51. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130038 by TonyA on February 20, 2008 at 12:30 am

I don't believe the wooter really holds the beliefs that he so voluminously excretes here. He's clearly jerking his wooter a bit too hard.

I remember the first time I encountered the Eliza computer program. The best part was figuring out a way to make it say something absurd and ridiculous. For the wooter, it's all too easy to induce it to say something asinine. Yet curiously, I wait with some anticipation for the next steaming pile of wooter to appear.

52. Fleabytes

Comment #130035 by TonyA on February 20, 2008 at 12:18 am

Be sure to rank this article. I've ranked it Excellent.

53. Fleabytes

Comment #130017 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 10:59 pm

I wonder if they felt that Dawkins would somehow "collapse under the weight" of their arguments, a sort of "let's all shout at the same time" approach.

Surely we've all noticed that many theists seem to decide what reality is based on a sort of group popularity or herd mentality. Strength of opinion, probably aggregately, appears to be of great importance. I would call them 'poor jurors.' I'm referring to the ones who spend their jury time trying to decide which group of lawyers is more believable, without much regard or concern for the evidence itself, seemingly on the belief that they can trust one camp or the other, if only they could decide which group was more certain of themselves.

54. Fleabytes

Comment #129946 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Thanks, Paula. I read every word. Nice work. I appreciate your fearless efforts. You are a great asset.

55. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129397 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 4:01 am

Maybe that's why he's too busy to stop mass murderers and to feed starving children. At least he ensures that most of their corpses are uniquely identifiable.

56. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #129393 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 3:56 am

One finds reason only to find how unreasonable life is!!

But at least I know the truth. It would sure suck if I spent my entire life living in ignorance and being proud of it. How can you tolerate all the religious pomposity and arrogance? Aren't you embarrassed by your slavish and servile behavior to a god that isn't there?

57. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129388 by TonyA on February 19, 2008 at 3:43 am

On the earth including atheist are all the same; two eyes two ears, same body parts etc. Bur we are all different as well: different images. You cannot find another Darwin on the earth. (Thank God) you understand what I am saying. My question is how do you explain this?

Wow! You might be the weakest thinker I've encountered in my entire life. I suppose you think a creator god was required to make sure all the rocks are different from one another.

We are all different because we were not created. We are the result of a very long hereditary lineage. Evolution directly explains this issue. Religion gets it wrong.

58. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129256 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Trusting the experts of fields is considered gullible? Why do they bring in experts for court cases. Do you understand special relativity, astrophysics, microbiology? Are you then gullible to accept the majority veiw of the experts?

One problem is that many people think idiots like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are experts. They listen, read and watch the materials and instead of becoming better educated, they become more ignorant. They don't have the educational experience to recognize that they are being lied to.

While I cannot double-check Hawkings' calculations about black holes, I can think about and comprehend physics and relativity well enough to recognize that the experts are not talking complete nonsense.

I don't expect all people need to do this, but if we each take a few extra steps out of the comfortable fog of ignorance, we will all benefit and I think our society will benefit too.

59. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129221 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 9:52 pm

It's better to trust something that actually exists. I place existence pretty high on the list of important attributes.

60. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129212 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Seeking to obtain current scientific evidence for the existence of god is a challenge - what are the units of God by which we should measure its existence?

The evidence seems to suggest that nobody knows anything factual about any god anywhere. If you want to approach it scientifically, it would probably be best to ignore the superstitions and religions and then think critically and carefully about the issue. This is precisely what many of us have done. Most of us find no reason whatsoever to suppose a god.

61. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129203 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Here's a short video about "Frozen Frogs."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/05.html

62. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129147 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm

..but we are talking about making improvements or changes to specific animals.......how long does it take to make a completely different self-replicating animal?

I was about to thank your for at least asking the right questions, but before I could, you wrote:

So the aurochs survived quite late in history.....

Still a kind of cattle though.

and again:

..but where are the talking cattle?

I'm not entirely sure if you're joking or if you're an ignorant creationist idiot, so I'll address this just in case. Perhaps I can help prevent somebody from claiming we have no responses to these "hard" questions. LOL!

I'd like for you to speculate on an investigable mechanism that allows changes from wolves to poodles and chihuahuas, but prevents any longer term continuation of the same processes. Do you have any hypothesis that adds "within kind" limitations to the apparently already agreed upon "limited" evolutionary theory?

Of course, the difference between big changes and smaller changes within a "kind" are simply a matter of perspective. The fact that there is an evolutionary landscape also contributes to an illusion of "within kind" evolutionary restrictions within animals. This has been much discussed by Richard Dawkins and many others. This is the observation that many animals have worked themselves so far into a niche that they cannot migrate directly to substantially difference niches without first evolving away many of their special adaptations. This means that morphing of a cow into a poodle would get you more quickly to a poodle-like cow, but having come to exist through another route, there will be differences that cannot be easily selected for.

This doesn't mean evolution only works within kinds. It simply means evolution can paint certain animals into a corner. It should be possible to reverse every step of the process back to a common ancestor and then evolve it back out the other route.

Consider, just for fun, the possibility that a four-eyed deer could be better adapted than a two-eyed deer. It is my understanding that evolution probably cannot make that happen, if we start with a two-eyed deer. This is because the deer already so effectively uses its two eyes that there isn't a smooth path to the four-eyed version that is incrementally better at each step. However, if we started with an ancient ancestor of the deer, say at a similar complexity of a jellyfish, it would be possible that the creature could develop four eyes, perhaps by a couple of relatively simple symmetric duplications of the eye development codes. This animal could potentially develop into a four-eyed deer, given the right series of selective pressures and the right combinations of luck.

63. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129024 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 1:58 pm

The idea that there are only 8000, cells in the human eye, is ridiculous.

That's nearly as ridiculous as 8000 lenses per eye!

Breathtaking inanity indeed.

64. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129020 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm

wooter,

5. How does DNA with 100 trillion cells, as big as a 1 million encyclopedia pages, get the different genetic information for each person who are differently created? All the human beings are the same in design but they are different in terms of image and finger prints?

We are not the same design. We are all very similar and interoperable, but not the same. Thus when two of us mate and produce a child, the child is a combination of the two different parents with some added uncertainty stirred in just to make it interesting. Surely, this isn't too hard for you to grasp, is it?

65. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129003 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm

To the thinkers and ponderers,

Below will follow my thinking concerning the huge time required for evolution. I am not making an argument for gradualism or attempting to explain changes, natural selection or speciation.


My dearest and most thoughtful wooter, AKA chamber,

What is the proof, a single proof that confirms species evolved from one another?

Sadly, you don't seem to understand what a species is. Perhaps you can blame early scientists who spent their time trying to organize their observations of life by placing them into named groups. Let me suggest that you indulge us and make an effort to think about this differently.

This is a thought experiment that you can perform for yourself if you really want to learn anything.

Imagine that all of your ancestors were photographed and put into photo books. Suppose the photo books can hold a few hundred photos each. The photo book in which you appear is the last one, so far. You are likely within 3 photos of the end of the last book. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of these photo books in this hypothetical archive.

If you were to open any one photo book, you would not be able to see any significant differences between the first photo and the last photo of each book. You could repeat this experiment repeatedly. Each photo book would contain hundreds of photos of the same 'kind' of animal. However, if you were to compare the last book with another book from very much earlier in the history, you might find large differences. Even though each specific book would appear homogenous, there would be great differences between books that are greatly separated.

If there were a similar compendium of photo books tracing the lineage of a chimpanzee, you would observe the same phenomenon in those photo books. Book after book after book would all appear to be identical, yet if you were to take two books which were widely separated in time, you would see that the books were noticeably different. If you tried to pinpoint the book where the changes had occurred, in most cases you wouldn't be able to find it. The changes are mostly too gradual for that.

Moreover, while you were reaching for an older photo book of your distant ancestors, you might find that I had already removed the same book while looking at the ancestors of the chimpanzee. Would this mean we came from chimpanzees? Of course not, but there are thick-headed people who cannot comprehend this simple hypothetical. Are you one of those people? Can your ample mind comprehend this entire thought experiment without difficulty?

Sadly, fossils are rarely produced when animals or plants die. This means we have only a few scattered photographs from this hypothetical collection to reason with.

The theory of evolution is so restrictive, and yet so powerful, that if it were wrong, we would expect huge amounts of contradictory evidence to surface, but none has. Thankfully, the theory of evolution is supported by all of the evidence found so far. The theory is self-coherent. The theory is explanatory, meaning it offers real insight into the processes we see. If the theory were wrong, nearly every fossil found would prove it wrong. If it were wrong, we would see evidence of diversity decreasing over time. We see the opposite.

The only widely held belief that has utterly failed to show any evidence whatsoever is the theory of a creator god. The theory of god has no evidence, no successful proofs, no logic and no self-coherence. The theory of god has many failed tests and is the world's largest remaining justification (not cause) for ignorance, slavery, oppression and abuse.

66. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128995 by TonyA on February 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm

wooter,

Please explain yourself. You take the posture of a cranky troll. Are you just stirring the hornets? Do you really want us to learn from you? Do you really want to learn from us?

There is something called "Poe's Law" which suggests that it is nearly impossible for us to figure out if you are acting like an idiot or you really are one.

1.Mutations are today proved that they are harmful. How lucky blindwatcmaker is that mutations of species came out with the perfect design?

Two lies at once. One, not all mutations are harmful. Evolutionary theory has always claimed that very few mutations are beneficial. Two, evolution doesn't result in perfect designs. Those who make claims like yours are not even trying to understand.

67. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128420 by TonyA on February 17, 2008 at 1:23 am

Of course, wooter == chamber == troll

Which means he isn't listening anyway.

68. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128412 by TonyA on February 17, 2008 at 12:47 am

I know, but Zeus wouldn't have given us a wooter if he didn't want us to play with it.

69. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128408 by TonyA on February 17, 2008 at 12:36 am

inserting all the mini motors inside the planets to make them spin around themselves

Planets spin without motors, so this is just dumb.

Now if we say even this small model needs a designer to happen, how come the real universe will not need a designer to happen.?

See if you can follow the logic...

Imagine something that wasn't made by a designer such as a river.

Now, build a smaller copy of this river. The mathematical odds against the river being in its particular arrangement are mind boggling, but we struggle forward anyway. After some time, when you've precisely copied the river, you can claim a designer was needed to make the copy, but the original was undesigned!

Imagine the following series of ignorant, wooter-like questions regarding the original, undesigned river:

"Who designed the path of the river to be at precisely the place that the water would eventually be going?"

"How could a river design itself? Just look at all those curves and beauty!"

"Only a designer could ensure that a river always runs downhill! If rivers were randomly produced, wouldn't about 50% of them be expecting the water to run uphill?"

"Who made the river long enough to reach the lake/sea/ocean? If it were random, some rivers would be too long or too short."

"Clearly a designer was involved. Why else would all the water want to gather itself together to run collectively in convenient grooves that are routed around city centers?"

"Only a designer could have made a river that provides water for the fish living in it. Without the designer, wouldn't the fish die from dehydration?"

Whether you see it or not, your posts strongly resemble the mock questions above. Are you happy that 98% of us find your posts more amusing than insightful?

70. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128401 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Dearest wooter,

Your posts are largely indistinguishable from a shameless parody of willfully ignorant creationist thinking. If you want more people to take your thoughts seriously, I think you have a decision to make. You can make the effort to understand what you are talking about or you can continue to be a cranky, ignorant ass.

You can choose to investigate and study evolution until you begin to understand the basic logic of it. There are many folks here who can help you. At some point, you will have learned enough to decide whether you think evolution is right, wrong or in need of additional work. Just think how much more appealing your arguments will be when you speak from reasoned knowledge instead of unreasoned ignorance.

Alternatively, you can continue to post messages that betray your complete and utter failure to comprehend even the most basic assertions of evolutionary theory. You can continue to waste the time of the hundreds of helpful and thoughtful people who are unlucky enough to stumble across your curiously comical posts.

It is painful to engage your arguments because it is quite evident that you are not learning anything in the process. Your recent posts are at least as illogical, ignorant and poorly reasoned as your first posts. It is astonishing that you continue to rely on the same falsehoods and faulty logic that you did before people started trying to help you learn.

71. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128359 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 8:21 pm

lol, out loud. As in the movie Idiocracy, I said, "I'm 'not sure'."

72. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128357 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 8:17 pm

57. Comment #128265 by Spandrell

Wow. I hadn't heard about how the producers conned their way into all the interviews, but that's hella shady.

This one too:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1693,Scientists-Feel-Miscast-in-Film-on-Lifes-Origin,Cornelia-Dean

73. The Dog Allusion

Comment #128249 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 3:47 pm

My post above is a parody of the vapid, self-aggrandizing response Rabbi Boteach gave to a question asking him to more clearly and specifically define what "god" is.

74. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128245 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm

42. Comment #128044 by dkv
Faith is a advice.

Because of your poor grammar, I'm not sure which you meant to say. Surely, it was one of:
- Faith is bad advice.
- Faith is a device.
- Faith is a mind vice.
- Faith is a sad vice.
- Faith is an abominable surrender of reason.

It probably wasn't the last one, but it should have been.

75. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128242 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Thanks, Glen. I enjoyed reading Robert McHenry's comments.

76. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #128240 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Yes it does :) Everything in nature strive to get in to state of minimum energy - that means that without Inteligence nothing remotly looking to the world we know could never exist - that is the mark of God.

Thinking intelligently requires energy too.

Perhaps what you are saying is that in trying so hard to remain in a minimum energy state, you are not able to think any harder, so you are forced, by virtue of your intellectual laziness, to accept a nitwit's view of the universe? That could be the mark of god.

77. The Dog Allusion

Comment #128175 by TonyA on February 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm

For me, Dog is he who fills the infinite expanse of my couch.
It is he who is the origin of puppies.
It is he who is the absolute moral authority to determine what it is right and what is wrong to pee on.
Dog is he who hears my calls when I cry out in moments of stress.
Dog is he who looks after the helpless.
Dog is he who I am sometimes very angry at for failing to look after the helpless.
The word 'Dog,' the essence of Dog, is he who wrestles with Dog.
Dog is he with whom I have a relationship.
I have a right to challenge Dog.

78. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128042 by TonyA on February 15, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Intelligent design, perhaps mixed with stupidity, gave us Intelligently Designed Stupidity, a form of stupidity so insidious and effective that the afflicted are not able to recognize their affliction.

79. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124416 by TonyA on February 9, 2008 at 11:51 am

"for the next million years"(it may have been a billion, but does it really matter? it was one of the -illions.)

Well, I could see joining a group for a million years, but a billion? No way, I don't have time for that.

80. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124274 by TonyA on February 9, 2008 at 2:09 am

If you are interested in logic then is there any logical reason for you or anyone to take the next breath? Whats the point in continuing life if there is no inherent reason ?

People don't choose their birth. By the time people realize what the situation is, they're already invested in life. They've got friends, families, goals, responsibilities, etc. It's probably true that my life will be meaningless 10 million years down the road, but right now, at this moment, it matters a lot to me and those who care about me. I care about mortals. What kind of idiot wouldn't care about living, loving and responsibility in the absence of a god?

(I had posted this comment earlier but I dont know what happened to it..)

With apologies to The Spinal Tap, "On what day did God create wooter, and couldn't he have rested on that day too?"

81. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124240 by TonyA on February 8, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Shrommer,

You appear to be a grand-master of equivocation fallacies.

82. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124237 by TonyA on February 8, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Extremely improbable doesnt translate into anything physically.

Do you really think this way? If so, how can you ever rule out any absurdity at all? Even in your strange thinking model, can't you still recognize that the existence of god is about as likely as the existence of a dinosaur that sings Sinatra songs?

83. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123582 by TonyA on February 7, 2008 at 11:18 am

One of the best, I thought, was Jackson's argument that atheistic science is also at bottom a dogma that requires a good deal of what we would call "faith" thinking, and that the atheist community treats science as a privileged window in what Jackson called "the givens" (meaning reality), not to be questioned any more than the tenets of theism.

That the word faith has more than one definition does not entitle him to beg an equivalence of meaning when it is used in two different kinds of statements. The faith of scientists and the faith of immutable belief could not be more incompatible.

Science welcomes criticism, investigation and refinement. This is why science converges on a universal truth, despite one's country of birth, the beliefs of one's parents, the nature of one's government, et. al. There isn't a Christian version of the periodic table or a middle-eastern version of c.

Science has been advancing so rapidly that an important part of the progress comes from those nipping at its heals, trying to find flaws, incorrect assumptions, etc. Science truly does reward those who can find errors of logic, errors of fact, or errors of faith in the cumulated body of scientific knowledge. For this reason, and others, many scientists put great effort into this kind of attack on the flanks.

If I discover a demonstrable flaw in the body of scientific knowledge, even a small one, I can count on some significant admiration for my efforts and results. Science puts the reality first.

That this happen at all is one of many things that clearly distinguishes it from the conclusion-driven, illogical quagmire of ignorant religious faith.

While scientists do act as if they have faith in areas in which they are not themselves experts, it isn't the same kind of faith that afflicts the religious. It is a "faith" based on trust in the mechanisms which lead to the results, which can, in turn, be verified and evaluated by anyone at any time. Scientists trust that there are people in every area (and there are) who question everything they see. Scientists willingly adjust their beliefs whenever the evidence demands it. For the religiously faithful, their faith cannot be moved by mere things such as facts, evidence or logical reasoning. The faithful willingly hang on to their flawed presumptions in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence of their error.

When theists equate these two kinds of faith, they reveal an appalling ignorance of science, faith or both.

I'm sorry this went to long while saying so little...I think the emphasis is important.

84. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123534 by TonyA on February 7, 2008 at 10:16 am

If gravity does indeed propagate via the exchange of virtual particles, it does not matter if they travel at a snail's pace, as long as the intensity stays the same.

A similar consciousness raising occurs when you first learn to calculate the speed of electrons traveling through a power wire, or when you find out how long it takes for photons to make their way out of the Sun.

85. Blasphemy

Comment #122744 by TonyA on February 5, 2008 at 11:23 pm

I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on exactly what it is that makes it such a "great faith" ?

He doesn't say it is a great faith. What he says is that it is time, for those who claim it is a great faith, to step up and prove it. Of course, the moderates will come to realize they are on the wrong side of the scripture and much wailing and gnashing of teeth will follow, or they'll just remain cowed.

86. Science Debate 2008

Comment #122704 by TonyA on February 5, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Anybody care to add a few more???

Q: Do you believe in ghosts?
Q: Do you believe in the supernatural?
Q: Have you ever seen a UFO?
Q: Should parents be allowed to modify the genitals of their children?
Q: Is a scientific theory anything more than a scientific guess?
Q: Would you say that evolution is untrue, unknowable, slightly true, 50-50, mostly true or completely true?

87. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122221 by TonyA on February 5, 2008 at 12:08 am

wipeout, zip your pants up, your wooter is showing.

88. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121631 by TonyA on February 3, 2008 at 9:17 pm

I find it impossible to believe that it was already inevitable even only 1 million years ago.

No, merely within the scope of your own life and the years lived, that's all.

I am still annoyed by this feeble response. You claim my determinism starts at the beginning of my life. Surely you recognize that determinism falls apart once you have a gap like this in the theory. If the beginning of my life was not part of the preexisting determinism of the Universe, then I represent a non-deterministic event in the lives of all the older people that I've interacted with, and all younger people have likewise contaminated my own, personal determinism.

89. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121321 by TonyA on February 3, 2008 at 8:15 am

No, merely within the scope of your own life and the years lived, that's all.

Zoinks! My scientific mind is reeling here. Such an arbitrary demarcation point is not at all expected.

90. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121317 by TonyA on February 3, 2008 at 8:13 am

TonyA - no, there's no point to any statement made by anyone other than their own self-serving interest.

But doesn't that conclusion depend on a certain arbitrary framework? For (imperfect) example, if I decide that people are driven by hunger, then all decisions could be rationalized with respect to them sating their hunger. It might get confusing or tricky at times, but such a perspective is possible.

91. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121310 by TonyA on February 3, 2008 at 8:07 am

What would those stochastic inputs be?

Things like:
Who wins a lottery.
When did the cell phone drop the call.
Which gnat flew into my eye.

Before you determinists decide I've stepped on the dung-pile, I do think everything is caused, but sometimes by unpredictable (even when all information is known) events.

Given the incredibly long chain of events that has lead to me making this post, I find it impossible to believe that it was already inevitable even only 1 million years ago.

92. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121291 by TonyA on February 3, 2008 at 7:35 am

Scooter,

Why do so many babies choose to die from the complications of childbirth?

Was the Berlin airlift wrong?

How can determinism remain a useful theory given the existence of stochastic (non-deterministic?) inputs?

Do you have a conclusion to make? In other words, what should I make of your statements? Is there a point to them?

93. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121288 by TonyA on February 3, 2008 at 7:26 am

What would qualify something as a Godly-act?

e.g. "I know God created the Universe because I've arbitrarily assumed it would require a god to create any Universe. Therefore, since our Universe does exist, it must have been God that created it."

94. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119345 by TonyA on January 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

And so I proceeded to take a walk around the neighborhood, talking out loud with God.

The next time you and your little buddy decide to chit-chat, tell God to get off his lazy ass and do something good for a change.

95. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119315 by TonyA on January 31, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Karma-Shoveller:

Well, hearing God talking back to me, I guess. There's really no going back once that has happened.

But to be fair, that is not what made me a Christian... it just made me a theist.

What a huge blunder! You missed a fine chance to ask God, "Which god are you?"

96. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #117752 by TonyA on January 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Today, when we put spectacles on children, not many people would point out that we owe our very existence to the fact that most nearsighted children in the past were eaten by jackals.

I didn't say I was proud of it, or even happy about it, indeed I'm not happy about it. But it seems like the type of evolution we must thank for our existence doesn't work without the replacement of older generations with newer ones. As I said, it's something we might be able to do something about, but the feature of "limited lifespans" was neither silly nor unnecessary in driving our evolutionary history.

97. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #117690 by TonyA on January 29, 2008 at 11:40 am

Aging and death have been an inevitable part of human experience for so long that it's difficult even to get people to start thinking about science advancing far enough to fix this silly and unnecessary problem.

While science will probably be able to deal with this, it is my understanding that we would not be here at all, if not for this "silly and unnecessary problem." I think I owe my very existence to this "problem."

98. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #116735 by TonyA on January 27, 2008 at 9:38 am

al-rawandi:

You are slamming me for focusing on the Nuclear attacks. That was already in play when I showed up. That is like inviting me to a bar and then upbraiding me for drinking.

Sorry. I guess I was slow to recognize your position. I don't disagree all that much, I just wanted to encourage a little more humility when judging the sometimes hard-fought, often anguished decisions made by competent people in tough times.

99. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #116733 by TonyA on January 27, 2008 at 9:33 am

As an atonement for my sins against this thread, I sent the following letter to my Christian Scientist congressman.

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

I urge you to oppose H. RES. 888 which, in part, purports to "affirm the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history."

Though I believe that an honest look at the relevant history has revealed much of the resolution to be factually wrong, that is not the only reason to oppose it.

Elected representatives should not need to be reminded that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right of religious freedom and prohibits Congress from making any laws respecting religion.

Those who claim that this resolution will not be a law, but simply a positive, harmless symbolic statement of the religious underpinnings of our country, fail to recognize a critically important aspect of this symbolism. Legislators, especially, should instantly recognize the impropriety and damaging symbolism of voting for resolutions that would in fact be illegal if made into laws. Such resolutions help to engender distrust in our lawmakers and foster doubts that they are acting in compliance with their Constitutional limitations. H. RES. 888 thereby symbolizes an ignorance of and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution, the very document that each elected representative has sworn to uphold.

I trust you will oppose H. RES. 888 on constitutional grounds and I hope that you will oppose similar measures in the future.

I appreciate your representation in this matter.

Sincerely,

100. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116683 by TonyA on January 27, 2008 at 5:17 am

First of all I liked Prof. Dawkins' answer to John.
However, I think an approach along the lines of "I've spent my whole life studying this material, do you really think I just make things up? What motive could I have for doing that?" is possibly more effective.

I understand why you feel this way, but that would be an argument from authority, which Dawkins specifically argues against. To avoid the conflict, he could have said, "look at the facts until you understand them as well as I do," but that still has the flaw. So Dr. Dawkins simply said, "go learn the facts."