+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 132

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    [quote]“Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .” - The Blind Watchmaker, page 37 [/quote


    "Modern," 1859


    Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ‘Speak for yourself’ in the margin.” - Ibid



    "Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” - opage 160



    "Speak for yourself!"

    Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ - Ibid



    "Speak for yourself!"


    "Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years." - Ibid



    "Speak for yourself!"


    Our own subjective judgment about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million.” - page 163



    Speaking for himself.


    There is a considerable surplus of humans.” - page 105



    "Speak for yourself!"


    I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” - page 46



    Big HUGE lie. Insane, ridiculous lie.
    Thirty successive characters is impossible. 1/50 x 1/50... 30 times = 1.07 x 10 to the minus 51st.


    An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.” - page 81



    Many thousands of people all around the world have 95% or more of an eye, and can't see a thing. What utter nonsense.


    . . . all 10 million copies of the New Testament could simultaneously dance upon the surface of a pin’s head.” - page 116



    Dancing Bibles, from atheist Dawkins himself! Cool.



    Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” - page 139



    But, ... but....


    (Our ‘maximum amount of luck’) is one chance in 10 to the 20
    th power. - page 146




    Dawkins nonsense includes these points:


    1. The age of the universe is not infinite. It is roughly 16,000,000,000 years. "Infinite time" is, shall we say, more than 16,000,000,000 years.


    2. "Infinite opportunities" do not exist any more than "infinite time" does.


    3. If, as Dawkins claims, "anything is possible," then how can he possibly define impossible as one chance in 10 to the 20th power, contradicting himself.



    . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.” - page 160



    I will leave readers with the thought of marble statues waving at them, and cows jumping over the moon, with "something like the same improbability".....




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    A1>A2. B1>B2" - page 171



    Science rarely gets more enlightening and precise than this: "A1>A2. B1>B2."


    Explosive evolution”. - page 215



    See, evolution goes up "Mount Improbable inch by million year inch," that is except when it's "explosive."



    And if you don't get that, you just don't understand evolution. Dawkins is generous in his ad hominems and epithets:
    Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”. - page 230
    Redneck creationism” - page 251
    . . .naive Bible thumper” - page 316



    Hatefulness, intolerance, and condescension such as Dawkins spouts so frequently, has no place in any discussion of science.



    In point of fact, many of sciences' dazzling discoveries were originally dismissed and derided. Has Dawkins learned nothing from history? Nothing at all?


    "Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but he was right" - Fred Singer




  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    What is your problem with Dawkins? Do you hate that he is atheist or that he promotes evolution?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post
    What is your problem with Dawkins? Do you hate that he is atheist or that he promotes evolution?
    Boris, you are confused.
    Dawkins wrote these books, purporting them to be "science." Now IF they are indeed "science," they are subject to examination and scrutiny. One must not accept on faith the pronouncements of anybody.
    Surely you knew this, Boris. Or did you?


    What is your problem with having godless leftists scrutinized, Boris? Or are you only in favor of reaming hated Christians and conservatives over the coals, for any reason at all, real or imaginary...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post

    Dawkins wrote these books, purporting them to be "science." Now IF they are indeed "science," they are subject to examination and scrutiny. One must not accept on faith the pronouncements of anybody.
    Surely you knew this, Boris. Or did you?
    Dawkins writes popular science books. They are not scientific theories to be proved. He takes already proved or widely accepted theories and dumbs them down for the masses.

    And however unfair it is, we are not capable scientifically criticize theories he writes about. You got to have Phd. in biology or chemistry to be in the same league.

    What is your problem with having godless leftists scrutinized, Boris? Or are you only in favor of reaming hated Christians and conservatives over the coals, for any reason at all, real or imaginary...
    I am atheist. So I am an inferior human to you?
    Last edited by BorisZ; 03-30-2009 at 11:26 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post
    Dawkins writes popular science books. They are not scientific theories to be proved. He takes already proved or widely accepted theories and dumbs them down for the masses.
    One can simplify without lying, misquoting, screwing up, and calling groups hateful names. Such practices are anti-scientific, Boris.

    And however unfair it is, we are not capable scientifically criticize theories he writes about. You got to have Phd. in biology or chemistry to be in the same league.
    Speak for yourself, Boris. Didn't I quote your atheist hero as saying precisely that?

    You make the fallacy of the argument from authority. If people believed as nonsensically as you do, the Wright Brothers would never have attempted to make the first airplane, nor would Thomas Edison have invented scores of things.

    Amateurs often correct experts in their own fields of expertise. Happens all the time, Boris. Let go of your Dawkins-worship.



    I am atheist. So I am an inferior human to you?[/quote]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    You make the fallacy of the argument from authority. If people believed as nonsensically as you do, the Wright Brothers would never have attempted to make the first airplane, nor would Thomas Edison have invented scores of things.
    What he writes is much more advanced than anything Wright Brothers or Thomas Edison invented. There are some individuals that are capable to teach themselves what is necessary to understand completely theories that Dawkins is talking about. But I do not believe you are one of them.

    One can simplify without lying, misquoting, screwing up, and calling groups hateful names. Such practices are anti-scientific, Boris.
    Agree on "calling groups hateful names". I do not like "militant atheists" too. I wish you could separate his personal anti-religious views/not very nice human being and his scientific views.
    Last edited by BorisZ; 03-30-2009 at 11:54 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post

    Dawkins nonsense includes these points:


    1. The age of the universe is not infinite. It is roughly 16,000,000,000 years. "Infinite time" is, shall we say, more than 16,000,000,000 years.


    2. "Infinite opportunities" do not exist any more than "infinite time" does.


    3. If, as Dawkins claims, "anything is possible," then how can he possibly define impossible as one chance in 10 to the 20th power, contradicting himself.



    [/SIZE]


    I will leave readers with the thought of marble statues waving at them, and cows jumping over the moon, with "something like the same improbability".....
    My god, could you miss the point by any further????

    Dawkins' point was precisely that it would require an infinite amount of time for these things to happen by chance, and that we have not had an infinite amount of time.

    That is why we require a theory to explain how these things could have come about. That is what evolution explains.

    Evolution != Chance



    And yes, anything is possible. He does not mean that anything with a probabilty of less than 10^20 is impossible. He means that it's a practical definition of what is impossible in the lifetime of the universe. I guess he also assumed that the people reading his book would understand this.

    It also does not apply to things that have happened in the past - doing so would be committing a fallacy called applying statistics after the fact (or something). To illustrate - Take out a deck of cards, shuffle them, and then lay them out on the table 1 at time in straight line.

    Do you know what the probability of them coming out in that order is?

    Roughly 10^68. Does that mean it never happened? Does that mean that you never laid the cards out in that order? Or does it mean your a frickin numb nuts that doesn't understand the first thing about statistics, and yet thinks he can roll with the big boys.

  9. #9
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    There are a number of good articles that address the Creationist "Probability" canard. Prof. Peter Olofsson is one that comes to mind.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,342

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    not to be derogatory to the TOE but this dis-cussin reminds me of the line in 'dumb n' dumber '......"so you mean..there's a chance!"
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BorisZ View Post

    Agree on "calling groups hateful names". I do not like "militant atheists" too. I wish you could separate his personal anti-religious views/not very nice human being and his scientific views.
    Atheists are incredibly intolerant and hateful, and few can surpass the bile of Richard Dawkins.

    One of his more famous quotes is this:

    "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane...."

    Talk about "not very nice," calling people "bible thumpers" and "redneck creationists" would qualify as "not very nice." And yet he includes these comments in a "science" book?

    What kind of example is that for impressionable young people?
    It is a vile attempt to brainwash youngsters that if you don't subscribe to atheism, you are a naive redneck, and far beneath enlightened atheists.

    That is a malicious lie. No Christian in any university makes counterclaims attacking atheists like Dawkins makes about Christians. And you defend him??

    Shameful, sir. Shameful.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Atheists are incredibly intolerant and hateful, and few can surpass the bile of Richard Dawkins.

    One of his more famous quotes is this:

    "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane...."

    Talk about "not very nice," calling people "bible thumpers" and "redneck creationists" would qualify as "not very nice." And yet he includes these comments in a "science" book?

    What kind of example is that for impressionable young people?
    It is a vile attempt to brainwash youngsters that if you don't subscribe to atheism, you are a naive redneck, and far beneath enlightened atheists.

    That is a malicious lie. No Christian in any university makes counterclaims attacking atheists like Dawkins makes about Christians. And you defend him??

    Shameful, sir. Shameful.
    Westboro Baptist Church?

    Nah, they don't say anything nearly as bad as "ignorant", or "wicked".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    My god, could you miss the point by any further????
    This will be my final response to you.
    Your ignorance is compounded by incredible condescension - a narcissism all too common in leftists, and atheists.

    Evolution != Chance


    And yes, anything is possible.
    1. Let me know when a marble statue waves at you.
    2. Let me know when a cow jumps over the moon, will you?

    He does not mean that anything with a probabilty [SIC] of less than 10^20 is impossible.
    Of course you MEANT to say "...a probability of less than one in 10^20 is impossible" but like everything else you say, you screwed it up royally.

    He means that it's a practical definition of what is impossible in the lifetime of the universe. I guess he also assumed that the people reading his book would understand this.
    Discussions of statistics of what is, or is not, "impossible" necessarily involve reality and matter and events, or in other words, the stuff of our universe.
    Normal people understand as much. You... do not.

    It also does not apply to things that have happened in the past - doing so would be committing a fallacy called applying statistics after the fact (or something).
    You never know when to shut up, do you.

    "Things that have happened in the past" can be statistically analyzed.

    For example, Joe and Ted bought Lotto tickets yesterday. Joe won the jackpot. Ted did not. The odds of picking the winning number were one chance in 50,000,000 before they heard the winning numbers.

    Joe won, and in doing so beat the odds of one chance in 50,000,000. The odds didn't change, did they.

    To illustrate - Take out a deck of cards, shuffle them, and then lay them out on the table 1 at time in straight line.

    Do you know what the probability of them coming out in that order is?

    Roughly 10^68.
    You seem blissfully unaware, again, that odds are necessarily between the values of 0 and 1. 10 to the 68th power is rather larger than 1.


    Does that mean it never happened? Does that mean that you never laid the cards out in that order? Or does it mean your [SIC] a frickin numb nuts that [SIC] doesn't understand the first thing about statistics, and yet thinks he can roll with the big boys.
    Funny you should think yourself a "big boy."

    You talk like a teenager who has never been laid.

    ciao, "big boy."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    This will be my final response to you.
    Your ignorance is compounded by incredible condescension - a narcissism all too common in leftists, and atheists.


    1. Let me know when a marble statue waves at you.
    2. Let me know when a cow jumps over the moon, will you?
    Both of those are possible, and given an infinite amount of time, both would occur an infinite number of times. See my thread on Quantum Mechanics, the best tested theory in all of science.

    [QUOTE]
    Of course you MEANT to say "...a probability of less than one in 10^20 is impossible" but like everything else you say, you screwed it up royally.

    Again with the semantics.

    Discussions of statistics of what is, or is not, "impossible" necessarily involve reality and matter and events, or in other words, the stuff of our universe.
    Normal people understand as much. You... do not.
    Have you ever studied statistics? Just because most discussions pertain to things that involve reality, that doesn't mean that every discussion has to. In a world with no gravity, it's possible for a cow to jump over the moon. We can discuss the implications of this hypothetical world.

    We can have one discussion where we define impossible as logically impossible (A is not equal to B AND A is equal to B), another where we define impossible as impossible in any amount of time (violation of conservation of energy), and another where we define impossible as impossible in any practical, finite amount of time (violation of the second law of thermodynamics, or a statue waving at you). All are possible within a discussion, and the distinction is necessary.

    You never know when to shut up, do you.

    "Things that have happened in the past" can be statistically analyzed.

    For example, Joe and Ted bought Lotto tickets yesterday. Joe won the jackpot. Ted did not. The odds of picking the winning number were one chance in 50,000,000 before they heard the winning numbers.

    Joe won, and in doing so beat the odds of one chance in 50,000,000. The odds didn't change, did they.
    Were the odds really one chance in 50,000,000? We know which ticket had the winning number, so the odds of Joe winning were actually 1. There's a hell of a lot to be read about this idea, it's not as simple as the "odds didn't change."

    But let's allow your example for the purpose of discussion. What if the odds were 1 in 10^21? Would that then mean that Joe winning the lottery was impossible. I noticed that you ignored my example with the cards.

    You seem blissfully unaware, again, that odds are necessarily between the values of 0 and 1. 10 to the 68th power is rather larger than 1.
    Actually, probabilities are between 0 and 1. Odds can be greater than 1 or less than 1, depending on whether the probability is greater, or less than 0.5.

    It's true that I should have said 10^-68 (in this case the odds and the probability are the same to any practical number of significant figures), but in any case, you again argue semantics instead of addressing the blatantly obvious point of my response.


    Oh, and I wasn't referring to myself as a "big boy", I was referring to Dawkins and co.
    Last edited by kazza; 03-30-2009 at 07:45 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,342

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Atheists are incredibly intolerant and hateful, and few can surpass the bile of Richard Dawkins.

    One of his more famous quotes is this:

    "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane...."

    Talk about "not very nice," calling people "bible thumpers" and "redneck creationists" would qualify as "not very nice." And yet he includes these comments in a "science" book?

    What kind of example is that for impressionable young people?
    It is a vile attempt to brainwash youngsters that if you don't subscribe to atheism, you are a naive redneck, and far beneath enlightened atheists.

    That is a malicious lie. No Christian in any university makes counterclaims attacking atheists like Dawkins makes about Christians. And you defend him??

    Shameful, sir. Shameful.
    another thing i admire about you is that you stick to your GUNS? :spin2:
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canton Michigan
    Posts
    1,086

    Re: Richard Dawkins Ignorance Book 2

    Yes anything is possible, except if you believe in God, then your a asshat, tard, idiot and on and on,,,,very scientific

Similar Threads

  1. Richard Dawkins gets it right again...
    By LogicallyYours in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 12:35 AM
  2. Richard Dawkins' Ignorance
    By BarackZero in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 08:44 AM
  3. Richard Dawkins vs God(s)
    By aegist in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 08:10 PM
  4. Richard Dawkins on BBC
    By Ronald in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2007, 02:54 PM
  5. Richard Dawkins Q&A
    By ianmatthews in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-26-2006, 04:09 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •