Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Suboptimal design

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    D R Lindberg: Actually, if you make a claim, it is up to you to provide positive evidence, not to others to disprove it. James A Shapiro:
    Message 1 of 121 , Dec 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      D R Lindberg: Actually, if you make a claim, it is up to you to provide
      positive evidence, not to others to disprove it.

      James A Shapiro:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/evolution-debate_b_1425133.html
      The conventional approach has been to circle the wagons around
      mid-19th
      and mid-20th century ideas (Darwinism and neo-Darwinism). This approach has
      not been successful. One reason Darwinism has failed to convince skeptics
      may be that it ignores over 60 years of molecular science.

      Charles P: Did you understand that? One reason Darwinism has failed to
      convince skeptics may be that it ignores over 60 years of molecular
      science. I will not waste any more of my daily limit of two posts with
      your posts that draw attention away from the central issue.

      Charles P:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/why_the_argumen_1067661.html Our
      central issue here is: Why the Argument from Suboptimal Design Is Weak. If
      you have nothing to add to this topic, that is OK. If you disagree with
      James A Shapiro, please post your comments on his Huffington Post blog.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and
      Message 121 of 121 , Feb 11 2:05 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)





        >
        > David Williams: This letter says nothing about creationists having better scientific evidence than evolutionary biologists because they don't. This letter may fool scientific simpletons but not me.
        >
        >
        >
        > LA> Your comment shows only that your belief in evolutionism is more like a religion with you rather than a science. The following by a noted evolutionist seems to sum up your position;
        >
        > ----------------------------
        >
        > "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
        > held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
        > characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
        > orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
        > and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
        > scientific truth."'
        >
        > (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
        >
        > ======================
        >
        >
        >
        > Laurie.
        >
        > "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
        > incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
        > will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Sir Julian Huxley 1959)
        >

        David Williams: This is a red herring. You have no real scientific evidence for creationism, so you keep repeating the same old stale quotes and red herrings.


        LA> Your continuing belief in evolutionism seems to be based on what seems to be more like a religious faith than science! What scientific evidence convinced you so positively that "people came from monkeys"? Did you know that Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author of several books both renounced their atheism and concluded that there "must be a God".? i.e.;

        -------------------------------------

        "Once we see, however, that the probability of life
        originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make
        the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
        that the favourable properties of physics on which life
        depends are in every respect deliberate.". . . .

        "It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
        measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the
        higher intelligence to our left, even to the extreme
        idealized limit of God."

        (Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at
        Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of
        Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College,
        Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in Evolution from Space,
        J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp.141 and 144.)

        =====================



        Laurie.

        "We used to have an open mind, now we [with Hoyle] realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

        ..







        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.