351. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171871 by Christopher Davis on April 29, 2008 at 12:58 am

"Max, You don't think our government is acting in a similar manner as the Iraqi father in their kidnapping an entire community of children over a prank phone call?"---Kyrie Eleison


You got to be shitting me on this one? A prank phone call?

These are girls who are are destined to being forced into polygamous marriages with men old enough to be their fathers! From what I read there were 14 and 15 year old girls in that compound who were already pregnant/and or mothers.

Admittedly I'm an atheist, so I think that all religions are bogus. But it should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that when placed in front of any religious sect, the word "fundamentalist" is synonomous to "dangerously fanatical",...this includes Mormons.

352. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171861 by Christopher Davis on April 29, 2008 at 12:35 am

Once again, hate getting in late.

Al Rawandi, two questions...

What race are Muslims? and

How much do you know about Pashtuns?

I only ask because you denigrate people who speak harshly of Muslim culture as "rascists",...and you mention that you are mostly aquainted with affluent, western educated Saudis.

353. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169898 by Christopher Davis on April 27, 2008 at 4:04 am

Yeah this kid is an idiot, but he is an idiot of his parents making. I think this is an excellent example of the danger of religious indoctrination of children.

As for whether or not he should be allowed to wear the shirt, I say let him. I'm willing to bet there were way more "Be Who You Are" shirts being worn that day.

By wearing his shirt, Neuxoll has placed himself outside the norm...peer pressure is a powerful thing. Maybe he'll wind up being the one ostracized, and if so maybe he'll start to understand what that feels like. Then maybe he will figure out that it isn't really such a cool thing to wear t-shirts that are judgmental of and offensive to others.

354. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169889 by Christopher Davis on April 27, 2008 at 3:43 am

"'Please don't be offended, it's not just YOUR god I don't believe in ..' "

AllanW,

I 'm stealing that. It's brilliant.

355. Gunk in T. Rex Fossil Confirms Dino-Bird Lineage

Comment #169882 by Christopher Davis on April 27, 2008 at 3:29 am

"An all too common media blunder, but still, it's closer to the truth than saying that humans descended from apes. Or rather, Ben Stein.
And then again I'm sure the apes resent that."---moderndaythomas

Actually, I think people like Ben Stein are the reason that apes often throw shit at us.

On a(slightly)related note, I had a guy ask me the other day..."If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Now he didn't ask this in a sarcastic manner, he was generally curious. I was amazed at how unprepared I was to answer that question.

Fortunately the guy is actually rather bright, and with the help of a dry-erase board, I believe I was able to make him understand why this is a question based on the faulty assumption that evolution is a process of linear progression that culminates in the glorious creature that is man.

However, if he had been seriously religious I don't think I would have made a convincing argument.

Does anyone have a good, simple answer to this question?

356. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #169361 by Christopher Davis on April 25, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Yeah, 70,000 yrs. sounds about right for the bottleneck, but I'm not buying the part about all modern humans being descended from a population that migrated out of Africa 60,000 yrs. ago. There is evidence of anatomically modern humans in Australia dating to approx. that time.

As for interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans, I think the cranial features of classic Neanderthals scream "seperate species"...however, I'm not so sure that such a clear line can be drawn between "archaic homo sapiens" and homo erectus.

357. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #168288 by Christopher Davis on April 24, 2008 at 11:34 pm

"You become an extremist the minute you condemn others for not following your own irrational views. That is, you can decide to eat, drink, wear whatever you want, the moment you expect from me that I do exactly as you, to honor YOUR god, that very moment, you have become an extremist."---alfonso, comment #56

That's one way to look at it. Unfortunately, most people don't. "Condemn" is a strong word...let's contrast it with "disapprove.

Extremists "condemn" other people's lifestyles/beliefs and then blow shit up. "Moderates" on the other hand don't blow shit up, nor do they "condemn" other people's lifestyles/beliefs, they just strongly "disapprove" of them. Which pretty much means they sympathize with the extremist's position, just not their actions.

Two words. Fucking enablers.

358. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #168281 by Christopher Davis on April 24, 2008 at 10:48 pm

"Why do intelligent people believe such tripe? Are they that indoctrinated as children? Is there a part of the brain associated with critical thinking that just doesn't work as well for them?"---irate_atheist

I've read several studies and at least one book that talks about how religious experience (visions the Virgin Mary etc.) can be induced by electrically stimulating certain regions of the brain. Wouldn't it be interesting if they did a similar study using nothing but admitted atheists? It might go a long way towards determining if there actually is a difference in how believers and non-believers brains are wired.

[I'd cite some of the studies if I were at home.]

359. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167292 by Christopher Davis on April 23, 2008 at 9:02 pm

HappyPrimate,

I can empathize with you. I'm moving back to Alabama next year and there is no way in hell I would be able to put a "Darwin fish" or anything like it on my car unless I wanted it "keyed" or otherwise vandalized.

Of course if I thought I could actually catch the "holier than thou" fuckers in the act, I'd do it just so I could taunt them with "Where is your God now?" while I beat their ass.

360. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #167194 by Christopher Davis on April 23, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Wow. If it weren't for the comments I think this article might have caused me to pistol-whip somebody.

I'm currently in Afghanistan, in the eastern region, close to the Pakistani border...Pashtun country. The literacy rate here is 4% among males and 0% among females. These are literally the stupidest fucking people on the planet.

Of course my job is to try and help these ass-wipes develop an educational infrastructure. Of course when I read shit like this I wonder why am I even fucking bothering?

Worse, I'm part of the U.S. Army and about 75% of these guys are unthinking Christians. I damn near got in trouble yesterday because I equated praying to Jesus with asking the Easter Bunny for help.

For me, this site really does represent a "clear thinking oasis".

Oh and by the way, it's the year 1387 here in Afghanistan. Or at least that's the date on most of the official requests for funding that I receive.

361. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166159 by Christopher Davis on April 22, 2008 at 10:32 pm

"I do wish people would leave speculation about the origin of the universe to those who have an understanding of cosmology and physics. "Folk wisdom" is totally inappropriate here."---Steve Zara, Comment #5

Steve, Interesting "discussion" between you and Styrer.

On a slightly different note, I think your comments bring to light a facet of the ID vs. evolution discussion that is rarely explored.

How does one get from "we can't say definitively how the universe, or even life for that matter, came into being", to "there is a God who actively intervenes in human affairs and loves me and my kind most of all"?

After all, this is what this is all about. How the universe came into being, while fascinating, is really irrelevent to most people's day to day affairs. I see little harm in letting people believe in some sort of "first cause" type of
God. But when politicians and lawmakers start enacting legislation that they feel pleases their personal creator...then I got a problem.

Anyway, my question is, "Should we even be debating this question at all"? What if we concede that the question of how the universe began is well beyond the current level of science, and put the focus back on what science is capable of answering?

Just a question, all thoughts welcome.

Also, I'm new to this web-board stuff, can someone give me a concise definition of troll/trolling?

362. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165029 by Christopher Davis on April 21, 2008 at 12:11 am

This guy doesn't know anything. When's the last time Zeus hurled a lightning bolt at nothing?

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

Comment #165010 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm

"Sorry, but my thoughts are from my brain and my brain only. I'm not stuck in a protected little circle of influence."---theonlything2fear

Okay, fair enough. I for one am willing to hear your original thoughts on why the idea that self-replicating crystalline molecules could not have been the precursors to carbon based life.

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

Comment #164883 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm

MaxD, What I'm speculating could definitely be more of a case of cultural transmission than biological evolution but...

then we are left to ponder exactly how much our genes influence our behaviour, and by extension our culture.

Now before I start to sound like someone who thinks people a virtual slaves to their genes, let me clarify that I see my model as aplicable to explaining how altruistic behaviour might have emerged and survived in early primate species, not to the behaviour of modern man.

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

Comment #164879 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Steve Zara, I don't want to to protray my professor as an idiot (she wasn't), or mysef as one either for that matter. When I speak of the individual, I'm including his genes.

However, I'm not so sure that it isn't more accurate to say that "evolution proceeds at the level of the gene, while natural selection operates at the level of the phenotype".

Of course we both know that the genotype drives the phenotype.

MaxD, I would simply suggest that you think about it as the genes that drive the behaviour being propogated more frequently into the next generation. For example...

Gene X "produces" Behaviour A (66% concordance)
Behaviour A increases individual reproductive fitness (2%)
Behaviour A increases the fertility rate of the group (10%) thereby allowing Gene X to propogate sucessfully in an even larger population....

Also, the Group with Gene X prospers at the expense of conspecific groups who do not have Gene X.

Now this seems feasible to me, but unfortunately I don't currently have the resources to run a mathematical model on it. But hey, I'm just an Army Sgt. with a B.A. in Anthropology...I realize I've still got a lot to learn. However, I'm still wary of limiting the process of natural selection strictly to the gene. I feel it is more accurate to speak of selection at the level of expressed traits.

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

Comment #164829 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Diacanu, You are on your game this evening.

Hmmmm, There are lots of examples of (seemingly)altruistic behaviour in the animal world...and lot's of disagreement on how it could have evolved. I had an anthropology professor who absolutely bristled at the idea of anything that even smelled of "group selection". She was adamant that natural selection worked only at the individual level, therefore there was no such thing as behaviours that contribute to the survival of the species.

I disagreed, somewhat. I contend that there are behaviours that are mutually beneficial to both the group (notice I didn't say species)and to the individual. I argued that such behaviours could even be more beneficial to the group than they are to the individual, as long as they still show a net benefit to the individual (who would also benefit by being a member of the group). If these behaviours increased the group's prosperity and helped it outcompete groups of conspecifics, then these behaviours would eventually become fixed in the species.

Showing compassion for one's fellow human beings could easily be such a behaviour

367. Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Comment #164750 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 4:46 pm

"Does anyone know a mechanism that prevents speciation?"---Raiko, comment #11

Konraduis beat me to this, but yeah if the two groups were reintegrated then speciation most likely would not occur. What would be interesting though, is would cecal valves remain in a portion of the population (assuming the two groups were reintegrated in their original habitat)?

Of course several of the posters here are correct, IDers will just scoff and say "microevolution". Regardless, I could easily use this information and a dry-erase board to make anyone capable of rational thought understand why the "gaps in the fossil record argument" doesn't hold water.

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

Comment #164749 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

So the take-away message from "Expelled" is "atheists caused/approve of the Holocaust"?

This is worse than I thought.

I'm working on becoming a more civilized individual, but right now I'd just like to kick Ben Stein in the nuts.

369. Flea of the week

Comment #164221 by Christopher Davis on April 19, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Paula, You are indeed a trooper. I try to read a "flea book" every other month (not in the spirit of open-mindedness, but rather as recon), but if I tried to read four in close succession I'd probably lose my mind.

As for whether or not there is any money in this "flea" business...I'm not sure. I almost never buy the "flea" books I read (I just loiter in Barnes & Noble with a cup of coffee), but some of the titles do seem to move off the shelf.

If there is money in it, I'm thinking about becoming a flea myself. Of course I'd jump on the backs of the IDers.

The title of my first book would be "Preachers, Teachers, and Dishonest Men". It would be a sarcastic, nit-picking, quote-mining rebuttal (with a little subtle ad-hominem thrown in for good measure) to Duanne Gish, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski.

If that doesn't get me noticed, I could always draw a dirty picture of Mohammed.

370. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163793 by Christopher Davis on April 19, 2008 at 3:16 am

"The reason the ID lovelies go to pre-big bang "cosmology" is because it is the only place science can't prove them wrong."---Duff, comment #48

Exactly! And the most mind-boggling aspect of it all it is how they can seamlessly infer from "science can't explain how the universe started" that "there is a bearded white-man who lives in the sky and loves me". THEN they bitch about "gaps" in the fossil record.

371. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163785 by Christopher Davis on April 19, 2008 at 3:02 am

"It's so hard to imagine all those discoveries occurring before evolution that one would have to posit some completely different type of thinking entities to do the discovering."---Teratornis, comment #44 in response to Janus, comment #39

If Islamic culture and religion had succeeded in dominating the world around 1600 or so...?

372. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163693 by Christopher Davis on April 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Mesomodel,

I not neutral regarding ID either, nor do I feel anyone should feel compelled to see the movie...except maybe people like me.

Although I hope to one day make my living in acadamia, right now I work with quite a few people(some educated, some not much)who are opposed to the theory of evolution. This opposition doesn't come from reading Behe or Dembski, it comes from preachers and clowns like Ben Stein.

If I'm going to be persuasive to this crowd, I got to see this crap.

373. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163279 by Christopher Davis on April 18, 2008 at 6:08 am

Santi T.,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a lot of the people here are "smug, impatient," and "intolerant", it's just that most of the people here have heard this all before (okay so maybe some of them are a bit impatient).

Now I don't know if you are shilling for the movie (I like to think not) or are just one of those people who have a very strong drive toward reconciliation and like to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt. However, if you are going to this movie in the hopes that it might make "an important point or two" I think you are going to be dissapointed.

The ID movement is dishonest, pure and simple. Yes, good, productive, thoughtful discussions can be had regarding the influence of Darwin's hypotheses on eugenics, social engineering, and even Nazism...unfortunately, that is not the goal of Ben Stein and his ilk.

IDers want to make evolutionary theory out to be some half-assed, crackpot idea, that is not only wrong but inherently evil. Even worse, they would have people believe that the only thing keeping evolution alive is a massive conspiracy.

No matter how many times their challenges are met, no many how many times their arguments are refuted, they keep rolling them out. There is only so much patience even a rational minded person can show.

IDers have a political agenda and they don't mind lying to further it. Choosing not to see this movie is not a sign of being close-minded, it's a sign of being fed-up.

Like I said before, I'm going to see the movie, but I'm not going to pay to see it. Right now I'm reading a book called "Darwinism Under the Microscope". Every few pages I have to put it down and take a deep breath. The book is a joke, and can be picked apart by anyone who has even a halfway decent understanding of evolutionary theory. The reason I'm reading it is the same reason I intend to watch "Expelled"...it's important to know what the other side is saying. Even if it is the same old snake-oil they've been peddling for years, I want to see the new label.

374. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163053 by Christopher Davis on April 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

"With the size of that Texas religious compound and community, I would guess the money for all of structures were flowing in even during the Texas governorship controlled by George W. Bush."---dogfirematrix #10

Sorry dogfire, can't blame this one on W. I'm pretty sure the majority of the people living in that compound came from Colorado City, Arizona, and I'm almost positive that is where most of the money came from. The FLDS has been fleecing the state of Arizona out of money for the past 70 years.

The compound in Texas was supposed to be a new "kingdom" for Warren Jeffs and his followers. Of course Jeffs got arrested last year for facilitating marriages between underage girls and 40-50 year old men. I haven't been following this story since I got called to active duty last Oct., but a little googling using "Warren Jeffs" and "Colorado City, Arizona" should make for some interesting reading if you are so inclined.

375. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163043 by Christopher Davis on April 17, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Interesting discussion. I admit I only skimmed the last few posts by Santi Tafarella, but I think some of you might be misconsturing her position a bit.

mesomodel, I think you should give a pass for saying that "skeptics" should see the movie. I don't think ST meant 'people who are undecided' should see the movie. Skeptic is a common term used to describe people who use reason. logic, and evidence to guide their worldview.

That being said, there is no way in hell I will pay a dime to see this movie. See it? Definitely! Pay? No! I want/need to know exactly how they spin this thing.

As for gaining cultural perspective...well yeah, that could happen. I mean when you start talking to someone who finds this movie convincing (and I think that number will be far greater than most of the people on this site think) you can ask them what they found convincing. This gives you insight into the thought process of the average "sheeple" and helps you better provide a counter-argument.

Last thing...

"Anyone saying that Expelled (producers, et al) shouldn't be sued for their use of Imagine is just... well, plain retarded window licking useless wastes of air."---DasSquid.

I'm offended. I've always considered myself special retarded, and I'm way too much of a germophobe to lick windows.

I said it before, Yoko Ono shouldn't sue. She can, and she'll probably win, but these guys will hang themselves on the crosses of "free speeech" and "religious expression". The symathy they will gain will far outweigh any monetary losses.

The majority of people in the Bible Belt think that John Lennon was a godless, comunist, hippie. A lawsuit against people who are "just trying to restore the Lord to his rightful place in our country" by Lennon's widow is just going to strengthen their support.

376. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162657 by Christopher Davis on April 17, 2008 at 7:16 am

I agree wih maureen, this is a publicity stunt, but with a twist.

Trust me,there ain't a lot of John Lennon fans in the Bible Belt. If Yoko Ono sues these guys, they are just going to play the part of oppressed victim.

I'm sure they have enough more than enough lawyers and money to go to court, make a spectacle, then play like martyrs for the cause.
People will be pissed that "free speech" was stifled by that "bitch wife" of that "hippie atheist" and her "godless horde of liberal lawyers".

Tha's how this shit will play in the red states.

I say to hell with it, Yoko Ono shouldn't sue. Just let them use it...leave these guys standing there with their dick in their hand.

377. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162017 by Christopher Davis on April 16, 2008 at 2:15 am

Here's my question...What if Comer had sent an e-mail informing people of a speaker who was going to talk about the tradgedy of the Holocaust? After all,some people deny it happened.

If the TEA has to remain neutral regarding science wouldn't it be required to remain neutral about history?

378. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161379 by Christopher Davis on April 15, 2008 at 8:22 am

I wanted to make another comment or two regarding Henri B's remarks, but I think Mitchell Gilks has addressed most of my points already.

"As long as these women are free to do as they wish, as long as they are earning enough money to take care of themselves and their health (as they clearly seem to be doing), what is the problem?"---wendelin

Actually Mitchell adressed this too, I just wanted to agree. What makes me uneasy is not that the girls are prostitutes, it's the fact that they are so young and have so few options. No matter what they do, their life is going to be spent being instrumentalized (I think that's a word). Just because a person can't see the bars doesn't mean they are not in prison.

379. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161117 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Hate that I got in on this late.

Henri Bergson, you told Steve Zara that he was "no academic". One of the definitions of 'academic' is..."of no practical value".
And in that sense, your arguments are certainly academic.

I'm not saying that to be a total smart-ass, I truly mean they have no practical value. While the soundness of your logic is difficult to refute, I believe human beings have an innate drive to be autonomous...as well as happy. What I consider to be a "human rights violation" is when one group's innate drive to be autonomous is subjugated to another groups drive to be happy.

I freely admit that this is a subjective view. But I also believe that if the people who are doing the subjugating suddenly found the shoe on the other foot, they would feel like their rights were being violated.

Situations like the one described in this story are perfect fodder for invigorating philosophical discussions, and as I said, academically your position is strong. Unfortunately, your arguments display exactly the kind of detached, disregard for the rights of others that atheist-bashers so often accuse us of.

We might just be animals, but we are human animals. As such, we have the ability to contemplate not only our feelings and emotions, but the feelings and emotions of others. That's where our (atheists) moral code comes from...respect for others, not some imaginary sky-god. It's the Golden Rule, simple as that.

I've got a couple more thoughts on this, but I've got to catch a plane. I'll try to get back later.

380. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160599 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 8:17 am

Keith,

I agree with your definition of species...if two animals can't mate and produce viable offspring, then I say they are separate species. However, what I was referring to was Professor Dawkins analogy of a man traveling backwards in time and encountering ancestors that he could viably mate with and then taking them along for the ride,then meeting ancestors whom they can mate with but the original time traveler cannot. Creating a "temporal ring species", so to speak.

The point I was hoping yussel123 would take away from this was the point that Geoff touched on regarding "transistional" fossils. Creationists are looking for a point in time where a dinosaur becomes a bird. Dawkins analogy helps to show that no such line of demarcation exists (at least not temporally), and that ideas like "the first bird" are really meaningless. Most fossils that are found are going to be classified according to our modern day classifications (i.e. as either a bird or a dinosaur). Paleontologists aren't in the habit of classifying fossils as 80% dinosaur 20% bird, etc.

But once again, I agree with you that where a natural reproductive barrier exists between animals we are justified in calling them separate species.

381. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160551 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 7:36 am

Hey epeeist,

Don't forget the collected works of Big & Rich!

382. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160456 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 5:58 am

yussell1123,

Actually yes. Both Professor Dawkins and Stephen Gould are particularly good at constructing analogies regarding the non-random nature of natural selection. Unfortunately, I am not near my library now (I'm in Afghanistan) or I could give you titles and page numbers.

I know Gould's "Full House" provides several analogies regarding different aspects of evolution and Dr. Dawkins has used the analogy of a screen producing a pile of uniformed sized more than once (he also does an awesome job of explaining how species are man-made constructs by using an analogy involving a time machine in "The Ancestors Tale").

The key thing to remember is that most ID arguments claim that evolution is a random process, not natural selection. In fact, only one of the four major components of evolution is random...that's genetic mutation. However, ID'ers are dishonest in their dealings with genetic mutation in that they fail to acknowledge that while the mutations are indeed random, with only four nucleotides in DNA they do not have infinite degrees of freedom to vary.

What I suggest is that you pick up a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" (Dawkins) and "Full House" (Gould), and read both from the perspective not that species adapt to their environment, but that the environment adapts it's species to it.

383. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160438 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 5:17 am

Another tactic is to embrace the "teach the controversy" concept. For example...

The next time somebody springs the old "Tornado/Junkyard/747" argument on you,(or any of the other 'scientific notation' arguments) don't launch into an elaborate defense designed to explain how evolution is not a random process, etc. etc. Talk about the lottery.

Ask them what has the better chance of being a winner, a powerball ticket with the numbers 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 or one with the numbers 23, 19, 32, 40, 08, 11. Most likely they will pick the second ticket, unless of course they know you are a sneaky, atheist bastard, then they might pick the first one. Either way, of course they are wrong. Both tickets have an equal chance of winning...the first one just seems improbable because it has the appearance of design.

If they then ask what that has to do with tornados, junkyards, and 747's, say "nothing". "It just goes to show how poorly the human mind is at dealing intuitively with probabilities. If they are still with you, ask them this...

which has the better chance of winning between these two powerball tickets? 21, 22, 23, 06, 07, 08, or 13, 16, 37, 11, 13, 25. Of course they will be suspecting a trick (as they should), but if they grasped the first part---that any given set of numbers is just as probable as any other given set of numbers---they should answer that they have an equal probability of winning. Unless, of course, they are familiar with how powerball works and noticed that the number '13' is used twice. This breaks the "natural laws" of powerball, in other words it just doesn't work that way. So ticket 2 is an impossibility.

Now you explain how evolution is not a random process but is actually guided a set of "natural laws". Ever so gently, point out that that is why the 747 analogy is flawed. While it might be mathematically correct, it doesn't take into account the rules of the game, so it is flawed from the outset.

384. A New Flea

Comment #160424 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 4:44 am

"... And as for all those books trying to refute Dawkins, keep them coming. The more they attack the man the more credibility he has to the average person in the local bookstore. When the book tables in spiritual sections are flooded with attacks on Dawkins, hundreds will want to know why. The best they could have done, was to leave us alone. Instead they give us a soapbox to shout from!"---Grantaire

Only one problem with that...every Barnes and Noble I've ever been in has at least 5 times the shelf space devoted to religious writing as they do to science. That's not including a section titled "Religious Fiction" (talk about your oxymorons).

On the upside, it gives me lots of aisles to loiter in as I read books that I have no intention of buying...like the one discussed here.

385. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160417 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 4:08 am

Vaal,

You mean to tell me you didn't find the story where God decides to destroy a couple of cities full of sinners inspirational? I especially liked the part where the "good guy" offers up his two virgin daughters to be gang-raped so that his guests won't be sodomized.

386. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160308 by Christopher Davis on April 13, 2008 at 11:27 pm

What seems to escape Ravenhill, is that Davies probably would not have used the word "worshipping" if it weren't for religious tradition.

I'm sure Davies meant it as an metaphor. I seriously doubt anyone prostrated themselves in front of Dr. Dawkins. Davies could have as easily said "falling all over themselves". Would we then be justified in concluding that the majority of the crew are clumsy?

In western society. the only subject more commonly called on to produce metaphors than Christianity is war...which, by the way, has also been the inspiration for quite a few works of art. Should we keep it around for old times sake as well?

387. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #160300 by Christopher Davis on April 13, 2008 at 11:02 pm

"Here we are promoting "conversational" intolerance regarding religion yet some people think saying atheism sucks is "bigotry" without a hint of irony, would you say this regarding Islam, Christianity, capitalism or communism?"---Bonzai, #134


Actually I would. It's not the fact that Rep. Davis thinks atheism sucks that concerns me. It's the fact that she told a citizen that he has no right to participate in a governmental proceeding because of his beliefs (or in this case, lack thereof). So yeah, I'd find it equally appalling if it happened to a Muslim, Christian, Communist etc.

Hell, I even side with Christians on the whole "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas" debacle. I recognize that most people in our country are Christians, and if they want to wish me well on their holy day so be it...I'll even respond. Every other religion in this country gets to celebrate its mythology unmolested, why bust Christians balls?

I realize that the above paragraph is a bit off-topic, but my point is no, I don't find it ironic. I don't think anyone should be denied participation in our government based on their beliefs. I only get pissed at Christians when they try to shove their ideology down my throat through control of the government. Which is what they do approximately 364 days out of the year, and consequently why I don't mind Christmas.

388. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159738 by Christopher Davis on April 13, 2008 at 2:46 am

I'm going to agree with BFKate that only Rep. Davis's constituents have the right to call for her resignation. After all, it is THEY who she represents. If they are okay with her bigotry then I'll assume I know the true feelings of the majority of the people in "the land of Lincoln".

My question is why would the death of a city school student raise her ire against atheists? After listening to her rant, let me take a SSWAG (social scientific wild ass guess).

Rep. Davis got pissed after hearing that another high school student was killed because she believes that the increase in violence in our nation's public schools is because of efforts to "take God out of the classroom" (by the way does anybody know what he majored in?). So not only is she a bigot, but she is one of those far right religious conservatives who would like nothing more than to make our public schools "Christian Madrassas".

Of course like I said, this is just a SSWAG. Does anybody know what her views are on ID?

389. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158971 by Christopher Davis on April 11, 2008 at 9:08 am

"Atheism does not make the choice for us and thus Atheists must all figure out their own approach to morality. I would add that the striking under-representation of Atheists in the prison population would seem to indicate that we tend to be quite successful in this quest. As I recall in 1994 self identified Atheists represented 2% of the general population in the U.S. but only 0.2% of the U.S. prison population."---Jon_Sociologist

I can't confirm Jon's numbers, but in my civilian job (I'm a U.S. Army reservist currently serving in Afghanistan)I work in a prison and virtually every inmate has a Bible, Torah, or Koran. Religion is a hot commodity among these guys...oh and by the way, on my unit, they are all sex offenders.

390. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158951 by Christopher Davis on April 11, 2008 at 8:20 am

"what prevents us from building our ethical framework on the foundations of evolution, which suggests that we ensure that we are the fittest, and take any means necessary to that end?"---philipproulx

Easy answer? Morality and/or respect for the rights of other human beings.

Of course this question could only be asked by a theist because...

Why do most religions actively seek to convert others to their way of thinking? Well because their beliefs are the right ones of course! And if everyone else believed like them (i.e. knew the "truth") then the world would be a better place. Substitute the idea of "fittest" with "righteousness" as perceived by the theist mind, and it's easy to understand how they come to the conclusion that people who "believe" in evolution, will think it their duty to improve the human race through eugenics-style selective breeding.

This is a classic case of projection. Just like how most theists believe that atheists "want" there to be no God, just so we can run around "sinning" without any fear of repercussion. They simply can't imagine why someone would behave morally if there is no all-powerful sky-god to punish them if they didn't. It would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.

391. Expelled Overview

Comment #158305 by Christopher Davis on April 10, 2008 at 10:04 am

Jon_Socioilogist,

Fair enough. I agree. I would have replied sooner, but I've spent the last 36 hours trying to get to a small village in southeastern Afghanistan. Just got back a few hours ago, so I'm going to bed. See on the boards.

392. Expelled Overview

Comment #157305 by Christopher Davis on April 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Jon_Sociologist, "feebleminded little ass-wipe"?
I'll be happy to match my IQ scores with yours any day.

Negative eugenics...now there is a topic that we could have a discussion on. Well, not you and I, but me and someone who can actually think.

I'm done arguing whether or not a vasectomy is a mutilation.

You get compliments from PhD.'s regarding your understanding of evolution? Name one. Better yet, post the argument that supposedly garnered you this compliment.

Finally, the reason your posts are "3 pages long" is because as you merrily cherry-pick your way through everyone else's posts...you end up block quoting as much or more than you write. Please don't overestimate your contribution of original material to this website. Speaking of which...

I didn't join this website to argue with pseudo-intellectuals like yourself. So if I choose to respond to anymore of your ramblings, it will simply be to point out your inconsistencies.

393. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155911 by Christopher Davis on April 6, 2008 at 9:42 am

sdbranum and Vulcan,

Your arguments are specious. Just because you take something on faith, doesn't mean you are engaging in some form of religious worship. If your best buddy tells you that he has two tickets for Sunday's game and asks you if you would like to go, when you say yes and start making plans to go, is your buddy now your diety? Why not? You've placed faith in him haven't you? How do you know that he actually has the tickets? How do you know he won't change his mind at the last minute and decide to take someone else? Probably because you trust him. Probably because his word has proved reliable in the past.

Do you guys see where I'm going? You both conflate common everyday trust with religious-style faith.

394. Expelled Overview

Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis on April 4, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Jon_Sociologist, It also conveniently lets you misrepresent what other people have said. I don't support positive eugenics, I merely believe that it would be more humane for both child and parents if some people were prevented from reproducing. What criteria would I use to determine who should be sterilized and who shouldn't? Well now that is the ethical dilemma that was the impetus for my first post. Unfortunately in your mind everyone (except you of course) who seeks to ponder this ethical dilemma in an objective manner is obviously proposing a systemic program of positive eugenics aimed at producing a master race.

"This statement does not appear to be consistent with your earlier accusation that I was "cherry-picking" the dictionary by using mutilate to mean, "To harm as to impair use", while 'ignoring' the other two definitions in the dictionary I used:"

And you still haven't told me if you understand what the word connotation means. If you do then you'll understand why me, and virtually every other rational minded person on the planet wouldn't use the word 'mutilation' to describe a vasectomy. Unless, that vasectomy was botched.

"In bringing up the difference in Comment #154908 you're your entire point seems to be being an ignorant prick/troll, by suggesting that I don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection."

Whether or not you think I am trying to be a "prick/troll" concerns me not in the least. It wasn't my intent to "suggest" that you don't know the differnce between natural selection and evolution...your posts make it evident that you do not. Or else (as I think more likely) you prefer to torture your logic and ignore facts simply to make a "point" (I use that term loosely) that seems to counter your opponent's.

And finally, no...your argument is not a "one two punch". It's an example of someone with a poor understanding of genetics and heredity trying to eat their cake and have it too.

395. Expelled Overview

Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis on April 4, 2008 at 6:11 am

Jon_Sociologist, if you assume the people who are reading your posts have already read the posts you selectively quote from, then why do you bother with all the little boxes? Why not just make your point? I can only imagine it is because you know that if you didn't take selective little snippets from peoples arguments, other people would see that you actually have no point.

The method is irrelevant, the question is whether or not society is ever justified in limiting an individual's right to procreate.

No, I don't think, "…in order to use a word the concept in question must meet all possible definitions". Why don't you see how many definitions you can find for "connotation".

I'm not going to get into the whole micro vs. macro evolution fallacy with you, but I will address this little gem…

"Presumably you are referring to the idea of evolution by non-natural selection, a.k.a. eugenics"

No, I'm not. I'm referring to the basic fact that natural selection and evolution are not synonyms. Natural selection is the primary component of evolution, other components include genetic mutation, genetic drift, and the founder effect. If you are still confused I suggest you pick up a basic 'Introduction to Physical Anthropology' textbook.

And for my final word on mentally retarded people having children, my point is the same as it has been since this started…it isn't necessarily unethical to prevent people who have no ability to care for a child from having kids.

Now Jon_Sociologist, before you selectively quote my last paragraph go to the end of the post I'm responding to (#179) and read over your "tautology" argument. Then go to post #181, and revisit this statement, "Many if not most forms of serious mental disability are not hereditary."

So how could a trait that is not hereditary be eliminated from the gene pool through a lack of reproductive success?

396. Expelled Overview

Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis on April 4, 2008 at 12:36 am

Jon_Sociologist, the habit you have of quoting people one or two lines at a time so that you can appear to offer a cogent counter-argument is dishonest and irritating.

Personally, I'd prefer that you pull your head out of your brown-muscle, read the posts in their entirety, digest the entire argument (if you are capable), and then respond with a coherent argument of your own.

For the last time, at no time did I advocate forced sterilization. My point was that individual rights are not absolute. This includes the right to procreate.

Furthermore, I see that your cherry-picking also extends to the dictionary. The more common definitions of mutilate are---1. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect, and 2. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. Listed as synonyms are 'maim' and 'cripple'. So by your evaluation a vasectomy leaves a man maimed and/or crippled? I'd be willing to wager that most people don't associate being 'impaired' with being 'mutilated'. Who's trying to change the argument by being technical now?

"There is no fundamental difference between micro and macroevolution; there is no clear line between the two. Phenomenons observed in macroevolution are broad patterns taking place at the microevolutionary scale"---Jon_Sociologist

Here I am going to quote you verbatim and in entirety, because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I never made any distinction between micro and macro evolution, mainly because as you pointed out, there isn't any. However there is a difference between evolution and natural selection. I understand that difference, do you? By the way, my screen name could be Chris_Anthropologist if I wanted it to.

As for my hypothetical regarding two mentally retarded people who fall in love IN THE INSTITUTION, it was meant to be an ethical thought experiment. I assumed that most readers wouldn't add any elements to the scenario...my mistake. I should have made it clear that in this case the state is the guardian of the two lovers, and thereby it is the state that will bear the burden of any offspring.

Finally Jon_Sociologist, do you know of any way that anyone, retarded or not, can have grandchildren if their children don't survive?

397. Expelled Overview

Comment #154451 by Christopher Davis on April 3, 2008 at 9:39 am

Zamboro, not only has Jon_Sociologist missed my point, he seems incapable of reading a post without making unjustified inferences.

At no point in my post did I advocate the forced sterilization of people. I merely pointed out that societies have always been in the business of limiting individual rights for the greater good of society.

Furthermore, Jon_Sociologist seems to think that sterilization is synonomous with castration...unless of course he considers a vasectomy a "mutilation".

Also, his comments about how society shouldn't be deciding if life is worth living are specious and contrived. Anyone with an ounce of sense will realize that the life of a human infant is extremely short unless the child is properly cared for. The issue is not individual worth, but practicality. Take for example, two mentally disabled people confined to an institution, unable to care for themselves, let alone a child, who fall in love. Is it more inhumane to sterilize them and let them have a fully consummated relationship, to keep them seperated, or to allow nature to run its course with no forethought towards the care of the resulting offspring?

Finally, Jon_Sociologist needs to rethink his "if mentally retarded people have more children then they are the superior ones" argument. While he is right that evolution proceeds through the successful transmission of genes, natural selection has a nasty habit of acting at the level of the phenotype. Which is important in this case because it doesn't matter how many children retarded people have...it only matters how many of those children survive to bear children of their own.

398. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154243 by Christopher Davis on April 3, 2008 at 1:26 am

MutualDisdain,

I'm pretty sure Professor Dawkins knows the meaning of the word concise. He's also aware that his readers have the attention span required to complete an article that is more than three paragraphs. As for the soundbites, scientists like to explain their viewpoints in depth...something the supporters of Intelligent Design seem unable to do.

Oh wait, you did explain it! God did it! There I go hanging out in reality again.

399. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #153942 by Christopher Davis on April 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

Problem is, that no matter how this comes out Christians are going to interpret it as an attack on their religion.

400. Expelled Overview

Comment #153706 by Christopher Davis on April 1, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Quoting Jon_Sociologist...

"...when humans take control of the reproduction of a species, the species seems to become substantially less intelligent. Dogs for example are about as smart as a rather dull wolf puppy. The second is that pretty much any method of enacting eugenics involves ruthless barbarity. Involuntarily sterilization is a gross violation of an individuals rights".

I think the reason that domestic dogs seem about as intelligent as wolf pups, is because the process of domestication is inherently infantilizing to most species. One of the most defining (and endearing) characteristics of our canine pets is their utter dependence upon us. And even relatively independent breeds such as Huskies, Shepards, and Retrievers love to play, even as adults. Also, I agree with several of the other posters that quantifying intelligence in animals (especially across species) is a tricky concept. As for quantifying intelligence in humans...well that's tricky too, but I don't believe it is as impossible as some people claim.

As for the second point, I agree. Involutary sterilazation is a violation of individual human rights, but an intregal part of human civilizations has always been the limiting of selected individual rights toward the goal of bettering society. As Dr. Benway commented, most rational people don't really see the upside of allowing mentally retarded people to have children. In cases such as these, I believe that society must consider the future welfare of a child born to mentally retarded parents before declaring that involuntary sterilazation is a "gross violation of human rights."

Quoting Tetronis...

"Studies have found that male drivers kill cyclists in higher proportion to miles driven than female drivers do, suggesting that driver aggression plays a large role in the continuing slaughter, since we know men are on average more aggressive than women behind the wheel (and pretty much at all times)."

I can think of other explanations. What if male drivers simply show less caution when approaching a cyclist because they assume that the person on the bicycle sees them and isn't about to do something stupid like turn left or swerve to avoid a pothole? That's not agression, that's simply crediting the cyclist with a bit more situational awareness than they actually have. Also, it would be interesting to know how many of these dead cyclists are male because we all know that most men upon seeing a female cyclist, will slow down to see if she's a hottie.