Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 
I stand corrected. I just could not resist pulling the tail of unfounded hatred. I promise never to do it again





posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 



Oh NO, not this tired old macro/micro evolution dribble again.
So a finch turning in to a finch is evidence for evolution. I dont go to pre school fella, go feed your nonsense to the kiddies.
What did I say about understanding? The obvious thing this nonsensical creationist argument fails utterly to grasp is time. Nobody theorises that a T Rex turned into a chicken within a short enough time span to be described as "macro evolution". The point is in fact a non sequitur. However, we do know that quite different animals have common ancestors because they share whole chunks of DNA.

Dawkins tentative hypothesis is no more defendable than ID theory. In fact it one of the same, thats the whole point, Dawkins just accepts space boogeymen where Christians accept God.
Dawkins does not accept "space boogeymen" at all. He has posited that life on earth may have come from elsewhere. The point however, which you ignored last time so let's draw full attention to it so you cannot continue without addressing it (well, assuming you have any self respect anyway), is that this hypothesis, despite being highly speculative, can be considered scientific BECAUSE IT CAN BE DISPROVED. There is no "ID theory", there is simply a claim which cannot be tested scientifically, therefore it cannot be taught in a science class.

Hey, since your attitude seems to suggest you are claiming to understand this subject fully, perhaps you can address this previously ignored question and tell us how we might design a scientific experiment that can prove or disprove the god of Abraham as a creator?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by borntowatch
 



Oh NO, not this tired old macro/micro evolution dribble again.
So a finch turning in to a finch is evidence for evolution. I dont go to pre school fella, go feed your nonsense to the kiddies.
What did I say about understanding? The obvious thing this nonsensical creationist argument fails utterly to grasp is time. Nobody theorises that a T Rex turned into a chicken within a short enough time span to be described as "macro evolution". The point is in fact a non sequitur. However, we do know that quite different animals have common ancestors because they share whole chunks of DNA.

Dawkins tentative hypothesis is no more defendable than ID theory. In fact it one of the same, thats the whole point, Dawkins just accepts space boogeymen where Christians accept God.
Dawkins does not accept "space boogeymen" at all. He has posited that life on earth may have come from elsewhere. The point however, which you ignored last time so let's draw full attention to it so you cannot continue without addressing it (well, assuming you have any self respect anyway), is that this hypothesis, despite being highly speculative, can be considered scientific BECAUSE IT CAN BE DISPROVED. There is no "ID theory", there is simply a claim which cannot be tested scientifically, therefore it cannot be taught in a science class.

Hey, since your attitude seems to suggest you are claiming to understand this subject fully, perhaps you can address this previously ignored question and tell us how we might design a scientific experiment that can prove or disprove the god of Abraham as a creator?


That would be my pleasure though

How about you explain abiogenesis so I have a foundation of the ground rules, but before that I want evidence of the of the BIG BANG, or at least some explanation with evidence as to how the universe came about.

How about explaining the causation of the different elements within periodic table of elements, then I will happily explain how we can use science to expl.... oh wait a sec. Christianity is faith based....
Just like the foundations of evolution.
Cheers ears
Oh and hurry up with the answer,
Yours is a faith as much as mine is, your lack of an answer proves it



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 
Why dont you just answer the request?

You have a god and so obviously you dont need rules. This is your chance to scientifically prove you are right and evolution is wrong.

What I cannot understand is that you would need guidance from the misguided group in the evolution corner



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
My questions stand
As I stated ever so clearly in English, capische?? My belief in God like yours in evolution is a faith. I will prove that beyond a shadow.
Now onwards we plough.

Cut the crap and prove your faith a science....or cantya do that



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Newer theories of evolution are just common sense.

The whole concept of religion is due to a lack of knowledge of the universe and has now turned into a fictitious heirloom of society! It is a distraction from the realization that we are insignificant within the universe!
edit on 21-1-2012 by Theoretician because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 
You were invited to do that very thing. You even said 'That would be my pleasure.' You asked for guidelines I explained that as you have god you dont need them. That gives you an advantage.

You say you can show proof beyond a shadow, go ahead the road is clear.

Once you do that I will have nothing I can prove. So cut through the crap and take pleasure in answering the request. Good luck


edit on 21-1-2012 by colin42 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
*Sigh*

You need guidelines? Why is that? Were you not taught science in school or something? Perhaps you were paying more attention to, or have since filled your mind to distraction with, something else? It's quite simple and requires no fancy words: your experiment or planned observation should provide evidence that the god of Abraham created or designed the creatures science says evolved to be how they are or he did not. If you can come up with such then the hypothesis can be called scientific... That is the whole argument.

BTW, it matters not what you think of the evidence for evolution, the hypotheses which make up the theory are scientific because they can be tested using the scientific method - end of story. Also the big bang theory has nothing to do with biology, evolutionary or otherwise, nor in fact does the theory of evolution speak to the actual origin of life itself, so the next time you're casting around for ways to avoid the subject in this kind of argument, avoid comparing apples to oranges, eh?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
My questions stand
As I stated ever so clearly in English, capische?? My belief in God like yours in evolution is a faith. I will prove that beyond a shadow.
Now onwards we plough.

Cut the crap and prove your faith a science....or cantya do that


Um, I already posted 4 links to you addressing the evidence behind evolution but you ignored it. Please address those thinks if you would like to continue this conversation. It doesn't take faith to believe something that's falsifiable, testable and repeatable.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by skonaz
 


Whether or not the two theories are mutually exclusive or not, it is unreasonable to bring creationism - which is totally unscientific - into a science class. It is equivalent to teaching evolution as a plausible alternative to creationism in creationism-based religious studies classes.

This next bit isn't directed at you by the way, but at the creationists bashing what they believe Dawkins' views are.

Too often creationists think science is simply about disproving God, it isn't at all.

And people don't have 'faith' in evolution, you should really do some reading. It is pretty much a certainty, obviously not a total one, but close enough given our current capabilities and observations. Scientists search for the truth, they don't wilfully say "oh well we don't know so never mind - we'll assume this old story is true'" - it is a constantly developing field. True scientists are also often the first to admit their life's work is incorrect when proved wrong..

Just the word 'faith' bothers me, how can anyone seriously put 'faith' into something without adequate justification for doing so? Faith indeed. Faith is believing something despite having no logical reason to do so, or rather despite the fact that all other evidence points in the other direction.

Faith is choosing to ignore documentaries about animal abuse, but assuming that they don't suffer too much when they're skinned alive for their fur. Faith is believing that Chicken Nuggets are good for you because that's what the guy at McDonald's said. The same guy who said, "Don't watch that documentary - they're just trying to corrupt you. Trust me. Really. If you don't watch it, we'll upsize that meal on the house!"

"... No? Ok well hey, let's put it this way. If you do watch it - we'll cook you!"



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Philodemus
 


Creationism should stay out of the Science class room and evolution out of the Comparative Religions'. Teach what should be taught in it's proper place.

Is there a 'proper place' for teaching children religion? Is this not simply indoctrination?

*


reply to post by newcovenant
 


I sent sympathy to Hitchens near the end and asked him to try belief as an experiment. What do you have to lose? I asked him.

I starred your earlier post. I was going to star this one, too, until I read the above.

Did you actually trouble a dying man with your personal obsessions? How very discourteous and selfish. How could you not realize that such a suggestion, made to a dying atheist, stinks of mockery and religious triumphalism?

*


reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Dawkins is just selling popular books ... he has not been taken seriously by any real scientists and none of his books have gained favourable reviews.

In what realms of the imagination is this held to be true?

Here is a list of academic publications by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins, with E.O. Wilson, is considered one of the world's leading biologists.


I have read all of Dawkins books...

You have not.

Here is a list of books by Richard Dawkins. You certainly haven't read The Magic of Reality, which is a children's book and has only just come out. Nor can you possibly have read The Extended Phenotype or The Ancestor's Tale if you really believe the comments you are making.


(Dawkins) is a scientist by profession who has failed to seriously address real philosphical and religious issues.

First, what are these issues?

Second, is it the job of a scientist to address philosophical and religious issues?


Dawkins popularity and influence will not outlive him for long.

We shall see.

I have just returned from the Galle Literary Festival in Sri Lanka, where it was my pleasure to listen to Richard Dawkins in conversation. Even in that remote Asiatic outpost of syncretism and superstition he was by far the most popular attraction at the festival.

*


reply to post by skonaz
 


I'm a Dawkins fanatic actually.

Then you'll be delighted to know he was in great form at the Festival and absolutely full of beans.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I want formed answers not links
The questions I asked are important for me to relate my answers to you

Here we go again

That would be my pleasure though

How about you explain abiogenesis so I have a foundation of the ground rules, but before that I want evidence of the of the BIG BANG, or at least some explanation with evidence as to how the universe came about.

How about explaining the causation of the different elements within periodic table of elements, then I will happily explain how we can use science to expl.... oh wait a sec. Christianity is faith based....
Just like the foundations of evolution.
Cheers ears
Oh and hurry up with the answer,
Yours is a faith as much as mine is, your lack of an answer proves it



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 
In other words how about evolution side gives you things to shoot down while you offer no evidence for your side at all despite ensuring everyone you have lots of proof and are more than happy to show it but never will.

If evolution is wrong and ID/creation correct then you should not need an explanation of evolution to explain ID/creation.

I would say you were asked first it would be rude not too answer first.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
The concept of God is far too complex for humans to understand. Like teaching quantum physics to a worm.

Silly morons.


"God" created evolution.

The computer I have has been created and it evolves as well.


Repeat to self : I am too stupid to talk about a creator, God or anything outside of what I watch on tv.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 

Lol been reading through your posts on this thread, very amusing. Your knowledge of the UK is very, very limited. Too limited for you to comment on it.

Also I know for a fact that Pakistanis do not like to be called 'Pakis' by non-Pakistanis. When they use the term the use it ironically like the n word.


How about you explain abiogenesis so I have a foundation of the ground rules, but before that I want evidence of the of the BIG BANG, or at least some explanation with evidence as to how the universe came about.

How about explaining the causation of the different elements within periodic table of elements, then I will happily explain how we can use science to expl.... oh wait a sec. Christianity is faith based....
Just like the foundations of evolution.
Cheers ears
Oh and hurry up with the answer,
Yours is a faith as much as mine is, your lack of an answer proves it

Lol to believe evolution is certain enough that it can be taken as a truth, or perhaps more of a truth than any alternative, is not equivalent to "faith". Now I will allow a real scientist to explain those things to you - but honestly, from where does your 'faith' stem? Because some guy told you? Because you read it in a book? Because someone said you'll go to hell if you don't have faith?

Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers, which is where its integrity comes from. Different scientists just try as hard as they can to discover where we came from, where we are and where we're going. And they do an incredible job. Just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean we should turn to myth and superstition.

If you step outside the religious box and allow yourself to actually challenge your faith, you will find it very rewarding. If, after unbiased observation, you still maintain your faith - then it will merely be enriched. I respect anyone who has looked into the other theories in order to challenge their own - however, most religious people just pick and choose different parts of the Bible, Qur'an or Torah to suit their argument. They'll go to great illogical lengths to defend their faith and refuse to acknowledge any scientific observations.

I think the reason religion is so intolerant of it's followers asking questions is because they know the whole charade falls apart so quickly. I remember once I really stopped letting fear of God get in the way of questioning my own religion, it all snowballed from there. Very liberating and satisfying.

In any case, imo, you can't take too much for granted. I think it's better that if individuals must have faith, then they should have their own God, not one that's presented to them by someone else. Because most likely, you can't trust that someone else.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
To any rational person this should make perfect sense. Religion isn't based on rationality/logic, and creationism has ZERO objective evidence as backup...so why on earth would it be taught in a class that's based ONLY on rationality/logic???

What's next? Teaching about the biology of unicorns too?





posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Sigh... another ego driven " i believe this over you" argument.

Realize mr xyz that your intelligence is no greater than a bus driver, garbage man or child. If you get insulted by this, that would only prove your lack of intelligence. sharing what you think is knowledge is redundant. 6 billion people in this world and you are no more knowledgeable then my 6 year old nephew. Again, if you take offense to this it only proves your intelligence is far less then what is required for a conversation of this magnitude.

A truly intelligent person would not say this exists or not for his knowledge and faculties limit him so greatly that humans need 5 million years of brain development to even scratch the surface of understanding. but what ever entertains the weak mind and ego.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Sigh... another ego driven " i believe this over you" argument.

Realize mr xyz that your intelligence is no greater than a bus driver, garbage man or child. If you get insulted by this, that would only prove your lack of intelligence. sharing what you think is knowledge is redundant. 6 billion people in this world and you are no more knowledgeable then my 6 year old nephew. Again, if you take offense to this it only proves your intelligence is far less then what is required for a conversation of this magnitude.

A truly intelligent person would not say this exists or not for his knowledge and faculties limit him so greatly that humans need 5 million years of brain development to even scratch the surface of understanding. but what ever entertains the weak mind and ego.


I didn't say god doesn't exist, I said there's zero proof for it/him/her. And we HAVE proof for evolution. So it would be silly to teach something we have no proof of in science class.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure I'm more intelligent than the average child


Never said I know everything, but you seem to imply this god creature exists. So please, entertain us, present your evidence. Because if you can't, you simply have to accept that there's no evidence in support of your claims...and you're essentially here to preach

edit on 22-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I didn't say god doesn't exist, I said there's zero proof for it/him/her. And we HAVE proof for evolution. So it would be silly to teach something we have no proof of in science class.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure I'm more intelligent than the average child


Never said I know everything, but you seem to apply this god creature exists. So please, entertain us, present your evidence. Because if you can't, you simply have to accept that there's no evidence in support of your claims...and you're essentially here to preach



Ergo, you revealed your knowledge in your last post or should I say lack.

Proof is all around us. Its the inadequacies of the human mind as you have proven that constructs such absurdities then points his finger at it saying ' Look how absurd this is". Sigh.

You said " God creature" This pretty much sums up the very low level of understanding you have of the real world. Dont worry. The world does not care or require you to think of things out of your grasp of understanding.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I didn't say god doesn't exist, I said there's zero proof for it/him/her. And we HAVE proof for evolution. So it would be silly to teach something we have no proof of in science class.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure I'm more intelligent than the average child


Never said I know everything, but you seem to apply this god creature exists. So please, entertain us, present your evidence. Because if you can't, you simply have to accept that there's no evidence in support of your claims...and you're essentially here to preach



Ergo, you revealed your knowledge in your last post or should I say lack.

Proof is all around us. Its the inadequacies of the human mind as you have proven that constructs such absurdities then points his finger at it saying ' Look how absurd this is". Sigh.

You said " God creature" This pretty much sums up the very low level of understanding you have of the real world. Dont worry. The world does not care or require you to think of things out of your grasp of understanding.


And more preaching


"Proof is all around us" isn't proof...that's preaching. Again, please entertain us with some real objective evidence of god's existence.

And "inadequacies" of the human mind aren't proof of god either. What's next? Wanna call it proof for the existence of unicorns too? Because there's also ZERO relation between that assertion and those inadequacies


You're essentially coming on here with an incredibly childish "you're all too dumb to understand god's greatness" nonsense that's beyond laughable. It would be ok if you presented some real evidence to support those claims, but clearly you don't. Again, you're simply preaching.

However, you're doing this thread a great service. You make it abundantly clear why creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes. It's simply not based on logic or rationality, but rather blind faith...
edit on 22-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join