|
|
|
|
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 1:11:37 PM |
Hey, did you know that since 1963 in the state of Illinois alone, 381 homicide convictions were overturned due to it being found out the murderer was actually innocent? Thats a lot of painstaking experts who interpreted the data wrong. Forensic sciences doesn't seem to be an exacting science
^^^^ Hey..... did you know that DNA forensic science hadn't come into practice until 1986 ?
Oh, and here's another interesting fact : Did you know DNA was coincidentally the first forensic used in a case to exonerate an innocent suspect in 1986 too ?
And yet another coincidence : False convictions have dropped 200+% since 1986.
Dear god, It's a miracle !!
Hmmm.... now where does the knowledge of DNA come from.... hmmm
Oh wait, I know !! Intelligent Design !! Yeah, that's it !!
Keep grasping at the straws, e.kyro.... keep grasping. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 1:56:37 PM |
Posted by AncientMuse
And yet another coincidence : False convictions have dropped 200+% since 1986.
Wow, that's a lot of wrongful convictions prior to 1986. Gives one an idea of how many wrong conclusions must have been reached in a hundred years of Evolution research. Have you heard of a slew of evolutionary conclusions being overturned since 1986?
Hmmm.... now where does the knowledge of DNA come from.... hmmm
Oh wait, I know !! Intelligent Design !! Yeah, that's it !!
Yeah, I didn't think it had come from random mutations. Trying to picture a thousand monkeys banging away at typewriters in an attempt to explain the knowledge of DNA. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 1:59:33 PM | E.Kyro wrote:
and here I thought it was about the dog that ate the cake.
Dog or child, it's the same scenario. All the evidence we have point to either having eaten the cake, yet because you didn't witness it you want to introduce another (unnecessary, might I point out), variable which complicates the issue even more.
Where are the cake crumbs on the kid's face and hands/dog's fur from, if he didn't eat it? Maybe he slipped and fell on it? Who knows?
Looking at the whole context I don't understand how anyone cannot see that Dawkins was simply entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer as a possibility, but a very remote one at that, since that same designer can't appear out of the blue; he would have to have been designed by some other intelligent designer at some stage earlier on, who as well would have been designed---
Er, how hard is it to understand where that logic leads?!
People, where is that well of patience you're drawing from? I'm bursting from frustration here! | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 2:17:37 PM |
Wow, that's a lot of wrongful convictions prior to 1986. Gives one an idea of how many wrong conclusions must have been reached in a hundred years of Evolution research.
No kidding ! Now just imagine how many wrongful stonings/burnings/crucifixions happened prior to science ever coming along ! Wowzers... that's a lot of dead desert dwellers.
*yawns loudly*
 | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 4:16:18 PM |
Wow, that's a lot of wrongful convictions prior to 1986. Gives one an idea of how many wrong conclusions must have been reached in a hundred years of Evolution research. Non Sequiter
Have you heard of a slew of evolutionary conclusions being overturned since 1986? No, please enlighten us...Talk is cheap, E Kyro........but then your arguments invariably are weak and cheap.....you seem to tend to avoid a stronger argument than your own by running to a non sequiter....or making an assertion that makes no logical sense whatsoever.....
here is a classical response of yours.....
Yeah, I didn't think it had come from random mutations. Trying to picture a thousand monkeys banging away at typewriters in an attempt to explain the knowledge of DNA. You still show no understanding of how evolution actually works....but that's ok....no intelligence is required for the belief of your absolute truth.....just dumb unquestioning faith. | |
|
| |
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 7:52:09 PM | Posted by chellovek
No, please enlighten us...Talk is cheap, E Kyro........but then your arguments invariably are weak and cheap.....you seem to tend to avoid a stronger argument than your own by running to a non sequiter....or making an assertion that makes no logical sense whatsoever.....
My, you Evo types are sensitive. I strongly advise you against ever becoming a creationist or ID proponent. You wouldn't last longer then the first 10-15 posts of ad-hominem, appeals to ridicule, etc. that your opponents would throw at your every post. As to the off-topic quotes you reference, well they were off-topic and I therefore threw out the first thing that came to mind. My apologies for making light of a serious debate.
As to the standard Evo charge that I as an ID or Crea believer don't understand the ToE, all I can say is that it is your job as a "defender of the faith" to educate me if you don't think I know enough.
Perhaps you are a little put out that I didn't put a little more effort into your previous post, so I will attempt to rectify that now:
If a better understanding of something can be found by a newer theory that better explains an older theory or supplants an older theory explanatory of some physical phenomanon in this world, then that newer theory is rigorously tested and if accepted, then becomes the prevailing theory. That is how science works.....but you either do not understand that concept or refuse to acknowledge the utility of the scientific method when it doesn't agree with your own religious world view.
I understand that you would prefer to view us Creationist types as being dumb like rock since it likely makes you feel better about yourself, however I think I have a handle on the scientific method as unbelievable as that sounds. My comment was directed at the delays between the falsification of an aspect of the theory and it being made public. It has become an increasingly longer as the years progress.
On to the next point:
An early explanation of disease was that of abiogenesis...or spontaneous generation of disease.....how different would our world be if that theory was held as an unchallengable orthodoxy of "absolute truth". The "germ theory" when it was proposed by Louis Pasteur was a very controversial theory at the time, but the theory was rigorously tested by his peers, and by scientists well after Pasteur, and Pasteur's results have been consistently confirmed. The "flavour of the day", "Spontaneous Generation" (Flavour of the day for some thousands of years) was changed to the "flavour of the day" of "Germ Theory", which, although admittedly a day of only about 150 or so years, still is the basis of hygiene practices in the food industry and in the medical world.
Hmm interesting you should mention that. The Bible in Dueteronomy, Leviticus, Genesis, Numbers, contains many hygenic and food laws which when followed prevented communicable diseases from spreading. So the Absolute Truth predated the Flavour of the Day by a few thousand years.
Moving on: Pasteur's "Spontaneous Generation" led to the "Law of Biogenesis" which states that Life must come from Life. Since you don't believe that there is an Intelligent Designer, then what is your solution for how life began on this planet?
Ball is in your court. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 8:11:21 PM |
The Bible in Dueteronomy, Leviticus, Genesis, Numbers, contains many hygenic and food laws which when followed prevented communicable diseases from spreading
So the authors of those particular works wrote down some benificial practices that humans, over time, had worked out by themselves, to make their lives better. Wow ekyro, an actual example of the bible recording actual history.
There's a rare event.
My, you Evo types are sensitive
And you creationist types are evasive and irresponsible.
Still waiting for your interpretation of the evidence in msg 46.
Waiting.....waiting...... | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 8:39:52 PM |
And you creationist types are evasive and irresponsible.
Still waiting for your interpretation of the evidence in msg 46.
Waiting.....waiting......
You'll have to be a little more specific about what you're looking for because i haven't a clue from that post. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 9:30:03 PM | ekyro, you asserted that -
As I have repeatedly pointed out, it isn't the evidence but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence.
I laid out a list of facts that I assert can only mean one thing. That is, the guilt of the perpetrator.
You claim it's not the evidence but the way it is interpreted.
I would really appreciate your interpretation of these facts and to see what other conclusion you can make from them.
Waiting..... | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 10:29:25 PM | I would really appreciate your interpretation of these facts and to see what other conclusion you can make from them.
Waiting.....
You asked so here it is. I want you to mark well evolving62 that the 2nd leading cause of wrongful convictions is Lab error and Junk Science.
"Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 14 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Mistaken eyewitness identification testimony was a factor in 77 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Of that 77 percent, 48 percent of cases where race is known involved cross-racial eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. The Innocence Project has adopted a series of guidelines to improve the reliability of eyewitness identifications. These suggested reforms are practiced in the state of New Jersey, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and several smaller jurisdictions.
Lab error and junk science have played a role in 65 percent of wrongful convictions.
In over half of DNA exonerations, the misapplication of forensic disciplines—such as blood type testing, hair analysis, fingerprint analysis, bite mark analysis, and more—has played a role in convicting the innocent. In these cases, forensic scientists and prosecutors presented fraudulent, exaggerated, or otherwise tainted evidence to the judge or jury which led to the wrongful conviction. Three cases have even involved erroneous testimony about DNA test results.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in 25 percent of cases. More than 350 jurisdictions now record interrogations.
False confessions are another leading cause of wrongful convictions. Twenty-five percent of cases involve a false confession or incriminating statement made by the defendant. Of those cases, 35 percent were 18 or under and/or developmentally disabled. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 350 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.
Snitches contribute to wrongful convictions in 15 percent of cases.
Another principal factor in wrongful convictions is the use of snitches, or jailhouse informants. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony."
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 10:55:43 PM | ekyro, do you have a medical problem that stops you from giving a straight answer to a question?
If so you have my sympathy and understanding, but if not then just what is the problem?
All I'm asking for is your interpretation of the following facts.
The prisoner/prisoners in question is/are incarcerated because of the following evidence against them
Told people beforehand that they were going to commit the crime
admitted doing the crime
Were photographed doing the crime
Were seen doing the crime by numerous sober witnesses
Left DNA and other forensic evidence at the scene of the crime
Had DNA and other forensic evidence from the scene of the crime on their person
What other conclusion can be drawn from these facts other than they are guilty of the crime?
Waiting.... | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/5/2008 9:31:20 PM | if dawkins said this... he doesn't believe it now. he wrote a great response to pailey's watchmaker argument, which was also a great argument i might add. dawkins does NOT believe this now.
lara | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 11:23:18 AM |
In these cases, forensic scientists and prosecutors presented fraudulent, exaggerated, or otherwise tainted evidence to the judge or jury which led to the wrongful conviction. Three cases have even involved erroneous testimony about DNA test results.
All this shows is that lawyers lie. Big supprise there.
There is nothing in this to say that the science was wrong, only the people representing it in court. It is extreamly important not to take court casses where scientific principles are ussed to prove a point, as valid science. It is not. Valid science is not threshed our in court rooms by lawyers tying to prove the inocence or guilt of another person for thier own personal profit, but in peer review journals by scientists repeating and validating or invalidating others experiments. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 1:29:29 PM |
All this shows is that lawyers lie. Big supprise there.
It states the forensic scientists lie too. Just as some of us suspected.
You're right it doesn't say the science was wrong....just fraudulent, exaggerated and tainted. If science is not valid in the courtrooms, then it follows it isn't valid for anything else either up to and including court cases involving whether it should be taught in schools. 
I like this video's take on this whole Dawkins, Evolution and ID affair. The guy makes some excellent points.
http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/ | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 6:40:08 PM | E.Kyro I give you credit. The anti creationist, anti bible mob in this forum is always allowed to attack with no reprisal from the mod police. Those that continue to hurl insults at your views or beliefs or anyone that has similar views with you. Glad your not running away. Lately I just read and laugh and stay away from the "Evolutionists and their absolute truth of science" To me it seems to be just another new religion in our age.
There trinity is Darwin, Dawkins, and the sons of him who misleads the masses.
The three D's (sixth letter of the alphabet) 666
I could care less what Dawkins thinks or what he believes in.
There was an old commercial, way way back. With all the holes in Dawkins theories fossil record and also evolutionists view which claim we basically started from chicken noddle soup is beyond me. "Wheres the Beef" | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 7:59:56 PM |
The three D's (sixth letter of the alphabet) 666
Does that mean they will be headlining with Rush in Winnipeg?
See the full proof here: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9696068.aspx
There are eleven letters in the words 'Jesus Christ'.
Hmmmmm.
'Jesus Christ' (11 letters) is two words...
1+1=2
That proves something, I'm sure, but hold on, it gets better.
'The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse'
This phrase has 27 letters.
2+7=9
The phrase is six words.
9+6=15
1+5=6!
Now add 'Jesus Christ' (2)
6+2=8
8 = The EXACT number of letters in the word 'Winnipeg' AND 'Manitoba'.
8+8=16
1+6=7
'God' has three letters...
7-3=4
4 is the exact number of letters in the word 'Rush'.
Amazing, eh?
This PROVES that Rush will be playing in Winnipeg. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:25:12 PM |
There trinity is Darwin, Dawkins, and the sons of him who misleads the masses.
The three D's (sixth letter of the alphabet) 666
Absolutely SUPERB post!
Just a few points tho:
Darwin + Dawkins is TWO D's....
& I think you will find that D is the FOURTH letter of the alphabet.
So the numbers you come up with can be either 8, 44 or 256 none of which (at least on THIS planet) is 666... | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:34:47 PM |
The anti creationist, anti bible mob in this forum is always allowed to attack with no reprisal from the mod police. Those that continue to hurl insults at your views or beliefs or anyone that has similar views with you
Attack? All I've seen from those that disagree with ekyros views are opinions that differ from his. It's called "debate".
Insults? There may be one or two scattered through these forums but if you take the time to have a look I think you'll find a lot of them are thrown by those on your side of the camp.
just read and laugh and stay away from the "Evolutionists and their absolute truth of science"
Good for you, it's much safer that way.
To me it seems to be just another new religion in our age.
Gee, a religion that does'nt worship an invisible supernatural being? Does'nt tell it's followers they will go to hell if they disbelieve it's claims? Does'nt think less of their fellow humans if they happen to think differently? Does'nt gather together in groups once a week to be told contradictory stories from it's handbook? Only believes in something if there's evidence to back it up? Encourages it's followers to think for themselves?
Where do I sign up?! | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:41:11 PM | When I look at the mathematics in nature - in leaves, plants, animals, microbes - or even the universe and galaxies, solar systems, I find it very hard to believe it wasn't all designed by some sort of intelligence.
I have no religious faith and I am not a scientist.
but when you consider we were a molten ball of rock, we just happened by chance to orbit the sun at the right distance, we just happened by chance to have the right ingredents to support and form life. etc. etc. when you consider the variables that are needed to get us here today - then I find it quite amazing and the arguments for "chance" don't sit right with me. But then again niether do the anti-evolution arguments. so I have absolutely no point to make. what a waste of time writing this. Haha but you've read it. | |
|
| |
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:53:30 PM | 3xD is still only 12... or 444.. or possibly 4^3 which is 64....
Still not getting 666.... but considering the guy can't count to 4 let alone 6 it's hardly surprising that his math sucks ...
& both of Dubya's kids just happen to be daughters... so not only can't he do math worth a shit, but he can't tell the difference between the males and females of the species.. which I would imagine could be quite a drawback on a dating site...
I don't think it was dubya.. I think it's more likely to be someone named Kennedy.. LOL!!
oh wait, maybe he meant:
Darwin (6) Dawkin (6) & s..dubya (6)? Altho I'not not sure Dawkins would donate his *S* to Dubya? | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:54:29 PM |
I think he was referring to Dubya.
By golly, I think you're right!
"He who misleads the masses" could possibly be a reference to the devil of Christianity.
"Him who misleads the masses" has got to be Dubya. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 9:35:31 PM |
then I find it quite amazing and the arguments for "chance" don't sit right with me
The fact that we are in the life zone around the sun, we have a moon that [as is being increasingly understood] has a hand in not only tides, but earthquakes and volcanic activity and quite possibly life as we know it and all the other variables that make our planet special, are all really just random possibilities of what can happen, given the right circumstances and an aeon or two.
Intelligent life may be incredibly rare in the universe, maybe it's only us, but all that means is we've been bloody lucky. Lucky that life evolved here, lucky it was'nt wiped out by the continual bombardment of matter in the distant past, lucky our ancestor survived the event that destroted the dinosaurs and lucky our brains evolved to the point that led us to ponder our place in the universe.
Time, Chance and Luck
The holy trinity | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/7/2008 4:39:09 AM | RE msg 11 by RDtoo:
Like it or not, Richard Dawkins is more than a person, he is a business. That was the point I originally intended. If he did believe in intelligent design, he could not admit to it, as the people who buy his books would desert him fast. Nietzsche called this behaviour the Will To Truth, that people will look for an argument that supports their desires. It is possible that Dawkins' subconscious dismisses ID because it would hurt him, but that Dawkins doesn't even know that his subconscious is doing this. However, I would imagine that it is more likely out of fear of losing his fame, than losing his book sales, because Dale Carnegie writes eloquently that people want to feel important more than anything else, and I can see his argument.
But that isn't Dawkins' fault, if his subconscious leads him that way. Anyone can be led by their subconscious, theists as much as atheists.
RE msg 30 by saintgasoline:
One can outright reject a claim and still consider it a logical possibility. For instance, it is a logical possibility that you will turn into a frog in the next five seconds, but that doesn't mean I don't outright reject such a possibility. Perhaps this would be clearer for you if you understood what it means to say something is a "logical possibility". All this means is that the hypothesis is not illogical or contradictory. One CAN outright reject a claim and still consider it a logical possibility, but not unless one has considered the possibility, and therefore has developed a logical reason why that possibility cannot be true. If the reason one has, is a reason that everyone would unanimously acknowledge as an extremely solid argument, with no weaknesses, or exceptions, then it might be true to say one truly considered the possibility. However, if one's reasoning is one that others find extremely difficult to accept, because there are clear weaknesses to the argument, even if they are not immediately apparent to the listener, due to the presentation of the reason, and the factors of NLP, that encourage us to think in a certain way based on how things are phrased, then it becomes highly questionable if the possibility was ever considered.
You could outright reject a claim and still consider it a logical possibility. My sister did this, a long time ago. She used to say there were no guys to date, when there were plenty of single guys in the room, just guys she wasn't very attracted to. When I pointed this out, she admitted that she hadn't considered them, and said that she was wrong not to. Other friends of mine have admitted to doing the same.
Consider the women who posted threads like "why are there no good guys around?" She is asking for good guys. So she has clearly considered that good guys might be around, as a logical possibility, and rejected this notion. Now consider the numerous replies saying that there are good guys all around. Consider the possibility that she just is not noticing them, because she is only looking at the good-looking guys who are trying to get her attention in order to sleep with her. So she BELIEVES that she has considered the logical possibility and rejected it, but she hasn't.
Consider that an atheist who is a doctor recently said on TV that he considers the possibility that there might be a G-d, as much as he considers there might be an elephant in the next room. A compelling argument. But the same argument can be used, to state that there is a possilbility that there might be a G-d, as much as there might be a mouse in the next room. Both arguments are equally compelling. But most people believe that there would NOT be an elephant in the next room, because you would hear it, unlike the mouse, who could be silent. G-d could be silent, like the mouse, unlike the elephant. So how can I say that this doctor considered the possibility of G-d, when he hasn't considered the argument with a mouse? Why would an elephant be more likely to be in the next room than a mouse? The doctor is in the UK, where there are no elephants. Has this doctor considered that in Africa, there might be an elephant in the next room? So how can I really say that the doctor has really considered the existence of G-d as a real possibility.
Consider that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. I am perfectly sure that many people would claim to have considered the possibility that it is wrong, and rejected it. However, Einstein considered it, and concluded that we live in a non-Euclidean space, where it would NOT be true, and according to Roger Penrose, Einstein's formula for gravity has been shown to be more accurate than any other scientific formula in modern scientific history, say the last 500 years. So how can we really say we have considered the possibility that the shortest distance between 2 points is NOT a straight line, and rejected it, when Einstein showed it to be true?
I can outright reject a claim, and still have considered it a logical possibility in the past, and found a compelling argument to reject the possibility. But unless I had already thought about it for a long time in the past, then I am going to need a while to consider the possibility. I am simply not smart enough to develop a complex system of reasoning in less than a second. If you show me someone who can consider a claim, and reject it immediately, without spending a decent amount of time to consider it, I would have to call that person a genius, because he is way smarter than me, and practically everyone I know considers me almost a genius, and I would need time to consider it.
The essential problems with rejection of a considered possibility, is that whatever argument you use to reject it, doesn't diminish the fact that the possibility will still exist, in some form or manner, and that if you considered it, then you would have done something about it. After all, if anyone really considered the possibility that they might turn into a frog, then they would never allow themselves to be 5 miles from open water, in case they turned into a frog, and died of dehydration before they got to open water, and even being near a tap or a bottle of water wouldn't help, because the frog cannot open a tap or a bottle top.
It is definitely material to the matter at hand. The basic reasoning of ID is that if something is complex, it must have been designed. Therefore, to propose complex aliens as the designers, we are left with more complexity, and this would necessitate a further appeal to another complex designer. That is of course, the most commonly held view by many people. However, that is to ID, what arithmetic is to Lebesgue integration. It just means that either no-one is thinking about ID in a serious fashion, so they never consider the complexity of the argument, or no-one is writing about ID in a serious fashion, so they are never explaining the complexity of the argument.
I've been considering the argument for ID, on-and-off, ever since I read one of your posts about ID, and I find it is far more complex an argument to resolve, one way or the other, than I would have ever imagined. It's certainly harder to solve than a first-order differential equation. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
