Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I stopped around the 17-18 minute mark when Berlinsky started talking rubbish about the Australian wolf.I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.
I stopped around the 17-18 minute mark when Berlinsky started talking rubbish about the Australian wolf.
No such animal exists, the closest is the Australian dingo which was introduced to the mainland around 3500 years ago by humans in the final mass migration to the continent before European settlement.
The dingo is not a wolf and is a different species to both wolves and dogs.
We do have native placental mammals which are unique to Australia such as the Spinifex hopping mouse.I was only one or two minutes after that. It didn't sound right. (I was also reading some text at the same time, seeing if he'd say anything interesting -- he didn't.) I didn't think Australia had any native placental mammals.
Is this mouse they call Maud'dib? (asking for my friend, Usal)We do have native placental mammals which are unique to Australia such as the Spinifex hopping mouse.
If a God or an alien race intelligently designed life, you could just as likely expect to see the same similarities. It's not proof of anything Darwinian.
Instead of going into the usual talking points that get discussed in this forum, I'll just say this - I read On the Origin of Species and the most striking thing about it is that Darwin says nothing about the origin of species, except for the chapter where he doubts that his idea is possible. The title of the book is basically clickbait, although one of the most influential instances of clickbait in the modern world.
If you want more detail why I don't believe it you can listen to this:
We have a lot of bats.I was only one or two minutes after that. It didn't sound right. (I was also reading some text at the same time, seeing if he'd say anything interesting -- he didn't.) I didn't think Australia had any native placental mammals.
Of course. What yec doesn't think he knowsI got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.
While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about.Of course. What yec doesn't think he knows
more than every scientist on earth?
While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about.)
As noted, brains are to be used.While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about.)
What yec doesn't think he knows more than every scientist on earth?
I wondered about that and thought about being more specific to "land mammals" (or lammals, as we should call themWe have a lot of bats.
Any atheist who thinks science can soon know the mind of God?
Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.
SOURCE
If the evidence was sufficient, yes I would.Chesterton, I feel I have to ask:
If anyone did show you evidence for evolution being true, would you accept it as such?
If the evidence was sufficient, yes I would.
An ad hom attack is not a response to argument. But it's funny you mention it - I've actually heard him admit he's arrogant. I don't recall ever hearing that from any of the Four Horsemen. Hitchens might have been the most arrogant man on the planet. Anyway, among many other endeavors he did serve as a research assistant in the Department of Biology at Columbia University.I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.
No I do not agree with that statement.Fair enough.
Now, just continuing with this line of though: since the theory of evolution as it currently stands is taught across the world, especially in the Western world, then the amount of evidence for it must be somewhat sufficient for many people to say that they accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. Do you agree with this statement?
No I do not agree with that statement.
I'm honestly confused. Why on Earth would you think that just because something is widely taught that makes it a fact?Why do you not agree with it?
I'm honestly confused. Why on Earth would you think that just because something is widely taught that makes it a fact?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?