Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Introduction: The Illusion of Design [Richard Dawkins]
Natural History Magazine ^ | November 2005 | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,001-1,002 next last
To: chronic_loser
1) I find him obnoxious, condescending, arrogant, and intolerable.

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.

221 posted on 12/07/2005 3:16:11 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Cool :)


222 posted on 12/07/2005 3:16:41 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser
"It is a piss poor job if it is, wouldn't you say?

Needs just a wee bit of polish.

223 posted on 12/07/2005 3:18:31 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
"Damn! I'm going to have to start charging.

Why, is your battery low? (Where is Gumlegs).

224 posted on 12/07/2005 3:21:22 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
thanks. I am not really a "creationist" in that sense of the word, although I am an orthodox Christian and I do think that creation shouts to us of its creator.

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.

225 posted on 12/07/2005 3:23:23 PM PST by chronic_loser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: rootkidslim

Does it ever wear out? I mean do you keep spares on hand, just in case?


226 posted on 12/07/2005 3:26:37 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You know, I think you are right and I am wrong!

I made an assumption from the text that I can see I should not have made. It came honestly, tho. Thanks for the correction

227 posted on 12/07/2005 3:27:12 PM PST by chronic_loser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

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?


228 posted on 12/07/2005 3:27:12 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"Yet after a lifetime of studying Americans -- I have gone to school with them, I have argued with them, I have had sex with them, and now I live with them -- I am still puzzled.

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.

229 posted on 12/07/2005 3:27:44 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
never accounts for the origins of the "unaided" laws of physics

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.

230 posted on 12/07/2005 3:29:30 PM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

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


231 posted on 12/07/2005 3:30:25 PM PST by caffe (Hey, dems, you finally have an opportunity to vote!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser
"You know, I think you are right and I am wrong!"

It's easy to get dates mixed up. As for myself, I forgot that he needed to sign the 39 Articles in order to get into Cambridge. I still think that his uncomfortableness with some of them factored into his decision to not become a clergyman. As I posted to someone else, I have to look it up again to be sure.

Cheers!
232 posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:23 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
"From the discussions around here, you might think that.

Are you sure?

233 posted on 12/07/2005 3:35:07 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

####Do you know that the lack of argument against is not an argument for?####


Yes.


234 posted on 12/07/2005 3:35:18 PM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

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!


235 posted on 12/07/2005 3:48:07 PM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: microgood
"You are wrong. And no matter how many times you say it, it will still be wrong. Evolution never has been, and never will be a fact."

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.

236 posted on 12/07/2005 4:12:46 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
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!

Well put! This was a refreshing way to end my evening. Thank you.

237 posted on 12/07/2005 4:23:36 PM PST by stanz (Those who don't believe in evolution should go jump off the flat edge of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
"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.

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.

238 posted on 12/07/2005 4:32:46 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Well, when Gummy shows up maybe the Stooges can get something going.

I think the more rabid of our Creationoid brethren are worn out after yesterday.
239 posted on 12/07/2005 4:37:33 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
" I think the more rabid of our Creationoid brethren are worn out after yesterday."

Why, what happened yesterday? lol
240 posted on 12/07/2005 4:43:58 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,001-1,002 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson