What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2013, 10:19 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(02-03-2013 01:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-03-2013 01:49 AM)Egor Wrote:  Hey! A fellow negative repper.

So, are you an atheist? You don't sound like an atheist.
I am a theist....couldn't you tell by the red rep?
LOL, No sorry, not the way this place happens to work at all. Prime example, Reginald Khan KC.

And I watched the video area of the computer.. the way Dawkins means blind to the future is still absolutely true I have lost any idea of what you think you are right about. Evolution works formed in selective measures, but it isn't moving toward a perceived goal. There isn't a magical sentence at the end of the path or consciousness/knowledge as a target. If the development is working, it will keep developing but not with a guided or noticed goal.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 07:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, Dawkins is correct; evolution is entirely blind. You misunderstand what convergent evolution is.

This is hardly a compelling counter argument. You should start by explaining how it is that I am misunderstanding what convergent evolution is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2013, 05:26 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(02-03-2013 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(02-03-2013 01:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am a theist....couldn't you tell by the red rep?
LOL, No sorry, not the way this place happens to work at all. Prime example, Reginald Khan KC.
And ideasonscribe, DarthMarth, Phil_GA, Greatest I am, Zoebion, etc. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2013, 05:29 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
If someone has to explain to you on how evolution actually works, I would suggest you put down whatever goofy book you are reading and read what the experts actually say. (I love how most theist always use the goofiest fallacies.) Why would someone have to prove to you something to be true, if you are to lazy to actually look up the answer for yourself?

Evolution has no end game, it is a process of what suits the individual specie in their environment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like StorMRising's post
03-03-2013, 01:37 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 01:53 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(02-03-2013 05:26 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-03-2013 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  LOL, No sorry, not the way this place happens to work at all. Prime example, Reginald Khan KC.
And ideasonscribe, DarthMarth, Phil_GA, Greatest I am, Zoebion, etc. Drinking Beverage
Do those theist challenge the atheistic world veiw?

Read the reasons why people have given me a bad rep. Do you think any of them are warranted?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 01:43 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Yes. Drinking Beverage



You never accepted my offer for a second chance, but acted like I had already given it.

Dodging accountability?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 01:50 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(02-03-2013 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And I watched the video area of the computer.. the way Dawkins means blind to the future is still absolutely true I have lost any idea of what you think you are right about. Evolution works formed in selective measures, but it isn't moving toward a perceived goal. There isn't a magical sentence at the end of the path or consciousness/knowledge as a target. If the development is working, it will keep developing but not with a guided or noticed goal.



The fitness function, or selective pressure, or fitness paradigm, what ever you want to call it is what determines the forms. Design the fitness paradigm and you are targeting a form.

Evolution is used all the time to accomplish specific goals so your statement isn't true for all evolutionary processes. Now you may be talking only about biological evolution, but if you say it is blind you are assuming there is no God(or some other intellect). I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem if you then go on to claim that evolution shows God is not needed. If you do that then your reasoning is circular.

Evolution is blind because there is no intellect determining the the fitness paradigm, Therefore evolution shows there is no God.

I hope you can see that the above is bad reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 02:04 AM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
For those rightly confused...

The User is arguing for a non interventionist "god". The god "saw" into the future, and "created" the universe in such a way that it would create an earth, then life, then humans.

Breeding. But instead of a dog breeder being physically present, they automated the dog kennel, and sat back and watched.

The User hasn't provided any evidence that a "god" exists, and for it having created the Universe or primordial earth or what have you.

All these "starting points/initial conditions" have natural explanations. There's no evidence or room or need for magic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PoolBoyG's post
03-03-2013, 02:47 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 02:00 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  For those rightly confused...

The User is arguing for a non interventionist "god". The god "saw" into the future, and "created" the universe in such a way that it would create an earth, then life, then humans.

Breeding. But instead of a dog breeder being physically present, they automated the dog kennel, and sat back and watched.

The User hasn't provided any evidence that a "god" exists, and for it having created the Universe or primordial earth or what have you.

All these "starting points/initial conditions" have natural explanations. There's no evidence or room or need for magic.
Biological evolution started with abiogenesis and there is no credible explaination for that. People have ideas but nothing you could call a theory and certainly nothing you could say was demonstrably true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 02:58 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 02:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 02:00 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  For those rightly confused...

The User is arguing for a non interventionist "god". The god "saw" into the future, and "created" the universe in such a way that it would create an earth, then life, then humans.

Breeding. But instead of a dog breeder being physically present, they automated the dog kennel, and sat back and watched.

The User hasn't provided any evidence that a "god" exists, and for it having created the Universe or primordial earth or what have you.

All these "starting points/initial conditions" have natural explanations. There's no evidence or room or need for magic.
Biological evolution started with abiogenesis and there is no credible explaination for that. People have ideas but nothing you could call a theory and certainly nothing you could say was demonstrably true.

You should probably stick to a single debate in a given thread. I've seen you alternately arguing against evolution and abiogenesis within this one alone. It has caused some confusion I cannot with confidence say you aren't exploiting.

I won't speak for anyone else here. As for me, I can't explain abiogenesis, but I find the theistic explanation unsatisfactory and frankly silly. But, evolution is a rather different subject and has been explained, tested and measured more than any other current theory. I'm not alone in feeling confident that it sufficiently explains biodiversity on Earth. Lets not muddy the line between the two please.

Also, that you feel abiogenesis requires god...is not new to us. Most of us here have been around the block a few times and have been exposed to current trends in creationist ideas.

I'm curious: are you even aware what you're doing that causes you to seem so arrogant?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: