Richard Dawkins

What he says is absolute truth. If you deny provable fact, you are ignorant.

Comment by Strega on February 26, 2013 at 2:27pm

So you are saying that Intelligent design and evolution are both wrong?  Write a book!  You may have a bit of an uphill struggle persuading some 97% of scientists that they are wrong, but since you feel it is "simple", perhaps not.

Comment by onyango makagutu on February 26, 2013 at 2:43pm

Milos, I found the last link in first list most useful. The rest are full of so much biology for my tired brain

Comment by Jivko Jeliazkov on February 26, 2013 at 3:06pm

Irreducible complexity means that a complex organ like an eye cannot function without even one of its parts. According to Darwin's theory the changes are very subtle and happen over long periods of time. If this is true, a complex organ cannot evolve because it will not function for several billions of years while evolving to a certain goal (the fully formed organ).

But you will disagree automatically. Okay, I'm gonna bring in physics then - Darwin's theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that every system left on its own tends to disorder. And this is a law, not simply a theory. This contradiction is admitted by evolutionist scientists.

But after all why should I give evidence to disprove a theory? This again reminds me of Christians - asking atheists for evidence god doesn't exist.

Comment by Emperor Milos on February 26, 2013 at 3:11pm

But after all why should I give evidence to disprove a theory? This again reminds me of Christians - asking atheists for evidence god doesn't exist.

You obviously don't know what "theory" means in science. You do know that gravity is "just a theory" too.

You also remind me of a christian. Using big words and science terms to support an argument based on nonsense.

This law states that every system left on its own tends to disorder. And this is a law, not simply a theory. This contradiction is admitted by evolutionist scientists.

Links to scientists saying this, please.

Once again you miss the entire point. If you want a discussion, bring your evidence. Otherwise you are just throwing random words at the wall and hoping something has enough bullshit on it to stick.

Will not fly on this forum.

Comment by Simon Paynton on February 26, 2013 at 3:16pm

"Irreducible complexity simply shows that Darwin's evolution theory cannot be true. That's it. If you can't understand this, I can't help you."

But complexity is not irreducible.  In theory, there are ways for it to evolve a bit at a time through the cooperation and coevolution of separate parts. 

I wish Mr Dawkins would give it a rest, but that's another matter.  All he does is 1) make enemies; 2) slap his friends on the back; 3) go round in little circles; 4) shout; 5) not listen; 6) not think.  He should definitely stick to biology, at which he is brilliant. 

"why should I give evidence to disprove a theory?"

I know you're trolling us now.  The thing is, if religion tries to fight science using science, it can never win, because religion is not science.  Just as when science tries to fight its own straw-man version of religion, again using science - a total mis-match and pointless waste of time and missing of the point. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on February 26, 2013 at 3:18pm

"a complex organ like an eye cannot function without even one of its parts."

It's possible to have a rudimentary eye and then for this to evolve into a better eye. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on February 26, 2013 at 3:20pm

Intermediate forms - evolution is thought to happen in jumps and starts.  Natural selection happens because of the environment, and the environment does not change smoothly - it changes in jumps and starts.  Hence the comparatively sudden appearance of new species.  And there are TONS of intermediate forms in the fossil record. 

Comment by Jivko Jeliazkov on February 26, 2013 at 3:21pm

Why don't you comment irreducible complexity? Which part of what I said contradicts logic?

There's a Law of Gravity, have you ever heard of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

And I'm not aware of Law of Evolution :)

Evolutionist Roger Lewin in an article in Science called 'A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity':

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.

Comment by Simon Paynton on February 26, 2013 at 3:22pm

In other words - give it up, and stick to what you're good at, and we're bad at.  Evolution is here to stay, your God made it - you need to accommodate this, or get left behind. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on February 26, 2013 at 3:27pm

"Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order."

The great, interesting and fun Brian Cox was saying recently that living organisms borrow order from the environment so that they can function (eg. food, light, air), and excrete disorder (eg. heat).  So that answers your question.  Again, All Things Bright and Beautiful.  I see no contradiction.  You do yourself a great disservice if you try and mix up the two domains. 

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 13 minutes ago. 124 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service