The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Stumpy 256]

I've just read that article (very quickly admittedly) but in summary what it says is:

Flew only has a problem with natural selection before production of the first organism able to produce
"One source reported that Flew had described himself to a mutual contact as a ‘minimal deist’ (a deist is usually defined as someone who believes in a God who created the universe but then left creation to its own devices)." - From that i would suggest its own devices are evolution and natural selection.
Essentially he has said he agrees with evolution y natural selection but he doesn't understand how the first organism came about, therefore it must be an imaginary friend.

Granted this is one of the areas we know little about and i would still be open to any logical explanation of the first few million years of life, but you're not saying anything groundbreaking here. Nice try but weak.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've never understood why it is that creationists believe they prove creationism right by trying (unsuccessfully) to prove evolution wrong.

It's not an "If not A then B" type of thing.

It's kind of like so many in the "Theory of Evolution is indisputable" camp, who are quick to label anyone who questions their theory as a creationist nut job. It's about defending your beliefs.

The thing is, there haven't been many real challenges to evolutionary theory apart from the "Creationist nut job" camp. And they without exception do it so badly that they basically give themselves the "Nut job" label.

Its not about defending your beliefs at all, its about applying scientific rigor to any given theory. If there are inconsistencies in evolutionary theory or areas where we do not quite understand something, that means they are areas for study and further research.

"If we do not understand it completely then it must be my imaginary friend that made all this" is NOT a valid answer.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

[Stumpy 256]

Nope - obviously you don't understand. I am quite prepared to believe evolution is disputable, but come up with a decent, coherent, logical argument and we can talk.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I've never understood why it is that creationists believe they prove creationism right by trying (unsuccessfully) to prove evolution wrong.

It's not an "If not A then B" type of thing.

It's kind of like so many in the "Theory of Evolution is indisputable" camp, who are quick to label anyone who questions their theory as a creationist nut job. It's about defending your beliefs.

No, there really is a difference between GROUP A - creationists, who are adults in modern society who accept an ancient mythology for the origin of present-day life as presumptive truth, and GROUP B – adults in modern society who have concluded from the totality of their (formal and informal) education that evolution is fact. (By the way, nice rhetorical device labeling the latter group as "the Theory of Evolution is indisputable camp" – it tends to paint them as much more absolutist and dogmatic than is actually the case, so you can say, "See? They're as bad as those they criticize!" But I digress.)

Most people in GROUP B have open minds to being shown alternative SCIENTIFIC, QUANTIFIABLE, PROVABLE, EVIDENCE-BASED, NON-MYTHOLOGICAL explanations for the origins of life; they simply conclude that, to date, they have not yet been exposed to any such explanations that are not found scientifically lacking. They do not necessarily label all those who would have a non-evolution explanation for the origin of life as "nut jobs", as long as that explanation is based upon science, rather than myth. Yes, the creationists do sometimes get labeled as nut jobs, especially those in industrialized nations who had modern, formal educations who nevertheless accept an ancient mythology for the origin of present-day life as presumptive truth. However, I personally find that Creationists, on the other hand, have no such openness of mind as that possessed by Group B.

[skysaintj 0]

Quote

I've just read that article (very quickly admittedly) but in summary what it says is:

Flew only has a problem with natural selection before production of the first organism able to produce
"One source reported that Flew had described himself to a mutual contact as a ‘minimal deist’ (a deist is usually defined as someone who believes in a God ...there we go !!! who created the universe but then left creation to its own devices)." - From that i would suggest its own devices are evolution and natural selection.
Essentially he has said he agrees with evolution y natural selection but he doesn't understand how the first organism came about, therefore it must be an imaginary friend.

Granted this is one of the areas we know little about and i would still be open to any logical explanation of the first few million years of life, but you're not saying anything groundbreaking here. Nice try but weak.

Getting there dude hang on your ride will only get worse from here ...no i mean tight ..no thats what you call a weak grip turn your hand jubilz

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[Stumpy 256]

Bingo

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

Sorry i'm missing your point - you are saying stuff i agree with here - Believing in a god (any god for that matter) and creation, and believing in evolution by natural selection are not necessarily mutually exclusive. but most "creationists" seem to think they are.

Also, are you assuming i'm an atheist?

Edited to add

Quote

jubilz

And WTF does that mean!?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Getting there dude hang on your ride will only get worse from here ...no i mean tight ..no thats what you call a weak grip turn your hand jubilz

DZ.com has several excellent forums in languages other than English. This isn't one of them.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No logical or mathematical proof exists to show that the sum of the angles of a triangle will equal 180 degrees. It just is assumed to be true, and with that foundation, no exception has been found.


.

Bad choice of analogy, counselor. www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/AnglesInTriangle.shtml

Yeah, it looks like it. But, does my thought process pass muster?

Not if your axioms don't stand up to challenge. That's the essential difference between science and religion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Andy,

Good post. My point was about the fringe hardliners, not the majority of Evolution proponents.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

That's the essential different between science and religion.

Too late, John. I've caught you in a misspelling. That clearly shows the lie in everything you've said in this thread - your clumsy attempts to disguise your perfidy notwithstanding.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

That's the essential different between science and religion.

Too late, John. I've caught you in a misspelling. That clearly shows the lie in everything you've said in this thread - your clumsy attempts to disguise your perfidy notwithstanding.

I fixed it 6 minutes before you posted - thus showing that it was a typo and not a spelin eror.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the essential different between science and religion.

Too late, John. I've caught you in a misspelling. That clearly shows the lie in everything you've said in this thread - your clumsy attempts to disguise your perfidy notwithstanding.

I fixed it 6 minutes before you posted - thus showing that it was a typo and not a spelin eror.

7:08 – 7:03 = 5 minutes.
Not 6.
5.

If you've lost your ability to do simple arithmetic (and apparently you have), how can we possibly trust your exit separation calculations?

This is serious. It could cost lives.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Yeah, it looks like it. But, does my thought process pass muster?

ROFL...Jerry...you didn't really think he was going to say yes, did you?

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the essential different between science and religion.

Too late, John. I've caught you in a misspelling. That clearly shows the lie in everything you've said in this thread - your clumsy attempts to disguise your perfidy notwithstanding.

I fixed it 6 minutes before you posted - thus showing that it was a typo and not a spelin eror.

7:08 – 7:03 = 5 minutes.
Not 6.
5.

If you've lost your ability to do simple arithmetic (and apparently you have), how can we possibly trust your exit separation calculations?

This is serious. It could cost lives.

It shows as edited 7:02 on my screen, you've lost the ability to read Roman numerals

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

I've never understood why it is that creationists believe they prove creationism right by trying (unsuccessfully) to prove evolution wrong.

It's not an "If not A then B" type of thing.

It's kind of like so many in the "Theory of Evolution is indisputable" camp, who are quick to label anyone who questions their theory as a creationist nut job. It's about defending your beliefs.

Scientists question evolution constantly, every single time they're presented with new evidence, new fossils, etc. So far, every single time, the theory has stood up to the questioning. The entire scientific method is about questioning. Honestly, a scientist would be thrilled to prove evolution wrong, because that would mean his name would be remembered forever. The thing is... nobody's been able to do that yet, no matter how hard they try. The same can certainly not be said for creationism.

[kallend 1,647]

Waiting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the essential different between science and religion.

Too late, John. I've caught you in a misspelling. That clearly shows the lie in everything you've said in this thread - your clumsy attempts to disguise your perfidy notwithstanding.

I fixed it 6 minutes before you posted - thus showing that it was a typo and not a spelin eror.

7:08 – 7:03 = 5 minutes.
Not 6.
5.

If you've lost your ability to do simple arithmetic (and apparently you have), how can we possibly trust your exit separation calculations?

This is serious. It could cost lives.

It shows as edited 7:02 on my screen, you've lost the ability to read Roman numerals

VII:II?

I thought we used Hindu/Arabic numerals?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the essential different between science and religion.

Too late, John. I've caught you in a misspelling. That clearly shows the lie in everything you've said in this thread - your clumsy attempts to disguise your perfidy notwithstanding.

I fixed it 6 minutes before you posted - thus showing that it was a typo and not a spelin eror.

7:08 – 7:03 = 5 minutes.
Not 6.
5.

If you've lost your ability to do simple arithmetic (and apparently you have), how can we possibly trust your exit separation calculations?

This is serious. It could cost lives.

It shows as edited 7:02 on my screen, you've lost the ability to read Roman numerals

VII:II?

I thought we used Hindu/Arabic numerals?

SLOW!
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2559646#2559646

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Dark matter is a theory with a lot of support, because it would neatly account for observed behaviour of galaxies. OTOH the continued lack of any observations of dark matter is causing much head scratching and soul searching. No one will accept it as true until it can be demonstrated.

So, to paraphrase, "The existence of a God as the creator is a theory with a lot of support, because it could account for everything observed. OTOH the continued lack of any observations of God is causing much head scratching and soul searching, leading to the present debate as to whether or not there is a God. No one will accept it as true until it can be demonstrated."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, it looks like it. But, does my thought process pass muster?

ROFL...Jerry...you didn't really think he was going to say yes, did you?

From John I expect his honest answer. People here have caused me to scratch my head in this thread. And the good professor has often made such admissions because, despite the fact that he is wrong so often, he is intellectually honest.

And really, he's like Scalia - it's amazing how wrong he is at times, but his reasoning in reaching the wrong answers and conclusions is usually pretty damned good. And I'm sure he'll admit to this - at least to the good reasoning portion of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Quote

Dark matter is a theory with a lot of support, because it would neatly account for observed behaviour of galaxies. OTOH the continued lack of any observations of dark matter is causing much head scratching and soul searching. No one will accept it as true until it can be demonstrated.

So, to paraphrase, "The existence of a God as the creator is a theory with a lot of support, because it could account for everything observed. OTOH the continued lack of any observations of God is causing much head scratching and soul searching, leading to the present debate as to whether or not there is a God. No one will accept it as true until it can be demonstrated."

Can you make verifiable predictions based on a god hypothesis?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[karenmeal 0]

The existence of a god (or gods) as the creator is not actually a theory. It is a very weak hypothesis which has not been backed by un-biased research. To use the word theory in a scientific manner is to give credence to an idea. Lets not confuse the way that "theory" is used; it is correctly used for a concept backed by LOTS of evidence such as evolution but completely inappropriate for a warm fuzzy feeling inside people (which can be attributed to natural things) which is often mistakenly cited as proof of a god.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

ompletely inappropriate for a warm fuzzy feeling inside people (which can be attributed to natural things) which is often mistakenly cited as proof of a god.

exactly - it's very comparable to many of the "laws" based on liberal guilt

...
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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Can you make verifiable predictions based on a god hypothesis?

Yes. The reason why I value scientific method over religious is that the predictions are not circular. My issue with religion is that all predictions are circular.

Examples:
Prediction - there will be an earthquake measuring over 6.0 on the Richter scale in California in the next 30 years. God will determine when it happens.

Prediction - lawrocket will die when God wills it.

Prediction - science will make many advancements through God's benevolence.

Prediction - God will cause people to question his existence as a test of faith

See? The axiom that God is omnipresent and omnipotent means that everything can be explained by there being a God.

It IS circular to me. All religious leanings are based upon that assumption. Logically, the unanswered question for me is, "Who created God?" Which puts the whole thing on shaky ground. But if the base assumption is that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and the creator of everything, well, it's a nice, easy, parsimonious explanation for everything.

My wife is hotter than your wife.