Dawkins, atheism & intelligent design

Hokulele said:
You really should read the "Are you a Jew?" link. It is short, and you can just picture the spittle flying.
Click to expand...

Jillian speaking to Brian on phone: Wait, wait! I have another question. How do I know if I'm Jewish?

Brian: Are you Jewish?

Jillian: No.

Brian: There you go, sport.

Jillian: Thank you!
 
Surely you all know that bwinwright is a hit and run merchant and is most unlikely to respond?

I think he gets points from his church or fundie website for the responses he gets here.

Troll.....ignore.....you know the drill.
 
boloboffin said:
My goodness. I thought this was Lamarckism. Surely Darwin said that a species of bear that devoted enough time to swimming would evolve into a species of whale, or something like a species of whale.

And that would be true.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, although that's not a refutation of Darwinian evolution.

Just because bears are a viable organism, and whales are a viable organism, doesn't necessarily mean that there is a direct chain of viable organisms between the two. There might be an evolutionary pathway available, or there might just be no way to get there from here. An ant will never evolve directly into a cheetah no matter how advantageous it would be for it to do so.

Possibly you'd have to go "backwards" (not that there is a direction to evolution) to some non-bearlike organism, and only then could you go "forwards" to a whale-like organism. To get from ant to cheetah you might have to go back to the single-celled level, or at least close to it.
 
lionking said:
Surely you all know that bwinwright is a hit and run merchant and is most unlikely to respond?

I think he gets points from his church or fundie website for the responses he gets here.

Troll.....ignore.....you know the drill.
Click to expand...
Maybe he's one of those students who has to post 10 defenses of creationism on hostile websites to get a good grade.

If so, the joke's on him. A good grade from a place like that is still worthless. Might as well take a C and use the time to feed the hungry and house the homeless.
 
lionking said:
Surely you all know that bwinwright is a hit and run merchant and is most unlikely to respond?

I think he gets points from his church or fundie website for the responses he gets here.

Troll.....ignore.....you know the drill.
Click to expand...

If they'd just let me use my drill, there'd be fewer trolls.
 
As always, it is such a pleasure to read the views and arguments of JREFers.
 
Gotta give the OP points for spreading the word.

I mean, doing a hit-and-run with a bunch of transparent lies in a forum that is well indexed by search engines.
And then having said lies refuted one-by-one.

Man, that's what I call spreading the word of God.
 
Last edited:
Theory of Evolution has now been disproved by numerous scientists
Click to expand...

Source?

btw im am very proud to be an Atheist. well your post made me even more proud.
 
Crusader Richard Dawkins Anti-Christ, Anti-God, & Anti Organized Religion ...

...and married to Lalla Ward!!!! :eek:
 
oh i found the Debunking of the Evolution theory.

peanut_butter_salmonella1.jpg
 
bwinwright said:
The example of a Dolphin’s Sonar is only one of millions of such examples of super sophisticated and irreducibly complex systems and processes we have observed in nature, all of which would have been impossible without the involvement of intelligence.

Dawkins’ idol is Charles Darwin whose Theory of Evolution has now been disproved by numerous scientists. The field of micro biology, alone, has revealed Darwin’s Theory to be laughably false. Dawkins has been avoiding debates with microbiologists because they know how wrong Darwin’s Theory really is and can prove it too.

Darwin actually believed that a bear that devoted enough time to swimming could actually evolve into a whale. Of course, this idea has been found to be both false and absurd. Modern microbiology thoroughly debunks Darwin’s Theory.
Click to expand...

This sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty irritates me. Literally 5 minutes on Wikipedia (and, crucially, the references it provides) gave me "Evolution of cetaceans" and "Irreducible complexity" - with the original examples provided by Behe (eyes etc) and how they have been refuted. I can't post links yet, but I'm guessing most of the people reading this will have seen this all before.

When so much information is available freely to everyone, arguments from ignorance are even more fallacious.
 
Welcome, Think Tank. If you have a link that might enlighten this thread, just post it with a few spaces or other means to mask it as a link and the old-timers will post it for you.

And you're right. wiki + a few minutes = knowledge. Sadly, knowledge scares the OPer.
 
bokonon said:
Maybe he's one of those students who has to post 10 defenses of creationism on hostile websites to get a good grade.

If so, the joke's on him. A good grade from a place like that is still worthless. Might as well take a C and use the time to feed the hungry and house the homeless.
Click to expand...

I kind of suspected that since this guy hasn't replied at all in his own thread. Usually, the people who post this kind of drivel are usually foaming at the mouth right and have several posts right about now.
 
Thanks everyone! Long time reader, first time poster and all that.

The links I referred to are:

en wikipedia org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
en wikipedia org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples​
 
I have to admit, the idea that echolocation is another example of irreducible complexity is new to me. It seems to me that one might as well argue that the ability to smell bull plop is an example of irreducible complexity. The ability to hear high-frequency sounds can exist independently of echolocation. Dogs, for example, have ultrasonic hearing, but don't use it for echolocation. Improved hearing may make dolphins or bats more effective at locating prey in dark or murky conditions, independently of echolocation. If hearing and "signal processing" improves sufficiently, the ability to generate high-frequency sounds could eventually develop into echolocation. This doesn't seem to be any stronger example of irreducible complexity than the more well-known ones, such as the eye or the flagellum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom