201. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32208 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 7:30 am

"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.

WTF does that mean?

'Rational', 'choosing'? I am aghast that he is implying that the process of evolution has some degree of awareness and thinks about what mutations to produce. I haven't a clue about the 'low probabilty' bit. Utter crap and nonsense.

"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.

Came from the pontiff's arse is more likely. That statement didn't mean or convey a single iota of information.

one word...

shit.

202. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32203 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 7:07 am

He still used the 'g' word.

He seems to take advantage of an ambiguous definition of god. He 'may' have existed and he 'may' have started it. Brooks would've look a complete twat if he then said anything else other than 'he's not active' because it would clearly have contradicted the general jist of the piece. That the way the world works, a 'supreme being' isn't necessary.

Or maybe he's genuine and thinks there is a weakness in the Theocratic rule of the Bush Taliban.

203. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32025 by padster1976 on April 15, 2007 at 9:23 am

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

What a piss-take!

204. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32023 by padster1976 on April 15, 2007 at 9:16 am

Vile and disgusting.

No wonder I keep 'forgetting' that islam is a religion of 'peace'.

205. How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive

Comment #31737 by padster1976 on April 14, 2007 at 3:49 am

'The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter'

In Martin Rees' book 'Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe', he talks about the ratio of anti-matter and matter at the start of the universe.

He concluded that more matter was created than its counter-part with all the anti matter being annihilated. The consequence being that there was surplas material left over to develop into what we know of the universe.

This is why there is matter in the universe and the only antimatter is that created in labs. Which are unstable and therefore decay very quickly.

206. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #31167 by padster1976 on April 11, 2007 at 8:47 am

I have written this to Mr Anderson.

From: "PATRICK WALSH"

Subject: Re: Bruce Anderson's article published 09.04.07 - Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

To: newseditor@independent.co.uk

Dear whomever this may concern,

Simply put, Mr Anderson's article is a load of rubbish.

I mean, lets cut the crap here. 'Belief' in the sense he extolls, ie you accept for truth that which cannot be empircally proved, makes no more intellectual impact nor is more persuasive than the belief in fairies.

To claim that your life is or should be run by these set of 'beliefs' and that they somehow provide a moral framework is incredible.

This bit deserves derision -

'atheists have an easier task than theists. In order to deny the existence of God, it is only necessary to accept one proposition. Believers have to try to understand what they believe.'

Anderson's statement 'Believers have to try to understand what they believe.' is surely saying 'I'm putting ones hands up to how difficult and increasingly absurd it is to continue to claim 'virgin births' and 'God exists' in the face of Science.

Lets face it Mr Anderson, you hark for the days before Copernicus. Oh dear.

'Faith' is not something to be proud of and unflinching certainty in a multi faceted world is not a virtue. It makes you dangerous, dogmatic, fanatic and many more things unpleasent.

I would trust someone who wants to help me because they want to rather than someone who thinks that if they don't help, they are going to be eternally punished. In a way, its selfish and certainly not moral - working under duress is highly unethical. In that vein, its rather like slavery. Do you wish to live in slavery Mr Anderson? Slavery to your 'god'?

Not me.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick J Walsh

207. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #31133 by padster1976 on April 11, 2007 at 5:24 am

The 'Coultergeist' - coined by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is a regular on Media Matters. Indeed, his summary of 'Godless' is quite catchy -

"the complexity [of evolution] is why fake authors with fake ideas can still peddle their crap"

Excellent.

Other Coultergeist gems...

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"

But really, the only way to defeat these people is to ignore them. Feet voting etc.

Just confront those that publish her.

208. Aids Victims Risk Lives

Comment #29517 by padster1976 on April 3, 2007 at 8:23 am

Absolute insanity.

This sort of story should be splashed all over the mainstream media so when people in the UK complain over progressive attitudes buy their church towards gays for example, and want to align themselves with more orthodox views in african parishes, they can get a clearer picture of what they are joining.

They can take the 'holy' water if they wish, who can stop them, but to deny them the retro viral drugs is surely tantamount to murder. Unless what they are saying is true and we require empirical evidence that people have been cured. This is not mystical - that is a testable claim.

Where's the proof?

My guess? There isn't any.

209. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29457 by padster1976 on April 3, 2007 at 1:53 am

As Christopher Hitchens said - the only person who can commit a religious hate crime, is a religious person.

So much for christian love peace and understanding.

210. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #27861 by padster1976 on March 27, 2007 at 4:29 am

Patrick Moore is great!

211. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27860 by padster1976 on March 27, 2007 at 4:22 am

Can Mr Grayling please be Prime Minister.

Our current Gladstone wannabe is proving to be like a bad penny in his quest for legacy.

212. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27693 by padster1976 on March 26, 2007 at 6:42 am

Crikey!

West Sussex is my blimin' council!

I have written a stiff letter asking them to explain in greater detail as to the reasons why this has happened.

I will keep you all in touch.

213. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27101 by padster1976 on March 23, 2007 at 6:25 am

MartinsGill,

I ca see what you mean. Have you ever checked out the webstite 'media matters'? Its a non-profit group that report how subjects are reported in the states.

Naturally enough, the conservative right wing media are constant in their hate filled tripe and I saw the above piece in that context. The LA Times is a frequent topic. It just seemed another minority bashing exercise. I wish I could say otherwise, but so many have used their professional credetials to forward the right wing agenda.

Perhaps I should have read it on its own merits but then again, how can you consider one piece in the jigsaw alone?

PS - On Media Matters, look for a guy called Michael Savage - the surname is well given. Honestly, you won't believe what this guys comes out with. Apparently, his show is the 3rd most listened to in the States!

214. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27071 by padster1976 on March 23, 2007 at 4:51 am

Jiten,

replace 'gay sex' with any label for a minority - redheads, black people - y'see - bigoted.

He has equated it with a bid thing i'e killing. Why? Why did he choose, out of everything in the world, that?

I think I see the point quite clearly.

He needs to explain himself.

215. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27052 by padster1976 on March 23, 2007 at 3:41 am

'The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.'

Putting homosexuals on the same level as kitten killing?

In the UK, he'd be prosecuted for that. And rightly so.

Mark1958 - 'fantastic' huh? I think you missed something.

It reminds me of the religo's Hitler/ Atheist connection - yet Hitler hated gays as well!

I think you're all missing the point that someone has slipped in a bigoted mindset (the irony from a professor of psychology!), and no-one seems to have picked up on it.

Even over here in the UK, we can see how the american evangelicals are getting behind this seemingly 'no global warming' stance - and this guy seems to be of that ilk.

Clearly, he feels that gay sex is disgusting. Well bully for him. So what?! Does he have to watch it? Partake it in? No he does not. So why does he feel he must comment and denigrate it?

A moron like that would be taken to task for that.

Personally, what a person gets up to is their business. No -one has the right to dictate what others do - especially when they are coming from the bible of all things. Religo's try to repress everything they do not agree with. Religo's have no reality based arguments and as a matter of principle, minorities need to be defended against ignorance and bigotry of this and any kind.

This guy is clearly 'conservative' and has seriously dented any professional credentials he lays claims to.

We should all write to him and explain that he cannot go around equating anything he PERSONALLY dislikes with a despicable act. Especially if that idea comes from 'the good book.

How dare he.

Yes you americans have freedom of speech - that also allows me to take him to task to explain himself.

216. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26918 by padster1976 on March 22, 2007 at 9:23 am

DavidMcC,

Thanks for that - that Einstein was a busy bugger wasn't he?!

Einstain had a problem with something else if I remember - it made him invent what he called the 'universal constant'.

217. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26862 by padster1976 on March 22, 2007 at 3:09 am

Endless forms -

I am reading this on a 'protected workstation' (emphasis on 'work' there!)

I have a Mac at home which doesn't play real videos or windows media. Its a bit old.

Thanks to Bill Gates!

218. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26861 by padster1976 on March 22, 2007 at 3:04 am

Norman Doering and nine9's,

Er, sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit - but wit it still is.

Did a wry chuckle not issue from you at reading it? A little too literall methinks.

Jokes do wonders for the mind!

219. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26859 by padster1976 on March 22, 2007 at 2:58 am

eggplantbren -

'Classical physics did not collapse. It is still very much true in most circumstances.'

I think you're missing the point. And not, if you know what I mean!

Before Einstein's prediction of mass warping spacetime (it was during a solar eclipse in South Africa I think) in 1905 - there was no other theory of gravity other than Newton's. Einstein completely blew it out of the water - it cleared up so many mysteries like the anomaly of Mercury's orbit for example.

Newton's laws are still useful for small scale activities like throwing satellites around the solar system but I think the crux of what Steve Jones says is correct. It did indeed 'collapse' - it was no longer the prevalent explanation of the universe. Newton's laws 'break down' when approaching high speeds. On the flip side, when Relativity approachs the quantum level, it in turn breaks down. The universe is indeed full of surprises but as Einstein said ' the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible'.

Also you said…

'>>untestable and unsupported by evidence<<

Also, these can't both be true. It's either untestable, in which case there is no relevant evidence, or it is testable and unsupported. I'd say the latter.'

If there is no 'relevant evidence' as you put it, then it is unsupported. You seem to have repeated yourself.

But they are both true.

To test in science is to test within the 'natural' world. Religo's claim the 'supernatural' i.e. outside the natural world - ergo 'untestable' That's the point with the SUPERnatural. The claim religo's make 'god made us' etc - there is no evidence to support this.

So in terms of 'Creationism' being untestable and without evidence, Jones in spot on.

220. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26669 by padster1976 on March 21, 2007 at 4:17 am

Good.

221. Pursue pleasure: it's the natural way to do good in the world

Comment #26287 by padster1976 on March 18, 2007 at 11:41 am

Wow.

Very precise!

ghostbuster, er, a little of the 'mad rant' about what you said I feel.

Where does your belief for your views come from?

You say 'the guns came out' so you're dicussing mainly the 1400's onwards (after gunpowder hand guns became popular in europe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm )

I always enjoy Grayling's work. Mark me for a copy!

222. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #26193 by padster1976 on March 17, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Phsyorg had a link to a websiter called y-origins

check it out...

http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CM6mre_o_IoCFQztlAodVEryEQ

Their 'this weeks photo' is of a galaxy - they've called it a nebula.

Sums them up nicely!

223. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #26190 by padster1976 on March 17, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Remember, natural selection is the envorimental pressure on the organism to adapt.

It makes sense if you think that the species along the tropics are more established because they have been there longer. As migration north has taken place, relatively recently, the enviromental pressures have caused the organism to adapt to the new enviroment.

Speciation would easily occur in this way. As the enviroment would be 'new', the pressure to change would be stronger- hence the species more north would have the more changes.

Viola.

224. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26186 by padster1976 on March 17, 2007 at 2:37 pm

What a load of BS.

225. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25601 by padster1976 on March 14, 2007 at 9:27 am

'He despises Christians for holding to a theology that appears to give succour to slavery but thinks himself that torture is permissible'

Typical BS miss-quote of what Harris meant.

If its deliberate then shame on the author and if they don't get it, then should the author have access to a public stage?

226. Evangelicals battle over agenda, environment

Comment #25560 by padster1976 on March 14, 2007 at 5:34 am

'But Dobson and his fellow letter-writers suggested that evangelical should also signify "conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality."'

So if we take all that in the bible sense we have what?

Unable to earn 'interest' on money, stoning people, slavery, infanticide, family break-up, ignorance - yeah , all great!

I'd like to see the 'bible is literal' lot decide not to have their money earning interest!

227. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25159 by padster1976 on March 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Science 'pounds religion to pulp' because it can.

'Not fair' - bothered.

Go back to your geocentric model oh deluded one!

What was that crap about the soil?

Is this a joke?

The 20th was 100 years long. He mentioned 2 wars and tries to say they had nothing to do with religion and in fact were anti religion. Apart from the usual crap about hitler = atheist and the same for stalin, how about the other wars - Former yugoslavia, african genocides, the middle east, the russian attack of the Chechens! If you think about, religion has been the cause of more wars.

He clearly only did school history and stopped studying.

228. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25157 by padster1976 on March 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm

This bloke uses some 'bad science' examples - but then ignores the fact that the consensus has changed.

Yet religious views are stuck 1500 years ago and have not changed one bit!

This sort of diatribe deserves only derision - not any serious responses!

229. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24550 by padster1976 on March 7, 2007 at 7:44 am

Where do I start?

'But how many people, at least among the social classes that produce presidential candidates, believe in the orthodox doctrines of Christianity with the same degree of confidence that they believe in, say, the existence of Antarctica?'

It should be mandatory that a definition be provided for terms such as 'believe' and 'belief' before they get bandied around. This would save a lot of trouble later and clearly define the boundries for a rewarding copnversation to take place. Instead, your left with people picking it to shreds with their own interpretation. Which is what I'm going to do!

The above quote is quite remarkable. At face value, it appears simple. Yet it is dripping with hidden meaning. It is either astoundingly ignorant of the more subtle issues or it is trying to be clever and avoid the issues altogether.

What Issues?

Well, the inference to the 'social classes that produce presidential candidates'. What's that then? The educated, wealthy political elite perhaps? Ok, so we know that the author is not talking about the masses, just a small influential minority. How conveinent!

To me, this conjures images of cynicism with the politicians pandering to the masses by professing religious streak in order to gain votes. Over here in the UK, we see how many Prime Ministers renege on 'election promises' once they're in office. Talking about 'God' here won't cut it, not from a politician. Blair does because he is 'Mr Teflon'. Although from the media stance at the moment, his influence appears to waning. Not enough to impeach him (if we can do that in this country?) which is a pity.

Dawkins in 'GD' does infer that the relation to intelligence and a 'god belief' is proportional. He uses the libraries as a reliable indicator.

If ever you were in doubt as to whether intelligent people believe in a god, look at Bush who has trouble putting a coherent sentence together and then states that god talks to him. Indeed the ancient Pat Robertson, who god bestows 'predictions' to Bush the he recieves from god annually is a fair testamont to intelligence. His show the 700 Club is utter nonsense!

Going back to the article though…

'Naturally it's considered quite rude to press people on such matters, but in my experience most supposedly orthodox religious belief, on closer examination, melts away into a vague sense of an ultimate moral order, supervised by an even more vaguely conceptualized divinity.'

Rude? It's necessary! Of course religious 'melts away' under scrutiny it's a delusion!
I'm not impressed so far. Clearly the author has no idea of preceding arguments about religion and its meme like belief system.

This bit really got me here though…

'Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.'
So is he saying that we cannot have morals without god? Or that our morals are based at least historically from religion yet are considered separate now? Or am I reading too much into a load of BS?
I favour that the author meant the first point. Which of course shows that he has never read Dawkins, Pinker, Dennet or Harris at all or in any great detail. Nor probably of anything! How else do you explain that I, with many other people, know the difference between dood nd evil (which are cultural, abstract terms for a good thing that can happen or a bad thing can happen) yet do not believe in god. For his reasoning to be correct, as Harris shows, we'd have to take everything in the bible as true and as a script of how to lead your life. Of course, we get to the bits in the bible about killing ones own first born. Er, righto!
That is a reprehensible act to anyone with sense. But how can it be that a loving god will command this? You will get religo's that say 'we don't take everything at face value' – but why say that? Why be selective in your bible whilst at the same time say it's a way to lead your life, or it explains the origin of life? By what criteria do determine which bits to leave out? For the example given, is it because one would think 'that's a bit harsh', or 'I'll go to prison if I do that'? I find it odd that people would trust 'a man of faith' over some more rational. They are kind because thay don't want to go to hell and adhere to parts of the bible that won't make them come across as nuts or go to jail for murder! I can't call that a moral person. Why on earth do you need something to tell you what to do? Are religo's that incapable of independent thought?
Clearly then, humans have a predetermined sense of a 'good' and 'bad' act that is separate from any 'god' if we can recognise a command that is not a nice one. There is more to this as well, whether any god has determined this is bad, (meaning it was ok before then or he merely recognised that its bad - this shows that He is a human creation. The giveaway? He shares a human sense of actions and their consequences.
In the last bit 'The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists' is so devoid of any substance, it merely betrays the lack of understanding by the host.

Overall, the entire piece is twaddle.

230. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23486 by padster1976 on March 1, 2007 at 3:55 am

This bit annoyed me...

'This is very shallow reasoning. It is not necessary that we observe something directly in order to believe it. We don't observe black holes, but we still accept their existence based on numerous plausible inferences. The supernatural may not be directly observable, but it is certainly not outside the realm of reasonable implication.'

Black Holes are so named after a star of sufficient mass has collapsed in on itself to produce a gravity well strong enough to prevent light itself from escaping. As we 'see' with light, it's fairly obvious that we cannot 'see' directly if there is no light.

Howver the 'numerous plausible inferences' are what? Gravity lenses, galactic jets, accretion disks. One direct observation has occured. It ws predicted that should a black hole find itself near enough to a star, the gravity would pull the stars matter in a relatively thin straight towards the hole. It would look like a thin glowing line suddenly ending. (in this instance the hole was not rotating that quickly so the accretion disk was not visible).This is predicted by Einstein.

The supernatural, to be anything like a correct theory would have to be observable. Without this particular verification act, you can make up anything and that's dangerous. Well, look at the mess we're in now.

231. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23376 by padster1976 on February 28, 2007 at 8:35 am

I am reminded by Collins form of arguement being that of a child - in that he makes it up as he goes along.

And he talks about

'Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.'

Stretch of the imagination? Has he heard himself?

No. Collins argument is based on a very simple, think of anything for an answer because under 'faith', it doesn't have to be proven.

Bollocks.

Sorry to be rude but everything he said he cannot know. It doesn't answer anything except if your forgo your ability to think at all.

I thought Dawkins to be restrained.

232. Pope speaks out against 'designer babies'

Comment #23253 by padster1976 on February 27, 2007 at 6:54 am

Pantore -

The church prohibit any form of sexual protection whatsoever. And AIDS is rampant. You're off base by saying that its companies that are to blame. Yes their prices are exorbitant and outright piracy but your view is one of oversimplification.

Face those facts please.

What the Pope says condemns an unknown amount of innocent people to a life of sufferring.

We have to look at how we can get to a broader audience and expose this for the 16th century mentality it is!

233. The Certainty Bias

Comment #23243 by padster1976 on February 27, 2007 at 5:42 am

Of course there is also the possibility that Bush including fellow neo-cons deliberately lied to the public. They didn't succumb to fear - they used it on us.

Blair is no different. How he is not in jail is beyond me.

234. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #23044 by padster1976 on February 26, 2007 at 2:59 am

They responded!!!!

Is it really safe to give an address? Er, no! Not to those nutjobs!

Subject: RE: Email from Contact Us form -
******* *****
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:07:31 +1000
From: "Andrew Lamb" Add to Address Book
To:
Dear Mr *****

Thank you for your email of 23 February, submitted via our website.

We feel your comments and a response from us could have teaching value for others, and are considering publishing your feedback on our website. Could you please let me know your street address, and I will arrange for one of our staff scientists to prepare a response. We would not publish your address or use it for marketing; this is merely our standard way of establishing that a contributor is genuine.


Yours sincerely


Andrew Lamb

Information Officer

Creation Ministries International

PO Box 4545, Eight Mile Plains QLD 4113, Australia Website: http://www.Creationontheweb.com

Phone: +61 (7) 3340 9888 Fax: +61 (7) 3340 9889 Australian Business Number: 31 010 120 304

235. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22814 by padster1976 on February 23, 2007 at 6:20 am

Billysands,

I've written this to the same website...



I have read your piece on Dawkins new book.

Unfortunately, you have fallen into the classic trap on personal attack to avoid wrestling with the issues raised. THIS DOES NOT WORK! Only if however, you are so eager for your particular viewpoint to be supported, you'll take anything.

You go on to contradict yourself. I nearly left the site then, however, I consider myself a reasonable person (who has thoroughly rejected religion in all guises as a waste of time) so I wanted to leave you with some thoughts.

You state that dawkins 'Dawkins' absolute dislike of the message of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures' then quote Dawkins himself thus ''I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.'

Eh? A contradiction. You have not started well. You must think that since the bible has 1000's of contradictions and I believe that therefore I can also contradict myself! Good style. As Peter Cook said, 'it's not enough to keep the mind alive'.

I just wonder if you will agree that a very conveinent self serving doctrine of faith is that any thought of doubt is to be seen as a temptation from the devil, is therefore evil and must be resisted.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who wants their vein of thought to prevail. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put something in that would prevent you from leaving? Something of a threat? If you leave me, the carpet gets it! Or eat my carrots and I'll scratch you car? Obviously it has to be nasty - fear is an easy and strong motivation tool. Do you agree that?

This is interesting. It wasn't that long ago that the majority of the general populace was illiterate. The main point of this is the fact that ignorance would not have been too far away at anyone time. Any person, can see that the notion of a spirit, or 'agent' is behind an action such as a storm, or bad luck is nothing more than primitive superstition. Thos cannot be denied. Cavemen, if you admit they existed, looked up at the sky and did not see the expanse of the universe, they merely rationalised to the limit of their knowledge. A rudimentary cause and effect. 'I do something to make it happen, ergo ( I doubt cavemen knew latin) that happens SO SOMETHING MUST HAVE MADE IT HAPPEN'.

I'd be desperate to try anything if what I cherished was shown to be a stupid broze age set of 'beliefs'. However, I think this is important, you must learn that one is able to question themselves HONESTLY and arrive at the truth. The truth here is independent of what you want it to be. It just is.

Can you genuinely feel that you are up to looking at all the evidence, and I mean science- genetics, fossils, carbon dating, and the like which show that the earth is not 6000 years old. That it was not made over 6 days and nobody rested on the seventh.

And suffering in the world. I think most resentment towards religion comes from their dismissal of suffering - 'god's work' - how banal of him. And we're in 'his image' - how do we know that? How about siemese twins? Dwarf's? Chimps arein our 'image' 2 legs, 2 arms and a head all in the same place - where's the boundry of likeness for this 'image?' NA dyour god didn't do a very good job for an omniscient being - we keep breaking! Cancer for example?

As for your worry about the kids being affected - have you seen jesus camp? Its enough to give you lack of sleep for a year! But then there's intelligence. Dawkins does show that brain power and 'religious' thought aren't that common. Oh sure, you can name some, what Newton? that neurotic paranoid bad-tempered individual? His one contribution to the commons was to ask for the window to be closed! Great man! But there's another side to that. He wrote alot about revalations - hmm, I suppose he has to do something to offset the good contribution! It makes me smile we religo's claim a scientist as one of their own as if this makes the bible 100% true! Classic. I just wonder what % of scientists do believe and do not just participate in personal wishfull thinking (what else is the 'afterlife'?)?

One last thing – you are extremists. You believe jesus was born of a virgin. Apart from the explanation that mary maybe asexual somehow, this is impossible. Therefore it is an extremist view. The big J came back from the dead? Same again.

Yes god is a delusion and you are proving it.

236. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22733 by padster1976 on February 21, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Blimey! I got a response! My 'mail first then Garrett's reply...

P

From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:47 AM
To: rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
Subject: Re: 'Memo: Stop teaching evolution'

Dear Mr Garrett,

I have read your article as titled above and I am startled by its contents. So startled that I cannot take it at face value. It is absurd well beyond the point of incredulity.

If it is a joke then there is a serious issue here that your position has been abused - there will be people who believe what you have written. Maybe some sort of disclaimer to indicate a joke?

Of course, despite how incredible it sounds and what you say is true, you have also failed to report this in a balanced way - i.e another view point. What view point? The many many many and many more scientific facts that support an old world conclusion fossils, genetics, carbon dating, physics it all there and more. You do not mention any of these.

As for the website - have you even seen it? It tries to challenge copernicus for crying out loud! Is this the level of education in the states? The 16th Century?

C'mon, you're supposed to be the superpower - how can you all be so thick?

P**********
UK


From: "Garrett, Robert" Add to Address Book
To: ********************************
Subject: RE: 'Memo: Stop teaching evolution'
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:24:27 -0600

Mr. ********,

Crazy as it may sound, it's no joke.

Thanks for writing.

Bob Garrett
Dallas Morning News reporter

237. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22712 by padster1976 on February 21, 2007 at 7:49 am

I emailed that Robert T. Garrett bloke and asked if it was a joke.

If it is then he sucks as a journalist for the one sided view in the article and if it was serious then he sucks as a jounalist for the one sided view in the article.

Comment 22562 by Richard Morgan - er, the Author?

238. Researchers find 6,000-year-old fossil evidence

Comment #22416 by padster1976 on February 17, 2007 at 2:02 am

That title is misleading!! I was expecting to read 'proof of creation' or something daft like that.

So one of the first things that happened after the creation of the earth was adam and eve tucked into peppers!? 4000 years AFTER the domestication of the dog!?

I really think that we need some demonstrations or some other public protest against this vile mind disease that is religion.

239. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22405 by padster1976 on February 16, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Admittedly I got halfway through but I was struck by Aslan's comments about the '21st centru yinterpretations'. Essentially, I felt he suggested that if we keep the definitions wooly, and therefore evasive, the main tenants of the faith will never be truly challenged.

It was marked I think the difference in their language. Harris was quite straight to the point where Aslan spoke, well a load of shit really. This shows just how different their perspective and way of thinking is.

religious thinking, evasive non-defined notions whereas science is literally fact. Like trying to cut smoke with a blade. What some needs to do is open the window and the vapouress bullshit that is religious rhetoric blow away! This kind of debate is in the right direction but it lacks the killer strike that is needed to attack evasive language.

May reason prevail!

240. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22177 by padster1976 on February 13, 2007 at 6:25 am

"For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one "paradigm" for studying the past, and Scripture is another."

So he indulges in self indulgent wishful thinking in his private life? He'll never be taken seriously again!

He views the world one then as if by magic, puts on rosy tinted glasses and the world is ok again!

There's an element here that his professional side is his false side. That he states millions of years for the earth so he can get a job puts is always thinking 'i know the truth and therefore better than you'! How sad.

It truly shows just how deeply ingrained this mind disease that is religion is. This is further evidence that we need to get the factual evidence for science to them and not this crap!

241. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21997 by padster1976 on February 12, 2007 at 6:45 am

There's no point in tackling the adults - they believe in human virgin births for crying out loud. We need to take this to kids and erase the mental stain of religion before they become infected with it.

Prevention rather than a cure!

242. The God Delusion

Comment #21865 by padster1976 on February 11, 2007 at 9:17 am

Orr, you are a dick because you say...

'the absence of any analogous treatment of religion in Dawkins's new book is what makes it considerably less than brilliant...'

then you write...

'Dawkins presented his so-called Ultimate Boeing 747 argument...'

I like the little insertion of 'so-called' there. Very droll. However, I note a lack of any challenge to it other than the sneaked in dismissive tone. So, if you are having difficulty in grasping it...

THE ULTIMATE BOEING 747 ARGUMENT IS AN ANALOGY USED TO EXPLAIN THE SHEER MIND BOGGLING IMPROBABILITY OF THERE BEING A GOD!

Oh yeah, the 'Serious Theology' comment? Is that a joke?

Do you bring such stringent rules and criticism when it comes to religious books? I very much doubt it. Indeed, you're bit about ' I held Dawkins's book to too high a standard', shows that you hold religious books to either a very low, or non-existant standard.

And as for your statment 'As for C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, I cited it to show that Lewis had already dispensed with one of Dawkins's claims' please state which ones as I think you are full of BS.

243. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20713 by padster1976 on February 6, 2007 at 6:01 am

To John Turner,

missed the point there mate - soon we could live under our own version of sharia law. Understand now?

I was driving at the need to be more pragmatic about what we do. And more honest about outselves.

In a way, you've proved my point. In some respects, we're as bad. As Hutchins says, we're instrinsically rascist and half evolved. Your attack to send me to Saudi Arabia, as if to go 'look, they're worse', is widely missing the point.

We have to be very careful how we purge our culture of religion in a way that stops it becoming anyway part of the public life. We have more crimes in this country that a decade ago - something like over a 1000! Doubt me? Then why are the people not paying councill tax, protesting etc in there then?

You merely underlined the hardwired response...'its THEM' 'They're OVER THERE!' - enough hysteria and some rational thought.

We can start by jailing our own war mongering, lying corrupt politicians.

Thank you, I'm here all day!

244. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20614 by padster1976 on February 5, 2007 at 5:32 am

The first paragraph reads as follows....

Imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or any senior Anglican clergyman giving a sermon which suggested that homosexual men should be thrown off a mountain; that they were no better than filthy dogs. Imagine another priest rising in another church to preach that children should be hit for not praying, that women were deficient, should walk behind men and only go out with their man's permission. Consider what the reaction would be if a third joined in by saying all Jews were born liars.

Apart from the reasons given, (which are hardly exhaustive) we as a nation are also guilty of these acts. Maybe not in 'religions name', although I would think the recent display of bigotry about the gay adoption will strongly challenge the assertion by Porter.

Children need protection from their parents. Indeed 'strangers' as well - the male predator is a well demonised figure in the media as modern bogieman.

Women are 'deficient'? Eh? In whose eyes mate? Is that why we need equality laws in this country? Presumably, the inferance is that we do treat women as 'deficient' yet there remains a difference between male/ female pay! Get real! Enough of this 'we're so much better' crap -because when you look closely, there isn't that much difference. ANd then there's domestic violence on both men and women.

As with Jews, we are all aware of the hysteria whenever Israel is critisied for bombing to near oblivion a countey that in comparison can throw little better than stones.

I disregard the above piece as it only serves to further cloud the issue as if somehow 'we're better'. No, we're not actually. We go about terror in a different way and our politicians get away with literally murder.

This is another cheap pop and further denigration of a minority. Those familier with history and those who aren't - look carefully into how fascism arose so prominantly, not just in Germany but other palces in Europe, and you will see just how slippery the slope is that we are on!

You will see that there is no room for tolerance towards religion or any other type of abusive behaviour.

Any other thoughts on this?

245. Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Comment #20375 by padster1976 on February 2, 2007 at 4:32 am

These people are not fit to bring children up.

I'm of the mind that the death of 2 of them need to be looked and if there was a trace of neglect there then those children need to be rescued before complete ignorance kills them.

And the church has a problem with gays bringing up kids? What about those nutters?


I'm sorry, but I'll take a hard line here. This is where 'religious belief' (euphemism for celebrated stupidity) has no power what so ever in terms of decisions based on the childs wellbeing because clearly, they ain't getting that from the bible.

This is almost as bad as the couple in the UK who had a severely diabled child and doctors wnated the right to not resusitate. The parents said no based on religion and the child so far has noit died. However, the parents have split up and the child has gone into care. This sort of crap beggers belief! The selfish motives of those stupid ridiculous people have left a terrible legacy for that child. 'Pro life' - there's a BS term and half.

Stop this insanity!

246. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #19836 by padster1976 on January 30, 2007 at 7:16 am

My firt post didn't appear.

I asked if this type of evolution would explain the 'cambrian explosion'?

Any thoughts?

See here.... for info!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

247. 'Hobbit' human 'is a new species'

Comment #19835 by padster1976 on January 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

Further evidence of the idea of variation - seperated by geological features... its like reading a Dawkins book.

This should be advertised as the way science works. You have observations, debates, theories and then evidence. The one thing creationists/ intelligent design advocates do not have.

Hobbits rule.

Another thought - 12,000 years ago.

Drives it home to think how close we were to seeing them - that's this side of the last ice age!

248. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #19808 by padster1976 on January 30, 2007 at 3:06 am

To 'The Great Teapot',

You can be as narrow-minded as you wish. This is a free society after all. You want to live life like Jade Goody - go for it! You want to wallow in the swamp of ignorance, who are we to stop you? You want the right to be unable to think past the lenght of your nose, good luck to you.

(Why don't you read some history and learn why the 'Enlightenment' was called just that.)

However, no-one has the right to impress their small-mindedness on others.

The problems with having a religious run adoption agency is that there is a danger of indoctrination and dark ages type of behaviour.

Not all of them are like that I'm sure, but schools being run by nuns and priests are a convincing advert NOT to let these like-minded people have access to young impressionable minds.

Where is this sudden concern for children come from? Where is it when the catholic church try to hide the actions of paedophile priests? This is double standards.

You should look at 'Jesus Camp' on youtube. No religious people should be allowed near children in care, Certainly not the vunerable ones.

Which made me wonder what lay behind the statement '33% of difficult children are in catholic agencies'. This is apparently the proportion of children with 'problems'. Of course, it was simple spin for the benefit of catholic agencies - the other side is that 67% of all other agencies have difficult children.

And another thing, when Ruth 'Opes Dei' Kelly starts talking about 'robust debate and finding solutions that meet our principles' - my spines shudders with the icy finger of trapidation - exactly whoose 'principles' is she referring to? Her? (Opus Dei 'encourages' the promotion of their beliefs in their workplace) or the general, enlightened public and the good of the children?

I have little time for those too lazy to learn and feel ignorance is a badge to be worn with pride.

249. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19659 by padster1976 on January 29, 2007 at 6:03 am

Of all the nuances and complications, all I need to remember is that Sharia law does somewhat favour males so i wonder what ratio of female/ male make up the 40% that want sharia law.

The option must be given to them - if they want sharia law, there are country's that follow it. Ergo, go there.

Simple.

No, it really is. I'm part of a minority. True, I look like a local and I've lived long enough to 'talk the talk' as well so I do not experience the same degree of bigotry as someone whom may have skin of a darker hue.

However, If I wanted to live in the way that my parents lived, I would go to that country rather than try to change this country. Something about when in Rome...?

I like the way they use their free speech and right to expression - that wouldn't be allowed under the law they wish.

Right on guys - you go for it!!

250. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19141 by padster1976 on January 25, 2007 at 6:33 am

i must confess i liked 'brights' because it flattered my opinion that religious people are stupid.

however, 'Godfrey' is sumblimly subtle.

Who's heard of that ridiculous 'dare to be a daniel' crapola?

Hows about Be 'Godfrey'!!!

Patrick.