1101. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207772 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 7:02 am

Some posters feel this is a pointless exercise as said trolls never bother to read the long responses properly and carry on with their creationist rants, and to a large extent, I agree with them. However, for someone like me, the scientifically detailed posts are both fascinating and educational, and I would very much hope that they continue.

Welcome!

The long posts are fascinating, but, and this is just my opinion (learned from experience), if targetted directly at the troll, they can actually be counterproductive. It can flatter the troll with attention, and seem like a sort of "taking the bait".

This is a humble suggestion, which I will follow as well. I would like to see what people think.

If you are going to respond in some detail to what a troll has posted, don't address it to the troll - post it as a calm educational piece to the thread. We all get to learn (which is one of the delights of this site), and the troll is ignored.

This is just an idea. I am curious as to what people think of it.

1102. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207765 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #207760 by Dr Doctor

My point was that if there was a dichotomy, it was a false one. I have no doubt that there isn't a dichotomy.

1103. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207738 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 6:29 am

Comment #207724 by MyName

The whole point is that the resurrection cannot be explained medically and therefore either it never happened or it did and God was behind it.

This is a false dichotomy.

There is at least a third option - something happened for which we don't know the cause.

There are other options. These may sound absurd, but have to be considered before God:

A hidden secret human culture had amazing medicine.

Little green men did it.

Or even: His body just randomly came back to life ("it was all a result of quantum" to put things in Pratchett terms). Even this is far, far, far more likely than an infinitely complex God did it.

My favourite is that there was no resurrection, but Jesus had an identical twin (or a similar-looking cousin?) who was involved in a plot to "create a messiah".

Of course, the real answer is without doubt that the whole thing was just made up.

1104. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207723 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 6:13 am

Hope all's well, I had wondered if all this religious enquiry had led you back down the Via Appia.

All is well, thanks. If you mean "back to Rome", quite the contrary. I would now consider myself probably an even more definite atheist than Richard Dawkins. I now believe that the concepts of "supernatural" and "God" don't really make sense, let alone stand up as something that can be investigated.

1105. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207712 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 5:57 am

Given that we all arise from sexual intercourse, this hardly needs stating explicitly ...

Love it!

Comment #207693 by Joe Morreale

The Big Bang proves scientifically that a Creator is responsable for the Universe as explosions in all other known cases never bring about Design/Order.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion of spacetime. The source of the order that followed afterwards is well known - inflation (creating a very smooth distribution of matter with minor fluctuations) followed by gravity. In an expanding universe (allowing more space for more entropy) combined with a long-range attractive force (gravity) you can get the formation of ordered systems.

The advantage of posting on a site like this is that you can get answers.

I am not posting that because you will understand. I am posting it because what you have said in this case is wrong, and you would not want to be caught lying in future would you?

1106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207572 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:57 am

txpiper-

I have no idea.

I thought not.

There is no reasonable answer, just like you don't have one for how all the matter and energy in the universe was supposedly compacted to the size of a nucleus of an atom before the big bang.

It wasn't actually. It was FAR, FAR smaller than that.

Actually, you are completely right here. We don't know. Do you know what that means? It means we aren't in a position to say "God did it".

And, as you now, finally admit, neither are you.

Unless you can say how it happened, you can't make the connection to God.

Your saying that if it can last a million, then 68 million is not a problem. I shouldn't have to point out that the further out you go, the more unrealistic it gets, and vice-versa. In other words, lasting thousands of years is plausible and lasting millions of years is not.

You just don't get it. You are asking us to reject millions of pieces of evidence based on this one. For that to be the case, you would have to definitely limit the time organic material to within 6000 years or so.

As soon as it is allowed to extend past 6000 years or so, your entire justification for using it to back your idea fails completely. This isn't about evolution being right - it is about you being clearly wrong.

I am hardly alone in my opinion. There are lots of bright folks who do not accept the establishment paradigm.

No, you really are virtually alone. Even if hundreds agree with you, it barely registers against the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of scientists who don't.

And there are committed evolutionists whose assessment is much more candid than yours, like this guy in a recent article I posted the link to not long ago:

You aren't answering the question. You can't just cherry pick views to suit your theory, unless you are yourself a trained scientist with a good publication record.

So, please answer the question:

I want to know why you consider that your opinion should be rated above those of Einstein, Dawkins, Watson, Crick, Hawking and hundreds of thousands of others.

1107. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207561 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #207559 by decius

The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.

That is really interesting. I am probably showing my naivety, but I had never thought if it like that.

1108. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207541 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 2:21 am

J. Anderson

I am not sure what particular posts you are talking about, but something that has surely become apparent in recent years (certainly after 9/11) is that theistic views can be dangerous. This is not a debate about some abstract philosophical point, or a scientific theory. This really matters. Lennox is basically saying he supports a belief in magic and a personal God. That is a real problem, as it empowers people to pick particular moral and ethical views and claim, without what we would accept as evidence, that those views are what is intended by the creator.

We can see the nastiness that can result from that in the current on-going split in the Anglican church, where prejudice against women and homosexuals is being backed by religious views. The justification? When it comes down to it, nothing more than "no, what the Holy Spirit tells ME is right!"

1109. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207515 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #207397 by BillySands

That was one of the most interesting videos on evolution on YouTube (and similar sites) I have ever seen.

It is simply irrefutable.

The common genes between species could be dismissed as God "re-using the same parts", but having the same useless viral DNA is a different matter.

1110. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207513 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #207511 by mordacious1

I don't really consider it beautiful. It doesn't to me have the "feel" of what a truly fundamental theory should be like. I doesn't get right down to the ultimate questions of, for example, why is there uncertainty in the universe? A string, or brane, with properties such as tension does not have a truly fundamental "feel" to me.

The kind of theory that does have that feel (although it is almost certainly wrong) is that of Mark Hadley, in which particles are knots in spacetime. The looping of time is the thing that gives rise to quantum uncertainty.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15721245.200-all-the-worlds-a-time-machine--imagine-that-there-are-loops-in-spacetime-and-that-the-future-caninfluence-the-past-marcus-chown-meets-a-physicist-who-is-convinced-thatthis-is-exactly-how-the-universe-works.html

That is the kind of theory that I would like to see: It gives some idea of why there is quantum mechanics at all.

1111. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207501 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:33 am

Comment #207496 by YssiBoo

The problem with string theory (as I understand it via Lee Smolin) is that it is a background dependent theory; the outcome of it depends on which background space you put it in.

I have read Roger Penrose make the same point.

Regarding the Smolin quote:

while others hope that M-theory, or a non-perturbative treatment of string theory (such as string field theory) will turn out to be background-independent,

That is another problem with String Theory - it is based on a lot of hope, rather than success.

1112. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207498 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:25 am

The vast majority were indoctrinated as children and absolutely not given any choice in the matter.

This is deeply problematic for me. It seems to wander a bit over the line on matters like personal freedom and privacy. People have the right to be stupid and ignorant, as long as it doesn't harm others too much.

As clod so nicely puts things:

Comment #207481 by clodhopper

However batty, I want to live in a society that permits me to worship the quiff of elvis without some idiot coming in to nick it.

Precisely.

1113. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207492 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:16 am

The holographic principle sounds pretty weird, but has a sound theoretical basis.

For example, the highest possible entropy in a volume of space is if that volume is a black hole. The entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area, not the volume.

However, what Susskind says is a bit far out. Just because one may be able to model the universe as a hologram, does not mean it is.

1114. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207491 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 12:06 am

Comment #207478 by Richard Dawkins

With deep respect, I don't think it is a case of people here getting it or not getting it.

I was, a long time ago, a fully believing Catholic. If I had listened to the Lennox discussion then, I would have felt quite comforted by the lack of apparent challenge to his views. This was the point I was trying to make earlier - people like me would simply not have realised that Lennox had actually hung himself with the rope he was given - quite the contrary.

Perhaps approaches like yours are like any form of marketing (in this case, the marketing of ideas) - considering a campaign a success depends on who the target of the campaign is. With my views now, I certainly consider Lennox's views surprising, so it may have been successful that way.

But I don't think this would have been successful in promoting rationalism to the religious, if that was its intention.

Regards

Steve

1115. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207383 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Comment #207375 by decius

I used crime as the example because people usually expect rational evidence for the selection of someone as the criminal. Some police forces may try to use psychics, but that a psychic said something is not (I desperately hope) going to be accepted by a Judge.

For some reason medicine is a different matter, and all kinds of craziness turns up.

1116. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207370 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm

It is worth repeating (not for the likes of ertu, who would never understand it) what all this naturalism/supernaturalism issue is all about.

I have had many discussions with religious people in which they state that I am biased, that my support for ideas like evolution is wrong because I assume naturalism from the start, so don't allow other possibilities.

This is completely the wrong way around. We don't assume naturalism and then do science. We assume naturalism because science works. For millennia people have been testing the world, and those tests have increasingly revealed naturalism - that there are rules that physical objects obey. We have seen nothing that would lead us to change our minds about this.

In fact, I would argue that we can never see anything that we should give the label "supernatural" to. Asserting the supernatural is effectively trying to prove a negative - that there are no natural laws behind a phenomenon.

And as for Lewontin's point, the real issue isn't that supernatural isn't testable, it is that involving ideas of the supernatural stops investigation. Scientific study of an area can't continue once any supernatural ideas have been introduced.

But, associating these problems with science is too restrictive. Involving the supernatural in anything stifles thought.

Imagine some detailed criminal investigation in which supernaturalism was allowed in. At any time, someone could say "I have a revelatory experience which leads me to be sure that an evil spirit was responsible" and the investigation stops.

I wonder how many of those who rail against the supposed bias of science towards naturalism would be willing to let priests rather than the police investigate a major crime?

1117. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207314 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #207309 by ertu

You know that there are positive mutations. So, please explain why you are lying. I am really curious as to what your motivation is.

1118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #207298 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #206844 by txpiper

In the case of the first ones, instantaneously and very well.

That doesn't answer the question, and you know it. I would like an answer please. How does God actually make the creatures?

But in the case of the T rex, you're still short by a factor of around 70.

That has no relevance. What this shows is that you can't use the presence of organic material to back your case. As organic material can last for at least up to a million years, and you state it has been around for something like 6000, you're out by a factor of over 160.

As for the link - you gave the name of the scientist. Just google it like I did.

Well first, because these and others are not working with hard facts. No matter how noisy the claims are, the supporting evidence is simply not there. I've pointed out the brevity of the lists on beneficial mutations and transitional fossils. I've also noted what I see as unreasonable conclusions protracted from studies, like the one that after 20 years and 40,000 generations only showed an adaptation.

That isn't answering the question. It is simply re-stating your opinion. I want to know why you consider that your opinion should be rated above those of Einstein, Dawkins, Watson, Crick, Hawking and hundreds of thousands of others.

This isn't about the fact that you think they are all wrong. What I want to get to is why you believe you can understand and interpret data better than them.

1119. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207274 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #207095 by Richard Dawkins

Lennox admitted, indeed proudly proclaimed, that he believes in all the miracles, even Jesus turning water into wine. I thought nobody believed in that one except fundamentalist wingnuts. I didn't need to argue with him, didn't need to give him rope to hang himself, he was cheerfully damning himself out of his own mouth.

I think there might be a problem in that the majority of believers would not realise that Lennox had actually hung himself. As for the water into wine - it doesn't seem that odd for someone religious to believe that when one considers what Catholics believe happens to the communion wafer and wine each sunday!

1120. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207223 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 10:46 am

IN FACT RICHARD COULD NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A POSITIVE MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS WHICH SEEMS TO INCREASE THE INFORMATION IN THE GENOME IN AN INTERVIEW.

You know this is false - you know that there are ways to increase information, and you know that there are positive mutations.

So, why are you lying? Isn't that sinful?

1121. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207058 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 6:09 am

Anyway, this situation is different. He was protesting. Which means he had to upset the applecart in some way.

There is plenty of public space in which to do that.

1122. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207057 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 6:07 am

In dealing with someone who is insistent that the Earth is flat, posting in great detail about geology and physics serves no purpose.

There may be some purpose if that person is prepared to engage in discussion, but we have seen not the slightest indication of that here.

I think Brian's approach is the best (although it has taken me a while to realise it) - force them to make a case for their views in their own terms.

1123. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207038 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #207031 by decius

I fully agree. I just don't like the idea of this guy being thought of as some kind of rebellious hero.

Comment #207033 by Tyler Durden

People are expected to act a bit differently as adults :)

1124. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207028 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #207022 by Tyler Durden

A flag is just some coloured cloth, but knowing that some people get offended by having it burned, setting light to a flag in public is a bit off, I think.

1125. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207023 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 5:21 am

Comment #207019 by Peacebeuponme

This wasn't a public place. He basically entered a place with a certain symbolism, and implicitly agreed to play by the rules. The reaction to what he did has been absurd and excessive, but I do feel it was a rude and unnecessary thing to do.

1126. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207017 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 5:13 am

Comment #207013 by Tyler Durden

I almost always agree with everything you write, but I think you are missing the point of mix's post.

Whatever the symbolism, this was a nasty thing to do.

1127. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207009 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 5:01 am

Comment #207005 by mixmastergaz

Good post. You expressed this point far better than me.

1128. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207006 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 4:59 am

Ah, they have a concern troll!

Not just one. I think you might just put me in that category too.

My worldview is that taking wafers from church is a fundamental part of my faith: "The True Church of Crackers Pastafarianism (Reformed)", which holds that cracker-kidnap is essential for me to achieve a state of bliss in the afterlife. Who's correct? How do we decide? I have an idea: let's stick to the facts and stuff cultural relativism where it belongs.

The situation isn't symmetrical.

When you join in with a group (such as Catholics in a mass) you are basically agreeing to play by their rules. Even if the rules are silly, it is rather rude to break them once you have agreed to join in. If you don't like the rules, don't join in.

I find teasing nutters to be rather tasteless (perhaps an appropriate term in this case)

1129. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207003 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 4:55 am

Comment #206977 by The Reverend Dark

While mass cracker kidnappings might be funny; it is probably not the way to go. It is the wrong response.

I agree.

I am also a bit uneasy with the "it's a goddamned cracker" statement. Sure it is. If you don't believe. But that is the whole point, isn't it?

1130. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #206999 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 4:48 am

Comment #206996 by decius

At least come up with a theory which has a decent acronym (e.g. WIMP, MACHO)

1131. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #206997 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #206515 by locri

You will find strong feelings against people who deny mankind has a major effect on climate for good reason. Climate change could be very nasty. This is not a situation where it doesn't matter who is and isn't right. This really does matter - the lives of at least hundreds of millions are likely to depend on this: the increased rate of arctic ice melting suggests, according to some models, that we will start to see significant growth of existing deserts, and appearance of new ones, within my lifetime.

Reducing CO2 use and production is vital for other reasons, such as to halt the acidification of the seas, and because, eventually, oil will become scarce. Making industries vastly more efficient has major economic benefits. Switching away from oil where possible has major political benefits - no pandering to nasty middle-eastern regimes.

1132. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #206987 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 4:16 am

If Steve Zara is indeed acting like a creationist in throwing out all other arguments simply because of one statement then he should feel guilty.

If someone comes to a site that is promoting rationalism and reason, and tries to put forward a scientifically highly controversial point of view, one that is way off the consensus, and backs that view with a series of claims, then it is perfectly reasonable to take just one of those claims, and show that it is complete nonsense, as an illustration that the whole case being made is flawed.

Suppose I had a controversial theory of gravity, and to back that theory I included a statement that the moon was made of cheese. That statement would, at the very least, make others reluctant to consider my theory.

This is the situation with your argument. The statement about the planets warming up is sheer nonsense. But that isn't the point really. Whether or not the planets are warming up has been something that has been discussed in relation to global warming for some time, and the fact that they aren't has also been known for a long time. This not only shows that you are putting forward a flawed argument, but that you haven't put any effort into finding out the truth, which is easily accessible.

This is nothing like a religion. It is about someone making wild claims and trying to back them up with nonsense statements. The only religious aspect involved would be if you continued to have faith that you are right after having been shown that your "evidence" is flawed.

Your whole approach to this is wrong. You have a view "CO2 does not produce global warming", and you are selecting evidence, and trying to find all kinds of interpretations, to preserve that view.

Comment #206634 by pewkatchoo

What a nasty smug wee creature you come across as Decius.

Whatever the true smugness-level... to paraphrase Peter Atkins, there is nothing wrong with being smug if you are right.

1133. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206700 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Comment #206627 by Corylus

I love that Miller/Turner discussion. It is one of my favourite atheist/theologian debates. Miller very politely boxes Turner in, step by step, until he is forced to admit that his belief is nothing but faith.

I think everyone who thinks that theology has any value needs to see this debate. I think Jonathan Miller is hugely undervalued.

1134. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206681 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Comment #206677 by Bonzai

Oh dear! I see what you mean.

I am not meaning to imply that Brian isn't the most eloquent and intelligent of posters. What I mean is that he has found the salt to deal with the slugs.

Some of us can post the most detailed rebuttals of the argument of these creotards, but this achieves nothing, other than to flatter them with a response.

As epeeist has posted, Brian's superb approach deals directly with their claims.

I am starting to think we need a new agreed policy when this happens - shut up and leave them to Brian. I would love to see how they cope.

1135. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206672 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I am off this site until Josh actually starts to respond to troll requests. I don't want to read any more of this rubbish.

If those here who have my e-mail address or post on my blog could let me know when this site is cleaned up could let me know, I would be grateful. Right now, I am wondering why there is a troll link at all.

1136. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206669 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Comment #206666 by ertu

Stop posting rants, you moron. If you ask polite questions, you will get answers. Keep posting like that and you will be rated lower than viagra adverts.

1137. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206667 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Comment #206662 by Calilasseia

Now that is the kind of post I heartily approve of!

I love your long posts, but they are almost always wasted on morons like this. It has taken some time, but I have moved towards the Brian English approach....

1138. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206660 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Comment #206652 by Graham Owen

Good luck to you. I am sure you must be impressed that so many people consider your lures have been tempting fish for 25 million years. That is quite a record for any product!

1139. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206650 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Comment #206645 by Calilasseia

Let's address some more Ertu nonsense shall we?

No, let's not.

By addressing the nonsense you give it credibility.

I think the approach led by epeeist and Brian English is the only productive one.

By responding to long posts by trolls with long posts, we give the impression to the casual reader there is something worth responding to. I also don't see the point in long posts. It only needs one single counter-example to prove an argument wrong.

The appropriate response, if they ignore the appropriate questions, is to do nothing but hit the "troll" link and wait for Josh to react.

1140. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206644 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Comment #206631 by D'Arcy

For all that there is more possibility of the multiverse than there is of Mohamed riding a winged horse into the next field.

The multiverse only deals with that which is scientifically possible. I would need a plausible evolutionary path to a winged horse to agree with you....

1141. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206639 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I agree, sadly, that this discussion was handled poorly. Lennox was allowed to put forward all kinds views unchallenged. The issue of fine tuning should have been dealt with easily... no matter how fine tuned (and so complex) the universe was, do you have any idea of the complexity of the mind of a God and how complex that was?

Lennox was not let off from the challenge that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Dawkins was on the back foot in this discussion.

1142. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206624 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Comment #206575 by Oystein Elgaroy

Now that is wonderfully cruel. However, according to Tegmark, if you hit him with the saucepan and it is a quantum event, then a version of him has not been hit in the multiverse, so why should he care?

1143. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206439 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 11:19 am

Gosh. Even more trolls.

I am astonished they have the nerve to post considering the content of the article.

1144. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206259 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 7:49 am

Ertu-

You are being a bit naughty. The nice polite thing to do would be to say:

"I don't understand how evolution works- could you please explain it?"

There are answers to all your questions, but I don't deal with ranters.

1145. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206207 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #206201 by ertu

Hello! Welcome to troll-land!

1146. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206193 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #206191 by unityisfact

Marked as troll.

1147. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206179 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 6:45 am

As you would also know a little mistake in one of the pictures of a book doesn't mean that the book is all wrong.

A little mistake?

It gets a lot funnier than that:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/well_fly_fishing_is_a_science.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

1148. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206110 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 5:35 am

Comment #206104 by unityisfact

Come on. Don't be a tease. Tell us how your theory works.

People who don't engage in conversation get ignored and marked as trolls, you know.

However, we are nicely giving you the chance to explain in detail your theory which is an alternative to evolution.

1149. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206106 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 5:31 am

Comment #206098 by Apathy personified

I found an easy way to remember which is mitosis and which is meiosis...

"mitosis on the end of my foot"

Get it?

It's what happens in toesies

1150. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206079 by Steve Zara on July 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #206077 by ertu

OK, so evolution didn't happen.

Please explain how life appeared, and how its current variety arose.

We want detailed mechanisms, please. I would also like to know how your idea (which I am sure you will present) can be falsified, and what predictive power it has.