• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dawkins on Evolution

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
0marTheZealot said:
huh? Hitler was not an atheist, by all accounts, he was a devout Christian, although not a Catholic nor a Protestant. He frequently expoused a belief in a higher Creator, one that has ordained him to do his work. This belief was not just echoed in speeches but also in his personal writings, meant to viewed by only his closest confidants. I don't know how Hitler = atheist meme got started, but it flies in the face of historical fact.

Now Stalin was a devout atheist, so you can count that towards the ticker if you want.

On the whole, religion in general has been responsible for more human suffering than
atheism. Likewise, religion, in general, has been responsible for more good than atheism. So take that as you will.
Click to expand...
Imagine if the Crusaders had access to Nuclear Weapons.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Per your definition. If you knew your Godel you'd know there are truths you cannot prove. Regardless of your opinion you won't find anyone in his field who says he can't do science.

He is doing his job quite well by all accounts.

All you need do is refute the body of his work. Refute the science he's done.

You always go back to things unrelated with his work simply because you can't fault him for what he's done.

Whatever. The science community knows that worth is judged by performance. They really don't care about Dawkins. Sucks for him.
Click to expand...

You really have to be shitting me now? You reference Kurt Gödel? A fucking logician?

The thing is that Collins believe that God made everything that is, he's claiming that there is evidence for God everywhere but at the same time, as he's asked to prove it, says that God cannot and need not be proven.

I've repeated this THREE times now and no matter how you spin it and try to get away from it, THAT is what he says.

Collins performance is what? He was the leader of the human genome project and wrote a book about how he really don't believe in what he's doing?

I think your dislike for Dawkins have made you elevate Collins to something he most definently is not.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Evidently he has a litmus test as to who can be a scientist. Collins research, his job if you will, is science (although as head of the NIH he no doubt does more administrative work). When his work is critiqued there's never been a concern that its been contaminated by his book if that's how one wishes to view things.

At this point he might as well accuse the Curies as frauds.

The work done is either science or its not and you know full well he can't fault him on that. That leaves running around beating ones chest because its so unfair.

You aren't so emotionally involved as some others. Through the ages people have done good work and had faiths or beliefs which are in principle. I'm waiting for someone to round up the villgers to burn them as heretics. Ironic.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it was YOU that brought up Collins, not me, you used Collins as an example of someone that Dawkins disagreed with and therefore Dawkins isn't a good scientist according to you.

It's right fucking there on page one.

We are not talking about anything but that, you and me, we are not discussing anything else and the only one who continues to spin around and dance is you.

I assume that is the reason why you must include logicians and that people can have faith or beliefs and do good but you know as well as anyone here that it's complete and utter bullsheit in response to what we are discussing.

Collins says "God did it, he has created all matter and the evidence for it is everywhere"

Dawkins asks "Where is the evidence for God"

Collins says "God exists outside of our univers and so no evidence is needed"

Dawkins says "That is a cop out and a ridiculous standpoint for any scientist"

I agree with Dawkins, to claim that we don't need any evidence effectively shuts down science since all science does is to evaluate evidence.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
If Dawkins expressed his concerns and left it at that, then I wouldn't have a problem. Perhaps my distaste for him is that Dawkins has more or less set himself up as an arbiter of who is qualified and built a career as preaching to the choir.

Well, it's a living I suppose.

Anyway, back to sleep for me. This thread has been done to death.
Click to expand...

Ah, so he should shut up, can't have anyone claiming that there probably is no god, can we?

How about Hitchens and Krauss? They are very vocal too.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
I'm sorry but it was YOU that brought up Collins, not me, you used Collins as an example of someone that Dawkins disagreed with and therefore Dawkins isn't a good scientist according to you.

It's right fucking there on page one.

We are not talking about anything but that, you and me, we are not discussing anything else and the only one who continues to spin around and dance is you.

I assume that is the reason why you must include logicians and that people can have faith or beliefs and do good but you know as well as anyone here that it's complete and utter bullsheit in response to what we are discussing.

Collins says "God did it, he has created all matter and the evidence for it is everywhere"

Dawkins asks "Where is the evidence for God"

Collins says "God exists outside of our univers and so no evidence is needed"

Dawkins says "That is a cop out and a ridiculous standpoint for any scientist"

I agree with Dawkins, to claim that we don't need any evidence effectively shuts down science since all science does is to evaluate evidence.
Click to expand...


Dawkins is a speaker with a science degree. Collins has done the work. You don't like that. Call up the NIH and tell them they need to listen to you. You'll get a good laugh. It annoys you that scientists as a whole think more of him than Dawkins, and therefore he gets the post.

I keep going back to the SCIENCE that Collins has done, and you ignore it. So tell us once and for all looking at his WORK why he can't do the job he's always done well.


Dawkins said it, you believe it and talking to you about accomplishments most everyone knows about is like trying to talk a Six Day Creationist out of their beliefs. As far as I'm concerned it's a waste of time continuing to beat the dead horse.
 
This is all a religious discussion as this comes down to deities.

You either believe God is a deity or you believe man is.

Science in general wants to believe mankind can unlock the power of the universe and understand all things. Religion believe God holds the power of the universe and understand all things and that man will never have that role.

I for one, choose God, as I see my fellow man, although technologically better, just as morally bankrupt as he ever was. Millions of years of evolution have yet to correct that.
 
sapiens74 said:
This is all a religious discussion as this comes down to deities.

You either believe God is a deity or you believe man is.

Science in general wants to believe mankind can unlock the power of the universe and understand all things. Religion believe God holds the power of the universe and understand all things and that man will never have that role.

I for one, choose God, as I see my fellow man, although technologically better, just as morally bankrupt as he ever was. Millions of years of evolution have yet to correct that.
Click to expand...

/facepalm
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Dawkins is a speaker with a science degree. Collins has done the work. You don't like that. Call up the NIH and tell them they need to listen to you. You'll get a good laugh. It annoys you that scientists as a whole think more of him than Dawkins, and therefore he gets the post.

I keep going back to the SCIENCE that Collins has done, and you ignore it. So tell us once and for all looking at his WORK why he can't do the job he's always done well.


Dawkins said it, you believe it and talking to you about accomplishments most everyone knows about is like trying to talk a Six Day Creationist out of their beliefs. As far as I'm concerned it's a waste of time continuing to beat the dead horse.
Click to expand...

Let's do that, i assume that you know Dawkins work and know Collins work, i am unfamilar with ANY work that Collins has done.

So go right ahead and lay out Collins great work right here for me.

You have got to be taking the piss, you are actually accusing ME of not knowing while you have presented absolutely nothing?

Tough tits, yank, you need to present something or shut the fuck up.
 
I would like to argue this from a pure scientific angle as well. While I agree that all living things evolve what I have yet to grasp is how the human/ape connection works.

It is my understanding that humans and apes are 99 percent alike in our DNA. However, that 1 percent makes up billions of mutations. If, as some have stated, that we evolved from apes then IMHO those billions of mutations would have taken millions of years and produced billions of offspring in various stages between man and ape. There should be billions of fossils that have for instance,5 percent ape and 95 percent human, 37 percent ape and 63 percent human and so on. IN other words there should be millions or billions of missing links. There should also be other species besides humans, perhaps a third branch, or fourth, or as many as the world could sustain. I find it odd that only humans are so dominant as evolution, in theory does not work that way as it is supposed to be more balanced.

but this again comes down to the religious discussion mentioned in my earlier post. With evolution man is dominant as we are the fittest. That makes us gods of the earth and possibly the known universe. Man is the deity.
Science can no more accept another being as its deity then I can accept mankind as mine.
 
Last edited:
sapiens74 said:
I would like to argue this from a pure scientific angle as well. While I agree that all living things evolve what I have yet to grasp is how the human/primate connection works.

It is my understanding that humans and primates are 99 percent alike in our DNA.
Click to expand...

It's going to be REALLY hard to argue anything from ANY scientific standpoint when you don't get the basics.

Humans ARE primates.
 
sapiens74 said:
I would like to argue this from a pure scientific angle as well. While I agree that all living things evolve what I have yet to grasp is how the human/ape connection works.

It is my understanding that humans and apes are 99 percent alike in our DNA. However, that 1 percent makes up billions of mutations. If, as some have stated, that we evolved from apes then IMHO those billions of mutations would have taken millions of years and produced billions of offspring in various stages between man and ape. There should be billions of fossils that have for instance,5 percent ape and 95 percent human, 37 percent ape and 63 percent human and so on. IN other words there should be millions or billions of missing links. There should also be other species besides humans, perhaps a third branch, or fourth, or as many as the world could sustain. I find it odd that only humans are so dominant as evolution, in theory does not work that way as it is supposed to be more balanced.

but this again comes down to the religious discussion mentioned in my earlier post. With evolution man is dominant as we are the fittest. That makes us gods of the earth and possibly the known universe. Man is the deity.
Science can no more accept another being as its deity then I can accept mankind as mine.
Click to expand...

Your premise that Man is a Deity if there is no God is completely False. It is also False that Atheists/Agnostics consider themselves Gods.

Can we ever know everything about the Universe? Maybe, maybe not. Doing so wouldn't make us Gods.
 
sapiens74 said:
I would like to argue this from a pure scientific angle as well. While I agree that all living things evolve what I have yet to grasp is how the human/ape connection works.

It is my understanding that humans and apes are 99 percent alike in our DNA.
Click to expand...


It's going to be REALLY hard to argue anything from ANY scientific standpoint when you don't get the basics.

Humans ARE apes.

(to speed things along, finish middle school and learn the basics, i'll see you in three years)
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
It's going to be REALLY hard to argue anything from ANY scientific standpoint when you don't get the basics.

Humans ARE apes.

(to speed things along, finish middle school and learn the basics, i'll see you in three years)
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that you couldn't simply read my post and surmise the point even with the elementary explanation and disagree with that. Then in your world everyone is stupid except you and your ilk

accept what you want, believe those who disagree are incompetent morons incapable of understanding such as elementary concept. I stated what I said and stand by it. If you can explain to the rest of us then that would be great.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
Let's do that, i assume that you know Dawkins work and know Collins work, i am unfamilar with ANY work that Collins has done.

So go right ahead and lay out Collins great work right here for me.

You have got to be taking the piss, you are actually accusing ME of not knowing while you have presented absolutely nothing?

Tough tits, yank, you need to present something or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


So you accuse someone who's scientific background you don't know?

http://www.genome.gov/10000779

He headed the Human Genome Project and he just announced more stem cell lines up for grabs. Wait, that's impossible. He should be preventing this travesty!

Yeah, that was sarcasm. He's doing precisely what he's paid to do. Kind of shoots your complaints in the foot.

Now why don't you show us what research Dawkins has done comparable to the Human Genome Project?
 
sapiens74 said:
I'm not surprised that you couldn't simply read my post and surmise the point even with the elementary explanation and disagree with that. Then in your world everyone is stupid except you and your ilk

accept what you want, believe those who disagree are incompetent morons incapable of understanding such as elementary concept. I stated what I said and stand by it. If you can explain to the rest of us then that would be great.
Click to expand...

You don't get that the initial premise of your own fucking post is important?

I don't believe you are an incompetent moron because you "disagree" i belive you are incapable of discussing what you don't understand because you simply don't understand it.

I'll explain it to you, EVERY member of the hominidae species (humans are a member of this species since we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is both a primate and an ape.

Once you learn the basics of speciation and evolution i won't have to explain anything to you, you'll look at your post, laugh at yourself and move on.
 
Last edited:
jonks said:
First sentence on wiki:

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, and includes humans.

And no, I can't pronounce hominoidea and I thought a superfamily was the Fantastic 4.
Click to expand...

It's misspelled, it's supposed to be Hominidae, other than that, it's correct, well, what i read of it.
 
Wikipedia link about Dawkins

He and Obama have something in common. They were both Born in Kenya! 😱😀

Being a Theoretical Biologist, I would assume, makes Lab work impractical. He is highly regarded for his Brilliant Thinking and not because he mixed some chemical in a Lab.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So you accuse someone who's scientific background you don't know?

http://www.genome.gov/10000779

He headed the Human Genome Project and he just announced more stem cell lines up for grabs. Wait, that's impossible. He should be preventing this travesty!

Yeah, that was sarcasm. He's doing precisely what he's paid to do. Kind of shoots your complaints in the foot.

Now why don't you show us what research Dawkins has done comparable to the Human Genome Project?
Click to expand...

Yeah, silly me, i accused him of believing in exactly what he says he believes.

Now, what has he done? Head of the HGP i know of but that was an administrative job, it involved NOTHING that had anything to do with any research to do any more than a principal of a school of science is involved in the different sciences.

Collins did NO research what so ever in the HGP, none, zilch, nada.

Do a google on Dawkins +Research and you'll find more than you can read in one week.

Now add Krauss and Hitchens, they agree with Dawkins.
 
sandorski said:
Your premise that Man is a Deity if there is no God is completely False. It is also False that Atheists/Agnostics consider themselves Gods.

Can we ever know everything about the Universe? Maybe, maybe not. Doing so wouldn't make us Gods.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an atheist.

Per definition

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of deity

: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Everyone person on this planet believe in something good and or powerful, whether its God or themselves, Steve Jobs, or Darwin

Everyone has a deity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top