This bitch is making me so angry

[herthab]

Bangkok, I repeat:

As for your comment:

Last sentence: 'How could somebody genuinely be that fucking thick?'

First sentence; 'Right now I feel as though I want to batter the fuck out of the dumb bitch cunt'

Oh dear, oh very dear indeed! Evoloution? 

-- What a completely cretinous comment, maybe you should embrace evoloution a little more because you clearly are a neanderthal throw-back, advocating violence against a woman.

I would suggest that taking anything posted on an internet forum, especially one that proclaims itself '80% Bollocks' is, in itself, retardation of epic proportions.

[shady]

Maybe where football's concerned, but it's a free-for-all where other things are considered, and I ain't a 'yes', 'amen', them 'stupid imbecile religeous type bigots' blah blah blah, easy target cretins

[BANGKOK RED]

......................

[herthab]

Well yes. Anyone that refutes scientific evidence in favour of religious mysticism is indeed an easy target.

Because they are wrong perhaps? 

[jonny72]

That clip is from his 2008 documentary series The Genius of Darwin. I didn't watch it, but I watched another one a few years back when he went to the bible belt in the USA and got exactly the same response from pretty much everyone.

Personally, I'd like to punch Dawkins on account of me failing to understand anything that he's ever written. His books are pushed as popular science but they went way over my head and I've read a fair bit on the subject before. Though I didn't get A Brief History of Time either and that was apparently physics for dummies. I must be thick. I'd still like to punch him though.

[shady]

Well done for creating   one of the most dumb witted, ignorant, rash, confoundedly divisive threads. Heh, i'm all for debate, but your opening stance is imbecilic in the extreme. Plead irony now, that's the default mode most fall back upon. Lame Brain.  

[shady]

I add my name to the list of those who'd like to slap Dawkins with a Arbroath Smokey around the bonce 

[BANGKOK RED]

That clip is from his 2008 documentary series The Genius of Darwin. I didn't watch it, but I watched another one a few years back when he went to the bible belt in the USA and got exactly the same response from pretty much everyone.

Personally, I'd like to punch Dawkins on account of me failing to understand anything that he's ever written. His books are pushed as popular science but they went way over my head and I've read a fair bit on the subject before. Though I didn't get A Brief History of Time either and that was apparently physics for dummies. I must be thick. I'd still like to punch him though.

Are you a religious man Jonny?

I look forward to your response because I am confident that whether or not you do, you will still give a reasoned response.

[reeves4england]

Plenty of people on here know my religious beliefs, but I assure you I'm going to try to approach this with my social scientist hat on...

The first thing to note is that the woman is clearly not a scientist, whereas Dawkins is. This means that she is approaching the subject with a very limited knowledge base. She is very dismissive of all the science that Dawkins claims is out there, yet cannot come up with any strong counterarguments beyond saying "what we believe is..." and highlighting mistakes from history.

Meanwhile, Dawkins has this disastrous inability to talk to anybody (who is not a serious academic) on their own level. He doesn't explain his points. He says that similarities in DNA are a proof of evolution, she doesn't see how, and with my limited knowledge of science I can't claim to see how it is proof, yet he doesn't explain it to her. He suggests an elementary text book on biology contains evidence for evolution, but she quite rightly points out it doesn't - they just tell us it exists. It is a well known fact that science taught to 11-16 year olds is largely watered down, to the extent that some of the things being taught are simplified to the point of becoming untrue.

One argument that the woman ignored completely was that science is not only refuted by science but also by the social sciences, which look at the political dimensions of all truth claims. In recent times this has been especially evident in the field of environmental research, and the same sort of examination can be applied to research on the origins of the human race.

Personally, I do not find Dawkins' argument in this video convincing as he fails to explain anything in any sort of depth. The woman provides no strong argument either, making it difficult to say either of them was particularly convincing. Saying she has been "brainwashed" and calling her "insane" is an equally blinkered view, coming from people who I am sure would consider themselves rational people, yet are drawing conclusions based on a very limited personal understanding of the science.

[herthab]

Fuck, the God Squad's arrived! That's it, I'm off! (Only joking Alex)

[BANGKOK RED]

Her argument is: "If there was proof, the there would be tonnes of evidence"

His argument is: "Guess what biatch, there is millions of tonnes of evidence"

She is asking for the evidence and he is presenting it. She is not even refuting the evidence, because she cannot. Rather she ignores it.

The closest she can come is the "missing links" and she failed miserably

[BANGKOK RED]

What is the missing link between 1 & 2..........

Answer is 1.5.

Not Good enough.

What is the missing link between 1 and 1.5

Answer is 1.25........

Not good enough.

A pattern is emerging, yeah?

[reeves4england]

Her argument is: "If there was proof, the there would be tonnes of evidence"

His argument is: "Guess what biatch, there is millions of tonnes of evidence"

She is asking for the evidence and he is presenting it. She is not even refuting the evidence, because she cannot. Rather she ignores it.

The closest she can come is the "missing links" and she failed miserably

Imagine this (slightly odd) scenario, if you will.

You meet a person who has never heard an argument for creation, and has never heard an argument for evolution, but has an ability to understand any scientific argument that is clearly and logically presented to them. Using only what Dawkins has said in that video, you must convince them that evolution is true. There is no way you could do it. He says 2 things. (1) The evidence is out there and (2) Similarities in DNA prove it.

For (1), Dawkins needs to actually explain his argument thoroughly - what evidence? where? how reliable? how does this prove her wrong? Admittedly this can't be done in a ten minute interview, but he doesn't do it outside of interviews. His quick turn to a "hidden motive" argument is quite typical - always examining the views of others rather than trying to convince them of his. For (2), as I said before, he gives no explanation and expects to be taken at his word.

[jonny72]

Are you a religious man Jonny?

I look forward to your response because I am confident that whether or not you do, you will still give a reasoned response.

Not at all. I'm 100% atheist. But I still think Dawkins is a cunt for being too fucking clever and writing stuff I don't get.

I tried reading The Selfish Gene years ago when I was studying for a Psychology degree and it was covered briefly in the course. It fucked with my head so much I believe it caused irreparable brain damage. I tried a few more of his books as well and the same shit happened. Which is my reasoning for thinking he's a cunt.

[Lumps]

Imagine this (slightly odd) scenario, if you will.

You meet a person who has never heard an argument for creation, and has never heard an argument for evolution, but has an ability to understand any scientific argument that is clearly and logically presented to them. Using only what Dawkins has said in that video, you must convince them that evolution is true. There is no way you could do it. He says 2 things. (1) The evidence is out there and (2) Similarities in DNA prove it.

For (1), Dawkins needs to actually explain his argument thoroughly - what evidence? where? how reliable? how does this prove her wrong? Admittedly this can't be done in a ten minute interview, but he doesn't do it outside of interviews. His quick turn to a "hidden motive" argument is quite typical - always examining the views of others rather than trying to convince them of his. For (2), as I said before, he gives no explanation and expects to be taken at his word.

You're right that he can't explain all the evidence there is for evolution in a five minute debate with a woman who in any case refuses to accept that evidence that he presents.

Fortunately he's written it all down in a book, that is pretty simple to understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The_Evidence_for_Evolution

I can't help but note that your posts seem to place much more of a requirement on Dawkins to justify his position and "prove her wrong" than on her to prove fucking anything.

There is obviously  NO fucking evidence that the world is only 10,000 years old, and that all the creatures still alive and in the fossil record were created in the same week and lived side by side up until the flood, because it's utter bollocks.

You can't disprove that kind of thought because it isn't based on reason and evidence.