The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[DogOnPorch]

Evolution is futile as long as life remains fragile.

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!

[benny]

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!

When someone wakes up from a nightmare he was making, he is escaping the true reality for a more comforting one.

[GostHacked]

Scientists depend on smiths.

Scientists do not create.

[benny]

Scientists do not create.

They create much like other inventors.

[GostHacked]

Tell that to your wisdom teeth...or did you...like many humans...have them pulled because they didn't fit in your head?

Watching one thing on this before. I think I had it linked in my other posts. It talks about a bone structure in the head unique to homo sapiens, or it is for any of the primates. As we turned upright this bone is perpendicular to the ground and connected to the spine, we grew upright, the skull and this bone had to accomodate the new mobility. I am thinking this also helped with balance. But as we grew upright, this bone has stayed perpendicular to the ground along with the skull and the skull has changed over the years as well. Because of this one bone, and the new orientation of the skull and spine, our jaw is now to large for this new restricted space. Hence the pulling of molars to releive the preassure in your jaw and the rest of the skull. Simply put, we have not evolved enough. Over time, I suspect these things will change.

We can call these vestigial teeth?? hehe

[benny]

Watching one thing on this before. I think I had it linked in my other posts. It talks about a bone structure in the head unique to homo sapiens, or it is for any of the primates. As we turned upright this bone is perpendicular to the ground and connected to the spine, we grew upright, the skull and this bone had to accomodate the new mobility. I am thinking this also helped with balance. But as we grew upright, this bone has stayed perpendicular to the ground along with the skull and the skull has changed over the years as well. Because of this one bone, and the new orientation of the skull and spine, our jaw is now to large for this new restricted space. Hence the pulling of molars to releive the preassure in your jaw and the rest of the skull. Simply put, we have not evolved enough. Over time, I suspect these things will change.

We can call these vestigial teeth?? hehe

You could also have argued that humans have not regressed enough. Neoteny explains why humans, and not our closest relatives, have an upright structure (like fishes, say).

[benny]

Watching one thing on this before. I think I had it linked in my other posts. It talks about a bone structure in the head unique to homo sapiens, or it is for any of the primates. As we turned upright this bone is perpendicular to the ground and connected to the spine, we grew upright, the skull and this bone had to accomodate the new mobility. I am thinking this also helped with balance. But as we grew upright, this bone has stayed perpendicular to the ground along with the skull and the skull has changed over the years as well. Because of this one bone, and the new orientation of the skull and spine, our jaw is now to large for this new restricted space. Hence the pulling of molars to releive the preassure in your jaw and the rest of the skull. Simply put, we have not evolved enough. Over time, I suspect these things will change.

We can call these vestigial teeth?? hehe

You could also have argued that humans have not regressed enough. Neoteny explains why humans, and not our closest relatives, have an straight structure (like fishes, say).

Edited May 17, 2009 by benny

[DogOnPorch]

One of my favorite pterosaurs, is the rhamphorhynchus. This critter used its prow shaped beak and forward facing teeth to scoop small fish and insects from the waters of Jurassic Earth, 170 million years ago. Its unique paddle tail acted as a rudder and an elevator as needed.

[betsy]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Dawkins' credibility on the line! Extra!

Professor Antony Flew writes:

"The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.)

Of course many physicists with the highest of reputations do not agree with Einstein in this matter. But an academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot.

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed – I believe – eventually to reply to every letter.)

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means."

© Antony Flew 2008

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christia...od-delusion.htm

So now we know who inspires the fundamentalist evolutionist disciples in the art of manipulations and distortions of truths! They mimic their master!

Edited May 18, 2009 by betsy

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I have read almost no posts in this thread... didn't see much point in bothering with this drivel... but I can't help but to say to the OP:

Even if Dawkins did change his personal belief system at some point, why should that matter to other atheists? It is just as possible for people to become deluded just as it is possible for people to become enlightened. Just because it is possible for people to regress doesn't mean that their past work is automatically rendered irrelevant.

Atheism isn't a religion, and we don't go blindly following some leader like certain other groups tend to do. Dawkins is no atheist pope - he is just a scientist who has made some interesting observations and commentary.

[betsy]

So now we know who inspires the fundamentalist evolutionist disciples in the art of manipulations and distortions of truths! They mimic their master!

And just giving the Atheists' responses and replies on this board as an example.....one can see through the ploy! This has nothing to do with the scientific search for the truth of origin. Although that's what they want us to believe.

This is all purely about establishing Atheism! And the primary concern is to discredit the idealogical opponent by any means!

Well, if the master is doing it....and the disciples are following the lead of their master....why should we even bother listening to their.....lies, er I mean....out-of-context and distortions...half-truths and half-lies....some truths and some lies....and extrapolations...

They can give all the sources and all the links in this world saying this and saying that...proving this and proving that....refuting this and refuting that....

But who wants to sift through all that muck?

Edited May 18, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

And just giving the Atheists' responses and replies on this board as an example.....one can see through the ploy! This has nothing to do with the scientific search for the truth of origin. Although that's what they want us to believe.

This is all purely about establishing Atheism! And the primary concern is to discredit the idealogical opponent by any means!

Well, if the master is doing it....and the disciples are following the lead of their master....why should we even bother listening to their.....lies, er I mean....out-of-context and distortions...half-truths and half-lies....some truths and some lies....and extrapolations...

They can give all the sources and all the links in this world saying this and saying that...proving this and proving that....refuting this and refuting that....

But who wants to sift through all that muck?

I think you make far too much of Dawkins' omissions of Einstein's views.

[betsy]

I think you make far too much of Dawkins' omissions of Einstein's views.

No, it's not making too much of it. It just so happen that it collaborated with all the other incidences that have been mentioned on this particular thread - specifically the ones that point to his fundamentalistic attitude and approach towards God and faith.

His focus is too much on Religion/God. On Atheism.

That puts into question his reliability and credibility when it comes to his scientific opinion of ID!

[benny]

No, it's not making too much of it. It just so happen that it collaborated with all the other incidences that have been mentioned on this particular thread - specifically the ones that point to his fundamentalistic attitude and approach towards God and faith.

His focus is too much on Religion/God. On Atheism.

That puts into question his reliability and credibility when it comes to his scientific opinion of ID!

What most posters here want you to understand is that the master of scientists is a method, not an individual.

[DogOnPorch]

The oldest known star in our galaxy is HE0107-5240, an ancient Population II member of our galaxy, the Milky Way, at over 13 billion years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2381935.stm

The farthest object yet observed in the known Universe is a galaxy with an amazing 7% red shift seen only via the magnifying effects of a cluster of galaxies (Abell 2218). It is estimated to be about 13.5 billion years old...and light years away.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/

Our star is about 5 billion years old, formed (along with the planets...and us) out of old Population II stars and interstellar gas and dust. As Carl Sagan said...we are all star stuff.

What most posters here want you to understand is that the master of scientists is a method, not an individual.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair...ic_method.shtml

Edited May 18, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[benny]

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair...ic_method.shtml

It is a forum for adults, not for children to learn something, and a thread about one particular individual (Dawkins) who supposedly is doing more than only speaking in his own name.

[DogOnPorch]

It is a forum for adults, not for children to learn something, and a thread about one particular individual (Dawkins) who supposedly is doing more than only speaking in his own name.

There is no expert opinion in science.

[benny]

There is no expert opinion in science.

A specialist is akin to an expert though.

[DogOnPorch]

A specialist is akin to an expert though.

One can have a degree in astrophysics and not be a scientist.

[benny]

It is not the case right now that Dawkins has both biology and theology as specialties or fields of expertise.

[DogOnPorch]

It is not the case right now that Dawkins has both biology and theology as specialties or fields of expertise.

Dawkins isn't pursuing science at the moment. He's pursuing a film career. That however doesn't make science or what it has discovered invalid. A scientist is someone practicing the scientific method.

[WIP]

I have read almost no posts in this thread... didn't see much point in bothering with this drivel... but I can't help but to say to the OP:

Even if Dawkins did change his personal belief system at some point, why should that matter to other atheists?

It doesn't! But that point is lost on Christian fundamentalists who cannot use an analytical approach to gaining new knowledge and understanding. The fundie blogs where all of the BS about Dawkins is coming from, have made the default assumption that everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is doing so because of their "faith" in leaders, because that's how religion works. Attack the leaders, and somehow that's supposed to impact scientific evidence.

The other side of the coin is a rationalist expecting to convince faith-heads with empirical scientific evidence. People who form their beliefs based on faith, have decided they already have the truth, and presentations of contrary evidence is merely a challenge to their faith......which btw is why some fundamentalist leaders are totally against Christian leaders who try to prove the existence of God with cosmological and ontological arguments, and try to prove creationism and evidence of biblical stories -- the question becomes: how much faith does a Christian really have if they are so anxious for apologetics and creationist books to prove their beliefs?

Faith and reason are opposing methods of understanding -- the more evidence you have for a belief, the less faith is needed; and where evidence is lacking, the more faith is required to hold on to a belief.....and that's the market for the Christian apologetics books. They don't convince atheists or followers of different religions; they are intended to keep members of the faith from being filled with doubt and reassessing their beliefs.

Atheism isn't a religion, and we don't go blindly following some leader like certain other groups tend to do. Dawkins is no atheist pope - he is just a scientist who has made some interesting observations and commentary.

Most atheists have adopted rationalism, but their are political philosophies that deny the supernatural, which nevertheless have ideological beliefs that are considered perfect knowledge, like they are some kind of revelation, and are not open to any alterations. But the majority of atheists I am aware of, would consider themselves to be secular humanists - which is an incomplete philosophy that will never be perfected.

Most religious people have their beliefs compartmentalized where they don't interfere a whole lot with rational thinking. So, a little religion may be okay, but it becomes dangerous and toxic, when they are religious 24/7; at that point, they are unable to deal with people who see the world differently, and they are either driven to convert them to their way of thinking, or try to destroy them in the worst case scenarios.

[WIP]

It is a forum for adults, not for children to learn something, and a thread about one particular individual (Dawkins) who supposedly is doing more than only speaking in his own name.

Wow! That's a riot coming from you!

Since you are also at war with science, I guess it should be no surprise that you are against learning something new.

[WIP]

The farthest object yet observed in the known Universe is a galaxy with an amazing 7% red shift seen only via the magnifying effects of a cluster of galaxies (Abell 2218). It is estimated to be about 13.5 billion years old...and light years away.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/

Good job for a science article by a news network! It should have provided a link about gravitational lensing though, since that paragraph doesn't really explain how this effect occurs. Science coverage is getting pretty horrible over the last few years. CNN has dropped it entirely with their budget cuts. So I guess MSNBC and surprisingly FoxNews, seem to be doing the best science journalism in the MSM these days.

They pegged the age of this small early galaxy formed at 13 billion light years, and since the writer is given tight constraints by his editor, he wasn't able to explain the concept of a "Dark Age," before cooling clouds of gas were able to coalesce and form stars; so I guess this would mean that we have reached the theoretical limit to how far back in time we can see what was happening in the early universe.

[DogOnPorch]

Good job for a science article by a news network! It should have provided a link about gravitational lensing though, since that paragraph doesn't really explain how this effect occurs. Science coverage is getting pretty horrible over the last few years. CNN has dropped it entirely with their budget cuts. So I guess MSNBC and surprisingly FoxNews, seem to be doing the best science journalism in the MSM these days.

They pegged the age of this small early galaxy formed at 13 billion light years, and since the writer is given tight constraints by his editor, he wasn't able to explain the concept of a "Dark Age," before cooling clouds of gas were able to coalesce and form stars; so I guess this would mean that we have reached the theoretical limit to how far back in time we can see what was happening in the early universe.

At a certain point in the past the Universe would have been opaque...but the 2 degree kelvin background temperature is apparently the remains of the fireball. Re: gravitational lensing...I agree...the average reader might not understand what's going on.

I just find it amazing that there actually folks who 'don't believe' in dinosaurs.