Comments by J Mac

651. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223864 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I'm convinced! God is real! I've been "saved"...

You should all join me in my worship of God, the incoherent blubbering idiot who accidentally spun the dials that allowed our universe to take shape.

He may not be rational, he may not be powerful, and he certainly isn't infinite. But he IS GOD! So lets all for pray to the fucktard God.

652. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223860 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Ooooh come on. I love watching theists define their god out of existence.

It's like watching grass grow... in reverse.

653. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223852 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm

The claim that it will be "simple" is a claim that Dawkins has plucked out of the air.

I don't recall him ever saying it would be "simple." Please give a page number reference if I am wrong.

A point made in the book however is that "god" simply doesn't answer the question at all.

How do you know that God or any other sort of ultimate explanation can be compared with a created object?

This is the catch 22 of the creationist argument. If you assert that everything that has the appearance of design requires a designer, then your god does not help. Because any concept of god capable of designing the universe would himself have an apparent quality of being designed; hence there must be a designer-designer. This logic gets us into an infinite regress leaving us with the same question we started with.

If we realize an appearance of design does not necessarily require a designer then there is no reason to propose one.

"How do you know anything about god, even a hypothetical one?"

Well, we know from the title of the argument FOR such a god that he would have to be intelligent. And he would have to be a designer. An intelligent being capable of designing the universe would by our standards be quite complex. I do agree with you that there is no need for such a being to be INFINITELY complex, but yes, quite complex.

654. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223844 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Now if you need that tidbit of knowledge to keep your from playing with gecko poop you have problems.

655. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223830 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Ok good ... was wondering for a minute.

In that case I'd agree with your statement.

656. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223828 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

BillySands

There is a phrase "Central Dogma" of molecular biology, meaning that DNA is transcribed to RNA which is translated to proteins. And while all fields of science overlap this central dogma is not a dogma of evolution as you imply.

What a dishonest chump - or a retard!

In what way does this make me a dishonest chump or retard?

657. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223824 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm

It also means that in the same minute thousands of animals are bonking like crazy.

Religion is against that as well.

Our Bengals,(part Asian Leopard-cats) kill the lizards around the pool in a very sadistic manner but don't dine on them.

Since they appear to kill for no reason, are they religious or do they merely have an intense hatred for the green English accented Geico insurance spokesman that taunts them from inside Nemoville?

Within the humor you do have a point that perhaps I spoke to quick. However I suspect if your cats were not domesticated and living in a home where their food was provided and they had no worries they would not kill lizards just for the fun of it.

In either case the point I was working on may perhaps have been better made by Adrian B. It's easy to look out at the gruesomeness of nature; but it has its beauty and fun as well.

To be fair religion has its beauty in addition to its gruesomeness to.

So the point that nature is cruel is just unfounded in my opinion.

Nature is just nature. Animals live, animals die, animals have "blowhole intercourse" (according to another article here). Ignoring the "bad" aspects of nature would be foolish; ignoring the good aspects of nature is pessimistic.

658. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223817 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 1:08 pm

This whole "stronger version" bullshit is just that. RD addressed that in a section of The God Delusion under the response "That's not MY god you're criticizing."

I spent a large portion of my life in mainline christian churches and and quite well versed in theology. RD's presentation may not be EXACTLY your flavor of theism, but it was not a straw-man, it was an accurate representation of christian faith.

We now have a whole new generation of theists who cannot even define their god or religion. They use negative definition. The only thing they will every say is "That's not MY god."

I repeat my coca-cola analogy from another thread:

First there was coca-cola, then someone made sugar-free coca-cola, then another person came up with dehydrated sugar-free coca-cola (just add water). Finally a great genius came up with sugar-free dehydrated coca-cola with no added color of flavor.

It was very cheap to make.

Through your negative definitions of your god and religion you leave nothing left. You do effectively deflect every criticism... your right RDs book was NOT about YOUR god. You have the god that is very cheap to make.

Take your god, add water, and you'll have... water.

This "not the strongest version" bullshit is smoke and mirrors. There is no stronger version.

659. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223813 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 12:57 pm

1. That Richard Dawkins promotes his own convictions INSTEAD of honestly seeking the truth of the matter.

2. That in his arguments against religion Richard Dawkins does not attack his opponents' strongest case - thus his arguments are invalidated and accusation 1 is demonstrated.

3. Thus Richard Dawkins is accurately described as "a secular bigot."

I think the great irony here is you are plainly guilty of what you accuse RD of.

1. YOU are presenting your own conviction rather than seeking truth. However unlike you, I don't see a problem with that. All anyone can write about is their own conviction.

2. In YOUR argument you do not attack your opponents strongest case. You make passing reference to how memetics is not science (I actually may agree with you there.) But memetics wasn't the theme of The God Delusion, in fact it was rarely mentioned. So, since you took the liberty of doing so, I will state the following: Thus YOUR argument is invalidated.

I do not think that invalidates an argument, but you stated it does, so I'll go with it: your argument is invalid.

3. Thus YOU are a fucking moron!

It seemed to me that point three was not supposed to have any content, but was rather supposed to be an unfounded and uncalled for ad hominem attack.

660. Embracing goodness, without God

Comment #223802 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Unfortunately the article follows the old-fashioned prejudice that useing the term atheist is somehow shocking or disturbing.

I agree. However I think the article was exceptionally fair and unbiased considering it sounds like the author is NOT an atheist.

In addition to the above line there was continued use of adjectives of "they." Clearly written from an outside perspective. And as outside perspectives of atheism goes, this one is quite well done.

661. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223733 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 10:04 am

I think I'm going to get a job at a christian bookstore, then I'll refuse to check anyone out at the register, as it is against my lack of religion to distribute such crap.

662. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223731 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 10:03 am

"The difference between racial and sexual discrimination versus religious discrimination is that a person chooses their religion not their race."

And people cannot make up a race, or rule of their race, whenever they see fit.

663. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223726 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 9:48 am

Sounds like the US Military. In uniform one is not to wear anything around their neck other than dog tags and optionally one "religious medallion."

It is written law that they will allow "religious medallions" such as crosses or pendants of a saint, but nothing else.

Of course many pushed this by wearing something else, and claiming it was their religion (nowadays you can imaging an FSM pendant for example). They were always told to take them off, and usually took a few licks for it as well.

There was, and is, a special place in the law for the major religions to get exceptions to any rule they don't like. But atheists, or even minor religions, do not get that privilege.

664. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223719 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 9:40 am

Am I Evil ...

Damn, your avatar threw me off... I as sitting there looking at this thinking: "wait, I didn't write that."

665. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223718 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 9:39 am

"The total amount of suffering in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to say these words, thousands of animals are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, feeling teeth sink into their throats. Thousands are dying from starvation or disease or feeling a parasite rasping away from within. There is no central authority; no safety net. For most animals the reality of life is struggling, suffering and death."

But in NATURE this also means that in that same minute thousands of animals are chasing a great meal, sinking their teeth into a juicy dinner.

Religion seems to be the only force that kills and destroys for absolutely no reason.

Sure nature can be gruesome; But for every looser there is a winner. Nature seems to be a zero sum game. Religion tries to make it a negative sum game.

666. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223712 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 9:29 am

Oh you'd be in great shape.

I'm in PERFECT shape.... perfectly round.

I have the body of a god... Buddha.

667. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223702 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 8:31 am

Interesting how smokers resemble theists when facts are pointed out to them...

I've never had a smoker try to convert me.

And I've never known a smoker who actually WAS blind to the dangers of smoking. But its a cost benefit analysis: there are good things in smoking to.

I don't smoke, but I do many things that are not "good for me." I put that in quotes because it's a totally ridiculous phrase. Never smoke, never drink, never eat red meet, never drive faster than the speed limit (or never drive at all for that matter ... etc etc.... live in a bubble never doing anything all your life and you can add 20 years to your life.

Sure, but who would want 20 more years of THAT.

I eat sweets, they're "bad for me" in one way, but good in another, they brighten my day, and they're one of life's pleasures that make it worth living.

So if a smoker enjoys their habit more power to them.

668. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223607 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Well then that makes one think that maybe some people really are too smart for their own good, and nature weeds them out.

Natural selection as a substrate neutral process as proposed by Dennett will not weed them out necessarily.

You say too smart for their own good, implying that it is the quality of "smartness" that is associated with not reproducing as much.

This quality is clearly not genetic, as no gene for not passing on genes could ever survive.

The quality of "smartness" is in their ideas, their knowledge.

Nature may weed out the genes of the biological machine that carried the information. But the information can be passed on.

Nature will weed out only information that is not taught, or not shared. So do not let intelligence be weeded out; teach, share, debate, and learn.

669. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223604 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Most forms of "intelligence" would be more meme based and could be transfered laterally.

My education and accumulated knowledge can be passed on to other people even if I don't have children. (This IS what universities are for.) So the goal is to pass on the knowledge to those who lack it. Teach and educate society.

And in teaching children to think critically, in teaching them how to reason and use science, we can "rise above" our darwinian heritage.

670. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223603 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 10:25 pm

You're not far off. The fact that foolish people out-reproduce intelligent people is the theme of the movie "Idiocracy."

Evolution has no goal or direction; if dumb people reproduce more ... (and "dumbness" is hereditary)

As far as religion fading, people don't inherit their religion in that sense. Certainly there is a large correlation in parent's religion to child's, because they raise them to be religious. But we can all choose to reject religion or convert.

671. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223596 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 10:00 pm

No, in fact you strike me as one who is quite capable and interested in discussing the big questions.

It is also clear however that we have different goals.

Far from being "breeding grounds for dogma", a genuinely creative religious humanism would help blow away a lot of the accumulated dogmatic cobwebs of Western culture (& beyond).

I suspect in the short term this would be true. My concern is more long term.

Religion (theistic, supernatural, traditional definition) is part of human nature. I may not like that sort of religion, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that it is a part of our nature, much like murder or men's desire to have many sexual partners. These are real aspects of human nature for better or worse.

All three of those we work to control or minimize. But human nature has a way of reasserting itself in force whenever it gets the chance.

Many sociological "experiments" can be seen where great effort was exhausted to change the way things worked (Israeli kibbutzim are a commonly used example,) in the end our nature comes back.

If we ever succeed in ridding our society from aspects of our nature we find undesirable I have no interest in tempting fate by allowing such natures to reassert themselves.

So while I agree that what you describe MIGHT help remove the current dogmas, I also suspect that it would over time develop into its own dogma as the human "drive" for (traditional) religion reasserted itself.

Is this paranoia on my part? perhaps, I can admit that. But I'd rather err on the side of caution considering the danger that I see theistic religion posing to society. So, while I may do so respectfully, I will stand against anything that hints at that threat.

672. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223590 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:48 pm

What exactly does he mean by that?

I've always had trouble with such statements as well. But essentially it means we can choose to do things that are not necessarily in the best interest of our genes or our individual reproduction.

Our rationality, in the strictest sense can be seen as a "misfiring" of evolved psychological mechanisms. Clearly it is not adaptive for us to choose not to reproduce, but some people do. We can transmit information laterally rather than just vertically, and we can choose which information we transmit.

Susan Blackmore has a wonderful, though not always scientific, book called the meme machine where she argues that our personality, sense of self, or identity, is just a complex of memes. This meme complex is capable of "overriding" our genes "desires." Again we can do things not in the interest of our genes.

Though whether this is good or bad is hard to say.

673. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223586 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Well Sarum, I think I understand what you are saying. I don't agree, but I think I get the idea.

I certainly don't need or want any such thing as you describe as the new "religion." But you made the claim earlier that people see things and do things in different ways, others may want this religion-like thing you describe. That seems absurd to me, but I cannot refute it.

I must admit in my own observation I've met many people who are averse to truth: they just don't care. I'm a debater, I live for a good (civilized) argument. I know others who disdain such conversations; they would rather smile and never talk about the big questions in life. I cannot for a moment understand those people, but I also cannot deny they exist (several of them are related to me... thanksgivings are torture).

Perhaps it is people of this sort who would benefit from such things. However I see potential threat in it. Such systems are breeding grounds for dogma and tempt the re-growth of theism. And on those grounds I will always stand opposed to such ideas.

674. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223585 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:24 pm

JMac - you hit the nail on the head there. Worst possible reason to become an atheist - you're pissed at god. It'll never last. Too much emotion attached.

Well, that's all rather beside the point, as if someone's pissed of at god they must think he exists.

I haven't done a thorough enough study to make any claims, but I suspect Lewis was never an atheist, he just wanted to be for a while. He WANTED to believe there was no god, because he didn't like the way things were going.

My story sounds much like yours. I was quite happy as a christian, and deeply involved in the church, for many years of my life.

I did significant studies of theology and scripture. But I also studied science (as my career). Eventually something had to give and I just realized as nice as all the church stuff was it was just a fiction.

Because of my background which some of you may share, I get a good laugh out of theists trying to "convert" me, when after a couple minutes of their talking I realize I know more about christianity than they do.

675. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223546 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 5:06 pm

And besides, what better place for TX to spout his crap than in a thread titled "lying for jesus."

676. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223545 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Ah, what's the harm in a little mendacious trolling...

I'm shooting for the 10,000th post which is coming up. There should be a prize, like a T-Shirt or something for that. :)

677. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223541 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Are you saying that a woman whom you perceive to be "flirting" is somehow responsible for "dumb ass sexual remarks" being directed at her?

If I perceive a woman to be flirting with me she is responsible for the dumb ass sexual remarks directed at her. But that's only cause I'm a dumb ass....

:o)

678. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223520 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 3:42 pm

TX,

The link you provided for the alleged "dogma" of evolution was a molecular biology page.

There is a phrase "Central Dogma" of molecular biology, meaning that DNA is transcribed to RNA which is translated to proteins. And while all fields of science overlap this central dogma is not a dogma of evolution as you imply.

As far as:

I'm sure you believe this, but if it were true, you wouldn't still be seeing sickle cell anemia cited as a beneficial mutation.

First of all that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that university libraries are full of journal articles on evolution. You use a completely unrelated statement to refute something you don't like.

Secondly, NO ONE has claimed sickle cell anemia is beneficial. Many have claimed and quite thoroughly proven that sickle cell TRAIT is beneficial in areas where malaria is prevalent.

679. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223478 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm

"The religion of peace" my ass.

More like "the religion of blow you to pieces."

680. 10 Big Questions for Maverick Geneticist J. Craig Venter on America's Energy Future

Comment #223470 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Also, there is no "artificial selection." The algae that survive and are propagated by our human experiments and engineering simply had the traits to survive the environment of the times... and that environment included us making choices.

I'm glad I'm not alone in that sentiment. I've often written arguments to that effect. Somehow a lot of modern biologists do not agree.

I do think it is a useful semantic distinction. We can refer to "artificial selection" to make the point that we were working for a certain goal in selecting particular traits. But to believe it is anything more than semantics is foolishness.

681. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223465 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Hey, they need another convert to add to the overused CS Lewis.

Lewis is an amazing author (of fiction,) but I can't say he was ever a great critical thinker. He didn't give up his faith for logical reasons, but just cause he was pissed off at god.

682. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223463 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Catholics piss me off, but usually make me laugh.
Muslims just scare me.

And Jews just make me laugh.... without pissing me off. Somehow the oldest of the three religions seems to have the most sensibility and the best sense of humor.

683. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223458 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Oh, that was your statement not mine .... HA.

Well my meaning is the same.

684. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223457 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 1:40 pm

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson (one of my personal heros)

Somehow I doubt this is what Jefferson had in mind: that governments fear the members of religious groups, to the extent that the government cedes tyranny to the religion.

685. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223452 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I am fine about someone trying to redefine religion.

I'm not. 'Religion' as a word has a specific meaning accepted by the majority.

I suppose I should have qualified my statement as I do agree with you. However I am fine with someone redefining it for the sake of a discussion or debate.

Old Sarum has a point he was/is trying to make. And either he's a complete fool, or we were just speaking different languages. He does not strike me as a complete fool, so I was attempting to bridge a communication barrier by conceding the opportunity to redefine the word for the purposes of this discussion in order to get to the heart of the matter.

Obviously Sarum's amended definition of religion will not cary any weight outside this discussion as no one else SHARES his definition.

686. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223447 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

It was down for me to.

I've been hearing that a lot of "anti religious" or freethinker sites have been having a LOT of trouble lately.

Are the theists waging a cyber war?

Taking out our websites, as if its anything more than a mild annoyance. Theistic passive-aggression...

687. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223442 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:28 am

I won't take that bet ... because you are right. But that is a bit backwards: Person A does something perfectly legal that might cause person B to kill dozens of people.

Seems to be person B is the one who needs to be locked up.

688. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223436 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:18 am

In the US it is the first amendment of the consitution and would trump any "give-no-offence-to-others" type of law.

SHOULD, not WOULD. Because in fact it often does not.

689. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223434 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:17 am

I couldn't agree more Steve, but he is trying to redefine religion into something new. Which I'm trying to be willing to hear out. Yet I can't quite fathom what is actually left if you get rid of the supernatural and deities.

690. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223430 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:13 am

suspicion that he violated a Dutch law that forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

Who exactly did he discriminate against? Doesn't there need to be a person involved for that crime... refusing someone a job or something of the like. Not just drawing on a website.

Once again I say we need to invest in the space program, build rockets, find planets that can sustain intelligent life (because this one can't) and then get the hell of this theist rock before it blows itself to bits.

I love when theists say I'm going to hell; I just respond "as long as there won't be any of you there." Heck, if all the intelligent people go to hell well be able to build an air conditioner. Couldn't be that bad.

691. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223423 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 9:02 am

Here's my problem, if there ARE ways of "interfacing" with the world that are not addressed by science they SHOULD be. They should not be relegated to some other thing (religion).

Most reasonable people today do not give any credence to claims of ESP, because time and time again they have failed to show that they are actually 'interfacing' with the real world or even the cosmos.

If a telepath or remote viewer came along and they actually started getting things RIGHT at a higher than chance rate then we could take a look at that. In that event such ways of knowing would not be outside of science, science can grow as we gain knowledge. Looking into the interior of a cell was once far beyond the capabilities of science in practice, and one could only use imagination. Luckily there were intrepid thinkers to make devices to do just that; now we can look into cells. It sounds like you want to draw a circle around some experiences that are CURRENTLY outside the reach of science in practice and pretend that they are outside the reach of science in principle. I am adamantly opposed to that as it can do nothing but hinder knowledge and growth.

This sounds very much to parallel arguments for supernatural where the supporters of it claim that supernatural events and entities are by definition outside the realm of science. Of course the response is if such things exist we could never know about them. As soon as we can know about them, even in the most subtle of ways, they have entered the realm of science.

Dawkins claims rightly that the question of whether god exists certainly is a scientific question. We may not try to mix up a god formula in a test tube, but if he/she/it interacts with our world in any way it could be detected.

Perhaps you could have an argument that there are things that science cannot yet address in practice, but not in principle. Perhaps someone should do a scientific study on dreams, imagination, and the other such interfaces. But the fact that a study hasn't been done does not mean it is outside of science.

692. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #223416 by J Mac on August 2, 2008 at 8:48 am

Even if humans in the former neanderthal range have faces that are "neanderthal-esque" that says nothing of interbreeding. It is just as likely that once the neanderthals were wiped out or pushed out of that area the humans that repopulated it would then face the same environmental selective pressures as had the neanderthals.

Cold climate versus warm climate, and humidity levels can have an impact on skull structure, as can any number of other factors.

Certainly it is an interesting and worthwhile question as to whether they interbred, but any facial similarity that might exist is simple not evidence one way or the other as it is a convergent trait.

693. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223271 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Yeah .... we need to start leaving copies of the god delusion in hotels.

694. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223268 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Well to be fair, in contrast to religion evolution is quite complex.

A lifetime of study just to scratch the surface, versus religion's simple answer "God did it."

Or if they want to get into more detail: "God did it in six days, and it was good."

695. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223264 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 11:05 pm

"What's happening here is a strange confusion between "descriptive" & "prescriptive" definitions. The posters claim that science is "by nature" enlightened & progressive, religion is "by nature" deluded & conservative."

You keep making these claims that SOMEONE is defining religion in a way you don't like. No one is. I did quite a ways back, but I just went to the dictionary. I understand dictionaries can be flawed, but it was a starting point when lacking anything else.

You seem to be claiming that religion could be an 'interface,' you use that word a couple times. We already "interface" with nature through our senses: we see, we hear, smell, touch - I don't see these things as religion.

You also say humans can "interface" with the cosmos.

"The cosmos" is a vaguely defined concept with no real meaning. So if we are "interfacing" what is it that we are interfacing WITH.

696. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #223250 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 10:39 pm

i forgot, that would prove a language convention

Ok, that just went over my head, what the hell was he even referring to with that? Am I missing something?

697. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #223243 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Read a BOOK?

He couldn't even take the time to read the first sentence of the article he was criticizing.

698. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223241 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 10:09 pm

No trouble here, just got on pharyngula

699. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #223238 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 9:59 pm

only a skull? ... sorry didnt read the whole article

Not the WHOLE article?! Did you even read the first sentence?

"The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

700. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #223237 by J Mac on August 1, 2008 at 9:55 pm

also, what pollenated all the plants before bees where around?

The air! Or water... Dumbass, bee pollinated plants are a small subset of all plants.

That has to be about the most ridiculous post I've seen from a creationist.

But I'll bite, HOW is DNA evidence of creation? I'd say its one of the big clinchers for evolution.