Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by humy

up to page 213 of Darwins own book, Chapter 9, titled, On the imperfection of the
geological record, have you read it?

I take it you have read it and learned nothing.

you can make assumptions till your hearts content, why throw away the habits of a
lifetime?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Answer - not yet.

Question - Are you ready to take up the book challenge yet?

so you are an advocate of evolution and you have not even read the book that formed
the basis of that theory? Its akin to a Christian stating that hes never read the Bible.
Are there other protagonists of the evolutionary hypothesis that also have not read
Darwins book? I will read the original if you dont mind, its more than the majority of
materialists have done. Really i find it quite strange, why wouldn't you read Darwins
own book?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you are an advocate of evolution and you have not even read the book that formed
the basis of that theory? Its akin to a Christian stating that hes never read the Bible.
Are there other protagonists of the evolutionary hypothesis that also have not read
Darwins book? I will read the original if you dont mind, its more than the majority of ...[text shortened]... erialists have done. Really i find it quite strange, why wouldn't you read Darwins
own book?

so you are an advocate of evolution and you have not even read the book that formed
the basis of that theory?

one doesn't need to read that book to just understand the concept which is not hard to understand and understand the basic theory has been overwhelmingly proven correct by the evidence.
To imply otherwise would be as stupid as saying that, to rationally know the Earth is round, you need to read the writings of the first person who proposed the theory.

Originally posted by humy

so you are an advocate of evolution and you have not even read the book that formed
the basis of that theory?

one doesn't need to read that book to just understand the concept which is not hard to understand and understand the basic theory has been overwhelmingly proven correct by the evidence.

So you also have not read the book that forms the very basis of those theories,
interesting, what percentage of materialists do you think have not read the very book
which forms the basis of those theories. So far I count 100 percent, you, Pk and your
sock puppet twithead. I wonder how many others will make a confession?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you also have not read the book that forms the very basis of those theories,
interesting, what percentage of materialists do you think have not read the very book
which forms the basis of those theories. So far I count 100 percent, you, Pk and your
sock puppet twithead. I wonder how many others will make a confession?

irrelevant; read my post again to see why.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you are an advocate of evolution and you have not even read the book that formed
the basis of that theory? Its akin to a Christian stating that hes never read the Bible.
Are there other protagonists of the evolutionary hypothesis that also have not read
Darwins book? I will read the original if you dont mind, its more than the majority of ...[text shortened]... erialists have done. Really i find it quite strange, why wouldn't you read Darwins
own book?

I have a copy on my book shelf it will be read soon, then what will your argument be?

I'm also a proponent of modern day physics but i haven't read Isaac Newtons Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, i'm also a proponent of modern day geology but i haven't read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology either, i could go on.

Now will you take up the book challenge, and can you list these some of these articles you have read concerning the evidence for evolution please?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary i see plenty of evidence of design and intelligence from observing the
natural world, in fact, to conclude that it was the product of chance is both
mathematically improbable and ludicrous to boot. Its not my fault you have limited
your search for truth to unintelligent agencies, is it, perhaps its a reflection of your
dogma, who can say?

on the contrary i see plenty of evidence of design and intelligence from observing the
natural world

then you are insane.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i have read in part Darwins own book, have you? in fact i am at page 213 of
the wordsworth classics of world literature edition. Please tell the forum , what that
particular chapter is about?

No, I haven't read it. I did not claim to have done so. Nevertheless, you have in the past fully admitted that you have not read a significant amount of literature on evolution (from a scientists perspective not a religious one) and have refused to do so. Are you changing that claim? Are you claiming that you have sufficient knowledge of the theory of evolution to make a rational evaluation of it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i suspected, twithead, a faker and a phoney!

In what way?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I have a copy on my book shelf it will be read soon, then what will your argument be?

I'm also a proponent of modern day physics but i haven't read Isaac Newtons Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, i'm also a proponent of modern day geology but i haven't read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology either, i could go on.

Now ...[text shortened]... st these some of these articles you have read concerning the evidence for evolution please?

I have posted in the past numerous links, I am not trawling my way through them, indeed, i remember an occasion when there was some disputing about the geological record and i produced a site detailing the staggering profusion and explosion of life.

what will my argument be? i cannot say, i will argue as i have always done on your
evaluation and interpretation of empirical data or as is per usual, lack of!

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way?

in every way!

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I haven't read it. I did not claim to have done so. Nevertheless, you have in the past fully admitted that you have not read a significant amount of literature on evolution (from a scientists perspective not a religious one) and have refused to do so. Are you changing that claim? Are you claiming that you have sufficient knowledge of the theory of evolution to make a rational evaluation of it?

clearly i have read more of the original work than you! and yet here you are calling
me, a liar, because i have actually read, about half of the work which forms the basis of
the theory that you yourself profess.

Originally posted by humy

on the contrary i see plenty of evidence of design and intelligence from observing the
natural world

then you are insane.

no its dogmatic and ludicrous to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agencies.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have posted in the past numerous links, I am not trawling my way through them, indeed, i remember an occasion when there was some disputing about the geological record and i produced a site detailing the staggering profusion and explosion of life.

what will my argument be? i cannot say, i will argue as i have always done on your
evaluation and interpretation of empirical data or as is per usual, lack of!

Funny, i don't recall you ever posting a link to site that contained evidence for evolution and here you are claiming you have done so numerous times?! It should be easy to just find one or two?

You've lost me on this bit -

'i cannot say, i will argue as i have always done on your evaluation and interpretation of empirical data or as is per usual, lack of!'

Are you saying there is a lack of data or the lack of data i have evaluated?

And for the third time - will you take up the book challenge? If not, why not?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Funny, i don't recall you ever posting a link to site that contained evidence for evolution and here you are claiming you have done so numerous times?! It should be easy to just find one or two?

You've lost me on this bit -

'i cannot say, i will argue as i have always done on your evaluation and interpretation of empirical data or as is per usual, evaluated?

And for the third time - will you take up the book challenge? If not, why not?

your hypothesis relies upon your interpretations of the exact same data, my point is
that i have posted numerous links to sites that contains empirical data, for example
I recall a site that i posted links to pre Cambrian life forms, i have posted links to
sites that detail what is available for fossil evidence with regard to the assumed
transition from simians to humans, strange that you can remember individual
quotations with unerring accuracy, but you cannot remember these? I have posted
links to articles where a new evaluation of present data has taken place, for
example, that the bridge between reptiles and birds is now disputed.

I am interested in reading Darwins account, not some interpretation, i have after all
, my own mind and my own evaluations! Its the same as telling someone they
should read the Bible and then provide a commentary on the Bible, people should be
allowed to draw their own conclusions based upon an evaluation with their own
minds and as Darwins book forms the basis of those assertions its only correct and
logical that one should examine them.

I am saying that the data is exactly the same, all that differs is interpretations of
that data!