/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4246709
Hey Mister Behe

>>4246709
Are you single?

>>4246709
If evolutions true why are there still monkeys.

Ask him if he'd like some coffee later in the elevator.

>>4246745
ISHYGDDT

Ask him why he thinks evolution is often rejected by Christians despite their acceptance of other scientific theories that contradict the bible.

>>4246745
Ill ask him this.

Say this. Richard Dawkins? More like Dick Dawkins am I right?

ask him if he has ever heard of genetic drift

>having a debate tomorrow
>not prepared well ahead of time

Stop feeding into the stereotype, OP

Here are some questions that'll make you look like you are truly intelligent.
1. How come there are monkeys if we evolved from them?
2. How did the moon get here?
3. What's the purpose of life, can science provide an answer? If not, science is wrong and useless.

If evolution were true, vampires, werewolves would exist. They don't. How do you account for that?

>>4246779
Im very well prepared. Im just asking you. Best thing so far is : If evolutions true why are there still monkeys.

What's your take on epigenetic? Does it influence your gene centric view on evolution?

>Im having a debate with Richard Dawkins tomorrow.

>/sci/
>doing anything even remotely noteworthy

8/10 for originality

why do you believe in an unproven religion (atheism)?

If evolution is true then why can't it explain how life appeared?

>>4246760
Good question too, but it cant go to the religion thing too much..

>>4246794
Well everyone of us knew all religions are bullshit even before we heard of Dawkins or anyone else similiar.

>>4246786
>very well prepared
>thinks 'If evolutions true why are there still monkeys' hasn't already been thoroughly eliminated as a valid debate question

Ask him "What is the best way to deal with religious fundamentalists that continue to insist evolution is untrue/lies and teach it as such to subsequent generations of indoctrinated believers?"

>>4246810
Get the joke..

>>4246745
>>4246782
>>4246784
>>4246794
>>4246799
Haha wow. Fucking idiots.
>>4246810
That is the best question I've ever heard.

>>4246810
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=q-Tu4JM1kk0

Watch this tho..

>>4246758
>>4246817
Idiots that don't know an obvious joke when they see one.

>>4246817
I thought this was a troll thread?

>>4246821
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBdbS-FgyO4

>>4246829
hahaha, so nice

Richard Dawkins:

Master of Arts
Doctor of Philosophy
Ethologist

>science

Ask him about the genetics of homosexuality and if he believes it could be interpreted as a form of grop centered evlution.

Why the sun goes up and down, and the tides go in and out, with no miscommunication.

can evolution explain the sudden rise of homosexual population?

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

-Richard Dawkins

>>4246866
Gay virus.
For the safety of the human race, we have to take action.

Ask him if biology is a hard science.

i've invented a crocofronkey, wanna see it?

then show him a picture of a crocofronkey drawn by a child

Seen any good movies lately?

>>4246892
He actually admitted that physics was a sort of 'superior' science, or at least a more developed one.

do you want a serious discussion?

if not ask him this.
>>4246745

are you an 'evolution denier'?
if so you might actually have somewhat of a debate even though he'll just shit all over anything you say.
And you are an idiot.

he seems to conflate any subject with religion, and answer any innocous question or counterargument with debunking religion.
Sort of a prick.

>>4246936
>and answer any innocous question or counterargument with debunking religion.
That's total bullshit.

I actually have a legitimate question I'd like to hear him respond to:

"Do you think it's fair to say that consciousness is essentially a meme of one's self, and do you think the same biological principles, like natural selection, would apply to its proliferation?"

Refute the ultimate 747 arguement if you can.
Its been around for years and no-one has.

BTW because evolution is the only falsifiable theory out there for explaining the diversity of life you are going to loose.

>>4246947
That's two questions. The first one doesn't really make sense and the second one he would probably say yes since that is essentially meme theory.

Can I touch your junk? Or at least sniff it?

>>4246949
He does it in god delusion. there are 2 pages devoted to it.

>>4246951
My bad, I thought you were halfway intelligent.

Just ask him "How can you believe in evolution when it's just a theory? (a geuss)"

How old were you when you lost your virginity and was it rad?

>>4246960
>Just ask him "How can you believe in evolution when it's just a theory? (a geuss)"
Can't believe it took this long for someone to suggest that.

>>4246947
>Do you think it's fair to say that consciousness is essentially a meme of one's self

what does that actually mean? the replicator propagates within a medium. Perhaps the self is the meme and consciousness is the medium but I don't see how consciousness could be a meme

Why're you such a sand-cunted old bastard?

No, really, I saw that one video where some kids got pissed 'cause he was going to open a private university, and he could barely contain his boiling rage at the unwashed masses.

>>4246968

all the people who remember that /sci/ meme were sane enough to leave this place before it was too late

IS THIS REAL LIFE?1!?!?!?!?
& dont forget IS THIS WHERE U WANA BE DAWKINS WHEN JESUS COMES BACK?!!?!!

please

PLEASE ASK HIM

TO COME HERE

PLEASE I BEG OF YOU

Seriously, if he comes to /sci/ and does a Q&A it will be brilliant.

>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022

DUBS DEMAND IT, DO IT FAGGOT

>>4247022
this

bring Dawkins to /sci/
tell him how to set up a tripcode and what "timestamped pic" means

>>4247022

This.

Would be so awesome.

Don't pass up the chance OP.

>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
OP is a liar but please do it
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022
>>4247022

>>4247022
>implying trolls won't ruin it

>>4247022

That would be hilarious. But we would never know if it was actually him.

Unless tits and timestamp.

>>4247022
It will never happen, Dawkins doesn't give a shit about online Q&A's

>>4247353
>trolls
>/sci/
>2011
>A hard science
implying i don't already frequent /sci/
ps, god is a lie

>>4247022
i dont know wthat will be best, the troll asking troll squestions, dawkin fanboys defending him, dawkin haters hating, relegios people knowing better or people repporting him. that wil bea fin,@

>>4247353
EK why do you always post twice in a row? It's like you dont read before you think, so you comment twice...

>>4247373
>hur dur
why are you suck a fatass? its like you stuff shit into your mouth without thinking.

>>4247373
he left and gave out his trip. durrrr
EK#.1Omhrk8

>>4247409
do you like taking fun away from people? you must be the retard that has to yell in the movies about how FTL is imposable in starwars. you are the type of person i hate most in the world, more that creationists and trhe original EK combined.

>>4247416
knowledge is free and he deserves the right to know. it's right in the archives. ek did not intend for people to abuse the trip.

>>4247409
please fuck my tender anus

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

How can we account for the great disparity in the time taken for the two sexes to arrive at orgasm during coitus?

>>4247489

^This is actually a very good question.

No, don't ask him why monkeys exist if evolution exists. He will think you are stupid, and anyone with any scientific background will agree

>>4247489
>>4247528

I am assuming you are joking but on the off chance that you are not I feel obliged to inform you that this is rather obvious and not worth of Dawkins's time. The disparity is a clear evolutionary advantage in that if women climaxed sooner than men, conception would be less likely. Assuming there is variance in the climax times of individuals it should be self-evident that over time the tendency for males to climax sooner than women should become frequent in populations.

Ask him why I didn't see the expression "genetic drift" anywhere in his "the greatest show on earth" book.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that OP is not actually having any sort of a discussion or interaction with Dawkins tomorrow. However, because this thread is here, I will voice a question that I have been genuinely curious about for some time. Can and has biology given us any quantified explanation of abiogenesis? Does biology have the capability of estimating the probability with which abiogenesis might have occurred under the conditions of early Earth or Earth today? Is the theory that abiogenesis happened a single time and that we are all the result of this one freak occurrence, or is it possible that there were many cases of abiogenesis throughout the history of the Earth? Is it likely that there were other abiogeneses that created self-replicating organic molecules other than DNA that just died out? The idea of abiogenesis in general is very interesting but I'm unaware of any quantitative analysis that biology gives us of abiogenesis; Dawkins shedding some light on this would intrigue me.

>>4247606
The second chapter of selfish gene looks at this. But really, in the early stages of life arising (pre-cell), as soon as one really good replicator arise the chances are he'll put all the rest out of business

Stop saying abiogenesis so much... silly person.

>>4247570
why would the female reaching orgasm before the male reduce the likelihood of conception considering women can have mutiple orgasms?

>>4246750
I heard briefly about that, elaborate?

Why haven't we evolved to fly in space?

why do monkeys into evolution not pertain something as equal as humans not being dead?

Evolution or Creation?
Both can be true. You can look at the evidence on Earth such as dinosaur bones and fossilized bark deposits to show that these items date back to a time before the creation date in most myths via carbon dating. Evolution includes the big bang theory which dates back several billion years which initiated the interaction of all particles in the known universe. This process started the evolution of more complex atoms, the occurence of abiogenesis and finally evolving single-celled organisms into complex lifeforms resulting, partly, in the creation of us on planet Earth. Given the apparent evidence on our planet and the visible universe, several unsolvable ideas can be noted. The key issue is limitless power of any all powerful god or team of gods which exists. The planet could have been formed in a short amount of time given an unknown law or laws of physics which allows these gods or god to form what we precieve to be the limits of our existence to their will with ease. This could have occured at any point in the past. In the most extreme case, your fathers' memories could have been generated by god the day before you were born. Your memories could have been generated yesterday, along with the rest of the world. Earth could have been generated by a being which exists in our universe and the universe existed for a relatively long period of time. The possibilities are endless. So
R = Right Answer = 1
G = Number of Possible Scenarios = ∞
(R / G) * 100% ~ 0%
You have an effective 0% chance of being right.

This now enters the world of creativity. It seems to me that some believe that a decision must be reached in terms of god even though none can be proved. Others believe in existentialism in terms of our creation, and that is enough for them to be content. An agnostic approach permits all scenarios to be a possibility, given that no course of action can be taken to prove that any scenario is the right one with our current understanding of the universe.

Call him out on his Atheist crusade.
I fucking hate him for it.
Tell him how he's putting the complete scientific field to disgrace by falling back to popularity bullshit just like the uneducated masses do and make a universal appeal to ban him out of the scientific circles.

>>4247945
>Evolution includes the big bang theory

wat the fuck am i reading?

>>4247994
Ofcourse it includes the big bang theory.
How did we come to exist on this planet?

So, what happened?

>>4247962
>>4247962
>>4247962
>>4247962
>>4247962
>>4247962

>>4247945
Dating dinosaur bones with carbon dating?

Just link me to the site where you got this from so I can hear the real argument.

>>4246866
natural selection's way to counter the demographic explosion, as in homos wont breed as successfully as heteros due to choosing a same sex partner (note that this doesn't rule out them breeding before they discover they are gay)

>>4250168

>before they discover they are gay

Gay people know they are homo from day 1

>>4250191
not the ones in denial

>>4250077

Did this debate happen in real life or was this an elaborate troll thread?

How can you debate a fact?

>>4246794

I love you guys.

It's so great how so many different humans have different opinions on different things.

>>4246761
>>4246745
>>4246786

why did you devote your life to arguing with delusional people? isnt the very task futile and thus not worth pursuing?

>"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

There's no way Richard Dawkins, a biologist said something this stupid.