Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. previously cited references to the findings of Giraffe ancestors, but apparently you are still living in Plato's Cave.

I'd like to see it if you have it

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd like to see it if you have it

Been there and done that in detail!

This time do your own homework. I do not spoon feed the toothless.

Mighty Pirate? More like a Powder Monkey.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins' proposing any sort of steady state theory that Hoyle believed. Give up the ghosts of the past, and come out of Plato's Cave.

It sounds like you missed the point, easy done.. what I said was:

Dawkins' attitude on evolution mirrors Hoyle's on steady state...

the alternative has/had less desirable implications for them in each case

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Been there and done that in detail!

This time do your own homework. I do not spoon feed the toothless.

My hopes were not high

 

[shunyadragon]

My hopes were not high

Powder Monkey

Neither is your reading ability

 

[shunyadragon]

It sounds like you missed the point, easy done.. what I said was:

Dawkins' attitude on evolution mirrors Hoyle's on steady state...

the alternative has/had less desirable implications for them in each case

Again nothing here makes sense. Your English comprehension is literally horrendous.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Powder Monkey

Neither is your reading ability

devoid of all substance

have a good night!

 

[shunyadragon]

devoid of all substance

have a good night!

Powder Monkey

>air<

 

[ecco]

If we didn't know that the complexity of life can be explained by natural processes, it would be logical to assume that its origins are supernatural.

If we didn't know that the complexity of life can be explained by natural processes, it would be logical to say "I don't know".

We, currently don't know "How life started". It's illogical to say goddidit. It's logical to say "I don't know".

 

[ecco]

But it's a classic case of science v atheism, involving arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

WHAT "classic case of science v atheism" are you referring to?

 

[Audie]

If we didn't know that the complexity of life can be explained by natural processes, it would be logical to assume that its origins are supernatural.

I dont see the logic in that. Please explain?

 

[ecco]

So did they ever find that half-necked Giraffe Darwin was looking for?

That would be funny except that you are being serious. But if you want to continue to show your ignorance of science, that's OK with me.

 

[Audie]

Half a neck of giraffe...

I wonder if we could get some
howcumstill monkeys with that?

 

[exchemist]

So did they ever find that half-necked Giraffe Darwin was looking for?

Samotherium: Samotherium - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd like to see it if you have it

You ask.
I remembered.
The internet delivers.

Ref...
Okapi - Wikipedia

They endure because the males are very popular with the ladies.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

pointing out similar mechanisms in ID creations like computer software, that the evidence presented is not specific to or suggestive of spontaneous mechanisms in any particular way..

You never did any such thing. You never showed a mechanism within ID that produces more transitions than transversions nor any mechanisms that favored CpG mutations. You NEVER addressed this.

discovery

institute; center for science and culture and others do scientific research into ID specifically

Like what?

Naturalism inherently winces at very sudden explosive appearances of new sophisticated designs, be it the universe or major phyla..

It doesn't and it hasn't. The naturalistic explanation is the lack of fossilization for soft bodied organisms, the gaps in the geologic record, and the lack of searching in Cambrian deposits. Also, the fact that the earliest branches of the tree of life (i.e. major phyla) emerge in the earliest deposits is exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

relying on random chance as the creative engine, naturalism generally prefers to find a nice gradualistic 'naturalistic' progress.

That simply isn't true. Different mutations will have different effects, both large and small. Different selection regimes will produce different amounts of change.

random movements will eventually solve a Rubik's cube, Intelligent agency will make less mistakes and arrive there sooner

You are ignoring natural selection.

Hence the initial reactions to both- to first declare them 'religious nonsense', and then as mere artifacts of misleading evidence

So far, you have not offered a single mechanism that can explain the data. That is why it is nonsense.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If we didn't know that the complexity of life can be explained by natural processes, it would be logical to assume that its origins are supernatural.

It is never logical to think that anything comes from the supernatural if there is no evidence for the supernatural.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

as I said, Dawkins' attitude on evolution mirrors Hoyle's on steady state, the ideological bias is alive and well

Strange how you want to attack the scientists instead of addressing the science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So did they ever find that half-necked Giraffe Darwin was looking for?

They found those half human/half apes.

 

[Audie]

Strange how you want to attack the scientists instead of addressing the science.

"Bias" is one of those words that creationists use, as
one has but to say it and all falls before the searing impact.

"Same evidence, different interpretation" or, "SEDI"
is another mighty weapon.