An atheist's call to arms

[Reason]

bump

 

[Eric21ND]

If I remember correctly, he read enough Mendel to have SOME clue about what he was doing. :o (haven't read his stuff in years, though)

Genetic science didn’t really take off until well into the 20th century, not until the 1950’s with Watson and Crick’s article on the molecular structure of DNA. Mendel’s work largely had to be rediscovered in the early 1900’s and he had no notion what impact he’d have on genetics. Basically, it took 50 years for anyone to see the significance of his work, which gets to my earlier point that scientists before him and even his contemporaries did not have any knowledge of what he was working on. News travelled much slower in those days and Mendel’s work was not widely published, only a handful of copies existed.

It’s interesting to note that others were on the same path though. Here is an excerpt of a letter by Charles Darwin to fellow naturalist Alfred Wallace hinting at his own pre-Mendelian genetic experiements with pea plants.

"My dear Wallace... I do not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not refer to fertility; an instance will explain. I crossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweetpeas, which are very differently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, both varieties perfect but none intermediate. Something of this kind I should think must occur at least with your butterflies & the three forms of Lythrum; tho’ these cases are in appearance so wonderful, I do not know that they are really more so than every female in the world producing distinct male and female offspring...C. Darwin

 

[RevolutionSD]

YouTube - Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms

I thought this presentation was very well done and happen to agree with most of Dawkin's points.

Your thoughts on the video? Your thoughts on "Non theism"?

I'm an atheist too, and a Dawkins fan when it comes to a lot of his writing, but he's a statist, and we as libertarians have no use for him.

 

[Reason]

I'm an atheist too, and a Dawkins fan when it comes to a lot of his writing, but he's a statist, and we as libertarians have no use for him.

A statist? How so?

 

[idiom]

This thread has a really low corn density.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Just saying that if you found an intricate pocket watch in the middle of the forest, you would assume someone made it.
Same goes with nature, which is an infinite times more complex.

This is not a solid example to prove your point.

You are starting with an object we KNOW is man made to begin with.

Here is another example:

We find a hydrogen atom in the middle of nowhere in space using sophisticated instruments attached to our space ship.

You are the lead scientific officer on the space ship and the captain asks you:

Who put the atom there?

When? How? Evidence?

You could say you don't know, but if you actually know, the captain humbly asks for evidence.

Nothing more than that.

If you say God, but don't have evidence of such, that's ok say so, while not ideal, it is an answer too.

I will then discuss your answer in more detail.

 

[Objectivist]

I'll have to catch the rest later. Too bad TED isn't coming back here next year.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

my point exactly.

Their reasoning goes like this:

Creationist: "Matter and the universe couldnt have always existed. They must have come from somewhere. And they didnt just spring into existence on their own, they must have been created by an intelligence"

Voice of Reason: "Where did this intelligent designer come from?"

Creationist: "The intelligent designer has always existed."

Voice of Reason: "So why couldnt matter and the universe have always existed?"

Creationist: ". . ."

Precisely.

 

[Reason]

my point exactly.

Their reasoning goes like this:

Creationist: "Matter and the universe couldnt have always existed. They must have come from somewhere. And they didnt just spring into existence on their own, they must have been created by an intelligence"

Voice of Reason: "Where did this intelligent designer come from?"

Creationist: "The intelligent designer has always existed."

Voice of Reason: "So why couldnt matter and the universe have always existed?"

Creationist: ". . ."

 

[Athan]

I think we should focus all of our fight on what Dr. Paul is fighting for. I'm not interested in anything else but liberty, restoring our Republic, and securing our prosperity as a nation. I am NOT interested in this little culture war O'Reilly loves to use to act like an ass-clown.

With Liberty comes peace with fellow Americans and their beliefs.

 

[Ozwest]

A statist? How so?

I agree with you CivilRadiant.

We are not clones, and I will not be categorized.