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

Comments by kraut

Go to: “Only a theory”???

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by kraut

", which appears to be the student newspaper from North Carolina State University,"

If that is the level of education at that they pay the students to attend or have students actually to pay for such crappy education?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:46:50 UTC | #915794

Go to: Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by kraut

BlockquoteThe Tea Party people say they want nonpolluted air and clean water and everything we promote and support, but they also say it’s a communist movement,” said Charlotte Moore, a supervisor who voted yes. “I really don’t understand what they want

Logical thinking was never part of the Teabagger movement.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:38:52 UTC | #914986

Go to: South African church billboard banned following atheist complaint

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by kraut

I am glad that atheism is not a movement or an organization, otherwise I would have to hand in my membership card to protest against such idiocy.

Most atheists are screaming at the tops of their lungs when any religious organization dares to remove by legal means or other methods any advertisements against irrational thinking. They beat their chests proclaiming to defend the right of the religious for freedom of expression. They get upset to the nth degree if any religious group tries to inhibit the atheist right to criticize or ridicule religion.

Maybe you by now wonder why I do not use the term we and us? Because I do not want to be in any way associated with those who here on this forum can defend an attempt of curbing free speech that will be held against them at any time soon, and rightly so.

I do not give a flying fuck about cultural sensitivities, either the atheist defend the right of free speech in an after all still democratic South Africa, or they stop any pretense of advocating free speech.

Fuck that bullshit, you fucking whiners.

There is no double edged sword, there is an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:49:43 UTC | #910077

Go to: Priests brawl in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by kraut

Which demonstrates - all religion is..truly ugly.

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:47:41 UTC | #904764

Go to: Jerusalem dance studio is the new frontline in battle for secular liberty

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by kraut

Can someone point out to me the differences between Islamists and their counterpart assholes of the jewish persuasion?

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:39:55 UTC | #893647

Go to: Sean Faircloth, Naked Ladies and Mormons

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by kraut

Nope it seems I was right the first time. You were being crass and sexist. Blockquote

What a fucked up puritan attitude. It is now wrong to say that one appreciates beauty for its own sake? I have to apologize now for finding someone attractive?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:17:25 UTC | #892095

Go to: Cosmic Dust Clouds Point to Non-Carbon Life Forms

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by kraut

BlockquoteWasting a lot of time not honestly admitting they have absolutely no idea.

If it wasting your time, just don't fucking read.

It is speculative science that has a grand tradition - after all, Einsteins theories on relativity were based solely on Gedanken experiments, only later to be confirmed by actual experiments. Playing around with the possibilities is part of science.

I am really pissed off at this anti science stance that some exhibit here - not a shining light on a website that after all is to some extend dedicated to science.

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:12:39 UTC | #889381

Go to: Alberta: where the word "evolution" and the name "Darwin" does not appear in a "science" textbook

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by kraut

The really irony is that one of the best paleontological museums is situated in Alberta, and some of the best dinosaur research is done at this place. I encourage everyone to visit the Tyrell museum.despite the religious nuttery of some of the inhabitants.

Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:13:22 UTC | #884793

Go to: Refusing to Kill Daughter, Pakistani Family Defies Tradition, Draws Anger

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by kraut

Christianity IS as bad as this, current Christians aren't because the rest of us dragged them kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.

No, to kill your children for "dishonouring" you family was never accepted practice in any christian country I know of. The offending daughters usually wound up in a monastery, but not dead - a big difference to my mind. Although the latter day Magdalen Laundries might have been not much better than death.

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:23:01 UTC | #876220

Go to: Refusing to Kill Daughter, Pakistani Family Defies Tradition, Draws Anger

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by kraut

PS - if anybody should ask why castration: humanity as a whole has to prevent the reproduction of arseholes like those "leaders". They are armed and dangerous...

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 01:02:31 UTC | #876164

Go to: Refusing to Kill Daughter, Pakistani Family Defies Tradition, Draws Anger

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by kraut

All those "leaders" demanding the girl to be killed are nothing but spineless jerks who should have their balls cutoff with a dull handsaw - and I declare my willingness to do so. I have castrated pigs before, so no problem to me to take care of swine like these.

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:58:54 UTC | #876161

Go to: Making matter come alive

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by kraut

Blockquote So again, what's the new point of them?

The point being that life is not necessarily bound to "organic" carbon compounds. So far that idea was played out only in fiction. Nice to know if it could actually exist - you might call ir Science....

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:28 UTC | #872895

Go to: Palestinian officials foresee secular, pluralistic state

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by kraut

BlockquoteThere is no such thing as moderate Islam.

But there are believers who are moderate in their beliefs, i.e. not following the most inhumane demands of their unholy book. The same can be said about Judaism and Christianity and the bible.

they never wanted one before Israel had one

pretty simplistic view of a historic mess that was /is the middle eastern region.


Sun, 18 Sep 2011 03:14:41 UTC | #872148

Go to: Disbelief is not a choice

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by kraut

He is perfectly correct. I was raised a catholic, but during puberty I examined the believe and at 16 I was not able to sustain the belief in a supernatural creator any longer. It had nothing to do with knowledge at all, but everything with the preposterous notions in in the "holy" book themselves. I simply was not able to continue to believe in the inordinately amount of bullshit in both the old and the new testament. There was no choice but to not believe.

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 05:40:27 UTC | #870141

Go to: Catholic Church in anti-gay marriage stance

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by kraut

The Archbishop of Glasgow said allowing gay couples to marry in a traditional sense would be pointless as it would not result in the creation of a "natural family".

That this Representative of a church multiple times caught molesting children of any age and hiding it from the authorities, establishing law outside the bounds of civil society can talk about "natural family" in a manner without blushing and being ashamed after they destroyed childhood innocence in a massive way, is beyond sarcasm and irony.

And then to top it he talks about "human rights", the representative of an organization who knows about human rights only when it effects the hierarchy of this to the cor rotten pile of steaming junk called the "catholic church".

That guy should be treated in the established old ways for traitors: hanged, drawn and quartered. Because he asks for catholics to subvert the laws of the country - plain and simple.

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:56:37 UTC | #869933

Go to: Bang Goes the Theory: Evolution Made Simple

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by kraut

As I said, evolution would still occur if there were no selection whatsoever, because allele frequencies would still change, and it is the variation of allele frequencies that drives evolution. Natural selection is merely a high-pass filter, which filters out those alleles that, on average, reduce the ability of an organism to achieve 'mean fitness' where mean fitness is the expected number of offspring

From my understanding of the definition "evolution" occurs only after the filter has selected the most successful individuals carrying an allele within a given environment to procreate successfully over generations.

Here some short form definition, as this is what this discussions seems to have become about:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations

The biological sciences now generally define evolution as being the sum total of the genetically inherited changes in the individuals who are the members of a population's gene pool...

Hardy, Weinberg, and the population geneticists who followed them came to understand that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:

  1. mutation is not occurring
  2. natural selection is not occurring
  3. the population is infinitely large
  4. all members of the population breed
  5. all mating is totally random
  6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
  7. there is no migration in or out of the population

Despite the fact that evolution is a common occurrence in natural populations, allele frequencies will remain unaltered indefinitely unless evolutionary mechanisms such as mutation and natural selection cause them to change.

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:07:12 UTC | #865331

Go to: Evangelicals question the existence of Adam and Eve

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by kraut

BlockquoteWithout Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.

How about: The supposed sacrifice of a hypothetical Christ makes no sense whatsoever. After all, if god is omniscient, he knew what was coming....

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:59:20 UTC | #865307

Go to: Bang Goes the Theory: Evolution Made Simple

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by kraut

It may not be an obvious thing but in fact natural selection does not add anything to the process of evolution

Natural selection drives evolution to produce individuals that are better suited to procreate within a given environment - eventually giving rise to a new species. You are right, without selection more variety could be had - but at what cost. You just have to look at the unnatural selection happening in dog breeding where even with extensive medical help some subspecies have lowered life expectancies and often need human intervention to breed. Natural selection would weed those individuals out ruthlessly.

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:18:25 UTC | #865187

Go to: Bang Goes the Theory: Evolution Made Simple

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by kraut

This demonstration is inadequate to demonstrate how random mutation and natural selection can result in biological complexity. Certainly there is random mutation but almost all mutations are harmful to the organism. Blockquote

And how do you think the development of agriculture was achieved? By the god dudes magic wand? or by a whole pile of selected for traits that came into being through mutation? Think milk production of cows raised to 8000l/year (with some negative consequences and a goodly portion of the profit going to the vet), think the variety of grasses now known as Cereals....

If, after doing so, you still do not understand the difference between evolution and natural selection, or if you continue to think that evolution "doesn't work if natural selection is missing"

natural selection of modifications from common ancestry = Evolution.

Evolution can of course happen through "un-natural selection", i.selective breeding.

But artificial selection still nicely demonstrates how, given the time-scales involved, the immense biodiversity we observe arose through the non-random survival of random mutations.

Exactly Darwin's point in support of his theory of evolution. He just clued in that the mechanism also will work through the agency of natural selection - the successful propagation of those species of who are most fit within their environment.

It would be really nice if those discussing the topic would have at least read Darwin...

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:27:24 UTC | #865080

Go to: Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by kraut

Regarding "Even though I think Marx got some things right I don't agree with the Marxist ideology that corporations have no redeeming feature" ...Marx was very clear about the fact that only Capitalism freed people from feudalism and a chance towards economic and political freedom. Marx clearly said that "communism", the common ownership of the means of production can can only be achieved when Capitalism is at it's peak, when the ownership of the means of productions is in very few hands and the realm of the economy cannot be distinguished from the realm of politics.

What Marx understood is that real democracy can only be achieved when the economy is also democratized. And that is the crucial point in Marxist thinking, nothing else. There is no political democracy possible when the economy is privatized. And the recent history alone has clearly shown how true that is.

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:45:38 UTC | #863218

Go to: Why am I reading theology?

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by kraut

Do you see why my head feels about to explode?

What you are studying is just christian have to keep going now on to Islam, Hindu many theologies are there?

Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:06:47 UTC | #846140

Go to: Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by kraut

"if God is outside of time then it might not seem long to God."

If god is outside time he cannot experience time. He therefore does not have a reference point to create anything at any particular time. So - why is the Universe either only 6000 or ten thousand or 15 billion years old.? If god had created the universe it would have to be eternal. No beginning, no end as those points make only sense in time.

Fine tuning could be just another argument for cosmological many universes till we had one that was conducive to have certain gases (COHN) develop into something that was able to procreate and wiggle about.

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:39:38 UTC | #844216

Go to: Beam me up from another universe, Scotty

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by kraut

not "as", and it should read.

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:55:01 UTC | #637384

Go to: Beam me up from another universe, Scotty

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by kraut

What actual evidence and measurements exist that would qualify to apply the term "theory"? AFAIK it is still an unproven hypothesis. Both the multiverse hypothesis as string hypothesis. To apply the term theory to such a framework of unsubstantiated mathematical conjecture and speculation gives actual theories like relativity and evolution a bad name.

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:54:19 UTC | #637383

Go to: BBC - Everything and Nothing

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by kraut

According to xtian theo"logy" god created from nothing. In the beginning there was the void.

Ok so far. So, lets eliminate the pesky question where did "god(s)" come from by simply eliminating the absurd concept of creator(s) that created out of nothing but came into being exactly how? And into which space time continuum?

It is easier for me assume that the not yet universe existed in an unobservable and indeterminate quantum state where time and space did not exist until the moment of expansion

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 04:30:07 UTC | #633574

Go to: Campus extremism 'a serious problem' say MPs and peers

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by kraut

It seems lear that evidence for the claims are lacking, or at least are hidden. The question is: Why now and is this an attempt to curb the freedom of Universities in GB?

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:02:49 UTC | #620473

Go to: Evolution of human 'super-brain' tied to development of bipedalism, tool-making

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by kraut

It is the simple fact that only humans were able by using tools (which includes clothing and the subset of tools to produce them) to live in almost any environment on this planet. I do not think I included a value judgement in my statements, just the simple fact that without the use of tools (which includes the use of language and the transcription of language and the transmission of ideas) we would not have been able to spread as we did.

To me tools is anything beyond our natural endowment of physical attributes that permits us to either change our immediate environment (body) or the wider environment to make a living in it.

Yes, some animals use tools and others are able to learn from it. But there is a hell of a difference between choosing a natural found object to use as a means to retrieve food and intentional changing of an object - a piece of flint to shape a point, to sharpen and harden in fire a piece of carved wood. To me the examples of "tools" used by animals are a far, a very far cry from looking at a piece of flint and knapping a beautiful point. And that was only the start. Animals are not developing the use of tools by intentionally planning or conceptualizing the possibilities inherent and changing and adapting those tools to new purposes.

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:04:01 UTC | #618175

Go to: Evolution of human 'super-brain' tied to development of bipedalism, tool-making

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by kraut

PS - science only works because we have tool to test our hypothesis. It might be nice for Hawkings to sit in his wheelchair to ponder the origin of the universe. But to test his hypothesis we need tools - and therefore animals don't do science. they don't explain the world to themselves - for that to happen you need tools.

To deny the importance of tools in intellectual and cultural development, the transfer of complex ideas beyond verbal communicaton is simply idiotic, given historical and cultural facts.

Books are tools Measuring instruments are tool Computers are tools Everything you need to build, to communicate, to develop, to investigate relies on tools. Without tools intellectual pursuits might give you religion - but not science.

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:48:35 UTC | #618117

Go to: Evolution of human 'super-brain' tied to development of bipedalism, tool-making

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by kraut

"Cetaceans have had superior navigation skills to humans for most of history, and still far out-perform ate average human in this respect."

I include in complexity not only the operation on a day yo day level, but to leave behind a record of the culture that enabled complex interaction and thought. And this is where we part company with our fellow animals, and where tools come into play that permit us to leave a record of our activity so others might further develop those ideas.

There is no standing on the shoulders of giants either with cetaceans or in apis mellifica colonies. There is only further development of those traits by natural selection. We humans do not do natural selection anymore, we design the selection. Big difference, made possible by the development and use of tools.

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:39:02 UTC | #618111

Go to: Evolution of human 'super-brain' tied to development of bipedalism, tool-making

kraut's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by kraut

What is interesting about the commenter #1 that obviously he did not read the key words of the article. Otherwise he would have noticed that the author speaks of " the formation of the super-brain was a consequence of a rare ability to share COMPLEX thoughts among individual brains.

As to tools and cognitive abilities, there is this to say that the toolkit of Neanderthal obviously never evolved much above what he had at the beginning of his evolutionary journey, while the toolkit of h.s.s. from the first sets to today shows a trajectory unparalleled in nature anywhere.

Only the use of tools set us free to actually transfer concepts into real objects, and further then developing more complex objects through again further tool development. And again - this ability to conceptualize and the transfer of those concepts into reality relies to a large extend on the capacity to communicate complex thoughts to others.

Without tool use the evolution of cetaceans might show us that a highly evolved brain likely capable of complex ideas without the ability to use tools is a dead end intellectually.

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 03:34:00 UTC | #617948