Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye

[Spizz]

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.

Well I've only read 3 of his books so I'm not an expert like you. But please do tell us, why is he not intelligent, consistent, reasonable and capable, and in when did it become apparent to you?

Examples please.

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

Once you lift your jaw off of the floor, you'll realise that they are not actually trolling and really do 'think' like that.

 

[Chemical]

Once you lift your jaw off of the floor, you'll realise that they are not actually trolling and really do 'think' like that.

mind boggling :wtf:

 

[Nerfherder]

The reality of Creation.

Where ?



RE:OP

I wonder how old that video is ? Dawkins looks really young !

 

[Techne]

Does anybody still take that dawkins seriously ?

Well, to be fair, Dawkins was a Professor FOR science at Oxford. A position, as I understand it, bought for him by a rich admirer. He appears to have earned the position ""on the basis of their wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication” and not as a “Mainstream Candidate” ie for “contributions to knowledge and understanding in science, engineering or medicine.”".

I.e. he was a good popularizer of science, more specifically, evolutionary biology. He really is a good popularizer of the field. His actual scientific contribution towards evolutionary biology is quite negligible though. For an excellent Professor OF science in the field of evolutionary biology, consider Martin Nowak who continues to do brilliant research and makes major contributions towards the field.

As for Dawkins' contributions towards the philosophy of religion (like his "God Delusion" book)... I don't think many people take him seriously. He is demonstrably ignorant when it comes to that and logic.

 

[HapticSimian]

...

As for Dawkins' contributions towards the philosophy of religion (like his "God Delusion" book)... I don't think many people take him seriously. He is demonstrably ignorant when it comes to that and logic.

Only by the yardstick employed by folk like Arthur, yourself and... what was it... 'Eddie Fizzpop'?

 

[Techne]

Only by the yardstick employed by folk like Arthur, yourself and... what was it... 'Eddie Fizzpop'?

You wish that was true don't you . Have you read Dawkins' "God Delusion" btw? His howlers, ignorance of actual arguments and logical fallacies have been ripped to shreds by theists and atheists alike.

 

[HapticSimian]

You wish that was true don't you . Have you read Dawkins' "God Delusion" btw? His howlers, ignorance of actual arguments and logical fallacies have been ripped to shreds by theists and atheists alike.

I have, yes. And I understand on what grounds you consider them 'howlers'. Personally I don't think the navel-gazing and hand-waving you're a fan of merits any closer inspection than he granted it. But, as they say, each to their own...

 

[Chemical]

You wish that was true don't you . Have you read Dawkins' "God Delusion" btw? His howlers, ignorance of actual arguments and logical fallacies have been ripped to shreds by theists and atheists alike.

The God Delusion has nothing to do with his work as an evolutionary biologist, and the video that I posted.

 

[Spizz]

Well, to be fair, Dawkins was a Professor FOR science at Oxford. A position, as I understand it, bought for him by a rich admirer. He appears to have earned the position ""on the basis of their wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication” and not as a “Mainstream Candidate” ie for “contributions to knowledge and understanding in science, engineering or medicine.”".

I.e. he was a good popularizer of science, more specifically, evolutionary biology. He really is a good popularizer of the field. His actual scientific contribution towards evolutionary biology is quite negligible though. For an excellent Professor OF science in the field of evolutionary biology, consider Martin Nowak who continues to do brilliant research and makes major contributions towards the field.

As for Dawkins' contributions towards the philosophy of religion (like his "God Delusion" book)... I don't think many people take him seriously. He is demonstrably ignorant when it comes to that and logic.

Ok, so now you are going to have to help me, because abandonallhope is obviously on the second part of his 'hit and run'.

I read The God Delusion twice, and far from being an expert (again unlike abandonallhope), and in my limited and passing interest, I take him extremely seriously. So perhaps you could point me towards the books or counter arguments that the experts on this forum are referencing, because they all seem to be well read and they don't believe a thing Dawkins says or writes.

And would be so kind as to point out who else doesn't take him seriously and where he is demonstrably ignorant? I seem to be missing out on a big secret here and feel like quite a fool for reading his books and making up my own mind without having the full picture.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Techne]

Ah, you much prefer Dawkins' navel-gazing and hand-waving. I understand .

 

[Techne]

The God Delusion has nothing to do with his work as an evolutionary biologist, and the video that I posted.

Of course, I never implied it and I was pretty clear about which area that book was most relevant, even though Dawkins does use evolutionary biology in that book.

 

[Techne]

Ok, so now you are going to have to help me, because abandonallhope is obviously on the second part of his 'hit and run'.

I read The God Delusion twice, and far from being an expert (again unlike abandonallhope), and in my limited and passing interest, I take him extremely seriously. So perhaps you could point me towards the books or counter arguments that the experts on this forum are referencing, because they all seem to be well read and they don't believe a thing Dawkins says or writes.

And would be so kind as to point out who else doesn't take him seriously and where he is demonstrably ignorant? I seem to be missing out on a big secret here and feel like quite a fool for reading his books and making up my own mind without having the full picture.

Thanks in advance.

Do you mind if I PM you? We can continue the discussion there as some may complain it does not belong here .

 

[Spizz]

You wish that was true don't you . Have you read Dawkins' "God Delusion" btw? His howlers, ignorance of actual arguments and logical fallacies have been ripped to shreds by theists and atheists alike.

Oh goodie. I like a laugh and always love a good howler.

What pages are the howlers, ignorance of actual arguments and logical fallacies on. I don't have my kindle with me but I can check them when I get home

 

[Spizz]

Do you mind if I PM you? We can continue the discussion there as some may complain it does not belong here .

I'd say it was relevant enough to the OP. If Dawkins is a quack, then we should know.

 

[Spizz]

Well I've only read 3 of his books so I'm not an expert like you. But please do tell us, why is he not intelligent, consistent, reasonable and capable, and in when did it become apparent to you?

Examples please.

Bump.

 

[Techne]

I'd say it was relevant enough to the OP. If Dawkins is a quack, then we should know.

I disagree, Dawkins is a quack when it comes to Philosophy of Religion and philosophy+logic in general it appears. Not evolutionary biology, which this thread is about

 

[Spizz]

I disagree, Dawkins is a quack when it comes to Philosophy of Religion and philosophy+logic in general it appears. Not evolutionary biology, which this thread is about

We-ell, that depends on which reply you are referring to, but Dawkins credibility has pretty much been attacked from all sides. If you have any examples you can send me I'd be only too pleased to read through them. But really, I have more of an issue with the hit and run type replies this forum has countless examples of when Richard Dawkins is mentioned, and I think everyone should be made aware of them.

 

[Techne]

We-ell, that depends on which reply you are referring to, but Dawkins credibility has pretty much been attacked from all sides. If you have any examples you can send me I'd be only too pleased to read through them. But really, I have more of an issue with the hit and run type replies this forum has countless examples of when Richard Dawkins is mentioned, and I think everyone should be made aware of them.

Ok, I'll PM you if you don't mind.

 

[R13...]

As for Dawkins' contributions towards the philosophy of religion (like his "God Delusion" book)... I don't think many people take him seriously. He is demonstrably ignorant when it comes to that and logic.

I took a crack at the God Delusion [read the kindle sample anticipating to buy it) and wholeheartedly agree with Techne

 

[Spizz]

Ok, I'll PM you if you don't mind.

Not at all. I look forward to it.

I took a crack at the God Delusion [read the kindle sample anticipating to buy it) and wholeheartedly agree with Techne

I'd also be interested to know why.