|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2006 : 08:16:55 [Permalink]
|
No links, quote mining, and taken out of context. 
Richard Dawkins actually said:
quote:
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.
quote:
Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
This is what happens when you pull from chistianstudents.com or some other YEC site.
I don't have time to go through the rest of that post look for out-of-context quote mining, maybe someone else can? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/03/2006 08:32:15 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 08:28:36 [Permalink]
|
A bunch of mined quotes, plus a conflation of "purposeful design with foresight" with the concept of design as Dawkins intended. That's evidence?
And, of course, there is evidence of macroevolution (meaning a change from one species into another, or larger). If you want to redefine the word to mean something other than what biologists use it to mean, you should say so, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 08:50:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
No links, quote mining, and taken out of context.
Richard Dawkins actually said:
quote:
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.
quote:
Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
This is what happens when you pull from chistianstudents.com or some other YEC site.
I don't have time to go through the rest of that post look for out-of-context quote mining, maybe someone else can?
quote:
The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities
(bill) Where did these "primordial entities" come from that Darwin was referring to here?
quote:
sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.
(bill) Can you show me an observation of this?
quote:
Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance.
(bill) Which is why evolution needs billions of years and any evidence that contradicts billions of years is dismissed with a hand wave. Of course Dawkins assumes this...
quote:
But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point.
(bill) Indoctrination on prime display here. A degreed "scientist" is theorizing that blind chance results can explain his observed fingerprints of design if given enough TIME. In other words chance equals randomness, however, chance + time = complex design. Obviously this is not science but rather science fiction.
quote:
The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.
(bill) Oh no! The blind creator of life.
Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology:
"A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required."
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
Of course my favorite one on the post:
Dr. Edward E. Max while debating Dr Lee Spetner:
"I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur."
"An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur."
(bill) No of course not! Just because you have never observed it is no reason at all to question the just-so theory of macroevolution. (sigh) This a prime example of indoctrination run amuck and the naturalist ignoring science and entering his worldview "by faith".
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/03/2006 10:05:46 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 09:36:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
No of course not! Just because you have never observed it is no reason at all to question the just-so theory of macroevolution. (sigh)
Likewise, using your logic: Because I have never seen Your God, I can conclude that it does not exist. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 10:02:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
No of course not! Just because you have never observed it is no reason at all to question the just-so theory of macroevolution. (sigh)
Likewise, using your logic: Because I have never seen Your God, I can conclude that it does not exist.
Well, You already do this, doc. That is what I found to be so ironic. How many times on this forum have I been asked to drag God out from behind the curtains so all can see him? More then once. Yet when it comes to the naturalist worldview it means nothing if it has never been observed, only that they need to come up with some just-so story on why they have never observed it.
BTW, maybe you can help P here. Can you tell me where these "primordial entities" came from or how they "come into existence by chance"? Has this been observed?
"How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/03/2006 10:28:56 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 10:45:00 [Permalink]
|
Yer full'a shit, Bill.
Which shuck faith did you say you follow again? Are you a Christian? A Muslim? Scientologist? Rastafarian? What...?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 11:04:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Yer full'a shit, Bill.
Which shuck faith did you say you follow again? Are you a Christian? A Muslim? Scientologist? Rastafarian? What...?
BTW, can you tell me where these "primordial entities" came from or how they "come into existence by chance"? Has this been observed?
"How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 11:23:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Yer full'a shit, Bill.
Which shuck faith did you say you follow again? Are you a Christian? A Muslim? Scientologist? Rastafarian? What...?
BTW, can you tell me where these "primordial entities" came from or how they "come into existence by chance"? Has this been observed?
"How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."
Just to help Da Filth here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
Directly addresses your contention. Just a source cite, Bill. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 04/03/2006 11:56:21 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Yer full'a shit, Bill.
Which shuck faith did you say you follow again? Are you a Christian? A Muslim? Scientologist? Rastafarian? What...?
BTW, can you tell me where these "primordial entities" came from or how they "come into existence by chance"? Has this been observed?
"How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."
Just to help Da Filth here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
Directly addresses your contention. Just a source cite, Bill.
How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure....
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
As I said the naturalist worldview is nothing but a house of cards built on a foundation of we assume, just imagine if, it might have been, what if, maybe etc... etc...
We go from a "spotty" fossil record to the 100% speculation and fairytales of aboigenesis. Why do you guys so dogmatically defend naturalism again? Oh yeah, the converse is not even an option.
Going to mars in search of an asteroid shuttle system to bring back the missing molecules for life in support of your abiogenesis story is just pushing your dogmatic commitment to naturalism into a full blown indoctrination of fairytales.
So any ideas on where the "primordial entities" came from that Darwin was referring to?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:14:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Which shuck faith did you say you follow again? Are you a Christian? A Muslim? Scientologist? Rastafarian? What...?
quote:
BTW, can you tell me where these "primordial entities" came from or how they "come into existence by chance"? Has this been observed?
"How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."
quote:
Just to help Da Filth here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
Directly addresses your contention. Just a source cite, Bill.
Thanks Val. That's a marvelous archive, isn't it? Well written and heavily referenced.
Now then Bill, is it Wicca? Having a few on this board makes me doubt that. Jeddi perhaps? I understand they're going strong in places, especially Oz. Umm... Rosicrucian?
Why all the mystery?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:21:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As I said the naturalist worldview is nothing but a house of cards built on a foundation of we assume, just imagine if, it might have been, what if, maybe etc... etc...
We go from a "spotty" fossil record to the 100% speculation and fairytales of aboigenesis. Why do you guys so dogmatically defend naturalism again? Oh yeah, the converse is not even an option.
Going to mars in search of an asteroid shuttle system to bring back the missing molecules for life in support of your abiogenesis story is just pushing your dogmatic commitment to naturalism into a full blown indoctrination of fairytales.
So any ideas on where the "primordial entities" came from that Darwin was referring to?
And as I said:
Do some research. You just might fuck up and learn something.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 12:41:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
As I said the naturalist worldview is nothing but a house of cards built on a foundation of we assume, just imagine if, it might have been, what if, maybe etc... etc...
We go from a "spotty" fossil record to the 100% speculation and fairytales of aboigenesis. Why do you guys so dogmatically defend naturalism again? Oh yeah, the converse is not even an option.
Going to mars in search of an asteroid shuttle system to bring back the missing molecules for life in support of your abiogenesis story is just pushing your dogmatic commitment to naturalism into a full blown indoctrination of fairytales.
So any ideas on where the "primordial entities" came from that Darwin was referring to?
And as I said:
Do some research. You just might fuck up and learn something.
quote:
Do some research. You just might fuck up and learn something.
That is what I would recomend for you to try. Then you might have an explantion as to where Darwin's "primordial entities" came from and what they are? (besides simple) |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 13:45:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure....
The idea that life began when a bacterium came together by chance is a strawman, Bill.quote:
So any ideas on where the "primordial entities" came from that Darwin was referring to?
It doesn't actually matter where they came from - once they got here, they evolved. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 14:36:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
No of course not! Just because you have never observed it is no reason at all to question the just-so theory of macroevolution. (sigh)
Likewise, using your logic: Because I have never seen Your God, I can conclude that it does not exist.
Well, You already do this, doc.
Bullshit!
I'm agnostic, not atheist. However, I seriously question God's existance, given how the world looks, and the lack of positive evidence.
quote:
How many times on this forum have I been asked to drag God out from behind the curtains so all can see him? More then once. Yet when it comes to the naturalist worldview it means nothing if it has never been observed, only that they need to come up with some just-so story on why they have never observed it.
Observed, as in measured somehow. Watching it with your own eyes is questionable since the interpretation of visual senses alone isn't reliable. There's more to it, but it is a part of the scientific method. Which you wouldn't recognize even if it bit you in the ass.
Inference is partly evidence if the interpretation of the evidence is rigorus enough.
Scientific view starts with "I don't know" then you find out how it is.
The Fundamentalistic Christian (or most religious) views starts with "God exist" the continues with "How can I interpret evidence in order to make it support the existance of God?".
That is the Number One tennet and working method of Answers In Genesis. Which is as anti-science as it can get.
So I reject AiG, as they cannot by definition present any unbiased interpretatin of any evidence. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 17:02:11 [Permalink]
|
Who's the designer, Bill? Could it be a martian? What mechanism did it use to design and implement life as we know it?
And why such incompetence? Why do we have an appendix? Why are there blind fish with eyes? What about spina bifida? Or phenylketonuria How about Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis? A friend of mine died of ALS, and it's a real bitch of a disease. It slowly wastes your body, but leaves your mind perfectly healthy so you know what's happening and what's coming. And it's 100% fatal.
Your designer sucks, Bill. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
