Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye

[abandonallhope]

I lol'ed.

Does anybody still take that dawkins seriously ? He's completely bat****.

 

[HapticSimian]

I lol'ed.

Does anybody still take that dawkins seriously ? He's completely bat****.

[citation needed]

Let us know when you've reached similar levels of acclaim in a related field of biology.

 

[Spizz]

I lol'ed.

Does anybody still take that dawkins seriously ? He's completely bat****.

I would love to hear your counter argument.

 

[Chemical]

I lol'ed.

Does anybody still take that dawkins seriously ? He's completely bat****.

What do you not agree with?

 

[be.plato]

I lol'ed.

Does anybody still take that dawkins seriously ? He's completely bat****.

Hmm, proving evolution does appear to be dawkins favorite hobby-horse.

 

[Chemical]

Hmm, proving evolution does appear to be dawkins favorite hobby-horse.

He is trying to explain it to people like you, but I think that is a lost cause.
"There's none so blind as those who will not see"

 

[be.plato]

He is trying to explain it to people like you, but I think that is a lost cause.
"There's none so blind as those who will not see"

Nice quote, that could equally be applied too you.

 

[Chemical]

Nice quote, that could equally be applied too you.

Please enlighten me as to what I am not seeing ?

 

[copacetic]

Hmm, proving evolution does appear to be dawkins favorite hobby-horse.

Evolution doesn't need to be 'proven', it just is. Until the evidence suggests otherwise, but we've long been at the point of no return...

 

[HapticSimian]

Nice quote, that could equally be applied too you.

No, it can't. You are not of some different but equal opinion here; you are, simply, wrong. No amount of faffing about will change that. Go watch the video, and go read the links posted by Techne. Go educate yourself a bit before you attempt judging the position of others.

 

[Spizz]

Hmm, proving evolution does appear to be dawkins favorite hobby-horse.

Odd that, considering being an evolutionary biologist is his daytime job. But it's funny how those trying to prove Dawkins wrong have no idea what he is, what he said or what he wrote.

He's 'batschit' just cos he is and some other folks who also know jack said so. So there. And you are the one winking and lol'ing...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

The phrase "science denialism" is practically an oxymoron. How can you deny something you can observe, test and reproduce? The should just call it "science retardation".

 

[be.plato]

Please enlighten me as to what I am not seeing ?

The reality of Creation.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Hmm, proving evolution does appear to be dawkins favorite hobby-horse.

Evolution (change over successive generations) is an observable fact. It doesn't need proving.

As for Dawkins being occupied with evolution... He's an evolutionary biologist, so yeah, he would spend some time on it.

 

[Spizz]

The reality of Creation.

I lol'ed.

Does anybody still take that seriously ? It's completely bat****.

(see what I did there)

 

[Chemical]

I lol'ed. Evidence please?

 

[abandonallhope]

Your materialistic ideology/religion has countless intelligent, consistent, reasonable and capable proponents, but richard dawkins most certainly isn't one of them.

He belongs in the cranky fanatic geezer category, he simply doesn't have the ability to take part in a level headed discussion. This is also an observable fact.

 

[TJ99]

The phrase "science denialism" is practically an oxymoron. How can you deny something you can observe, test and reproduce? The should just call it "science retardation".

Reading this thread, I'd say it goes way beyond scientific retardation. It's just plain old retardation. Or trolling. I find it hard to believe people can be this dumb, but I might be wrong.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Your materialistic ideology/religion has countless intelligent, consistent, reasonable and capable proponents, but richard dawkins most certainly isn't one of them.

He belongs in the cranky fanatic geezer category, he simply doesn't have the ability to take part in a level headed discussion. This is also an observable fact.

So nothing to offer on the actual science? You just don't like the man?

How many 'level-headed discussions' does one have to go through with 'cranky fanatic geezers' of the theistic bent before realising that it's futile?

I suspect be.plato is another futile case of running around the mulberry bush with someone who refuses to apply their cognitive abilities.

 

[Chemical]

Note to self .. learn to spot the troll & some people want to remain ignorant