This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Kingasaurus's Profile

Kingasaurus's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Kingasaurus

More Discussions by Kingasaurus

Latest Comments by Kingasaurus

Go to: To XMAS And Beyond!

Kingasaurus's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by Kingasaurus

"That thing about the x in xmas being linked to x being the first letter in the greek word for christ struck me as straw clutching. I doubt that is the origin of it at all."

As far as I know, that IS the origin of it. Perhaps you could look it up for yourself if you consider it that unlikely.

What's the alternative? That a bunch of non-believing Christ-haters came up with a slur called "Xmas" and it entered the vernacular and believers started using it innocuously? Hmph.

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:54:51 UTC | #898580

Go to: The Greatest Show On Earth - Flea

Kingasaurus's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Kingasaurus

Dr Jonathan Sarfati, scientist, chessmaster, logician and Christian apologist...

Creationism is definitely a scientific alternative to evolution.

Yup. It sure is. They say so, so it must be.

Strange, though, how you can almost never find anyone willing to champion it who isn't a religious apologist first (and proudly so, usually).

That tells any intelligent person that the axe they have to grind is most likely responsible for their so-called "scientific" opinions.

The fact that they themselves don't seem to notice this (or don't care) is quite funny. What you then get is these nitwits sometimes claiming that ID is separate from religion - pure science, and all that - and the remainder of the time they brazenly trumpet their faith-credentials as if it helps them. Do they think we don't notice?

The fact that creationist movements don't really exist anywhere in the world outside of places where politically powerful, fundamentalist, anti-evolution religious movements exist, is a GIANT red flag to any human being with a brain who is actually interested in the truth.

Anyone can try claiming that being an A-grade fundie has nothing to do with their disbelief in evolution, but no one takes that claim seriously, and the rest of them simply stop pretending and admit their religious views buttress everything else they think.

Either way, it's bankrupt thinking.

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:14:00 UTC | #453060

Go to: Extract from Chapter 2 of The Greatest Show on Earth: The truth dogs reveal about evolution

Kingasaurus's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by Kingasaurus

Supe:"My intuitions are different from Dawkins'. My intuition would say that the jump from wolf to dog is almost nothing, not even a millionth of the jump from fish to humans."

Which "dog" is your intuition telling you about, exactly? Pekingese? St. Bernard? Toy poodle?

Are they all "almost nothing" away from a wolf?

If a creationist ever saw a St. Bernard and a Peke side by side as two wild species, he would never admit that they were related and insist they had to be separate divine creations because they were so different in size and appearance. The only reason these people are forced to admit these changes have happened through the sieve of selection is because they've happened deliberately by humans in recorded time.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:37:00 UTC | #391519

Go to: Extract from Chapter 2 of The Greatest Show on Earth: The truth dogs reveal about evolution

Kingasaurus's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by Kingasaurus

The point, of course, is that many average people who might read this book may intuitively grasp the (rather large) changes humans can make to dogs, but have a mental block when it comes to imagining evolutionary change larger than that.

If you can, try to get them to wrap their mind around the fact that evolutionary history is orders of magnitude larger than the time we had available to us to manipulate the appearance and behavior of dogs.

Carl Sagan once used a similar device, where he equated the thousands of years of dog breeding as a single human step. He then said if you wanted to go back in history to the beginning of life, you'd have to walk from Paris to Tehran, or the equivalent (forgive me if I've forgotten the specific example).

Supertroll wants to argue about something else which is tangential and irrelevant to the point RD was making.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:33:00 UTC | #391491

Go to: Extract from Chapter 2 of The Greatest Show on Earth: The truth dogs reveal about evolution

Kingasaurus's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Kingasaurus


I'm so glad you decided to use the century device to help in the understanding of deep time.

It's one of my favorite devices to use, as I think the word "million" flows off the tongues of people too easily without an intuitive understanding of what it means.

"65 million years" is easy for people to say, but if you try to make them understand "650,000 centuries" instead, it tends to blow their minds a little bit more and gives them a slightly better understanding of exactly how much time is being discussed.

I'm convinced if people really thought and understood how old the Earth is at an intuitive level (difficult, I know), many ignorant objections to evolution by certain people would disappear.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:23:00 UTC | #391431

More Comments by Kingasaurus