Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[JoeEllison]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

 

[cyborg]

Well when you see that pattern of lies enough times you tend to doubt the sincerity of the one producing it.

Hmm... almost as if we were being skeptical about it?

Whodathunkit?

 

[JoeEllison]

Well when you see that pattern of lies enough times you tend to doubt the sincerity of the one producing it.

Hmm... almost as if we were being skeptical about it?

Whodathunkit?

Wait, hold on... aren't we being awfully closed-minded, by not giving each person the benefit of the doubt, even though they are repeating the same old lie as the last hundred or so people who have started threads on this topic? I mean, for real, every time someone says that the earth is flat, we are open-minded and assume that they might be right...

...wait...

... that would be pretty stupid of us, that's why we don't do it!

 

[articulett]

I have never heard an actual lifelong atheist/evolutionist use that terminology.

In fact, I don't think I've heard an evolution supporter call themselves an evolutionist... it would be like those who accept gravity calling themselves a Newtonist...

I've heard Dawkins referred as an "evolutionary biologist"-- by his colleagues. But evolutionist? The vast majority of people on this forum understand and accept evolution-- have any of you ever referred to yourself as an "evolutionist"? How about "lifelong atheist"? Even if you never had a belief in god-- have you ever described yourself as a lifelong atheist? And in what context?

It reminds me of the Jonbenet ransom note that opens with "we are a small foreign faction"-- what group describes themselves as a "foreign faction"? Foreign is a term used for "others"--not groups that include yourself.

 

[articulett]

Wait, hold on... aren't we being awfully closed-minded, by not giving each person the benefit of the doubt, even though they are repeating the same old lie as the last hundred or so people who have started threads on this topic? I mean, for real, every time someone says that the earth is flat, we are open-minded and assume that they might be right...

...wait...

... that would be pretty stupid of us, that's why we don't do it!

Well, we can give them points for bravado and conviction and using some intelligent segues... but not for originality. Some people are fabulous to talk to... and some people are easier to talk about.

 

[sol invictus]

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

Yes, that's an obvious starting point. But one might want instead to use the sequence of codons (three base-pair sequences coding for a particular amino acid). But there are synonymous codons (several may code for the same AA) - should we take that into account? How about so-called "junk" DNA, which doesn't code for any proteins? (Recently it's been realized that it may be extremely important, because it affects the shape of the DNA molecule, which in turn can effect which genes are active.) What about DNA sequences with more than one frame (the same sequence offset by one base-pair can code for two different AA sequences), which some viruses employ? Etc. etc....

It's a fascinating field, but it's nowhere near convergence on these questions.

 

[JoeEllison]

It reminds me of those people who go on Fox "News" claiming to be "lifelong Democrats", who then disagree with Democrats on every single issue imaginable, and agree with every comment from all but the most very extreme right-wing Republicans.

It is a way for liars to try to cover their lie by pretending that they are not driven by their real ideology, by claiming to be the opposite of what they really are.

 

[sol invictus]

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so.

Sorry, but the fact that information in the genome is a valid area of inquiry doesn't mean their question was sensible - it wasn't. And "pathetic" referred not to that, but to the fact that a pause in answering a question is regarded as a discredit to Dawkins.

If that's the best you creationists can do, that's utterly pathetic.

 

[articulett]

Yes, that's an obvious starting point. But one might want instead to use the sequence of codons (three base-pair sequences coding for a particular amino acid). But there are synonymous codons (several may code for the same AA) - should we take that into account? How about so-called "junk" DNA, which doesn't code for any proteins? (Recently it's been realized that it may be extremely important, because it affects the shape of the DNA molecule, which in turn can effect which genes are active.) What about DNA sequences with more than one frame (the same sequence offset by one base-pair can code for two different AA sequences), which some viruses employ? Etc. etc....

It's a fascinating field, but it's nowhere near convergence on these questions.

The question presumes that information has to do with the number of genes or whatever. Yet humans have much smaller genomes than amphibians and Oak trees and rice plants. It's not numbers... that's like saying more ingredients make the recipe better. You would have to say exactly what is meant by information as Dawkins notes. If we are talking about higher functioning-- then that has more to do with pruning and regulation that adding codons.

 

[Dick Atkinson]

Lifelong Atheist/Evolutionist

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

No - there's a bunch of you. You don't really need science, since you know things without evidence. Meanwhile, I was brought up an atheist, I have lived for 60 years as an atheist, and that's just a fact.

As for the shorthand "Evolutionist", I mean I believe in evolution, trilobites, dinosaurs, hominins, the lot. If there was a god, why would he waste his time writing lies into rocks? (Or enjoying the grovelling subservience of intelligent beings.) But, Hell, you know best. What religion do you suggest I take up? I quite fancy Judaism, apart from the circumcision and the god stuff.

 

[articulett]

No - there's a bunch of you. You don't really need science, since you know things without evidence. Meanwhile, I was brought up an atheist, I have lived for 60 years as an atheist, and that's just a fact.

As for the shorthand "Evolutionist", I mean I believe in evolution, trilobites, dinosaurs, hominins, the lot. If there was a god, why would he waste his time writing lies into rocks? (Or enjoying the grovelling subservience of intelligent beings.) But, Hell, you know best. What religion do you suggest I take up? I quite fancy Judaism, apart from the circumcision and the god stuff.

Actually it is evidence which makes us suspect people who speak as you do. We get a lot of "intelligent design proponents" that sound, well, like you. You use the exact creationist talking points. You seem to act like you understand evolution, but you don't understand why it was a bad question. And then the silly canard about most mutations being deleterious... so what- you have trillions of cells in your own body-- and trillions of microrgansims that are their own body too inside your body--all replicating-- you don't think somethings going to be an improvement with all that replication and mutation going on? It only takes one to move evolution one step further and multiply exponentially. See hox genes. And then the point mutation canard. If you are interested in evolution, then why haven't you kept up to date on the many ways information in genomes is known to have evolved over time? You can thank Kleinman for us associating the point mutation canard with "intelligent design" dishonesty dressed up as "evidence".

I don't know what books you are reading on the subject, but clearly, your information is out of date and you don't seem to have an interest on getting up to date. You seem to be critical of Dawkins without even having read or understood the knowledge he's assimilated for the rest of us... You judge someone whom you are clearly much less knowledgeable then without even understanding why the question is on par with demanding an answer to how far it is to the end of the earth. It's a nonsense question... until or unless you define information. It's a particularly nonsensical question when you understand that humans have a lot fewer genes that simpler life forms. It presupposes a weird kind of ignorance... the kind that you are also projecting... a dishonesty... your words like the creationist words presume facts not in evidence and infer judgment on someone when it's the you who is the clueless one.

Great... so you accept evolution. Excellent. But you don't understand it enough to critique it or to critique Dawkins reaction or to understand why you sound fraudulent. You don't understand evolution enough to engage in this conversation from the angle you are coming from. You presume to be more knowledgeable than the people here while not having exhibited that knowledge to anyone here or without having read much from anyone here.

If we confused you for a woo-- it's your fault... you sound identical to many a woo that come here-- identical... and THAT, my friend, IS evidence. If you want to be perceived differently, perhaps it's your approach you ought to alter. Try humility. Curiosity on the subject you pretend to be knowledgeable about. Less pedantry. More clarity. Less judgment. More reading of others. I mean most "evolutionists" and atheists on this forum never need to say as much. We presume rationality and sincerity on behalf of participants until the woo smarminess starts to ooze. No need to get defensive unless you have something you are trying to hide, right?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

I, for one, am not a lifelong atheist/evolutionist. I was, I guess marginally, a Christian until my late teens, but I was, emphatically, an acceptor of evolution since I was like in 5th grade or earlier.

Actually it is evidence which makes us suspect people who speak as you do. We get a lot of "intelligent design proponents" that sound, well, like you.{snip long crazy rant}

It's hysteric comments like this, especially in light of the post you were responding to, that makes me think you're a God-Hater who is so conditioned to respond with long rambling rants against "stupid x-ians" you can't recognize sarcasm, parody or devil's advocacy.

 

[articulett]

Now, I remember why I had you on ignore...

You keep accusing me of hating a god I don't believe in. (Yes, and I hate Santa and Thor too). Moreover... it most decidedly was not a rand against "stupid X-ians"-- you seem to be the only person who interprets things that way... which is why a lot of people have you on ignore, I imagine. I'm sure intelligent will quote you is you say something of value.

 

[Lonewulf]

that makes me think you're a God-Hater

Sure. And I'm up there with Thor Haters, and I also hate Zeus. But I'm okay with FSM and the invisible pink unicorn.

Silly goof. Why don't you accuse people of something that would actually stick, m'kay?

 

[JoeEllison]

No - there's a bunch of you. You don't really need science, since you know things without evidence. Meanwhile, I was brought up an atheist, I have lived for 60 years as an atheist, and that's just a fact.

As for the shorthand "Evolutionist", I mean I believe in evolution, trilobites, dinosaurs, hominins, the lot. If there was a god, why would he waste his time writing lies into rocks? (Or enjoying the grovelling subservience of intelligent beings.) But, Hell, you know best. What religion do you suggest I take up? I quite fancy Judaism, apart from the circumcision and the god stuff.

You're a weird kid.

 

[JoeEllison]

I, for one, am not a lifelong atheist/evolutionist. I was, I guess marginally, a Christian until my late teens, but I was, emphatically, an acceptor of evolution since I was like in 5th grade or earlier.

I've been an atheist my entire life, and I suppose I accepted evolution the way everyone accepts gravity, long before I had the background to understand the scientific underpinnings.

When someone posts things that sound very much like religious-based nonsense and very little like anything most rationalists would post, and preface it by saying "I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"... well, it seems to me as though they are seeking to deceive. I could be wrong, but it simply doesn't ring true to me.

 

[godless dave]

When someone claims Francis Crick is or was an advocate of intelligent design, then I strongly suspect that that person is lying.

 

[JoeEllison]

When someone claims Francis Crick is or was an advocate of intelligent design, then I strongly suspect that that person is lying.

Yes, well, accepting that ID is a fundamentally religious idea(not to mention a dishonest one), and that Crick was relatively anti-religious, the link between him and ID seems to be very unlikely.

 

[articulett]

Yes, well, accepting that ID is a fundamentally religious idea(not to mention a dishonest one), and that Crick was relatively anti-religious, the link between him and ID seems to be very unlikely.

Francis Crick wrote The Astonishing Hypothesis
-- the hypothesis being that there were no such thing as souls. He was most definitely a materialist. And your instincts are correct. Cyborg caught it early on. (For what it's worth-- Cyborg is an excellent source in regards to evolution--and very funny... and crisp.)

The guy had the same old arguments-- "deleterious", "point mutation", "add info."-- old arguments... long since addressed... but oft dragged out as though such a person thought of it for the first time themselves. How can someone expect to be treated as some magical expert when they haven't got a clue and haven't kept up on the recent developments? I mean the eye canard is old-- and anyone interested on the details steadily amassing can readily download videos and information all over the web-- unless they wanted to presume that Richard Dawkins et. al. doesn't know a damn thing while they, miraculously do.

And then trying to make us feel bad when caught?... I mean, he's hardly ever posted... doesn't know anybody's expertise... and yet assumes we'd consider him an expert? Based on what? Surely not facts--since he was in short supply. He was big on pedantry, low on respect, and petulant when queried. He's just one of those guys so sure he has something to teach while being clueless as to what he could learn. And it's only his first or 2nd post.

And then we're supposed to feel bad when we probe him and he explodes calling us all meanies? Reality and science are all about examining the facts. Religion is being shamed into showing deference and not daring to ask questions. Someone clearly hasn't been hanging out on the skeptic side of the fence to have such thin skin and few facts.

If someone thought I was an apologist or a creationist or dishonest-- I would endeavor to make them understand otherwise through evidence, facts, curiosity, dialogue, clarification. Why would someone need to shame someone into treating their ideas with respect? Why would someone come here and just assume more than any of the other members they had never even read?? Bizarro.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ummm... ok?

I DO wonder about those people who present very old and debunked arguments as though they were both original and unassailable... one must assume that the general religious mindset tends to force believers to make themselves look foolish to a more educated audience.