I believe Dawkins to be a complete idiot. Sorry, for all of you Dawkin worshipers.
That is OK I personaly wish he would stop turning the atheist movement to the christian model anyway.
Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!
by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
5go
-
AuldSoul
You can accept a dog-like animal evolved into the modern horse when presented with different transitional fossils in the correct order, yet you won't accept pakitecus evolved into the modern whale, when presented with different transitional fossils in the correct order.
I can accept that a dog-sized HORSE evolved into the modern HORSE (and several other varieties of HORSES, for that matter) when presented with MANY different transitional fossils that are remarkably complete from which to judge the matter. Of course, that dog-sized HORSE didn't provably evolve into something that wasn't a HORSE, did it?
I won't accept as conclusive evidence a very incomplete set of transitional "fossils" that are, themselves, incomplete fossils from which to judge a different progression. You seem to think that is unreasonable, but won't explain why. The ordering only matters at all if the animal's progression can be proven to have taken the path believed to have been taken to reach the whale.
In other words, I can accept the complete transitional fossil record from a variety of horse to a lot of other varieties of horses much more easily than I can accept a very incomplete transitional fossil record from a pakicetus to a modern whale. You don't see the distinction between the proof in the two cases?
-
AuldSoul
So, you don't have a theory. I obviously have to say it for you as you won't come out with it.
Proving WHO designed life intelligently is no more a task of ID than is proving abiogenesis a task of evolution. It is incredibly hypocritical to hold me to a standard you don't even aspire to acheive. On this thread I have not suggested WHO designed anything, have I? That would be a genesis theory, not a presence/progression of life theory.
I have never stated that I believe in special design of each kind of life. I believe any intelligent designer would account for enough flexibility within design to allow for a wide variety of adaption. Since WE even recognize that a high capacity for adaptation is useful for species survival, surely any intelligent designer would have known this, as well. Plus we have enough examples of known design to demonstrate clearly that KNOWN intelligent designs take into account, in advance, the potential for changing environments or circumstances in designs intended to survive over long periods of time.
I say life and the progression of life shows the markers of just such long-term planning, along with intermittent direct modifications. That is, remodeling using existing genetic "space" as opposed to brand new designs. Ask any human designer, they will know what I am talking about. That is why I believe it is by design.
-
serotonin_wraith
Of course, that dog-sized HORSE didn't provably evolve into something that wasn't a HORSE, did it?
Do zebra and donkey count?
I won't accept as conclusive evidence a very incomplete set of transitional "fossils"
Click this link and find out!
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
Pakicetids did not look like whales at all, and resembled land mammals. However, the skulls of pakicetids have an ear region that is highly unusual in shape, and only resembles that of modern and fossil whales. These features are diagnostic for cetaceans, they are found in all cetaceans, and in no other animals. These features are the main reason why pakicetids are considered whales.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/
Ambulocetus natans
, the 49 million year old "walking, swimming whale" discovered in Pakistan by Thewissen and team in 1992, and described in 1994-1996, is currently the oldest known saltwater cetacean. "With long hind legs and hands, but the teeth and ears of a more modern whale, this animal was on the fence between land and sea."Incomplete? Your last post is incomplete. You haven't addressed the other transitional fossils yet.
-
Forscher
I am enjoying Aulde Souls's answers to his critics.
To get a little away from that diversion I'd like to say that I went to see Expelled last night. Ben Stein won't get any awards from Hollywood for it for obvious reasons, but he did a better job of making his case than Michael Moore or Al Gore ever did. Sure, he did divert a little by pointing out the obvious link between Eugenics and Darwinism. He even quoted Darwin making a Eugenics argument from The Descent of Man. And one could say that he drew an inference for his audience on what Dawkins was saying which wasn't really accurate. In Short Dawkins answered Stein's question about what circumstances ID could legitimately be considered by citing panspermia, in other words, under no circumstances since panspermia is also considered on the same level with ID by the scientific community right now. But then, one would have to know that to understand Dawkins.
My impression is that the real reason the Darwinists who appeared in Expelled are so upset is that they came off second best in their interviews. What were they thinking, that they could go into an interview with a Harvard Law School Valedictorian and not get burned? I guess that they've been so used to softball interviews from the media that they didn't think Ben Stein would dare show how narrow minded they really are. They should know better.
I enjoyed the documentary. Ben Stein made his main point about the American scientific community stifling legitimate scientific inquiry with a vengance. I've already made that point on this forum to the anger of some. I agree with Mr. Stein that we ought to be very worried about the suppression of alternate views in the scientific community. After all, we are seeing right now how that suppression for political purposes threatens to harm us all with policies for regulation of CO2 emissions based on junk science. We ought to be very worried.
Forscher
-
LayingLow
I'm not a scientist and I do not claim to be. For that matter, I'm not a philosopher either. Please just view my thoughts for what they worth.
Science looks at observable processes. Intelligent Design is not an observable process. I.D. will always look like a cop-out to scientists because it doesn't follow that a test can be done it.
This is my point: Imagine you knew a method by which something could build itself. Would that prove that it did build itself and wasn't built by someone else? No.
Imagine that something looked so difficult to build that it doesn't appear possible that it could have built itself. Does that prove that it was built by someone else? No.
I know that this is definitely over simplifying it, but here it goes: Imagine there is a field that has a charred area in it. Charred areas can be caused by lightning striking a tree and the conditions being right for the bolt to ignite the plants in the field. Someone could have also have lit a match. However years have passed and the area is grown over with charred parts still exposed. How do you prove which one it was? -
inrainbows
AuldSoul
So, nothing further to say about your 'attempt' to explain dolphin atavisms using ID. You just repeat what you said before really.
I think we can assume you know when you are backing a losing eohippus, but rather than concede your error, you ignore your error and carry on attacking a theory leaving the burning hulks of your supposed defences of ID behind you without a backward glance or by simply recapitulating inadequate arguments and not answering questions as regards their validity.
Holding onto your opinions is so easy when you ignore all the times they are shown to be unsuportable.
Sea levels are rising; why would environmental stress make a dolphin sprout atavistic limbs? Besides, what environmental stress would make a human be born with an atavistic tail? Why would THAT variation be built into the genome?
Are you claiming elephants have sufficient design variation built into become sea-going? And then mate with land-going elephants? You've not answered the question about whether your land-going dolphins could breed with their aqautic cousins. Or indicated ANY form of proof of such a postulation.
And doesn't it occur to you that (useless) atavistic hind limbs are NOT a survival trait.
You believe in intelligent design? Then the designs are not very good for something designed by an intelligence as distinct from a process. What do I mean?
A decent designer who could design an organsism with sufficient genetic flexibility to chnage in the manner you describe could also design it so this flexibility could happen far more quickly than the slow slow process of evolution.
If the data is there and the triggers for expressing that data are there then it would be possible to design dolphins that (for example) when kept in a small shallow water tank with a beach would have babies with usable legs.
This is of course nonsense, as is your hypothesis.
Proving WHO designed life intelligently is no more a task of ID than is proving abiogenesis a task of evolution.
Wrong. Evolution explains HOW species come about. Not how life came about.
You need to explain how your designer came about as your designer is required for how life came about AND how species come about.
You say you don't hold with special design, but unfortunately for you (unless you throw out all dating methods) species have arisen in the past few hundred million years that would EITHER require macro-evolution or a new special design, because they were not about before.
It is incredibly hypocritical to hold me to a standard you don't even aspire to acheive. On this thread I have not suggested WHO designed anything, have I?
No, because you know your whole pretence at having anything approaching a credible theory falls into ashes if you do.
I have never stated that I believe in special design of each kind of life.
No, but as noted above you still need the designer producing new 'kinds' at various points OR to believe in macro-evolution.
Any answer to the point about how little your faith is? Why cannot the designer be brilliant enough to make it all happen with a single throw of the dice? Why do you limit the power of the designer and reduce it to a thing spinning plates?
And nothing on ERV's I see.
TopHat
I am so happy you've found your level.
-
serotonin_wraith
Good timing for this article to come out! Look how all the pieces are fitting together to show macro evolution is real.
-
inrainbows
Nice one serotonin.
Isn't it funny how the exact same set of evidence (soft tissues from fossils) that Creationists assume discredits evolution actually increases the level of proof?
Of course, no doubt some farsical explanation for why the 'genetic design tool kit' for T-Rex is of greater similarity to chickens than to alligators will be attempted, and the fact that this result is exactly the result most evolutionists have theorised over the past couple of decades will be ignored.
Maybe someone will claim that T-Rex subjected to environmental stress become chickens? Or that you could breed a chicken with a T-Rex?
I hope the above isn't true; I have a broody hen sitting on some eggs at the moment. I'm now going to be especially careful about the environmental stress that takes place. Last thing I want is being killed in my sleep by a freshly hatched veolociraptor...
(note, the above is a farce or paradoy and is not meant to be taken literally. No one would expect a chicken egg to produce velociraptors.)
-
BurnTheShips
Nice article Sero.
For years I've imagined T-Rex covered in downy colorful feathers.
Burn
