Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[DogmaHunter]

First of all, I will mention that the entire book can be found at https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A Good Atheist Secularist Skeptical Book Collection/The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.pdf although I don't know whether that violates any kind of law.

Search for the phrase "the ultimate Boeing 747"
This will put you at the start of his long, rambling "proof." His proof consists of an argument against the argument of improbability. This is the modus operandi of his book. Since there are objections to the argument of improbability (objections that may or may not be valid – experts disagree), it is not absolutely necessary for someone to accept the argument of improbability. Therefore, Darwinism.

That's the logic of the entire book. The only part that kind of deviates from this theme is the "anthropic principle." Scan for the phrase "Gap theologians who may have given up on" and you will find yourself at the start of the section. You can read on, if you like, or skip ahead to the phrase:

"This objection can be answered by the suggestion, which Martin Rees himself supports, that there are many universes, co-existing like bubbles of foam, in a 'multiverse' (or 'megaverse', as Leonard Susskind prefers to call it).*"

What's the point of the argument? It is this: Even though it is quite improbable that any of what he postulates could have happened, if you postulate an infinite number of universes, why it must have happened in one of them. Then, therefore, it is not surprising that we would find ourselves in the universe where it did happen because (drumroll) the anthropic principle.

Of course this "proof" could easily be applied to anything, really. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that a young Joseph Smith ran into an angel who gave him golden plates written in an ancient language. It's also extremely unlikely that he was able to translate these writings into our modern language using little more than a few rocks and a hat. However, if we postulate an infinite number of universes, why it was certain to happen in one of them, and it's not surprising that we are in the universe where Mormonism is the one true religion because (drumroll) the anthropic principle!! If we hadn't been in the right universe, we never would have heard of old Joe Smith and his Book of Mormon.

Would you similarly like me to prove that Jesus really was God, that Mohammed really did talk to Allah, and that Bigfoot exists?

Again, the main point of Dawkins' argument seems to be that since you can postulate infinite numbers of universes, Darwinism is not completely falsified outright. Since it has not been proven completely false, it must be true.

Dawkins senses, in a certain naive way, that people might balk at his argument and so includes this doozy:

"It is tempting to think (and many have succumbed) that to postulate a plethora of universes is a profligate luxury which should not be allowed. If we are going to permit the extravagance of a multiverse, so the argument runs, we might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and allow a God. Aren't they both equally unparsimonious ad hoc hypotheses, and equally unsatisfactory? People who think that have not had their consciousness raised by natural selection. The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain."

This is what we call special pleading. He is entitled to make completely unsupportable hypotheses that save his pet theory from falsification. However, his opponents are denied the same opportunity.

While this is a rather obvious misrepresentation of what the argument concerning the anthropic principle is about....

It's not an answer to the question I asked.

You said that "His central argument seems to be that since it's not completely impossible that life arose without supernatural help, it's certain that life arose without supernatural help"

I asked you to show where in his book he makes this argument. I read this book some time ago and don't remember anything in there matching your claim.
Your rambling above talks about multiverses and the anthropic principle.

Both of which have nothing to do with the origins of life, the probability thereof or the involvement of supernatural entities. Meaning that none of what you wrote, even if I would accept it, actually addresses the claim you made.

Care to try again?

 

[Phenotype]

Those not believing in God being involved with everything being here may well believe in the process of evolution, with seeing the evidence being just for that, they don't have any other alternative for any sort of logical approach. But God's involvement is not disproved with that. Many of the evidences they use have an alternative understanding possible, if the perspective of history with God's involvement is not dismissed.

Sure God is capable of creation with use of such natural processes. God is perfect, and I see from revelation God is good and providing what is good for God's creatures as said and not ever lying or deceiving, and wouldn't have created in just such a fashion as is assumed with Darwinian evolution with natural processes without the divine work of God accomplishing all this creation.

If one as you says simply, I don't know if there is God, that wouldn't be a faith statement, but it doesn't cut off coming to any faith statement. If it is said that it cannot be known that there is God, that is a faith statement, and it would be agnostic. If it said there isn't God at all, that is a faith statement, whether it is said that this is believed or it is said that it is known, or proved from science, or whatever.

I had believed of what I had learned from the evolutionary theory, but coming to know it was not all proven and with many gaps, as I came to faith in the gospel with trusting God's word, I could trust the creation account, and see that other believers did too, and even more so now through what I find online.

This is called, The Argument From Personal Incredulity, Richard Dawkins again there, guys.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's not. There is no indication in any paper that I've read exactly how the different levels of lead isotopes are measured.

First paper I clicked on:

"Backscattered electron (BSE) and cathodoluminescence (CL) images were taken for all zircons at the State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics, Northwest University, China. CL images of the analyzed zircon grains are illustrated in Fig. 4. U–Pb dating and trace element analyses were conducted synchronously by LA-ICP-MS at the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan. Laser sampling was performed using an excimer laser ablation system (GeoLas 2005). An Agilent 7500a ICP-MS instrument was used to acquire ion-signal intensities. Helium was used as a carrier gas. Argon was used as the make-up gas and mixed with the carrier gas via a T-connector before entering the ICP. To decrease the detection limit and improve precision at spot sizes of 16 and 24 µm, nitrogen was added to the central gas flow (Ar + He) of the Ar plasma, which increases the sensitivity for most elements by a factor of 2–3 (Hu et al., 2008). The carrier and make-up gas flows were optimized by ablating NIST SRM 610 to obtain maximum signal intensity for 208Pb, while keeping low ThO/Th ( < 0·3%) and Ca2+/Ca1+ ratios ( < 0·7%) to minimize the matrix-induced interferences. The ion-signal intensity ratio measured for 238U and 232Th (238U/232Th ∼1 for NIST SRM 610) was used as an indicator of complete vaporization (Günther & Hattendorf, 2005). Because high-purity argon and helium ( > 99·999%) were used, both the 204Pb and 202Hg intensities of the gas blank are always lower than 50 c.p.s. at a sensitivity of 1 × 106 c.p.s. 208Pb for NIST SRM 610 at a spot size of 32 µm. Detailed operating conditions for the laser and the ICP-MS instrument have been given by Liu et al. (2008b). Each analysis incorporated a background acquisition of ∼20–30 s (gas blank) followed by 50 s data acquisition from the sample. An Agilent Chemstation was utilized for the acquisition of each analysis. Off-line selection and integration of background and analyte signals, and time-drift correction and quantitative calibration for trace element analyses and U–Pb dating were performed using in-house software ICPMSDataCal, which can be obtained from the author on request. Common Pb correction and ages of the samples were calculated using ComPbCorr#3_17 (Andersen, 2002). Concordia diagrams and weighted mean calculations were made using Isoplot/Ex_ver3 (Ludwig, 2003)."
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/1-2/537.full

Once again, we have a Loudmouth's trademark: The straw man argument. What I talk about is THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION. I know you don't want to admit it, but this is a major problem for scientific epistemology.

You reject the scientific method. We get it.

 

[Zosimus]

While this is a rather obvious misrepresentation of what the argument concerning the anthropic principle is about....

It's not an answer to the question I asked.

You said that "His central argument seems to be that since it's not completely impossible that life arose without supernatural help, it's certain that life arose without supernatural help"

I asked you to show where in his book he makes this argument. I read this book some time ago and don't remember anything in there matching your claim.
Your rambling above talks about multiverses and the anthropic principle.

Both of which have nothing to do with the origins of life, the probability thereof or the involvement of supernatural entities. Meaning that none of what you wrote, even if I would accept it, actually addresses the claim you made.

Care to try again?

I think that you are unfairly placing the burden of proof on me. My claim is that Dawkins made no affirmative defense for Darwinism rather he attempted to tear down counter arguments.

I have provided quotes where he tries to counter counterarguments. However, I would find it difficult and nonsensical to provide with quotes linking you to the place where he failed to do something.

Perhaps you can direct me to an affirmative defense of Darwinism contained therein?

I will simply direct you to more counter counterarguments. For example he says:

"I say all this just to demonstrate the formidable power of the brain's simulation software. It is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication."
----------------------
In short, when your eyes see something and it confirms what science believes, that is solid proof. However, when your eyes see something and it disconfirms what science believes, that is proof that you hallucinated.

I cannot help but wonder what the purpose of this passage is? Surely it must be to eliminate the possibility that people can personally experience God. Since God does not exist, Darwinism. It's the old false dichotomy writ large. Thanks, Dick. I hadn't gotten enough of that from atheists in fora such as this one.

Skipping ahead to page 121, I read:

"Turning Watchtower's page, we find the wonderful plant known as Dutchman's Pipe (Aristolochia trilobata), all of whose parts seem elegantly designed to trap insects, cover them with pollen and send them on their way to another Dutchman's Pipe. The intricate elegance of the flower moves Watchtower to ask: 'Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?' Once again, no of course it didn't happen by chance. Once again, intelligent design is not the proper alternative to chance. Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested. Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem."
---------------
A new tack. If something is simple, then it is easy to explain that it occurred naturally whereas if something is complicated, then it's even more certain that it must have occurred naturally because if someone or something was intelligent enough to design something complicated, why that's more proof that something so intelligent as that couldn't exist! It's the old "Heads I win; tails you lose" argument. Just as impressive as other Dawkins arguments.

Of course the conclusion is the same... since he can muster some reasonable-sounding objection to the counterarguments, Darwinism.

Not convinced? Read on where he says:

"Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested."

As I said... his main argument is, since chance is impossible, and he can muster arguments against the idea of design, Darwinism.

Dawkins:
P is not completely impossible.
Therefore, P surely occurred.

 

[Zosimus]

First paper I clicked on:

"Backscattered electron (BSE) and cathodoluminescence (CL) images were taken for all zircons at the State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics, Northwest University, China. CL images of the analyzed zircon grains are illustrated in Fig. 4. U–Pb dating and trace element analyses were conducted synchronously by LA-ICP-MS at the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan. Laser sampling was performed using an excimer laser ablation system (GeoLas 2005). An Agilent 7500a ICP-MS instrument was used to acquire ion-signal intensities. Helium was used as a carrier gas. Argon was used as the make-up gas and mixed with the carrier gas via a T-connector before entering the ICP. To decrease the detection limit and improve precision at spot sizes of 16 and 24 µm, nitrogen was added to the central gas flow (Ar + He) of the Ar plasma, which increases the sensitivity for most elements by a factor of 2–3 (Hu et al., 2008). The carrier and make-up gas flows were optimized by ablating NIST SRM 610 to obtain maximum signal intensity for 208Pb, while keeping low ThO/Th ( < 0·3%) and Ca2+/Ca1+ ratios ( < 0·7%) to minimize the matrix-induced interferences. The ion-signal intensity ratio measured for 238U and 232Th (238U/232Th ∼1 for NIST SRM 610) was used as an indicator of complete vaporization (Günther & Hattendorf, 2005). Because high-purity argon and helium ( > 99·999%) were used, both the 204Pb and 202Hg intensities of the gas blank are always lower than 50 c.p.s. at a sensitivity of 1 × 106 c.p.s. 208Pb for NIST SRM 610 at a spot size of 32 µm. Detailed operating conditions for the laser and the ICP-MS instrument have been given by Liu et al. (2008b). Each analysis incorporated a background acquisition of ∼20–30 s (gas blank) followed by 50 s data acquisition from the sample. An Agilent Chemstation was utilized for the acquisition of each analysis. Off-line selection and integration of background and analyte signals, and time-drift correction and quantitative calibration for trace element analyses and U–Pb dating were performed using in-house software ICPMSDataCal, which can be obtained from the author on request. Common Pb correction and ages of the samples were calculated using ComPbCorr#3_17 (Andersen, 2002). Concordia diagrams and weighted mean calculations were made using Isoplot/Ex_ver3 (Ludwig, 2003)."
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/1-2/537.full

Ahh, it was as I thought. It's not repeatable and, therefore, unverifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ahh, it was as I thought. It's not repeatable and, therefore, unverifiable.

How is it not repeatable?

 

[jathtech]

Why do people today think that by Googling things makes them an expert? Google does not rank by truth you know. Try reading some text books.

And like I said, I differentiate between micro and macro evolution.



I read my own source, I'm wondering why you are failing to grasp such a simple concept but I will try one more time before giving up. There is a difference between macro and micro evolution, even if they are just different 'scales' of the apparently same phenomenon. But I do not accept the evidence of micro automatically extends as evidence of macro, I think macro needs its own evidence and on that front I'm not convinced by what scientists currently have, and neither are all evolutionary scientists. Now compare that to how many physicists doubt the theory of relativity..

Logically, if the micro exists, so too does the macro. Saying otherwise is like saying that the number 1 or 10 exists, but the number 10 trillion hasn't been proven. Or sure,you can build brick, but you can't make a house. If micro evolution exists, so does macro. The age of the universe has also been proven to be far longer than 14000 years. Using scientific principle they have dated the rocks.

If you are still hanging on to the idea that evolution is wrong,you are in denial.

I highly recommend watching cosmos with Neil Degrass Tyson. It's on Netflix. It will help you understand the true awe that this vast universe has hidden. Imagine a god that can create THAT.

 

[jathtech]

The problem with creationism is it expects god to have limits that he does not. What if by "in his image" it was meant that we were created from the same basic building blocks with the capacity to evolve?

Is it because of the implications? Is it because it means that the animals are created in his image too? Or does it scare you that maybe the person quoting the bible either had different meaning or understanding than what it was actually translated into later? You do realize that the bible is one of the oldest games of telephone in history right? Genesis has probably been translated and rewritten so many times that the original meaning was completely washed out. Just try pasting something like a news story into Google translate, a hundred times stringing it from one language to another, and see what comes out the other side. We're literally taking literally a book that has been translated god knows how many times. What did it say originally? Maybe it didn't say days, maybe it said eons,or ages, or some other word that had no exact translation into the language it was being translated to. The first few books of the bible cannot be taken literally.

 

[Phenotype]

I used to.

Now I realize Satan has an infrastructure, and the nine muses are as follows:

1. Calliope is the muse of epic poetry.
2. Clio is the muse of history.
3. Erato is the muse of love poetry.
4. Euterpe is the muse of music.
5. Melpomene is the muse of tragedy.
6. Polyhymnia is the muse of sacred poetry.
7. Terpsichore is the muse of dance.
8. Thalia is the muse of comedy.
9. Urania is the muse of astronomy.

Their job is to lead scientists in the way of the Antichrist; sterilizing every jot & tittle of the Bible, until the Antichrist comes and takes over.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

And do what?

Become a fool?

I used to.
Oh dear

.

Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

You enjoy being this heretic. It's all about you, isn't it. The Christian scene fills your need for belonging. You can think yourself significant there.

You would be well out of your comfort zone were you to dare engage on a a science forum or among the rationalists or an atheist forum. You would do a runner poste haste, a flouncing melodramatic exit. Righteous indignation, telling them they deserve to go to hell just like you like telling me.

How mean spirited.

 

[Phenotype]

I think that you are unfairly placing the burden of proof on me. My claim is that Dawkins made no affirmative defense for Darwinism rather he attempted to tear down counter arguments.

I have provided quotes where he tries to counter counterarguments. However, I would find it difficult and nonsensical to provide with quotes linking you to the place where he failed to do something.

Perhaps you can direct me to an affirmative defense of Darwinism contained therein?

I will simply direct you to more counter counterarguments. For example he says:

"I say all this just to demonstrate the formidable power of the brain's simulation software. It is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication."
----------------------
In short, when your eyes see something and it confirms what science believes, that is solid proof. However, when your eyes see something and it disconfirms what science believes, that is proof that you hallucinated.

I cannot help but wonder what the purpose of this passage is? Surely it must be to eliminate the possibility that people can personally experience God. Since God does not exist, Darwinism. It's the old false dichotomy writ large. Thanks, Dick. I hadn't gotten enough of that from atheists in fora such as this one.

Skipping ahead to page 121, I read:

"Turning Watchtower's page, we find the wonderful plant known as Dutchman's Pipe (Aristolochia trilobata), all of whose parts seem elegantly designed to trap insects, cover them with pollen and send them on their way to another Dutchman's Pipe. The intricate elegance of the flower moves Watchtower to ask: 'Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?' Once again, no of course it didn't happen by chance. Once again, intelligent design is not the proper alternative to chance. Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested. Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem."
---------------
A new tack. If something is simple, then it is easy to explain that it occurred naturally whereas if something is complicated, then it's even more certain that it must have occurred naturally because if someone or something was intelligent enough to design something complicated, why that's more proof that something so intelligent as that couldn't exist! It's the old "Heads I win; tails you lose" argument. Just as impressive as other Dawkins arguments.

Of course the conclusion is the same... since he can muster some reasonable-sounding objection to the counterarguments, Darwinism.

Not convinced? Read on where he says:

"Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested."

As I said... his main argument is, since chance is impossible, and he can muster arguments against the idea of design, Darwinism.

Dawkins:
P is not completely impossible.
Therefore, P surely occurred.

Is The God Delusion the only Dawkins book you've read Zosimus? Looks that way from here. He has written 12 at least, plus numerous published papers. He has had a long career as an Oxford professor of evolutionary biology, and public educator. Now he accepts speaking engagements, even stressful debates, as well as study and writing books, for our enlightenment and edification. What's going on?

The God Delusion is a fine book, but not his finest. I'll have to leave that assessment to you. You see, deciding you have to confront Creationism and religion itself in this 21st Century, especially its huge sway in America, is one tough gig. Dawkins is not a naturally confrontational personality. He's a great bloke. He is a genius at explaining the account of life, of which he has great mastery indeed. His talent for metaphor and analogy is surpassingly brilliant. You are in good hands with Dawkins, but I leave that for you to discover for yourself. Check out his titles. Chuck your creationist poison in the trash can.

It is scandalous that Creationism is endorsed, is simply accepted as Truth by the millions, the masses in the USA, and so ardently by so many. It's culture wars we're facing. The situation is appalling, unacceptable. It is worrying. As are the nearly 400 million guns, and the patriotism, the nationalism, the chronic bullying. It's like Europe or Australia don't even exist, irrelevant, trivial. How pompous, how nationally egotistical. I think Barack Obama feels this deeply. He's rather human which is a nice change after Bush (cringe

) Not Trump. What a frightful prospect for world peace.

We have enough other serious problems to work together to fix. Climate change, alternatives to antibiotics, militarism. We need young research scientists, not deluded nutjobs relishing their machinations of the end of the world and Judgement Day. Leave that to the poor benighted and dangerous militant Islamists. Especially for the tragic women. Any free thinkers among them, of which there would be very many indeed, keep that very quiet. Religion. Male domination. Odious.

The Free West must abandon religion first, then the Muslim world will eventually follow suit, after about 150 years, one could hope. And that will obtain by about 500 years from now. Christianity is not a religion of peace. It is antagonistic to science and freedoms. It is militant. It is not inherently democratic. Never was, never can be.

It's not about us but about the kids and their kids and theirs and on. Big beautiful world.

We have to fully embrace the 18th Century European Enlightenment today, in this 21st Century. Help make history. Stop going into combat against science, reason and scholarship, defending that abominable pestilence that is Christianity.

Now, about Dawkins' other books. I've read ten so far. Start with River Out of Eden, or The Ancestors' Tale, or whatever you reckon you might be prepared to engage with.

I suggest hunkering down to concerted study for at least a few years, or several or say 25, before you spend your time here, if one would ever want to come back, maybe to try and do some good..

 

[AV1611VET]

...

Phenotype, do you mind fixing your quote tags, so I can respond accordingly?

 

[Phenotype]

I used to.

Now I realize Satan has an infrastructure, and the nine muses are as follows:

1. Calliope is the muse of epic poetry.
2. Clio is the muse of history.
3. Erato is the muse of love poetry.
4. Euterpe is the muse of music.
5. Melpomene is the muse of tragedy.
6. Polyhymnia is the muse of sacred poetry.
7. Terpsichore is the muse of dance.
8. Thalia is the muse of comedy.
9. Urania is the muse of astronomy.

Their job is to lead scientists in the way of the Antichrist; sterilizing every jot & tittle of the Bible, until the Antichrist comes and takes over.

'Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.'

Oh dear!

Give them enough rope...

You have also told me I deserve to go to the Lake of Fire. God is rather indifferent to suffering, wouldn't you agree? So you can be as callous toward it for others, as you please too, my friend. Even relishing the contemplation of it. Avenged. Righteous indignation.

A bit like 'Mother Nature' really, is God's indifference. Or more correctly, genes. But they aren't overtly sadistic and cruel, spiteful, requiring blood sacrifice, and of their own beloved son, just pitiless and opportunistic.

No, genes are all about self replication. The successful ones are tantamount to immortal, until the Earth is swallowed by the Sun. Oh well, my life was meaningful and so are my beloved's and my kids' lives.

Humans are one animal, survival machine for transmitting genes if they can, who are capable of empathy and kindness, who can create their own meaning, or construe purpose to existence. I asked my daughter when she was six, 'what is the purpose of existence?' She instantly replied, 'to live your life.' Nice answer, that. But I digress...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh dear!

Give them enough rope...

You have also told me I deserve to go to the Lake of Fire. God is rather indifferent to suffering, wouldn't you agree? So you can be as callous toward it for others, as you please too, my friend. Even relishing the contemplation of it. Avenged. Righteous indignation.

A bit like 'Mother Nature' really, is God's indifference. Or more correctly, genes. But they aren't overtly sadistic and cruel, spiteful, requiring blood sacrifice, and of their own beloved son, just pitiless and opportunistic.

No, genes are all about self replication. The successful ones are tantamount to immortal, until the Earth is swallowed by the Sun. Oh well, my life was meaningful and so are my beloved's and my kids' lives.

Humans are one animal, survival machine for transmitting genes if they can, who are capable of empathy and kindness, who can create their own meaning, or construe purpose to existence. I asked my daughter when she was six, 'what is the purpose of existence?' She instantly replied, 'to live your life.' Nice answer, that. But I digress...

How does this rant, in any way, address what I said?

 

[Phenotype]

How does this rant, in any way, address what I said?

It all subsumes under the rubric of heresy and fanaticism. You have spiritual knowledge.

At heart you are a totalitarian.

 

[Goonie]

Now taking bets on when this thread will be closed

 

[AV1611VET]

It all subsumes under the rubric of heresy and fanaticism. You have spiritual knowledge.

At heart you are a totalitarian.

You're entitled to your opinion.

In the meantime:

Satan has an infrastructure, and the nine muses are as follows:

1. Calliope is the muse of epic poetry.
2. Clio is the muse of history.
3. Erato is the muse of love poetry.
4. Euterpe is the muse of music.
5. Melpomene is the muse of tragedy.
6. Polyhymnia is the muse of sacred poetry.
7. Terpsichore is the muse of dance.
8. Thalia is the muse of comedy.
9. Urania is the muse of astronomy.

Their job is to lead scientists in the way of the Antichrist; sterilizing every jot & tittle of the Bible, until the Antichrist comes and takes over.

 

[Phenotype]

Now taking bets on when this thread will be closed

Yes, I hope not. I will have to pull my head in. Sorry if they do that. Really regret it.

The topic is a great question for here. It is a great thread for a lurker to read through.

As is Spiritual Knowledge.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think that you are unfairly placing the burden of proof on me. My claim is that Dawkins made no affirmative defense for Darwinism rather he attempted to tear down counter arguments.

I have provided quotes where he tries to counter counterarguments. However, I would find it difficult and nonsensical to provide with quotes linking you to the place where he failed to do something.

Perhaps you can direct me to an affirmative defense of Darwinism contained therein?

I will simply direct you to more counter counterarguments. For example he says:

"I say all this just to demonstrate the formidable power of the brain's simulation software. It is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication."
----------------------
In short, when your eyes see something and it confirms what science believes, that is solid proof. However, when your eyes see something and it disconfirms what science believes, that is proof that you hallucinated.

I cannot help but wonder what the purpose of this passage is? Surely it must be to eliminate the possibility that people can personally experience God. Since God does not exist, Darwinism. It's the old false dichotomy writ large. Thanks, Dick. I hadn't gotten enough of that from atheists in fora such as this one.

Skipping ahead to page 121, I read:

"Turning Watchtower's page, we find the wonderful plant known as Dutchman's Pipe (Aristolochia trilobata), all of whose parts seem elegantly designed to trap insects, cover them with pollen and send them on their way to another Dutchman's Pipe. The intricate elegance of the flower moves Watchtower to ask: 'Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?' Once again, no of course it didn't happen by chance. Once again, intelligent design is not the proper alternative to chance. Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested. Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem."
---------------
A new tack. If something is simple, then it is easy to explain that it occurred naturally whereas if something is complicated, then it's even more certain that it must have occurred naturally because if someone or something was intelligent enough to design something complicated, why that's more proof that something so intelligent as that couldn't exist! It's the old "Heads I win; tails you lose" argument. Just as impressive as other Dawkins arguments.

Of course the conclusion is the same... since he can muster some reasonable-sounding objection to the counterarguments, Darwinism.

Not convinced? Read on where he says:

"Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested."

As I said... his main argument is, since chance is impossible, and he can muster arguments against the idea of design, Darwinism.

Dawkins:
P is not completely impossible.
Therefore, P surely occurred.

You are absolutely correct. Dawkins asserts and tells good stories but evidence is completely lacking for them.

 

[crjmurray]

Now taking bets on when this thread will be closed

Before the weekend is out.

 

[Goonie]

You're entitled to your opinion.

In the meantime:

Satan has an infrastructure, and the nine muses are as follows:

1. Calliope is the muse of epic poetry.
2. Clio is the muse of history.
3. Erato is the muse of love poetry.
4. Euterpe is the muse of music.
5. Melpomene is the muse of tragedy.
6. Polyhymnia is the muse of sacred poetry.
7. Terpsichore is the muse of dance.
8. Thalia is the muse of comedy.
9. Urania is the muse of astronomy.

Their job is to lead scientists in the way of the Antichrist; sterilizing every jot & tittle of the Bible, until the Antichrist comes and takes over.

10. Balderdash the muse of writing nonsense.(something that some on this forum are experts in.)