Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 23056 times)

Tito24

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20638
  • I'm a large man but.. one with a plan
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #75 on: March 02, 2012, 03:28:18 AM »
getbig, the forefront of science revolution.  ::)

haha "the trainer"  might be a best seller writer you never know ;D


only on getbig :o :o

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15947
  • Robot
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #76 on: March 02, 2012, 05:36:17 AM »
Not much to go to 4.5 billion now.

We are on the way!!!

Lord Humungous

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4674
  • REVOLUTION CALLING!
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #77 on: March 02, 2012, 05:42:49 AM »
Creationists. Are there any stupider people, I ask?  Be like talking to a parrot.   

Dr Chimps is obviously a wayyyyyy more intelligent than any Creationist. Excellent grammer!
X

Euro-monster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7583
  • Team Dutchie style!!
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #78 on: March 02, 2012, 05:49:21 AM »
Dr Chimps is obviously a wayyyyyy more intelligent than any Creationist. Excellent grammer!

I didnt read this thread at all ...but.. i just wanted to say Hi LH...whats up?.... ;D
?

MAXX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15243
  • MAGA
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #79 on: March 02, 2012, 06:05:38 AM »
so what I se people dumber than her on getbig.com every day :D

Lord Humungous

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4674
  • REVOLUTION CALLING!
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #80 on: March 02, 2012, 06:05:46 AM »
I didnt read this thread at all ...but.. i just wanted to say Hi LH...whats up?.... ;D

Hey! Whats up man!  8)
X

Cableguy

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1694
  • Cableguy no longer...
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #81 on: March 02, 2012, 11:14:13 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.



Geez, what a stupid bitch. Guess we're all products of incest...  ::)

hematocritter

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #82 on: March 02, 2012, 11:25:00 AM »
lol @ creationists/evolutionists/anyone who thinks they know how everything works. No one knows what the fuck is going on, how it all started, and how it all ends.

Tito24

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20638
  • I'm a large man but.. one with a plan
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #83 on: March 02, 2012, 11:27:36 AM »
i dont think dawkins ever claimed to know everything and rules out a creator.

wavelength

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
  • ~~~
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #84 on: March 02, 2012, 11:31:51 AM »
Creationists. Are there any stupider people, I ask?  Be like talking to a parrot.   

Yes there are. Scientific positivists and pseudo philosophers like Dawkins.
Both are wrong.

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #85 on: March 02, 2012, 11:40:51 AM »
As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)

this is a good post. except the part where you said creationists dismiss logic outright. there is much logic behind the idea of a creator. just no logic sufficient to prove such a thing exists.  certainly the concept of causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe. the idea of substance itself, any kind of substance, seems to require some kind of supernatural origin being that anything that extends is infinitely divisible. the human experience and the existence of life out of lifeless material grabs me by the balls and makes me think there is definitely a reason for life to exist.. and reproduction is just simply not it.

of course none of that proves anything. but its all stil based in the realm of logical ideas. 

wavelength

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10184
  • ~~~
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #86 on: March 02, 2012, 11:44:33 AM »
i dont think dawkins ever claimed to know everything and rules out a creator.

Maybe not but since he doesn't understand the restrictions of natural science, all his statements are mute in the end.

XFACTOR

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7703
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #87 on: March 02, 2012, 11:53:00 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.



I agree with what you're saying here and the statement in general.  But She definitely works him in this debate.

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #88 on: March 02, 2012, 12:17:43 PM »
Yes there are. Scientific positivists and pseudo philosophers like Dawkins.
Both are wrong.

You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.
from incomplete data

RadOncDoc

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #89 on: March 02, 2012, 12:19:12 PM »
As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)

We've had this conversation here before. And while I respect your opinion, I disagree. Again, you
are discrediting creationism not on it's scientific merit or ability to explain observed phenomena, but based on
your definition of science. Evolution and Creation Science can explain similarities in DNA, but Creation science
isn't a valid explanation because evolutionists (who are mostly atheists, and fervent atheists at that)
demand a naturalistic explanation. Again, this definition is a human construct. Why can't a God be the author of life?
Oh yeah, because philosophers and rabid atheistic evolutionists have told us that God doesn't exist. See, this isn't
a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one, which personally, makes me uneasy.

mazrim

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4441
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #90 on: March 02, 2012, 12:25:26 PM »
You have to be an idiot no matter what you believe to not see Dawkins getting beat like a drum in this. Most of the time he is attacking her via personal attacks and the other times he is making excuses for outright lies that are still taught today (in some cases) that have been proven to be false. In fact every time I see Dawkins in a debate with any sort of intelligent person on this subject he gets owned bad.
"Expelled" was a good movie.

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #91 on: March 02, 2012, 12:25:34 PM »
You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.

he never said that  ;D


i have told you time and time again, and you just dont seem to get it...   science has a welll defined limitation defined in its very own definition. SCIENCE CAN NOT SPEAK ON THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE. Ever.

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #92 on: March 02, 2012, 12:33:22 PM »
he never said that  ;D


i have told you time and time again, and you just dont seem to get it...   science has a welll defined limitation defined in its very own definition. SCIENCE CAN NOT SPEAK ON THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE. Ever.

...and again, you can?


 ::) ::)
from incomplete data

aesthetics

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2765
  • ~lil' cutey~
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #93 on: March 02, 2012, 12:34:55 PM »
GOD damn this is so fckng annoying i want to bust her face in!!



wow he had incredible patience to go through that first 10 minutes

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #94 on: March 02, 2012, 12:35:09 PM »
i certainly cant agree with those of you who think the woman in the video came out as the victor of the debate.  she certainly seems to be a thoughtful woman and maybe even intelligent and i certainly wouldnt say that dawkins won the debate either as he didnt make any great arguments however he did point ou that all she needed to do was open an ellemntary biology book for the evidence needed and  inside one of those books would contain a sufficient argument.



...and again, you can?


 ::) ::)
absolutely not. no one can. a redwood tree is as qualified to speak on the subject as a nobel prize winning astro physicist. neither have even the slightest idea of anyting related to the issue.

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #95 on: March 02, 2012, 01:08:09 PM »
i certainly cant agree with those of you who think the woman in the video came out as the victor of the debate.  she certainly seems to be a thoughtful woman and maybe even intelligent and i certainly wouldnt say that dawkins won the debate either as he didnt make any great arguments however he did point ou that all she needed to do was open an ellemntary biology book for the evidence needed and  inside one of those books would contain a sufficient argument.


 absolutely not. no one can. a redwood tree is as qualified to speak on the subject as a nobel prize winning astro physicist. neither have even the slightest idea of anyting related to the issue.

The ironic thing about you saying that we can never know anything about the origin of the universe is the fact that you're making assumptions about that very thing in order to make that statement.

a)We can't know anything about the origin of the universe.
b)How do you know that?
a)Because we can't know.
b)Come again?


Your argument is very circular and self-contradicting.

Why not say that at present we do not know where the universe came from and it's fully possible that we never will although we can't be certain about it?
from incomplete data

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #96 on: March 02, 2012, 01:14:20 PM »
there are no assumpions involved. this is fundamental.

any scientific discovery made is subject to questioning


you find X, well what caused X?  you find out Y caused X, well what caused Y? and so on.


aesthetics

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2765
  • ~lil' cutey~
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #97 on: March 02, 2012, 01:20:14 PM »
there are no assumpions involved. this is fundamental.

any scientific discovery made is subject to questioning


you find X, well what caused X?  you find out Y caused X, well what caused Y? and so on.



what caused god, lol

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #98 on: March 02, 2012, 01:22:41 PM »
there are no assumpions involved. this is fundamental.

any scientific discovery made is subject to questioning


you find X, well what caused X?  you find out Y caused X, well what caused Y? and so on.



Don't try to sugarcoat it by using other words. You are right there claiming to know something about the origin of the universe and its properties. What if we made a discovery in physics that some manifestations of energy don't need a cause? Kinda like how there's no time before the big bang? Or kinda like how virtual particles pop out of nowhere? All wild speculation of course but again, don't claim to know something that you obviously don't.
from incomplete data

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19397
  • Psalms 150
Re: Dawkins vs creationist
« Reply #99 on: March 02, 2012, 01:28:53 PM »
what caused god, lol
god is a hypothetical. but hypothetically speaking god would be self caused or uncaused. in either situation the existence of god would be incomprehensible.

Don't try to sugarcoat it by using other words. You are right there claiming to know something about the origin of the universe and its properties. What if we made a discovery in physics that some manifestations of energy don't need a cause? Kinda like how there's no time before the big bang? Or kinda like how virtual particles pop out of nowhere? All wild speculation of course but again, don't claim to know something that you obviously don't.
im not sugar coating or using other words. it seems you just dont understand what im getting at. 

but lets go with your questions.   an energy that doesnt need a cause.

well, first of all..    does anything "need" a cause ?  we do know that most things are precipitated by some other thing.  but we dont know that events are necessarily caused by some other event.


secondly, lets say we do prove there is something that is not caused by anything other than itself.  well, why does it cause itself? what gives its energy the direction to come into form and take action in the way it does?


there is always a valid line of questioning about the nature of any object, whether real or hypothetical.