The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

Oleg Bach · May 5, 2009

It's not hard to understand that God is not anti-science. Myths and magic are cultural man made things - God is not human nor a magician.

segnosaur · May 5, 2009

Now, before you post any more of your nonsense, please go back and re-read this post. Pay close attention to the part where I point out that quote mining involves taking quotes out of context. I'm sure we'll be seeing you do it again and again. (After all, creationists are some of the most dishonest people around.) But when I point out future incidents of you engaging in that practice, I want you to understand what exactly the term means.

Do you even know what the word "excerpts" means? I gave you the links, didn't I?

Actually, for the Darwin quote you posted in the other thread you did not.

As for this thread, while you did provide a link to the initial article, you didn't quote text that went against your point. (It may also be that the whole article you linked to was quote mined, since it was a second-hand account of statements Dawkings made, and not original material from him.)

You see, with quote mining, if you take a quote out of context and use it to support your argument, it is still dishonest, even if you provide a reference to the original text. Its your use of the quote that's the issue.

If you're going to be disruptive and trashy....kindly do it on your own thread.

Your posts contained distortions. Sorry if you don't like being called out when you post material based on a lie.

If you want to avoid my 'disruption', I'd suggest you actually learn a little science.

segnosaur · May 5, 2009

This is really getting interesting. About a year later from that interview...
Excerpts from...

IS RICHARD DAWKINS STILL EVOLVING?

by: Melanie Phillips

Thursday, 23rd October 2008

This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...-evolving.thtml

Before you run around quoting Melanie Phillips, as some sort of authority in this area, keep in mind that on her website she admits:

I am an agnostic if traditionally-minded Jew; not a scientist...,

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...quisition.thtml

(Later in that particular article she goes on to talk about 'intelligent design', but since she herself admits she is not a scientist, what exactly makes her qualified to discuss matters of science?

To give further evidence that her opinions are not to be trusted, Melanie Phillips is also an anti-vaccination idiot. (And yes, its true for someone to be wrong in one area and right in another; however, such a flagrant disregard for science in this case indicates a problem with critical thinking skills.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips

Frankly, listening to her opinions on anything 'scientific' is like listening to Osama bin Laden for a description of the Swine Flu... in other words, she seems to lack critical thinking skills.

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sit down for a two hour open conversation on religion.

+ others...

benny · May 5, 2009

Because physicists use more formal models and look at a more fuzzy (virtual) reality than biologists, the game played by people like Dawkins is children's play compares to the much more ghostly game played by people like Hawking.

Edited May 5, 2009 by benny

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

Hawkins?

benny · May 5, 2009

Hawkins?

Stephen Hawking, with other physicists, is used to ask himself does God play dice.

Edited May 5, 2009 by benny

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

Hawking

benny · May 5, 2009

Hawking

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

Correct...not Hawkins

benny · May 5, 2009

Einstein was so reluctant to admit reality itself is probabilistic by nature that another physicist comes to reply to him: don't tell God what he has to do.

Edited May 5, 2009 by benny

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

Einstein was so reluctant to admit reality itself is probabilistic by nature that another physicist comes to reply to him: don't tell God what he has to do.

That was also a long time ago. Since then, there has been some headway in understanding the Universe. One could actually count on science to trumpet the discovery of 'God' as the scientist that proves said existance would no doubt be in line for a prize or two plus have numerous highschool science labs named after him/her.

benny · May 5, 2009

That was also a long time ago. Since then, there has been some headway in understanding the Universe. One could actually count on science to trumpet the discovery of 'God' as the scientist that proves said existance would no doubt be in line for a prize or two plus have numerous highschool science labs named after him/her.

Super-string is the "new" God of physics.

GostHacked · May 5, 2009

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sit down for a two hour open conversation on religion.

+ others...

I shall check this out tonight. I have watched some of what Dawkins has to say, it is interesting and throws out some good questions.

betsy

That's only practical. Quite a few of them out there I imagine. When you've got intelligence, the gift of gab, good packaging/marketing, the clout....not difficult. Dawkins probably, sincerely think he is!

Religion has a good marketing stragety and many of them have the gift of gab. Hovind for one (and admints that he is purely guessing on most of his theories in contrast to Dawkins which has quite a bit of science to back his argument up), Jack Van Impe and his wife. Pat Robertson, and any televangical speaker who is given a platform and 60 minutes of national airtime once a week.

Dawkins uses science, his popularity and unquestioning faith of his fundamentalist followers in promoting what seems to be his main priority: trashing religion, and faith in God. Establishing the religion of Atheism.

Because the bible simply cannot be used for science. There is not even enough math in there to prove when the bible was suposedly written. And with that many translations and before written word, I am sure the stories have changed with every storyteller that promotes the story.

Hovind said something along the lines of ' well God did it, and it is obvious, but I am just guessing ' Most ID theories have holes big enough to drive the USS Enterprise through (the aircraft carrier ... not Kirk's ship) Evolutionists are eventually filling those holes with tested proving working models

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

Super-string is the "new" God of physics.

Science is like a bunch of kids in a sandbox. Some kids are building castles...some kids are knocking them down.

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

I shall check this out tonight. I have watched some of what Dawkins has to say, it is interesting and throws out some good questions.

I watched it in stages. Good if you like this sort of stuff.

Kent Hovind...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

...trouble is he's serious. Cracking rocks, still, perhaps...t'is good fer him.

benny · May 5, 2009

Because the bible simply cannot be used for science. There is not even enough math in there to prove when the bible was suposedly written. And with that many translations and before written word, I am sure the stories have changed with every storyteller that promotes the story.
Hovind said something along the lines of ' well God did it, and it is obvious, but I am just guessing ' Most ID theories have holes big enough to drive the USS Enterprise through (the aircraft carrier ... not Kirk's ship) Evolutionists are eventually filling those holes with tested proving working models

We don't have to bother with what science and math say about movement anymore since Diogenes the Cynic has solved zeno's paradox only by walking across two lines draw on the sand.

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

We don't have to bother with what science and math say about movement anymore since Diogenes the Cynic has solved zeno's paradox only by walking across two lines draw on the sand.

He also thought we should defecate in public.

:rolleyes:

GostHacked · May 5, 2009

I watched it in stages. Good if you like this sort of stuff.
Kent Hovind...

...trouble is he's serious. Cracking rocks, still, perhaps...t'is good fer him.

Yes he is serious. He even disagrees with some points in other creationist views. He has stated such on his seminars. Hovind is a blast to watch. I have learned alot about religion through his 'seminars', but I have not learned a damn thing about science. I almost fell off my chair last night with his explanation of The Flood. He is using literal intepretation of the bible to prove there is science in there. I might watch more of it tonight. It's really fun to watch and laugh at.

Benny

We don't have to bother with what science and math say about movement anymore since Diogenes the Cynic has solved zeno's paradox only by walking across two lines draw on the sand.

Well, if you are not going to bother with science or math (math is a universal language .. math might be god?!??!?) then you really can't call it science.

In the begginning there was nothing. On the first day God created the heavens and earth. What material did he have to work with? If creationists are going to be talking about creating everything out of nothing with the big bang, how is that different from saying a mystical being out of time and space created everything in this universe out of nothing.

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

I watched one where Kent used dog breeding to "disprove" evolution. Sorta backfired, if you ask me.

:lol: :lol:

GostHacked · May 5, 2009

I watched one where Kent used dog breeding to "disprove" evolution. Sorta backfired, if you ask me.

Each seminar is 2+ hours long ..... hang in there, there is comedy gold in them thar seminars.

segnosaur · May 5, 2009

Hovind is a blast to watch. I have learned alot about religion through his 'seminars', but I have not learned a damn thing about science.

The scary thing is that, even though you haven't learned a thing about science, his seminars are probably filled with people without a clue who actually believe the junk he's spewing.

In the begginning there was nothing. On the first day God created the heavens and earth.

In the beginning, there was nothing.

Then god said Let there be Light. And there was light.

There was still nothing, but you could see it better.

DogOnPorch · May 5, 2009

To me all religion has become a dark comedy. I call it "Where's My Silver Spacesuit??? Syndrome". We should be living and working on the Moon rather than indulging in (and pandering to) ancient myths. Growing-up with the Moon Landings, I never would have suspected that the planet would face slipping into a new fundamentalist-filled Dark Age rather than the logical continuation of the Renaissance/Age of Enlightenment. The irony is that it was science itself that gave creationists the tools they needed (see: The Internet) to question evolution on such a scale. We really do live in...what Mark Steyn called...the age where facts become opinions and opinions become facts.

benny · May 5, 2009

He also thought we should defecate in public.

No biologist will ever be able to explain why man is the only animal for whom defecation is posing a problem.

WIP · May 5, 2009

What do you think about his musings on the possibility of you know...the Name he doesn't want to invoke?

I think he should stay closer to biology and the other sciences that he is well versed in and leave philosophy to the philosophers, or at least develop his own ideas better so that he is not so dependent on friends like Daniel Dennett, and can have a more independent perspective. The other thing I find disappointing about Dawkins is that when he did get around to writing a book about atheism and religion (The God Delusion), it went down a well-worn path of deconstructing old theological proofs of God, like St. Anselm's ontological argument. His arguments against God are focused on the Abrahamic variety, and does not address pantheistic beliefs and other supernatural beliefs that have crept in to Western culture over the last hundred years.

I don't accept his premise that he shares with Sam Harris, that everybody can be converted into rationalists and that's why he hopes for an end to religious education that offended the church people so much. Most people don't seem to like the real world very much, and exchange one form of magical beliefs for another -- hopefully for a less controlling and potentially dangerous set of magical thinking. But I don't share their optimism for a new golden age of rationalism. A hundred years ago, the Freethinker Movement thought that the enlightenment would eventually lead to the abandonment of religion and they were heralding a new golden age of rationalism.....and then WWI broke out.....the rest is history! These things go in cycles, and rationalists should hope that the next wave of hysteria doesn't take us two steps backward for every step forward we make.