I just wrote this little ditty on the Richard Dawkins forum.
A retort of the "Watch on the beach argument"

What is it with creationists and strawmen of evolution?

It's getting to the point that some creationists are willing to reject anyone correction to their strawman view of evolution.

Just idiotic.

If you want to argue against evolution, let someone who believes in it tell you what it means and what it is.
Unless you don't mind someone like me shoving a false idea of what creationism is at you.

If you don't want to hear the other side, shut up, and go away.

This question that relates to foundationalism: that all systems of thought must begin by making basic assumptions that are in turn used to get any system of knowledge 'off the ground'. Some putative examples (I don't necessarily agree on any of these being unsupported) might be: assuming the reliability of the senses allows me to make inferences from sensory knowledge, the assumption of the utility of reason to accurately know the world allows me to rely on reason, the need to assume that others experience a first person ontology, allows me to enter into meaningful discourse with others, etc.

First off let me say, in my opinion intelligence is not measured by how much technical jargon one can use in a post. Rather, conveying your thoughts on a very complicated topic in an easy to understand manner with out ‘losing’ your reader, is a true measure of intelligence. There are some members on the forums who do this well and there are some who do not, I am not going to name names or point fingers.

I know the old saying, “opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one”, and that is why I said it was MY opinion. I do not need anyone to point out what IQ tests actually measure, I understand what those tests take into account and that is not what I am discussing.

I know I want to teach my own children logic as soon as they can understand it, but what about having a class in school about it. Probably done in highschool or middle school like a health class or an elective.

I've noticed english classes teaching things like ad methods and science classes expressing logical ideas, but I'm not sure if this is really good enough. Now I wouldn't expect college level out of these students so it might just be called critical thinking, but I think a basic understanding of arguments would improve a students all around education.

Something to push for? Something for people to be against?

Not surprisingly, it has been revealed today that the disastrous floods in Britain this weekend are just another one of God's temper tantrums...

From today's Telegraph:

There is a very interesting article on Ars right now that concerns the fate of cosmology and the universe. Most of the technical stuff flies right over my head, but the concept intrigues me. Going outside ~100 billion years from now (probably a good guess to say that humans, in their current form at least, won't be around) and seeing a shrouded sky at night would really be sad and unfortunate. Enjoy it while you can. I always grin when I see a picture of some distant galaxy, or star cluster, or nebula, etcetera. The Hubble Deep Field is my favourite picture of the cosmic deep; everyone should have the chance to see it.

Am I the only one who thinks this truthism stuff is like dadaism?

All I know is we need a special group for people called attention-whoreism!

What is a Bright you ask? According to the Brights Web site www.the-brights.net , a bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. Whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. In a nutshell, we do not believe in a god or gods. Brights are individuals who do not think alike on many issues, and it is not our desire to press for conformity.

My journey to becoming a bright started long ago. I have always been skeptical and inquisitive. So when my questions about god or the bible were unanswered or answered with, "God works in mysterious ways," I would walk away frustrated, angry and dejected. As I became more educated I learned of many other religions and many other ways to view the world. With this knowledge I was forced conclude, they all can't be correct.

I'm so sick and tired of people do this whole "You're right, you're so right..."-Yes-man-head-nodding business.

It pisses me off, and the fact that I've done it before gets me more steamed.

Now, I'm not pointing fingers, since everyone is prone to doing it, but, please stop doing this.
This business is increasing at the Richard Dawkins forum, almost to the point you can fill a paperback of nothing but "You're right" stuff, AND NOTHING ELSE!

Agree if you want, but try to add something.

Jeez.