RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
October 21, 2013 at 7:39 pm
(This post was last modified: October 21, 2013 at 7:43 pm by Zazzy.)
(October 21, 2013 at 7:24 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Deflecting from the issue at hand is one of my favorite tactics used by Darwinists; needless to say, you did not disappoint.What a good question. Thanks for raising your hand in Biology class today. This is shot in the dark, since I didn't publish the book, but it seems like Dawkins and his publishers would think that readers conversant in the English language would understand the meaning of the word "illusion." The entire book is written to discuss how we are prone to seeking pattern and attributing meaning to it, and yet can be fooled by this tendency (like the 3-year-old who has just learned the alphabet and keeps finding sticks shaped like letters).
If that quote was out of context, then why did Dawkins place it on the very cover of The Blind Watchmaker? Is he quote-mining himself?
Quote:You now have a bit of an issue, some creationists (not me) argue that the Universe presents the illusion of being old, and Darwinists argue that life presents the illusion of being designed. What’s fair for one is fair for the other.You now have an issue where you quote-mined Dawkins to make it appear as if he disagrees with his own conclusion. The problem is that you didn't quote-mine with enough panache. A better way to make it seem as you want it to would be this:
Quote:the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with... design and planning.”Do try to keep up with your betters at the DI.