Help me understand Intelligent Design

Do you have a reading problem?

It does not. He merely points out that his model is not accurate in all aspects. But it doesn't need to be. The only aspect he needs for his immediate purpose is cumulative selection.Do you really believe that when Dawkins is writing a book and makes a mistake, he is going to write an apology in the same book and then publish it? How stupid do you think he is? How stupid do you think his readers are?Let me venture a guess as to your reply: "Para reaffirms my position." If you repeat it often enough, you might even convince yourself one day.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Oct-2005 10:55 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Come to think of it, ausar_maat sounds suspiciously like Jerry Don Bauer, don't you agree?

In one and the same post, ausar_maat writes: and I would like to point out that playing roulette is betting on a specified outcome. The above quotes make me wonder if ausar_maat understands his own posts, let alone ours.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

When you made your objection to Dawkins' analogy, it was clear that you hadn't read his own defense for not bothering to eliminate the factor of the specified goal. Your objection was against something Dawkins wasn't even after with his analogy: he wasn't trying to prove anything about random mutation, he was trying to demonstrate something about cumulative selection. In his own defense, which you hadn't read, but which I quoted to you, he mentions this specifically. Then, in your subsequent reply, you did not address this, so I was beginning to think that maybe you couldn't read very well.On the other hand, my objection against your endorsement of things like "what gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution?", is that in the same post where you state that you "fully understand that according to Evolution, there is no specified outcome.", you argue your case by citing sources that specifically make this very error, without qualifying them as such, thereby demonstrating that you either do not understand the problem of the specified goal after all, or willfully ignore it. Either you lack understanding or you are being dishonest.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

You only said that after I pointed out the first time that you endorsed Grassé's view. I could not have read your modification because you had not written it yet.The first time you said: apparently implying that we can't blame him. So you didn't blame someone for making the specified goal error, after just having stated that you understand the very same error.You are trying to weasel yourself out of this. How appropriate.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

That you are representing our conversation in a very dubious way. I think I've had enough.Goodbye.