851. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217531 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm

1014. Comment #217526 by phasmagigas

At is why the more you ad hoc a hypothesis, the more it loses credibility.

852. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217529 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Robert, and I would also thank you to stop quoting formal logical forumlas. When you do so you are clearly not interested in being understood, but in obfucating, and shutting people up.

If your interest is in being as unintelligible as possible, then there is no reason to respond to you.

853. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217520 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 12:04 pm

1009. Comment #217513 by phasmagigas

He's equivocating. A negative can be proved under certain conditions. That is what falsification is all about. Conditions must allow for a test of some sort that allows for the negative to be demonstrated.

854. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217511 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 11:59 am

1000. Comment #217486 by Robert O'Brien

Existence isn't a predicate, and "greatness" is a value judgement. It is tantamount to saying "the greatest meal imaginable". There is no objective standard of greatness.

Also, I would consider a non-existence tumour in my brain to be far greater than an existent one.

855. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217471 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 11:30 am

987. Comment #217461 by Robert O'Brien

It has been established to my satisfaction that god has purple hair, so any gods without purple hair can be rejected on that basis alone.

856. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217462 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 11:23 am

981. Comment #217448 by decius

Thinking there aren't alien civilizations analogous to our own is tantamount to saying that we won a lottery with odds of one in 70 sextillion of winning. I think that the statistical evidence is enough to prove it. We may not know where, and how many, but I think it is knowledge that some are there.

The implications may be mind blowing for some, but it wouldn't greatly effect how I views things. Would it you? Also, the died in the wool believers will just say it's a trick of some sort, or ad hoc it away in some other way. If they can reject the science of evolution, that will be easy.

You are refering to solar-lensing. That has only been newly implimented. They also have plans to launch a satellite that will double its effectiveness. Increasing our ability to detect plants to ones as small as 2.5 the size of earth. Before this, we were using a method that detected the wobble of a star, as it was effected by the gravity of a planet in it's orbit, but the planet needed to be something like 8 times the size of earth to be detectable I believe.

Those aliens would need to have better planet detection technology than we have.

857. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217442 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:57 am

976. Comment #217435 by LeeLeeOne

Is that all? You clearly aren't looking very hard.

858. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217439 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:54 am

974. Comment #217431 by black wolf

Because it isn't evident. How do we know that the room isn't filled with invisible creatures?

There could very well be some unobserved, or unevident cause, but this is true of lots of things. You could postulate any number of unevident explanations for something. We might as well throw observation out the window if we are going to just disregard it.

859. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217432 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:48 am

972. Comment #217422 by decius

I pay no mind to SETI for the sheer statisical unlikelihood of success.

The odds that an alien transmission would be hitting earth at just the time that we have been able to receive it (since about the 70s I think it was that anyone even began looking). Even if aliens were shootin' 'em all over the universe, I highly doubt one would hit earth coinciding so close with our ability to detect it.

Then there is the fact that even if we did pick up a transmission, it would only be interesting, and confirm what we already know to be true (that alien life exists). It would definitely be cool to know this, and to know where, but it isn't as if we could make contact with them. They would be several light years away, probably hundreds to thousands.

So I'm not so convinced that the pay off is worth the expense. Though many may disagree with me on this.

I doubt that the book "the alien transmission that was interesting" would sell as many books as "contact".

860. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217418 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:30 am

969. Comment #217412 by decius

Well stars within the galaxy as seperated by roughly 8 light years a piece. The cloest star to us is like 4 light years away. So clearly the distance must be at least a few thousand for it to matter. Besides, in Carl Sagan's book Contact, the signal was directed back from a solar system twenty or so light years away. I would think that Sagan would know if that was too far for the signal to travel. In fact, it left it zero time to sit around, it was sent back the moment it reached there. So there was nothing that implied that was it's maximum distance. It would have to be in the hundreds of light years at the very least to be even worth doing.

861. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217415 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:25 am

I'm quite comfortable saying that any proported gods in any religions I am aware of don't exist. Some of them I am as sure as I am that square-triangles don't, others just about as sure as I am about fairies.

When it comes to a deist god of somekind, I think that believing in one is wholly unjustified. I am also sure that the proposition contradicts what we know about the universe, and how it operates. So I am an confident one does not exist as I am that I will never observe something fall upwards.

Though I may be a stronger atheist than RD.

862. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217409 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:20 am

959. Comment #217394 by Tezcatlipoca

Someone should really tell SETI.

863. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217402 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:13 am

957. Comment #217391 by decius

Actually I specifically said "Unless they have not developed to the point to use radio signals, or have developed past the point of using radio signals."

I left the possibility open that they would have made radio technology wholly obsolete before we aquired the technology to receive radio signals.

864. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217385 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 10:03 am

948. Comment #217376 by aberdeen

You can't prove a negative. The scientific method works on falsification. You assume the negative, and try to disprove your hypothesis. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is below the status of wrong.

There cannot exist evidence of the lack of existence of something beyond logical, or the lack of evidence for it's positive existence. Thus parodies like the flying spaghetti monster, and invisible pink unicorns.

2 is plainly false. Particles have been observed coming into existence without a cause on the subatomic scale.

3 logically leads to an infinite regress, which is an absurdity. It also ignores the bald-face hypocrisy of allowing god to be the uncaused cause when something evident, and known to exist, like the universe, is clearly a better candidate.

We do know how the pyamids were built, we've known for some time. Hell, some of them have the process depicted inside.

The charlatan is one claiming to know something they could not possibly know (i.e. the origin of all things, a supernatural entity, and its mind) not the ones doubting their assertions.

865. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217371 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 9:42 am

942. Comment #217364 by decius

I'm not sure that any alien species would leave its home world, even if it was easily able to. At least not to go for intersteller hi-jinks.

Doing so would effectively cut off all ties with their world.

Perhaps there are places in the universe where there has been a kind of supernova of life. Where the home planet either become too crouded, or inhabitable, and caused the inhabitants to spread out to neighboring star systems.

One must also consider that what one takes off of the planet is gone for good. Any materials and resources that is taken cannot be replaced.

There is so much complication involved that I am skeptical if any would do so unless absolutely necessary.

We know that no civilizations are anywhere near us, or we would have picked up radio signals by now. Unless they have not developed to the point to use radio signals, or have developed past the point of using radio signals.

In any case, maybe if our species spreads out, out of necessity, within a few hundred thousand to million years, we might run into someone else. Though we would have had to have spread out in thousands of directions.

Then again, running into another group that originated from earth a million years later might as well be from another planet.

866. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217367 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 9:30 am

*Touched by an angel*

"And where did the angel touch you Timmy?" (*Gestures towards no-no place*)

"Oh c'mon! Who are you going to believe? I'm a freakin' angel!"

867. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217359 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 9:12 am

938. Comment #217355 by decius

Perhaps.

Because of it's sheer size, I am quite sure of two things: There exists at least hundreds of millions of alien civilizations with intellects comparable, or greater than our own, and that none have been anywhere near earth.

868. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217353 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 9:04 am

929. Comment #217323 by irate_atheist

5 billion stars per galaxy is an extraordinarily conservative estimate. Our galaxy contains an estimated between 200-400 billion stars.

The observable universe (considering that this is several meganitudes smaller than the entire universe) contains an estimated 70 sextillion stars, or 70x10 to the power of 22.

Also there is actually an estimated 80 billion galaxies in the observable universe alone.

Quite a deal bigger than you figured eh?

869. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217262 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 5:38 am

"Why is there something rather than nothing" begs the question. It's like asking "what does blue smell like". In order to ask that question you need to assume something that isn't evident. You need to demonstate that there is a reason before it becomes intelligible to ask what that reason is.

It also assumes that nothingness is the most natural, and original state of things, and that "something" requires an explanation but "nothing" does not. Yet "nothing" is an abstract concept, there is always something. We have no experience with "nothing" postulating it as the original and most natural state is unjustified.

You need to rectify your base assumptions with the evidence before you can intelligibly ask that question.

870. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217232 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 4:45 am

868. Comment #217227 by Steve Zara

He's right about me. I also have a hard time taking UFO abductees seriously because they claimed to have been abducted by aliens.

Of course the general insanity of someone's claims to going to determine how seriously I take them. Alien abduction is at least possible, it is just highly, highly, highly improbable. Also everything about their accounts renders them clearly fatuous.

871. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217228 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 4:42 am

865. Comment #217223 by Dr Doctor

Yeah, this atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural, and by extension, any deities, but just "God", with a captial letter, indicating the christian god.

You could say that to a hindu, and it would be accurate that they don't believe that, but it wouldn't make them atheists.

872. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217225 by Mitchell Gilks on July 24, 2008 at 4:39 am

Whenever I am questioned on whether or not I accepted Jesus as a historical figure, I say that it is trivial. Almost certaintly around that time some guy named Jesus existed, likely several guys named Jesus did. I am only skeptical of the claim that a magic-guy named Jesus existed.

Zues has mountains of contemporanious account of his existence, and by some of the most reliable historians of the period. Maybe a guy named Zues existed too, that doesn't mean he threw lightning bolts.

Whether a guy with the name existed is of trivial importance. Whether they had superpowers is what I care about.

873. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216955 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 5:58 pm

I have the amazing ability to discuss, propogate, and cultivate four to five tangents at a time.

874. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #216950 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 5:49 pm

"These are the building blocks of life, and like all building blocks, they are made by a carpenter -- named Jesus. Right after he burried the dinosaur bones". -- Stephen Colbert.

875. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216895 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm

The Bling Watchmaker

876. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216894 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm

88. Comment #216883 by Richard Dawkins

Sadly, I'm a youngster and a rather new fan of yours, Richard. Those specific books I only know of by title alone, so that is all I'm qualified to comment on.

I've read "The God Delusion", "River out of Eden" and "The Ancestor's Tale". All of which were fantastic. I especially liked "The Ancestor's Tale". My favorite tale was the platypus'.

I am right now reading Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden" and then I plan on reading "A Demon Haunted World". I do have plans to read all of your books though.

877. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #216886 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Well, I think that anyone who uses the expressions "irregardless" "a whole 'nother" or "all of a sudden" deserves to be placed in work camps.

878. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216781 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I don't know about anthropomorphic, I'm sure other animals exude effort in endeavours, though I do catch your point. Effort does imply a kind of personal strivance, or something around those lines. In that sense I agree that it is an effortless process.

Now I do think that order and chaos are anthopocentric concepts, that focus around our ability to predict.

I see things simply effecting other things to various degrees.

We should be careful about projecting our primate neurosis, paranoia, and obsession with paterns unto the world.

879. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216775 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:59 pm

797. Comment #216769 by al-rawandi

He writes spy video games now too. He has a video game series called "Splinter Cell".

880. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216771 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:52 pm

83. Comment #216765 by Steve Zara

No, I'm pretty unfit as well. A gentle slope is my worst nightmare.

I think there is effort in evolution to reach the "goal", and natural selection supplies the pressure, as you say. Without this pressure, I don't know that organisms would change.

881. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216764 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm

I also don't seem improbable. I specifically am astronomically improbable.

882. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216761 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm

His description of the metaphor implies no effort. If I remember it properly from his "waking up in the universe" series. He says, take an eye, or a wing, and place this at the peak. This is the improbable thing that we are trying to explain. Take the animal that is trying to achieve this (not literally), and instead of jumping up to the peak from the bottom, it can take a leisurely stroll around the back of the mountain, up a slight incline until it reaches the top.

I see nothing in that that implies difficulty.

883. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216757 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I can only speak for myself, but I would feel no embarrassment if someone far wiser came along and said I was mistaken.

884. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216749 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm

20. Comment #216307 by Steve Zara

I dare say you've misunderstood the metaphor, Steve. Evolution explains what is improbable.

I, personally, am a very very improbable animal indeed. This will not change no matter what. Evolution, renders animals like me probable. It explains where a deeply improbable thing like me comes from.

For instance. You take any rock, and look at it's arrangment of atoms. This arrangement is very very improbable, but because of all the different possible arrangements, and the knowledge of how those arrangments occure, it renders atom arrangements like that probable, but never that specific arrangment.

Eyes of somekind, life and animals of so kind, could all be deeply probable (and I think that it is) but any specific configuration, or specific animal will always be deeply improbable, but only becausse of all the possible alternative outcomes.

I do think that his metaphor clearly does give the incorrect impression that evolution is improbable, and life through those means are improbable. Though I am quite sure he only meant it in the way I describe.

885. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216740 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm

789. Comment #216681 by al-rawandi

When I'm feeling depressed I always just excercise the'ol right arm. The Dalai Lama be damned!

886. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216672 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 11:39 am

Well, excercise is the best remady for depression. At one time people worked out their built up stress by chasing dinner, and so forth. These days we don't have as many venues to work it out.

One of the major reasons people hit deep depression around christmass time is because with all the stuff going on, they tend to neglect their excercise routines.

So indeed, if Richard Morgan is depressed, getting a bicycle is a good idea.

887. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216642 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 11:10 am

781. Comment #216630 by Teratornis

Besides, I said "huge" difference. They are different, in that one is prescriptive, and the other suggestive, or implied.

888. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216637 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

781. Comment #216630 by Teratornis

Ouch. shanked by my own rhetoric.

I guess it's subtle, like the difference between "irrational" and "nonrational."

889. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216525 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 9:10 am

773. Comment #216500 by decius

No, I've never heard of him. Morinaga-sensei isn't the best artist around (although I still think she is pretty good), it is her story telling that I am impressed with more.

People that do fastasy and action manga are stunningly talented, and probably beyond the level most can achieve without having some inborn artistic genius. I have no delusions of getting there.

890. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216486 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:40 am

Western comics always screw me up. Japanese order is from left to right, while western order is right to left. Books are basically read from back to front from a western perspective.

I should have maybe mentioned this to decius when I linked him that manga. I hope he knew that already.

891. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216477 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:31 am

Hurricane kicks-ass-and-doesn't-even-care-about-taking-names-but-not-because-it-is-stupid-or-illiterate-or-anything-it-just-doesn't-care-is-all.

Maybe a little long.

892. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216473 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:26 am

759. Comment #216470 by mixmastergaz

You know, if I were tortured, and killed, and people wanted to remember that day...I would be unimpressed if they called it a "good" day. Wasn't all that great for me.

893. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216471 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

757. Comment #216468 by mixmastergaz

You must not have noticed was Quetz said to me. I was being facetious. I do realise that you were joking.

894. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216467 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:17 am

"Cesar" is perfectly valid.

895. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216463 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:11 am

749. Comment #216455 by mixmastergaz

They don't even all agree on which cesar was in power at the time.

They also make numerous cultural, geographic, and law mistakes. It is questionable if any of they had even ever been to palestine

896. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216461 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

747. Comment #216453 by Quetzalcoatl

"Fel" is with ONE "L"

And you call yourself a mythical creature. Pffft.

897. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #216458 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:06 am

95. Comment #216381 by Steve Zara

And violates the law of noncontradiction.

898. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216447 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

I don't see the huge difference between:

"You should kill yourself" and "if I were you I'd kill myself".

899. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216432 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 7:32 am

729. Comment #216425 by Bonzai

You make me sound like a theist...

900. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216416 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 6:54 am

I got almost totally ignored.

He wasn't here to win arguments, convince people, or fight a case. He was here to sling mud at atheists, and attempt to further solidify his hopes that atheists are just wrong, even if he doesn't know how to show it.

Clearly he is an intelligent and educated man. You can however feel an air of desperation in the way his goal is to respond, insult, and nit pick. Not actually offer anything of substance, or address anything of substance.

He is just a troll. He is not to be taken seriously. It takes more than intelligence and education to have a constuctive conversation, it takes the desire to have such a conversation, and intellectual honest. Which he clearly lacks.