If the Administration wants this formated "more readable" than this, the Administration can either format it or delete the post.
quote:
“The living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the APPEARANCE OF DESIGN . . . the ILLUSION OF DESIGN AND PLANNING.” - Page 21
“We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ”designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” - Page 43
Mirabile Auditu: First, these wondrous things about us only "appear" to be designed and planned.
How is it then that they are "too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' if they have only the "appearance"?
Well, it's "EVOLUTIONISTS" having it both ways, rather like gradual, step-by-step evolution when needed, and punctuated equilibrium... when.... needed. Cambrian Bang!
quote:
“You and me, the most complicated things in the known universe.” - P 127
MA Responds: "Complicated" but not "designed."
The Space Shuttle is profoundly complicated, and designed.
The computer I am using to post this is likewise profoundly complicated, and designed.
quote:
“Whenever I read such a remark (as the impossibility of believing in evolution), I always feel like writing ”Speak for yourself’ in the margin.” - P 127
MA Responds: (Let me return the favor. On P 160, Dawkins writes, ”Our minds can’t cope with the large distances that astronomy deals in, or the small distances of atomic physics...” SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Dawkins: “Our minds can’t imagine a time span as short as a picosecond.’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
Dawkins: ’Our minds can’t imagine a timespan as long as a million years...’ SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
quote:
P. 163: “Our own subjective judgement about the plausibility of a theory of the origin of life is likely to be wrong by a factor of a hundred million."
(SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF.)
quote:
Dawkins: “When we read in a newspaper about an amazing coincidence . . . we are more impressed by it than we should be.”
(SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.)
quote:
P. 105: “There is a considerable surplus of humans.”
(SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!!)
quote:
“Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.” Page 41
MA Responds: (Emphasis added, again. If there is ONE thing Professor Dawkins does NOT do right, it is measuring the statistical improbability. He defines one chance in 10exp40 as “impossible”, and then says one chance in a universe full of numbers is “possible”. But a critic’s idea is impossible at one chance in 10exp301. Science turned on its head for evolution.)
quote:
“I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” Page 46
Mirabile Auditu responds:
No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:
From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.” The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power.
quote:
“ . . . all 10 million copies of the New Testament could simultaneously dance upon the surface of a pin’s head.” - Page 116
MA: Isn't science amazing! Ten million copies of the New Testament, "dancing." (SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!)
quote:
“Modern DNA replication is a high-technology affair, with elaborate proofreading techniques that have been perfected . . .” - Page 129
MA Responds: : "High-technology," but certainly NOT "designed," if Richard is to be believed.
quote:
“Given infinite time or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” - Page 139
MA: Dover's alleged rival to natural selection "couldn't work," but "anything is possible."
No, that's not remotely true that "anything is possible. Because:
1. There is not "infinite time. The clock began ticking a few billion years ago.
2. There are not "infinite opportunities." There are only about 10exp80 fundamental particles in the universe.
So Darwin's two fundamental premises are demonstrably false, but then even if they were not, his conclusion based on them would still be false. Some "EVOLUTIONISTS" call this "science." Why the certainty that "anything is possible" when Carl Sagan said, "In science, almost nothing is known for certain except mathematics."
quote:
(Our ”maximum amount of luck’) is one chance in 10 to the 20th power. - Page 146
MA: In fact, if one propounds anything with far slimmer chances than this, "EVOLUTIONISTS" will dismiss its improbability with a wave of their hand, and sniff, "IT COULD happen!"
quote:
“ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.” - Page 160
"inch by million year inch" - Page 176
"explosive evolution" - Page 215
Mirabile Auditu responds:
I couldn't take any more of his silly self-contradictions.
I perused the final scores of pages and returned this silly book to the library, where it gathers dust today.
quote:
Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”. - Page 230
"redneck creationism" - Page 251
"naive bible thumper" - Page 316
Mirabile Auditu concludes:
Please have one of Dawkins' apologists put his final hateful, condescending remarks into proper context. I'm sure he meant nothing but the highest respect for...."rednecks" and "bible thumpers"..... like the scientists who signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, some of whom are atheists.
This message has been edited by Mirabile_Auditu, 10-27-2005 07:05 AM
™ Version 4.2