Comments on: Is Richard Dawkins still evolving? http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959 Anti-Theory Conspiracy Sun, 26 May 2013 00:57:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: random http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-36658 random Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:10:13 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-36658 why is theory of evolution being promoted as if it were already proven? Lets take for example the advent of premature cells. While evolutionists speculate things just happened by chance and some force/conditions created some intelligent life form, that theory has absolutely no evidence or an experiment to prove that those conditions are possible. Not to mention the fact that in order for a cell to perpetuate itself requires a complex system that can translate/transcript DNA in order to multiply, a reasonable energy making apparatus in order to cause chemical reactions, a porous outer shell that protects itself from lethal elements and provide semi permeable conditions to obtain nutrients, a transportation system within the cell to distribute necessary elements to different parts of the cell, a digestive system to break down the bonds of molecules for ingestion, and etc. To say that this all came about in a single stroke of chance, which would require trillions of codons to arrange it self in correct composition, is an absolute absurdity. To put it simple, theory of evolution is a faith, not science. why is theory of evolution being promoted as if it were already proven? Lets take for example the advent of premature cells. While evolutionists speculate things just happened by chance and some force/conditions created some intelligent life form, that theory has absolutely no evidence or an experiment to prove that those conditions are possible. Not to mention the fact that in order for a cell to perpetuate itself requires a complex system that can translate/transcript DNA in order to multiply, a reasonable energy making apparatus in order to cause chemical reactions, a porous outer shell that protects itself from lethal elements and provide semi permeable conditions to obtain nutrients, a transportation system within the cell to distribute necessary elements to different parts of the cell, a digestive system to break down the bonds of molecules for ingestion, and etc. To say that this all came about in a single stroke of chance, which would require trillions of codons to arrange it self in correct composition, is an absolute absurdity. To put it simple, theory of evolution is a faith, not science.

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4213 Jay Dyer Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:28:08 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4213 Justin, Sounds good. Feel free to debate what you want at Nicenetruth. Jay Justin,

Sounds good. Feel free to debate what you want at Nicenetruth.

Jay

]]> By: Justin Russell http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4194 Justin Russell Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:18:55 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4194 Jay, I thank you for the time taken to respond to my posts. I'll leave this discussion now as I'm sure Terry is peeved at a discussion that only skirts around the article he posted. As I wrote previously I joined the debate because I need to understand how anyone can view a genocidal order from your God as justifiable. I still don't, but this discussion has raised some issues I need to ponder. I felt that you were trying to stick me in a box labelled "skeptical relativist" and I wasn't happy with it. But I guess that some definition of my position is needed. If you don't mind I may come back to you later on your Nicene Truth site after reading and thinking quite a bit more, or perhaps I'll start a discussion relating to what we have discussed on the Collins brothers Panoptic Age group if they are amenable. Jay,

I thank you for the time taken to respond to my posts. I’ll leave this discussion now as I’m sure Terry is peeved at a discussion that only skirts around the article he posted.
As I wrote previously I joined the debate because I need to understand how anyone can view a genocidal order from your God as justifiable.
I still don’t, but this discussion has raised some issues I need to ponder. I felt that you were trying to stick me in a box labelled “skeptical relativist” and I wasn’t happy with it. But I guess that some definition of my position is needed.
If you don’t mind I may come back to you later on your Nicene Truth site after reading and thinking quite a bit more, or perhaps I’ll start a discussion relating to what we have discussed on the Collins brothers Panoptic Age group if they are amenable.

]]> By: Terry Melanson http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4193 Terry Melanson Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:37:17 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4193 What I would like to know is what people think about the article, which is well written and the reason why I posted it in the first place. What I would like to know is what people think about the article, which is well written and the reason why I posted it in the first place.

]]> By: Brian Westley http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4187 Brian Westley Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:00:52 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4187 Jay Dyer writes: <i>You can’t interact with any of the philosophical arguments given above, so you bitch about nit-picky things.</i> Sorry, it isn't "nit-picky" to point out that Darwin was talking about the origin of species, NOT the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Getting basic information like that wrong dooms any argument from the start. People need to know what they're talking about. Jay Dyer writes:
You can’t interact with any of the philosophical arguments given above, so you bitch about nit-picky things.

Sorry, it isn’t “nit-picky” to point out that Darwin was talking about the origin of species, NOT the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Getting basic information like that wrong dooms any argument from the start. People need to know what they’re talking about.

]]> By: Brian Westley http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4186 Brian Westley Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:56:56 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4186 "The" observed species-transition? Are you referring to a specific species? “The” observed species-transition? Are you referring to a specific species?

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4185 Jay Dyer Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:37:56 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4185 You can't interact with any of the philosophical arguments given above, so you bitch about nit-picky things. You can’t interact with any of the philosophical arguments given above, so you bitch about nit-picky things.

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4184 Jay Dyer Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:35:37 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4184 You know the argument. Where is the observed species-transition? You know the argument. Where is the observed species-transition?

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4183 Jay Dyer Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:33:50 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4183 Nice try. I produced no arguments, eh? Well, since you've produced such strong rejoinders so far to everything that has been said, what could I possibly say. I'll just stay stupid. Jay Nice try. I produced no arguments, eh? Well, since you’ve produced such strong rejoinders so far to everything that has been said, what could I possibly say. I’ll just stay stupid.

Jay

]]> By: Brian Westley http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4181 Brian Westley Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:52:42 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4181 I can't seem to find any. Given that you don't appear to know that a whale IS a mammal ("Where is the whale-mammal?"), I'd rather you put forward what you consider an "argument," as what I mostly see on your part are mere assertions. I can’t seem to find any. Given that you don’t appear to know that a whale IS a mammal (”Where is the whale-mammal?”), I’d rather you put forward what you consider an “argument,” as what I mostly see on your part are mere assertions.

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4180 Jay Dyer Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:32:14 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4180 Brian, Care to interact with any of my arguments above? Brian,

Care to interact with any of my arguments above?

]]> By: Terry Melanson http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4179 Terry Melanson Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:08:41 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4179 "Oh dear, you mean you regard Expelled as something other than a waste of film?" Yup. “Oh dear, you mean you regard Expelled as something other than a waste of film?”

Yup.

]]> By: Brian Westley http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4178 Brian Westley Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:54:01 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4178 Terry Melanson writes: <i>Great. I already knew that but was just waiting for an admission.</i> Uh, no. It only shows you don't even know what you're talking about. It's like criticizing molecular biology because it doesn't explain why planets form. That's not what it's even trying to do. <i>Darwinian theory can’t explain how life began any more than it can explain how the Universe came to exist.</i> Again, you're exposing your own ignorance. Darwin didn't attempt to do either one. He talked about the origin of species. <i>Oh you mean the natural selection and “Preservation of Favoured Races” bit?</i> Do you realize it doesn't refer to either the origin of the universe or the origin of life? Apparently not, because you try to criticize it as if it does. <i>The sniveling rat Dawkins is the most unintelligent twerp I have ever laid eyes on.</i> Sorry, your red herring ad hominems only throw your ignorance into sharp relief. <i>No one made him look like a fool in Expelled; that’s him being himself.</i> Oh dear, you mean you regard Expelled as something other than a waste of film? Terry Melanson writes:
Great. I already knew that but was just waiting for an admission.

Uh, no. It only shows you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

It’s like criticizing molecular biology because it doesn’t explain why planets form. That’s not what it’s even trying to do.

Darwinian theory can’t explain how life began any more than it can explain how the Universe came to exist.

Again, you’re exposing your own ignorance. Darwin didn’t attempt to do either one. He talked about the origin of species.

Oh you mean the natural selection and “Preservation of Favoured Races” bit?

Do you realize it doesn’t refer to either the origin of the universe or the origin of life? Apparently not, because you try to criticize it as if it does.

The sniveling rat Dawkins is the most unintelligent twerp I have ever laid eyes on.

Sorry, your red herring ad hominems only throw your ignorance into sharp relief.

No one made him look like a fool in Expelled; that’s him being himself.

Oh dear, you mean you regard Expelled as something other than a waste of film?

]]> By: Terry Melanson http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4177 Terry Melanson Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:28:34 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4177 "Of course Darwin is inadequate" Great. I already knew that but was just waiting for an admission. Darwinian theory can't explain how life began any more than it can explain how the Universe came to exist. "You don’t appear to be aware of what Darwin actually wrote." Oh you mean the natural selection and "Preservation of Favoured Races" bit? I admit I haven't fully digested it; but then again most of the sacerdotal Darwinian propagandists have never fully read it either. They just toe the line of officialdom dogma. Indoctrination factories is what colleges have become. The sniveling rat Dawkins is the most unintelligent twerp I have ever laid eyes on. He gets a licking every time too when he tries to <a href"http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/" rel="nofollow">debate</a> "the other side." No one made him <em>look</em> like a fool in Expelled; that's him being himself. “Of course Darwin is inadequate”

Great. I already knew that but was just waiting for an admission. Darwinian theory can’t explain how life began any more than it can explain how the Universe came to exist.

“You don’t appear to be aware of what Darwin actually wrote.”

Oh you mean the natural selection and “Preservation of Favoured Races” bit? I admit I haven’t fully digested it; but then again most of the sacerdotal Darwinian propagandists have never fully read it either. They just toe the line of officialdom dogma. Indoctrination factories is what colleges have become.

The sniveling rat Dawkins is the most unintelligent twerp I have ever laid eyes on. He gets a licking every time too when he tries to debate “the other side.” No one made him look like a fool in Expelled; that’s him being himself.

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4176 Jay Dyer Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:15:37 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=959#comment-4176 He wasn't responding to just a Darwinian conception of origins, but a commenter above who was espousing radical atheism and that there is no Creator. He wasn’t responding to just a Darwinian conception of origins, but a commenter above who was espousing radical atheism and that there is no Creator.

]]>