Comments by Don_Quix

Comment #182713 by Don_Quix on May 20, 2008 at 10:33 pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Astronomers have found some matter that had been missing in deep space and say it is strung along web-like filaments that form the backbone of the universe.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I play one on tv, and I also watch a lot of science/space-related shows on TV ;) That being said, isn't this what many astrophysicists have been saying they think could be the case for many years?

302. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182630 by Don_Quix on May 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Guess it sucks not having a single, unified constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression (especially as it pertains to political and religious matters).

;)

303. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177877 by Don_Quix on May 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm

~~I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle.~~

I really wish people like Dawkins would stop pointing out how utterly ridiculous it is for anyone to be a "professional theologian" with his constant tiresome appeals to common sense, fact, and reason.

There, I fixed it for him.

WTF is a "sociologist of science" anyway? That sounds like a fake degree he just made up.

304. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177844 by Don_Quix on May 9, 2008 at 8:08 pm

If you take scientists at their word, human-induced climate change is well underway

Depends on which scientists you talk to. I don't think any scientist would disagree that "climate change" is underway (it always is, always has been, and always will be). However, I think a significant number of scientists, especially climatologists, are not entirely sure that climate change is 100% due to humans, and believe that we must immediately enact a huge number of draconian global initiatives to counteract it or we will all die a horrible death in the next 20-30 years (and even if we do change our sinful ways it might not help...and coincidentally the global initiatives seem to only punish developed nations). Smells suspiciously like religion to me :)

Just a thought. Not trying to make this an AGW debate ;)

305. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177802 by Don_Quix on May 9, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Roasting in Hell? I'll bring the buns and some potato salad. Who's in charge of beer?

306. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177014 by Don_Quix on May 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Blah Blah Blabbity Blah Our Father Blah Blabbity Blah Who Art In Heaven Blabbity Blah Blah Blah ahhhhh STUFF IT!

307. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177009 by Don_Quix on May 8, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Yet another example of Satan's diabolical trickery! As if all those dinosaur fossils he planted weren't enough!

308. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176070 by Don_Quix on May 6, 2008 at 1:46 pm

My wife and I used to refer to The History Channel as "The Hitler Channel", due to the ridiculous number of WWII and Nazi/Hitler documentaries they used to play all the time. Fortunately they've gotten away from that (mostly) and have started to broaden their programming, although they do tend to frequently over-dramatize and dumb-down things still.

The Universe is about the only History Channel show I watch anymore. Although I'm interested in seeing this Evolve show too.

309. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175690 by Don_Quix on May 5, 2008 at 9:56 pm

I find it difficult to understand how any complex higher organism could possibly get to where they are now without evolving relatively early on some sort of basic system that punishes things which generally end in bad outcomes (death), and rewards things which generally end in good outcomes (living for another day so you can have a chance to reproduce).

This is essentially, on a very basic level, morality.

I find it even harder to understand how some modern, highly evolved animals (such as ourselves), can't see this is why the vast majority of us don't rob, and rape, and kill each other every single day. Sure, some do, but the vast majority don't...and they DON'T WANT TO (and probably wouldn't even if they could get away with it).

Morality makes absolute evolutionary sense. At least a very simple form of morality is reflected in all higher mammals that currently exist on Earth. I do not understand why many people (humans) can't recognize this.

If our early ancestors hadn't evolved some basic sense of morality very early on, we (Homo Sapiens) wouldn't be here! Morality is an evolutionary necessity, because it increases the likelihood of your particular groups survival. It's as simple as that, I think. But that is just my uneducated opinion :)

310. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175686 by Don_Quix on May 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Other contend that we and the Neanderthals were more than just kissing cousins. Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out, but implies that we could have Neanderthal inheritage in our genome today, goes this theory.

Wouldn't this be falsifiable? Do we not have any DNA from any Neanderthals that have been discovered? If we do, couldn't we compare their DNA to ours? 20,000 or more years is a very, very long time, but it seems to me that if we can find any Neanderthal skeletons, they could potentially have some viable DNA in them still. I mean, we're not dealing with dinosaurs 65 million years ago or anything here. In that respect, 20,000 years is nothing.

Again, I don't know, I'm just curious :)

311. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175682 by Don_Quix on May 5, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Is there a definitive dividing line between what is a Homo Sapien and what is a Neanderthal? I assume there is, but I am not a scientist. Since no Neanderthals currently exist (various ad hominems notwithstanding), how can we be sure when Homo Sapiens became dominant and when Neanderthals began to decline? More interestingly, under what circumstances did this occur? Why are we Homo Sapiens and not Neanderthals (or whatever Neanderthals would have called themselves if they had won the evolutionary lottery)?

Again, I have absolutely no expertise in here. This is an honest question because I really don't know. I just find the Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens story to be very interesting and I would like to know more about what the most current research has to say on this matter.

312. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174492 by Don_Quix on May 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Ps: Im an atheist and a huge fan of rd)

Ps: goddidit

313. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174460 by Don_Quix on May 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Also, I find it absurdly boorish when some of the atheists on this site bash God on an article that is totally unrelated to the issue of His existence (or non-existence).

Well, this is the Richard Dawkins website. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable over at Answers In Genesis.

Personally, I find it absurdly boorish when some glassy-eyed nymph knocks on my door at 8am on a Saturday to tell me "the Good News"! Unfortunately for them, I'm usually naked when I answer the door.

I think that "absurdly boorish" feeling you are experiencing, Bizarro, is the painful sting of truth jabbing into the rotten core of your fairy tale beliefs.

314. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174199 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm

It's better to get drunk and post online drive-bys than to get drunk and drive into a post!

315. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174178 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Heh I apologize too, I didn't realize it was an honest mistake. I just can't resist a good laugh. :)

316. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174170 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Now Richard Dawkins has converted? Well that'll make this site a bit different in the near future....

Hahahah. I hear he's dating Anne Rice too!

317. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174167 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Has anyone read about the demonization of Pagan Gods by the Church? I need to brush up on my history there.

I'm no expert, but I have read up on it a bit on various places on the Internet, and I found some of the arguments in The Jesus Mysteries to be somewhat compelling (although that book is not without its critics, understandably).

Not to mention that when you are trying to start a major new religion in a time when no one even understands that the earth goes round the sun and crapping where you eat is a generally bad idea, it makes sense to vilify all competitors to your particular incoherent dogma.

318. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174158 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Did you got to Roger Water's 'The Wall - Live in Berlin'?

I'm just glad the pig was found, albeit somewhat mutilated by its ordeal. I wonder if the homeowners will get the $10K reward that was promised (they better).

Also, Steve, please come back. We <3 u!

Well at least some of us do. Sometimes.

;)

319. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174139 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 6:16 pm

You may have since addressed it or apologized for your credulous lazy actions, or you may have continued to ignore the point.

The only point he has conceded is that he was off regarding the distance from our galaxy to NGC 6397 by about 6 orders of magnitude.

But then again, what can you expect from a troll? Big numbers are just tools to provide pseudo-intellectual authoritative weight to incoherent statements directed at people who don't know any better.

320. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174136 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Sounding as though you're just taken an ecstasy tablet isn't going to cut ice with me, though.

Perfect summary of my sentiments.

Praise the Lord and pass the glow sticks!

321. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174124 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

His criticisms of religion are some of the most potent I've seen online and far surpass a few comments by the likes of George Carlin in one stand up routine (excellent though that was)

I was about to say almost this exact thing, especially in regard to the George Carlin comparison, but you beat me to it ;)

I must say though that I am a little confused, although not entirely surprised, by some of the criticism leveled at Pat Condell here. Yes, the guy can be abrasive, you may not agree with everything he says, he might even be *gasp* offensive to some people, but that's why many people find him entertaining. He's sort of like the Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern of Internet atheists. OK, wait, maybe those are bad comparisons. Sorry Pat! heheh.

Anyway, what he's doing is political commentary and satire. Sarcastic and biting satire, but satire nonetheless. I think some people may mistake the abrasiveness of his style of humor as hostility. Personally, I find the bluntness of his commentaries quite refreshing, although I don't necessarily agree with every point he makes. But then again, that's probably just because I'm an evil, racist, imperialist American ;)

322. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174029 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Time for me to catch up on some work then head for home. I hope you all enjoyed this exchange as much as I did.

And the troll rides again, off into the sunset. Too bad everyone is laughing at you.

Fool.

323. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174026 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 12:45 pm

However, to be fair to each area of age-related science

WTF is age-related science? Geriatrics?

You're not fooling anyone here, nor increasing your credibility, by stringing random words together with "science" attached to the end of them.

If you want to make an argument, then make an argument and back it up with facts. Stop making stupid nonsensical posts and then complaining that no one else is taking your posts seriously or answering your nonsensical questions.

324. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174017 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm

There is no reason or bias for going with 13.7 billion years. It's simply what the evidence points to.

It's important to note that the evidence is actually a convergence of evidence using dozens of different methods from pretty much every major field of science...all of which point to the same thing: the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

Not that this makes any difference to clownboat's insane non-arguments. But then, I'm not trying to convince the hard-core creationists, there's no hope for them. I'm just trying to minimize their damage to those whose logical faculties haven't been completely overtaken by the mind virus yet.

325. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173989 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Now suppose I asked you for hard evidence on when the United States became an independent nation. Just what would you base your response on?

So we have moved on from refuting the age of the universe, to refuting the age of the United States. This just keeps getting more and more fascinating.

326. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173973 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am

Grow-up.

Q.E.D.

*arms crossed colbert-style*

327. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173959 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am

Your avatar is mesmerizing. Is she playing Dawkins in an upcoming bio-pic or something? You know like Cate Blanchett recently played Dylan?

This would be the best movie ever.

328. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173944 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:40 am

Just to be sure we are on the same page.

You're not only not on the same page with everyone else here, you're in a different book.

Speaking of books, you should try reading one sometime (No! Not the bible! Put that down! Damnit!), or perhaps even reading a few of the copious number of links to real data provided in this thread. After you have done that, you should compose an intelligent argument citing empirical data that supports your claims.

Until you do this, you're simply going to continue to get ridiculed and laughed at like all the other dim-witted creationist trolls we see here on a daily basis.

329. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173925 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 11:19 am

The SNR evidence gets washed away, like blood. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Careful. They'll turn that around on you and say Jesus' blood got washed away too. ;)

330. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173905 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 10:45 am

And with that... I'm going to lunch.

And there you are ladies and gentlemen, another incoherent non-sequitur spouting troll successfully wastes all of our time.

*Round of applause*

331. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173885 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 10:15 am

~~Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.~~
The link you provided is too long and reading things is hard. I'd rather just blather on pseudo-intellectually about things I know nothing about.

There. I fixed it for you.

332. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173873 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 10:08 am

I'm afraid you have given me nothing of substance to respond to.

Funny, that's how I feel about everything you have posted so far.

If this happens again and I do not respond, you will know why.

Oh, somehow I think your obsessive-compulsive urge to post every 5 minutes will combine with your complete lack of understanding regarding the things you are posting about in order to help you overcome this difficulty.

333. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173859 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:48 am

Both would be nice but I'll settle for SNR transitions since that's the topic at hand.

Or could the fossil reference been an implied position on my part

Sounds like your position is a little bit more than implied. Also, what is it like to go through life while contradicting yourself every other sentence?

334. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173844 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:36 am

So if we can not see the line [clearly] between phase two and phase three, why can we not see transitional evidence between the two? There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?

Oh no...now they not only want transitional forms of fossils, but they want transitional forms of stars too! I give up.

*head in hands*

335. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173816 by Don_Quix on May 1, 2008 at 9:10 am

You can't honestly expect him to accept any of the astrophysical evidence you have posted. Astrophysics involves understanding math, and math is hard! If a person doesn't understand something, then that something can't possibly be true, right?

336. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172698 by Don_Quix on April 29, 2008 at 11:53 pm

This is one of the most beautiful and refreshing articles I have read on this site recently. It reminds me of how I felt when I was in primary school and visited the local science museum. Unlike most cretinists, I felt a sense of wonder and awe, even as a child, and I still do today...

And FYI, my local science museum wasn't particularly special at the time (although it did have a pretty rad mockup of one of the Gemini capsules that you could actually climb inside!!)

Speaking as an American: If American public schools were more like what is described in this article, we wouldn't be in the predicaments we are in now.

And Ben Stein...well...I don't know exactly what he would be doing.

My snarky remarks aside, this is a very positive article. I wish we saw more of these types of articles here.

When cretinists pull out the inevitable canard of: "ATHEISM HAS NO MORALS AND DOESN'T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN AND LEADS DIRECTLY TO THE DESTRUCTION/MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY! SO WHAT WOULD AN ATHEIST SOCIETY LOOK LIKE!!!???"...

...It would be nice to be able to cite a number of these sorts of articles in response.

337. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172693 by Don_Quix on April 29, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Although I don't often find myself in agreement with the ADL, I can think of only one word to describe this:

PWN3D

338. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165834 by Don_Quix on April 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I don't suppose there's any chance of a documentary-style movie version of The God Delusion being produced and marketed, is there?

Maybe Penn Jillette could play the hapless narrator ala Michael Moore/Ben Stein.

339. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111862 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 10:18 pm

rtambree:

For the second time, you intentionally quote me out of context in order to try to invent a point to dispute which I didn't make. How utterly disingenuous and disreputable.

Forget my last post. Clearly, I was right the first time I responded to you. You have no interest in honest debate, and as far as I am concerned you have no credibility. I will not be responding to you anymore.

340. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111860 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 10:06 pm

rtambree:
It seems to me that you are posting reflexively without taking the time to truly read and understand my posts, or I am tired and your posts are making less and less sense because I am tired, or your posts just genuinely and objectively are making less and less sense. Regardless, I have to go to bed. I'll try and pick this up sometime tomorrow :)

341. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111857 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Radseq:
When I say "most" people have "earned" what they have, I'm referring to the VAST majority of people in the US who work for a living and make between $30,000 and $100,000 a year. Basically, the middle class. I'm not saying ALL people have EARNED what they have (although in many cases, even those who are uber-rich have).

I'm not defending rich people here (I'm not rich by any means), but I am defending everyone's RIGHT to be rich. But I am also not defending the right of the rich to hoard all the money/resources in the world and let everyone else starve to death. There must be a middle way.

I also think jealousy and class-envy has a lot to do with the near-religious pitch that these sorts of conversations end up reaching. I think that is what truly disgusts me...that is the sanctimonious tone the conversations often take on...moreso than the arguments themselves (many of which I often find myself in at least partial agreement with).

342. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111853 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:43 pm

It's not fair. IT'S NOT FAIR!
In other words, fuck 'em? Better luck next time, huh?

Why do you keep taking fragments of my expositions of your false analogies out of context in an apparent attempt to make it seem like you are making a new point? That's just kind of...amateur.

343. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111852 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Okay, let's say that humans only share 95% (or even 90%, which is way too low) of their genes - how can you account for some having billions and many having zilch. It surely can't be a fair allocation based on personal merit, so there must be other factors at play: environmental, luck, etc.

WTF does fair have to do with anything? What is fair? Fair is a purely subjective term, which is why I think these sorts of conversation get so heated. One person's version of extreme fairness is another person's intense oppression. There is no objective "fairness" in the universe.

This is not to say that needless human suffering should not be ameliorated as often and as soon as possible using all practical means at humanity's disposal. But this doesn't mean that everyone must forcibly give up, or feel obligated to give up, what they have earned in order to save people they have never met. And despite your cartoon-ish caricatures of western society, MOST people HAVE earned what they have.

344. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111845 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:27 pm

The brainwashing is remarkably pervasive for a non-totalitarian society. I hear this so often.

Even for a backhanded ad hominem, that was pretty lame. Try again at making a valid point.

345. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111843 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:23 pm

That's a different point to the one that not all species have the same DNA. Lions have different genes from zebras, but all humans share 99%+ of their genes.

You said all humans share 99.9% of their DNA (which is actually incorrect).

I never said all lifeforms share the same genes. I said all life on Earth share 100% of their DNA. This is true because virtually all modern living things have DNA. I wasn't referring to them sharing specific genes or the differences between their DNA, I was referring to the fact that all living things on Earth have DNA (which you then seemed to deny) in order to address your false analogy.

346. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111839 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Life on earth doesn't share the same DNA - your analogy is false.

Hah! What?

I'm really interested to learn which creatures on Earth have DNA that evolved on Earth and which don't. Please, elaborate.

347. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111837 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm

But he'd argue that it's his land, he paid for it, and he can goddamn do what he wants with it. It's not his fault that gravity forces water downhill. Why should he be penalized for gravity? It's the other person's fault for buying land downstream. And now he's getting what's coming to him for his error. That's the market. He should be thanking him for teaching him a lesson in tough love, rather than sueing him.

It doesn't work that way now, and it wouldn't work that way in any civil society. People are responsible for the harm they cause to other peoples' property. Your argument is ridiculous.

348. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111836 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 9:06 pm

It can't be both "significant numbers" and "moderately rare".

WRONG. There CAN be "significant numbers" of something, while those numbers still being "moderately rare" in comparison to the whole. You're splitting hairs and trying to justify your position through obscurantism.

But the vast majority of wealth has been accumulated through inheritance, marrying into it, corruption (e.g. Russian oligarchs), etc, and not through personal effort.

Are we talking about how things happen in this day and age, or how things happened in the Russian Tzarist Empire? I'm not sure how the latter relates to modern day society. In modern western countries, especially the US, anyone can achieve whatever they desire.

If all humans share 99.9% of their DNA, why should there be people worth tens of billions and millions of others worth zilch?

If all life on earth shares 100% of their DNA, why should a lion be able to hunt down and eat a poor defenseless zebra who is both young and injured? It's not fair. IT'S NOT FAIR! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Ridiculous.

349. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111833 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 8:59 pm

If all land becomes privately owned, and you can dictate what happens on it without government "interference", then you can pollute your own land all you want.
....but what happens when it floats downstream into the next guy's well?

I never get a good answer to that one either.

If you live in any modern western society with modern property-rights laws (such as most are and as a libertarian society would be), you could sue the pants off your upstream neighbor in civil court, win the case, bankrupt them for the cleanup costs, and then own their land.

If you lived in an anarchist society, you could kill them. The threat of swift death is a strong disincentive to shitting on your neighbors' land.

350. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111830 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 8:53 pm

What about the significant number of people who are born poor but who achieve extreme amounts of wealth or status through their efforts. I know this is a moderately rare case, but not unheard of. Do those people have favorable genes (as you call them) or privileged upbringings, or do they just under-attribute their environment to account for their circumstances?