In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life

There was once a guy who agreed to giujohn on Hawking and who claimed having read all Hawking's work. But when I put two simple questions to him about Hawking's work, the guy slick away and never to be seen again.

giujohn also claimed that he read some quantum mechanics work. It is unknown where he cares to answer the two simple questions (actually closely related to quantum mechanics).

Hawking is a bit like Dawkins. Both wander into areas that draw fire and I think they hve this little elfin senses of humor and like the qttention.

1Dawkins should just shut the **** up about his attacks on organized religion
and

2,Hawkins should NOT be recognized as any kind of expert in fields of biosciences
and

3. Evolution should be used in terminology that recognizes the recipients of Darwins "transmutation" are only those already living organisms

and

4. The term "Evolution" is specific in that it acts on an individual species oorganism but is only relevant a term when applied to the entire species

Other than that, no biggie.

"Evolution" does not "Create". Its Most simply stated, it wopuld be a conflict of terminology

By Hawking and Dawkins, I witness the grace of science and real scientists, who never tell you what you should or should not. They simply and creatively give numerous evidence to elucidate their views and point out the biggest possibilities. They tell people that we are each free to believe what we want.

And by the poor-educated and snobs, I witness the disgrace of spiritual tyrants, who are used to tell people "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts", trying to turn them into mindless slaves, who must not question why should and why should not. That is a great difference.

I am a real scientist. I am telling you that you are full of crap.

How's that for grace?

The problem is, Oristar, that you aren't listening to real scientists. You have your own ideas about how things are. You are taking the words of certain scientists out of context and twisting them to support your particular world view.

I can't speak for Hawkings, but I imagine that he would also tell you that you are full of crap.

Oristar is peddling religion on this thread as much as any religionist with his strange anthropomorphized view of Science as a spiritual force and Hawkings as a prophet.

Of course you can imagine. You've imagined that you are a real scientist or anything else. But that is simply an imagination.

And a poor imagination, a fancy bubble which I have now no interest in poking my finger into it.

I have a Physics degree from an American University, and I have worked in research (although currently I am an engineer). And in this thread, I am using evidence to question your assertions a pointing out flaws in your logic.

What else do I have to do to be considered a "real scientist" in your religion, Oristar?

You are simply a technician, lacking basic quality of a scientist, let alone of a real scientist.

That's funny!

We disagree. Dawkins , in his field of ethology and evolutionary bio, has amazing street cred. In his dabbling within pop culture, he gives NO evidence of his "beliefs re: spirituality" because its all an area of subjective "belief" and all the evidence supports a counter religious worldview, he just likes to rub it in like a bully. Hes kind of a boor when it comes to his opinions about religion. A scientist who, in my opinion, spends no time in obliterating opponents in "the culture w
ars" is Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic and a respected evolutionary biologist who is eloquent in explaining hi beliefs qnd his journey inscience.

Hawking, on the other hand, makes numerous mistakes in his interpretations of how evolution actually works, but doesnt let that stop him.

Obviously you know little of or haven't read at all Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution and The God Delusion, in which readers see the scholarly grace of a distinguished professor who leisurely unfolds the grand picture of evolution and spirituality with rich source of evidence.

As for Hawking's work, the situation is the same for you: you didn't read or cannot read them: A Brief History of Time and The Grand Design....

The proof is at hand: If you've read through them, your English writing would have got tremendously improved. Even if you felt their source of evidence is not so convincing, their English is undoubtedly excellent. Good science needs good English: accurate and succinct. Yet your English keeps stubbornly broken, Farmerman, which reveals your irrationally wanton contempt for science, and thus betrays your ignorance in the understanding of science.

ha ha ha. I love insults that cut to my ignorance or my typing skills. Ive read all of Dawkins books, because, while I was teaching, his often hacneyed arguments regarding religion were taken up as weaponry by my students. I do agree with you about my ignorance on one point, I dont find his arguments on religion very compelling so perhaps Ive missed his own vaunted "greatness".
Perhaps you have a lower threshold of acceptance of what you consider "great" than do I. Your presnt thread is quite an example of your inability to correctly "interpret" what the English language means. Sometimes, we use words very broadly an when we get down to a nitty gritty techy discussion of the topic at hand, we default back to our love of more precise wordage. When , among colleagues(Who include evolutionary scientists, geoscientists, genomic physicians and bio/paleo statisticians ) with whom I often discuss several evo/devo topics, we never confuse abiogenesis and evolution (No matter what personal feelings you have about Dr Dawkins). Youd be accused more of being involved in discussing a "pop science" topic.




As far as my language skills, perhaps, as an ESL student you miss nuances of Merkin attempts at humor. Were kinda like Australians in that respect, we do a lot of defecatory and self effacing humor and dont waste much time on irony because we really really dont like to waste your precious time and we enjoy availing all of our humor even ESL's who witlessly believe they have superior communication skills. Besides yourself, know anyone like that?

Have anything of substance you wish to share?

If,when reading Dawkins (especially) you miss his elfin sense of humor , you need some more work on understanding contemporary english.

I mentioned a number of pages back that I like Dawkins. I should have clarified that I only like him because he keeps people talking about evolution. I have never read or listened to him, even once.

Ive alays admitted that he was a good scientist in his own field, ethology and evolutionary ecology. Hoever, he seems to hqve a pemanent hard-on pver the religious. I agree on foghting those who wish to install their biblical beliefs into public school sciece. I DONT, like Dawkins, try to engage in elegant soundong "put-downs" of those with whom he disagrees in thei moral evolution.

the OP should be credited for continuing to try to improve their understanding of the English language but does seem to be in over their head at this point

He's not savvy enough to recognize that sometimes we coopt words for convenience sake, not precision

The only truth seems to be: Both Hawking and Dawkins' work are over your head, ehBeth.

I have some good news and bad news for you, farmerman,which do you want first?