Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Anyone here read: Darwin's Doubt?

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 10:50:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.
o
Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"

Did you read the book? What evidence was distorted?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:15:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"

The reviewer probably didn't read the book.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:35:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:15:35 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"

The reviewer probably didn't read the book.

Yeah - the first thing I think when reading a review with chapter discussion, page references, and quotes is, "this guy probably didn't read the book."
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:43:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:35:02 AM, Enji wrote:
At 12/13/2015 4:15:35 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"

The reviewer probably didn't read the book.

Yeah - the first thing I think when reading a review with chapter discussion, page references, and quotes is, "this guy probably didn't read the book."

I'm, could you point me to the guy who pointed out the flaws? I haven't read it but the book is nearly five stars according to the reviews.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:50:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:43:41 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Could you point me to the guy who pointed out the flaws? I haven't read it but the book is nearly five stars according to the reviews.

This is the particular review DanneJeRusse referred to: [http://www.amazon.com...]
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:55:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"

But you haven't read it yourself of course, why am I not surprised, atheists with open minds are a very rare breed in this day and age.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:06:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Here is critique of a New York Time review of the book, this is truly interesting reading whichever side of the fence you may be on:

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

It's particularly interesting to see a breakdown of the event into sub-stages, these seem to show that huge diversification arose in periods as short as 5 million years (the Atdabanian phase).

Note also this intriguing paragraph:

"There is a concluding irony in all this. As Meyer shows in Chapter 10 and Chapter 12 of Darwin's Doubt, the extreme rarity of genes and proteins in sequence space means that even thirty million years is not nearly enough time to give the neo-Darwinian mechanism a realistic opportunity to generate a new gene or protein -- let alone a new form of animal life. Further, as he shows in Chapter 12, the calculated waiting times using the standard principles of population genetics for the occurrence of just a few (three or more) coordinated mutations vastly exceed 30 million years. In his review, Matzke summarily dismissed these arguments, neither engaging nor rebutting them, as other articles here at ENV have shown, and will do so in more detail."

The mystery deepens, the more I look into the Cambrian the more astonishing it becomes to me.

Harry.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:24:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
It might well be too difficult for me to read I had quite a struggle with ' The Blind Watchmaker by.Richard Dawkins. I do my best but.generally take what the consensus of experts agree on.
I did understand parts of Stephen Pinkers How the Mind Works.
Alfred Wallace a friend of Darwins expressed some concerns about natural selection.
If cave man had a brain equal to mordern man which he plainly did not need how did it evolve by natural selection? Wallaces Paradox.
Wallace ended up being a spritualist. Steven Pinker attemps to explain this but he seems to do a lot of side stepping. Dont get me wrong I have a great admiration for all these brilliant men and after all they are among our best brains.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 3:37:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:24:19 PM, fromantle wrote:
It might well be too difficult for me to read I had quite a struggle with ' The Blind Watchmaker by.Richard Dawkins. I do my best but.generally take what the consensus of experts agree on.

You're in the majority here, the question is which group of experts to follow when there is a deep dispute.

I did understand parts of Stephen Pinkers How the Mind Works.
Alfred Wallace a friend of Darwins expressed some concerns about natural selection.
If cave man had a brain equal to mordern man which he plainly did not need how did it evolve by natural selection? Wallaces Paradox.
Wallace ended up being a spritualist. Steven Pinker attemps to explain this but he seems to do a lot of side stepping. Dont get me wrong I have a great admiration for all these brilliant men and after all they are among our best brains.

T truly take a position that you're willing to defend one must become one's own expert and not rely on those prompted in the popular press or by the prevailing dictators of doctrine - your approach (and I mean no disrespect) would have been in favor of imprisoning Galileo!

Harry.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 12:19:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
You're in the majority here, the question is which group of experts to follow when there is a deep dispute.

But is there a 'deep dispute' between 'experts'? AFAIK, the dispute is between experts in biology and experts in mis-representing the facts to serve a religous agenda. It's not hard to pick sides on that one.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:57:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:55:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/12/2015 9:41:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/11/2015 8:34:50 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

Yes, I think this reviewer nailed it...

"A distortion of the evidence from cover to cover"

But you haven't read it yourself of course, why am I not surprised, atheists with open minds are a very rare breed in this day and age.

Harry.

While I did not read the book from cover to cover, an acquaintance who, very much like yourself and others here didn't understand evolution, loaned it to me. It didn't take long to realize the author was, very much like yourself and others here, distorting the evidence. It is a book written by an idiot for idiots.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:06:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Harry we are all dependant on experts even the experts.
Just think of the difference between biology and physics.
My best advice to you would be to join the progressive Christians who have moved with the times. We now have big.bang Christianity. Try the site Reasons to Believe.
Take the consensus of the majority of reputable scientists.
Now had I been born at the time of Gallileo I probably would have been an illerterate peasent suppressed and rules over by the Catholic church.
It was the elite religious who ruled with a rod of iron.
Who knows perhaps many of the poor were more sympathetic to those who did not toe the party line.