- Joined
- Jun 14, 2018
- Messages
- 759
- Reaction score
- 188
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Richard Dawkins, the quote miner - Evolutionary biologist at Oxford and prominent atheist who consistently has expressed his *rationality* in an unnecessarily hateful manner.
“I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” - The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, page 46
I offer a $500 reward to any atheist or Darwinist who can accurately quote a book written by an atheist, which condemns another prominent atheist for "quote mining." You will read many smug put-downs of Christians and doubters of Darwin by atheists for the formers' "quote mining." Find one published example, in a book found in libraries, of one atheist/Darwinist, by another, and $500 is yours.
NOT ONLY did Dawkins commit the atheist *irrationality* of quote mining, but he also COMPOUNDED IT in two amusingly ignorant ways, this pretender of Exceptional Brightness.
1. He badly misquoted the arguably original author of the false quote.
2. He abused the very idea of statistics embedded in the real quote, or his own made up version, take your pick.
And while I'm at it, his third ignorant mistake occurs to me, he was too lazy to look up the author of the quote he abused so terribly in two other distinctly different, ignorant ways.
I will correct all three of Dawkins' irrational oversights.
1. The correct quote is: "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum."
2. The probability of "an army of monkeys" strumming on typewriters to produce just one sentence, 50 characters in length, using only 50 different possible keystrokes available on a typewriter (26 letters + 10 numbers + characters and upper case exceeds 50 but let's just use that number) is 1 chance in 50 to the 50th. This equals 1 chance in 10 to the 84th power. In other words, the "army of monkeys" would have to "strum" 10 to the 84th power of lines BEFORE they were likely to produce one single line of any book you might choose.
There are *only* 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe. Dawkins himself defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power, so.....
3. – Physicist Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1928
In one of his typically hateful responses, Dawkins emailed me, calling me "stupid," after I pointed out error after error after error in several of his books. He could not address his glaring oversights and ignorance honestly, rationally, so instead, he did what atheists everywhere do so routinely. He attacked me and my "stupidity." Which points out yet another atheist hypocrisy/irrationality/anti-scientific strut:
The Fallacy of the Argument from Authority. Atheists/Darwinists cite this fallacy often when condemning those of us they "despise," as Dawkins writes in one of his books, but irrationally never notice their own practice of that very fallacy. They pretend/claim/assert that they are always and ever of superior intellect to those they "despise" but when trapped in their own web of mendacious mediocrity, the best that they can do is fall back on that very Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. You're stupid. I'm brilliant. Shut up.
$500. Who's game? [Don't be lazy. Google ain't gonna cut it. And don't cheat. Cheating has been rampant among atheists/Darwinists for centuries. It's anti-science and irrational.]
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
Footnote: There is ALSO a fourth error implicit in Dawkins misguided misquote.
ANY TIME a "Fundie/Creo/YEC" (That is a derisive group of terms for non-Darwinists, near and dear to Darwinists themselves) misquotes someone else, the whole of the Fundie/Creo/YEC message is instantly dismissed as being worthless. Do atheists/Darwinists ever discredit their own for misquoting others? I have yet to see it, and am tempted to offer a second $500 reward for any atheist/Darwinist to cite such an example in a published book. But I cannot due to the fact that cheating has been so widespread among them for so many centuries/decades that it is all too likely to be attempted here. [See Icons of Evolution for specifics of long-term, ongoing cheating by their side.]
A fifth: IF, in fact, I were as "stupid" as Dawkins/atheists/Darwinists claim all the time, how is it possible that I can critique Dawkins so comprehensively?
A speculative sixth: (I'm *stupid* and everything I said was wrong. And stupid.)
“I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” - The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, page 46
I offer a $500 reward to any atheist or Darwinist who can accurately quote a book written by an atheist, which condemns another prominent atheist for "quote mining." You will read many smug put-downs of Christians and doubters of Darwin by atheists for the formers' "quote mining." Find one published example, in a book found in libraries, of one atheist/Darwinist, by another, and $500 is yours.
NOT ONLY did Dawkins commit the atheist *irrationality* of quote mining, but he also COMPOUNDED IT in two amusingly ignorant ways, this pretender of Exceptional Brightness.
1. He badly misquoted the arguably original author of the false quote.
2. He abused the very idea of statistics embedded in the real quote, or his own made up version, take your pick.
And while I'm at it, his third ignorant mistake occurs to me, he was too lazy to look up the author of the quote he abused so terribly in two other distinctly different, ignorant ways.
I will correct all three of Dawkins' irrational oversights.
1. The correct quote is: "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum."
2. The probability of "an army of monkeys" strumming on typewriters to produce just one sentence, 50 characters in length, using only 50 different possible keystrokes available on a typewriter (26 letters + 10 numbers + characters and upper case exceeds 50 but let's just use that number) is 1 chance in 50 to the 50th. This equals 1 chance in 10 to the 84th power. In other words, the "army of monkeys" would have to "strum" 10 to the 84th power of lines BEFORE they were likely to produce one single line of any book you might choose.
There are *only* 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe. Dawkins himself defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power, so.....
3. – Physicist Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1928
In one of his typically hateful responses, Dawkins emailed me, calling me "stupid," after I pointed out error after error after error in several of his books. He could not address his glaring oversights and ignorance honestly, rationally, so instead, he did what atheists everywhere do so routinely. He attacked me and my "stupidity." Which points out yet another atheist hypocrisy/irrationality/anti-scientific strut:
The Fallacy of the Argument from Authority. Atheists/Darwinists cite this fallacy often when condemning those of us they "despise," as Dawkins writes in one of his books, but irrationally never notice their own practice of that very fallacy. They pretend/claim/assert that they are always and ever of superior intellect to those they "despise" but when trapped in their own web of mendacious mediocrity, the best that they can do is fall back on that very Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. You're stupid. I'm brilliant. Shut up.
$500. Who's game? [Don't be lazy. Google ain't gonna cut it. And don't cheat. Cheating has been rampant among atheists/Darwinists for centuries. It's anti-science and irrational.]
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
Footnote: There is ALSO a fourth error implicit in Dawkins misguided misquote.
ANY TIME a "Fundie/Creo/YEC" (That is a derisive group of terms for non-Darwinists, near and dear to Darwinists themselves) misquotes someone else, the whole of the Fundie/Creo/YEC message is instantly dismissed as being worthless. Do atheists/Darwinists ever discredit their own for misquoting others? I have yet to see it, and am tempted to offer a second $500 reward for any atheist/Darwinist to cite such an example in a published book. But I cannot due to the fact that cheating has been so widespread among them for so many centuries/decades that it is all too likely to be attempted here. [See Icons of Evolution for specifics of long-term, ongoing cheating by their side.]
A fifth: IF, in fact, I were as "stupid" as Dawkins/atheists/Darwinists claim all the time, how is it possible that I can critique Dawkins so comprehensively?
A speculative sixth: (I'm *stupid* and everything I said was wrong. And stupid.)
