Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein! (page 16)

BurnTheShips

Dawkins has done a bit of creative editing of his own, such as when he interviewed Alistair McGrath.

Burn

IP_SEC

I've not read the comments. Dont matter nun. I am an atheist. Dawkins is a tool.

I've never heard of Haldane's Dilemma, mostly because I've never taken ID's arguments seriously, and always believed in evolution (well, for a very long time), even as a JW, I will investigate it, thanks.

Burn

PS

This link seems to address it pretty well, but it is a long post!

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/haldanes-dilemma-should-we-worry.php

5go

I've never heard of Haldane's Dilemma, mostly because I've never taken ID's arguments seriously, and always believed in evolution (well, for a very long time), even as a JW, I will investigate it, thanks.
Burn

But you recite the Nazi-Darwin link which is a ~~creationist~~ ID attack argument like it was going out of style. Much like Ben Stein does.

BurnTheShips

Seeing as Ben Stein is a ex-Nixon intern it doesn't surprise me he made a highly stupid and totally out of context documentary about something he doesn't know anything about nor really tries to defend in his movie. Notice he just attacks evolution. All his experts conceded there is currently no competing theory to evolution. ID isn't a theory it's religious ideas trying to pass themselves off as a theory. The public now knows this and it will only do well in the south.

Expelled did 3.2 million on its opening night and cracked top 10.

Granted, it's no "Fahrenheit 911" but that's not too shabby for a documentary on what to the general public is a rather dry subject.

Burn

BurnTheShips

But you recite the Nazi-Darwin link which is a ~~creationist~~ ID attack argument like it was going out of style. Much like Ben Stein does.

I've demonstrated the link on this thread. You would do well to review it rather than casually associate me with Ben Stein. Just because some cracked individuals believe something does not make it untrue. For example, you believe the sky is blue, to use your argument would be to deduce its nonblueness from your own obvious mental disorder, however, this is not the case. The sky IS blue, and your derangement has no bearing on the matter.

Burn

hooberus

I've never heard of Haldane's Dilemma, mostly because I've never taken ID's arguments seriously, and always believed in evolution (well, for a very long time), even as a JW, I will investigate it, thanks.
Burn
PS
This link seems to address it pretty well, but it is a long post!
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/haldanes-dilemma-should-we-worry.php

see here for more:

http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm

BurnTheShips

http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm

Natural selection is not the only cause for evolution, there is also genetic drift. We see this, even in human populations over brief periods of thousands of years-and (and humans are slow breeders). Also, Haldane assumes that fitness selection for favorable alleles is independent, and that therefore allele selection would have to be in sequence. But as we know, allele selection is not independent, and a variety of alleles can and do get selected and or deprecated in parallel-which also greatly speeds up the process as thousands of alleles can be subjected to fitness tests this way simultaneously. Also, it seems that Haldane's dilemma only deals with adaptation from existing alleles of existing genes, it does not addrees new advantageous mutations, which presumably would not cause new deaths in an existing genetic population.

All of these factors would greatly speed up the rate of adaptation of a genetic population.

Besides, all the different species would not have fit in Noah's ark. If he only stuffed a few representatvies of each phylum in the boat the rate of evolution over the first few centuries would have been legion and deluge. This presupposes a faster rate of evolution than even the Dawkins needs to prove to not look like a jackass.

Burn

Perry

Perry, do you know the role of science? Its simple... the role of science is to find a natural explanation as to why things occur. If science were to explain everything with God or demons then we'd never discover crap.

Dawg,

How anyone can look at the video clip from Harvard University that I posted of a Single Cell and assume that something "unnatural" designed that "universe" inside a cell? Of course whatever made that is "natural". Whatever made it surely has a vastly superior natural basis than we do. Only an infinite intelligence could have designed that and us...what could be more natural that that? I mean to see the handi-work of our progenitor tells us a great deal about about him and the ultimate "nature" of things. It strongly suggests the Diety himself is the ultimate source of study and wonder.

Of course if YOU choose to label the one responsible for all that design as unnatural, you are free to do so. But, it's just a word and is irrelevant to reality of the origin of life; which of course many others chose to label as natural.

Just as your false prophet Jesus showed his ignorance of science by expelling so called demons from epileptic victims

Again, how could you test this? Have you interviewed the many people that will testify to their own demon posession?

Were you there? I thought you were interested in testability and not conjecture?

Stein's movie is for all that have no idea what science does...

You are right. And, now we know what the gate-keepers of science do to people who study natural complexity for a living and make the mistake of using unapproved language like design. They disfellowship them. They are silenced. Their careers demolished and their families put at risk. Does that sound like science to you?

and here you are fumbling around about Dawkins while returning from Christian Church. A religion that holds man originated 7K years ago.. And dies because of a talking snake...LOL! And instead of feeling the shame you should feel for defending this lunacy, you attack Dawkins...

I scrutinized Dawkins because he's either deluded for suggesting aliens as a basis for the observable design that is evident in nature, or he's a coward (or a charlatan) for not coming right out and stating his belief that certain words and thinking are unapproved. Are you really suggesting that a talking snake animated by another intelligent life form is less likely than the aliens that Dawkins offered as a source for the infinitely observable complexity of life? I don't think you have really thought out what you are presenting here.

I have a friend that is a ventriloquist. But I wouln't allow him to mix me a batch of cookies much less an organic soup. My point is that the intelligence required to create ONE CELL is many, many orders of magnitude (too many to know) larger than what it would take to make a snake talk.

First line in my Biology book in college dismisses all God talk as it well should.

If the world's foremost scientists want to discuss aliens, as Dawkins did, I don't see a reason to prevent words like 'design" or designer. Certainly, origin of life is far beyond the realm of science.

You can attack Dawkins all you want, he may be an idiot.. but nothing will ever save you from the lie that you believe...

Already been saved Dawg. Just happy how things are. I wish you much happiness as well.

BurnTheShips

Perry, a God that could design the laws of the Universe could design a Universe that would grow and develop on its own after its inception. For you to insist that God had to do things as you narrowly interpret is to make Him too small. An adult human body is a marvelous, complex piece of biological engineering, but it starts as two small cells and becomes increasingly complex from there. The Universe is that principle writ large.

Snap out of it.

Burn

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

Share this