Richard Dawkins on The Art of Quote Mining - Part 1

[AdventNoOmega1]

@hznfrst No, I just find his voice really really boring that's all.

[AdventNoOmega1]

I am the only one who find Richard Dawkins' voice so damn dull? He sounds like a robot. Put him and Spock together and you'll fall asleep in no time. ^_^

[dj2baduk]

@AdventNoOmega1 no you're not alone. He does sound a bit like an elderly English lady

[hznfrst]

@AdventNoOmega1 That's the first time I ever heard anyone complain about Dawkins' voice - I and everyone I know find him soothing, eloquent and sincere. Are you complaining because he rarely resorts to ranting?

[OrthodoxDarwinist]

I love Dawkins, he has a great sense of humour.

I have many times been told on my profile: well you say you're a darwinist, but I bet you haven't heard of this quote: (insert Darwin quote mine)

After I have gotten over my fury at their stupidity, I have quite a fun time informing them of the stupidity in copying and pasting from creatard websites...

[1amsm1th]

Gotta love him rocking the Hawaiian shirt.

[bobbaz2401]

Who the fuck uses yahoo?

[Entropy56]

I searched on, Dawkins is a chronic masturbator, and got some hits. It was like magic...

[ErSchTsp]

I love how Dawkins sincerely calls himself 'young and foolish in those days' when he wrote The Blind Watchmaker, when it's actually a brilliant book.

[anonymous3526q3q2623]

@ErSchTsp Yeah, it is, but he meant he didn't know about the potential for quote mining, he was "careless" in that sense.

[jsloan777]

If this wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable Liar dawkins has the gall to talk about quote mining! Example from THE GOD DELUSION. Liar Dawkins quotes John Adams:

"and of John Adams's "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' Adams delivered himself of some splendid tirades against Christianity in particular"

What a liar !!!!!!!!

When it came to religion, his beef was against a possible establishment of government sponsored religion.

[jsloan777]

@jsloan777 Liar Dawkins in his adams quote conviently omits the rest of the paragraph which ends in

"Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell"

Nor does liar Dawkins inform you of Adams' quotes like this concerning Christianity.

"The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart."

[jsloan777]

@jsloan777Nor does liar Dawkins show you Adams' "The Christian religion is above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man"

Does anyone actually beleive dawkins in his search for Adams' quotes never ran into these ? Yeah right ! What a pathetic liar.

[dj2baduk]

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry...have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?" John Adams

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 Dawkins has this to say on the christianity of the likes of Adams;"If only such subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would surely be a better place, and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that this kind of understated, decent, revisionist religion is numerically negligable. To the vast majority of believers around the world".

Adams was clearly of the same view.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 that quote does seem out of context when presented by you out of the context in which Dawkins applies it. It's in a list of quotes compatible with atheism and deism, which is the point Dawkins was discussing. You also quote mined Adams yourself by not including the first part of the quote; "Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the...". Clearly Adams was divided. It's sloppy writing but doesn't make him a liar.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk The first part of the quote does absolutely nothing to change the overall context of what Adams was saying in that the world would be hell without religion. It's this conclusion that Dawkins avoided, (big surprise). . Dawkins had available to him the entire quote from Adams but chose to stop where he did on purpose to be decietful. After all the whole context of what Adams concluded was in direct opposition to Dawkins' entire theme for his book. That religion is the problem.

[jsloan777]

@jsloan777 Sloppy writing ? Give me a break, this is a guy who some consider to be one of the three most intellectual people in the world. this is a man who has written dozens of articles and how many books ? This is a man with a professorship at Oxford ! And you want to treat him as if he were a sophomore in highschool doing his first essay ? Please .

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 yes sloppy writing. I'm not here to defend Dawkins every word no matter what. Unlike some, I don't think Dawkins is infallible. If he screws up, he screws up - and he has made sloppy, even naive mistakes many times in the past. It happens that the quote he used is an oft repeated one throughout the internet, where only a few sites have relatively recently pointed out that this was used out of context. Dawkins may be imperfect, by I have found he usually admits his mistakes.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk Mistake ? When you have the entire qoute in front of you and end it at the precise point where it fits your argument fully knowing what comes after is going to be problematic for you, that's not a mistake. that's a deliberate action to decieve. He fabricates things quite often and repeats the fabrications. His fiasco with Pelger and Nilson (the non-existant computer simuation) is an example. He presented it in two books and an article.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 If I search for John Adams quotes, the same one Dawkins used, without the preceeding or following text, is a main result. I strongly suspect the fact that the God Dellusion was so popular and so heavily criticized by apologists, is one of the main reasons it's now so readily possible to find the quote in it's entirety. Consider this, if Dawkins, who prides himself on intellectual honesty, knew this was out of context, he'd also know he'd be slated for it later. It's a mistake IMO

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk I really don't think Dawkins cares one way or another about being "slated" by anyone. He's a millionaire, a popular regular on the talk show circuit where his hosts are like minded and fawn over him no matter what he says. He refuses to debate people like William Lane Craig who would destroy him if he tried presenting that nonsense he presented in The God Delusion. Even Atheists like Russe and Flew berated him on this amateurish attempt at being a philosopher.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 @jsloan777 it's not my intention to provide a point-by-point defence for the God Dellusion. I recall I had a few problems with it myself and I've probably mis-represented it as it is, since I haven't read it since it came out. However, you maintain that Dawkins is a liar and that's not the impression I get so since I got a paperback copy of GD recently from someone, complete with admissions of mistakes and defenses of criticisms, I'll do the research on this. BTW - have you read it?

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk Read What the paperback ? No I've read the online version without any admissions. The book is rambling, filled with inaccuracies, quote mining like with Adams and Madison. Quoting un-named sources and expecting us to belieive they represent the mainstream of Christianity. Misrepresenting court case decisions like the Sheridan Middle School case where he claims the case was won on religious grounds when in fact it was won on free speech grounds.

He fabricates !!!

misrepresenting

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 I only meant have you read the book, whichever version and in whatever form. Most who criticize it are parroting. BTW where can I find the online version? I'm re-reading it in paperback now anyway, so I'll take note of your other charges and see if they're as deserved as your first. It's been my experience that most of the attacks on Dawkins have been pretty wide of the mark, yet I try to remain unbiased - I won't defend him no matter what. So let me get back to you on those points.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk There many torrent sites on the internet where you can get it. I don't remember which site I got it from. But if you'd like me to send you the text version I have, just send me a note on my page with your email and I'll send it to you.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 once again, not as clear cut as you'd like to make out. The court decision was based on the decision of the school to ban the t-shirt being unconstituational as it violates the first and fourteenth amendments. The first, as I'm sure you know, pertains to freedom of expression including religious expression. There's the small matter of who funded the suit and whether the decision would be the same if the t-shirt said; "negros are filthy". Clearly there was a religious bias.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 as I've now pointed out in PM to you, the case WAS argued and won on religious grounds covered UNDER the freedom of speach amendments to the US Constitution, though the words "religious freedom" were not used in the court's summary judgement document, which is what you and the creationist web sites attacking the God Delusion like to point out as a misrepresentation, in turn mis-representing what Dawkins wrote. Tut tut - that's very lazy and comes across as dishonest.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 oh and I think you're wrong, Dawkins does indeed care about criticism, especially from those whom he respects. It's actually a point covered in the new paperback. He refuses to debate people like Lane Craig because A. It would lend unwarranted legitimacy to Craig's claims and B. By his own admission, dawkins is not the best in a politicized debate.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk That's really hilarious. Dawkins if he's one of the the most intelligent people on the planet , should be able to wipe the floor with Craig and rebutt anything that Craig has to say from the scientific prospective. That's not Dawkins fear at all. Dawkins knows that he's a theological dunce in comparison to Craig and in the philosophical arena would get his clock cleaned. That's the bottom line. Or Maybe he heard about how poorly Hitchens faired in his crack at Craig.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 it's only from you people that I keep hearing claims about Dawkins being one of the most intellectual people on the planet. In any case, even if that were so, being intellectual and being a good debater do not necessarily go hand in hand. Debate is all the more difficult when you're up against an expert in the unknowable and bible revisionist double talk, none of which does anything to actually address the point of god's actual existence. Nor is Dawkins a philosopher.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk Yeah right, Propect magazine, one Britain' major magazines voted him among the top 100 intellectuals in the world. The same magazine was incredulous that Dawkins could write a book like the God Delusion and have it be that bad.

Bible revisionist double talk ? Just empty rhetoric coming from you. Until you can back it up with examples, your claim doesn't mean squat to me.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 oh well if Prospect Magazine say so, that clinches it ;o)

Bible revisionist: taking what the bible actually says and, in light of new irrefutible scientific knowledge, claiming it "means" something compatible with that science.

E.g. the flood - once worldwide, now local. Heavens, earth and all life, including man, created as is in 6 days - now the days aren't literal days and the heavens include the whole universe and god "tinkered" in the process of life (evolution).

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 "The Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll was conducted in November 2005 and June 2008 by Prospect Magazine (UK) and Foreign Policy (US) on the basis of responding readers' ballot. The objective was to determine the 100 most important public intellectuals that are still alive and active in public life"

This is a poll of the MOST IMPORTANT public intellectuals, not the most intelligent people on the planet. You lose points again for terrible research.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 as for how Hitchens faired against Craig - I think we must have been watching a different debate. Like the apologists in the audience, you seem to have simply accepted Craig's self proclaimed victory, despite his lame and reductionist arguments.

Dawkin's (with the help of Myers) likens criticisms of his lack of theological expertise to criticisms of the lack of expertise in invisible clothing of those who claimed the emperor was naked. He has a very good point.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk I guess you only see and hear things filtered thru your own biases.

For instance the reviewer from Common Sense Atheism said "The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. " I could show you similar reviews from other Atheist blogs. But i don't think that would sway you one way or the other. You've pretty much made up your mind.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 that's 1 person's opinion of how the debate went, based mostly on Hitchens's style and his attitude to the formal rules of logic in a debate. You could show me a 100 other people's opinions. I judge debates on who makes the best case for their side, by my standards. Sure, I'm bound to be a little biased, but Hitchens skips all the pseudo intellectual faffery and simply dismisses nonsense statements as just that. I can find you a list of people who agree with me if you like?

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 the first part of the quote makes the entire issue less cut and dry. Clearly Adams held the view, as did most at the time, that without religion the minions would descend into anarchy, yet he was a Unitarian and did not believe in the trinity or that Jesus was God. He was using this quote to make an argument about the actual beliefs of the founding fathers. Given his other quotes, Adams does indeed seem to consider that christianity, as practiced by most, had been perverted.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk The very fact that he thought it had become perverted coincides with his statement "The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart."

This is hardly the kind of view Dawkins wanted us to believe that Adams held.

Dawkins tried to convey the idea that Adams wanted no religion at all. And that is a total fabrication.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 I don't have the book to hand, but from what I remember, Dawkins was trying to suggest some of the founding father's, however they presented themselves in public, may have privately been either atheists or at most deists. Just so we're clear, I think he was dead wrong about Adams. I just don't think he was lying i.e. knowingly conveying a falsehood. It is clear though that Adams didn't want organised religion getting it's corrupt grubby claws into the running of the country.

[jsloan777]

@dj2baduk Closet Atheists ? Oh I see, Atheists who lied in public concerning their Christian faith.. So they were Atheist cowards. I think the founding fathers would have recoiled at such a low opinion of their integrity. And even worse what does that say about the integrity of Atheists if such was the case?

How convenient for Dawkins to only accept what they said in public about Christianity that was negative, but anything positive was to be regarded with great scepticism.

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 when it came to religion, his beef seems to have been against what religion, particularly christianity, had become:"We have now, it seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all nations. Would it not be better to apply these pious subscriptions to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity than to propagate those corruptions in Europe Asia, Africa and America!” - Letter to Thomas Jefferson, November 4, 1816

[dj2baduk]

@jsloan777 Originally, it was in the context; "Remarks of Jefferson's such as [quote] are compatible with deism but also atheism... the same could be said of Benjamin Franklin's [quote] and of John Adams's 'This would be...". He goes on;"whether Jefferson and his colleagues were theists, deists, agnostics or atheists, they were also passionately secularists". He also quotes another of John Adams's "tirades against christianity" of which there are many. So, have you read it? contd....

[Texoki]

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government.

In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Jun-Yuan Chen,

The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999,

quoting this Chinese paleontologist

who claimed that his fossil finds were inconsistent with Darwinism

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki funnily - I can find the article by born again Christian and father of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E Johnson, saying that Chen said that and why he said it. I can also find numerous creationist web sites claiming the same, but I can't find any source for him having actually said it. It's not in his paper discussing his find and it's implications for evolutionary theory, which actual scientists don't seem to see as a problem for the theory.

[Texoki]

It is very trange that I can give you more than 50 fossils of Edicarian and you can not name any transitional to the Cambrian Explosion

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki it is very strange that I tried to engage you in a dialogue and you sent me a list of 50 fossil names with no preamble, followed by a pages long rant by Dr Chien. It is also strange that I pointed out a candidate for a trilobite ancestor and pre-cambrian trilobite tracks, which you've ignored. Life had been around for over 1.5bn years before the Cambrian. The fact that pre-cambrian fossils are so sparse is unexplained, but that does not mean "god dun it". Try to make this a conversation

[Texoki]

Can anybody name the transitional fossils ancestors of the 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki no - you know that and you probably know why too. The Cambrian represents the appearance of hard body parts which fossilize well, while the pre-cambrian organisms mostly left no recognisable fossils. Yet, there are small shelly fossils, animal tracks and burrows and a mounting wealth of molecular evidence showing that precursors were present. The Cambrian itself shows transitional fossils e.g. worms with legs and some phyla, e.g. plants, appear well after the Cambrian. Your point?

[Texoki]

@dj2baduk

.

Edicarian fossils =Worms & Jellyfish

Cambrian fossils = More than 100 phyla

(each phyla can be hundreds of species)

Can you name the transitional fossils ancestors of the 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki that's just plain wrong. Ediacaran fossils include arthropod like creatures as well as tracks very similar to trilobites. Neither did the Cambrian give rise to more than 100 phyla - the usual estimate is around 38, yet some existing phyla pre-date the cambrian by millions of years and others, such as ALL flowering plants, post-date it - but details never were a strong point with you let were they. I still don't know how any of this fits with the bible?

[Texoki]

@dj2baduk

.

What was the ancestor of the Trilobites? . A worm? . A Jellyfish?

How many morphological changes are necesary for a worm or a jellyfish to become a trilobite?

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki no one can say for sure what the ancestor of trilobites was, but there are a few candidates in the bilaterian pre-cambrian fossils that have been found. At the risk of repeating myself, there seems to be a lack of calcification pre-cambrian, which in turn means an extremely skant fossil record because soft forms don't fossilise well except under rare circumstances such as the Burgess shale. If not for such sites, we'd have no idea those soft bodied creatures ever existed.

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki but what I'm dying to know is - what's your explanation? Where did trilobites come from if they didn't evolve from slightly less trilobitey ancestors? I mean, all the evidence we do have overwhelmingly suggests that descent with modification is the explanation for all species that ever were, but if you have some better explanation then let's hear it.

[Texoki]

@dj2baduk

.

The overwhelming evidence is that there is no evidence of ancestors

you give sugestion about how it had to be,

because you have an overwhelming faith in evolution

You are short of imagination, or / and you do not want God in your way.

What would the evidences be if God had given a personal touch to existing life to designe/create 100 phyla?

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki fossilised precambrian tracks almost identical to those of trilobites - not evidence? Fossilised imprints of precambrian bilaterian organisms and arthropods - not evidence? The fact is, the Cambrian represents the sudden (geologically speaking) appearance of diversity of life forms in the fossil record, not the materialisation of these from nowhere. You want god to be the explanation - OK - where's your proof for god? You have the gall to call evolutionary evidence into question.

[Texoki]

@dj2baduk : This point has been further emphasized by a recent Precambrian fossil find near Chengjiang, China. Scientists there recently discovered incredibly preserved microscopic fossils of sponge embryos.

Paul Chien, a marine paleobiologist argues that this discovery poses a grave difficulty for the "artifact hypothesis". If the Precambrian rocks can preserve microscopic soft-bodied organisms, why don't they contain the ancestors to the Cambrian animals?

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki if you're going to quote "Explore Evolution" you should at least say so, or put it in quotes. Just so you know, Paul Chien is not a marine paleobiologist, he is a senior fellow of the discovery institute, had nothing to do with the discovery of these fossils and wasn't involved in the paper. If you want the truth about sponge embryo fossils - read the actual paper and don't waste your time with these lying clowns.

[Texoki]

@dj2baduk

.

Paul Chien, Marine paleobiologist

University of San Francisco.

Did you see the video :

"Darwin's Dilema : Cambrian Explosion"

.

[Texoki]

@dj2baduk : don't waste your time with these lying clowns.

.

If you say he is lying, then you have to explain in what is he lying.

I do not take your word for it, give evidences of transitionals.

You could the ignorant believer in evolution. the greatest Hoax on the century.

[dj2baduk]

@Texoki Paul Chien is not a Marine Paleobiologist. From the Faculty members of the University of San Francisco Biology Department -'Prof Chien is interested in the physiology and ecology of inter-tidal organisms. His research has involved the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes and the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions.'

None of his papers concern marine paleobiology. He is not qualified to comment on this particular fossil discovery. Simple as that

[rocksoli4]

In reality they prove themselves atheists by their actions, the same applies to Stalin and Mao, Hitler, Poll Pot Mussolini etc. It was their atheism that opened the door to murdering of the masses but they won't be lifting any banners up saying we did it in the name of atheism. Atheism doesn't have a name, it is a state of mind.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 the point is you MUST cherry pick the bible in order to avoid committing despicable acts. In the case of atheism, it isn't even an ideology. It commands nothing and says absolutely nothing about how we should treat others. Suggesting that atheism "opens doors" to mass murder etc. is not born out by the facts. The least religious nations tend to be the least violent etc. while Hitler, for example, gained a lot of support due to the Jews being considered Christ killers.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 the real culprit, in all cases of state sponsored mass murder, is the view that human lives are means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. Dictators seek to create ideal states and eliminate all obstacles to their ideals (or perceived threats to it born of paranoia). Having a belief in god is clearly no obstacle in these endeavours and in fact has proven highly useful to them. Religion is not the only ideology that de-values human lives, but it is one of the most pervasive.

[rocksoli4]

@dj2baduk Name one Christian principle that devalues human lives.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 - there's the idea of a "better" life AFTER this one? Then of course there's just the general misanthropy of considering ourselves "impure", in need of cleansing and redemption and so on. The idea that we are little more than chattle whose sole purpose is to please a god by accepting, against our better judgement, some far fetched story, thereby ensuring we can live a pure and cleansed life in the next realm, once again places human life in the caregory of a means, rather than an end.

[rocksoli4]

As if someone is going to lift up a banner with "I murdered millions of people because I don't believe in God". Believing in God is not the same as being a follower of his ways i.e. Love your neighbour as yourself. Any dictator from the crusading warlords to the IRA Catholics who murder cannot be Christians. In fact they prove themselves not to be True Christians they have no fear of God's judgement

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 as for being a follower of his ways (as opposed to the teachings of his son/him in the shabbily bolted on "New Testament"), remind me again, who was it who commanded the people of Israel to slaughter men, women and children numerous times? Who was it who is supposed to have deliberately caused a global flood drowning every man, woman, child and animal (including the unborn) who didn't make it onto the ark? How does the bible say we should treat homosexuals?

[rocksoli4]

Mr Dawkins is an expert at half truths. He is the original quote miner himself or avoids certain enlightenments. He has spoken about being a defender of truth based on evidence and yet he manages to omit certain truths about atheists who have murdered. He defends atheism by saying that Stalin and Mao never murdered in the name of Atheism no one has killed in the name of atheism! Well what a wimpy argument.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 just lookup the "no true scotsman" fallacy. It's what your defense of Christianity boils down to. If "no one has ever murdered in the name of atheism" is such a foolish argument, then explain why. What, in the statement "I find no compelling evidence for the existence of god" for example, is an injunction to commit murder and genocide? Mao and Stalin certainly killed in the name of their beliefs, but it's simply lazy not to mention obnoxious to say it was down to their atheism.

[rocksoli4]

Is it not as obvious as the nose on your face that because Richard Dawkins says "I can find no compelling evidence for the existence of God" It doesn't mean that he is right? He also says that there probably is no God, According to whom, Richard Dawkins. He has no respect for other peoples beliefs. He appears to be diverse but on some of his other videos he mocks people who believe in God and says they are deluded. Now if he can't prove there isn't a God why not live and let live.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 EVERY atheist says "I can find no compelling evidence for the existence of a god". The improbability of god is a very sound argument. Every complex thing we know of is formed in a bottom-up manner. Complexity necessarily stems from simplicity according to everything we know, observe and calculate. Therefore a sentient "being" capable of creating literally everything, whose own existence has no explanation, is not only the least probable explanation - it's no explanation at all.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 "why not live and let live". Why indeed. If the religious kept their beliefs to themselves, stopped trying to interfere in other people's lives and alter laws and school curriculum's, practicing discrimination against homosexuals, women and non-believers, retarding and tormenting the minds of innocent children or slashing their genitals or flying planes into buildings according to the same supersitious nonsense then we might be tempted to do just that.

[rocksoli4]

@dj2baduk You speak about cherry picking and yet you shine the light on the negatives without mentioning the good. I personally know of men who would and have given their lifes work helping others because they feel compelled by the fact that we are all brothers and sisters originating from Adam and Eve, They are full of forgiveness because they have been forgiven so much themselves.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 look I can make this short: There are of course people of faith who do "good" in the world. I can even find biblical verses (or koranic for that matter) that I wholeheartedly agree with and whose sentiments I endorse. Not because I believe they are divine instuction, but because I believe they are conducive a better world for all. It is neither sufficient or necessary for me to believe the divinity of biblical inspiration to do so and scripture has a lot of not so pleasant sentiments

[rocksoli4]

@dj2baduk People who live there lives in a loving caring manner contribute in a great way to making planet earth a great place to live, there numbers are many and I'm sure many atheists and humanists are in there as well. The big difference is that Christians can see the impurity of their lives and know the cleansing of their hearts(Character). They also know that without this cleansing they cannot know God.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 basically you're saying good people are good people, whatever they believe - I agree. You then say that the difference is christians know what they need to do to know god. Yet the net result, believer or no, is that they do good in THIS life. So the feelings of guilt and impurity along with knowing the unknowable is demonstrably neither sufficient or necessary to do good and to live a good life. When you also then consider the negative baggage that religion carries - it's a no brainer

[rocksoli4]

@dj2baduk So you atheists maybe you are Good in your own eyes and good compared to other men but if you live your life like there is a God watching you will discover the impurity of your hearts (character) and your need of a Saviour. Then you will have proof of the wonder of a God who loves you so much He came to die for you to cover your impurity.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 not all atheists are "good" in their own eyes or anyone else's. I see the value of an idealised metaphorical overseer of our deeds, but it is not necessary that I believe this being actually exists as more than a psychological tool. It is our moral voice, but it doesn't come from above. Also, have you actually considered the absurdity of a being sacrificing himself to himself so that he can forgive us for being the way he made us? It's 2010. We need to grow out of this.

[rocksoli4]

@dj2baduk You are entitled to your opinion. Do you have any understanding of Why God made the sacrifice of His Son? You don't have to know quantum physics to know why.

[dj2baduk]

@rocksoli4 god didn't sacrifice anyone. Jesus was executed because he represented a threat to the jewish church fathers and their roman puppet masters. This was a huge disappointment to those who had high hopes that he was the promised messiah (there were many other candidates), because he was supposed to save them from their oppressors and he errrrr... didn't. The whole resurrection and jesus dying so we could be forgiven is a clumsy bolt on to plug this obvious flaw in the plan.

[buschmann69]

Dorkyns in his glorious stupidity !! This guy is such a fucked up claimed scientist !!

[dj2baduk]

Wow - what a well thought out, constructive, intelligent comment. Top marks!

[martialme84]

what does "verum est nunquam lurpis" mean?

Is that like "the truth still does not....something" ???

[dj2baduk]

Truth is never ugly

[martialme84]

ahh, thanks a lot. never had latin at school...;)

[kogaku]

Creationist love to quote odds while omitting two HUGE factors AND getting the math wrong.

1. If there's 20 things, and 50 of them need to be put in a correct order, the odds are (1/50)^20=10^-34, NOT (1/20)^50=10^-64. A bit different, eh? ...Math aside. BIG PROBLEM #1, Not factoring in time. How many molecule collisions can happen over 1 billion years? BIG PROBLEM#2 Scale. You have to count ALL molecules on Earth! Not just 50 on your table. Hint: Oceans have a lot of molecules. PWNed!

[kcdummy]

binarysearch, I believe you have just been well and truely... What is the phrase i'm looking for... Oh that's it 'OWNED'

[binarysearch]

Darwin didn't know, that the eye repairs itself within 7 years. All cells auf the eye are exchanged within that time. And there are many more miracles of the eye, that Darwin could not know at his time. By chance not the simplest eye could ever come into existence. And how the billions of bytes of data (what man sees) are moved by an intelligent software to the human understanding nobody knows. Evolution can certainly not do it.

[dj2baduk]

You lose points immediately for saying "by chance" without including "mutation combined with natural selection". Without the latter, the former is not describing evolution.

Also, how the eye transmits images to the brain is very well understood and documented, but don't let that stop you making wild unsubstantiated statements of opinion. Try learning a little about a subject prior to commenting. It saves embarrassment.

[binarysearch]

because lack of words I omit 'selection' etc. but mutation is more important than selection, because without mutation you can select nothing.

But if you know how the different data of the eye gets into your conscience and how the software of your brain is working, I can gratulate you. You should be suggested for the Nobel prize.

[dj2baduk]

True, mutations are important, but survival pressures are what drives survival of beneficial mutations. That's natural selection and it is precisely how eyes evolved. A small patch of photosensitive cells allow motion towards/away from light, a concave patch offers better direction sensitivity, a further concave patch with a narrow aperture better still, one with a transparent cover better still, one with a lense better still etc. Examples of these stages exist today.

[binarysearch]

Please don't be offended. But it's not that simple. Human beeings have 50.000 different proteins. Nails, skin, liver, heart-muscle etc. need different proteins with different qualities, otherwise the body will not work. The proteins of the eye lenses must be transparent, that you can see through. How long do you have to wait, until per chance all 50.000 proteins are okay?

To compose all amino-acids in the right way, mutation has not enough time. Also millions of years will not help.

[dj2baduk]

I'm not offended, just a little surprised that you seem to think people who accept the reality of evolution don't know how complex organisms such as humans are. Mutations affect DNA, DNA codes amino acids and amino acids form proteins. A simple mutation can change the chemical composition of a protein or make it fold in a different way. The process has been witnessed giving rise to new organs and novel traits. Humans are the product of 3.5 Billion years of this process. It's simply a fact.

[binarysearch]

Well, we should be very careful to use the word 'fact'. I was not there, when God created man and you were not there, when the ape gave birth to a human being. We both were not there. We can only interpret the data we have and make our conclusions out of the data. We must also find answers to the questions: how did matter begin, how did time begin and: what is information and how can information be created? And: Is there an abolute purpose in life? And all must fit together.

[dj2baduk]

No one was "there" when god created man, because man was not created by god. Nor did anyone witness an ape giving birth to a human, because that never happened either. Gradually more human like apes gave birth to gradually more human like apes. These are facts. We carry within us all the genetic, anatomical and developmental clues that allow us to establish the facts of human development when combined with all the experimental evidence gathered by science in the present. There's simply no debate

[binarysearch]

I have told you, that you only can interpret data.

It is not scientific to say: "These are the facts", if you have never seen the facts yourself. No law of nature can be proved and no theory can be proved, you can only say: I can work with this theory, because I have enough intelligent data for it.

The same is true for the evolutiion-theory.

[dj2baduk]

Oh the irony! I'm fully aware - thank you - that in science, the word "fact" is not the outcome of a theory but a component of it. However, in the language of the lay-person, many of the conclusions of scientific theories are what we'd consider facts in as much as they are, for practical purposes, proven and irrefutible. As is the case with evolution. The irony is that you have the gall to invoke the rules of science whilst denying one of its most rigorously arrived at conclusions. Astounding!

[binarysearch]

I am very sorry, that you are taking my arguments personally, but I am not interested in that. Of course you think, that there are overwhelming facts, that speak for evolution. If you have only studied these facts, this is true. But if you study information theory, (a good book is "in the beginning was information" by Werner Gitt), then you will see, that there are also other arguments that contradict evolution.

[dj2baduk]

I'm not taking anything personally, I simply find your position absurd. Information theory does not contradict evolution theory. That's another "fact" for you. We can, for instance, observe the evolutionary process proferring an increase in genetic information. Therefor anyone claiming that information theory cantradicts evolution has incorrectly applied the theory - demonstrably so. If the theory itself contradicted the "facts" (observed) then it would fail as a theory.

[binarysearch]

You cannot 'observe' an evolutionary process in the past. You can only interpret the data this way. I interpret  data, that God created plants with photosynthesis - you interpret data, that photosynthesis came into being by chance. By the way - a very bold interpretation (It' a little bit complicated !!!).

Evolution little by little will with ph. not work, because half of the ph. will not work.

... has incorrectly applied .... is a circular argument.

[dj2baduk]

ALL the data we have ONLY makes sense if we "interpret" it in light of evolution e.g. Fossils: as we go back, extant organisms disappear yet similar but significantly different ones appear forming a progression of change from past to present. Vestiges: The pointless human yolk sack etc. during embryo development. Shared ERV markers (and locations) with other apes - only possible with common ancestry.

Every bit as importantly - ALL the evidence flat out refutes special creation.

[dj2baduk]

Photosynthesis: The lack of a clear line of evidence in fossils or existing organisms makes tracing the full evolution of photosynthesis extremely difficult, but we do know from molecular evidence that it began with bacteria as much as 2.8 billion years ago, possibly longer. Bacteria can and do exchange genes making the ulikely coming together of the different stages in oxygenic photosynthesis far more likely than you or "answers in genesis" would like to believe.

[binarysearch]

If you say, that a program of 1 line can be produced by mere accident, I would not argue. I you hold that a program of 1000 words can be exit automatically, I would ask you to calculate the probability. probabilities lower than 10 to the -50 are out of touch with reality. The probability of a coded program for photosynthesis is certainly lower than 10 to the -1000 - believe me.

[dj2baduk]

In order to calculate the true probability of anything you have to take account of all of the contributing factors to a high degree of accuracy. The probability figures you provide here are based on thin air. When one considers this "code" is made entirely from 4 letters, each chemically bound to only one of the other 4, self replicating with mistakes that can and do lead to a code more able to survive and replicate, then take account of horisontal "code" transfer and time...

[dj2baduk]

(over 3.5 billion years), also taking account of the fact that we observe this process leading to more complex "code", the probility becomes 1. It's an observed phenomenon. Again, and this is not circular reasoning, if your application of any theory contradicts the observed facts then your theory is wrong or incorrectly applied. You're effectively standing on the titanic as it goes down claiming the impossibility of the event as it happens.

[binarysearch]

"...to a high degree of accuracy". You are completely right. And this is of course the difficulty. e.g. You want to produce 6 motors. Each motor has 40 parts. This 40 parts must be put together in a certain order. Each part has a probability of 20 to the 50 ( 20 possibilities because there are 20 amino-acids and 50 amino acids must be in the correct sequence). Now calculate: It's 20 to the -40*50. (e.coli 1 nano-motor , 40 - proteins).Only 1 motor, correct assemly of parts not considered

[dj2baduk]

Look you can prattle on about made up probabilities of the various candidates for irreducible complexity put forward by AIG or the discovery institute all day long and it will get you nowhere. These have all been soundly debunked. E.g. bacterial "motors" have extant "parts" made of exactly the same protein sequences but performing entirely different functions. Evolution co-opts existing traits. If they lead to a new beneficial trait - they survive. This is tiresome.

[binarysearch]

Please not to the example e.sole before:

probabilities lower than 10 to the -50 are out of touch with reality

The probability for 1 motor is 20 to the -2000

The motor has 40 proteins, but only 30 new proteins, this would be 20 to the -1500.

I t is ablolutely necessary, that the part be assemled in the right order - was not considered. We do not need one motor, but 6 motors.

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." Charles Darwin.

[dj2baduk]

Probability calculations that fail to take account of reality are out of touch with reality. Your probability figures are utter nonsense. Again, you're failing to take account of parts assembled for different purposes coming together, as are the probability figures you quote.

I've already addressed your Darwin quote. To continue to parrot it as though it were some silver bullet against evolution only serves to make you look foolish.

[binarysearch]

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." Charles D.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles D.

Photosythesis /new organs cannot come into existence by "slight modifications". Not functioning parts would deselect the plant /animal immediately, because of the unnecessary weight of matter.

[dj2baduk]

The first Darwin quote you cite referred to the THEN accepted philiophy of science by pure induction. Darwin was relieved to find that his methods were entirely in line with the rules of logic, hypothesis and the newly emerging scientific philosophy encompassing both, however, evolution today is far in advance of what Darwin was able to prove. Nonetheless, Darwin is entirely vindicate by modern science. As to the 2nd - Incredulity is not even an argument, let alone proof.

[mikeyman211]

I love that shirt

[waketheoblivious]

ORIGIN early 16th cent.(denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin.

USAGE In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts (race relations, racial equality), it is now often replaced by other words that are less emotionally charged

[waketheoblivious]

Although ideas of race are centuries old, it was not until the 19th century that attempts to systematize racial divisions were made. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination. Theories of race asserting a link between racial type and intelligence are now discredited.

Bullshit science = Satanic Nazis

[Ihatejohnashton]

dude, is that an oxford professor wearing a hawiian shirt?

[dj2baduk]

Yeah dude - it's called "geek shique" ;o)

[keggerous]

i love how apologists all try and play down dawkin's intellect. he is by far one of the most enlightening ppl ive ever heard speak and to me, he is a modern day philosopher. not just a respected scientist.

[thesethreekings]

His point was that more people are interested in the first part of the quote than the latter, which was proven in that study.

[interstate317]

Excellent Video

[Acoustics7]

Excellent video indeed.