Will Richard Dawkins ever debate Will...
Chimney

Dubai, UAE

#204 Oct 23, 2011
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you haven't noticed,you're arguing with yourself since I've limited my comments to Dawkins personality traits and Craigs debating prowess. Care to comment on that? I don't think you will be able to fit "bronze age" or "fairy tale" into that reply.
So you are only interested in seeing a clever debater humble a person you find unpleasant. Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one whit. Dawkins could go down in a debate to a fifth grade debating team and the huge pile of independently corroborating evidence for evolution would still be there, making a mockery of creationist claims.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#205 Oct 24, 2011
Subduction Zone wrote:
Unless there is some valid reason to think otherwise the answer is yes. No one has provided a valid reason. And you seem to think that man is being accused of some sort of crime because they are related to chimps. There is no crime in being related to another animal, it is only a fact. Alibis are used in criminal cases.
You are not questioning the current scientific nature of research. You are questioning the scientific method of the last 150 years. If you don't like the answers that are found in science the process is an open one. Do some research, or find some research, that supports your doubts. It is a simple enough of a request. It is strange that creationists refuse to do the any research to back up their claims.
Indeed alibis are used in criminal cases but that's exactly what you are after here, an alibi. You are presenting evidence that man is guilty of speciating from chimps. That evidence is subject to opinions and beliefs. This case only exists because majority of the scientific community BELIEVE it is true.

In reality, only a small portion of that majority have seen even a tiny amount of the evidence, the rest have seen nothing but testimonies. So in all aspects this is just a criminal case. It does not differ from it in any manner.

It also now seems to be the case that you assert that the claim must be true until proven otherwise. So your case is not really certain but what you want in order to dismiss it is certain proof that your case is false. There have been a lot of evidence presented against the theory of evolution, but it means nothing to you because it is not ABSOLUTE.

So in essence you want your case to hold without absolute proof, but to dismiss your case you need absolute proof. No wonder so many scientists are chasing only dreams. They just cling to their theories because they so much want to believe they are true.

---

Now. If you claim that any phenomenon found in some number of species must also happen in all species. How many species do you first have to test that with before you can make that claim?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#206 Oct 24, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in that case point them out! Let's see if I run away. I have a pretty solid case why and how the universe was caused.
Hypothesis:
The dude can not find a single paradox in my beliefs.
I am ready to observe. The ball is in YOUR COURT!
You may stick around but you won't deal. So yeah, you'll run away. So here's a few off the top of my head:

You're an anti-science creationist meaning that you reject reality in favour of your beliefs.

You are a nihilist and believe nothing is objective, therefore nothing is ever knowable, except for the voices in your head which tell the "humble bro" the "TRUTH!" Amen.

You reject evolution yet you believe all individuals are related to just 8 people on a boat, and then again from just 2 people at the time of abiogenesis, therefore you accept evolution.

You have a problem with science even though you don't understand it in the slighest and don't care either because of your religious beliefs.

You claim to be humble yet you have access to special religious knowledge others are not aware of despite the fact you have no more special access to any knowledge base that anyone else does. Not surprisingly no-one else really cares about that special visitation you had by the Creator of the universe in your bedroom.

You have told people they're going to hell for the sin of simply disagreeing with your religious beliefs, despite the fact that God warned you not to do that otherwise you might go to hell.

If you have a solid case for the causation of the universe you will have something that no other cosmologist, philosopher or creationist in history has ever had, yet despite this it is highly likely you will go down in world history as just another corpse a trillion times less famous than Accrington Stanley.
humble brother wrote:
So which one is false?
1. that you think evolution occurs in populations of the living
2. that you think evolution can be observed from individuals of the dead
3. or that you believe in evolution as the cause for existence of all species
Three is described a bit iffy, but number two is false - the reason being you are completely ignorant of the theory you attempt to critique.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#207 Oct 24, 2011
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Madrone was merely cleaning up your misleading language. If you give people false choices you shouldn't complain when those choices are amended so that they are correct. It may be because English is not your first language, but I doubt that. It seems to me that you try to give these false choices on purpose.
While he is certainly guilty of that, part of the problem is that he really doesn't have no clue as to what he's talking about (nor has he even bothered to understand either), so often he speaks purely out of ignorance.

Not that I'm sticking up for him or anything, he is still your bog-standard dishonest lying fundie for Jesus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#208 Oct 24, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence is there that the phenomenon of speciation happens to ALL populations of organisms that are defined as separate species?
Which types have been observed to speciate?
Ring species, DNA, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, orthologous ERV's.

You've ran away from all these and more besides in the past, there's no reason for you not to do so again.

So why not cut all the BS and just say you don't believe in evolution cuz the Bible sez Goddidit with magic? It's not like we both don't know that's the basic core of your beefs.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#209 Oct 24, 2011
humble brother wrote:
I make no claims. I believe there's a possibility that evolution has indeed happened. I am only questioning the current scientific nature of the research.
No you're not.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#210 Oct 24, 2011
humble brother wrote:
Indeed alibis are used in criminal cases but that's exactly what you are after here, an alibi. You are presenting evidence that man is guilty of speciating from chimps. That evidence is subject to opinions and beliefs. This case only exists because majority of the scientific community BELIEVE it is true.
False. The case exists because the theory makes successful predictions based on the evidence, which creationism does not and cannot do. It's quite happy to take credit after the fact though even though they hadn't done any work.(shrug)
humble brother wrote:
In reality, only a small portion of that majority have seen even a tiny amount of the evidence, the rest have seen nothing but testimonies. So in all aspects this is just a criminal case. It does not differ from it in any manner.
It also now seems to be the case that you assert that the claim must be true until proven otherwise. So your case is not really certain but what you want in order to dismiss it is certain proof that your case is false.
No, evolution has been demonstrated over 150 years of research. The problem is that creationists have not been able to falsify it. Interestingly, not only does the theory work in a scientific context, but also when brought to court by the fundies, your pals always "forget" to present the evidence against evolution, so you lose there too. So what else can you guys do except whine about the evolutionist conspiracy or argue for nihilism?
humble brother wrote:
There have been a lot of evidence presented against the theory of evolution, but it means nothing to you because it is not ABSOLUTE.
But it IS absolute. Absolute crapp. Once your boys stop coming out with absolute crapp and bring some valid evidence then you'll be taken seriously.(shrug)
humble brother wrote:
So in essence you want your case to hold without absolute proof, but to dismiss your case you need absolute proof. No wonder so many scientists are chasing only dreams. They just cling to their theories because they so much want to believe they are true.
Sure, that's the nice bedtime story you guys tell yourselves at night to make you feel better, but in reality it's a straw-man version of the situation.
humble brother wrote:
Now. If you claim that any phenomenon found in some number of species must also happen in all species. How many species do you first have to test that with before you can make that claim.
Again, you're being disingenuous here. If we haven't tested every single organism on Earth (either current or past) then evolution can't be "proved". Doesn't work that way. Fact is that evolution is demonstrable and if you think that something out there contradicts it it's up to YOU to go and find it. That's the whole point of falsifiability. Evolution is falsifiable. So you need to find that one chimp which only shares 6% of our DNA, or that silicon-based tiger shark, or that ever evasive pre-Cambrian rabbit.

Off you trot then.

Remember bub, we don't need to convince YOU, you're beyond saving anyway.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#211 Oct 26, 2011
The Dude wrote:
Ring species, DNA, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, orthologous ERV's.
You've ran away from all these and more besides in the past, there's no reason for you not to do so again.
So why not cut all the BS and just say you don't believe in evolution cuz the Bible sez Goddidit with magic? It's not like we both don't know that's the basic core of your beefs.(shrug)
Ring species: protective reproductive breaks inside species
DNA: This is the same thing as with fossils, assumptions on top of assumptions
Comparative anatomy: you mean that where the scientists can not really agree what goes where?
ERVs: Can viruses become endogenous separately for each species? Answer: YES.

I can only smile at your responses. I haven't ran away from anything. I just have quite a lot of things to do currently. Expect total destruction for all these silly "scientific" endeavors.

Nested hierarchies seem interesting. I think I will take a look at what you people have got.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#212 Oct 26, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
....I can only smile at your responses.....
I know that smile. I often see it on the face of undocumented immigrants when I ask them a question in English.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#213 Oct 26, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
I know that smile. I often see it on the face of undocumented immigrants when I ask them a question in English.
They are meek. If you only knew how much they actually have it better than you. Money is a deception. It shall be ripped away from you soon. You don't have to wait long, the time is near.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#214 Oct 26, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ring species: protective reproductive breaks inside species
Senseless. Protecting what for what purpose?
humble brother wrote:
DNA: This is the same thing as with fossils, assumptions on top of assumptions
Absurd. DNA is a measure of relationship. If you are correct you should be able to present evidence of offspring with totally different DNA from that of its biological parents.
humble brother wrote:
Comparative anatomy: you mean that where the scientists can not really agree what goes where?
Total misunderstanding of the concept.
humble brother wrote:
ERVs: Can viruses become endogenous separately for each species? Answer: YES.
Again, a misunderstanding of the concept. Why are they endogenous? Because they are inherited by the offspring, the resulting marker therefore will be at the same position along the genome. Ergo, common descent. But you STILL have not addressed why all the great apes share hundreds and thousands of ERV's at orthologous positions.
humble brother wrote:
I can only smile at your responses.
Of course. Because we both know your bllshitting your way through this without even grasping what it is I'm talking about.
humble brother wrote:
I haven't ran away from anything. I just have quite a lot of things to do currently.
Returning back here with smart-alec responses is still running away as you haven't dealt with anything. I wasn't talking about your few days absence, I'm talking about the fact that you still haven't addressed these things since I pointed them out months ago. Urban Cowboy has been running away for a year, but he still posts here.
humble brother wrote:
Expect total destruction for all these silly "scientific" endeavors.
Hey, the entire world is waiting for you. So when you go on TV in a few months and dazzle the entire scientific world and end up on the cover of Time for utterly shredding the biological theory of evolution, you will come back and tell us that this guy is your good humble self, yes?
humble brother wrote:
Nested hierarchies seem interesting. I think I will take a look at what you people have got.
No you won't. It's not like you've bothered to look at the rest.(shrug)
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#215 Oct 26, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ring species: protective reproductive breaks inside species
A simplistic, made up out of thin air, personal opinion for which you have NO research, empirical evidence or sound science in support ... in other words ... totally worthless.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>DNA: This is the same thing as with fossils, assumptions on top of assumptions
This would be a LIE!

Over a hundred years of genetic research makes you a LIAR.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>Comparative anatomy: you mean that where the scientists can not really agree what goes where?
That would be YOUR problem, NOT that of comparative anatomists. Just because YOU only look at something for 5 seconds and don't see "what goes where" does NOT mean that scientists do.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>ERVs: Can viruses become endogenous separately for each species? Answer: YES.
This would be a LIE!

And merely demonstrates that you don't know anything about orthologous ERV's.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>I can only smile at your responses. I haven't ran away from anything. I just have quite a lot of things to do currently. Expect total destruction for all these silly "scientific" endeavors.
Better minds than YOU have FAILED to do so for over 150 years. Heck, you and your ilk have 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE on your resume.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>Nested hierarchies seem interesting. I think I will take a look at what you people have got.
Don't bother. It's way beyond your comprehension and it's not like anyone expects a "fundamentalist christian creationist" to be able to learn anything scientific.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#216 Oct 26, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
They are meek. If you only knew how much they actually have it better than you. Money is a deception. It shall be ripped away from you soon. You don't have to wait long, the time is near.
Ah! Arrogant Ass is back. How nice.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#217 Mar 4, 2013
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are only interested in seeing a clever debater humble a person you find unpleasant. Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one whit. Dawkins could go down in a debate to a fifth grade debating team and the huge pile of independently corroborating evidence for evolution would still be there, making a mockery of creationist claims.
Craig is not a creationist as you would label him and Dawkins is ANYTHING but humble.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#218 Mar 5, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig is not a creationist as you would label him and Dawkins is ANYTHING but humble.
Who cares? Craig is a philosopher and apologist. His opinions are utterly irrelevant.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#219 Mar 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares? Craig is a philosopher and apologist. His opinions are utterly irrelevant.
However, his opinion that the slaughter of the Canaanites was justified does say something about the man.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#220 Mar 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
However, his opinion that the slaughter of the Canaanites was justified does say something about the man.
Which happens to be the same attitude expressed by most fundies - doesn't matter how nasty it is, if God does it it's good. Same line of thinking as we find in some parts of the Middle East even today, the 21st century.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#221 Mar 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares? Craig is a philosopher and apologist. His opinions are utterly irrelevant.
Hmmm Richard is that you? lol. What an illuminating respose.
LGK

Shrewsbury, UK

#222 Mar 31, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Which of Dawkin's books have you read?
"The God Delusion." It's a rant that made arche atheist Michael Schermer cringe.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#223 Mar 31, 2013
What's the "code", El?

Take your time, El.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr lozzza 19,050
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chimney1 164,217
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Tue Gillette 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Tue DanFromSmithville 141,352
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 25 UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
More from around the web