And if he isnt risen...

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I should heed the wise advice above (or on the previous page) but I will just briefly expand on one point already made by [MENTION=33301]Despotic Ocelot[/MENTION].

Is the JW book saying that Dawkins believes his theories are fiction and therefore be treated as fiction? Of course not! It clearly states "A current evolutionary position on life's starting point" is in Dawkins' book. "Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he [Dawkins] maintains that it must nevertheless have happened." From the JW book references, it is clear that Dawkins believes it. But despite Dawkins' belief, it is still a fantastic story, which Dawkins admits [at least tangentially] is "almost as though it were science fiction".

So how is that a misrepresentation or lie???

I will tell you how. Dawkins didn't admit any such thing. The full quote is:

At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen. So it was. It was exceedingly improbable. In the lifetime of a man, things that are that improbable can be treated for practical purposes as impossible. That is why you will never win a big prize on the football pools. But in our human estimates of what is probable and what is not, we are not used to dealing in hundreds of millions of years. If you filled in pools coupons every week for a hundred million years you would very likely win several jackpots.
Actually a molecule that makes copies of itself is not as difficult to imagine as it seems at first, and it only had to arise once.

Is it a big lie? Maybe not. It is a clear example of dishonest quote mining nonetheless. Will you deny this?

 

[Ojian]

What do all those statements conspire to imply? "Evolution is a science on it's last legs, being propped up by the very faithful."

How in the world did you get that meaning? So, the topic of the origin of life is described in very generic terms of at least two exceedingly improbable events, each an "accident". And from that you then get "Evolution is a science on it's last legs, being propped up by the very faithful."? Nothing of the sort was implied. Even misinterpreting Dawkins' quote in the worst way doesn't warrant your thought.

And in case you aren't getting it, since your reading comprehension appears to be quite lacking, in the next sentence ("But readers of the subject will find his approach is not unique.") the phrase "his approach" is referring to Dawkins description of the origin of the first cell, which was covered in the prior paragraph. This should be quite obvious considering the next sentence talks about the other books also cover the origin of life/cell with slim details. It is also obvious with the rest of that paragraph, which I didn't think I needed to quote, but you obviously need all the context possible. The paragragh continues: "...Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cabridge University told fellow scientists: "All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.""

"His approach" is not referring to Dawkins as saying anything like: 'You should take my book as fiction'.

And, as I read the paragraphs again, I'm struck that the Dawkins quote sentence is not even needed. It doesnt add too or change the meaning of the following sentences in that paragraph. It appears to be perhaps be just a rejoinder. Leave it out completely and start the paragraph with "But readers of the subject..." and the paragraph works just the same.

Do you see how you took a quote, divorced it suddenly and abruptly from the rest of itself... and then plopped it into the middle of all these suggestive sentences intended to apply a different meaning to what Dawkins said?

So then Mr. I'm-the-master-of-determining-all-intentions, what do YOU think is the meaning of Dawkins' phrase: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction."?

You seem to think that since the books theme and title is about the "gene centered view of evolution", that therefore a discussion about the origin of life, which is in the book, mind you,... and is supposedly the origin of the selfish gene,... would have nothing to do with any preface phrase "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction"? Riiiiigggghht!!!!

Watch, I'll do what you liars do right now, with your post, see how you like it...

Ya, you are so butt-hurt when someone disagrees with you, like most ultra-lefties (see, I can sling pointless ad hominems too) that you just have to tit-for-tat.

I'm not going to requote everything you said in RED, but instead just quote and underline the sentences where you are off. So take from it that everything else that I don't requote I'm just fine with. Though in general I must say in your rephrasing things, your sentenced structure almost causes it all to lose any sense.

"Though admitting such a thing is ridiculous, he maintains that it must nevertheless have something to do with people today." - No, I was not admitting that such a thing is ridiculous, so your reading is incorrect. I would accept "Though admitting such a thing on its surface sounds ridiculous...". My phrase did not admit any such final determination as 'ridiculous'. It merely was trying to acknowledge that the concept surrounding the question might be initially shocking and need to be validated with more explanation. Can you see the difference? By the way, I think Dawkins' quote was meant to be approached in the same way. And finally, your inserted phrase in no way compares to the style or same logical intent of what I recorded. So again, you are off here.

"Though admitting that such a thing was ridiculous, Ojian maintains that Jesus must nevertheless matter to people today." - This was in the 2nd large red paragraph, but was the same as above. You basically just said the same thing. So my response is the same - I made no admission that the "thing" was 'ridiculous', just that the question in the phrase engenders more investigation.

"But despite Ojian's belief, it is still a crazy thing, which Ojian admits "I often ask myself about this"" - Again, I did not make any determination that "it" is a crazy thing. If you think that my phrase of "fantastic story" when speaking of Dawkins' descriptions is comparable to "a crazy thing", you really do have a problem with reading comprehension. (Though I do suppose that you could mean "a crazy thing" in a tongue-in-cheek manner. That might work,.... except such a reading in no way fits the tone or context of that sentence or the surrounding ones. So no, that really wouldnt work). My saying "fantastic story" could also be translated as "an accounting with some amazing claims". Any claim to truth or non-truth of it is neutral.

"If Ojian had no intention at all that anything in his post could sound ridiculous, why on earth would he write that line?" - I actually do not have a problem with this question (well again maybe with the word "ridiculous", but I'll let it slide here). But I think you have a problem with comprehending the answer. The answer is: I did have the intention that the question would provoke someone to think 'How does that work?' I would even take someone responding as: "Bah, thats a crazy/ridiculous idea! But I wonder what he's getting at?" Now of course, the phrase/question was directed at myself, so it behooves me to answer it. But if I directed it toward anyone else, I would want the same reaction. Dawkins' quote is much the same. His first phrase in his preface is a bit shocking and should cause someone to want to investigate. 'What about his book could possibly be taken as fiction?' Read the book further to find out. That Dawkins' phrase itself makes no judgement as to whether Dawkins' final determination is 'yes' or 'no' as to fiction; the phrase merely presents the option.

One thing I'm noticing is that you tend to read way too far into things, and you are coming away with the wrong intent. For instance, my phrase "I've often caught myself asking "How can a guy's death that occurred some 2000 years ago have anything to do with people today?"" makes no claim to truth. It merely is asking a question that deserves to be answered. I am not saying it is ridiculous or not ridiculous in any sense in just that phrase. Of course, someone could look at that question and initially think, "That's ridiculous!" And that is perfectly fine. But the impetus should be to further explore the question to see whether it is actually ridiculous or not.

Okaaaaaaaay... Ojian, do you approve or disapprove?

Other than the corrections I laid out above, it's just fine.

Now... all I did was take the post you made, and switch out the quote with your quote, and put your name in. Otherwise that is ENTIRELY your post... what you said to me, to explain your lying as 'not really lying'.
Was I being an honest person in how I treated your quote? Or was I being a disingenuous,

Minor issue, but it was not "ENTIRELY" my post. I said nothing about anything being "ridiculous". So you tried smuggling in a concept or intention that I never made. I still maintain I didnt lie, and you haven't shown that I did.
I wouldn't say your were dishonest about my quote, but I would say you were not accurate. Difference between intention and result. I don't think you were being disingenuous either, just mistaken.

That is not the belief of science now. Now, we understand that it is not exceedingly improbable and that there is almost certainly a plethora of life all around the universe

Bulls***! The subject is the origin of life, and science doesn't have jack to say about it in regards to real evidence of a materialistic process. The RNA world was (and still is in some circles) a popular idea, but it is so lacking in details, and recognized as improbable, that it has been going nowhere. Plethora of life all around the universe?!? Besides Earth, where? Don't confuse all the speculation on found habitable planets with real evidence.
And don't forget.....

and that if you have a universe at all... you are GOING to have life.

..we have the wonderful Multiverse theory that disagrees. Which makes your statement more BS and is only popular because science cannot explain life in our universe via material processes

You might have heard Neil Tyson's...

NdGT has a cool voice, and he explains things pretty well. I even have one of his books and enjoyed it. But as a public figure I find him to be an a$$ and without much integrity. If you really want to complain about someone misquoting things, and making quotes up, he should be your champion. But then again you are an ultra-lefty, so that kind of stuff doesn't really bother you as long as it is for your side.

But you see... and I explained this to you in the previous post... you people sit on the sidelines while science is being done, like a pack of termites, just waiting to see what the next thing is that science is currently trying to solve,...'God of the gaps'....

..blah, blah, blah. Same rehash. I dont think I have yet made any God arguments with regards to science. Besides, as I explained to you in a previous post, other than Galileo (which wasnt a GotG argument) and evolution, you haven't supported this contention of religion getting in the way. If you think 2 scientific topics in the last 300+ years is sufficient, well then, Aren't you special.

And where have I been trying to "oppress" you with religion? Where have I advocated to stop science?
Getting a little flustered there snowflake, because your arguments have no substance?

 

[Mole]

Science requires critical thinking, while religion is entrancing.

And religion doesn't contradict science, nor does science contradict religion, but they are both mutually inhibitory.

This is frustrating when they try to engage in a dialogue, as one inhibits the other back and forth, back and forth.

And the frustration leads to anger.

And I might say, the dialogue between science and religion is similar to the dialogue between religion or sects of religion - they are both mutually inhibitory, so we initiate a vicious cycle of mutual inhibition.

There seems to be no way out of this except to acknowledge that both critical thinking and trance are valid in their own right, but they are completely different.

On the other hand, authoritarian societies order themselves by negative feedback loops, and mutual inhibition is a prime negative feedback loop, so mutual inhibition is a necessary part of an authoritarian society.

So we may have to wait for an empathic and creative society to emerge before we resolve this puzzle.

 

[Ojian]

Yea, let's be reeeeaaaal specific here because, as we established in the previous post... you guys are real slippery (which explains all the slime that encases you) So I have to be really, really, really specific because you guys intentionally put all this 'plausible deniability' shit in your garbage.

"Blah blah blah conspiracy blah hidden agenda blah" You really need to take off your tin-foil hat and let your scalp breath. It might help with your thinking.

An evolutionist is what you put there in the quote. HOWEVER in your religion's book it is being USED as an evolutionary scientist.

Blatant presumption. The book only calls him an evolutionist and an author. That's it. The identifying part of the quote, again: "Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe."

So HOW is that being USED as an evolutionary scientist? If there was any question as to what "evolutionist" meant to a neutral reader, all they would have to do is look up the word in a dictionary. And it simply means: "a person who believe in or supports a theory of evolution". There is no need to presume that the book means evolutionary scientist, unless they were YOU of course.

Because you subscribe to an Appeal to Authority, you think that anyone making a comment like Hitchings does, would have to be a scientist to lend the comment any merit. Otherwise the comment is worthless, because only a scientist can have a valid opinion on a matter relating to science. And since you think that way, then any book quoting a person that is commenting on the topic of evolution must also think that person is an evolutionary scientist. Since that is how you would do it, the book must be doing it that way too, despite not actually saying that.

Projection all the way down.

But the book was treating him like an evolutionary scientist

No, it's not. It is treating him exactly as to what they call him. The book is not appealing to any authority, it is not insinuating in any sense that only a "scientists" viewpoint can matter here.
Just in that one chapter, there are over 30 references, of which Hitching is a few of. Other references are to Darwin, Discover magazine, Niles Eldredge, London Times writer Christopher Booker, New Scientist magazine, Robert Jastrow, New York Times, author and editor of Harper's magazine Tom Bethell. Some of them are scientists, some are not, but for the most part that is irrelevant.

So just because YOU think that only a scientists viewpoint could matter in making such a comment, doesn't mean the book thinks that only a scientists viewpoint would matter.

Do you think that they meant to put it forward as "I simply mean it as some guy who believes in evolution"? Really???

I think they meant to put it forward that Hitching is an evolutionist and author, period. Just as the book says. There is no need to read into it more, despite your world-view needing to project to everyone else.

So it's fair to say they should have also said "So Bob from down the street, an evolutionist, says so and so... and that's why the theory is in danger of collapse. Adam, some guy I met once, and 'noted evolutionist', says so and so... and that's why the theory is in danger of collapse"

See, your bias presumption is clearly seen here. 'Some plain old guy who believes in evolution could never say the theory is in danger, because he is just some plain old guy. Only a scientist could reasonably say that. So if they are quoting this guy, they must mean he is a scientist. But *tee-hee*, the jokes on them, cause the guy is not really a scientist....so now his comment is worthless'

ANSWER THIS... do you think that's how they were using evolutionist throughout that book???? Because that's the definition which you are presenting to me right now. OR, were they using evolutionist as synonymous with evolutionary scientist??? DON'T LIE. You talk soooo much about you're the 'correct' Christianity, and you're such an upstanding person... don't lie. Answer that truthfully.

And there folks you see an example of a false dichotomy.
Answers: No, and No. I'm not lying.
Have I really talked 'soooo much' about the correct Christianity? Hmm, I havent said anything about that yet.
And there folks you have another example of strawmanning, projection, and presumption.

It doesn't attribute the quote to anyone... but it IS from J. Francis Hitching. And he DID get it from the Institute for Creation Research... meaning, while he was put forward as an 'evolutionist', he is being treated as an evolutionary scientist.

It's time for more lessons on definitions, by Ojian. Sheesh, you beginning to make me feel like a Scientologist.
In writing, a quote is a repeat or copy verbatim of a text or speech where the words are from another. Now if Bob says: "I saw the black cat, named Tinkles, go up the mossy side of a young fir tree and sat itself upon a branch about 15 feet up." If I then come by and in writing about that event say: "It was reported that a cat went up a pine tree", I am NOT QUOTING BOB!!! I might be paraphrasing, I might be relating a story, I might be borrowing a concept - all eminating from Bob's story. But that is NOT A QUOTE. I did not rewrite his precise words, did not use "" marks, nor attributed the comment to Bob. Usually all three of those actions are required for it to be a quote in writing.

Now I did concede that the JW book likely got the idea from Hitching's book. They paraphrased, summarized, related the concept - probably all via Hitching's book. But it was not a quote. Capisce?
Now I will speculate a little. I cannot be sure because I do not have a copy of Hitching's book, nor the supposed original source - Institute for Creation Research. But I bet the authors of the JW book, liking the idea they saw (originally?) in Hitching's book, probably saw that Hitching's was quoting from someone else but they could not verify the quote. So they just summarized the idea and printed that.

BUT THE QUOTE IS FROM A CREATIONISM GROUP

So. What. So just because it comes from a 'creationism group', the idea is not valid?
I think your Appeal to Authority bias is showing again.

Two, we have here an example of what I was just talking about in the previous quote, where I said you call him an 'evolutionist', but you TREAT him like an evolutionary scientist...

Nobody is treating him like an evolutionary scientist other than you.

So lets look at your thought process in the next series of statements you made.

The paragraph is from his book,

Yes. It's not a QUOTE, but yes the idea was probably taken from Hitching's book.

it's not attributed to him,

Yes,...

but that's where it's from...

Yes,...

and HE got it from the Institute for Creation Research...

probably, very likely, Yes. You're doing sooo gooood!

thus meaning that, in this circular circle of LYING, you are treating J. Francis Hitching like an evolutionary scientist

AND......the wheels fall off again. *sigh* I had so much hope for you.
1+1+1+1 ≠ SQUIRREL!
How you get from the first four statements to the conclusion 'He's an evolutionary scientist" I will never know.

but the quote is from a creationist group and NOT a scientist.

And then you undermine your own conclusion with a statement that contradicts it.
So let me get this straight. Book1 gets idea from book2 by guy, but not quoted or attributed to guy, but idea is still from guy, but guy actually got idea from creationism-guys = therefore book1 is secretly inferring guy is scientist, though idea really comes from creationism-guys who are not scientist.

So you denounce the way he was put forward as an evolutionary scientist, even though he is NOT a scientist, since that would clearly be done as an 'appeal to authority'?

No denouncing at all, because there is nothing to denounce. I deny that the way he was put forward was as an evolutionary scientist. Yes, as YOU have repeatedly said, he is NOT a scientist. What you fail to see is that YOU are the one committing an Appeal to Authority. You seem to think that a bona-fide scientist is the only voice that can have an opinion. And if, as you keep pointing out, Hitching is not a bona-fide scientist, than his opinions and any quotes from him have no value. You are Appealing to the Authority of science as the only valid voice, and anyone that doesn't fit into your particular interpretation of science is not allowed to have an opinion.

I, nor the JW book, has any sort of litmus test as to whose opinion matters. We're willing to look at the evidence itself, regardless of who is speaking, to determine the validity of that particular opinion.

Oh, ok... so you believe species have been changing, leading to completely different animals over 500 million years?

Your question is incomplete. In could provisionally answer "Yes" to this question and hold that it was God that was behind the changes in animals over time though special creation. I could also provisially answer "Yes" to this question and hold that it was purely Neo-Darwinian processes that led to changes. Though those two processes are mutually exclusive, I could answer answer yes to the question regardless of method as long as I felt that species change over time.

But the fact that you ask this question shows you have not been paying attention. I have noted quite a few times, before you got us off on this book witchunt tangent, that I agree that species can change through processes like M+NS (and others), but that the extent of such changes is limited. In general this is referred to as microevolution and is compatible with a limited view of common descent. So for instance, I think dogs probably 'evolved' from a common wolf ancestor, and "Darwin's" Galapagos island finches probably sprung from a common finch species from the South American continent. Evolutionary processes are quite capable of making limited biological or morphological changes within a population. But I do question the sufficiency of such mechanisms to explain major morphological innovations in the history of life. The major stuff requires infusions of new complex and specified information, which M+NS is not capable of producing. Such information requires an intelligent cause behind it.

So yes, I do believe that "once a dog, always a dog". But I do not believe that 'once a wolf, always a wolf'. (As in a wolf is a dog, but a dog is not necessarily a wolf.)

 

[Mole]

Religious Trance, Certain Belief, and Reality

There is no point in arguing with believers because they are in a trance.

We can of course analyse their trance.

Any repetition will induce a trance, such as ritual. So first we enter a level 1 trance, where we become more relaxed and we become more suggestible. Then while in our level 1 trance we enter another trance within the level 1 trance, taking us to level 2 trance. And we are going deeper, more relaxed and more suggestible.

We keep in going, and in level 2 trance, we add another layer of trance, taking us to level 3 trance, where we are very deep, and quite suggestible.

Then while we are in level 3 trance we enter another trance, taking us to level 4 trance. At level 4 trance we lose contact with outside reality, and whatever is suggested to us becomes our reality.

In level 4 trance religious thoughts, images, and theology are experienced as reality. So at level 4 trance the religious are certain of their religious belief.

I think after the Western Enlightenment in the 18th century, we are inclined to underestimate the power of level 4 religious trance. And we make the big mistake of arguing with believers, as though rational argument can touch the reality of level 4 trance.

 

[Ojian]

But ok... all these people are making this up, you didn't lie, and I haven't shown you did.

Yep, you didnt.

J. Francis Hitching is not an evolutionist... not evolutionist as 'someone who believes in evolution', but 'evolutionary scientist', which is how you were using it.

No, you didnt show that is how I was using it. You just asserted that, assumed it was true, and off to the races you went. Show 'how I was using it' that way.

So that when confronted later, you could claim plausible deniability and say "I never said evolutionary scientist! I just said evolutionist, which is some guy who believes in evolution, not a scientist whose job is evolution! See, that's what the definition of evolutionist is, do you deny that?"

Umm ya, i do deny that. So does the dictionary. Since when does evolutionist have to mean "a scientist whose job is evolution"? LOL, look at that use of language. Evolution is now someones job

But ok... you didn't lie about that, and... wait a second. The entire J. Francis Hitching thing is conspicuously absent from your post. I only talked about two things thus far... Richard Dawkins and J. Francis Hitching. The J. Francis Hitching post was twice as long as the Richard Dawkins post.

And you said nothing about my question "great, so that means you do not believe once a dog, always a dog?", in reply to you saying "I believe in the same kind of evolution as J. Francis Hitching"

Patience kitty, patience. You submitted your thoughts in separate posts. Am I not allowed to respond likewise? It should be up there now.

This would be the "I'm just gonna pretend that never happened" that I knew would happen, and (looks at clock) it happened more or less at the time I was expecting it to.

'Wahhhh! Ojian couldnt come out to play when I wanted him to. So he's no longer my friend!"

Look at how excited he is to say that!!! lolololol. These people just EXULT in whatever it is science does not currently know. They're just cheerleaders on the sidelines with pom poms screaming "yaaaaay lack of knowledge!!! let's hear it for lack of knowledge, that's what we want!!!"

Ya, lets totally gloss over the fact that you don't have have jack for data to support your theory, though you can still feel you can assume it is true and berate anyone that doesn't come on board. You complain that my side supposedly cheers that you have a lack of knowledge, yet you will not admit that you have a lack of knowledge. LOL. Pot, meet kettle.

Because as I've explained, so long as there is something science doesn't know... they will continue to have a gap in which to place their god. The greatest god of all, greater than even the Flying Spaghetti Monster... the GOD OF THE GAPS.

And for as long as materialists do not have any good data or cannot explain how their theory works, it didnt matter, because the theory was true by fiat anyways. That is EVOLUTION OF THE GAPS.

The previous 2 million god of the gaps junctures in the previous 2 million things 'science currently doesn't know', over the course of the last 400 years... all, conspicuously, no longer seem to apply.

And 2 things magically become 2 million to the materialist. Because that is how math works with them, dont ya know. Ask for more than 2 examples in 374 years and they crumble, because 3 means 3 million and they dont have that many fingers.

Now we're on abiogenesis, and boy... isn't Ojian just EXCITED that we don't have the complete answer yet.

Abiogenesis has always been on the table, and you don't have any answer yet, let alone a complete one. Im not excited that you dont have an answer, I just can accept the truth of it.

You see... these people have the memory of goldfish. So they're unaware that the previous 2 million times, their gap disappeared. As they do this now, they literally think this is the first time it's ever been done. They are unable to learn from prior events because they have no recollection of prior events. Memory of a goldfish.

Typical of materialists, including not knowing how to count, they want to hold so tightly to their theory that they cannot stand any new data that opposes their cherished presumptions. Kinda like how the goldfish memory thing is a myth.

So Neil Tyson had a tv series called Cosmos. And the last part of the first episode was talking about exactly this topic. Abiogenesis. And Neil Tyson was showing how life was brought here by asteroids which carried these RNA, and how asteroids carrying them bring them to planets all across the universe. He then went on to say the word evolution for the only time in the entire series.

BWAHAHAHAHA! So the abiogenesis theories on the earth are so lacking in any support, you now have to appeal to panspermia. Talk about moving the goal posts. Let's push them way out into space. LOLOLOL!!!! Oh, but Neil deGrasse Tyson said so, so it must be true. After all, he's a scientist, and scientists are always true and honest and upright..... What? Huh? Oh, he said that there is a high chance the universe is a computer simulation? Ummm, shhhh! Be quiet! *kicks under the rug* OK, back to the wonderful Neil deGrahhhhs..... What? Shut up! He is not a serial quote fabricator! I'm going home.

 

[Ojian]

[MENTION=33301]Despotic Ocelot[/MENTION]

You have a big problem with keeping your eye on the ball and keeping statements in context. That is usually a good sign that someone has an axe to grind and doesn't care about what is actually being said and instead just wants to push their opinion.

The comment you just quoted of mine was part of a quote-chain (which YOU started) dealing with a comment about Dawkins. The reference was to Dawkins subject of the origin of the life in the first cell, to which the thought was such an act would be "exceedingly improbable". You then said: "That is not the belief of science now. Now, we understand that it is not exceedingly improbable and that there is almost certainly a plethora of life all around the universe..."

I then called you on your bulls***. My charge was against your knowledge of what science says, not what science actually says. You were making claims that science knew something, when it didn't. My point was not that science is lacking in knowledge, and therefore God did it (as I made no such assertion). My point was that YOU didn't know what you were talking about. In other words, what you put forward as what the belief of science was on the matter, is not what the belief in science is on the matter. YOU were wrong, not science.

And so then you, after completely missing the point, go off on how I must be happy that science doesn't know something (utterly failing to defend your earlier comment, so I guess you conceded my point). And that led to the projection of religion making the God of the Gaps argument, which I have not made up to this point. So since you are employing the 'Gaps" argument, I decided to point out that it works both ways. If science doesn't have any actual evidence for their undirected origin of life scenario, why do so many people people like yourself assume it actually occurred. Because according to your own religion,,,err I mean philosophy (and not science), it had to happen. Evolution of the Gaps!

It is just such a philosophy of materialism that demands undirected abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism be true, regardless of the evidence. As Richard Lewontin famously put it:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

So now again you are projecting your own failings upon religion in general. Hand waving and yelling "God of the Gaps! God of the Gaps!" You make these claims that for the last 400 years science has made all this progress, but that religion has opposed it the whole way. But besides your one example of Galileo, which by the way is not a God of the Gaps issue, you have not presented any evidence that stands up to your charge. And you seem to forget that within those 400 years or so, many of the greatest scientists were deeply religious, and their religion was a great impetus for their science. Starting with Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, and Issac Newton down to today, there are many scientists that hold to varying degrees of religious beliefs. The views of religion and science are not as dichotomous as you present. Your charge that religion is against empiricism and reason also does not stand.

You also have a very narrow view of epistemology. Science is not the only arbiter of truth. There are a number of topics on which science has nothing to say, as well there are many topics that religion has no voice in. But a lack of knowledge or voice of a topic by one group, and where the other group does claim a voice, does not amount to a 'Gaps' argument. You seem unable to distinquish where one or the other has a basis for making a claim. The claims of one group may have implications for the other group, but such implications neither grant or take away standing.

I would DENOUNCE (since you are so fond of that word) your post, but I think you do a fine job of tearing your own argument down.

I love your ending! You quote Richard Dawkins...

Richard Dawkins once said this, which sums this up entirely... "Religious people exult in what we don't know, and want it to stay unknown. Scientists exult in what we don't know for a different reason... it gives us something to do"

So your argument is summed up by Richard Dawkins quote? Really???? YOUR argument, that says:

Religion, on the other hand... despises admitting that they don't know. Their entire basis is that they know, fully and completely.

So, religion hates admitting that they do not know 'something', and feels that they do know fully and completely the 'something'. Yet summing up the argument, religion loves not knowing, and wants it to stay unknown. Yup, nice logic there DE.

Then there is this diddy:

The fact that throughout all this, you seriously have not grasped that I've been 'admitting I don't know' to some things, shows how much it is looked down upon to you. It explains why you adamantly continue to try to find ways to defend misquotes and misrepresentations and attributing job titles and credentials to someone which they don't have.

Is that really english? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
So...., I have failed to grasp that you have admitted that you do not know some things. And my defending against charges you have been hoisting against 'me' is what is preventing me from grasping that you don't know some things? So are you saying that you don't know what you are talking about when you made those charges?.... Then why didn't you say so at the beginning. We both could have saved some time and digital parchment.

And for the record, I defended against the charges of "misquotes and misrepresentations and attributing job titles and credentials to someone which they don't have" because those charges were not true. You presented your biased assumptions, and I swatted it down with evidence. Yet you still continue to make the same charges. Just because you repeat something over and over, doesnt make it true.

Seriously though, those last couple paragraphs of yours are a rambling, incoherent mess. Maybe you should submit them to Dawkins' Weasel program. They are sure to come out making some sense.

 

[Ojian]

I will tell you how. Dawkins didn't admit any such thing. The full quote is:

.....

Is it a big lie? Maybe not. It is a clear example of dishonest quote mining nonetheless. Will you deny this?

This is actually a good one. And to an extent, I will concede your point.

I am not conceding your implied intention, that it is meant to be "dishonest". Despite Despotic Ocelots clear bias against anything religious, even granting that this example is not an accurate quote (thus technically a quote mine), it does not show in any way an act of intended dishonesty.

As an example of quote mining, though again I am conceding that, it is a pretty weak example. The JW book line that is in question is: "Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened." Now this line in the JW book is not a direct quote from Dawkins, but it is a summary statement of what indicate Dawkins was saying in his book The Selfish Gene. And I think we can agree that the second half of the statement (he [Dawkins] maintains that it must nevertheless have happened) is not disputed.

So it all comes down to the statement: "Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable" in reference to Dawkins' book. Now Dawkins book does actually make statements that are virtually the same. You can see it in what you quoted from Dawkins, but I will highlight them below -

This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen. So it was. It was exceedingly improbable.

So Dawkins is at least making a statement that the 'Replicator' molecule is unlikely to come about. Him saying "So it was" should put an exclamation on that concept. Dawkins clearly is erecting an idea of high improbability, but not impossibility. But then he starts to walk it back as to what he thinks actually happened. His story about the football pools is his way to chop down the improbability to a manageable level by increasing the resources available. So in the end, Dawkins is pointing out that something that is normally/singularly improbable is not really so improbable with lots of resources. In the end, his point is that the event is not really so improbable. It is a valid and good rhetorical tactic he used to describe it.

So back to the JW book quote. So is Dawkins "admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable"? If you take the round about way he uses to fully describe it, no, probably not. Would this then be an example of quote taken out of context (and thus a quote mine)? Yes, probably. But as I said, it is a pretty weak example. Because whether or not Dawkins really is insinuating the event was improbable, the end (agreed upon) viewpoint from Dawkins is that it happened.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

This is actually a good one. And to an extent, I will concede your point.

I am not conceding your implied intention, that it is meant to be "dishonest". Despite Despotic Ocelots clear bias against anything religious, even granting that this example is not an accurate quote (thus technically a quote mine), it does not show in any way an act of intended dishonesty.

For a moment, I had some hope for you, but it all went downhill pretty quickly.

"Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened." insinuates to the reader that Dawkins argues for something he himself finds unbelievable; therefore, he is not someone whose arguments should be taken seriously. So it's easy to take the next "logical" step:

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction";

And the reader is left with the impression, that Dawkins' argument is nothing more than a baseless fantasy. Except, that his real argument was never presented. A dishonest sleight of hand.

But I didn't have to explain it to you, did I?

 

[Ojian]

"Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened." insinuates to the reader that Dawkins argues for something he himself finds unbelievable; therefore, he is not someone whose arguments should be taken seriously.

I disagree. You of course, like anyone, has a right to your own subjective opinion on how to interpret a phrase. But I do not think the common interpretation is how you are characterizing it.

"exceedingly improbable" does not equal "unbelievable". synonym for improbable = 'statistically unlikely'. synonym for exceedingly = 'to a great extent". synonym for unbelievable = 'not able to believe'.

So an event that is 'to a great extent is statistically unlikely' does not have the same meaning as an event that 'I'm not able to believe'

That should be quite clear when it is followed by the phrase "he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened.

Put it all together. Which one makes more sense?

1) He stated that the event is to a great extent statistically unlikely to have happened, yet he maintains that it did happen.

2) He stated that the event is not able to be believed to have happened, yet he maintains that it did happen.

If you want, you can maintain it is #2. But that sounds like "he" is contradicting himself. I would choose #1, because it is logically consistent.

Like DE, I think you are reading into it too much.

And the reader is left with the impression, that Dawkins' argument is nothing more than a baseless fantasy.

Again, I disagree. ""This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction" does not mean the same thing as 'This book should be read as a baseless fantasy'.

You seem to be glossing over the word "almost" in the quote. Without that word, it might support your contention, but with that word in his quote, it doesnt. 'Read book almost as' does not equal 'Read book as'. C'mon, this is normal english.

And I would ask you then, what did Dawkins mean by that statement? It is his quote, it is the first sentence in his preface. If he had no intention at all that the ideas in his book could never, in no way, appear to be like fiction..... then what the hell did he mean?

Except, that his real argument was never presented. A dishonest sleight of hand.

Hardly. I would say that you are the one that is trying to perform a slight of hand by cherry picking one phrase and trying to apply it solely to another one. Go check the references again. There was more than just the "Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened." sentence that led to looking at the Dawkins quote.

But I didn't have to explain it to you, did I?

Yes, you did. And I'm glad you did. Because I do not think your interpretation would be the common interpretation others would have. So I appreciate your perspective.

 

[Ojian]

All I'm trying to do is get you to denounce a blatant misquote, and saying "J. Francis Hitching is an evolutionary scientist" when he is not.

But what you fail to see is that it is not a "blatant misquote". The only person that has labeled Hitching is an "evolutionary scientist" is you. You keep insinuating that, yet you have no evidence beyond your insinuation. What is the evidence? The book did not use the words "evolutionary scientist", I did not call him an "evolutionary scientist", only you have. The book called him an "evolutionist", and if you still have a question as to what that means, go look it up in a dictionary. But I will tell you this, you will not find "evolutionary scientist" as the definition.

So this whole obsession with "evolutionary scientist" is your own making. The insinuation that the meaning "evolutionary scientist" is implied is of your own making. I dont have to cater to your ego just because you want it. I'll stick with what is actually true as the evidence bears out. There is nothing to denounce. It has nothing to do with religion. So sorry, you will have to get over it.

Because there's nothing religious about this topic... this is just about plain and simple lying.

Sheesh, your such a hypocrite. Either that or you cannot remember what you said yesterday. Go back and read your last 5 or 6 postings. Who is the one bringing up religion constantly and trying to bash it? It wasn't I. It was YOU dude!

Nobody agrees that when you misquote Richard Dawkins to make him look like he's saying something he isn't, in service of your agenda (but you're against appeal to authority, suuure) that that's acceptable.

LOL, you are too much. You were the one using the Appeal to Authority (but I didnt say you were doing it in regards to the Dawkins quote).
Do you even understand what the Appeal to Authority is? IT is a logical fallacy. To put it in terms that you may understand, it means that when you use that tactic when making an argument, it means your argument is crap.

Nobody agrees when you say "J. Francis Hitching is an evolutionary scientist", when he is not, that that's acceptable.

No, it's just you dude. just you.

Your religion's book calls him an 'evolutionist', quoting him many times to show 'proof' of why this or that part of evolution is incorrect and more like 'faith' than science. They did this so that when you're confronted on it later, you can claim plausible deniability. "What? I just called him an evolutionist, that's what he is!! See? An evolutionist is merely someone who believes in evolution, are you going to deny that?"

So they can get away with calling him an evolutionist, but treating him like an evolutionary scientist. Because when anyone reads that, they see evolutionist, they will assume it is a scientist of evolution.

And I invite any new readers that question what the word "evolutionist" means to go look it up in a dictionary. I maintain it means just how it is always defined. Despotic Ocelot though seems to feel he is the arbiter of definitions, and that what he says goes, despite all the evidence.

If you really did mean to treat him as merely an 'evolutionist', then why didn't you quote Bob from down the street? And Adam, some guy I met once? They're evolutionists. So you're gonna quote them too, right? What's that? Ohhh, right... you never replied to this, but instead, simply said "hurr durr I don't know what you're talking about! I don't know what you mean! Are you saying J. Francis Hitching is not an evolutionist?"

If any new readers can make sense of this rambling piece of obfuscation, then you are a much better person than I. And so that your not confused even more, despite his last question, I am saying Hitching is an evolutionist.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Everyone in this thread is so brilliant. I've been reading it for fun. I just wanted to congratulate you all on your amazing skills. Carry on!