Denial of evolution II

I doubt it. But, it's funny you should think O comes off as a woman. hehe

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*runs off to edit*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you. I was afraid to proceed any further with the project without your stamp of approval.

I always value your discouragement, you know that.

Well, they shall certainly be my own objections. I rarely offer the objections of others. You should take a stab at originality one day. It might suit you. Then again.......

Is everyone around here having comprehension problems? No, it's only the slow ones. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennet has written an much more scholarly and informative book on evolution than any of Dawkins works. Why would directing my grandchildren towards his work be considered foolish? Since neither of my two children have any doubts about the reality of evolution do you think I just got lucky? It couldn't have been a proper upbringing could it?

I'm afraid not. I'm talking about The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker. I won't even go near his hysterical attacks on religion.
I am not talking about his ideas, I am talking about the means of presenting them.
But really this is off topic. When I get a chance I'll put a critique together illustrating my viewpoint. It should be interesting for me. I formed these impressions some time ago, so I'd like to see if I still think the same way.

That wasn't my impression. I've only read the one work by him and I thought it logically presented. Now that doesn't mean I agree with him on all points. He had a major beef with Gould and I would be much more in the Gould camp, but his attack was well structured and solidly based.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I agree that Dawkins seems dogmatic. Although, then again, I have not really looked deeply into his works, so I wouldn't really be able to say. But he seems almost arrogant and stubborn.

Not that I don't agree with evolution; just, Dawkins seems arrogant and stubborn.

 

Had you read "The God Delusion," you would not claim his attacks were hysterical. He presents an argument, counters it, and in a logical, concise way at that. They are rational, certainly not hysterical. The only time I have heard people speak that way is when they have not read the literature. I think it is his terribly english, stiff upper-lipped way of speaking which makes people perceive him as arrogant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I look forward though, to your description and critique of his presentation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He recently presented his ideas on religion on a BBC programme. I stumbled across it while channel hopping unaware of the subject or the presenter. (I had little or no idea what Dawkins looked like.)

Within five minutes I was infuriated by the tenor of the presenters entire approach. Within ten minutes I was thinking, this chap is as bad on screen as Dawkins is in writing. Two minutes later, after checking the listings I discovered it was Dawkins.

The guy just rubs me the wrong way.

Let's get back on topic.

 

Aside from stating his ideas in the form of clear declarative sentences, which I regard as a courtesy, I can't really think of anything from Dennett that even appears as dogmatic.

In this entire area the criticism of attitude, ego, and so forth, seems to align pretty well with objections that can't find a better foundation. One thing about Dawkins, even (let alone Dennett, etc): the major feature of his arguments is not the egotism of his opponents - and when he objects to dogma, you can tell what dogmatic belief he is objecting to.

 

A refreshing and informative critique. Nice work. :thumbsup:

 

And that's supposed to be an acceptable comment from an intelligent, science-oriented, rational person in an intelligent discussion on evolution?

You surprise me, James, with your inconsistent postings on this forum site as compared to your ideals of both living and of site moderation.

Baron Max

 

Come on James. I thought he was much more tractable than normal. I'm even thinking of taking him of ignore.

 

Ahh, so MY low moral standards and dishonesty makes it okay and permissible for you to lower your own moral standards and be equally dishonest?
Two wrongs make a right?
Immoral people deserve to be treated with ridicule and immoral behavior?
Revenge is mine, sayeth James R.?
What's next, James, the threat of banishment?

Glad to see that you're living "up" to my views on humans and human behavior, James. And it's funny, ain't it, how most on this site continue to prove my point ....that humans suck. Practically every day, some self-righteous, highly moral member will resort to what I consider as normal human behavior ....being pricks!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, as to evolution, did y'all see the "Non Sequitur" comic strip by Wiley Miller in today's paper? It provided a perfectly plausible explanation for the beginnings as well as evolution on Earth. I don't know ...maybe on gocomics.com? I'm not very computer-literate, so....

Baron Max

 

typical religious response "everyone's out to get us! oh life is so hard cos we're so persecuted and thats how you know we're 100% genuine! cos we're so woeful the only reason to join is is that we possess divine truth!!"

 

But there ARE croco-ducks!

~String

 

And God put them there just to cause more confusion and argument and conflicts between humans!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

There's no such thing as God, Baron. And if there were, then she surely wouldn't do that.

~String

 

Actually saying we don't know if there is a god is far wiser.

 

Firstly,
Thank you. I've been altering my approach. Secondly, don't bother.
I've fought all the No-Win-Scenarios and even won a few.

Negative James I meant what I said.
The Post wasn't really for you. I knew there was a high probability that you and Ophiolite would respond. However, you've rarely addressed me directly before, I wonder why now.

In any case this is one of those situations where the Unstopable Force meets the Unmovable Oject. I've learned alot from these forums. I've learned where I was wrong and where I was right. I'ved tested myself in the fire of acrimonious bigorty on your forums and I am still here, a little leaner, alittle meaner and thankfully alittle bit more tolerant. Yet, perhaps more importantly just little bit more wiser than when I arrived.

I will always consider the facts, James and I do read some of your more factual and even tempered post but if I engage you here-now and in the mind set that you're in, then I can't say that I learned anything. So the only propper thing to say is...Thank you for your response and ...goodbye.

 

I don't see the problem.
They are still among us today.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-700-1162969103_thumb.jpg

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!