Richard Dawkins

[Hagakure]

re: flagella

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

and....

""scientists can be wrong. scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists. if you are a scientist and can find a flaw in a major theory you have got one huge meal ticket. your further research will be funded, you might make professor at some prestigious school, hot scientist chicks aplenty etc"

..And then you wake up!"

you miss my point completely. there seems to be this conception in various parts of the mainstream that science is some large conspiracy that is only researching stuff they want to be true. this is definately true for some individual scientists. but in regards to the field as a whole, it is incorrect.

if you can prove the theory of evolution to be false i guarantee that you will make it to the cover of Nature, Science not to mention front page of every newspaper that counts. that means huge fame and huge rewards. it is in every scientists interest to prove evolution is false if they can do so. of course not many scientists spend much time trying to prove the theory of gravity wrong because its pretty clear gravity happens. the same goes for evolution.

just remember you can get fame and resources making theories and claims in science but you can get just as many rewards from breaking them.

[chilli]

Well I disagree thats all, I think Dawkins put in a very poor account of himself in that discussion.

When jahovas witnesses knock on my door they are usually surprised to receive a warm welcome but leave here completely shattered with their faith in tatters, I honestly think I could have done a much better job than Dawkins to be honest!

The problem was Haggard stopped listening almost straight away, and just started going at him, or smirking and pretending to listen. Many of the JW's going door to door are in fact very sincere, and would be much easier to reason with than someone like that, but how could you reason with someone who is effectively blocking their ears and saying "Nah nah na-na nah, I can't hear you!"

I mean, the guy chased them off the property...

[Hagakure]

Holy shit, I can't believe this is going downhill so fast, can anyone with half a brain just answer the one or two points I started this thread to discuss?

lol dude i was referring to other peoples posts, will make a post on yours in a sec

havent heard christians make the same argument as yours so i'm not dismissing it yet

[chilli]

lol dude i was referring to other peoples posts, will make a post on yours in a sec

havent heard christians make the same argument as yours so i'm not dismissing it yet

I am so hugely relieved you just said that, I thought I was going crazy for a number of reasons!

*edit* I just realized that my "anyone with half a brain" comment might have sounded like I thought the posters so far weren't intelligent, but I meant in the sense of "someone, anyone, please just answer." These kind of explanations usually make things worse, but that's me for ya.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[Hagakure]

what you seem to be saying is that all of Dawkins work hinges on a refusal to believe in an eternal superhuman designer. isnt that dawkins whole point? LOL

i dont think a biologist's bias prevents the belief in anything eternal. sure its the physicists realm to deal with all that but it shouldnt get in the way. the biologist is better positioned to see how unecessary a DESIGNER is, eternal or not.

and if there is some eternal force underlying everything i would be more inclined to describe it (or not bother to try to describe it) like the concept of the Tao or Brahman before getting remotely close to the abrahamic god who MADE this world rather than IS this world like the previous two concepts.

[ThunderIdeal]

i can't read this whole thread right now, but will open my trap anyway.

firstly congrats to SC for dragging this out of the dead spirituality forum where the battle can rage on.

"i have heard some podcasts of christians attacking dawkins (can you tell im a podcast fanatic yet?) and they generally sound pathetic. he is pretty rock solid in his logic.

i havent heard a convincing argument against him but appeals to quantom physics might just do it for me"

his attacks seem directed against the god of dogmatic religion. would non-dogmatists try to argue with him?

SC... dawkins = fundamentalist athiest = propagates us vs them mentality and sense of personal superiority = hypocrite?

regarding physics including theoretical physics, it is clearly wrong for non-scientific viewpoints to seize their ideas and attempt to prove points which, for now, science has no bearing on. if these viewpoints rely on science that isn't actually relevant to them, then they aren't reliable viewpoints at all.

in a reverse instance, a scientist would say that religious views support his theorem. totally inappropriate. religious views have no bearing on physics.

speaking for myself, astro-physics (to name just one) blows my mind, and stretches the boundaries of an imagination already stretched by the other. the two relate but they're also like chalk and cheese. maybe one approach is to conform where science is confident, but let your mind soar where science is uncertain.

pretending for a second that there are two clearly distinct paradigms, choosing one at the expense of the other seems to be at the expense of BOTH.

[mark80]

Holy shit, I can't believe this is going downhill so fast, can anyone with half a brain just answer the one or two points I started this thread to discuss?

We all acn't be as smart as you, you know that right mate?

Go for it Einstein! Disprove Irreducible Complexity for us then..

see the bottom of post of my previous post.

Thats debatable! so is the bible dude!

No shit?

yes mate i shit you not

"actaully molecular biology seems prove his theory very well"

So molecular biology has proven that we evolved from monkeys? Be sure to show me this evidence too please..

firstly on morphological basis we and (monkeys) are very similiar, on the embryology we are similar, we can see in fossil (that carbon dated) to show the progression of "apes" to humans and most intermidates inbetween. Hwta do you prepose explains this?

As for darwainin evolution? I ask you to READ my previous post. We can see darwainain evolution by setting up obsticles that put natural pressure on certain phenotype, than by naturally occuring muatations, (which is consequnce of molecular biologoy) we can see how the species adapts and evoloves through time to natural pressur4es were a final species is distinct from its orginial parental gorup.

Because knowledge is power! 'They' do it all the time!!

after all didn't god evict us out of the agrden of eden, for eating the fruit of knowledge?

[ThunderIdeal]

hagakure's point is an excellent complement to my post.

"scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists."

fucken ay. who proves believers wrong? well, nobody if their ideas are beyond proof. same applies to some scientific theories. neat.

"his main argument against the existence of a God is based on the Ultimate 747 argument, in which he argues that a God that could create the universe and life would need to be far more complex than the creation, and so only adds to the already high improbabilty of the universe and life existing. As I said, this seems to me flawed as it only accepts the idea of a God that is bound by time and matter, and any other kind of God is dismissed out of hand, presumably out of a naturalistic presupposition."

if that is his argument, then he is definitely dealing with a narrow concept of god and what may lie beyond (and within) the known universe. maybe if he's so smart he could solve reality if he'd only take the right drugs and stop worrying about people who donate money to god.

Edited July 21, 2008 by ThunderIdeal

[baphomet]

oh shit, we lost half the thread, all that typing for nothing.. aaargh

[blizznshot]

Aside from being a bit dry for my taste, I do think Dawkins tends to use selective premises. From here, of course logic will lead to the same conclusion in which he believes. To begin by saying that it is infinitely improbably that an intelligent creator exists can only lead to the point that we have arisen by chance. But what type of evidence or models can actually put a quantitative figure on either the probability of God or the probability of our existence?

That said, I for one do believe in evolution. The molecular evidence is vast, and I don't just mean at the level of the organism. In-vitro molecular evolution (SELEX) experiments have clearly shown the high probability of an RNA primordial world. It was likely to begin with self-replicating RNA molecules, which then gained a peptidyl transferases function which could also synthesize simple proteins from amino acids. It was only a matter of time until the deoxy analogues (DNA) were used to store information, as the lack of a 2' hydroxyl confers chemical stability. To this day, the main catalytic activity of the ribosome is carried out by an RNA catalytic component (rRNA) and not a protein subunit. This is in addition to the studies mentioned by others in this thread, with regards to mutation frequency at the genetic level and phenotypic phylogeny.

In my opinion, the astonishing thing is that it took "only" a billion years or so to get from primordia to the first cells, but took 3 times that long to get from a functional cell to where we are today. I would have thought the first step would/should take much longer in relation to the evolution of single cells to multi-cellular organisms.

Some say evolution has not been proven, but what will it take for you to concede a "proved" status? It's not like the whole scientific community sits there and says, "Ok, we've come to a consensus. Theory X is thusly proved." Everyone has the right...no, the duty to come to their own conclusions. In this regard, it is unlikely that evolution will ever be a proven fact, but overwhelming and converging evidence is too hard for me to ignore.

[MORG]

I think I understand what you're getting at Sublime Crime... I really would like to re-read the chapter in question then comment further though.

One of Dawkins' basic premises is what you called the "naturalistic supposition". He argues for basing our views and relationship with the world and the nature of its synthesis on logic and reason. We require logic and reason in the courtroom, from our policy makers (arguable...), from any serious bit of medicine, our technology... why then do we let logic fly out of the window when it comes to making inferences upon which to base our worldview?

Now if logic, reason and rationality are the best tools we have for learning about our Universe, employing those tools to question the presence of an all-powerful creator God makes it look incredibly, incredibly improbable due to a complete lack of evidence in the face of alternative explanations.

As I said, this seems to me flawed as it only accepts the idea of a God that is bound by time and matter, and any other kind of God is dismissed out of hand, presumably out of a naturalistic presupposition. Outside the occurrence of our universe, there would be no necessity for matter, time or laws of physics as we currently understand them. My point is that Dawkins himself seems to acknowledge this as likely, but isn't consistent in applying it to his arguments about the possibility of a God.

So I think your misgivings on the argument might hinge on how comfortable you are with resting what we believe and know about the Universe on reason.

I hope I've made some sense and not misrepresented what I believe to be Dawkins' arguments. If I get the time I'd like to read that chapter again and comment further.

I found it funny that in his documentary Dick found it quite challenging to debate with a fanatical christian fundamentalist and became quite flustered, I think he thought that his superior intellect and reasoning would quickly prevail but I think he found it more challenging than first expected.

I think it's called arguing against a brick wall. They don't listen, they don't say anything sensible, they can't argue and it doesn't matter how smart you are. Of course it was a challenge! Have you ever tried arguing reason with a petulant and misbehaving child? Same shit man. An argument requires two cooperating parties receptive to two-way communication.

[ajna]

yeah i pretty much agree with you SC, although i haven't read the God Delusion so my view may not count for much. i tend to be immediately skeptical of anyone who seems to think they got it all figured out haha. my initial reaction when i heard of Dawkins and the book was something like "this man does not know what god is"

but could i blame him? not at all. i dont think the orthodox religion he despises has any idea, how could i expect him to? and i understand his stance, there's no reason we shouldn't apply rationality to religion and that unfounded beliefs have been the source of much war etc, i don't want the church having say on the laws that govern me either. but as yourself and TI have said his concept of god is so narrow that he's not really addressing the nature of god/faith/religious beliefs at all and rather addressing a Christian belief which a great deal of people with faith reject as perverted truth anyway. religion isn't inherently irrational like he seems to think. when he says things like "science accepts it doesn't know everything, religion claims to have all the answers" it's proof he's not talking about the tao, just a fundamentalist god. i think that's fine if he realises that is his scope, but a title like "the god delusion" suggests that's not the case.

maybe it's more for a controversial title and not so much this way in the book, but it sounds as if he's suggesting that to believe in anything other than what science has proven is to be mentally ill, or deluded and irrational at least. i just can't swallow that at all either. despite the fact i and many others see no reason that science/evolution and religiosity can't co-exist, he's projecting a single irrational belief onto a hugely diverse collection of belief systems in order to argue that faith itself is delusional, which to me seems completely unscientific. or is he? maybe he is more specific in his attack, but it does seem as if Dawkins himself may have contracted a case of GDS (god delusion syndrome)

i really should read it, i probably would have if he'd kept to the science, but taking on god he looks like an angry fish out of water to me. biology i can handle, arrogance and intolerance not so much. he is obviously a smart cookie, there's big bucks in controversy. but i do wonder if he sees the irony in being an out-spoken fundamentalist atheist who's had his consciousness raised by biological studies so he can save the world from evil? hehe

[JDanger]

Good points Ajna, and sorry I couldn't comment earlier SC, I haven't read the book either.

However, it does sound more like an attack on the Christian-type God rather than on an idea of a higher power. I don't think anyone can ever have it all figured out. If they did, would there still be a point in continuing to exist? As for the creation theory, it's a concept (myth?) that originally did well to explain the state of the world at the time. That's what myths do. Thanks to cultural and intellectual evolution, we now have science which allows us to explain the world in our own terms, meaning we no longer have to rely on a deity beyond our comprehension and our reach to explain it for us (paradox?).

Now, even though we can't measure God or prove His* existence or influence with experiments that can be reproduced, something should be said about the inlfuence of the concept of an independent, conscious God. Actually, nothing really needs to be said. Just look at the nearest Christian fundamentalist and try to appreciate how someone who doesn't really seem to question the surrounding world can so confidently be sure of what happens to them after they die--arguably the biggest mystery of all. It's enough to give him (and by extension, everyone else in his group) a set of rules and morals by which to live which otherwise would've left little but a life of meaningless anarchy and questioning. Until recently, not even science could do that (thank you, Dr Hoffman).

*(I'm going with the capital 'H' because that's the Christian way)

I think what I'm trying to say here is that God is really little more than a substitute for what science can't yet explain. If the concept of 'God' was biologically useless, evolution wouldn't have given humans the ability to come up with such a concept, let alone let them live and multiply with it for so long.

Also, if the experience of God can come down to pharmacology (as I'm sure many would argue), that still doesn't explain the phenomenon of consciousness--ie, at what point do a collection of electro-chemical impulses become conscious, subjective experience?

Lastly, if we evolved from an amoeba, where did the amoeba come from? (At least I think that's how the evolution theory goes)

[ThunderIdeal]

well, blizznshot's post goes into some detail about the development of early life, i also think panspermia theories (microscopic life crash-landing on a meteorite) are quite probable (an article on nasa's website, some time back, said that the necessary chemistry was abundant on meteors).

"I think what I'm trying to say here is that God is really little more than a substitute for what science can't yet explain."

that's fair. i look forward to the day we can give god a scientific name.

[Undergrounder]

baphomet do you still believe in infinite complexity after reading hagakure's link?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

If not, care to answer the arguments by Ken Miller on the Flagellum for instance?

Edited July 23, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Hagakure]

well, blizznshot's post goes into some detail about the development of early life, i also think panspermia theories (microscopic life crash-landing on a meteorite) are quite probable (an article on nasa's website, some time back, said that the necessary chemistry was abundant on meteors).

yeah just to nit pick they havent found any microscopic life itself on incoming meteorites yet but they have found meteorites rich in building blocks (which to be fair you clarify later in your post).

some of you may have heard of the miller-urey experiment where these dudes tried to replicate the sea and atmosphere of earth way back before life and then sparked it with electricity to simulate lighting. this experiment was hailed as a success as it produced amino acids which proteins are made out of.

the concentration of the parent compounds, however, was massive compared to what there would have been back in those days so it was later discredited. amino acids and other building blocks coming from meteorites is a much stronger theory.

it also produces a nice image of the big egg of earth being fertilised by a sperm like meteorite.

[baphomet]

baphomet do you still believe in infinite complexity after reading hagakure's link?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

If not, care to answer the arguments by Ken Miller on the Flagellum for instance?

Sorry man, I don't have time to go through it all properly but from what I can see there's nothing new there! I have read plenty of stuff about this before and listented to podcats such as 'Uninteligent Design' like hagakure no doubt has and I've watched countless documentaries on this such as 'A War On Science' etc and although you may dissagree one things for sure.. modern science is in a lot of shit!

It was only a matter of time though really, there is only so much that this brand of pure materialism can explain and it seems to have come to a dead end or at least a big fucking hurdle! Modern science can't explain consciousness and it never will IMO! Fact is they can't satisfactorily explain half the other shit they pretend to either!!

"Darwin was an absolute genius."

I dissagree! It seems that everyone including The Melbourne Museum preaches Darwins theory as fact and it is not! it is still a theory!!

It also frustrates me to see people such as yourselves making him out to be a hero struggling against the establishment of organised religion when in fact he wasn't even a biologist, he was a theology student and spent most of his later years preaching the bible!

He was never really all that convinced about his theory either, he always said that his theory could only be true if the fossil evidence supported it.. and it doesn't!!!

"see the bottom of post of my previous post."

So you think you've disproved irreducible complexity and proved darwins theory now? Was that supposed to be some kind of joke?

"molecular biology seems prove his theory very well"

Bullshit!! Francis Crick (one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953) simply could not see how the DNA molecule could have self-assembled just by chance and nothing has proved otherwise since then!

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle said, the likelihood of a living cell arising through evolution was as likely as “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747".

"we can see in fossil (that carbon dated) to show the progression of "apes" to humans and most intermidates inbetween."

There is not a single fossil which proves an intermediate species! It seems that every fkn day some hot shot scientist claims to have found "the missing link" though but it always turns out to be bullshit! (ie: Lucy, etc)

"We can see darwainain evolution by setting up obsticles that put natural pressure on certain phenotype"

No you can't!

"firstly on morphological basis we and (monkeys) are very similiar"

No were not! Especially not when you look at the human brain!! You could have said that we share 99% of our DNA, that probably would have helped your case a little more!

"on the embryology we are similar"

At a certain stage of our development we resemble a reptile, does this mean David Ike was right?

 

"Lastly, if we evolved from an amoeba, where did the amoeba come from?"

Yea good question, which came first.. the chicken or the egg?

[chilli]

what you seem to be saying is that all of Dawkins work hinges on a refusal to believe in an eternal superhuman designer. isnt that dawkins whole point? LOL

That is close to what I'm saying, but it doesn't make me but rather , because begging the question is not logical!

i dont think a biologist's bias prevents the belief in anything eternal. sure its the physicists realm to deal with all that but it shouldnt get in the way. the biologist is better positioned to see how unecessary a DESIGNER is, eternal or not.

No, I don't think so either, I didn't mean to sound as if I was impugning biologists imaginations or faith!

What I meant was that maybe a simpler and more humble answer to the statistics that suggest there are fewer believers amongst biologists than the other sciences, and to Dawkins' incomprehension at how so many of his peers, including biologists, can believe in or allow for a God is not, as he repeatedly suggests, that scientists who say they believe in God are just being polite, or playing political games, or are senile, or stupid, or money grubbing, but instead that it is in fact as reasonable a belief about what lies beyond our comprehension and why there is something rather than nothing as any, and that the time and matter bound modes of thought necessary to become a good biologist may be a handicap to thinking about the topic, rather than a form of higher consciousness.

The Ultimate 747 argument is a good argument, although the idea is not new. As Bertrand Russell points out in Why I Am Not A Christian (surely an early influence on Dawkins?), even the youngest children ask the question "but if God made everything, then who made God"? I don't think this argument is as watertight as Dawkins or Russell seem to think, either, but that's another can of worms!

___________________________

There are some really interesting replies here, and I want to to reply to a few of the other posters points but I'll need to take a break, as I'm still recovering from a virus, and having even more difficulty concentrating than usual!

[blizznshot]

yeah just to nit pick they havent found any microscopic life itself on incoming meteorites yet but they have found meteorites rich in building blocks (which to be fair you clarify later in your post).

So true. The interesting thing about the panspermia theory, however, is that time "paradox" that I mention above. Assuming it went from primordia to cells in a billion years is hard to imagine, but say we were innoculated with primitive cells that already had, say, 4 billion years to form somewhere else. Of course, theory, and I don't even necessarily believe it. It's just interesting how it can fit together.

some of you may have heard of the miller-urey experiment where these dudes tried to replicate the sea and atmosphere of earth way back before life and then sparked it with electricity to simulate lighting. this experiment was hailed as a success as it produced amino acids which proteins are made out of.

the concentration of the parent compounds, however, was massive compared to what there would have been back in those days so it was later discredited. amino acids and other building blocks coming from meteorites is a much stronger theory.

Another problem with this experiment is that we now believe that the first macromolecular precursors to life were RNA's. During the time of the experiment in question, it was believed to be a protein-based primordia. Regardless, there is a decent sized field whose main concern is just what you mention: finding out the precise composition and concentrations of organic compounds that existed at the time, roughly 3.5 billion years ago.

Baphomet: your factual information regarding Crick and subsequent findings is simply incorrect. He DID have an inkling on how DNA can serve as a template for its own replication, but you're right in that he did not know how the "first strand" of DNA could come to be. Now, however, experiments similar to the SELEX one that I mention above are beginning to shed light on just how those first RNA (then DNA) strands originated at the molecular level.

Awesome thread you guys!

Edited July 23, 2008 by blizznshot

[Undergrounder]

Sorry man, I don't have time to go through it all properly but from what I can see there's nothing new there! I have read plenty of stuff about this before and listented to podcats such as 'Uninteligent Design' like hagakure no doubt has and I've watched countless documentaries on this such as 'A War On Science' etc and although you may dissagree one things for sure.. modern science is in a lot of shit!

It was only a matter of time though really, there is only so much that this brand of pure materialism can explain and it seems to have come to a dead end or at least a big fucking hurdle! Modern science can't explain consciousness and it never will IMO! Fact is they can't satisfactorily explain half the other shit they pretend to either!!

How is modern science a lot of shit?, you must have some seriously strong argument to back up that statement, since it's the one thing that you know for sure.

Why do you believe that modern science will never explain consciousness? If that's your opinion, how have you come to that conclusion? Are you a dualist?

I'm sorry man, but you've made a lot of statements and backed none of them up, hagakure answered your stuff about infinite complexity, so until you have time to go into why you think the way you do properly, i have to assume you're just going along with whatever other people tell you. I don't want to sound rude, but have you got any arguments of your own to back up what you're saying? At the very least, what is it about the Ken Miller article that makes you dismiss it?

[mark80]

good points!

Edited July 23, 2008 by mark80

[baphomet]

How is modern science a lot of shit?, you must have some seriously strong argument to back up that statement, since it's the one thing that you know for sure.

Simple missunderstanding mate, you misread my post. There is an "in" in there which kind of changes the context a little

"hagakure answered your stuff about infinite complexity"

No, he sent me a link that tried to explain away the flagella of bacteria! He did not answer the question of infinite complexity!! The fact is that to my knowledge, modern science simply has no satisfactory answer for irreducible complexity and natural selection/adaptation/mutation does not even come close to explaining evolution!!

"i have to assume you're just going along with whatever other people tell you"

You don't know me very well and it shows with that statement!

"what is it about the Ken Miller article that makes you dismiss it?"

I haven't dismissed it, I just CBF reading it due to a feeling of deja vu! Sorry if that sounds rude but I just can't focus my attention on it long enough at the moment but I will try to do so in the near future. If there is anything new buried in there then I don't like commenting on things like this without researching it thoroughly and that would take a while.

"Why do you believe that modern science will never explain consciousness? If that's your opinion, how have you come to that conclusion? have you got any arguments of your own to back up what you're saying? Are you a dualist? "

You are asking me some pretty deep questions there and I don't want to just give you a half assed answer but I don't have time to write a thesis now either, perhaps I can get to this later, hope you understand. (its 3:00am)

[2b]

Can someone please explain the difference between "irreducible complexity" and "intellegent design" ?

[MORG]

I'm sorry man, but you've made a lot of statements and backed none of them up

Here here!

To borrow from Baphomet's format and approach...

"He was never really all that convinced about his theory either, he always said that his theory could only be true if the fossil evidence supported it.. and it doesn't!!!"

If he wasn't convinced, why did he devote half his life to it? Why'd he write several books on it? You've got a skewed idea of the way people work.

As far as the fossil evidence not supporting it... well, you haven't explained that standpoint and why your opinion is more correct than current conventional wisdom built on hundreds of years of observations. If the fossil evidence contradicted evolution then we should find rabbit fossils mixed in with the trilobites! It takes ONE fossil to change our ideas about evolution, ONE horse bone in the Ordivician, ONE snake bone in the Triassic, ONE feather in the Pre-Cambrian, but no, the fossils show a sequence with respect to the strata of geological time and each observation made from EVERY fossil found supports evolution.

"Bullshit!! Francis Crick (one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953) simply could not see how the DNA molecule could have self-assembled just by chance and nothing has proved otherwise since then!"

The primary hurdle science has in people accepting evolution is that people aren't educated about it. Who said that the DNA molecule had to self-assemble by chance??? Show me one reference that doesn't come from creationist clap-trap. Of course it didn't. Evolution is a guided process, fed by chance and directed by the environment. You misunderstand the very basic mechanisms of evolution.

And if you expect one man to go from discovering the structure of the molecule (with alot of help I might add) to knowing everything about its creation you're expecting too much. And why quote Crick??? You don't believe scientists! Why do you use his words to back-up an argument that science has nothing to show for itself? Everyone knows he went a bit cuckoo after his big break. He's a recluse now.

"Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle said, the likelihood of a living cell arising through evolution was as likely as “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747"."

This is one of Dawkins' favourite trashing-dolls. See comments regarding a basic misunderstanding of evolution and the contribution of chance.

"There is not a single fossil which proves an intermediate species!"

Ok, ok. This argument against transitional forms and missing links is a good one for its stupidity. If we have a timeline, a continuum from fossil X to species Y we have a missing link, ok? Good.

X -------------------------------> Y

Now, if we find a fossil in between, something the newspapers would call "The Missing Link" then the timeline looks like this:

X----------Z--------------------> Y

Great work paleaontologists! But wait, the creationsist cry! What about the missing links! There are missing links between Z and Y! There are also missing links between X and Z!

Every time a new "link" is discovered it creates two more missing links by definition! Furthermore, the probability (given the chances of fossilization) of filling those gaps (that grow smaller with every discovery) becomes smaller.

Think about it.

"It seems that every fkn day some hot shot scientist claims to have found "the missing link" though but it always turns out to be bullshit! (ie: Lucy, etc)"

This is not an argument. You just don't like Australopithecines.

"It was only a matter of time though really, there is only so much that this brand of pure materialism can explain and it seems to have come to a dead end or at least a big fucking hurdle! Modern science can't explain consciousness and it never will IMO! Fact is they can't satisfactorily explain half the other shit they pretend to either!!"

A matter of time before what? Who says it has come to a dead end? Go see a university dude. Open your eyes. Read the news.

Modern science has alot to say about consciousness if you care to research anything. If you're after a glib or elegant sentence encompassing the complexity and spectrum of consciousness, its functions and causes then you're not going to find it in science. Look to New Age claptrap for said simplifications.

"They can't explain half the shit they pretend to?"

Your argument would be better serviced by a few explanations on your part.

Science today is more vibrant and thriving than ever it has been.

Edited July 24, 2008 by MORG

[Ace]

Well said MORG - looking forward to a response to those very well seated arguements! I gotta agree that Baph hasnt offered anything other than a lack of understanding of scientific theories, facts and evidence (but I am a little the same way with the creationist theories too so I wont be picking on anyone). I just wish I understood a whole lot more about both sides of the arguement.

I just have to pull one quote back up:

Even the youngest children ask the question "but if God made everything, then who made God"?

Cant say I've heard this one before (even as a kid). I rather like that quote and how it turns the usual creationists arguements on their heads. Thanks for posting it SC