Friday, June 14, 2013

... on Side issue on "Science Works"

Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it!
Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth
Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins
Do evolutionists ever make unfalsifiable claims?
Two bishop Richards in dialogue (tongue in cheek)
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book "well written" and that is one true word from him
Assortedretorts : ... on "Science Works" quote c/o Dawkins
... on Side issue to "Science Works"

Martin Willett (answering "you do not believe Evolution, you understand it or you don't")
Not true. There is a difference between understanding and believing. I understand sympathetic magic, demon possession and fate but I don't believe in them. I understand enough about astrology to know there is no reason to believe in it. Similarly it is (I deduce) quite possible to understand evolution and yet not believe it is a full or﻿ adequate explanation. I believed in evolution for nearly thirty years before I understood it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, you do understand evolution, now!

I did not have patience with it for thirty years.

What was﻿ your explanation again of differring chromosome numbers in mammals?

Do you second P Z Myers' take on it? My understanding of it is, that it is a flawed explanation.

But since you claim to understand evolution ....
Martin Willett
I understand how evolution works, the basic process of non-random unguided selection through replication with variation. That doesn't mean I understand every detail of biology or that I care to find out or﻿ if I did that I would want to discuss it on YouTube with somebody who acts like a bit of a nob.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"nob" = ? (not being either British or US American, I do not know all of your slang).

If you change your mind about this, do google "creavsevolu" and "Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals".

To me it seems you do understand how evolution works as long as chromosomes﻿ are constant or decreasing in number (or increasing by polyploidy in plants and some non-mammal animals). Which to me seems to coincide with what we Creationists call "microevolution".
Martin Willett
Do you know a single scientist who pays any attention to the idea of creation who does not also regard Abraham as a prophet of the One True﻿ God rather than a figure of Hebrew mythology?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Do you know a single historian who pays any attention to the idea Abraham was a fiction of Hebrew mythology who does not also﻿ regard Darwin and Dawkins as good biologists?
Martin Willett
Can you answer the﻿ question please?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can answer both of them: no. That means I presumed to answer for you﻿ as well.
Martin Willett
Doesn't that bother you? Nobody pays any attention to your crackpot ideas unless they want Hebrew mythology to be true and a literal account﻿ of the past. Hindu, communist and Buddhist scientists have no interest in "flood geology" or any of the pseudosciences of Young Earth Creationism. None whatsoever. Hindus have no interest in your prophets or your stolen Jewish mythology regardless of whether or not they believe in or understand evolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hindus might prefer us to worship the evil magician Odin who (maybe not totally unlike the historic Krishna) persuaded people to worship him. Hindus and Buddhists anyway believe in "Maya" = "illusion". Both of them and Communists as well have a heavy record of Antichristian bias.

Prechristian religions of Irak and southernmost Balkans (=a k a﻿ Greece) would have a greater interest in the Flood.

Puranas claim Krishna prophecied one before dying, though it is claimed to be a local one.

Also, Krishna's death is dated to﻿ just before the Flood.

It is claimed to have been one major epoch break between eras of history - just as other people claim for the Flood.

Funny enough, Mahabharata is about a war between two sets of siblings that are cousins - and Genesis genealogy of Kain ends with two brothers (it began with a brotherslaying evil brother). I see sth fitting in the two stories. Even if Mahabharata is theologically defigured by idolatry.

This same Willet also on comments under another video attacked sincerity as being proven by martyrdom. He gave as an example people getting executed for adultery. But usually adulterers are sincerely desiring the sex, at least. Or each other. Meaning that his counterexample makes him seem ignorant about what lust is./HGL

No comments: