tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post996271768178856442..comments2023-10-29T04:50:42.136-05:00Comments on Nick's Musings: Richard Dawkins part 1: Dawkins and O'ReillyNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08949332361786422769noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-52701385092673431762007-11-10T12:33:00.000-06:002007-11-10T12:33:00.000-06:00Hello, this is my first post on Nick's blog. Nick,...Hello, this is my first post on Nick's blog. Nick, I just wanted to point out there are many transitional fossils. So many that I can only <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" REL="nofollow">link to the list</A>, if your interested.<BR/><BR/><I>I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:<BR/><BR/> 1. A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.<BR/> 2. A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.<BR/> 3. References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.<BR/> 4. Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.<BR/></I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-34631194485213036492007-05-08T08:26:00.000-05:002007-05-08T08:26:00.000-05:00Thanks for correcting my grammar, Chip. Spell che...Thanks for correcting my grammar, Chip. Spell check can't solve all of the problems in the world, unfortunately.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949332361786422769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-37666953809039294892007-05-07T18:07:00.000-05:002007-05-07T18:07:00.000-05:00Just so you know, it's "pat" answers not "pad" and...Just so you know, it's "pat" answers not "pad" and "pompous" not "pampas."<BR/><BR/>Many atheists define "faith" as belief in something for which there is no evidence. In that sense, Dawkins may be right in asserting that he does not need faith but theists do. The problem, as I see it, is not so much with how faith is defined as with what counts as evidence. Dawkins wants to exclude anything that does not come within the provenance of science. Personal experience is thereby excluded because it is subjective and not repeatable and observable. Likewise arguments that depend on appeals to common understanding, history, literature, and the arts carry no weight because they do not rely on repeatable, observable phenomena. Christians have two very powerful arguments to offer: 1. Personal accounts of lives transformed by an encounter with Jesus Christ. 2. Inexplicable answers to prayers on behalf of those not yet persuaded.Chip Burkitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00817016103778281416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-76397369589599034572007-05-05T17:15:00.000-05:002007-05-05T17:15:00.000-05:00Hey Nick,I'm starting a series on "The God Delusio...Hey Nick,<BR/><BR/>I'm starting a series on "The God Delusion" on my blog at http://ascenttotruth.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>I also just finished a series on Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" that I think you'd be interested in.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Michael Krahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17481260355995177530noreply@blogger.com