1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204274 by alan baylis on July 4, 2008 at 2:48 pm

8754. Comment #204200 by txpiper on July 4, 2008

I think I would just be disruptive. I recall irritating my 9th grade science teacher with questions about how snakes could evolve venom that would be toxic to the animals they eat without the benefit of a lab analysis to see what would kill them. He never did get around to answering me about that. At the time it seemed like to me they would have died out before that deal worked itself out. Now I'd be worse on account of a very rudimentary understanding of the sensitivity of amino acid sequences in proteins.

Isn't this just the same tired old "what's the use of half an eye (ear, wing etc.)" argument?

If you google "evolution of snake venom" you'll find enough references to keep you busy for months.
Many make reference to it being refined in snakes over a period of at least 60 million years. So, not much use to a YEC then, I suppose.



"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

From the chemist and evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Orgel

Orgels rules


Regards,
Alan.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198446 by alan baylis on June 24, 2008 at 1:29 am

8681. Comment #198321 by Frankus1122

Frankus,

I was composing a long post on this topic last night, when yours came in.

Yours made all the points I was trying to find words for, and much more succinctly than I could have done.

Many thanks for that.

Regards,
Alan.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198303 by alan baylis on June 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm

8540. Comment #197873 by txpiper

Well he must have a very developed sense of the capabilities of accidental DNA copy errors. Did he include his calculations for how many mutations were involved in the restored equivalent of "53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species"?

The estimate mentioned by E.O.Wilson would have been made by paleobiologists.
They would also have drawn upon the skills of many other disciplines.

An integral part of my comment was the time of 20M years. Why no mention of time in your answer?

In fact whenever you try to deride (among many things) mutations being worked on by natural selection, you never mention the vast amounts of time that evolution has had to work in. Why is that?
This is just a rhetorical question, no need for a YEC such as you to answer it.

I believe there was one major extinction event.

I almost found myself asking when you think that occurred. But to do so would have shown me as becoming nearly as daft as you.



As you can see, there is a lot of speculation on your mental state and what is driving you to keep posting here.
You have kept going beyond any rational reason and longer than the norm we have come to expect here for people like you.

Is it egomania, as some are suggesting? That does seem a reasonable idea judging from what we've seen.

I think there is also another reason for what is driving you: The person who you are most desperately trying to convince of the "truth" of all this YEC and other nonsense is yourself.

Regards,
Alan.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197454 by alan baylis on June 22, 2008 at 5:04 am

Hello tx,

How are you keeping?

I know I previously said I did not want to debate infantile notions of Noah and his flood, but the others seem to be having such fun de-bunking you, that I could no longer resist.

Could you point out for us where your flood event, with all that it implies, would fall on this particular time-scale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Don't you find it strange that all that scientific research seems to have missed your one?

The event of 251MY ago is known as the "great dying" as Wiki. states. In his book "The Diversity of Life" E.O. Wilson says that it is estimated that bio-diversity would have taken 20M years to return to the equivalent of where it was before this event.

Regards,
Alan.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194040 by alan baylis on June 16, 2008 at 10:06 am

. Comment #193526 by txpiper on June 15,

Oh no, they have not. The problem with the explanations for how eyes formed, which are as lame as the one I quoted for the ear, are enough to make adoring fans give up. You can't explain any biological feature without violating one of your premises, which is that every detail served in some alternate capacity till the whole system was integrated and functional. What did the optic/auditory nerves do while they were waiting for accidental DNA replication errors to produce everything else? What purpose did the eardrum and cochlea serve? What kept the lens and iris from being deselected? And how were any of these defined and produced by mutations?

Many creationists no longer use these arguments. They realize the evolutionary explanations are so sound that it hurts their own case by continually drawing attention to them. Not you of course. You refuse to accept any scientific explanations that you can't crowbar into fitting in with your YEC beliefs.



[edit] I asked: in # 193223

"Can you calculate the probability, for or against something as complex as the cell described by Denton coming into existence, fully formed, instantly? I will be interested to see the figure you come up with.

Could you also do one for us showing the odds for or against the whole of terrestrial ecology re-establishing itself to where it is today, after being mostly eradicated by a global flood less than 5000 years ago? "

It is difficult to express because the probabilities of that happening are zero unless you introduce purpose and intent into the calculation.


No I can't. Can you do that for all the matter and energy in the universe being the size of a pinpoint and exploding 13.6 billion years ago?

Of course you cannot calculate them, because you know that the odds against such complexity arising in one go is so remote that the universe (the real one) will have ended before you finished writing the zeros. So perhaps, understanding probabilities is not such a strong suit for you as you claimed?

Physicists have hypotheses for the big bang, which are beyond this particular layman. But I can contemplate the complexity of Denton's cell and it is reasonable, surely, to ask what the probabilities are that it could come into existence fully formed in one go.

Are not purpose and intent religious concepts in this context? The onus is in you to prove that any such concepts actually exist in the context that you are trying to use them.

As a YEC you believe that these things could be created thus, because you have faith (or wishful thinking). Now, it's clear that you have prodigious amounts of faith (wishful thinking); many of your arguments have shown this clearly. But like personal incredulity wishful thinking is not an argument.

Now that we have finally got you to admit that you are a YEC and that it can now be seen that your entire nit picking of science was really your attempt to block out anything which would disturb these extreme beliefs you have taken up, is there any point carrying on this debate?

Can you not see the intellectual contortions you now have to perform? Reconciling religious beliefs with science is one thing, but reconciling it with the belief system you now adhere is a complete impossibility.

I think that whether there is evidence that Noah and his flood were real, is not a fitting topic for grown people. Therefore the debate ends here for me.


Tx , I think it would a good idea if you followed your own advice given way back here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page133#186617

I think everyone ought to have a razor edge on their worldview. Or perhaps replace it if you just can't get it to hold an edge.

Regards,
Alan.

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193223 by alan baylis on June 15, 2008 at 1:20 am

Txpiper,

Can you calculate the probability, for or against something as complex as the cell described by Denton coming into existence, fully formed, instantly? I will be interested to see the figure you come up with.

Could you also do one for us showing the odds for or against the whole of terrestrial ecology re-establishing itself to where it is today, after being mostly eradicated by a global flood less than 5000 years ago?

I have to say, that the overuse of bold type always seems akin to vocal screeching to me.
Would it not be better to use the usual blockquote system?

Regards,
Alan.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193091 by alan baylis on June 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm

The ear is too complex to have evolved.

Come on man, most creationists have given up using the EYE in this context. So what's this all about?

You are obviously getting irked by being continually accused of argument by personal incredulity. So stop using it then.

Evolutionary theorists should have been concerning themselves with probabilities long before this. Perhaps calculating the odds of a virus or anything else accidentally forming and accidentally knowing how to interact with other micro-level, information-bearing substances would have been a good place to start their calculators smoking.

You talk a lot about probabilities, but you never offer up any calculations of the probability, for or against, things being created suddenly, about 6000 years ago? With your understanding of how to calculate probabilities, this should not be too difficult to express. Txpiper, this is not just a facile request; it is a direct challenge. Time to start providing evidence for you beliefs.

Personally, I think people have countered enough of your increasingly inane beliefs and opinions on real science and should insist that you explain how you think everything was magically brought into existence only 6000 years ago, before they answer any more.

------
txpiper : I'm good enough with AIG's date

So, after metaphorically turning you upside down and shaking you for several weeks, a date for this flood has finally dropped out. (Well, sort of.)

Perhaps we can at last get some details from you about said flood. I'm sure all here are genuinely agog.

How deep was this flood? Was it deeper than the Tibetan plateau or the Alto Plano?

Where did all that water come from?

Did polar bears, musk oxen, arctic foxes and many other extreme-cold adapted animals walk to the Middle East? If so how did they survive this and the heat of the Middle East?

This just a fraction of the questions that the intelligent children I know would ask if they were being taught this mush instead of science.

-----

Honestly, I am pressed for time and had to choose between reading and writing, so I had to pan some of the posts. I expect I agree with him in general, but as I've mentioned, my personal theological disposition is pretty defined and I find myself at odds with the mainstream on some issues.

Well, you haven't defined your theological ideas to us yet, for all of our asking. So if you can find the time, (or more honestly, the courage, perhaps?) we will try to judge if they make more sense than your beliefs about science.


Regards,
Alan.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192407 by alan baylis on June 13, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #192375 by txpiper


After having picked myself up from LMAO at that lot, I looked again at the last couple of statements;

Yeah, just tell them that you were mistaken and that enterprising engineers have figured out how to turn organic material into syn-crude in just hours:


Don't beat yourself up over it, but you could apologize to your students on behalf of the scientific community for the occasions when their religious convictions delay research and development.

This reminded me that txpiper is not just a lone madman posting his deluded ideas on the Internet to any one who will read them. He is symptomatic of a large, powerful and well-funded group who are determined to have this stuff taught in schools alongside science, or even in place of it if they can. To any onlookers who may think that this is an overstatement by me, check out the "latest news" column on this site for numerous reports of this.
Teach the "Controversy" they say. Well, we can see from txpipers ramblings just what this "controversy", that they claim to exist, is: demented BS! What is worrying is that these people seem to be having some success in parts of the USA.

Part of what txpiper wants to be taught, is that the worldwide flood of the bible actually happened. Well, I know some intelligent children who can easily refute this. So we can only hope the nutters will not get it all their own way should they succeed in their aims.

BTW tx,we are still waiting for your evidence for this flood and a date for when it happened.


Regards,
Alan.

edited

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191915 by alan baylis on June 12, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment #191806 by txpiper on June 11



Txpiper,

Even with the best will in the world these latest comments from you can only be described as the same old same old. The Reverend Dark and the other posters have dealt more than adequately with them, to say the least.

So on a different but closely related subject: You must, I'm sure, be aware that there are many theist scientists working in these disciplines who both fully support the ToE and retain a strong religious belief. Francis Collins and Ken Miller are two gifted scientists who immediately spring to mind, but there are plenty more. In fact, many, like those named above have contributed much to our real understanding of evolutionary biology and of the natural world in general.

Surely it cannot be said that they are all just hypocrites who take the "majority line"on evolution, just to enjoy an easy life? Although I myself am an atheist, I would genuinely like to hear your views on this.

Regards,
Alan.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191655 by alan baylis on June 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Steve, Diacana ,

Also, tx is only one of a large and powerful group who want bring this stuff out of their churches and into the science class if they can. This is what is uppermost in my mind
And why I can't resist joining in the debate against them whenever I can.

Indoctrinating their own kids is bad enough, without them trying to get hold of the minds of everyone else's!

Regards,
Alan.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191482 by alan baylis on June 11, 2008 at 3:32 am

6889. Comment #191395 by txpiper on June 10

txpiper,

we have regularly seen you debate using argument from personal incredulity, false assertions and dissembling the facts-LYING, but this post takes the biscuit in all these!

Even those you so admire at the discovery institute must be feeling embarrassed for you.
If their arguments are as half-arsed and as unsubtle as yours, then they must be well used to people falling over laughing at them.

It seems that regardless of what the multitude of researchers in hundreds of disciplines have discovered regarding evolution, you, txpiper, using his superior intellect is going to prove them all wrong and that evolution is just a myth.

Tx, it isn't lack of humility you want to worry about here, but your over-weening HUBRIS.

By what you believe, is not pride the worst of the seven deadly sins?

If this Heaven really exists and there is any honour there, will not lying for Jesus be regarded as even more pernicious than the regular kind?

So what have we got?

A devout Christian who will not stand fore-square and state and defend his beliefs in genesis.

Someone puffed up with the sin of false pride in his supposed knowledge.

Someone who believes playing fast and loose with the facts is fine if it's for god.

I am not fancying your chances come the rapture.

So then tx, it's as well for you that your religious beliefs are just as big a load of bollocks as the things you believe about biology, is it not?

Regards,
Alan.


edited for keith ;)

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190960 by alan baylis on June 10, 2008 at 2:07 am

The Reverend Dark et al,

I think that there is a price to pay for being able to enjoy this superb, intellectually stimulating and unmonitored website, and it is a Sisyphian one:

Many of the variety of id/creationists and other cranks that are also drawn here have to be rolled all the way up the mountain of evidence and tipped over the precipice of proof. No matter how often you do this there is an unending line of them waiting below.

So, it's as well so many here obviously thrive on a bleeding good argument, isn't it? ;)))

Please keep up the elucidating and entertaining work.

Regards,
Alan.

edited

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190776 by alan baylis on June 9, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #190253 by Diacanu on June 8

Oh, that's right, I'm invisible to you.

txpiper knows that you easily chew up every bit of false logic and each hidden religious connotation almost as soon as he utters them. You leave him nowhere to hide. So he ignores you.

He is very good at ignoring uncomfortable arguments and the people who make them.

He tries to take his chances by debating half understood (by him) points about biochemistry and evolutionary genetics. For some reason known only to him, he cannot see that there are people here who actually know something about these subjects, so he fairs no better in this.

It would seem that cognitive dissonance has no effect on some minds.

Regards,
Alan.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189892 by alan baylis on June 7, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I was grumbling to myself, that you guys didn't leave much for me to say in reply to txpipers answers to my comments. ;)))

Then I remembered that tx is fond of the metaphor of the elephant in the room, which he claimed we were all trying to ignore.

I wonder if he looked at the video that Quine mentioned in # 189615?

Needless to say, that is one big elephant! What's more, it belongs to a herd of millions!


Regards,
Alan.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189610 by alan baylis on June 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Comment #189460 by txpiper

I'm definitely a creationist with beliefs above and beyond the call of ID. My Christian beliefs are definable with several other theological adjectives which I won't list.

Well, list them then!
You are a devout Christian who wont stand up and defend his dearly held beliefs. This very thread contains numerous debates initiated by spirited theists who were not scared to argue for what they believe, even when the numerical odds were not in their favour. (Neither was the evidence of course.) You, it is obvious, are only prepared to discuss these things on obscure fundamentalist websites where there is less danger of you being held up to ridicule.
Which shows your excuses up for what they are: somewhat hypocritical.
txpiper 186617

You'll just have to consider that as politeness on my part. If you want to post a suitable forum or thread to discuss theology in, I'll be happy to do so. But not here. Put yourself in my place. Some people would immediately be turned off if not outraged if I started quoting Bible verses here.

You never know tx, you may start making more sense if you switched to religion from evolutionary science. Your arguments, always piss-poor, have now descended completely into personal incredulity, false assertions and dissembling so that even the most casual lurker must be feeling embarrassed for you.
What mystifies me is how you could have spent so much time just skirting around the edges of the science of evolutionary biology just so you can later appear to be picking holes in it? Which is something you have singularly failed to do.
Would it not have made infinitely more sense if you had studied the subject properly and tried to actually understand it? Perhaps if you had, then, when you try to refute it for your religious purposes you would at least know what you are talking about.
So tx, if you can find some courage, answer the questions being asked by the other posters here. Such as:
Show some testable evidence for a biblical flood.
How does this evidence account for the distribution of the fossils in the strata?
What does "things where created perfect and are in descent " actually mean?
What is the rational evidence that makes you believe in things like the rapture and an antichrist? Is there any rational evidence, or is it just down to childhood indoctrination?
And many more.
No tx , I have not been indoctrinated with the ToE. I support it because it is best explanation of observable reality that we have to date.
One other thing. I sense that you get very uncomfortable when you are forced to contemplate the vast amounts of time that is involved in these matters, so tell me: ABOUT how old do YOU think that the earth is?

Regards,
Alan.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186975 by alan baylis on June 1, 2008 at 2:17 am

Comment #186919 by steveroot

Surely you've heard of "The Fall"?
:-)

I sure have. It follows the summer. ;-)

Regards,
Alan.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186899 by alan baylis on May 31, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Txpiper,

Do you actually read many of the links that you selectively quote from?
I'm, afraid that I'm suspicious that you are taking many of them from creationist sites as being recommended for use to cast doubt on ToE.

There is no way that Bruce Lahn is talking about anything other than evolution by a process of natural selection in this article. He is discovering genetic mechanisms to prove what science incidentally has been predicting for many years, that the human brain developed so fast by doing so in conjunction with the increasingly rapid development of society. they drive each other on.(There's that prediction thing again tx.)

The article explains it better than I can. Try reading it.



Comment #186617 by txpiper

You'll just have to consider that as politeness on my part. If you want to post a suitable forum or thread to discuss theology in, I'll be happy to do so. But not here. Put yourself in my place. Some people would immediately be turned off if not outraged if I started quoting Bible verses here.

I would have thought that someone as articulate as you could easily describe his religious philosophy without too much biblical quoting. Many theists have debated their religious beliefs on this site, some over long periods and are welcome. They just have to be prepared to answer some penetrating questions, that's all.
Are you sure that what is written above should not read "Put yourself in my place. Some people would immediately start laughing their arses off if I started saying what I really believed in."

Now if that isn't truly your position tx start answering some questions about how you think god did it and what you think that the evidence for this is.

Regards,
Alan.

Edited for clarity.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186859 by alan baylis on May 31, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Comment #186836 by txpiper

You have accidental, random DNA replication errors and the environment that organisms live in to work with, and very little else.

And time tx, unimaginable amounts of it! There, see, you've got it!

-----

I believe things are in descent having begun in perfection

You have made this statement several times. It's not one that I've heard before and I find it very curious. On the face of it, it sounds like a belief devised to fit in with end times belief. Also, it doesn't seem to say much for an all-powerful designer if things that he created to be perfect are spiraling downwards into degradation, as you put it earlier. Sorry if I am misunderstanding you on this. Would you care to expand upon it?

Could you suggest any mechanisms to show how this came about?

Regards,
Alan.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186521 by alan baylis on May 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Comment #186481 by Quine

I suspect this works both ways, in that, there are readers from his side, who are smarter than a fifth grader, sitting at home learning that so much of their world view just doesn't stand up.

I rather suspect that this includes tx himself, if the truth be told.

Regards,
Alan.

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186219 by alan baylis on May 30, 2008 at 12:17 am

I am quite enjoying watching txpipers regular excursions into what people like him must think of as the devils lair.

It probably has the effect of keeping the regulars on their metal and of honing their explanatory skills, IMHO. All the while it is helping the less learned of us to understand evolution better.

I have been musing on these discussions. Isn't this, in a microcosm, just what has been happening in the REAL world of evolutionary science ever since Darwin? The constant challenges of "Ah, but what about this?" Or "how does it explain that?"- Often from religious "skeptics", is what has driven the science forward as much as anything. Richard and others have often made this very point, I believe.

Having said all that, I do think that tx is starting to turn himself inside out somewhat in trying to scrape up yet more perceived anomalies to have explained to him. He doesn't seem to understand that in reality he is mostly just asking the same basic couple of questions or so, but in many different ways and that they have already been elegantly answered by science and now again by the people here.

Anyway, keep trying tx, this is an interesting debate, just what Richard intended this site to be all about, I would have thought.

Regards,
Alan


PS Although the folks here have answered all his questions in an honest and forthright manner, he refuses to answer any quite reasonable questions about his religious beliefs. This is blatantly dishonest of him.

21. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #185521 by alan baylis on May 28, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #185504 by clearmind

This is the tradition of this web page. Somebody tried to say that he would vote to bomb Romania because of me.

wooter that was just a JOKE.

Surely you have jokes in Romania?

Why don't you tell us some, instead of all this whining and moaning about the other posters here? It's not as though someone has a gun to your head forcing you to post here, is it?

(wooter, some good Romanian jokes though! Not your own about atheists and evolins because we've heard them all!) ;)

Regards,
Alan.

22. What is science for?

Comment #184950 by alan baylis on May 26, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #184788 by blake121666

Character assassination

Your character committed suicide on the day you joined up with these mendacious hate mongers.

However "diverse" you pretend that these deniers are, there is one theme that unites all followers of your particularly unpleasant conspiracy theory. That is; deep-seated anti-Semitism and an urge to rehabilitate and glorify fascism and the nazi ethos. Some like ASS Marques have become quite clever in trying to hide these traits, but not nearly clever enough.



Comment #184761 by Diocletian

Diocletion, I agree with much of what say and share some of your disheartenment. I think, perhaps that the membership here is just too large for the ignore strategy to work.

I have been flagging ASS M from the start but nothing seems to happen. Surely we cannot be the only ones?

It is not unreasonable I think, to suspect that ASS M saw a golden opportunity to use this unmonitored site to unload his garbage onto a much wider audience. He has been doing this feverously from the start while probably expecting censorship at any moment. He probably can't believe his luck!

Anyway being obviously mentally unstable ASS M would probably try to continue under a under another name if blocked.

Skid, before you start whining, read the rules of this site and note carefully where it says that this is not a free speech forum.

Diocletion, I shall now take your advice. I have addressed my last comment to these loonies.

23. What is science for?

Comment #184518 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #184419 by ASMarques [edit] (who leads to believe that he is on holiday in acapulco) on May 25, 2008 at 5:13 am *

Ended with this,

Gotta go. My lemonade is getting warm. See you in a few weeks.

Then we had this,

Comment #184434 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 7:15 am *

And this,

Comment #184457 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:28 am *


ASS Marques, you jumped up wooter, you are seriously, one obsessively demented dude.

--------------

It seems that in addition to your usual dismal denier sites, you are now reduced to quoting other deniers who are even worse raving anti Semites and nazi fanciers than those, if that's possible. Not only that, the only way you can get some one to agree with you on this site is by bringing in your mates. I predict we will be seeing more of these.

-------------
Delving into just who these deniers are is very illuminating. I follow his links and then look up the authors. The trouble is, this may lead to us having to learn far more about these loonies than we ever wanted to know.

I've just learned that another of ASS's heroes, Ernst Zundel wrote a book called "The Hitler we loved and why". It may sound like something from "The Producers", but it isn't!
From holocaust-history.org

This looks like another useful resource;
http://www.ipl.org/div/pf/entry/48483



In addition to the control flags that we already have, perhaps we need one marked "serious mental health issues".

Anyway, that's more than enough nazis for me.

24. What is science for?

Comment #184422 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #184409 by keith

I disagree with you on this one. For me, Blake's claim has a ring of authenticity to it. I'm more than prepared to believe that he really doesn't know what 'blood libel' is.

Keith, as you wish. Although I would have thought the amount of times ASS Marques used this phrase might have made him curious to look it up.


Comment #184390 by epeeist

Ah, that's MY little conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it, unshakably! ;-)

25. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184400 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 1:59 am

Comment #183910 by al-rawandi

Al, did you notice how quickly the cowardly hypocrite dropped the subject of Islam once you and the others told him some home truths about it? This is not the first time wooter has done this. As when it was pointed out to him that claiming to have proven evolution wrong by his own "LOGIC" was just hubris or pride, and by what he believes, one of the seven deadly sins.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

This seemed to stop that particular bit of drivel.

Although it gives us a laugh, wooter loves all the mocking and cursing we give him. I believe this is because like many religious nutters he has a strong masochistic streak.

Using his own religious beliefs against him seems to take the wind out of his sails IMO and would probably reduce the number of his posts.

Having said all that, I do think wooters' brand of nuttiness and peoples' replies do bring a note of hilarity to the proceedings.

Regards,
Alan.

26. What is science for?

Comment #184385 by alan baylis on May 25, 2008 at 12:13 am

Comment #184048 by blake121666

Does anyone believe this?

I'm no member of CODOH or any racist or nazi ... not even technically a holocaust denier

Comment #184310 by blake121666

Or this?

I don't know what "Blood Libel" means and I'm not interested in looking it up

I'm not surprised some of them pretend not to know of this particular bit of anti Semitic barbarism, for it shows their mindset up pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

now to wait for ASS Marques to whine that nobody cares about the blood libel of the German people. Or is blake just his sock puppet?

27. What is science for?

Comment #183387 by alan baylis on May 22, 2008 at 2:53 am

Perhaps they could share an alternative thread. There they could rant, ramble, and wibble to each other to their hearts content.;)

28. What is science for?

Comment #183348 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #183209 by Teratornis

An excellent post.

Regards,
Alan.

29. What is science for?

Comment #182989 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #182944 by Peacebeuponme

PBUM,

my point there was a general one and not aimed at anyone in particular,

regards,
alan.

30. What is science for?

Comment #182930 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 6:11 am

I'm with styrer on this.

Look up "David Irving, libel trial" to get a quick understanding of the characters and motives of these people. Their motives are plain and simple;- anti-Semitism and nazi apologetics.



Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten

I'm just curious aabout the actual evidence base for this piece of highly emotive modern folk-lore.

Strange phraseology for someone who professes neutrality.



For anyone genuinely interested in these questions, following ASS Marques bullshit links won't get you very far. Any attempt by people to debate him has led only to a barrage of quotes and reviews from denier websites.

Try starting here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll



ASS Marques has shot himself in the foot by posting here. Anyone with sense who wants to know more is going to search out reputable sources.

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182439 by alan baylis on May 20, 2008 at 6:06 am

Comment #182394 by epeeist

But you can't hang out with a wheel and an axle, a pulley or a screw and consider some measurable nuance that occurs at that level into the kind of mechanics that occur in motor bikes or aeroplanes.

But to pre-empt him, tx will just reply that "god given" human intelligence did that.

Comment #182396 by epeeist

The ToE works for fruitflies, add a bit more complexity and does it still work, add a bit more...

That's the answer, right there, IMHO. Nicely put.

But of course he won't accept it.


I think txpiper is playing a dangerous game here, for a fundamentalist. I don't think that he is an otherwise stupid man (no offence intended, tx ) and a lot of this must be sinking in without him necessarily realizing it.

He may wake up suddenly one night and realize something like "of course evolution is true, all the evidence is there! How could it be otherwise?" He will have seen the inescapable logic of it all. Unlikely? Well, plenty of former religious people have had similar experiences, so he won't be that unusual.


[EDIT]

txpiper,

after submitting the above, I remembered this article. It's a bit long but very interesting IMO.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2338,Crossing-the-Divide,ScienceMagcom

Cheers,
Alan.

32. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181772 by alan baylis on May 18, 2008 at 7:51 am

ASS Marques

181334. I said [edit]

This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust!

You've been trolling this site for weeks, so if you don't understand this reference, it is further evidence that your total obsession with your conspiracy theory is unhinging you.

I assure you they're every bit as credulous as you yourself are.

But I'm not so credulous as to believe the garbage that you've steeped yourself in for years, eh skid.

33. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181334 by alan baylis on May 17, 2008 at 12:56 am

ASS Marques,

The written history of the events known as the holocaust is vast.

The documentary evidence that converges to show that the holocaust happened is also vast.

The eyewitness accounts from various sides are legion. (Yes, some victims survived. Even the Nazis couldn't kill them all).

The sheer size of this historical resource lends itself to being selectively trawled for perceived mistakes and inconsistencies that could be used to support any number of lies and conspiracy theories. This is how holocaust deniers operate.

You don't seem to be having much success in prothletizing your lies and delusions here.

I get the strong impression that most posters are ignoring you out of sheer contempt, whilst others say you should be just ignored as the troll you are. I am a bit wary of this strategy. This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust! Although I think it is right to challenge your lies anyway, I have wondered what twisted propaganda they may have attempted if a holocaust denier had been allowed to post on rd/net unchallenged.

However, I think most people here understand very well what the convergence of evidence shows. They are just not buying the rubbish you post. They would also, I imagine, realize full well what motivates holocaust deniers. It is the same age old anti Semitism (which brought so much misery) coupled with the attempted rehabilitation of Nazism. A particularly toxic delusion by any standard!

Speaking of religion, wouldn't you do better by trolling your garbage around the theist wingnut sites? After all, there are plenty of them and the folks there are already conditioned to believe in various loads of old rubbish. Although, I doubt the crap you have been spouting here would take even them in.

34. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #178508 by alan baylis on May 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

178019 by clearmind
3. If Lord Winston says there is no evolution two years now, then what? Is he the criteria or any standing point that you can stand on it? Evolution is a delusion and not only one dozen of lord Winston will not change it. Seeker of truth has got many scientists as well to prove otherwise, so what? Truth is still there.

Wooter,

Are you claiming that you and seeker have more scientific knowledge than Lord Winston?
You have not mentioned the other points that I asked you to comment on, especially the one stating that catholic schools teach scientific evolution in the science class. Still, I can see how you would not like to confront such an uncomfortable truth as that.

Evolution is a fact. It is supported by the convergence of huge amounts of data gathered by many scientific disciplines. Scientific enquiry is adding to this data daily and will continue to do so. Unless of course, in the future, humanity finds itself ruled by a dictatorial theocracy that bans it. Most people would not want that. Would you, wooter?

35. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178380 by alan baylis on May 11, 2008 at 10:17 am

How weird the world of the deluded is.

One the one side we have the expelled lot saying Darwinism caused the holocaust.
On the other we have the deniers posting here saying that the holocaust never happened.
And now, in the middle is a clown in a cassock saying that reason led to Hitler and Stalin.

36. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177909 by alan baylis on May 10, 2008 at 12:11 am

Wooter,
Stop behaving like a spineless hypocrite and answer the questions here:


848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

37. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176946 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 11:24 am

Wooter, answers to my questions please.

Here:

848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

38. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176892 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 9:18 am

176809 phillip

I'll get an answer, even if I have to hunt the cowardly hypocrite through cyber space:-):-)

39. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176862 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 7:29 am

ASS Marques,
I was looking through your earlier posts, when I had a classic coffee-keyboard moment. You actually described David Irving as an honest man! Anyway, when I stopped laughing I remembered that way back in the mid-seventies good old PRIVATE EYE was already on his case. This stemmed from his habit of giving talks to far right and neo-nazi groups in Britain and Europe. In answer to this he whined that he did not know who they were when they booked him!
From then on, the EYE renamed him "Berlin Irving" in recognition of his nazi sympathies.

Anyone who would like to know more about Irving could do worse than googling "David Irving libel trail". This will give an idea of what these people are about and of their characters. (Keep in mind that Irving was the silly bugger who was sueing)!
Note what the judge said of him in his summing up: From wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

I am sure this would serve equally well as a description of ASS Marques.

Skid, we do agree on one thing. Making holocaust denial an offence is a mistake. It grants it more importance than it deserves. You and your ilk already have outsized martyr complexes. The world is short of timber. If you lot would get off your many crosses we could save a good-sized forest.

40. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176755 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #176659 by Star Spangled Eagle

Good on you mate!

These holocaust deniers are deeply unpleasant people with a sinister agenda, (and, I don't mean wacky handed)!

Skid marques on the underpants of humanity is an apt description, I think!

41. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176748 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 12:04 am

Clearmind aka wooter

In my comment 174818 I asked you some clearly defined questions.

Answers please!

848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page17#174818

42. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176294 by alan baylis on May 7, 2008 at 6:17 am

It cannot be only me who is struck by the overwhelming similarity of the arguments for holocaust denial and those for id/creationism. Just try substituting "evolution" for "holocaust" and it's plain to see.

I was going to give a long list of these similarities. However, regular posters and viewers of this website will have heard it from IDiot/cretinists so many times before, that I felt it would be like teaching my granny how to suck eggs.

There is though, one resemblance that especially tickles me. Cretinists like to claim that evolution is just another religion that needs faith in miracles to be believed. Now where have we been hearing that lately?

For an example of the similar modus operandi of both camps, have a look at the current discussion at
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2498,Is-religion-a-threat-to-rationality-and-science,Dan-Dennett-Lord-Winston,page19#comments

This features someone calling himself seeker of truth who is debating the age of the universe etc. and various dating techniques. (Be warned though, that seeker is almost as long-winded and as thick as ASMarques)!

Seeker has obviously read up on the subject but judging from the links he supplies, it seems this has been mostly from creationist sources. He bangs on and on quoting carefully selected pieces of information to support his ideas whilst rejecting the mountains of evidence put to him showing that he is wrong. Also, he will simply not accept that proper peer reviewed data is the only thing that will back up his arguments.

Oddly, in all of this, at least as I far as I can see, seeker seems to be claiming that he is not a creationist, nor even particularly religious. Of course no one believes him, just as they don't believe ASMarques when he claims not to be a bigoted anti-Semite and an admirer of the Nazis.

Of course what both camps don't get or choose to ignore is that it is actually the "convergence" of masses of evidence from a wide range of disciplines and sources that ultimately proves their delusions wrong.

Against the case of holocaust denial of course, can be added the vast numbers of eyewitness accounts of survivors, perpetrators, onlookers and relieving armed forces personnel.

It seems that a good summary of each of their cases would be as follows:

IDiot /creationists believe that goddidit.

Holocaust deniers believe that the Jews made it all up just to get compensation.

I'm now waiting for a long rebuttal garnered mainly from the holocaust deniers' own websites. Jeesh, ASMarques, you are a dreary windbag!

43. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175568 by alan baylis on May 5, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Comment #175548 by ASMarques


Looked up John Cobden and surprise, surprise, he's another holocaust denier associated with the journal of historical review et al.

44. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175541 by alan baylis on May 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Isn't it customary for some one to pronounce time, and cause of death, in these circumstances?;);)

Cheers,
Alan.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175022 by alan baylis on May 4, 2008 at 7:24 am

As a life-long atheist (at least a no. seven) I am all for using argument and debate to reduce the number of theists. However, I am expecting it to be a long hard struggle.

In the mean time, another battle has opened up with these sinister loonies who are blatantly trying to highjack science education. Evolution is their main target but as other disciplines shed more light where they don't want it, they won't stop there. At present they seem to be having some success.

In view of this, I believe any theist of that persuasion we can push over to, lets say, the Ken Miller wing, is one less supporter for the nutters. Probably easier said than done, but perhaps easier than trying to completely de-convert them.

46. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174818 by alan baylis on May 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Clearmind, aka as wooter,


Wooter,
Judging from the content of every one of your posts, it would seem that you hold in contempt those many millions of your co-religionists who accept what the convergence of scientific facts teaches us. This would definitely include Lord Winston, the person in this debate who is defending religious belief.

Lord Winston is a renowned surgeon and fertility expert. Also, he has made many science-based documentaries for the BBC, including one about human evolution. Look him up on wiki. Despite his religious beliefs, he has the same high regard for scientific knowledge and truth as RD and most of the posters on this site.

So Wooter, in light of this, tell us what you think of Lord Winston? Also what do you imagine Lord Winston would think of you?

I have pointed out to you in earlier posts some of the scientists who support evolution; yet still retain their religious faith. For a long list of others, see here.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html#christian_evolutionists.

Also, that most conservative of institutions, the Catholic church now accepts evolution, albeit reluctantly. In catholic schools they teach evolution in the science class.


From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

*Catholic schools and evolution
Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution, as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact of evolution and the theory of its mechanisms. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach.*

Of course there are many other denominations and individuals that fall into this "intelligent theist" category, not to mention the many non-Christian " intelligent theists".

Doesn't all this show very clearly that it is not just atheists who accept the scientific ToE.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html


In many of your posts you stupidly crow that you have disproved evolution by the power of your own "logic". Wooter, this is just hubris, -pride; the deadliest of the seven deadly ones!
Also, much of what you claim is so daft, you can only be lying when you state it, (unless you are mentally ill). Bad as this is, it is even worse when it is taught to the young, as you say you do. How do you square all this with your Christian beliefs? Please tell us.
All a bit more serious than some of my fellow atheists swearing at you in frustration, one would think!


So Wooter, tell us your view on all these millions of intelligent theists.
What is it that makes you so right and all of them so wrong?

To all of you id/creationists :- just do as catholic schools do; teach evolution in the science class where it belongs and id/creationism in the religious class where it belongs!

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174748 by alan baylis on May 3, 2008 at 12:05 pm

6094. Comment #174698 by Dr Benway

*eagles12: Not one scientific fact supports evolution... *



Dr Benway *You cannot have examined every "scientific fact." You are, therefore, lying.*

-------
Ah, but be fair Dr. Benway, s/he is lying for Jesus;)

48. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170100 by alan baylis on April 27, 2008 at 11:28 am

31. Comment #170076 by Lela Nasreddin
(Wow, major props to Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy for saying this kind of thing in Pakistan!)


My thoughts exactly.


I think this is a very good little essay, and witty too.


Alan.

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168679 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 am

Not much of an advert for religiousity was he?


Alan.

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168557 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

For the sake of the hard of understanding,at least in internet matters;
if we troll them, do we have to do it once,or to all of their posts?

Regards,
Alan.