Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

[Xelasnave.1947]

Should I split it? Or close it? Or what?

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

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Isn't there a thread for anti-evolution meanderings?

Even if there is an old thread a new thread may be good for traffic.
Alex

 

[rpenner]

Not sure how it is for fingernails/toenails, but it's well known hair continues growing for several days. Poor departed Elvis had to have his naturally blonde crop on top touched up by a mortician to maintain that brunette look right to the grave.

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.”

Showing complexity does not establish a designer.

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

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

A split ID thread should go in alternative theories or religion.
Alex

 

[river]

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

Banning people Alex ?

To even suggest this is beyond the pale .

This site is becoming .....strange .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Banning people Alex ?

To even suggest this is beyond the pale .

Yes even as a joke it is not nice River.
Thank you for making me realise my mistake.

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

You are into rave mode worse than usual. Someone who has an issue with GR (and many theorists that you would not be worthy to lick their boots qualify) is a god botherer? So I assume AE is a god to you - that's the logic. As for 'doing the bidding of their mythical overlords' - who do you SAY not insinuate - is here at SF into that sort of thing?

You misunderstand obviously and again, if the cap fits wear it.

 

[paddoboy]

Is this thread still about Richard Dawkins, or has it moved on to discussion of ID, combined with some back-and-forth personal sniping?

Should I split it? Or close it? Or what?

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.

Anybody want to add anything about Dawkins?

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.

 

[river]

Q-reeus said: ↑
You are into rave mode worse than usual. Someone who has an issue with GR (and many theorists that you would not be worthy to lick their boots qualify) is a god botherer? So I assume AE is a god to you - that's the logic. As for 'doing the bidding of their mythical overlords' - who do you SAY not insinuate - is here at SF into that sort of thing?

You misunderstand obviously and again, if the cap fits wear it.

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]

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.”

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.

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

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.

 

[paddoboy]

Banning people Alex ?

To even suggest this is beyond the pale .

This site is becoming .....strange .

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.

 

[iceaura]

Disparaging any notion of ID, yet....that quote from the NT seems to suggest deep Christian religious convictions. God without God? The mind boggles.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

Here are Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins speaking of the origins of life.

 

[river]

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.

I don't have a problem with you pad , ah no , I do , your an idol worshiper pad , plain and simple .

 

[paddoboy]

Another Carl Sagan video on the universe and who we are....

A Richard Dawkins video on the incursion of the church into politics and science. A fiery, funny, powerful talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism

 

[Q-reeus]

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.

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.....

 

[paddoboy]

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.

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

 

[river]

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

ID does not have to be religious pad .

ID to me is simply because all forms evolve to the maximum of the form .

 

[paddoboy]

ID does not have to be religious pad .

ID to me is simply because all forms evolve to the maximum of the form .

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.

 

[iceaura]

The vexatious Troll wishes to speak on rpenner's behalf?

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.