Comments on: block

By: fenchurch

fenchurch — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:49:24 +0000

I don’t understand these red herrings being thrown out by the resident troll.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that humans and chimps did not have a common ancestor.

So what?

All that would mean is that we would have to go back to the drawing board to retrace our ancestry in another, scientifically supported, way.

By: Crusader Rabid

Crusader Rabid — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:26:50 +0000

@mateogg: on the contrary; my theory is, because he’s an Animist, Dawkins cannot bring himself to deny the existence of any mythical creature.

By: mateogg

mateogg — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:28:48 +0000

really late for the argument, I know. Crusader Rabid: IF Dawkings doesn’t mention the talking snake, it’s because he considers there’s no need to talk about it. It’s so obviously false that there’s no need to prove it

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:04:28 +0000

There are no coincidences, author.

Mwahahahaha

By: Grouchy-One

Grouchy-One — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:40:25 +0000

@Nibien – “If Iâ€™m ever falsely accused of a crime and am on trial, I sure hope I donâ€™t have any Christians on the jury.”

Or worse.. Cherie Booth behind the bench!

By: author

author — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:53:59 +0000

@Ophelia. Not intentionally. It was a coincidence.

By: Daoloth

Daoloth — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:51:01 +0000

@CR. Hmm. You are a troll, and I claim my £5. Enough silliness.

By: Jesus and Mo’ « Remote sensing i ekologia

Jesus and Mo’ « Remote sensing i ekologia — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:17:42 +0000

[...] 12 Luty 2010 Autor: ekolog Nowa seria obrazkowa. Znalezione na blogu Why Evolution is True. Pierwotne ÅºrÃ³dÅ‚o jest tutaj. [...]

By: Nibien

Nibien — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:36:15 +0000

“I have no reason to doubt… the Biblical genealogy of Adam to Abraham to Joseph.”

Odd. Lack of any evidence whatsoever is typically grounds for reasonable doubt.

If I’m ever falsely accused of a crime and am on trial, I sure hope I don’t have any Christians on the jury.

By: Intelligent Designer

Intelligent Designer — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:56:20 +0000

There will never be a LCA, or for that matter an argument settling ‘transitional’ fossil, for the simple reason that evolutionary change doesn’t involve leaps from one biotype to another. It’s like having two clocks, one set to 3PM, and one set to 3.15PM. If you were to try to gather individual clocks that chart the movement of the hands over those 15 minutes, you could never do it. You might gather 900, and show every second that passed, but what about the milliseconds, the microseconds, the nanoseconds, etc. Change is infinitesimally discreet, and what defines a species is artificial (decided by us) and somewhat arbitary. That’s the argument the IDists will use: you haven’t shown us the transitional fossil between species A and species B.