Evolution Observed

[Guy Threepwood]

Two facts, which you are inconveniently ignoring: (1) The interview was dishonestly and unethically edited, and no when the whole context of the interview is revealed it reveals that no Dawkins did not propose that 'Intelligent Design' is a possible option. Your perpetuating this selectively edited, unethical, and dishonest video (2) You asked for a specific reference where Dawkins denied the possibility of Intelligent Design. I provided that reference, and it was unequivocally specific.

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection." Richard Dawkins
Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote.

Admit it you have been busted!




The only contradiction is you relying on a dishonestly edited video to justify your case is not only a contradiction, but perpetuating a dishonest, unethical source.



I have an extreme revolting dislike of an unethical, dishonest edited video to justify a religious agenda, and it is not science nor a legitimate scientific approach.

As far as ID it is not been remotely presented as a falsifiable hypothesis by scientific methods. That is the bottom line. Id remains a religious hypothesis based on the belief of an intelligent source Creator, nothing more nothing less.



The last statement confirms you have an agenda of ID, not science, and do not consider the objective verifiable evidence for the natural basis for the science of evolution. Your reliance on a classical Theist Discovery Institute argument, and an unethical, dishonest edited video promoted by Stein's Theist agenda further confirms your underlying motives. Honestly, I do not consider you conceding anything.

^ sticks and stones again,

I tried to save you wasting your own time before, I don't read past personal attacks, there are plenty people here capable of debating without them.

Also it might feel like dishing out insults is making you feel better superficially, but deeper down you are doing yourself no favors.

 

[Jose Fly]

^ sticks and stones again,

I tried to save you wasting your own time before, I don't read past personal attacks, there are plenty people here capable of debating without them.

Also it might feel like dishing out insults is making you feel better superficially, but deeper down you are doing yourself no favors.

See how this works? Guy engages in dishonest quote-mining and when he gets busted on it and his dishonesty is pointed out, he cries "You insulted me" and uses that as an excuse to run away and avoid the consequences.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[shunyadragon]

^ sticks and stones again,

I tried to save you wasting your own time before, I don't read past personal attacks, there are plenty people here capable of debating without them.

Also it might feel like dishing out insults is making you feel better superficially, but deeper down you are doing yourself no favors.

Phffft! Plop!

Failed to respond, particularly concerning your request for a specific reference where Dawkins rejected without qualification Intelligent Design.

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection."Richard Dawkins
Read more at: Richard Dawkins Quotes - BrainyQuote.

You have been busted, and others on RF have confirmed this.

 

[shunyadragon]

See how this works? Guy engages in dishonest quote-mining and when he gets busted on it and his dishonesty is pointed out, he cries "You insulted me" and uses that as an excuse to run away and avoid the consequences.

Such is the nature of creationism.

. . . undercover theists pretending to be atheists and agnostics to falsely propose that ID had a scientific basis like Michael Denton did before he got busted.

From: Michael Denton Interview

(museltof christian ministries UK would like to thank the access research network website for making this article available. The importance of this interview is that Denton is one of a growing number of scientists who do not claim to be Christians or 'Creationists' but feel that the time has come to challenge evolutionary doctrine. It follows that whilst we would not agree with every single word of Denton, his words are therefore of significance. Many feel that people like Behe and Denton will be the ones to 'open the floodgates' and enbolden a large group of scientists who would love to challenge evolution but fear that it would bring their careers to a premature end if they did).
Robin Brace
2003

"I certainly believe that natural selection is capable of generating change in nature; after all, artificial selection at the hands of man has generated considerable change in domestic animals and plants. So I don't think there's any doubt that a small degree of evolutionary change can and does occur. Natural selection could be the major factor involving these changes. This is a great strength of Darwinism, compared with its other explanations. But if you're going to reject natural selection as the major cause of evolution, you've got to find an alternative.

There are various forms of teleological theories, extending from Creationist intervention theories to nature mysticism. But these theories are (I don't want to be derogatory) an occultist type of theory. You can't really find any evidence that such phenomena are operating in nature, but you can see that natural selection can operate. This is a great strength of Darwinism. Although I think it is totally incapable of accounting for the broad picture, the complex adaptations required by the tree of life, it's certainly capable of generating a certain degree of evolutionary change. That is its great strength."

@Revoltingest argument mirrors that of Michael Denton, who when his cover was blown in the Dover trial and elsewhere when his books refer to a a 'guided process' by an intelligent source. When it was found that 'Pandas and People' (Creationist textbook) mirrored item for item the work of Michael Denton and Behe, and the Discover Institute where Michael Denton is a Senior Fellow and primary figure.

 

[Revoltingest]

. . . undercover theists pretending to be atheists......

Have you any idea how ridiculous it looks trying to paint me as a theist & creationist?
Everyone else here knows I'm a fire breathing, puppy eating, God hating, evolutionist.
I was born an atheist, & I've never waivered.

As even staff have requested, it's time to end this routine.
Unless you have new material, I'll respond no further.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Phffft! Plop!

Failed to respond, particularly concerning your request for a specific reference where Dawkins rejected without qualification Intelligent Design.

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection*."Richard Dawkins

* except if as I said, the designer was put here by alien intelligence...

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection*."Richard Dawkins

* (except if as I said earlier, that designer was possibly put here by alien intelligence... oops!)
^ no just to be clear he didn't actually say this part

because ultimate and proximate are qualifications, aren't they Dragon?

. He quite clearly states that life could have been put here by ID,.it's hardly ambiguous!

" it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process".

 

[shunyadragon]

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection*."Richard Dawkins

* (except if as I said earlier, that designer was possibly put here by alien intelligence... oops!)


because ultimate and proximate are qualifications, aren't they Dragon?

. He quite clearly states that life could have been put here by ID,.it's hardly ambiguous!

" it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process".

Pffffft! Plop!

 

[shunyadragon]

Have you any idea how ridiculous it looks trying to paint me as a theist & creationist?
Everyone else here knows I'm a fire breathing, puppy eating, God hating, evolutionist.
I was born an atheist, & I've never waivered.

As even staff have requested, it's time to end this routine.
Unless you have new material, I'll respond no further.

Not ridiculous at all your entire argument is straight out of Theist Intelligent Design Discovery Institute materials.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Pffffft! Plop!

I know we've become kinda close, but I don't need a running commentary of your every movement, Just get back to me whenever you're done in there..

 

[Jose Fly]

. . . undercover theists pretending to be atheists and agnostics to falsely propose that ID had a scientific basis like Michael Denton did before he got busted.

Creationism itself is a fundamentally dishonest enterprise. It requires denial of so much reality and science, that its advocates have no choice but to engage in blatantly dishonest behaviors when they attempt to argue for it. It's really no different than holocaust denial in that regard.

And ID creationism is even worse. Not only do its advocates have to deny many of the same things as regular creationists, they also have to deny that they're creationists in the first place.

As a good example, look at one of the arguments @Guy Threepwood keeps repeating, i.e., that the evolution of birds is "being called into question". They way Guy presents it, you'd think that scientists have completely abandoned the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs and are now a bit stumped as to how they originated (with Guy's unspoken corollary being that they were "designed") . But the truth is, it's simply a debate over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, or birds and dinosaurs both evolved from a common ancestor. But Guy never says that part, and he's been called on it many times. And how does he respond? Exactly as we see here....he cries "You're insulting me" and uses that as an excuse to run away. Then he waits a bit, comes back, and repeats the same dishonest talking point as if nothing had ever happened.

And it's not like we don't see the exact same behaviors from other creationists. They do that sort of thing all the time. But as noted above, because creationism is a fundamentally dishonest position, they have no choice. It's why I keep repeating.....it is impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not ridiculous at all your entire argument is straight out of Theist Intelligent Design Discovery Institute materials.

Find a post of mine.
Accurately quote it.
Address it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I consider it more important that Quantum Mechanics explains many aspects of Newtonian Physics. At present Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity does not fully explain Newtonian gravity.

The theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics evolved out of the problem that Newtonian Physics failed to explain the behavior of matter and energy at the micro level.

There are four(4) natural forces in nature. Gravity, electromagnetic, and the two(2) nuclear forces. The latter three work well together, and can help explain reality on both micro and macro scales(electricity, magnetism, mass characteristics, chemical reactions, why we don't fall through the earth, etc.). It is gravity where the problem arise. It can explain reality on the macro level, but not on the quantum level(sub-atomic). Why doesn't it follow the quantum rules like the other three? Since all four(4) forces started together, there must exist a common link. Since, all the other forces are just different manifestations of gravitation.

The best way I can answer your question without being too abstruse, is that you think of QM as simply a chunky reality(digitized, quantized series of events, in and out of existence), and gravity as smooth(analog, direct cause and effect events). Gravity works very well explaining the interaction of very large and massive objects, but can't explain it's poor interaction on very small and less massive objects(10^ minus 36). There are many theories that try to explain why, but so far no prize winners. I am waiting on the results of the LHC/CERN search for the graviton. This should shed new light on why gravity is so weak compared to the other three(3) forces. Could Gravity be operating across multi-dimensions? Could a quantized fabric of space explain gravity's weak effect? No one knows for certain, but I am confident that we will find the answer soon. Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Glad we could clear this up!

so you now agree with what I said

Newtonian physics is fundamentally inadequate in explaining physical reality today. A simple statement sure, but unambiguously true


"It would be like explaining oranges using a fork"

well, kinda, but more to the point, like explaining oranges using only orange peel

Gravity is necessarily underwritten by a deeper layer of information, so is this software interface, and so is life-

The paradox of explaining gravity with classical physics, is the same you would encounter trying to write this forum software by typing in this box- this paradox is inherent to hierarchical information systems, be they artificial or natural, simple or complex

Life, DNA, is also a hierarchical information system, (also a digital one in fact) uncannily computer like, more sophisticated than any software we've ever written maybe,- but there is no exception in mathematical logic made especially for it. i.e. trying to explain evolution with adaptation is likewise extrapolating a feature of a design into a mechanism for that design. -

an extremely temptingly intuitive fallacy

With all due respect, I'm afraid that I lost you after, " A simple statement sure, but unambiguously true". Don

 

[shunyadragon]

Find a post of mine.
Accurately quote it.
Address it.

Been there done that, but no coherent response, only stonewalling.

Interesting challenge for all atheists and agnostics, including @Revoltingest , Michael Denton (if he is out there) who claim to support 'Intelligent Design.' The was also one more atheist on this site that claimed to believe in 'Intelligent Design.'

If 'Intelligent Design' is the explanation for the life on earth, than what is this intelligent Source that the atheists and agnostics propose could be source of life on earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

With all due respect, I'm afraid that I lost you after, " A simple statement sure, but unambiguously true". Don

Nothing is unambiguously true.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

"Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection*."Richard Dawkins

* (except if as I said earlier, that designer was possibly put here by alien intelligence... oops!)
^ no just to be clear he didn't actually say this part

because ultimate and proximate are qualifications, aren't they Dragon?

. He quite clearly states that life could have been put here by ID,.it's hardly ambiguous!

" it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process".

Do you think that Professor Dawkins(Evolutionary Biologist), believes that aliens from another world planted the seeds that started the first replicating molecule? Do you think that Professor Dawkins believes that, "God did it" is only a proximate explanation? Although taken out of context and misrepresented, can you prove that aliens "did not" seed the beginning of all life? Of course not! This deceptive ethos is a logical fallacy(incredulity), since the burden of proof can never be shifted to the negative.

If you wish to believe that all of reality was "proofed"(not dioxygen difluoride) into existence, and that it was designed by a designer, then simply say so. Since more than three quarters of the population agrees with you, why the need to manipulate the quotes of those who don't? Don

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you think that Professor Dawkins(Evolutionary Biologist), believes that aliens from another world planted the seeds that started the first replicating molecule? Do you think that Professor Dawkins believes that, "God did it" is only a proximate explanation? Although taken out of context and misrepresented, can you prove that aliens "did not" seed the beginning of all life? Of course not! This deceptive ethos is a logical fallacy(incredulity), since the burden of proof can never be shifted to the negative.

If you wish to believe that all of reality was "proofed"(not dioxygen difluoride) into existence, and that it was designed by a designer, then simply say so. Since more than three quarters of the population agrees with you, why the need to manipulate the quotes of those who don't? Don

I take him at his own word. he believes it's a possibility, as we all have to. If you think he believes aliens did it-... I'm not the one taking his statement out of context.

The point was not to say Dawkins was a closet believer in ID! but that ID does not have to mean 'God'

intelligent design means intelligent design. When we dig up the Rosetta stone, we deduce intelligent design, if someone wants to argue that the source was human, alien or God- that's another matter

 

[Guy Threepwood]

With all due respect, I'm afraid that I lost you after, " A simple statement sure, but unambiguously true". Don

You don't think it's true?

 

[shunyadragon]

I take him at his own word. he believes it's a possibility, as we all have to. If you think he believes aliens did it-... I'm not the one taking his statement out of context.

The point was not to say Dawkins was a closet believer in ID! but that ID does not have to mean 'God'

intelligent design means intelligent design. When we dig up the Rosetta stone, we deduce intelligent design, if someone wants to argue that the source was human, alien or God- that's another matter

If you take Dawkins at his word you acknowledge the clear quote from his writings, and not an unethical edited dishonest video. No, there is no other options but nature or God. As Dawlins noted that IF Aliens than ultimately you will have to face the Question who created the aliens God or nature, and Dawkins specifically believes nature is the source as cited.

You did not answer the question. Your references to Dawkins have been demonstrated as an unethical. dishonest reference to an edited unethical dishonest video by Stein. Dawkins clearly answered the hypothetical question that eventually you would have to deal with a natural explanation for the origin of.life. Based on his Writings Dawkins never and I mean never endorsed even the possibility of 'Intelligent Design as the ultimate answer to the origin of life.

You need to answer the question.

If 'Intelligent Design' is the explanation for the life on earth, than what is this intelligent Source that the atheists and agnostics propose could be source of life on earth.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I take him at his own word. he believes it's a possibility, as we all have to. If you think he believes aliens did it-... I'm not the one taking his statement out of context.

The point was not to say Dawkins was a closet believer in ID! but that ID does not have to mean 'God'

intelligent design means intelligent design. When we dig up the Rosetta stone, we deduce intelligent design, if someone wants to argue that the source was human, alien or God- that's another matter

It is obvious that you have no idea of the difference between a statement of fact and an "off the cuff" statement of possibility. Especially, when it is being solicited by a person with a self-serving, biased, and transparent agenda. Rather than deflect my question to the words spoken by Professor Dawkins, you might simply answer it. If you don't believe this, then your position is vacuous, irrelevant, and intellectually dishonest. If you do believe this, then your logic, intuition, and powers of deduction are at best questionable. So again, do you personally believe that Professor Dawkins thinks that aliens are responsible for the creation of all life on the planet?

The Rosetta Stone has been housed in the British Museum in London since 1802. It was simply written(not designed) by humans in Egypt over 2000 years ago. It is used by archeologists to decipher the hieroglyphs of the time. The only argument is whether the Stone was man-made or naturally occurring. Naturally occurring was easily dismissed! So, unless you can give me an example of anything that is intelligent or designed by an alien or a God(s), your equivocation error DOES NOT deduce ID.

Finally, your opinion is just as valid as Professor Dawkins in areas that NO One can possibly know the answers to. Don