Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745716 -

Mad_Larkin said:
I think they're about as closed-minded as each other, in their own particular ways.

Two fundamentalists. :shrug:


exactly ^^

i'm not a fan of Dawkins (even if i do agree with some of the things he says). i grew up with fundies and i can smell 'em from a mile away.


--------------------


"We are all intoxicated. We were born into an insane asylum, a world crazy-making. We believe what we see and hear. The real myth is the myth of sanity, of rationality: it's a disease that is eating away at the earth. All the poisons flow from our denial. We deny madness, we forget our crimes, we dismember the corpse, we imprison our children. We need poison to poison the poison, to remember the sacred nature of intoxication, the green body of the young god." ~ Dale Pendell

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745722 -

Mad_Larkin said:
So evolution in microbes has been proven. That is all.

Another of the flaws of science is to extrapolate theories onto the macro scale based on mere assumptions.


There is little functional difference between a single-celled and multi-cellular organism at the cellular/DNA level. We, for example, grow all of our tissues from on type of cell-stem cells.

Further showing your ignorance, and that you would preach about a subject you haven't studied.


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745727 -

Mad_Larkin said:
You're just taking my words and trying to refute what I'm saying by applying scientific nomenclature when my meaning is already pretty clear.

So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?

and

What would happen to Dawkins if new observations were inconsistent with the theory?

Are esentially the same question, just worded differently.


It will not be, is the answer.

Pointless hypothetical questions.


--------------------

wat man rly

Edited by blujay (07/10/11 02:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745732 -

Like I said, arbitrary extrapolation without evidence.

Yeah, I admit I'm not well-studied in this area but I think my points are still valid.

Why should we extrapolate proof of evolution to primates based on evidence seen in single-celled orgamisms?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745742 -

Mad_Larkin said:
You're just taking my words and trying to refute what I'm saying by applying scientific nomenclature when my meaning is already pretty clear.

So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?

and

What would happen to Dawkins if new observations were inconsistent with the theory?

Are esentially the same question, just worded differently.


Nope they are not.  Believing that to be the case betrays your ignorance of the philosophy of science.  In light of that, Im not surprised you draw the conclusions you do - you are using an improper premise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745748 -

my position on this issue is in support of the evolutionary model. wright exposed her ignorance on the matter when she said something to the affect that scientists shouldn't be the only people to speak with authority on the subject of science. taking a trip to the smithsonian doesn't make anyone an expert on anything last i checked. as far as the rest of her rhetoric goes, it seems to me that she perceives the scientific perspective on life to be a threat in that it somehow cheapens it by uncovering the nuts and bolts. this is a purely emotional stance and it's a complete strawman for her to assert, in so many words, that scientists hold such little regard for life. i would tend to think the reality of it is quite the opposite for the vast majority of scientists.

don't get me wrong though, i think staunch materialism is as blind of a stance as creationism. when it comes down to what this debate is truly about, we're really talking about bitter cynicism vs. extreme gullibility. from my experience, people who view science and religion as conflicting have a tenuous at best grasp on both subjects.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

Edited by millzy (07/10/11 02:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745749 -

Mad_Larkin said:
Like I said, arbitrary extrapolation without evidence.

Yeah, I admit I'm not well-studied in this area but I think my points are still valid.

Why should we extrapolate proof of evolution to primates based on evidence seen in single-celled orgamisms?


You are the one with no evidence. Hence the pointless hypothetical derailments.

Evolution itself doesn't say anything about the actual gene tree in specific. It is entirely possible we evolved as a separate but similar parallel organism as apes and primates. It is also possible we have a common ancestor. Common misconception from the religious dogmatics. It's just a mechanic of life. Not an ideology.

Again, you have obviously NO CLUE what you're talking about.


--------------------

wat man rly

Edited by blujay (07/10/11 02:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745750 -

Mad_Larkin said:
Like I said, arbitrary extrapolation without evidence.

Yeah, I admit I'm not well-studied in this area but I think my points are still valid.

Why should we extrapolate proof of evolution to primates based on evidence seen in single-celled orgamisms?


Do you know what evidence was used to first construct the theory?  Hint:  It wasnt single-celled organisms.  The fact that we could predict that it would apply to single celled organisms, and then substantiate that hypothesis with observation is yet another piece in the mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745751 -

Are you going to educate me or just point out my ignorance?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745760 -

Mad_Larkin said:
You're just taking my words and trying to refute what I'm saying by applying scientific nomenclature when my meaning is already pretty clear.

So what would happen to Dawkins if the theory of evolution was proven false?

and

What would happen to Dawkins if new observations were inconsistent with the theory?

Are esentially the same question, just worded differently.


What evidence could surface that would make evolution unequivocally false?


I can't even fathom an alternate means of organism development.


To answer your question, things would change.  Textbooks rewritten.  All the same things that happen when science has proven its previous theory wrong in the past.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745761 -

I did, are you illiterate?


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745763 -

I already did both as far as Im concerned.  Re-read my posts, carefully, and take in what I have written.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745785 -

blujay said:
I did, are you illiterate?


Let's not get offensive. You still haven't addressed my point about evolution in single celled organisms as opposed to higher animals.

DieCommie said:
I already did both as far as Im concerned.  Re-read my posts, carefully, and take in what I have written.  :shrug:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745786 -

DieCommie said:
Mad_Larkin said:
Like I said, arbitrary extrapolation without evidence.

Yeah, I admit I'm not well-studied in this area but I think my points are still valid.

Why should we extrapolate proof of evolution to primates based on evidence seen in single-celled orgamisms?


Do you know what evidence was used to first construct the theory?  Hint:  It wasnt single-celled organisms.  The fact that we could predict that it would apply to single celled organisms, and then substantiate that hypothesis with observation is yet another piece in the mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection.


That's the brilliant part, he saw what was going on and read between the lines before we knew unquestionably it must occur. He couldn't "prove" it very well, but was able to outline what he saw and communicate it in a cohesive way. That's what makes Darwin such a great part of history. He was ahead of his time. A century later, we're in agreement that he was right. At least the people who would actually need to know because they actually work with life sciences are.


--------------------

wat man rly

Edited by blujay (07/10/11 02:13 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745795 -

Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
I did, are you illiterate?


Let's not get offensive. You still haven't addressed my point about evolution in single celled organisms as opposed to higher animals.

DieCommie said:
I already did both as far as Im concerned.  Re-read my posts, carefully, and take in what I have written.  :shrug:





You have simply chosen to not read my posts. You are an ignoramus.


--------------------

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745797 -

blujay said:
Prisoner#1 said:
each stage of a theories evolution requires the faith that it's correct,



This is just wrong. Plain, blunt, foolishly wrong. Evolution can be directly observed and manipulated, and has consistent results between each person who would do so. The idea of development over time through evolutionary means is simply a logical extrapolation of what we can observe.



but it cant be consistent since each individual has a different DNA
sequence and the whole concept behind evolution is that those minor
mutations are in fact evolution.

now, when did we observe bacteria becoming fish?
when did we observe fish becoming reptiles
when did we observe reptiles becoming birds and mamals


Quote:
The difference is science has practical goals and religion doesn't. Science doesn't dictate what you should do with your life, only what you can do. I know some people find that difficult to accept.


yet science does dictate what you can do with your life, is the
anthropogenic climate change piece of junk science not driving politicians
to push legislation that will in fact dictate how I'll have to live my
life? I can no longer buy incandescent bulbs, fuel prices are climing,
there's a push for green energy, etc... science has played a heavy role
and when I question the whole thing I'm called ignorant, uneducated, etc...


KEEP YOUR SCIENCE RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS AND OUT OF MY LIFE!


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745803 -

Quote:
KEEP YOUR SCIENCE RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS AND OUT OF MY LIFE!


lol  You cache of guns and goats are not going to save you from science, Im sorry to say.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745805 -

Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
I did, are you illiterate?


Let's not get offensive.



he's being a dawkins... ask a hard question and he starts the ad hominim attacks


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: DieCommie]
    #14745824 -

DieCommie said:
Quote:
KEEP YOUR SCIENCE RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS AND OUT OF MY LIFE!


lol  You cache of guns and goats are not going to save you from science, Im sorry to say.



no but the squirrel army I'm training will




--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745840 -

I want to clarify that I don't disbelieve in the theory of evolution, I was merely questioning the methods of science.

But it turns out I don't know enough about the scientific method to question it. :ifyoucanawe:

As an outside observer who hasn't looked at the "evidence" it seems strange to propose an idea that cannot be either proven or disproven as fact. It seems ridiculous to become as fanatical as Dawkins is about a "theory".

If something cannot be "proven" then by definition, faith is required in order to believe it to be TRUE. More so than to remain agnostic.

Or are we saying that people Dawkins don't really believe the theory of evolution is true and that they see it as "a best guess based on the available evidence". If this is true then I don't see how people can become so fanatical (as fanatical as any creationist) about it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* ShamanicFreedomRadio episode 5: The Richard Dawkins Delusion opaquelens 288 0 12/30/08 04:29 AM
by opaquelens
* SYMPHONY OF SCIENCE - Sagan, Dawkins, Kaku, Jastrow
( 1 2 all )		 Envix 2,000 38 03/29/10 11:07 PM
by dill705
* Richard Dawkins interviews Richar Leakey about how we are primates Frost 581 11 08/10/09 05:25 PM
by laserpig
* Richard Wright dead at 65
( 1 2 3 all )		 dark1313star 3,729 40 09/18/08 06:18 PM
by andrewss
* Richard Wright has died theorganicdomino 583 1 09/15/08 11:03 AM
by Dr. Spock
* HUMAN FINGER IN CHILI AT WENDY'S FAST FOOD!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 California 11,116 89 04/08/20 04:25 PM
by Taco Chef
* Wendy's Joins Arby's D4NK 1,013 14 04/24/08 04:36 PM
by Snape
* I Ate From Wendy's Last Night SprewellSleeve 450 3 01/04/10 11:31 PM
by elementswrath

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
10,121 topic views. 5 members, 5,023 guests and 191 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.