Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

Let's get this straight Troll. Are you intimating you believe in a God? Or just playing weasel? Theist or atheist or agnostic - which is it Troll?

Good one hypocrite. About ALL you do this thread is stalk me as a vexatious Troll.

My Report of your over the top #715 - AGAIN straight out accusing me of deceit - was ignored. Such are the standards here - not even any feedback. Solid proof there's a devil who looks after his own. No don't take that literally.

Weasel words meant to appeal to at least one higher up here methinks.

So, Weasel, you choose to spit the dummy and obfuscate. No Deep Insights as to 'True Christianity' commensurate with rpenner's I Thessalonians 5:9-11 quote. Instead, petty politics for a forum Troll to engage in. Ever so delicately 'balancing things'. Darwinian survival strategy in action. With a nice dash of complementary Marxist 'the end justifies the means' thrown in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ID is an entity not a god. a being.

Think about the Universe for moment as brain . We are in a brain , hence why we develop a brain .

The enity is trying to understand its self , therefore the entity puts its intellect into every form , from sub-quantum, to us to plants .

See thats what amazes me .

Plants can and do communicate through chemicals . How is that possible ? More importantly , where would that concept even come from ?

Any where that life can take hold , it does . No matter the cold , the acidity of water , heat etc.

Life is always evolving , life strives to exist .

Animals have intelligence they all do .

The entity, the essence of the entity, is in everything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-iron-h...1bGx5IHVwdm90ZWQgdGhpcyBhbnN3ZXIuIl0sIHt9XQ**

Is the iron, hemoglobin, in red blood cells alive?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rainer Visser
Written just now
No,iron is just an element. It's an abiotic factor. It is not alive,even if it is a part of hemoglobin or in a red blood cell.

The red blood cell itself isn't even considered alive.

Humpty Dumpty was wrong. But he is trying not to be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Humpty Dumpty was a siege cannon.
Alex

 

Glad you got that one Iron-d out Michael? He he he. See, even with all this other dead serious snarky hate stuff flying around, one should still maintain a sense of humour (correct AU English spelling important). But must we go over the RBC alive-or-not controversy issue again? That would put a pall over the jocularity. Trust in Wiki on that one.

 

Wasn't about to go over again.

Remember I reserved the option to pass on any relevant info.

This info was short and to the point, with the bonus of clarity.

 

Yeah - an eerie echo of someone else's input as I recall. Nothing like expert opinion though to clinch it.

 

He wasn't even a Rolling Stone?

 

An entity being with an impressive resume list of super powers eh what?

Think about the Universe for a moment as a punch bowl. We are in a punch bowl, hence why we develop a punch bowl.

No the entity is not and no its intellect does not go into every form.

World amazes me also.

Advantageous chemical reactions make it happen. Concept arrived after its occurrence, not before, and comes from study.

Observed as being correct.

First four words on track, last four derailed.

Can't ascribe a purpose to life.

Not all. Some do. Think human age 5 is the smartest but anyone with knowledge of a smarter one please advise.

The entity, the essence of the entity, is in the punch bowl.

Everyone come and drink

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Absolutely there is objective value when reports are filed for moderation staff to determine is someone is lying and if action needs to be taken. And it's not a one line gaffe, it's about a basic understanding of vertebrate biology. Posts that predate the report are absolutely fair game to look into the issue of fairness of the charges and cleanliness of the hands.

You may, at the risk of being labeled. For they are worthy arguments. And these are the main science forums where special rules apply.

I use the idiom of my audience to convey my message of the time: Calm the fuck down.

There is nothing natural about that interpretation. You have ignored the historical context, some of which is preserved on that page. As Shakespeare wrote in The Merchant of Venice (Act I, Scene 3), “The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” thus my citation of an appropriate quote doesn't mean I make any specific endorsement other than the text of that quote.

As per site policy, advocacy of anything called "ID" is highly disfavored until such time as it is formulated as a competitive scientific theory. A scientific theory is a communicable framework for describing precisely the observable behavior of a large class of related phenomena. Thus a scientific theory is a useful summary of the way reality actually behaves.

In the framework of the molecular basis for biology, common descent of populations with modification is practically a mathematical theorem. But the application of the theory of evolution is well documented.
Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. “Applied evolution.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114020
Eisen, J. A. and M. Wu. 2002. “Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action.” Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580902915947
Searls, D. 2003. “Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets.” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v2/n8/full/nrd1152.html

To be communicable, someone needs to be able to convey the useful particulars of the idea to others. Evolution is taught in schools and has many thousands of professionals engaged in writing about it without serious contradictions arising and is therefore communicable.
To be a framework for describing we need definitions of terms and how they related to each other and reality. Evolution originally concerned itself with heritable traits before the discovery of 1) the principle mechanism for heredity and 2) the nature of gene switching leading to biological development.
To give precise descriptions, we have to have tests for where predictions are on the mark and where they are not. Indeed, a whole host of biological innovations are incompatible with the theory of evolution, which is why we have no crocoducks but we do have platypuses.
To restrict ourselves to observable behavior, means we don't posit mechanisms for what we don't observe, just relations of behavior. Evolution didn't need DNA in 1859, just a reality that acted as if some traits were heritable.
To cover a large (related) class, means we aren't looking for a patchwork of unique cases, but something overarching and fundamentally common to these behaviors. Nothing we have in our experience is so large (in information) as the history of life on Earth.
And to restrict ourselves to the phenomena of reality means we aren't required to handle spurious imaginary cases. Evolution isn't required to explain where life on Earth came from or the nonscientific viewpoints of some of its advocates.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

ID's best advocates haven't advanced a competitive theory and many of its bad advocates can't even read the score card.

 

ID's best advocates haven't advanced a competitive theory and many of its bad advocates can't even read the score card.

Score card!!!! There's a score card?

Who is winning please?

Don't tell me it's Charlie Sheen!

Great comedian, not so hot person.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bloody stuff up!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

At best just a heap of river type philosophical rantings, at worst total gobbledygook and nonsense.
Now that we have that cleared up river, again, please answer my question:
"How can anyone support ID, and not support some deity/magical omnipotent, all powerful spaghetti monster?"
To help you understand, let me show you where I asked the same question earlier in this thread.........

It was admirably answered as follows......

So again river, please explain to me, how can you accept ID and not accept some divine deity was the cause, Christian or otherwise.

 

Now clearly you don't understand the science Paddoboy we can't speculate upon who this designer may be ...no no that would be unscientific... Also to answer your question would expose their nonsence as a dishonest attempt to have religion as taught as science.

You can search all day on ID sites and you will notice they have closed ranks on offering no description of the designer because they are too busy with the science of establishing a design.
I hate to say it but ID is religion dressed up in lies to sooth those who feel threatened by the continued erosion of their superstitious unsupportable made up beliefs.
Alex

 

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!

I think its safe now to observe that despite the intermittent ranting, raving and dummy spits, that ID is just an unscientific myth, similar to the mythical nonsense so often portrayed in the ghosts, goblins and UFO section.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Abiogenisis is a fact we, well most of us

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

recognise.

So Alex, what of the styles of Dawkins and Sagan?
I think we can also include that of other popular science presenters also, such as Neil De-Grasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and Karl Kruszelniki despite is horrible tastes in shirts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They are far too polite.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Speaking of "spitting the dummy"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Back shortly while I go get a cloth to wipe the coffee of my computer screen!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Disingenuous tripe. That in no way excuses what I fingered in #730. You were just being churlish - as evidenced by what you deliberately excised in that selective quote. And even if that redundant 2nd rehash were in fact the very first time a correction came up, it would have absolutely NOTHING to do with my last Report. Which as you very well know concerned iceaura's continued insinuations and in the last Report case, a direct charge I was an 'Abrahamic Monotheist'. Contrary to my prior clear position statements, and further ongoing references back to such. Even James R way back in #602 felt the need to correct that mendacious attitude. But not rpenner. Partisan much?

The reason for ignoring them, trash as they were, was the imo obviously overshadowing issue of your own presumed religious convictions and how that then could rationally gel with an aggressively ID disparaging stance. But let's look at your 'key points against ID' from #723:

Which presumes an IDer was somehow bound by a code that reads "Must make sure everything about every species is perfectly optimized according to what some humans down the track will judge on." I wouldn't presume any such thing. And really, since giraffes survive perfectly well, one is faced with the obvious fact their overall design is quite adequate to that task. Male Peacock feathers comes to mind as one of many examples of likely whimsical design/meddling that has no rational Darwinian explanation in terms of gradual selection over thousands of generations, or of intrinsic survival value once somehow completed (sexual selection competition not being a species survival matter). One article tries to make a case for the male feathers not being much of a disadvantage, but frankly admits at the end things are still 'puzzling': http://www.audubon.org/news/do-peacocks-pay-price-beauty
Drop-tail lizards are another one that comes to mind. The notion that amazing feature gradually developed over countless generations is laughable. But not to neo-Darwinists.

How facile. What the hell is the 'lesson' there in respect of the daunting issue of abiogenesis? Biology is inherently extremely complex. Which must have been reflected certainly in the latter stages of any postulated sequence leading to materialistic abiogenesis.

So the atheist there asserts. Would you like that link again to the high quality lecture by James Tour? Care to refute in detail his devastating critique? Didn't think so.

Straight out obfuscation and deflection. And not even particularly coherent. Refusing to give a straight - and relevant - answer. That last f-word bit indicates YOU are the one in a rage.

More obfuscation. Let me put this to you straight. To have quoted I Thessalonians 5:9-11 there and not to have meant it as a deeply religious statement of faith, signifies either mendacity or insanity. As you are well aware, I don't mince words as various sycophants here are wont to do. If that gets me permanently banned, probably a blessing in disguise.

So, are you suggesting that any support of ID in forum threads is in breach of forum guidelines? But if so one would have expected the foot to come down a long time ago and in many other threads if that were the case. I will though assume that 'highly disfavoured' merely reflects the atheist/materialist gatekeeper bias of the majority if not all the site hierarchy here. Given how much alternative views on all sorts of off-beat topics gets to be freely aired in various subforums.

 

Is this a joke? You really don't know anything about evolution, do you? Survival of the fittest basically means surviving until you can mate, when your genes get passed on. Sexual selection is a huge part of "Darwinian" evolution, and it's well known to biologists.