Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Yes he can be.
2) I realize that this is not a substantive review of the article to say that I find him obnoxious, condescending, arrogant, and intolerable.
Excellent. Many do come here with that idea. 3) I do think that the sleight of hand substitution of empiricism for science is both academically incorrect and fundamentally dishonest.
True, a bit of magic is quite uncalled for. I didn't see that bit of illusion.
4) My personal distaste for Dawkins only exacerbates number 3) above.
Point taken.
There is a penchant for some to consider ad hominem attacks as good arguments against some issue. I had assumed your's was similar. I was incorrect, I apologize.
Cool :)
Needs just a wee bit of polish.
Why, is your battery low? (Where is Gumlegs).
I am fairly familiar with the history of the church. Therefore I know enough dirt on just about all the good guys to know that ad hominem arguments are really a bad road to take for Christians. Personal character is not an argument for truth or falsity of anything (although it can be supportive). Some of the most despicable persons have had views that I support wholeheartedly, and some very enjoyable people have had views I find abhorrent.
Does it ever wear out? I mean do you keep spares on hand, just in case?
I made an assumption from the text that I can see I should not have made. It came honestly, tho. Thanks for the correction
No, I have been complaining about anthropomorphizing physical process for so lon, I was just glad to see that someone else had picked up the ball.
Why do some people think that because we ask why and what for, that a snowflake or bacterium does the same?
Purity of heart and wisdom go hand in hand. Wouldn't it be in the interest of someone who treats human beings as disposable objects of pleasure to support a philosophy that reduces human beings to mere physical processes?"
Aren't you making an assumption? How do you know anything about Michael Ruse's assertion or the nature of his relationship.
That is a corollary of design, necessary to physicists, sort of handy for biologists, but not design itself. We have to rely on consistency over time; what is the alternative? but we don't have to assume design.
If you would care to challenge anything I stated, please do so. I find it amusing that the responses i've received love to use the word "creationist" but never respond to the truth of the lack of science. People like Dawkins simply lead the cultists down the bunny trail. Instead of questioning me, why don't you actually try and research Hawkin's methods. If you bother reading some scientists who dare question Dawkin's scientific method, you may discover some painful facts.
Try reading David Wise who notes this. He is not a creationist but a true scientist. LOL
Are you sure?
####Do you know that the lack of argument against is not an argument for?####
Yes.
BTW, I should have also noted to you (and others here right now) that this is one of the most polite discussions I've seen here on the evolution vs. ID controversy. Thank you for your polite discourse!
I hope this isn't an attempt to play those silly little creationist games where you say that microevolution occurs but nobody has observed macroevolution. We have never witnessed a cat give birth to a dog and there are no transitional fossils.
The definition of evolution was determined initially by Darwin and later modified and made more accurate by evolutionary scientists. The definition of evolution will always be some form of the following:
The variation of allele frequencies within a population over time as determined by differential reproduction.
No manner of semantic twisting is going to make the definition of evolution to be the change of one phylum into another phylum or some other higher taxon.
Cats do not give birth to dogs, all changes are small (or relatively small) incremental morphological differences. There is no mechanism that will stop the cumulative changes between a parent sequence and a daughter sequence from resulting in two different organisms that taxonomists would class as different species, or genera or any other taxa based on the morphological changes. If you could identify and test such a genetic stop sign you would undoubtedly win a Nobel.
It gets so tiring watching uninformed and/or mislead creationists continually play this silly micro/macro card as if it had any meaning. They continually complain that the fossil record shows abrupt changes instead of small cumulative changes then complain about the small cumulative changes we do see in extant species. Make up your minds!
The 'information' canard is a non-starter; all that is necessary is for the genome to differ in size and/or content for the change from a single celled organism to human to result. We 'witness' beneficial mutations that affect a single base pair, a single codon, multiple codons, a single gene and multiple genes. We see gene duplication, gene flipping, genes being turned on, being turned off and even genes switching codons. Introns get shortened, introns get lengthened, introns disappear. We even see chromosomes being duplicated, split and combined.
Where is the limiting factor that stops significant change in a species? Scientists have found that some states will only allow change in a specific direction, but nothing that will stop change completely. You find that limiter, that 'microevolution' governor if you will and let us know.
Well put! This was a refreshing way to end my evening. Thank you.
I had assumed as much (you being first I mean). I just wanted to start another three stooges riff.
I've been bugged about both reification and anthropomorphization for as long as I've been here. I just haven't been as vocal about it as I should have been until recently.
(Right now I'm just hoping the royalties aren't too steep).
"Why do some people think that because we ask why and what for, that a snowflake or bacterium does the same?
They want there to be an intelligent designer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.