The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. A Review.

New Statesman ^ | 28 August 1992 | Richard Dawkins

[Elsie]

I find following the convolutions in creationist thought very tiring.

That is possibly beacuse you spend WAY too much time, fondling the useless (so far) evolutionary parts that are dangling from your body.

You know that the great mass of 'E' folks have thrown out the 'sudden' change theory in favor of the 'slow' change one (You know - modern eyes don't just suddenly appear, but that, over time, useful adaptations in existing primitive eyes take place thereby allowing a great success rate of either: spawning; eating; fleeing from predators or snatching prey.)

---

So, if you 'believe' that evolution is STILL going on today, you have to realize that there are MANY, Many parts that have no useful function yet.

[kpp_kpp]

don't argue with someone who isn't arguing against you - its unkind.

[Elsie]

Evolution proper does not make claims on how life started, only how life has behaved since.

Translation: "We KNOW we'd lose THIS one!"

[BMCDA]

Theories, facts and laws in science are all different concepts and one doesn't change into the other.

Scientific facts are what have been carefully observed to be the case. This, however, does not mean that they cannot change if the observation methods advance.
Scientific laws are (often mathematical) descriptions of these facts and they are only descriptive and not prescriptive as the laws we are used to (like those that prohibit theft).
Finally, scientific theories are explanations of scientific facts.
So in other words, laws say what happens, while theories explain why it happens.

[Dimensio]

So, if you 'believe' that evolution is STILL going on today, you have to realize that there are MANY, Many parts that have no useful function yet.

Why wouldn't they have a useful function "yet"? Evolution would suggest that "useless" parts of an organism are parts that are no longer useful, not parts that will become useful after a certain number of generations.

[gdani]

you have to realize that there are MANY, Many parts that have no useful function yet

Like male nipples?

[lews]

Your original post contained the following:

"Unfortunately, if taught in schools the net result would leave the next generation at the mercy of those countries that build their science on a foundation of truth."

By implying that a science which considers religion will leave us at the mercy of other countries that build their science of a foundation of truth directly implies religion is false. If that is not what you meant then you shouldn't have said it.

[Elsie]

....those countries that build their science on a foundation of truth.

Isn't it amazing, that BEFORE Darwin, we never advanced scientifically at all!

[Khepera]

Thats exactly what I said. Man I'm good! I said all of that in less than 50 words. God created the heavens and the earth and all the creatures that inhabit therein and he mad it exactly the way it is becaue that is what he wanted.

You have it pretty close to right I think. Nobody knows the exact age if the universe. I doubt that they ever come close. This too is part of Gods plan.

[Woahhs]

Your argument is like saying that gravitational theory is unsound because it does not theorize on how matter came into existence.

Not at all. I'm saying evolutionary theory now accepts it can not replicate the origin of life, so it has declared biogenesis a non-issue.

[Dimensio]

No, it means that evolution does not deal with life's ultimate origins. Evolution deals with existing populations of life forms, it has no relevance to life origins. The nature of life origins is irrelevant to evolution itself. Evolution only cares about the life forms that exist, it does not care how they came into being; evolution does not care if life came from chemical rections in a pool of amino acids, seeded by interdimensional aliens or zap-poofed into existence by a divine entity.

[Fithal the Wise]

Number one, carbon dating is accurate to about 50,000 years (there is a dead spot at about 4,000 years, but I don't know enough to explain it). Number two, carbon dating does not work on rocks as they are not organic. Number three, there are numerous radiological dating methods that are used to date rocks and they consistently give an age for the Earth of about four billion years.

Beyond a few thousand years where we have tree ring data, regarding carbon dating as accurate is simply an act of faith depending on the ASSUMPTION that the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere through time has been the same as as it is today.

Regarding radiological dating methods, have you examined the ASSUMPTIONS connected with them?

[Dimensio]

I'm saying evolutionary theory now accepts it can not replicate the origin of life

Why would evolutionary theory at all be interested in the origin of life?

[kpp_kpp]

Until then, in the abscence of evidence for such realms...

the only test i can think of off the top of my head would be suicide -- but it seems kind of "final". and it provides no real benefit to those left back in the "natural realm". /sarcasm

[Woahhs]

please define "create a bigger mess."

[Dimensio]

please define "create a bigger mess."

Well if you have one theory as the foundation for a number of other theores and as the frame of reference for calculations, tests or predictions and that one theory is falsified, you suddenly have a lot of broken theories, bad figures and inherently inaccurate predictions (or, if they are accurate, you suddenly need a new way to explain them).

[pabianice]

Old news. We know from "The X-Files" that humans were planted on Earth by extra-terrestials.

[Elsie]

Wanna bet that THIS:

"Ya wanna take a chance on an Indian blanket?"

can have more than ONE meaning?

[Dimensio]

It also assumes that death might be one method of entering some alternate realm or dimension.

[BMCDA]

Ever heard of imperfect self-replicators?