Quote:
Originally Posted by notinmybackyard
Then we agree that he is NOT qualified.
My comment was that
- In physics you have someone that is more or less involved in the understanding of the nature of the universe.
- In theology it is the study of "religion" and "God".
- In anthropology it is people studing the past and present of humanity, humanity's relationship with faith based dichotomies being part of that field.
But ethology and evolutionary biology have nothing to do with the study of the universe, religion or humanity's cultural evolution. Therefore who the hell is Dawkins to act as if he is some sort of expert? As I already said, Dawkins is the latest youtube celebrity clown expressing on opinion on something he knows nothing about.
From the real estate con artist Jacques Frescoe and his 1970s Star Trek fantasy to the illuminati bankers to Richard Dawkins. It is the curse of the Internet.
It is as if every 6 months someone forgets to close the door on Reddit and what I call generation loser and their "do not tell me shit because we are smarter than everyone else" attitude pollutes the gene pool of humanity yet again. |
Incredible...so with your "logical" thinking Darwin was just a "clown" who sailed around the world and looked at stuff.
Dawkins is more than qualified to express his opinion that a god is not necessary for life to evolve to the present day form (humans included). So using the creation of life and/or humans as evidence of god is not needed.
Dawkins was around long before youtube and has been a best selling author since his first book The Selfish Gene came out in 1976 and he coined the term "meme" long before it was applied to discribe the way ideas propogate on the internet so...he certainly is not as you say, "the latest youtube celebrity clown".