What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
541 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+168I got tired of all the questions on morality. It's telling that the students from Liberty University didn't dare question Dawkins on evolution.
It's amazing how Christians change their tune in front of different audiences. In front of a lay audience, they will just say that evolution is a lie. In front of an intellectual like Dawkins, they don't even bring evolution up. - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1551) flawed premise
2) flawed premise
3) flawed premise
4) flawed premise
5) flawed premise
6) flawed premise
Now go read The Selfish Gene please. All your questions just proved ignorance on your part. Ignorance is proof of nothing at all, not even God. - omgitscolin, on 10/12/2007, -14/+128I heard the Earth was flat, too.
- molsen311, on 10/12/2007, -11/+120lol @ tedbrogan
he obviously doesn't understand that one can't argue against evolution if one doesn't understand it fully - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+124"Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people. Only almost and only slightly, however."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,303,Reading-of-The-God-Delusion-in-Lynchburg-VA,Richard-Dawkins--C-SPAN2 - saleem, on 10/12/2007, -8/+107@ tedbrogan
"3. Why aren't there any Fossils which support evolution? "
hahahaah WOW a multitude of fossils DO show the process of evolution. For instance, many birds have skeletal similarities to the reptiles that they came from. Fossils are one of the main PILLARS supporting evolution. - ltbarcly, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1031. False
2. False
3. False
4. False
5. False
6. False
Each of you 'questions' have a tacit or stated factual claim about the world. Each of these claims is false and unsubstantiated.
1. Claim: There are clearly defined 'creatures' and awkward transition periods between them. This presupposes the idea that the future 'creatures' are defined before they exist, and therefore there can be 'in-between' creatures that aren't really creatures themselves. This clearly shows that you don't really understand what you claim to demolish. Anyway, the obvious point you are missing is that 'in-between' creatures are just regular creatures, and that small changes add up over time to produce large differences. There aren't really different 'types' of creatures anyway, types are categories imposed by your brain to simplify the world so that you can reason about it. There are just a bunch of animals. I don't expect you to understand this.
2. Evolution easily explains all of these things, if you cared to actually read about it from a source other than your crazy religious zealot buddies. How does Jesus explain them? Oh, he doesn't. Faith is the end of explaining. It is unthinking belief in magical beings.
3. There are literally millions of fossils which support evolution. Any biologist will tell you that the fossil record completely conforms to what evolution predicts. The only people who say anything different are making religiously inspired videos, which you apparently take at face value.
4. This is just idiotic. Why do humans or bacteria have to evolve separately and then come together? There is no reason that our ancestors and the bacteria's ancestors didn't develop together. This isn't even sensible for you to bring up.
5. This is false and dishonest. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
6. We do see evolution happening today. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics very quickly. Larger animals cannot possibly change enough for us to notice in the span of the few hundred years which we have reliable records, so it isn't surprising that we don't notice any evolution happening among their populations. If you read Stephen Pinker or Jared Diamond's books you would find hundreds of pages of well thought out and convincing explanations (and factually substantiated) explanations of altruistic acts and love, among animals, primates, and humans.
It is pretty obvious you don't know anything about evolution, and even more obvious that you haven't actually read or studied it other than from dishonest and misleading Christian and church-funded disinformation campaigns. If you did, you wouldn't make such silly points which could be refuted by any first year student. You would be best served in telling people about your magical friend Jesus (who can walk on water, fly, and turn water into wine) in a forum in which you won't be rebutted immediately. - iching, on 10/12/2007, -12/+104I found many of the questions from the audience well thought out, which made the debate much more interesting than I had hoped to expect. The audio clarity was unusually good coming from youtube. Dawkins is an exceptional intellectual and I thought gracious speaker who needs to heard in a context such as this venue. I enjoyed this immensely thanks, well worth the time spent.
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -16/+103@flicknut
I doubt if the format would have been so gracious at Liberty University.
They obviously came to the speech thinking they were prepared, but sadly their God, their professor or their thought processes failed them against a real intellectual. - alski707, on 10/12/2007, -6/+86"Why does everyone call this guy a world leader of evolutionary biology LOL"
Read before you whine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Between 1967 and 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1970 he was appointed a lecturer and then in 1990 a reader in zoology at the University of Oxford, before becoming the University's first Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science in 1995. He has been a fellow of New College, Oxford since 1970.[7] He has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), T.H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), Tinbergen Lecture (2000), and the Tanner Lectures (2003).[6]
Dawkins has edited a number of journals and has acted as editorial advisor for several publications, including Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He writes a column for the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine and serves as a senior editor. He has also been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and serves as advisor for several other organisations. He has sat on numerous judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards.[6] In 2004 the Dawkins Prize – awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities"
In 1982, he made a major contribution to the science of evolution with the theory, presented in his widely cited book The Extended Phenotype,[1] that phenotypic effects are not limited to an organism's body but can stretch far into the environment, including into the bodies of other organisms.
So what are your qualifications in the subject of biology? - dinobot, on 10/12/2007, -13/+90The pot calling the kettle black?
Yeah, Evolution theory has its flaws but if you really believe in Creationism, you might as well believe incorporate Pastafarian concepts and conclude that global warming is caused by a lack of Pirates - Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -11/+811) "Diggers" love him so much because he is an atheist actually standing up for his belief. Namely, that there is no God. Anybody with a strong voice that a mass agrees with will get praise for the masses.
2) Yes, we give him much cookies. That's what the spaghetti monster said we had to do. - orgazmo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+73I knew some people in the States still did not believe in evolution, but University students, I'm speechless
- urineboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+67Ted,
The questions you are asking indicate that you have not taken the time to research the position of evolutionists before arguing against it. Obviously any genuine responses to your inquiries aren't going to have any value for you since you, as most others in your position, will discard any evidence that runs counter to your preconceived ideas. There is no point of a debate if no one listens. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+67That was so stupid that I can't even believe I read it. Nice copy and paste.
- Dainjah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+67Near the end of the video a questioner says Liberty 'University' has dinosaur bones that they claim to be between 3000-5000 years old. Pretty sad actually.
- xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+66Liberty U has dinosaur fossils on display they claim are 3 or 4 thousand years old...let's all join hands and mourn the death of rational thought.
- dinobot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+65A well prepared Liberty University student? Isn't that an oxymoron?
- Jaq524, on 10/12/2007, -8/+62@DogmaticAtheism
Short version: he basically pioneered the idea of gene-centric evolution. - Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57No, he's not. Don't mistake his fervor for faith. He backs up his claims with evidence, which is what religion, by most measures, does not.
- Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+57Since when did religion dictate how happy I was? I have plenty of other social institutions to keep me busy and allow for a warm, inviting setting. I don't need to go to a church and preach for hours to interact with people.
- blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -7/+54From Jerry Falwell's university. Automatic douchebags.
- carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49This is why you shouldn't get your science education in church.
- Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Some in the USA don't believe in Evolution?? In a recent survey the USA was only trailed by Turkey for disbelieving this fundamental Scientific concept. It doesn't help to have a president who suggest "Intelligent Design" should be taught in Science Classes.
- Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Paraphrasing Professor Dawkins - you're dying of cancer. Would you rather the doctor tell you a nice happy lie to comfort you and make you feel better, or the truth?
The whole "I'm-religious-because-the-thought-of-no-God-isn't-comforting" line is a load of bollocks. - mhockey14221, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42Yeah, youre right because evolution is a just a theory...
Versus a chapter out of a 5000 year old book - dinobot, on 10/12/2007, -24/+58Where is your GOD now!?
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35"On number 5... The magnetic field of the earth is not degrading - the poles are reversing once again like they have many, many times in the past 1000 years."
sorry, but you might want to look into that...North was still North 1000 years ago
but I'm sure you just missed a couple zeroes - orgazmo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36If a book says that the world was created 6000 years ago, and new discoveries and new technologies show that it clearly wasn't, then yah, what that book teaches might be wrong... no?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Atheism isn't a religion. It's a belief that there is no god. There are no stories behind it. Is that so hard to understand?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34As Dawkins states ad nauseum, just because you can't disprove the existence of something doesn't mean that there's a 50/50 chance that it exists. You can't disprove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
A Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same chance of existing as a god. There's no evidence for either. - Olle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Johnny, you just argued why one would want to be religious. And maybe religious people are happier. But so are people that are liquored up. Just because something makes you happy doesn't mean that it is right.
Also, you just told us that religion makes people happy and atheism makes people unhappy. So, who should one trust more? The ones that choose with the incentive, or the ones that choose against that incentive? The ones choosing with the incentive are more likely to lie to themselves. - lemenhir, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32No, people confuse this all the time. Evolution is fact. Just like gravity is fact. The Theory of Natural Selection is a theory, a rigorous explanation, just like Newton's and Einstein's Theories of Gravitation are theories.
Evolution, change through time, was well established fact well before Darwin. Darwin came up with "Evolution By Natural Selection" as the theory that best explained the observed facts and could be used to predict outcomes. It could be tested, and no test since 1859 has refuted it. That's why it eclipsed the various other theories for the mechanism of evolution that existed at that time. - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28I neither dugg you down, nor up. I was simply trying to get you to understand that the foremost scholar in any field will not always have answers for the toughest questions. This is why they continue to study to pursue the answers to the questions that even they can't answer.
Your quick dismissal of me as an 'idiot' only makes you look foolish, so I'll give you the short answer. Dawkins professed that he didn't know because he didn't. He gave a few theories, but didn't make any absolute statements. I'm sorry your need for an answer wasn't found here. I certainly hope you look beyond digg for the answers to the worlds oldest and deepest questions. - icecycles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30No matter who you are or what you believe, you have to respect Dawkins for at least taking his belief system, and looking at what his worldview says as a whole. Furthermore, he has the guts to dialog with people of different belief systems in a civilized fashion.
I'm a Christian, but I find the questions of the Liberty University students to be ridiculous, because they were clearly not even listening to what Dawkins was saying. How can they expect to dialog with him about issues if they pick one little sentence out and run with it? I doubt very seriously that they even read Dawkins book. They were ASKING for humiliation. - ltbarcly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24God doesn't exist whether evolution happens or not. Also, fairies and unicorns and zeus don't exist. How can any adult human not get this? Are you that afraid of dying that you would believe such insane stories based on nothing but old books (and not even all the old books, but rather picking and choosing). If so, please mail your money to me instead with a self addressed stamped envelope and I'll send you the instructions to live forever.
- highwebl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I spent the majority of my life agonizing over what I was missing because I couldn't, no matter how hard I tried, believe in God. I let it go. I'm a lot happier now.
- Jack000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23to believe that one can believe in religion and science simultaneously is to believe that god is outside the rules of reality - which it certainly has to be if the literal representation of religion is true.
I also believe that Dawkins addressed this point in the video. - danandre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22The idea of finding comfort in God, is in reality the same as saying you find comfort in smoking.
It's like an addiction that is caused because of enforced beliefs transferred from your parents which again is ported from your descendants etc. If you grew up, never knowing about God, you wouldn't crave "him".
Thats what I think. - xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Debating about religion is the same as being racist? Are you calling atheists bigots? Yes, religion should be kept private, but the religious ideas one has affects one's judgement and decisions, thereby making religion public, whether it is intended to be or not. Private matters are not open for debate, but anything within the public eye is subject to debate.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -16/+35Its not faith. It is fact. (evolution)
- jnosanov, on 10/12/2007, -14/+33Regarding Dawkins sounding like a jackass... atheists often sound holier-than-thou (pun intended!) because to be an athiest is to completely close your mind off to an entire category of solutions. That category is the supernatural. Whenever one side of a conversation applies a rigorous scientific thought process to everything he says, he generally speaks with a great conviction and clarity that far exceeds his counterpart. A third party can easily mistake this for cocky behavior.
It is no such thing: it is simply the result of thinking carefully about everything you think and say. - ltbarcly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21It's easy to refuse to debate when you believe magical ghost stories that intelligent people have laughed at for hundreds of years are facts. (Suffering exists because a man ate an apple because a snake told him too. A flood killed everyone except one family who had 2 of every animal in a boat built during a period in which the largest boats are barely big enough for a few dozen humans, which one man build by himself because a voice told him to. A woman was turned into salt for looking at a burning city. A man can fly directly to heaven. God looks just like people and can read your mind and doesn't like you to have an orgasm around certain people or even with people he approves of until certain rites have been performed by a priest, and doesn't want you to have an orgasm by yourself at all, ever.)
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21*hypothesis
- shortcircuit13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19He says "it's a difficult question" because:
1. There is not universally "right" morality. For example, even "Thou shalt not kill" is a crappy moral if taken absolutely.
2. The answer would require an explanation of anthropological development, the rise of organized social infrastructures, and the biological bases (self-preservation, kin altruism, etc.) behind the formation of common social morals.
Even a cursory answer would require several lengthy paragraphs. - ltbarcly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Yes! You should realize that you also just disproved all religion and all existence.
God exists, therefore he cannot have come from nothing. So you're little nice sounding phrase just pushes the explanation onto some mysterious super-magic-man and gets us nowhere.
Thanks for trying, but I'm going to have to give you a D-. - lahar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18About magnetic field reversals:
"Reversals have been documented as far back as 330 million years. During that time more than 400 reversals have taken place, one roughly every 700,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is not constant, varying from less than 100,000 years, to tens of millions of years. In recent geological times reversals have been occurring on average once every 200,000 years, but the last reversal occurred 780,000 years ago. At that time the magnetic field underwent a transition from a "reversed" state to its present "normal state"."
From: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php - Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"It is one thing to deny a deity, it is another to preach that denial as absolute truth."
He doesn't. He says it's very very improbable. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Quotes from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." -
Show 51 - 100 of 568 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is