Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Noaidi]

…Does that clarify the issue?

Yes

I did not mean that a certain amount of meaning can be found without God what I meant is that there is no comparison. With God life has ultimate purpose, absolute meaning, relevance, hope that all the injustice we somehow instinctively know are wrong will be rectified and relationships with loved ones may carry through eternity. Without God there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, or hope.

This, of course, is your opinion, and you can’t presume that it applies to everyone.

Of course you can't, that is why I asked. You can't but I can, and in that lies a universe of meaning. If God exists murder is actually wrong if he doesn't it is merely not preferred by a certain group concerning certain individuals.

How so? Why can’t people decide that it is actually wrong?

I never said you did. I believe we all have a God given conscience which we suppress to various degrees that knows what is right or wrong. The difference is that I can justify my morals, you can only adopt them.

And?
If they work for me - whatever their origin - then they work for me.

That might or might not work for an individual but is completely insufficient for societies. Society needs absolutes at least at the core.

Which is why societies (Christian or otherwise) have laws based on common agreements. Murder is wrong, for example. Why is it wrong? Because it causes pain, upset, loss and so on. Real emotions felt by real people. Where is the need for a supernatural being to tell us it is wrong to murder?

Without God not a single moral can be justified as an actual value. For example without God and based on feelings and opinion some cultures love their neibors and some prey on their neibors. Within your system suppression of the ones who prey on their neibors can fin no justification unless it smuggles in moral absolutes that only exist with God.

Evidence / sources for this?

This is an example of making facts fit a pre conclusion. First this is very likely an allegorical story.

Of course it is, but it does provide an insight into the barbarous nature of the god you love.

Second murder implies killing without justification. Third within the same story it says those people did evil continuously and all their thoughts were evil…

You didn’t address what I wrote. I said that countless organisms were killed by your god. I’m questioning the morality of a deity that killed all organisms because of the actions of one species. This is currently a topic on another thread and, as usual, whenever I raise the issue, Christians invariably focus on the supposedly justified human killings and ignore the other beings that were wiped out.

I agree with that to a great extent. I did not say it's continued scrutiny makes it right. I said the fact it is still considered so reliable after more scrutiny than anything in history has faced suggests it is right.The technique of verifying what can be to judge what can't be is a universal legal and historical technique yet again you dismiss the very same principle when the bible is concerned. We are dealing with probabilities not proof. If 600,000 thousand words of the Bible are verified then it is highly probable the other 150,000 are reliable as well. It is very simple.

Can you point out the supernatural aspects in the bible that have been scrutinised and deemed reliable?

I only use brilliant minds to counter claims that it's claims are so absurd as to be only believed by the unintelligent. You quit implying the latter and I will quit posting the former.

Where did I imply that believers are unintelligent?

I knew it, you did not even read what the greatest minds on testimony and evidence said about the testimony concerning Jesus. Since you value the contention you are clinging to, to an extent that anything that challenges it is ignored no matter how absolute, I will only bother to say the Gospels meet every standard by which authenticity and sincerity is measured. They even died for what you claim was a lie they made up. Good Lord

Trust me, no amount of academic posturing by anyone (brilliantly-minded or otherwise) will convince me. What may convince me of the existence of what you believe is personal experience. Until then, I’m entitled to dismiss any claims of gods, goddesses, demons, jinns and so on.

Edit: There was a second part to my post, which you may have missed.

 

[gnostic]

Not only physics. Biology, chemistry, geology, meteorology, history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. Heck, 1robin should stay out of religion too.

How is it desirable to allow people this absurd and morally nihilistic to comment on anything outside a lab? If you could stop your hero's from screwing up the world with insanity like this I would have no need or desire to consider or comment on anything they ever said.

I don't consider Dawkins to be my "hero"...because I haven't read any of his works regarding to creationism. The only things I've read are some quotes of Dawkins' posted by other members who either like or dislike his books.

To say that he can't criticise religion - or more specifically criticising creationism - by saying that he should stay in the lab, would be actually denying his rights to free speech.

When I made the comment that you should stay out of science, I don't actually think so. You are free to criticise science or criticise Dawkins all you want.

It just that by going by YOUR LOGIC that if Dawkins don't understand religion that he shouldn't comment or criticise religion or religious ideas/teachings (eg creationism), then shouldn't you - BY YOUR LOGIC - if you don't understand science, keep your comments/criticism only in religion and only inside the confine of your church?

And the last part of reply:

Heck, 1robin should stay out of religion too.

This is partly sarcasm, and partly true. Since there are many different religions, should you only by confine in church only, and only be restricted to the subject of creationism and nothing else? Should Christians be silent from criticising other religions?

No, I personally don't think so.

Free speech is freedom to express one's idea, even if you or Dawkins have nothing more than criticism toward another person's religion or science. So, he (Dawkins) should be able to comment in public, his view on religion or more specifically - on creationism - just as you do on science (or more specifically on evolution).

The only thing I will judge harshly is that either you or Dawkins (or anyone else for that matter) should at least have the grasp of the fundamentals of creationism or evolution when you (not just "you" personally) criticise religious teachings/science, and back up your criticism with evidences.

And what is clear that in some of your posts, you don't understand biology, geology and astronomy (eg the Big Bang cosmology). Even though I'll accept your rights to criticise any scientific field, but it won't mean much if you can't back up what you say, hence disagreement between you and me. That's ok, if we disagree, because I don't expect you to know science as some of us do. One thing I won't do - is to silent you.

I don't think Dawkins should be restricted in the lab or in only subject matter of evolutionary biology. Nor do I think you should be restricted to the church or creationism only.

 

[1robin]

I don't consider Dawkins to be my "hero"...because I haven't read any of his works regarding to creationism. The only things I've read are some quotes of Dawkins' posted by other members who either like or dislike his books.

I have not mentioned creationism and my comment about "hero" was not directed at you specifically. He is in general viewed in a heroic light because he gives people who want to dismiss God based on emotional reasons or preference some academic basis for doing do even though he is incorrect in his conclusions if not his premises. In other words he has the right to say what he wishes but what he says lends credence to bad argumentation and ignorant people will adopt it because it agrees with there preconcieved desires, they do not know any better, and have faith that someone with a doctorate is competant in all areas of study for some reason. That is a very very dangerous net negative effect.

To say that he can't criticize religion - or more specifically criticizing creationism - by saying that he should stay in the lab, would be actually denying his rights to free speech.

You are debating a legal right to do this or that. I am discussing what is good or bad. Legal does not always = right and vice versa. I was in the military and defended his right to free speech but as a logical and competent amateur historian, and theologian I realise his input is a vast net negative concerning theology. That is a value statement not a legal one. He actually screws up the debate and causes more more confusion and problems, while offering very little clarity. He is a scientist and should be doing science not lending his credibility to bad argumentation concerning theology. I no more want to see him debate than you would want to see me play quarter back for your favorite team.

When I made the comment that you should stay out of science, I don't actually think so. You are free to criticize science or criticize Dawkins all you want.

Was this a caveat made necessary by your previous statement? I assure you as unacademic as I am, I do have a math degree and can debate science with more competence that Dawkins can debate religion. Just as I do not intrude my ignorance into discussions about space time, Dawkins should not do so concerning substitutionary atonement.

It just that by going by YOUR LOGIC that if Dawkins don't understand religion that he shouldn't comment or criticize religion or religious ideas/teachings (eg creationism), then shouldn't you - BY YOUR LOGIC - if you don't understand science, keep your comments/criticism only in religion and only inside the confine of your church?

I try very very hard to insure that my comments about science are on a level where I am mostly competent. As I said I have a math degree and studied electrical engineering so I am no stranger to common scientific principles. My father was an apollo 5 engineer and my younger brother is a national merit scholarship winner. Not only do I not bother with Quantum theory or strings because I am not competent but I do not think they are meaningfully comprehended by anyone. I avoid theories with million dollar titles and are produced to justify grant money, or as in most that concern the Bible based in pure fantasy and have no evidence whatever.

This is partly sarcasm, and partly true. Since there are many different religions, should you only by confine in church only, and only be restricted to the subject of creationism and nothing else? Should Christians be silent from criticizing other religions?
No, I personally don't think so.

As a Christian I think a non acedemic Christian screwing up science lowers the credability of Christianity and would not wish it to happen. IMO anyone that is relatively competent may debate anything they wish if they are invited or welcomed to. Why do you keep mentioning creationism? Which version? Which aspects of which version? Of course he is legally allowed to debate religion but he stinks at it and it is a net loss. However I pointed out his misunderstanding of philosophy as the example, not religion. It is the equivalent of your "creationist" debating holographic universe models. He would stink it up and you would think if not yell that he should get back to the pulpit. Fortunately there are enough Christians who are truly remarkable scientists and enough scientists that are remarkable Christians that there is no need for Dawkins to screw up theology or a nonacademic "creationist" to screw up relativity.

Free speech is freedom to express one's idea, even if you or Dawkins have nothing more than criticism toward another person's religion or science. So, he (Dawkins) should be able to comment in public, his view on religion or more specifically - on creationism - just as you do on science (or more specifically on evolution).

Again you are talking about a right not a value. I am talking about value.
By the way can you show that rights actually exist without God? These writes you are defending for Dawkin's are rooted in Christian philosophy along with sanctity of life, equality, and worth.

The only thing I will judge harshly is that either you or Dawkins (or anyone else for that matter) should at least have the grasp of the fundamentals of creationism or evolution when you (not just "you" personally) criticize religious teachings/science, and back up your criticism with evidences.

When life is said to originate from non-life even though it flies in the face of probability, science's own law of abiogenesis, chemical evolution probability dynamics, and violates its own scientific method then it then can't demand evidence from the other side that it can't supply itself. Macro evolutionary as well as life origins claims are not just anti biblical, un evidenced, but are unscientific as well with the exception of faith based theory. That is not my opinion it is the opinion of some of the greatest scientists in history.

And what is clear that in some of your posts, you don't understand biology, geology and astronomy (eg the Big Bang cosmology). Even though I'll accept your rights to criticize any scientific field, but it won't mean much if you can't back up what you say, hence disagreement between you and me. That's ok, if we disagree, because I don't expect you to know science as some of us do. One thing I won't do - is to silent you.

I have seen every debate there is on evolution verses the Bible not just Dawkin's. I have many of their transcripts. I have even seen many secular evolutionary debates. My point of view comes from 10% the Bible, 30% my own education, 10% other academic disciplines (ie.. philosophy), and 50% what competent fully credentialed debaters like Dr. Craig or Dr. A. E. Wilder state. All the percentages are approx. of course. I know what evolutions problems are and I long ago lost my mesmerized omniscient view of academics. They stretch, base facts on faith, and overstate the truth constantly. There is not a single claim I have made that there exists proof against. There are theories against some of them, but they have a greater ratio of faith to evidence than Biblical faith does. Claiming "lines longer than infinity theory" proves that the universe is infinitely old is rubbish or at the very least lacking explanatory power. For the record I believe God created natural law and the universe and supervises it. I believe micro evolution is a reality but macro evolution is problematic in the extreme. I believe God initiated or directly created life. These are the most logical and evidenced positions to conclude and arguments against them are partially arrogance and overwhelmingly faith based issues.

I don't think Dawkins should be restricted in the lab or in only subject matter of evolutionary biology. Nor do I think you should be restricted to the church or creationism only.

I think and have protected his "right" to say what he wishes, and I also claim it is a net negative concerning the issues themselves. It is the same as asking Hollywood stars what their political opinions are. They have a right to say what they wish but mankind is worse off for the effort because their status lends weight to what their ignorance produces.

 

[gnostic]

By the way can you show that rights actually exist without God? These writes you are defending for Dawkin's are rooted in Christian philosophy along with sanctity of life, equality, and worth.

The sanctity of life is not a Christian prerogative.

My background is that of Chinese. My parents come from mixed religious background of ancestor worship (Chinese folk religion or more precisely, Shenism), Taoism and Buddhism, centuries before Jesus. And Taoism is different from Buddhism and Shenism in that is very much a philosophical stance than a religious one, but nevertheless it value life as much as any religion, including that of Christianity.

And neither Jesus (or Christianity) nor Moses (or Judaism) teaches "equality". Equality as we know it now (eg human rights, equality between genders, between races, etc), was far more recent development. Equality as we know it now (in Western Europe and the US), had been gradual outcome of the Age of Enlightenment and from humanistic secularism. Equality was derived from the 17th century, by putting human affairs or human values before the corruption of the Church. The Catholic Church, Anglican and some Protestant churches were still torturing and burning witches and heretics at this time, clearly place no value on human life.

Even today, put more value on the image of the church before people, like the victims of pedophile priests. They continued to hide behind Jesus, while covering up the crimes of these priests.

Even though Jesus taught compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, showing respect to other, and turning the other cheek, history has showed that the church and many Christians have ignore such teachings whenever it suit them.

 

[1robin]

The sanctity of life is not a Christian prerogative.

You are right. I however would submit that without a God or a transcendent standard it can't be justified. I would also say that Christianity has by far the best foundation, most comprehensive justification, and explanatory power and scope as it applies to the issue. I will also add that it may exist in other religions it does not exist in (a sufficient form) many of them. Did you know that compassion does not appear on any Greek or early Roman list of virtues. It was almost a fault to them.

My background is that of Chinese. My parents come from mixed religious background of ancestor worship (Chinese folk religion or more precisely, Shenism), Taoism and Buddhism, centuries before Jesus. And Taoism is different from Buddhism and Shenism in that is very much a philosophical stance than a religious one, but nevertheless it value life as much as any religion, including that of Christianity.

That may very well be true but Christianity gives a perfectly sufficient foundation for it in a very reliable text. I would be interested to know what your background uses to root or substantiate the idea.

And neither Jesus (or Christianity) nor Moses (or Judaism) teaches "equality". Equality as we know it now (eg human rights, equality between genders, between races, etc), was far more recent development. Equality as we know it now (in Western Europe and the US), had been gradual outcome of the Age of Enlightenment and from humanistic secularism. Equality was derived from the 17th century, by putting human affairs or human values before the corruption of the Church. The Catholic Church, Anglican and some Protestant churches were still torturing and burning witches and heretics at this time, clearly place no value on human life.

Actually you are incorrect on this one. It exists in Genesis.

Genesis 1:27 ESV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

and here are some that are contemporary with Christ.

Galatians 3:28 ESV / 183 helpful votes
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
John 13:16 ESV
Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/equality

There is a list of about a hundred at the site, some much older than Christ.

Even today, put more value on the image of the church before people, like the victims of pedophile priests. They continued to hide behind Jesus, while covering up the crimes of these priests.

What I say here applies to the previous statement as well. I defend God and the Bible. I do not defend the practices of men when wrong. We are all faulty and fallible and that was not the issue. I probably despise church corruption more than you and most but I also recognize that only the exceptions are new worthy. When my mom was sick we had hundreds of people over the course of 5 years that did anything that they could to help. Many we did not even know. I have seen little country churches do a thousand things that no government, no humanist group ever even offered to do. There may be 10,000 benevolent acts for every abuse but only the abuses make the news and critics value them as precious. If you wish to debate Christianity’s impact on humanity even considering the inquisitions and crusades I am more than willing to show it has been an almost infinite net positive. Examples are many including our public school systems, thousands of hospitals and charity organizations, and even a large portion of the greatest scientists in history. Have a good weekend.

 

[gnostic]

As a Christian I think a non acedemic Christian screwing up science lowers the credability of Christianity and would not wish it to happen. IMO anyone that is relatively competent may debate anything they wish if they are invited or welcomed to.

I would agree with all that, but to me you're screwing up science right now through your misrepresentation of science. This can be seen in the following replies of yours:

When life is said to originate from non-life even though it flies in the face of probability, science's own law of abiogenesis, chemical evolution probability dynamics, and violates its own scientific method then it then can't demand evidence from the other side that it can't supply itself. Macro evolutionary as well as life origins claims are not just anti biblical, un evidenced, but are unscientific as well with the exception of faith based theory. That is not my opinion it is the opinion of some of the greatest scientists in history.

The above example is a perfect example of creationist propaganda. No matter how many times we tried to explain it to you, you keep following or making the same mistake as other creationists.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Evolution IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. It is not about non-life turning into life. That's abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a totally different biological field to evolution.

Evolution is about life that already exist, and it is about changes coming through via generations (and common ancestry) and about biodiversity.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between the two...and until you do, you will keep making the same mistakes that other creationists continue to make.

And let make it very clear, Dawkins has qualification in evolution biology, he doesn't have one with abiogenesis, as far as I can tell. But even if he doesn't have a degree in abiogenesis, he is far better qualified to comment about abiogenesis than you do (since you only have a degree in maths and have studied electrical engineering).

You may say this has nothing to do with creationism...


...but that you will rant about the same things that other creationists have stated before, clearly your position and that of other creationists are not far off from one another.

And another thing in science you don't understand is the Big Bang cosmology as demonstrated by this reply of yours to Polyhedral:

Apparently not as they have not been used to explain it. The official consensus is physical law explains everything back to one micro second after the big bang. I think that is extremely optimistic but even if true it does not explain why nothing exploded and produced everything.

A) I don't know why you talking about the Big Bang, and that knowing that Dawkins is (evolutionary) biologist, not an astrophysicist or cosmologist. Like I said I have not read any of his books, but I don't think he is an expert in the field of astrophysics or cosmology.

B) Despite the name - "Big Bang", there are no explosion associated with this "Bang". And....

C) The Big Bang is far more complex than NOTHING PRODUCING EVERYTHING. That's plainly utter ignorance.

The Big Bang relates to the expansion of the universe from the singularity. The thing is, no scientists yet know what's that singularity is, because as of now, we don't have the technology see the time before the Planck's epoch. In any case, the expansion of the universe is the expansion of both space and time.

I think you seriously need to read and understand the Big Bang theory before you even discuss or debate it.*

I have similar background as you do, my education and career have been in the area of applied science (my areas of expertise is in both civil engineering and computer science). And clearly, neither you nor I are expert in biology or astrophysics, so both of us are not really qualified to state authoritatively on either fields (referring to evolution and Big Bang cosmology) but we state our opinions of what we do know.

The big differences between you and I are our understanding and our interpretation of either or both theories and the evidences available. I accepted the current majority consensus of the scientific community of evidences that verified evolution is. You don't accept the evidences, largely due to you allowing your religion to cloud your judgement. You're biased because any acceptance of the evidences, would mean your literal interpretation of the bible would be wrong.

Unless we dealing with theoretical physics (which deal with mathematical models), science couple knowledge with evidences. Evidences are the keynote for science.

And there are tonnes of evidences that support evolution. And let me emphasise this. I mean EVOLUTION, NOT ABIOGENESIS. Abiogenesis is still infant hypothesis, not fully understood and largely untested and therefore unverified; abiogenesis is not fully scientific theory. Evolution on the other hand, has been tested, particularly natural selection.

 

[crystalonyx]

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

Dawkins is one of the best scientists that has ever lived. Just because he gives his (correct) view on the non-existence of a god does not take anything away from his scientific achievements.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't believe this thing is still going. Yes Dawkins is a good scientist. To suggest otherwise is just silly....Now!....Thread done....

 

[1robin]

I would agree with all that, but to me you're screwing up science right now through your misrepresentation of science. This can be seen in the following replies of yours:

The above example is a perfect example of creationist propaganda. No matter how many times we tried to explain it to you, you keep following or making the same mistake as other creationists.

First I have mentioned very little science so far. I concentrate on philosophy and theology for the most part. I do however have an education level to debate science to a certain extent, but usually use well established arguments from truly respected scientists. There is not a single claim that I have made here that is scientifically inaccurate. There perhaps may be some debate over an issue but they were in no way incorrect.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
Evolution IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. It is not about non-life turning into life. That's abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a totally different biological field to evolution.

This is incorrect in effect even if it was semantically inaccurate. In fact chemical evolution is just as much evolution as biological evolution. Without God it is necessary to overcome abiogenesis and about a hundred other problems to even give biological evolution a chance. It is an absolute issue and equivocating over semantics does not change the fact. I think some where you gave me the impression that you allow that God may exist and so my claims are not wholly applicable in that case. That is correct but as evolution is normally put forth by people like Dawkin's in a godless vacuum that is what I address. There is no alternative but to examine chemical evolution and abiogenesis as integral to biological evolution and semantics are irrelevant. By the way the Bible made it clear that change within a species was a fact 4000 years ago. I am discussing life's origins and macro evolution.

Evolution is about life that already exist, and it is about changes coming through via generations (and common ancestry) and about biodiversity.

And all of that is absolutely dependent on abiogenesis and so the issue is as relevant as possible.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between the two...and until you do, you will keep making the same mistakes that other creationists continue to make.

I do not care about semantics or the academic terminology aspects of the issue. I care about the feasibility and rationality of its reality. Your equivocations are trivial and irrelevant to the issues. They are equivalent to Clinton's " what the definition of is, is".

And let make it very clear, Dawkins has qualification in evolution biology; he doesn't have one with abiogenesis, as far as I can tell. But even if he doesn't have a degree in abiogenesis, he is far better qualified to comment about abiogenesis than you do (since you only have a degree in maths and have studied electrical engineering).

First of all both are parts of the study of genetics. You seem to be using credentials as the determiner of truth which is an appeal to authority, but if you want a scholar war then I raise you one A. E. Wilder Phd who has an even greater pedigree and makes undeniable arguments that show Dawkins wrong in many cases.

You may say this has nothing to do with creationism...

I have so far not mentioned what I believe happened. I do not think it is what you think of as classic creationism. For now I will stick to what we are discussing.

...but that you will rant about the same things that other creationists have stated before, clearly your position and that of other creationists are not far off from one another.

What are you talking about?

And another thing in science you don't understand is the Big Bang cosmology as demonstrated by this reply of yours to Polyhedral:

This is completely false. I have seen and read many secular scientists say this very thing. They are wrong in my opinion but they will claim they know exactly what happened from one micro second after the big bang until now.

A) I don't know why you talking about the Big Bang, and that knowing that Dawkins is (evolutionary) biologist, not an astrophysicist or cosmologist. Like I said I have not read any of his books, but I don't think he is an expert in the field of astrophysics or cosmology.

No he is not, but I was unaware that I could only mention things that directly pertain to him. Being that this thread is concerning him I will allow that you have a point and not discuss this further here.

B) Despite the name - "Big Bang", there are no explosion associated with this "Bang". And....

Good night nurse. Who cares about the semantics? It says "Bang" which is usually associated with an explosion. I do not know what you call an infinitely small amount of matter reaching the size of a solar system in a second but explosion is as good as any. Why don't you list the terms that you will accept as I am interested in the actual reality of the concepts not their labels and will use any terms that avoid these semantical issues? I don't care if you call it the "big suck" or the "big fizzle" the points still stand.

C) The Big Bang is far more complex than NOTHING PRODUCING EVERYTHING. That's plainly utter ignorance.

No it isn't as I was not discussing the dynamics of the explosion, expansion, fizzle or whatever is in vogue today. I meant the simple fact that matter being eternal is impossible and that in effect nothing became everything. That is not usually even debated by secular scientists. It is fast becoming with a few faith based fantastic exceptions the consensus that time, matter, and space came into being a finite time in the past.

The Big Bang relates to the expansion of the universe from the singularity. The thing is, no scientists yet know what's that singularity is, because as of now, we don't have the technology see the time before the Planck's epoch. In any case, the expansion of the universe is the expansion of both space and time.

How is that any different from what I said? I was concerned with the implications of the concept and they are identical to what you said whether you say explosion or expansion.

I think you seriously need to read and understand the Big Bang theory before you even discuss or debate it.*

I have not discussed in in a detail that would require any in depth knowledge. Every complaint you have had is semantically and meaningless as far as implications or reality goes. I have no idea what it is that you think was inaccurate outside labels.

I have similar background as you do, my education and career have been in the area of applied science (my areas of expertise is in both civil engineering and computer science). And clearly, neither you nor I are expert in biology or astrophysics, so both of us are not really qualified to state authoritatively on either fields (referring to evolution and Big Bang cosmology) but we state our opinions of what we do know.

If we were discussing white holes, time as it relates to gravity, cosmic mean time verses relative time, or residual radiation it might be necessary to have a degree in cosmology. What I have discussed has been very simplistic and obvious issues that have no known errors. You seem to be assuming some kind of complexity in this discussion that does not exist. When I was a student I became so consumed by theorems and proofs I could not tie my shoes without equations and physical laws running through my head. That was a mistake and so is thinking it is necessary to be a Nobel Laureate to understand the simple implications that I have listed. How are multiverses and what happened 2 billion years ago a statement of what we "know"?

 

[1robin]

The big differences between you and I are our understanding and our interpretation of either or both theories and the evidences available. I accepted the current majority consensus of the scientific community of evidences that verified evolution is. You don't accept the evidences, largely due to you allowing your religion to cloud your judgment. You're biased because any acceptance of the evidences, would mean your literal interpretation of the bible would be wrong.

Are you having a different conversation with me somewhere? Nothing I have said is scientifically unsound. No one has proven that life comes from non-life and I am suppressing that knowledge because of faith. No one has proven or even argued effectively that matter, time, or space are eternal and I am dismissing it. I have no idea what you are referring to. How do you know how I interpret the Bible? I do not interpret it as purely literal.

Unless we dealing with theoretical physics (which deal with mathematical models), science couple knowledge with evidences. Evidences are the keynote for science.

Evidence is crucial unless it is inconvenient, then it is unimportant. The evidence is life only comes from life. The evidence is almost all major body types appeared at the same relative instant in the past with no evolutionary development. The evidence is the universe is not eternal. The evidence is there is one single fine-tuned universe, etc adinfinitum. All of the evidence is perfectly consistent with the Bible and science has claimed the opposite conclusion from the evidence listed above. I think you are confusing evidence with something else.

And there are tonnes of evidences that support evolution. And let me emphasize this. I mean EVOLUTION, NOT ABIOGENESIS. Abiogenesis is still infant hypothesis, not fully understood and largely untested and therefore unverified; abiogenesis is not fully scientific theory. Evolution on the other hand, has been tested, particularly natural selection.

Let me restate that both the Bible and myself agree that evolution within a kind (kind being species) is a fact but that life in general is impossible without God. This has been a strange post you seem to be assuming that I have made complex claims I never have, that I do not think evolution happens at all on any level, and that anything I said is incompatible with known evidence, or have picked on semantic labels to the exclusion of the issue itself. My problems with macro evolution and abiogenesis are not theological but scientific. I have researched mutation rates, convergent and divergent evolution, type in type out chemical evolution, and have reviewed mathmatical models of genetic change verses time. Evolution has many problems at an in depth technical level but I have confined my concepts to the simple and obvious because these in depth issues are boring, take large amounts of time to develop, and are based on much speculation from both sides. Do not assume that I only have theoligical or surface level issues with Godless or unguided evolution. It has problems on every level.

 

[1robin]

Dawkins is one of the best scientists that has ever lived. Just because he gives his (correct) view on the non-existence of a god does not take anything away from his scientific achievements.

Dawkin's is in no way a Newton, Bohr, Pascal, Faraday, Copernicus, Faraday, Maxwell, or Francis Collins. All which by the way were Chrsitians or theists. Nor is he one of the group of scientists who developed actual fields of science, the large proportion of which were Christians.
100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
That link is a who's who of scientific giants and all are Christians or theists. THere is no conflict between the Bible and science outside of a critics head.

He is a competant scientists but as I have stated he is incompetent in matters of theology and philosophy. His argumentation concerning these issues is not only flawed its at times emberassing to witness. At best he is at the front of modern biology. Like actors that are asked for their political views even though they are incompetant in that area Dawkin's should stick to what he actually knows and religion and philosophy isnt it.

 

[gnostic]

Good night nurse. Who cares about the semantics? It says "Bang" which is usually associated with an explosion.

:biglaugh:

You have no bl@#dy idea what you're talking about.

If you have bother to read about the Big Bang theory then you would know there were no explosion between the start of the expansion of space or the expansion of the universe.

The Big Bang referred to expansion, not explosion. You would know that if you bother to actually read the theory.

Here is abbreviation of the Big Bang theory. My description may not look brief, because the theory is a lot larger and more complex than this, but I'll explain the nutshell so that even you can understand it.

The universe was a singularity, which was both very dense and very hot (hotter than all the combine stars that exist today). The expansion of space allow the earliest stage of the universe to cool down.

Cool down enough for energy to formation of 1st matters - subatomic particles (eg quarks, leptons, etc). And subatomic particles into atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). It only took a few minutes (after the initial Big Bang) for protons and neutrons to bind to each other, to form into the first atomic nuclei, but it would take thousands of years for electrons to bind with these nuclei, to form the 1st elements - hydrogen. Traces of helium and lithium did form, but no where near the number of hydrogen elements. So thousands of years have passed, but no explosion yet.

It was hundreds of thousands of years before the first stars were formed, due to gravity coalesce or contraction large clouds of hydrogen into dense hydrogen cores. The core eventually ignited, to cause thermonuclear reaction of fusing two hydrogen atoms into helium - hence the birth of the first stars in our known universe. To put it in perspective, the first stars were formed about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. And still, no explosion.

The earliest stars began forming heavier elements. In the mean time the universe or space continued to expand.

The first explosion didn't occur until the first of these early stars, died through supernova. The supernovae caused heavier element to scattered. The supernovaes also caused new stars to formed. That is when your explosion occurred.

Our solar system didn't exist yet.

Expansion and explosion are 2 different things. You can get expansion without explosion.

The correct analogy for the Big Bang is that of a balloon, not a firecracker or dynamite. If the surface of balloon was space, then you draw 2 (or more) dots on the deflated balloon, when you blow into the balloon, the balloon will expand. And as the balloon expands, the distance between 2 dots would have grown further apart from another. Of course, the balloon will tear itself a hole when it stretches as far as it can go, but the Big Bang only covered the theory of the beginning of this universe, not the end of the universe.

Like I said, the Big Bang theory is far more complex than this, and the only way to understand it, is to actually read it. And apparently you don't understand the theory.

You said it yourself, how can anyone (like Dawkins) possibly argue religion if that person don't understand it. This same goes with any and every other knowledge, including science, like evolution and the Big Bang, and clearly you don't understand either, and yet you argue about them when you have no ideas what you're talking about.

And since you are no expert in biology or astrophysics why should I or anyone else here take your words or opinions seriously? Why do you exclude yourself, but try to restrict someone like Dawkins?

blah!

It's double standard.

And btw. It doesn't take a bl@#dy genius to have opinion about god(s) or about specific religion. Any dummy can join and believe in deities or in religions, without becoming experts in what they believe in. It just matter of faith and believing what they have read or been taught. Faith in a god's existence is basically 2-parts is belief, and one very large wallop of wishful thinking.

 

[PolyHedral]

The universe was a singularity, which was both very dense and very hot (hotter than all the combine stars that exist today).

This isn't actually part of the theory, because the mathematics do not behave nicely around singularities. We only know that the the universe was incredibly hot and dense approximately 10^-43 seconds after the BB - before that, current physics is known not to be accurate.

 

[gnostic]

Dawkin's is in no way a Newton, Bohr, Pascal, Faraday, Copernicus, Faraday, Maxwell, or Francis Collins. All which by the way were Chrsitians or theists. Nor is he one of the group of scientists who developed actual fields of science, the large proportion of which were Christians.

That may be true, and I have no issue what their religious belief may be, but one thing they all have in common is adding God to their scientific theories and discoveries.

Newton didn't add God into the equation when he came up with theory for gravity, nor put God in his mathematical equations when he came with the universal law of motion and with gravity. It came from observation, testing and evidences.

Likewise with all the other scientists, including those you have listed.

And BTW, you have left out Darwin. He was also a Christian and theist. It is a myth created by the creationists themselves, labelling him as an atheist. And I am not surprised that creationists would go out of their way to ignore or lie about his religious background.

It is creationist's great hypocrisy to link evolution with atheism, but they do the same with other areas of science. Literal biblical creationism is nothing more bad joke, and exercise of intellectual bankruptcy (or utter ignorance), blind faith and wishful thinking.

 

[1robin]

You have no bl@#dy idea what you're talking about.

Nope YOU have no bloody idea what I am talking about. I know the latest best guess is that the big bang was not an explosion but an expansion. I was saying these semantical games are silly when even the the word "bang" is associated with explosions exclusively. The point was no matter what label you want to arbitrarily apply to something no human on Earth has any real idea about is irrelevant. No one knows exactly what happened 15 billion years ago. We can't even agree on what happened hundreds of years ago with written reports from the eye witnesses many times.

If you have bother to read about the Big Bang theory then you would know there were no explosion between the start of the expansion of space or the expansion of the universe.

I think that is exactly what I said. I am familiar with the big bang enough to know there are as many theories about as stars it created and many suggest it never happened at all. My point was I do not care what happened something caused it and by philosophical rules of cause and effect God is the best and only candidate for it. That requires no in depth math or physics because they are irrelevant.

The Big Bang referred to expansion, not explosion. You would know that if you bother to actually read the theory.

And you would know that is exactly what I said once I realized that the strict literal meanings of words were going to be the issue instead of the implications of reality if you would have simply read my posts carefully. I have agreed with your expansion label at least twice so far. Bang, explosion, fizzle, presto, expansion or magic, It makes absolutely no difference what so ever for this discussion. Man hyper literal semantic discussions are boring and powerless to explain anything.

Here is abbreviation of the Big Bang theory. My description may not look brief, because the theory is a lot larger and more complex than this, but I'll explain the nutshell so that even you can understand it.

The universe was a singularity, which was both very dense and very hot (hotter than all the combine stars that exist today). The expansion of space allow the earliest stage of the universe to cool down.

Cool down enough for energy to formation of 1st matters - subatomic particles (eg quarks, leptons, etc). And subatomic particles into atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). It only took a few minutes (after the initial Big Bang) for protons and neutrons to bind to each other, to form into the first atomic nuclei, but it would take thousands of years for electrons to bind with these nuclei, to form the 1st elements - hydrogen. Traces of helium and lithium did form, but no where near the number of hydrogen elements. So thousands of years have passed, but no explosion yet.

It was hundreds of thousands of years before the first stars were formed, due to gravity coalesce or contraction large clouds of hydrogen into dense hydrogen cores. The core eventually ignited, to cause thermonuclear reaction of fusing two hydrogen atoms into helium - hence the birth of the first stars in our known universe. To put it in perspective, the first stars were formed about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. And still, no explosion.

The earliest stars began forming heavier elements. In the mean time the universe or space continued to expand.

The first explosion didn't occur until the first of these early stars, died through supernova. The supernovae caused heavier element to scattered. The supernovas also caused new stars to formed. That is when your explosion occurred.

Our solar system didn't exist yet.

Expansion and explosion are 2 different things. You can get expansion without explosion.

The correct analogy for the Big Bang is that of a balloon, not a firecracker or dynamite. If the surface of balloon was space, then you draw 2 (or more) dots on the deflated balloon, when you blow into the balloon, the balloon will expand. And as the balloon expands, the distance between 2 dots would have grown further apart from another. Of course, the balloon will tear itself a hole when it stretches as far as it can go, but the Big Bang only covered the theory of the beginning of this universe, not the end of the universe.

Like I said, the Big Bang theory is far more complex than this, and the only way to understand it, is to actually read it. And apparently you don't understand the theory.

You said it yourself, how can anyone (like Dawkins) possibly argue religion if that person don't understand it. This same goes with any and every other knowledge, including science, like evolution and the Big Bang, and clearly you don't understand either, and yet you argue about them when you have no ideas what you're talking about.

That would only matter if we were in a dicussion concerning the details and aspects of the bang from two sides. I have no side. I do not dislike the big bang nor do I like it. I have no idea how we got to talking about it to start with. I have not argued with a single claim you made above. I think you are inventing positions I have never taken to have something to argue with. The details and physical processes involved in the Big Bang are as irrelevant to my position as they are unknown by those who make them. What is it that you think you have countered concerning God even if everything you said above was completely accurate. I think you consider your self a very intelligent and knowledgeable person of science and that may very well be true yet what you know or think you do has no application to my position. I unlike many grant hungry scientists make no firm claims about the details of cosmology and only speak about the general, obvious, and inescapable conclusions and implications of what we actually know. I am very tempted to get detailed and in depth concerning the math and physics of evolution just to test you but as of yet have not decided. I do not know if the price in boredom and minutia is worth it.

And since you are no expert in biology or astrophysics why should I or anyone else here take your words or opinions seriously? Why do you exclude yourself, but try to restrict someone like Dawkins?

As I have said repeatedly no claim I have made is outside what is readily conceded by large numbers of scholars on both sides. You seem to be having a debate with things I never said.

blah!

It's double standard.

What was this about? I have no idea what these thought fragments are about.

And btw. It doesn't take a bl@#dy genius to have opinion about god(s) or about specific religion. Any dummy can join and believe in deities or in religions, without becoming experts in what they believe in. It just matter of faith and believing what they have read or been taught. Faith in a god's existence is basically 2-parts is belief, and one very large wallop of wishful thinking.

To illustrate the fact you are inventing positions I never claimed I will show this in the above statement. Find a single statement that I made where I suggested that the concept of God can only be grasped by an above average intelligence or even hinted at anything similar. In the last sentence you incorrectly define faith the only purpose of which was to categories people of faith as stupid or gullible. I will prove that wrong as well. There is infinitely more evidence for Jesus and testimony evidence as good as history has ever provided to give evidence of his miracles that for life coming from non life, the unconscious producing consciousness, the immoral producing morality, the unintelligent producing the mind, and the unintentional producing the most complicated arrangement of matter in the universe (our brain). You, I believe have faith that these happened even though there is no evidence for any of them at all. You are claiming that you know what happened 15 billion years ago and then suggesting I can't know what happened 2000 years ago even with impeccable eyewitness testimony. Now that truly is double standards. So it is you that is placing more faith on less evidence than the people you are accusing of doing what you actually are. This discussion has done everything and addressed anything but God or macro evolutions reality and what they imply. Please drop the semantics and the superiority complex that causes you to make categorically false and insulting claims concerning people who have faith and talk about things that have an actual bearing on those issues. Maybe you would like to switch to attacking the Bible or something but this making up stuff I never said or claims you say are inaccurate but will not show how is getting us no where and I actually like debating you if we can get these issues straightened out.

 

[1robin]

That may be true, and I have no issue what their religious belief may be, but one thing they all have in common is adding God to their scientific theories and discoveries.

I think you are trying to separate their faith from their science and I doubt a single one would agree, Did you know Newton wrote more on God than he did on science. For many of them the fact they chose science is because they believed in a rational universe who's only explanation was God. Even Einstein (not being a true theist) did make connections between his work and the religious transcendent rational intelligibility of the universe. I believe that every single Christian scientist you asked would tell you their faith playes a part in their work.

Newton didn't add God into the equation when he came up with theory for gravity, nor put God in his mathematical equations when he came with the universal law of motion and with gravity. It came from observation, testing and evidences.

Newton like other Christians know that we exist as foreigners in a strange land where people do not know God nor believe he even exists. and we must conduct our activities to allow for that situation. I am sure he thinks that God is the author of gravity but also knew that would be a contentious claim in a world that had rejected God and so disscretion is the currency of the realm. I would bet a lot on the claim that there is not a Christian scientist on that list that would said that his faith had no effect on his work. There is a famous quote by Einstein where he used his faith for a certain issue Quantum mechanics:

is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

• Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7.
• Einstein himself used variants of this quote at other times. For example, in a 1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." (p. 58)

Likewise with all the other scientists, including those you have listed.

You can't an argument that the scientist put his faith in the corner and then did science in effect without God. In fact I have heard the credit for many breakthroughs and profound discoveries given to God, whom the men of faith claimed help then those cases.

And BTW, you have left out Darwin. He was also a Christian and theist. It is a myth created by the creationists themselves, labeling him as an atheist. And I am not surprised that creationists would go out of their way to ignore or lie about his religious background.

I left him out because he was neither a Christian nor a theist. He was a failed seminary student and more of an agnostic at best. He also did not have solid credentials as a biologist and I do not classify him as a scholar of the types of the ones I did mention. He does seem to be intelligent and learns fast.

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally, and more and more so as I grow older - but not always - that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind"
Darwin's faith | Science | guardian.co.uk

It is creationist's great hypocrisy to link evolution with atheism, but they do the same with other areas of science. Literal biblical creationism is nothing more bad joke, and exercise of intellectual bankruptcy (or utter ignorance), blind faith and wishful thinking.

Well I see the adoption of supreme arrogance was taken up so you could then reticule anyone who doesn't think what you do. Since I not yet made any creationist claims but you won't stop attacking the ones I never made. You have no idea what I believe concerning origins and so will not dignify this rhetoric with a reply. Can we please get back to discussing issues instead of semantics, false assertions, and long dissertations that have no application concerning God or what moral implications evolution has.

 

[GlobeMallow]

Dawkins is a man who cares for the truth above all else, even "God." Those who doubt his reasoning need to take a step back and evaluate their own.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dawkins is a man who cares for the truth above all else, even "God."

Welcome!

What he cares about most was never in question.

Those who doubt his reasoning need to take a step back and evaluate their own.

Shouldn't we all be doing that, anyway? Ought we not, as rational beings, question all that is taught to us, regardless of the teaching's source?

Nobody's reasoning is absolutely perfect, because we're all human.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope YOU have no bloody idea what I am talking about. I know the latest best guess is that the big bang was not an explosion but an expansion. I was saying these semantical games are silly when even the the word "bang" is associated with explosions exclusively.

So?

The point was no matter what label you want to arbitrarily apply to something no human on Earth has any real idea about is irrelevant.

What makes you think nobody has any idea about it? Does the notion that there may be people on this planet who know more than you about something scare you that much?

No one knows exactly what happened 15 billion years ago. We can't even agree on what happened hundreds of years ago with written reports from the eye witnesses many times.

There's a world of difference between unraveling history and figuring out the original state of the Universe. We don't have eyewitness testimony - but we have physics, chemistry and whole heap of maths. That's why knowing the height of a mountain a thousand years ago is much easier for modern science to figure out than knowing what Caesar liked to have on his bread. We may not know everything, but we can still figure out some basics and test them to see how accurate they are, and the big bang is currently the best explanation that fits all of the available facts. It is not a "guess", and to call it as such is an insult to the millions of people who are far smarter than either of us who have dedicated their lives to unraveling the mystery of the Universe's origin. Show some respect and actual curiosity.

 

[Warren Clark]

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

If you ask anyone that is a scientist themselves, they will applaud Richard Dawkins for being a brilliant and ruthless scientist.

And he is a good one, otherwise he wouldn't have tenure.