Misconceptions can't be silly happy funny etc blah blah blah.
Cleared up? More corrected.
Wait I hear mum in the background.
What's that? Put the wooden spoon down and stop stirring.
Sorry got to go.
Happy to oblige.
Cheers.
Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Misconceptions can't be silly happy funny etc blah blah blah.
Cleared up? More corrected.
Wait I hear mum in the background.
What's that? Put the wooden spoon down and stop stirring.
Sorry got to go.
Happy to oblige.
Cheers.
Yes, abrasive is the word I used, although I certainly don't mean too strong a criticism of that, simply that in comparison to Sagan, he would be far more likely to win the necessary friends and influence people then would Dawkins.Came to Sagan long before Dawkins.
Not much into comparisons but if pushed Sagan soft Dawkins abrasive.
The style I prefer can be considered Monty Python but I suspect you have tumbled such.
Gentle ridicule without resorting to belittling.
Not sure I always hit the mark. Not sure even if I hit the first spot on those on the receiving end grasp the difference between one and two.
What I fail to grasp (there is so much) but this nugget is bothersome.
Why don't ID'ers take the high ground? After all there is nothing higher than heaven. Is there?
Can't think of any scientist (there I go equating ID'ers with scientist
As I remarked elsewhere, in slightly different form, ID'ers only have at base level 1 card.
Imagine a bunch of scientist (is bunch good enough for group of scientist?) sitting to play snap with an ID'er.
Each scientist has a full deck of cards. All different. The ID'er has 52 cards but they are ALL the same.
No matter what card any scientist puts down the ID'er puts down one of his and claims Snap/Trumps.
If the ID'er goes first and lays down a card all the scientist don't have any card in their decks to match.
????
Perhaps I need to take a leaf out of his book!
I've noticed the victim card is still being played by some, as well as "conspiracy" and even worse.
Typical type of talk I remember from my school days by the local Parish priest, preaching fire and brimstone and doing his best to bully and covert as many as he could!
I recently was making an effort to see Neil De-Grasse Tyson a couple of months ago, when he was in Sydney giving a lecture, but missed out due to full houses!
The British fella Brian Cox, also has a similar Sagan softly softly approach.
Sometimes [as they are obviously mainstream characters] we see them written off on this forum as "pop scientists" naturally by the likes of the god bothering brigade and others that like to deride mainstream theories from the comfort of their lounge chair and this forum.
Of course like the "preaching and fire and brimstone here, it counts for exactly nought in the greater scheme of things in the real scientific world out there.
Yes, abrasive is the word I used, although I certainly don't mean too strong a criticism of that, simply that in comparison to Sagan, he would be far more likely to win the necessary friends and influence people then would Dawkins.
Perhaps I need to take a leaf out of his book!
I've noticed the victim card is still being played by some, as well as "conspiracy" and even worse.
Typical type of talk I remember from my school days by the local Parish priest, preaching fire and brimstone and doing his best to bully and covert as many as he could!
I recently was making an effort to see Neil De-Grasse Tyson a couple of months ago, when he was in Sydney giving a lecture, but missed out due to full houses!
The British fella Brian Cox, also has a similar Sagan softly softly approach.
Sometimes [as they are obviously mainstream characters] we see them written off on this forum as "pop scientists" naturally by the likes of the god bothering brigade and others that like to deride mainstream theories from the comfort of their lounge chair and this forum.
Of course like the "preaching and fire and brimstone here, it counts for exactly nought in the greater scheme of things in the real scientific world out there.
Like Brian Cox even though accent off putting.
Don't take a leaf out of his book. Add one.
Tyson likely to talk your ear off not bite it.
I did have a sort of discussion at a airport with (presumption alert) ID'er.
I was reading a book of the Sagan type.
The ID'er leaned over.
I put all my faith in god.
That's great. The pilot of the plane does also?
Wonderful. How so?
Well he's never taken a flying course, has no qualifications, not even a drivers licence. The owner of the airline and pilot are ID'ers. The piliot told the owner he had the faith the lord would show him the way.
blessed peace with a side salad of nervous ID'er. You haven't addressed even the handful from those two sentences I posted twice now. In context both times. Start with those.
Here's the worst: "It follows that the accumulated odds were unity" . Never mind the misnomer of "odds" - deal with your notion of probabilities accumulating to unity. What are you talking about?
You continue to waste time. And refused to acknowledge your improper aspersion that I was a 'fundie' and had a 'A fundie' secret religious agenda. Re the fake charge of 'dozens of error regarding calculated probability...' Which actually hinges on your continued playing on the one slip in using odds vs probability as term. And maybe that I used 'accumulated' rather than 'cumulative' as precise term. So,:
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/unders...etween-probability-and-cumulative-probability
Even the term 'cumulative odds' IS used in the technical literature: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15036220
And how about this one, leftie: http://www.ingender.com/xyu/art/cumulative-odds.aspx
Might be better to go repeatedly whack with a baseball bat an effigy of your favourite 'A fundie' hate target. At least that would be healthy in the physical exercise sense.
They all do a reasonable job in bringing the latest science and stuff to the general public, in my humble opinion.Like Brian Cox even though accent off putting.
Don't take a leaf out of his book. Add one.
Tyson likely to talk your ear off not bite it.
I did have a sort of discussion at a airport with (presumption alert) ID'er.
I was reading a book of the Sagan type.
The ID'er leaned over.
I put all my faith in god.
That's great. The pilot of the plane does also?
Wonderful. How so?
Well he's never taken a flying course, has no qualifications, not even a drivers licence. The owner of the airline and pilot are ID'ers. The piliot told the owner he had the faith the lord would show him the way.
Agree.
Don't get a Like.
Not impressed with self depravation humble opinion.
Though I do use self depravation myself.
In my humble opinion it works well sometimes but frequently not.
Why is that?
Bingo, The "like" button has often been used in modes in which it was not created for. We had a member who I was in often conflict with, that was taking the time out to like each and every post of mine, and I suspect one or two others also misuse it.Agree.
Don't get a Like.
Not impressed with self depravation humble opinion.
Though I do use self depravation myself.
In my humble opinion it works well sometimes but frequently not.
Why is that?
In fact I do think it should be scrubbed.
Bingo.
Joined Facebook about 10 years ago for the sole purpose of collecting photos of a girl who directed me there.
Collected photos
Had intermittent contact with girl over a 5/6 year period.
Never went back Facebook.
Have done minor work in the collection of stats.
Participated in numerous studies (currently been in one 5 years about my grocery shopping habits).
Facebook with its Like only option is hobbled. Don't go for the excuse if Facebook had a Dislike it would lead to abuse.
Not sure of scrubbing Like. Block those who abuse - tick.
Like the surveys which have the final option for input (all surveys should have this option) - Anything else detail here.
Is this post off topic?
Probably, slightly, as is sometimes expected in threads.Is this post off topic?
My previous references to "off topic" stuff more refers to intent from some.
I thought it maybe interesting to publish some quotes from both Dawkins and Sagan, that may help understand the differences in styles between them.......
Richard Dawkins:
"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster".
Richard Dawkins:
"I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education".
Richard Dawkins:
"Don't kid yourself that you're going to live again after you're dead; you're not. Make the most of the one life you've got. Live it to the full"
Richard Dawkins:
"A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence"
Richard Dawkins:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Carl Sagan
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"
Carl Sagan:
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe"
Carl Sagan:
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense".
Carl Sagan:
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring".
Carl Sagan:
All quotes from......
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html?gclid=CK-Zm_ew29ACFYUrvQodUukFHg
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html
Richard Dawkins:
"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster".
Richard Dawkins:
"I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education".
Richard Dawkins:
"Don't kid yourself that you're going to live again after you're dead; you're not. Make the most of the one life you've got. Live it to the full"
Richard Dawkins:
"A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence"
Richard Dawkins:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Carl Sagan
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"
Carl Sagan:
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe"
Carl Sagan:
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense".
Carl Sagan:
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring".
Carl Sagan:
All quotes from......
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html?gclid=CK-Zm_ew29ACFYUrvQodUukFHg
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html
Last edited:
You have not been accused, by me, of having any particular secret religious agenda.
As far as being an Abrahamic theist with a fundamentalist mindset, that's your posting identity here - if you in private life don't actually believe any of the stuff you post here, and this is not how you think in other contexts, why are you abusing this forum in this manner?
Attend:
And here's the quote:link said:
So your use of the term was, as was obvious, mistaken to the point of revealing incomprehension of the basic concepts of probability - starting with your application of it to what as far as we know was a single event: abiogenesis.
There's a way to to bail you out of that presumption, if we assume you were not talking about my posting or beliefs at all, but instead about an imaginary speculator arguing for near-unity in the probability of abiogenesis by describing what they claim is an essentially complete list of independent possibilities for the development of the pre-biotic situation on the planet, almost all of which result in abiogenesis (so their probabilities would add to near unity).
But that would still leave your term "follows", in which you have me deriving that nearly complete list from the observation that abiogenesis in fact happened and the assumption it happened "naturally". No such complete list of possibilities is claimed by that observation and assumption (another error of reasoning about probabilities you make, and attribute to me) and I have repeatedly denied the existence of any such list - nobody has one, or anything like one, has been my claim throughout. I have denied the existence of a reliable probability calculation for any one item on that hypothetical list, let alone all of them. I have denied the existence even of a reliable description of the situation whose development is at issue. So that argument, however valid, is not mine and conflicts with all of my posting here.
Instead, it is an example of supposed evolutionary reasoning and probability one often finds on A-fundie websites, and believed to be genuine by A-fundies pretty much exclusively.
And Dawkins was simply being accurate and descriptive when he attributed all of that crap to religion, and blamed religion for it.
Last edited:
Of course he was, as indeed was Sagan in many debates.
As far as Peltzer is concerned and the fact he has been labeled a loony, he also is labeled in the following, which points to the baggage he obviously carries along with other fundy duddies......
http://www.christianpost.com/news/bay-area-christian-college-to-host-origin-of-life-seminar-7406/
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — The senior research specialist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute will speak on an age-old problem from the perspective of Intelligent Design at an upcoming Spring Science Seminar.
On Sunday, Mar. 13, Dr. Edward T. Peltzer, a Christian well respected in the scientific community, will be giving his presentation on Intelligent Design on the campus of Rocklin, Calif.-based William Jessup University (WJU)—formerly the San Jose Christian College.
Peltzer, a Ph.D. graduate from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, frequently speaks to churches and other organizations on Intelligent Design and “his presentation is sure to encourage those who love the subject of Apologetics, Creation vs. Evolution, etc,” according to WJU.
The event, titled “The Origin of Life: What do we really know?” is open to the community, free of charge, and will take place from 7-8 p.m.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By the way I googled for scientific papers by our friend Peltzer and came up with zilch......
I googled for scientific papers by Richard Dawkins and came up with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography
from the 60's ....
1960s[edit]
- Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol. 25 (2): 170–186. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.
- Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science. 165(3895): 751–751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.
- up to 200o's and many in between.....
- 2000s[edit]
- Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature. 405(6788): 733. doi:10.1038/35015793.
- Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London. 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
- Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature. 421 (6921): 314–314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
- Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
- Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". In Warburton, N. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-33798-4.
- Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka". Biology & Philosophy. 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.
I said 'aspersions' in the passage you quoted. As good as a direct charge. Above nicely continues that, even as you deny it. Hypocrite.
Continuing your stupid game of trying to extract the maximum mileage out of pressing a definition. And btw I gave you three links in #305. Noticed you had nothing to say about the third one. Such a pedantic and vindictive fool.
I noticed you highlighted the well known fact Peltzer is a Christian. Shall we talk about your missus again, paddoboy? Whether you have a 'Boss key' always at the ready, just in case the Bible-believing Jesus-loving missus actually reads your double-life rants against those of her precious faith. And bashes you over the skull in a fit of rage? Can of worms.
Really? I entered 'edward t peltzer publications', and the very 2nd link was: http://www.mbari.org/brewer-lab-pubs/
The ease of finding which, and your professed inability to find any, reflects extremely poorly on yourself. No surprise to those familiar with your level of incompetence.
No wonder you were so impressed with Dawkins distinguished scientific track record!
Calm down sonny! You will have a coronary!!
Your peurile attempts at insults by raising my Mrs and your over the top vindictiveness, does nothing but put the spot light on you once again, for such peurile behaviour.
You must realise that when you are in error, when you make a mistake, when you appear hypocritical, and even when you lie, others will point it out.
Now again, calm down, it does you no good and just accept that you are wrong on this issue as you were on your provocative and rather silly anti GR/GW threads....
ps: A helpful suggestion...They do have anger management courses you know.
Last edited:
This quote from Dawkins is interesting......
Christopher Hitchens was a great warrior, a magnificent orator, a pugilist and a gentleman. He was kind, but he took no prisoners when arguing with idiots.
Richard Dawkins: from the previous link....
and I love this one by Sagan........
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
Carl Sagan
Christopher Hitchens was a great warrior, a magnificent orator, a pugilist and a gentleman. He was kind, but he took no prisoners when arguing with idiots.
Richard Dawkins: from the previous link....
and I love this one by Sagan........
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
Carl Sagan
And yet your loose use of peurile points the finger back. As for your missus, it highlights your ace hypocrisy, though not incompetence. The latter, that I so easily exposed, you had nothing to say about.Calm down sonny! You will have a coronary!!
Your peurile attempts at insults by raising my Mrs and your over the top vindictiveness, does nothing but put the spot light on you once again, for such peurile behaviour.
You must realise that when you are in error, when you make a mistake, when you appear hypocritical, and even when you lie, others will point it out.
Now again, calm down, it does you no good and just accept that you are wrong on this issue as you were on your provocative and rather silly anti GR/GW threads....
ps: A helpful suggestion...They do have anger management courses you know.
And just about anyone that dares disagree with our friend!
Thank Christ this is only the Internet, and none of us live next door to each other particularly in the US with their lack of gun laws!
I lose nothing in pointing out your silly angst rants q-reeus.
Whatever my incompetence or otherwise is, it is certainly a rung or two further up the ladder than yourself and your hero fundy.
Now I must be off to dinner q-reeus, you enjoy yourself and have fun with whatever insults you chose.
You are an illiterate on anything of substance to do with any scientific discipline. Something not just myself but others have exposed on countless occasions. A school child will utter such absurdities as you have there. And to repeat, neither Peltzer nor anyone else in ID community or elsewhere is my 'hero'. Whereas the lavish praise you continue to heap on both Sagan and Dawkins is much closer to the mark of 'hero worshiper'. And I note that iceaura has given you a great new word for your limited lexicon - fundy. Make sure the missus misses your latest rant against her precious faith - ok?