Skip to comments.Why Darwinism Is Doomed
Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Oh the irony.
I see we are being treated to the standard CR/IDer scintillating displays of logic and argumentation.
No, just the smug lack of humor of some evos. :-)
You must not be familiar with Elsie's humor.
Fast crowd here tonight. You did it!
OK....taking a bow here.
Do I win a price?
No, not all of the evos are trying to answer that. Many of them have either taken a materialistic worldview as a given, assumed (for the nonce) that the existence of God is irrelevant--(if God interferes enough to make Himself known, then I can't count on "good enough" results to make predictions anyway, so I might as well assume "no God" in the meantime), or they are only concerned with the material aspect of things *in the first place*. "Whether of not God exists, I'm not looking at right now. Just consider the juxtabronchial organ secretions in the higher molluscs!"
It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.
Generally yes, unless hitherto unforeseen results cause you to question the whole philosophical underpinnings.
Don't be deceived.
Reg flag in front of a bull. Ask them to engage in more rigorous parsing of their logical positions.
Closing the lid on things for the night too.
It was real funny watching you puzzle as you helped to put us 'over-the-top'.....
That's OK. Many evos are egocentric, so it cancels out! :-)
...oh, and ad hominem placemarker.
LOL! You got me worried, thought you were going to try for the 2000 mark. I'm on the east coast.
This and the rest of the post seem to be some of the best-written and well thought out material I have seen on these threads for a long time.
Bill Cosby in the movie Bill Cosby, Himself quoted comedienne Carol Burnett on the pains of childbirth:
Take your bottom lip and pull it up over your head.
Medicine does not overturn the statement--it provides a chemical amelioration of the pain.
You: You are jumping to a lot of conclusions!
The details are left as a proof to the interested lurkers on the thread.
Huh? Did you read the website I linked to?
What's the point of having teeth that never erupt, or hind leg buds that get reabsorbed before birth, or the mis-wired recurrent laryngeal nerve?
Why should some infant marsupials have an egg tooth they never use? Isn't this actualy poor design?
Yes the choice is mine, and not yours....and Gods decision regarding the ultimate fate of me and you and everyone else on earth is HIS decision, not yours...the Bible makes that quite clear as well...
And thats really quite grand...because it shows that your opinion about anothers fate, is meaningless, and with no value at all...God does not consult you, about anothers fate...thankfully He makes that decision on His own...your views are not considered...you opinion is nothing...it does not count...the Bible is also clear about that...
Where doe the green start?
Then post THESE to make your point: not a color spectrum.
So you are allowed to post abstractions (A, A', A'', A'''. ...) but I am not? That's an honest form of debate.
I'm going to assume you will not read these links, which is really too bad, because they contain something that creationists claim doesn't happen in science -- an instance in which a well established "fact" is overturned by lots of research and careful reasoning.
Of course this doesn't change the larger fact that species is a fuzzy concept with not much basis in biology. Or that evolution progresses by tiny changes, so that transitions cannot be seen in human time scales.
You cannot see the relevance of the color gradient, apparently because you have been lied to about how evolution works. You have gotten too much of you education about evolution from Hollywood movies.
This is not true - Wells presents evidence - you just don't agree with the evidence.
What does that have to do with Gould?
#726 does not support your position - I guess that is why you refused to present a quote. You are just rambling now.
It is an "attack" on what looks like your inability to understand the English language. If you want to prove this "attack" is invalid - demonstrate you understand the English language so people will not have to show you dictionary definitions of words you misused.
I was not the one that made the point: " Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth." I believe that was js1138.
Sometimes this leads to misattribution...
What evidence does he present?
I'll spell some of them out, I think you'll get the drift.
the hypothetical designer is not a good engineer.
1. Is the designer primarily an engineer at all?
2. If so, was the designer acting IN that capacity when making life-forms as we know them?
3. Do the life forms as we know them accurately reflect the original designs? ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.")
a. What if the designer made life forms and walked away (semi-Deist view) and subsequent evolution has screwed stuff up?
b. What if other supernatural agents have corrupted things since the original design?
c. What if the original design was for conditions far different than we have now?
d. If the designer made life forms as an engineer, and you think present conditions reflect the environment for which they were designed, AND there was no skulduggery since then, do you know the intended purposes for the life forms as they were designed, both ultimate and proximate? Think of some of the engineering school challenges to build vehicles to get ultra-high gas mileage...I bet they'd *suck* on crash-test ratings. But they weren't trying for safety anyway. Or for another example, "Build a working suspension bridge entirely out of toothpicks" or "Design and build a working electric car for under $1000".
e. Are these the final designs or is the earth a workshop or proving ground where various ideas are beta tested, or prototypes made for "proof of concept" ?
Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.
And no, I don't consider this nitpicking. Some of the objections are a hat tip to Christian theology, since the complaint is that ID is Christian creationism in drag; if you think this, than it is only fair to at least raise an eyebrow towards other purported factors which are brought in by Christian theology. And the other objections are something most any competent project manager would consider when beginning an engineering project.
You got it. So much for some people's "faith".
You mean "Boiling Point"?
The quote from the prominent Darwinist.
The point is not lack of evidence - the point you are making is you don't see it as evidence (unlike Wells)
I also personally don't believe that is really evidence to support his claim. But Wells does present what he thinks is evidence.
Boiling, frog, humor, or a small attempt.
I must say that I found his character in 'Jugatsu' alternatively hilarious and disturbing.
I think that, from a pure perspective of 'painting with the camera' - which I think is one of Kitano's greatest abilities, I like 'Hana-Bi' the best. When you see his paintings (which are prominently featured in the film), you realize where that talent of perspective and color comes from. You have to see his films on an HDTV or you miss all the subtlety and understated action in all of his distant shots (as you may have noticed, none of his shots are 'wasted', and even the sometimes (for American eyes) long static shots of individual characters are absolutely pregnant with tension so that they become amost hypnotic waiting for the something to happen. For example, the scene in 'Violent Cop' where the hitman is standing at attention in front of the Yakuza boss sitting behind his desk, as the boss berates him; I found it almost too difficult to watch as the boss sits there quietly steaming watching him - shot from the boss's sightline, with the hitman's torso visible only - the tension is so palpable you could cut it with a knife.
By the time he makes 'Brother' he's become a master, and that is my favorite gangster film period. He plays Aniki with "subzero cool" as one reviewer wrote.
"Zatoichi" is, of course, his absolute masterpiece. The film is layered like a dobos-torte - every time I watch it I see something I didn't notice previously - the detail with which he sets up the foreshadowing of various later events - which you will inevitably miss the first time through - is the work of a true master. Since no one will see it the first time around, most directors wouldn't bother even putting such scenes in....
Well said. He is a real genius. And Hana-bi is my favorite too, although "Getting Any" and Takeshis really make me laugh.
I have not watched "Takeshi's" yet. (I became a Takeshi fan earlier this year when I picked up the Zatoichi/Sonatine double-DVD pack at Bloackbuster, chiefly because I have always found Japanese Samurai films fascinating.) I recognized him immediately as the host of Spike TV's "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" ('Takeshi's Castle' from the 1980s)
Thanks to ebay, I now have 16 of his films - there is one or more out there that he appeared in, but did not direct.
Since he said he made 'Takeshi's' for his fans - with references to all of his earlier films, I'm holding off til I've seen all the other ones. No rush. I watch each one at least twice before moving on. His films are so unlike Hollywood schlock I can never tire of watching them....
BEWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! (Just to let you know its appreciated. You've made my day in more ways than one (my first chance to discuss Kitano's work with another fan - check out the Kitano section of my FR homepage....)
Then I question Wells' grasp of the concept of what constitutes evidence to the same degree and in the same way that you challenge stands2reason's grasp of the English language, and expect the same rules of what does and does not constitute a "personal attack" to apply equally.
Interesting notion. The main idea he seems to be saying is that since most Americans don't believe in evolution, it must not be true.
So, basically the laws of nature are up for a popular vote like American idol contestants.
...and ad hominem placemarker.
Last I checked, a statement of fact is not an ad hominem. And your 'egocentric' comment was an ad hominem. Or was your placemarker self referential? Sorry if I've completely misunderstood you post. Cheers!
Discounting any of their conclusions which can be shown (or reasonably expected) to be shown to derive from the faulty premises of geocentrism is not.
People get tired of the "same old thing" from the "same old people" and resort to intellectual shortcuts.
The "egocentrism" was simply a pun involved by switching the letters around, together with an example of another ad hominem for reference...I have been accused of egocentrism by others before, but what would *they* know, anyway? ;-)
Thanks for replying instead of putting me on a virtual ignore list.
Discounting *ALL* of someone's posts on the grounds that they adhere to geocentrism is, strictly speaking, ad hominem.
But I didn't say *ALL* posts from the poster should be ignored. I provided what I thought was relevant background info.
I have been accused of egocentrism by others before, but what would *they* know, anyway? ;-)
Sometimes it's actually a veiled compliment. And it's always good to have someone whispering in your ear. IMHO, it's better to be accused of this than of false humility. :) Cheers.
Not in God's eyes. We all sin every day and to God sin is sin whether it be murder or lying.
Hey Di, get a life.
I was taking umbrage at your insinuation that somehow her 'sin' and my 'sin' were equivalent.
That's NOT what I was talking about. Whatever 'needs' of hers I failed to meet, it did not justify the law-breaking actions she undertook.
All clear now I hope.
Telling me to "get a life" is a poor substitute for admitting error.
Yep. Got it.