
Science would then change its mind, if sufficient evidence against the theory presented itself.

31. What is science for?

Comment #182360 by Neuro on May 19, 2008 at 8:56 pm

I just watched the video. I did not get the mp3 to work, either.

There was no audience Q&A, like I thought they were going to do. I think they ran out of time. I would have liked it to be longer.

Regardless, it was a good talk.

32. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182330 by Neuro on May 19, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Clearmind:


Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to use an ad hominem [abusive] argument, just for my own fun. Then, I will briefly set forth a hypothesis. This hypothesis will not satisfy you, but if you were really a curious person, you would research it further.

1) Please use correct grammar.
The use of 'was' denotes sense of pastness/time.
The use of 'were' denotes situations hypothetical or contrary to fact and wishes or desires.

So, if you say, "If that was the case...," that would be wrong. You say, "If that were the case..." This is because the case that you are describing did not happen; it's contrary to fact or a hypothetical statement. Therefore, use "were".

Another example would be, "I wish I were..." or "I wish there were an umbrella here...." or "If it were raining, I would have taken an umbrella."

2) Also, you really should read up on current hypotheses about how the beginnings of life came about. I don't have too much time to explain it. However, in short, chemicals didn't magically rain down from the atmosphere. It may have been some other force, like lightning or some other catalyst, that began the process of chemical reactions [in the water]. This formed, maybe, organic compounds that ultimately led to a self-replicating RNA-type strand, through chemical reactions and amino acids (and other intermediate steps). You must read up on the hypotheses. There are some other ones, by the way. You should check out the amount of geological time (millions of year) that passed. That may show you the amount of time it took before anything resembling life started.

EDIT: Also, since you are so fond about assumptions, you're guilty of assuming. If you would read about hypotheses, there is rarely that many assumptions. Moreover, you are assuming there's a god, when, in fact, no evidence exists except human credulity!

33. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182297 by Neuro on May 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Robotaholic


Yes, I'd say many 'truths' could be subjected to science's standards.

I'm not an epistemology expert, but I thought I heard something about 'a priori truths,' (and its related terms) such that observation and/or experience the event is not needed, only logic.
I don't know.

Anyway, I agree with you, for the most part.

34. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182238 by Neuro on May 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Question to all:

Where is a poll that says 'X' amount of scientists believe in god and 'Y' do not. In 'X', the break down of types of scientists is....


Where's that poll that Dawkins sometimes refers to in his talks? Was it by the Pew Foundation?

Any link to where the/any poll is would be appreciated! Thanks.

35. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181605 by Neuro on May 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm

>> "She's done things like putting soybeans in the congressional cafeteria..."


I would regard this as more important than trying to get a 'Ten Commandments Weekend'. What the hell is that?

36. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181503 by Neuro on May 17, 2008 at 10:19 am

QOMAK:

I'm sure that Boteach will regard this blogging dialog as a 'debate'. He will tout it around when talking to people.

Next time, when he is debating someone, he will now say something like, "Oh, well, I just debated Dr. Dawkins last [insert time length]."

Yeah, this will most definitely be considered another one of his fictitious 'debates'.

37. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181469 by Neuro on May 17, 2008 at 9:13 am

Question:

This is the rabbi that's featured on Oprah's television show, correct?

He also has a radio program on her radio station, yes?

Oprah's an ass. He's an ass.
Apparently, like attracts like.

38. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181026 by Neuro on May 16, 2008 at 10:10 am

Mango:

Is 'ATHEISM' really on your license plate? Is that why your car is the victim of vandalism?

39. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178995 by Neuro on May 12, 2008 at 11:11 am

Awesome interview.

You can see RD getting so incredibly excited at the prospect of some of the questions/hypotheses.

Some of these questions have sort of been answered. Another great interview of RD is from the NPR website.

Go to the National Public Radio website and listen to RD's interview on "The Ancestor's Tale". That's another pretty good interview!

40. Readings from The Ancestor's Tale

Comment #178430 by Neuro on May 11, 2008 at 12:02 pm

It seems to not work.

41. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177338 by Neuro on May 8, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Where are the videos to Dawkins & Rabbi's debates (for lack of a better term)? I have not seen them.

I would like to see a follow-up debate/talk. I think it would be hilarious to hear the Rabbi's critiques/pit-falls of evolution and/or natural selection and hear Dawkins' reply.


And many accolades to ADONAIS. They do tend to equate atheists to Hitler. It's now time to have theists/preachers/rabbis/et cetera be compared.

42. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177307 by Neuro on May 8, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Wow. I just watched the debate (slaughtering) of Boteach and Hitchens, at 92nd Street Y. Does Boteach have any ounce of knowledge on any subject, besides his own profession? I was utterly embarrassed for him.

He obviously tries to play himself up using his Oxford pseudo-position status.

This is /exactly/ what Boteach needed to be told by Dawkins. I laugh at how many times he mentioned (in the Hitchens/Boteach debate) that he was friends with Dawkins, as to give himself some kind of intellectual status.