I know this discussion has been done to death but I wanted to post this to see what reaction it would get.
This was a discussion Richard Dawkins had with an advocate of creationism.
I was quite surprised he actually would talk to one of them because of past attempts always ending up bad.
Some people say that Richard is an angry atheist or likes to shove things down our throats, but I think this series of videos shows that he is a very well mannered person.
In fact Richard is more calm and well mannered than I ever could be.
This lady drives me nuts and I don't think I could last even five minutes when talking to her.
I don't like to think of myself as violent but I can envision myself punching her in the face just to shut her up.
Richard must have some sort of super power to withstand what comes out of this woman's mouth. The way she laughs and holds a condescending smile would alone make me angry.
You might not understand this until you watch some of the videos.
Richard is able to withstand it for over an hour....sheesh he deserves a medal.
And again I do not want this to be a debate on Evolution or Creationism and I don't want this to turn into some flaming of religion or non-religion.
I merely want to see what people think while watching these vidz and how long they can watch it before going crazy and getting mad.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
05-16-2010, 10:52 PM
Norrin Radd
Richard Dawkins is a smart, well-mannered man.
What I don't understand is why he keeps interviewing and questioning Creationists. That isn't smart. You're not gonna win. It's like kicking water uphill.
05-16-2010, 10:56 PM
IronyTaken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
Richard Dawkins is a smart, well-mannered man.
What I don't understand is why he keeps interviewing and questioning Creationists. That isn't smart. You're not gonna win. It's like kicking water uphill.
Yah I don't know why he does it either.
I am making a funny comic right now about this video.
Just a short 1 panel of him grabbing her by the head and forcing her to look at a text book while saying something like, "science MOTHERFUKER!, do you read it!"
I am going to make the drawing style similar to satire political comics.
05-17-2010, 12:17 AM
Rude_Boy
"I don't want you to respect my beliefs, I want you to respect the facts."
I cheered out loud.
05-17-2010, 04:48 AM
Leafninja
It was hard enough to watch the first video. I couldn't get past 5 minutes of the second one. :hmm:
05-17-2010, 05:09 AM
Schysm
Yeah, so I had just watched Se7en again for the first time in years, so I was already fairly aggravated. Then this >:(.
I'm extremely impressed he was able to last this long. She really only had one point, and that was "Show me the evidence." What did she expect, a slide show of our step by step transformation?
And did anyone else find it really irritating that in the first video she commented about him being closed minded when she would not accept a word he said?
GAH /rage
05-17-2010, 06:25 AM
hobosexual
I really hate her face and that smug smile.
I think Richie boy gets a bad rap a lot of the time because he is kind of intimidating, not in a mean way but in a damn that guy is so much smarter than I am way.
I think my favorite Dawkins interview is this one with Bill O'Reilly, you'd think being intelligent would be some kind of pre-requisite for having your own tv show, I mean people actually let this idiot influence them.
05-17-2010, 12:53 PM
Raiyne
Listening to her is excruciating. Richard Dawkins must be pretty damn patient to be able to tolerate all of that crap.
05-17-2010, 02:09 PM
Pok
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
The difference is that the Earth has always been spherical, by fact.
oblate spheroid or ellipsoid /nitpick
05-17-2010, 02:39 PM
Halaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pok
oblate spheroid or ellipsoid /nitpick
But Satan placed dinosaur bones in the ground to make people doubt the Bible, and the Earth is 6,000 years old. The only problem there is with exchanging a Fundamentalist Christian for crap is that it's a waste of the container you put the crap in.
05-17-2010, 08:22 PM
hian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thetake
Simply put, Dawkins's understanding of philosophy is about the same as this lady's understanding of evolution.
Care to elaborate? I'm not saying I think Dawkins is perfect in every way, because of course he is not. For instance, I do not think his rhetoric and his choice in methodology in confronting religious groups is very good.
But, I can't really fault him on philosophic grounds.
Philosophy isn't really relevant to his arguments(and it isn't really nature science). He isn't arguing philosophy, he's arguing skewed views some religious people have on reality. He is also arguing the social consequences religion has on the individual and society. As far as I'm concerned, his criticism is for the most part valid.
05-17-2010, 08:55 PM
BoomThunda
I watched the first 2 vids. 20 minutes of this dumb ***** asking for evidence and Dawkins providing it over and over and over again.
05-17-2010, 09:09 PM
Avarwen
The biggest problem with creationism is that there's no real proof and creationist can't seem to get that through their heads. As for evolution we really can't be 100% sure what was here first and what we truly came from and how it happened. Science is ever changing so who knows what we will find in the future. Since I wasn't there at the beginning of time I'm not going to worry about it either. This is a waste of time neither side will back down so why not agree to disagree.
05-17-2010, 10:03 PM
hian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avarwen
The biggest problem with creationism is that there's no real proof and creationist can't seem to get that through their heads. As for evolution we really can't be 100% sure what was here first and what we truly came from and how it happened. Science is ever changing so who knows what we will find in the future. Since I wasn't there at the beginning of time I'm not going to worry about it either. This is a waste of time neither side will back down so why not agree to disagree.
The problem here is that the certainty of evolutionairy theory is the same as the theory of gravity. To say that we aren't certain of evolution, is like saying we aren't certain of gravity.
Of course we can't be a 100% sure - We can't be a 100% sure of anything. The problem is that most people are "sure" about many things, yet seem to think that evolution is less certain than those things again.
This becomes even clearer in religious context, when people seem to think an idea(creationism) has equal merit to a scientific theory(evolution).
I don't think it's a waste of time to spend time working against religious ignorance though, the same way it isn't a waste of time to work against any type of ignorance. We didn't get to today by dismissing all kinds of intellectual dishonesty as merely a difference in opinion.
05-17-2010, 10:50 PM
hian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
There comes a time, though, when you honestly just have to say: "Ok, you believe there was never any dinosaurs and evolution is false. I'm done."
Those kind of people, the kind of people who argue against science for a living and have done so for most of their lives, are beyond help. A 17 year old Creationist? Sure. A 45 year old one? Forget it.
I completely agree with this. I wasn't really talking about individual cases though, but I should have made that more clear in my original post.
Simply, that if people just give up trying to pull ignorance like this into public debates, it will certainly grow. I think that it's people like Dawkins, good educational systems and so forth, that contribute to stopping 17 year old creationists from becomming 45 year old creationists.
05-18-2010, 12:10 AM
Avarwen
Quote:
Originally Posted by hian
The problem here is that the certainty of evolutionairy theory is the same as the theory of gravity. To say that we aren't certain of evolution, is like saying we aren't certain of gravity.
Of course we can't be a 100% sure - We can't be a 100% sure of anything. The problem is that most people are "sure" about many things, yet seem to think that evolution is less certain than those things again.
This becomes even clearer in religious context, when people seem to think an idea(creationism) has equal merit to a scientific theory(evolution).
I don't think it's a waste of time to spend time working against religious ignorance though, the same way it isn't a waste of time to work against any type of ignorance. We didn't get to today by dismissing all kinds of intellectual dishonesty as merely a difference in opinion.
For me at least while I do believe in evolution I'm still at odds with some of the facts that they have now. Religious ignorance will always be here no matter how hard you try to fight it. Some people just don't want to face the music. IMO it's not worth my time to try and convince the religious that evolution is true. If they want to believe that they were made from sand by God that's fine. As long as it doesn't make it into the school system I don't care what they do.
05-18-2010, 12:15 AM
IronyTaken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avarwen
For me at least while I do believe in evolution I'm still at odds with some of the facts that they have now.
I don't like to use the word "believe" when it comes to scientific fact, I rather use the word accept.
But what are you at odds with about evolution?
05-18-2010, 12:32 AM
Avarwen
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
I don't like to use the word "believe" when it comes to scientific fact, I rather use the word accept.
But what are you at odds with about evolution?
I have a hard time believing we evolved from fish no matter how hard I look at it ,it seems a bit far fetched to me. Also I wonder if we could have evolved separately from apes instead of directly from them.
05-18-2010, 02:46 AM
IronyTaken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halaster
I'm not lending credence to that theory, I'm open to any theory that makes more sense than Creationism. Whether it's wrong, so is Creationism.
If a theory is shown to be wrong then I am not open to it.....because it is wrong.
05-18-2010, 03:37 AM
Halaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Galactic Lord Xenu is coming over next week to discuss flower arrangement.
Don't compare me to a Scientolotard unless you want to have problems with me. And don't get me started with Scientology, it will get ugly.
05-18-2010, 03:37 AM
V-Opolis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halaster
The reason there may not be a missing link is that we may have been genetically engineered by extraterrestrials in the distant past. That is one theory that many are proposing and it's based on the story of the Annunaki which can be found in ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform writing. I'm not stating the theory is correct, simply that it makes much more sense than Creationism does.
how? ill put it like this, the universe is so big that the probability is in the hands of life existing elsewhere.
now on the flip side, the universe is so big that that 'ET' life FINDING us is in the hands of them NOT finding us. Its like finding ONE needle on the entire earth by yourself.
i wont even try refuting life existing elsewhere, but them getting to us is to far a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
I have an obsession with science and the over all beauty of the universe and sometimes religions gets in the way of that so I speak out.
If you have a point then say it, freedom of speech allows for this.
And what does being gay or not have to do with not liking me?
If I was gay would you suddenly dislike me more?
If not then why even bring it up?
And no I am not gay.
what? really? ive been told to bite my tongue, only reason i havnt been banned as fast as i think i would have been.
now on topic, so i dont get a spam infraction.....i didnt care to watch the video, the lady is stupid as ****, dawkins gets his orgasm on trying to prove religion wrong, everyone wins, except the lady.
05-18-2010, 03:42 AM
Halaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
how? ill put it like this, the universe is so big that the probability is in the hands of life existing elsewhere.
now on the flip side, the universe is so big that that 'ET' life FINDING us is in the hands of them NOT finding us. Its like finding ONE needle on the entire earth by yourself.
i wont even try refuting life existing elsewhere, but them getting to us is to far a stretch.
Yes, but there are not just beings which are extraterrestrial and alien to our planet, there are extrauniversals that are alien to our universe. I was visited by the extrauniversal variety, at least according to them when I asked them where they were from. You can figure the probability of extraterrestrial life in our own universe but there are an infinite amount of universes in which some civilizations have attained a level of technology that they can travel from one universe to another. Aliens exist in an infinite amount of universes, not just our own.
05-18-2010, 03:44 AM
Avarwen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halaster
The reason there may not be a missing link is that we may have been genetically engineered by extraterrestrials in the distant past. That is one theory that many are proposing and it's based on the story of the Annunaki which can be found in ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform writing. I'm not stating the theory is correct, simply that it makes much more sense than Creationism does.
I doubt that it very highly unlikely that we were made by aliens. IMO it's just as bad as people thinking we were made from sand. Also who knows what we will find in the future there may well be something we have yet to find.
05-18-2010, 04:35 AM
XGrave
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Pascal's wager has been debunked decades ago.
For example what if you believe in the wrong god?
God should also know that you are only pretending to believe.
the main point of pascal's wager was to up your chances of going to heaven from 0 to at least a .0000000000000000000001% chance it was not a hundred percent chance thus it is a probability
think about it, haven't you ever seen you'll miss 100% of the shots you don't attempt? its the same thing
05-18-2010, 04:41 AM
IronyTaken
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
the only reason he would possibly talk to these people is to try to make them look stupid. If he honestly wanted to educate them he wouldn't carry a camera around.
I chose my words bad, i didnt mean prove religion wrong, meant to prove it stupid.
and honestly i dont know if i should reply to Halaster, Do i have Ironys permission to talk to him on a semi(by that i mean totally) offtopic topic in a respectful and thoughtful(as much as i can) way?
Sure you have my permission.
Also Richard wasn't trying to prove religion stupid in this discussion he was merely trying to show that Evolution is a fact, nothing else.
05-18-2010, 02:04 PM
Halaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eferos
Example:
"The probability that you get heads on your first try when you perfectly toss a perfect twosided coin is 50%" is a true Statement. The statement is a fact.
Not if the coin is not minted imperfectly and is heavier on one side.
Quote:
If we assume that the cat exists, we can not determine the state, all states of the cat are equal and therefore all states of the cat must exist.
There is also the Measurement Problem. The cat does not exist.
In order for the atoms that form the cat to be measured there has to be conscious observer.
05-18-2010, 02:05 PM
Ronin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eferos
Let me rephrase:
Some statements about probabilities are facts, other are not. In other words: some statements about probabilities are completely True.
Example:
"The probability that you get heads on your first try when you perfectly toss a perfect twosided coin is 50%" is a true Statement. The statement is a fact.
Well, it's problematic to say so;
Let's assume you have a perfect coin; How do you describe a perfect coin?
It has exact defined parameters (a normal throw will always result A or B with equal probability, therefore 1/2)
It's parameters are unaltered over the period of the measurement.
You will throw and always get A or B, the longer you throw, the surer you will be that this coin is perfect.
That's what Archimedes would already have come up with.
However, if you take a picture of this coin for future reference (or look at it and take a note of the result of the experiment), the probability, that the coin only looks like state A but is in state B is never zero.
If you have this perfect coin, you will not be able to determine if it is perfect. An indefinite research will end at the boundaries of the uncertainty theorem and than stagnate.
If you start doing this with 100s of perfect coins, in special orders, you will even get waves of probability and interference effects, just with photon detection or electron spin.
This is the way it works.
The idea of a perfect coin does not contribute to reality.
It's irrelevant how perfect a coin is, or how long it can keep that character, as soon as the perfection reaches this limit of being close to the boundaries of uncertainty.
(The though experiment does include an idea of a perfect experiment (the coin actually lands on A/B with 1/2 chance) to show it is obsolete; even talking about it is in physical sense paradox, because the reality is never affected in the way it lands, but in the way it apeared to land, through all it's results that contribute to the measurement.)
Schrödinger proposed to fire a machine-gun into a bunker through a punching column (in once a dark and once a lit room) to recreate the interference pattern of light, but as far as I know this experiment was never executed (because there are simpler methods to get the result I suppose, however I think it would have been very convincing).
05-18-2010, 04:28 PM
Eferos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Well, it's problematic to say so;
Let's assume you have a perfect coin; How do you describe a perfect coin?
It has exact defined parameters (a normal throw will always result A or B with equal probability, therefore 1/2)
It's parameters are unaltered over the period of the measurement.
You will throw and always get A or B, the longer you throw, the surer you will be that this coin is perfect.
That's what Archimedes would already have come up with.
However, if you take a picture of this coin for future reference (or look at it and take a note of the result of the experiment), the probability, that the coin only looks like state A but is in state B is never zero.
If you have this perfect coin, you will not be able to determine if it is perfect. An indefinite research will end at the boundaries of the uncertainty theorem and than stagnate.
If you start doing this with 100s of perfect coins, in special orders, you will even get waves of probability and interference effects, just with photon detection or electron spin.
This is the way it works.
The idea of a perfect coin does not contribute to reality.
It's irrelevant how perfect a coin is, or how long it can keep that character, as soon as the perfection reaches this limit of being close to the boundaries of uncertainty.
(The though experiment does include an idea of a perfect experiment (the coin actually lands on A/B with 1/2 chance) to show it is obsolete; even talking about it is in physical sense paradox, because the reality is never affected in the way it lands, but in the way it apeared to land, through all it's results that contribute to the measurement.)
Schrödinger proposed to fire a machine-gun into a bunker through a punching column (in once a dark and once a lit room) to recreate the interference pattern of light, but as far as I know this experiment was never executed (because there are simpler methods to get the result I suppose, however I think it would have been very convincing).
Which uncertainty? Do not misinterpretate the uncertainty theorem.
It merely states that if we define the uncertainty dA in the measurement of A by its dispersion, (dA)^2 = <(A - <A>)^2> - <A>^2 then
If the operators commute like in the case of the hydrogen atom in which the Hamiltonian, the square of the angular momentium and the component of the angular momentum along the z-axis commute, then the uncertainty relation would give >=0, which means that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not limit the precision when "measuring those 3 operators". Something that was impossible in the case of p and x, since the operators p and x do not commute with each other and thus give a inrevokable uncertainty according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
In order to apply the uncertainty theorem to the coin toss, we would have to identify which two operators we are looking at. It becomes though bizarre when applying theorems meant for one area in science on a completely different area. Hm, maybe the two operators would be
A. Side shown
B. Toss trajectory
Can you be sure that those two operators do not commute? (I still think it is bizarre)
Or, should we be reasonable and call the coin "perfect" when the probability is very close to 50% after a very large amount of tries?
Because, what is the alternative? Should we start calling something true if and only if it happens in absolutely all cases without any theoretical exception? Because if we start doing that, then there are so many contexts where we can no longer use the word "true". In such case, so many scientific formulas used to describe nature could never be called true or fact, because there are often special cases in which you can add correction terms to make your formula more appropiate to approximate nature. When a formula is verified, it is rarely if ever exact on the dot, there are often fluctuations and different errors to take into account.
Instead of creating a massive confusion, it is better to just call something true and perfect, when it approximates very well in the overwhelming majority of cases. In which case we can say that classical mechanics is correct in its proper field of use. Same applies to quantum mechanics.
05-18-2010, 08:56 PM
hian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halaster
A deaf man can taste reality, a blind man can smell it. It is consciousness that makes matter "appear" to be real, if matter is not observed it technically does not exist and also cannot be measured. By ultimate reality I mean that it is the human mind and our consciousness that determines what reality is, not the inanimate objects around us.
Why do you bring up how a blind man can taste reality and so forth? It is irrelevant.
A deaf man can taste a part of reality, but he can not ordinarily gain access to sound. Does this mean that sound does not exist? Saying that he can still taste a part of reality for instance, has no bearing on the issue.
Even if matter is not observed, it still exists. Your assertion means nothing. If matter is there, then it is there no matter of it is observed or not.
By reality, we speak of matter, of physics, hence terms such as "the physical reality"(redundant as they may be, seeing as we have no reason to believe in anything other than the physical reality).
Nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, it is arguably human subjective impressions that are less real, seeing as they can be mistaken, and is sometimes even contradictive to how the physical world really is.
We constantly measure various aspects of reality. Again, if you cannot provide a context for your use of the word "measure", it's meaningless.
And no, it is not our consciousness that determines what reality is. It is our consciousness allows us to observe reality, which is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halaster
You have to quantify consciousness to solve the measurement problem, and consciousness is as immaterial as a thought. It is impossible, quantum mechanics is flawed. That's the point I'm trying to make.
How is this relevant to anything? I'm not arguing quantum mechanics, I'm arguing your fallacious position that a persons state of consciousness determines what is real. I dare you to find a single piece of evidence to support this. Vague references to complex scientific theories isn't going to cut it, unless you can back it up by proving your own education on the topic.
Based on the way you speak of it, I'm inclined to believe that you don't have any idea what you're talking about really.
05-18-2010, 09:17 PM
Eferos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
The point I was trying to make was, that if we can only measure quantum blur, the quantum blur is a physical reality, the thing that might or might not cause it, is not.
That is why the world in a non deterministic way does not "exist" in a conventional sense. If an atom decays (or the phenomena that was once labeled the result "caused" (here nonsense) by an atom), there is no cause, it just happens.
Applying states of "true" or "false" or "cause" and "effect" is nonsense on quantum scale.
Logic and thus "True & False" is a basic fundamental of any scientific research. "Cause & effect", on the other hand, is not a such fundamental, which you described very well with your example of atomic decay.
There is no need to involve philosophy in science. Science uses models to describe nature but the philosophical implications is beyond the scope of science itself.
Quantum mechanics is a model of nature that agrees very well with experiments in many areas. It is able to explain and predict experimental results which classical mechanics was unable to explain. The philosophical implications regarding determinism, "cause & effect" and "reality" are not scientific objectives.
Now a question I find interesting is: when can scientific result be considered to be a "fact"? I argued that is reasonable to see some statements about probabilties as "facts".
