[Atheist Biologist] Dawkins: Evangelist an 'idiot' on evolution

CNN ^ | November 25, 2009 | Peter Wilkinson

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

referring to U.S.-based evangelist Ray Comfort, who argues that the universe and life is the result of an intelligent creator, Dawkins said: "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

"You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don't exist. There's got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are agnostic about fairies. We can't disprove them, but we think it's a bit of a waste of time trying. And the same goes for God."

[metmom]

He’s certainly not the only atheist who came to faith by setting out to prove that God didn’t exist.

[metmom]

And I thought compromising someone else’s screen name was verboten on FR.

And you evos are still here. Imagine that.

Kind of hard to complain about someone violating the forum rules and demanding that they get banned when you’re violating them as well.

Shouldn’t you also be banned in that case?

Just askin’.....

[wendy1946]

Proto-bird (TM) is supposed to have evolved into birdhood via a process which lasted 10,000 generations during which, of course, he had front appendages which were not useful for running, jumping, flying, grasping prey, or anything else since they were in a process of transition while, presumably, living on welfare for 10,000 generations in the days of Alley Oop.

Evolutionists would have you believe that arms are really not all that necessary, and that having arms be disfunctional for ten thousand generations or so is really no big deal.

What about having your BRAIN be 100% disfunctional for a thousand generations or more (granted evolutionists brains are disfunctional, but that doesn't count since we assume they live off charity)?

Rick Lanier notes:

Some of the problems of Whales evolving from Land "urchins":

The cochleal bones of whales are made up of three membranes. This leads to great dexterity in the acoustic deciphering needed for low frequency navigation. The spriral formation of these 'ears' creates acoustic sensory organs much more sophisticated than any land mammal. The US Navy during the 60's - 80's conducted research using pilot whales and dolphins, for among other things, position tracking of torpedos and submarines. The findings were more astounding that seemed possible. The marine mammals could locate torpedos 5 times faster than navy divers using the most advanced acoustics the Navy had.

Why is low frequency important ? Low frequency only makes sense when used over longer distances, which take advantage of a perculiar characteristic of deep water,

Deep Sound Channels. Deep sound channels form because warm water above reflects down, cold water below reflects up. DSC's in between can carry sound great distances by use of these channels. The US Navy has been protecting your country for years by utilizing this fact, along with the triangulation effect of the SOSUS underwater 'hydrophones'. Now to the point, How could whales 'evolve' deep water frequencies while staying in shore? And the paradox, how could they survive in deep water without the echolocation mentioned. The documentary "Deaf Whale, Dead Whale" recently shown on Science Frontiers (Discovery) bring out the point of whale dependance on echolocation for its survival. In this documenatry they discuss how a whale was tracked througout the Atlantic using the SOSUS network. They were surprised to see how this particular whale was using the island of Bermuda as a navigation beacon., from great distances. The use of these frequencies by whales was the main reason that enviromental groups protested the planned use of Acoustic Termo Measurement (Using low frequency sound waves to measure temperature) in the Atlantic. The tests were cancelled.

Some would say that whales just went from shallow to deep water. Yet they have the acoustics for both. The high frequency 'clicks' used for in close sonar, and communication, and the deep water low frequency echolation used for navigation.

Remember, the sperm whale has been seen at depths up to 20,000 feet.

Whales need this echolocation for their survival, how could this have evolved from creatures not possessing the hybrids of these mechanisms, while it was in the water.

The possibility of mammals in the sea without coming from land would cause evolutions to take a powder, they need something that could possibly be an anscestor to be found on land....... Yes, that's it the Herbasaurus, er, Basilosaurus................................

I.e., during any period of evolving the mental functions which whales absolutely require for their day-to-day existence, their brains would be disfunctional.

Likewise, any rational person watching insects fly can understand that on the day that the first bat ever snagged the first insect using echo-location, the echo-location had to work perfectly, and that such a capability could not possibly evolve.

Consider what life must have been like for the evolutionists' "proto-bat", attempting to develop echo-location over a multi-thousand- generation span:

This creature's life would almost certainly have been one continual, bad hallucination, from dawn to dusk and then back again, from the day he was born to the day he died.

Picture being stoned out of your mind on every hallucinatory drug at the same time, and then trying to watch and make sense of the very worst television broadcast you've ever seen, you know, the sort of thing you see for about 20 seconds before the "Technical Difficulties" screen comes up. That's all that that poor little evolving bat ever knew of our world.

And yet, evolutionists would have you believe that this fatally afflicted little creature prospered and thrived and survived for thousands of generations, in such a state.

Whenever you see or hear somebody expounding upon evolution, or trying to indoctrinate kids in the "fact" of evolution, think about this poor little dinged-out bat flying around in circles, flying into walls, trees, the ground, his mind trashed either because he met up with Raoul Jose-Domingo Tokovar and they toked down a box of Columbian spliffs, or (effectively the same thing) because he was trying to EVOLVE echo-location, and was only 80% there...

Let's call this little bat Splifford. Some years ago, somebody rescued a little bear from a forest fire, and that little bear became a metaphor for the national effort to preserve our forests from careless acts and the tragedy of large-scale fires.

Similarly, Splifford should become a symbol of the national will to save American culture, American society, and the youth of America from the mind-destroying evil of corrupt ideological doctrines.

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse,
and corrupt ideological doctrines.

[wendy1946]

The most famous case like that is the case of William Ramsey.

[Stultis]

And I thought compromising someone else’s screen name was verboten on FR.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And less than 12 minutes later, Ted Holden totally spoils your sanctimonious posturing by dropping all pretense and whipping out "Splifford the bat" in the very next post!

PRICELESS!

Honest to God, Ted, thanks for the laugh!!!

[metmom]

If someone wants to reveal their own name, that’s their business.

It’s not someone else’s business to do it for them.

[wendy1946]

Do you by any chance have any other sort of dialectic thing (besides evolution) which you’re interested in and which you’re not totally devoid of ideas or rational arguments?

[Wpin]

You made an assumption that shows nothing other than you are acting like an ass. What relevance is the complexity of life to what I am asking you? You still cannot answer that fundamental question of how was life created (without God) when there was no life.

Let me explain so perhaps you will begin to get a kernel of understanding from where I am coming from. atheists believe that life began out of some concoction they dreamed up called “primordial soup”. Now, scientists (serious ones) understand that this is not in any way a fact, it is based upon faith that this is what happened. A random act or series of acts and interactions of some electrical/chemical combinations produced basic “life”. Again, this is not a fact...it is conjecture and a matter of faith for those who believe in this nonsense. No serious scientist claims that he/she has proof of life’s creation...the initial creation.

So, upon this assumption (matter of faith) people like you develop other theories and then seek out ways to prove it is true. Oftentimes ignoring some information and in reality only have a small, small piece of the pie in terms of knowledge but pretending to have all the answers. You call life complex...and it is, but if you really thought it through I think you would realize that science has not even uncovered more than the tip of the iceberg in terms of knowledge of life. So, pretending to understand it is really idiotic isn’t it? It is like a babies understanding of a rocket ship...it see it, knows it can fly, but that is about it. I don’t think any person of contemplation would think that the baby is an expert in rocket science...

Now, knowledge of God...I have personal knowledge of God...you do to, if you open your mind and your heart to him. I have been “touched” by God’s hand a few times.

No one can properly define God with absolute certainty, but my definition (shared by many) is that God is Good, Love, Compassion, Wisdom, etc. I believe that Good is a force, and consequently have also come to understand that Evil is a force. I had an experience, where I died for a short time period and was in God’s grace. I don’t need any other proof and no...you will not convince me or anyone else who has experienced this wonderfully beautiful event that it was just my brain. That is impossible, when it happens to you you will understand.

Muslims...you may not be aware, but Muslims and Christians, and Jews, all believe in the same god. Indeed, all share the Old Testament. In regards to the other religions...Hindi, Buddhist, etc. We all worship God, we worship in our own way that is influenced by our culture and how God has communicated with us. I have not thought it out totally, these matters take a lifetime to scratch the surface. So, perhaps I am wrong about all religions worshiping the same God, just in their own way.

I like your attempt at “God had a creator” also...I used to have that myself. But, there is no reason for God to have had a creator...if you get into that line very far you realize that a time line is required to continue that theory. God, is not on the same plane as us...time is not a dimension for him. Indeed, he created time. But, using the same thinking you show there-consider creation without God and go back. What created matter? What created time? Don’t burn your brains out on that...but it deserves consideration, especially if you believe that there was creation without God. You will at some point realize that the truly ridiculous position is creation without God. Think about it from a fresh perspective without the assumptions you placed on your thinking previously on the matter.

I have not read Micheal Martin...don’t really need to...if he is atheist he is wrong anyway. I don’t like when people try to make believe that someone can not fully contemplate an issue (especially as big as this) without reading something by one or a group of people. Hell John, you really want to get an understanding on the subject read the bible...really, there is more knowledge and information about God and creation in that than in all the science combined. Indeed, when one thinks about it science...when it happens by luck to be right...is at best a description of a very very very minutely small part of God’s creation.

So, if you are selling Michael Martin books...go away little one. If you are interested in having an intelligent discussion, quit dodging, assuming and put forth some thoughts that you actually believe in not just parrot from someone else.

You think religious argument is simple? I prefer to think that the so called “scientific” argument is flawed, not thought out, and really truthfully idiotic for thinking people. But, hey forget about the fact that most scientists believe in God...

[Stultis]

If someone wants to reveal their own name, that’s their business. It’s not someone else’s business to do it for them.

When did I do that?

Maybe you know better, but I haven't the slightest idea if "Ted Holden" is a real name. For all I know it's as much of a handle as "wendy1946" and "medved."

In any case, wendy1946, when here as medved, revealed the identity between "medved" and "Ted Holden" himself. For instance here (medved pastes one of his usenet messages, incl the header which id's a "medved" email as "Ted Holden") or here (medved posts a vanity thread, gives the source as "self" and the author as "Ted Holden"), etc, etc. I could go on and on, if I had a mind to dig further into the posting history.

But then you know all this. And you knew all this when you made the same complaint to Gumlegs. And you know that we know that you know all this. So what's the point of the phony posturing? (Not that I mind a bit of cabaret.)

[metmom]

Maybe you know better, but I haven't the slightest idea if "Ted Holden" is a real name. For all I know it's as much of a handle as "wendy1946" and "medved."

Speaking of posturing, way to weasel out of getting caught red handed.

No, I don't know if that's his real name or not.

But I do know that compromising someone else's screen name is frowned upon by the FR management.

[Stultis]

OoooooKaaaaaay... If you want to continue pretending you’re serious, you don’t need me for that. Goodnight.

[john in springfield]

You think I haven't read the Bible? I've memorized entire books of it.

You made an assumption that shows nothing other than you are acting like an ass.

Excuse me? Who was it who began this conversation by arrogantly insulting anyone who doesn't see things like you do?

I have not read Micheal Martin...don’t really need to...if he is atheist he is wrong anyway.

This sums up your position pretty well: "I don't need to consider any other information, because I already know I'm right, therefore any other information is wrong."

By the way, "Michael" is spelled with the "a" before the "e."

Your position reminds me of what a friend of Ben Franklin's said to him once when he was a boy. He said, "Ben, because you think you already know it all, you'll never actually know much more than you do right now... which isn't very much."

Fortunately young Ben embraced the lesson and dropped the know-it-all attitude. In fact, it was rather a turning point for him.

The irony is that you appear unable to see your own ugly arrogance. It's even more ironic given that this thread's title also seems to be about arrogance, albeit from the atheist-->theist direction.

[aruanan]

By the way, "Michael" is spelled with the "a" before the "e."

Well, unless the parent doing the naming lived on the south side of Chicago.

[john in springfield]

Lol!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Dawkins is an idiot on religion.

He's an idiot on Darwinism too.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

These days they exchange the glory of the immortal God for the chance fairy.

[Wpin]

Again, you have written at length without saying a damn thing...it is obvious that you do not have a clue about the subject, that you are unwilling to learn about the subject to discuss it, and that you are incapable of intelligent conversation...if you wish to continue this at all, then go back to my posts and begin answering a couple basic questions. Otherwise, adios moron.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

In nothing I've said have I claimed that God doesn't exist.

It seems you are wasting the other poster's time. Earlier, you were saying something about the atheist "position". However, it now turns out (as we knew it would) that there is no position, merely the absence of a position on the existence of God. A cabbage is also an atheist in this sense. No need then for anyone to "argue against the athesit position" as you put it, since there is no such thing.

[john in springfield]

adios moron

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me regarding your arrogance.

By the way, I'm done with you. Have fun.

[Wpin]

btw, there are no credible people who could defend your arguments as well...so don’t feel alone.