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

Comments by k_docks

Go to: He's baaack: Selfish Gene author pens one for the kids

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by k_docks

So what's your advice to parents? Dawkins: Explain to children never to believe anything without evidence.

So when are you going to produce the 'evidence' for evolution hey Dawkins?

The Magic of Reality - another Just So fairytale about origins.

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:51:05 UTC | #876506

Go to: Anecdote vs. fact

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by k_docks

How long does it take for recorded history to go from fact to anecdote? E.g. There are already many holocaust deniers only a mere ~60 years on from the event. What about in 500 years?? Or 1000??

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:04:02 UTC | #873430

Go to: Anecdote vs. fact

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by k_docks

When it comes to anecdotal stories about a man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a loaf and a fish, ressurecting the dead, including Himself, then I realise that any such anecdotes are impossible to test. Then I have to go back to the "probability" that such events might actually have happened. In the case of Jesus, this probability approaches very close to zero

When it comes to anecdotal stories about life arising from a lifeless soup of chemicals, a 'big bang' from nothing starting the universe without cause, all the miracles required to have all the genetic diversity we see around us today having 'evolved' from nothing in only 3.5 billion years, common ancestry being claimed from species that 'appear' to share common genetics, then I realise that any such anecdotes are impossible to test. Then I have to go back to the "probability" that such events might actually have happened. In the case of evolution, this probability is so small that it is zero.

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:52:00 UTC | #873426

Go to: Disappearing species

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by k_docks

is there enough genetic diversity for the species to continue to exist should their habitat be saved?

This then becomes a wider question: how much diversity is needed for a healthy species, or from the other side of the question, at what level does lack of diversity become harmful?

If evolution were true wouldn't there be information added to a genome all the time increasing it's genetic diversity?

So long as there is at least one breeding pair, mutations (beneficial) and natural selection, regardless if the habitat is natural or artificial, the genetic diversity should increase. If not when did this process stop for this species of leopard? The same should be true for all endangered species. So the real issue should be weather we can provide endangered species a viable habitat safe from artificial selection (hunted into extinction).

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:30:18 UTC | #873424

Go to: Atheist Scouts on Facebook

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by k_docks

Comment 7 by sanban

For Adventists, Scouts, Guides, etc just aren't Christian enough. They have their own youth groups called Pathfinders. I find it hard to see how one could be a non-Christian Scout or a non-Adventist Pathfinder. And that's why none of these organisations ought to have any government support. They're religious groups. End of.

In Australia there is no government support for Pathfinders.

I started an facebook page for us Atheist, Agnostic, and Free Thinker Scouts. I created this page so we can unite as one and hope to influence the BSA to end their discrimination against non-believers and homosexuals. I would like some members to post their experiences as a scout.

I love the Boy Scouts. I had wonderful experiences and I would love to send my future boys into the program. Until the BSA changes their position my family will not support the BSA.

Why not start your own group if you're not happy with the rules of another?

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:51:15 UTC | #868786

Go to: Dawkins urges constitutional reform to remove church role

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by k_docks

describing the Catholic Church as “an evil institution . . . by far the worst where the churches are concerned”.

Maybe Richard has been reading Bible prophecy. This was prophesied about thousands of years ago and he is only just noticing it now? If you study the Bible carefully you will notice that it has a lot to say about false religion, it's dangers and how that it will be rampant in the last days.

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 08:30:54 UTC | #635209

Go to: Harvey Fineberg: Are we ready for neo-evolution?

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by k_docks

Reading the comments below the video confirms my thoughts that this is just another name for Neo-Nazism - eliminate all that do not fit or conform the ideals of the rich and famous.

I choose all five - memory, fitness, beauty, longevity and talent. God offers ALL five to ALL people without side-effects. I choose Gods plan not evolutions 'we can save ourselves' ideology!

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:27:21 UTC | #620456

Go to: New Species of Dinosaur Bridges Gap in Dinosaur Family Tree

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by k_docks

Another sermon from the preachers of evolution making the followers feel all fuzzy and warm in their close minded delusion.

And we're all led to believe that this is 'science' without so much as presenting one piece of evidence! If you want to convert the sceptics to your evolutionary dogma then you need to present the evidence. It's all about the evidence, not some ones fairytale about millions of years, triassic periods and scary looking teeth!

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:22:07 UTC | #615607

Go to: God and Disaster

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by k_docks

Has anyone spouted any nonsense yet ?

Yep, read all about it here:

Nonsense for the masses

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:57:59 UTC | #602256

Go to: Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by k_docks

What do other people think, how does the idea inspire you?

And people wonder why suicide rates are on the rise!

This is certainly not what I would be inspired to use at a Beyond Blue (depression) rehab meeting!

Without God we are worthless and some revel in it!

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:05:17 UTC | #599944

Go to: On Evolution, Biology Teachers Stray From Lesson Plan

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by k_docks

But Dr. Moore is doubtful that more education is the answer. “These courses aren’t reaching the creationists,” he said. “They already know what evolution is. They were biology majors, or former biology students. They just reject what we told them.

Maybe there should be more showing than mere telling. I know from personal experience that there is an awful lot of telling and next to no showing when evolution is concerned. And that's not even mentioning thinking! How many people actually think about what they believe? I would hazard a guess at very few, and that goes for both camps.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 03:18:07 UTC | #589168

Go to: Feather Evolution

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by k_docks


Genetic mutations are random. Survival of a species is not. You equate the two when you should not. You're saying that because an organism with a mutated gene died - that it died randomly?? The mutation may have lead to the organisms death but surely not in a random way. I would advise you to do a little more reading on the subject before you go off as if you know something. Saying that "evolution is impossible" is probably one of the stupidest things I've seen someone write on here in awhile. It is a scientifically proven fact backed up by mountains of evidence from just about every branch of science that exists! It is testable and has NEVER been proven to be wrong.

If an organism dies because of a random mutation then yes you can say that the organism died in a random way. What does it matter anyway? What I was trying to point out is that evolution is dependant on random or chance mutations so therefore organisms evolve by chance. It cannot be avoided, if part of a process occurs by chance or random events then the whole process is random or by chance.

And you are perfectly right evolution has never been proven wrong by those who believe in it and it never will be! All evidence collected by a 'believer' will be interpreted to fit the theory, be discarded as spurious, or ignored. All evidence presented by a 'non-believer will be passed of as a fraud or as pseudo science!

As for the 'mountain' of evidence for evolution that everyone claims is around I think that it must be hiding in the mountain-ranges of evidence that does not support it!

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 07:42:27 UTC | #587708

Go to: Feather Evolution

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by k_docks

by crookedshoes


It has not evolved by chance. It has evolved by selection, which is the opposite of chance. YOU are the only one asserting that it evolved by chance. No evolutionist would ever (if they were properly educated) say that this evolved by chance. So, you have set up a classic straw man. When you knock it down, do you expect me to say (forehead palm) oh, NOW I GET CREATION?????? Please start reading from some other book; the one you are using is making you look foolish here. Or, go post on some site where everyone is ignorant of facts. See, YOU ARE WRONG. The thing that is most vexing is that you are wrong about your wrongness.


Crookedshoes you are one who is WRONG!!! How does the 'selection' work???? RANDOM or CHANCE mutations either survive or die depending on weather they are of benefit to the creature or make the creature weaker and less likely to reproduce!!! DEATH before REPRODUCTION that is all 'natural selection' is!! Natural selection has no brain, no intelligence, it cannot foresee the future, it cannot make or read plans, nor follow instructions, all it is is natural forces causing the death of the 'weak' due to CHANCE or RANDOM mutations! The supposed GRAND mechanism of evolution is merely a dumb witless force causing DEATH! Oh, the greatest show on earth, a no chance fairytale called evolution!

kshaw, don't go out and read another fairytale about evolution, go out and do the science, collect the data, test and retest and observe that evolution is impossible.

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:58:06 UTC | #587672

Go to: In the Blink of Bird’s Eye, a Model for Quantum Navigation

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by k_docks

“The bird, however it works, whatever it’s got in there, it’s somehow doing better than our specially designed, very beautiful molecule,” Benjamin said. “That’s just staggering.”

Once again a supposed completely blind and mindless process stumps the 'intelligent'

Maybe we should redefine 'intelligence' if it can't compete with the mindless processes.

No there is no 'design' evident in a birds eye, how could there be?

Yet another - it's here so 'evolution did-it' because we can't see how a designer could have!

Maybe in the next revision of the novel TGSoE Dawkins could add in another daydream on how he thinks this could have evolved!

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:46:09 UTC | #586202

Go to: Emotional arguments against religion

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by k_docks


Does the Bible actually teach that God is going to torture people in Hell for eternity regardless of the crime/s (sin) they have committed? Does the Bible actually teach that an eternal soul goes straight to heaven at death? Does God sit idly by while so much suffering occurs in this world? Or is the Bible true in prophesying that the whole world (including most Christians) will be deceived by a power (Antichrist) that teaches error about what the Bible says for its own means? Don't believe everything someone tells you what they think the Bible says, check it out for yourself, there are a lot of people who think they are 'Christian' yet know nothing about how the Bible says what a 'Christian' is! Or think they know what God is like but only have a warped second hand story from other peoples opinions. I'm afraid that anyone who bases their beliefs on on emotions or feelings are living on dangerous grounds, whether it be Christianity, Islam or Atheism, these people will be the first to change their minds when the 'feelings' turn sour. The Bible does not teach that Christianity is all a feel-good-ticket-to-eternity, but teaches that many will be afflicted and killed because they follow Christ. Not really the feel good life many expect Christianity to be!

Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:06:41 UTC | #582836

Go to: Should Young Earth Creationists be Allowed to be Doctors?

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 113 by k_docks

Evolution explains why so many humans have back problems: we evolved to walk on four legs, and relatively recently we began walking on two legs. However, natural selection hasn't changed the "design." Isn't that understanding important for an orthopedist?

If my orthopedist told my my back pain was the result of my walking on two instead of four I would write them a referral to see a psychiatrist!

When I last looked I had two legs and two arms - both designed to do completely different functions.

'Evolutionary design' is an oxymoron!

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:20:28 UTC | #543024

Go to: TGSOE #22 on NYT Best Sellers List

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by k_docks

Comment 1 by SoHelpMeReason

Congratulations! Bravo! How exciting. I hope it's selling to the creationists--they truly need it!

I would like to thank Dawkins for totally convincing me that creation is true! If this book contains the overwhelmingly convincing evidence for evolution (that could all change with new discoveries) then I am afraid that somehow I totally missed it, could someone please tell me what page it is on?

Comment 2 by Axeman33 I have tried to give copies of TGSOE to some Xian friends and they want no parts of it. I show's to me how week and fragile their beliefs really are.

So evolution is worth dying for? Christianity is!

Science, how great it could be if it didn't have the millstone of evolution aound it's neck!

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:37:06 UTC | #539724

Go to: Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by k_docks

Comment 51 by OpposableThumbs

Now that was funny! Thanks for that k_docks, you really had me laughing. I only wish that your intention was to be humorous.

?? You have a strange sense humour.

Sat, 25 Sep 2010 05:01:06 UTC | #524576

Go to: Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by k_docks


To indundate the planet the water would have to be about 8.85km higher than sea level, to cover Mt Everest.

Who said Mt Everest existed before the flood? You make an assumption. The flood covered the existing mountains, how high were they? who is to know? but if you were to level the earth to equal level the surface water on this planet would be over 2km deep!

When the flood subsided, 4.5 bn cubic miles of water had to go back to "somewhere" other than on this planet. To reach escape velocity requires 7.89 kilowatt hours of energy per kilogramme of mass. The energy expenditure to shift such a volume of water would be colossal: the planet would not survive.

In similar manner as scientists believe the moon was formed? Supposedly the earth survived that event!

Maybe you could think about it without an evolutionary bias, you would be surprised how the evidence tells a different story.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:55:48 UTC | #524223

Go to: Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by k_docks


The global flood didn't happen.

And your geological, scientific, independent, testable, convergent, consilience evidence for this claim is what?

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:09:34 UTC | #524209

Go to: Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by k_docks

Quick hide the truth from the public before they see the farce evolution really is!

No oil company could possibly afford to hire or humour creationist geologists because they would be unable to find any oil. Ditto for the other sciences. Creationists might as well be putting crack on their kids' cornflakes.

Under an evolutionary world view oil must be a renewable energy source, being created around us all over the place! Vast quantities of vegetation being buried under millions of tonnes of sediments in multiple locations around the globe - sounds like global flood conditions to me!

the vast majority of biologists (probably more than 95%)" That's not very generous from the creatards. The real figure is certainly about 99.999999%.

Wow now that's a worrying error! I can see the need to eliminate this from the text, it's just not scientific.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:20:09 UTC | #524187

Go to: A computer scientist looks at DNA.

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by k_docks

One more thing ; I was working out and an analogy dawned on me. You are asserting that cars haven't evolved because they still run on gasoline. I am trying to articulate just how much cars have evolved, despite the fact that they still run on gasoline. Anyway, I enjoyed or discussion today.

Cars haven't evolved! Any changes in automotive technology was due to intelligence!

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 05:59:33 UTC | #519604

Go to: Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me'

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by k_docks

A lady wanted to know how evolution could explain phenomena like the clotting of blood, which – she claimed – required a number of agents all to be present at the same time, and if one were taken away, the blood would not clot. That, he retorted, was "a creationist lie". And even if it were true, it would not prove the existence of an intelligent designer. "You have got to look at the detail," he added. "You have got to stop being lazy and saying, 'Oh, I can't explain that so God did it.'"

Typical Dawkins answer, "There is no God so therfore 'evolution done it'!" Quick change the topic this question is too hard to answer! Maybe Richard should write a book about science and answer these type of questions, maybe then he might win the worship of the 'lazy' creationists!

Thu, 16 Sep 2010 04:17:28 UTC | #518668

Go to: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by k_docks

Comment 12 by epeeist

Premise 1 was effectively torn to shreds a couple of centuries ago by David Hume. How do we know that whatever begins has to have a cause? This is simply a piece of inductive reasoning and as Hume points out we cannot extrapolate from cases that we have observed to cases that we have not. It also falls into his argument against design, we have observed only a small part of the universe for a limited period of time. How can we be sure that what we have so far observed is typical of the observations we have not made?

This statement sums up nicely the very reason why evolution is believed in by faith! To believe evolution has occurred as most scientists claim requires 'extrapolation from cases that we have observed to cases we have not'! Scientists have observed only a minuscule amount of the world around us for a very short period of time yet the claim is made 'evolution is a fact'. It would seem that if David Hume can tear premise 1 to shreds then it follows that evolution over millions of years is also shredded. Or is evolution exempt from this kind of reasoning? Evolution is built on the extrapolation of three small collections of data: a few dates from some rocks, a few fossilised bones and some observed mutations in DNA. Yes, evolution it's an undeniable fact, the evidence is overwhelming! NOT!

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:17:00 UTC | #508578

Go to: "The Greatest Show On Earth" - Paperback US Book Tour

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by k_docks

Comment 21 by Grant Fleming Creationists would much prefer (like the Jonathan Sarfatti novel) an easy-reading fairy-tale that won't upset the deluded, religious thoughts swimming around in their heads!

So you have read Jonathan's book Grant? Because I'm finding Richard's novel - an easy-reading fairy-tale that feeds the deluded with anti-religious thoughts that creates hate swimming around in their heads!

The common denominator among the 'history deniers' is that they are firstly too lazy to study the overwhelming amount of evidence presented in Richard's book and secondly, find evolution all too complicated to understand.

I am willing to study the evidence, but WHERE is it! Every web site I have visited, every book I've read, every DVD or commentary I've watched have talked ABOUT evidence as though it is common knowledge (which it should be if it is OVERWHELMING!), but present little if any data from testing and experiment, details of methods used, photos of samples, details of where the samples were found, etc. Maybe you can tell me where it is Grant? Where is the OVERWHELMING evidence? I'm not willing to beleive evolution with Blind Faith!

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:05:02 UTC | #501633

Go to: "The Greatest Show On Earth" - Paperback US Book Tour

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by k_docks

Uh? I bought my paperback copy back in June! Or is this just for the USA?

I am halfway through this volume and I can't describe how disappointed I am in it! Where is the evidence as described in the title? It's just another story about evidence that is out there somewhere that everyone else seems to have seen and believed. If this book of 'evidence' is what is supposed to educate the ignorant then the ignorant are better off staying ignorant.

A brilliant read ,I hope creationists and woo mongerers will buy it

What is a woo mongerer? Is this a scientific term that creationists will never understand because they can't do science?

unfortunately, the ignorant probably wont read this book. They mistakenly think that they are already enlightened

Unfortunately I am an ignorant creationist that deceived myself into buying this... maybe I shouldn't be so harsh I still have half the book to go...

The new cover is gorgeous! The original was dazzling.

Yes the cover is well done, I think that is what sucked me in! Or maybe it was the title 'RICHARD DAWKINS The Greatest Show on Earth'

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:57:20 UTC | #501408

Go to: Dawkins speaks to overflow Fairbanks audience about humans, religion

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by k_docks

Comment 61 by Anaximander We want a theory that predicts something and can be used to something. So that we can, for example, calculate the movements of planets, how to get rockets to Moon etc.

A Designer prevents you from doing this how? The Designer created intelligence for this kind of thing.

If we say that planets and rockets move as some supernatural being with a free will happens to move them, we cannot predict anything. There are no equations to predict what the designer wants. No point even to think of it.

I think that you underestimate the power of the Designer! Does the designer of a computer have to hold is hand to make it work? No! The designer designs it to operate using laws of physics, chemistry etc. Same with the Designer of the universe - the planets and stars he created obey the laws he also created and we have the intelligence to measure, calculate and predict.

If we say that diseases happens as the designer wants, how can we cure them or predict when and why they will happen? How can we even try; we can never know.

Who said the Designer created and wants his creation to suffer from disease? Unfortunately an enemy has damaged the creation and is doing all possible to implicate the Designer of this crime.

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:23:19 UTC | #491194

Go to: Dawkins speaks to overflow Fairbanks audience about humans, religion

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by k_docks

Comment 58 by BanJoIvie I bet if you tried you could understand why answering a "how did something happen?" question with "God did it" might impede the progress of human thought. If we had simply accepted that answer every time it was offered we wouldn't have made it very far.

Oh, that is easy to understand. But what I have found in my life experience is that it is the atheist that thinks that a theist will use this answer for every question asked of them, this is simply not the case. And how does denying the truth serve to progress human thought? If God did do something then that is truth and we have every right to ask how and why. This is true progression of human thought!

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:50:36 UTC | #491183

Go to: Dawkins speaks to overflow Fairbanks audience about humans, religion

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by k_docks

There is another reason why it's not a good idea to bring up the idea of a designer. It's my favourite reason. It is that the idea of a designer stops people thinking. It is a closed gate across the road of scientific investigation, with a sign saying "here but no further".

Stops people thinking? That must be the weakest excuse I've ever heard of for denying that there is a designer! He created us and as far as I can tell there has been alot of thinking going on. In fact I have found that it is evolution that stops people thinking, thinking clearly!

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:38:31 UTC | #491005

Go to: Dawkins speaks to overflow Fairbanks audience about humans, religion

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by k_docks

If evolution were true then religion is a product of evolution and it seems natural selection is powerless to do anything about it!

However, mistakes happen in nature and are sometimes passed on endlessly.

I also seems that natural selection is powerless in this instance too!

So much for the golden egg of evolution!

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:56:34 UTC | #490695