Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact
- Thread starter speculawyer
- Start date
- Status
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I normally think Dawkins is a bit of an asshole, but he hit this one spot on.
Spot. On
Spot. On
LegendofJoe
Member
magicstop said:Just praying for a bit of rain, is all
haha, nice
the real question is, if superman is a sun person does he shrink as he approaches the sun or grow as he approaches the earth?
because its common knowledge that earth thumbs are large enough to blot out the sun [thus proving that the sun revolves around the much more massive earth] but whenever superman is near the sun his thumbs seem much smaller than they aught to be.
because its common knowledge that earth thumbs are large enough to blot out the sun [thus proving that the sun revolves around the much more massive earth] but whenever superman is near the sun his thumbs seem much smaller than they aught to be.
krypt0nian
Banned
Davidion said:
Especially one with Perry's educational history.
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
He expressed my feelings exactly. Dawkins is the man.
krypt0nian said:
You know something? I'm not going to go to make an appeal solely based his educational history. I don't like appealing to status here it can be avoided, and it certainly can be avoided here. Had Perry's comments been something other than the standard issue unmitigated "well it has some gaps so you know, out there" horseshit it might have been worth listening to and addressing seriously for a second.
It's a shame that Dawkin had to expend to energy and use precious ink & paper to address that piece of shit travesty of a politician's "notion" on evolution at all.
mclaren777
Member
Because he makes atheism look bad with his overly antagonistic approach. In the last five years Dawkins has basically turned into an obnoxious anti-religion evangelist.Orayn said:
CaptYamato said:
mclaren777 said:
You say that, but almost every time I see Dawkins speak or read his writings, he's very calm, cool, and collected. His campaign may be somewhat aggressive in that he's looking for airtime and exposure, but he's certainly a fairly level-headed guy who doesn't typically act "obnoxious" or "overly antagonisitic."
And fuck, somebody has to fight the stupids.
Dude Abides
Banned
krypt0nian said:
I'll have you know that Texas A&M is a fine school, particularly for study in the fields of squeezing one's own balls and jizzing in a collective jar.
I suspect there is nothing that could be done to make atheism look 'good' in the eyes of many. At best I think atheism could hope to be politely ignored and looked down upon. Given the nature of the message, I'm not surprised so many are eager to shoot the person that they perceive as the messenger.mclaren777 said:
Besides, he's fighting a raging fire with a little flame of his own. Watch the interview with Wendy Wright if you want to see a truly obnoxious person.
Not surprised at all about Perry's position on evolution (or any scientific matter). He's speaking to the same people that call e=mc2 a liberal conspiracy.
As a believer, I don't mind Dawkins too much even though he's fairly abrasive. He's no Carl Sagan that's for sure. Like most scientists, he's good when he talks about the science, but not so much about religion (at least the more nuanced beliefs).
That said, I wish there were more believers who 'subscribed' to evolution. I feel like it'd be the very last thing to disprove God.
That said, I wish there were more believers who 'subscribed' to evolution. I feel like it'd be the very last thing to disprove God.
You have a belief system? I assumed you were agnostic for some reason.iapetus said:
Can atheism or agnosticism ever be a belief system? Atheism in particular is a lack of belief, surely you can't have a lack of belief system?
Stop being so reasonable.Air said:
Yeah, that's one thing I don't get. I'm not religious, but if I was, I don't see how evolution would pose any threat to my beliefs. Surely I'd just assume that God created / designed evolution? Isn't that how the catholics reconcile things?
SmokyDave said:
Doesn't work. Might amuse some people who are already on the same page as Dawkins, but is guaranteed to be counter-productive against those who aren't. Fighting fire with fire is a fucking stupid idea - you fight fire with a fire extinguisher, or with health and safety policies that stop you storing the gunpowder in the angle grinder room.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Which theory of gravity are you referring to?iapetus said:
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
SmokyDave said:
Atheism certainly can be a belief system - strong atheism is not a lack of belief, for example. I'm not a strong atheist, though, because that's madness.
Agnosticism certainly isn't a lack of belief either - it's a belief about the nature of the question; that for certain conditions the question of a deity's existence is unknown or unknowable. Whether that counts as a belief system, I don't know.
I'm not convinced that just because (weak) atheism is a lack of belief it can't count as a belief system anyway. It's easy to rewrite it as a positive belief - a belief that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. It forms part of a structure that you can hang a moral framework on. Why not count it as a belief system?
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
1. He is saying people are ignorant if they don't understand why evolution is a fact. Everyone who doesn't believe that is as ignorant or foolish as people who believe the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Dawkins argues intelligence is no longer part of the requirements for being elected as a candidate in the republican party which is completely true if you look at the buffoons we have to select from.dIEHARD said:
2. Those people you know are ignorant of evolution then. A person can be brilliant at math for example and still believe in 2012 or that the CIA has a earthquake machine. Stupidity does not mean a person is unskillful.
SmokyDave said:
<3
Smokydave said:
I'm not catholic, but if I recall, essentially yeah. There are also a few other biologists, who're believers that also subscribe to evolution. This is only a problem if you have a literalistic interpretation of Genesis (which I don't believe to be necessary).
Really its just one branch of people who are just REALLY loud and obnoxious, and make others look bad.
Uchip said:
I don't know what this has to do with what I said? Also would you mind linking directly to the article, I don't know the context of that graph.
Dude Abides
Banned
iapetus said:
Nothing will be productive against those who aren't. You can't persuade someone like Wendy Wright with polite persuasion, and I doubt that's his intended target.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Sure, but I'm wondering who's theory of gravity carries more weight for you.iapetus said:
I second your opinions of Dawkins btw
mclaren777 said:
No he doesn't, he makes people like you look bad because your lack of understanding of even the most basic science is brought to light. That's why these threads are always filled with idiots saying Dawkins is "arrogant" and equally bad, if not worse, than the people he is ridiculing. In reality it's just an easy way to ignore the science and how it contradicts your dumb, unscientific beliefs, and instead fire some sillly ad-hominem attacks that really add no value to the discussion at all.
My misunderstanding considering all the threads about him. I agree he's not a real leader at all & I think it's ridiculous to make a thread about what he says rather than what you yourself say.Bisnic said:
I just didn't want to offend anyone by actually calling him an idiot based on that video. Still he does at least try to explain why he's Way is so special.
"Evolution is a fact"
Yes and no.
The part of the theory that states that evolution causes species to change over time and biodiversity to increase as evolutionary paths branch is definitely true. We've already been able to observe this phenomena within species with short lifespans (such as bacteria and insects) and through controlled breeding. This is a truly proven fact.
However, the other part of the theory that states that all biodiversity today evolved from single celled organisms from aeons ago is entirely unproven at this point. Honestly, I don't buy it myself. The theory just doesn't hold up when you observe life from an anatomical level.
For example, In the stomach, we have glands that produce enzymes, glands that produce acid and glands that produce mucus. The enzymes don't work without the acid and the acid would eat through our stomachs and kill us if it weren't for the mucus. Remembering that evolution is a very slow process and all three glands couldn't possibly have formed all at the same time, explain to me how exactly the stomach would have had to evolve into existence from nothing. As far as I can tell, it's an all or nothing situation. And that's only one example. There are plenty
As a man of science, I say bring on a third theory into debate.
Yes and no.
The part of the theory that states that evolution causes species to change over time and biodiversity to increase as evolutionary paths branch is definitely true. We've already been able to observe this phenomena within species with short lifespans (such as bacteria and insects) and through controlled breeding. This is a truly proven fact.
However, the other part of the theory that states that all biodiversity today evolved from single celled organisms from aeons ago is entirely unproven at this point. Honestly, I don't buy it myself. The theory just doesn't hold up when you observe life from an anatomical level.
For example, In the stomach, we have glands that produce enzymes, glands that produce acid and glands that produce mucus. The enzymes don't work without the acid and the acid would eat through our stomachs and kill us if it weren't for the mucus. Remembering that evolution is a very slow process and all three glands couldn't possibly have formed all at the same time, explain to me how exactly the stomach would have had to evolve into existence from nothing. As far as I can tell, it's an all or nothing situation. And that's only one example. There are plenty
As a man of science, I say bring on a third theory into debate.
- Status