AC wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:09:41 +0000 (UTC),
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
david ford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6pvlj$etg2p$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c6oghs$edmig$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't think that *science* has to
provide any evidence to support *your* delusions.
What you wrote appears directly below something that AC presented.
And I completely agree with you. I don't think that science _must_
provide any evidence to support Dawkins's delusions about the strength
of the blind watchmaker hypothesis/ thesis.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
If you ask me, no, I *definitely* do not agree.
How familiar with biology are you? Perhaps it is the case that you're
not familiar with biology, and thereby are ignorant of the fact that
biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence.
I'm not a biologists by any means, neither am I ignorant of biology.
I grant you that biology "strongly exhibit the appearance of design"
if one squints hard enough, *really, really wants* to see appearance
of design by one's favorite deity and is ignorant of biology and
science in general.
HTH.
Zoologist Dawkins thinks that biology strongly exhibits the appearance
of having been the product of intelligence. Do you agree with me on
this point about Dawkins, or not?
If you do agree with me, what, if any, [SP]"favorite deity" does
Dawkins have? Perhaps Darwin?
I don't agree with you. I strongly suspect that you either:
1) Quote Dawkins out of context
2) Misunderstand Dawkins.
I would suspect that David has not, in fact, read Dawkins. Of all the
people to accuse of advocating intelligent design of any kind, Dawkins makes
on all grounds the absolutely worst candidate (hint for David, Dawkins is an
atheist, and a rather vocal one).
Also, I find it rather amusing to suggest that Dawkins is a proponent of
IDiology.
As a third alternative: If Dawkins *had* written something DF suggests,
It would probably be in the form of a rhetoric question.
Seppo P.
.
