tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post4584625082267113923..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Actually, my sister is a total doggcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-29613658999513986572014-10-15T13:50:10.170-04:002014-10-15T13:50:10.170-04:00No, Ken I am not conflating anything. I understand...No, Ken I am not conflating anything. I understand the difference between saying that theory is beautiful and saying nature is beautiful 100%. I am noting that I have seen Dawkins and others go on about how awe-inspiring NATURE is on many occasions. Not just their theory about nature. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-26467464778924247902014-10-15T12:52:47.550-04:002014-10-15T12:52:47.550-04:00Note I carefully said "often". A frog re...Note I carefully said "often". A frog releases a gazillion tadpoles, most of which end up eaten alive. But a few live on.<br /><br />But in any case you wrote " the new atheists talking about evolution". And the theory is beautiful in its simplicity, power, and applicability. So is the molecular theory and the organic chemistry that explains swamp gas. I can say that without finding swamp gas pleasing. <br /><br />You are conflating different things.<br />As I note above the theory and nature are not the same. <br />Dawkins can alos argue that nature if full of stuff to inspire awe and wonder and also full of stuff that prove gross imperfections.<br />The Merchant of Venice has many fine bits; it's also anti-semitic. These are not contradictory assertions. <br /><br />(Siri awe ways gets that wrong).Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-39927005358153485692014-10-15T11:15:51.159-04:002014-10-15T11:15:51.159-04:00SiriSirigcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-71534268484084477852014-10-15T11:15:31.904-04:002014-10-15T11:15:31.904-04:00Ken takes the bait!
And in any case, no: I have s...Ken takes the bait!<br /><br />And in any case, no: I have seen many, many people such as Dawkins tell us that the nature itself is beautiful and all inspiring.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-37789423551104757162014-10-15T11:09:38.895-04:002014-10-15T11:09:38.895-04:00The theory is beautiful, and it is beautiful in no...The theory is beautiful, and it is beautiful in no small part because it is "mindless"; it explains the illusion design. The nature it describes is often wasteful and ugly: red in tooth and claw. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-42626298900995312412014-10-14T21:35:46.953-04:002014-10-14T21:35:46.953-04:00Evolution is like the EMH in that respect. It'...Evolution is like the EMH in that respect. It's as well proven as gravity, and the documented problems are "exactly what we'd expect to see," thus proving it even truer.<br /><br />(And haters, neither Gene nor I am saying that the theory of common descent is bunk, etc. We're talking about the rhetorical moves.)Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.com