BookTalk.org

ant wrote: Hahahahabahah! Too funny!
Thanks for the laugh, Dexter.
This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?

ant wrote:OMG! This one was the best reply to the article. It made me laugh my ass off!. . .

Consider this experiment in temporal ingenuity. You are holding your mother's left hand. At the same time, she clutches her own mother, your grandmother, with her right. Your grandmother then holds her mother's hand, and so on into the past.

With each individual allocated a yard of private space, your ancestral queue snakes off into the Industrial Revolution, through the Middle Ages and on into prehistory, until, 300 miles down the line, it eventually reaches the missing link, the common ancestor that humans shared with chimpanzees six million years ago.

Now imagine a similar, parallel queue emerging from that common ancestor, this time following the chimpanzee side of her family - until it reaches the present day. 'You are now face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands,' Dawkins observes.

The crucial word in this sentence is, of course, 'unbroken', for at no point on Dawkins's seamless chain of primates does one link differ in any substantive way from the next. There is only imperceptible change, one species eliding effortlessly into the next. There are no jumps in which one animal abruptly turns into a totally different kind of creature, no sudden hurdling of species barriers, an idea that so bothers opponents of natural selection. There are only tiny, unnoticeable transformations

sonoman wrote:An exercise in atheist worship of atheist gods, this time the atheist god pointing out the obvious but doing so because it's another attack on theism that posited a mythical beginning that most all religious people I know recognize as such. But Dawkins has to find something to get at theists so here we have this little tidbit tossed to the worshipers who dutifully swallow the guff and pass it on as atheist divine revelation. What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not? and we don't hear a peep out of him about this--only attacking the "unscientific" reasoning..of others, meaning theists, certainly not scientists who are always above prejudicial thinking, never get their results wrong, never fudge experimental evidence to prove a theory, are in short, inhuman gods, fully worthy of worship by mortal men.

sonoman wrote:An exercise in atheist worship of atheist gods, this time the atheist god pointing out the obvious but doing so because it's another attack on theism that posited a mythical beginning that most all religious people I know recognize as such. But Dawkins has to find something to get at theists so here we have this little tidbit tossed to the worshipers who dutifully swallow the guff and pass it on as atheist divine revelation. What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not? and we don't hear a peep out of him about this--only attacking the "unscientific" reasoning..of others, meaning theists, certainly not scientists who are always above prejudicial thinking, never get their results wrong, never fudge experimental evidence to prove a theory, are in short, inhuman gods, fully worthy of worship by mortal men.

sonoman wrote:What's so stupid about Dawkin's little propaganda piece is that his own holy scientists have been labeling "First Man" "First Woman" for decades, we recall Lucy do we not?

ant wrote:This post was meant as a joke, right?
Or was this more of a "How to think like Richard Dawkins" exercise?