Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 23110 times)

Tito24

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20638
  • I'm a large man but.. one with a plan
Dawkins vs creationist
« on: March 01, 2012, 05:38:30 AM »
GOD damn this is so fckng annoying i want to bust her face in!!


Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2012, 05:48:11 AM »
Actually, I think she owned him.  His big thing in this video is that "similarities" in DNA "prove" evolution.  She says similarities do not prove evolution.  She is right, similarities do not prove anything. 

He can't do better than that?

da_vinci

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
  • Cry me a river
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2012, 05:50:06 AM »
The look on her face aside tells - "Dumb".. Nuff' said.

Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2012, 05:51:55 AM »
She may "look" dumb, but if you watch the vid, she owns the argument clearly.  His only PRO is his arrogance, which will only work on the gullible and low self esteemed.

XXXII/LX

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • I have to return some video tapes.
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2012, 06:04:59 AM »
Oh brother. Yes clearly "owning" the arguement by completely avoid the facts he's stating.  ::) Anyone that believes the entire human population was spawned by 2 people is just down right dumb.


Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2012, 06:07:12 AM »
Oh brother. Yes clearly "owning" the arguement by completely avoid the facts he's stating.  ::) Anyone that believes the entire human population was spawned by 2 people is just down right dumb.



LOL what FACTS were they?

Pls elaborate?  What exactly did she "avoid"?

Love a good analytical discussion with other intellegent folk, when I can find them...

Tito24

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20638
  • I'm a large man but.. one with a plan
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2012, 06:20:09 AM »
its quite comical, dawkins is constantly saying there IS evidence for evolution, plenty! , she acts as if thats his belief that there IS evidence for it.


Marty Champions

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33948
  • ericpdollard.com is what we should know
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2012, 06:24:06 AM »
all gravity and nutrients spawned all life

A

Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2012, 06:24:17 AM »
its quite comical, dawkins is constantly saying there IS evidence for evolution, plenty! , she acts as if thats his belief that there IS evidence for it.



Not really, she asks for proof, and he says "similarities in DNA" and THAT is the best argument he makes.     It is true, that for many, their passion for evolution is like a religion, and that is what she points out.  

Myself, I can easily believe many people are mutated from apes.  Super low IQ's, ape like features, etc...    

Marty Champions

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33948
  • ericpdollard.com is what we should know
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2012, 06:27:36 AM »
planets were formed by collisions in space, this is also how stars are made, how do you think people were made then?

collisions=gravity

and

nutrients
A

Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2012, 06:28:31 AM »
planets were formed by collisions in space, this is also how stars are made, how do you think people were made then?

collisions=gravity

and

nutrients

Soylent Green.......   is ...... PEOPLE!

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28646
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2012, 06:30:34 AM »
Creationists. Are there any stupider people, I ask?  Be like talking to a parrot.   

XXXII/LX

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • I have to return some video tapes.
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2012, 07:40:11 AM »
LOL what FACTS were they?

Pls elaborate?  What exactly did she "avoid"?

Love a good analytical discussion with other intellegent folk, when I can find them...

Her line, "God created each one of us" completely discredits anything she has to say IMO. It's 2012, are we still to believe in Bronze age myths?

She never directly answers any questions he asked her. She just fired off some precanned bullshit in order to dodge the question.

"Concerned women for America", oh brother.

RadOncDoc

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2012, 07:50:14 AM »
Not really, she asks for proof, and he says "similarities in DNA" and THAT is the best argument he makes.     It is true, that for many, their passion for evolution is like a religion, and that is what she points out.  

Myself, I can easily believe many people are mutated from apes.  Super low IQ's, ape like features, etc...    

Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in
evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA.
Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA  
reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species.
I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand
and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor,
of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in nature
must have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life.
Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn't
fully explain similarities in DNA.

#1 Klaus fan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2012, 07:51:38 AM »
Everything points out to evolution. But can you prove god didn't create us in that way just to trick us?  ::)

da_vinci

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
  • Cry me a river
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2012, 07:52:46 AM »
Not really, she asks for proof, and he says "similarities in DNA" and THAT is the best argument he makes.     It is true, that for many, their passion for evolution is like a reli

Science is /positive/, it means - there's no object to "believe in", as it's based on a scientific method. If that dumb whore has something MORE CONSTRUCTIVE to offer as an explanation, instead of evolution (the most proven scientific theory of all. Even pope accepts it ffs) - I'd be eager to hear it. Oh wait.. she's just a stupid female who believes in fairy tales.

#1 Klaus fan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2012, 07:53:22 AM »
Isn't wolves and dogs an example of "macro"evolution.

XXXII/LX

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • I have to return some video tapes.
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2012, 08:01:20 AM »
Isn't wolves and dogs an example of "macro"evolution.

No. God made dogs.  ;D

MikMaq

  • Guest
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2012, 08:14:51 AM »
The problem ain`t evolution itself, the problem is the  belief that is a worked out system. It ain`t most of evolution is still a mystery.


did life as we know it come from outer space, some sort of space god we got no fricking clue.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2012, 08:20:23 AM »
Actually, I think she owned him.  His big thing in this video is that "similarities" in DNA "prove" evolution.  She says similarities do not prove evolution.  She is right, similarities do not prove anything.  

He can't do better than that?

  Bwa ha ha ha ha ha...go back to eighth grade biology class, retard.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

MORTALCOIL

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2012, 08:22:23 AM »
Love the way creationists twist facts. Evidences will never stop the questioning so by this absurd way of thinking, the fact that a theory can always be discussed will still allow creationism to be the only truth. How fucked up is that? Even if you can't prove evolution 100%, you disprove all the fairy tales those bigots believe in. They will tell you that the hand of god is still there somewhere even thoguh Adam and Eve have disappeared from the picture.

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28646
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2012, 08:34:47 AM »
Drive through Tennessee. Creationist ground zero.

Dr.Ill

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 246
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2012, 08:35:51 AM »
My question is:  why has evolving stopped?   ::)

#1 Klaus fan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2012, 08:36:44 AM »
did life as we know it come from outer space, some sort of space god we got no fricking clue.

Has nothing to do with evolution.

deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2667
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2012, 08:53:20 AM »
Natural sciences are formed based on observation. It's not strict in the mathmatical or logical sense, as there are is no axiomatic system whatsoever and we use many assumptions, like "if it works 100000 times, it will work for 100000th time" which obviously may not hold. Especially evolutionary science by definition is doomed to base on the facts that we have now to prove something about the past. We live too short to observe any kind of evolution, so what we have is DNA and other proofs which may not satisfy everyone, but well, that's all we're ever gonna have. On the other side we have belief based on book wrote by arabs and jews thousands of years ago.

Non-scientists should not discuss science. I'm sorry, but fuck off.