oh god just finished watching the first part and i'm already smashing my face into the desk. dawkins is pretty much talking to a brick wall so far. He asks her a simple question like "where did you study science?" as a confirmation of her reliability and she tries to twist it into "oh well that's all scientists do is ignore people who don't study science and that's why they're wrong"
EDIT: fucking christ this is so difficult to watch dawkins brings up viable points and all she says is "YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT OF EVOLUTION FROM ONE SPECIES TO THE NEXT" then dawkins continues to go and list of a bunch of evidence "THAT'S NOT THE EVIDENCE I'M LOOKING FOR" FUUUUU
oh dear god now she basically just said "you aren't showing evidence that is easy for people who aren't scientists to understand so you're not showing any evidence at all" I'M GOING TO BREAK MY MONITOR
Does Dawkins ever debate people who aren't idiots? I agree with him but it'd be refreshing to see him talk with a competent person for a change.
[QUOTE=Pandamox;35062060]oh god just finished watching the first part and i'm already smashing my face into the desk. dawkins is pretty much talking to a brick wall so far. He asks her a simple question like "where did you study science?" as a confirmation of her reliability and she tries to twist it into "oh well that's all scientists do is ignore people who don't study science and that's why they're wrong"[/QUOTE]
He's being violently manipulative in his way of portraying it too. In some interviews he narrates over them spending a lot of energy essentially calling the "victim" stupid because "Christ".
I don't remember if he himself only stays with facts or if he's one of those Big Bang types... which itself is only a theory that can't be proven. That's what the LHC is for.
He is right. But he's being a fucking chimp. What with throwing his own feces in everyones necks. Kind of confirms Darwin though. He's a fundamentalistic anti-creationist that is only slightly better than Westboro.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Droogie;35062078]Does Dawkins ever debate people who aren't idiots? I agree with him but it'd be refreshing to see him talk with a competent person for a change.[/QUOTE]
Too much of a challenge. You see, if he does that they might actually touch on theories that are actually debatable and he might be proven to be narrow-minded. We can't have that.
With that i mean those theories bordering on religion such as Big Bang and multiple physical universes and parallel universes and whatnot. Or even the genesis of life on earth. All of that is just scientific theories, though the Genesis on earth is based on fossil finds and drawing lines to pin-point evolutionary differences.
[QUOTE=Droogie;35062078]Does Dawkins ever debate people who aren't idiots? I agree with him but it'd be refreshing to see him talk with a competent person for a change.[/QUOTE]
Generally Dawkins debates people who are the most vocal anti-evolutionists.
The problem with him debating anyone with a measurable IQ about evolution is that, well, generally they either A) Don't study anything about evolution and don't believe themselves to be up to the task to debunk it so they're not vocal or don't take up the debate or B) study and realize that evolution has overwhelming support and proof in the scientific world and that going against it would be illogical and stupid.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;35062163]Generally Dawkins debates people who are the most vocal anti-evolutionists.
The problem with him debating anyone with a measurable IQ about evolution is that, well, generally they either A) Don't study anything about evolution and don't believe themselves to be up to the task to debunk it so they're not vocal or don't take up the debate or B) study and realize that evolution has overwhelming support and proof in the scientific world and that going against it would be illogical and stupid.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I think only the hardest of the hardcore gluttons for punishment are willing to face Dawkins. This video reminds me of the first time I heard Matt Dillahunty debate Ray Comfort... I remember slamming my head into the desk and cursing at my monitor listening to that while playing Minecraft...
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35062117]He's being violently manipulative in his way of portraying it too. In some interviews he narrates over them spending a lot of energy essentially calling the "victim" stupid because "Christ".
I don't remember if he himself only stays with facts or if he's one of those Big Bang types... which itself is only a theory that can't be proven. That's what the LHC is for.
He is right. But he's being a fucking chimp. What with throwing his own feces in everyones necks. Kind of confirms Darwin though. He's a fundamentalistic anti-creationist that is only slightly better than Westboro.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
Too much of a challenge. You see, if he does that they might actually touch on theories that are actually debatable and he might be proven to be narrow-minded. We can't have that.
With that i mean those theories bordering on religion such as Big Bang and multiple physical universes and parallel universes and whatnot. Or even the genesis of life on earth. All of that is just scientific theories, though the Genesis on earth is based on fossil finds and drawing lines to pin-point evolutionary differences.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're not a troll at [I]all[/I], are you? Nawww...[/sarcasm]
so, who stole this idiot woman's brain?
[QUOTE=J-Dude;35062245]
Yeah, you're not a troll at [I]all[/I], are you? Nawww...[/sarcasm][/QUOTE]
What? No i'm not. Are you?
I just said that i dislike Fundamentalism on both sides and that he shouldn't stoop to the levels that he often does. It's nice to see him playing somewhat nice here.
I then expressed a wish for more people to stick with facts that are either proven or theories with high probabilities of being true.
Is that trolling now?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35062579]What? No i'm not. Are you?
I just said that i dislike Fundamentalism on both sides and that he shouldn't stoop to the levels that he often does. It's nice to see him playing somewhat nice here.
I then expressed a wish for more people to stick with facts that are either proven or theories with high probabilities of being true.
Is that trolling now?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sure... "Atheist Fundamentalism"... because, y'know, [I]that's[/I] a thing, and not a term that people use when they don't know what they're friggin' talking about, because Atheism has no dogma or tenants one can use as a basis for fundamentalism in the first place.
Then you go for the "Big Bang is only a theory" angle, another sign the speaker is scientifically clueless, because theories are the highest form a scientific idea can attain, as absolute certainty is always an intellectually dishonest thing to claim. Then you say, "That's what the LHC is for," which confuses me... The LHC isn't proving the Big Bang Theory, as most of astronomical physics already does that, starting with that telltale Cosmic Microwave background radiation leftover.
Also, I take issue with your comparison of the Big Bang and Multiverse theories to religion. Again, this seems like the sort of claim a scientific sophomore would make, especially since Multiverse Theory tends to make most creationists bristle uncomfortably, given they're driven to think our Universe is the only one.
But most of all, I take issue with your passive aggressive snipes at Dawkins. I don't suppose you've READ "The God Delusion"? Because I have, and this man wasn't afraid to tackle any subject even REMOTELY linked to religion in that book, up to and including the very theories you've mentioned. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant philanthropist who is nothing if not fair and decent to even the most disgustingly ignorant and bigoted among us. Your flippant dismissal of his character is not something I will remain silent over...
...if, of course, you're not a troll trying to rub people the wrong way.
Classic video, never gets old.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35062117]
Too much of a challenge. You see, if he does that they might actually touch on theories that are actually debatable and he might be proven to be narrow-minded. We can't have that.
With that i mean those theories bordering on religion such as Big Bang and multiple physical universes and parallel universes and whatnot. Or even the genesis of life on earth. All of that is just scientific theories, though the Genesis on earth is based on fossil finds and drawing lines to pin-point evolutionary differences.[/QUOTE]
He often debates with evolutionists and somewhat intellectually comparable creationists as well.
The problem might be,that intelligent creationists/anti-evolutionists are very rare and hard to find.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DSG;35062285]so, who stole this idiot woman's brain?[/QUOTE]
God apparently dislikes giving their sheep brains you see.
Even her face looks stupid.
Just that blank look of "I have no clue about anything"
[QUOTE=J-Dude;35062747]
...if, of course, you're not a troll trying to rub people the wrong way.[/QUOTE]
I don't and be as vocal as you might wish. Very chivalrous of you.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=znk666;35062906]He often debates with evolutionists and somewhat intellectually comparable creationists as well.
The problem might be,that intelligent creationists/anti-evolutionists are very rare and hard to find.
[/QUOTE]
To many people that would be a paradox. IMO intelligent people can be creationists since it's as much of a theory as big bang is. Especially when you start to count in art, consciousness and all of that. but it quickly spills into philosophy rather than science. This is why we still love the ancient Greeks.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35063056]
To many people that would be a paradox. IMO intelligent people can be creationists since it's as much of a theory as big bang is. Especially when you start to count in art, consciousness and all of that. but it quickly spills into philosophy rather than science. This is why we still love the ancient Greeks.[/QUOTE]
...
Do you even know what a scientific theory is?
[QUOTE=Aman VII;35063034]Even her face looks stupid.
Just that blank look of "I have no clue about anything"[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/snj1h.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35063056]I don't and be as vocal as you might wish. Very chivalrous of you.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
To many people that would be a paradox. IMO intelligent people can be creationists since it's as much of a theory as big bang is. Especially when you start to count in art, consciousness and all of that. but it quickly spills into philosophy rather than science. This is why we still love the ancient Greeks.[/QUOTE]
Are you honestly comparing The big bang to creationism?
That's like saying turd is equal to a car.
[QUOTE=Droogie;35062078]Does Dawkins ever debate people who aren't idiots? I agree with him but it'd be refreshing to see him talk with a competent person for a change.[/QUOTE]
There's a video of him debating at Oxford with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac[/media]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35063056]I don't and be as vocal as you might wish. Very chivalrous of you.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
To many people that would be a paradox. IMO intelligent people can be creationists since it's as much of a theory as big bang is. Especially when you start to count in art, consciousness and all of that. but it quickly spills into philosophy rather than science. This is why we still love the ancient Greeks.[/QUOTE]
All you people with the "it's just a theory" make my blood boil. And it always means you have no clue what you're talking about. You are confusing [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory]scientific theory[/url] and colloquial theory, which in scientific terms would be called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis]hypothesis[/url]. These are worlds apart for fucks sake.
Her smile makes me very angry.
Video 5/7 makes my blood boil. It's just her blatant denial of evidence.
Richard Dawkins is an arrogant narcissistic, which I why I cannot respect any point or debate he would try to make. I'm strictly talking about Dawkins as a human being, not in regards to any theory or sciences.
Aaaghh! What is this?? "Hurrdurr species share a lot of same DNA, but HUMANS' (who have to be treated with RESPECT and DIGNITY) DNAs were created individually (?!?!?!) + more blabber"
Sounds like she's confusing DNA with different "unique" human personalities, which is largely due to our [b]evolved[/B] brain.
It took many generations of entire prehuman species to give this dumb cunt her voice, which she uses to say STUPID things.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;35063506]There's a video of him debating at Oxford with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac[/media][/QUOTE]
The Archbishop accepts evolution though
Dawkins bores the shit out of me, why can't both sides just tolerate each other rather than being at each others throats just because one person thinks differently than others.
[QUOTE=markg06;35066200]Dawkins bores the shit out of me, why can't both sides just tolerate each other rather than being at each others throats just because one person thinks differently than others.[/QUOTE]
Because accepting facts is not a matter of opinion?
[QUOTE=markg06;35066200]Dawkins bores the shit out of me, why can't both sides just tolerate each other rather than being at each others throats just because one person thinks differently than others.[/QUOTE]
Because the people whom Dawkins debates with are generally lobbyists or are trying to incite change that would "teach the controversy", in essence telling children in schools that "intelligent design" is on equal footing with evolution, or they're trying to get evolution banned in schools altogether. Why? Because it conflicts with genesis, not because of any actual scientific research. It's abominable what they're doing, and tolerance towards such acts of ignorance purely for the sake of "tolerance" is not acceptable as it violates the separation between church and state. Just because it's boring to you doesn't mean it's not important and should be ignored.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;35066801]Because the people whom Dawkins debates with are generally lobbyists or are trying to incite change that would "teach the controversy", in essence telling children in schools that "intelligent design" is on equal footing with evolution, or they're trying to get evolution banned in schools altogether. Why? Because it conflicts with genesis, not because of any actual scientific research. It's abominable what they're doing, and tolerance towards such acts of ignorance purely for the sake of "tolerance" is not acceptable as it violates the separation between church and state. Just because it's boring to you doesn't mean it's not important and should be ignored.[/QUOTE]
Yeah exactly. Lets teach children fairly tales about how earth was made and how it really happened as equal things and let them choose. Lets go back in time in terms of education because we want to be tolerant of other people's opinions. Except they are not opinions it's rejecting facts and blind ignorance. How can one advocate tolerating ignorance?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35063056]I don't and be as vocal as you might wish. Very chivalrous of you.
[editline]9th March 2012[/editline]
To many people that would be a paradox. IMO intelligent people can be creationists since it's as much of a theory as big bang is. Especially when you start to count in art, consciousness and all of that. but it quickly spills into philosophy rather than science. This is why we still love the ancient Greeks.[/QUOTE]
Fact: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Her smile is so false, she's actually really hard to listen to purely because of it.
Dawkins is probably the most patient man. If I had to deal with that lady for more than two minutes violence would probably ensue.
richard dawkins is best
ive started to read his books
there best
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
