GAY Hatemail to Richard Dawkins, narrated by Richard Dawkins

Sometimes. She's very apt to avoid religious talk with me. I also avoid it because I know exactly how it will go. She'll bring up things, I'll rebut them, and in the end, we'll still believe what we did before we started. I've asked her to read some books from my side, but she wont, and that also adds to me not wanting to discuss religion with her.

does she ever ask you to read books from her side?

EDIT:
Have you read books from her side?

:mad:
 
Of course you will view his tactics and ideas as well thought out. Personally, his worship of Darwin makes me view him as a populist, since it wasn't really Darwin that created the grand theory of evolution, but more just Natural Selection. If he used Gregor Mendel and Hugo De Vries as his counterpoints to creationism, I'd be more likely to take him seriously. Darwin is populist, plain and simple. Dawkins pontification of Darwin puts him more into the crackpot region to me.

Darwin is credited as being the father of evolution, thats a fact. Just like Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics. Of course these people didn't do it on their own, but built on a foundation of human knowledge from the last 100,000 years. If you think that Dawkins doesn't know that, then he's not the idiot.

And lets not forget that Darwin wasn't even the first to propose natural section, but ya know what? Nobody cares.
 
Darwin is credited as being the father of evolution, thats a fact. Just like Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics. Of course these people didn't do it on their own, but built on a foundation of human knowledge from the last 100,000 years. If you think that Dawkins doesn't know that, then he's not the idiot.

And lets not forget that Darwin wasn't even the first to propose natural section, but ya know what? Nobody cares.

I never said he didn't know that. I was mostly using his multiple proclamations on Darwin as proof of his viewpoints being Populist in nature. You also have to admit that the concepts of natural selection really are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg when truly discussing evolution.
 
I never said he didn't know that. I was mostly using his multiple proclamations on Darwin as proof of his viewpoints being Populist in nature. You also have to admit that the concepts of natural selection really are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg when truly discussing evolution.

He's writing books for the laymen, of course he's going to talk a lot about Darwin, because the ideas are simple. I read a lot of physics books, do you think they're going to go in depth about the oscillation patterns of a tachiyon with me? Of course not. He's not doing it because Darwin is OMG LOL COOL, hes doing it as a basis for his arguments - because people already understand it.

And I would disagree. There is natural selection, sexual selection, and environment. That sums up evolution.
 
come at me, Evander Brolyfield
uber_d1.jpg

You want some of this, brocakes?

Check out the closeted marine, Mr. Bron't Ask, Bron't Tell.
:fly:
 
He's writing books for the laymen, of course he's going to talk a lot about Darwin, because the ideas are simple. I read a lot of physics books, do you think they're going to go in depth about the oscillation patterns of a tachiyon with me? Of course not. He's not doing it because Darwin is OMG LOL COOL, hes doing it as a basis for his arguments - because people already understand it.

And I would disagree. There is natural selection, sexual selection, and environment. That sums up evolution.

I would disagree. Genetic mutation based on environmental factors. To me, that sums up evolution. The rest are just explanations for how that occurs.