Richard Leakey says debate over evolution will end soon

[lao tzu]

Someone burned his stale cookies again I see.

More like taking a torch to the communion host after finding the wheat evolved.

[Em7add11]

(Incidentally, I'm curious what an Em7add11 might be. The way I've always learned it, an add11 is only possible when the chord has no 7, consisting of 1,b3,5...and 11. As soon as the b7 is inserted, it's just an ordinary 11.)

My understanding is that Em7add11 is Em7 (1 b3 5 b7) plus the add11. The lack of a 9th is what makes it Em7add11 instead of plain ol' Em11. This could be completely wrong as it's been a while since I did any chord theory, but I'm 84% sure this is correct (accounting for wind resistance).

So Em7add11 works out to EGBDA which should look somewhat familiar to the guitar playing crowd :)

[phank]

Here's one link showing the Cadd11 chord. This is the major chord, consisting of 1,3,5, and 11. These guitar examples show various ways to play the chord, but there is no 7th.

From Wikipedia, we see

When a note is added to these chords in a manner that does not fit the tables above, it is often written "addX", where X is the number of the added note, e.g., add6 for an added sixth. For instance, C major with an added sixth would usually be written Cadd6. If the number is above 7, then it will be an octave higher than the root note.

Do not confuse Csus2 and Cadd2, or Csus4 and Cadd4. Suspended chords must not have a major third, but major chords with additions must. (Note that in jazz, suspended chords sometimes have a major third added, but only when the player wants dissonance).

Do not confuse Cadd9 with C9; the latter has a minor seventh, but the former does not.

In other words, if you have the 7th, then sticking in the 9th makes it a 9th chord, sticking in the 11th makes it an 11th chord, etc. But when the 7th is omitted, then it becomes an add9 or an add11.

However, there does seem to be some variation on the terminology here. The pattern I'm finding is:
IF the chord has 1,3,5 but no 7, then the next interval up is an add9, add11, or add6
IF the chord has 1,3,5,7, then the next intervals would make it a 9th, 11th, or 13th chord
IF the chord is lacking the root, it doesn't generally matter.

Interesting stuff.

[magellan004]

[cite=Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history]
Noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

I wouldn't hold my breath here but one can always hope.

"It will be years --not in my time-- before a woman will become Prime Minister."
--Margaret Thatcher, October 26th, 1969.

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
--Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

That virus [HIV] is a pussycat.”
--Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, 1988,

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy."
--Associates of Edwin L. Drake refusing his suggestion to drill for oil in 1859.
Source: http://www.oddee.com/item_96635.aspx


Magellan

[Jorge]

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

Noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.


Source

© source where applicable

Amongst scientist that debate was settled over a century ago.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born Leakey expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

© source where applicable

I wouldn't hold my breath here but one can always hope.

*********************************************************************************************

Uh-huh ... I saw the news article the day it came out. I just rolled my eyes ...

Surely we can take the word of a hard-core Atheist whose fame and livelihood depends
wholly on his preposterous claims promoting his faith. NOT !!!

I do agree with Leakey on one point : "skepticism over evolution will soon be history"
because evolution itself will have been permanently sent to the trash pile where it belongs.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Surely we can take the word of a hard-core Atheist whose fame and livelihood depends
wholly on his preposterous claims promoting his faith. NOT !!!


Jorge

Considering his accomplishments his fame is assured. Considering his age, he's pretty much retired. So his fame and livelihood don't depend upon it. Still, as I noted in the OP I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

[Jorge]

Considering his accomplishments his fame is assured. Considering his age, he's pretty much retired. So his fame and livelihood don't depend upon it. Still, as I noted in the OP I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

*************************************************

His "accomplishments" are mostly low-grade fertilizer.

He has been pushing his Atheistic faith for as long as I can remember and continues
to do so every bit as much today as when he was in his prime.

That people like yourself view him as some sort of 'hero' with 'great accomplishments'
is a major reason why Christendom is seeing its worse decline in history.

Great job, R06 ... you may pat yourself on the back for being one of their strongest allies.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Great job, R06 ... you may pat yourself on the back for being one of their strongest allies.

Jorge

Ironic coming from a man who thinks Richard Dawkins has a proper reading of Scripture

[Cerebrum123]

Ironic coming from a man who thinks Richard Dawkins has a proper reading of Scripture

What would inherently stop an atheist from doing proper exegesis, or looking at information from those who have done this?

[rogue06]

What would inherently stop an atheist from doing proper exegesis, or looking at information from those who have done this?

Nothing. But having read a good bit of his God Delusion I see no evidence of his ever having done so. Do you think Dawkins has preformed a proper exegesis or gathered his information from those who did?

[KingsGambit]

Nothing. But having read a good bit of his God Delusion I see no evidence of his ever having done so. Do you think Dawkins has preformed a proper exegesis or gathered his information from those who did?

Alvin Plantinga and Alister McGrath have pretty conclusively demonstrated that he's completely out of his element when it comes to theology (and Plantinga has even praised his work on zoology).

[rogue06]

Alvin Plantinga and Alister McGrath have pretty conclusively demonstrated that he's completely out of his element when it comes to theology (and Plantinga has even praised his work on zoology).

IMHO even his writings on evolution has holes. He is so committed to the modern evolutionary synthesis that he gives things like genetic drift scant attention.

[lao tzu]

Nothing. But having read a good bit of his God Delusion I see no evidence of his ever having done so. Do you think Dawkins has preformed a proper exegesis or gathered his information from those who did?

Much of the criticism of TGD seems misdirected, and this seems to be more of the same. Seriously, how many Christians rely on proper exegesis of their own or from a reputable scholar? Dawkins critique isn't of religion as proposed by apologists and followed by a vanishingly small proportion of adherents, but of real Christianity, the Christianity with substantial adherents, complete with the Lourdes camp-followers and gullible tales of weeping statues. Consider how many Left Behind books have been published in comparison to apologetics discourses. That's your key to what Christians actually believe, rather than what you'd prefer they believed. There's a lot more of them than there are of you, and if Dawkins chooses to direct his criticism their way, the numbers say he's entirely justified.

As ever, Jesse

[rogue06]

Much of the criticism of TGD seems misdirected, and this seems to be more of the same. Seriously, how many Christians rely on proper exegesis of their own or from a reputable scholar?

Of those who write 400+ page books on theological topics... most if not all

[Jorge]

Ironic coming from a man who thinks Richard Dawkins has a proper reading of Scripture

*****************************************************************************

Amazing to me is that you sink deeper and deeper - how deep does that 'rabbit hole' go, I wonder?

No, I do NOT think that Dawkins has a "proper reading of Scripture". Where the devil you got that
idea from is unfathomable. This does not mean that Dawkins isn't able to get some things from the Bible
right. Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus and what he quoted was correct. So, does that mean that
Satan has a "proper reading of Scripture"? You are one very deluded, very lost puppy, R06!

Jorge