Richard Dawkins is the stupidest atheist yet to exist
Dawkin has made statements such as:
''Life started out in the ocean as a copying machine, a molecule copying itself.''
Flaws:
- In order for a molecule to copy itself, the molecule must first have life. Therefore life couldn't begin with a copying machine.
- The ocean itself contains millions of organisms. How can life start in an already living ocean?
''Maybe aliens with high developed technology planted life on earth''
Flaws:
- That only exlpains life on EARTH, not life itself. In order for the alien to be plant life, it must be alive, so what gave the alien life? Another
alien? And who gave that alien life?
- If these aliens planted life on earth, isn't it possible that they would be curious to find out how it turned out? If you plant a tree in your yard, aren't you curious to find out if it will grow? Why haven't we seen these aliens yet?
I find Dawkins theories stupid and flawed. I am not christian myself, but I support the idea that life was created by something. What that something was created of is interesting too. I believe life was created by something that is like a God, everlasting with no beginning or end.
Now I seem christian, don't I ? I believe there might be a God, but I deny believing God's son came to this earth, died on the cross for our sins. This seems like a fairytale to me, I find the bible flawed and misleading.
Agnostics RULE ;)
Dawkin is stupid
Side Score: 26
|
Dawkin is clever
Side Score: 32
|
|
|
|
3
points
He's not the sharpest tool in the shed by any means; but I would think the "Stupidest atheist" award belongs to Sam Harris. Dawkins just likes to talk outside his field of expertise and mash up his epistemologies such that he can make some rather spectacular public blunders. But that both men should never be allowed near a Twitter account is obvious. Side: Dawkin is stupid
He's no the sharpest tool in the shed by any means; but I would think the "Stupidest atheist" award belongs to Sam Harris. Dawkins just likes to talk outside his field of expertise and mash up his epistemologies such that he can make some rather spectacular public blunders. But that both men should never be allowed near a Twitter account is obvious. said by bronze age myth follower Side: Dawkin is clever
said by bronze age myth follower Said by someone who obviously didn't know that the Levantian Bronze Age had already concluded by 1200 BC. It's called H.I.S.T.O.R.Y Side: Dawkin is stupid
The thing with Dawkins is that as long as he sticks to his field (evolutionary biology), he's pure gold. I very much enjoy reading his books on the topic of evolution. However, when it comes to reading his religion-bashing books, it's quite clear that he has an incredibly biased and simplistic view of religion, his approach to the more philosophical issues is sophmoric and superficial and it's obvious that he has an ideological axe to grind on the very topic of religion. Side: Dawkin is stupid
|
6
points
- In order for a molecule to copy itself, the molecule must first have life. Therefore life couldn't begin with a copying machine. False. A virus is a modern example of something that copies itself without being alive. Granted, it's on the border of life and non-life, but there were surely much simpler copying machines at some point. The ocean itself contains millions of organisms. How can life start in an already living ocean? Because at the time life started, there weren't any organisms in the ocean. That only exlpains life on EARTH, not life itself. In order for the alien to be plant life, it must be alive, so what gave the alien life? Another alien? And who gave that alien life? This is true. If these aliens planted life on earth, isn't it possible that they would be curious to find out how it turned out? If you plant a tree in your yard, aren't you curious to find out if it will grow? Why haven't we seen these aliens yet? Maybe they accidentally dropped some life forms here without knowing it. Maybe they aren't curious because they've done this so many times before. Maybe they did observe us but left after some time. Maybe they're observing us from afar. Maybe they'll come back later. Side: Dawkin is clever
1
point
1
point
''Life started out in the ocean as a copying machine, a molecule copying itself.'' By this he means that the first type of life was this. He's not trying to answer the chicken or the egg thing.
''Maybe aliens with high developed technology planted life on earth'' Its difficult to know what he meant here without a context but I guess he's saying its just one of the many possibilities that is equally as likely as God creating us. Side: Dawkin is clever
2
points
He is one of my biggest role models. His knowledge is quite amazing. I have a poster of him om the back of my door and he is talking about first "life" saying that it cannot just go poof. It happened by a slow process. The aliens thing as he said is possible and is intriguing. He was simply taking chip shots at the Christian faith 1 by 1. Side: Dawkin is clever
His chips at the Christian faith to me are pretty weak, he should have not introduced the theory of alien life, that just supports intelligent design and shows us that we would have been the same as our proposed ancestors without constant intelligent intervention. The copy machine thing is also pretty weak because I know of no 'copy machine' that literally began copying itself. This copy machine which started off in the ocean (please explain to me on an unrelated side note why the ocean, couldn't it be something else) must have been willed to begin copying and then specializing by some external force. Unless you have an argument that you cant present as to otherwise this isn't so. Side: Dawkin is stupid
2
points
That only exlpains life on EARTH, not life itself. In order for the alien to be plant life, it must be alive, so what gave the alien life? Another alien? And who gave that alien life? The point he was trying to make when he said that life could have been seeded on earth by aliens is that ultimately you cannot explain away complexity by postulating more complexity. Even if life on earth was put here by aliens, you would have to explain the aliens themselves. The aliens would have had to have come about in one of two ways: 1. Been seeded by other aliens themselves. Then you would again need to explain how these new aliens came about. This regress cannot continue indefinitely since the universe is only about 14 billion years old, and that puts a limit on how far back this chain of aliens would go. Eventually you would have to explain the very first aliens using no. 2 below. 2. Evolved by natural selection (or an analogous process) somewhere else in the universe. Side: Dawkin is clever
1
point
1
point
1
point
Ok I stopped reading the moment I read the: "The ocean itself contains millions of organisms. How can life start in an already living ocean?" Bit. Perhaps sir did not consider the fact that life did not start only a few years ago? And that perhaps life started long, long before that, when the ocean had no life in it? Then conditions became just right and, so on and so forth. I mean honestly?! Side: Dawkin is clever
1
point
|