Off Topic Messages

Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:27 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote:
Pete, "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins addressed that question. As for the computer analogy. What kind of programmer would purposely invent a mad robot? Think about it.


Which question Maurice?, I posed 3. And in any event Dawkins has not really addressed the issue of irreducible complexity as presented by molecular biologist Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. When Berkley law professor and neo-Darwinism critic Phillip Johnson asked Dawkins what he thought of Behe's descriptions of irreducible complexity in micro-organisms and genes Dawkins responded by saying that as a zoologist he was not qualified to debate Behe!

And George Williams, the pioneer of the gene reduction theory upon which Dawkins made his case in his book The Selfish Gene, has subsequently criticized Dawkins for failing to distinguish between the medium (the gene) and the message (the encoded information).

The Blind Watchmaker was published the same year (1986) as Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. This book sent shock waves through the scientific community as it was the first major criticism of Neo-Darwinism written by a self-proclaimed agnostic, with a very respectable background in micro-biology.

And in any event Maurice you still have not explained why you're certain evolution is a fact. All you have done is basically said "read Richard Dawkins." Is Dawkins the end all be all of evolutionary biology? Why should I believe Dawkins' theories over those of, say, Stephen Jay Gould? You cannot reconcile the two men's theories. And why should I believe Dawkins or Gould over Denton and Behe, since neither Dawkins or the late Gould's area of expertise is micro/molecular-biology?

You have still not addressed the facts I posted Maurice. So let's try again. Fact #1: The fossil record doesn't contain the required transitional intermediates. There should've been millions. Question: Where are they? Fact # 2: The fossil record by & large displays two striking characteristics at odds with Darwinian gradualism: Sudden appearance and stasis. Why has virtually no evidence of Darwinian gradualism been preserved in the fossil record?

As for your question of a programmer purposefully inventing a mad robot you (or rather Dawkins) make two erroneous assumptions here in formulating the question: 1.) That we are robots. 2.) That we were invented mad.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:11 am

Pete, I half replied past midnight, not a good idea:-)

Dawkins also wrote about being tricked into giving interviews with Creationists therefore giving them a little scientific credence. I'll not accept the invitation:-)

We Evolved Insane just look at our history.

Many nature TV Documentaries here this week spoke of Evolution as fact...go figure.

It is tiresome going back to all the books at this stage. The evidence for evolution is all around us anyway.

Let's create animals that have to eat each other to survive, sometimes from inside, yuck!...brilliant idea God.



That's me done here, try ColinB out again:-) http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 16,00.html

Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:49 am

MauriceinIreland wrote:Pete, I half replied past midnight, not a good idea:-)

Dawkins also wrote about being tricked into giving interviews with Creationists therefore giving them a little scientific credence. I'll not accept the invitation:-)


Typical neo-Darwin trick. Label the opponent a creationist, which conjures up all those Bible-thumpin' fundamentalist 'Inherit The Wind' images. Then you can dismiss them as unworthy of scientic debate. And conveniently avoid addressing the legitimate questions concerning evidence for neo-Darwinism - or lack thereof.


MauriceinIreland wrote:We Evolved Insane just look at our history.


Mankind has had periods of 'insanity' Maurice. But to say we evolved insane is still an assumption on your part. Not proof of evolution. And what of Jesus, Budda, Francis of Assissi, and Ghandi? Did the 'insanity' of evolution pass them by?

Mauricein Ireland wrote:Many nature TV Documentaries here this week spoke of Evolution as fact...go figure.


Yes they buy into the party line. But did they present any actual evidence?

MauriceinIreland wrote:It is tiresome going back to all the books at this stage. The evidence for evolution is all around us anyway.

Cite some please. You keep mentioning evidence but don't provide any examples. And you've yet to respond to my questions regarding the fossil record.

Mauricein Ireland wrote:Let's create animals that have to eat each other to survive, sometimes from inside, yuck!...brilliant idea God.


So if all animals were vegetarians you'd be saying great work God? What about those poor plants. They're living things too. Don't they get to live without being eaten?

MauriceinIreland wrote:That's me done here, try ColinB out again:-)


Yep, 'bout what I expected. No evidence provided. Just comments knocking down straw men like creationists and God creating carnivores. And yet another appeal to Dawkins.

Maurice, when you feel ready to provide evidence, or respond to irreducible complexity, or (and I won't hold my breath waiting for this) the fossil record please do so.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:08 am

Pete, what is it you do not understand about, "That's me done here"?

Goodnight.

But just before I go. Re Ghandi etc. Insanity does not always mean evil.

People are slaughtering each other all around the world, starving, dying of horrendous diseases and we gather here to discuss Elvis..dead 28 years. Sanity in action:-)

See how easy it is to get drawn in. LOL Goodnight again.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:58 am

deleted
Last edited by whataboutthemusic on Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:27 am

the first 3 chapters in the Bible:

1. creation of Earth
2. introduction of Sin and Death
3. Mankind losing access to Paradise (Garden of Eden)


the last 3 chapters in the Bible:

1. restoration of Earth
2. removal of Sin and Death
3. Mankind regaining access to Paradise (Garden of Eden in New Jerusalem)

right there, the Plan of Salvation coming full-circle.

o a full closure circle of events, at the beginning, at the end. The wrongs made right


did you know:

The exact mid-way point of the Bible is a psalm.

Psalm 118

594 chapters before it....594 chapters after it

"It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." - Psalm 118:8 (good advice too)

That is the very same psalm Jesus and his disciples sang at the Passover Last Supper
(Matthew 26:30) all total, they sang Psalms 113 thru 118

the last thing Jesus sang: the verses at the midway point of The Word


- all that a coincidence?

Or a pattern of Intelligent Design.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:43 am

Maurice -
I will leave you to ponder the irony of your unwillingness/inability (most likely the latter) to defend a theory that you are convinced is fact.
Nighty night.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:10 am

Good morning Pete, If the vast majority of the greatest and brilliant scientific minds of the 20/21st century have not convinced you, (If you have really read them all) what chance has little ol' me.
Bye bye.
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 16,00.html

Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:24 am

We just doubt YOU'VE read them.......or have enough critical thinking ability to understand them. You certainly havn't demonstrated even a rudimentary understanding of the issues.

Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:36 am

That's funny coming from a guy who still believes in fairy tales written by primitive thinkers thousands of years ago. I just had to wait till you added your brilliant summation.

BYE BYE.
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 16,00.html

Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:55 am

MauriceinIreland wrote:Good morning Pete, If the vast majority of the greatest and brilliant scientific minds of the 20/21st century have not convinced you, (If you have really read them all) what chance has little ol' me.
Bye bye.
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 16,00.html


Top of the mornin' to ya Maurice. Now here's the situation about the scientific minds. They subscribe to something called scientific naturalism. Science, by it's very nature, seeks to understand the workings of the physical material world/universe. Hence scientists seek naturalistic explanations for the workings of nature/the universe. So far so good. The problem comes in when scientsts go beyond this and say that the physical/material universe is all there is, that there's nothing beyond physical existence. That is philosophy (philosophical naturalism) that goes beyond science into metaphysical questions about ultimate reality. This isn't science, it's opinion. And it's not even learned opinion because science, by it's very nature, cannot say whether or not there's something beyond the physical universe. Unfortunately, high-profile scientsts such as Dawkins and Sagan do make statements on the nature of reality. But their statements have nothing to do with science, and are really about atheistic evangelism.

The neo-Darwinists also engage in this very same philosophy.
True science seeks answers/evidence. While science certainly should seek naturalistic explanations, it should not assume philosophically that naturalistic explanations are the only possible explanations.
Cosmology and astrophysics, going back to Einstein and including Hawking have found evidence for design and fine-tuning in the universe. So impressed was Einstein by the fine-tuning that he made very clear statements about 'the mind of God' (Einstein wasn't a theist, but he did fall somewhere between a deist and a pantheist), and Hawking has stated that the fine-tuning of the universe has 'theistic implications.
In the field of molecular biology the findings of many molecular biologists for specified, irreducible compexity have led them to conclude the source of this complexity could only be an intelligent agent. Most evolutionary biologists, such as Dawkins are not molecular biologists.

Lastly, the evidence for neo-Darwinism is sorely lacking Maurice. As I've previously written the fossil record by & large doesn't support the Darwinian concept of common ancestry and gradual change (transitional intermediates). Sudden appearance and stasis are the norm in the rocks. This being the case one can legitimately question the validity of neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds, without being a creationist.

To conclude, there's good reason to suspect that neo-Darwinism is built heavily on naturalistic philosophy and speculation, with little - if any -actual evidence to support it.

Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:26 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote:That's funny coming from a guy who still believes in fairy tales written by primitive thinkers thousands of years ago. I just had to wait till you added your brilliant summation.

BYE BYE.
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 16,00.html


Maurice, my beliefs comport perfectly with OBSERVED natural laws. The Laws of Thermodynamics, the discoveries of geology and the fossil record, the statistical analysis studies, mathematical probability studies...etc etc etc.

The big secret , Mo, is that YOU are the provincial. YOU are the primitive. YOU are the ignorant. You do not even know what you believe to the extent that you can defend it. Of course, it is scientifically indefensible, so that's somewhat understandable. But you don't know that either.

You are FAR more religious than I. You ignore data and observable science to cling to your fairytales.....YOU are completely invested with blind faith. And you remain in the dark purposely, for you dread the discovery that what you hold to with tenacious ignorance might be proven wrong after all.And your fragile psyche could never bear the consequences of such a discovery.

Prove me wrong. Put up or shut up. Better yet......just shut up.

Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:16 am

MauriceinIreland wrote:That's funny coming from a guy who still believes in fairy tales written by primitive thinkers thousands of years ago. I just had to wait till you added your brilliant summation.
BYE BYE.


Maurice -
Science as we know it would not exist if not for the contributions of the following believers in 'fairy tales written by primitive thinkers thousands of year ago': 1.) Louis Agassiz - father of glacial science. 2.) William Fox Albright - 20th century's foremost archaeologist. 3.) Charles Babbage - creator of the computer. 4.) Francis Bacon - father of the scientifc method. 5.) Roger Bacon - forerunner of the scientific method. 6.) John Bartram - first American botanist. 7.) Sir Charles Bell - first to extensively map the brain and nervous system. 8.) Robert Boyle - chief founder of modern chemistry. 9.) William Buckland - foremost Engish geologist before Charles Lyell. 10.) George Washington Carver - America's most prominent agricultural researcher and developer. 11.) Georges Cuvier - founder of the studies of paleontology and comparative anatomy. 12.) John Dalton - founder of modern atomic theory. 13.) Rene' Descartes - inventor of analytic geometry and greatest French philosopher. 14.) Jean Henri Fabre-chief founder of modern entomology. 15.) Michael Farrady - discoverer of electromagnetic induction and founder of electromagnetic theory. 16.) John Flamsteed - maker of the first modern star catalogue. 17.) John Ambrose Fleming - inventor of the diode. 18.) Nehemiah Grew - co-founder of the science of plant anatomy. 19.) Stephen Hales - first to bring the exacting methods of physics to biology. 20.) Joseph Henry - discoverer of the principle of self-induction. 21.) Sir William Herschel - discoverer of Uranus. 22.) Sir Willam Huggins - first to measure the stars velocities and chemical compositions. 23.) Jame Joule - discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics. 24.) William Thompson Kelvin - first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics. 25.) Johannes Kepler - discoverer of the laws of planetary motion. 26.) John Kidd - pioneer in the development of chemical synthetics. 27.) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz - co-inventor of calculus. 28.) Carolus Linnaeus - father of taxonomy. 29.) Joseph Lister - founder of antiseptic surgery. 30.) James Clerk Maxwell - formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light. 31.) Gregor Mendel - father of genetics. 32.) John Michell - founder of seismology, predictor of black holes. 33.) Samuel Morse - inventor of the telegraph. 34.) Isaac Newton -discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation. 35. Blaise Pascal - founder of probability studies and hydrostatics. 36.) Louis Pasteur - formulator of the germ theory of disease. 37.) William Prout - first to relate atomic weights to hydrogen. 38.) William Mitchell Ramsey - foremost archaeologist of Asia Minor. 39.) Sir William Ramsey - discoverer of rare gaseous elements. 40.) Sir Henry Rawlinson - first to decipher cuneiform writing. 41.) John Ray - first to classify according to species. 42.) Bernhard Riemann - formulator of non-euclidean geometries. 43.) Peter Mark Roget - forerunner of motion picture invention. 44.) Archibald Henry Sayce - world's foremost Assyriologist. 45.) Sir James Simpson - founder of anesthesiology. 46.) Sir George Stokes - contributor to light and sound wave theory. 47.) Thomas Sydenham - discoverer of malaria's cure. 48.) Theodoric of Friebourg - discoverer of the rainbows cause. 49.) William Whewell - inventor of the anemometer. 50.) Ambrose Pare - first modern surgeon.

As for 'fairytales' Maurice, how bout the fairytale of the universe somehow creating itself out of nothing (for which there's no evidence), life arising from inorganic matter (for which there is no evidence), and neo-Darwinistic macro-evolution (for which there is no evidence). Seeing as you believe all this with no evidence to support it, then you believe it on faith! So Scatter is correct - it's YOU who engages in blind faith religion!

Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:57 am

Pete Dube wrote:

MauriceinIreland wrote:That's me done here, try ColinB out again:-)


Yep, 'bout what I expected. No evidence provided. Just comments knocking down straw men.


Hey, I might be soft & cuddly, but I'm not made of straw !

Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:34 am

ColinB, Did I not witness you bend a little in the wind:-) Rhetorical.

Scatter that's the silliest post I've seen from you for ages.

Pete, keep on trying, but I'll not be reading anymore nonsense here. Period. Double period!

Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:39 am

Maurice -

You wrote:
ColinB, Did I not witness you bend a little in the wind:-) Rhetorical.


Well, I'm willing to adjust my outlook a tad if someone makes a valid point.

My views aren't set in stone.

Still as much an atheist as I ever was, though.

Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:26 pm

"My views aren't set in stone". ColinB.

Keep the disbelief :lol:

Mine are set in concrete;-) I was erecting a Dolmen in our front garden this morning, now passers by on their way to Mass will know I'm a pagan :shock:

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/ ... 64945.html

Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:37 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote: but I'll not be reading anymore nonsense here. Period. Double period!


How about the posting?....will that apply also? :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:40 pm

Q: How does spectacle change a lightbulb?

A: He just holds it there and waits for the world to revolve around him!

:D :wink:

Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:48 pm

I was just answering ColinB:-)

Delboy, All the revolving will have to be done on the All Mau..er Elvis section from now on :(

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/ ... 64945.html

Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:57 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote:Scatter that's the silliest post I've seen from you for ages.

Pete, keep on trying, but I'll not be reading anymore nonsense here. Period. Double period!


In other words don't confuse you with the facts, your mind is made up!

Here's a little song just for you Maurice:

"Yeah you've been lost in a dream
Believin' Dawkins' kind
it's time to open up your eyes
and realize Dawkins is the one who's blind.
Yeah you've been lost in a dream
attending Darwin's church
someday you'll open up your eyes
and find it's all been just a great biiiiig fairytale."

Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:53 am

since this thread has become a debate about the existence of God,

what about the existence of Allah?

how many athiests doubt and insist there's no allah?

too afraid to?

- the dismissal and mockery of Christians and their book and belief system happens alot I notice, here on this mb, on tv, in comedy.

But there's no mockery of the muslims.

certainly not to equal the mockery of Christians.

How interesting. and unequal.

why the outspoken disdain of one deity but not the other?

Possibly it's the assurance of it being safe to mock and discredit Christianity
- no backlash - Christians aren't putting bombs on subways.

.

Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:33 am

OMG!

You guys kill me! I actually had to go back to the first page to see what this thread was about.

For the record, Maurice said he was not responding to this thread anymore 4 times. He said Goodby a total of six times. I love this guy!

As a mater of fact I love all you guys! There cannot be a better message board on the net, Elvis or no.

Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:36 am

G G -

You wrote:
what about the existence of Allah?


I don't believe in the existence of a god......................

Call him Allah, Jehova, Zeus, Odin or what you like.