This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← So what's the goal with theism?

bobcat1's Avatar Jump to comment 175 by bobcat1

          [Comment 170](/discussions/645895-so-what-s-the-goal-with-theism/comments?page=6#comment_943990) by  [Anvil](/profiles/38927)          :

                 > Comment 169 by bobcat1> > You know as well as I do that Darwins theory has holes in it thathave to be filled in with imagination> to make it work.> Sorry, Bobcat1, this is news to me? What holes do you know of?Anvil.

Let's see, how many skeletons have been reconstructed from a tiny amount of actual bone and the rest from human imagination ? How many "neanderthals" and other human forms, or what was hoped to have been some intermediate, have been reconstructed from very small amounts of actual remains and very large amounts of human imagination? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you can't just rebuild an animal or human to fit what someone, who already doesn't want there to be a creator, would like for it to be with so little actual remains to prove it and call it good. Surely you also must know that scientists, that are wanting Darwin to be completley right, assume an age for something, then choose a dating method that they believe will yield them a result that closely matches what they already wanted it to be. Then if it doesn't match, they keep testing it until they get the result they are looking for and don't report all their finds until they have what they want.

 Dating methods have assumptions built  into them to start with. Those dating methods are built on assumptions that certain things, like the amount of carbon in the atmosphere for example, have remained constant forever. But exactly what the atmosphere was like millions of years ago, or before anyone was measuring it or could measure it, no one can really know, but they can only assume. The method is not nearly as unbiased as one would be led to believe.

Mon, 28 May 2012 16:48:02 UTC | #943998