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.
said what?
about dawkins portraying evolution as a simple minded process?
i'll say it again.
his entire argument is a strawman.
evolution is so simple minded that they are still trying to figure it all out 200 years after "the origin".
then by definition, you MUST concede that life is more than the mechanical chemical bonds that comprise it.
Which again is not what I claimed.You did not.
Not a single biologist or GA specialist would agree with you that the designs produced by a GA are examples of "intelligent design" because "intelligence was used to build the GA".
False.That is the anti-science rethoric that objects to controlled conditions.
The employed logic is identical to saying that freezers are evidence of intelligent freezing.
You seriously need to understand that this is no a true depiction of evolution.GA's are blind in every sense of the word.
GA's are blind watchmakers.
See above.For the same reason that the process of evolution is a blind watchmaker
No, that is simply not true.Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?
Good job.
Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........
Let me get this straight then, you claim that it is filled with intellectual honesty when there is no evidence presented for the assertions made in the book but that it claims to refute design due to evolutionary processes producing the illusion of design? Is that what you are trying to tell me?The book is filled with intellectual honesty?
THE NERVE!
Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?
Good job.
Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........
Here is a peer reviewed paper that doesn't use maybe's, it could happen this way, use your imagination.Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?
Good job.
Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........
No, that is simply not true.
There might be some of those but there is usually evidence that goes with it.yes, it is true.
Every since paper is filled with intellectually honest words like "likely" and "could be" and "might be".
Let me get this straight then, you claim that it is filled with intellectual honesty when there is no evidence presented for the assertions made in the book but that it claims to refute design due to evolutionary processes producing the illusion of design? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
Here is a peer reviewed paper that doesn't use maybe's, it could happen this way, use your imagination.
http://journal.chemistrycentral.com/content/9/1/36
Which again is not what I claimed.
There might be some of those but there is usually evidence that goes with it.
No evidence. Just stories. If not provide the evidence that Dawkins cites in his book.
well see, the thing that really irks me about you is, you are completely unwilling to concede there might be an intelligence at work in relation to life.Right, so according to you, Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution.
Ow yes, because in other fields, everything is known instantly.
It's like you believe that the entire book is just the sentence "design is an illusion", repeated a couple thousand times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker
Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.
To dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a "creator", Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.
So much for not presenting any examples / evidence in the book.
Perhaps you should read it again (or just read it, full stop)
Tsk tsk tsk...straw man much.Right, right....
Evolution doesn't have any evidence and Dawkins is a liar or just an idiot.
Got it.
And off course, YOU know better.
what irony.Right, right....
Evolution doesn't have any evidence and Dawkins is a liar or just an idiot.
Right, so according to you, Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution.
Ow yes, because in other fields, everything is known instantly.
I'm still trying to figure out what evolutionist's consider a species, since birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are the same species - unless we are talking about Darwin's Finches - than suddenly birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species showing speciation?
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?