Book review: The God Delusion
Hoof-Hearted
Judgment day
by Joan Bakewell for The Guardian
Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion gives it to believers with both
barrels. Joan Bakewell cheers him on.
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
416pp, Bantam, Ł20
In September 1997 Richard Dawkins allowed an Australian film crew into
his Oxford home, only to realise in the course of a particularly inept
interview that they were creationists trying to trap him. Tumbling to
this, he paused some moments while deciding whether to throw them out
or attempt a long and thoughtful explanation that they didn't want to
hear. In their resulting film, his hesitation is dishonestly edited to
look like intellectual doubt on his part. Creationists and believers in
God are right to see him as their arch-enemy. In The God Delusion he
displays what a formidable adversary he is. It is a spirited and
exhilarating read. In the current climate of papal/Islamic stand-off,
it is timely too.
There is no hesitancy or doubt here. Dawkins comes roaring forth in the
full vigour of his powerful arguments, laying into fallacies and false
doctrines with the energy of the polemicist at his most fiery. "My
earlier books did not set out to convert anyone ... this book does," he
declares. Its tone is chattier than usual, given to conversational
asides, even urgent pleadings - "Please, please raise your
consciousness about this!" he begs about the religious indoctrination
of tiny children. And should you doubt his intent, an appendix lists
"friendly addresses for individuals needing support in escaping from
religion". The words "humanist", "rationalist", "secular", "atheist"
dot those addresses. Dawkins is, if he will excuse the word, on a
crusade.
Perhaps he won't excuse the word. It is the slack use of words and the
misunderstanding of metaphor that he sees as underpinning the cases
made for the existence of a deity. He starts with some sharp
definitions of his own: God he takes to mean "a supernatural creator it
is appropriate to worship"; pantheism "is sexed-up atheism. Deism is
watered-down theism". There are plenty of "isms" to choose from, but to
Dawkins they all smack of compromise. He is an out-and-out atheist and
this is his testimony.
With his usual rational skills he sets about dissecting the arguments
for the existence of a God. He takes on all comers: Aquinas's five
"proofs", Pascal's wager (meant as a joke, surely), even Stephen
Unwin's probability of God, whose use of Bayes' theorem to demonstrate
the probability of God Dawkins scathingly dismisses as "quite agreeably
funny". He puts in its place the believers' misunderstanding of
Darwinism. No, it does not mean that we are all here by chance, but by
a scientifically demonstrable process of natural selection. His scorn
for believers is evident throughout. He speaks of "a mind hijacked by
religion" and finds "sucking up to God" a strange rationale for doing
good. He is, not surprisingly, appalled by the jealous rage of the God
of the Old Testament (lovingly putting Abraham to the test of killing
his only son) and has sharp things to say about the ubiquitous
weirdness of the Bible, "a chaotically cobbled together anthology of
disjointed documents". When sophisticated believers claim disarmingly
that "we don't take Genesis literally any more," he rails "That is my
whole point!" It's as much a pick-and-mix philosophy as believers
accuse atheists of. What's more, plenty of people still do take the
Bible literally. According to Gallup approximately 50% of the US
electorate believe the story of Noah.
Dawkins has a lot of easy fun on the wilder shores of religion, but he
has serious things to say about why morality doesn't need faith. His
argument gathers strength as he enumerates the many ways in which
religion is excessively privileged in our supposedly secular society.
Christian groups on US campuses are even now campaigning against
anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexuals. They have widespread
support for their "freedom of religion". Dawkins cites Britain's own
educational scandal which is gifting a series of city academies to a
rich car salesman who believes in creationism and has Ł2m to buy his
way in. A letter of protest from eight bishops and nine scientists got
a perfunctory reply from Tony Blair. Plans for more faith schools go
forward. Many of us who might want to stay outside theological debate
can't afford to when it is influencing social policy.
Dawkins reserves particular venom for those religious apologists who
claim distinguished scientists as their own. He sneers at "the Faustian
road to the Templeton prize", the world's largest single financial
prize - Ł800,000 in 2006 - for "progress concerning spiritual values".
No atheists sit on the jury and winners are increasingly likely to be
scientists who use the "God" word. When Einstein declared that "God
does not play dice" he was rounded up by believers as proof that the
finest minds shared their superstitions. Similarly, when Stephen
Hawking ended his book A Brief History of Time with the phrase "then we
shall know the mind of God", its sales were set to roar away. Weren't
the planet's greatest scientists endorsing the views of the faithful?
The answer is "no", and Dawkins unpicks the dangers attendant on any
scientist using the word. If they use the word God to mean the set of
physical laws that govern the universe, then he admits he himself
would, in that sense, be religious. Certainly his books pay lyrical
tribute to the awe and beauty of what exists in the physical world. But
to use "God in that sense is misleading". As Carl Sagan put it, "it
does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity".
Dawkins's most original contribution is the examination of why religion
has persisted so long after the scientific revolution, and indeed is
staging a global comeback of terrifying proportions. He cites his own
concept, the meme, the social equivalent of the gene, as the way ideas
are spread and handed down. As a Darwinian he is keen to understand
what is so beneficial about religion that makes it eligible for
survival. He has an interesting theory - exemplified by the moth being
attracted to the flame and thus to its death - that an arcane survival
mechanism is operating in grossly distorted circumstances.
Believers wrongly accuse Dawkins of being himself a fundamentalist, a
fundamentalist atheist. He argues the difference: that given proof he
was wrong he would at once change his opinions, whereas the true
fundamentalist clings to his faith whatever the challenge. What he
doesn't satisfactorily answer is the sense that people of faith have of
the divine, a true experience for them that encompasses love and joy
and celebration - all the things Dawkins finds in the physical world.
He doesn't comprehend that for many people reasoned argument is not the
final arbiter of how they choose to live their lives. They are swayed
by feelings, moved by loyalties, willing to set logic aside for the
sake of psychic comfort. Tell them that all this is the product of
chemical and electrical activity in the brain and they will at best
assert that God made it thus. For decades now we have been willing to
let such diversity of unverifiable beliefs exist among a democratic
tolerance of ideas. But this, the assumption of the secular outlook,
can no longer be taken for granted. The clouds are darkening around
tolerance.
These are now political matters. Around the world communities are
increasingly defined as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and living peaceably
together is ever harder to sustain. Champions of each faith maintain
its superiority to the rest. Recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI show
the man in his true colours: an absolutist pointing up with
intellectual precision the incompatibility of Islam and Christianity.
He did this long before he was Pope, writing the declaration of John
Paul II that all religions other than the Catholic faith were
defective. Since his election he has demoted efforts at rapprochement
with Islam and, on a visit to Auschwitz, failed to address the papacy's
collusion with Nazism. The Pope is, of course, held to be infallible by
the Catholic church. Islam's response to all this - "if you dare to say
we're a violent religion, then we'll kill you!" - compounds not only
the idiocy of rival dogmas but also the dangers. Islam's sharia law
invests the law of the land with its own religious and often brutal
priorities. Apostasy is punishable by death, as is homosexuality.
Christian observance is put under increasing pressure. Dawkins is right
to be not only angry but alarmed. Religions have the secular world
running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer. Primed
by anger, redeemed by humour, it will, I trust, offend many.
· Joan Bakewell's book Belief is published by Duckworth
Nashton
<snip>
Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
others, he's a sad bloke.
--
Nicolas
"And, heaving alljawbreakical expressions out of Sare Isaac's universal
of specious aristmystic unsaid, A is for Anna like L is for liv."
Finnegans Wake (293)
".... It means that all living things are the product of mindless
material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random
variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like
everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.
Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far
beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin
MarkA
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best. He
> seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows. One
> cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of attitude that has
caused the deaths of untold millions in the past, and will continue to be
the cause of death and suffering until people realize that the religions
they cling to for moral clarity is the "root of evil".
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Christopher A. Lee
>Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
>He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
>One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
>excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
>others, he's a sad bloke.
Only in the deluded imagination of the religious loonies he speaks out
against.
Feel free to demonstrate that your particular deity that you call
"God" is real, and when you realise you can't, apologise to the person
you are lying about.
As well as to the atheists you lie abut, because you know perfectly
well that atheism isn't a religion.
SeppoP
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
>
>
>
Nashiepoo is a true nutcase and should stick to massage...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
CreateThis
>One cannot box God into human logic
Any god that can be imagined by your tinkertoy mind belongs in the
action figure bin at Toys R Us.
CT
Hatter
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase
You: Magical Sky Daddy made everything for me any I know what he wants
and what he doesn't want
Dawkins: When you drop a rock it falls, no pleading to an imaginary Sky
daddy has ever changed that.
Hrrm, I'd say you are a true nutcase.
> and should stick with what he knows best.
i.e. He should stop telling uncomfortable truths
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
Yeah and so does the Pope, The Archbishop of Canturbury, Jerry
Fallwell, and so forth. Gee limelighted people are like that.
> One cannot box God into human logic
Because if you use logic, one will always arrive to "There is no God."
You cannot use logic to prove a subjective fairy tale
> and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism,
Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.
> but to others, he's a sad bloke.
Condecending statment without a proof or actually even a source of a
pointing finger, a real sign you are one dishonest person
Hatter
Turner
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
If one cannot box God into human logic, what makes you so sure that He
would have created the universe exactly as it says in Genesis? If God
is beyond human comprehension, how can anyone be positive the Bible is
the infallible Word of God?
Are you superhuman, or a god, and you know the precise mechanisms that
he would have used to create the world?
Better to deny the existence of any God than to profess that you both
know Him and yet cannot know Him at the same time. Dawkins is a smarter
man than any creationist.
Psycho Dave
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
>
Having seen Dawkins speak at debates, and having read several of his
book, and seen his groundbreaking programs on the BBC, your juvenile
brushing-off of Dawkins shows me that you likely have never seen,
heard, nor read anything from him, and that you're simply reacting
emotionally to the article about him because his views personally piss
you off.
I absolutely am always fascinated by the way that conservative and
religious people instantly judge anyone they disagree with as insane,
without having any ability in themselves to show the logic and reason
behind that opinion. All they need to do is hear "he's an atheist", and
without actually seeing anything from him, they just KNOW he's
"insane".
Incidentally, this is an old symptom of those afflicted with
religiousity that can be documented as far back as the year 480, when
Emperor Justinian declared that all non-Christians in the Empire shall
be declared insane or criminals.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
And what evidence can you provide to back that claim up? Is there a
video you can point me to? I've seen him many times, and he does not
strike me as "craving attention" as much as the average pastor does.
The average evangelical pastor/creationist/street preacher is
definitely someone who craves being the center of attention.
> One cannot box God into human logic
Ever stop to consider the possibility that this is because the concept
of god and religion is illogical and irrational?
> and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
Not quite as sad as the people who pass crack judgements on others
without any actual exposure to them.
> ".... It means that all living things are the product of mindless
> material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random
> variation.
(1) Error #1 -- the variation in Evolutionary process is not RANDOM.
Creationists are the only people who are claiming that evolution is a
random process. Actual biologists and biology texts do not describe
evolution as random.
> So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like
> everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.
(2) Error #2 -- Only creationists describe natural processes as
"accidental". Actual biologists and evolutionary theory do not describe
the processes as random or accidental. It is definitely guided --
guided by predictable natural forces that have been described by
science, or which can be eventially described and predicted by science,
if it hasn't already.
> Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far
> beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin
Yes, it's because people like Philip Johnson, creationists, and other
religious nuts are not actually reading what evolution and biology
actually says. They work from a fraudulent version of science and
evolution that they have created. Faith is a powerful thing -- it can
make a man ignore what he sees with his own eyes, and believe that what
he sees is, in fact, an illusion created by the devil, to trick him
into losing his faith.
stew dean
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
Good start there - two logical fallacies to start off with. It looks
like what he knows best is why god doesnt exist.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
The old vested interest card.
> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
Human logic pulls the above apart and returns you with nothing. Of
course you are probably using 'god's logic' which, as far as I can
make out is something along the line of 1 + 1 = 'god did it'.
Athiesm is not a religion - it's the opposite to religion - that is no
religion.
Stew Dean
Cheezits
> Nashton wrote:
[who cares]
> If one cannot box God into human logic, what makes you so sure that He
> would have created the universe exactly as it says in Genesis? If God
> is beyond human comprehension, how can anyone be positive the Bible is
> the infallible Word of God?
The Bible is just a box of human logic.
Nashton's logic couldn't box a dead cockroach.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Kate
>Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
>He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
>One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
>excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
>others, he's a sad bloke.
What he knows best is exactly that. You obviously didn't bother to
read the book proving that you haven't got what it takes to even start
thinking abou tit.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Nashton" <nan...@nb.ca> wrote in message
news:319Sg.40459$9u.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> One cannot box God into human logic
Hence the profound validity of the book's title...
JR
Shane
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
Interesting.
I will make a prediction, Dawkins book will be attacked by his opponents
who will not actually refute his arguments. They will also claim to have
thoroughly refuted and debunked it. This will be in contrast to their
poster girl Anne Coulters book "Godless," which has been thououghly
debunked and refuted by many different people, yet those same people
claim that this has not happened. Such is the reality disconnect that
creationsts suffer from.
JPG
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
>
>
Absolutely predictable knee-jerk reaction from diehard, closed-minded
creationist who has not read the book, will probably never read the
book, and even if (s)he did read the book, would still walk away as
deluded as ever.
Dawkins says he would change his mind in an instant if evidence for a
god were found - I guess most atheists would. Why is it so difficult
for creationists to see the lack of evidence?
JPG
CreateThis
I'm sure you meant he hasn't got what it takes to *stop* thinking
about tit.
CT
Conspiracy of Doves
Cheezits wrote:
> "Turner" <joebob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Nashton wrote:
> [who cares]
> > If one cannot box God into human logic, what makes you so sure that He
> > would have created the universe exactly as it says in Genesis? If God
> > is beyond human comprehension, how can anyone be positive the Bible is
> > the infallible Word of God?
> [etc.]
>
> The Bible is just a box of human logic.
>
Really? I always thought that the bible was a box of human illogic.
Darrell Stec
Clearly there was a bronze age version of Toys-R-Us because the second
commandment (from the pseudo-ten-commandments) was about making god
action figures. God was afraid that having a GI-God action figure
would be detrimental to him. Those goatherders believed that what one
did to the physical representation of that god, one did to that god.
Thus the Hebrews were quite clever in making sure there were no graven
images with which to control their gods (er excuse me, El, Azazel,
Yahweh got assimilated into one).
Is injected plastic molding graven?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Darrell Stec
am Hatter perhaps from Hatt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Nashton wrote:
>> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Dawkins is a true nutcase
>
> You: Magical Sky Daddy made everything for me any I know what he wants
> and what he doesn't want
>
> Dawkins: When you drop a rock it falls, no pleading to an imaginary
> Sky daddy has ever changed that.
>
> Hrrm, I'd say you are a true nutcase.
>
Surely you are wrong. :-P
Surfing through the channels yesterday, I glanced at a Catholic TV
program where the oriental priest detailed the saintliness (due to his
obedience) of Saint Joseph Cupertino. With dead seriousness, this
priest talked about how Cupertino would levitate in the air during
Mass, especially when the Eucharist was exposed, and would only descent
upon being ordered to. And one time lifted a 76 foot crucifix weighing
1000s of pounds with only one hand, transporting it while levitating.
This priest enumerated many other such miracles (most involving some
type of levitating along with the miracle) that were performed by
Cupertino, all with a straight face.
Surely this is evidence that god sets gravity aside for his elected ones
(most especially for those displaying unquestioned obedience)?
--
Greg Guarino
>One cannot box God into human logic
But we *can* be sure that he did not use evolutionary processes to
produce the diversity of life on Earth, if I understand you correctly?
Greg Guarino
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:4nt27pF...@individual.net...
> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 September 2006 9:15
> am Hatter perhaps from Hatt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Nashton wrote:
>>> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Dawkins is a true nutcase
>>
>> You: Magical Sky Daddy made everything for me any I know what he wants
>> and what he doesn't want
>>
>> Dawkins: When you drop a rock it falls, no pleading to an imaginary
>> Sky daddy has ever changed that.
>>
>> Hrrm, I'd say you are a true nutcase.
>>
>
> Surely you are wrong. :-P
>
> Surfing through the channels yesterday, I glanced at a Catholic TV
> program where the oriental priest detailed the saintliness (due to his
> obedience) of Saint Joseph Cupertino. With dead seriousness, this
> priest talked about how Cupertino would levitate in the air during
> Mass, especially when the Eucharist was exposed, and would only descent
> upon being ordered to. And one time lifted a 76 foot crucifix weighing
> 1000s of pounds with only one hand, transporting it while levitating.
>
> This priest enumerated many other such miracles (most involving some
> type of levitating along with the miracle) that were performed by
> Cupertino, all with a straight face.
>
> Surely this is evidence that god sets gravity aside for his elected ones
> (most especially for those displaying unquestioned obedience)?
>
Well, of course, Chris Angel Mindfreak can accomplish miracles similar to
the ones that you speak of. I have witnessed these miracles personally in
front of the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. If you surf through the channels
and run into the A&E channel on Thursday evening (your times may vary), you
can witness these miracles as well.
JR
get...@1upandup.com
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
> Cheezits wrote:
> > "Turner" <joebob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > Nashton wrote:
> > [who cares]
> > > If one cannot box God into human logic, what makes you so sure that He
> > > would have created the universe exactly as it says in Genesis? If God
> > > is beyond human comprehension, how can anyone be positive the Bible is
> > > the infallible Word of God?
> > [etc.]
> >
> > The Bible is just a box of human logic.
> >
>
> Really? I always thought that the bible was a box of human illogic.
"The Bible is one part fact, one part history, and one part pizza" -
Penn Gillette.
Well, if my memory serves me correct, that is what Penn said on his
Bullshit episode where he studied the Bible.
- Richard Hutnik
Lucifer
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> One cannot box God into human logic
That would be because there is no god, which he demonstrates admirably
> and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism,
FUCK'S SAKE YOU MORON. Atheism is as much a religion as skinny dipping
is aswimsuit.
> but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
Grow up fuckwit, what are you, ten?
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
Well..... Compared to you that means he can stick with anything and
everything. What is it like to be at the bottom if the intellect pile
NashtOff?
>He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
>One cannot box God into human logic
As god(s) are the invention of man we can do what we like with them.
> and his cheap philosophizing is an
>excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
>others, he's a sad bloke.
If he is sad, I would hate to have to define you NashtOff.
--
Bob.
Neil Kelsey
Nashton wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
Anyone who can write the Ancestor's Tale is not a nutcase. You're
saying more about yourself by your "sad bloke" statement than you are
about Dawkins.
leo
Hoof-Hearted ha escrito:
> http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=174
>
> Judgment day
> by Joan Bakewell for The Guardian
>
> Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion gives it to believers with both
> barrels. Joan Bakewell cheers him on.
>
> The God Delusion
> by Richard Dawkins
> 416pp, Bantam, £20
> rich car salesman who believes in creationism and has £2m to buy his
> way in. A letter of protest from eight bishops and nine scientists got
> a perfunctory reply from Tony Blair. Plans for more faith schools go
> forward. Many of us who might want to stay outside theological debate
> can't afford to when it is influencing social policy.
>
> Dawkins reserves particular venom for those religious apologists who
> claim distinguished scientists as their own. He sneers at "the Faustian
> road to the Templeton prize", the world's largest single financial
> prize - £800,000 in 2006 - for "progress concerning spiritual values".
Why religion persist in spite of the triumph of science and technology
in the las 100 years?
It is a case of "operant conditioning".
First of all, most of the children in school feel the failure in
science matters. They can barely learn a little more than reading and
the basic arithmetic. So due to the complexity of most science
matters, they feel frustrated. Not only are they frustrated but also
they feel sharply the futility of learning. So in a way, they feel
alienated.
Moreover, as atheist, we can show a brass against modest people with a
poor knowledge of scientific matters.
On the other hand, successful preachers can gain a reputation,
upholding the selfesteem of poor pople lambasting against the great
people of society, like scientists, filthy rich people, etc.
Preachers try to make them feel they are far superior to this proud
people that reject god, and all that shit. When preachers ask them
money, it is always for a good cause, not to increase their personal
account and way of life. But these poor fellows also like the idea of
watching a successful preacher, wearing flashy cloths, as I had
observed when the scandal about a TV preacher burst out.
So, I think we have to change our approach in our daily dealings with
the believers.
We have to approach the issues in a different way. Like we were former
believers but we rejected all that cause... the way a greedy peacher or
the other treat us.
So our argument must be less philosophical and more mundane, and matter
of fact.
Phrases of the type, "I cannot stand it they call me a sheep. I am not
a sheep. I am a human being." "They are a greedy bunch of people,
allways going after your money." "I cannot believe that a just God,
can be in good relations with that bunch of crooks."
We can point also, that "religious leaders are close buddies with the
filthy rich." "Some of the religious leaders are winning fat money as
any millionaire." "But, how are they earning this money? From the
pockets of the poor believers."
And so on.
Leopoldo
Brian Westley
Close; he said:
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal parts of fact,
history, and pizza."
---
Merlyn LeRoy
rupert....@gmail.com
Nashton wrote:
[snip]
> One cannot box God into human logic
Except that is exactly what creation science and intelligent design
attempt to do.
[snip]
raven1
>Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
>He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
>One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
>excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
>others, he's a sad bloke.
What a perfect example of why Dawkins's work is essential.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
leo
leo ha escrito:
There are a lot of people that feels against science and technology.
Those are people that do not understand well science or maths. Among
them are not only religious leaders, but also are some artists,
philosophers and writers. From the times I was an adolescent, 55 years
ago, I have witnessed an endless fight against science and techology.
The philosophers were talking about "the happy savage" and "the Harmony
of living in Nature" and also about the ills of progress and
technology. hearing his whining, it seemed we had not any of this
ills, in the old times, when techonology was rather primitive. The
tremendous increase of cheap consummer goods, was accused of degrading
us. Also, the reductiont of prices in food, was also blamed. It is
true that this cheap food has made a lot of people dangerous
overweight. But this si due mostly to the lack of physical exercise,
too many sedentary works, and watching too much TV.
Too many people was blaming the new abundance, as if the former
shortage of food and commodities were a desired condition. We never
heard about the nasty and brutish life our forberears had to endure.
This steady campaign against our present society of consumption, had
injected in the mind of people, that all this material progress was
something sinful and degrading. From this position there was only a
small step to feel yearning for the past times, when the good people
was fearing god, and we were burning witches, or killing faggots in
the gallows. All these enemies of science and technology seemed to
have not a word about the times when we had not any means to control
our birthrate, the contraceptives were as illegal as heroine and coca
is today. They do not said a word about the times when you cannot
either buy a condom anywhere, for this was a means of controling the
pregnancy of our wives. They are not saying any word about the times
when you could be fined with a lot of money if you impregnated your
lady before marriage. That unmarried ladies could be punished with 40
lashes if she had not money to the pay the steep fine for having a baby
out of wedlock. They did not tell you any word about the wonderful
times when your bastard son would have to trail a miserable life
working as a slave till his death.
Leopoldo
Darrell Stec
All of which is why we must continually remind them, lest history repeat
itself.
get...@1upandup.com
Thanks. I guess I paraphrased him. I knew it was slightly off. I did
see that and Penn did try to be as respectful as he can, eventhough he
considers the bulk of it to be nonsense.
- Richard Hutnik
Nic
leo wrote:
> leo ha escrito:
>
<snip>
Times change. But I wouldn't draw much comfort from the fact, if I
were you.
Greywolf
>
> <snip>
>
> Dawkins is a true nutcase
And what is someone who claims that a 'God' exists and couldn't prove it if
their very life depended on it? What is someone who claims to know the
'mind' of said 'God' without providing the smallest sliver of proof to back
it up, yet maintains, even insists, that what they are espousing is the
unquestionly true and absolute 'fact'?
and should stick with what he knows best.
I guess you *would* be the person that knows what that would be Mr. Dawkins,
Senior.
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
Do you mean like Ann Coulter?
> One cannot box God into human logic
Darn tootin'. He's an imaginary creature who was brought into exsistence by
someone with a robust imagination and was in turn used by unscrupulous,
'business-minded' control-freaks to exploit mindless, unquestioning, doh-doh
heads who have foresaken all reason and logic in order to feel that they are
somehow 'ultra-special' and are going to go to a paradise simply for
believing the crap they'be been told is true. Shrewd, very shrewdl. Cannot
'box God' into human logic. How can you *possibly* say that about a
non-exsistent being? Want to back up that statement with some proof?
and his cheap philosophizing is an
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism,
What 'deity' do atheists 'worship'? 'Cheap philosophizing'? What is all this
nonsense about a 'God' who has to have himself transformed into a human so
that he can be crucified in order to expiate mankind's 'sins'? What do *you*
call that? Couldn't say to the equally imaginary pair, Adam and Eve, 'Hey,
I'm disappointed you two fell for old Satan's talking (and lying)snake
trick. But guess what, you two idiots? I forgive you.' How about *that* one,
you zealous imaginary God-lover, you?
but to
> others, he's a sad bloke.
>
>
Not nearly as 'sad' as 'blokes' who continue to insist that a 'God' exists
and drums this nonsense into the fragile minds of helpless, defenseless, and
all too impressionable children for their own, utterly selfish and misguided
reasons. That's called child abuse in this NG.
Greywolf
mark...@hotmail.co.uk
>
> action figure bin at Toys R Us.
>
> CT
Touche!!!
Robibnikoff
"Nashton" <nan...@nb.ca> wrote in message
news:319Sg.40459$9u.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
Sorry, but "the religion of atheism" doesn't exist outside of your head.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Josh Miles
At the beginning of that episode, Penn invited the audience to go find
their Bibles and follow along with him during the show. After the theme
song played, he said (I'm paraphrasing) "OK, everybody have their Good
Books? Good, now put that away and take out your Bible."
Priceless.
Josh Miles
> Nashton wrote:
>> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
>> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
>> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
>> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
>> others, he's a sad bloke.
>
> Anyone who can write the Ancestor's Tale is not a nutcase.
What do you think of that book? I just ordered it a few days ago.
Neil Kelsey
Josh Miles wrote:
> Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > Nashton wrote:
> >> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> >> He seems to thoroughly enjoy being the center of attention and it shows.
> >> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> >> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> >> others, he's a sad bloke.
> >
> > Anyone who can write the Ancestor's Tale is not a nutcase.
>
> What do you think of that book? I just ordered it a few days ago.
Love it. It's one of those big books I come across every now and then
that gives me a new perspective. I think it is mind boggling (I hadn't
read that much biology before this, though). It really is giving me a
good feel of exactly how all life is related and the vast amount of
time involved. Sponges are my brothers. Grandfathers? I'm at the part
now where we split off from plants on our evolutionary journey. Now I
can relate to plants. It's very cool.
Turner
Neil Kelsey wrote:
<snip>
> > > Anyone who can write the Ancestor's Tale is not a nutcase.
> >
> > What do you think of that book? I just ordered it a few days ago.
>
> Love it. It's one of those big books I come across every now and then
> that gives me a new perspective. I think it is mind boggling (I hadn't
> read that much biology before this, though). It really is giving me a
> good feel of exactly how all life is related and the vast amount of
> time involved. Sponges are my brothers. Grandfathers? I'm at the part
> now where we split off from plants on our evolutionary journey. Now I
> can relate to plants. It's very cool.
>
I agree, I think it's probably Dawkins' best book, although I haven't
read all of them yet.
Ray Martinez
Hoof-Hearted wrote:
> http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=174
>
> Judgment day
> by Joan Bakewell for The Guardian
>
> Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion gives it to believers with both
> barrels. Joan Bakewell cheers him on.
>
> The God Delusion
> by Richard Dawkins
> way in. A letter of protest from eight bishops and nine scientists got
> a perfunctory reply from Tony Blair. Plans for more faith schools go
> forward. Many of us who might want to stay outside theological debate
> can't afford to when it is influencing social policy.
>
> Dawkins reserves particular venom for those religious apologists who
> claim distinguished scientists as their own. He sneers at "the Faustian
> road to the Templeton prize", the world's largest single financial
Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
Ray
Andrew Arensburger
> Dawkins says he would change his mind in an instant if evidence for a
> god were found - I guess most atheists would. Why is it so difficult
> for creationists to see the lack of evidence?
Dennett points out in "Breaking the Spell" that not only is
there a taboo against examining religion too closely (e.g., asking for
evidence), but there also seems to be a taboo against examining *that*
taboo.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Online again? When do you sleep?...
Neil Kelsey
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
> > http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=174
> >
> > Judgment day
> > by Joan Bakewell for The Guardian
> >
> > Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion gives it to believers with both
> > barrels. Joan Bakewell cheers him on.
> >
> > The God Delusion
> > by Richard Dawkins
> > way in. A letter of protest from eight bishops and nine scientists got
> > a perfunctory reply from Tony Blair. Plans for more faith schools go
> > forward. Many of us who might want to stay outside theological debate
> > can't afford to when it is influencing social policy.
> >
> > Dawkins reserves particular venom for those religious apologists who
> > claim distinguished scientists as their own. He sneers at "the Faustian
> > road to the Templeton prize", the world's largest single financial
Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
Turner
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>
> Ray
I bet you didn't predict the fact that he is right and you are wrong.
Ray Martinez
> >
> > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>
> Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
Ray
Turner
Yes.
What makes you think all atheists despise religion?
Ray Martinez
All atheists do not. T.H. Huxley ordered the Bible to remain an object
of study in public education (I wonder if Dawkins would do the same if
he had the same power as Huxley ?).
Velikovsky was an atheist who offered outrageous natural explanations
for Biblical events, and Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of
the 20th century".
I was only talking about Dawkins and others like him.
Ray
Neil Kelsey
The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
Ray Martinez
Of course I do.
Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
atheist religion (Darwinism).
As for criticism, free speech, conceived by Founding Fathers who owned
Bibles, guarantees that Christianity can be criticized, unlike Muslim
countries, and atheist controlled nations like China, Cuba, Russia, N.
Korea, etc.etc.
Ray
Ray
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping
> > What makes you think all atheists despise religion?
>
> All atheists do not. T.H. Huxley ordered the Bible to remain an object
> of study in public education (I wonder if Dawkins would do the same if
> he had the same power as Huxley ?).
Ray, what happened to "atheists and christians are mortal enemies"?
You remember saying that, don't you?
>
> Velikovsky was an atheist who offered outrageous natural explanations
> for Biblical events, and Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of
> the 20th century".
One of the many things that Mr. Scott was wrong about. Also,
Velikovsky was not an atheist.
>
> I was only talking about Dawkins and others like him.
And Ray reserves the right to reverse that statement at any time.
DJT
Neil Kelsey
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> > > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
> > >
> > > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
> >
> > The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
> > criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
> > write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
> > superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
>
> Of course I do.
>
> Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
> atheist religion (Darwinism).
Nice troll, didn't work.
> As for criticism, free speech, conceived by Founding Fathers who owned
> Bibles, guarantees that Christianity can be criticized, unlike Muslim
> countries, and atheist controlled nations like China, Cuba, Russia, N.
> Korea, etc.etc.
Fine. So you're ignorant. You still haven't explained what else Dawkins
would talk about in a book about atheism.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
>Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>
>Ray
Since you are a rabid creationist, everything he says about Richard
Dawkins is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Turner wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
>> > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>> > >
>> > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
>> >
>> > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Yes.
>> What makes you think all atheists despise religion?
>
>All atheists do not. T.H. Huxley ordered the Bible to remain an object
>of study in public education (I wonder if Dawkins would do the same if
>he had the same power as Huxley ?).
Yes, the bible is well worth studying - if only to find out how not to
live your life.
--
Bob.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>Neil Kelsey wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
>> > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>> > >
>> > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
>> >
>> > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
>>
>> The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
>> criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
>> write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
>> superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
>
>Of course I do.
>
>Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
>atheist religion (Darwinism).
What "atheist religion (Darwinism" would that be, liar?
It's the kind of wilfully ignorant, dishonest religionist like you
that Dawkins is against.
>As for criticism, free speech, conceived by Founding Fathers who owned
>Bibles, guarantees that Christianity can be criticized, unlike Muslim
>countries, and atheist controlled nations like China, Cuba, Russia, N.
>Korea, etc.etc.
More deliberate dishonesty.
You have to look for what somebody _is_ not what they aren't, to find
what motivates them.
Keep repeating until it sinks in: "not believing in God is no
different than not believing in leprechauns; as such it neither
motivates nor justifies anything at all because it is merely not
having somebody else's ideology".
>Ray
Lucifer
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> > > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
> > >
> > > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
> >
> > The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
> > criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
> > write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
> > superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
>
> Of course I do.
>
> Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
> atheist religion (Darwinism).
Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific fact. Not all atheists
are darwinists, not all darwinists are atheist. In fact, darwinist is
merely a type of evolution, the model has been replaced by a sort of
hybrid called punctuated gradualism.
raven1
There's plenty of room for it in there...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Ray Martinez
Lucifer wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> > > > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
> > > >
> > > > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
> > >
> > > The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
> > > criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
> > > write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
> > > superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
> >
> > Of course I do.
> >
> > Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
> > atheist religion (Darwinism).
>
> Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific fact. Not all atheists
> are darwinists, not all darwinists are atheist. In fact, darwinist is
> merely a type of evolution, the model has been replaced by a sort of
> hybrid called punctuated gradualism.
>
"Punctuated gradualism" = Oxymoron, comparable to "Darwinian
scientist".
Ray
Lucifer
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> > > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
> > >
> > > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
> >
> > The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
> > criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
> > write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
> > superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
>
> Of course I do.
>
> Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
> atheist religion (Darwinism).
>
> As for criticism, free speech, conceived by Founding Fathers who owned
> Bibles,
The concept of free speech is actually rather older. The founding
fathers just decided that it was worth enshrining in law.
Anyway, I've owned a bible before (but it proved to be a difficult
target, i'm no good at darts)
It doesn't make me an xian.
> guarantees that Christianity can be criticized, unlike Muslim
> countries, and atheist controlled nations like China, Cuba,
Cuba?
I think the largely catholic population there would be rather offended
by that
Lucifer
Nah, gospel truth is an oxymoron. You are three letters short of that.
Punctuated gradualism, is, essentially, broadly gradualistic, but
accepts periods of rapid change, eg at the KT Boundary. It is avery
valid theory.
Now present real evidence FOR intelligent design or FOAD, have you
never read any of Mr Dawkins's works?
>
> Ray
John Harshman
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>Lucifer wrote:
>>
>>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>>Neil Kelsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
>>>>>>>>Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
>>>>>
>>>>>The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
>>>>>criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
>>>>>write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
>>>>>superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I do.
>>>>
>>>>Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
>>>>atheist religion (Darwinism).
>>>
>>>Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific fact. Not all atheists
>>>are darwinists, not all darwinists are atheist. In fact, darwinist is
>>>merely a type of evolution, the model has been replaced by a sort of
>>>hybrid called punctuated gradualism.
>>>
>>
>>"Punctuated gradualism" = Oxymoron, comparable to "Darwinian
>>scientist".
>
>
> Nah, gospel truth is an oxymoron. You are three letters short of that.
Very clever, but Ray won't get it.
> Punctuated gradualism, is, essentially, broadly gradualistic, but
> accepts periods of rapid change, eg at the KT Boundary. It is avery
> valid theory.
This is a serious misunderstanding of punctuated equilibria. First, it's
gradualistic in the sense that during speciation, changes are supposed
to be due to ordinary selection within evolving populations; gradual in
ecological time, sudden in geological time. This is not, however, what
Gould meant by "gradualism". You may have that part right, but it's not
clear to me. However, the periods of rapid change are not coincident
with mass extinctions, and not especially coordinated among species.
They just happen whenever peripheral isolates are formed. And I don't
think it's a very valid theory. Its central tenets are, so far as they
are interesting, untestable, and, so far as they are testable,
falsified. We may be able to salvage a phenomenon of stasis from the
wreckage, which may be in need of explanation, and that explanation may
conceivably (though not clearly) be beyond the power of standard
population genetics.
Ray Martinez
Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
coherent.
Ray
stew dean
Lucifer wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> > > > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
> > > >
> > > > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
> > >
> > > The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
> > > criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
> > > write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
> > > superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
> >
> > Of course I do.
> >
> > Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
> > atheist religion (Darwinism).
>
> Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific fact.
Technically speaking no one is a Darwinist anymore. A modern day
evolutionist is not a darwinist any more than a modern day physicist is
a Newtonist.
> In fact, darwinist is
> merely a type of evolution, the model has been replaced by a sort of
> hybrid called punctuated gradualism.
It's punctuated equalibrium not puctuated gradualism - as that doesnt
make sense and is a contradicition in terms like 'religious athiest'.
Stew Dean
Psycho Dave
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>
> Ray
He breahtes fire? COOL!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Someone tell the lying theist that what he pretends is
"fire-breathing" is nothing to do with being atheist, and everything
to do with the impact of religious extremism where it is totally
inappropriate.
Robibnikoff
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159387516.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Neil Kelsey wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
>> > > > Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
>> > >
>> > > Doesn't mean his points aren't valid.
>> >
>> > Could we expect an atheist to say anything else about Christianity ?
>>
>> The topic of his book is atheism. By definition he is going to
>> criticize religion, including christianity. What else is he going to
>> write about? Pancakes? I suppose you somehow think christianity is
>> superior to the other religions and is above criticism.
>
> Of course I do.
>
> Every religion thinks there brand is superior to others, including
> atheist religion (Darwinism).
LOL - Darwinism isn't a religion. Get over it already.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Robibnikoff
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip
> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
> coherent.
What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
Neil Kelsey
There ARE biology dictionaries already, genius. Just because you missed
out on all those episodes of Sesame Street doesn't mean the rest of us
don't know how to look something up.
I think you should begin your journey by loking up the meaning of the
word "oxymoron," which you've botched several times already.
Christopher A. Lee
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>snip
>> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
>> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
>> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
>> coherent.
>
>What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
Is he really that stupid?
CreateThis
>Hoof-Hearted wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
So should you. That would be... nothing.
CT
Lucifer
Strange, I was taught in Pal lectures essentially that it was something
of a hybrid of the two theories, which allowed for both mechanisms to
work in the same setting. If, however, this was in error, then I stand
corrected.
> Stew Dean
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Is injected plastic molding graven?
I checked some online dictionaries. The definition about carved or
sculpted would seem not to apply. But the definition about deeply
pressed or permanently fixed would seem to apply.
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
You'll be happy to know you're now officially in the same drawer as
Nashton and McPiltdown as far as i'm concerned.
That is, fair game.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> most of the children in school feel the failure in science matters.
> They can barely learn a little more than reading and the basic
> arithmetic. So due to the complexity of most science matters, they
> feel frustrated.
Are they even capable of understanding the basics of mechanics per
Newton's formula f=m*a (more usefully a=f/m)? The calculus inherent in
that formula can be simplified to a naive view of integration (not
differentiation) as the fundamental calculus operator. Integrate a
(acceleration) to get v (velocity), and integrate v to get position.
For example, change in v equals a times change in t (time).
If the thing being integrated is itself changing, then use numerical
integration using interval arithmetic to get bounds on the result.
(The shorter the integration interval, the tighter the bounds, so in
principle you can get the result as accurate as you need/want.)
With that methodology (and presumed fixed force of gravity on any
particular object), it should be possible for the students to run
simulations of ordinary falling bodies (parabolic trajectory), swinging
pendulums (nearly a sine wave), and mass attached to spring (exactly a
sine wave). Next, add Newton's law of universal gravitation, and
simulate paths of things in space, starting with two-body problem that
yields Kepler's ellipses.
So is it possible to present the material so that most of them can
understand all of that?
Neil Kelsey
There ARE dictionaries with that phrase in them, genius. And learning
what "oxymoron" means might make you at least barely coherent. Well,
probably not.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> "Punctuated gradualism" = Oxymoron
I don't see it that way. P.g. merely says that most of the time various
species of life slowly drift in phenotype, or engage in directed arms
races, but every so often there's a sudden change in the environment
that provokes rapid evolution of one species or another, and every so
often there's a global major change such as an asteroid impact that
causes a mass extinction that causes sudden rapid evolution in nearly
every form of life on Earth. The fossil record typically shows several
or many specimens during the slow gradual drift that lasts many
millions of years, but few or none during the very brief times of rapid
evolution simply because the time span of such events is so short.
Gradualism refers to the majority of the time when slow drift or slow
arms races are occurring, while "punctuation" refers to the brief
moments of rapid change.
If you see it differently, please explain.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It was obvious I was talking about Martinez - you're a long time
regular.
>That is, fair game.
Lucifer
I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
usenet...@yahoo.de
Josh Miles wrote:
> Neil Kelsey wrote:
> > Nashton wrote:
> >> Hoof-Hearted wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Dawkins is a true nutcase and should stick with what he knows best.
> >> One cannot box God into human logic and his cheap philosophizing is an
> >> excellent read for people that adhere to the religion of atheism, but to
> >> others, he's a sad bloke.
Atheism and Theism are not religions but philosophical collective
terms. There are atheist religions (like eg Buddhism or Marxism) and
there are theist religions (eg Hinduism, Islam, Christianity).
> > Anyone who can write the Ancestor's Tale is not a nutcase.
>
> What do you think of that book? I just ordered it a few days ago.
I liked it very much. It is brilliant and fun to read.
Christopher A. Lee
Oops - I thought that was was Phycho Dave - either way, I was talking
about Martinez. He is a button-pushing, stupid, nasty liar of the kind
we get far too many of cross-posting to alt.atheism.
But you need to realise that the negative reaction to theists pushing
their religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, lying about us,
or rudely talking at us as though their beliefs were granted, is
hardly "fire-breathing".
Dawkins, like the rest of us, REACTS to reationists, fundamentalists
and other theists who impose their beliefs.
Remember, he's (and I am too) from a country where somebody's religon
is their own business and they don't force it or its consequences on
others. Where even the few fundamentalists respect that.
stew dean
You may be right. Any references I can check out?
Stew Dean
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:01:23 -0400, "Christopher A. Lee"
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Sep 2006 13:00:16 -0700, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Christopher A. Lee schreef:
> >>
> >>> On 28 Sep 2006 05:46:35 -0700, "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Since Dawkins is a fire-breathing atheist, everything he says about
> >>> >> Christianity is quite predictable. Could we expect anything else ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Ray
> >>> >
> >>> >He breahtes fire? COOL!
> >>>
> >>> Someone tell the lying theist that what he pretends is
> >>> "fire-breathing" is nothing to do with being atheist, and everything
> >>> to do with the impact of religious extremism where it is totally
> >>> inappropriate.
> >>
> >>You'll be happy to know you're now officially in the same drawer as
> >>Nashton and McPiltdown as far as i'm concerned.
> >
> >It was obvious I was talking about Martinez - you're a long time
> >regular.
>
> Oops - I thought that was was Phycho Dave - either way, I was talking
> about Martinez. He is a button-pushing, stupid, nasty liar of the kind
> we get far too many of cross-posting to alt.atheism.
Ray Martinez is one of the running gags around here. He provides a lot
of entertainment without which talk.origins would not be fun.
> But you need to realise that the negative reaction to theists pushing
> their religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, lying about us,
> or rudely talking at us as though their beliefs were granted, is
> hardly "fire-breathing".
> Dawkins, like the rest of us, REACTS to reationists, fundamentalists
> and other theists who impose their beliefs.
If you react to a reactionary in the way you do, you placce yourself on
the same level. Debating is something you do with your HEAD not with
your HEART. Loosing your cool in a debate is tantamount to loosing it.
> Remember, he's (and I am too) from a country where somebody's religon
> is their own business and they don't force it or its consequences on
> others. Where even the few fundamentalists respect that.
What makes you think it's any different over here (The Kingdom of the
Netherlands)? If everyone agrees it's your own private business, what
are you getting worked up about?
Mr tiktaalik
Ye Old One wrote:
> Yes, the bible is well worth studying - if only to find out how not to
> live your life.
Ho ho - Mr Ye Old One made me laugh out at work - have a gold star Mr
Old One!
PS
The God Delusion is now number #1 on several national Amazon sites..
Ye Old One
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
"Here" is also alt.atheism where we are fed to the teeth with assholes
like Martinez.
>> But you need to realise that the negative reaction to theists pushing
>> their religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, lying about us,
>> or rudely talking at us as though their beliefs were granted, is
>> hardly "fire-breathing".
>
>> Dawkins, like the rest of us, REACTS to reationists, fundamentalists
>> and other theists who impose their beliefs.
>
>If you react to a reactionary in the way you do, you placce yourself on
>the same level. Debating is something you do with your HEAD not with
>your HEART. Loosing your cool in a debate is tantamount to loosing it.
There's nothing to debate.
It's idiots who deny reality when it conflicts with doctrine, vs
reality.
Especially in alt.atheism which was set up by atheists for atheists
discuss our own issues of living in an increaingly theistic society.
We're not "here" to discuss religion vs reality as theists imagine.
Feel free to discuss things like what to do about creationists, oaths,
pledges, discrimination against atheists etc from an atheist point of
view.
>> Remember, he's (and I am too) from a country where somebody's religon
>> is their own business and they don't force it or its consequences on
>> others. Where even the few fundamentalists respect that.
>
>What makes you think it's any different over here (The Kingdom of the
>Netherlands)? If everyone agrees it's your own private business, what
>are you getting worked up about?
Start thinking for a change instead of deliberately misinterpreting
what you are told, to the point of falsehood.
Here's a clue: somebody called atheism a religion.
The word "fuckwit" is a conscise and accurate response to anybody
stupid (and nasty enough after they've been corrected) enough to say
that.
Or somebody who preaches their religion where it is inappropriate.
How is correcting them and then treating them like a fuckwit for being
one, incompatible with religion being a private business?
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
Then concentrate on the amusement value.
> >> But you need to realise that the negative reaction to theists pushing
> >> their religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, lying about us,
> >> or rudely talking at us as though their beliefs were granted, is
> >> hardly "fire-breathing".
> >
> >> Dawkins, like the rest of us, REACTS to reationists, fundamentalists
> >> and other theists who impose their beliefs.
> >
> >If you react to a reactionary in the way you do, you placce yourself on
> >the same level. Debating is something you do with your HEAD not with
> >your HEART. Loosing your cool in a debate is tantamount to loosing it.
>
> There's nothing to debate.
Then what are you doing on USENET? Gossiping?
> It's idiots who deny reality when it conflicts with doctrine, vs
> reality.
Sounds like a debate to me. Denying there's something to debate about
sets you up for failure.
> Especially in alt.atheism which was set up by atheists for atheists
> discuss our own issues of living in an increaingly theistic society.
Hey... Welcome to USENET. Since alt.atheism is not moderated, it's open
to every troll in the world. Deal with it or retreat to some moderated
discussion forum.
> We're not "here" to discuss religion vs reality as theists imagine.
Pluralis maiestatis?
> Feel free to discuss things like what to do about creationists, oaths,
> pledges, discrimination against atheists etc from an atheist point of
> view.
Sounds like a pretty good charter to me. However, the realities of
USENET imply that you'll have to deal with trolling, spamming, flooding
and plain old dissidents.
> >> Remember, he's (and I am too) from a country where somebody's religon
> >> is their own business and they don't force it or its consequences on
> >> others. Where even the few fundamentalists respect that.
> >
> >What makes you think it's any different over here (The Kingdom of the
> >Netherlands)? If everyone agrees it's your own private business, what
> >are you getting worked up about?
>
> Start thinking for a change instead of deliberately misinterpreting
> what you are told, to the point of falsehood.
I am thinking. I'm also reading talk.origins, not alt.atheims.
> Here's a clue: somebody called atheism a religion.
So? Is that a reason to embark on a crusade against all theists
shouting to the top of your lungs and generally making an ass of
yourself?
> The word "fuckwit" is a conscise and accurate response to anybody
> stupid (and nasty enough after they've been corrected) enough to say
> that.
In the other thread you started the "fuckwiting" straight away. You may
think it's appropriate but the rest of the world may think differently.
> Or somebody who preaches their religion where it is inappropriate.
You may think so, but that's not a guarantee that the rest of the world
agrees. Besides, using that kind of pejorative does not actually
increase the strength of any of your arguments.
> How is correcting them and then treating them like a fuckwit for being
> one, incompatible with religion being a private business?
I don't know. You brought it up.
Do you think treating people like fuckwits and calling them that
improves your position?
Robibnikoff
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3snh29anl5h603mt...@4ax.com...
That or he's just an asshole - Probably both, actually :P
Cheezits
I see you all are new to Ray's special form of inspiration. :-D
Sue
--
Sanity is highly overrated. - someone on phl.singles
Ray Martinez
Yeah, I do.
Your commentary is a classic example of special pleading. Here is what
you are really saying:
In the context of Darwin and Gould's famous admissions (and many
others), that is, admissions which acknowledge what everyone else sees:
the crust of the Earth shows no signs of that which an evolutionary
theory necessitates (intermediacy). BUT.... [insert your special
pleading here] .
In other words, you are acknowledging geological strata does not show
the main claim of your theory, BUT exucse after excuse after excuse
after excuse....
Your excuses rely on an oxymoron (fast/punctuated evolution) =
counterintuitive to what we see at face value, and only pursued because
big bad Genesis sudden special creation is looming in the backround.
Fast evolution is an oxymoron. There is no evidence that mutation rates
punctuate as described, and if they did intelligence would have to be
involved. You want everything both ways (Paleyan phenomenology is
accomplished by antithetic mindlessness). Straight thinkers could only
wonder what the geological fossil record should look like if it does
not support Genesis, and what should nature look like if it was the
product of an invisible Watchmaker ? Darwinists sock puppet a mind for
mindless natural selection in accordance to the needs of their
anti-Biblical worldview.
You are saying that special pleading is justified (mitigating
circumstantial evidence which I call a oxymoron).
Your special pleading is justified IF another credible explanation did
not exist, that is, an explanation that does not require special
pleading. In this case that explanation does exist (geological strata
as is corresponds to Genesis sudden special creation) and has existed
from the beginning of calendar time.
While you undoubtedly disagree, do you at least understand our position
and argument ?
What I do find alarming concerning your commentary is the ho hum
acceptance of catastrophism, or is the same somehow synonymous and
congruent with uniformitarianism ?
Ray
Lucifer
Sadly this is only a few old lectures at our district geological
society, so nothing definite I know of, I believe references were
given, but I can't for the life of me remember what they were.
I suspect we are both "right" just working from different definitions
of gradualism (or different contexts of the use of the word)
>
> Stew Dean
Ray Martinez
Lucifer wrote:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:09:50 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> > <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >snip
> > >> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
> > >> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
> > >> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
> > >> coherent.
> > >
> > >What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
> >
> > Is he really that stupid?
>
> I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
> seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
>
Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
overwhelmingly. It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven) that natural selection
did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
evidence exists for cellular complexity -- we won't connect it to an
invisible Designer, which of course is what we all suspected to begin
with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
be open to evidence of ID.
Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
is a legitimate explanation ? Darwin said he needed a special
revelation from an angel to believe in ID, or he might have even said
that would not suffice (I forget), so did Richard Feynman in so many
words. In other words, you guys are fucking liars -- right Lucifer ?
You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
pretending ?
Ray
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>Lucifer wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:09:50 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>> > <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > >snip
>> > >> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
>> > >> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
>> > >> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
>> > >> coherent.
>> > >
>> > >What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
>> >
>> > Is he really that stupid?
>>
>> I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
>> seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
>
>Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
>overwhelmingly. It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
>antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
You are either a liar or an idiot. I don't care which. At this point
the result is the same. Because it does no such thing.
How do you determine design when there is nothing non-designed to
compare with?
>Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven) that natural selection
>did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
>organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
>Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
"Darwinist" is a dishonest canard by creationists who pretend that the
acceptance and understanding of reality, is an -ism.
>I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
>evidence exists for cellular complexity -- we won't connect it to an
>invisible Designer, which of course is what we all suspected to begin
>with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
>be open to evidence of ID.
The only liar here is yourself, because there is no evidence of id.
>Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
>is a legitimate explanation ? Darwin said he needed a special
>revelation from an angel to believe in ID, or he might have even said
>that would not suffice (I forget), so did Richard Feynman in so many
>words. In other words, you guys are fucking liars -- right Lucifer ?
>You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
>pretending ?
Why are you lying?
Provide some. Of course we all (including yourself) know you have
none.
Mike
> overwhelmingly. It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
> antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
>
> Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven) that natural selection
> did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
> organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
> Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
>
> I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
> evidence exists for cellular complexity -- we won't connect it to an
> invisible Designer, which of course is what we all suspected to begin
> with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
> be open to evidence of ID.
>
> Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
> is a legitimate explanation ? Darwin said he needed a special
> revelation from an angel to believe in ID, or he might have even said
> that would not suffice (I forget), so did Richard Feynman in so many
> words. In other words, you guys are fucking liars -- right Lucifer ?
> You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
> pretending ?
We will accept evidence against evolution, for example if there were a
significant amount of discrepencies (sp?) in the fossil record or if
certain new forms of animal were found to exist (or seen developing),
either in the modern day or in the fossil record. This would be
evidence against evolution, but still not evidence for a creator. It's
your job to come up with evidence that will support your theory, not
ours.
Irreducible Complexity simply isn't evidence for a creator because it's
not even a mild challenge for evolution. The proponants of ID are
taking a very simple view of evolution. Incidentally, when did Dawkin's
say that a "really complex" organ or system? Can you give the exact
quote? I'm fairly sure that many systems that are considered IC have
been known about since before 1986.
Ray Martinez
Since Mike does not even know what evolutionary authorities have said,
and since he admitted his view is not subject to modification by any
evidence, it is pointless to have debate with persons like him.
Dawkins said exactly what I said he said. You don't believe it because,
like I said, you are ignorant to basic evolutionary claims, which is
supported by your own words written above.
Ray
Mike
> and since he admitted his view is not subject to modification by any
> evidence, it is pointless to have debate with persons like him.
>
> Dawkins said exactly what I said he said. You don't believe it because,
> like I said, you are ignorant to basic evolutionary claims, which is
> supported by your own words written above.
>
> Ray
1) I don't know EVERY SINGLE thing that EVERY SINGLE evolution
authority has said, this doesn't make me ignorant to basic evolutionary
claims. In fact, you're somewhat ignorant because you think that IC is
evidence against evolution. You might want to take a read of some of
the articles here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
2) You say that I admitted my view is not subject to modification by
any evidence, yet I just gave you two examples of evidence that would
change my view. It's not my problem if you can't provide this kind of
evidence, that's the beauty of believing in things that are correct.
Dana Tweedy
>
> Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> > From: "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
>> > "Punctuated gradualism" = Oxymoron
>>
>> I don't see it that way. P.g. merely says that most of the time various
>> species of life slowly drift in phenotype, or engage in directed arms
>> races, but every so often there's a sudden change in the environment
>> that provokes rapid evolution of one species or another, and every so
>> often there's a global major change such as an asteroid impact that
>> causes a mass extinction that causes sudden rapid evolution in nearly
>> every form of life on Earth. The fossil record typically shows several
>> or many specimens during the slow gradual drift that lasts many
>> millions of years, but few or none during the very brief times of rapid
>> evolution simply because the time span of such events is so short.
>> Gradualism refers to the majority of the time when slow drift or slow
>> arms races are occurring, while "punctuation" refers to the brief
>> moments of rapid change.
>>
>> If you see it differently, please explain.
>
> Yeah, I do.
>
> Your commentary is a classic example of special pleading. Here is what
> you are really saying:
Ray, you don't seem to be capable of accurately speaking for other people.
>
> In the context of Darwin and Gould's famous admissions (and many
> others), that is, admissions which acknowledge what everyone else sees:
> the crust of the Earth shows no signs of that which an evolutionary
> theory necessitates (intermediacy).
Neither Darwin, or Gould "admitted" the "crust of the Earth shows no signs
of ... intermediacy". In Darwin's time there were a few good examples of
intermediate fossils including Neanderthal fossils, and Archaeopteryx.
Since Darwin's time, many more have been found, including KNM WT 15000, a
fossil you still have not been able to honestly discuss.
>BUT.... [insert your special
> pleading here] .
No "special pleading" involved. Transitional fossils do appear in the
Earth's crust, just as evolutionary theory predicts.
>
> In other words, you are acknowledging geological strata does not show
> the main claim of your theory, BUT exucse after excuse after excuse
> after excuse....
The strata does show intermediate fossils. KNM WT 15000 is an example of
just such a fossil. Your inabilty to discuss this fossil honestly
demonstrates that your claim of "no intermediates" is a deliberate falsehood
on your part.
>
> Your excuses rely on an oxymoron (fast/punctuated evolution)
How is puctuated "evolution" an oxymoron? Do you even know what the term
means?
=
> counterintuitive to what we see at face value, and only pursued because
> big bad Genesis sudden special creation is looming in the backround.
The creation stories in Genesis are not the only other possibilities.
Moreover, the Bible doesn't say the creation was "sudden". It says God
created, it doesn't say it was a sudden event.
> Fast evolution is an oxymoron.
Why?
> There is no evidence that mutation rates
> punctuate as described,
Puctuated equilibrium does not suggest that mutation rates become any faster
than normal. PE holds that in certian conditions, evolutionary change can
happen more quickly. Mutation rates need not change, all it requires is
higher selectional pressure on the population.
> and if they did intelligence would have to be
> involved.
Why? How does "intelligence" increase random mutation rates?
>You want everything both ways (Paleyan phenomenology is
> accomplished by antithetic mindlessness).
Why do you assume that natural processes are "antitheitic"?
> Straight thinkers could only
> wonder what the geological fossil record should look like if it does
> not support Genesis,
It would look like the fossil record does now. Faunal succession,
intermediate forms, and much higher biota than would be possible in a few
thousand years.
>and what should nature look like if it was the
> product of an invisible Watchmaker ?
Nature would look pretty much the way it looks now. If nature were to
match the creation stories in the Bible, we'd most likely see much less
biodiversity. We'd see a population bottleneck in the genetic record of
every speies at the same time, and we'd see each species with a unique and
unrelated genetic code. Hybrids would be impossible, and genetic barriers
would be seen between species. We don't observe that.
> Darwinists sock puppet a mind for
> mindless natural selection in accordance to the needs of their
> anti-Biblical worldview.
'Darwinist' (whatever you mean by that) don't require an "anti-Biblical"
worldview. The fact is the Bible's creation narratives don't fit the
physical evidence.
>
> You are saying that special pleading is justified (mitigating
> circumstantial evidence which I call a oxymoron).
No, he's not saying that. No special pleading is required.
>
> Your special pleading is justified IF another credible explanation did
> not exist, that is, an explanation that does not require special
> pleading.
Biblical creation not only requires special pleading, it requires one to
ignore a great deal of physical evidence.
> In this case that explanation does exist (geological strata
> as is corresponds to Genesis sudden special creation)
The geological column does not correspond to Genesis. This was recognized
well over 200 years ago.
>and has existed
> from the beginning of calendar time.
Obviously it can't have "existed from the beginning of calendar time".
>
> While you undoubtedly disagree, do you at least understand our position
> and argument ?
Yes, your position is built on shifting sand, and your "argument" is
worthless.
>
> What I do find alarming concerning your commentary is the ho hum
> acceptance of catastrophism, or is the same somehow synonymous and
> congruent with uniformitarianism ?
Uniform natural causes do include the occasional catastrophe. That doesn't
mean that there is any evidence that all of geology is explained by a single
global flood.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
>> seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
>>
>
> Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
> overwhelmingly. It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
> antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
Ray, making a baseless claim is not evidence.
>
> Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven) that natural selection
> did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
> organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
> Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
"Really complex" is done by natural processes all the time. Consider
tornadoes, hurricanes, and ocean currents.
>
> I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
> evidence exists for cellular complexity
Celluar complexity is not a problem for evolution. Why do you think it
would be?
>-- we won't connect it to an
> invisible Designer,
What evidence do you have of an "invisible Designer"? Why, by the way does
the designer have to be invisible? Why, if the designer is invisble, do
you claim we are made in his 'image'? Are you saying that humans are
invisible?
> which of course is what we all suspected to begin
> with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
> be open to evidence of ID.
Do you have any evidence of ID Ray? Any at all?
>
> Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
> is a legitimate explanation ?
Some kind of physical evidence linking life to a physical designer would be
nice.
> Darwin said he needed a special
> revelation from an angel to believe in ID,
Darwin said no such thing. "Intelligent Design" as a political movement
didn't exist during Darwin's time.
> or he might have even said
> that would not suffice (I forget),
Cite. please.
> so did Richard Feynman in so many
> words.
You do realize that Feynman is not Charles Darwin, don't you?
> In other words, you guys are fucking liars -- right Lucifer ?
No, Ray that's not what he said.
> You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
> pretending ?
Scientists will accept any physical evidence you wish to present.
Metaphysical claims, and religious visions are not science.
DJT
Lucifer
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Lucifer wrote:
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:09:50 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> > > <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >snip
> > > >> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
> > > >> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
> > > >> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
> > > >> coherent.
> > > >
> > > >What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
> > >
> > > Is he really that stupid?
> >
> > I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
> > seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
> >
>
> Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
> overwhelmingly. It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
> antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
What rot. The world only appears designed to those looking for a
designer.
>
> Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven) that natural selection
> did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
> organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
> Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
Nonsense, ever read the mount improbable analogy?
He demolishes that so precisely, he starts off by saying it appears to
the lay person to be far fetched, but then explains precisely how it
does occur in gradual steps.
>
> I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
> evidence exists for cellular complexity -- we won't connect it to an
> invisible Designer, which of course is what we all suspected to begin
> with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
> be open to evidence of ID.
i challenged you earlier to cite some real evidence in favour of ID,
rather than just ignorant and ill informed evolution bashing, and there
was silence. So here is the challenge, troll, give me evidence FOR a
designer. (Scientific evidence that is, not delusions, appeals to
ridicule or false logic)
>
> Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
> is a legitimate explanation ?
Something, anything, providing evidence for adesigner, because you
haven't cited any, and neither has anybopdy else found any. There is,
however, plenty of evidence for evolution, speciation has been
documented already
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> Darwin said he needed a special
> revelation from an angel to believe in ID, or he might have even said
> that would not suffice (I forget), so did Richard Feynman in so many
> words. In other words, you guys are fucking liars -- right Lucifer ?
> You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
> pretending ?
I will accept evidence, but you just don't have any. Provide some
evidence, rather than ducking my challenge you fuckwit godbot.
Greg G.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Lucifer wrote:
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:09:50 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> > > <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >snip
> > > >> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
> > > >> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
> > > >> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
> > > >> coherent.
> > > >
> > > >What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
> > >
> > > Is he really that stupid?
> >
> > I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
> > seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
> >
>
> Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
> overwhelmingly.
Does "naked eye" mean without using one's intelligence?
Any specific overwheming evidence? Taken as a whole, it all seems
impressive. When you look at the details, it all falls apart.
> It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
> antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
A childish mind attributes the quality of mind to many inanimate
objects and processes. An intelligent and experienced mind can
distinguish natural processes from imagined ghosts.
>
> Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven) that natural selection
> did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
> organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
> Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
IC through evolutionary processes was predicted by Hermann Muller in
1918.
>
> I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
> evidence exists for cellular complexity -- we won't connect it to an
> invisible Designer, which of course is what we all suspected to begin
> with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
> be open to evidence of ID.
If natural processes can easily produce something, why propose
invisible pink unicorns or intelligent designers as a cause?
>
> Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
> is a legitimate explanation ?
Whether we could imagine evidence for ID is irrelevant. An omniscient
creator would know what it would take to make it irrefutable. What
evidence would it take to convince you that an intelligent designer
used evolution to create life as we know it? There's tons of it, some
observable to the naked eye and some that require much more scrutiny,
but the evidence is seen at every level of study.
> Darwin said he needed a special
> revelation from an angel to believe in ID, or he might have even said
> that would not suffice (I forget), so did Richard Feynman in so many
> words. In other words, you guys are fucking liars -- right Lucifer ?
People have special revelations all the time, but they get better when
they take their medicine.
> You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
> pretending ?
We accept the evidence. You won't.
>
> Ray
>
>
> > --
> >
> > Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
> > Purpose Igor
> > "Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
--
Greg G.
Mickey Mouse wears a Dubya watch.
Ye Old One
>
>Lucifer wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:09:50 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>> > <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > >snip
>> > >> Oxymoronic defense of a oxymoron. I suggest that Darwinists supply a
>> > >> dictionary for all of their stipulated meanings which contradict
>> > >> traditionally understood definitions. This might make you seem somewhat
>> > >> coherent.
>> > >
>> > >What'll it take for you? A lobotomy?
>> >
>> > Is he really that stupid?
>>
>> I notice that he also ducked my challenge to provide evidence for ID,
>> seems that there isn't any (but that's hardly news)
>>
>
>Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
>overwhelmingly.
You are looking through blinkered eyes, either that or it is your
dishonesty showing through again.
>It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
>antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
>
>Darwinists NOW say (after IC has been proven)
I think you mean "IC has been disproven".
> that natural selection
>did that too AFTER saying before that the discovery of "really complex"
>organs or systems would falisify gradual evolution (the claim made by
>Dawkins in "Blind Watchmaker", 1986).
Full cite?
>
>I can also quote others who NOW say that it doesn't matter how much
>evidence exists for cellular complexity -- we won't connect it to an
>invisible Designer,
Because evolution is a far better explination than goddidit.
>which of course is what we all suspected to begin
>with, which makes liars out of any Darwinist who has made the claim to
>be open to evidence of ID.
When is someone going to produce even a shred of evidence for ID?
>
>Maybe you could now tell us what type of evidence is needed to say ID
>is a legitimate explanation ? Darwin said he needed a special
>revelation from an angel to believe in ID,
Cite?
> or he might have even said
>that would not suffice (I forget), so did Richard Feynman in so many
>words. In other words, you guys are fucking liars
All the lies on this newsgroup crom from creationists liek you
Dishonest Ray. Why is that?
> -- right Lucifer ?
>You will not accept any evidence, which begs the question: why are you
>pretending ?
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Michael Gray
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0iqqh2930r45eaimi...@4ax.com>:
>>Our position is that nature with the naked eye shows intelligent design
>>overwhelmingly. It is Darwinists who special plead a diametric
>>antithesis (the same produced by mindlessness).
>
>You are either a liar or an idiot.
I can assure you with a high degree of confidence that Senor Martinez
is most certainly both.
: