201. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189203 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Pathfinder, you've said:

24. Comment #189176 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 4:19 pm

My God is, unconditionally, indubitably, a "God of the gaps". That means I am proceeding from a position of RELATIVE unknowability. Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD. Just as I distrust those on "my side" who insist THERE IS A GOD.

My question to you is quite silly but I still think it is worth asking.

Given that there is so much beauty in this world, so much mysteries in life, so many awe inducing grandeur, from our functioning brain and body, our environment, our universe... how probable do you think is the existence of this "God of the gaps"? 90-80%? 50%? 20-10%?

I know it is meaningless to apply something as trivial as percentages to something that could be infinite. But I am not asking for a proof, but a gut-feeling.

To be fair to you, I will give my answer to that question if you ask me the same question.

202. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189198 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Welcome back steve, and do drop by often. You mentioned that you have just concluded a long conversation with a theologist. Are you referring to the blog "A Dialogue Between a Christian and an Atheist"? That blog has not been updated in ages.

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188947 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 2:58 am

6704. Comment #188849 by txpiper on June 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm

There isn't any demonstrable evidence for a random sequence of DNA replication errors which transformed gills into lungs, fins into limbs, scales into skin or any of the myriad other things necessary to get from this animal to a tetrapod.

Not to be picky but gills are not lungs and scales are not skin. They can be independently evolved, not evolved from one into another.

With fins and limbs, you can look into fossil record for their evolution. I wikied "Fishapod" to see Tetrapodomorpha.

204. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188922 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 2:13 am

6689. Comment #188284 by txpiper on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm

What evidence, if any, could convince you that the process of Natural Selection can be responsible for some "vertebrate classes changing into another"?

That's actually not an easy question to answer. As I see it, there aren't that many categories of evidence that are used to support that idea.

I just want to clarify, do you consider Canines as a distinct vertebrate class from say Bovines? What about Canines and Cetaceans, are they distinct?

Or do you mean the proper scientific classification of mammals and reptiles and insects, etc., as different vetebrate classes?

205. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188912 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

6689. Comment #188284 by txpiper on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Mutations do occur and natural selection really happens. But I don't think these work the way conventional evolutionary theory says that they do.

In order for us (all of us) to talk on the same page, can I confirm with you about what you have been saying to me in this thread?

I gather that:

• You agree that mutations occurs;
  
• You disagree that the mechanism of mutations of genes is expansive enough to explain the complexity of life (You cite its improbability);
  
• Larmarckian Evolution is a possible candidate to explain the complexity of life;
  
  
• You agree that natural selection occurs;
  
• You disagree natural selection alone can explain how "some vertebrate classes changing into another";
  
• Larmarckian Evolution is a possible candidate to explain how "some vertebrate classes changing into another"?
  
  
• Thus far, you do not believe that there is a supernatural explanation to either issues.
  

Please feel free to confirm or to correct any of my miscomprehensions. Thanks.

On a side note, you've stated:

First, your theory is yours to prove, not mine to disprove.

As far as I understand it and do correct me if I am wrong, theories are for all of us to disprove, not proved (Mathematic and Logic is where the formal proofs come in). Only those hypothesis that stand solid against the heat of scientific scrutiny and mounting evidence can it be deem worthy enough of being a scientific theory.

And evolution skeptics have done their part to try to disprove Darwin's original theory, but there it stands, beside all of the new evidence, largely intact after 150 years. By all means, it doesn't mean a bright spark in the future cannot turn the theory on it's head (a-la Einstein with gravity), but Natural Selection is still the best model we have up till now.

206. A New Step In Evolution

Comment #188900 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 1:10 am

Hi ACS,

Do you work for this project? If you do that is very cooool.

Please excuse my ignorance here, but do you know why those rare citrate mutants in the 12 test batch after generation 33,000 does not thrive in the same environment, whereas the super citrate eaters do thrive?

Shouldn't the rare citrate eating mutants have a selective advantage over the normal non-citrate eaters?

Thanks,

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187783 by GordonYKWong on June 2, 2008 at 4:28 pm

6682. Comment #187752 by Diacanu on June 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm

...zombies ARE scientifically impossible

I dunno about that. How long must your heart stop beating before CPR brings you back to life before you can be considered a member of the living dead?

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187356 by GordonYKWong on June 2, 2008 at 3:18 am

6631. Comment #186836 by txpiper on May 31, 2008 at 11:39 am

I think perhaps now might be the time for you to tell us whether you believe that evolution is an invented phenomenon, or just a process that can explain one or two things in the natural world but not everything.

Adaptation, even extreme adaptation, really happens. It is easily observable. But the most dramatic examples of adaptation are still almost completely confined to species. The concept does not transfer to one vertebrate class changing into another. That idea is fantasy in my view.

What evidence, if any, could convince you that the process of Natural Selection can be responsible for some "vertebrate classes changing into another"?

6644. Comment #187173 by txpiper on June 1, 2008 at 12:01 pm

The RT Steele and others are researching is a different thing altogether. It is soma cells (those of the organism which will not be involved in reproduction) communicating information directly back to the DNA of the germ (reproductive) cells of a parent. The DNA of those cells reacts to this information so that the offspring are better prepared to contend with the environment than the parent was. To cut to the chase, it is an altogether Lamarckian process.

It (sic) this is what happens, which appears preliminarily to be the case, it completely dismantles conventional ideas about accidental mutations and all the goofy ideas about selection. It also presents a profound philosophical complication for evolution.

*My emphasis

I am sure what you mean is that a Lamarckian process should (partially or fully) replace notions of mutation, sexual reproduction, etc. as a source of genetic diversity and complexity.

But surely a Lamarckian system is still heavily dependent on "goofy" Natural Selection to drive it.

Is that what you mean?

209. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #187295 by GordonYKWong on June 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm

382. Comment #186594 by clearmind on May 30, 2008 at 7:39 pm

To post here is my job BUT WITH NOT A GUN OVER my head but LOGIC IN MIND. i CAN'T ACCEPT ILLOGICAL AND FUNNY IDEAS FLOATING AROUND THE EARTH.

guy's job just biting what ever they think they are too perfect to not be confusing.

(And your answer to how we got a habit to reveal the language of numbers. Denial is a civilized manner for civilized societies.

210. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186191 by GordonYKWong on May 29, 2008 at 9:45 pm

It is decidedly more powerful because it displaces the random and accidental aspects of mutations in the current paradigm. If information is reverse transcribed from soma to germ line, this is breaching "Weismann's Barrier", which is a serious biological (and philosophical) departure from conventional theory.

Then I do wish Prof. Steele success in furthering his research.

I take it that you are opened to naturalistic explanation to diversity. In which case, I recant my earlier comparison between you and wooter. My apologies.

I would however, maintain that the things you mention are not capable of producing millions of plant and animal species, or even a particularly specialized feature in any one of those.

Just curious txpiper, is that personal incredulity or an educated hunch? To me you seem well versed in the field (when compared to a lay person like me).

211. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #185900 by GordonYKWong on May 29, 2008 at 2:50 am

Not only do people confuse an idiot from a country to be representative of the entire citizendry, I think people generally confuse governments and leaders with it's populace as well.

• Chinese goverment is awful in their treatment of the tibetans, therefore "karmic" forces send them an earthquake to settle the balance with their citizens.
  
  
• The American people voted in the government that bombs our brethens, so we will fly some planes into their civilian targets.
  
  
• Their French president opposes our war, so we will rename all our fried potatoes to "Freedom Fries" and label them all to be "Surrender Monkies"

I mean what does it mean to hold a passport in a particular country anyway. Nowadays, people hold multiple passports. If you hold both an American and French passport are you suppose to hate yourself? Twice?

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185867 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm

6580. Comment #185857 by txpiper on May 28, 2008 at 9:15 pm

I think Edward Steele's work on soma-to-germ line reverse transcription is quite interesting. There is a lot of available reading on this available on the net. Basically it is a much more palatable mechanism than the current idea which is "waiting on that lucky mutation".

I had a quick search and glance at Prof Ed Steele's research. And I agree with you it does, at first glance, sounds interesting. (Not that I am competent to judge his work since I am not a biologist/immunologist)

At the same time, soma to germline reverse transcription doesn't attempt to refute to Evolution by Natural Selection. It does attempt change the basic paradigm of evolution and how much role Natural Selection plays in it.

Steele does not invoke any supernatural agency in this evolution process.

And as a theory I do not see how it is a more powerful model than Natural Selection. More like an addendum than a replacement.

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185853 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 8:42 pm

6577. Comment #185847 by txpiper on May 28, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Evolution by natural selection is currently our most powerful explanatory model for what we observe of life's diversity over time. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think, as I have explained several times here, that selection has been granted a personality, anthropomorphed, if you will. I think this has happened incrementally over time out of necessity, perhaps unconsciously to some degree.

Which means, other than "Evolution by Natural Selection", you have a different model, a far more superior model, (edit) one that explains more phenomenons with less explanatory effort. (/edit)

Please share...

214. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #185507 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 1:39 am

379. Comment #185504 by clearmind on May 28, 2008 at 1:26 am
For the sake of semantics, how do relate lie, cheat and twist to being sarcastic? These are the traits and merits of Evolution not creation?

So you are Chinese?

yes otherwise, of course, answer is no. NEXT To everybody

Please define the evolution is not good for new evolution.

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185497 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 12:33 am

congratulations txpiper, you sound like wooter with the ability to use blockquotes. A good step up.

216. What is science for?

Comment #185476 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 10:19 pm

162. Comment #185416 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Good one Mr. Wong!

Thanks Frankus, but I don't think I have express myself clearly enough. Damn Wooter and his seductive twisting of the English language and LOGIC...

217. What is science for?

Comment #185453 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 8:45 pm

163. Comment #185421 by blake121666 on May 27, 2008 at 7:07 pm

The hostile attitude is uncalled for.

I do apologize Blake. I didn't mean to sound so hostile. I sincerely apologize again.

I think the reference to moon landing and grassy knoll is heavy-handed, irrelevant and uncalled for.

I do think you ask a fairly valid question which is: "Is believing in whether the holocaust occured as described in history is a state sponsored religion?"

And my answer is "no, of course not."

Religion is dogmatic. History is open to debate and examination through evidence.

Though I am largely incompetent when it comes to examining the evidence myself, I am not willing to bet against the experts (war historians) who have studied the field and laid down their evidences for consideration.

But my major point is that you can apply my lack of certainty to almost any subject in human knowledge, and I am largely content not to question the validity of any of the above topics (distance sun-earth, size of the galaxy, number of tastebuds, etc.), because if I start I cannot arbitrarily stop.



EDIT: I still don't think I have expressed myself very well.... I think constantly talking with wooter has dented my ability to write clearly.

Let me try again, I think the question that you asked, and I quote:

Is the Holocaust a religion - (a state-sponsored one at that!)?"

is analogous to asking questions of this kind:

Is the belief in the occurence of the black plague a religion - (a state-sponsored one at that!)?"

The answer is certainly "No". Religion is religion, an historical event is an historical event.

I hope I do not sound disparaging, I am not trying to be at all.

218. What is science for?

Comment #185410 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Ok ok, I'll bite...

161. Comment #185397 by blake121666 on May 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Is the Holocaust a religion - (a state-sponsored one at that!)? In what way(s) is it and in what way(s) isn't it?

Is the holocaust a religion?

I thought the holocaust is a random group of people deciding they are superior to those others outside that group, deciding to exterminate another random group of people.

I think what you meant to ask is:

"Is believing in whether the holocaust occured as described in historical books is a state sponsored religion?"

to which I can say, "no, of course not".


There are many many things I do not intimately know about the universe and its history:

• How far is the distance between the earth and the sun?
• How large is the solar system?
• How many Jews, to the closest thousand, were systematically exterminated by the Nazis?
• How many taste buds I have on my tongue?
• How many atoms is on the tip of a ball point pen?

To these questions I can I spend a lifetime studying the field before I can find out the answer for myself, OR I can read the peer reviewed papers and figure what the experts say about it. Which evidence is relevant. How those evidence should be interpreted. What conclusion is most likely.

I would defer to the experts on these issues.

If you think that is cop-out, then you can claim that the experts are conspiring to ignore certain relevant evidence, poorly interpretting some evidence or coming up with unlikely conclusions.

But then, you can claim that of anything, the moon landing is staged, there are two gunman behind the grassy knoll, there is two hundred tastebuds on your tongue, the earth is 6,000 years old. You can't stop, all the experts and historians are wrong/conspirators. You will have to do all the research from the beginning to the end.

You are welcome to build the entire human knowledge base by yourself all over, but somehow I think you will only focus on the holocaust.


So in answer to your question,

In what way(s) is it and in what way(s) isn't it?

Evidence: interpreted by the experts and presented to the lay people.

219. What is science for?

Comment #185392 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 5:51 pm

138. Comment #185235 by clearmind on May 27, 2008 at 8:33 am

By the way, (Wong) I am just curious not to insult your country or not to vote to destroy it, are you Chinese or Japanese?

Chinese. I am curious as to why you would like to know?
Are you concern about the incomprehensibility of my English?

139. Comment #185236 by clearmind on May 27, 2008 at 8:34 am

Indeed, Swearing a sign of unbalanced mind and heart and very good sign of weaknesses of human beings. If you debate with atheist face to face, I believe that some of them will give you a punch instead of swearing or both.

swearing does not function better than posting articles trying to find any argument against LOGIC. If we don't move, we are discussing Evolution theory is?

I just give a rat's ass how many spots were on the earth? If the BEES who commit suicide when they bite it is better than a half-decent camera

220. What is science for?

Comment #185391 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Dear all,

With deepest apologies, please ignore me and clearly mindless yammering on. He wants to change thread because he craves the attention here.

If you like, just whack both of us in the alternate comment thread.

And do continue with your serious discussions about the holocaust.

Much Thanks,
G


PS. Shhhhh.... Be werry werry qwuiet, I'm hunting wabbits.

221. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #185384 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 5:30 pm

377. Comment #185228 by clearmind on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am

how did evolution calculate exact measures in solar system and the distance between earth and sun and other planets?

sun does not help you anymore. I tried my best. Sometimes you sound okay. But it is very kind and he is playing with it.

By the way, I am just curious not to insult your country or not to vote to bomb it, are you Chinese or Japanese?

bomb it, are you being sarcastic?

I told you not to lie, not to twist, not to cheat. So do not help you give an example of a brontosaurus.

*Then there's the severe trauma of being a slave of my mind is as stupid does.

222. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184992 by GordonYKWong on May 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

374. Comment #184829 by clearmind on May 26, 2008 at 9:13 am

I am challenging all atheists here. Explain the evolution tree scientifically and logically to me and entire world, then, I will take my hat off. Seriously?

evolution tree to you? Clear? Clearmind/banned wooter but still they do that?

Who taught us through his prophets and Jesus did it. I tell approximate time, then what? Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss something then, it is the best ones that can help me teach syntax.

223. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184674 by GordonYKWong on May 26, 2008 at 12:31 am

oh great... now what will Ben Stein bleat on about?

"Wallacism leads you to killing people."

"Wallacism is filled with controversy."

"Big Science will silence all those that disagrees with the Wallacist."

224. What is science for?

Comment #184633 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 9:54 pm

144. Comment #184630 by clearmind on May 25, 2008 at 9:34 pm

What is your IQ level, according to the evolution?

higher than those of us have faith in God or Allah or Yehowah?

Or Do YOU think about how sun is tilted earth is located perfectly so that he killed, are they in heaven or hell?

Me nor you are supposed to make IT true.

225. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184631 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 9:41 pm

371. Comment #184627 by clearmind on May 25, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Teasing a junkyard dog is a bad idea?

junkyard dog is a source of information about God?

Do you feel relaxed when you wanna talk something someting scientific or logical you can use to describe evolution.

226. What is science for?

Comment #184572 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm

140. Comment #184563 by Frankus1122 on May 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Yes, I couldn't AGREE more. You are on the clearWOOT train.

climb aboard, there is plenty of room on the carriage. Just me and wooter on our merry dance towards insanity :-D

227. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184558 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm

366. Comment #184444 by clearmind on May 25, 2008 at 9:36 am

Piranha 1: No worries! That clearmind guy is really smart. He is in a glass cage, made of LOGIC. What ever they think they bite it is not clearmind. His logic is protecting him.

Piranha 2: Why are these guy are so stupid? They can't THINK THAT THEY CAN'T BITE A VERY FROM GLASS OF LOGIC.

piranha 1: Yep! And one more whatever they find any atheist who is gonna be a nun? Or being a normal GUY, with his obsessed mind and conscious? It is like perfect watch. Each part is confusing you?

228. What is science for?

Comment #184553 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm

133. Comment #184440 by clearmind on May 25, 2008 at 8:56 am

It seems that piranhas are in trouble again for trying to bite whatever they see in the way of the their way which is the way down in the little pond where some guys are still trying to fish around while Russell and dawkins still wait for the chemical rains. Interesting isn't it?

russell often goes to any theme park or something, and you get to heaven to face God.

Suddenly you noticed that you know what? What stupidity mean is always passed to the mouth it pops UP.

229. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184395 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 1:41 am

361. Comment #184393 by MPhil on May 25, 2008 at 1:29 am

The stupidity of clearming is so amazing that it is highly unlikely it is the product of chance - it must have an explanation, must have taken some real effort.

Real effort? I dunno about that.

Stand back, I am about to try wooterism:

"What about evolution? On what grounds? Double standards is not like this, wooter is not based on logic and reach the conclusion that perfect things require perfect design that connect all planets and sun together with invisible power. Trip to Science Museum When I was blocked two times ALREADY."

230. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184394 by GordonYKWong on May 25, 2008 at 1:29 am

360. Comment #184392 by epeeist on May 25, 2008 at 12:59 am

Actually Gordon is wrong - clearmind's home page is here.

Though I think Wooter is far more entertaining. I mean, who can generate this hilarious quote??

There is clown position. you fit in. bring the pictures alone.

He is a laugh a minute that guy.

231. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184374 by GordonYKWong on May 24, 2008 at 9:59 pm

358. Comment #184366 by markg on May 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm

GordonYKWong,

Your clearmind link, fittingly, leads to absolutely nothing. Was that intentional?

sorry my bad, please try again.

232. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184365 by GordonYKWong on May 24, 2008 at 8:21 pm

353. Comment #184096 by clearmind on May 23, 2008 at 3:28 pm

He is by the little pond. still he is fishing around

But one thing is you are sick and tired of trying to CATCH FISH? on this site,

clearmind's is surely the most expensive fabric on the hook. but you are here again? What happened? They brought you here because you want me to go jack, way to make other paintings, animals on the earth is ready, human beings are created at the events at Nakhlah, it was at the stage.

Blind people are bloodthirsty because of their mind.

233. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183880 by GordonYKWong on May 23, 2008 at 5:05 am

338. Comment #183869 by clearmind on May 23, 2008 at 4:20 am

Gordon Logic has already clashed with evolution. We all saw the result. By the way are you threatening me?

There are also multiple people in ANY form of evil I know.

And you mean?

So don't go blank and vacant.

JUST THINK. State of mind Clinic, a clinic for delusional patients. Clearmind:

How is the best thing is you have to explain? God's creation and God's blessing for us.

234. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183808 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Dave and Brian,

you are both wrong, he is obviously Santa Claus with nothing to do in the Northern Summer.

235. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183805 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm

331. Comment #183802 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm

MIND GAMES

If I am retarted I wouldn't be here to stand for logic.

retarted people can have more, you will see that entire world is to clash with theist people. You lose your face.

4. So stop slandering and twisting; they are the interpretations of universe so I used helping verb and subject refering to an intelligent sender.

There are also multiple people in ANY form of evil I know.

236. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183794 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm

324. Comment #183770 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 7:20 pm

I am mixed blood and you can't outsmart me since i am standing with LOGIC.

logic that is a logical impossibility.

It also defies the laws of society did not commit right things. Atheist people with sick mind are able to do anything since they were amazed at the end.

Seriously, what is the best time for chit chat.

237. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183766 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 pm

320. Comment #183729 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Me: This is what I am going to prove. For atheists, there is no limit in moral values, ethics, family values since they have no fear of God.

Class: Yeah they are like PIRANHAS.

please explain us how God could make noses)

Do I have already stated, evolutionary biology does not work for logical analogies, it is totally illogical, then, there is a linguist has analyzed wooter/clearmind/wipeout/selfishmind's sentence construction and concluded that the origin of all the animals have different duties.

238. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183750 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 5:27 pm

320. Comment #183729 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 4:26 pm

worm stories

Water worm1: What is that guy doing up there for three day?
Water worm 2: Excuse me what are you doing here?
Brian English: I am fishing. Don't you see, $#$$^%$^^ worms. Because of you we are humiliated.
But you look so funny?
Why?
While YOU ARE AT THE END OF FISH LINE LIKE A BAIT AND STILL TRYING TO CATCH FISH?

humiliated by logic and INTELLIGENCE. This is totally not referring to logic not the BLIND MEN in my analogies are well understood by intelligent people not for the sake of days and then to create the universe is like alive.

239. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183430 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 5:30 am

290. Comment #183409 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 4:21 am

I aim to close down this web page through my logical arguments. I am sure that nobody can handle with my logical arguments that made 500 pages

so wehere are we? In a certain PATTERN in a battle against logic.

If I want to open a hotel for guests, First I will give up belief in God.


Congratulations you became the pioneer of a a fishapod. The evolution OR BEFORE MONKEY OR DNA ACCIDENT OR SELFISH GENE urge!

240. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183386 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 2:44 am

283. Comment #183374 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 2:19 am

Swearing is welcomed
Slandering is so mucg appreciated(best card to look as winner of an argument)
distorting is welcomed
Twisted mind is allowed

You are allowed so, yes, twisted mind is allowed... not neccessary welcomed though.

241. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183377 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 2:20 am

281. Comment #183368 by clearmind on May 22, 2008 at 2:07 am

(luck and chances or UNEXPLAINED RANDOMNESS?)

These are the vocabulary of evolution. God's creation does not have any random or luck since we are perfectly created through perfect design which requires a designer not chance and luck.

Okay? But HOW? It does not exist. But it is getting in right(!)order by unexplained randomness and luck Random Wooter, please can you defend what you try to set Rubik's cube is set by itself and without mind heart is lost.

Faith, like two faces of a tornado roaring through a process of nuclear fusion.

242. What is science for?

Comment #183367 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 2:05 am

62. Comment #183305 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 7:43 pm

What are atheism for?

science concerning biological evolution, geology, cosmology, and physics. Yet these very same people retain a strong belief in God or Allah. Please I am YOUR ANCESTOR. Bow to me.

243. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183362 by GordonYKWong on May 22, 2008 at 1:28 am

268. Comment #183320 by clearmind on May 21, 2008 at 9:23 pm

so on the last thread we started a new debate? After the logic wins evolution second debate is in 'what is science for"

By the way, would you explain us and entire world why are you lying like a woman? Or are you a woman? THEN IT IS OKAY. OR DO YOU DO THIS for the sake of EVOLUTION?

There is no way that they can find love while arguing with me.

But surely they can act as switches to turn them on at appropriate points in the same way. Just do me a favor. Can you give an answer that by luck and chances or UNEXPLAINED RANDOMNESS? If you can, just watch any beaver documentary objectively.

It is too bad

244. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182648 by GordonYKWong on May 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm

They need more clever placards:

"$cientology is not a religion,
It is a dangerous CULTure"

"Do Not CULTivate Disconnection"

"Down with all CULTS!!!
(Not that $cientology is not one)"


You can't police ambiguity and word association :-)

245. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #182642 by GordonYKWong on May 20, 2008 at 5:53 pm

100% of these biology teachers are damn fools. FOOLS I SAY...

We all know that we humans are all created perfect by the benevolent Flying Spaghetti Monster, just last Tuesday in fact.

246. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181964 by GordonYKWong on May 19, 2008 at 12:19 am

In all sincerity and earnestness, welcome back Teratonis.

247. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181940 by GordonYKWong on May 18, 2008 at 9:27 pm

A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.

Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."

What a load of bollocky.

I have read Prof. Hoodbhoy reply to the question of "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" and his answer is an excellent satorical piece, and I believe it is quite clear about his opinion of the ridicule ridden notion that is theism.

Go and read the templeton website for yourself to decide:

"Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

Prof. Hoodbhoy -
Not necessarily.

But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one....

This article by Robin Lloyd is either willfully or ignorantly twisting the words of the contributors of Hoodbhoy and Shermer and possibly others.

248. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180855 by GordonYKWong on May 16, 2008 at 1:17 am

"Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks."

Damn!! Now I gotta think of a another porn actor name for myself.

249. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180380 by GordonYKWong on May 14, 2008 at 5:57 pm

I dun gettit? Why would you need to see a dentist to get your teeth fix if you could just pray for Jesus to fix the cavity and apply some fluoride while he is at it??

Remember kids, Jesus loves you... to floss twice a day after meals.

250. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179220 by GordonYKWong on May 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Not that I am defending Tetra (he is capable of defending his own views), I believe he view the religious violence in the middle east as a direct consequence of the west addiction to oil.

I do think his argument hold some water, but anyway...