Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Nov 7, 2016.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Split it an ban all members who support ID.

    Well maybe banning is harsh but a separate thread would be great in my view.

    I suggested earlier we could do with one an given the genuine interest and discussion a separate thread should be well received.
    Alex
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Even if there is an old thread a new thread may be good for traffic.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    http://www.snopes.com/science/nailgrow.asp
    “The sorry fact of the matter is that we dehydrate after dying. ... Because we are accustomed to nails and hair growing, not hands, feet, and heads shrinking, we perceive this change as an increase in one rather than a decline in the other.”
    Exactly. Complexity is a hallmark of an absence of design.
    Example:
    Laryngeal nerve of a giraffe. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laryngeal_nerve
    Predicted not to be routed that way by assuming design.
    Predicted to be routed that by assuming common descent with modification (evolution).

    Complexity isn't a hallmark of great minds:
    1+2+3+4+5+...+98+99+100=5050 is not a labor intensive sum to the knowledgable.
    https://nrich.maths.org/2478
    See also http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplexityAddiction

    Complexity isn't a hallmark of conscious innovation.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    A split ID thread should go in alternative theories or religion.
    Alex
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Banning people Alex ?

    To even suggest this is beyond the pale .

    This site is becoming .....strange .
     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Yes even as a joke it is not nice River.
    Thank you for making me realise my mistake.

    Alex
     
    river likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You misunderstand obviously and again, if the cap fits wear it.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I raised in post 2 or 3 that this did have the potential to go off track.
    Obviously it has now developed into a ID versus abiogenisis argument, or if you like mythical nonsense versus science.
    I do not actually mind though as obviously abiogenisis is supported in the main, and the debate on that point has seen many many reputable articles and papers posted regarding the why's and wherefor's.
    I have also made an effort in five or six places to bring it back on track, but that was not allowed.
    My only objection is that we seem to have a crusade being conducted to push some unscientific ID nonsense, as a legitimate scientific alternative to abiogenisis.

    I've expressed my feelings re Sagan and Dawkins, and still see Sagan as far more acceptably pleasing then Dawkins, although I do disagree with the sensationalistic and invalid headlines re misrepresenting science, and see that as rubbish in effect.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    I don't think Q-reeus misunderstands at all pad .

    Einstein is a god to you pad. and really many , many others . unfortunately .

    While I respect the man ; science moves on .
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  13. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    So you somehow decided there was some useful and objective value in rehashing my one line gaffe in #662? Despite myself having first openly corrected it back in #668, after which a vexatious Troll decided to ignore that, just as you have, and brought it up again in #680. Nice teamwork! At least we know who's on the same team!
    Yet thought nothing of obviously far worse gaffes made by one or two others that somehow, well, just not worth bringing up. Right. Or wrong. Depending on ones pov.
    Let's ignore the direct worth of such arguments. Something deeply puzzles me about your general position in all this:
    http://www.sciforums.com/members/rpenner.40578/#profile-post-20423
    I recalled seeing, quite by chance, that quote from I Thessalonians 5:9-11. Presumably posting that reflected on your own 'A Monotheist' convictions, or was that just a bit of poetry? If the former, which is the natural way to interpret it, I find your own siding with the strident anti-ID crowd here a bit more than baffling. It goes without saying someone in your elevated position here will not get any stick from those laying into me, regardless of any 'A fundie' leanings on your part. A strange situation imo though. Disparaging any notion of ID, yet....that quote from the NT seems to suggest deep Christian religious convictions. God without God? The mind boggles.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What you believe river is well known.
    What qreeus is pushing is ID in place of abiogenisis.
    Your actions here actually reflect on past problems you have had with me bringing you to task on the general nonsense you propose on this forum and your trolling efforts for which you were moderated.
    We all know that to be fact river.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It doesn't work like that. Your brand of ID is a shallow offbranch of Abrahamic monotheism, derived from the effects of a common A-fundie vandalism of reason. It comes nowhere near encapsulating the teaching, which is (or can be, anyway) much, much deeper than such vandalism. It's a possible and often observed side effect, in a sense.

    And it varies in severity - all kinds of bargains can be struck. I have met an evangelical Protestant Christian raised professor of biology at a fancy eastern school, an expert in birds - which of course included evolutionary relationships - who accepted Darwinian theory fully and applied it to every biological entity except one: human beings. Human beings were specially created by God. All else - including, probably, life itself - had evolved according to Darwinian theory.

    And that is where Dawkins can seem shortsighted and too narrowly focused - although to be fair this "side effect" is a large and serious problem.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Here are Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins speaking of the origins of life.







     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I don't have a problem with you pad , ah no , I do , your an idol worshiper pad , plain and simple .
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  19. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    The vexatious Troll wishes to speak on rpenner's behalf? So go ahead Troll, enlighten me with the Real Deal. Explain your A-fundie/A-Monotheistic bashing deep understanding of whatever someone who bashes any notion of God can somehow 'get' as to 'true Christianity'. One commensurate with that quote from I Thessalonians. You do want to be sure to keep in rpenner's graces, right?

    Is it best to inhale or inject or snort or pop first? As an aid to Deep Insight? Whatever - fire away Troll. This should be rich. The Cheshire Cat 'God' or something. But I preempt.....
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I simply see him as rather abrasive, although watching a few more videos of him, I'm now growing to like him.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Again the main point is both are expressing the same scientific view re abiogenisis and its certainty, and the nonsense that is ID and the impressionables pushing it..
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    ID does not have to be religious pad .

    ID to me is simply because all forms evolve to the maximum of the form .
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Please then explain for all of us here river how accepting ID, does not infer a god/deity of sorts.
    In fact what you have said is worthless word salad.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Not at all. On yours. On the behalf of someone who has confused bashing their particular formulation of the ID hypothesis with "bashing God" - because anyone like that is in real trouble.

    And the OP's, of course. And on both those, might I suggest that every so often, maybe every third post - set a timer, or a counter of some kind, as a reminder - you take a break and address an issue of the thread? Rather than a poster, that is.

    Are you still claiming to not be an Abrahamic monotheist, with an ID approach based in the Christian Bible? Because that Bible, if it matters to you, is quite clear about bearing false witness.

    Much clearer than it is about Intelligent Design - considerable interpretation of metaphor and story involved, in that matter.

    Just a hint - of a kind Dawkins seldom makes, btw. He doesn't throw lifelines much, as far as I can tell - you want to get to the dock, you have to swim for yourself.
     

Share This Page