BookTalk.org

Ant,

Dawkins wears many hats. He's a scientist and an author and a communicator. Here he was invited as a speaker to address the audience at the New Yorker Festival. This wasn't a scientific symposium. My point is that he's communicating an idea and it would be inappropriate in this context to walk the audience through every piece of evidence in making his larger point. No science lecturer would do this.

Evolution takes place over many eons, and many people have a difficult time envisioning how the process works. There is no point during the long evolutionary process that we can stop and say, here's where man appears. Dawkins, a master science communicator, has found a very elegant way to conceptualize this idea.

By hyperfocusing on the esoteria, you are somehow completely missing the point.

ant wrote: It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.

OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?

The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.

So, ant is saying evolution for everything, except humans.

Who were magically... created... by ah...

He's not a creationist.

johnson1010 wrote:

Hypothesis proposed by science.

Evolution, as a proposed explanation for the origin of species, including homo sapiens… Evolution MUST be testable if it is to be considered a scientific hypothesis, EFFIN’ PERIOD!!

Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory, not like somebody’s theory of “who keeps drinking my soda at work”.

In order for it to be science it needs to be falsifiable. To be falsifiable it needs to make definite predictions which can either agree with reality, or disagree. You failed to indicate what it is you think evolution says should happen, so I will now outline some of those things in this post, and how they could be disproven, but have not...

You win

geo wrote:Ant,

Dawkins wears many hats. He's a scientist and an author and a communicator. Here he was invited as a speaker to address the audience at the New Yorker Festival. This wasn't a scientific symposium. My point is that he's communicating an idea and it would be inappropriate in this context to walk the audience through every piece of evidence in making his larger point. No science lecturer would do this.

Evolution takes place over many eons, and many people have a difficult time envisioning how the process works. There is no point during the long evolutionary process that we can stop and say, here's where man appears. Dawkins, a master science communicator, has found a very elegant way to conceptualize this idea.

By hyperfocusing on the esoteria, you are somehow completely missing the point.

ant wrote: It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.

OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?

The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.

You win

johnson1010 wrote:So, ant is saying evolution for everything, except humans.

Who were magically... created... by ah...

He's not a creationist.

And you are an anti-religious bigot.

I feel so ashamed of myself.

I suppose i will have to console myself by not caring about that comment in the least.

i do wonder why you give up there, though...

isn't my post exactly what you were looking for?

If you are actually interested in learning, and not just arguing with us over some vague notion of spirituality, you could look all this stuff up yourself and satisfy yourself of the truth.

If you are actually interested in learning, and not just arguing with us over some vague notion of spirituality, you could look all this stuff up yourself and satisfy yourself of the truth.

You are an embarrassment to what it means to be a moderator.

What is this idiotic claim of yours that I was arguing here about a "notion of spirituality"?
Not only are you an embarrassment, but you are also resorting to lies.
Hence, you are an embarrassing liar.

Now go ahead and spend some time fueling up your resident atheist troll.
I'm certain he will say something stupid in the next few hours. Something you will support (by looking the other way), all while threatening to ban me.
You are most secure in an echo chamber with a simpleton that cheers you on and ridicules theists.

ant wrote:It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.

geo wrote:OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?
The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.

ant wrote:You win

I'm not trying to win, merely trying to figure where you're coming from. It's frankly amazing that it took this long for you to concede that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, at least not in terms of human evolution. This is where we diverge, of course. We can agree to disagree.

No wonder you had such a problem with the fish. It all makes sense now.

It's frankly amazing that it took this long for you to concede that you don't accept the evidence for evolution, at least not in terms of human evolution

I'll have to check what is making you claim the above because that's not my position at all.

I don't know about you, but i'm seriously mutlitasking this atheist dogpile.
Most of the time I am.

But fine, whatever. I'll check when I have more time that I do now.

Thanks, Geo. I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Some of the things you share I agree with, others I don't.