BBC/OU Annual Lecture 2009: Dawkins on Darwin Q&A (Part 1 of 4)

[lummus21]

As always the British speak the English language better than that of the Americans. :)

[BadMtrFngr]

Now let us all bow down and worship Richard Dawkins because he gives us a convenient reason to not have to believe in God if we don't want to and not have to do our homework for ourselves. Hooray!

[ai1888]

Why the heck are you guys talking about religion in this video??

[BRussellspouts]

The rationale of IDiots should be nothing more than a hilarious sideshow, but the fact that they are so numerous does diminish the humour somewhat. Mr88playmaker, I derive from true premises the conclusion (a categorical syllogism) that you are a fucking idiot.

[Mr88playmaker]

“My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism” “we are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.” “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

— Karl Marx (Father of Communism, atheist, humanist, political economist & sociologist)

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker And Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, said christians were at fault for not slaughtering the jews of europe.

For every lunatic atheist I can give you 100 lunatic theists.

And the answer to your question is B) intelligence arose from non-intelligence.

This isn't a matter for debate, it's fact any child can understand, unless they are brainwashed or mentally retarded. Which are you, sonny?

[Mr88playmaker]

@maureenOWW

The Christians have never done genocide. In the dark Ages, the catholic Church (not Christian but a religious farce) kept the Bible away from the common man. The only people who had a Bible were the priests who would read a verse or two out loud in LATIN which the people did not understand. Throughout its dark history the Catholic Establishment killed 23,000 people. That's a lot but no match for atheism. Communism has killed over 100 MILLION people in just the last century.

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker Is this it, really? Is this the limit of your intellectual ability? 'Communism' has killed no-one. It's a socio-political philosophy, and nowhere does it promote genocidal acts. The Bible, on the other hand, just a few pages away from the The Ten Commandments, has the chosen people of God slaughtering their enemies until every man woman and child is dead. And also, you are saying that the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant people of this world have killed 23,000?

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker You statements are so pathetic it's hilarious. How old are you, 12? You haven't defined what a 'christian' is, you haven't defined what a communist is, and then you pick two random numbers to 'prove' your nonsensical point. You really need to stop typing, this is just going tobe used at your mental health evaluation (and it won't go in your favour).

[theforceofevolution]

Its amazing now, but to know surprise, how DNA is croping up all over the place where religious folk are concerned, like they knew about it the whole time. You could go and ask 10 religeous people what the nearest star to the Earth is and 75% of them wouldn't know, and thats how much they know about science, the universe and how unimportant we are init. You could actually prove something in front of their eyes and their excuse would be....well thats the way god wanted it.

[Mr88playmaker]

Dawkins attacks religion because he has no scientific basis to push his atheist beliefs on the public.

DNA code is empirical proof that biological life forms are a creative product of information and language. i.e.: Nous / Logos (Einstein called this: "The MIND of GOD").

[kokofan50]

Dawkins in not that barve he would never go in to a fight with nothing like you but you're in the stupid bit of the "stupid or brave"

[theforceofevolution]

@Mr88playmaker Einstein was not religious.

[Mr88playmaker]

@theforceofevolution

Correct. Einstein was not religious and neither were the Big-3 Greek all time greatest secular thinkers: Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. All of them maintained that intelligence arises from an intelligent source. It does not arise from a non-intelligent source. They all acknowledged the mind of GOD. Such a view is the ONLY view that stands up to all scientific and philosophical scrutiny.

To believe that intelligence arises from a non-intelligent source is illogical nonsence

[theforceofevolution]

@Mr88playmaker Hi, you said that intelligence arises from an intelligent source. Yes i agree, but only when that sorce is the force that drives evolution. Recent evolutionary progress where we are concerned arrises from intelligence, where through trial and error we have learned. If you are refferring that the intelligent sorce is that of a god then i have to dissagree, and it would be quite contradictory being as where did god get his intelligence from..?

[theforceofevolution]

@Mr88playmaker Dawkins arguments are about the meaningless rubbish thats being taught to our children in schools instead of the true proven facts that arrise from evolution. It has nothing to do with being an atheist, evolution is not as you know a faith its just a proven fact of the history of life that proves the bible is wrong, and thats where the argument arrises. We should have evolution classes in our schools but dont - why do you think that is..? POLITITIONS, ECONOMY, BUISSNESS, MONEY.

[ExposingTheGOP]

Christianity is a menace to education and to the morals of our youth. It stultifies the mind and corrupts the ability of a person to engage his critical thinking skills about something as important as our origins. The fight against Christians for science-based teaching is as important to our well-being as fighting the rabid Islamo-fascists.

[Mr88playmaker]

@ExposingTheGOP

Atheists maintain that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.

They maintain that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos.

Such a line of thought (pardon the pun) is 100 percent illogical. It is Nonscientific and silly.

The secular Greeks Plato, Aristotle and Socrates maintained that logic arises from the mind of God. Einstein, who was not a religious man, agreed as do I and all thinking men.

[jacksawild]

@Mr88playmaker Some atheists may say so. Scientists, most of whom happen to be atheists, make no such assertion. They do not claim that intelligence rises from god as there is no evidence for that. It is a phenomenon for morons like you for who evidence can be ignored unless it happens to agree with your preconceived ideas. This is intellectual laziness and claiming Socrates, Plato and Einstein as agreeing with you betrays your ignorance or willfull dishonesty.

[Mr88playmaker]

@jacksawild

INTELLIGENCE is: The ability to LEARN or UNDERSTAND. REASON; the skilled use of REASON. The ability to apply KNOWLEDGE; to THINK. The act of UNDERSTANDING : COMPREHENSION.

(1) THEISTS assert that Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD)

(2) ATHEISTS assert that Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.

The atheist position is found wanting, and can NOT be defended scientifically.

[Mr88playmaker]

@jacksawild said (QUOTE): "Scientists, most of whom happen to be atheists, make no such assertion. They do not claim that intelligence rises from god as there is no evidence for that. " (END QUOTE)

CYou say that the atheists find NO evidence that Intelligence arises from a mind but there are ONLY TWO options to choose from:

(1) Intelligence arises from a 1st cause Intelligent source (i.e. mind of GOD)

(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-thinking / NON-Intelligent source (i.e. NO God)

[jacksawild]

@Mr88playmaker Those two options have been imposed without any reason or cause to impose them and therefore the very idea of having to choose between them does not fall within the realm of science. Newton didn't say that gravity is the force which causes objects to fall or it isn't. What he said was that objects fall and they do so in this way. You have once again demonstrated your lazy mind, asking the right questions is how we find the right answers. Asking silly questions gives us dark ages.

[Mr88playmaker]

@jacksawild (QUOTE) "Those two options have been imposed without any reason or cause to impose them and therefore the very idea of having to choose between them does not fall within the realm of science." (END QUOTE)

Every thinking man --including every thinking scientist-- agrees that there are only two practical & scientific options to choose from--- and there is NO third.

Either:

(A) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source

(B) Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source.

[Mr88playmaker]

@jacksawild (QUOTE): "(QUOTE) "Those two options have been imposed without any reason or cause..." (END QUOTE)

The fact of the matter is that there is NO 3rd option. The only reason one would say "wait, let me see if there's a way around this" is simply because the NON-intelligent option is the embarrassing position to take.

It strips atheists of their mask. They claim to be logical yet alas, their logic is revealed as nonsense.

I'll let YOU prove me correct. Give me a 3rd option if you can.

[jacksawild]

@Mr88playmaker Scientific investigation discovers options which may not have been imagined. Newton found that white light was an amalgamation of the other colours of the spectrum. Luckily he didn't impose set options before he began, but used the scientific method. What this method has revealed for intelligence is that it arose from conferred advantage over generations. That does not rule out design completely, but there is no evidence for it. It also doesn't rule out magic.

[Mr88playmaker]

@jacksawild

There is nothing "magical" about the assertion that Intelligence arises from an intelligent source.

What is "magical" and illogical, and scientifically indefensible, is your assertion that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.

You suggest that there may be a 3rd option but you have failed to state it.

Here are your only choices once more:

(A) Intelligence arises form an INTELLIGENT source

(B) Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source.

Pick one and own it.

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker 'What is "magical" and illogical, and scientifically indefensible, is your assertion that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.' - if it's indefensible, how come 99% of scientists defend it? Are they all stupid and deluded, spending their lives researching and proving something that isn't true? Or is it more likely that you, the lunatic fringe group, are the deluded ones? Hmm. What a choice to make. What a quandry it is...if only I had a brilliant mind like yours....

[Mr88playmaker]

@maureenOWW

I assert that Intelligence arises from a INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD).

Atheist however, maintain that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.

The atheist position is illogical and indefensible.

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker Did you just ignore what I wrote, fuckwit? You saying 'The atheist position is illogical and indefensible.' doesn't make you right. 99% of scientists think you are wrong, so you are saying they are less intelligent than you. Apparently you are in the top 1% of the top 1% of the greatest minds who have ever lived! Or.....are you in fact just a childlike bigoted halfwit typing on Youtube because you're too scared to face the truth that your Magic Friend Jesus doesn't exist? Grow up.

[Mr88playmaker]

@maureenOWW

It's simple.

Atheists --yourself included-- maintain that Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source. Atheists assert that logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos.

By your own affirmation, your "logic" is pure and utter nonsense,

You have no reason to be upset with me and call me names. YOU chose what to believe in; so, own it and live with it, however illogical and embarrassing to you it is.

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker Okay, this is the SIXTH time you've repeated that it is illogical, and once again I am disagreeing with you. Do you not understand that I don't agree with you? Can't you comprehend english? I, and ever other non-religious scientist on earth, disagrees with you. Get it? Do you want it in semaphore? YOU are wrong, WE are right. Your saying it's illogical, (despite the fact it is based on logic that even a child can understand) doesn't make it so. It just makes you seem mentally ill.

[maureenOWW]

@Mr88playmaker You seem to think that logic has something to do with evolution. I hate to break it to you, logic isn't actually something REAL. It's an abstract human concept. Logic does not exist outside of the humanity, the same as mathematics doesn't exist in the real world. The universe has no logic, no math, those are products of the human nervous system. The universe got on quite well without us for 13 billion years without a need for 'logic'. You don't even know what the word means. Okay?

[Mr88playmaker]

@maureenOWW (QUOTE): "logic isn't actually something REAL" (END QUOTE)

Speak for yourself. You can explain away your illogical belief in Evolution by denying that your logic is real but speak for yourself.

MY logic IS real; and therefore I apply it.

Evolutionists can not go on forever insisting that they are not capable of intelligence and logic. It's a cop out. They need to get like the majority of Americans and embrace intelligence and logic, and use it.

[LottoWinner999]

@Mr88playmaker I thought U would like some information about maureenOWW. BTW he/she has been discovered to be intersexed half/wit freakaozid from Dublin, Ireland, he/she claims the whole world is discriminating against him/her and UAL Party of Ireland who he/she claims to be a influentiaal supporter. In addtion others say he/she is a Plastic/Paddy from the USA pretending to be Irish buts another joke in itself. FYI U can really get him/her steamed by asking what is his/hers sexual designation.

[maureenOWW]

@LottoWinner999 lol I love it when the mentally ill follow me around YT posting in conversations from years ago. It's like electromagnetism. Opposites attract.

[LottoWinner999]

@maureenOWW Yeah because it shows how boring your life is!

[LottoWinner999]

@maureenOWW Beware @maureenOWW is a Plastic Paddy from New York City!

[ExposingTheGOP]

This man is helping spare civilization from the quicksand of religious obfuscation and regression to a time when people attributed phenomena to figurative sky deities. Christian Creationism is as great a threat to us as any religious extremist from the middle east because as the Muslim fanatic nibbles away with his terrorism, the Creationist nibbles away at the soul of our nation and the hearts and minds of our youth. Thank you for fighting the good fight, Richard.

[djgiga]

ANALOG FTW!

[otherwisesaid]

Digital overlords!

[pcmcg]

@Fordi - maybe it was just over your head? At what point does Dawkins contradict the meaning of the word, digital?

[Fordi]

I don't remember. If you had posted a reply, rather than an @, I'd have responded, oh, say, three months ago.

I will say this: even if accurate, I don't like "digital" on the grounds that it's been chosen as a buzzword. "Genetics" does the job a whole lot more completely, and "darwinism" implies a whole lot of stupid I don't even want to broach (i.e., we respect the merits of ideas, not worship those having them).

[Fordi]

Wow. That dude didn't appear to know the meaning of the word digital.

Quantifiable darwinsim seems ok - but why not go for the full sci-fi effect and call it quantum genetics?

I mean, that's the idea, isn't it? Traits expressible and generational differences measurable in discreet quanta (base pairs)?

[klalkity]

I am surprised he would say such a thing sitting next to Dawkins, who turned evolution to selection on genes (against groups or individuals), and invented a similar idea to discuss culture evolution in small discrete units (memes). Dawkins' thinking is precisely the application of the digital perspective. I have to conclude that the guy doesn't really understand Dawkins' work.

[ai1888]

@klalkity Understanding Dawkin's work does not mean it is true. Dawkins did not turn evolution to selection on genes. A lot of other people did, he just popularized it. Gene as the unit of selection is still a widely debated issue. E O Wilson who once hated group selection, has observed things that point to group selection.