|
McMonster65 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
a bit presuptious to be making claims about someones religion particularly when it's irrelevant. EV is not a religion.
Hochemon2008 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
just so you know the family humans belong to is Hominidae which is the family that includes all great apes including chimps, gorillas, and orangutans so if that is your definition I would like to know why?
shewey (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
When he says "suppose" he says it as if he's admitting there could be that kind of view. This is significant because Dawkins normally dismisses any comment of intelligence. Here he says it is possible when we consider "the details of bio-chemistry, molecular biology..." If you want the quote, just look a few lines down to our friend "revjimbob's" quote.
Also, on a side note, it has been speculated that 'kinds' can be equated to the segment 'family', as in family, genus, species.
shewey (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Using your quote:
"you might find evidence for that [signature]if you look at the details of bio-chemistry, molecular biology..."
If you've seen the movie you would know he is suggesting that it is possible to see the signature. I simply can't understand why you're shying away from this. You added the quote and now you're shying away from it.
Hochemon2008 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"suppose" would be the key word in that sentence just so you know
revjimbob (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Last try.
'If there was a designer, it is possible there may be some evidence for it in the cell - an unmistakable 'signature'.'
That statement is completely neutral as to whether there is evidence or not. Dawkins clearly thinks there isn't.
If you don't get it - go ask someone else to explain, preferably using big fucking pictures.
shewey (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"I suppose its possible..."
Tell me how I'm misinterpreting this... He cleary says he thinks it's possible that we "might find a signature of some sort of designer."
Sorry man, but you're the one who's fooled.
Hochemon2008 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I await your better definition but just as some food for thought, lizards are a kind of reptile just as their are different kinds of lizards.
revjimbob (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Sigh.
Quote:
"It could be that...a civilisation evolved...to a very high level and designed a form of life that they seeded on to this planet...I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of bio-chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer"
If you want to read that as Dawkins saying there is evidence for a designer's signature in living cells, go ahead, but you fool no-one apart from your co-creationists.
shewey (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Kinds to me is a self evident term. I'll try to get back to you with a better definition than that a bit later.
I don't disagree with your definition of species. In fact, it seems a lot like what I'd say for 'kinds' - resemble one another etc. For now, the best I can give is an example - dogs are a kind and cats are a kind. |
