Dawkins Concedes...

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Trippy, Apr 15, 2012.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I thought Dawkings was smarter than this.

    Evolution and natural selection has a strong correlation to reproductive success, with the religious demonstrating higher birth rates, in line with evolution. This is consistent with evolution and natural selection. Atheism goes in the opposite direction of evolution by limiting birth rates bith birth control and abortion. The real question is how does evolution explain atheism? How does low reproduction success allow atheism to persist?

    It has to do with artificial selection.
     
  8. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,816
    Are you serious? :bugeye:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How closely did you look at that story and News Biscuit in general?
     
  9. GASHOLE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    trololol
     
  10. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
  12. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,816
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    So do some religions. Killing off the infidels is a great way to reduce their numbers (and they yours.) Forcing your most religious types to be celibate (or to confine their sexual endeavors to altar boys) also hampers evolution quite a bit. Meanwhile the atheists just keep having kids.
     
  14. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    LOL.....Trippy, you iz soooooo funny.

    I love the sidebar of that 'news' article.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Sometimes I wonder if people in this place had their funny bone surgically removed. Maybe we should get Fraggle Rocker to look into it, it could be an indication of an emergent tribalistic social/religous cult...
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And then he'd start one.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Wow, wellwisher you probably lit a fire in the fundie camps already. The rebuttal could go viral. Get ready for the next barrage of thread topics. Here are some actual posts, just a sample of what's coming to your neighborhood soon. Don't say nobody warned you.

    "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

    "You got it backwards. Creationism is based upon science, reason and tons of evidence. Evolution is based on the blind acceptance of superstitions and fairy tales."

    "I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it."

    "Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!"

    "Apes are just creatures twisted by Satan to mock Jesus by giving EVILolition credibility. Further more they are naturally lust crazed for human women. Since they are not natural creatures they should be exterminated forthwith as the tools of evil they are."

    "Sorry but scientists have just shown that mice DNA is more similar to humans than human DNA. So would evolutionists then declare that humans came from mice? Probably. That's because most people can't think for themselves and are confused about reality. That's why they believe anything scientists say."

    "According to evolutionists, it's a fact that aliens ruled the planet before the dinosaurs because that can't be disproven. We have deformed skulls to prove that these aliens once had ape-like foreheads, and some walked on 2 legs and others walked on 4 legs. And since there have been confirmed sightings of alien spacecraft, that proves that they have come back to check on how things are going on planet earth. We don't know who the first alien was, but from the few skulls and bones we have, we can tell that there were millions of them. Then when they had explored planet earth, they found it boring and decided to leave but not before some of them had died here which is why we still have their skulls and bones. From them, we can tell what they wore, what color eyes they had, and that they were covered in hair. These are what evolutionists call facts, so we've proven that aliens once ruled the planet earth."

    "One theory is that the pre-Flood Earth had a canopy of ice above it that squeezed the atmosphere down to, say, 15 miles [...] If you squeezed the air down to 15 miles - instead of 100 - it would be more clear because there would be less distortion - atmospheric twinkle it's called. And probably this canopy of ice would act as a photo-amplifier where you would actually see things much more clearly. That's one theory that [in] the pre-Flood world you don't need a telescope - you could see incredibly well."

    "Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is."
     
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Did you post this to make fun of us ? Not every creationist goes along with what you have posted. This fellow don't represent me.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I was working under the assumption that evolution was true. I then used one of the main premises of evolution as a basis for comparison; reproductive success is a key element of evolution. I then showed how religion has always been geared toward reproductive success, compared to atheism, which tends to limit and undermine reproductive success using the mind, willpower and big government. Religion has a closer tie to this pillar premise of evolution. I would conclude this means a closer tie to natural evolution. It is not opinion but science application.

    What happens is, the rules of evolution conveniently change. Now reproductive success is not important, so we can fix the game the other way. This dual standard always led to confusion. Where are the rational atheist who can see through the dual standard snake oil?

    This logic just came to me. Evolution and reproductive success are better reflected by the religious than by the atheists. I am not making this up since you can look at the data. This would imply evolution and religion more closely go hand in hand, especially since religion did the reproductive success thing, way before science started to crawl can proved this was a pivotal part of evolution. Science proved that religion was part of evolution by its own theory and premises.

    Atheism does the opposite; predictably and therefore departs from evolution, as is defined by science itself. This departure is based on will power, subjectivity (needed for the dual standard) and therefore has little in common with natural evolution.

    The atheists were smart in that they attempted to possess evolution so they could decoy the theory of evolution as being the opposite of religion. This was a fail safe, so science arguments of evolution (reproductive success) would not be used by religion against atheism. This would make atheism look unnatural.

    It is like you are thirsty and someone cons you to believe the water is poison. You avoid the poison water of evolution, so atheism can slide unnoticed as being natural, yet unnatural by the standards of science.

    There are other topics about evolution and intelligence. Intelligence can change the environment and thereby alter the external potentials seen by evolution. If it gets cold we can build a shelter and a fire so the DNA does not need to change.

    However, the theory of evolution has little to do with human will power. Dawkins is supposed to be a scientist, but he can't seem to apply pure science in an unbiased way; reproductive success is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
    So atheist try to undermine reproduction? What is your evidence of this?
    Atheist like big goverment? Some of the stuff you come up with is simply mind boogling.:shrug:

    Reprodution success is not important to evolution? In what alternate universe?

    I actually agree with this. Religion is an excellent way to whip the population into a frenzy and use that fevor to attack and destroy your neighbors.

    Not so much for armadillos though.

    Religion - go forth and multiply, oh and kill the infidels - evolutionary success!

    I don't agree with this. Religion was important in small groups and for early homo sapiens giving them the advantage of a reason to attack and kill other groups, but in our society it is completely irrelevent to reproductive success.

    Sorry that paragraph is just weird. It sounds like LSD influenced logic.

    LSD with a crack chaser logic.

    But athiest don't believe in fire so they would die.

    Should somebody sit down wellwisher and tell him that the article was a joke.:bugeye:
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    No, I was trying to take Trippy's cue to lighten up the forum. It was my response to seeing wellwisher interpreting the joke literally, emblematic of fundamentalism (literal interpretation of the Bible).

    These are actual postings by different religious people from different sites.
     
  22. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    LOL.....Trippy, you've got them on a roll now.

    Rather busy at present but thought I'd lob in this bit of humor, though to some, it may hit too near the mark.

    http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm

    When I am good, I am very, very good and when I am bad, I'm excellent. (Or so I have been told.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    On behalf of the anti-troglodyte weenies I extend my bow to your excellence in hitting the mark. You're so bad you're good.
     

Share This Page