251. 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.

Other Comments by clearmind

252. 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)

Other Comments by clearmind

253. Comment #144345 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 4:52 pm

The world of the selfish gene is one of savage COMPETITION, ruthless EXPLOITATION, and DECEIT.

You've misunderstood The Selfish Gene. Genes are selfish toward other genes, and out of this dynamic arises human altruism.

If the book were about human selfishness, Dawkins would have named it The Selfish Human.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

254. Comment #144368 by windweaver on March 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Steve, you have made it clear that you believe the universe is fine tuned but that no agency (divine or otherwise) is doing the fine tuning. But you then go on to say that a fine tuned universe "may be for some strange and wonderful future civilization or species..." To say I am confused about your stance would be putting it mildly!
BTW are there no cosmologists lurking on this site who can engage Steve on the fine tuning issue?

Other Comments by windweaver

255. Comment #144369 by The Reverend Dark on March 15, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Wooter vomits.

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.

Wooter, please answer the question you were asked. Do you think all creatures including humans were created in or around 10,000 years ago?

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

256. Comment #144377 by dloubet on March 15, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Two Words: Norman Borlaug.

Other Comments by dloubet

257. Comment #144383 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm

You can quote what you like, but it does not change the fact that many, many respectable scientists consider fine tuning something worthy of discussion

when you refer to a "respectable scientist" isn't that what you're doing is quoting?

You seem to have an issue with discussing "fine tuning" because creationists use it

I don't have a problem with discussing it or I wouldn't be doing that exactly right now with you.

To be consistent, you should also have an issue with discussing the existence of complex organisms because creationists also like to mention that.

Only if you are referring to Dragons and Unicorns and "complex" faeries.

Like it or not, fine tuning IS something to be discussed

that would be why we're doing just that

Science should not be censored because of religious views

I think we already agree on that and my disagreeing with the whole fine tuning argument has nothing to do with any type of censorship.

Just because creationists and theists use fine tuning as a justification for God does not me we should shut up about it. Quite the contrary, we should research it further.

"Just because creationists and theists use the Knob-Twiddler argument as a justification for God does not me[an] we should shut up about it. Quite the contrary, we should research it further."

Are we really going to let religious agendas dictate what we can and can't research, or think about?

No- in fact we homosexuals supposedly have our own agenda...??

Other Comments by robotaholic

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

wooter:

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

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

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

Other Comments by TonyA

259. Comment #144394 by Quine on March 15, 2008 at 11:39 pm

When scientists deal with the popular press they often find themselves hindered by an intrinsic problem of language. Long ago, practitioners found that complex technical knowledge of the physical world, while very difficult to express in common language, was best represented by mathematical models (usually in equations). However, the popular press will ridicule attempts to use language (forget equations) that even attempts to preserve this precision, then, when analogies are loosely made, misquotations run rampant.

Being people, we naturally use metaphoric language. We don't usually coin an entirely new word if we can overload an existing word with a new meaning (especially if the usual meaning is a helpful mnemonic). Also, we tend to use anthropomorphic representations for inanimate objects and processes. Within a community of workers, this can become quite casual; a solid state physicist might refer to an electron that, "wants to travel ballistically across this transistor junction, but feels the resistance of variations in the conductance bands" or a biologist might refer to a "selfish gene."

IMHO, this tendency to overload and anthropomorphize is what opened the door for the theistic apologists to latch on to the so called "fine-tuning argument." We have had this idea of what it is to fine-tune from the early days of string music instruments, which was overloaded to cover actions in the early days of radio equipment, which continues to be extended to other ways people (or automatic systems) make adjustments to settings. However, this is categorically misapplied to the notion of the constants in the models used by physicists to describe what science has discovered.

On page 129 of Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis

Physicists invent mathematical models to describe their observations of the world. These models contain certain general principles that have been traditionally called "laws" because of the common belief that these are rules that actually govern the universe the way civil laws govern nations. However, as I showed in my previous book, The Comprehensible Cosmos, the most fundamental laws of physics are not restrictions on the behavior of matter. Rather they are restrictions on the way physicists may describe that behavior.

(Also see Stenger's fine-tuning paper)

There is no evidence that the Universe is "fine-tuned." There is no evidence of either the "knobs" or the "knob twiddler." We do have models of the Universe that do a good job of backtracking to what has (also inappropriately) been called the "Big Bang." It as been noticed that these models have parameters (universal constants), some of which are sensitive, such that, only small ranges of values cause the model to produce results that agree with observed experimental data. Another way to say that a model is parametrically sensitive is to call it "brittle" (yes, another overloading).

Asking, "Why are our models so brittle?" (if they are) is a valid scientific question. We should explore this. And we should remember that exploring the nature of the models is not necessarily exploring the nature of Nature. These models are intrinsically different from models such as business models that allow you to play "what if" games by changing variables that represent the amount of capital spent on marketing v. R&D. At any time in the future, new ideas from new people can replace the models we have now with new models that may reveal that parameters we now think of as constants are actually the results of new substructures.

Once you start speculating about universes that are not the Universe we can measure, there is no end. Take any model parameter you want: say "G" the gravitational constant. [Edit: a dimensionless ratio parameter would be a better choice, but the argument still holds.] Suppose we want to think about the different results we would get if we used different values for this model parameter. How many different values could we have? Would one expect quantization or continuous variation? (Do the 'knobs' click, or move smoothly?) If quantization, how would we know the quantum size? (How far away, parametrically, is the next universe we are not in?) If continuous, we might speculate about an uncountably large set of universes with values of G that differ past the one hundredth decimal place, for which our model gives identical results.

Bottom line: A parametrically sensitive model (that we may have) does not necessarily give you a "fine-tuned" Universe (that theists want to claim).

Other Comments by Quine

260. Comment #144399 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 1:27 am

Quine:

I am getting uncomfortable with people quoting Stenger as if his views somehow put an end to the discussion. He is just one of many, many physicists who have a range of views on this.

Just because he is supposedly one of the New Atheists, and he has written a popular book on a subject of interest to us, does not make him an authority on his subject in the way that Dawkins and Dennett happen to be. They are authorities in their subjects because they have had long careers at the very top of their fields. Stenger is not in the same league. He is a good physicist, but he is no Hawking or Penrose or Witten. This means his views can't be considered in isolation. They have to be put alongside many others, so either some kind of consensus can be found, or the range of views admitted.

Once you start speculating about universes that are not the Universe we can measure, there is no end.

No. There are possible frameworks for coming up with alternative universes that are not endless, and give definite ranges for the properties of the universe.

(Do the 'knobs' click, or move smoothly?)

In some of these models, the 'knobs' click.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

261. Comment #144401 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #144383 by robotaholic

when you refer to a "respectable scientist" isn't that what you're doing is quoting?

No, because I check to see what the range of views are. I don't pick the ones who happen to agree with what I want to believe. In quoting, you may need to provide evidence that you are correctly sampling views in that area of science. Anyone in physics knows that, for example, Freeman Dyson's view are hardly mainstream. He seems to be a practicing Christian, so of course be is going to say that fine tuning is pointing towards God!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

262. Comment #144403 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:25 am

Comment #144343 by clearmind

NOTHING CAN HAPPEN BY THEMSELVES OR CHANCES.

Wooter - I am taking it this is your answer to my question in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144053

What you are saying is that you believe that your god is responsible for the creation, movement and destruction of every particle in the universe. This is simply an extension of your idea that your god creates every snowflake different.

If this is so then your god is responsible for:

1. The 1931 flood in China that killed 3.7 million people
2. The 1942 drought in India that killed 1.5 million people
3. The 1991 hurricane in Bangladesh that killed 138,000 people
4. The 1908 earthquake in Italy that killed 100,000 people
5. The 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean that killed 40,000 people

This doesn't count things like disease, which your god also created, for example influenza killed 20,000,000 people in 1917 and bubonic plague in the middle ages that killed an estimated 50% of Europe's population.

Other Comments by epeeist

263. Comment #144404 by windweaver on March 16, 2008 at 2:31 am

Has the world gone mad?
Why do so many intelligent posters on this site waste their time debating with this imbecile Wooter???????

Other Comments by windweaver

264. Comment #144410 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #144342 by clearmind

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.

I will keep doing this wooter - look at http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060

This gives an extremely simple description of the way evolution works, why it is not random and why it doesn't work for paintings or cars.

Analogical reasoning is based on induction which can only give a probabilistic result. The argument looks like this:

1. P is similar to Q
2. P has attribute A
3. Therefore: Q has attribute A

The further the analogy from the original argument the lower the probability of truth the argument has. You are trying to compare inanimate objects whose creators were known to exist and do not reproduce with animate objects descended from their parent(s) by reproduction. As such your argument has a very low probability of being true.

Your argument is that:

1. The universe is like an intricate watch
2. A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker
3. Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator

However one can reframe this:

1. The universe is like an intricate watch
2. Many early watches were designed by locksmiths
3. Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith

Now this is an informal logical fallacy.

Just as a matter of interest - while I was doing my Ph.D. I also took some a class in logic as well.

Other Comments by epeeist

265. Comment #144411 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #144404 by windweaver

Has the world gone mad?

Why do so many intelligent posters on this site waste their time debating with this imbecile Wooter???????

You are assuming that we are writing for wooter's benefit.

Personally I am writing for the people who come to the site out of interest and in the hope of finding something out. Also as a demonstration of what a totally blinkered outlook can do to you.

Other Comments by epeeist

266. Comment #144417 by Quine on March 16, 2008 at 3:28 am

Once you start speculating about universes that are not the Universe we can measure, there is no end.

No. There are possible frameworks for coming up with alternative universes that are not endless, and give definite ranges for the properties of the universe.

Steve, can you please explain what you are using for the definition of the word "possible" above?

Other Comments by Quine

267. Comment #144420 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 3:37 am

Quine-

Steve, can you please explain what you are using for the definition of the word "possible" above?

Sorry to come back to String Theory again. Whatever its faults, it is a framework for describing the properties of our universe and it is potentially testable. String Theory does not imply a unique universe, but neither does it describe infinite options. There are, to give one figure, 10^500 possible universes. These all have distinct, but fixed, values of physical constants.

So, in principle it is possible to come up with a testable multiverse theory that describes a large but not infinite set of discrete values of the physical constants. This is an area that can be discussed.

What I am interested in is why people want to not discuss the issue of the values of the physical constants.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

268. Comment #144423 by Diogenes2008 on March 16, 2008 at 3:48 am

Steve Zara - a man who refers to String Theory and Sock Puppets on a site inspired by Evolution and Reason is a rare and fascinating person!
I look forward to reading more.

Other Comments by Diogenes2008

269. Comment #144424 by tstinchcombe on March 16, 2008 at 3:51 am

Just out of interest, has clearmind/wooter/etc, ever given any indication as to his/her age? Clearmind/wooter - would you care to enlighten us?

I only ask as his/her responses indicate to me that possibly this is someone fairly young, perhaps 13 or 14, who is way out of his/her depth when compared to many here, yet has enough (computer) savvy to cut-and-paste large tracts from Wikipedia, which is where most of comment 264/#144343 above comes from, thus giving the illusion that the poster might know what he/she is talking about!?

Tim

Other Comments by tstinchcombe

270. Comment #144426 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 3:53 am

I don't much like String Theory. But more than the wild speculation it seems to entail, I dislike the setting of boundaries for what science can investigate. I dislike ontological arguments to hand-wave away the problem of why the universe is as it is.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

271. Comment #144428 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #144424 by tstinchcombe

Just out of interest, has clearmind/wooter/etc, ever given any indication as to his/her age? Clearmind/wooter - would you care to enlighten us?

Wooter has never answered questions with any degree of specificity. We don't know a gender or age. All that has been divulged is that the poster claims not to be a native English speaker, supposedly has a BA and an MA and purports to be a teacher of primary school children.

The native language of the speaker has not been divulged, nor has the university where the qualifications were apparently gained, nor the location of the supposed school.

Other Comments by epeeist

272. Comment #144430 by scottishgeologist on March 16, 2008 at 4:09 am

Epeeist

Nice collection of "natural evil" events there. The one that I always find fascinating is the Lisbon earthquake and tsunami of 1755

Wikipedia has a good article about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

There are several aspects to the 1755 event that are interesting:

1) It was one of the first earthquakes to be properly scientifically studied. Modern seismology starts here.

2) It happened at the start of the Enlightenment and made people REALLY question the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent deity

3) It happened at a time when a lot of people were in church, during a MAJOR religious holiday - many were crushed by falling masonery....

There is also the fact that a massive earthquake happened, epicentred on an area where it was, OK, possible but not of this magnitude.

There is a good technical articel about it here, which explains some of the anomalies:

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa041015-2.htm

The Lisbon earthquake is still being studied and there are still a lot of questions about it.

Of course "god did it" because the place was full of gays, feminists and abortionists oh yes, and liberals is a much better explanation.

Actually the one I prefer is the:

(affected voice needed) You know, the Lord, his ways are mysterious to us, but we are mere sinners and we should not be questioning him in his goodness and mercy. In fact, although 100,000 die in a tsunami, isnt it an example of his wonderful awesome grace that 200,000 survive? Praise his sweet name"

fx: puke.....

:-))SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

273. Comment #144438 by Richard Morgan on March 16, 2008 at 4:45 am

A LAST MUSIC UPDATE
(I promise - it really is the last!)
I announced earlier that everything that I have composed for and about RDNet subjects are now posted on the fleabytes Music Myspace.
Some of you have complained of only finding six!
Well,in the official standalone player there are six musical portraits (the maximum for their player), but if you scroll down the page, there is another player with seven other pieces, including my montages of excerpts from The Lava Lizard's Tale (with Richard's voice) and The Salamander's Tale (spoken by Lalla Ward)
That's all folks!
I've got me coat.
But no hat.
I'm off to Ilkley Moor...


http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

274. Comment #144444 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 5:02 am

275. Comment #144404 by windweaver:

I'm pretty sure we all know that there's little, if any, hope for wooter, but there are still advantages to be gained from continuing to engage him.

1. As epeeist said, there is an audience, some of whom may be helped by following the arguments.

2. Similar to the above, said audience will see the way wooter continually evades direct questions, avoids or misinterprets adverse (to him) facts, in fact uses all the tactics that we've come to expect from his ilk.

3. Practice.

4. General hilarity, similar to FSDTD.

5. The opportunity for some of the more talented authors of streams of invective (eg Rev. Dark, Diacanu) to hone their talents for our delectation.

Other Comments by Geoff

275. Comment #144474 by tstinchcombe on March 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

284. Comment #144428 by epeeist:

We don't know a gender or age. All that has been divulged is that the poster claims not to be a native English speaker, supposedly has a BA and an MA and purports to be a teacher of primary school children.

Well I certainly hadn't picked up on the 'not a native English speaker' from the posts. But even so, I'm rather surprised that someone with both a BA and an MA is incapable of recognising when they are so out of their depth. (Though having said that, I've seen first-hand how someone with a degree from a middle-eastern establishment has struggled because that degree was clearly well below the UK first-degree level.)

I'm reminded of Dan Dennett's advice, in 'Breaking the Spell', to those who don't think evolution is "...about as well established as the fact that water is H2O", which is to "Educate yourself in evolutionary theory...the endnotes to this chapter provide all the references you will need to get going, and it should take only a few months of hard work" - the emphasis in my mind being the "...few months...", i.e. 20 minutes reading something on Wikipedia isn't going to turn you into an expert - it will actually take a little more application than that!

Tim

Other Comments by tstinchcombe

276. Comment #144503 by clearmind on March 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

To: tstinchcombe

When some mules carry some heavy books do not mean that they are capable of what they can express clearly because they carry some books.

I was planning something to discuss seriously but there you go, you started it again.

Thank you very much your effort to comment or I would say, insult in your own delicate way. Let me clear something first:
Why do people try to insult?

1.They are angry
2.they are angry so they want to et revenge
3.They feel really desperate and frustrated, then, insulting make them relax and feel better.
Insulting comes out in different forms

1.Trying to make himself and others believe that his rival's ideas are wrong by trying to belittle his ideas
2.Trying to make himself and others believe that his rival's educational background is not enough him/ evolution
3.Mocking and teasing is the best ace card for insulters.
4. Swearing is the lowest degree of insulting which explicitly shows the insulter is losing it.

Since I started writing on this web page, I never insulted anyone directly or knowingly. My answers are all based on logic which caused the debate to start. Copy and paste ones are the scientific proofs and wiki quotations are the ones to make some of the guys understand what analogy is since they keep writing me paintings do no multiply or do not have offspring.

I wrote more than 200 pages answers in English and still you are saying:

(is incapable of recognising when they are so out of their depth. (Though having said that, I've seen first-hand how someone with a degree from a middle-eastern establishment has struggled because that degree was clearly well below the UK first-degree level.)

I have to locate you on the second level of insulting. No further comment, honour.

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.

Other Comments by clearmind

277. Comment #144506 by clearmind on March 16, 2008 at 9:01 am

Epeeist

If My personal information will help evolution theory stand on logical ground, I would be happy to tell. I believe that we are discussing Evolution theory and neither my background or slandering or insulting or banning did not help
evolution idea to be a fact. Some of the people on this web page are not mature enough to be accepting and understanding so personal information is not needed. While our topic is selfish Genes, let's dig up more that selfish genes are selfish enough to make the nightingale rid of the hawks by sacrificing itself to save its babies.

Epeeist again.

(Your argument is that:
1.The universe is like an intricate watch
2.A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker
3.Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator.}

Sorry to correct you again. This is what I say:
1. The universe is like perfect watch. Each part is correlated with each other and there is a perfect harmony among the parts of watch. Therefore, a watch needs a watchmaker to happen and the same way the watch â€"like perfectly designed universe need a maker as well. Design points out designer. Chaos points out chaos and randomness. Thus, a watch needs a watchmaker, not the BLIND ONE and universe needs a creator.
(However one can reframe this:

1.The universe is like an intricate watch
2.Many early watches were designed by locksmiths
3.Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith)

You keep the same point of view to try to rebut logic in my analogy. Analogy is just to compare two things to understand logic in them.

Then I will say like as an hypothetical atheist using same point of yours:
The first species was worm and worm was the ancestor of the creatures so I can call the worm as my grandfather.

To windweaver
(Has the world gone mad?
Why do so many intelligent posters on this site waste their time debating with this imbecile Wooter???????)

Windweaver is spotted in right here:
3.Mocking and teasing is the best ace card for insulters.


To epeeist again

Okay one question:
What is happening to those people died in flood or other disasters?

EnglishBrian
(Otherwise the analogy sucks).

Do you want me to spot your level or you can find it yourself.?

Other Comments by clearmind

278. Comment #144507 by clearmind on March 16, 2008 at 9:02 am

Let's get back to selfish genes(!)

This is the central theme of the book, exemplified by the metaphor of the football team. The gene cannot be the central focus of evolution, as the Dawkins school would have it, for genes are not themselves self-replicating. Genes need the whole apparatus of the cells if they are to propagate into the next generation: they need their own promoters; they need other genes to act as switches to turn them on at appropriate points in the development cycle of a cell; and they need yet other genes to make the cellular machinery for gene expression and for replication during cell division. How can a 'selfish' gene, acting selfishly, promote the co-evolution of all the other players within the cell that are necessary to this particular gene's survival into the next generation? (by Gabriel Dover)

Other Comments by clearmind

279. Comment #144510 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

I wrote more than 200 pages answers in English and still you are saying:...

Even this sentence isn't written in English. Furthermore, it's factually incorrect (Since you're touchy about perceived insults, I'm phrasing that in a different way to that which I normally would). We're still waiting for real answers, rather than the indecipherable, irrelevant analogies you've been posting.

Other Comments by Geoff

280. Comment #144511 by clearmind on March 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

Wooter, please answer the question you were asked. Do you think all creatures including humans were created in or around 10,000 years ago?

I believe so but I am not positive about the exact time. Okay say ten thousand but this might be the human beings starting date to live on the earth and I can't say for sure that all animals and human beings are created at the same time. I will check.

Other Comments by clearmind

281. Comment #144520 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

The Gabriel Dover argument is explained very well in TSG. I suggest you read it, although I know you won't.

Other Comments by Geoff

282. Comment #144521 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 9:26 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind

Okay one question:
What is happening to those people died in flood or other disasters?

They are dead.

Now some of them were Christians (those in Lisbon that Scottish Geologist mentions for instance), some were Hindu, some Muslim and some would have been Buddhist or followers of Confucius.

Given that all the beliefs cannot be true then according to you some of them will have gone to heaven while the rest went to hell.

Other Comments by epeeist

283. Comment #144558 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind

Analogy is just to compare two things to understand logic in them.

No, as I explained analogical reasoning is a form of induction. You don't compare two things, you assume they have a common attribute.

You assume that because a watch shows design and living material has the appearance of design then since watches have creators then living materials must have designers.

Unfortunately watches and living beings are quite different. Watches do no reproduce, do not mutate and are not subject to selection. I made this explicitly clear in http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet,page5#144060. That is why I wrote it. Your analogy is a very bad one because there are more differences between watches and living things than there are similarities.

This is one of the arguments that David Hume produced back in the eighteenth century. There are others:

1. The design is poor. We have vestigial tailbones and a useless appendix, women have difficulties in childbirth because the birth canal passes through the pelvis, our windpipe and oesophagus are so close together that we can choke on food. On top of this we are subject to disease, like Philip's Fragile X syndrome and like the bubonic plague and influenza that I also mentioned.
2. Even if you had demonstrated some empirical evidence for a designer, which you haven't, all that this would point to is a finite being cleverer and more capable than ourselves. It certainly doesn't establish a transfinite, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being.
3. Unless you can show this omni-maximal being, which you haven't, then you have to explain your designer. You have to show how this designer came about, which is going to run you into infinite regress.

Other Comments by epeeist

284. Comment #144569 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 10:51 am

Comment #144506 by clearmind

Okay one question:
What is happening to those people died in flood or other disasters?

They are dead.

That made me snort my G&T.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

285. Comment #144574 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #144569 by Steve Zara

That made me snort my G&T.

Lime or lemon in the G&T?

Other Comments by epeeist

286. Comment #144577 by tstinchcombe on March 16, 2008 at 11:04 am

@clearmind: your previous posts have demonstrated both a lack of understanding in certain areas and an unwillingness to listen and learn, so I contend that your 'personal information' is relevant to these discussions. Again from your previous posts, it seemed unlikely that you would give a straight answer, so I apologise for the indirect approach and if by that you feel insulted - the nature of your response however has indeed shown that my expectation was correct.

If you demonstrate a willingness to debate by the normal rules - listen, admit to mistakes/flaws when the other side points them out, modify your arguments and re-state your case etc. - then you will earn the right to respectful debate.

Tim

Other Comments by tstinchcombe

287. Comment #144585 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 11:23 am

Lime or lemon in the G&T?

Lemon, I am afraid.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

288. Comment #144588 by The Reverend Dark on March 16, 2008 at 11:26 am

Wooter waffles, but comes up with an answer

I believe so but I am not positive about the exact time. Okay say ten thousand but this might be the human beings starting date to live on the earth and I can't say for sure that all animals and human beings are created at the same time. I will check.

Actually laughing boy, you did state that they were created at the same time. Here's a little walk down memory lane for you.

Let's see in or around March 04, 2008 you spake between gibbering and drooling like a leaky radiator.

God created all species separately and at the same time. Each animal has different body structure with different needs.

Now, back to that lovely number you pulled out of your arse like a toffee'n'eggs turd, a turd so dense you would have to break it apart with a toilet brush before it would make it down the pipe. A turd, I might add, that is nowhere near as dense as you are Wooter, you coniving, lying, illogical, little rectal polyp on the otherwise pristine starfish of rational thought.

The first written creation myth we have, the Enuma Elish was written approximately in the 12th century BC, a full 400 years before you think creation occured. You should read it, as much of the biblical myth was cribbed from it.

10,000 BC saw the emergence pottery in Japan
9,300 BC saw primitive farming in the Jordan River Valley
9,000 BC sees the first erected stone structures in Jericho; we also see the first evidence for the domestication of the dog.

All of which occurs prior to when you think all things were created simultaneously.

Even if you push back the date of creation, you are left with the fossil record, which clearly demonstrates the slow and steady evolution of life on earth; starting about 3,800 million years ago. We do not find human remains with, or within, dinosaur remains; human remains are very late in the fossil record. No modern rabbits in the precambrian as the famous quote goes.

Simply put, in deference to you; you don't know the first fucking thing about what you are talking about; you spout utter shite. You are proud of your 100 pages, just as I am quite sure babboons are proud of their ability to hurl their own faeces. It does not matter to you or the babboons that all you are doing is flinging crap. At least you can grow things in the babboon shite. What you write does not promote growth and contributes to the ignorance of the world.

Which is very sad.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

289. Comment #144609 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Reverend, you appear to be toning down the invective; please don't. Just because he feels he's being insulted is no reason to be so nice to him.

Other Comments by Geoff

290. Comment #144613 by epeeist on March 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #144588 by The Reverend Dark

The first written creation myth we have, the Enuma Elish was written approximately in the 12th century BC, a full 400 years before you think creation occured. You should read it, as much of the biblical myth was cribbed from it.

10,000 BC saw the emergence pottery in Japan

And of course 12,000 years is next to no time compared with the age of the earth, which wooter accepts is around 4.5 billion years ago.

Which raises the next question - if god created living creatures all at the same time some 10,000 years ago the what was he doing for the rest of the time.

And another one for you - in Japan there is a lake called Suigetsu. This is quite a still lake, every year algae grow on its surface during the summer. Come winter time the algae dies and sinks to the bottom of the lake forming layers known as "varves". Some 29,000 of these can be distinguished forming a chronology that goes back to almost 38,000 years before the present. This is detailed in Kitagawa, H. & van der Plicht, J. 1998. A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve. Radiocarbon 40: 505-515.

All you have to do is count - no radiometric dating necessary (though there is consilience).

Other Comments by epeeist

291. Comment #144620 by The Reverend Dark on March 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Geoff.

Toned down? I did use the phrase "coniving, lying, illogical, little rectal polyp on the otherwise pristine starfish of rational thought."

I suppose I could refer to wooter as an atavistic throwback to the days of storing corpses in the drinking water and cattle turds for dinner, but it would be a shame to tar those engaging in such actions with the font or slime-choked stupidity that is wooter.

Perhaps I could compare his ignorance to a summer's day; with apologies to the memory of Shakespeare. Shall I compare Wooter to a summer's day? No. Shall I compare him to a cesspool, whose stench could cause a passing buzzard to bazzooka barf with such furious intesity that the stream of half-digested carrion could penetrate three inches of steel. I would be doing the cesspit a disservice. Cesspools serve a useful purpose; Wooter, does not.

I hope this helps you,
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

292. Comment #144626 by robotaholic on March 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

um, tree rings prove the young earth theory wrong- it's THAT rediculous

Other Comments by robotaholic

293. Comment #144632 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #144626 by robotaholic

um, tree rings prove the young earth theory wrong- it's THAT rediculous

No, you see, God made the years much shorter long ago...

No, somehow that doesn't work, does it?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

294. Comment #144636 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Reverend: much better, thanks!

(the "toned down" bit was intended as irony...)

Other Comments by Geoff

295. Comment #144646 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 1:58 pm

um, tree rings prove the young earth theory wrong- it's THAT rediculous

No, Yahweh created the world with about 20,000 years of pond scum already in place and trees with buncha rings, just sos most people would *think* the earth is older than 6,000. In addition to being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, Yahweh is also omnideceptive.

He's omnifunny, that Yahweh!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

296. Comment #144647 by The Reverend Dark on March 16, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Geoff, I know, but while I never need an excuse, it is always good to have one.

Cheers,
Shayne

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

297. Comment #144648 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

He's omnifunny, that Yahweh!

So, there are universal standards of humour, just like there are universal standards of morality?

So, can we declare Jon Stewart a Saint?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

298. Comment #144649 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Think I better get my omniass off dis omnicouch and get some omnichores done.

Ta!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

299. Comment #144654 by Steve Zara on March 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm

omnicouch

I am impressed. Those are only available if you worship the God Ikea.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

300. Comment #144656 by Geoff on March 16, 2008 at 2:17 pm

http://www.australianmedicalcouches.com/ultraomnicouch.html

Other Comments by Geoff