AJ

Compare the eye witness accounts by its advocates.

St. Luke.

“ Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account…”

R. Dawkins
“…fish are modern animals, they are just as modern as we are. They’re descended from ancestors which we’re descended from. Way back 300 million years ago, there would be an ancestor which was the ancestor of modern fish and the ancestor of humans. And that ancestor, if you could’ve been there then, you could’ve seen the first steps towards a fish…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

Dawkins is sure that the common ancestor of human and fish started to evolve 300 millions years back and, tells us that we can be sure to witness the changes if we were there.

We could equally argue that if we were to go to the end of a rainbow, we would see a pot of gold. But since no one has walked to the end of a rainbow they have to believe by faith that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

The Talibans have hijacked religion and made it an excuse for their acts of terror. The Dawkinites are intellectual Talibans in that they have hijacked science and claimed that evolution is scientific whereas it is a myth

Philip,

My whole point, was that you had twisted Dawkins' words to mean something entirely different to what he was actually saying; A practice that's becoming very common among Theists.

<<Dawkins is sure that the common ancestor of human and fish started to evolve 300 millions years back and, tells us that we can be sure to witness the changes if we were there.>>

Because there's a lot scientific evidence to suggest so. Bacteria mutating to immunise itself against antibiotics is just one of many examples.

<<We could equally argue that if we were to go to the end of a rainbow, we would see a pot of gold. But since no one has walked to the end of a rainbow they have to believe by faith that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.>>

And I could use the same argument against religion.

<<The Talibans have hijacked religion and made it an excuse for their acts of terror. The Dawkinites are intellectual Talibans in that they have hijacked science and claimed that evolution is scientific whereas it is a myth>>

Now that's a harsh comparison don't you think?

The Taliban use an unproven theology to oppress people, for their own extreme purposes; While “Dawkinites” use science, that hasn't yet been conclusively been dis-proven, to search for definitive answers.

I think searching for scientific answers is more healthy than blindly accepting doctrine that contradicts itself (and sometimes historical records) so often. At the same time, I think questioning evolution is also healthy.

Unfortunately though, so far, the arguments against evolution are weak, and have more holes and unanswered questions, than evolution does.

The difference between Theists and “Dawkinites”, is that most Dawkinites would abandon the theory of evolution tomorrow if it were conclusively proved to be false. Whereas the Theists rely on a book of scriptures, with questionable origins, to base every point-of-view on.

Instead of searching for answers, most Theists use ad-hominem attacks on people like Dawkins; twisting their words and meanings (as you have done), as soon as their belief system is threatened.

relda,
I could not have described better the ground on which open minded believers and honest unbelievers/doubters (or honest believers and open minded unbelievers/doubters, if you like) could meet. Thanks.

bushbasher,
I don’t know about nitpicking but I agree that we disagree only in details. “you should (not) make too firm a distinction between fact and theory“ (your words), and "you should be more careful with your distinction between fact and theory“ (from my previous reply to relda). Where is the difference?

“Being elitist“ is a standard accusation of anti-evolutionists to arguments by people like e.g. Dawkins that they could not follow. However, you picked ‘linear operators in Hilbert spaces‘ from my post to relda where I tried to explain the difference in language between myths and visual models on one one hand, and mathematical models needed to understand modern physics on the other, by illustrating the non-intuitive nature of the latter for which I needed an “elitist” term.

I agree I should not have brought the term “militant” in connection with Dawkins. However, having lived in Stalinist Czechoslovakia I have had my share of experiencing violent and oppressive (if you do not like the term militant) atheists. Of the tens of millions of those who perished in the Gulag, many were there because of their religious faith. I do not think Pell wanted - and living in the 20th century could, even if he wanted - condemn people to death because of their atheism or homosexuality. However I agree that claiming that Dawkins, and other only verbally aggressive atheists, are comparable with the atheist Stalinist (or Nazi) criminals would be as outrageous as relating George Pell to deranged attackers of abortion clinics and islamist terrorists.

Colinsett,
I share the wondrous appreciation you have poetically expressed regarding the biosphere. I only disagree that it is displayed in the fossil record.

AJ Philips, ‘The difference between Theists and “Dawkinites”, is that most Dawkinites would abandon the theory of evolution tomorrow if it were conclusively proved to be false.’ – Not really.

As I have elaborated above, theories of history cannot be conclusively proved. In law courts, historical scenarios are decided upon on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. These standards are as sure as we can get. Both evolution and creation are historical models, in which we attempt to find a ‘best fit’ for the evidence. Neither can be proved conclusively in a scientific sense as testing requires repeatability, and history can’t be repeated.

For this reason, Dawkinites will never abandon their theory, as it will never be proven false. It cannot be, since it cannot be properly tested. (Some above have already declared it to be ‘fact’. And if it is ‘fact’, how could we ever abandon it?)

Evolution is the current reigning paradigm through which the evidence is viewed. In itself, it is beyond testing.

Bushbasher,
Earlier you mentioned ‘straw man’ arguments. I think your comment about “only a theory” is also leaning that way. Nobody on this thread has described anything as “only a theory”.

For certain, I’ve heard some uneducated people use the word ‘theory’ with its ordinary street meaning as an idea or hypothesis, but I don’t know any creationist who doesn’t well understand the term in its technical sense.

jesus. once again with the sophistic doubting. dan, evolution is a fact, in the common sense manner which i referred to above, and the only people who now deny this fact are the ignorant and the religiously perverted.

dan, you pontificate - ignorantly - about the dearth of testable evidence of evolution. (what happened to your mate denton?). but the laughable reality is that you engage in this deny-everything nonsense only because you are wedded to religious beliefs for which you have not a single scrap of testable evidence. it's amazing. it's beyond a pot calling the kettle black: it's a black hole calling the kettle black.

as for straw men, your reference to my comment as straw man was in fact itself a straw man, to which you added a beauty of your own. you claim that nothing of history can be proved to your sophistic staisfaction. and so what? so you have logical license to believe whatever you wish? hilarious.

the main thing, dan, is not that your nonsense special pleading is bad science. it's worse religion. it's tacky.

george, i didn't for a minute mean to associate pell/jennings with bomb-throwers. in fact, such connotations are the very reason why i dislike the term "militant" to describe non-violent people. but jennings' and pells' cheap god-on-my-side moralising is highly distasteful.

“pells' cheap god-on-my-side moralising is highly distasteful“

bushbasher, here I cannot object because “de gustibus no est disputandum”. I for myself find other people’s - atheists or not - holier-than-thou moralizing distasteful. In case of Pell moralizing is at least part of his job.