Skip to comments.
Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates, Refuses to Defend Evolution...(what a coward!)
Discovery Institute ^
| October 6, 2009
Posted on 10/07/2009 8:18:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
To: BlueDragon
Ah, I see. You are claiming that what I saw (poo flying from your locale) wasn't flung by you at all, no sir, it was just bouncing "off" of you.
Nah. I'm pretty sure none of it actually hit me. All I'm saying is that there were a lot of poo flingers there, and a lot of poo being flung. . . ;-)
41
posted on
10/07/2009 10:15:50 AM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: GodGunsGuts
But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and wont debate its leading proponents, adds Dr. Meyer. Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell.If there's no evidence for intelligent design in life, how could the universe give the illusion of design?
No wonder Dawkins doesn't have the wherewithal to debate.
The guy shoots himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth.
42
posted on
10/07/2009 10:27:01 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: GodGunsGuts
Richard Dawkins is an amateur liberal philosopher who behaves like a spoiled brat when he is not behaving like Bill Maher, Rosie O’Donnell or some other radical leftist fraud.
43
posted on
10/07/2009 10:38:35 AM PDT
by
OriginalIntent
(undo all judicial activism and its results)
To: Natural Law
Don’t debate the subject, it was Richard Dawson. (with a mild chuckle)
44
posted on
10/07/2009 10:43:00 AM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Tax Government
Ahhh...but it is evolution that is the enemy. And it should be attacked as such.
45
posted on
10/07/2009 10:59:24 AM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Filo
All I'm saying is that there were a lot of poo flingers there, and a lot of poo being flung. . . ;-)
A stealthy admission, with the added "but others are doing it".?
Ok, lots of that sort of thing goes on here. I indulge myself in wiseguy comments, too.
Getting back to the article; I can see easily enough that from Dawkin's perspective, debating with anyone who doesn't agree with what can be termed neo-Dawinism wouldn't be profitable to him at all.
His book sales and speaking engagement fees, are likely doing quite well as things are now.
So what is the major difference between these two writers, what is the crux of the issue separating them?
One assumes life some how self-organized, randomly sprung into existence.
The other writer postulates that some evidence for what has become known as "design" can be seen in lifeforms.
"Proof" for this latter can only be inferred from the evidence perhaps, but first, one must be able to accept the possibility that the neo-Darwinian philosophical outlook may be quite wrong, at least as far as the abiogenisis assumption is concerned.
All the poo-flinging merely distracts from the set of ideas being discussed.
Dawkins will not approach the idea whatsoever. He states his case, but adds much poo-flinging along with it, towards any who dare challenge the assumption.
Are you following in his footsteps here?
46
posted on
10/07/2009 11:00:19 AM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to both variation & deviation)
To: BlueDragon
Are you following in his footsteps here?
Absolutely.
Why?
Because there is no "assumption."
The concept of a creator and/or some implied design is just dumb. It doesn't deserve the credibility of debate, it deserves to have poo flung at it.
There is no evidence for creation, none for "design" and every single fact points to evolution with none pointing any other way.
Sure, as the creationists say we didn't witness abiogenesis (which is an entirely separate topic from evolution) to which I reply we didn't witness creation either and the latter is a cop out which makes no sense.
So, rather than debate the facts which, as Dawkins and others have learned, creationists are immune to, I'll sit here and make fun of those with the silly flat-Earth ideas.
Times are tough and this is cheaper than a movie!
47
posted on
10/07/2009 11:15:24 AM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: metmom
Standard procedure to avoid debate, it doesn't work out well for the Darwinists:
“Box 2. Natural divisions
From the following article:
Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students minds?
Geoff Brumfiel
Nature 434, 1062-1065(28 April 2005)
doi:10.1038/4341062a
Evolution advocates say that researchers should be careful about how they respond to such overtures. If the request is for a public debate with an intelligent-design advocate, the best answer is no, argues Robert Pennock, a philosopher of science at Michigan State University in East Lansing. A public debate is an artificial setting for getting into scientific issues, he says. There's no way in that format to thoroughly give a scientific response, especially to a lay audience.
A formal debate is not how we do science, agrees Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. But I think it's appropriate for scientists to meet with students and educate them about what the real science is saying.
That's what Victor Hutchison and his colleagues in the zoology department at the University of Oklahoma in Norman have been doing for the past few years. We will not agree to debate the creationists publicly, he says. But we encourage faculty members and graduate students to attend their meetings and challenge them in the discussion.
Debate is not good for Darwinists.
48
posted on
10/07/2009 11:18:09 AM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: mquinn
“Posting dated Monty Python clips in response to anothers post is not as clever or witty as you seem to think it is”
It made me laugh
49
posted on
10/07/2009 11:26:10 AM PDT
by
beefree
To: HerrBlucher
“Aliens planted the first life on earth”
I never expected ‘Expelled’ to be funny, but him saying that made me laugh hysterically, how can anyone find him credible? Dawkins seriously jumped the shark on that note.
50
posted on
10/07/2009 11:33:03 AM PDT
by
beefree
To: Filo; BlueDragon
The Temple of Darwin is being falsified left and right. Indeed, Darwin's main prediction was chopped down just in time for his birthday :op
To: Filo
You say that abiogenesis is not assumption?
Then, later on you admit that it IS assumption, through use of something of a strawman argument;
"...Sure, as the creationists say we didn't witness abiogenesis..."
Even if there were to be some truth to the abiogenesis idea, at this time there is nothing empirical, testable, falsifiable which irrefutably supports the postulate, or else we would have seen it by now.
Yet, the assumption persists, and it does appear that those whom dare point this out, will have poo flung at them.
52
posted on
10/07/2009 11:43:57 AM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to both variation & deviation)
To: GodGunsGuts
The Temple of Darwin is being falsified left and right.
And yet it's not.
Evolution is solid science and 100% right. Creationism is pure mysticism and is 100% wrong.
Funny that for all your caterwauling youre just plain wrong, eh?
53
posted on
10/07/2009 12:16:57 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: BlueDragon
You say that abiogenesis is not assumption?
Correct.
Then, later on you admit that it IS assumption, through use of something of a strawman argument;
Uhm, no. Not having witnessed something does not mean that it is assumed.
Granted this concept is alien to creationists, but you can use things like reason, logic and experience to draw conclusions about things you haven't seen.
For instance you can drive around a curve to see skid marks on the road and another car wrapped around a tree, smoke and steam coming from the engine.
One can reasonably conclude from those facts that the car missed the curve and hit the tree.
Of course, there are always those idiots who will say that wasn't the case at all - that someone came along and planted a pre-crushed car, damaged the tree, painted the skid marks etc.
Those people should be mocked like the imbeciles they are.
Even if there were to be some truth to the abiogenesis idea, at this time there is nothing empirical, testable, falsifiable which irrefutably supports the postulate, or else we would have seen it by now.
Nonsense.
Yet, the assumption persists, and it does appear that those whom dare point this out, will have poo flung at them.
For the same reason the idiots in my analogy above will be mocked.
54
posted on
10/07/2009 12:25:04 PM PDT
by
Filo
(Darwin was right!)
To: GodGunsGuts
Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.”
Obviously another buffoon who got his degree from a degree mill
To: ConservativeDude
To: GodGunsGuts
George Bush dodged debate with Cindy Sheehan
57
posted on
10/07/2009 12:48:37 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal.)
To: ConservativeDude
He’s a philosopher (BS artist), not a scientist.
58
posted on
10/07/2009 12:53:31 PM PDT
by
Wacka
To: Filo
Sure, that's why the Temple of Darwin's high priests masquerading as scientists are afraid to debate Creation and ID scientists...LOL!
To: Filo; BlueDragon
Blue Dragon: You say that abiogenesis is not assumption?
Filo: Correct
Me: Filo is about as evo-religious as you can get...and yet he mistakes his nature-worship for science!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson