Comments by Tyler Durden

501. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166782 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #166765 by TheTruthID

Evolutionists are calling into question the education and professions of many in return. And you consider your theory serious. You can't even explain how life originated in the first place.

TheTruthID,

Perhaps you are not aware of what Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection actually posits? Do you?

You are confusing Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection i.e.the origin of species, with Abiogenesis i.e.how life first began on Earth.

These two concepts are completely different. Darwin was not concerned with how life first emerged on the Earth approx 3.6 billion years ago, but how it had evolved once it had begun.

Do you see the difference? Are you looking to learn the difference? Or are you just looking to stir things up here?

502. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166710 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #166694 by Remnant

With a creator God, your slime plus time theory of evolution leaves you captive to chemical responses that have "evolved". You are a slave to chemical reactions. You have no free will to make any choices. You become a robot.

Not so. Everytime humans use contraception, we are defying these "chemical reactions" that would have us reproduce.

The ironic thing is that without God, there is no free will.

Huh? I live my life without your "god", yet I have free will. Wrong again.

And Remnant, can you please answer my quesion with regard to your appendix, eye, and tailbone? Why are you avoiding the issue? Please explain why you have them and their uses.

Thanks.

503. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166580 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 10:12 am

Remnant,

As you are still here, can you please answer my questions with regard to your appendix, eye, and tailbone?

Why do you have them? What are their uses? Why did your God design you that way?

Thanks.

504. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166568 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #166560 by TheTruthID

The only conclusion science evidence draws is a designed universe and life.

This is simply your assumption. And it's incorrrect.

The actual scientific evidence says different. What evidence are you refering to? Please quote examples... and sources.

505. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166554 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #166543 by TheTruthID

I am stating the fact of a supernatural designer of life derived from the scientific evidence.

And this evidence would be...?

Sources, please.

506. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166478 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 9:08 am

Comment #166450 by Remnant

The fall of man and the resulting deterioration of DNA

Not sure you've answered my question. The so-called "fall of man" is a fairy tale, but I'm actually looking for scientific, logical answers.

Please explain what you mean by "deterioration of DNA". Is that a technical term? Which chromosomes do you refer to? Are you refering to base modifications or actual mutations in the chromatin structure itself?

I'll ask again:

Do you believe that your God designed your appendix, the blind spot in your eye, and your cocycx (tailbone)?

If so, why?

Why is your God punishing you for something that didn't happen, and even if it did, was before you were born and so beyond your control?

507. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166436 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #166411 by Remnant

I feel that the holes, and they are numerous in this UNPROVEN THEORY, should be presented and discussed openly...

Hi Remnant,

Can you please point out, in your own words, some of these "holes" that exist in Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection.

If they are "numerous", can you list them for us?

I understand there are a multitude of websites out there that attempt to cover this (yet fail miserably), but I'm more interested in your findings.

Do you have any?

508. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166426 by Tyler Durden on April 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #165986 by Remnant on April 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm

God loves you and wants you to use that brain He created you with.

Hi Remnant,

You believe your God created your brain? Did your God also create Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis, Corticobasal Degeneration, Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, as well as cancer, tumours and cysts that can infect brain tissue?

Do you also believe that your God designed your appendix, the blind spot in your eye, and your cocycx (tailbone)?

If so, can you explain why your God would design your body with an appendix that actually serves no actual purpose, yet can kill you if it becomes infected.

If so, can you explain why your God would design an eye that interprets images it encounters upside-down, not right-side up.

If so, can you explain why your God would design your body to contain a tailbone that has no purpose whatsoever.

All of these examples can be easily explained through Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection, but make no sense whatsoever for an alleged omnipotent "designer".

Comments?

509. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165455 by Tyler Durden on April 21, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #165442 by TheTruthID

Why I accept ID. The science today has proved without a doubt the intricate and complexity of even the smallest cell(NANO science). If someone can show me how something simple can evolve into something complex, I'd be more than willing to listen.

TheTruthID, are you saying that because you don't understand Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection, that it could not happen, or ever have happened?

This is simply an Argument from Personal Incredulity. Are you actually that self-important to think that becusae you don't understand something, it cannot occur? Wow.

510. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165424 by Tyler Durden on April 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #165403 by TheTruthID:

I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?

TheTruthID, welcome to RD.net

Before I answer your query, can I first ask if the evidence I present will in any way, shape or form actually change your mind to the fact of evolution?

In other words: are you looking for evidence in order to learn, change your current position, or become more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution - or are you simply ignorant of the facts with regard to evolution and so wasting my/our time?

511. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165376 by Tyler Durden on April 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm

"Expelled" currently has a 3.6 out of 10 rating over on IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

22% giving it a 10/10
64% giving it a 1/10

Their "Bottom 100" movies of all time range from 1.2 to 2.7, so you get the picture :)

Hopefully that's the last we'll ever hear of that pile of garbage!

512. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163889 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

Billy,

He pulled a "number 10". Quele suprise! :)

513. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163885 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #163873 by pacman71192

I can't see God, I can only see the effects of Him.

Examples please.

Perhaps you don't understand how the natural world works, hence you posit "God" as the answer.

Is a tsunami that kills 240,000 people an "effect" of this "God"??

Any chance you could answer my questions from before? What purpose does your appendix play in your body? The blind spot in your eye? Your tailbone?

514. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163866 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #163861 by Frankus1122

Give us something new that absolutely cannot be answered by Darwinian Evolutionists. If Intelligent Design is true then you should have no problem providing evidence of its truth. That makes sense doesn't it?

Your logic is sound, unfortunately theists/creationists/IDiots are far from logical in their "arguments".

This is the "grey area" in which we find ourselves when we ask for evidence for God/ID/angels etc. They are happy enough to live without it - we most certainly aren't.

515. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163852 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #163849 by Frankus1122

What would it take to change the mind (sic) of such a poster?

I think it is clear that they haven't a leg to stand on but how does one go about getting this point across? Because so far what we have been doing has not been working as far as I can tell.

Good point, I've yet to see it here from any theist/creationist/IDiot. But then, they are dogmatic, fundamentalist in their day-to-day thinking - why would the evidence we present to them change their repective "minds" one iota.

I am reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity with regard to our approach to theists and evidence here:
"Repeating the same behaviour over and over expecting a different result."

Oh, well. We can but try :)

516. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163833 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 6:07 am

Comment #163825 by Remnant

The points made are about as devoid of meaningful substance as the fossil record is of transitional fossils.

So you've never read anything on Tiktallik or Archaeopteryx:

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

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

What about Paleothyris, Morganucodon, Mammalodon or even Australopithecus?

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

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html

517. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163823 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #163821 by pacman71192

All that is within a living cell could not be placed ther by chance.

Who said it was chance?

518. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163822 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 5:50 am

could you please say how the design is implemented.

Steve,

That's easy peasy: goddidit :)

519. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163818 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 5:37 am

pacman71192,

And what was your appendix "designed" for? What purpose does it hold for you today?

Why does your eye have a blind spot?

Why would you, as a "designed" human being, have a remnant of a tailbone?

520. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163815 by Tyler Durden on April 19, 2008 at 5:27 am

pacman71192,

If you don't accept Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection, can you please explain the purpose of:

1. Your appendix
2. The blind spot in your eye(s)
3. Your cocycx (tailbone)

All of these are easily explained through Darwinian evolution. Do you actually think these 3 examples were somehow "designed"??

521. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162286 by Tyler Durden on April 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #161537 by Animavore

Now I have to go to my nieces communion and try to smile through grit teeth and express how happy I am for her.

Animavore, while it's not my place to tell you how to live your life, can I suggest if you as an individual do not wish to take part in a particular ceremony, you don't actually have to.

I'm not advocating you "take a stand" just to make a point, but if you don't want to go, don't go. It's only a communion, not like you're snubbing her wedding or funeral because of religious reasons.

A few weeks back, I attended the funeral mass of a work colleague's father, who had died quiet suddenly. I went out of respect for my work colleague. Sitting in the church listening to the ridiculous mumbo-jumbo being spouted by the priest was bad enough, but to see grown adults on their knees praying nearly had me at my wits end. I'm so glad it was a short service, my patience was wearing very thin.

In a few weeks time, a good mate of mine will become a dad for the first time, he's very religious so I'm expecting an invite to the christening, which I will decline, of course, for so many reasons.

If we keep attending these archaic rituals it gives them more power than they deserve. Just say no :)

522. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161412 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #161409 by Kardashovel:

But the only other explanation that makes any sense is that this voice was generate by my own mind.

By jove, I think he's got it :)

Oh, but then Kardashovel doesn't read my posts.

523. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161375 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 8:18 am

1485. Comment #161371 by Kardashovel

But it was pretty clear to me that He was not me, even though he spoke in my inner voice.

Oh, good grief! Somebody make it stop, please.

524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161369 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 8:12 am

Kardashovel,

In the words of Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Unless you have actual evidence that these voices were God (i.e. your version of God), I simply say that they were not. The burden of proof is on you to show they were.

Explanations for "voices in your head" are numerous from a psychological point of view: stress, cognitive, neurological, repression, the unconscious, the ego, the ID, latent memories, manifest content of the brain, neurons mis-firing.

Unless you can rule out all of these issues (and much, much more) by means of an MRI for PET scan, you can't go straight to the "God" cause for these voices.

I put it to you that you simply want it to be God. Wishful Thinking on your part, nothing more. Unless you have evidence.

525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161336 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #161329 by Kardashovel:

Tyler, do you think that Steve, Bonzai, Dr. Benway, etc. are idiots, as you apparently think about me?

Of course not. They are very intelligent, clear-thinking, logical individuals. I should know, I've read enough of their posts here.

"God needs us."

There you go making my point again.

526. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161325 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #161308 by Kardashovel:

But here's the thing... why would an alien species care about the mundane details of my business?

And why would the alleged "creator of the known universe" care about the mundane details of your business???

527. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161243 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger:

God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe.

Comment #161234 by Steve Zara:

It's a bit hard to know how you can know about him then.

Steve, it's at this point that theists usually start talking about warm, fuzzy feelings, the fact that they "just know", or about their "inner voice". Pah, such hogwash.

528. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161239 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger:

It depends on what you mean by "equation". When aked by Napoleon where God was in his cosmological scheme, Laplace answered "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothÃ¨se". This was a sensible answer, and might have been even if Laplace had been a theist. God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe. So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense. That is why the agenda to KILL religous faith as a "scientific" project does not make sense, because it is science's role to explore the cosmos, not speculate as to the identity or non identity of its hpothetical originator. That is why Dawkins' stated agenda is unscientific.

Complete and utter bollocks. Seriously, is this the best you can do?

529. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161216 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 3:28 am

Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger:

Dawkins really let the cat out of the bag when he said that his aim was not only to establish the truth of science, but to KILL religion. That immensely unscientific agenda is going to turn out to be counterproductive for Dawkins and his band of new-atheists.

Excuse me? Does that even make any sense? Where exactly is the "unscientific agenda"??

If Dawkins is looking to "establish the truth of science" then it is a scientific agenda. Taking religion out of the equation is also a scientific agenda. Your "point" is a complete non-sequitor.

And do tell, what exactly is a "new-atheist"??

530. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161205 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 3:04 am

David Robertson,

If you get the time, have a listen to Mark Mathis, the producer of "Expelled", in conversation with the staff of Scientific American.

Mathis had kindly furnished them with a preview copy of the movie, and then came in to answer questions regarding the content of the movie:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis

Case in point: Dr. Richard Sternberg, according to the movie, was "punished", and lost his role at the Smithsonian Institute for publishing an article on ID.

Not so. Sternberg was already leaving that role as editor as it was the end of his term. But this is never mentioned in the movie.

Also, Sternberg was never evicted from his office at the Smithsonian Institute because of that ID article - he was moved to another office in a scheduled move, which he, and everyone else in that department, were told about in advance. A later move of office was at his own request, which in the movie "Expelled", is actually shown to be him leaving the Smithsonian Institute - not so.

Sternberg violated tenets with regard to peer-reviewing scientific papers, that is why he was "punished", not because he questioned evolution.

This is all laid out in a report by Mark Sauder, which, strangely enough, is never mentioned in the movie "Expelled". Now, what is that? Why not just tell the whole story? A case of judicious editing methinks.

531. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161188 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 2:35 am

That is very true Vaal, but ever time David Robertson lies for Jesus, an angel loses its wings :)

532. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161181 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment by David Robertson:

I would not have believed it until I started getting letters and e-mails from scientists who requested that I do not use their name because they feared for their careers and their jobs.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity and Personal Bias.

Unless of course you were to publish said "letters and e-mails" as evidence.

533. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160666 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 9:09 am

Get a room, both of ye!

534. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160657 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #160645 by Kardashovel:

If the advice concerns me, I should listen to my voice; if it concerns you, listen to your voice. If it is a source of conflict, then discuss and justify based on laws, conventions, and ethics...

Discussion you say? But I have critical thinking, logic, and reason on my side. You have...?

535. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160635 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #160625 by Kardashovel:

Isn't it obvious? God is pissed off at you!

Which God? There are so many!

536. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160630 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #160620 by Kardashovel:

Holy Spirit is a concept that hints at the connection between consciousness and physics. It is the connection between each of us and the group-consensus projection of reality by our observations.

Blah, blah, blah, waffle, waffle, waffle, drivel, drivel, drivel. Pseudo-psychobabble Bullshit!

Physics you say? Physics is quantifiable, testable and predictable. Your mindless waffle is not. Somehow I don't think Newton or Einstein would agree with you.

Try reading a book.

537. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160622 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 8:39 am

Insane rambling #160597 by Kardashovel:

As for God getting more civilized as the result of our development, you are now beginning to see things my way... although that is not quite succinct, since I do not actually believe that we are God... just His distant ancestors.

And you have evidence for this spurious and fallacious claim? A fossil record maybe? Genetic markers in your DNA? Testable data? Maybe even a theory as to how it all happened?

No? Didn't think so.

538. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160618 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #160604 by Pintoman:

Dawkins does believe in God, he just calls God "evolution." Evolution belongs in the same category as God. He can't prove evolution and he can't hand me evolution.

*sigh*

Have you been reading anything that's been posted on this site with regard to Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection?

Evolution is scientific fact. Get over it. It's happened. And it's happening:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_lizard_legs.html

If you would all quit believing in evolution it would cease to exist.

And maybe if we all stop believing that you exist, you'll fuck off and die.

539. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160606 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 8:24 am

Inane rambling #160588 by Kardashovel

I would advise anyone that listens to me to listen intently to their inner voice. It is the Holy Spirit.

Ha Ha, now that's comedy!

How do you know it's not just your inner-dialogue? We've all done it, we all do it. It's how we process the world around us from an internal point of view.

Maybe you're just insane?

540. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160518 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 7:13 am

Is it any wonder kids are falling for this nonsense when they're told playing games on the Nintendo Wii now counts as "exercise".

541. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160498 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 6:53 am

From The Official Brain Gym Web Site for the UK:

"The movements are simple to do, but need specialist understanding before they can be used properly with specific learning difficulties, so we strongly recommend that you find a qualified instructor or consultant to guide you in the use of the movements. We do NOT recommend that you buy a book and teach yourself. The books are designed to be used alongside instruction from qualified instructors."

My brain hurts after reading that drivel.

542. A New Flea

Comment #160351 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 1:33 am

Comment #160324 by fides_et_ratio:

It's a close minded position and begs the question...

Logical fallacy alert! Logical fallacy alert! Logical fallacy alert!

Try again fides.

543. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159423 by Tyler Durden on April 12, 2008 at 7:08 am

Inane rambling #159128 by ASMarques:

Notice taken that you're afraid of trusting a single eyewitness survivor.

Wrong. I only asked why you of all people would be so interested in eye witness accounts (which you never answered btw) and your response was an assumption. Please don't put words in my mouth.

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

If you hold a certain position on a certain issue, the Burden of Proof is on you to show that. It is your claim the Holocaust never happened, prove it!

The burden of proof is usually on the side of the extraordinary claim.

No, it's a means of allowing a claim to to critically analysed by the evidence put forward by the party who holds the claim - nowhere does it say the claim has to be "extraordinary".

More assumptions on your part. Is that all you ever do?

544. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159101 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I was looking for David Robertson, he would fit right in.

545. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158975 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 9:14 am

Inane rambling #158964 by ASMarques:

By the way, can you recommend to me any particular eyewitness survivor you particularly trust?

Why? You're the one spouting the lies, denying the Holocaust - therefore the Burden of Proof is on you to prove your "case", not the other way around.

Still waiting...

546. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158943 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 7:55 am

"Jesus is with me 24/7. There is no shaking the guy. Isn't that cool?"

Kinda like having your very own stalker!

*shudder*

547. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158929 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #158923 by Paula Kirby

but Jesus would appear to have been off sick on the day of the training course.

Betcha he had a note from his Dad the next day though: "To whom it may concern, please excuse my only begotten son from missing class yesterday, he had to appear in a Taco shell in Guadalajara. The one true God"

548. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158921 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 7:11 am

Welcome to RichardDawkins.net

Where we debate whether Jesus Christ was indeed a good man, the actual son of God, or just a very naughty boy! :)

549. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158901 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 6:44 am

Quetz,

Exactly. In the scientific world, we are more than happy to share our sources because it holds no fear, or will even help update the current theory on the table.

They don't seem to get that by using the Scientific Method, disproving a theory can actually make it stronger. They are so used to having their "arguments" blown out of the water and having nothing else to cling to, they actively avoid such discussions.

These jokers are one step from the funny farm.

550. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158885 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 6:30 am

Al,

We've been here before with so many other theists/IDiots/morons/wooters/wee fleas.

It would seem to me that a life spent in religion, believing in God/gods etc deprives you of any critical thinking whatsoever. Simply because the Cognitive dissonance needed to believe the bible, koran or the whole "Jesus" story is just too great.

While we seek evidence to make our point, they simply move the goalposts, and are happy to do it.