351. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216749 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm

20. Comment #216307 by Steve Zara

I dare say you've misunderstood the metaphor, Steve. Evolution explains what is improbable.

I, personally, am a very very improbable animal indeed. This will not change no matter what. Evolution, renders animals like me probable. It explains where a deeply improbable thing like me comes from.

For instance. You take any rock, and look at it's arrangment of atoms. This arrangement is very very improbable, but because of all the different possible arrangements, and the knowledge of how those arrangments occure, it renders atom arrangements like that probable, but never that specific arrangment.

Eyes of somekind, life and animals of so kind, could all be deeply probable (and I think that it is) but any specific configuration, or specific animal will always be deeply improbable, but only becausse of all the possible alternative outcomes.

I do think that his metaphor clearly does give the incorrect impression that evolution is improbable, and life through those means are improbable. Though I am quite sure he only meant it in the way I describe.

352. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216740 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm

789. Comment #216681 by al-rawandi

When I'm feeling depressed I always just excercise the'ol right arm. The Dalai Lama be damned!

353. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216672 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 11:39 am

Well, excercise is the best remady for depression. At one time people worked out their built up stress by chasing dinner, and so forth. These days we don't have as many venues to work it out.

One of the major reasons people hit deep depression around christmass time is because with all the stuff going on, they tend to neglect their excercise routines.

So indeed, if Richard Morgan is depressed, getting a bicycle is a good idea.

354. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216642 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 11:10 am

781. Comment #216630 by Teratornis

Besides, I said "huge" difference. They are different, in that one is prescriptive, and the other suggestive, or implied.

355. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216637 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

781. Comment #216630 by Teratornis

Ouch. shanked by my own rhetoric.

I guess it's subtle, like the difference between "irrational" and "nonrational."

356. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216525 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 9:10 am

773. Comment #216500 by decius

No, I've never heard of him. Morinaga-sensei isn't the best artist around (although I still think she is pretty good), it is her story telling that I am impressed with more.

People that do fastasy and action manga are stunningly talented, and probably beyond the level most can achieve without having some inborn artistic genius. I have no delusions of getting there.

357. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216486 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:40 am

Western comics always screw me up. Japanese order is from left to right, while western order is right to left. Books are basically read from back to front from a western perspective.

I should have maybe mentioned this to decius when I linked him that manga. I hope he knew that already.

358. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216477 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:31 am

Hurricane kicks-ass-and-doesn't-even-care-about-taking-names-but-not-because-it-is-stupid-or-illiterate-or-anything-it-just-doesn't-care-is-all.

Maybe a little long.

359. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216473 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:26 am

759. Comment #216470 by mixmastergaz

You know, if I were tortured, and killed, and people wanted to remember that day...I would be unimpressed if they called it a "good" day. Wasn't all that great for me.

360. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216471 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

757. Comment #216468 by mixmastergaz

You must not have noticed was Quetz said to me. I was being facetious. I do realise that you were joking.

361. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216467 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:17 am

"Cesar" is perfectly valid.

362. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216463 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:11 am

749. Comment #216455 by mixmastergaz

They don't even all agree on which cesar was in power at the time.

They also make numerous cultural, geographic, and law mistakes. It is questionable if any of they had even ever been to palestine

363. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216461 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

747. Comment #216453 by Quetzalcoatl

"Fel" is with ONE "L"

And you call yourself a mythical creature. Pffft.

364. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #216458 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 8:06 am

95. Comment #216381 by Steve Zara

And violates the law of noncontradiction.

365. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216447 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

I don't see the huge difference between:

"You should kill yourself" and "if I were you I'd kill myself".

366. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216432 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 7:32 am

729. Comment #216425 by Bonzai

You make me sound like a theist...

367. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216416 by Mitchell Gilks on July 23, 2008 at 6:54 am

I got almost totally ignored.

He wasn't here to win arguments, convince people, or fight a case. He was here to sling mud at atheists, and attempt to further solidify his hopes that atheists are just wrong, even if he doesn't know how to show it.

Clearly he is an intelligent and educated man. You can however feel an air of desperation in the way his goal is to respond, insult, and nit pick. Not actually offer anything of substance, or address anything of substance.

He is just a troll. He is not to be taken seriously. It takes more than intelligence and education to have a constuctive conversation, it takes the desire to have such a conversation, and intellectual honest. Which he clearly lacks.

368. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216207 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 8:32 pm

636. Comment #216201 by Robert O'Brien

That is true, the jury is still out. I think this is a tad more substantive than your parellel example however.

It certainly doesn't sound like it will convince you of anything in any case though.

369. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216204 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 8:28 pm

635. Comment #216200 by b0ltzm0n

Not if your christmass presents depended on believing that was impossible.

370. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216197 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 8:23 pm

631. Comment #216194 by Robert O'Brien

Seriously?

371. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216191 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 8:19 pm

625. Comment #216188 by Radesq

Duh, because Josephus didn't give them a short, and later embellished mention in a context of popular opinion (not historical). Clearly.

Plus, Jesus had great hair.

372. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216175 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm

609. Comment #216169 by mordacious1

Anything on Canaanite mythology explains the origins of the abrahamic traditions. At least until it gets extremely hard to trace it back any further. Lack of ubiquitous written languages and all.

373. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216171 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:58 pm

What is hard to explain away though, was that recent discovery of the dead sea scroll on the stone, from the first centery B.C.E. telling of Simon Christ, and his death and subsequent ressurection three days later.

You can look up the "Dead Sea Tablet". Which appears to tell of an existing messianic myth involving a resurrection that predates Jesus's. That one is a little more difficult to explain away, though the academics are not done battling it out over it. So I'll wait to see what they settle on, before I gloat.

374. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216159 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:43 pm

589. Comment #216143 by Robert O'Brien

I agree, but I think that the types of claims, the decades of time between the events and their recording, the lack of contemporarious evidence, and the anonymity of the writers very much does.

Inference to the best explanation. Even if the evidence for the people, places, and events was extremely strong, and there were droves of first hand wittnesses. The best explanation would still either be deception or mistake, or unknown phenomena.

Equivolent claims are made by Gurus in our times, and millions of people buy it. People claim to see ghosts, aliens, and tons of stuff all the time. No amount of anecdote is ever enough to over turn well established knowledge about how the world operates (especially claims at supernaturalism, which is impossible to ever establish).

Accepting any such claim is unjustified until the evidence for them is stronger than the evidence for the knowledge about the world they contradict.

The lesser of the two miracles is always the most rational option.

Even beyond all of this. Hume destroyed any possible rational justification for accepting a supernatural explanation. In order to claim something was supernatural you most possess a complete understanding of nature, that allows you to say what can and cannot be attributed to it. Unless you can demonstate a complete knowledge of nature, or explain why you don't require it, then how can you rationally ever accept a supernatural explanation for any phenomena?

375. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216144 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:26 pm

586. Comment #216139 by Robert O'Brien

Praise from Cesar is praise indeed.

376. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216130 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I'm afraid I agree with Robert that the evidence for the christian myths being inspired from other mythologies, at least directly, and intentionally is flimsy at best. Any similarities between them are better explained by the limits of human imagination, origins in the same types of thought processes than direct cross over.

At the very least I think that the proposition strains credulity. It is like saying that Vampire Hunter D copied off of Hellsing because they both have vampires in them.

377. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216125 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:10 pm

550. Comment #216094 by Robert O'Brien

Conspiricy theorist's papers are also usually reviewed by "peers of their chosing" and I'm sure that doesn't effect the veracity of their arguments either. It definitely doesn't help though.

378. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216119 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:05 pm

543. Comment #216085 by Robert O'Brien

My atheist colouring book doesn't include god, because it is difficult to colour. Hard to stay within the lines. Perhaps I need colour-by-sophistry.

379. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215966 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

466. Comment #215964 by decius

Though it won't stop me from never shutting up about them. ;D

380. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215955 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I also wouldn't hold it against you for not valuing the same things I do, or having the same desires, tastes, goals, or interests... unlike some people.

381. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215953 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm

463. Comment #215941 by decius

That is what I thought my calling was too. I have a 3d graphics design degree, and I then took Advanced 3D character animation. I got hooked on manga during my course, and was not enjoying it, so I dropped out in the middle. I expected it to be a lot more design oriented.

I have always written fiction as a hobby for years, but I didn't do anything artistic like. I got into graphic design and animation because I wanted a media to go with my writing. I designed after getting into reading a lot of manga, that this was it. I'm starting from the bottom. I can barely draw a stick figure, but I am practicing, and I hope in a few years it won't look like total crap. Also I plan on attending art school once I pay off my student loans.

None of her work is available in english, I still own it all, but I have to resort to scanlators for english versions.

There is no copyright infringement involved, they don't have any copyright holding in the west until they are licensed by a distributor. The scanlators remove them once they have become licensed. I still buy the ones I like to support my favorite artists. Plus, I plan to be able to read them someday.

Manga are Serialized in large magazines, along with several other mangaka's works.

"Even if we're not friends" is the one in this magazine that is hers, the others are by different mangaka. Strawberry shake sweet (although, not by Morinaga-sensei) is also excellent.

http://www.lililicious.net/projectDet.php?id=4

382. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215932 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

460. Comment #215924 by decius

Morinaga Milk is why I want to become a mangaka. I'm completely addicted to her work. She rules the yuri manga universe.

I'll nerd-gasam all over the place when she gets an anime. I have no question about will she, it is only a matter of time.

383. The brain in love

Comment #215918 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

That was "Candy Boy" it's the first of its kind, an ONA (original net animation). They made an original 8 minute ONA to promote the song "Candy Boy". Here is the video they released, with the actual song it was made for. http://youtube.com/watch?v=4wqKCidvMYw


It was a huge hit, so they announced that they would be releasing seven more episodes online (fifteen minutes a piece) two have so far been released. No schedule has been set for their release, but the first two were about a month apart, which means the third should be due soon.

It is an adorible anime.

384. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215901 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 1:25 pm

454. Comment #215896 by Teratornis

Isn't it great when everyone is judged with one's self as the standard. Surely it is unavoidable, but as least be conscious of how subjective, and unrefined these judgements are.

385. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215897 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

My hero worship isn't mindless, I'm quite conscious of how great my heroes are. What I wouldn't do for a chance to meet Morinaga Milk, and get her autograph. I think I'd faint.

386. The brain in love

Comment #215886 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Everyone is so cynical about love.

Love is a word used to describe a powerful chemical dependance

387. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #215856 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm

112. Comment #215766 by hungarianelephant

I don't think the misunderstanding was on your part. I definitely was not clear in what I meant, and I almost certainly would have interpreted it as you did.

I know someone who had his criminal record wiped clean. He came to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War. He put his wife through school (who is now a nurse) and then became a stay-at-home Dad. This is my nephew's grandfather on his mother's side. Really cool guy, huge hippie. I believe he said it took ten years of staying clean after applying before they wiped it clean. I also agree with this. I'm glad that this can be done.

I never even considered holding Obama's crazy pastor against him. It is pretty clear to me just how seriously he takes religion anyway.

388. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215826 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm

A list of my biggest fears, and my daily schedule.

389. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215824 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm

123. Comment #215784 by black_fire

That cracked me up pretty good too.

390. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #215760 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 10:08 am

108. Comment #215756 by black_fire

I don't think you're being fair. For one thing, holding a wrong, and disgusting view is not equivolent to murder.

You can't hold a 10-15 year old responsible for their idiocy, c'mon. Don't you regret stupid and foolish things you've done?

Kids are stupid.

391. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #215755 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 10:02 am

102. Comment #215585 by hungarianelephant

I read my comments again, and you're right, I did come off as you interpreted.

That was however not my intention.

392. Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Comment #215754 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

100. Comment #215558 by hungarianelephant

Since you paraphrased me, I feel I need to defend myself. If you look at my posts again, I think you will see that I was talking about his unprofessionalism, not his views.

Even if he still was a bigotted homophobe, as long as he didn't mingle it with his professional career, I wouldn't consider it relevent. I don't judge people's qualifications based on whether I like them, or agree with all of their views.

Also, my comment about mortally wounding his career, I meant to mean at the time of his writing the paper. He misused his position, he used poorly supported and fatuous data, to promote a propaganda piece. This should have suffered him a professional repremand of some kind, especially considering the possible harm it caused.

Seventeen years later, I find (as I already stated I believe) this grounds to thoroughly investigate the man to make sure he isn't up to his old tricks, but not grounds in itself to take action against him. I know you don't like it when I used legal terms outside of a legal context, but I think that a "statute of limitations" concept is appriopriate. He was however a 50 year old man at the time, so I do very much think that it warrents thorough investigation.

393. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215737 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 9:35 am

47. Comment #215729 by severalspeciesof

Yes, indeed, not automatic. It sneaks up on you. muahahahaha.

49. Comment #215736 by BicycleRepairMan

I believe they only mean "backwards" in that they have reverted to ancestrial traits, or morphologies.

394. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215703 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 9:09 am

Creationists will never accept any such arguments. At least not the really deep seeded ones. The problem is with their original premise "goddidit". So this means that it is impossible that he didn't do it. So no matter the absurd, ad hoc'd ludicrously ridiculously improbable and idiotic explanation they come up with for why god did it that way, it will always be (in their minds) more probable than the impossiblility that god didn't do it.

It is like the idea of "irreducible complexity" which postulates that there is a level of complexity that could not come about naturally. So they find things that they deem to have this level of complexity in nature. Instead of this falsifying their original premise, they deem it supernatural. Because of their original assumption.

It isn't like their position is illogical, starting from their premises, but they are completely unsound, and unjustified premises.

395. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215605 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 7:25 am

103. Comment #215601 by MPhil

I thought it was "use a calculator".

396. The brain in love

Comment #215523 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 3:49 am

103. Comment #215412 by Broshiesq

Does someone have a white-trash secret they are sensitive about? Hmm?

397. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215516 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 3:35 am

54. Comment #215456 by Bonzai

Because he needs brains.

398. The brain in love

Comment #215410 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:19 pm

98. Comment #215395 by scooternyc

Only if it isn't reciprocated.

399. The brain in love

Comment #215406 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:06 pm

97. Comment #215394 by Radesq

Well my dumb older sister and dumb older brother both had children by twenty. I am now twenty four and I've made no similar mistakes. (did I ever mention that I'm white trash and have six siblings? Only half of them share both parents with me though.)

Perhaps you're right though, it didn't turn out of all that great for them. Though I actually resent people that treat their children like a side thing, and still continue to behave selfishly.

I may be pissed off that I lose my selfish lazy life, and this may be sensed by my kid, but I sure as hell would not treat them like a side thing, and continue to focus my attention on me. I've contemplated it before, if I did get someone pregnant (supposing we were suited enough to stay together) I would immediately start reading books on parenting and child pyschology. I would try to plan everything out, and make sure I did it right. Or at least the best that I could do it.

I may someday decide to have a kid, but I'm far too immature right now. I wouldn't want one until I was finacially stable, and a lot more grown up.

400. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215405 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Pfft, do they have wolfie and the situation room? I don't think so.