And yet it had by far the longest answer session to it and Tony Jones was basically turning it into a Lateline episode.

I agree, halfway through I was like "what? huh? Weren't we just talking about God? What does God have to do with asylum seekers?"

The token effort by Tony Jones to include Dawkins in the debate on boat people "You guys get a lot of that in the UK huh?!" was bad. Dawkins quite sensibly took a pass on a topic that he didn't feel qualified to speak on I thought.

He should be discussing religion with those who have at least organised their thoughts/arguments/rationale in relation to the topic of whether God actually exists at all, then we might have an interesting debate.

There was a Rabbi on the panel, but I couldn't make a word of sense of what she was saying. The way she was talking about God sounded like she ran a crystal healing store on the side or something.

There was a Rabbi on the panel, but I couldn't make a word of sense of what she was saying. The way she was talking about God sounded like she ran a crystal healing store on the side or something.

That was pretty much my take on her too. And from the sounds of it Dawkin's own opinion on some of the stuff she was saying.

wow moments when that family first idiot opened his mouth were really awkward. If you're on a panel and you're arguing with a renowned scientist then at least come prepared. He was torn a new a****** when that dawkins dick rider asked him that question about homosexuality. He might as well be f***ed by a homo atheist right on the show. How can anybody take your so called 'divine word of god' seriously when he basically said he believes in the bible but only in the parts that conforms to modern day society. Tell it how it is or GTFO the show. His political career obviously comes before his faith, but oooh watch out family comes first so vote for him!

wow moments when that family first idiot opened his mouth were really awkward.

Haha, I got the impression that he and Tony Burke were confused kids that were wondering how they managed to wind up at the adults table.

loved how he smacked down the paki who said atheists could have no ultimate morality or some s*** like that.... like stoning people for punishment.

dawkins +1billion
paki -573

also notice how the muslim chicks never clapped when dawkins smacked someone down

Yeah because everyone was ready to give up what they believed in after one Q&A session.

how could you not have an epiphany after listening to dawkins utter 10 words after a lifetime of mindcontrolled indoctrination that is the bulls*** of religion. whenever anyone tries to refute his answers, they fail over and over again.

http://quiento.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ta-dah.png

John Safran and Father Bob are interviewing him this Sunday (well, they recorded it Monday but should be on this Sunday).

Damnit, make it goto iView quicker, I've burnt too much of my quota already and have another 20 days to go heh.

Steve Fielding Realy is a f***wit isnt he, not so much because he is a creationists, but because he wont answer a question. If he had any conviction about his religion he would have just stated what he believed instead of looking like a f***wit.

I'll have to admit though, after watching it Dawkins does come off a bit condesending. He puts great arguments up but then seems to get pissed of and ridicules religion, which I dont think helps his argument.

I agree 100% with what he says, but he does need to show some respect to people a bit more.

As for Steve Fielding saying we should teach both creationism and Evolution, how did this guy get elected? He doesnt seem very intelligent.

Cainer you make it sound like i believe the drivel mentioned in that image. If anything I'm more of a critic about god having a son than the next atheist.

But that's the kind of talk that goes in the other topic. This topic is about stupid gutless australian politicians.

last edited by MatchFixa at 19:07:27 09/Mar/10

Pretty much the full extent of cainers posting ability is putting up image macros and foaming at the mouth insults.

It's hard not to be disrespectful from his position though.
It's like someone telling you the sky is purple, after a while of telling them that it's blue and showing them that it's blue, with them just saying back to you "nah it's purple." You're bound to be pissed off and just tell them that they're a stupid f***wit.

He thinks (rightly so) that these grown ups, in charge of running our country, still believe in Pixies and Magical Sky wizards. He's default position is that these type of people have a diminished capacity. From that position it would be pretty f***ing hard not to think down towards others.

Whens that Father Bob Vs Dawkins thing on ?
is it radio ?

They really should have invited some more Intelligent people on.
Dawkins didnt even comment on the Refugees question.
I agree tony jones turned it into some kind of Lateline special.
Not that that was a bad thing but i dont think the other members expected to have to defend their faith.

I was impressed by the Jewish Rabbi. Never heard of her before.
big eyes !

You like using that sky colour analogy a lot don't you scooter.

It's simple enough for religious people to understand.

Whens that Father Bob Vs Dawkins thing on ?
is it radio ?

Sunday Night Safran is on at 9pm on Sundays. It's John Safran and Father Bob McGuire. Two weeks ago Bob actually got stuck into someone a bit heh, he normally just keeps his mouth shut or agrees with people you'd assume he would have differing views of. Though he's good friends with that atheist priest from Brisbane. They filmed it Monday gone so it should goto air this coming Sunday.

You can't put Dawkins in a room with a bunch of pollies (religious or whatever) who have never given a second thought to their religious convictions (they've spent there life thinking about political issues mainly, one might expect) and expect a sensible debate.

They are bloody idiots if they didn't second guess their convictions, and at least get their story straight the moment they got the call inviting them onto a panel with Dawkins.

Holy s*** that was awkward. Fielding in particular just shouldn't have gone on that panel, he got savaged.

I still find it funny everyone here thinks religion and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Specifically the creation story is mutually exclusive with evolution. It's all about how humans came to be, and it can't be both. Genesis doesn't say God created single cell organisms and waited around for them to evolve.

I still find it funny everyone here thinks religion and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Any way you look at it, its a bit of a downgrade ... evolution happens by itself really. The traditional God not only set up the framework for existence but was immutably involved in day to day operations. An evolution-based deity is an engineer who set the machinery in place and is either absent or just observing.

Its also another direct contradiction to the holy word. In order for it to work with the scriptures, people need to accept that the Word of God as recorded isn't really right, in fact is fundamentally wrong and the basis - original sin - just can't have happened in any way smilar to what's been described.

As time goes by more and more of the text becomes irrelevant until we really need a shiny new prophet to give us a New and Improved Testament..

Holy s*** that was awkward. Fielding in particular just shouldn't have gone on that panel, he got savaged.

I don't think he did at all. In fact he seems less of a nutjob now than I thought he was. Most of the nutjobs seemed to be in the audience. Especially boat-people guy.

Holy s*** that was awkward. Fielding in particular just shouldn't have gone on that panel, he got savaged.

I don't think he did at all. In fact he seems less of a nutjob now than I thought he was. Most of the nutjobs seemed to be in the audience. Especially boat-people guy.

You were satisfied with his responses to the "do you think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?" question?

I said religion, not creation. Two different things.

I said religion, not creation. Two different things.

Which religion doesn't involve a creator, isn't that the whole idea?

I don't think he did at all. In fact he seems less of a nutjob now than I thought he was. Most of the nutjobs seemed to be in the audience. Especially boat-people guy.

To me he came off as both a nut-job, a die-hard politician and a hypocrit.

His evasions were classic poli-speak. And he was obviously believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible with regards to creation. And yet he also claims that despite his literal belief in some passages of the Bible that other parts are no longer correct or relevant.

Basically he came off a complete tosser and I shudder to think of the harm this guy and others like him are doing in Parliament and other positions of authority.

Which religion doesn't involve a creator, isn't that the whole idea?

Buddhism.

His evasions were classic poli-speak. And he was obviously believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible with regards to creation. And yet he also claims that despite his literal belief in some passages of the Bible that other parts are no longer correct or relevant.

He is a politician though. I was actually surprised that he didn't want to talk about his own religion. Though, who would want to say "the earth was created 10,000 years ago" when you are sitting next to Richard f***ing Dawkins.

Both the other politicians were just as evasive. They all seemed to say the same thing about the place of religion though, which is pretty much splitting the mainstream right down the middle. Teach, but don't preach.

Which religion doesn't involve a creator, isn't that the whole idea?

Buddhism.

Well that's alright then! Religion is compatible with evolution because in Buddhism the devas don't actually create the universe and just hang out in a realm that we have no evidence for. My bad.

I said religion, not creation. Two different things.

Evolution is incompatible with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
They all believe in pretty much the same creation myth. It's part of their religious doctrine.

I'm no expert on religions, but using the unimpeachable source of Monkey Magic for an idea of the Buddhist creation myth then it's incompatible with that too.

And I imagine it's the same for a lot of other religions.

Now sure, there are probably religions out there that make no claims at all regarding Creation or Evolution. If they don't try to claim stuff like "And created the animals and man" in a couple of days and as they are today then sure, such a religion would be compatible with the theory of evolution. Until such point that we gain enough scientific knowledge to disprove the claims they DO make.

For example, a Religion that claims: "In the beginning God created the Universe via the Big Bang, and since then he's not really interfered with anything" would be perfectly compatible with the theory of Evolution. Of course if we somehow gained knowledge of what happened to cause our Big Bang or maybe just enough evidence of other Big Bangs, then issues might arise.

So yes, some Religions could be compatible with Evolution, but most of the big ones worshiped these days are not.

Well that's alright then, religion is compatible with evolution because in Buddhism the devas don't actually create the universe. My bad.

Monkey Magic would claim otherwise!

Well that's alright then, religion is compatible with evolution because in Buddhism the devas don't actually create the universe. My bad.

Monkey Magic would claim otherwise!

Nope:

The Buddha argued that there is no apparent rational necessity for the existence of a creator god because everything ultimately is created by mind. Belief in a creator is not necessarily addressed by a religion based on phenomenology, and Buddhism is generally accepting of modern scientific theories about the formation of the universe. This can be argued either from the standpoint that it simply does not matter, or from an interpretation of the Agañña Sutta favoring the notion that it describes the basic concept of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution

Now that sounds cool, right? We have a contender for a rational religion!

No. Buddhism is arguably compatible with evolution but it still has deities, called devas. They have super powers like old school Greeko-Roman Gods and are just as unverifiable.

scientology!

scientology!

Well there's that whole Xenu thing... ;)

Evolution is incompatible with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
They all believe in pretty much the same creation myth. It's part of their religious doctrine.

Historically, yes. Currently, no.

Catholics are generally pretty agreeable with evolution, and the creation myths are generally viewed as just stories. Christianity is fairly on board with it, except for your fundamentalist types. Judaism is pretty much the same from memory. f*** knows with Islam.

Generally they accept evolution as fact, but sometimes exclude humanity as being a "special case" of directed evolution (aka, not evolution).

That was pretty much my take on her too. And from the sounds of it Dawkin's own opinion on some of the stuff she was saying.

It sounded like she was trying to (poorly) explain Ignosticism, coined by a rabbi, which basically states that the main problem with thinking about God's existence is coming up with a definition first. You're either stuck with a definition you can't be sure about, or left with a meaningless question.

xenu didn't create the earth, he just brought humans to earth. I don't think it is specific on how long ago that was.

So what did Xenu evolve from ?

ask mr hubbard facef***

I still find it funny everyone here thinks religion and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't exclude religion, but many religions exclude Evolution.

Evolution is incompatible with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
They all believe in pretty much the same creation myth. It's part of their religious doctrine.

Historically, yes. Currently, no.

Catholics are generally pretty agreeable with evolution, and the creation myths are generally viewed as just stories. Christianity is fairly on board with it, except for your fundamentalist types. Judaism is pretty much the same from memory. f*** knows with Islam.

Generally they accept evolution as fact, but sometimes exclude humanity as being a "special case" of directed evolution (aka, not evolution).

This is true, but in my opinion it undermines the authority of the word. Is it an improvement for the world to have religions that are malleable and can change to suit the scientific fact? Sure.

Does it make a lot of sense? I don't think so. What happens if evidence emerges that Abraham didn't actually exist and was a literary construct? I just don't think it makes sense for religion to rewrite dogma to suit evidence as it emerges. I guess ultimately we will come to a place where the entire Bible is considered a book of parables and not to be taken literally which is probably more progress.

It does seem like science is slowly eroding dogma. There's a reason why the old school fundies hold to an all-or-nothing stance, once you start taking religion piecemeal and revising the big picture it loses validity.

And to be honest, I admit I get a bit angsty about the Church being all pro-science. They actively retarded scientific progress for centuries, persecuting and imprisoning some of the fathers of science.

It took three hundred and fifty years to realise they were dicks and apologise to Galileo. Now they want to be inclusive to science to maintain relevance? GTFO.

lols religion thread

I know :( I got sucked in somehow. These things are f***ing vortexes.

Help me tequila, you're my only hope.

These things are f***ing vortexes.

An apt metaphor for a discussion that's a load of hot air that goes round and round for a while until eventually dissipating.

My problem with Dawkins is that he uses "Science" as the only way of knowing, There are other ways of knowing. Science should be one but not the "god" of knowing all. To use only science as the bases of all knowledge and or belief is irresponsible. Science is constantly changing and has been the past 100's of years - we only know a very small fraction of what is to be known.

Don't worry Im not planning on sticking around in this thread... lol

It's more fundamental than that Gal - he's using reason and logic as the way of knowing. Science is just a way to explain and predict things by repeated observation and experimentation.

Unfortunately from the reason and logic perspective, some of the claims and justifications made by religion would be described as non sequitur at best and blatantly loony at worst.

I don't think Gal understands what science means.
Using the scientific method, you eliminate those "other ways of knowing" because they are wrong. Examples of "other ways of knowing" include being told other people's opinion/belief - which is exactly the thing scientists have learned is unreliable. It's not irresponsible, it's the WHOLE POINT of having science. So people can't just make s*** up, which is what you're doing.

last edited by thermite at 11:58:18 10/Mar/10

There are other ways of knowing.

no

i don't want to debate this with a simpleton like you, because doing so will reinforce any suggestion that there is a 'debate' on this matter

the only reason you make this point is because you think there is a invisible sky wizard

you need your head checked

last edited by gumbiddy at 12:37:08 10/Mar/10

Thermite make that a .gif ?

Finally Julie Bishop gets the credit she deserves.

My problem with Dawkins is that he uses "Science" as the only way of knowing, There are other ways of knowing. Science should be one but not the "god" of knowing all. To use only science as the bases of all knowledge and or belief is irresponsible. Science is constantly changing and has been the past 100's of years - we only know a very small fraction of what is to be known.

Wow and you put quotation marks around random words just like euph does as well.

Science is constantly changing and has been the past 100's of years - we only know a very small fraction of what is to be known.

Hehe, and if historically we just stopped at "God did it" we'd know even less!

it boggles my mind how many grown poeple capable of reasoned thought are able to beleive in this s***

microwave ovens are the work of satan and should be banned

My problem with Dawkins is that he uses "Science" as the only way of knowing, There are other ways of knowing. Science should be one but not the "god" of knowing all. To use only science as the bases of all knowledge and or belief is irresponsible. Science is constantly changing and has been the past 100's of years - we only know a very small fraction of what is to be known.

Science is a process, not an answer.

Which is my problem with Dawkins. He says things are facts because the science says it, but he only says that to rail against nutjob creationist who wouldn't believe him anyway.

Fact is a dodgy way to describe a scientific theory, even one as good as evolution.

Which is my problem with Dawkins. He says things are facts because the science says it, but he only says that to rail against nutjob creationist who wouldn't believe him anyway.

Fact is a dodgy way to describe a scientific theory, even one as good as evolution.

Fact and theory are scientific terms which mean different things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

(from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html )

loved how he smacked down the paki who said atheists could have no ultimate morality or some s*** like that.... like stoning people for punishment.

dawkins +1billion
paki -573

also notice how the muslim chicks never clapped when dawkins smacked someone down
P100 16mb EDO RAM S3Virge4mb 540mb HDD 14" Monitor. why do fags put their computer specs here?
Posted by cainer!!
I find it unbelievable that someone can post the above and then no one comments at all.
Paki !! and a nice homophobe diss in signature line as well.
If someone says Paki or fags they are a person to be shunned. You can come back with a predictable response like f*** you f***** lover or what ever, but really you should be checking yourself. Try and evolve yourself a bit. You don't have to be ignorant, you have a choice.

Re the program,
Unless it was the program makers intent to make the political panelists look like idiots, it would of been better to have some people that could make some reasoned arguments against Richard Dawkins.
Those politicians were terrible, especially the one next to Richard. He was a joke and needs to get some lessons in public speaking if he is going to be on tv or in any debate again. All though i fear that he needs a lot more than that! The Rabbi and Australian of the year were ok as panelists in a way.
The lady on the end almost looked like she wanted to fight people when she wasnt happy about what was being said, kind of like a spoilt kid that has never been told that she maybe wrong about something.
There are much better Dawkins debates on youtube or on his website.


last edited by P at 02:11:04 11/Mar/10

So, how 'bout the weather? Rain is meant to be coming again.

Well we had EPIC FLOODS!, anyone save any animals on a wooded craft?

P for paki, why so butthurt ?

Aussies, Yanks, Poms, Kiwis all whities, unoffended by slang terminology relating to their country of origin.

say Paki... world ending, sky falling, thatsracist.gif

don't be a fag P, build a bridge.. homo.

ps, if u dont want to be offended, don't go online.

how is the word 'paki' any more offensive than the word 'aussie'? it's just shortening the country name and chucking a "ee" sound on the end.

it's not like he even used it in a negative context or anything. he's laughing at the guy's question and Dawkin's response, not the fact that he happens to be a paki.

untwist your panties and l2internet.

This was interesting until someone talked about boat people for some reason and wasted 20 minutes.

Fact and theory are scientific terms which mean different things.

When Dawkins says "fact" he means the infallible type. Hence my issue with it. He uses it to try win an argument against people who will never concede. It's much like this thread.

The theory is dynamic (even though the scientific term "fact" allows that), probably more so than it was in 1981. For example, Lamarkism/Epigenetics is actually taken some what seriously now. Evolution assumes traits are acquired by inheritance.

When Dawkins says "fact" he means the infallible type. Hence my issue with it. He uses it to try win an argument against people who will never concede. It's much like this thread

Here's are the only times he uses the word in the transcript:

[Can one be a believer in God, as well as a believer in the theory of evolution?]
RICHARD DAWKINS: Obviously you can be a believer in God and in evolution, because the archbishop of Canterbury is, the Pope is - at least the previous pope was and the present pope almost is kind of there and so is any bishop, any archbishop, so is any cardinal, so is any priest worthy of the name. So that is absolutely clear as an empirical fact. It is easy to be both. I find it slightly hard. I have a certain niggling sympathy for the creationists, because I think, in a way, the writing is on the wall for the religious view that says it's fully compatible with evolution. I think there's a kind of incompatibility, which the creationists see clearly but the archbishops and the bishops, nevertheless they've see the evidence. Anybody who's seen the evidence knows that evolution is a fact and so you can't get away from it, but I think the writing's on the wall.

Note the use of the word empirical before the first instance. He's talking about fact in the scientific sense, i.e. repeatable observation. A guy like Dawkins doesn't use the word "theory" as a synonym for "conjecture", and he wouldn't give "fact" similar treatment without qualification/signposting; much less change meanings within the same response.

The theory is dynamic (even though the scientific term "fact" allows that), probably more so than it was in 1981. For example, Lamarkism/Epigenetics is actually taken some what seriously now.

Of course - that's the point Gould was making in the last paragraph of the quote I posted.

Evolution assumes traits are acquired by inheritance.

Not really, not inheritance alone - such assumptions haven't been held for quite some time; mutations for instance are hardly anything new. Darwin was of course unaware of genetics and things like genetic drift which make up modern evolutionary theory.

Evolution as an observed phenomenon, is a fact. In the same way you can say gravity as an observed phenomenon is a fact; without precisely understanding how or why gravity exists.

Obviously nowadays we actually know a lot about the mechanics of gravity, but it was still a fact right back when it was just a general observation.

oh...what are the mechanics of gravity?

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a scientist -- but I'm referring to stuff like how we now know its not just a force that makes things fall to the ground: instead, we know that all objects exert a gravitational pull on all other objects relative to their mass. Thus gravity works differently on the moon, the sun exerts a gravitation pull on the planets, stuff like that.

oh...what are the mechanics of gravity?

Heh, we're still learning about the mechanics of both gravity and evolution; despite the observational evidence, we're only arguing about whether one of them exists.

I picked up a copy of Dawkins' book yesterday (his new one, The Greatest Show on Earth). I've only just started reading it, but in the first chapter he does go into detail about what he means when using the words fact, theory, hypothesis, theorem, conjecture etc.

He correctly points out that the Oxford English Dictionary has a few definitions for the word theory, but the 2 applicable in the debate are first, the formal scientific definition of theory which is based upon a hypothesis and borne out by experimental results which don't disprove the theory, and the second definition is the more non-scientific definition which makes theory just a synonym for hypothesis or conjecture or an educated guess etc.
When scientists use the word theory they mean what in more common parlance would be called a law or something. There's evidence to support a hypothesis and no evidence to contradict it.
He also points out that there are NO scientific theory's etc that can be *proven*. It can't even be *proven* that the Sun is larger than the Moon (and for a least some periods of human history the Moon was thought to be larger). However there is a scientific theory now that the Sun is larger than the Moon with so much evidence to support that's its basically considered a fact.

He does say that unlike Science, Mathematics *can* prove their theories if their theories are based upon assumed axioms. Mathematicians call their *provable* theories Theorems. Fermat's Last Theorem for example. As compared to the "such-and-such Conjecture" which is an unproven mathematical theory. As in, no evidence has been found to disprove the theory but it hasn't been *proved* that there never will be evidence found to disprove it.


In his book he decides to create the word Theorum (a different spelling to Theorem) to better distinguish between the scientific meaning of the word Theory and the non-scientific meaning.

When Scientists call it the Theory of Evolution they do NOT mean it's "Just a mere theory. We're not really sure. We don't have any real evidence."
Which is of course what the deluded, trollish or just plain ignorant Creationists claim what Theory means in the Theory of Evolution.

Thus gravity works differently on the moon

With the Hat of Pedantry +1 on I'd argue that gravity works exactly the same on the moon as it does on the earth, it's just a lot weaker there. :)

gravity sucks, it ruins everything

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7412606/US-creationists-unswayed-by-evolution-exhibition.html

They plan to become doctors, researchers and professors, but these students from Liberty University, an evangelical school, also believe that God created the Earth in a week, around 6,000 years ago.

The young "creationists" examined a model of the Morganucodon rat, believed to be the first and common ancestor of mammals that appeared some 210 million years ago.

Lauren Dunn, 19, a second-year biology student, was unimpressed.
"210 million years, that's arbitrary. They put that time to make up for what they don't know," she said.
Nathan Hubbard, a 20 year-old from Michigan and a first-year biology major who plans to become a doctor, regarded the model with suspicion.
"There is no scientific, biological genetic way that this, this rat, could become you," he said, seemingly scandalised by the proposition.

Theres is some pretty interesting Comments added at the end of the article and worth a read.

Not really, not inheritance alone - such assumptions haven't been held for quite some time; mutations for instance are hardly anything new. Darwin was of course unaware of genetics and things like genetic drift which make up modern evolutionary theory.

What I meant was that there is some evidence *new* traits can be acquired during the life of an organism and passed on to subsequent generations. As in it may be possible for a organism to alter its genotype though some sort of reverse transcription or something. It's highly controversial, and terribly old fashioned, but mind blowing if true.

When scientists use the word theory they mean what in more common parlance would be called a law or something.

A theory can be something completely untested, or untestable. Theoretical physics is contradictory and literally theory alone. General relativity theory was untested until the space age, yet was largely accepted. Theory isn't equivalent to "law" at all. Of course, that depends on the branch of science.

Theories can also be provably wrong, but at the same time also accepted. Both the particle model and the wave model of light are empirically wrong, yet that's ok.

My issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't seem to go out of his way to convince people of things, he preaches. He attacks the beliefs rather than throwing the evidence at them. A die-hard creationist is never going to believe it, but getting people's backs up, attacking their religion (even if it doesn't encapsulate their entire belief structures - people aren't sheep they create their own) and generally just being a dick about it doesn't help his cause. He is also completely wrong about spirituality.

And I say that as a proper atheist myself, not one of those half-arsed agnostics.

Also, isn't the gravitational constant supposed to be changing?

My issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't seem to go out of his way to convince people of things, he preaches. He attacks the beliefs rather than throwing the evidence at them. A die-hard creationist is never going to believe it, but getting people's backs up, attacking their religion (even if it doesn't encapsulate their entire belief structures - people aren't sheep they create their own) and generally just being a dick about it doesn't help his cause.

If writing numerous books and appearing in uncountable interviews is not going out of his way to convince certain people that they might be misguided then I'm not sure what does count as going out of his way. His recent book is primarily focused on the evidence of evolution, though I'd bet that the lack of reading it won't prevent a lot of creationists from commenting on it.

In some interviews he can come across as being a dick when trying to get his point across. Though it must be terribly frustrating at times to encounter people who believe something that is likely to be false but aren't sure why they believe it (exhibiting intellectual laziness) or believe something that is likely to be false in the face of contradictory evidence (exhibiting intellectual dishonesty).

You cannot argue with religious people, well you can, but usually without any tangible benefit.

People like Hitchens/Dawkins/QGLers would be better served creating an atheist lobby group rather than constantly attacking people who believe in invisible sky wizards.

Attacking religious groups only seems to increase their resolve and their crazy, all we can do is try to limit their effect on our lives. Apathy is a bigger threat than religiosity.

A theory can be something completely untested, or untestable

No, it must be testable, even in the esoteric world of theoretical physics. Look at the (rightly deserved IMO) controversy over whether String Theory is actually a scientific theory.

General relativity theory was untested until the space age, yet was largely accepted

Hmm... wikipedia would disagree with you there, on both points:

During that period, general relativity remained something of a curiosity among physical theories. It was clearly superior to Newtonian gravity, being consistent with special relativity and accounting for several effects unexplained by the Newtonian theory. Einstein himself had shown in 1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary parameters ("fudge factors").[6] Similarly, a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity's prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919,[7] making Einstein instantly famous.[8] Yet the theory entered the mainstream of theoretical physics and astrophysics only with the developments between approximately 1960 and 1975, now known as the Golden age of general relativity.

Both the particle model and the wave model of light are empirically wrong, yet that's ok.

Models aren't meant to be perfect 1:1 representations, that's why they're called models. Just like Newtonian dynamics, the wave and particle models perfectly valid within their domain of validity.

Also, isn't the gravitational constant supposed to be changing?

You may mean the cosmological constant?

Just calling something "theory" does not make it a theory. String theory is not a scientific theory in the way Dawkins defines a theory. The use of the word "theory" in string theory is more a philosophical use.

My issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't seem to go out of his way to convince people of things, he preaches. He attacks the beliefs rather than throwing the evidence at them. A die-hard creationist is never going to believe it, but getting people's backs up, attacking their religion (even if it doesn't encapsulate their entire belief structures - people aren't sheep they create their own) and generally just being a dick about it doesn't help his cause.

It's like you've never read a single one of his books...