[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 92 KB, 380x400, richard-dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341723 No.2341723 [Reply] [Original]

Why do people call this retard a scientist? He knows shit about evolution. He treats it as something like a philosophy. And his glorification of atheism just stinks.

>> No.2341727
File: 4 KB, 126x120, 1288969872221s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341727

>>2341723
0/10

>> No.2341728

>Why do people call this retard a scientist?
Because he has a formal education as a scientist and is published?

>> No.2341731

obvious troll is obvious

>> No.2341736

OP just stinks.

Captcha: furophy poincare

>> No.2341739

>>2341728
He's stupid, it doesn't matter that he's repetitious as an Oxford Teacher. He's not even a biologist. And I can assure you that he knows about evolution as much as Darwin himself.

Some time ago his official site had forums. And he debated there. And showed how much of a retard he is. It was so embarrassing that they decided to completely delete those forums.

>> No.2341747

or maybe they closed the forum due to an overwhelming influx of obvious trolls... such as you

>> No.2341758
File: 19 KB, 240x249, troll_thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341758

>> No.2341761

>>2341747
Nope. It was very hard to troll in those fora. Mostly because of British Stinkheads as mods. There was one thread about "Random Choice" and stuff, he completely blew himself up there. He said "Yes evolution is accidental, but it's not random". He can't accept the fact that random means accidental, and since mutations are random, evolution is accidental.

>> No.2341763

>>2341758
No they're not.

>> No.2341767
File: 91 KB, 903x676, 1293256524885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341767

"SCI, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL"
"Okay mummy"
*Mummy walks away*
"HAVE THE WHOLE BAG OF TROLLFEED"
"nomnomnom"

>> No.2341770
File: 8 KB, 358x293, 1292369953506.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341770

>>2341761
lol wut

>> No.2341782

>>2341767
That picture is very incorrect. Humans have nothing to do with theropods and other mammals, specially monkeys.

l2evolution.

>> No.2341791

>>2341761
>he cannot realize that random mutations acted upon by forces of natural selection causes evolution
>>2341782
>thatsthejoke.jpg

>> No.2341795

>>2341761
You're the one that sounds like he has no idea about evolution. Mutations are random, yes (which is what he means by accidental), but evolution is heavily affected by natural selection, a process that most certainly isn't random.
In simplistic terms, one could say that the traits a species may develop are random, but which ones it will keep are not.

>> No.2341804

>>2341795
>In simplistic terms, one could say that the traits a species may develop are random, but which ones it will keep are not.

Hence random. Evolution has no point because it's random.

>> No.2341809

>>2341761

Lol, silly theist dont understand evolution

Accidental = gene mutation
Not random = natural selection

Although, he could have also meant it in another sense. Where the process of evolution came about accidently as in, no one designed DNA to evolve. But evolution itself isnt random, theres selective pressures and such that guide it.

>> No.2341810

>>2341804
0/10

stop, it's painful to watch

>> No.2341815

>>2341804
Of course. Evolution doesn't have a point. It has no goals, and isn't headed in a particular direction. It's not a sentient being; it's an event that happens over and over again.

>> No.2341819

>>2341809
> Lol, silly theist dont understand evolution

I'm agnostic. Fuck off.

> Not random = natural selection
Not random =/= Having sense of what's happening= Accidental

>> No.2341826

>>2341819
>implying that evolution is sentient and has a plan

For an agnostic, you sure do think like a theist.

>> No.2341829

>>2341819
>I'm agnostic. Fuck off.
And yet you exhibit ignorance usually found only amongst fundamentalist christians.

>> No.2341838

>>2341826
>>2341829
And for an atheist, you sure are arrogant. Something completely normal since atheism is a synonym for arrogance. Otherwise they wouldn't be hated and be kept in a small minority.

>> No.2341843

>>2341739
have you even read his works?

>> No.2341848

>>2341838
>WAAAAAAAAAAAH
>I'M BUTTHURT
I'm sorry, what's that? I can't hear you over the sound of your obvious butthurt.

>> No.2341849
File: 21 KB, 200x246, face58_5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341849

>>2341838
>atheism is a synonym for arrogance
No it isn't. I couldn't find a single thesaurus that says that.

>> No.2341850

>>2341843
Glanced through a few of them, except his stupd blockbuster.

>> No.2341867

Atheists do not mean to be arrogant, it's just that religious people just happen to be incredibly stupid.
Not our fault, bro.

>> No.2341873

>>2341838
>And for an atheist, you sure are arrogant
I'm not the one claiming to know more about evolution than a biology scientist who is respected by the scientific community.

>Something completely normal since atheism is a synonym for arrogance

It's funny that you say that, since the most arrogant people I've ever met are agnostics. Not christians or muslims, agnostics.

>Otherwise they wouldn't be hated and be kept in a small minority

Oh right, I've been trolled. Should have realized sooner.

>> No.2341876

>>2341850
Well aren't you full of angst. What are you? Sixteen? Seventeen?

>> No.2341883

>>2341876
Seventeen.

>>2341867
Why do you care if god exists or not?

>> No.2341888

>>2341883
Underage B&.

>> No.2341901

>>2341883
We don't care. We just know that there cannot be a god since the existence of a god would invoke numerous logical fallacies.

>> No.2341903

>>2341883
>Seventeen
And this only supports my belief that 4chan as a whole, would be an infinitely better place if all underage were banned.

>> No.2341910

>>2341819
>agnostic

I'm agnostic about the intelligence of anyone who can seriously associate themselves with such a label. Of course in the same sense that most "athiests" are but "christians" in the most important aspects (of morality and of psychology) and in the same sense that most "Christians" are nihilists.

I imagine the gravest insult to the meaning of God(s) encoded in this pathetic "will to agnosticism". For what are God(s) but the reflection of the spirit of man at the time of their creation? Here comes this miserable figure, autistic to the glory and mendacity that these deities represent, who thinks what's important is not just what I described but their LITERAL EXISTENCE. So this timid creature of the night, who would not understand the urges and drives of men strong enough to impose Gods on their peers and slaves, thinks he has found a means to security by being on the fence without realizing the meaning of Gods for men nor neither the greater puzzlement that would follow WITH the existence of Gods. As if a God incarnate would somehow CLEAR things up rather than raise more questions. What agnosticism really betrays is a silent hope for a FINAL SOLUTION, that MAYBE some God will just "clear things up".

and to such weaklings of the spirit we should just chortle and move on.

>> No.2341912

>>2341901
Well, a deistic god isn't really out of the question. It's belief in one that's unnecessary.

>> No.2341913

>>2341903
> Implying that the lever of maturity has anything to do with age.

>> No.2341924

>>2341912
>hahano.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

>> No.2341930

>>2341913
>Implying it doesn't
Most teenagers are very immature, of course there are exceptions, but there are exceptions in everything.

>> No.2341938
File: 50 KB, 622x477, 1274997823803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341938

>> No.2341948

Because he's a fellow of the royal society

>> No.2341955

>>2341924
I'm going to to address only a few of these since for most of them, I don't even need an explanation as to why they don't apply.

>he argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of god is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit points out that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.

One could argue that a deistic god is a being from another universe that always existed and only created ours.

>The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?".

A Deistic god doesn't need to be omnipotent, he just needs to be able to create the universe.

>A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).

See the first argument

>> No.2342003

>>2341955
>>2341924
The thing about argumentations against the Concept God (the deistic god and the ever-popular "sentient big bang") is that it's almost NEVER that description of the divine most folks either propose or reject.

The Spinozan God, the force of nature with a three-letter name slapped on it for the sake of brevity, is the god shrugged shoulders are made out of: "Yeah, maybe, but so what?"

>> No.2342031

>>2341955

>One could argue that a deistic god is a being from another universe that always existed and only created ours.
Ok, and where did the alternate universe come from? Typical theist move which actually takes them farther from an answer, than closer. It would be like saying, how does gravity work? Well, maybe we are all part of a big computer program where gravity is programmed in.

>A Deistic god doesn't need to be omnipotent, he just needs to be able to create the universe.
This is, a strawman? Not sure if im using that term right. Basically that argument is stupid, its a matter of how you define omnipotent. The argument only produces a fallacy when you use two separate definitions of omnipotent. (Im not calling you stupid, im calling the atheist argument stupid on this one)

>See the first argument
You didnt understand this. This argument isnt so much an attack on the existance of god, but an attack on the argument for the existance of god. The argument is, The universe couldnt have come from nothing (this is your premise, that something cant come from nothing) Therefore, there must be a god (which came from nothing) that created it. If the first premise is true, then the conclusion must be false, the argument disproves itself. inb4 "But god existed for all time", this is a completely different argument which is unrelated. In a nut shell, if its ok for a being to exist for all time and suddenly change states (decide to create a universe) then its also physically possible for a universe to exist for all time and suddenly change states (big bang), in which case, the argument doesnt point towards either one. It simply would state both are possible, which we already knew.

>> No.2342096

>>2342031
The alternative universe I'm proposing has always existed, it's just ours that was created .Yeah, I know, it's silly loophole that most theist wouldn't really accept since they believe that the universe(s) must have a creator.

>> No.2342110
File: 180 KB, 428x510, 1259891345217.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2342110

>mfw he gets stumped by a basic biological question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

>> No.2342130

>>2342110
You do realize this is an edited video, right?

>> No.2342176
File: 18 KB, 217x303, rd_fullretard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2342176

>>2342110
lol look at his face. oh waw.

>> No.2342183

>>2342176
EPIC WIN!!!

>> No.2342185

>>2342183
silly anon ;p

>> No.2342188

>>2342130

>>2342110
Actually it wasnt edited, but its taken out of context, you dont actually know whats going on in his mind. Hes done a response to it, and it was he agreed to do an interview with these people on the grounds that there wasnt going to be any religious debate in the interview. When they asked him that question, he was like oh shit fuck these guys, and he ended the interview.

>> No.2342194

>>2342188
>you dont actually know whats going on in his mind
He was probably cursing Jesus like he does all the time.

>> No.2342196
File: 335 KB, 1024x768, wp_lol01[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2342196

>>2342183
LOL xD Epic for teh win!

>> No.2342207

>>2342188
link to the response?