The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Which theory has the most evidence to support it?

Right now I'd go with the autocatalysis model - the ability of some very simple molecules to replicate themselves and "inherit" the structure of their "parent." Once you have the ability to reproduce and inherit traits, evolution begins.

>Do any of thses theories go beyond conjecture?

Several have been demonstrated in the lab, which goes significantly beyond conjecture. We can create amino acids in the lab using nothing but simulated primordial atmosphere and lightning. We can cause unlimited replication of very simple molecules under the right conditions. We have observed spontaneous creation of lipid bilayers, the precursors of cell membranes.

The ultimate test is going to come from one of two angles - the bottom-up approach or the top-down approach. The bottom-up approach is going to start with the basics (atmosphere, water, ooze, lightning) and attempt to show the path to creating a self-replicating organism. The top-down approach attempts to take the most basic life-forms we know (i.e. archaea and the like) and remove evolutionary enhancements until we have an organism that can do nothing more than (barely) reproduce, then show how such an organism can form from the basics. Both are making pretty steady progress. If we achieve success on the bottom-up approach, we'll have _one_ way life might have formed. The top-down approach is more likely to show how _our_ version of life formed.

Thanks Bill. Got any links for a layman like myself?

I like this one, but it doesn't seem to strongly favor your claims.
[url]http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well, that was so subtle I can't tell if it is a PA or a compliment.

I'd like to thank all the little people for this achievement. Without which, I'd have had no one's backs to climb over to reach this incredible goal.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,454]

>Got any links for a layman like myself?

Since the area's changing so fast, I think I'd start with a reference like Wikipedia and branch out from there. The drawback of Wikipedia is that it's maintained by volunteer contributors instead of professionals, but for fast-changing topics like this I think it's a good starting point (because those volunteers are often the people doing the research, so they keep it up to date.)

Some search terms that will get you interesting stuff there:

Origin of life

RNA world (description of one theory of early life)

Panspermia (a bit out there)

Miller-Urey (a controversial experiment that's been repeated hundreds of times)

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Do you mean to say that the whole Christian concept of God is full of holes? There are other concepts of God.

God in general, as all religions are based on one god of many different names. Take your pick as all religions boil down to one belief that there is an all mighty, all knowing, all seeing deity that created everything and that this god has a plan for each and everyone of us. This concept is completely without substance and the holes are everywhere in it. Each time that a hole is pointed out the reaction of the faithful is to defend the concept with more of the same but with a slightly different angle. It is amazing how many times that the defence has gone the full 360 and still hold on. True faith or just blind devotion? I stopped believing, if I ever did, in a god at around age 13. My mother calls at least once a week to say that I am on a direct flight to hell and that I better start believing if I want to sit and bask in the glory of god. She is southern baptist and flat out refuse to hear any argument that says otherwise. True believers will always dance around the holes with their ever changing explanation of god. I prefer to jump right into the holes and expand my understanding of the universe. I and others of the same mind set am not satisfied with the standard church explaination of a tree is proof that god exist or that I am alive because god willed it. As science progresses at such a fast rate it is concievable that the day will come that the god concept will be laid to rest much like the flat earth concept was.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you mean to say that the whole Christian concept of God is full of holes? There are other concepts of God.

God in general, as all religions are based on one god of many different names. Take your pick as all religions boil down to one belief that there is an all mighty, all knowing, all seeing deity that created everything and that this god has a plan for each and everyone of us.

This is not the concept of God for all religions.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Quote

If you want to get technical, there is no such thing as agnostic. There are only two ways of thinking, athiest and thiest, absence of belief in god or belief in god. Because an agnostic does not technically believe in god, he/she is actually an athiest.

No...

Agnostics are undecided between belief and non-belief. An athiest believes that there is no supreme being. A theist believes that there is a supreme being. Agnostics believe that there is a possibility of a supreme being, but acknowledge that they do not have enough evidence to decide either way.

Agnostics believe that both theists and athiests have made up their minds prematurely, because there is not enough evidence to make a decision about the issue with any reasonable amount of certainty.

What it comes down to is that agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, whereas theism/atheism are statements about belief. An athiest does not believe, while an agnostic does not know.

I wish I still had that book "atheism, the case against god" It gave some real good reasons why there are only theists and atheists and why agnostics are in all technicallity, atheists.........but alas, I gave it to a friend before I came to Saudi Arabia where books on other religions (or atheism) other than Islam are forbidden.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Asking questions and finding answers is called "science". Making up answers and invoking the supernatural is called "religion".

So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"?

Incredibly stupid question.

I'll pass that on to Bill Von.

Quote

What was the religious answer to "what creates lightning storms" or "what creates earthquakes" 1,000 years ago? Do you fault scientists of the 11th Century for not having discovered electrostatics or plate tectonics? If the Roman church had had its way, we'd still believe the Earth is center of the solar system.

Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers.

It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

and also: Suppose science did develop to the point where we could explain the original mechanisms of how the world was created. It STILL would not prove that God didn't create it.

Have you ever wondered why Pope John Paul II seemed to have no problem with the theory of evolution? As devoutly as he believed in Christianity, he was smart enough not to use the Bible as a substitute for a science text book.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

What was the religious answer to "what creates lightning storms" or "what creates earthquakes" 1,000 years ago? Do you fault scientists of the 11th Century for not having discovered electrostatics or plate tectonics? If the Roman church had had its way, we'd still believe the Earth is center of the solar system.

Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers.

It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it.

Don't you get it dude, he's making a great point!! You are doing the same thing that religous people like you have been doing for thousands of years. When something can't be explained, you say God did it, that is until someone can prove that it is a natural occurance. Just because we can't explain yet how life on earth was created, doesn't mean that we never will and it also doesn't mean that a God created life.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

and also: Suppose science did develop to the point where we could explain the original mechanisms of how the world was created. It STILL would not prove that God didn't create it.

Sure. But of course that still does not make it likely that he did.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you mean to say that the whole Christian concept of God is full of holes? There are other concepts of God.

God in general, as all religions are based on one god of many different names. Take your pick as all religions boil down to one belief that there is an all mighty, all knowing, all seeing deity that created everything and that this god has a plan for each and everyone of us.

This is not the concept of God for all religions.

I see it to be as the ultimate goal of all religions (with the exception of such groups like the scientoligist ect...) is to connect man with a greater being that is conscience that man exist and that this being creates. The ultimate goal is to become closer to the devine. Theosophy attempts to explain this goal by connecting all religions and pointing out that they do have the same basis for their belief. The variations may differ but, the end point is basic and the same, to be closer to what it is that created you - god.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SpeedRacer 1]

Good Post!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Have you ever wondered why Pope John Paul II seemed to have no problem with the theory of evolution? As devoutly as he believed in Christianity, he was smart enough not to use the Bible as a substitute for a science text book.

I have wondered. With regard to New Darwinian Theory specifically (The word "evolution" is used in a much broader context than it should be.) and Pope John Paul II's acceptance of it, his theology is wrong. In the beginning, the world was perfect. There was no pain and suffering before the fall of Adam. The rebellion of man against God and the ensuing curse of the world because of sin set the deterioration, destruction, immorality, pain, and suffering that we see today in motion. If everything developed to that point through Natural Selection, with predecessors of man killing each other off and different species of them adapting to environments and some dying out (survival of the fittest), there would be a whole lot of pain and suffering going on during the process. Without even getting into the time frame of creation, scripture is diametrically opposed to the theory. My intent isn’t really to argue the validity of the story described above. My suggestion is merely that the Pope was wrong in this regard and did not represent what he was commissioned to do. Being the former leader of the Catholic Church, he should have represented the word of God and not faltered in his efforts to do so.

[Butters 0]

Quote

... belief that there is an all mighty, all knowing, all seeing deity that created everything and that this god has a plan for each and everyone of us.

Is not the same as ...

Quote

The ultimate goal is to become closer to the devine.

PS: I have to agree, I don't know any religions yet that do not attempt to become closer to that which they believe is devine.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I haven't read the book - but have heard him interviewed on radio and he was biggotted and refused to argue rationally which totally discredited him in my opinion.

Any examples? I only ask because I've seen him accused of irrationality by some simply because a) He used the word 'probably' in the statement "Jesus probably existed" and b) His definition of "reputable biblical scholar" wasn't "One who believes the bible is the true and inerrant word of God from page 1."

I have been thinking about reading this book too, but his attitude is a bit off-putting to me. Here is an excerpt from one of the interviews with him that knocked this book further down on my priority list of things to read: (interview from here: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/)

Quote

It's interesting that you link those two words -- intelligent and atheistic. Are you saying the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist?

There's a fair bit of evidence in favor of that equation, yes.

That sounds like an elitist argument. Do you want to cite that evidence?

It's certainly elitist. What's wrong with being elitist, if you are trying to encourage people to join the elite rather than being exclusive? I'm very, very keen that people should raise their game rather than the other way around. As for citing the evidence, a number of studies have been done. The one meta-analysis of this that I know of was published in Mensa Magazine. It looked at 43 studies on the relationship between educational level or IQ and religion. And in 39 out of 43 -- that's all but four -- there is a correlation between IQ/education and atheism. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. Or the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist.

At least he cites evidence, but I question the results of the study he mentioned. And I don't like his attitude of atheists being "the elite."

And I have heard him put Christians down for believing in something without proof (the existence of God), while he himself also believes in something without proof (the non-existence of God).

That sort of irrationality makes me less interested in hearing what else he has to say.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

And I have heard him put Christians down for believing in something without proof (the existence of God), while he himself also believes in something without proof (the non-existence of God).

That sort of irrationality makes me less interested in hearing what else he has to say.

I am sorry I fail to see the irrationality in this. The lack of evidence cannot be evidence. Your position is unreasonable at the least.

[Nightingale 0]

Or, the Pope recognized the story for what it was: a creation myth from a people who, at the time, had no better explanation. Genesis is part of the history and mythology of the Jewish people, and belongs in the old testament. There are a lot of things in the bible that are recognized by Christians to be symbolic or fable-like rather than absolute truth (otherwise you wouldn't be eating cheeseburgers and would be killing anyone who doesn't believe as you do). Recognizing that the value of the bible lies in its moral direction rather than it's historical accuracy, in the face of overwhelming evidence, the Pope simply took the logical step and included the Genesis creation myth in the symbolic category rather than the literal. It would be pretty stupid and blind of him to do otherwise, and, while JPII was many things, stupid and blind he was not. He saw what really important about the bible and turned the Catholic church towards that rather than miring the church in arguments better suited to the time of Galileo.

[billvon 2,454]

>The lack of evidence cannot be evidence.

Correct. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is a god. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is NO god. Therefore, a hard claim in either direction is not supportable by science. To put it another way, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What was the religious answer to "what creates lightning storms" or "what creates earthquakes" 1,000 years ago? Do you fault scientists of the 11th Century for not having discovered electrostatics or plate tectonics? If the Roman church had had its way, we'd still believe the Earth is center of the solar system.

Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers.

It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it.

Don't you get it dude, he's making a great point!! You are doing the same thing that religous people like you have been doing for thousands of years. When something can't be explained, you say God did it, that is until someone can prove that it is a natural occurance. Just because we can't explain yet how life on earth was created, doesn't mean that we never will and it also doesn't mean that a God created life.

Where did I use the "God did it" rationale?

You might want to pay attention to what people actually say before accusing them of saying things they didn't say.

This whole thing reminds of how people who question our involvement in Iraq get labelled terrorist sympathizers.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And I have heard him put Christians down for believing in something without proof (the existence of God), while he himself also believes in something without proof (the non-existence of God).

Christians have one huge testimony to the fact that God exists. The Creation declares the existence of God. It screams every day to each one of us that he is there. A painter has to exist for there to be a painting. It is illogical to think that something came from nothing, exploded, and eventually turned into everything in all its complexity by itself.

[pajarito 0]

I didn't say he was stupid or blind. I said that he was wrong. The leader of the Catholic Church should fully support the scripture he supposedly believes is the word of God.

[billvon 2,454]

>A painter has to exist for there to be a painting.

There does not need to be a crystallographer for crystals to form.
There does not need to be a physicist for apples to fall.
There does not need to be a vet for animals to reproduce.
There does not need to be a geologist for canyons and mountains to form.

The world is a lot more founded in what produces crystals, apples, canyons, mountains and animals than in what produces paintings.

>It is illogical to think that something came from nothing, exploded,
>and eventually turned into everything in all its complexity by itself.

Illogical? I do not think that word means what you think it means!

[wmw999 2,164]

But to say that we know the nature of that God well enough to interpret what we think is a divinely-inspired book with such specificity seems to be mind-bogglingly arrogant to me.

If we're that small a piece of creation, how come we seem to have such a starring role?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

And I have heard him put Christians down for believing in something without proof (the existence of God), while he himself also believes in something without proof (the non-existence of God).

Christians have one huge testimony to the fact that God exists. The Creation declares the existence of God. It screams every day to each one of us that he is there. A painter has to exist for there to be a painting. It is illogical to think that something came from nothing, exploded, and eventually turned into everything in all its complexity by itself.

Who ever said that it came from nothing. It is possible (and logical) that it always existed and will always exist (in varying forms).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[beowulf 1]

It would hardly be unreasonable to think that there is no god. I would consider it unreasonable to think there is a god. I think that god is in the imagination of the believers. God is a concept that was created by men to explain the unknown. The more we understand about the world the less that is attributed to god.