Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,994 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.
    Skip Hitchen's, it's a load of absolute rubbish. Worse than C.S. Lewis.

    I don't think there is one complete atheist book. It's too complicated a subject to cover all the angles in one book.

    Did you not find the points Dawkins makes about morality challenging?


  • Options
    #93
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Skip Hitchen's, it's a load of absolute rubbish. Worse than C.S. Lewis.

    I don't think there is one complete atheist book. It's too complicated a subject to cover all the angles in one book.

    Did you not find the points Dawkins makes about morality challenging?

    Wait! Atheism is simply the non-belief in God or Gods. What's complicated about that? Surely the only (or the main) complications arise when the books attempt to refute faith (typically Christian faith).


  • Options
    #94
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,994 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Wait! Atheism is simply the non-belief in God or Gods. What's complicated about that? Surely the only (or the main) complications arise when the books attempt to refute faith (typically Christian faith).
    Super post.

    The problem is it's difficult to refute something objectively if it isn't objectively defined.

    God isn't objectively defined, nor is Christianity. Dawkins could refute beliefs that many Christians have and other Christians could simply go, that's not Christianity and look at his arguments as straw men.

    Because of this, it's impossible to cover all the angles, you can only cover some of the more common ones.

    The second reason is because it's very hard to argue if religion is on the hole good or bad for people and / or society irrespective if it's true, irrespective if it's illogical, irrespective if it's irritating.

    There's no doubt there's been some good things and some bad things but on the hole is it better for society to give it up? That's a tough question.


  • Options
    #95
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?


  • Options
    #96
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    anatalist wrote: »
    If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

    Because you're an idiot.

    Or, if you're not joking - firstly, we're not descended from monkeys - we have a common ancestor with them; secondly, even if this understanding of evolution was correct, that question is similar to asking 'if we are descended from our parents, then why are they still around?'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Because you're an idiot.

    Or, if you're not joking - firstly, we're not descended from monkeys - we have a common ancestor with them; secondly, even if this understanding of evolution was correct, that question is similar to asking 'if we are descended from our parents, then why are they still around?'

    if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D


  • Options
    #98
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    anatalist wrote: »
    if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

    By the look of it, apes aren't the only thing not to have evolved ;)


  • Options
    #99
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Not exactly a nice introduction to the forum, Rockbeer.

    anatalist, I believe this would be to do with common ancestry - we shared a common ancestor with monkeys. However, this would be best discussed in the Bible Creationism and Prophecy thread.


  • Options
    #100
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Fanny, Anatalist is obviously trolling, to judge by the big stupid grin after the inane ape remark.

    There's plenty of real information about evolution out there - if people still keep throwing around this kind of baseless nonsense what sort of response do they expect? You're just as quick to react when people make spurious allegations about Christianity. "Let he who is without sin", and all that...


  • Options
    #101
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Fanny, Anatalist is obviously trolling, to judge by the big stupid grin after the inane ape remark.

    There's plenty of real information about evolution out there - if people still keep throwing around this kind of baseless nonsense what sort of response do they expect? You're just as quick to react when people make spurious allegations about Christianity. "Let he who is without sin", and all that...

    Listen, it should not be a difficult concept for you to grasp: if you suspect someone of trolling then use the report function. This way all the mods can take an informed decision on the post in question and you won't have to resort to sarcastic posts. OK?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    anatalist wrote: »
    if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

    They evolved into gorillas, chimps, orang-utans and humans. So they did evolve. Evolution is not a sequential line, it's a tree.


  • Options
    #103
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    They evolved into gorillas, chimps, orang-utans and humans. So they did evolve. Evolution is not a sequential line, it's a tree.

    Prize for best answer goes to AtomicHorror. Signs of intelligent life are stirrring.

    One more point:

    you have your Ohm's Law
    you have your Boyle's Law
    you have your Charles' Law
    you have your Darwin's Law - oops - that should be 'theory'.


  • Options
    #104
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Your post is better suited to the B, C & P thread. This is the last time I ask you to take it there. OK?


  • Options
    #105
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Your post is better suited to the B, C & P thread. This is the last time I ask you to take it there. OK?

    I have to hold my hands up on this 'trolling'. What is this? Serious, non-sarcastic answer, please.


  • Options
    #106
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566


  • Options
    #107
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    anatalist wrote: »
    I have to hold my hands up on this 'trolling'. What is this? Serious, non-sarcastic answer, please.

    Your're not the real Fanny Cradock, are you? Then make us a cuppa tea, luv.


  • Options
    #108
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zap!


  • Options
    #109
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    anatalist wrote: »
    Prize for best answer goes to AtomicHorror. Signs of intelligent life are stirrring.

    One more point:

    you have your Ohm's Law
    you have your Boyle's Law
    you have your Charles' Law
    you have your Darwin's Law - oops - that should be 'theory'.

    Laws are expressed as equations. Theories contain multiple such equations. They are models built of multiple laws. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg Law is a part of the theory of evolution. As are Mendel's Laws of inheritance.

    "Theory" does not mean quite what you assume. It does not mean idea, educated guess or conjecture. That's what it means in everyday usage. In science, theory is a model that is accepted as accurately representing reality based on our observations. It is the current framework within which we work. Models are conjecture, hypothesis or theory. Theory is as good as it gets.


  • Options
    #110
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You may have to wait a day for his response. He's has taken a little holiday.


  • Options
    #111
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I can't understand it... I really can't understand it. Why do people like anatalist use terms like law and theory in a scientific context when they have no idea what they mean. It's as frustrating and pointless as me claiming Christianity is wrong because Jesus was an armadillo that demanded hamster sacrifices every bank holiday.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Laws are expressed as equations. Theories contain multiple such equations. They are models built of multiple laws. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg Law is a part of the theory of evolution. As are Mendel's Laws of inheritance.

    Cool, I'd been meaning to ask the distinction for a while now...


  • Options
    #113
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You may have to wait a day for his response. He's has taken a little holiday.

    Yeah... saw that one coming. :pac:
    Morbert wrote: »
    I can't understand it... I really can't understand it. Why do people like anatalist use terms like law and theory in a scientific context when they have no idea what they mean.

    I didn't know myself until after I did my science degree. I had to read up on the philosophy of science and the scientific method on my own initiative. Science education kinda sucks in a lot of schools and universities, or at least sucks in terms of telling you the basics. So people without a science education are in for a tough time too- they have to base it all on the TV and newspapers. Ugh. The horror.


  • Options
    #114
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    anatalist wrote: »
    if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

    Human did evolve from apes...therefore apes did evolve. Into gorillas, urang-utans, humans, etc. You seem to think that because some apes evolved into humans, therefore all of them should. But humans are no more evolved than gorillas, monkeys, chimps, etc. They are all on the same level on the evolutionary scale.

    Also, evolution is not just a theory, but an accepted theory by anyone with a slight knowledge of the subject which you clearly don't have. It's not a law, because its not mathematical or definite but occurs with too many variable conditions to make a law out of...human beings aren't a law that doesn't mean they don't exist..please read the answers to your questions carefully (such as from AtomicHorror) before posting again.


  • Options
    #115
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    Also, evolution is not just a theory, but an accepted theory by anyone with a slight knowledge of the subject which you clearly don't have. It's not a law, because its not mathematical or definite but occurs with too many variable conditions to make a law out of...human beings aren't a law that doesn't mean they don't exist..please read the answers to your questions carefully (such as from AtomicHorror) before posting again.

    The theory contains a number of laws. Whilst randomness is a component of evolution, the process can very much be expressed in mathematical terms. It's just far easier to explain in words.


Advertisement