Comments on: Richard Dawkins’ Climbing Mount Improbable: Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?

By: Siya

Siya — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:44:36 +0000

“The one (like God) that designed life, must be designed as well, and by something even more advanced than itself! And this must have been created by something even more advanced (you can go on forever). This one (like God) couldn’t just appear in this theory, as that would’ve been a contradiction to the theory itself”

The Christian God, by definition, is uncreated. Eternal. Infinite in all perfections – you can’t conceive of a more advanced being.

By: Ole Gunnar

Ole Gunnar — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:32:09 +0000

To lavigne943:
A statement like that isn’t logical. For example: A man pushes a rock down a mountainside. Does that prove that stones need humans to push them down (orelse they won’t fall?)? No (an eartquake could’ve caused it, etc.)
What is right though, is that only something intelligent could create life from nothing to relatively advanced in one step. Evolution did it step by step, like Richard Dawkins explains.
And if you say that nothing can appear from itself; something intelligent has to create it somehow, you have one really big problem (a regression problem): The one (like God) that designed life, must be designed as well, and by something even more advanced than itself! And this must have been created by something even more advanced (you can go on forever). This one (like God) couldn’t just appear in this theory, as that would’ve been a contradiction to the theory itself.

By: lavigne943

lavigne943 — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:37:51 +0000

If scientist were able to create an COMPLETLY new organism; it would only prove life need intellegence to direct it.Wouldnt it?

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 03:30:08 +0000

I’m glad there is a well-informed Neo-darwinist in the house explaining to you all the embarrassingly fallacious nature of your misguided beliefs. Keep it up, Bobby! Hopefully one day these maniacs will stop interfering with human advancement. It’s also nice to know that someone else out there thought this article was as hilarious as I did. Richard Dawkins may be as biased in his writings as you, but at least he takes the time to write grammatically and structure his thoughts.

By: The Importance of the Intellectual Struggle Against | World University Information

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:42:15 +0000

[...] Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable – Blind Chance or … [...]

By: Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman — Tue, 25 May 2010 18:50:51 +0000

Getting back to the subject at hand, in this case, Dr. Craig Ventor’s claim to have created a new life form, physicist Freeman Dyson backed his way into paying the researchers a compliment in his own inimitable way:

One question is whether or not a DNA sequence alone is enough to generate a living creature. One way of reading the paper suggests this doesn’t seem to be the case because of the use of old microplasma cells into which the DNA was inserted — that this is not about “creating” life” since the new life requires an existing living recipient cell. [1]
1. http://www.edge.org/discourse/creation/creation_index.html

“My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form,” said Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University, saying, “What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form”. [2]
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html

That is my point, or actually, their point. No new life for was created, it does not represent life from scratch, nor was a new life form created. It comes down to the fact that humans can not create life; in fact they are created themselves. That God is the prerequisite of the creation of life and by Him alone is it possible. God = 1, humans = 0. That is the final score.

By: Bobby Funn

Bobby Funn — Tue, 25 May 2010 01:34:04 +0000

“By the way, historically, racism has occurred more frequently where communism, atheism, totalitarianism, and evolution are taught, practiced and believed.”

Yep, when I think of the American South under Jim Crow, the first things I think of are “communism, atheism, totalitarianism, and evolution”.

By: Bobby Funn

Bobby Funn — Tue, 25 May 2010 01:23:33 +0000

Wow, that was some rant there, Dr. Adair! Maybe you should take a nice little walk and get a breath of fresh air. A man your age needs to be careful about his blood pressure—I wouldn’t want to see you have a stroke.

I’ll say this for you: there certainly are a lot of words to what you say! Let’s take a look at them, and see if these words actually make any sense, shall we?

“I see we have begun with the obligatory ad hominem attack.”

If it is an ad hominem attack to point out that the “metaphysical foundation” of Hitler’s beliefs was creationism, then it must also have been an ad hominem attack for you to (incorrectly) state that the “metaphysical foundation” of Nazism was evolutionary biology. It’s the exact same argument structure, except I was able to back my argument up with some specific evidence.

“What is the extent of your training, not to say education?”

I’ll tell you what my “training, not to say education” doesn’t include: a “degree” from an unaccredited “university” like Indiana Christian University or Honolulu University. (I have to say, I’ve never heard of “St. Charles University”—is that anywhere near Hogwarts? Just wondering.) No, my educational background has nothing so . . . “exotic”, let’s say. Just an undergraduate degree from a fully accredited state university, and law school at an ABA accredited law school.

“Lamarkism is simply a slight variation of Darwinism.”

Oh, this I have to hear.

“It is equally, atheistic, equally racist, equally unscientific.”

Really? Really now? Any evidence to back any of that up, or are we just making stuff up as we go along?

“I find it fascinating to attempt tp communicate with a creature who actually believes that he is an ape, brother to the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee.”

And it is a pleasure to meet you, too.

“It reminds me of the were-tiger cult.”

And here I was worried that you were going to say something completely bizarre.

“ . . . the mass murder universally practiced by Darwinists and their clones?”

I’m so glad we’re staying away from ad hominem attacks.

“As to Adolf Hitler, brilliant exponent of the Big Lie, the ever ready technique of the evolutionist hucksters, From Darwin to Hitler massively documents the fact that the Hitler regime was animated by an exaggerated nationalism, Social Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics.”

Keep trying—you’ll write a coherent sentence someday!

“‘The majority of scientists accept evolution.’ Who are we counting? Engineers, medical researchers, technicians, what? Whoever we are talking about, they are scattered all over the earth.”

Oh no! You don’t mean to say that evolution is accepted by the scientific community WORLDWIDE? Well, that certainly proves that it’s wrong, doesn’t it?

“Worse than that, they are narrow specialists who usually have not studied beyond the fact of an introductory Biology course and not thought about it since because it has little or no relevance to the hard sciences and they live in Socialist countries where opposition to this dogma might bring serious reprisals.”

You just finished saying that they’re “scattered all over the world”. Now they “live in Socialist countries.” Figure out which of these things you mean, and get back to us, will you?

“Evolution is simply pseudo-science which is now being massively debunked”.

And this post by you is an example of how evolution is being “massively debunked”? Beautiful!

Thanks, “Dr.” Adair! That was more entertaining than you can possibly imagine.

By: Dr. Robert O. Adair

Dr. Robert O. Adair — Sun, 23 May 2010 21:44:17 +0000

As to Adolf Hitler, brilliant exponent of the Big Lie, the ever ready technique of the evolutionist hucksters, From Darwin to Hitler massively documents the fact that the Hitler regime was animated by an exaggerated nationalism, Social Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics. This is the most thorough treatment but everyone who has studied the Hitler regime knows this. What I find fascinating about the evolutionists is that they deny that it is a religion and yet the founders like Thomas Henry Huxley and Earnst Haeckel insisted that it was. It certainly displays all the characteristics of religious fanaticism. They also boast of their logic and yet their main “arguments” always tend to be logical fallacies. “The majority of scientists accept evolution.” Who are we counting? Engineers, medical researchers, technicians, what? Whoever we are talking about, they are scattered all over the earth. Worse than that, they are narrow specialists who usually have not studied beyond the fact of an introductory Biology course and not thought about it since because it has little or no relevance to the hard sciences and they live in Socialist countries where opposition to this dogma might bring serious reprisals. This is not an appeal to expert knowledge but rather a Vox Populi fallacy. No more significant than a preference for chocolate ice cream. Insufficient Evidence, Post Hoc, Propter Hoc, The Refusal To Discuss, just plain irrational, inconsistent, incoherent ans self contradictory. There is little in even in legitimate science which can be proved, but evolutionists usually claim “scientific proof” when verification is the best science can claim. Kuhn points out that science operates with paradigms which may or may not be true and that the majority of scientists have always opposed every new advancement in science. Evolution is simply pseudo-science which is now being massively debunked and the True Believers are hysterical about like you, Funn or whatever your name is, you can’t refute Well man;s arguments so you refuse to discuss most of them.

By: Dr. Robert O. Adair

Dr. Robert O. Adair — Sun, 23 May 2010 20:45:03 +0000

Thank Mr. Funn, why don’t you use your real name? I see we have begun with the obligatory ad hominem attack. What is the extent of your training, not to say education? Lamarkism is simply a slight variation of Darwinism. It is equally, atheistic, equally racist, equally unscientific. I find it fascinating to attempt tp communicate with a creature who actually believes that he is an ape, brother to the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee. How does this feel? It reminds me of the were-tiger cult. Doesn’t the fact that you believe yourself to be an ape have vast, far reaching implications in ethics and explain the mass murder universally practiced by Darwinists and their clones?