101. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232254 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

73. Comment #232249 by J Mac

No...you said, and I quote "Panspermia is no more or no less likely than a deistic creator of the universe" which is saying that the probability of either is equal, which is inaccurate for the reasons I gave.

You have a skewed view of evidence. I didn't say it was proof, you are perhaps conflating the two. If we have everything except the example of its occurrence, then what happens if we found an example of its occurrence? Doesn't that just prove it? Are you using the two synonymously? Proof, and evidence? What would constitute evidence then?

I call anything that positively implies something to be evidence for it, or conversely, implies the opposite, to be evidence against.

102. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232244 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:29 pm

61. Comment #232206 by J Mac

This is inaccurate. Probability does not work like that. If we have two possibilities, and are unaware of the probability of either, or have no evidence for either, then that still in no way makes the equally likely. It only makes us unaware of the likelihood.

Though pan-spermia does have evidence. We know that everything that is necessary for the hypothesis can happen. Micros can survive for years in space without trouble. Planets exchange several tons of mass every few million years or so, and we even know that micros can survive the crash landing.

The only thing that we don't have is an example of it happening. We do know that all the things required for it to happen are true. There is arguably more evidence for its possibility than abiogenesis. We have witnessed, and verified everything required, just not an example of its occurrence. With abiogenesis, we have not witnessed it occur in a a controlled environment, or in a natural one. We're merely confident that it will work based on the knowledge we possess in the relevant sciences.

103. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232235 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:20 pm

60. Comment #232205 by Jesus86

Ha, well, I was not pontificating. I watched a Horizon documentary yesterday with my brother called "we are the aliens" in which they visited a Mr John D Rummel, who was NASA's "planetary protection officer" whose job involves making sure such contaminants do not make their way into space. The reasons I gave were the reasons he gave in the documentary. I though, did not clarify, that I was referring to planets within our own solar system, which we have not ruled out the possibility of life on, which you seemed to think we have on all of them.

I really hate it when people outright say you're wrong from a position of ignorance just because it doesn't sound right to them.

104. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232200 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm

58. Comment #232179 by Jesus86

I don't think that the idea of pan-spermia is hugely far-fetched in principle, but I don't think that it is how life got started on earth. I'd wager a bet that there are probably numerous places in the universe that owe its habitation to something like that (no need to be directly, or indirectly the result of extraterrestrial intelligences, since vast amounts of mass are exchanged between bodies in the universe without such aid). It is possible on earth, sure, but it is a solution without a problem. According to what we know, earth had everything needed, and was in an excellent position for abiogenises to occur. The right clays, the water, the elements, the proteins, Everything needed. So such an explanation, though possible, is simply superfluous.

Your example is unlikely however, I don't know how extraterrestrials do it, but we take painstaking efforts to avoid just that scenario. There are teams that examine everything that is going into space with a fine-toothed comb, and check and recheck to make sure no contaminants hitch a ride. Mostly because if we do land on some other planet someday, we don't want to find life that got there because of us, we want to find alien life, that did not originate on earth. If we were allowing such contamination, it would make searching for, and confirming such a thing, several levels more difficult.

105. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #231991 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:54 am

20. Comment #231590 by justaminute

First, an argument that runs like this falls:
1) There are hundreds of ideas that people believe in that are wrong, therefore
2 ) All ideas that people believe in are wrong.

Simply asserting that most religions are false doesn't make all of them false.

This isn't even his argument, but you are still wrong.

If 99% of a class of idea, methodology, or mode of thought can be demonstrated to be flawed, and the remaining 1% cannot be shown to be fundamentally different, but instead can be shown to parallel with the other 99% exactly then it does very much imply that it is also wrong.

By that logic if I said that pink winged fairies exist, and this is proven false. This does not imply that blue winged ones, or red winged ones do not exist. If they are fundamentally the same class of thing, then disproving the bulk of them, discredits the remainder.

Though, remember, RD never even made this argument. His argument is an argument by analogy. He is saying that for the same reasons people believed those "false" religions in antiquity people believe the current ones today, and for the same reasons that you don't accept those ancient religions, he does not accept yours. Because yours cannot be shown to be fundamentally different than others. The only rational thing is to dismiss the whole class of them until evidence can be established.

It's as senseless to try and deny the supernatural on the grounds that science cannot measure it as it is for my wife to claim that I don't love her because the bathroom scales can't measure it.

False analogy. Love is not a magical thing that cannot be measured by any means, or a different between its existence and nonexistence cannot be given. It is measurable, evidence can be gathered, and demonstrated. When people watch romances, they very much can tell the difference between the presence and absence of love. No one on earth can even describe a difference between the presence and absence of an incorporeal, invisible, supernatural being that has no demonstrable effect on the world, and no being at all. I challenge you to describe the difference.

Second I can understand the argument that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. But it's entirely logical to argue that there may exist an intelligent being who created time space and matter and that that being was not caused because he / it did not have a beginning.

Firstly, no one makes that argument, Most fundamentally it is merely logically impossible. A cause is an event that precedes another event, an event cannot precede time, that is incoherent. Time is the measurement of chronology. Time having a cause makes about as much sense as square-triangles. It in fact also contradicts physical hypothesis for the origin of the universe, and observations of particles on the subatomic scale. RD's argument in this case is simply one of reduction. It is an argument against the idea of complexity necessitating design, not beginning. Nothing beyond subatomic particles have ever been observed truly "beginning" things within the universe come about by the reformation of already existing matter. They come into being by definition alone. Clay is not a pot, but when you form it to fit the definition of a pot, it does not pop into existence, what makes it up was already in existence. As far as we know, this is true for everything in the universe on the macroscopic scale...and if string theory is true, including the universe itself, and even subatomic particles. Nothing would have a true beginning, but merely being the reformation of things already in existence.

Something existing outside of space/time is definitely illogical, it contradicts the meanings of the words. What does existence mean if not to occupy space and time? To take up space, to hold a position in a location at a point? Due explain?

Scientific naturalists understandably rail against supernatural explanations because they clash with their belief system but they are quite happy to invoke significant amounts of 'luck' to bolster up the gaps in their science.

I had no idea that there was a scientific supernaturalism? Perhaps you could explain how that method works?...It would surely refute Hume, and make you a very famous man/woman.

RD is a great story teller but I reckon there's some large holes in his logic.

I think you need to spend more time worrying whether your logic is sound rather than valid.

P1) all supernatural entities have purple hair
P2) Yahweh is a supernatural entity
C1) Yahweh has purple hair.

That is a logically valid deductive argument, that proves Yahweh has purple hair. Though it doesn't count for much if I can't render my premises sound through actual investigating of the world. Believing something on logical validity alone is asinine, I can prove anything I want if I just get to make up my premises.

106. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230414 by Mitchell Gilks on August 14, 2008 at 4:27 pm

7. Comment #230207 by Cartomancer

I looked around but I can't find it...there was a study I read a few months ago that hooked adult males up to machines to gauge their level of sexual arousal, and then showed them pictures of little girls, 12 and under, and found that eighty percent were capable of becoming sexually aroused by girls 12 or younger. This was after eliminating anyone who admitted to being attracted to children in screening.

I think this partly explains why it is prevalent...but I would think that most males are at least against raping people they find attractive, and respect, and understand the concepts of informed consent. Most males capable of being aroused by very young girls, is of course part of it, but I really think that their disgusting religion offers them the justification to even consider acting on it.

107. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228960 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

89. Comment #228928 by Bonzai

Well clearly all knowledge is subjective, whether of an objective subject or not. Would the information itself? The facts about evolutionary theory? No. Though that isn't quite the same as valuing something, that is just talking about the sheer information itself, which is not determined by people's goals desires or opinions. There are no values judgments in pure facts.

As I attempted to explain, using a standard objective figures can be determined. Like whether or not that piece of investigative journalism cohered with the facts, was thoroughly investigated, or what have you. The standard however, that investigative journalism ought be judged on those grounds is entirely subjective. It is a shared opinion, and reflects our desires, opinions and goals, of what we want to get out of it. Whether it follows the standard, and what the standard ought be are not equivalent.

This is what the is/ought fallacy is all about. I can derives and ought from an is if I have a goals, desires, opinions and values. Which are all subjective. I can't do this objectively. I can say that if I want to make money, then it is a categorical fact that I ought to get a job, or find some means in order to acquire it. I can't, however, say that I objectively ought to make money.

Like wise, I can say that if my piece of investigative journalism wants to be as accurate, precise, impartial, fair, and coherent with the facts as possible, then I ought to do such and such a thing, and take such and such a measure. Then my piece when finished can be judged against these goals to determine whether or not it has objectively, and categorically met my standard. That investigative journalism ought to strive for such things however, is entirely based on subjective desires, goals, and opinions.

Though, remember, subjective doesn't equal relative. Something that is subjective can still be universal. Even if every person on earth agreed with, and subscribed to this standard, it would still be entirely subjective, and based on those goals, opinions, and desires.

I'm also not at all nitpicking over words. This is a real distinction, that I do think matters. Because then you can't tell someone that they are categorically or factually wrong when they say that "making people think makes a quality book". You can only say that with regard to your standard it does not. In other words, "I disagree". Which I think is a very significant difference.

Sorry for the huge post.

(P.S. when are you going to get an avatar? There must be something you can think of that reflects your personality?)

108. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228921 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 8:39 pm

I find manga and anime to both have their ups and downs when contrasted. I'm quite happy to have both. Why even talk about which is better? They are different things. We need not have just one, we have both. (Though manga isn't quite the same as pure written word books. Though out of any media I do prefer print to absorb pure facts and information, because it is the fastest means to do so, though it is perhaps the least entertaining.)

85. Comment #228834 by Sciros

They're not? Hmmm...I've yet to have trouble.

109. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228919 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm

68. Comment #228746 by decius

Despite quoting you right and saying "non-fiction" my mind must have been somewhere else, because I thought you meant fiction/science. What I said there made no sense otherwise.

It is not an objective standard, no matter how many times you say it. It is a standard, but it is a standard that is solely, and entirely dependent on one's goals, desires, and opinions. You can only ever say "you are wrong with regard, or respect to this specific standard, which I and this group of people agree is the best". You cannot say this is an objective standard that is not based on ours desires goals and opinions. Because that simply isn't true.

It is wrong only with regard to the standard by which you think such books should be judged. There is no categorical standard by which they are judged, that is removed, and outside of what people think. Judging quality is a value judgment, not a statement of fact. Professional standards, by experts, and authorities in the fields, that have been developed over time are merely formalized versions of value judgments. With certain goals in mind, judging certain qualities as better, or more relevant than others can indeed equal to something being categorically, and objectively better, with respect to your standard, but the standard itself is not, and cannot be. It will always reflect shared value judgments.

110. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228742 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm

64. Comment #228739 by the great teapot

*SPOILER*

His dog dies at the end. Takes some poison for him or something. Heroic dog.

111. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228735 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm

60. Comment #228725 by Bonzai

There are authorities, and expects, that's opinions hold more weight, because they have more knowledge in the field, though those merits themselves were subjectively derived from past individuals and experts. So the books quality may be properly judged by a standard, but it wouldn't be an objective standard. It would still be ultimately based on what people think.

59. Comment #228722 by decius

Well, the God Delusion isn't a science book, nor is there such a dichotomy between non-fiction/science. Though even with a science book (such as creation science books) the quality of the book is still judged different depending on the goals in mind, or what one thinks one ought to get out of such a book. While the more scientifically educated may (and almost certainly will) hold a science book to the standards that you outlined, those writing the books do not have similar goals, and clearly don't give a shit about those things. They will judge its quality by how many people it convinces, and how many people it brings to their side.

In any case, you can only disagree on what you think a books quality ought be judged by, or the standard it ought be judged against, but this is still no less your opinion, and it in no way a categorical fact of the matter.

112. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228710 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm

51. Comment #228703 by decius

I hadn't realized that there were an objective standard by which the quality of books are judged?

Setting up a straw-man? That would only be the case if someone else, and solely that person was the absolute authority on judging the quality of books.

If someone wants to judge the quality of books by how much they influence people's thinking, I really don't see how you can tell them they are wrong to do so, and it to be anything more than your mere opinion.

113. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228642 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

I don't need no edge-ah-mah-cation. Learnin's for fools.

I'm sure England can just out-source its science, and specialist jobs. Section one of science education: Learn to comprehend thick Indian accent.

42. Comment #228631 by hungarianelephant

The Island of Doctor Popin J Bobington the third.

114. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228638 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 10:16 am

289. Comment #228385 by Bonzai

The Jews say that the word "Satan" isn't a name, but means "adversary", and never refers to a single individual. The whole fall of Satan (described in the new testament) is supposedly written quite similarly to a poem describing Hephaestus's fall from Olympus.

286. Comment #228380 by Bonzai

Yes, his comments were removed on another thread, and RD explained that it was because it simply was incoherent, and was impossible to understand. So Wooter rose again (it didn't even take him three days) with his new (and I'm sure he thinks clever) name.

115. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228161 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm

267. Comment #228153 by Sargeist

Weed was the hardest drug, or substance I've quit. The others I didn't like as much. I really liked weed. I smoked it on a daily basis for three or four years. Though I didn't do much else. I just avoid people that are into such things now. Which is everyone I used to know.

116. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228147 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Maybe if you sprinkle it on top of the weed in a blunt, or dip a cigarette in it. Other than that cocaine is not smoked. Crack is.

This is just wrong. I watched people smoke coke right in front of me. Cracks heads just can't afford coke, that is the only reason.

Cocktail joints are another way to smoke it of course, but it is smoked just as easily, and by itself, in a pipe.

117. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228135 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:18 pm

251. Comment #228131 by decius

I was mixing it up with pseudo-coke made from couch syrup.

118. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228129 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm

247. Comment #228126 by thewhitepearl

Most of that isn't true, or is rather naive really. You can also smoke coke, and it is stronger, and more addictive. You can also inject crack, you can inject weed if you wanted to. That is all that it is cut with to constitute crack, though it can be cut with other substances to create cocktail mixes.

Considered by whom?

Crack has more users for the sole reason that it is cheaper. There is absolutely nothing that you can do with crack that you can't do with cocaine.

For duration, snorting lasts about 45 minutes, but is only really good for the first 25 or so. Smoking it lasts between 10-15 minutes, and it totally fucks you.

119. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228120 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm

239. Comment #228114 by Sargeist

I lack social skills, so I don't have that problem. I'm about as otaku as they come.

120. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228116 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

231. Comment #228104 by thewhitepearl

Crack is cocaine that has been cut with glucose. It's cheaper because it has less cocaine in it. Hardly different things.

121. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228097 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm

223. Comment #228092 by decius

There is no such dichotomy with crack-heads, and heroine addicts. None of them are causal users.

At least not from my experience.

122. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228093 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm

221. Comment #228090 by AllanW

It definitely has changed my mind on the usefulness of even arguing it. I was contemplating shutting up about it, and not bothering arguing positions anymore, because I was being more and more convinced that it was useless. Now I feel like my old German short-haired pointer. Chasing a partrich, just before she's about to give up, and it seems like a useless effort, she actually catches one. It becomes harder and harder to stop chasing them, as long as you know that catching one is possible.

123. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228088 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

216. Comment #228081 by Sargeist

They can just roll over next to the corpses in the streets in the right-wing "night-watchmen" government, where none of those social programs exist, and everyone has several assault rifles for protection.

124. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228066 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

146. Comment #227972 by Bonzai

My Dad the other day was saying basically exactly this. He told me a few days ago when I went to town with him that he couldn't deny the evidence for evolution any longer (I have been bringing him documentaries, many of which were specifically about the hominids). He told me that he didn't know such strong fossil, and DNA evidence existed. He was always told that it was all lies, with no evidence. He also told me that he has been researching the origins of the gospels, and such, after arguing with me, and had discovered that I was right.

He is still going to church, he only has church friends, but he told me he is pretty sure that Christianity is wrong now. He isn't a full fledged atheist yet. He has slipped into a wishy-woshy type of deism. I'll let him get used to his new position for sometime, before I start telling him why I think that is wrong as well.

My point is that he was saying the same thing. That he wondered why people seem to have a need for "spirituality". For "something" that isn't really there, they know they just need something. I think you nailed it with the "therapy" thing.

Though even with this need, and with this desire, the evidence...though sadly probably more because a trusted loved one was arguing it (me)...he conceded that something he has spent twenty-five years being fundamental to, and having his life revolve around, couldn't in fact be true, because it was so falsified by the evidence.

A couple days later he told me that he didn't think that gay guys were more likely to molest children than straight guys, because he liked women, but he doesn't want to have sex with little girls. I just about had a stroke. He said something that was based on reasoning (valid reasoning) and not authority.

I thought people couldn't be convinced by the evidence, based on my experience. Now I'm more confident that the battle can be won, with evidence. My trust in people's rational faculties has been strengthened.

125. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227200 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 1:32 pm

100. Comment #227181 by Eric Blair

Indeed, evolutionary theory may indeed, and in my opinion almost inevitably will be replaced with a better theory, el la general relativity. Though I think "disproved" is a extreme long shot, superseded by a better theory, that explains everything it does, and more...well we can only hope, can't we?

This of course won't make any of the accumulated facts that the theory of evolution currently explains wrong. Not in the slightest.

126. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226963 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 2:02 am

61. Comment #226961 by Steve Zara

I left comments. Two of 'em, but they have yet to be posted. I left them hours and hours ago, shortly after this article was posted to RD.net. I would be doubtful that they will be posted, but none have been yet. I'll be suspicious if someone else's is posted and mine are not.

I was of course my usual tactful self. I merely asked her to explain how one can accept evolution, as neo-darwinism outlines it, and still be a theist in any sense.

I also said I found it presumptuous that she can make a definitive assertion that "most christians are not creationists" with zero evidence to back this up, yet can both discard RD's cited evidence, and berate him when his assertion was a far more tentative "this data suggests".

127. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226959 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 1:47 am

57. Comment #226956 by Bonzai

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2008/08/darwin-dawkins.html

128. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226946 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 1:21 am

50. Comment #226945 by AllanW

Haha, I didn't even notice that. I was totally serious when I said that.

129. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226942 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 1:12 am

47. Comment #226940 by Donald

It totally is not. Puns are.

130. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226937 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 12:54 am

41. Comment #226933 by clearthinker

Well, he definitely didn't mention race, though you could draw a correlation, but only when coupled with geological locations.

By the logic you espouse, saying that Canada has a better educational system, and a more informed public than Yemen, would be a racist statement.

You have an amazingly warped view of racism.

131. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226932 by Mitchell Gilks on August 9, 2008 at 12:46 am

38. Comment #226929 by clearthinker

...I know that there are those who claim it is supremacist, racist and arrogant...

Well, then those people would be idiots. Idiots who can't tell the different between an accusation about the level of someone's knowledge, and the veracity of their position, and an attack on the value, or quality of their person, because of race and/or geographical location.

I only hope that you somewhat live up to your ego-masturbatory name, and are not one of those morons.

132. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226907 by Mitchell Gilks on August 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm

21. Comment #226834 by Bonzai

That isn't porn, it's from "Strawberry Panic". Not porn.

22. Comment #226839 by Laurie Fraser

What's to get?

133. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226787 by Mitchell Gilks on August 8, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Good.

134. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226599 by Mitchell Gilks on August 8, 2008 at 11:55 am

220. Comment #226532 by Bonzai

I read that that term came about to describe women who are into yaoi. Read it on wikipedia I believe.

135. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226179 by Mitchell Gilks on August 7, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Evolution is mutually exclusive to creation in an direct or involved sense. Clearly. It is natural selection not magical divine selection.

You need to completely reject the theory, being the mechanisms for evolution in order to make it compatible with your favored sky-fairy.

One can accept that all life has a common ancestor, has changed overtime from the first replicating cell, and developed into all the life we see on earth and believe that sky-fairy dust was the mechanism. One, however, cannot accept the theory of evolution, as outlined by Darwin, and later shaped by research and discovery to its current form, and be a theism in any sense at all. Only a wishy-washy type of deism is compatible with the latter.

Accepting the theory of evolution, as outlined by science is mutually exclusive to accepting any theistic religion. Real, or hypothetical.

136. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225686 by Mitchell Gilks on August 7, 2008 at 7:54 am

32. Comment #225665 by Edamus

It's not a billboard. It is a spot on the panel of the inside of a transit bus. People sit in those buses for often quite a length of time. When I lived in the city there wasn't one I hadn't read. Not a lot else to do when you're sitting on a bus. Towards the end of my stay they started putting up short poems. That was quite pleasant.

Anywho, I'm not interested in being united with my brothers and sisters in heresy, unless it has a point to make, or it's funny.

137. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225656 by Mitchell Gilks on August 7, 2008 at 6:57 am

I think it's kind of a waste of money. Why not have a sign that actually says something? "There is no god, stop worrying" is rather silly in my opinion. Seems like a lot to go through to make an assertion. I highly doubt anyone is going to read it and go "Oh? Really? Learn something new everyday."

If it must be anti-religious, then put up a sign that is specifically against something, and has some statistics demonstrating the negative effects of said religious thing. Something like that could actually be productive.

138. More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo

Comment #224798 by Mitchell Gilks on August 5, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Well, that is some good news. I hope that finding them didn't hurt their chances though.

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

Comment #224413 by Mitchell Gilks on August 4, 2008 at 11:02 pm

I don't agree with RD that life, the world, or anything natural looks designed. Or that complexity is a indicator of design. I agree with Myers, that simplicity and elegance is the hallmark of design.

What is easier to duplicate precisely, the side of a building, or the side of a cliff? What has more uniqueness, more specific, and individual pieces that would need to be tediously studied and then meticulously copied?

The more ordered, and more elegant a thing, the simpler it is. Technology doesn't get bigger, uglier, and containing more parts. It gets smaller, sleeker, and contains less parts.

People in the bronze age, where designs were crap might have thought that natural formations were more elegant, and better. I find that view in today's day and age to be frankly stupid. You're either ignorant or blind if you think that, in my opinion.

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

Comment #223599 by Mitchell Gilks on August 2, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Happily puffing on another. . .

What a rebel...

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

Comment #223477 by Mitchell Gilks on August 2, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Haha! Good replies RD. Regarding Flew...ghastly business that. It's rather sad that he is having his reputation damaged so near the end of his life like this.

Some very odious and unscrupulous individuals have been at work. Or so I suspect.

142. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221585 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:44 pm

25. Comment #221580 by 8teist

I was thinking of writing "God is great: how religion cures everything" "You're the one with the delusion, asshole!" "It takes faith to believe in the end of faith, so there you big silly" or "reinforcing the spell"

27. Comment #221582 by GordonYKWong

He's directly using their named to promote his book.

143. Breeding for God

Comment #221576 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:19 pm

What the hell? We can't even out-sex religious people? How is that? They are the ones thinking sex is all evil and nasty, not us. On, right, we don't treat our love interests like sex-slaves, and live-in maids. Forgot about that.

Clearly the fault lies with the females of the secular community. I never turn them down...

144. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221572 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:15 pm

7. Comment #221473 by Double Bass Atheist

There is an emoticon for everything. That expresses my feelings exactly. How many strawmen can one prop up in a single paragraph? Are all these guys having a secret competition?

20. Comment #221535 by fizhburn

Hilarious.

145. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221506 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I'm an aspiring mangaka, and I read tons of manga (I've been reading manga all day today. I had about 50 one-shots, and a dozen continued saved up. I was only reading a few a day, I decided to get them all read today. Eight more to go), though not as much about manga. I only decided to get into it a short while ago, and haven't spent much time on it. I have some books I have to read.

I don't use AIM, I use msn, my e-mail is available on my profile page.

146. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221437 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Well, I won't argue with you about manga. I do think your are completely wrong though, but I don't want to get into it.

147. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221403 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 3:32 pm

There is actually a lot of inside jokes between mangaka that has to do with the level of detail of their work, and what they are and are not capable of at their level of talent.

148. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221400 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 3:28 pm

678. Comment #221387 by Sciros

That is why superman is stupid.

I really don't think that people look at pictures and call it "anime" they at least would need it to be animated wouldn't they? I've never heard anyone refer to a drawing as "anime" before. In my example of "Avatar" I was refering to an animation.

Also, the word "manga" means the art style, but it is just used as a blanket term for comic in Japan by laymen, that doesn't make the word any less referential to the specific art style.

There is no need to equivocate the meaning. We do just fine with the word "theory" after all. We don't need to rename a scientific theory all because laymen use the word differently.

There were like 5 shorts I believe, the other three were very true to a western art form.

I never considered CG. You are right, it is bound to take over. Animation is already completely done on computers now. Though I think that the stylized art form will remain. Just look at FFAC and the new FFXIII trailers (I need to learn Japanese soon, I just found out they won't be releasing it in the west for quite some time, until they finish an Xbox version. Bah. So I'll need to get the Japanese version. When it comes out. It will probably help me a long way in learning the language anyway. I basically learned to read playing FF. So it is only appropriate that it helps my Japanese learning as well.)

If you don't think that manga is detailed...then I don't know what to say. You must not watch fantasy and action anime, or read the manga. The scenery and, detail to clothing and bodies is amazing. The only think that lacks a lot of detail is faces, and it is so that they can get a wide range of expresses. It's very emotive.

There is of course levels of detail, depending on the artist, but the highest level ones are bar none the most detailed there are.

149. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221384 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 3:05 pm

676. Comment #221381 by JAMCAM87

Nope, only at one time did he surpass Goku, and that was because goku trained him, and didn't focus on himself, he wanted Gohan to take over defending the earth, so he could retire. He later regretted it, and decided to not try to burdon Gohan.

Even mystic Gohan was less powerful than ssj3 Goku. Also, Gohan lacks fighting talent, he isn't very good at it.

The only person more powerful than Goku is Vegetto, but Vegetto is a fused being made up of Goku and Vegeta. So he doesn't count.

150. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221380 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm

674. Comment #221372 by JAMCAM87

Whoever you all pick, they are lesser beings to Goku. Son Goku is categorically the best, by all standards of measurement.