shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY

Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth
Watch Full Program | previews
More from this partner:

212
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
376,359 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Page 4 of 10 « First 23 4 56 Last »
LucyDaily Avatar
LucyDaily
Posts: 10
Posted: 03.17.10, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Rucker
"..adept at seeming learned.." For a second there I thought Dawkins was talking about himself.

He has always fascinated me as an observation study of "perception-of-everything-in-reverse" disorder. He thinks there is no Intelligent Design. Yet, he thinks life here was created by aliens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

He thinks the teaching of evolution is "bullied" by Intelligent Design believers. If anything, it's the other way around.

He thinks it's either science or lunacy. The truth is that believers in a divinely created universe have practiced science (and co-existed with science) since the origin of science. In his mental disorder, co-existence is impossible.
Religion has sought to destroy science from the very beginning, heretics burned at the stake ring any bells? Creationists are seeking to erase evolution from text-books every day. Science and religion have never and will never coexist because they are two totally different subjects, fact and fiction, real and imaginary, science and literature, education and entertainment, complete and polar opposites. Not so long ago there where people who believed that Paul Bunyon and his giant blue ox were real too, should we teach that as fact? Or UFOs, ghosts, fairies, unicorns, dragons, the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot? Just because some people believe something does not make it true, there has to be concrete evidence and there is zero evidence for religion being anything other than another tall tale.
Permalink
Kotche Avatar
Kotche
Posts: 1
Posted: 03.15.10, 10:35 PM
... except, the team who played-off in the series - and even won the series - was still just a team. Of humans. Who also played in the ball game in the lead up to the play-offs. They themselves didn't evolve into anything.

What you're referring to is natural selection (or microevolution). Creationists have no issue, generally, with this notion. It can be observed today. Macroevolution - that theory of large-scale changes (ie. one species evolving into another) - is the sense in which most people understand the term evolution. Yet macroevolution is not observable (the theory of millions of years excludes such observation!), it is purely conjecture.
Permalink
Gillett Avatar
Gillett
Posts: 2
Posted: 03.15.10, 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by balthazarF

On the other hand, if the question goes to biology, then perhaps the biological answer to 'why are we here' is:

Life is a process. Life is a process which, once begun, is ongoing and self-replicating, with variation and without every member engaging in the replication process (for a variety of reasons not necessary to the answer). Further, various and numerous (90, 95% or more) of the various expressions of life (species) have come into being and gone extinct over time. Yet the process of life has continued through new expressions, such as homo sapiens. Therefore it follows that we, as a species as well as individually, are here as part of that process and to participate in that process to varying degrees.

In that participation of the process, and given how evolution has provided our species with a unique brain capable of forming and communicating questions such as 'why are we here', we can opine, act rationally and irrationally and assume attitudes, i.e. exemplify traits of our species of Life.
You described the 'here' part biologically but you didn't explain the reason why we are here. You used circular reasoning. We are here because we are here.
Permalink
kieron.kavanagh Avatar
kieron.kavanagh
Posts: 2
Posted: 03.09.10, 04:58 AM
Did you actually watch this video?

Evolution by natural selection is a fact, intermediates in the fossil record are plentiful and will continue to turn up. The fossil record in and of itself is neither here nor there as a proof for evolution. The evidence for evolution (DNA, geographical distribution of flora and fauna, etc)is now so overwhelming only a religeos zealot or a buffoon can doubt it. I imagine Dawkins frustration, or resentment as you understood it, comes from dealing with people like you who still ask about "intermediates" despite the plethora of intermediate fossils. Did you not understand the analogy of the Baroness's murder?
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 03.04.10, 09:50 AM
Why are we here? as a 'valid' question. Golly, ain't we fun!

Dawkins to a question, “If by 'why are we here' you mean 'what is the purpose of our being here', implying that there is some kind of preconceived purpose in our being here, that went right back to the origin of the universe, for example, ... is like 'why are unicorns hollow'.”

Actually one could argue that Mr. Dawkins has inferred something which was not implied, i.e., 'preconceived'. One could perhaps suggest that a more appropriate response to the question as posited might be to ask of the question 'why are we here', 'to satisfy what discipline?'. If the question is to imply a theological or metaphysical question, heavens knows one should not ask a scientist, legalist or economist, one should ask that of a theologian or metaphysician.

In other words, the 'validity' of the question may not be appropriate to the discipline to which it is addressed.

On the other hand, if the question goes to biology, then perhaps the biological answer to 'why are we here' is:

Life is a process. Life is a process which, once begun, is ongoing and self-replicating, with variation and without every member engaging in the replication process (for a variety of reasons not necessary to the answer). Further, various and numerous (90, 95% or more) of the various expressions of life (species) have come into being and gone extinct over time. Yet the process of life has continued through new expressions, such as homo sapiens. Therefore it follows that we, as a species as well as individually, are here as part of that process and to participate in that process to varying degrees.

In that participation of the process, and given how evolution has provided our species with a unique brain capable of forming and communicating questions such as 'why are we here', we can opine, act rationally and irrationally and assume attitudes, i.e. exemplify traits of our species of Life.
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 03.03.10, 06:54 PM
aselmiano, "So now Darwinians resent being asked to show the intermediate forms predicted by their theory?!" not only is in error, it is an opinion based in denial since science has many examples of many intermediate forms of many species which are not hidden but well displayed and well known and available.

That certain individuals have superstitions against science as well as rational thought, the opinion you state is not surprising.

Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution which recognizes their right to remain ignorant. They are not forced to read and become informed.
Permalink
c mawson Avatar
c mawson
Posts: 1
Posted: 03.01.10, 08:02 PM
Beyond covering the incredibly unlikely case that some form of cretor exists agnosticism is simply hedging your bets. Nail your colous to the mast and say if you believe or not. Marxist academics are criticising these guys? LOL. I'm a socialist at heart and even I think the marxists are intellectually bankrupt.
Permalink
Jaya Avatar
Jaya
Posts: 3
Posted: 03.01.10, 06:23 PM
Very well said!!
Permalink
moralwar@hotmail.com Avatar
moralwar@hotmail.com
Posts: 5
Posted: 02.28.10, 08:39 AM
I think i understood clearly what dawkins represents. His positions are well founded against the dogmas of organized religions, but am still don't get his case against God. A case against religion is not one against Gos. Scientific discoveries have not affected the organic constitution of nature or its elements - not that they have not manipulated it, but this is what nature lives for, manipulation. Nature thrives on such.. It constantly manipulates us and uses us to satisfy its purpose and we cannot influence how it executes its agenda. Our acquired knowledge and the manner in which they evolve without us is evidence enough to say that nature, not us has the final word. Evolution is obvious and one cannot honetstly deny the fact without committing "Intellectual dishonesty", a moral crime that am not prepared to convicted of. evolution and even every element of selection suggest purpose. I shared a common christian hate for atheists, but i discovered that the only thing that seperates me from the atheists is that I believe and share a personal connection with the creator of nature and accept that there is purpose to life in the universe.

I stand in the Gap. am a chrisrian and i strongly believe in the Theory of Evolution and every scientific effort to manipulate the events of the universe.
Permalink
videoman.tv Avatar
videoman.tv
Posts: 4
Posted: 02.27.10, 05:32 PM
@ sashex

sorry to pick a nit...) 'cause your main point is well taken, but...

if all the science books were destroyed, they would simply be written again as the result of 'new' experiments showed the same results as the 'old' experiments. Because science isn't a dogma to be blindly followed, it's a process of observing, measuring and confirming facts about how the world works.

Question.. isn't agnosticism saying "I don't have enough information to know"? in which case, isn't it just as logical as atheism?
Permalink
Page 4 of 10 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Dr. Katherine Pollard: What Makes Us Human? Dr. Katherine Pollard: What Makes Us Human?
00:53:22 min | 132,427 Views
Can We Create Life? Can We Create Life?
01:20:52 min | 12,658 Views
Jonathan Eisen: Evolution of Microbes and Their Genomes Jonathan Eisen: Evolution of Microbes and Their Genomes
00:28:52 min | 1,526 Views
Dr. Nadav Ahituv: Future Genomics Dr. Nadav Ahituv: Future Genomics
00:42:32 min | 3,106 Views
Genomics: Where Have We Come and Where Are We Going? Genomics: Where Have We Come and Where Are We Going?
01:04:44 min | 8,165 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement


LAW  |   ECONOMY  |   STEVE JOBS  |   INVESTING  |   MARKETING  |   ENTREPRENEURSHIP  |   RECOVERY  |   ECONOMIC POLICY  |   GLOBALIZATION  |   EMERGING MARKETS
CLIMATE CHANGE  |   ENERGY  |   SUSTAINABILITY  |   ENVIRONMENT  |   TRANSPORTATION  |   POLICY  |   BUILDINGS
OCCUPY WALL STREET  |   ELECTION 2012  |   MUSLIM WORLD  |   HEALTHCARE  |   SOCIAL ISSUES  |   FOREIGN POLICY  |   TERRORISM  |   CAPITOL HILL
SPACE  |   EVOLUTION  |   PHYSICS  |   SOCIAL SCIENCES  |   NATURAL SCIENCES  |   DNA  |   PSYCHOLOGY  |   BIOTECH  |   MEDICINE  |   ANTHROPOLOGY  |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET  |   NEW MEDIA  |   START-UPS  |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY  |   WIRELESS  |   COMPUTING  |   ENGINEERING  |   CEOS
RELIGION  |   GAMING  |   FILM  |   FASHION  |   SEX  |   PHILOSOPHY  |   EDUCATION  |   HISTORY  |   ARTS  |   MUSIC  |   TRAVEL  |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now