Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

Status
Not open for further replies.
Log4Girlz said:
Is there evidence that he can't?

so superman is confirmed to be a sun person then

Pandaman said:
what if you're superman and batman had just punched you into the sun and on the way back to earth noticed like lava and shit contrasted against the the dark side of mercury.

this is science! no room for whimsy
 
The_Technomancer said:
I normally think Dawkins is a bit of an asshole, but he hit this one spot on.

Spot. On

He can be, but I'm sure glad he threw this punch. There are few things more worthless than a career politician informing us of the "validity" of scientific theory.
 
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.
 
Davidion said:
He can be, but I'm sure glad he threw this punch. There are few things more worthless than a career politician informing us of the "validity" of scientific theory.


Especially one with Perry's educational history.
 
Pandaman said:
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.

Well, on earth he can blot out the sun with his thumbs. When on the sun he can still blot it out by covering his eyeballs with his thumbs.
 
krypt0nian said:
Especially one with Perry's educational history.

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.
 
Orayn said:
Why should he?
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.


CaptYamato said:
The few debates I have seen [Dawkins] in, he was to most civil person ever. It's usually the person on the other side that are being the dicks.
maxwell_smart__confused.gif
 
mclaren777 said:
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.

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.
 
krypt0nian said:
Especially one with Perry's educational history.

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.
 
mclaren777 said:
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.
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.

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.
 
mclaren777 said:

You know, I haven't watched many of Dawkin's debates. So based on your comment you must have watched them, right?

Please show me the videos of his debates that you watched where he's being uncivil. I'd love to find out more.
 
Timedog said:
No, we don't believe that religious people are inherently different because they are religious, or judge them on any inherent property. We do not wish to take away their rights to practice religion. That is a fucking terrible analogy.

You might not. Some do. You'll see that sort of thing come up in GAF religion threads again and again, and it sometimes makes me wish these people would fuck off and find religion rather than making my belief system look bad.
 
I like Dawkins.

I think willful ignorance should be combated publicly and those who spread this ignorance and use it for their advantage should be shamed.
 
iapetus said:
You might not. Some do. You'll see that sort of thing come up in GAF religion threads again and again, and it sometimes makes me wish these people would fuck off and find religion rather than making my belief system look bad.

how can it make your belief system look bad if you truly believe in it?
surely if they are wrong then they look bad for talking nonsense right?
 
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.
 
iapetus said:
You might not. Some do. You'll see that sort of thing come up in GAF religion threads again and again, and it sometimes makes me wish these people would fuck off and find religion rather than making my belief system look bad.
You have a belief system? I assumed you were agnostic for some reason.

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?

Air said:
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).
Stop being so reasonable.

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.
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:
Besides, he's fighting a raging fire with a little flame of his own.

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.
 
iapetus said:
You might not. Some do. You'll see that sort of thing come up in GAF religion threads again and again, and it sometimes makes me wish these people would fuck off and find religion rather than making my belief system look bad.

There will always be people like that in groups. The best you can do is lead by example.
It sucks, but change happens slowly..
 
SmokyDave said:
You have a belief system? I assumed you were agnostic for some reason.

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?

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?
 
dIEHARD said:
Essentially saying that anyone who believes in intelligence design is a moron and uneducated.
Some of the smartest and most well educated people i know believe in it.

Nope, but i have not had to hear about Perry for years.
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.

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.
 
Kermit The Dog said:
How does it feel to be impossibly wrong about everything?
The one thing Dawkins has on the rest of atheists (probably the reason he is your leader) is he doesn't view this as deductive reasoning.
 
SmokyDave said:
Stop being so reasonable.

<3

Smokydave 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?

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:
slowly but surely
thankfully it IS happening though

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.
 
iapetus 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.

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.
 
JGS said:
The one thing Dawkins has on the rest of atheists (probably the reason he is your leader) is he doesn't view this as deductive reasoning.

I didn't know Dawkins was my leader. I didn't even know who he was until recently.

Thanks JGS.
lol, a leader for atheists?
 
mclaren777 said:
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.

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.
 
Stridone 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


O...kay.

Stridone said:
and instead fire some sillly ad-hominem attacks that really add no value to the discussion at all.

Zing! I think you just shot yourself in the foot.
 
Bisnic said:
I didn't know Dawkins was my leader. I didn't even know who he was until recently.

Thanks JGS.
lol, a leader for atheists?
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.

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.
 
Air 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.

change in religious/non religious affinity over time?
I thought that much was obvious, though i should mention it is the UK
America, the "Christian Nation", would be a lot slower.
 
DeathIsTheEnd said:
Anyone thinking Dawkins is arrogant should watch his interview with Wendy Wright.

From that, one would think he is the most patient man on the planet.


Fuck me. I've never cringed so much in my life.

Dawkins should get an award for not punching her in the face.
 
"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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom