Richard Dawkins - Too much Sherry

[Sliver]

So we're going to start violating the 1st/2nd laws of thermodynamics to make evolution more plausible...

So how about those perpetual motion devices, then? Can't discredit them anymore if we're accepting that energy can arise from nothingness.

What you define as 'nothingness' is probably not what Professor Lawrence Krauss is talking about. It's too complicated to get into briefly here, but what Krauss refers to as empty space, actually weighs something, it can be measured. Particles can appear in the vacuum and then vanish. There is a lecture he gives on YouTube where he explains the theory and demonstrates some of it with mathematics and references to experiments that have been carried out which appear to back up his theory. Or you could just buy his book.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Reminds me of this. I love this show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDmQINlntJ4

 

[Sliver]

Reminds me of this. I love this show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDmQINlntJ4

That's a great clip. I tune in to TAE every Sunday night, been doing so for years. Brilliant show.

 

[D.P.]

Evolutionists can't account for where matter/energy came from, so what's the difference?

That isn't the task thy are researching, that is for the physicists and is an entirely different question.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

That's a great clip. I tune in to TAE every Sunday night, been doing so for years. Brilliant show.

I don't know man. They're deeply incompotent when it comes to producing a programme! I do watch it occasionally, but there's so much drivel.

 

[D.P.]

I don't agree with you there. We have evolved to be spectacularly good at certain things. I've caught myself many times saying or thinking "it's likely that was so well designed" when I've looked at something like a venus fly trap, or the thumb.

I'm not surprised for a second that people believe in intelligent design. Both intelligent design and evolution have the same end goal, for everything to be optimised for its environment. It's not until you look at it in depth that you realise that we weren't always like we are now.

The stupid component is that people think we came from Adam and Eve and that the earth isn't that old.

There are also plenty of examples of incredibly stupid design that even the laziest mech engineer with a 2.2 from an ex-poly could do a better job at designing a solution for after a 6-pack and a few shots.



it is a bit if a misnomer that evolution tries to optimize things. Darwin never said survival of the fittest, and evolutionary biologist will strangely you if you mutter those words. Evolution is about elimination of those that fail to reproduce., whcih in-part explains the wide bio-diversity.

 

[Sliver]

I don't know man. They're deeply incompotent when it comes to producing a programme! I do watch it occasionally, but there's so much drivel.

Well the show does hinge largely on the callers. In recent years, less theist callers seem to phone in which is a shame as they tend to provide the best debates. It's also fun when trolls call in as they can provide some funny moments. Since they've lost the main studio the production is a bit on the fly as they struggle with glitches but that's the nature of public access TV I guess. It also helps when you have the better hosts like Matt and Tracy as they are superb at tearing down fallacies and getting to the crux of an argument. I'm a die hard fan and tune in every week regardless.

 

[FoxEye]

Telling a kid santa is real... is whole different level to
Santa is real and if you don't believe it you will burn for eternity...

THAT'S The problem with religion.

Certain people are assuming I don't have a problem with religious teachings, and I can assure you I do Religion has been used as a form of control and oppression, and I'm very much against that.

I'd like to keep thinking about "intelligent design", and ask a question. Who would agree with the following statement?

"I am sure that intelligent design, in all its forms and guises, is a myth and did not happen."

There is no "God" in that question. I have deliberately kept the question vague, so as to include many, many different possibilities.

If you agree with the statement, you are basically saying that life on Earth was 100% accidental, and potentially went completely unobserved (if indeed there is anything bar us in the universe to observe it!)

So who would agree with that statement, in full certainty that all intelligent design theories are incorrect?

 

[MrRoper]

Certain people are assuming I don't have a problem with religious teachings, and I can assure you I do Religion has been used as a form of control and oppression, and I'm very much against that.

I'd like to keep thinking about "intelligent design", and ask a question. Who would agree with the following statement?

"I am sure that intelligent design, in all its forms and guises, is a myth and did not happen."

There is no "God" in that question. I have deliberately kept the question vague, so as to include many, many different possibilities.

If you agree with the statement, you are basically saying that life on Earth was 100% accidental, and potentially went completely unobserved (if indeed there is anything bar us in the universe to observe it!)

So who would agree with that statement, in full certainty that all intelligent design theories are incorrect?

Im guessing no one would if the proposition is so vague

 

[FoxEye]

Im guessing no one would if the proposition is so vague

You'd be surprised, then.

But if you were to throw away the Bible, the Qu'ran and just ask "Could there have been some kind of intelligent design?" it's perfectly plausible.

No it isn't, not at all.

All the evidence shows that life has evolved by itself, and has not been intelligently designed by anyone, or anything.

 

[Felon]

I don't agree with you there. We have evolved to be spectacularly good at certain things. I've caught myself many times saying or thinking "it's likely that was so well designed" when I've looked at something like a venus fly trap, or the thumb.

If you take a cursory glance at life and conclude that design is plausible, that's a bit like looking across the horizon and saying the earth is flat, both ideas appear to work.

However, the difference is evidence - when you look at nature and physical law, not only is there zero evidence for design, but the designer itself is not a required component - simply, there is no missing block where the designer should go, nature has it all figured out fine by itself.

If you look at the forces which produce things, for example an ice crystal:



Looks designed, looks almost perfect - but the physical processes which form ice crystals are random and don't have any guidance, it simply boils down to atoms behaving in a certain way, obeying physical laws, over and over.

Brownian motion is also interesting, the way molecules in liquid simply move around by themselves, can give rise to all manner of biological complexity over time, however the motion that occurs with these molecules is no different to throwing a dice, each movement is random - like a random walk, except when this goes on over time, you end up with changes, no designer is present (this is known, because all of these processes are random and unguided, which wouldn't be the case if a designer or architect was involved)

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Are there any theories that account for energy spontaneously coming into existence from nothingness?

String theory.

 

[estebanrey]

I don't agree with you there. We have evolved to be spectacularly good at certain things. I've caught myself many times saying or thinking "it's likely that was so well designed" when I've looked at something like a venus fly trap, or the thumb.

I see your 'thumb' and I raise you these (and this is just the human body)...

*In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

*In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby's head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby, or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

*In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.

*The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

*The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this "oversight".

*The human appendix is a vestigial organ with no known purpose.[citation needed] However, appendicitis, an infection of this useless organ, is a certain death without medical intervention.

Then there's that nerve that Dawkins often cites that goes a ridiculously long way around your body when it could just go straight to the organ it needs to.

If the human bosy was 'designed', it's designer wasn't that intelligent.

 

[RDM]

Evolutionists can't account for where matter/energy came from, so what's the difference?

Is this going to be another one of those threads where a religious person deliberately misrepresents what evolution is so they can try and argue against it?

Evolution does not concern itself on where matter/energy comes from, that is a physics question. Evolution is only concerned with the diversity of life not its origins.

 

[Bassmansam]

Just coming in here to say it was great to see Dick Dawkins on stage with Nightwish on Saturday

 

[D.P.]

I see your 'thumb' and I raise you these (and this is just the human body)...



Then there's that nerve that Dawkins often cites that goes a ridiculously long way around your body when it could just go straight to the organ it needs to.

If the human bosy was 'designed', it's designer wasn't that intelligent.

A 30 second look at a vertebrate eye and you realize how retarded this great "intelligent" designer must have been to design an eye inside out and have all the nerves and blood vessels in front of the retina and then make a big whole for the nerves to go through.

 

[asim18]

Evolutionists can't account for where matter/energy came from, so what's the difference?

If you want to say that "energy has always existed", then how is that different from saying "God has always existed".

Are there any theories that account for energy spontaneously coming into existence from nothingness?

The difference is that energy physically exists, is measurable, observable, quantifiable, and so on.

God is literally nothing more than a figment at this present time. I mean there is no evidence to suggest the existence of God.

The only thing you can do is assume that if something sparked the Big Bang, that this something was somehow "intelligent".

Whatever has happened after the big bang has never been influenced by a God and people need to stop assuming that. God certainly hasn't beamed down a load of books to a few "special" individuals so it gives them a reason to want to scare people into doing things the way they want, build followers and armies, conquer land, and spread what is simply a population control method. OK yeah some religions focus on other things like minding your own business rather than other people's, but that simply proves what Gods and religions are, a figment.

 

[Hellsmk2]

You're not special, depsite what he's told you.

Being Catholic, loads of boys know him "personally".



Like the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas?

Remind me the last time you read a story about someone killing in their names.

 

[~>Dg<~]

The difference is that energy physically exists, is measurable, observable, quantifiable, and so on.

God is literally nothing more than a figment at this present time. I mean there is no evidence to suggest the existence of God.

The only thing you can do is assume that if something sparked the Big Bang, that this something was somehow "intelligent".

Whatever has happened after the big bang has never been influenced by a God and people need to stop assuming that. God certainly hasn't beamed down a load of books to a few "special" individuals so it gives them a reason to want to scare people into doing things the way they want, build followers and armies, conquer land, and spread what is simply a population control method. OK yeah some religions focus on other things like minding your own business rather than other people's, but that simply proves what Gods and religions are, a figment.

what was that film again with the bookcase ?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Remind me the last time you read a story about someone killing in their names.

What?