Richard Dawkins answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College

[columbusdude82]

So, you admit that the theory of macroevolution is not fact.

When it comes to Biology, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist.  That I know.  Yet, he has presented no proof for macroevolution.

It is only when it comes to his war on religion that Dawkins is a nutjob, and other secular scientists agree.  But that is a topic for another thread.

Still, you have presented no proof to support macroevolution, or any proof that humans evolved from an ape like species.

I get the feeling you want me to teach you the science that your supposed scientific education never gave you. I don't mean to be rude, but you have gone on record saying that the claim "The water molecule is made up of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom" is just as much an article of faith as religion, so it's obvious you hadn't heard about the electrolysis of water. Perhaps you'd like to start there.

Now if you really want to learn about evolution, there are many excellent books, including Dawkins' books. Alternatively, any freshman or sophomore biology textbook is a good starting point.

As for you calling Dawkins a nutjob, that is EXACTLY what this thread is about. Look at the topic and your first post.

Hmmm, I wonder how this conversation goes:

Loco: I believe that an invisible spirit knocked up a Palestinian Jewish chick about 2000 years ago.
        I believe that pregnancy resulted in a little boy who was both the Hebrew God and his Son.
        I believe that this fatherless man could perform magic tricks, like turning water into wine and bringing the dead back to life.
        I believe this fatherless man was killed brutally then came back to life himself as well.
        I believe this fatherless man flew up into the sky.
        I believe I can converse regularly with this fatherless man.
        I believe this fatherless man will be back.

Dawkins: Cool. You got any evidence for that?

loco: YOU NUTJOB!!! HOW DARE YOU??? NUTJOB!!!   

[loco]

you have gone on record saying that the claim "The water molecule is made up of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom" is just as much an article of faith as religion, so it's obvious you hadn't heard about the electrolysis of water.

Please, do produce the post where you can quote me saying that.  I may have quoted someone else saying that, but you can't quote me on that.

Now if you really want to learn about evolution, there are many excellent books, including Dawkins' books. Alternatively, any freshman or sophomore biology textbook is a good starting point.

As for you calling Dawkins a nutjob, that is EXACTLY what this thread is about. Look at the topic and your first post.

Hmmm, I wonder how this conversation goes:

Loco: I believe that an invisible spirit knocked up a Palestinian Jewish chick about 2000 years ago.
        I believe that pregnancy resulted in a little boy who was both the Hebrew God and his Son.
        I believe that this fatherless man could perform magic tricks, like turning water into wine and bringing the dead back to life.
        I believe this fatherless man was killed brutally then came back to life himself as well.
        I believe this fatherless man flew up into the sky.
        I believe I can converse regularly with this fatherless man.
        I believe this fatherless man will be back.

Dawkins: Cool. You got any evidence for that?

loco: YOU NUTJOB!!! HOW DARE YOU??? NUTJOB!!!   

So you resort to name calling, insults and attempts to discredit me, as if that would prove macroevolution is a fact.   

The man who strikes first admits his arguments have run out.

We are still waiting for those piles and piles of evidence you keep talking about, but have been unable to produce.

[columbusdude82]

If you quoted him on that (it's in the Faith of My Fathers thread), I presume you endorse him.

No name calling, just following your logic.

As for the evidence, I told you where to find it. Do you want me to mail you the books?

[OzmO]

A bodybuilding message board is hardly the place to learn science. Go to your library, watch the Discovery Channel, read a good science book!

No sh*t Sherlock.

I'm asking for information for those who have the expertise to give it.   You obviously don't.  Perhaps you are the one who needs to go to the library.   But neo, seems to know what's he's talking about and he's probably quicker and more efficient at answering my questions then what you suggested.

In the mean time, it seems that your assertion of "Proof"  being around for years is not true and there still seems to be holes in the theory of evolution.

[columbusdude82]

As Squadfather would say, relax, tiger, it aint that serious.

Not to indulge your laziness, but I made two threads with "evidence" and stuff from legitimate sources. Check em out if you're really interested.

[loco]

As Squadfather would say, relax, tiger, it aint that serious.

Not to indulge your laziness, but I made two threads with "evidence" and stuff from legitimate sources. Check em out if you're really interested.

OzmO,
Yeah, those two threads columbusdude82 made are just great.  You should check them out.  They are titled:

UC Berkeley: Understanding Evolution

and

Evolving Planet

[OzmO]

As Squadfather would say, relax, tiger, it aint that serious.

Not to indulge your laziness, but I made two threads with "evidence" and stuff from legitimate sources. Check em out if you're really interested.

Looks like loco already did and found things you didn't read in "your" laziness.   

[columbusdude82]

Looks like loco already did and found things you didn't read in "your" laziness.   

All that loco has done is find an example of a dishonest scientist. That's all he can do, because:

1. He is infected by a mind virus that says "Attack science whenever it contradicts religion."

and

2. He knows that science overwhelms his arguments (if he thought otherwise, he'd be trying to get respectable scientific journals to publish his ideas so he can get a Nobel prize), and his only remaining way out is to try and find examples of dishonest scientists so he can say "GOTCHA. AHHA"....

You, more than most, know loco's ways of argument.

[loco]

All that loco has done is find an example of a dishonest scientist. That's all he can do, because:

1. He is infected by a mind virus that says "Attack science whenever it contradicts religion."

and

2. He knows that science overwhelms his arguments (if he thought otherwise, he'd be trying to get respectable scientific journals to publish his ideas so he can get a Nobel prize), and his only remaining way out is to try and find examples of dishonest scientists so he can say "GOTCHA. AHHA"....

You, more than most, know loco's ways of argument.

 

Is not only that Ernst Haeckel was dishonest, it is also that his fake drawings have appeared in biology textbooks since the 1800s. 

[columbusdude82]

Which biology textbooks?

Please substantiate your claim. Mention some of these textbooks that are still in use in reputable schools or universities.

[loco]

Which biology textbooks?

Please substantiate your claim. Mention some of these textbooks that are still in use in reputable schools or universities.

Boy, and then you say that I am misinformed about evolution.  Seems like lots of people, including Biology textbook authors and Biology teachers were misinformed too, for about 100 years or so:


Stephen Jay Gould  "Abscheulich (Atrocious!): Haeckel's distortions did not help Darwin" (Natural History, March, 2000)

"We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! Michael Richardson, of the St. George's Hospital Medical School in London, a colleague who deserves nothing but praise for directing attention to this old issue, wrote to me (letter of August 16, 1999):

If so many historians knew all about the old controversy [over Haeckel's falsified drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to the numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of
the whole story."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/pg_5

[columbusdude82]

Way to dodge the question. Again I ask you to name biology textbooks in current use in schools or college that use these pictures.

More from that article by S.J. Gould:

1. Haeckel's forgeries as old news (Agassiz's contribution): Tales of scientific fraud excite the imagination for good reason. Getting away with this academic equivalent of murder and then being outed a century after your misdeeds makes even better copy...

Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within...

In short, the work of Richardson and colleagues goes by a simple and treasured name in my trade: good science. The flap over Haeckel's doctored drawings should leave us feeling ashamed about the partial basis of a widely shared bias now properly exposed and already subjected to exciting new research. But Haeckel's High Victorian (or should I say Bismarckian) misdeeds provide no fodder to foes of Darwin or of evolution.

So S.J. Gould doesn't back your position after all

[Butterbean]

If there were a god that created a universe for mankind, the universe would look very different. For one thing, such a universe would have only one planet, not BILLIONS OF BILLIONS.

Why not?  I don't think we can propose to know what may or may not be happening on billions of other planets.


The sun wouldn't emit radiation that is harmful to man.

You couldn't live w/o the sun.  Have you thought about the good aspects about it?


That planet wouldn't contain vast oceans, vast deserts, and vast arctic regions that are uninhabitable by man (think of most of Canada, most of Russia, the African Sahara, etc) because they are useless to man.

The fact that most of mankind don't inhabit deserts, arctic regions and oceans does not mean they are useless to man.  Let's take oceans for instance.  You are correct, man does not inhabit the water in the middle of the ocean but we reap quite a bounty of food, minerals, etc. from there.  In addition, oceans provide other valuable things to man in the way of enjoying it's beauty and the tourist trades. 

[Butterbean]

There wouldn't be comets and asteroids hurtling towards that planet that may crash into it and cause mass extinction of mankind, such as what happened to the dinosaurs.

I have heard that was a theory.  Has it been proven as a fact?  I'm open to learn here.


Life on that planet wouldn't include predators and parasites that kill or harm mankind (i.e. no lions, no viruses, etc).


That planet wouldn't have a turbulent weather system (tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, etc) that harm mankind, nor volcanoes and earthquakes.

The above are a few characteristics of what a world designed by a god for mankind would look like. Our world clearly is NOT like this.

I thought I'd group these together because my comment kind of responds to these all. 

According to the bible, God created the world and everything in it, and it "was good."  In my understanding of the scriptures, before sin entered the world through Satan's deceptions, predators didn't exist in nature as they do today as all dwelled together in peace and none were carniverous.  There had not yet been "a shedding of blood."     

The earth created by God was not created with purpose to have tornadoes, etc.  Some believe there was nothing but "perfect weather" before sin entered the earth

Oh, and in addition as to your comment about the sun some would say that there was a layer of protection that some call a firmament or something like that that protected the earth from any harmful effects of the sun.....before sin entered the earth --- I haven't really looked that much into that one though

[Butterbean]

1. The human eye is actually backwards, with optical nerves going outwards then heading towards the brain.

If we came from some unintelligent piece of slime why did we ever grow eyes?  And what difference would it make if the eye truly was "backwards?"  We can still see correct?  Or are you saying it was evolved for something other than sight?

2. A very big chunk of our DNA is useless, "junk DNA," a relic of our evolutionary past.

Why do you say this?  Because a scientist said it?  Have you considered the possibility that mankind has just as of yet not discovered the purpose of this presently considered "junk DNA?"

3. An intelligent designer would have removed our tail bones and appendices, also relics of our evolutionary past.

Why?


4. Our bodies were "designed" to walk on all fours for many millions of years. It is only in the past few million years that we have begun to stand upright. That explains why hernias, back injuries, knee and hip injuries are so common among humans. These organs were not "designed" for walking upright.

Not mentioning that none of the above are organs, why do you think hip dysplasia so common in dogs?

5. Whoever designed us cannot be called intelligent. The idiot intersects our respiratory tract with our digestive tract, so that we choke on things we swallow. Children, especially, are highly likely to die because of this. Also, this unintelligent designer put toxic sewage lines in our recreational areas!

If children are so highly likely to die because of our repiratory tract intersecting w/our digestive tract, how did the population of mankind grow to over 6 billion?  Maybe it's not as big a problem as you think. 


As far as recreational areas being a toxic sewage line, the vagina and the penis expel sterile urine.


Finally, I should remind you that evolution is a PROBABILISTIC process, in the sense that if you think of the evolution of life on earth as a cassette tape, and you hit the rewind button into the distant past, then hit play again, things might play out very differently.

That is actually very interesting.  I've never heard anyone who subscribed to evolution saying that.  Now I can see more where some of you are coming from.  Thanks for that.  ----I'm not being sarcastic at all in saying that...it really does help me to understand more of your beliefs.  Thank coldude.

[Butterbean]

don't bother entertaining his nonsense. It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale. Here is the rest of the interview which Loco conveniently left out.

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.

DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you - the detective - hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue.

Do you agree that it could also be seen as a massive clue by believers that God created us/the world?

[Necrosis]

Do you agree that it could also be seen as a massive clue by believers that God created us/the world?

HAHA, this line pwns the dawkins line im sorry.

micheal shermer said that IDs greatest argument is that life does appear to be designed, but it is a illusion. so stellas line fits perfectly with this.

not saying its my beleif

[NeoSeminole]

Do you agree that it could also be seen as a massive clue by believers that God created us/the world?

no, b/c you are postulating an infinitely complex solution that only begs the question "What created God?"

[nzhardgain]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.He made each species according to its kind.He gave man domination over the animals.

Ive read here that the origin of our species came from small mammals,evolved to dogs and cousins of the ape.The fossil evidence that has been presented has too many holes to be even considered as hard fact.Our brains are just way above anything here on this planet.All i see are skulls of mutants and biology gone wrong.Thats not where we came from.Fossil record shows that man came from "nowhere ",bam we were here about 6 or 7 thousand years ago.

Let me clarify my stance.I believe the Universe is incredibly beyond the comprehension of our minds old.Measuring light shows us that.The earth is very old.We were created in Gods image.He is a Master craftsman who took his time and saw that it was good.
Science proves the existance of God through the wonder and design of creation.Think about that next time the sun comes up.

[Deicide]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.He made each species according to its kind.He gave man domination over the animals.

Ive read here that the origin of our species came from small mammals,evolved to dogs and cousins of the ape.The fossil evidence that has been presented has too many holes to be even considered as hard fact.Our brains are just way above anything here on this planet.All i see are skulls of mutants and biology gone wrong.Thats not where we came from.Fossil record shows that man came from "nowhere ",bam we were here about 6 or 7 thousand years ago.

Let me clarify my stance.I believe the Universe is incredibly beyond the comprehension of our minds old.Measuring light shows us that.The earth is very old.We were created in Gods image.He is a Master craftsman who took his time and saw that it was good.
Science proves the existance of God through the wonder and design of creation.Think about that next time the sun comes up.

Many argumenta ad absurdum here...not even arguments really

[nzhardgain]

One more thing.How do you know where you are going if you dont know where you came from?

[nzhardgain]

Open your eyes.You are blinded.

[Deicide]

One more thing.How do you know where you are going if you dont know where you came from?

Meaningless Drivel....

[Deicide]

Open your eyes.You are blinded.

Quite the opposite actually as you are the one indulging in wish thinking and self-deception.

[loco]

no, b/c you are postulating an infinitely complex solution that only begs the question "What created God?"

If all life on earth evolved from a very very very simple thing, it only begs the question "What created that very very very simple thing in the beginning?"

Matter cannot create itself.

You find it a whole lot easier to accept that nothing created everything out of nothing than it is for you to accept that something created everything out of nothing.