Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[Boxen]

Gah, I must've farked the <small> tag on that last line. Ah well.

[freedumb2003]

How funny to make fun of Jesus!

You don't get the point, do you? This is NOT making fun f Jesus.

I am sorry (but not suprised) if the joke went over your head.

[bray]

Actually it didn't go over anyone's head. That was a complete insult to most Christians and we are not taking it anymore. It is bad enough to have to put up with braindead liberals Christian bashing, but we shouldn't have to be insulted here too. Course with you evoluthugs, if the ends justify the means, why not!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[freedumb2003]

Actually it didn't go over anyone's head. That was a complete insult to most Christians and we are not taking it anymore.

It did and it isn't.

I am a Chrstian and it doesn't bother me. Who appointed you as spokesman?

[bray]

Really, so why should us Christians find that picture funny.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[freedumb2003]

Really, so why should us Christians find that picture funny.

Because we Christians see the underlying point and appreciate it. Nor do we see why this picture would be Blasphemy under any circumstance.

[freedumb2003]

It was peer reviewed by scientists and published in a scientific journal.

Name it. And please detail the peer review process and documentation.

Whether you think the journal is "respectable" or not is not by itself dispositive of the validity of any scientific hypothesis or data.

Ah - Fake but Accurate. That didn't work for Dan Rather, why do you think it will work for you?

[bray]

What is that underlying point that we Christians find so funny? What parts of the Bible do you believe and what parts do you ignore?

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[MHGinTN]

I see this assertion more lately, wonder why, since O.J.'s son is guilty: "I hate to say it, but O.J. is guilty, and we're related to apes." I don't think O.J. is guilty, but I do think his son is and I do believe we have some DNA related to a common ancestor with apes, but I also believe with Adam a new step was instituted, to create a new species from one already existing.

I find it odd that someone still asserts 'O.J. is guilty' based on their personal opinion which is contrary to the jury finding, yet these same folks appear to ridicule opinion when it challenges their favorite belief in every jot and tiddle of evolution theory. [Perhaps I should have left this thread for the dead thing it has become?]

[MHGinTN]

Thanks Danny ... that oft repeated 'chart' is now relegated to being ignored in future threads. Well done.

[Quark2005]

I find it odd that someone still asserts 'O.J. is guilty' based on their personal opinion which is contrary to the jury finding, yet these same folks appear to ridicule opinion when it challenges their favorite belief in every jot and tiddle of evolution theory.

The lesson is, in either case, if one ignores 'popular opinion' and follows the forensic evidence and the consensus of experts (who know the subject best), one inevitably finds OJ is guilty and humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Don't try to extend the analogy further than this (it doesn't work).

So, as far as the skull chart goes, are F-H humans or apes? Why is this not a good demonstration of evolution? If one looks at the chart for what it's meant to be, a graphic depiction of the progression of hominid forms through well-defined intervals of time, it is a very accurate picture of evolution. If one tries to tout it as the sole evidence for such evolution, it fails - that's not the point. There are thousands and thousands of other evidences for hominid evolution; this is only one 'snapshot' of the evidence, albeit a good one.

[FreedomProtector]

ROTFLOL!

[FreedomProtector]

"Interesting that you are so adamant about which skulls are human and which are apes (particularly those in the F-H range), when 'renowned creationist experts' don't come to the same conclusions. It's almost as if - are you ready for this - it's not entirely clear as to where the apes end and the humans begin - like there's some sort of transitional fossils around!"


Of course the most outstanding detectives in the world certainly never ever disagree when examining circumstantial evidence at a crime scene.

Of course the evolutionist can always determine exactly what the exact animal was when they examine any circumstantial evidence. Thus two independent evolutionists will never disagree on any circumstantial evidence.

There are never any people that have the characteristics an evolutionist is looking for in a 'transitional' ape to human skull...protruding jaw etc. (I can think of several 'famous' people)

It is possible that there are they were nothing more than an extinct kind of ape without any connection to humans.

Perhaps evolutionists presume that they know the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it, or presume to have knowledge before a careful examination, or have a strong desire to call something 'transitional' when other possibilities with greater likelihood exist.

[jonrick46]

"He responds with the same malice he criticizes in Coulter herself, without once responding to her argument." This is just what I noticed in this criticism of Coulter. It makes me suspect that this is a political writer rather than one with any scientific qualifications.

[jonrick46]

Nice try! The link gives you the first paragraph of his discussion, but you have to subscribe to the New Republic to read the full discussion.

[Southack]

"In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing."

The NCSE and ACLU lied to the judge to make the above claim, and the judge went along with the lie (either not knowing any better or else preferring the lie to reality).

ID *is* peer-reviewed, approved, and published in peer-reviewed biological journals of stature: Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories