Logicboy03:

What was Dawkins gaffe? Please tell me?

Creatrixity:
Can't you find something to do,i am tired of educating you already!!

Logicboy03:




There is nothing to argue. The moment that I saw this video, I knew that you were a lying christian. Why?

You are late to the christian urban legend from over 4 years ago that claims that Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins as someone that supports intelligent design just like a christian would.

Since 2008, this video has surfaced on many conservative christian websites;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Ben_Stein_Interview_with_Richard_Dawkins
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1793395/pg1
http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins/page/full/



Note that;
1) Dawkins was speculating and clearly said that it is a possibilty that some civilization seeded the earth with life
2) Dawkins clearly said that if there were an intelligent designer that such a designer would himself come from a physical process as well.

Mr_Anony: @Mazaje:

Let us go on the tangent you have been clamouring for and deal with your questions.

First, I'll take it that you agree that the precision and improbable complex order of the cosmos is evidence that it has an intelligent designer (codename: GOD). Your challenge to us is to prove to you that the God I worship is true as opposed to a myraid of different theories of God.

I would like you to note at this point that we have left atheism far behind because once you agree that there is a God evidenced by His creation, the question is no longer "Does God exist?" rather it is "Who is God?"

Do you agree up to this point?

mazaje:

Nope; you are question begging. . .How do you know that the the force responsible for the universe assuming it exist is only one single entity?. . .The environment is evidence for the environment and NOT evidence for any god. . .There is so much that we do not know about the universe; the creators of the universe if there is any could have died, it could be a force or some forces that created and ran away, it could be some alien life that created our own planet and life that is found in it that. . .The universe might have created it self, it could have been created by many forces, it could be that all the life forms on earth were created by some other intelligent life forms living some where in the universe who could be living or dead. It could be anything.

But let me agree with you that there is a single god that created the universe. Pls what evidence do you have to show that your god alone created the universe and not a combination of many other gods or some other single god or some any kind of vague force? I am talking of objective evidence that can stand alone not some philosophical ramblings that provide no evidence at all. . .

Mr_Anony:
Lol............All you've done here is state that All explanations presented are wrong without vaguely suggesting what a correct explanation might look like. This is irrational skepticism that closely resembles a weird mix of Relativist and Dadaist philosophy. Anyway moving on..........

Please respond to my previous post and let's see if perhaps we can wrest something vaguely rational out of all this.

davidylan: So i decided to watch the entire video as Anony suggested and i will start with these general observations...

1. If this man is the reason most atheists consider themselves full of logic and reason... then really i just have to shake my head in pity.
2. Even Ben Stein noted the BLEEDING OBVIOUS - Richard Dawkins AGREES that some form of intelligent design was REQUIRED to create the type of complexity that we see in nature today (watch from 4:00)... his only problem really isnt about intelligent design JUST CERTAIN TYPES OF DESIGNERS SUCH AS GOD!

The problem with Richard Dawkins is quite obvious, he hates God QED. Every other argument is an excuse to wipe God out of the equation. It is amazing that someone who mocks christians for placing blind faith in myths is fumbling in the dark with ridiculous myths such as "some super race somewhere that evolved in another planet by some darwinian mechanism and then seeded our planet with life...". Incredible! For someone who insists on science, logic and reason... the above explanation for life (that he honestly admits he cannot prove even though he keeps bleating at christians to prove God exists) is an exercise in eye-popping demagoguery.

Note how very little confidence he himself has in the idea that somehow life is merely a product of some self-replicating DNA... I suppose as a scientist himself, he understands how unserious that notion is. We fumble around with RNA molecules all day in the lab, no serious scientist worth his salt believes we can create life our of primordial soup.

Logicboy03:



You mean you are tired of slandering Dawkins?

Creatrixity:
Lol..you are one funny dude..why slander someone that shot himself in the foot!

Logicboy03:



You mean you are tired of slandering Dawkins?

thehomer:

Actually, the evidence lies in the fact that they've been unable to release the unedited clips, they conducted the interviews by misleading the interviewees and that it is actually possible to dishonestly edit something to make it look as if someone holds a view they actually don't. We know Dawkins doesn't hold that view, he's written several books on this already. Which do you think is more likely that in this single edited clip he chucked out his written work or that someone with an ulterior motive who opposes his views tries to make him say something he doesn't actually believe?

His point with panspermia is that it is still more plausible than his God and it actually is more plausible than the Christian God. Dawkins wasn't proposing a theory, he was simply considering a hypothetical. It is something that scientists, philosophers and others do.

The fact that panspermia can be thought of as being a plausible origin of life doesn't somehow make intelligent design creationism more reasonable. It still has lots of problems with it. The fact that something can be considered by someone as being plausible doesn't mean that it is what the person actually believes happened.

Again, the evidence lies in the fact that the interview had to have been edited in multiple places at multiple times in order to get it to fit with their narrative.

Enigma: {Please forgive my little wayo of first hiding my main question which now follows}

If it was Dawkins who subsequently claimed that he was not putting forward that speculation/hypothesis at all but that he was simply putting forward an argument that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might make . . . . . would we say that Dawkins would be lying in that event?

Logicboy03:




There is nothing to argue. The moment that I saw this video, I knew that you were a lying christian. Why?

You are late to the christian urban legend from over 4 years ago that claims that Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins as someone that supports intelligent design just like a christian would.

Since 2008, this video has surfaced on many conservative christian websites;
http://www.conservapedia.com/Ben_Stein_Interview_with_Richard_Dawkins
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1793395/pg1
http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins/page/full/



Note that;
1) Dawkins was speculating and clearly said that it is a possibilty that some civilization seeded the earth with life
2) Dawkins clearly said that if there were an intelligent designer that such a designer would himself come from a physical process as well.

wiegraf:

No there aren't

Logicboy03:

Typical lying christian.

Note what the argument was about;

CreativeX claimed that Dawkins was talking about panspermia. Which I disagreed up with. Realising this mistake, Enigma then corrected it to "directed panspermia" and then lied that Dawkins claimed in the video that he was talking about directed panspermia.

Enigma: Thanks Mr Anony; that is a matter of simlpe straight logic and we will see if his disciles will now come to his defence.

From a post made in December 2011, I take the second video since the first duplicated is the same as in the OP. Watch Dawkins deny that he was himself putting forward that 'speculation' or 'hypothesis' but that he was in fact presenting the "best argument" that a creationist or believer in intelligent design might put forward.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/811383/big-lie/1#9813061


His disingenuous attempt at 'self-rebuttal' here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM





Oh by the way that video is just one evidence that Dawkins was indeed talking about directed panspermia in the OP video.

Mr_Anony:
If you recall, I once told that you lack the ability to reason properly and your reasoning is so poor that you cannot recognize your deficiency such that it becomes futile to attempt reasoning with you because even after you have been shown your irrationality, you irrationally proceed to fanatically defend it anyway. This is one of such moments where you exhibit such profoundly irrational behaviour.

Would you mind looking up the meaning of directed panspermia like I asked you to and then compare it to Dawkins statements if your "rational mind" can manage that. Thank you

Logicboy03:



This is good. So where did Dawkins lie about what he originally said? Apparently, the video actaully showed that Dawkins was giving a honest speculation in that original interview.


Note that Dawkins said


".....the best shot for me was something like design from an alien intelligence, something like what Francis Kirk and Lesley Urgel has proposed a s "directed panspermia"....i dont believe in that......"



What the video clearly shows was that Dawkins wasnt neccesarily talking about directed panspermia only something like it. Panspermia has to do with asteriods and meteoriods spreading life. Dawkins was focusing on the design aspect of life. Aliens or civilizations designing life does not always mean panspermia- especially wehn asteriods, radiation pressure and lithopanspermia are not involved.



Game set match.

Deep Sight:

Yes there are. They were made and I gave the link. If you disagree, go there and tell me whats wrong there. I will not pander to your laziness in simply saying "no there aren't". Read the thread provided and show what arguments are wrong. If you cannot do that, or perhaps you don't have the time, then you cannot expect me to write all over again here. That will "expose" my joblessness.

As to Logicboy, I hope, from everything in this thread, you can now see why I describe Dawkins (and everyone else who regards him as intelligent) to be a dunce. It is normal that dunces should follow dunces. Birds of a feather flock together. That is why Pentecostal dunces also follow Pastor Dunces. It is the very same thing.

There is one aspect in which I would agree that he is smart though. Namely as a con-man intent on making money. This is no different from what a writer like Dan Brown does. If you really want to make money from writing, as a smart person, all you need to do is write something controversial. Best of all, hit out at what people hold sacred, and you become an instant hit, from the controversy generated. That is very clever. Dan Brown, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins. All the same, vey old, very well known strategies of Con-Artists and those committed to sharp practices. As a business, it is excellent. I might consider writing something repugnantly controversial and s.illy myself. Makes good bucks, in a repugnant and s.illy world.

Because other than that, it is very curious as to why a non-religious Biologist would bother himself to write a book about religious beliefs, and spend great energy and time on such religious fancies and myths. . .particularly when his object of attack is not the morals at issue but the existence of a creator - a notion which whether true or false; is harmless - - - when he should rather be more busy advancing his professional calling in the lab and in the field - doing biological research for the progress of humanity.

Ah; give me the dollars. . .

Mr_Anony:
Lol, actually, they are under no obligation to release unedited clips and to the best of my knowledge, Dawkins has not asked that unedited clips be released. And also contrary to your claim, the video doesn't try to make it look like Dawkins believes in aliens. Anyone who watches the video will see clearly that Dawkins proposes aliens as a possibility and not as a belief. Your argument for dishonesty really has no basis.

Mr_Anony:
Good so you could tell this much from the 'edited' video? Where then did you get the idea that the video was edited to make it seem that Dawkins was declaring a belief instead of a hypothesis?

Mr_Anony:
Secondly, It was Dawkins himself proposing the theory that life on earth could have been a result of directed panspermia. At least he doesn't deny that he did this even if we allow (without proof) that he was tricked into into it by a cunning question. It doesn't change the fact that he considers 'alien reproduction' to be a plausible origin of life.

Mr_Anony:
Actually, directed panspermia is a form of intelligent design for life on earth.

Mr_Anony:
You have provided no evidence for this

Mr_Anony:
Secondly, It was Dawkins himself proposing the theory that life on earth could have been a result of directed panspermia. At least he doesn't deny that he did this even if we allow (without proof) that he was tricked into into it by a cunning question. It doesn't change the fact that he considers 'alien reproduction' to be a plausible origin of life.

Logicboy03:



Anony and Enigma dubiously misninterpreted a video of Dawkins to claim that he was wrong/confused. You then want to use this misnterpretation as evidence that Richard Dawkins is a dunce?

Why not state the dunce-like statements or arguments that Dawkins has made? Even Anony is smart enough not to call Richard Dawkins a dunce.

Infact, for someone who claims that numbers exist (which you ran away from), you shouldnt be calling a scientist a dunce.

Deep Sight:

Yes there are. They were made and I gave the link. If you disagree, go there and tell me whats wrong there. I will not pander to your laziness in simply saying "no there aren't". Read the thread provided and show what arguments are wrong. If you cannot do that, or perhaps you don't have the time, then you cannot expect me to write all over again here. That will "expose" my joblessness.

As to Logicboy, I hope, from everything in this thread, you can now see why I describe Dawkins (and everyone else who regards him as intelligent) to be a dunce. It is normal that dunces should follow dunces. Birds of a feather flock together. That is why Pentecostal dunces also follow Pastor Dunces. It is the very same thing.

There is one aspect in which I would agree that he is smart though. Namely as a con-man intent on making money. This is no different from what a writer like Dan Brown does. If you really want to make money from writing, as a smart person, all you need to do is write something controversial. Best of all, hit out at what people hold sacred, and you become an instant hit, from the controversy generated. That is very clever. Dan Brown, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins. All the same, vey old, very well known strategies of Con-Artists and those committed to sharp practices. As a business, it is excellent. I might consider writing something repugnantly controversial and s.illy myself. Makes good bucks, in a repugnant and s.illy world.

Because other than that, it is very curious as to why a non-religious Biologist would bother himself to write a book about religious beliefs, and spend great energy and time on such religious fancies and myths. . .particularly when his object of attack is not the morals at issue but the existence of a creator - a notion which whether true or false; is harmless - - - when he should rather be more busy advancing his professional calling in the lab and in the field - doing biological research for the progress of humanity.

Ah; give me the dollars. . .

mazaje: Most theist here seem to be confused about atheism, they some how think atheist hate their god(no atheist hates any god). You can not hate what does not exist. . . .Dawkins was not talking in absolute terms, since he does not have evidence to support his ideas. The atheist position can be sumarized by a post that was dropped on nairaland some years ago by someone here

Deep Sight:

Yes there are. They were made and I gave the link. If you disagree, go there and tell me whats wrong there. I will not pander to your laziness in simply saying "no there aren't". Read the thread provided and show what arguments are wrong. If you cannot do that, or perhaps you don't have the time, then you cannot expect me to write all over again here. That will "expose" my joblessness.

Deep Sight:
As to Logicboy, I hope, from everything in this thread, you can now see why I describe Dawkins (and everyone else who regards him as intelligent) to be a dunce. It is normal that dunces should follow dunces. Birds of a feather flock together. That is why Pentecostal dunces also follow Pastor Dunces. It is the very same thing.

Deep Sight:
There is one aspect in which I would agree that he is smart though. Namely as a con-man intent on making money. This is no different from what a writer like Dan Brown does. If you really want to make money from writing, as a smart person, all you need to do is write something controversial. Best of all, hit out at what people hold sacred, and you become an instant hit, from the controversy generated. That is very clever. Dan Brown, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins. All the same, vey old, very well known strategies of Con-Artists and those committed to sharp practices. As a business, it is excellent. I might consider writing something repugnantly controversial and s.illy myself. Makes good bucks, in a repugnant and s.illy world.

Deep Sight:
Because other than that, it is very curious as to why a non-religious Biologist would bother himself to write a book about religious beliefs, and spend great energy and time on such religious fancies and myths. . .particularly when his object of attack is not the morals at issue but the existence of a creator - a notion which whether true or false; is harmless - - - when he should rather be more busy advancing his professional calling in the lab and in the field - doing biological research for the progress of humanity.

Ah; give me the dollars. . .

plaetton:

Like Wirinet said above, most athiest had never read a book by Dawkins nor even heard of Dawkins> the choice of Dawkins as the favoured whipping boy of theists is most amusing. Everyday, especially sunday, millions of pastors, priests and con-artists of every color and shade mount the podiums and televisions screens to scream "god did this, god did that, god loves this, god hates this",and other false crap.

plaetton:

Like Wirinet said above, most athiest had never read a book by Dawkins nor even heard of Dawkins> the choice of Dawkins as the favoured whipping boy of theists is most amusing.

Everyday, especially sunday, millions of pastors, priests and con-artists of every color and shade mount the podiums and televisions screens to scream "god did this, god did that, god loves this, god hates this",and other false crap.
This has been going on unchallanged for the past 2000 yrs.

Then one man,among a very few, writes a book, goes on public podiums to challange this standard idea that god did this or did that, then suddenly, every one goes ballistic. Then he is called stupid, dunce,intolerant and all manners derogatory names: Just for bravely challanging an old idea.

I find it funny and hypocitical that you somehow expect his reasoning be to perfect and flawless and his scientific knowledge to be perfect and absolute , while same is not required for pastors and priests.

I doubt that dawkins has ever converted any theists to atheism. However, in whatever small way, Dawkins and others like him only help to remind us to come to terms and accept the doubts that we harbor in the deepest part of our minds, irrespective of the daily and incessant blabberings of priests, pastors and imams.

Religion and the belief in god is a mental conditioning. It is going on in millions of locations worldwide right now. It takes a lot of mental courage to break free and challange this conditioning.

plaetton:
. . . .

I doubt that dawkins has ever converted any theists to atheism. However, in whatever small way, Dawkins and others like him only help to remind us to come to terms and accept the doubts that we harbor in the deepest part of our minds, irrespective of the daily and incessant blabberings of priests, pastors and imams.

Religion and the belief in god is a mental conditioning. It is going on in millions of locations worldwide right now. It takes a lot of mental courage to break free and challange this conditioning.

wirinet:
I have 100% confidence that life itself is a self contained, self duplicating process and consciousness is a product of this system, to enable the living system respond and interact with the external environment.

wirinet:
Yes no scientist believes we can create life out of a primordial soup, but most biologist accept that the first self duplicating system (RNA and DNA) was created in a primordial soup about 3.5 billion years ago, given the conditions on earth at that time.

wirinet:
The basic incidents for life can be produced in the lab, ie, amino acids and proteins (Google the miller-Urey experiments), the only limiting factor is the time required and right condition to form complex organic molecule such as RNA and DNA.

Deep Sight:

I do not need to: I have spent much time already shewing my reasons for stating the obvious: namely that Dawkins is congenitally re.tarded. The threads are there.



Before humans came along to conceive numbers, was there a specific number or amount of planets revolving around the sun?

Or a specific number or amount of anything else.

My friend, without numbers, and the inherent idea of existence of numbers resident in intangible reality; nothing in your finite and much cherished universe would exist.

However, that which I have place in bold red in the sentence above is not something that I expect you to ever be able to apprehend or discuss anytime in this lifetime. So don't worry yasef.

Nigeria vs CIV about to start! ! ! OMG! ! ! Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Deep Sight:
Before humans came along to conceive numbers, was there a specific number or amount of planets revolving around the sun?

Or a specific number or amount of anything else.

My friend, without numbers, and the inherent idea of existence of numbers resident in intangible reality; nothing in your finite and much cherished universe would exist.

davidylan:

that is quite true, it is the reason most of them devolve into apoplexy when his words are challenged on here. They have never read his books, they simply use the few words copied off the internet as a figleaf to lend legitimacy to their own poorly developed arguments.