Richard Dawkins at the University of Oklahoma

[toomanytribbles]

please find the quote in full context and cite source. otherwise, you're paraphrasing and interpreting.

as for me, i'd be glad to see religion become a relic of the past.

[drbnine]

"Evolution is a FACT."

Really? Since when? According to whom?

Give me your 'required scientific evidence and proof" on these 2 questions- and I will convert from Christianity to Atheism.

IF you can't PROVE them will you deny Atheism and open your mind to the possibility their could be a God?

ANY TAKERS?

[toomanytribbles]

@drbnine if you're truly interested, the information's out there -- educate yourself. it's no one else's responsibility but your own.

for instance, you can read dawkins' 'the greatest show on earth.'

please don't repeat these questions, here at least, before you've done so.

[drbnine]

toomanytribbles- I sincerely appreciate the attitude and perceived spirit of your response.

I do, however, perceive there will not be adequate "required evidence or proof" given by any contributors here anyway. Just more of the typical rhetoric that is inbred within the science community.

What is Dawkins agenda? To destroy religion. That's a direct quote from Dawkins. Is that the heart of a scientist? I thought scientist were about discovery, facts, and evidence? Dawkins motives are not pure

[toomanytribbles]

part 1:

faith means believing things without evidence ... or even in spite of evidence, by definition.

science seeks independently verifiable knowledge -- the kind that is consistent for everyone. ideally, a scientist --or any skeptic, for that matter -- will go where the evidence leads.

if someone could provide said verifiable knowledge of a god, i would, of course, acknowledge it. i might not like it, but i want to face the universe as it is, not as i'd like it to be.

[toomanytribbles]

part 2:

dawkins says he passionately cares about the truth -- and wholeheartedly agree. that is all the motive i need.

i fight religiosity, not in the sense that i'll force anyone to change against their will, but in the honest arena of discourse and ideas.

if you truly have an open mind, examine the evidence for evolution, as a great many atheists have already examined the evidence for the existence of gods.

[drbnine]

Dawkins and others like him are motivated with bias and militant intent against religion and the existence of God.

When "destruction" is your agenda, an open mind is not attainable.

No one will ever change against their will.

Please give me your definition of "truth".

I want to see the science community tell the truth when they present hypotheses as hypotheses, and not as TRUTH.

Truth does not change every 2 years with a new study. Call it THEORY- NOT FACT. Say you have SOME information.

[toomanytribbles]

part 1:

your first sentences illustrate your own emotional bias and closed mind. no one wants anyone to change against their will. these things are not achieved by force, but by reasonable discussion.

you're using the word 'theory' in the colloquial sense, as many creationists do. in science, 'theory' does NOT mean hypothesis... it means a comprehensive explanation of laws and phenomena, with the ability to predict new discoveries.

[toomanytribbles]

part 2:

i don't know if you know this, but if you don't, you can up on it.

i won't continue the conversation along these lines -- it's very tiring and dull to have to reply to the same old... same old.

if you want to learn about evolution, do so. if not, don't. it's really up to you.

[drbnine]

The word "theory" according to Merriam Webster (creationist?-Now your bias is showing) ,means: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproved assumption, conjecture

Synonyms for theory- "hypothesis"

Abstract thought, speculation.

I'm sorry, but my definition and application is just as accurate and "non-creationist" as yours.

[toomanytribbles]

no, it's not. the study of evolution is a science, therefore you must use the scientific definition:

Science Dictionary

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.See Note at hypothesis.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin.

[toomanytribbles]

all this is well-established and not open to debate. i will not continue ping-ponging along these lines, as i have better things to do.

[drbnine]

"I will not continue ping-ponging...I have better things to do." Oh really? Isn't that the way truth is finally attained and realized? By searching, probing, exploring, disecting, analyzing? Are you afraid to bring your fragile belief system to the microscope of examination? Can evolution handle scrutiny.

I'll give you one last chance before I become bored...

Tell me how it all began. That is Question #1. You can't start evolution with #2at how it evolved if you can't tell me how it began.

[toomanytribbles]

part 1:

you might not be aware of this but the entire world is not where you happen to be. it's almost midnight here and i'm not going to stay up for this.

you are not 'searching', 'probing' or 'disecting' [sic]. you're spewing well-known and utterly mind-numbing creationist rubbish. i'm not interested in this -- my time is precious to me.

[toomanytribbles]

part 2:

the evolution of species is a well-established fact and not a belief system. i'm sorry you don't understand it but it's not my responsibility or desire to educate you. you want to stay ignorant? so be it. in other words, i don't care.

as for your silly final question,

[toomanytribbles]

part 3:

1. evolution concerns itself with the biological development of life once it has already started, and has nothing to say about how it all began.

2. i don't know how it all began, and neither do you. i have no problem with not knowing... i'm simply intrigued and would like to eventually find out.

now i'm finished with you -- i will not answer again. nothing here has been worth my time.

[drbnine]

toomanytribbles- Thank you for an enjoyable time of dialogue and verbal intercourse.

I certainly expected your last post as this is the same place-without exception- that EVERY evolutionist does the EXACT same thing.

You are well trained in the science community ...at dodging the MOST IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL QUESTION OF ALL.

You want me to believe you are indifferent or only "simply intrigued" in knowing the ORIGIN of all things, but consumed by the evolutionary process? I don't buy it.

[toomanytribbles]

you mean, other people get tired of your nonsense, too? fancy that...

i'm interested in our origins, i'm interested in our evolution. i am simply able to discern what we do know and what we don't.

goodnight.

[drbnine]

What TRULY sounds like "nonsense"?

Man was made in the image of an incredibly brilliant Supreme Being who created all things. His ultimate creation-man, with indescribable complexities beyond all other species.

Or, man is the product of morphing his way from the pond to the puddle to the shore to the dry ground. He has monkeys and apes in his family tree and lemurs too! No, wait. Science missed that one.

How could it? Science knows

MY NONSENSE? DRIBBLE? AN INSULT TO HUMAN INTELLIGENCE! BYE

[drbnine]

Evolution may jump into the race after it has begun, but science doesn't.

Evolution closes its eyes to how it started because it would come face to face with a GOD it has denied existed.

Science attempts to "create" other alternatives besides acknowledging Creationism. Science KNOWS all their explanations fail miserably. So they down play it.

You and other evolutionists choose to start at Chapter 2 and totally ignore or blow off The Genesis of Life and All Things.

IT IS YOUR ACHILLE"S HEAL

[toomanytribbles]

i approved these final two comments by drbnine -- the last two from this person that i'll approve -- in order to show everyone how interested he/she really is in science. these final two comments reek of blind, enraged, anti-science dribble and dogma.

devoid of evidence or reason, he has fallen back to goddidit.

it answers nothing.

it's not even wrong.

how completely predictable and transparent.

[drbnine]

Is it fair to say that if one is going to enter into a discussion on a given topic, both parties should define the same word the same.

Therein lies the problem on many levels.

How am I bias in my first sentence about Dawkins having militant intention against religion when he himself said he wants to DESTROY religion. That is not "militant" in nature? to destroy?

[toomanytribbles]

please find the quote, in full context, and cite source... otherwise you're paraphrasing and interpreting.

as for me, i'd be very glad to see religion become a relic of the past.

[kingmike40]

If stork deliver babies than why are woman getting fat for 9 months?

[toomanytribbles]

why, indeed?

[dococksmother]

This is an excellent Dawkins videoand very entertaining. However, I've spotted a flaw in intelligent falling. Around 2:30 he said "dx over dt equals 1 Cor.1:10." He should, of course said dx BY dt, not dx over dt, if it's the differential. Just thought I'd say that lol.

[MannyFandango]

Wow what a demagogue.

Is this the prophet of atheists? All hail the great worshippers of the Dawkins LOL

[toomanytribbles]

It seems that many theists are unable to grasp the concept of free thought and need to translate everything into their own terms of prophets and worship.

[rv186rs]

All hail the herder of cats.

No but seriosly I know many many atheists that never have heard of Dawkins.

[toomanytribbles]

i have been an atheist all my life. i have known about dawkins for only a few years.

[rv186rs]

Pretty much the same for me, I have known about him for just a couple of months.

[mjhacker]

I was at this lecture, and it was wonderful. I especially loved when the fundie got up and yelled at Dawkins, before being escorted out.

[toomanytribbles]

i envy you!

[VelvetRagamuffin]

As one of Thomsen's constituents, I can unequivocally say that he does not speak for me. I was one of a 47% minority in the last election that voted for Starns. His margin of victory was only 714 votes which gives me hope.

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

Oklahoma is arguably one of the most backward US states. Of course it's hard to compare to Wyoming, Montana, Georgia, the Virginias; where does one even start? I have a friend who lives there (OK), and what passes for "normal" is astonishing. The locals fought a ban on cockfighting to the bitter end. If not for heavy muscle from national groups it wouldn't have changed. IIRC, only one other state allows such low-brow miscreant crap (Missouri).

[Elvisdogg]

(singing) Dick to the Dawk to the PhD, he's smarter than you, he's got a science degree!

sorry, couldn't help myself...

watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

[8WholeThing]

1 Corinthians 1:10 (NIV)

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

[blaziermissy]

Watch: why we believe in gods by FritzTV here on youtube. It will soon be taught in high school psychology classes.

[8WholeThing]

Thanks! I had seen the series on a different channel (FFreeThinker), but FritzTV seems to have some good stuff so I just subscribed.

[Theapopi]

Toomanytribbles, thanks so much for the clip - Wish we could see more! Dawkins, once again, shines amongst the audience. His wit, esteem and knowledge are refreshing compared to others! Thomsen should be embarrassed - He has been exposed a fool.

[Desertphile]

A resolution denying Richard Dawkins a forum to speak his opinions, on the grounds that everyone should have the right to speak their opinions?

Good bloody *GODS* that's funny! Thomsen must be a Republican Party member.

[ProudToBLoud]

desertpiles, why did you take it to heart after i pointed out that you had a retarded manner of apperance and speech , you raised the subject of being mental (psychological projection)and when i pointed out your own retarded speech and behaviour you had a cow and banned me, sorry that i hurt your feelings old man.

[Desertphile]

"desertpiles, why did you take it to heart after i pointed out that you...."

Instead of just trying to insult me, if you spotted anything I said or wrote that is wrong, by all means please do tell me what the error(s) is/are so that I will not repeat my mistake in the future. I will very much appreciate it. Thank you.

[ProudToBLoud]

I didnt try to insult you, you raised the point about being mental, why should I have to correct your behaviour old man, you should know better,I just pointed out that you talk and behave in a retared manner and that was only in response to your psychological projection, but my error was in pointing out what anyone can see when they watch your videos, you cannot help that you are retarded, please accept my apologies if i hurt you in anyway old timer.

[VirgilFoxMusic]

Discriminating against someone because of their appearance, speech articulation and age? Accusing someone of being retarded just because you dont agree with what they say or the way they speak, or the way they present themselves? Repeated reference to a persons age in a disapproving tone as if there is anything any of us can do to prevent aging. All of these insults are completely irrational. Psychoanalyze yourself first. It would be a good starting point.