Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[brinny]

Those were his words, and his explanations of his words. And yet you claim to know more about his motive for speaking those words than he did. Big assumption - big hypocrisy.



Which is funny, because you've never actually been able to successfully use of any of Darwin's word to indicate why he shouldn't be taken seriously. So that only negatively affects your credibility, not his

Read post #170.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Here's a tidbit...it has been said by Dawkins, amongst others, that no one knows the origin of the cell. Is that true?

Yeah, I suppose so. (It would have to depend a little, though, I guess on how strictly you understand knowlegde here and how detailed you would like to know about these origins.)

 

[sfs]

your last statement.....then what good is this theory of evolution based on Darwin's limited, antiquated theories and ideas? He apparently believed a cell was very simple. What science knows now, is that a cell is at least several galaxies complex.

I don't know about "several galaxies complex" (I'm pretty sure that's not a well-defined unit of measurement), but yes, the cell is very complex, much more complex than Darwin knew about. The theory of evolution is good and useful not because it was invented by people who knew everything, but because it seems to be an accurate model for the development and diversity of life on this planet. Darwin's ideas about inheritance were completely wrong, and have long since been rejected. His ideas about common descent and natural selection were largely correct, and have been retained. Of course, they have been modified and made more nuanced along the way, but the basic ideas work to explain what we see in the natural world.

 

[CoderHead]

Here's a tidbit...it has been said by Dawkins, amongst others, that no one knows the origin of the cell. Is that true?

Nope. Space dust.

 

[sfs]

you are making assumptions here, it appears....it ruins your post.

What assumptions?

 

[Skaloop]

No.... You've been told what Dawkins said.

Indeed I have. I knew what he had said before you or anyone on here told me. What you are doing, though, is totally ignoring the context of his statement, and what he was responding to. Dawkins does not think that life "prolly" arose from aliens. He was actually answering a hypothetical question about if life came from a designer, what might that designer have been. His answer is to that hypothetical, and not, as you seem impervious to, his personal stance.

What happened was this:

1) In the past, Dawkins made an assertion (ID is not valid).
2) Later, he said he maintained that assertion.
3) He was asked to name a hypothetical situation that might negate his assertion.
4) He provided that hypothetical situation. This says nothing about him rejecting his initial assertion.

For example.

A football analyst, back in the summer, made the assertion that the St. Louis Rams would not win the Super Bowl this season. Now he is being interviewed and is asked if he still holds that opinion. "Of course! They're 1-12! There's no way they are winning the Super Bowl this year." The interviewer then asks "What would have to actually happen for them to win the Super Bowl this year." A ridiculous question, since the Rams are already mathematically eliminated from making the playoffs. But he offers an answer anyway. "Well, if 30 of the other 31 teams have all their players suspended for cheating, and all their wins are overturned, and the league decides to hold the Super Bowl anyway and St. Louis plays the other remaining team, and then that entire team suffers total amnesia at the opening kickoff, then it is conceivable the Rams could win the Super Bowl in 2010."

Now, if I went to someone else and said "Hey, the football guy said "it is conceivable the Rams could win the Super Bowl"! What an idiot!", would that be an accurate representation of what he said and meant? Did the guy say at any point that he actually thinks that will happen? No. I would be misrepresenting what he said, which is quite dishonest.

That is precisely what you are doing with the Dawkins quote.

 

[TerranceL]

does it matter, since no one knows their origin?

And she dodges and she weaves.

 

[TerranceL]

if you do not lose that tone with me i am reporting you.

Do NOT post anything even remotely in my direction in the future.

Remember folks, you apparently do not have the right to ask a creationist for their sources.

But we are the arrogant ones.....

 

[Skaloop]

does it matter, since no one knows their origin?

Sure it matters. We know quite a bit about cells. You dismissed wikipedia as a source for info about cells, so it would be germaine to know where you get your information on cells (particularly their complexity relative to galaxies).

And for the record, I personally consider the cell to indeed be complex, but not as complex as a single galaxy, and certainly not as complex as multiple galaxies.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
does it matter, since no one knows their origin?

And she dodges and she weaves.

does anyone know the origin of cells?

 

[TerranceL]

does anyone know the origin of cells?

What's your source of information on the complexity of cells?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

is ToE "evolution"?

ToE = The Theory of Evolution

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Darwin speaks for himself. He's an unfortunate embarrassment to any who gave him credibility he should've never had from the gitgo.

I asked this before but didn't get an answer: Have you read On the Origin of Species?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
if you do not lose that tone with me i am reporting you.

Do NOT post anything even remotely in my direction in the future.

Remember folks, you apparently do not have the right to ask a creationist for their sources.

But we are the arrogant ones.....

the post-er i was directing that comment to...we gots a history....it was not directed to you.

by the way, i have been known to be arrogant...that is true, but it was not coming into play here.....as a matter of fact i am tempering my thoughts and motivations to quell such possible expressions as we speak...it be hard for a recovering smart allecky arrogance-laden personality NOT to resort to arrogant comments, however, my arrogance had not escaped and raised its ugly head in that post.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Darwin speaks for himself. He's an unfortunate embarrassment to any who gave him credibility he should've never had from the gitgo.

I asked this before but didn't get an answer: Have you read On the Origin of Species?

i apologized...missed that one...no, i have not read it in its entirety.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

does anyone know the origin of cells?

Yes indeed.

I know the origin of cells and He was an intelligent designer.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." -- Genesis 1:11

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Genesis 1:12

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
is ToE "evolution"?

ToE = The Theory of Evolution

Aah, thank you.

 

[brinny]

Remember folks, you apparently do not have the right to ask a creationist for their sources.

But we are the arrogant ones.....

ok, i do declare...what IS a creationist?

 

[TerranceL]

Yes indeed.

I know the origin of cells and He was an intelligent designer.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." -- Genesis 1:11

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Genesis 1:12

Sorry but we require an answer better than, "Magic man done it".

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
does anyone know the origin of cells?

What's your source of information on the complexity of cells?

Dawkins stated himself that the bottom line is that no one knows the origin of cells. Are there differing viewpoints that i should be aware of, or is what he stated a reliable conclusion? And the complexity of cells? It was stated by several scientists that cells are complex, yes galaxies and galaxies complex. i will get the names of the scientists when i watch the video again....

Are those scientists incorrect to say that a cell is complex to that degree?