tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post2726652905540014443..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: Inside LifeGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-56467872603099150262009-11-22T03:54:14.517+13:002009-11-22T03:54:14.517+13:00"I have been saying the entire time that Hoyl..."I have been saying the entire time that Hoyle rejected Neo-Darwinian evolution – i.e. natural selection, taking place self contained, here on Earth."<br /><br />Oh, so <i>now</i> you choose to clarify your term. Too bad you didn't do so at the first.<br /><br /><br />Q, you said that Hoyle rejected "evolution." You didn't say he rejected the mechanisms of how evolution happened. Do you understand this? <br /><br />And I had no idea of what you were talking about, or trying to get at with your "Darwinian," "Neo-Darwinian," "universal," and "standard" evolution. That is why I wanted you to explain these terms. If you had simply done so then I would have seen your point. But you refused. <br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-3883852310731093692009-11-21T18:23:40.273+13:002009-11-21T18:23:40.273+13:00Very strange post, Paul.
You quote to me exactly...Very strange post, Paul. <br /><br />You quote to me exactly what I have been quoting to you, and seem to think you are making some new point!!!! No need for any spluttering on my part – what you are saying is what I have been saying. <br /><br />I have been saying the entire time that Hoyle rejected Neo-Darwinian evolution – i.e. natural selection, taking place self contained, here on Earth. <br /><br />Now you quote back to me about Hoyles ‘rejection of natural selection’, (which is exactly what I have been telling YOU these last few posts), and then you add your own override comment ‘which is erroneous; natural selection happened’.<br /><br />This is the whole point I have been repeating and repeating, but it just doesn’t seem to get through to you. Hoyle rejected natural selection – he stated and stated almost his entire career that the idea just doesn’t work.<br /><br />Of course I know he didn’t believe in Creationism. Of course I understand that he believed that evolution had to happen outside of the environment of the earth. <br /><br />He was an atheist – so he was going to reject the idea of Creation – of course he was. But the point is that he was also rejecting Darwins and Prothero’s view that natural selection could happen here on earth, all by itself. As he also rejected a ‘higher power’, of course he has to believe that evolution took place somehow outside of earth, somewhere in the universe.<br /><br />As Leonardo said, the weakness of the Panspemia idea is that ‘it only pushes the argument back a step without providing us any new or useful insights: where did the aliens who seeded life on other planets come from?’. I agree with Leonardo on that observation.<br /><br />Paul you are an intelligent person – you know exactly what I was saying. You know that what I was saying is the same as what you are now saying. Hoyle did not believe that evolution by natural selection could occur here on earth, all by itself. <br /><br />Just check back what I have been saying in earlier posts, a couple of examples:-<br /><br />“Of course Hoyle had his own ideas – he supported a version of Panspermia theory….I am saying Fred Hoyle did not support Darwinian evolution, which is the entire subject of Prothero’s book.”<br /><br />“The facts are that both these gentlemen do not accept Darwinian evolution to be a viable idea.”Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-72764327612411340802009-11-21T13:12:11.423+13:002009-11-21T13:12:11.423+13:00I'm afraid I've ran out of patience, Q. I ...I'm afraid I've ran out of patience, Q. I gave you every chance to recuse yourself, and chances to explain what your various new evolutionary terms meant. I did this because I didn't want to embarrass you. <br /><br />I hold in my hand a copy of Fred Hoyle's "The Intelligent Universe." Page 109;<br /><br />"The most crucial aspects of life, its origin and information content, did not arise here on the Earth. Nor, despite widespread belief in the work of Darwin, did terrestrial life evolve in the way he proposed. <i>Yet, evolution certainly has occurred, there can be no doubt about that,</i> but in a way that is prompted from a very different source than the one imagined by Earthbound theory."<br /><br />Page 123;<br /><br />"There is little doubt that the eyes of of vertebrate animals like mammals, those of cephalopod molluscs like octopuses and squids, and those of insects <i>have evolved quite independently.</i><br /><br /><br />FRED HOYLE ACCEPTED EVOLUTION.<br /><br />Before you start sputtering, it was you who said that Hoyle rejected "evolution." Later, you started weaseling by inventing new evolutionary terms- yet did not deign to explain them so don't try to back out of that. <br /><br />Hoyle rejected the Big Bang, and abiogenesis, and his rejection of natural selection (which is erroneous; natural selection happened) is basically an extended, bastardized version of abiogenesis. <br /><br />But he accepted what you and other Creationists reject: EVOLUTION.<br /><br />If you meant otherwise, you should have explained so, as I gave you several chances to do. But you chose the path of arrogance.<br /><br />A Tip For Creationists: If you are going to use the "a scientist who rejects evolution!" gambit, then by all means find one who actually rejects evolution!<br /><br /><br />The Aposte PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-40960093703463248492009-11-21T12:03:52.442+13:002009-11-21T12:03:52.442+13:00Q,
I don't see my last post so I'll try a...Q,<br /><br />I don't see my last post so I'll try again. You stated that these two scientist rejected evolution. When pressed, you switched from "evolution" to "Darwinian evolution" and used two other unfamiliar terms, "universal evolution" and "standard evolution." <br /><br />I ask you to define those unfamiliar terms because you seem to be making a distinction between your early use of evolution and the later "Darwinian" and "Neo-Darwinian" and "standard" evolution. <br /><br />What I am trying to get at is this: are you saying those two scientists rejected the theory that all organisms we see around us evolved from a common ancestor? <br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-46298423123517752942009-11-21T08:54:44.347+13:002009-11-21T08:54:44.347+13:00But Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (Hoyle's student)...But Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (Hoyle's student) had some version or another of panspermia.<br /><br />I considered this concept at length about 12 years ago, and came to the conclusion that it only pushes the argument back a step without providing us any new or useful insights: where did the aliens who seeded life on other planets come from?<br /><br />It's an interesting concept, but, unless I'm really missing something here, I don't consider it all that fruitful or productive as far as origins goes.<br /><br />My two cents worth.Leonardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-67268722330894338692009-11-21T08:35:38.130+13:002009-11-21T08:35:38.130+13:00Q,
I'm not henpecking here. You've stated...Q,<br /><br />I'm not henpecking here. You've stated that those two scientists reject <i>evolution</i>. When I pressed you on this, you said that they reject "Darwinian evolution." I don't know what Darwinian evolution is. And your subsequent use of "universal evolution" and "standard evolution" only confused me further. <i>I don't know what those terms mean</i> and I don't understand why you originally used plain "evolution" but changed the term when I asked you if you were sure about that.<br /><br />I'm asking you for the third (?) time to explain the differences in these terms not to be nitpicky but out of curiosity and a need to understand what we are talking about. <br /> <br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-68168303243235185982009-11-21T04:45:32.574+13:002009-11-21T04:45:32.574+13:00Leonardo said...
"Questeruk, I've been fo...Leonardo said...<br />"Questeruk, I've been following your exchange of comments with Apostate Paul, and I'm having a difficult time figuring out what precise point you are trying to make here."<br /><br />Hi Leonardo & Paul<br /><br />The original point I was making is very simple, and not at all earth shattering. <br /><br />I quoted from Prothero where he said <br /><br />“I know of absolutely no scientists who rejected evolution on purely scientific evidence without the powerful force of religious fundamentalism operating behind the scenes.”<br /><br />I made the comment that this is incorrect, that even Prothero himself mentions two people that this applies to in the very next chapter.<br /><br />That was my entire point. An important point, yes, but a very simple one. <br /><br /><br />Paul it seems you have taken exception to this, and are challenging every comment I have made about this.<br /><br />The facts are that both these gentlemen do not accept Darwinian evolution to be a viable idea. It’s simple, and it’s not really up for question, as they both have repeatedly publicly stated this to be the case, over many years. <br /><br />Paul, I have provided evidence. There is plenty more evidence around that you can search out for yourself. It’s not some secret thing, and on this point I KNOW I am right. <br /><br />I would actually like to get on and read Prothero’s book instead going round in circles with you.<br /><br />You said “You stated that these two rejected evolution. I have reason to think otherwise, but will await your reply.”<br /><br />Well, you are wrong. If you indeed do have evidence that Hoyle and Wickramasighe do believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution – fine, go ahead and present the facts. I would like to see it, and maybe Leonardo would too. <br /><br />I await your reply with interest – until then I will proceed further into Prothero’s book!Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-50461525186006060332009-11-21T03:18:27.565+13:002009-11-21T03:18:27.565+13:00Q,
I'm still confused. Could you answer my pr...Q,<br /><br />I'm still confused. Could you answer my previous questions regarding "universal evolution" and "standard evolution" and "Darwinian evolution."<br /><br />I am unaware of any evolution but evolution; there are several proposed mechanisms of <i>how</i> evolution occurred, all of them valid (natural selection vs genetic drift) but I am unaware of different types of evolution.<br /><br /><br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-87765356771648586802009-11-21T00:13:31.422+13:002009-11-21T00:13:31.422+13:00Quest, I notice you are really avoiding answering ...Quest, I notice you are really avoiding answering both Apostate Paul's and my own questions.<br /><br />It's clear you are on a rant with respect to Fred Hoyle - because in his views you somehow feel a kindred spirit, one that just magically sweeps away all the evidence for Darwinian evolution so you no longer have to seriously and honestly deal with it.<br /><br />Of course it doesn't eliminate the facts, but it appears to me that you think it does.<br /><br />My question is: Are you reading and mentally digesting the boatloads of evidence that Prothero documents in his book? Or are you just looking for loopholes so you can maintain your non-factual supernatural beliefs about origins?Leonardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-15545849810921831922009-11-20T13:10:28.960+13:002009-11-20T13:10:28.960+13:00Paul, I don’t know if you had seen my last post be...Paul, I don’t know if you had seen my last post before you made your comment. <br /><br />If you think Fred Hoyle supported Darwinian evolution, check this link:-<br /><br /> http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm#Notes<br /><br />It’s a review of his book ‘Mathematics of Evolution’. Just reading the review it should be clear that he, as the review said “was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic”. <br /><br />He wrote many other books on the subject, including an aptly titled short work “Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work”. <br /><br />Of course Hoyle had his own ideas – he supported a version of Panspermia theory. <br /><br />The word ‘evolution’ on its own is a vague term. I am saying Fred Hoyle did not support Darwinian evolution, which is the entire subject of Prothero’s book. <br /><br />Fred Hoyle strongly felt the idea was wrong, and he also felt that by most scientists adhering to the Darwinian idea, it was hampering studies into what actually had happened.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-63823057707465062822009-11-20T08:04:26.673+13:002009-11-20T08:04:26.673+13:00Questeruk, I've been following your exchange o...Questeruk, I've been following your exchange of comments with Apostate Paul, and I'm having a difficult time figuring out what precise point you are trying to make here.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, as I’ve written previously, yours seems to ultimately be a quote-mining kind of "God of the gaps" sort of argument, because even if you can point to the relatively few scientists with degrees in fields pertinent to evolutionary theory who disagree with certain aspects of evolutionary theory, so what? This is how science works and progresses.<br /><br />If I searched hard enough I could probably find some rare person, perhaps even with a degree in geography, who still believes the earth is flat – so does this throw into serious doubt the overwhelming amount of evidence that the earth is spherical in shape? Does it refute all the affirming evidence in its favor?<br /><br />And how does what you are saying provide evidence for special creation, if that’s even what you are arguing for? I say “if” because I’m having a hard time trying to decipher your view since your statements are rather hazy, ambiguous and sort or rambling all over the place.Leonardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-26239967409866667592009-11-20T07:11:13.042+13:002009-11-20T07:11:13.042+13:00Oh, and could you also define "standard evolu...Oh, and could you also define "standard evolution" for me? <br /><br />I have heard of several different mechanisms <i>of</i> evolution, but never the types of evolution that you describe.<br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-14077847314526396362009-11-20T07:09:55.392+13:002009-11-20T07:09:55.392+13:00"Yes I am Paul – provided that you are discus..."Yes I am Paul – provided that you are discussing the standard Darwinian view that life evolved from a one celled living creature, up to the diversity we have now, including mankind....Now they do believe in some sort of ‘universal evolution’. But for the purposes of this discussion, that is actually irrelevant."<br /><br /><br />By Darwinian evolution I assume you mean "natural selection," correct?<br /><br />But I have no idea of what you mean by "universal evolution;" could you define it? <br /><br />And it is incredibly relevant. You stated that these two rejected evolution. I have reason to think otherwise, but will await your reply.<br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-84980035757296881412009-11-20T03:31:47.937+13:002009-11-20T03:31:47.937+13:00Q, are you sure that those two rejected evolution?...Q, are you sure that those two rejected evolution?<br /><br />If you find evidence that they didn't reject evolution (the Big Bang and abiogenesis aren't evolution), then you need to completely revise your post.<br /><br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-59594444774606261072009-11-20T00:31:28.828+13:002009-11-20T00:31:28.828+13:00Paul asked:-
“you go on to discuss Hoyle and Wick...Paul asked:-<br /><br />“you go on to discuss Hoyle and Wickramasighe. <br /><br />Are you sure that these two rejected evolution????”<br /><br /><br /><br />Yes I am Paul – provided that you are discussing the standard Darwinian view that life evolved from a one celled living creature, up to the diversity we have now, including mankind. <br /><br />But neither of the two men were creationists – I imagine that the idea of the universe being created 6000 years ago would embarrass them. <br /><br />However they are definitely of the opinion that evolution as a system would not work as such. They believe that it needed a lot of ‘kick starts’ at many times to progress it. <br /><br />I will extract a couple of paragraphs from Dr Wickramasighe’s statement at the 1981 Arkansas hearing (found on the link I gave in my last posting):- <br /><br />“It is believed by neo-Darwinists that the full spectrum of life as we see it today as well as in the past is accounted for by the steady accumulation of copying errors and the consequent development of variety as a primitive living system is copied billions upon billions of times. It is stated according to the theory that the accumulation of copying errors, sorted out by the process of natural selection, the survival of the fittest, could account both for the rich diversity of life and for the steady upward progression from bacterium to Man. <br /><br />In our recent book Sir Fred Hoyle and I have argued strongly against this proposition. We agree that successive copying would accumulate errors, but such errors on the average would lead to a steady degradation of information. It is ridiculous to suppose that the information provided by one single primitive bacterium can be upgraded by copying to produce a man, and all other living things that inhabit our planet. This conventional wisdom, as it is called, is similar to the proposition that the first page of Genesis copied billion upon billions of time would eventually accumulate enough copying errors and hence enough variety to produce not merely the entire Bible but all the holding of all the major libraries of the world. The two statements are equally ridiculous. The processes of mutation and natural selection can only produce very minor effects in life as a kind of fine tuning of the whole evolutionary process. There is above all an absolute need for a continual addition of information for life, an addition that extends in time throughout the entire period for the geological record.”<br /><br /><br />As he mentions both he and Sir Fred Hoyle wrote jointly on the subject, so are basically of similar opinions. <br /><br />Now they do believe in some sort of ‘universal evolution’. But for the purposes of this discussion, that is actually irrelevant. <br /><br />The point I am making is that they are very convinced that ‘standard’ evolution just cannot work – in their view for very good scientific reasons.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-91122159784872860882009-11-18T06:57:44.690+13:002009-11-18T06:57:44.690+13:00Q,
Thanks. I was sort of hoping your criticism w...Q, <br /><br />Thanks. I was sort of hoping your criticism was of Prothero's evidence for evolution. <br /><br />But, before I address your point, I want to be clear on something; it's relevant. <br /><br />You said,<br /><br /><i>However there are several well known scientists, professed atheists, whose rejection of evolution was for different reasons – because they did not believe that evolution was a viable option. <br /><br />In the following chapter he mentions two of these scientists...</i><br /><br />And then you go on to discuss Hoyle and Wickramasighe. <br /><br />Are you sure that these two rejected evolution????<br /><br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-39208548744612875082009-11-18T06:01:59.157+13:002009-11-18T06:01:59.157+13:00Quest, your argument above essentially shows a des...Quest, your argument above essentially shows a desperation on your part, yet another aspect of the infamous "God of the gaps" line of reasoning – that is, pointing out the extreme exceptions in the false belief that this thus justifies in some way supernatural claims with respect to origins.<br /><br />I'm sure that certain aspects of evolutionary theory will be corrected, revised or amplified as the years pass, as future evidence either supports or disconfirms such aspects.<br /><br />But you ARE correct in that Prothero could have worded what he wrote with greater accuracy. I agree to this. Although he did speak only of the scientists of which he was familiar – “I know of absolutely no scientists…”<br /><br />However, I notice that you speak NOTHING at all about the hard evidence the author cites in support of evolution. You are reading about that, right? Or are you just wasting your reading time desperately looking for anything you can to justify rejecting essentially everything else Prothero has to say?<br /><br />I don’t know, and am not imputing motives, or attacking your integrity, but based on your comments above that seems to be what you’re doing.Leonardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-78213106391767492782009-11-17T17:21:05.022+13:002009-11-17T17:21:05.022+13:00Re:- the “specific gross factual error that I am c...Re:- the “specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error,” is on page 21.<br /><br />Hi Paul,<br /><br />Seems unfair not to clarify this point, although probably only yourself, Leonardo (and Gavin) will read it, now this topic has moved to page two of the blog.<br /><br />On page 21 Prothero says:-<br /><br />“I know of absolutely no scientists who rejected evolution on purely scientific evidence without the powerful force of religious fundamentalism operating behind the scenes.” <br /><br />He then goes on to say “Instead, these creationist “scientists” all came to their conclusions because their religious belief demanded it, and afterward began to take seriously the phony “evidence” against evolution that we’ll discuss in the rest of the book”. <br /><br />What he is claiming here is that any scientist that rejects evolution is doing so because at some level their religious conviction is telling them that they must do so. <br /><br />This claim sounds impressive, at face value, if it were true.<br /><br />However there are several well known scientists, professed atheists, whose rejection of evolution was for different reasons – because they did not believe that evolution was a viable option. <br /><br />In the following chapter he mentions two of these scientists. On page 48 he says “Gish’s favourite analogy (borrowed from maverick astronomer Fred Hoyle) concerns the improbability that a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could assemble a 707.” <br /><br />Now Sir Fred Hoyle was an atheist for most of his life – nearly all his work was written as an atheist. As an atheist he wrote many things against evolution, and definitely did not believe it was a viable option. The reason he wrote against Darwinian evolution was not because of religious conviction. <br /><br />He atheism was well known, I am sure Prothero is aware of that. It is true he began to express serious doubts of his atheism near the end of his life, but most of his works were written during his atheist years. <br /><br />On page 35 Prothero writes ‘One of their star witnesses, the maverick British astrophysicist Chandra N Wickramasighe, openly scoffed at the idea of creation science’<br /><br />Dr Wickramasighe is no 'religious fundamentalist', in fact he had a Buddhist background. He is certainly not a creationist, but to say he ‘openly scoffed’ is not apparent if you read his prepared statement at the trial, in which he has severe critism of evolution.<br /><br />http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm <br /><br /><br />Interesting how Prothero describes both these men as ‘mavericks’ – because they do not support Darwinian evolutionary thoughts?<br /><br />There are several other scientists who would also be in this category – i.e. not creationists, but who reject evolution on scientific grounds.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-50117476924768189272009-11-16T11:34:19.802+13:002009-11-16T11:34:19.802+13:00OK, that's fair enough, Quest.
But I'm no...OK, that's fair enough, Quest.<br /><br />But I'm not questioning your integrity. I don't have to. I'm just pointing out what you've already plainly stated.<br /><br />Anyway, if you're interested in reading some anti-Dawkins books, may I recommend a few?<br /><br />"The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheists Myths" by David Robertson<br /><br />"The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine" by Alister McGrath<br /><br />"Letter to an Influential Atheist" by Roger Steer.<br /><br />I'm sure there are other ones available, but I hope the quality of argument is higher in those than in the ones I've read thus far.<br /><br />Dawkins is a favorite target of Christians, but they have an extremely hard time seriously refuting his arguments. This is very clear if you read any of the anti-Dawkins books and articles out there.<br /><br />Perhaps this is because Dawkins relies on facts, evidence and logic in support of his assertions, and knows how to express them quite articulately - whereas Christians seem hard-pressed to recruit any of these in defense of their patently faith-based ideology.Leonardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-23669807107753944942009-11-16T09:46:28.526+13:002009-11-16T09:46:28.526+13:00"He carries on in this fashion, explaining th..."He carries on in this fashion, explaining this marvel of creation,"<br /><br />What evidence do you have that supports the hypothesis that this was a creation? Why should Dawkins, who I believe, has no evidence of the supernatural, should accept the hypothesis that this was the result of a creation? Why? <br /><br /><br />"... so much so that he feels he has to add an override – just to make sure we don’t misunderstand he adds ‘Incidentally, there is of course no ‘architect’. The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection’."<br /><br />Once again, why not? Does he have any evidence of a creator? Do you have any? If not, then why should we fault him for this view?<br /><br />Just because living organisms exist is not evidence for a supernatural creator. <br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-39592999668122164942009-11-16T09:34:20.445+13:002009-11-16T09:34:20.445+13:00Q, you got me.
The number of Creationists with Ph...Q, you got me.<br /><br />The number of Creationists with PhDs?<br /><br />Ashton's book?<br /><br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-341683406818062082009-11-15T23:59:34.966+13:002009-11-15T23:59:34.966+13:00Leonardo said...
”If all you want to do, as you...Leonardo said...<br />”If all you want to do, as you've explicitly stated, is merely to justify your current ignorance (as was clearly demonstrated in the last creation/evolution blog), then why waste your time?”<br /><br />I’m afraid its you that missing the point Leonardo.<br /><br />I am reading these books for enlightenment. But I am also reading them with a questioning mind.<br /><br />The Selfish Gene book WAS enlightening; it gave me a greater insight on the whole area. But it also came over that Dawkins was seeing these things, and to an extent ‘whistling in the wind’ to convince himself that everything happened without any higher power. <br /><br />He apparently sees the FACTS in one light – I see these same facts in a different light, and I gave my honest impression. <br /><br />You may read the same book and have a different impression to me. <br /><br />Fine – I wouldn’t question your integrity in that case – neither should you be questioning mine.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-29367488807702739982009-11-15T11:11:18.410+13:002009-11-15T11:11:18.410+13:00Quest, if you are not willing to expose your under...Quest, if you are not willing to expose your underlying ideology – religious, secular, or whatever it be - to new views and factual discoveries with the possibility of altering (and therefore improving) such an ideology, then what’s the point of learning anything new?<br /><br />A main motivation I have for my extensive learning program (right now I’m simultaneously reading about a dozen books, and going through five lecture courses, for example, which allows for creative synthesis to occur, as insights from one field amplify and build upon those of other seemingly unrelated fields of study), as well as for blogging here on AW, is to expose my current views to perspectives different from my own, in the hopes that in the final analysis "iron will sharpen iron." I can assure you I have considerably more constructive things to do than engage in pointless polemics with fundamentalist!<br /><br />And I've found such a strategy, with constant tweaking, to be incredibly fruitful. Many comments I’ve read here on AW have given me pause for thought, at least the more intelligent, well-thought out and well-expressed ones have.<br /><br />If all you want to do, as you've explicitly stated, is merely to justify your current ignorance (as was clearly demonstrated in the last creation/evolution blog), then why waste your time?Leonardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-13267722482932546852009-11-14T11:57:14.180+13:002009-11-14T11:57:14.180+13:00Leonardo said...
“Dawkins' new 2009 book &qu...Leonardo said... <br /><br />“Dawkins' new 2009 book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" is very readable, and would have been my first choice, but I realize most Christians see the good Professor as a spawn of the Devil and therefore wouldn't even come close to reading one of his many excellent works.”<br /><br />I like Dawkins. As an evangelical atheist he can sometimes be as annoying as evangelical Christians, but I think he means well.<br /><br />He is often popping up on TV over here, but I have to admit the only book of his that I actually own is ‘The Selfish Gene’. <br /><br />I found it very good, learnt a lot, and ended up even more convinced of the hand of God in designing life. Interesting that modern computers use binary code, but God chose to use four. But then I suppose that makes things a lot more versatile. <br /><br />Dawkins waxes lyrical on the wonders of DNA e.g. from page 22:-<br /><br />‘There are about a thousand million million cells making up the average human body, and, with some exceptions which we can ignore, every one of those cells contain a complete copy of that body’s DNA. This DNA can be regarded as a set of instructions for how to make a body, written in the A,T,C,G alphabet of the nucleotides. It is as though in every room of a gigantic building, there was a book-case containing the architect’s plans for the entire building. The ‘book-case’ in a cell is called the nucleus. The architect’s plans run to 46 volumes in man – the number is different in other species.’<br /><br />He carries on in this fashion, explaining this marvel of creation, so much so that he feels he has to add an override – just to make sure we don’t misunderstand he adds ‘Incidentally, there is of course no ‘architect’. The DNA instructions have been assembled by natural selection’.<br /><br />Yes, I like Richard Dawkins – I probably will get his latest book – but I want to get through the fossil book first.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-72725908793730100842009-11-14T10:27:09.109+13:002009-11-14T10:27:09.109+13:00The Apostate Paul said:-
“Like what? I brought th...The Apostate Paul said:-<br /><br />“Like what? I brought the book with me today and am interested.”<br /><br />Paul, as I said earlier, I am only up to Chapter 3, so who knows what the rest of the book holds.<br /><br />However the “specific gross factual error that I am certain the author in reality knows to be an error,” is on page 21. <br /><br />See if you can find it. <br /><br />I believe the author should be aware that this is an error, because of two separate brief comments that he makes in the next chapter. <br /><br />A little task for the weekend!Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.com