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


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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

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: Prisoner#1] * 1
    #14745845 -

This thread should be stickied as a reference to logical fallacies.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745846 -

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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745856 -

Prisoner#1 said:
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!


I can't handle this, it's an entire year worth of study you're missing. We observed that there are organisms that play as middlemen in all of those cases. Describing "bacteria to fish" is ultra-obtuse and makes you sound, well, dull. That's a billion year gap, bro, with millions of steps between. fish didn't "become" reptiles who didn't have to "become" birds and mammals because those could be separate lineages that developed in parallel. There is not one common ancestor to life, but tens of thousands or more.

That's like saying airplanes precipitated out of thin air because they couldn't have possibly been that much advancement when you look at the first wheels of the stone age.

If you believe fuel prices are climbing because of the green initiative, I have little more to say to you. What a joke man.

You don't understand the basic principle that while we have different DNA, they compose the same genes. Furthermore, we as a race are beyond natural selection. Artificial selection is now driving evolution, much to our downfall as groups splinter off and decide inbreeding is a good idea.


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

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745862 -

Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
You have simply chosen to not read my posts. You are an ignoramus.





And you're trolling.


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

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745873 -

Prisoner#1 said:
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


What about the part where he ignored my well-composed reply to an EASY question btw; and just kept on pandering because he didn't have an answer? That doesn't seem dumb to you?


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

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745877 -

blujay said:
Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
You have simply chosen to not read my posts. You are an ignoramus.





And you're trolling.


Yes, because having the contrary opinion is trolling.

blujay said:
What about the part where he ignored my well-composed reply to an EASY question btw; and just kept on pandering because he didn't have an answer? That doesn't seem dumb to you?


If I ignored your post it wasn't my intention. It probably just got lost in the shitstorm.

Edited by Mad_Larkin (07/10/11 02:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin] * 1
    #14745885 -

Quote:
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.


What we do, as scientists, is set an arbitrary level of confidence, say 99.99%, and then act in a day to day world as though that is 'true' (100%).  But when it comes to discussing fundamental science and the philosophy behind it, we realize that 99.99% is not equal to 100% and though the practical difference is negligible the philosophical difference is a vast gulf that can never be traversed.

Saying that 99.99% (or even much, much more confident as I would rate evolution) is 'just a best guess' is kind of a silly minimization isnt it?  Its easy to just throw around made up confidence intervals in a non-scientific setting.  But achieving a confidence interval of even 90% for many things is really a remarkable feat that encompasses vast amounts of resources, man power, creativity and rationality.  Saying its 'just a best guess' is doing a disservice what it really is - a remarkable feat philosophically and and a boon to humanity practically.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745887 -

Do you read books? This thread is five-ten minutes of reading.


Mad_Larkin said:
If I ignored your post it wasn't my intention. It probably just got lost in the shitstorm.




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

wat man rly

Edited by blujay (07/10/11 02:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745898 -

blujay said:
Do you read books? This thread is five-ten minutes of reading.


Mad_Larkin said:
If I ignored your post it wasn't my intention. It probably just got lost in the shitstorm.




Still angry? Calm yourself down and we can maybe have a discussion like adults.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745913 -





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Mad_Larkin]
    #14745914 -

Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
You have simply chosen to not read my posts. You are an ignoramus.







At least I'm not blind.

If you wanted an "adult discussion" you shouldn't have "read around" the points that you couldn't reply to.


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

wat man rly

Edited by blujay (07/10/11 02:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745923 -

So i finished watching that video.  As the video goes on the woman definitely gets monotonous and stupid, and dawkins actually calms down a bit. 

dawkins gets the tko.

I would marry that woman btw. i think she's pretty and i love the way she deals with anger.  I like her facial expressions.

Also, the scientific method is pretty good.  Yes there is plenty of examples of goofy bias, fraud, ect ect. 
Its not perfect so don't turn into a a dawkins style asshole, but pretty much everytime you look at a computer, you have have to be like "okay science is pretty cool".

just straight belief has got us.... no cool shit.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745948 -

blujay said:
I can't handle this, it's an entire year worth of study you're missing.


so you're saying you cant provide that evidence

Quote:
fish didn't "become" reptiles who didn't have to "become" birds and mammals because those could be separate lineages that developed in parallel. There is not one common ancestor to life, but tens of thousands or more.



I think you're taking things a little too literally, kinda like the whole
atheist claim that all christians believe the earth to only be 6000 years
old or some shit... I understand evolution as I pointed out, there cant be
any consistencies in evolution BECAUSE evolution is mutation

reptiles 'became' birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds



Quote:
If you believe fuel prices are climbing because of the green initiative, I have little more to say to you. What a joke man.



if you believe they arent then you're in sad shape, oil prices are under
$100/bbl and gas prices are beyond the cost when bush was in office and it
was at $150/bbl... why, taxes meant to increase the revenue toward funding
'green research' and to push people into buying products like the chyvy
volt, when they make the green energy more economical by driving the fuel
costs via new fuel taxes


Quote:
You don't understand the basic principle that while we have different DNA, they compose the same genes. Furthermore, we as a race are beyond natural selection. Artificial selection is now driving evolution, much to our downfall as groups splinter off and decide inbreeding is a good idea.



you make far too many assumptions about what I do and dont understand


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14745965 -

DieCommie said:
Quote:
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.


What we do, as scientists, is set an arbitrary level of confidence, say 99.99%, and then act in a day to day world as though that is 'true' (100%).  But when it comes to discussing fundamental science and the philosophy behind it, we realize that 99.99% is not equal to 100% and though the practical difference is negligible the philosophical difference is a vast gulf that can never be traversed.

Saying that 99.99% (or even much, much more confident as I would rate evolution) is 'just a best guess' is kind of a silly minimization isnt it?  Its easy to just throw around made up confidence intervals in a non-scientific setting.  But achieving a confidence interval of even 90% for many things is really a remarkable feat that encompasses vast amounts of resources, man power, creativity and rationality.  Saying its 'just a best guess' is doing a disservice what it really is - a remarkable feat philosophically and and a boon to humanity practically.




Cool post. I consider myself now (somewhat) educated. 

DieCommie said:






Cool videos. :thumbup:

blujay said:
Mad_Larkin said:
blujay said:
You have simply chosen to not read my posts. You are an ignoramus.







At least I'm not blind.

If you wanted an "adult discussion" you shouldn't have "read around" the points that you couldn't reply to.


I didn't do any "reading around". And I didn't intend to "reply" to all your points. I was the one asking questions and trying to test your theory. There was nothing negative or personal behind my questions, I was genuinely interested to see your refutation of my arguments, but you seem to have taken it personally. 

If I'm ignorant then you should educate me, not berate me.

And if the theory of evolution is on such solid grounds then you shouldn't mind the burden of proof being pushed onto you from time to time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14745973 -

I'm saying I can't give you K-12 in a forum post. If you want to pick me apart, do it all day.


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

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: teamkiller]
    #14745985 -

teamkiller said:
I would marry that woman btw. i think she's pretty and i love the way she deals with anger.  I like her facial expressions.


lol I couldn't stand the way she did that little smile and laugh at the end of every sentence as if she had just said something ridiculously clever. :facepalm:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: teamkiller]
    #14746029 -

teamkiller said:
Also, the scientific method is pretty good.  Yes there is plenty of examples of goofy bias, fraud, ect ect.



science of the last several decades is funds driven, hence the claims from
the AMA in the 70s that there's no medical use for marijuana, the same claim
that's being perpetuated today


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: blujay]
    #14746059 -

blujay said:
I'm saying I can't give you K-12 in a forum post. If you want to pick me apart, do it all day.



I dont need it, I understand evolution, stop being a dawkins and assuming everyone is stupid


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14746096 -

Prisoner#1 said:
blujay said:
I'm saying I can't give you K-12 in a forum post. If you want to pick me apart, do it all day.



I dont need it, I understand evolution, stop being a dawkins and assuming everyone is stupid


The AMA is nowhere near representative of the scientific community as a whole.

Also,

"(CBS)
The American Medical Association on Tuesday adopted a resolution calling for the government to review its classification of marijuana, in order to ease the way for more research into the use of medical marijuana. "


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

wat man rly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Richard Dawkins VS. Wendy Wright [Re: Legend]
    #14746098 -

I amazed at how well he handled that. He calmly presented his argument while she just REFUSED to hear a word he says. Just another holier than thou dumb  bitch imagining Jesus is behind her giving her the thumbs up, while trying to earn a comfier chair in heaven :shrug:

I would have walked out 5 min into the interview after handing her "An elementary textbook" in biology :lol:, and the names of a few museums she could check out.


--------------------
Hippies and Liberals love Pope Francis, so why dont I quote him for you guys. "There is NO SALVATION outside the Catholic Church" :morningtoke:

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

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

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 580 11 08/10/09 05:25 PM
by laserpig
* Richard Wright dead at 65
( 1 2 3 all )		 dark1313star 3,723 40 09/18/08 06:18 PM
by andrewss
* Richard Wright has died theorganicdomino 581 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 11,084 89 04/08/20 04:25 PM
by Taco Chef
* Wendy's Joins Arby's D4NK 1,012 14 04/24/08 04:36 PM
by Snape
* I Ate From Wendy's Last Night SprewellSleeve 445 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
10,052 topic views. 3 members, 845 guests and 149 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.