Richard Dawkins has, it seems, conceded that Evolution can not explain the continued existence of creationists.
Richard Dawkins has, it seems, conceded that Evolution can not explain the continued existence of creationists.
I thought Dawkings was smarter than this.
Are you serious? :bugeye: How closely did you look at that story and News Biscuit in general?
Richard Dawkins has, it seems, conceded that Evolution can not explain the continued existence of creationists.
Atheism goes in the opposite direction of evolution by limiting birth rates bith birth control and abortion.
News In Brief
Man discovers he is actually a spambot after failing to complete CAPTCHA form
Health chiefs meet to decide on 2012 summer epidemic
Refusing to serve customers who are on the phone ‘already standard policy’, says BT
Aintree barbecue ‘marred’ by news of death of a cow
Two candidates put down in race to become Mayor of London
Grand National organisers promise ‘humane treatment’ for injured jockeys
Launch failure sees many question North Korea’s dedication to cause
Electronic polling booths to use predictive text algorithms
Woman marries iPhone
Man says he just can’t be bothered to climb Mount Everest
LOL.....Trippy, you iz soooooo funny.
I love the sidebar of that 'news' article.
Sometimes I wonder if people in this place had their funny bone surgically removed. Maybe we should get Fraggle Rocker to look into it, it could be an indication of an emergent tribalistic social/religous cult...
Wow, wellwisher you probably lit a fire in the fundie camps already. The rebuttal could go viral. Get ready for the next barrage of thread topics. Here are some actual posts, just a sample of what's coming to your neighborhood soon. Don't say nobody warned you.
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."
"You got it backwards. Creationism is based upon science, reason and tons of evidence. Evolution is based on the blind acceptance of superstitions and fairy tales."
"I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it."
"Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!"
"Apes are just creatures twisted by Satan to mock Jesus by giving EVILolition credibility. Further more they are naturally lust crazed for human women. Since they are not natural creatures they should be exterminated forthwith as the tools of evil they are."
"Sorry but scientists have just shown that mice DNA is more similar to humans than human DNA. So would evolutionists then declare that humans came from mice? Probably. That's because most people can't think for themselves and are confused about reality. That's why they believe anything scientists say."
"According to evolutionists, it's a fact that aliens ruled the planet before the dinosaurs because that can't be disproven. We have deformed skulls to prove that these aliens once had ape-like foreheads, and some walked on 2 legs and others walked on 4 legs. And since there have been confirmed sightings of alien spacecraft, that proves that they have come back to check on how things are going on planet earth. We don't know who the first alien was, but from the few skulls and bones we have, we can tell that there were millions of them. Then when they had explored planet earth, they found it boring and decided to leave but not before some of them had died here which is why we still have their skulls and bones. From them, we can tell what they wore, what color eyes they had, and that they were covered in hair. These are what evolutionists call facts, so we've proven that aliens once ruled the planet earth."
"One theory is that the pre-Flood Earth had a canopy of ice above it that squeezed the atmosphere down to, say, 15 miles [...] If you squeezed the air down to 15 miles - instead of 100 - it would be more clear because there would be less distortion - atmospheric twinkle it's called. And probably this canopy of ice would act as a photo-amplifier where you would actually see things much more clearly. That's one theory that [in] the pre-Flood world you don't need a telescope - you could see incredibly well."
"Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is."
I was working under the assumption that evolution was true. I then used one of the main premises of evolution as a basis for comparison; reproductive success is a key element of evolution. I then showed how religion has always been geared toward reproductive success, compared to atheism, which tends to limit and undermine reproductive success using the mind, willpower and big government.
What happens is, the rules of evolution conveniently change. Now reproductive success is not important, so we can fix the game the other way. This dual standard always led to confusion. Where are the rational atheist who can see through the dual standard snake oil?
This logic just came to me. Evolution and reproductive success are better reflected by the religious than by the atheists. I am not making this up since you can look at the data.
This would imply evolution and religion more closely go hand in hand,
especially since religion did the reproductive success thing, way before science started to crawl can proved this was a pivotal part of evolution. Science proved that religion was part of evolution by its own theory and premises.
Atheism does the opposite; predictably and therefore departs from evolution, as is defined by science itself. This departure is based on will power, subjectivity (needed for the dual standard) and therefore has little in common with natural evolution.
The atheists were smart in that they attempted to possess evolution so they could decoy the theory of evolution as being the opposite of religion. This was a fail safe, so science arguments of evolution (reproductive success) would not be used by religion against atheism. This would make atheism look unnatural.
It is like you are thirsty and someone cons you to believe the water is poison. You avoid the poison water of evolution, so atheism can slide unnoticed as being natural, yet unnatural by the standards of science.
There are other topics about evolution and intelligence. Intelligence can change the environment and thereby alter the external potentials seen by evolution. If it gets cold we can build a shelter and a fire so the DNA does not need to change.
However, the theory of evolution has little to do with human will power. Dawkins is supposed to be a scientist, but he can't seem to apply pure science in an unbiased way; reproductive success is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
Did you post this to make fun of us ? Not every creationist goes along with what you have posted. This fellow don't represent me.
LOL.....Trippy, you've got them on a roll now.
Rather busy at present but thought I'd lob in this bit of humor, though to some, it may hit too near the mark.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm
When I am good, I am very, very good and when I am bad, I'm excellent. (Or so I have been told.)