143 replies to this topic

[Donna]

Hi Den,

What you say depends on everything being linear and uniform. The described processes do not occur in a linear fashion, and do not occur uniformally across the planet, or on the same timeline. There are some places where the organisms have remained unchanged for enormous periods of time, and places where changes occur quite quickly.

Over very long periods of time, in small pockets, it is not beyond my comprehension that given the right conditions eg cosmic rays, changes in the magnetosphere, the Earth's atmosphere, toxins etc that radical alterations could take place.

Anyway, it is clear that you, Den, are very fixed in your thinking, and you have come to the conclusion that in order to prove the existence of an entity that you love and find joyful you must first negate and disprove the process of evolution.

Den, why don't you have the courage just come straight out and witness to us the joy you have found in your faith and your God? I am sure you would not lose any respect for that. Come on, show us your hand...some of us have. Are you really searching for answers, or just trying to bestow upon others your already forgone conclusions? What are you really trying to say?

Regards,

Donna

[Den]

Anyway, it is clear that you Den, are very fixed in your thinking,

Quite the contrary Donna, I think of myself as fairly open minded, the irony here is that many people on the side of evolution consider themselves as taking a scientific view of the world we live in, yet here I watch these people read an article that has zero science in it and offers absolutely no evidence of a scientific standard and those people have immediately adopted these presumtuous quotes as fact.

If there is some evidence in the article presented by Tim I appologise, please help me out and put the evidence in quote tags because I must have missed it.

Ironically I think the most silly person on that Q&A show(the family first senator) said the smartest thing during the whole show, and that was his response to the question on the age of the earth, which was "I think science will continue to discover new things".

I am neither Athiest nor am I Religious, humanity is still way too primitive for me to have the audacity to think we are at a level to draw any conclusion on the matters of life and existence.


Cheers
Den

[Jaraqui]

It appears you clearly have very little knowledge of evolution, Den. I suggest you pick yourself up a copy of Richard Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show On Earth : The Evidence For Evolution". It will be the first step and most logical step in your apparent open minded acceptance of new knowledge. After you have read the book (in an unbiased way, I'm assuming), think back upon your posts. Evolution is a fact. It is as much of a fact as is the evidence for the holocaust. Here is a quote from the book:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury has no probem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. This is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution."

Most, if not all of your questions will be answered within this book. If you have further questions, I'm sure the folks over at the Richard Dawkins forum would be more then happy to lay them to bed .

[Donna]

Hi Den,

Perhaps I am not standing far enough away to see the flexibility It is said there are patterns in chaos perhaps I am just not evolved enough to see them.

You still haven't said what you are trying to say or do. Do you have any firm beliefs, or are they all currently a work in progress? If they are, I understand that. If you are trying to play the devil's advocate, then fair enough too. If you are challenging people to think...more power to you, although I don't think you are doing this effectively. If you are just randomly attention seeking by making outrageous claims like you invented the question mark, then even that is understandable. This is not the first time you have explored this issue on this forum, and those of us who have been around a while know that. I realise this started by an anomaly that you so cleverly think you picked out in a TV show, but it has again, somehow, come around to this topic. This is a preoccupation for you.

I think you are pointing out what is fairly obvious to most people and that is that everything is in a state of constant change and everything should be challenged and viewed critically. This is not new to many of the people I know, and is done routinely.

There doesn't have to be evidence in Tim's article (and as he pointed out, he didn't write it) You don't get to make the final judgements or tell people what to get out of it, what is in it and what isn't. That's not your place. Your comprehension skills are not definitive. If it struck some resonance in me that you fail to understand, then so be it. Of course, you get the same rights, unless you can logically be persuaded to think otherwise

I also do not attempt to draw any conclusions about anything. In fact, I will show my hand. I am an existentialist. I take comfort in the fact that my life is meaningless, yes, comfort. I did not always feel that way, and may not always, and that is where I am today.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting yarn, your intentions aren't clear enough to call it an exposition, and not entertaining enough to be a narrative

Regards,

Donna

[Den]

I guess my point Donna is that I think Intelligent Design as Dawkins pointed out is an important scientific question and I believe it should be taught in schools and explored at a scientific level without the Religious dogma attached to the subject.

I wasnt having a go at Tim, I mentioned I had not been able to find any evidence on the evolutionary steps to metamorphisis, something was presented to me as supposed evidence, I merely pointed out that I couldnt find any evidence in that article.

Just wondering if anyone here who believes in evolution theory is very good at maths?
Compare the very slow evolutionary time scale of humans or any other well studied animal, and consider the transitional species and the number of approximate genetic changes required between mutilceluar basic life form to a blue whale, 570 million years from the Cambrian explosion, does not seem to be enough time in my calculations.

It appears you clearly have very little knowledge of evolution, Den.

I agree, just like every other single person on the planet.

Cheers
Den

[Jaraqui]

From your last statement, it's obvious you are not willing to learn. Read the book and then draw conclusions. Perhaps you are afraid to? I can only suggest however, it is up to you to actually educate yourself.

[Donna]

Hi Tau5 and Den,

Sorry Tau5, only just read your post as well. You make some really interesting and pertinent points. I think Den should take up your challenge and read the suggested material and respond to it in any other way than a "gut' feeling. Come on Den, that is your challenge. Discussion here when you are finished.

I must admit, I don't know much about Dawkins myself, one of my friends has gone to the convention this weekend though in Melbourne and is a really active, or should I say, a militant atheist

Just interested Den, how you would "teach" intelligent design in schools? At last there is something tangible to actually hang on too, and a suggestion you have made. What is your understanding of what is being taught currently?

Regards,

Donna

[Den]

It appears you clearly have very little knowledge of evolution, Den.

From your last statement, it's obvious you are not willing to learn.

Tau5 Im not sure how you can make those statements about me, since you have in this thread demonstrated that you are able to accept complete innuendo and presumption as fact, therefore I can draw the conclusion that your idea of learning and understanding scientific fact from fiction is alot different to mine.

Cheers
Den

[Cawdor]

I agree, just like every other single person on the planet.

Firstly, it is insulting to those people who have made it their life's work to study and explore the subject of evolution, who have through experiments solved pieces of the puzzle and add to the global knowledge about evolution.
Secondly, in order to make that statement that everyone knows little about it, you need to know how much there is to know. You don't. Nobody does. So nobody can say we know little about it.
Thirdly, if you were really serious about wanting to know more about it, you wouldn't just post it in this forum, you would contact experts in this field and ask them the questions you ask here.

There are some very knowledgeable people working at Murdoch Uni, contact Dr Howard Gill or Professor Robert Mead and they will point you in the right direction. Reading a textbook on evolution will also help your understanding of the subject and may well answer your questions

[Jaraqui]

Tau5 Im not sure how you can make those statements about me, since you have in this thread demonstrated that you are able to accept complete innuendo and presumption as fact, therefore I can draw the conclusion that your idea of learning and understanding scientific fact from fiction is alot different to mine.

I am accepting evolution as fact because I have thoroughly studied both sides to the arguement from a multitude of references without bias. Your reference to evolution as "innuendo and presumtion" clearly demonstrates this lack of knowledge as does your quoted conjecture about my statements. Evolution is a fact, backed with "bulletproof" evidence; not presumption. Why dodge the challenge Den? Read the book.

In response to your second statement, which you so hastely deleted, I found it rather amusing, childish and hypocritical. I'm not sure why you have decided to take my reponses as personal insults, since you are so obviously open minded. I have not copied and pasted anything either. I found that passage within my copy of the book and quoted that section, just for you. All on deaf ears, it seems.

Tim suggested exactly what I suggested you do; post somewhere else where you may get a full answer and actually study both sides of the argument you are adhering to.

[Donna]

Den,

You are probably going to have to extend your reading beyond the Watchtower

Regards,

Donna

[Jezza]

I suggest you pick yourself up a copy of Richard Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show On Earth : The Evidence For Evolution".

You are probably going to have to extend your reading beyond the Watchtower

Tau5 - if you expect people to read that book, then i expect you to read Jonathan Sarfati's new book: "The greatest hoax on earth: Refuting Dawkins on evolution"

if Dawkins is so sure of himself and his ideas, then why does he refuse to have a debate with Jonathan Sarfati in Melbourne this week coming...
Why? because he knows he can't win...

( http://creation.com/...-earth/main.php )
for more good books or info, see here: http://creation.com

[theonetruepath]

I guess my point Donna is that I think Intelligent Design as Dawkins pointed out is an important scientific question and I believe it should be taught in schools and explored at a scientific level without the Religious dogma attached to the subject.

So-called Intelligent Design is religious dogma, not science. To call it an important scientific question displays massive ignorance. You can't just make unsupported statements in science, that's what makes it science. ID has been utterly and completely refuted on every level except 'Blind Faith'. If you've accepted the word of school administrators all over the planet in this matter then you should question your sources more critically.

I wasnt having a go at Tim, I mentioned I had not been able to find any evidence on the evolutionary steps to metamorphisis, something was presented to me as supposed evidence, I merely pointed out that I couldnt find any evidence in that article.

http://www.cincinnat...amorphosis.html
Presents a simple answer (as simple as you can get with such a complex subject which is not fully understood). It also makes the point that when presented with a difficult-to-explain scenario, a sensible approach is to make a significant effort to explain it, rather than to postulate a hypothetical superbeing that made everything on a whim.

Just wondering if anyone here who believes in evolution theory is very good at maths?

Surely you jest. Rejectors of Evolution Theory are traditionally ignorant in all fields of science, and mathematics is no exception.

Compare the very slow evolutionary time scale of humans or any other well studied animal, and consider the transitional species and the number of approximate genetic changes required between mutilceluar basic life form to a blue whale, 570 million years from the Cambrian explosion, does not seem to be enough time in my calculations.

A point worth answering, and one fully and comprehensively answered in Dawkins' book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' as well as many others.

I don't claim that reading the book will convince you, but at least your arguments would be a lot better thought out, they would have to be.

While I don't call myself a scientist, I do know enough to recognise that the scientific method is exceedingly useful to all people.
1. If you don't want to research something yourself, you need to take someone elses' word for it. If that person is not a scientist you effectively just took something on Blind Faith. That's a Bad Thing BTW. By all means make up your own mind, but when you run out of time to do a massive amount of biological reseach across many generations, look to the scientific community who already did it.
2. If you think there are untrustworthy scientists out there, never fear, scientists know this to be true. That's why Peer Review is such a large part of Scientific Method. Silly scientists who erroneously 'discover' cold fusion are soon found out.

Don't confuse Peer Review with popularity - if you try to equate the quality of the Creationist argument with the number of people that believe it then you just used the million monkey argument. Yes they make a lot of noise but we need to shut it out to hear the useful stuff. There is a certain proportion of people that don't like to be told 'you can't cure cancer by sleeping under a pyramid'. They are free to believe what they like, but we must avoid having them decide our schools' curricula. And the scientific community may also be susceptible to behaving like a flock of sheep at times, but far *far* less so than Blind Faith proponents.

Personally, I follow several steps in 'working something out'
1. Establish facts to my own satisfaction. Personal observation first, verified scientific observation second. The Book of Job a distant last.
2. Attempt to work it out with unassailable logic on my own from the facts. If that fails, resort to prior thinking done by the scientific community, ie Peer Reviewed research/theory. Blind Faith once again a distant last.

Why on Earth do people elevate the position of Bible and Blind Faith to second or even first place in this chain? And surely anyone who has 'shut up the logic shop' and gone home, would not then try to encourage deliberate ignorance to be inculcated into their own and others' children...

There are two ways this can go. Either in 500 years they'll look back (while sitting drinking the latest drink at the Ring Bar on Saturn) at the Dark Age which we are in now and wonder how people could be so closed minded as to reject Truth outright. Or they'll pause during the latest Scientist Burning Ceremony to Thank God that they managed to oust the Evil Logicians before riding home on their spiffy new camel.

[Cawdor]

if Dawkins is so sure of himself and his ideas, then why does he refuse to have a debate with Jonathan Sarfati in Melbourne this week coming...
Why? because he knows he can't win...

As I said I am not a fan of Dawkins, but I understand his decision to not debate this guy (or any religious person for that matter). Why? Because he cannot win. Nobody can win with reason against someone's faith. All that happens at these debates is that people from the religious side probe until they come to something that we cannot fully explain yet and claim victory, because their argument that "god did it" explains everything in the universe:

Religion: Hey science, explain this!
Science: this is so because blablabla.
Religion: How about this? How does this work?
Science: to the best of our current knowledge it works like this.....
Religion: Aha! So you can't fully explain it! Your argument is invalid and I win.
Science: How do you explain it?
Religion: God did it.
Science: do you have any proof of the existence of this god?
Religion: That's not how it works, you have to proof he doesn't exist!
Science: WTF?
Religion: I win!!

[attachment=6700:sciencereligion01.png]

[Jaraqui]

Of course, this is assuming there isn't an alternative motive for Richard not debating Jonathan Sarfati...

[Den]

I suggest you pick yourself up a copy of Richard Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show On Earth : The Evidence For Evolution".

After watching Dawkins in numerous interviews and debates I've never heard Dawkins say anything new or interesting enough to inspire me to read his work.

I didnt really want to start a debate about evolution here, but Dawkins has achieved fame through a kind of notoriety, his ability to create factions appeals to primitive human senses and his main influence seems to be with the young and naive whom he inspires to pin a complete belief in evolution, whether they understand it or not, with the reward of joining his mob of "self proclaimed" intellectuals. Dawkins in my opinion is not assisting with the growth and development of human understanding, he is simply converting people from one ignorant belief to another.

My early studies of Biology showed me a very shallow view of the world, it is a simple interpretation of the visible world through our very limited sensory perception, therefore while Biology is able to offer a very shallow and alternative theory to intelligent design, since the inspriation of existence/intelligent designing force is likely to be beyond the scope of human sensory perception, elimates biological science as a science capable of measuring or challenging the notion of intelligent design any more than it is capable of challenging or measuring other invisible forces such as those studied by physics and mathematics, as I mentioned before i.e. radio waves, light, gravity, sonar, etc.

Regarding Biology's reliance of sensory perception, next time you meet a biologist ask them this question:

Q: Providing the weather is clear, what colour is the sky?

Biologist Answer: Why of course its blue!

..............thats funny, because it wasnt last night as I watched the stars


Cheers
Den

[theonetruepath]

After watching Dawkins in numerous interviews and debates I've never heard Dawkins say anything new or interesting enough to inspire me to read his work.

Priceless. He's never said anything worth hearing so I've never read anything he's written.

I didnt really want to start a debate about evolution here, but Dawkins has achieved fame through a kind of notoriety, his ability to create factions appeals to primitive human senses and his main influence seems to be with the young and naive whom he inspires to pin a complete belief in evolution, whether they understand it or not, with the reward of joining his mob of "self proclaimed" intellectuals. Dawkins in my opinion is not assisting with the growth and development of human understanding, he is simply converting people from one ignorant belief to another.

Dawkins has contributed as a scientist too. But his enduring legacy will be to have converted a significant number of people from an ignorant belief to a scientific outlook which is the opposite of ignorant.

My early studies of Biology showed me a very shallow view of the world...

Biology I would describe as a science in its infancy, struggling to make sense of a massively complex subject matter and not within light years of establishing a 'world view'.

Regarding Biology's reliance of sensory perception, next time you meet a biologist ask them this question:

Q: Providing the weather is clear, what colour is the sky?

Biologist Answer: Why of course its blue!

..............thats funny, because it wasnt last night as I watched the stars

Are you one of those people that thinks trees don't exist if there's nobody walking through the forest?

The night sky is just as blue. You'll need to shine some light through it to see that.

[Jezza]

Are you one of those people that thinks trees don't exist if there's nobody walking through the forest?

The night sky is just as blue. You'll need to shine some light through it to see that.

actually, the sky appears blue due to the refraction of the light from the sun...(which is why the sky is usually redish at sunrise/sunset due to the light refracting at a lower angle...)
the 'sky' is simply gasses - most of which are clear...
therefore the sky is in fact clear, not blue...

[theonetruepath]

The gasses in the sky scatter blue light sideways and let other colours straight through. This has the effect of making it blue. Curious as to why you think that's any different from a compound absorbing other colours and reflecting only blue, thus making it appear blue?

[Donna]

Hi Den,

I also forgot to say I was a bit dispappointed in the pic comparing Dawkins to a Special Olympian. This cartoon makes a lot of assumptions about the people you might find competing in this event.

I am sure they are as diverse as any other group.

Regards,

Donna