251. Two More Fleas

Comment #144343 by clearmind on March 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Fine-tuning answers from fine tuning universe;

Jon says:
(Actually we have repeatedly pointed out to you that paintings are not a good analogy for life in this instance. Paintings don't have sex to make other paintings, animals on the other hand tend to.)

I have no idea what you are talking about. For the sake of science and understanding, I just got the definition of analogy. Paintings or buildings are examples that express the logic in each creation. Creation can be a painting or a human being but logic is not changed:

NOTHING CAN HAPPEN BY THEMSELVES OR CHANCES.

Wooter is wrong then logic is wrong too(!)
Logic is right therefore wooter is right. It is not like this, wooter is right therefore logic is right too. I hope, a little philosophy will not be confusing.

(And your answer is: The way you fawn over yourself lowers pathetic to new lows. I have to support you on this one though: Clearmind/wooter/wipeout/selfishmind you have boundless faulty logic.)

Logic is wrong so you are wrong. There is no term like faulty logic, otherwise it would not be logic. Logic is only one in term of explaining the things correctly. Logic is not a point of view,

Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory. [1]

Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

Niels Bohr's model of the atom made an analogy between the atom and the solar system.
Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition" (Hofstadter in Gentner et al. 2001).
Specific analogical language comprises exemplification, comparisons, metaphors, similes, allegories, and parables, but not metonymy. Phrases like and so on, and the like, as if, and the very word like also rely on an analogical understanding by the receiver of a message including them. Analogy is important not only in ordinary language and common sense, where proverbs and idioms give many examples of its application, but also in science, philosophy and the humanities.(from Wikipe)

252. Two More Fleas

Comment #144342 by clearmind on March 15, 2008 at 4:43 pm

To Tony
Okay let's see what Prof Dawkins says:

(Selfish gene: Our genes made use. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. The world of the selfish gene is one of savage COMPETITION, ruthless EXPLOITATION, and DECEIT. But what of the acts of apparent altruism found in nature - the bees who commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, or the birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk ? Do they contravene the fundamental law of gene selfishness ? By no means: Dawkins shows that the selfish gene is also the subtle gene. And he holds out the hope that our species - alone on earth - has the power to rebel against the designs of the selfish gene.)

It is not conceptual, right. Again if I refer to you to my analogies, the bricks of a building that act selfisly(!) cannot build up that building. Or the letters of a book cannot write the book by themselves.
(Jon says:You are a liar this one has been answered to death. Here are some examples)
I state: Please refer to the definition of analogy. Your pals' answers can be answered by another analogy.

I am saying that Mona Lisa is made by an artist. So the same way all the creations who has got different DNA structures, design, and form, (colours) cannot be designed in the same way.

Just do the comparison that anybody can do.
And this is your pals' answer: Paintings need artists because they don't breed and have offspring that are just a little bit different.

This is where you are stuck. You do not use logic, so you are circling in a very narrow thinking of "I must be right, I can't be wrong" orbit.
(How is that not enough time for evolution?
How does that square with any given scripture?
Wow, you can't even use the Christian Bible as "evidence" to support your claims.)

To reverend and jon again
Wiki says: Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years The exact age of the Earth is difficult to determine.
If I want to open a hotel for guests, First I will build it up, design it, place all the necessary equipment and servants, then, I will invite the guests. God created this hotel like earth, design it from, plants, chlorophyll, oxygen, to Earth's axial tilt to make us seasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt - then placed servant like animals, chickens, bees, cows, sheep, and with their open-hand gesture like branches trees with their different fruits, finally when the earth is ready, human beings were created. So the time to create the earth and then to create the first human being is different. As wiki proposes we cannot know the exact time. Time is not a problem for creation since time is created as well.

But in a world of evolution time matters because everything is based on luck and chances through trial and error method of amino acids to make a protein since they have conscious, they have no idea what corrrect order of chains are to be DESIGNED.

253. Two More Fleas

Comment #144340 by clearmind on March 15, 2008 at 4:39 pm

epeeist
I have no intentions to questions anybody's personal education level, etc. I respect the time people spend for their education. But when logic enters in the stage, and if our education level or background is not compatible with logic, then, no need to mention it.

(For evolution to happen you need:)
What blindwatcmaker means?
Methinks?
Luck and chances mean?
How logically can you explain popping up of amino acids in the first place â€" collision, chances or luck?

If you enter an empty room and you say nothing is there. Then you go to another room and you see a table and a vase on it?
So question is who put the table and vase on it? What is the first cause for this table and vase to happen there?
Please refer to my analogy definition to understand what it is.

254. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #144013 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Say the universe was created 5 billion years ago and your point is?

Reverend
If I tell approximate time, then what? Okay say 10 thousand years ago, and your point is?

By the waw, we couldn't figure out the way to make the planets spinning around and at the same time around the sun in our science project? Any suggestion?

255. Two More Fleas

Comment #144010 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 9:31 pm

(I have read your Darwin/Russell/Mona Lisa conversation, I think you may have misunderstood the functioning of evolution somewhat.)

Mona Lisa is one of the best shot that your vain attempts cannot answer it. Let me make it more clear.

What evolution deludes:

Mona Lisa's artist is inside painting. It is the black colour that evolved and evolved into other colours and collided (mixed) by chances and there you go, Mona Lisa is out.

The designer of a very well- designed palace can be found in the bricks (amino acids) of that building. One brick that dropped down from sky(planets, chemicals, etc story) mutated and evolved and evolved into other bricks, then, after a very very long process, the palace came out. The leap of the bricks into iron, glass, wood are unavoidable.

The designer of a car can be found in the parts of, a very clever one, the wheel. The wheel evolved and evolved into other parts, tyres, engine, brakes etc then, after a very very long process, the very first primitive car came out. The leap of the models are unavoidable; from primitive one evolved into Volkswagen, ford, then, ended up in Porsche.

(Would you believe in Evolution by supernatural selection? Some kind of deity interventions?)

Reverse psychology does not work for logical analogies, it is just for an attempt to write an answer to answer, not to reply the guestion.

(How old do YOU think the earth is?)
Say, 5 billion years is and your point is?

(How many times have you been told that natural selection is not random?)

Tell me what the following titles mean in Evolution vocabulary:
Darwins' vocabulary
Luck
Chance:

Professor Dawkins' vocabulary:
Blindwatcmaker
Chances:
Methinks:

Please put it in a logical way if you can:

(your first cause argument is nonsense.)
What is your first cause argument then, in terms of ET? We are all ears.

256. Two More Fleas

Comment #144009 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 9:27 pm

An open debate: How selfish are "the selfish genes ?

(Aaaarrrggggh! Organisms are not selfish! Genes are! There is a huge difference.)

Anna banana please do not go banana after you read the following;

The March, 2003, edition of Focus magazine carried an article called "The Gene is Selfish." This dealt with various evolutionist theses developed from Darwin's time up to the present day
"For example, why did birds chirp louder as the likelihood of an attack went up or in moments of danger, or why did bees sacrifice their lives to defend the nest?"
Why did the birds and bees fly away? Why all animals have the tendency to protect their baby animals? Because the motto is not to save yourself. Not the selfish gene urge!
If Professor dawkins were right;

Then genes were supposed to be:

1. Conscious
2. has got mind, and feelings
3. even has got a character

Genes are squeezed, packed parts of DNA. DNA is like a book of the living creature. Four different molecules combine DNA. The order of chain of these four molecules combine a code that keeps the information about the creature. Briefly , in this sense DNA is a huge molecule in terms of its function. It is impossible that This Dna can act selfishly, or have a conscious. The parts of DNA are unconscious particles that can be selfish.
The funny thing is that in the old times people were worshipping idols that have no conscious or mind or nay other thing; Now idols evolved into Selfish genes or menothinking. That is something that we need to think about.
Evolution says;
Mona Lisa's artist is inside painting. It is the black colour that evolved and evolved into other colours and collided (mixed) by chances and there you go, Mona Lisa is out.

Mona Lisa says: My artist is not inside me.

So "WOOTER IS WRONG!" is wrong. I never feel proud of anything I write here, so I always consider my writings from logical point of view.

Wooter is wrong then logic is wrong too(!)
Logic is right therefore wooter is right. It is not like this, wooter is right therefore logic is right too. I hope, a little philosophy will not be confusing you, Anna banana. If you are, I can paraphrase in a simple way.

257. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #143738 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 10:42 am

(Thanks. To paraphrase Adam Sandler, 'I'm on him, like a fat kid on a cupcake'.)

I am so scared. Wow Jon is on my back. Look chap not only one jon but millions of jon like can come and try to challenge me but you are destined to fail. Look at what you write to me?

(I'll also continue to counter your lies with scientific fact and theory to the best of my abilities.)

Himm your wording lies remind me of true lies
http://www.americanprotest.net/columns/04082005.php

Sorry pal, in my analogies I am begging LOGIC. Here are again to make you understand what I say in a different way;

Mona Lisa says: I have got an artist to make me. So do not mingle my colours to find Leonarda Vinci there. All you will find is the colours.

Mona Lisa says: Don't get funny. How come a black colour mutates into other colours and mixes up by chance then there you go I was made.

Mona Lisa says: In the beginning, there was all the colours, brushes and other equipment were ready. They did not drop down from the sky.

Mona Lisa says: Black colour did not create other colours. How come? Colours are unconconscious and conscious things cannot create designed things. Matter cannot create matter and matter cannot design matter as letters cannot come into existence by chance to write the book of DNA.



Final: Until you can show me where Darwin said that. Okay you tell us how did Darwin explain it?

Jon, sorry to say you are out of my logic's league. Your are answers are not answers to me, with that denial approach without presenting any logical argument. But if you want to entertain your self or give a pat on your shoulder assuming that you gave an answer, this is just deceiving yourself not me or others.

Irate do you want to give an naswer to you? Himm NO. Silence is the best answer.

258. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143691 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 9:58 am

(Ur LOLspeak needs wurk, srsly. U no haz teh funneh. Plz, trai moar jokez, oar u mus b BANNED 4 LIF!!!1!

Kthxbai!)

That is very interesting. Are you mutating or evolving from monkeys to into human beings? That is good if you are. Then you can prove that ET is right. Way to go?

By the way how does the colour of the people came out by evolution?

259. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143685 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 9:55 am

(DNA isn't information like a computer program or text book. That analogy doesn't work.
Also, your pharmacy analogy doesn't work either. The Earth isn't a big Pharmacy, there's no big Pharmacist who we can talk to, etc.

(By the way, using a work of fiction doesn't strengthen your analogy. :)


Please answer the following agreemnt clearly not being evasive.

Second my pharmacy analogy is the best that nobody can rebut it since it is completely based on logic and this is just an analogy and do not expect or deem a pharmacist you are trying to see by skipping the logic that is put forward. I can challenge entire 16 percent atheists to answer this analogy but you will all fail to do that because chance and luck HAS LUCK AND CHANCE TO WIN ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST LOGIC.

LET'S REFRESH OUR MINDS.
Imagine that we enter a very huge pharmacy: Millions of medicine, drugs and ingredients of the medicine are on the shelves. We need to buy a medicine but the medicine is supposed to be made. We think about this perfect pharmacy to happen in

Either by
A very well-knowledgeable person who knows all the ingredients and their functions so that he can mix them up again in certain amounts not more or less amount for each medicine â€" must be exact amount otherwise, medicine turn into a poison-

Or
By chances, luck, blindwatcmaker, menotthinking, selfish genes, that made the all the medicines mixing randomly unconsciously and blindly, then there you go we have all the medicines.

Now since the second choice is completely non-sense and illogical, then we have got the first option which is based on logic and reason. Otherwise nobody wants to hear such a reply;
Excuse me sir, for the medicine you order, you have to wait quite a long time, since we don't have it, and chances and luck will make it your medicine but we don't know when it will be ready.

All the creatures with different structures and Dna are like a huge pharmacy, there is no way that one can be created by chances.

260. Two More Fleas

Comment #143513 by clearmind on March 14, 2008 at 7:16 am

(How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given? I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on, please do the same. by epeeist)


1.(How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose?)
(I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on)


(Where? Jon and I wanted the exact process, you haven't provided this. I will keep this one on the list.)

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

the quatation belongs to you not to me!

261. Two More Fleas

Comment #143284 by clearmind on March 13, 2008 at 9:43 pm

It is really getting weird when I keep explaining what happened. Anyway the more I explain the more I remind the readers of censorship.

1. Wooter name was banned in january then, he could not log in and he had to get another name, to write only once under the name of selfishmind.

2. Since wearing did not make wooter away =, wooter was banned again , then wooter logged in another name, clearmind.

3.Wipeout is a victim of your suspicious mind that went suspicious for wheeler and wheeler turned out to be Mitchell who made you lose your face.

4. So stop slandering and twisting my words to save your face or evolution. Is it really difficult for you to be honest and straight? Or this is just passed from evolution tree to you?

Clear?
{By Clearmind/banned wooter)
He is still composed because he has no lack of confidence in what he believes and he does not need to slander and twist.

262. Two More Fleas

Comment #143282 by clearmind on March 13, 2008 at 9:42 pm

To epeeist

(1.How did god make our sense of smell?)

In a lab, but you weren't there. This is the answer you deserve. But let me put it this way; God created all creation with his ultimate knowledge and wisdom that is reflected on His art.
Question; How does ET explain a lot of different smells we sense?

How does evolution explain the emotions by mutation or evolution?
1.(How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose?)
(I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on)

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

2.(What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force?)

Answer:
The genetic code in the DNA proves that life on earth originated from intelligence, since information requires an intelligent sender. There are no known examples in the universe where a code originated by chance. In the movie "Contact", as soon as Jodie Foster's character recognized a "code" within the signal received from space, she immediately and correctly attributed the signal to an intelligent sender. The code both falsified the notion that the signal was naturalistic, and affirmed the fact the signal originated from intelligence. Applying this standard to our debate, the genetic code thereby falsifies NeoDarwinian evolution (naturalistic origin of all life), while concurrently proving life must have originated via an intelligent sender. (by Fred Williams)

Some of your questions are based on worldly perceptions which needs to be skipped since they are self- answered.
An infinite God is the only possibility. There must be a first Cause, and the only logical possibility is that First Cause was always here and was not Himself created. Atheistic evolutionists are forced to postulate that something came from nothing, and that is a logical impossibility. It also defies the laws of thermodynamics. (by Fred Williams)


If you want to be seeming scientific,

Explain the followings:
1.How did planets make the chemicals and chemicals became like rain then there you go we got the protein soup? What was the temperature at that time?

2.How do you explain "why amino acids in organisms are left-handed?

3. How do you explain Genetic Algorithms? Information theory tells us you cannot, under any circumstances, build information via random processes without the presence of already existing information, ie an Information Giver. Randomness unmonitored by intelligence will strip away information, always, no exceptions. (by Fred Williams)
That will do it for the time being.

263. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #143276 by clearmind on March 13, 2008 at 9:02 pm

To: Jon_Sociologist

1. Wooter name was banned in january then, he could not log in and he had to get another name, to write only once under the name of selfishmind.

2. Since wearing did not make wooter away =, wooter was banned again , then wooter logged in another name, clearmind.

3.Wipeout is a victim of your suspicious mind that went suspicious for wheeler and wheeler turned out to be Mitchell who made you lose your face.

4. So stop slandering and twisting my words to save your face or evolution. Is it really difcicult for you to be honest and straight? Ot this is just passed from evolution tree to you?

Clear?
Clearmind/banned wooter but still composed because he has no lack of confidence in what he believes and he does not need to slander and twist.

264. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143275 by clearmind on March 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm

(A related question for wooter is why he disbelieves what he disbelieves. Wooter, can you give us an argument for the existence of God which is not an equally persuasive argument for the existence of Santa Claus?)


The genetic code in the DNA proves that life on earth originated from intelligence, since information requires an intelligent sender. There are no known examples in the universe where a code originated by chance. In the movie "Contact", as soon as Jodie Foster's character recognized a "code" within the signal received from space, she immediately and correctly attributed the signal to an intelligent sender. The code both falsified the notion that the signal was naturalistic, and affirmed the fact the signal originated from intelligence. Applying this standard to our debate, the genetic code thereby falsifies NeoDarwinian evolution (naturalistic origin of all life), while concurrently proving life must have originated via an intelligent sender.
Okay let's prove that "Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?" is proved.(Rebuttalfor Creation By Fred Williams,)

Imagine that we enter a very huge pharmacy: Millions of medicine, drugs and ingredients of the medicine are on the shelves. We need to buy a medicine but the medicine is supposed to be made. We think about this perfect pharmacy to happen in

Either by
A very well-knowledgeable person who knows all the ingredients and their functions so that he can mix them up again in certain amounts not more or less amount for each medicine â€" must be exact amount otherwise, medicine turn into a poison-

Or
By chances, luck, blindwatcmaker, menotthinking, selfish genes, that made the all the medicines mixing randomly unconsciously and blindly, then there you go we have all the medicines.

Now since the second choice is completely non-sense and illogical, then we have got the first option which is based on logic and reason. Otherwise nobody wants to hear such a reply;
Excuse me sir, for the medicine you order, you have to wait quite a long time, since we don't have it, and chances and luck will make it your medicine but we don't know when it will be ready.

All the creatures with different structures and Dna are like a huge pharmacy, there is no way that one can be created by chances.

By wooter

265. Two More Fleas

Comment #142890 by clearmind on March 13, 2008 at 7:21 am

Reverend, you seem to be very relaxed, while you are at it, would you please explain us how did flea mutate or evolve from what and ended with what? So much about fleas but we never talk about their spot in the evolution tree?

266. Two More Fleas

Comment #142884 by clearmind on March 13, 2008 at 7:18 am

(Then they would run off in smug certainty to pray for the damnation/salvation of your soul, thinking that it would actually mean or achieve anything at all)

And this is what atheists do when they feel defeated;
(Wooter alert! Wooter alert! Ban the fucker! Ban the fucker!!)

(The God of Biblical literalism is easy to disprove.)

Some misinterpretation of holy books are not pointing out that God does not exist. If you go and stay in a hotel and if that hotel guide lines are misinterpreted for the guests, then, you cannot conclude that hotel came out by itself and you say it has no designer or worse, looking for desgigner inside the bricks of the hotel.

To Mike
To understand God comes through reading and interpreting his art, not talking about Himself or asking to see him. Seeing is not believing. Perceiving, grasping feeling and reasoning of God's art are to see God.

(The design argument is false. It's just as bad an analogy as your pharmacy analogy. (A pharmacy is a human artifact, so if we saw a giant pharmacy, we'd expect a giant human who plans like us. Unfortunately, we've not seen the design or fabrication of a universe, much less a designer so your analogy is terrible.)

Nope! My pharmacy analogy like rest of the others apply to logic not the real life situation as you put it saying it's just a human artifact. This analogy is a very good one: But the point is;

1.Atheists never look or see to understand. Their logic and reason is blinded by "If I see it I believe it" curtain.

2.They never think before they talk; Worse they talk and talk and talk and again they never think about what they talk.

3.Atheists are unable to read the book of the universe, rather prefer believing their eyes' worldly perceptions.

4.It is very obvious that ET cannot be explained by any logic so what it is done here is to cover the holes of evolution by imaginations and assumptions.
5.Hesitations and suspicions of what we believe make us aggressive and impulsive which ends up in swearing, slandering, and smearing and finally wiping out â€" banning. The reason is anger and to be reassured what they believe, and extra support is always out there by exchanging info, jokes and teasing to feel safe about what they believe.

6.Atheist deal anything around with their mind that lowered to their eyes. But believing in God, faith, requires mind and heart's collaboration. Without heart mind is blind. And without mind heart is lost. Faith, like two faces of a coin, need heart and mind' s acceptance. Unfortunately, atheist try to use only their mind located in their eyes that accordingly expels the logic out of the circle of understanding.

267. Two More Fleas

Comment #142623 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 10:21 pm

More latin
Acta Non Verba
Aut disce aut discede

and more logic:
I think, therefore I am.
I reason with creation therefore I see.

To Geoff,
I already wrote my analogy. I challenge you to do the same; use logic, prove what you believe if you can. This where we started in the first place; how logical evolution theory is? I just made a very clear point for clear minds. Swearing and slandering does not help you give an answer to the analogy of pharmacy, oppositely, it makes it worse.

268. Two More Fleas

Comment #142595 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Himm they are more wooters?

dogg724 and room101 (please be careful, don't get yourself banned EBEN IF YOU ARE PRETENDING THAT YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. THEY BANNED THEIR GUY ASSUMING THAT HE WERE A THEIST) I am already banned in salamander's tale under the name of wooter. They deleted all my comments and left their answers only) and there is rule here:

All the bad words belong to the mouth that speaks of like a BOOMERANG.

Has anyone provided a proof of Evolution impossibility?
Yes wooter proving that E.T (evolution theory ) is out of logic.

Has evolution explained the beginning of the universe and protein soup
Logically?
Not even close.

Has evolution explained how solar system and our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life logically? Heater-like suns, the earth's spinning around itself and revolving around the sun to make days and nights and the perfect location of the earth to Sun so that we, human beings and creatures can benefit best.
Not even close.

Are evolins(atheists) willing to believe in anything so long as it is "MENOTTHINKING thought"?
Absolutely.

Has EVOLUTION provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not even close. They are as free as an animal. So they deem AIDs as imperfection of God's creation.

Has evolution in the terrible twentieth century been a force to be illogical?
Quite close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within evolution? Either cancel your logic or become blind is a must to be an atheist. My way or high. Banning theist is the last resort to wipe out any opposite ideas as they did to wooter in salamander's thread.
Absolutely.

Does anything in evolution justify the claim that evolution idea is rational?
No way! You start with maze of evolution tree.

Is evolution a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

269. Two More Fleas

Comment #142592 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Okay let's prove that "Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?" is proved.

Imagine that we enter a very huge pharmacy: Millions of medicine, drugs and ingredients of the medicine are on the shelves. We need to buy a medicine but the medicine is supposed to be made. We think about this perfect pharmacy to happen in

Either by
A very well-knowledgeable person who knows all the ingredients and their functions so that he can mix them up again in certain amounts not more or less amount for each medicine â€" must be exact amount otherwise, medicine turn into a poison-

Or
By chances, luck, blindwatcmaker, menotthinking, selfish genes, that made the all the medicines mixing randomly unconsciously and blindly, then there you go we have all the medicines.

Now since the second choice is completely non-sense and illogical, then we have got the first option which is based on logic and reason. Otherwise nobody wants to hear such a reply;
Excuse me sir, for the medicine you order, you have to wait quite a long time, since we don't have it, and chances and luck will make it your medicine but we don't know when it will be ready.

All the creatures with different structures and Dna are like a huge pharmacy, there is no way that one can be created by chances.

By wooter

270. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142286 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 9:03 am

To tyler
that is a relief. I thought for a while that evolution idead is evolved or mutated. But seriously, that is the biggest hole in evolution idea: How did life begin on the earth in the first place? Stars, chemicals, protein soup etc is really out of logic, reason, our mind. That's why Mr dawkins is stopped at the beginning of the story as we know, if any idea or story has no beginning, it has no ending.


Mitchell Gilks
Are you wheeler or what? You destroyed the whole image of this web page. That is a shame. You don't need to answer me. Just change your name and do it again. Trolling gets through another trolling.

271. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142209 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 6:42 am

(that alien civilizations could have developed to the point of gaining the ability to seed life on earth. This is a theory for the intelligent design of life on earth! What then is the next logical question? How did life originate on that alien world? Prof. Dawkins explains that he believes that it was through Darwinian mechanisms.")

Now it is a leap of delusion? Or changing the evolution idea, from stars that create(how) the chemicals and chemicals by chance the soup, then soup by chance Dna?

lETTERS WERE BROUGHT BY ALIENS AND THEN THEY SAID, OKAY WE CAN'T HELP MORE AND THEN THE LETTERS WROTE THE BOOK OF DNA WITHOUT A WRITER

272. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142203 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 6:34 am

Al growling sorry rawandi?

How is it your slandering and smearing going? Oh man? You don't have to tell your private your life to us. But if you wanna go on, be our guest. The more you talk like that the more you describe your life to us.
You know the rule;
The actions and words of those who do. by zara

273. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #142183 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 6:01 am

Sorry Mr dawkins, I heard that some guys who are against E.T


Evolution theory= E.T IN TERMS OF HURDLE OF EVOLUTION TREE.

Clear?
As for banning, everybody got the message of cencorship. Did you read 1984? Big brother is watching you. Once you spot logic, just ban it. there is no other way around.

274. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142101 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 2:35 am

(in a nasty way)

Again I agree with you(!)
if any outsiders check any comments under wooter name see any swearings, slanders, insultings, then, check rest of atheits guys's answers, then, we can define nasty.

Example: Define nasty here:
(Why does your ass split into two buttocks? It must have been King Arthur trying his sword there. Every painting has an artist,right?)

and here
(I wouldn't want to imitate the others. Wee Flea is wooter with better english skills, and McGrath is a professional argument and question dodger. He isn't even a sophist, he employs obvious and blatant fallacious and evasive reasoning.)

And here
(Comment #141156 by Wheeler/wooter/wipeout/Selfishmind:)

And here
The only smell here is the fetid stench of your bullshit laden breath.

Wooter

275. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #142100 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 2:21 am

(For example, Christians claim that Jesus is God and you get to heaven by believing in Jesus. Muslims and Jews claim that Jesus is not God, and Jews don't even seem to believe in an afterlife.)

The conflict on the earth has nothing to do with God's creation and God's blessing for us. You are saying now, that a writer wrote a book and the readers of the book had conflict so you conclude that that book has no writer. It does not make sense to me OR to anybody.


(A God like that would be quite happy with Richard Dawkins, who is obviously trying hard to help people as best he can see how!)

I wish I could I agree. I was banned; wooter name was banned second time. I created another name, clearmind TO LOG IN. This is really a shame and world famous scandal. If someone asks Dawkins the following question,

Sorry Mr dawkins, I heard that some guys who are against E.T and cannot be won over their arguments are banned. Is that true? If this is true, how do you explain this?

What would be the answer?
He was banned and he used another name to log in and we thought that he is using another name so we banned it.
Or
His arguments are difficult to answer since he is using logic which is not involved in E.T

Or I am sorry, I did not know that!
Which one?

It is so sad that banning still goes on in 21st century. Web pages are not the places only to support each other and exchange the ideas we follow. If you meet the challenge, we have to face it not ban it. If you want to see more banning stories and circus you can check salamander' s tale thread.


(You never seem to quote the Bible. Do you believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, inerrant in the original autographs?
If not, what is your source of information about God?
Do you set yourself up as an authority above the Bible?)

I see this way; all holy religions MAYhave misinterpretations of their holy books and I favor all religions and hope that they can come together to bring the peace to the whole world.
I can't set up myself any authority above the bible or any other book. I am just follower of truth. And truth is above everything.


wooter

276. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142096 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 1:57 am

To evolution tree
Started with

(The satire by Mitchell Gilks posing as 'Wheeler'

It certainly offends reason.

ill mannered nonsense.

Mitchell Gilks
I was having a lot of fun yesterday. I was employing a trick I see the good theist debaters get away with constantly. I was able to offer nothing a keep an argument going by nitpicking

Zara
(Well, then next time fill me in beforehand, Mitchell.)


You miss an important point (surprise surprise): whether Wheeler is wooter or Wheeler is Mitchell Gilks, posting under alternate usernames is against the rules of the site. So, either way Wheeler should have been banned.)

And ended in
Wheeler= banned being assumed that he is wooter
Wipeout = was wipeout (banned) assuming that he was wooter while wipeout was looking for some answers. Since you assumed that wheeler is me, it really shows that you need help to improve yourself from banning to tolerating.

And losing face that is trying to cover by pretended as if nothing happened with illogical excuses; posting under alternate usernames is against the rules of the site.


Al- rawandi

No worries as you did before, you can log in AGAIN under clearmind in any sick minded blogs, then, you can start screaming "I found his name I found his name." Slandering pays off on this web page and you got used to it. And you know the story of blind man who is assuming everybody is doing the same thing he does.

Get married, man. Don't be that desperate and hopeless.


INSTEAD OF BANNING IP, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A PROGRAM THAT BANS ALL IPS OF 84% WORLD POPULATION â€" BELIEVERS- No, wait, you can make a program that is full of swearing and insulting? This web page is the only one that reminds George Orwell's 1984 novel. But Vanity fair is my best choice.

Written by
Selfishmind/ wooter/Kringski/bishop(I believe they are wooter too. What do you think?

277. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142094 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 1:54 am

My artist is Leonard Da Vinci, who is yours? Every painting has an artist

And this is not the answer.
(Why does your ass split into two buttocks? It must have been King Arthur trying his sword there. Every painting has an artist, right?)

Ah Monal Lisa, why did you ask such a question? You see, they are at it again? They banned wooter and victimized other people.


(I guess what I'm trying to say is that you, wooter, are happy to be awestruck by the illusion)

Not really since I am not an atheist. I have nothing to do with delusion or illusion. And the problem is that you are toying with yourself, that unconscious amino acids, selfish genes, or DNA or blind watchmaker are able to created designed and conscious creatures, then, what you are doing is no different than LOOKING FOR LEONOR DA VINCI INSIDE MONA LISA.

(If however you want to continue getting banned from this site for shouting and frothing uneducated rubbish, I suggest you go forth and multiply.)

I am right here and explained everything clearly. So I do not hide. What about Mr Dawkins? What is the possibility that one of you is Mr Dawkins under another name? Maybe reverend is Mr Dawkins? Since we have a living proof, WHEELER, THAT PROVED THAT HOW RIGHT I AM. AND WHATEVER YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS BEST PRETENDING, SLANDERING AND SMEARING. BUT ANYWAY HONESTY ALWAYS PAYS OFF. Truth is only one.

278. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142091 by clearmind on March 12, 2008 at 1:51 am

To Jon sociologist/ Dawkins

(It's fascinating how limited your mind is. I have seen paintings painted, observing the painter as they finished their work.)

So you did not see the beginning of creation and you do not see the millions of creations that being created every second, then, you SAY that you don't believe the artist because you don't see HIM so if you do not see the artist then, you conclude that the all paintings came out by luck and chances or MENOTTHINKS.
How logical is this?


(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.)

1.Matter cannot control matter.


Now you are telling me that we enter a room which is full of copy machines and all copy machines are copying books and each copy machine copies different books. But you say all these things are happening by all themselves ditching how the books are written by themselves! Copy machines are copying all by themselves.

(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).)

1.Who created the stars to create chemicals?
2.How come an unconscious star can create chemicals?
3.How come chemicals on their own can create DNA?

Isn't the same thing that letters of the WROTE THE BOOK? Is it logical?

4.Collision or reaction needs an outside controller and setter. Otherwise, we
And secondly, you cannot put all the letters of alphabet in a box and then mix them together again and again, can you have a DNA like book?

(If you shaved a chimp it would look remarkably similar to a human)

As for monkeys, if you look at the following pages objectively that you will notice
That we are different in terms of conscious, commonsense, thinking and acting right away, etc. No matter how good you are shaving at, they can't look like us.
Darwin says face is so vulnerable to strikes so hair fell out but head is not so head kept the hair. How logical is this?


http://animals.m0.timduru.org/view/chimpanzee,chimpanzee1.jpg

279. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141646 by clearmind on March 11, 2008 at 2:30 am

TRUTH REVEALS

250. Comment #113524 by selfishmind on January 19, 2008 at 10:56 pm
To You all,
I AM SELFISHGENE(mind) BUT I WAS BANNED FROM REASON AND LOGIC BY WOOTER AND FROM THIS WEBPAGE BY dawkins. I am so stuck. If I am gone, so is E.T and the delusions of delusionary books and ideas.(for the sake of sarcasm)
Since a lot arguments I have written on this web page but the answerS I got it so far:
1.Our web pages are right but mine is wrong.
2.the scientists I wrote were discredited, yours is not.
3.Slandering (Got the first title)

To Al Rawandi AND TO THE KIND SAME AS HIM
If you want to SLANDER something using by my name or getting name same as mine or do something similar became a typical attitude of atheists, thanks to you and a few of you because you are desperate this is what an atheist does when he is stuck,; TO ATTACK congratulations, you are displaying a very good attitude on behalf of this web page. You know the rule; bad words belong to the owner of the mouth it spreads. I do not know you, but I am married and I have an eight year old daughter. I am not desperate. I am believer. The best thing is that I am not swearing, slandering, TWISTING AND BEING FUNNY UNLESS I TALK ABOUT ET when necessary.

4.Twisting
5.Swearing
6.being funny

YOU MADE A DESPERATE ACT OF MIND that you deleted all my comments and YOU LEFT YOUR ANSWERS ONLY. THIS IS REALLY SO FAIR(!)iF YOU BANNED ME WITHOUT DELETING MY OLD COMMENTS, THIS WOULD BE OKAY, BUT You know what? You cannot hide the truth from the readers of this web page and this is the ugliest thing not to me ON BEHALF OF THIS WEB PAGE

This is the first time I ever heard such thing, even not in Russia. Congratulations you became the pioneer of a very new KIND OF CENSORSHIP all over the world. You are losing it completely now.

Anyway you made it. You made the sign; no trespassers(!) of REASON, SCIENCE, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, MATHEMATICS, GEOGRAPY, TERMODYNAMICS BECAUSE WE, ATHEISTS TRESSPASSED ALREADY INTO IMPOSSIBLE LITTLE POND. NOBODY CAN TAKE US OUT. DON'T GET NEARER! OR ELSE.

oKAY You STAY in YOUR little pond (of mindset, play with selfishgenes, replicators and you never go out of that little pond and step inside the circle of reason. Silence is the best answer FOR THOSE WHO ARE STUBBORN NOT TO SEE THE TRUTH.


NO WORRIES. TRUTH WILL OUT. AND ALREADY IT HAS BEEN OUT ON THIS WEB PAGE
WOOTER â€" REASON

280. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141644 by clearmind on March 11, 2008 at 2:28 am

To the banners of all time. FOR THE SAKE OF BEING FAIR

Either you have understanding problem or you pretend that you don't understand to slander again. As you see in my second copied comment, you banned me the first time and I could not log in so I used another name, Selfish and I put my name at the end of my comment. There is no point here saying that I am hiding something. I do not because I am not atheist and I have got self-confidence in what I believe and I do not need to slander to save my defeated ego.

And I did the same thing again now since you banned my name again. Now for the sake of the audience and rest of the world what made you tick off? Choose one.

1.Being defeated and assuming Wheeler is me and his following comment,

(Hey, why you guys making fun of wooter and wipeout guys? They are cool guy, and say things that are right, with good logic. WHY DON"T YOU GUYS ALL PREY TO DARWIN AND RUSSEL!)

But now wheeler turn out to be one of you, oops nothing to be scared and feared that you acting like paranoid and ban anything with letter "W." No worries, rest of the world are thinking the same way I do. Wheeler just proved that how being overreacting against any supporter of me, even a fake one. That is pathetic.



A TALE OF TWO MEN

Darwin&Bertrand are at the art exhibition and they see Mona Lisa?

Darwin: Check it out. This painting is really perfect.
Bertrand: Yeah! Tell me about it. It is like alive.
Darwin: What was it like in the beginning?
Bertrand:I guess, it was just black colour. Then black colour evolved into another colour and then another colour. This is your evolution thing man. You have to know it better.
Darwin: Sure. Then all the colours by chance mixed on the floor. And there you go, the painting came out.

Bertrand:You are great. What about the frame? The wood?

Darwin: It is easy to explain. The tree was knocked down by chance or wind-into a river, then after being dragged for a long time, there it is, frame came out.

Bertrand: Wow. You are genius, man.
Darwin: Thanks pro(!).
Mona Lisa: excuse me, gentlemen?
Bertrand: Did you say something?
Darwin: No I did not?
Mona Lisa: Hello it is me.
Darwin & Bertrand(together): OH MY GOD. The painting is talking.
Mona Lisa: Sorry but I have to talk. Whatever you are bubbling made me talk. Look! Every painting has an artist, Okay. And somebody made me. My artist is Leonardo Da Vinci. What is yours?

Darwin: Chance and Luck.

Mona Lisa: No offense, but you are talking nonsense. Even a painting like me has been done by an artist. How come you came out by chances. You can see hear, taste, smell, walk, eat sleep, move, AND FURTHEREMORE YOU CAN THINK, and you have got amazing body parts, soul, brain, heart, lungs, nerves, veins, stomach etc , all of which work in harmony: You have got soul. It is impossible that random and unconscious chances are the causes. You are totally wrong.

Bertrand: You shut up, Mona Lisa or I will start swearing or I am gonna BAN YOU
Mona Lisa: You ban the idea of BANNING. This is really ugly.

Darwin: Take it easy. Bertrand. She just tells what she thinks.

Bertrand:Where is your artist? Ha, tell me where he is.? You cannot right? I do not see him, so you have no artist. Shut up. ^* *^#!*&^.

Mona Lisa: Good God. He is losing it.

Darwin: Bertrand. Stop it. Everybody is looking at us. Let's go to the little pond.
You know we have to find amino acids.

Bertrand: You, Mona Lisa, you are fake. Hey everybody, hear this, this painting is fake.
Mona Lisa: But you are slandering now to overcome your anger and hatred, it is not fair.
Darwin: Enough is enough. Let's go.

Bertrand: I am not coming. No amino acids in that pond. You go yourself. You better call Blindwatchmaker. Maybe he can help.

Darwin:Okay. But just do me a favor. Can you go and bring him to the little pond.
You know he is BLIND. I wanna just save the time.
Bertrand: Hurry up. If we cannot find amino acids, we are DOOMED.

I guess the second since you banned/deleted this analogy first time.
Still you don't get who is Selfishmind or wooter, keep going pretending and slandering, the more you do the more you represent for what you stand to.

Anyway I am done with you and with your Evolution theory. Thank you for the picture of monkey that reminds the world of monkeys that are deleted from evolution tree upon they do not know how to fall out their hair to look like human beings.

Ah! Vanitas Vanitatum! Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied? Come, children, let us shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out.


WRIITEN By WOOTER